Sixteenth-Century Judeo-Spanish Testimonies Études Sur Le Judaïsme Médiéval

Sixteenth-Century Judeo-Spanish Testimonies Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval

Fondées par Georges Vajda

Dirigées par Paul B. Fenton

TOME LII

The titles published in this series are listed at www.brill.nl/ejm Sixteenth-Century Judeo-Spanish Testimonies

An Edition of Eighty-Four Testimonies from the Sephardic Responsa in the Ottoman Empire

By Annette Benaim

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2012 This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Benaim, Annette. Sixteenth-century Judeo-Spanish testimonies : an edition of eighty-four testimonies from the Sephardic responsa in the Ottoman Empire / by Annette Benaim. p. cm. — (Études sur le judaïsme médiéval ; v. 52) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-90-04-21017-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Jews—Turkey—History—16th century. 2. Jews—Turkey—Intellectual life—16th century. 3. Ladino language—Turkey. 4. Ladino literature—Turkey. 5. Responsa—1040-1600. I. Title.

DS135.T8B43 2011 305.892’405609031—dc23 2011030298

ISSN 0169-815X ISBN 978-90-04-21017-2

Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.

Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. I would like to dedicate this book with special gratitude and with love ,ז"ל to the blessed memory of my dear father, Raphael David Garson who so sadly passed away on the fifth day of Passover this year, 23 April 2011, at the age of 89. His traits of wisdom, faith, patience, industry, warm friendliness, goodness, cheerfulness and passion for work shall remain within us and all who knew and loved him well forever. CONTENTS

Preface ...... xv Abbreviations ...... xix List of Tables ...... xxi List of Images and the Corresponding Libraries from where they have been Copied ...... xxiii

Chapter One Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Aims and Contribution of Book ...... 1 1.1.1 The Existing Field of Judeo-Spanish Studies .... 3 1.1.2 Contribution of this Book to Existing Literature ...... 7 1.2 Presentation of Book ...... 9 1.3 Responsa and the Development of Jewish Law ...... 13 1.4 Structure and Features of Responsa ...... 15 1.5 Use of Judeo-Spanish in the Texts ...... 18 1.6 Ottoman Jewish Life depicted in the Responsa ...... 20 1.6.1 Historical and Socio-Historical Elements ...... 24 1.6.2 Jewish Economic Life ...... 31 1.6.2.1 Credit Transactions, Debts, Loans ..... 37 1.6.3 Enactments and Communal Ordinances ...... 43 1.6.4 Some Interesting Depictions of Individuals and Legal Scenarios: Marriage and the Agunah ...... 47 1.6.5 A Guardianship Issue—Two Legal Views ...... 56 1.6.6 Conclusion ...... 61

Chapter Two Research Methods and Sources ...... 63 2.1 Complete List of Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish 63 2.2 Principles of Selection—Corpus Examined ...... 65 2.3 Methodology and Transcription of the Texts ...... 66 2.3.1 Resources Available ...... 69 2.3.2 Transcription Systems ...... 71 2.3.3 Difficulties Encountered and Decisions Taken / Problems and Solutions ...... 73 2.3.4 Translations into English ...... 76 viii contents

2.3.5 Representation of Numerals ...... 77 2.3.6 The Transcription System and Guides in this Book ...... 78 2.3.6.1 Guide to Transcriptions ...... 87 2.3.6.2 Guide to Transliterated Versions: From the Hebrew Alphabet to the Latin Alphabet ...... 91 2.4 The Problems of Textual Transmission ...... 92 2.4.1 Introduction ...... 92 2.4.2 Scanned Copy of Text 11 Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82) ...... 98 Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) ...... 99 Scanned Copy of Text 11 the First Edition (Salonica 1595) ...... 101 Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) First Edition, Salonica 1595 ...... 102 Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the Second Edition (Salonica 1793) ...... 104 Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) Second Edition, Salonica 1793 ... 105 Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the Third Edition (Lvov 1863) ...... 107 Downloaded Copy of Text 11 of the BIURP (2003) in Hebrew ...... 108 Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) BIURP Edition ...... 110 2.4.3 Description of the Textual Variations in Text 11 Between the Original Edition (Salonica 1595) and the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project ... 112 2.4.4 Concluding Statement ...... 118

Chapter Three The Language in the Responsa ...... 119 3.1 Introduction ...... 119 3.2 Vernacular Jewish Languages ...... 120 3.3 Distinctive Linguistic Features of Judeo-Spanish ...... 129 3.3.1 Phonology ...... 130 3.3.1.1 Diphthongisation ...... 130 3.3.1.2 Raising of Final /e/ to /i/ ...... 131 3.3.1.3 Initial /f/ ...... 132 3.3.1.4 Retention of Bilabial, Syllable Final /v/ 134 contents ix

3.3.1.5 Other Retentions ...... 135 3.3.1.6 Seseo, zezeo ...... 137 3.3.1.7 Yeísmo ...... 141 3.3.1.8 Labialisation of /n/ to /m/ ...... 142 3.3.1.9 The Consonantal Cluster /mp/ ...... 142 3.3.1.10 Retention of /mb/ ...... 143 3.3.1.11 Consonantal Group /mr/ ...... 143 3.3.1.12 Disappearance of Contrast Between /r/ and /ɾ/ ...... 144 3.3.1.13 Metathesis ...... 145 3.3.1.14 Loss of Distinction Between Final /d/ and /t/ ...... 146 3.3.1.15 The Merge Between ɲ/ / and /ni/ ...... 147 3.3.1.16 Other Innovations of Judeo- Spanish ...... 148 3.3.1.17 Other Linguistic Features ...... 150 3.3.1.18 Lexical Retentions ...... 151 3.3.2 Morphology and Syntax ...... 155 3.3.3 Vocabulary ...... 164 3.3.3.1 Use of Hebrew ...... 165 3.3.3.2 Some Interesting Creations and Uses 178 3.3.3.3 Code-switching ...... 180 3.3.3.4 Borrowings from Other Languages .... 181 3.3.4 Spanish or Judeo-Spanish? ...... 186

Chapter Four Texts ...... 191 Chapter 4 consists of 84 responsa. Each is presented in the following format: summary of the case in English, copy of the Judeo-Spanish content of the original Hebrew text, transcription into Latin characters, translation into English (including translation of the immediate Hebrew framework where relevant), summary of the respondent’s decision.

Text Number in this Book Original Text Number Page Number 4.1 Responsa of Rabbi Samuel de Medina in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam (Salonica 1595) ...... 191 Yoreh Deah 1. 53 191 2. 88 196 3. 118 199 x contents

4. 155 202 5. 157 205 6. 168 207 Even Haezer 7. 8 209 8. 12 211 9. 34 213 10. 76 214 11. 166 216 Choshen Mishpat 12. 5 223 13. 15 227 14. 33 238 15. 52 241 16. 65 250 17. 95 251 18. 148 255 19. 170 261 20. 175 266 21. 227 268 22. 262 271 23. 313 275 24. 328 278 25. 339 280 26. 380 282 27. 382 288 28. 393 290

4.2 Responsa of Rabbi Isaac Adarbi in Divre Rivot (Salonica 1581) ...... 296 29. 3 296 30. 4 298 31. 10 304 32. 59 306 33. 72 308 34. 92 310 35. 124 312 36. 150 314 contents xi

37. 189 316 38. 209 324 39. 262 329 40. 279 334 41. 282 337 42. 310 339 43. 392 346 44. 413 348 45. 420 350

4.3 Responsa of Rabbi Jacob Berav 1474–1541 in Teshuvot Berav (Venice 1565/1663) ...... 351 46. 15 351 47. 25 353

4.4 Responsa of Rabbi David ben Zimra in She’elot u-Teshuvot haRadbaz (Venice 1749) ...... 356 Part I 48. 294 356

4.5 Responsa of Rabbi Elijah Ben Chayim, 1530–1610 in Teshuvot Haraanach (Constantinople 1610) ...... 358 49. 20 358 50. 29 365 51. 117 372

4.6 Responsa of Rabbi Elijah Ben Hayyim in Mayim Amukim (Venice 1647) ...... 374 Part II 52. 36 374 53. 55 375

4.7 Responsa of Rabbi Joseph ben David in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharibenlev (Constantinople 1573) ...... 377 Part I 54. 9 377 55. 22 381 56. 23 383 57. 101 386 58. 112 388 xii contents

Part III 59. 21 391 60. 104 394

4.8 Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Avkat Rochel (Salonica 1791) ...... 396 61. 80 396 62. 81 402 63. 148 403

4.9 Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Bet Yosef (Salonica 1598) ...... 406 64. 8 406

4.10 Responsa of Rabbi Aḥaron ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) of Salonica in Torat Emet (Venice 1626) 409 65. 2 409 66. 3 412 67. 5 413 68. 6 415 69. 27 420 70. 92 422 71. 165 424

4.11 Responsa of Moses ben Joseph Trani in She’elot u-Teshuvot haMabit (Venice 1629) ...... 428 Part I 72. 292 428 73. 331 433 Part III 74. 82 436 75. 112 443

4.12 Responsa of Rabbi Moses Alshech 1508–1593 in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam Alshech (Venice 1605) 445 76. 44 445 77. 78 446 78. 103 448 contents xiii

4.13 Responsa of Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham Hakohen 1530/5–1602 in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashach (Salonica 1586–94) (3 volumes) ...... 450 Part I 79. 18 450 80. 49 452 81. 67 456 Part II 82. 38 458 83. 134 460 84. 145 469

References ...... 479 Appendices ...... 491 Appendix 1 Three Sample Texts Transliterated ...... 493 Appendix 2 Glossary of Words of Turkish Origin in the Texts ...... 496 Appendix 3 Glossary of Hebrew Terms ...... 500 Appendix 4 Details of Respondents and Responsa Collected ...... 510 Appendix 5 List of Respondents, Names of Responsa Collections, Place and Date of Publication Containing Judeo-Spanish in their Testimonies 516 Index ...... 519 PREFACE

Haleluka odeh Hašem bekol lebab—‘I will give thanks to the Lord with my whole heart’ (Psalms 111:1–2). My humble gratitude primarily goes to the Ribonó Šel ’Olam, the Almighty, for allowing me the strength and the opportunity to unveil the knowledge and to complete the journey, sometimes hazardous, that led to the publication of this book. This book encompasses several fields. It identifies, compiles, tran- scribes, translates and analyses a previously unidentified corpus of literature of this size: the Judeo-Spanish testimonies in the responsa of the sixteenth century. The main body of the book, the fourth chapter, presents a copy of each original text covering eighty-four responsa, a transcription into Latin characters, a translation into English providing an understanding of the legal argument too, and relevant notes mainly on the language. An evaluation of the relevant secondary literature is incorporated in Chapters 1 and 3. The first chapter discusses the aims of the book and also presents an overview of the responsa literature in the context of the sixteenth- century Ottoman Empire. An overview of Ottoman Jewish life is presented. The value of the Judeo-Spanish testimonies, in terms of the insight they offer into the society, economy, religion and responsa literature of sixteenth-century Ottoman Jewry, is described. The second chapter explains my research techniques, including problems encountered and decisions taken. It also lists the respondents, with brief bibliographic details, and the responsa in which Judeo-Spanish has been found. The chapter contains a guide to the transcription system used in the book that indicates the corresponding phonemes as well as the Spanish letters and phonetic symbols that represent each Hebrew graph. The last section in this chapter analyses the problems of textual transmission through the different editions. A discussion of the variations between the original and subsequent editions is presented through the examination of one sample text. The third chapter studies the Judeo-Spanish language employed in the responsa. The distinctive linguistic features of the language presented in the texts are described with reference to phonology, morphology and syntax. Borrowings by Judeo-Spanish from other languages are examined herewith and special attention is given to borrowings xvi preface from Hebrew. The language is discussed in relation to other important Judeo-Spanish works. The study of these texts from a linguistic perspective constitutes the main aim of the book. At the same time the purpose of the book is to provide a source of texts that would generate further study whether in linguistics, Sephardic Studies, Hispanic Studies, Jewish Studies whether cultural, historical or legal / halakhic. I have found the research and study of these testimonies both infi- nitely educational and entertaining too as I felt transported in a journey along sixteenth century Ottoman Jewish life. I should like to think it affords enjoyment as well a cultural and educational perspective to those who read it. I started this research journey over fifteen years ago where I had to travel abroad to libraries to be able to access and copy from the printed editions of the responsa. There are only specific main libraries that hold copies of the original editions. Today much of the sources are available online thus facilitating the task for the researcher. of ז"ל I am so greatly indebted to the late Professor Iacob M. Hassán Consejo Superior de Investigaciónes Científicas (Spanish Council for Scientific Research) Madrid, for his invaluable guidance, advice and support in the preparation of this work, and to Professor Elena Romero and the Consejo Superior de Investigaciónes Científicas for the use of their facilities. Jacob sat patiently with me ploughing through most of these responsa and teaching me so much of what he knew so well. He had sparked me with the idea of publishing an edited version of the testimonies since I first met him in 1995. I am so deeply sorrowed by Jacob’s untimely passing away in April 2006 and saddened that he has not witnessed the publication of this book, since it was his idea, his encouragement and his teaching that has led to its publication. I feel privileged to have been the recipient of the knowledge of such a master of Judeo-Spanish language and studies. I am so thankful to Javier Castaño who has been a source of constant and excellent academic support in so many ways particularly since the demise of Professor Hassán. I would like to thank Dr Sacha Stern of University College London for his scholarly supervision, excellent support and constant direction whilst preparing the thesis on which this book is based and for his advice on publication. I must also thank Rabbi Asher Sebbag and Rabbi Naphtoli Strauss for their erudite assistance on halakhic matters, and my nephew Josh Garson for his vital technical assistance. preface xvii

I am indebted to Professor Ralph Penny, Professor Emeritus of Romance Philology, for his priceless teaching in Hispanic philology and support at many points during my academic life in the last thirty three years. I am grateful to the Valmadonna Trust Library, Kayla (Roberg) Oppeheimer and Mrs Zimmels of the London School of Jewish Stud- ies library. Ilana Tahan at the British Library and the British Library Board have been particularly helpful in providing and allowing me much of the textual material of this book. Special thanks to Dr Dov Hakohen of Yad Ben Zvi Insititute for his most invaluable support and kind assistance and for permitting access to an abundance of texts and images prevalent herewith. I feel privileged to thank Dr Hilary Pomeroy (University College London) for her immense support since I first met her in 1995. Her dedication to Judeo-Spanish, as reflected in her organisation of the British Judeo-Spanish Conference, has been indispensable to my academic development. My continual involvement to date in the committee of the British Judeo-Spanish Conference continues to enhance my career development. I am especially grateful to Professor Ada Rapoport-Albert for accepting me as an Honorary Research Associate in the Department of Hebrew and Jewish Studies she heads at Univer- sity College London. My gratitude goes to Professor Ora (Rodrigue) Shwarzwald of Bar Ilan University who has been so instrumental in the publication of this book, and so gracious in her guidance and patience in its preparation. She provided much positive criticism in the transformation of my thesis into a book. Additionally it gives me pleasure to thank (in no particular order) the assistance of Professor Rafael Arnold, Professor Isaac Benabu, Dr Chagit Blass, Professor Bornstein-Makovetsky, Professor David Bunis, Professor Bernard Jackson, Dr Aldina Quintana and Professor Shmuel Refael. I should like to extend my gratitude to Professor David Latchman, Master of Birkbeck College, London University, who has been most supportive with his advice throughout. I would like to recognise the necessary help that the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project has afforded me since the inception of my research. Thanks to Jennifer Pavelko, Katelyn Chin, Karen Cullen at Brill publishers for their kind support during the final stages of the preparation of this book. xviii preface

prolific ,ז"ל I am grateful to my late uncle, Rabbi Mordejai Edery translator and commentator of so many Biblical works, who first helped me decipher Judeo-Spanish responsa and was a great source of inspiration and teaching in many fields of Jewish and Judeo-Spanish Studies. Finally, I would not have been able to have undertaken the task of researching and writing this book were it not for the constant effort, unlimited support, wisdom, such valuable advice, indispensable input in many fields including those of Jewish liturgy, culture, translation of my dear husband Solly. My children, Nina, Dalia & Moshe (my son-in-law), Jonathan and David afforded me much encouragement, erudition, practical help and sometimes hard work. I am so grateful for so much, so unquantifiable, to my mother Clara for having raised our family within a rich cultural and linguistic environment; and also to my brothers, Solly and Meir, their spouses, together with the rest of my extended family and so many in the Gibraltar Jewish Community who have provided the invaluable background for the diverse spring- board from which this book has been born. ABBREVIATIONS

BES Biblioteca de Estudios Sefardíes (CSIC) BIU Bar-Ilan University BIURP Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project BL British Library CM Choshen Mishpat CSIC Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas DRAE Diccionario de la Lengua Española (Real Academia Española) EH Even Haezer EJ Encyclopaedia Judaica HU Hebrew University, Jerusalem JNUL Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem RPh Romance Philology SE Salonican Edition ST Sample Text UCL University College London QM Queen Mary College London QMW Queen Mary & Westfield College London YD Yoreh Deah YIBZL Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Library, Jerusalem LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 List of Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish ...... 63 Table 2.2 Guide to Transcriptions ...... 88 Table 2.3 The Hebrew Alphabet in Rashi Script ...... 91 Table 2.4 Guide to Transliterations—Hebrew to Latin ...... 91 Table 3.1 Competing Forms of Initial f and h in Judeo-Spanish in the Corpus ...... 133 Table 3.2 Incidence of Words Containing Bilabial, Syllable final /v/ in the Corpus ...... 134 Table 3.3 Periphrastic Verbs ...... 168 Table 3.4 Concepts Carrying Unfortunate or Negative Connotations ...... 169 Table 3.5 Terms Connected to Religious Worship, Communal Regulations and Jewish Calendar- Numerals ...... 171 Table 3.6 Wider Sphere of Religious Terminology ...... 172 Table 3.7 Blessings ...... 173 Table 3.8 Economic Terms ...... 174 Table 3.9 Judicial Terminology ...... 174 Table 3.10 Time-related Expressions ...... 177 LIST OF IMAGES AND THE CORRESPONDING LIBRARIES FROM WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN COPIED

2.4.2. Scanned Copy of Text 11 Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82) YIBZL1 Scanned Copy of Text 11 the First Edition (Salonica 1595) BL2 Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the Second Edition (Salonica 1793) YIBZL Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the Third Edition (Lvov 1863) BL

Text Number in this Book Original Text Number Library 1. Responsa of Rabbi Samuel de Medina in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam (Salonica 1595) Yoreh Deah 1. 53 BL 2. 88 BL 3. 118 BL 4. 155 BL 5. 157 BL 6. 168 BL Even Haezer 7. 8 BL 8. 12 BL 9. 34 BL 10. 76 BL 11. 166 BL Choshen Mishpat 12. 5 BL 13. 15 BL 14. 33 BL 15. 52 BL

1 Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Library, Jerusalem. 2 The British Library,London. xxiv list of images and the corresponding libraries

16. 65 BL 17. 95 BL 18. 148 BL 19. 170 BL 20. 175 BL 21. 227 BL 22. 262 BL 23. 313 BL 24. 328 BL 25. 339 BL 26. 380 BL 27. 382 BL 28. 393 BL

2. Responsa of Rabbi Isaac Adarbi in Divre Rivot (Salonica 1581) 29. 3 BL 30. 4 BL 31. 10 BL 32. 59 BL 33. 72 BL 34. 92 BL 35. 124 BL 36. 150 BL 37. 189 BL 38. 209 BL 39. 262 BL 40. 279 BL 41. 282 BL 42. 310 BL 43. 392 BL 44. 413 BL 45. 420 BL

3. Responsa of Rabbi Jacob Berav 1474–1541 in Teshuvot Berav (Venice 1565/1663) 48. 15 YIBZL 49. 25 YIBZL list of images and the corresponding libraries xxv

4. Responsa of Rabbi David ben Zimra in She’elot u-Teshuvot haRadbaz (Venice 1749) Part I 48. 294 YIBZL

5. Responsa of Rabbi Elijah ben Hayyim, 1530–1610 in Teshuvot Haraanach (Constantinople 1610) 54. 20 BL 55. 29 BL 56. 117 BL

6. Responsa of Rabbi Elijah ben Hayyim in Mayim Amukim (Venice 1647) Part II 57. 36 YIBZL 58. 55 YIBZL

7. Responsa of Rabbi Joseph ben David in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharibenlev (Constantinople 1573) Part I 54. 9 YIBZL 55. 22 YIBZL 61. 23 YIBZL 62. 101 YIBZL 63. 112 YIBZL Part III 64. 21 BL 65. 104 BL

8. Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Avkat Rochel (Salonica 1791) 61. 80 YIBZL 62. 81 YIBZL 63. 148 YIBZL

9. Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Bet Yosef (Salonica 1598) 64. 8 YIBZL xxvi list of images and the corresponding libraries

10. Responsa of Rabbi Aharon ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) of Salonica in Torat Emet (Venice 1626) 65. 2 YIBZL 66. 3 YIBZL 67. 5 YIBZL 68. 6 YIBZL 69. 27 YIBZL 70. 92 YIBZL 71. 165 YIBZL

11. Responsa of Moses ben Joseph Trani in She’elot u-Teshuvot haMabit (Venice 1629) Part I 72. 292 YIBZL 73. 331 YIBZL Part III 74. 82 YIBZL 75. 112 YIBZL

12. Responsa of Rabbi Moses Alshech 1508–1593 in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam Alshech (Venice 1605) 76. 44 YIBZL 77. 78 YIBZL 78. 103 YIBZL

13. Responsa of Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham Hakohen 1530/5–1602 in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashach (Salonica 1586–94) (3 volumes) Part I 79. 18 YIBZL 80. 49 YIBZL 81. 67 YIBZL Part II 82. 38 YIBZL 83. 134 YIBZL 84. 145 YIBZL CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Aims and Contribution of Book

This book aims primarily to identify and analyse a relatively unknown corpus of literature, the Judeo-Spanish testimonies in the responsa, which as yet have not been identified as a discrete genre, although there is a literature on related topics.1 With the advent of the internet enabling the search for Judeo-Spanish in Hebrew books as well as the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, the literary genre presented in this book is now easier to identify and there is a wealth of material in this genre in the Sephardic responsa.2 Judeo-Spanish literary genres have been listed by Schwarzwald, based on Yaari’s classification, into sixteen categories including Biblical and liturgical translations, history, poetry and song, chronicles and personal history, mystical thought, didactic literature, newspapers, calendars, moral treatises and laws, and drama, and excludes the testimonies from the rabbinic literature (Schwarz- wald 2001: 1). There are numerous scholars who have made a distinct contribution to Judeo-Spanish studies whose works are extensive and some whose work is not directly relevant to make them a major part of this book.3

1 (1) For a detailed study on Ladino in the liturgy, Biblical commentary, Jewish practices and doctrines, songs, novels, theatre, the modern press and other modern genres see Romero (1992). See also Shwarzwald 1985 for an indispensable article on Judeo-Spanish literary genres. (2) For a comprehensive list of existing Ladino materials see Ben-Ur (2001), and Rodrigue (1992b), Yaari (1935), Bunis (1981), Dov Cohen in http//www.hebrew- bibliography.com (3) The presentation of this literature is original. A short article on a few of the responsa has been published (Benatar 1991: 33–34). Since the completion of my thesis in 2006 on which this book is based upon there have been two articles published on language in the responsa with eleven sample texts, six of them, of Rabbi Samuel de Medina coincide with those in this book. Their other five pertain to the period beyond the scope of this book. Linguistic observations in these articles are interesting and relevant, see Minervini y Varvaro 2007, 2008. 2 For a complete picture of the literature in this genre see Appendices 4 and 5. 3 The research carried out in this book was completed in June 2010 at which time it was surrendered for publication. 2 chapter one

However it is pertinent to draw attention to some of them, namely and in no particular order, the late Iacob Hassán, David Bunis, Haïm Vidal Séphiha, Marie-Christine Bornes Varol, Ora Shwarzwald, Elena Romero, Aldina Quintana, Laura Minervini, Javier Castaño, Shmuel Refael, Samuel Armistead, Ralph Penny.4 Others like Leah Bornstein Makovetsky, Minna Rozen, Aviva Ben-Ur, Paloma Díaz-Mas, Ruth Lamdan have shed light on the Ottoman responsa literature, on the history and culture of the Ottoman Empire and of Spain respectively. The principal aim of this book and its contribution to scholarship is the presentation of the corpus mainly from a linguistic perspective.5 The corpus itself is, by definition, a linguistic corpus and therefore requires analysis from a linguistic perspective. Its contribution will be to the study of the history of Judeo-Spanish language and culture as well as to the field of Hispanic and Judaic Studies. This book also has a bearing on the legal contents of the responsa (see, for example, section 1.6.3 on communal enactments, 1.6.4. on marriage and the agunah, 1.6.5 on guardianship). The translation and clarification of the testimonies contribute to the study of responsa and Jewish law, since the legal framework is the context where the texts occur.6 Novelty in the book lies in the fact that: (1) these texts have not yet been identified as a genre, deciphered, translated or explained; (2) the texts are one of the first examples where such large quantities of Judeo-Spanish appear within rabbinic law writings; (3) the texts consist of examples of the vernacular, the closest evidence available

4 (1) Séphiha’s publications can be seen listed in Busse & Varol-Bornes 1996: 21–63. (2) Quintana’s Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol 2006, based on Quintana 2004, is a most significant contribution to the field of Judeo-Spanish as it meticulously analyses linguistic features across so many regions. (3) Bunis’s contribution to the field of Judeo-Spanish studies as well as his comparative studies Yiddish are significant to the field. His listed publications can be found on www.pluto.huji.ac.il/~msladino/davidbunis.htm. (4) Needless to add that all other contributions and publications of Judeo-Spanish studies of the above named scholars can be found on the internet by initially using search engines. 5 In ‘The formation of the Judeo-Spanish koiné’ some of my texts in my unpublished MA thesis and from other articles have already served as source material and have been cited (Minervini 1999). 6 Passamaneck, in his book Insurance in Rabbinic Law, acknowledges the need for a correct understanding of the text and is indebted to the translator of twelve lines of Judeo-Spanish in a testimony (text 14) ‘for his diligent research and painstak- ing efforts, his work was crucial to the establishment of the text and its translation’ (Passamaneck 1974: 196). introduction 3 to the spoken language of the period; and (4) the understanding of these particular texts cast light on historiography, social and cultural history.

1.1.1 The Existing Field of Judeo-Spanish Studies There are ten known literary sources published in the sixteenth century in Judeo-Spanish:

(1) About ten editions of translations of Biblical books namely: Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Yehezkiel, Psalms, Song of Songs, listed below in more detail.7 (2) Hešek Šelomo, anonymous work. It includes the translation in Judeo-Spanish of Hebrew verbs in the Bible. (3) Seder Našim, a prayer book for women with laws concerning women. (4) Shulhan ha-Panim, a translation and summary of the Shulchan Aruch Codification of Jewish Law by Joseph Caro. (5) Hovot ha-Lavavot, a translation of the book Duties of the Heart by Bahye Ben Paqquda. (6) Anhagat Ha-haim or El Regimiento de la Vida by R. Moses Almosnino in 1564.8 (7) Fuente Clara, an anonymous work—a discussion of Judaism versus Christianity. (8) Sheerit Yossef, by Joseph Vezino: explanations of the astronomi- cal tables of Abraham Zacuto. (9) Ihus Tzadikim, a description of the tombs of saintly men buried in Israel. (10) About ten prayer books (Sidurim, Mahzorim) and Passover Hag- gadas in Hebrew that contain instructions in Judeo-Spanish.

In a linguistic analysis of the Hebrew elements in Sefer Hešeq Šelomo, Bunis lists the major Ladino Bible texts produced in the sixteenth century in pointed or unpointed Hebrew letters:

7 For an interesting and thorough study of Genizah fragments of a Hebrew Ladino glossary of Bible Translations see Quintana 2008. 8 Note John Zemke’s publication 2004 El regimiento de la vida: tratado de los sue- nyos (Salonika 1564), (Columbia: University of Missouri). 4 chapter one c.1540: Psalms, (Constantinople?), 1540. 1547: Pentateuch, Constantinople 1547 (Lazar, 1988). 1568: Isaiah and Jeremiah, Salonica 1568. 1571a: Job and Daniel, Salonica, 1571. 1571b: Minor Prophets, Salonica, 1571. 1572a: Ezekiel, Salonica, 1572. 1572b: Proverbs, Salonica, 1572. 1580: Early Prophets; part of Ezra and Nehemiah, manuscript, Con- stantinople. 1588. Sefer Hešeq Šelomo, 1588. 1600. Song of Songs, Salonica, 1600 (Bunis 1995: 154–155).

There is also evidence of a secular literature in Judeo-Spanish, e.g. the publication in Spain of the work Proverbios morales of Šem Tov de Carrión (c.1355). This was written prior to the expulsion and to the publication of Crónica de los reyes otomanos of Almosnino in Spain under the title of Extremos y grandezas de Constantinople, that was originally written in Hebrew characters was transcribed in Latin characters and treated by the Spanish Christians as their own creations (Shwarzwald 2006: 66). The language in the manuscript of Proverbios Morales is described as rabbinic Spanish (González Llubera 1947: 10). Judeo-Spanish features as well as a vernacular folk tradition.9 The Fer- rara Bible (1553) edited by Hassán & Kapón 1992 and Lazar 1996 presented the first literal translation from Hebrew into Judeo-Spanish. Such a system is known as the calque system of translation.10 This language, referred to by linguists as Ladino, is distinct from Judeo-Spanish. The term calque in relation to Judeo-Spanish was initially formulated by Haïm Vidal Séphiha in his Ferrara editions of the Bible.11 Bunis claims that the tradition of translating the Bible into the vernacular, in this case Ladino, was always an oral tradition first and secondly a written text-bound tradition (Bunis 1996b: 338). Bunis substantiates his view

9 See Armistead and Silverman (1971), Armistead (1978) and Pomeroy (2001). 10 The first Ladino translation from the Bible was described by the editors as ‘tra- duzida del hebreo palabra por palabra’ (translated from the Hebrew word for word) (Benabu & Sermoneta 1985: 3). 11 (1) For an extensive list of Séphiha’s notable pioneering contribution to Judeo- Spanish see Séphiha 1999: 637. (2) For a historical perspective of Ladino / Judeo-Spanish in Spain, Ladino in Israel today, see Quintana 2002. introduction 5 with pertinent historical references to the orality of this translation tradition from pre-exilic Spain though to the Ottoman period. Moshe Lazar’s 1995 edition of the 1553 Ferrara siddur is a significant asset to this discipline.12 Minervini’s 1992 Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali is a most significant contribution to Judeo-Spanish studies. The language in some of Minervini’s texts bears close resemblance to that in the texts in this book, composed of fifteenth-century Castilian and a type of legal Judeo-Spanish.13 One of Minervini’s lengthy texts consists one of the 1432 Taqanot de Valladolid [Valladolid Statutes]. Abraham Benveniste, the chief rabbi of Castile, called a meeting of all the Castilian Jewish delegates to form a set of taqanot, or ordinances, to guide the Jewish community following tragic events in 1391. The leaders designed a set of regulations in order to improve the level of education, to support teachers and schools that had been in decline due to financial issues. The regulations were written in Hebrew characters in a combination of Hebrew and Spanish (Miller 2004: 52–54). Noteworthy, though appearing later in 1730, is the Me‘Am Lo’ez— an encyclopaedic commentary on the Bible published by Rabbi Jacob Khuli of Constantinople. The work is considered ‘the magnum opus of Judeo-Spanish literature’ (Ben-Ur 2001: 59). Motivated in response to a decline in religious knowledge and practices after the episode of the false messiah, Shabbetai Zvi (1626–1678), Rabbi Khuli’s book was widespread in Jewish homes. Importantly then, the rabbinical elite now fully accepted rabbinical literature written in Ladino. At the beginning of the twentieth century the work has been translated into Hebrew and English and made an impact in the Ashkenazi world too.TheMe‘Am Lo’ez has been transliterated too by Pascual Pascual Recuero in 1964.14 Other significant works containing Judeo-Spanish is thePele Yoetz of Rabbi Eliezer Papo of Hungary (1785–1826). The Pele Yoetz is a work of ethical literature and as well as the Me‘Am Lo’ez can also be found easily on www.hebrewbooks.org.

12 See also Lazar 1996. 13 (1) See Chapter 3 for a discussion of the language of these texts. (2) Bunis rightly points out the ‘myriad of names’ given to the language spoken by Ottoman Sephardim by researchers including laaz,(sefaradí), lešón sefaradim, lingwa franka, romance (espanyol), levantino, judezmo etc., (Bunis 1984: 106). The researcher therefore has a duty to define and explain their terminology. 14 Pascual Pascual Recuero: MeAm Lo’ez, el gran comentario bíblico sefardí, Madrid: Gredos 1964. 6 chapter one

Additionally there is a wealth of Musar literature in Judeo-Spanish. Lehmann ably studies a selection of this literature in his book. He argues that Judeo-Spanish musar literature ‘played a central role in the construction and maintenance of the symbolic and social order of Ottoman Sephardic tradition in an era of transition and that it contributes significantly to our understanding of this period’ (Lehmann 2005: 5). Musar literature, a rabbinic ethical literature, plays a major role in the understanding of Jewish history and, though Lehmann looks at the later period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the work is firmly in Jewish life in the earlier centuries portrayed in this book. In a sense his work is also a window of Ottoman Jewish historiography. The Coplas de Yosef is a valuable illustration of literary language in the sixteenth century. A poem characterising the story of Joseph as in the Bible has as its subtitle entre la Biblia y el Midrash en la poesía judeoespañola. It was first edited by González-Llubera in 1935 and recently by Girón-Negrón & Minervini in 2006. The language here though literary is argued to be a reflection of the vernacular (Girón- Negrón & Minervini 2006: 114). It bears many similarities to the language in these texts except that the texts here are more legalistic, economic and contain more Turkish borrowings too. The romance tradition is a literary genre that has survived in Judeo- Spanish literature throughout the generations in exile from pre- expulsion Spain. Shmuel Refael studied the Judeo-Spanish ballads and their Spanish roots, linking thematic frameworks to those in Spain (Refael 1996: 95). Judeo-Spanish today experiences an academic revival. Under the professional guidance of Professor Shmuel Refael, Bar-Ilan Univer- sity has an active department of Ladino Studies thriving in publications and education of the language and literature of Sephardic Jews. Judeo-Spanish conferences are currently held annually or at intervals in Israel, Hebrew University and Bar-Ilan University, London, Thes- saloniki, Toledo and proceedings have been published to spread the teaching of Judeo-Spanish.15 The biennial British Judeo-Spanish Con- ference will be holding its sixteenth conference in London under the

15 See Conference Proceedings among many others of Benabu (1992), Donaire (1996), Benaim (1999b), Pomeroy and Alpert (2004). Pomeroy, Pountain & Romero (2008) and Ladinar (2006). introduction 7 able chairmanship of Dr Hilary Pomeroy (UCL). Note also that in Israel the government created the Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino i su Kultura in 1996. Impressive teaching manuals of Judeo-Spanish include that of Marie-Chrisine Bornes Varol (1998, 2004) that was later translated in Bulgarian in 2007 and in English in 2008 (Bornes Varol 1998, 2007, 2008b). Other departments like the Hebrew University of Jerusa- lem, Ben Gurion University, University College London, University of Sofia, INALCO in Paris, teach courses fully or partially including Judeo-Spanish studies. Bunis’s presentation of the Judeo-Spanish language, in Hebrew, is an important pioneering work in the field (Bunis 1999a). At the CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas) some works of encyclopaedic proportions have recently been published by Elena Romero. In Entre dos (o mas) fuegos Romero presents a critical study of one hundred and eighty two texts of song and balladry in Judeo-Spanish from the seventeenth centuries onwards. A year later in 2009 she publishes another critical edition, this time of nineteenth century Salonican texts in Dos colecciones de cuentos sefardies de car- acter magico: sipure noraot y sipure pelaot. Alongside the successful academic journal Sefarad edited by Javier Castaño is published in this research centre.

1.1.2 Contribution of this Book to Existing Literature The transcription, translation, editing and linguistic analysis of these texts furthers our understanding of Judeo-Spanish and its contribution to Hispanic philology may therefore be significant.16 The description of the language used in the texts with relevant comments on the orthography, phonology, morphology and lexicon is presented as an analytical study. Since this extensive body of literature has not been

16 (1) Note that in Sala’s extensive listing of Judeo-Spanish textual sources there is an absence of the genre presented in this corpus (Sala 1996: 57–75). This absence still applies to date. (2) Pountain lists the value of the interpretation of texts as a source of data and says it is ‘a skill which no Romance linguist can possibly ignore’. He adds that the study of texts embeds language in its cultural, social and historical matrix and is recently reinstated by modern sociolinguists. It also allows the pursuit of lexical histories in a more interesting way by seeing vocabulary in context, by being able to research better matters of register and style (Pountain 2001: 1–2). 8 chapter one presented before, the linguistic descriptions that refer to this corpus are novel too. The nature and use of Hebraisms are explained in detail, while Turkish borrowings are clarified in a glossary (see Appendix 2). This book makes reference to other studies and works of Judeo- Spanish. In order to justify the need to work from original editions, I present one sample text (text 11) in section 2.4 that I transliterate according to the guide in section 2.3.7.2. The result of this transliteration is a mirror representation of the original Hebrew text. The transliteration of this sample text is also done on various editions including that of the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project. A discussion on the problems of textual transmission follows the presentation of copies of the text belonging to the various editions and their corresponding transliterations. Research techniques and methodology are closely explained. This study adds to the substantial literature on Ottoman Jewish history in that it illustrates aspects of Ottoman Jewish economic, social and religious culture. We experience at first hand in the speech of the protagonists, albeit mediated through writing, an unrivalled feeling for the daily realities of sixteenth-century Ottoman Jewish life. Through the speaker’s social dialect repertoire, the function of his personal caste or class history is exposed (Halliday 1978: 66). The status of sixteenth-century Jewish women continues to offer scope for academic inquiry. Information provided by the testimonies on women’s issues, particularly in regard to the issues of marriage, divorce and wills, supplement Ruth Lamdan’s work on women in the responsa (Lamdan 2000: 263–268). Lamdan has based much of her research into the status of women on the sixteenth and early seventeenth responsa literature (Lamdan 2000: 8). Lamdan’s book A Sepa- rate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century provides a necessary background for a better understanding of the responsa pertaining to the field of women in this book. Jewish economic, social and religious history can be glimpsed through the responsa. The clarification of the testimonies and their immediate framework serves to shed some light on responsa literature and Jewish jurisprudence. A detailed analysis of two responsa on guardianship sent to two respondents is presented herewith in addition to a fuller discussion on some responsa relating to marriage and divorce. This book brings to light a selection of responsa which, although too small a sample in number in relation to responsa as an entirety to introduction 9 draw conclusions, does help the understanding of a halakhic system that developed following the fusion of the Iberian refugee communities into the existing Ottoman communities. The meeting of these different cultures doubtlessly had an influence on the evolution of legal decisions some of which have been analysed herewith. The interdisciplinary nature of this book widens its importance and relevance to a range of academic fields: linguistic, socio-historical, philological legal and that pertaining to the field of Jewish Studies. Bringing these together through close focus on a small, discrete body of literature should create a valuable contribution to the discipline of comparative cultural studies.

1.2 Presentation of Book

The book starts with an introductory chapter that deals mainly with the background to the texts, including details about responsa and Ottoman Jewish life. The responsa literature as a genre is explained and the structure and features of this genre are discussed in the light of the corpus presented. The reasons for the use of the vernacular within these legal and rabbinic texts are discussed. Ottoman Jewish life is explored through its representation in our corpus. Section 1.6 is divided into various sub-sections in order to describe aspects of the historical, socio-historical, religious and communal lives of Ottoman Jews in the sixteenth century as reflected through some of the relevant responsa in our corpus. The description should serve to facilitate an understanding of the context in which the real-life cases in these responsa take place. The second chapter consists first of a list of the particular responsa containing Judeo-Spanish that I have examined to a greater or lesser detail within this study. This list includes reference to other responsa belonging to other centuries that are not included in this corpus. The next section involves an explanation of the methodology employed in the book, the selection process, the resources available, transcription systems employed by others and a detailed description of the transcription and transliteration systems used in this book on the basis of letter-by-letter correspondences. This is followed by a guide (section 2.3.7) to each of the transcription and transliteration systems in this book, as well as a chart containing rashi letters. The guide shows the Judeo-Spanish phoneme expressed by each Hebrew 10 chapter one graph, the corresponding modern Spanish phoneme and the modern Spanish grapheme used in the transcription of our corpus. Section 2.4 involves the evaluation of the textual corpus through an analysis of the issues of textual transmission. This section begins with an explanation of the editions of various responsa collections, the general issues and variations between editions of responsa. A transliteration of the original in one sample text is carried out from the original edition, the second and third editions, and from the BIURP. The differences between the various editions, including those of orthography and word-spacing, are examined generally and specifically. Many of the footnotes to the fourth chapter also contain information about these textual differences. In addition, the date of the edition which the BIURP copies are inserted both as a footnote at the introduction of each new responsa collection. The third chapter describes the language of the texts by analysing the main features of linguistic interest with reference to the corpus and to other contemporary Judeo-Spanish texts, as well as to the major sources on the history of the Judeo-Spanish language and of the Spanish language.17 A detailed examination of the use of Hebrew including Hebrew borrowings ensues; the issue of borrowing and code- switching is clarified. The secondary literature in the relevant linguistic field is evaluated in the course of the discussion. The description concerns orthography, phonology (including historical phonology), morphology and syntax. The non-Castilian dialectal elements are explored with reference to the corpus. I have included three sample texts in Appendix 1 that have been transliterated sign by sign from the Hebrew to the Latin script. This inclusion is designed to aid text cross-referencing and to facilitate the understanding of the development of the history of the Judeo-Spanish language with the phonological, phonemic and orthographic information provided by the texts. Also for those who are not familiar with the Hebrew script it provides a mirror copy of the original text. The fourth chapter consists of the corpus of texts; each responsum is presented with a short summary in English explaining the case concerned. A copy of the original text follows. The texts have been

17 These include Menéndez Pidal (1950; 1958), Entwistle (1965), Zamora Vicente (1967), Lapesa (1988), Bunis (1993), Harris (1994) and Penny (2004a; 2004b), Quin- tana (2006), Minervini (1992) Girón-Negrón & Minervini (2006), Shwarzwald (1985), (1993), (2006). introduction 11 selected on the basis of their Judeo-Spanish content within the testimonies in the questions submitted to halakhic authorities. Where the Judeo-Spanish content is within the reply, these have been included and I have indicated in a footnote that it is text belonging to the reply as opposed to the question. So, where upon the rare occasion Judeo- Spanish is present in the respondent’s argument (text 75), I have included this translation. References to texts in this book are in the form of text number, colon, then line number, e.g. (24:3). References to texts made in the form of ‘ST’ (sample text) refer to the texts in Appendix 1. The 84 texts in this corpus fall roughly into various categories. There are 23 texts of an economic nature, 15 on aspects on the validity of marriage, 14 concern wills, 12 are about disputes on women’s status as agunot, 9 texts concern commercial disputes linked in the communal world, 5 concern oaths and vows including the nazirite vow, 2 on the levirate command, 2 on communal matters, 1 on shoplifting, 1 on the validity of a divorce. The transcription of the texts into Spanish characters includes some phonetic symbols.18 Thereafter its translation into English is presented. I have included the translation, bracketed and in italics, of the Hebrew framework preceding and subsequent to the Judeo-Spanish. This I have done in many cases where I believe the understanding of the framework can be enhanced by providing necessary or useful information about the testimony. To achieve this purpose I have occasionally opted for paraphrase as opposed to a literal translation of the Hebrew. Also, to ease the flow of the translated language, direct speech is often translated as indirect speech. However, where there are Judeo-Spanish phrases within the Hebrew, I have ensured that they do not appear italicised in their translation so as to reveal this distinction.19 The original Hebrew framework that is translated in parenthesis can be found in the original editions and in the BIURP. I have italicised the Hebrew in the Judeo-Spanish transcriptions and its corresponding translation. In this way the reader can glance at the translations and appreciate the frequency and use of Hebrew within Judeo-Spanish. The Turkish elements in the transcriptions and translations of the texts have been italicised and bolded in order to distin-

18 See table 2.2. 19 For example, see the translation of the framework at the end of text 6. 12 chapter one guish them from the Hebrew words. The odd word in other languages appearing in the text I have also bolded and italicised but indicated its root in a footnote. Where the Turkish terms appear in the text, a note is added with its translation and Turkish etymology in each of the terms’ first appearance in the text. Finally I am including a brief summary of the decision taken by the respondent in each case. Here the language in translation occasionally appears cumbersome and long-winded. This is often the result of sacrificing elegant translation for a more literal version in order to represent the original a little closer. In some cases I have included a lengthier version of the decision because the case warrants a closer explanation. There are times where the whole picture of the case is not clear. This is due to the fact that I am not including the entire responsa as that would be well beyond the scope and purpose of this thesis. Therefore if further clarification is warranted it is necessary to return to the whole responsa itself, the Bar Ilan Responsa Project, or to Appendix 5 in Benaim 2006. These responsa are numbered in accordance with my corpus numbering, so that the corresponding Hebrew framework and its translation can be easily identified. Lines have been numbered in accordance with the line pattern in the original edition. This was done in order to achieve regularity within both editions of the same responsum. I have also indicated as a footnote to each new responsa collection the edition from which the BIURP was taken. On the basis of the selection outlined above, I decided to edit the texts according to respondent, for the sake of chronological clarity. The date and place of the recording of cases, and the equivalent Gre- gorian calendar date, are given when available. The references are divided into primary and secondary sources. The primary sources consist of the responsa collections consulted for this book and are contained within Appendix 4. The responsa in Appendix 1 have been numbered according to the corpus numbering; the Judeo-Spanish extracts have been clearly line-numbered in the same line format as that of the original edition scanned into the third chapter. A glossary explaining the Turkish borrowings in Judeo-Spanish as attested in the corpus is given in Appendix 2. The Turkish root is identified, the source for the finding is indicated and appropriate references from the texts are included. Additionally, a glossary is compiled introduction 13 to explain some recurring relevant Hebrew terms, particularly those pertaining to the field of Jewish law that warrant a brief explanation in Appendix 3. Appendix 4 is in the form of a table indicating the respondents, their acronyms, dates and places of birth and death, the names of their responsa collections consulted, dates and place of publication of these responsa, and the number of responsa found in each collection to contain Judeo-Spanish. The primary sources are contained within this table. Appendix 5 consists of a list of many responsa of the eighteenth to twentieth centuries that I found containing Judeo- Spanish, this serves to place the work within this book in the context of its literary genre.

1.3 Responsa and the Development of Jewish Law

The wordhalakhah (from the root halakh, ‘to go’) describes Jewish law and jurisprudence, as opposed to aggadah, the name given to non- legal material, particularly of the rabbinic literature.20 It is impossible to encapsulate the principles of Jewish law in a few paragraphs. However, as an introduction to the responsa literature it is helpful to understand that Jewish law is derived from the Bible and tradition. The fundamental laws derived from the Pentateuch are believed to define the correct Jewish way of life, according to the will of God. It comprises the revelation of the Torah to Israel, forming the foundation of historical Judaism. It is believed that the Oral law was transmitted from the time of Moses until it was committed to writing, with decrees added by the sages in the Mishnah and Talmud. This final oeuvre is defined as rabbinic, as opposed to Biblical, law.21 The relative binding nature of Biblical and Rabbinic law is a complex issue. Interestingly, Elon clarifies the apparent contradiction of the issue that halakhah is divine adhering to the basic tenet that ‘Torah is from heaven’ on the one hand and on the other that ‘the Torah is not in

20 Halakhic legislation functions with two main objectives. (1) To fill a lacuna in the law created in consequence of changed social and economic realities and the emergence of problems which find no answer in the existinghalakhah . In this event, the halakhah serves to add to the existing halakhah. (2) To amend and vary existing halakhah to the extent that this is dictated by the needs of the hour (EJ:714). 21 For more on the development of halakhah, see EJ:1162–1166. 14 chapter one

Heaven’.22 Elon explains that the meaning of the latter concept as the source of halakhah being divine, but its place, its life, its development and formation is in the life, in society (Elon 1975: 53). The need for the authority of the halakhic scholars can therefore be better understood. The divine law needs re-interpretation and understanding, not change, according to context, to each individual case. The responsa literature consists of the application of the law to individual unprecedented cases by rabbinic scholars. The responsa literature is born of a necessity to resolve cases that have no direct answer in existing law. In other words, the law needs interpretation, rather than alteration, by a sage of judicial standard (Cohen 1959: 41).23 The need to refer a case to a higher legal authority stems from a requirement to deal with cases in a manner consonant with contemporary circumstances. The cases within this legal genre concern social, economic and moral conditions that differ greatly according to place and period. If the existing rules cannot deal with an issue, or if the law had to be re-interpreted in the light of contextual change, the sages have to find a solution by one or more of the legal sources of Jewish law, namely: interpretation, legislation, example and legal reasoning.24 The responsa literature reveals countless problems that arose over the centuries and exemplifies how these methods were utilised to find solutions (Elon 1994: 1461). Responsa from the eighth to eighteenth centuries number over 300,000. Since most questions derived from real life situations, the responsa literature is ‘practical and pragmatic rather than theoretical and abstract’ (Angel 1994: 669). Responsa became part of case law and entered the legal mainstream as precedent authority (Feldman 1994: 18).

22 This notion means that the Written law together with the Oral law was given to Moses at Sinai by God himself. However, the sages of the Midrash interpret the fact that Moses learnt the whole Torah in forty days whilst at Sinai to mean that at Sinai Moses learnt the principles in general. The application of the principles, the shaping and development of halakhah, was left for the authority of the halakhic scholars (Elon 1975: 53). See Elon (1975: 53) for all the sources to this principle, namely Bava Metzia 59b based on Deutoronomy. 23 The authority of thedayan (judge) is likened to that of the alcalde (mayor) in the municipality in pre-Inquisition Spain (Baer 1961: vol. 2:212). 24 Ma’aseh is the Hebrew term denoting the practice of example that is defined as the factual circumstances from which a halakhic rule or principle is derived, a form of precedent, see Elon (1975: 110–117) for a full explanation of these terms. introduction 15

1.4 Structure and Features of Responsa

A certain structure or format is common to the responsa. In brief, the common format begins with the question submitted followed by the reply by the respondent. The case forwarded to the respondent included a detailed statement of its facts, the text of relevant enactments and a transcript of testimony. This testimony was sometimes presented in the original language, transcribed in Hebrew characters. The languages of the testimonies could be Arabic, Judeo-Spanish or Yiddish, depending on the period and region in question.25 In the Ashkenazi responsa, where witness testimony is to be quoted in the vernacular, the evidence would be introduced by the phrase or abbreviation vezé lešonó ‘and this is his / the language’ (Weinreich 1970: 411). This style is common in this corpus. The responsum itself was generally written in Hebrew with Aramaic expressions. During the thirteenth century Iberian Jews were often using Hebrew, Arabic and Castilian for sometimes differing and sometimes overlapping purposes, particularly in the Iberian taqanot or legal statutes (Miller 2004: 58). The questions would be sent by rabbis to the respondent by a special agent; often the rabbis would accumulate questions before sending them. The structure and brevity of style of responsa vary between respondents. Most responsa include detailed discussion of each legal precedent to the case. The respondent argues the reasons for his agreement or disagreement with his predecessors before arriving at his own verdict. In some responsa the question does not appear in full. Some questions were summarized by the copyists, the respondents’ editors. According to Elon, ‘the redactors of compilations took it upon themselves . . . to abridge, summarize and even omit questions’ (Elon 1994: 1519). Elon argues that neither the copyists nor the respondents thought it important to preserve the exact language of the question, as their main concern was with the respondent’s legal discussion and decision (Elon 1994: 1508). I maintain, by contrast, that the preservation of the original testimonies was vitally important, in particular the wording of wills and contracts, the words used in marriage situations and witness testimonies to agunot cases.26

25 Rubashov (1929) discusses the incidence of Yiddish in the Ashkenazi responsa. 26 See agunah in Appendix 3. 16 chapter one

The responsa were generally written by the respondents themselves; otherwise, they would dictate to their disciples or to family members. Copies were then made by these people. These were compiled and published, usually by the respondent’s children after his demise. In some cases, the responsa were not assembled and printed until centuries after the respondent’s death; for example, some of Maimonides’s responsa were only printed in 1958–1961 (Elon 1994: 1519). Orthographical errors, omissions and inaccuracies prevail in the responsa due to incorrect copying. These are apparent in the responsa examined herewith rendering the task of reading the testimony into one that involves a level of interpretation. Here it is pertinent to com- ment that the Judeo-Spanish in the work of the Me’Am Lo’ez, for instance, is much clearer and accurate and consequently more flowing and easier to read than that in the responsa selected for this book. It may be that more than one scribe was involved in the process; this may explain variations in testimonies sent to different respondents, e.g. in texts 11, 25, 40 and 52, where an abridged version is sent to the second respondent. It is fortuitous that the variations between the texts carry no legal significance in these examples. By preserving the Judeo-Spanish, the scribe or copyist shows that a close understanding of the text is a prerequisite to judging the case. In two cases, where the same testimony is sent to two respondents, the texts are identical.27 The differences between a scribe and a copyist are explained in Yaa- kov Elman’s and Israel Gershoni’s discussion of the transmission of texts: There must have been a fundamental difference between the reproduc- tion oftexts by a hired scribe and a talmid hakham, a learned man or a scholar, who was copying texts for his own use. I suggest calling the former a scribe and the latter a copyist (Elman & Gershoni 2000: 230). The scholar-copyist would be more likely to interfere in the transmission and add his own corrections, with the result that his role becomes that of a critical editor rather than a mere copyist. It is not possible to reach any conclusion in this book about the critical intervention of the copyist, as such interventions are difficult to identify. According to Goldish the invention of print after the fifteenth century led to the presentation of queries very close to their original forms. ‘The print

27 Such is the case with texts 6 and 33 on the subject of wills, and with texts 25 and 40 on guardianship, see section 1.6.5. introduction 17 shop, working from an original manuscript, would often keep sentences intact rather than truncating them as a hand-copyist might be tempted to do’ (Goldish 2008: xlix). Many responsa do not appear to record the actual names of the parties involved. In numerous texts presented here, the protagonists are called pseudonymously Re’uben, Šim‘on and Levi.28 This appears to be the trend in most responsa, though in many other cases authentic names prevail. For instance, the names of Estrella bat Ab̠raham Yisra’el (texts 31 and 64) and Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes giving kiddushin to Orosol (text 55) appear to be authentic Sephardic names, still common today.29 In another kiddushin case, the name Ḥ ayim is given followed by ‘šehú Re’uben’ (who is Re’uben) (text 83:46), indicating the use of both the authentic and the impersonal name. The obvious reason for omitting authentic names is to obviate damage to the reputation of the parties concerned. Elon mentions two other motives for this practice: (1) to obviate the possibility that the respondent would be tempted to rule in favour of a party with whom he may have been personally acquainted, and (2) so that the final judgement in the case would be given by the local court before whom the parties appeared, and not by the respondent, and the responsum could thus be characterized as only an advisory opinion (Elon 1994: 1514). In responsa involving monetary matters, names of people or places were often omitted so as not to attract the attention of the host nation’s tax authorities, and to protect their privacy. Also, the editors were more interested in the legal argument and verdict, than in identifying the parties. Names of places, towns or cities were often fictitious too. However, the responsa in this study contain examples of toponyms such as Monastir (text 4), Sofia (text 27), Skopje (text 40), Salonica (ST 68), Nicopolis (text 4), Wallachia (text 65) and others that are authentic. Ephraim Nissan examines whether names are fictitious or real in the Ottoman responsa. For instance, he argues that place names such as ‘Tiberias’ and ‘Sephoris’ that are Talmudic, should be regarded with suspicion, noting that there are often linguistic indicators suggesting that the respondent is using the toponym simply as a convenient fiction. Such indicators include, for example, the conditional ‘if’

28 (1) See Nissan (1998: 1). (2) The names Re’uben, Simon and Levi are the rabbinic equivalent of John Doe and Richard Doe. The names are actually the names of the three oldest sons of Jacob. 29 See Appendix 3 for an explanation of kiddushin. 18 chapter one in a clause containing the toponym: ‘if in Tiberias there are three holy communities’ (Nissan 1998: 8). Nissan concludes that textual experience can help to determine the reality of the toponym.

1.5 Use of Judeo-Spanish in the Texts

The question arises why some testimonies are left in Judeo-Spanish by the scribe or printers. Other than the obvious reason of preserving authenticity, it is thought that one of the reasons rabbis were perhaps willing to allow Judeo-Spanish to be used in the responsa is because the language was highly respected. Arguably, for this same reason, Judeo-Spanish was allowed to permeate the liturgical tradition.30 The use of vernacular proverbs in sermons was also not unusual (Gutwirth & Reif 1992: 7). The use of the vernacular within holy texts had already been established in the case of Judeo-Arabic. Reif explains the significance and uses of Judeo-Arabic in pre-exilic Spain. In a similar way to Judeo-Spanish, Judeo-Arabic was also written in Hebrew script and not in the Arabic. Reif refers to these as the ‘exotic Jewish languages’ (Reif 2000: 217). The Jews of medieval Europe also created their own conventions for writing vernacular languages in Hebrew script in France, Italy, Germany and Spain (Benabu 1991: 35). At this point, it is worthy to recall that at the height of the Golden Age in Spain responsa were written either in Hebrew or Arabic. Incidentally, at this time Jews also wrote some scientific and philosophical books in Arabic which was the cultural language of the non-Jewish world, but notable in Hebrew characters (Shwarzwald 1993: 29). Interestingly Bunis claims that the Jews of medieval Iberia preferred to write their vernacular in the Hebrew alphabet as boys learnt this in their religious education (Bunis 2004: 115). Andalusians writing in Arabic include Isaac ibn Gayyat (1038–89) and Joseph ibn Migash (1077–1114) (Miller 2000: 124). However, later in the thirteenth century Rabbi Solomon ibn Adret of Barcelona wrote his

30 To this day the Sephardic liturgy contains Judeo-Spanish, such as Hod Hayom, the Haphtarah (last portion of the reading of the Bible) recited on the last day of Passover. Note the three main texts that were continually translated into Ladino and published in various locations: the Bible, the Passover Haggadah, and Pirke Avot (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 109). See also the Ladino translated Bible Sefer Torah nevi’im veketuvim (trasladado a la lingua espaniola) published in Constantinople in 1873. introduction 19 responsa in Hebrew.31 According to Miller, Sephardic responsa were written in Hebrew to guarantee the widest possible readership, including the Jews living in non-Arabic speaking communities in Europe (Miller 2000: 125).32 In all, there is a tradition of the use of a judeolanguage in sacred texts and ultimately the purpose of its use has to be the preservation of the authenticity of the testimony. Quintana aptly explains a judeolanguage as not a situation where the Jews spoke a different language than the Gentiles, but rather that in the Jews’ adoption of other languages we can see certain characteristics specific to the group which meant that the same language, when spoken by Jews, was slightly different (Quintana 2002: 169–170). The use of Hebrew letters to write Spanish was already well practised in Medieval Spain as evidenced in Min- ervini 1992. Castaño too presents surviving fragments of an expendi- ture’s register of the Jewish community of Tarrazona from 1406–1407 of handwritten Aragonese [aljamía] in Hebrew characters (Castaño 2004: 11). Miller discusses the use of code switching in rabbinic enactments of the pre-exilic period. She believes that language mixing was an acceptable and valued practice because Jews identified with both the secular and Jewish worlds in their linguistic usage. Their ability to draw on either Castilian or Hebrew was evident in their legal ordinances. Thetaqanot (ordinances) represented the Jews’ dual loyalties, their commitment both to their religious tradition and to the king (Miller 2004: 67). Miller adds that this practice also indicated the high level of bilingualism among Castilian Jews and their dual identity as both Castilians and Jews. This is the tradition that travelled with the Spanish Jews to the Balkans into the next century that constitutes the background for the responsa in this book. The perpetuation of both languages in ordinances as well as in wills and testimonies is evidenced in the responsa, demonstrating that the Jews continued their linguistic tradition despite their exile and adverse circumstances. In fact the Sep- hardim in the Ottoman Empire were defined as such as opposed to the other Jewish groups, Byzantines and Ashkenazis. This meant attaching

31 I identified two responsa of Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet containing Judeo-Spanish testimonies: responsa 207 and 208 of She’elot u-Teshuvot ha Rivash. 32 Also Romeu Ferré and Hassán believe the reason for the secular literature to be presented in Hebrew characters is to reach a designated readership (Romeu Ferré & Hassán 1992: 167). 20 chapter one a different historical and cultural identity to the Spanish Jews, that of a historical and cultural weight of 1,500 years in Spain (Quintana 2002: 171). Arguably, the use of the vernacular in religious writings is by no means confined to the sixteenth century; it is a continuation of an existing tradition. Additionally, it is helpful to understand that Hispanic Jews were undoubtedly keen to maintain their customs and mores, and their desire to preserve the language must be understood in this context (Graetz 1956: 414–415). The identification of the genre in this book could change Miller’s view that Romance languages failed to obtain status as ‘sacred’ languages among the Jews (Miller 2000: 125). In fact I argue the reverse, that Judeo-Spanish must have been considered of sufficient regard and status to be included in the responsa even as testimonies.33 Remarkably, the extent of vernacular passages within sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth and some in the twentieth- century responsa appears unique. Rubashov believes that the inclusion of the vernacular in the rabbinic responsa is intended to preserve the testimony intact (Rubashov 1929: 1–2), though interestingly there is no comparable phenomenon with Yiddish in the Ashkenazi responsa. The more obvious reason for preserving these texts in Judeo-Spanish is, of course, for the sake of authenticity and accuracy in the legal interpretation of the cases.

1.6 Ottoman Jewish Life depicted in the Responsa

This section examines various aspects of Ottoman Jewish life with specific and general examples from the corpus. The emphasis, however, is to demonstrate how the corpus of texts supports our knowledge and understanding of aspects of the history, economy, religion, communal life and society of the Turkish Jews of the sixteenth century. The majority of responsa reflect the everyday life of the average Jew at home, in the synagogue, celebrating the Sabbath and festivals, and dealing with a variety of his vexations, disputes, marital problems and

33 In the Balkans too, Judeo-Spanish was considered a prestigious language: ‘El prestigio económico y cultural de los sefardíes de la peninsula balcánica hizo que el idioma gozara de prestigio durante varios siglos’ (The economic and cultural prestige of the Sephardim in the Balkan peninsula ensured that their language was regarded with prestige during various centuries) (Sala 1996: 361). introduction 21 relations with Gentile neighbours (Finkel 1996: xvii). Issues of marriage, agunah, guardianship are examined from a legal perspective in the light of illustrations from the responsa. The aim of this section is to present the relevant background and knowledge that will help the reader place the testimonies into context and provide a better understanding of the responsa as a whole. The responsa of this period illuminate the life of Ottoman Jewry,34 revealing its attitude towards the Ottoman state, its rulers, institutions and taxation system, and uncovering aspects of Ottoman trade and the role of Jewish merchants. Aryeh Shmuelevitz observes that, according to the responsa, the Jews were integrated into Ottoman society but maintained a strictly separate communal framework, with autonomous legal, cultural and taxation systems.35 Nevertheless: they remained an active part of the Ottoman urban society, greatly involved in the daily life through their participation in the financial, commercial and professional activities of urban living (Shmuelevitz 1984: 186–187). Séphiha notes how the Turkish authorities were always surrounded by Jewish advisors and also Jewish doctors, ‘de conseillers juifs qui assurerent à l’Empire une prosperité exceptionelle’ (Séphiha 1991: 24). This is reminiscent of Jewish life in medieval Spain where there was an abundance of Jewish physicians appointed to the royal court of Enrique IV (Castaño 1997: 384–385). The importance of Jewish life in Salonica is often underestimated in the wider context of Jewish history. After the expulsion from Spain in 1492, many exiles made their way to the Ottoman Empire, where the Sultans offered them unconditional hospitality.36 In the sixteenth

34 The responsa reflect the legal order prevailing at the time in the sixteenth century. The Ottoman Empire maintained a legal order in the sixteenth century superior to that in contemporary Europe in its uniformity. The quality of the legal order in the non-Jewish sphere was matched by the eminence of the Jewish jurists administering the Jewish legal system; these rabbinic authorities being among the most notable in the history of Jewish law (Passamaneck 1974: 181). 35 Legal autonomy was granted by the state to non-Muslims (Ihsanoğlu 2001: 478–9). 36 The Sultans were: Beyazid ll (1481–1512), Selim l (1512–1520) and Suleiman 1 (the Magnificent) (1520–1566). However, the Jews of Turkey did not enjoy equality with Muslim citizens. In the eyes of the law and in the view of government guards, the Jews were infidels and strangers, as were Turkey’s Christian subjects. Jews were forbidden to build new synagogues, they were not allowed to own Muslim slaves, they had to dress differently from Muslims, and neither Jews nor Christians were permitted 22 chapter one century Jewish life flourished in Salonica. Rabbi Taitazak’syeshiva, institute for Jewish learning, included among its students great names like R. Samuel de Medina, R. Isaac Adarbi, R. Solomon ben Abraham Hakohen and R. Joseph Caro. It was financed by the distinguished Gracia Nasi, who exerted great political and financial influence over the affairs of the Jewish communities of Italy and the Ottoman Empire (Roth 1992: 130). The Jewish community of sixteenth-century Salonica had as its spiritual guides outstanding scholars and talented communal leaders (Fendel 2001: 128). These qualities emerge in their treatment of the complex communal problems submitted to them and resolved in their responsa.37 Many scholars were also eminent philosophers and students of contemporary science at the same time as they achieved fame as halakhists and authors of rabbinic writing.38 At the end of the nineteenth century the city’s 90,000 Jews comprised half its total population, thus being the largest single race in Salonica.39 Before World War II the Jews numbered 50,000. Ninety-six per cent of Salonica’s Jews perished in Auschwitz. In Constantinople too the sixteenth century was the golden age of the Jewish community. Sultan Bayazid II. (1481–1512) received the exiles of Spain; and these gave a great impulse to its material and intellectual life. Moreover, thousands of wealthy Marranos, who had been persecuted in Italy and Portugal, sought refuge in Constantinople, where they resumed their former religion. Among these was Joseph Nasi, created Duke of Naxos by Selim II. (1566–74), and Doña Gracia, his mother-in-law, both of whom liberally endowed the community with schools, charitable institutions, and synagogues. The number

to serve in the army. In the late sixteenth century, a royal decree forbade all non- Muslims to wear turbans or high headgear. Christians were required to wear black bonnets and Jews red bonnets (Goodblatt 1952: 128). The Sultans, nonetheless, treated the Jews with benevolence. Yet the Sultan’s janissaries victimized Jews; traveling merchants were often attacked and robbed. The Jews resorted to bribing the janissaries to resolve their security problem (Goodblatt 1952: 120–121). 37 The contribution of these rabbis to the responsa literature is extensive (Zimmels 1971: 394). 38 For information on Torah Centres in the Ottoman Empire, see Fendel (2001: 99–129). 39 Note that in the nineteenth century there was an efflorescence of the Judeo- Spanish mass media that was a direct result of westernization in Salonica. As French was becoming the language of education, the Sephardic communities strengthened and reinforced their existing Judeo-Spanish language (Rodrigue 1992a: 185). introduction 23 of Marranos who settled in Constantinople up to 1574 amounted to 10,000, and the whole Jewish population numbered 30,000. There were 44 synagogues, representing as many separate congregations, each of which retained its own customs, rites, and liturgy. According to Goldish, in the early modern period Constantinople, modern Istanbul, boasted the largest Jewish community with between 30,000 and 40,000 individuals. Constantinople and Salonica were recognised as the capitals of the Sephardic Diaspora. Communities were divided according to their place of origin, thus there were separate and sometimes multiple communities [qehalim] from Aragon, Castile, Sicily, Evora, Lisbon, Catalonia, Italy, Provence, Calabria, Ashkenaz and others. Smyrna (Izmir) displaced Edirne as the third great Jewish center in Turkey, a growing mercantile community settled in Smyrna where taxes were lower too. Despite the beginning of the decline of the Empire in the latter part of the sixteenth century the Jews were still in control of commerce (Séphiha 1991: 28). Rabbinic learning flourished in Constantinople in the sixteenth century Ottoman communities thus making major contributions to Jewish culture in many areas (Lehmann 2005: 17). Lehmann points out that the intelligentsia in Constantinople were very grateful to the authorities. He cites the title page of a collection of responsa published in Constantinople in 1556 saying: ‘this book was completed . . . in Istan- bul, the fine city, the city of a great king, a faithful shepherd, our master the Sultan Suleyman, may his splendour be exalted, and his honor grow, and in his times and ours may Judea and Israel be redeemed and may the redeemer come to Zion’ (Lehmann 2005: 17). Constan- tinople as well as Salonica forms the backdrop of many responsa in this book. Minna Rozen describes the structure of the congregations of the Iberian communities as they arrived in Constantinople. ‘Each congregation had its own judges and one rabbinic authority whom they recognised as supreme. Secular affairs were handled by a group of functionaries called ma’amad . . . The members of the ma’amad were known as memunim, behirim, nivrarim, tovei ha-qahal or nikhbadim (dignitaries)’ (Rozen 2002: 78). Some examples of these appointees are illustrated in texts 1:32, 38:16, 84:18. Rozen notes that that in the existing communities in Constantinople such as Italian, Romaniot or Ashkenazi there were similar patterns of organisation. For instance the community looked after its widows and orphans, they each hired their teacher and ritual slaughterer, they supported voluntary societies 24 chapter one that cared for the infirm and the poor and they collected funds for the yeshivot (institutes of Talmudic learning) in the land of Israel. How- ever the Spanish exiles did not have one singular rabbinical authority whilst the Romaniot communities did. The rabbis of the Spanish communities would often confer mutual concerns with each other (Rozen 2002: 79). Rozen bases a greater part of her historical analysis on sources like responsa and rabbinic sermons. The effect of the Iberian Jews’ arrival in Constantinople as well as the rest of the Ottoman Empire was remarkable. The immigra- tion increased the number of Jews by far, expanded its geographical distribution and boosted the community’s involvement in European trade and in the Turkish economy. They also changed the relationship between the community and the authorities. It is noteworthy that despite a sentiment of gratitude by the Jews to the Ottomans for having accepted them, the Iberian Jews viewed Ottoman culture as an outside culture, they did not even speak their language at home (Rozen 2002: 305).

1.6.1 Historical and Socio-Historical Elements The value of the testimonies here is not only fascinating from a legal perspective but also from a historical and sociological point of view.40 To appreciate this argument it is useful to understand the role of the Jewish courts in the Ottoman Empire. The Jewish courts of the Otto- man Empire were extremely active.41 In pre-expulsion Spain, Spanish Jewry maintained an effective legal apparatus.42 Jewish jurisdiction applied broadly to all internal Jewish cases, and sometimes even to capital matters.43 In the Ottoman Empire, Jewish courts had no criminal

40 For a resumé of the history of how the Sephardi Jews influenced existing Otto- man Jewry as they arrived from Spain, see Minervini & Várvaro 2008, pp. 154–157. 41 Note the struggle at the same time of the rabbis of the Beth Din of Fez (Morocco), who were opposed to Jews using Muslim judges (Gerber 1980: 59–65). For more on rabbinic courts in Morocco see Hirschberg (1974). 42 See ‘Jewish Courts’ (Neuman 1948: 112–147) and Hecht et al. (1996). 43 Rodrigue argues that although Jewish communities enjoyed a certain degree of internal autonomy, their juridical autonomy was only substantial by modern stan- dards and should be characterised as a relative one at best. TheBeth Din, Jewish Court, applied Jewish religious law whose jurisdiction covered all areas of life. However, litigation between Jews and Muslims had to take place in Muslim law courts where Jews were under considerable disadvantage as Islamic law favoured the testimony of Mus- lim witnesses over that of non-Muslim (Rodrigue 1992a: 166–167). introduction 25 or capital jurisdiction. Their cases related to pecuniary matters, religious questions including marriage and divorce, and all cases involving Jew- ish ordinances. The most powerful sanction open to the Jewish court was the excommunicatory ban, formerly available to both Spanish- Jewish and German-Jewish jurisprudence. Upon evidence of sincere repentance, remorse or restitution, the ban could be revoked. The historical aspects of the texts can be seen by examination of some cases. Matt Goldish presents a worthwhile contribution to this field in his Jewish‘ Questions—Responsa on Sephardic Life in the Early Modern Period’. In his preface Goldish claims that traditionally responsa has been presented as a source of Jewish historiography, he portrays the responsa from the narrative perspective, encompassing the emotional presentation of the everyday lives of the members of Sephardic communities. In forty-three translations of testimonies in responsa from thirty respondents, only a few such as Karo, Berav and perhaps Alshech are among the best known collections.44 In 1579, the murder of a Jew by a guard takes place shortly before the Passover festival (text 49). The motive for the killing appears to be for keeping the Sabbath.45 In other words, Sabbath observance becomes a form of identifying the Jew and therefore a suspected motive for the murder. Even if this were not strictly true, the fact that it was mentioned by both Gentiles and Jews implies that such events were not unusual at the time. Jewish history unfolds from the testimony. Emmanuel discusses the ‘janissaires’ in his Histoire des Israelites de Salonique. He explains that they were soldiers recruited by different nations, e.g. Greece, Hungary, Armenia and Turkey, who had significant authority. These Janissaries often attacked and robbed Jews in broad daylight (Emmanuel 1936: 117).46 Perhaps this murder, and similar cases, is representative of the cruelties of the Janissaries. This military establishment increased its numbers in the sixteenth century (Ihsanoğlu 2001: 388). The language in the testimony in text 49 reveals political unease.47 This unease climaxes when one of the guards aggressively demands

44 For a review on Goldish 2008 see Benaim 2009. 45 Sabbath observance: see Appendix 3. 46 For detailed historical information on the Janissaries see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 363– 391). 47 Although Shaw (1991) and Benbassa & Rodrigue (2000) concentrate on the positive relations between Jews and the host country during the Golden Age period, Goodblatt (1952: 118–128) is able to portray a more realistic picture as much of his 26 chapter one not to be questioned further, as he would be regarded as a traitor and could be tried as one: ‘muchas preguntas me haćes miedo mi, y ¿qué me querés haćer traición, y ponerme en poder de la ǰusticia? No me demandes mas’ (text 49C:12–14) (you frighten me and do you want to make me a traitor and place me in the hands of the Law? Don’t ask me any more). The three testimonies of the same responsum each reveal a different aspect of the case, together forming a vivid picture, not only of the death of Kalifa but also of street life in Istanbul in the sixteenth century. The protagonists are fluent in Arabic as well as Judeo-Spanish. The initial testimony of Ya‘aqob Hakohen is effective and valid, according to the respondent, since the witness overheard the Gen- tile speaking. The Gentile spoke spontaneously; he was not asked or probed, he was speaking in innocence. This is a situation ofmesiach lefi tumo.48 In fact, the testimony describes this in a flowing, conversa- tional register: ‘llegose allí un katriği morisco y como nos vido fablar en morisco nos demandó de dónde éramos, y le dišimos de Damasco, entonces meneó la cabeça y dišo’ (text 49A:5–7) (a Moorish guard arrived there and as he saw that we were speaking in Arabic he asked us where we were from, and we said from Damascus. Then he shook his head and said). This is the introduction to the witness’s testimony on Kalifa’s death. What appears to be incidental and casual information becomes vital in the legal outcome of this case. The language of the narrative and description of the scene is evidence that the witness spoke voluntarily. This case foregrounds several features of life in Istanbul. It is clear that Arabic was spoken by Jews in the region, as well as Judeo-Spanish, as evidenced in: ‘y diše al katriği en arví ‘(text 49B:13–14) (and I said to the guard in Arabic). The guards continue to relate the events of Kalifa’s murder. They clearly state that the victim was murdered because he was observing the Sabbath: l. 11 ‘pero por guardar su Šabat lo mataron . . .’ (because he kept his Sabbath he was murdered . . .). The events describe an uneasy existence for the Jew in the streets at the evidence is based on the responsa literature. He claims that ‘the benevolent attitude of the Sultans towards the Jews was not reflected in the conduct of government officials. Some of these were cruel in their dealings with the Jews’ (Goodblatt 1952: 121). 48 See legal glossary (Appendix 3). The fact that the witness spoke without probing is of legal significance. When testimony is not directed at the litigation, it counts as evidence of a man’s death and this is sometimes crucial to allow the widow in question to be able to remarry. introduction 27 time. Kalifa, a Jew, is murdered apparently for observing an important precept of his religion and Ester’s cousin is verbally abused for being a Jew. Ester’s mother describes this in a factual manner; no surprise or shock is expressed in her language (text 49B:8). The case in text 55 presents another fascinating facet of sixteenth- century Jewish life, the issue of the anusim, the Marranos who had fled from Portugal via Belgium and now wanted to convert to Judaism in Salonica.49 The issue of Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes, who wants to marry Oro- sol, is interesting in that the witnesses were converts, as emphasized in lines 55:1–3, ‘que estando en Flandesque venían de Portugal para se(e)r ǰudiós fue llamado del padre de Orosol . . . y otros anusim que allí estaban’ (as they were in Belgium on their arrival from Portugal in order to become Jewish, they were called by Orosol’s father . . . And other converts who were there already).50 The problem arises whether these converts may be considered valid witnesses under Jewish law.51 Orfali Levi, in his work on the treatment of converts in the rabbinic literature examines in detail the situation of these converts (Orfali Levi 1982: 59). They were in fact not accorded equal legal status with Jews. There was also the issue of whether someone could recitekaddish on

49 (1) Anusim is derived from the Hebrew meaning ‘compelled’ or ‘forced’. It was and is the name given to Jews who are forced to convert to another religion for political or other reasons. Many Spanish or Portuguese Jews who converted to Christianity during the Inquisition then wished to be reunited with their fellow Jews, but their status was that of converts. This had an implication on their validity as witnesses. For a study on anusim and their portrayal in the rabbinic literature, see Orfali Levi (1982). (2) Theanusim in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were forced to accept Christian baptism and thus treated as full Jews living in error against their will. Another historic viewpoint is presented in that they were converts because they had voluntarily accepted Christianity without even trying to maintain a Jewish way of life. Historians disagree on this (Alpert 2001: 15–16). (3) Beinart discusses the daily lives of these conversos living in Spain. He remarks on their degree of Jewish observance that include the laws of slaughter, the Sabbath laws, the laws of ritual purity etc. (Beinart 1992: 110). (4) Netanyahu, in his anaylisis of the Marranos according to Hebrew sources, explains how many rabbis in the sixteenth century regarded the Portuguese converts more as apostates than as those who were forcibly converted. For this reason they were often not accepted as valid Jewish witnesses (Netanyahu 1963: 158). (5) See text 61, the respondent’s decision, for issues on converts’ marriages. 50 Note that the expulsion of the Jews from Portugal is recorded in a ballad (Pome- roy 2001: 101–107). 51 Great disputes arose with regard to the treatment of Crypto-Jews or Marranos from a legal perspective in the Ottoman Empire. For more on this subject see Shaw (1991: 46–47). 28 chapter one behalf of an apostate.52 R. Binyamin Ze’ev II 203–204 rules against this (Orfali Levi 1982: 47–48). An interesting detail in this same responsum arises when Yisḥ ̣aq is declaring his marriage to Orosol.53 The witness says ‘y le dio un anillo y le dišo palabras de qidušín que él noentendió’ (and he gave her a ring and he said words of kiddushin to her that he [either the witness or Yisḥ ̣aq] did not understand). If it was Yisḥ ̣aq the protagonist or the witness who did not understand the words of kiddushin, then it becomes legally problematic.54 At this point it is interesting to observe some points with regard to the history of the laws of marriage. Like many rabbis throughout the ages and across the world, the rabbis in Salonica instituted certain rulings pertaining to the laws of marriage. Such rulings (taqanot) are directives enacted by legal scholars, or other competent body, enjoying the force of law. Taqanot constitute one of the legal sources of Jewish law (Elon: 1975: 74).55 Many of these cases as presented in this book prompted dissatis- faction among the rabbis, leading them to design these rulings. The rabbis were confronted with many situations where the girl her family were unhappy that she had accepted kiddushin from a man, but now wanted to marry another. Often the couple were not yet living together, in other words, nissuin had not yet taken place. Clearly, the girls were often unaware of the binding legal nature of the moment when kiddushin took place. The annulment ofkiddushin , or rather the process of invalidating the kiddushin, is the easiest way out of this complex situation. Otherwise a divorce must be sought. If a girl marries another man before seeking a divorce or annulment of the marriage she is considered to have committed adultery. The rabbis attempt all legal avenues to avoid this situation. It is noteworthy too that these

52 For kaddish see Appendix 3. 53 Insofar as wedding celebrations are concerned, Goodblatt notes that Jews were already celebrating formal weddings and there was a ceremony where the bride would be accompanied in the street from her home with a Holy Scroll. It was decided by the rabbis that such display of affluence was detrimental for the Jews and that they should become more unobtrusive in their behaviour. Arguably, therefore, since marriage in these responsa took place without the mention of a formal wedding, the wealthier classes may well not have been the protagonists in these responsa (Goodblatt 1959: 127). 54 For kiddushin see Appendix 3. 55 For kiddushin see Appendix 3. introduction 29 new rabbinic rulings are beneficial to the status of women, and the rabbis’ sympathy for the weak legal status of women is salient. The responsum in text 65, sent to Aharon ben Joseph Sasson of Salonica, contains a testimony taken on 29 Ševat 1566 in Salonica.56 The witness, Yisra’el Šim‘on, recounts how one day he was sitting in his shop when someone he knew joined him. They were talking about the evildoings of the king: ll. 3–4 ‘estábamos fablando uno con otro los males que había fecho el rey’ (we were talking about the evildoings of the king), when the acquaintance confessed to seeing his friend Yosef Ruso, together with his two step-brothers, dead. The witness’s words offer a valuable picture of Salonican Jewish life. Jewish shops and shop- keepers, social life and chats between friends and acquaintances are a feature of the relaxed lifestyle that can be seen today in small towns and villages of the Mediterranean. Salonica today has grown into a city, although some side streets with a couple of Jewish shops echo the sixteenth-century lifestyle depicted in this and other responsa. The introductory line: ‘estando en mi botica asentado vino un conoçido mío’ (text 65:1) (as I was sitting in my shop an acquaintance of mine came) is characteristic. From a historical perspective, it is interesting that the motiveless murder of Jews and others is regarded as commonplace. There is no sense of panic, shock or surprise at the event itself, at least as revealed in the first witness’s language. The introduction to the tragic news in this case is as follows: ‘sin yo le demandar nada me dišo tanbién a su compañero Yosef Ruso y a dos hermanastros que siempre iban ǰuntos fallé matados’ (text 65:4–6) (without asking him he also said that he found dead his friend Yosef Ruso and his two step-brothers who were always together). Either such events were not uncommon, or the testimony is only concerned with the legal requirements and not with descriptions of irrelevant detail. In this way this testimony differs from others discussed above. It is succinct; it conveys the gist but does not appear to be a faithful transcript. There is no sign of the tone of voice or accompanying gestures that would allow an understanding of the witness’s feelings. Text 67, forwarded to the same respondent, presents the case of a witness recounting the unexpected murder of a Jew by the guards

56 Rabbi Aharon ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) of Salonica, see Appendix 4. 30 chapter one of Ragusa.57 This is one of the most moving of all narratives in the responsa analysed here. The language, strong, emotional and vivid, recreates the horror of a brutal assassination. Furthermore, the witness expresses a sense of guilt over the murder as his role was totally innocent yet led to tragedy. This case contains a historical, political, sociological and racial element; a human drama within a legal context. Abraham Hakohen speaks to the court and says it will be five years this Sukot, the Tabernacles festival, since he has been living in Esfalto.58 While he was in the hotel the guard asked him for one asper and he gave him two. He then overheard the guard speaking to his friend. In this conversation the guard recalls that a friend of his, a Jew called Mošeh Hassan, the consul resident in Ragusa, was murdered. He describes Hassan’s generosity: ll. 3–4 ‘que cuando yo le demandaba algun aspro me lo daba’ (when I would ask him for an asper he would give it to me). The guard recounts how he was involved in the run up to the murder. On the Sabbath at eight o’clock in the evening he was summoned by the officials in Ragusa to call Mošeh and he did so: ll. 7–9 ‘y lo llamé y fue con migo en una cámara de la señoría y allí le dieron con un mazo en la cabeça y lo mataron’ (and I called him and he came with me to a room in the officials’ building, and they hit him with a stick on his head and killed him). The guard expresses his anguish: ll. 4–5 ‘y tengo enojo que por mi cabśa lo mataron la señoría de Raguśa’ (and I am angry that because of me the guards of Raguśa killed him). The tone is simple and direct, movingly adding to the verisimilitude of the situation. Furthermore, his anguished guilt can be heard: ‘si yo supiera que lo llamaban para lo matar no lo llamara’ (if I knew that they called him in order to kill him I would not have called him). It appears that life was indeed dangerous for Jews.59 Text 53 concerns the famous Yosef Nasi who took on Re’uben when he was very young and looked after him. Later Re’uben became rich and powerful and trusted by Nasi. At a later stage, Nasi noticed he was acting wickedly and rebelling against him. He tried to trick Nasi and other Jews, so all the rabbis excommunicated him. The problem is whether this ban can be revoked on the basis of the testimony recorded in Constantinople. Doña Gracia Mendes and Yosef Nasi, her nephew,

57 This is modern Dubrovnik. 58 He adds that this is near the city of Ragusa, modern Dubrovnik. 59 The cruel behaviour of some Turkish officials is discussed earlier in this section. introduction 31 were the most prominent banking family in the Ottoman service during the sixteenth century.60 They developed vast wealth through a network of international enterprises. They used their wealth to support many Ottoman Jewish communities (Shaw 1991: 88–89). After Gracia’s death, Yosef developed even greater fortune and political and economic influence in Europe as well as in the Ottoman Empire. Text 50 also alludes to the same historical family. It concerns an issue where the community has to establish the validity of a will. David bequeathed his shop to the congregation of ‘la señora’, named after Gracia Mendes, who was referred to as ‘the lady’ and testimonies were brought forward to confirm his wishes. It is the passion with which David wishes to bequeath his belongings to this congregation that is evident in the language that conveys the feeling for the name of Gracia Mendes: ‘no quiero nada que yo me estó afogando, ya la tengo fecha qodeš la botica para el qahal de la señora, por eso teneldas en cargo de vuesa alma’ (text 50B:10–12) (I don’t want anything, I am choking. I have already donated the shop for a holy purpose for the lady’s community, and for this reason you should keep them [the letters] close to your soul).

1.6.2 Jewish Economic Life It is difficult to generalize about the economy of the sixteenth- century Ottoman Empire, but some aspects of Jewish economic life and types of commerce during this period will be examined.61 Addi- tionally, contemporary currency and other modes of money transfer will be explained. Cases in this corpus are classified into categories such as credit transactions, debt transfers, thefts and loans.62 Also property ownership, tenure laws, partnership agreements and contracts, maritime risk

60 Gracia Mendes was the most famous businesswoman of the Ottoman Empire, renowned for engineering the Ancona boycott (Shaw 1991: 88, Roth 1992: 134–176). For the history of the Mendes family see Roth (1992). 61 For more on Jewish economic life during the Ottoman period see Goodblatt (1952: 47–61), Shaw (1991: 86–97), Braude (1992: 216–237) and Benbassa & Rodrigue (2000: 36–49), Rozen (2002: 222–241). Both Braude and Goodblatt use responsa as their main source of facts. Rozen uses rabbinic sermons as well as responsa as historical sources. 62 For example, responsum 51 deals with the validity of a loan certificate, text 74 deals with the question of whether a loan repayment should include the interest. 32 chapter one insurance contracts and industrial codes are discussed in this section.63 The responsa offer further insight into the world of Salonican, Con- stantinoplan as well as the rest of Ottoman Jewry. The immense scale of business that took place in these centres is noteworthy.64 Jews were well represented in occupations involving precious metals and stones. Jews were jewelers, stonecutters, goldsmiths and silver- smiths. Iberian Jews were thought to have introduced gardening as an economic activity to Constantinople. They became involved in the production and sale of food, They manufactured products and sold it among themselves. They also manufactured wine which was a profit- able item in international trade. The wine was manufactured outside the city; text 1 deals with this commercial activity. The manufacturing of meat was an unprofitable profession and initially many Jews went bankrupt in dealing with flocks, because Ottoman rule had it that meat was considered a basic food and was obligated to be supplied to the citizens of the main cities. However later on the Jews were prepared to pay higher prices for their meat, because of the Jewish dietary laws, so economically a few who were authorized by the Jewish community to sell meat became successful, unlike their Muslim colleagues (Rozen 2002: 229–231). Jews lived in dwellings consisting of courtyards surrounded by homes and stores.65 Their homes were equipped with a stove which

63 For a thorough research into the subject of insurance in rabbinic law, loans and contracts with reference to some sixteenth century responsa see Passamaneck (1974). Passamaneck draws on fourteen cases which he translates fully into English, his sum- mation and notes constitute a legal analysis that is of great use as background to understanding the cases in this corpus of this subject. 64 Howard Sachar in his chapter entitled ‘Ottoman Dawn’, describes the effect of the large number of Jews living in these areas on the economic climate. He numbers the Ottoman Empire’s Jewish population at about 300,000 by the end of the sixteenth century (Sachar 1994). 65 (1) For more information about such dwellings, see Concina (1998). (2) Responsum 70 illustrates how families lived together around the courtyard: ‘Then Yisḥ ̣aq testified saying that the young man ̣ ayimH Ḥ onen and his brother were related to Yomtov Ḥonen, they grew up in his courtyard, he said that many times they called him Šelomoh my cousin’. Another mention of the courtyard type of living is in responsum 21, where the payment for expenses for refurbishment of the house and courtyard is disputed. (3) This type of housing set up was most common in Istanbul and Salonica. It resembled the cortijo inherited from Spain, much like the traditional Muslim han. This was a low building stretching around a central courtyard, one, two or even three storeys high, normally with tiled roofs, with residences and shops intermixed in some, and constituting a form of village in itself (Shaw 1991: 56). introduction 33 opened into a hollow space built into the wall.66 In text 13:98, el forno refers to the stove that Naftali complained about that Ab̠raham Primo had destroyed and had to be rebuilt. Jews lived in their own quarters, mahalle,67 or sometimes sections of quarters from which they rarely emerged except to go to the market. This type of residential segregation was common to all religious groups (Shaw 1991: 21). References to items of currency, aspros, gerušot, sultanis, ducados and venecianos, which were all used in the Turkish Empire at the time, are scattered throughout the texts. The texts mention aspers, which are referred to both in the Judeo-Spanish form aspros and in Hebrew as lebanim. The Turkish form, akçe, does not occur. However, various cases contain references to the Venetian coins—the ducados and escudos that were not legal tender in Turkey, but were commonly used by Turkish Jews. Other Turkish coins mentioned in the texts are sultanis, perachim, zehuvim and gerušot. Sultanis, peraḥim and zehuvim each had the approximate value of 50 aspers, and the Venetian ducat was worth 48 or 50 aspers. Thegerúš varied in value over time, from 40, 50, 55, 70 to 100 aspers.68 An understanding of the relationship between economic and communal life is necessary to fully appreciate the circumstances of these cases. The community shared functions and authority in certain areas with other bodies, for example with the guilds organized by the more important crafts and mercantile activities that were responsible for the quality of products, fairness of trade, fixing of prices and internal order and discipline (Shaw 1991: 57). Jewish communal government was organized according to the stan- dards and principles of the older Jewish communities of Babylonia, Persia and Spain. Before the arrival of immigrants from Christian countries, Jewish communities in Turkey were uniform in character and organised by a central authority such as the Hacham Bashi, appointed

66 During my visit in 2001 to the sixteenth century Sephardi synagogue premises in Pesaro, I witnessed such a stove and the ritual bath (mikveh) inside these premises. For an image of this synagogue see jewishencyclopaedia.com-pesaro old synagogue 19/03/06. 67 Turkish for quarters. 68 (1) Goodblatt discusses the depreciation of the gerušot in 1582 and its effect on Jewish merchants. He also mentions the practice of the circulation of counterfeit money (Goodblatt 1952: 47–61). (2) Passamaneck discusses the use and value of the Spanish piaster, the geruš or gerus (texts 11:43, 71:27). He says the piaster in 1497 had a weight of 25.92 grams of silver (Passamaneck 1974: 163). 34 chapter one by the Sultan. After the arrival of Jews from Germany, Italy, Hungary and finally Spain, the community was fragmented each into its small autonomous qahal (community), governed according to the custom of their countries of origin.69 In text 13, Ab̠raham Primo is concerned with buying property for his community. In text 28, Re’uben is sent on a mission to collect funds for his community, which subsequently charges him with embezzlement. In order to understand these cases it is helpful to appreciate the nature and structure of communal organisations in Salonica at the time.70 The corporate character of the traditional Ottoman system did exclude Jews, as well as other non-Muslims, from state affairs, however the system guaranteed the extensive autonomy of the Jewish community and its institutions (Lehmann 2005: 19). The influence and power of the rabbis of communities was clearly formidable. Shaw, in his historical analysis of the Golden Age of Ottoman Jewry, describes the ‘Ottoman Millet System’ as follows: The community comprising Ottoman Jewry was one of several religiously based communal organizations of subjects called, at various times, taife, cema’at, or most commonly in later times, millet. This Ottoman institution constituted a self-governing organization based on religious affinity and directed by religious leaders possessing both secular and religious authority (Shaw 1991: 43). The community was also responsible for two types of taxes imposed by the rulers of the Ottoman Empire (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 21). It was the community’s task to collect the first type of tax from its individual members, who were divided into three classes, namely rich, middle class and poor.71 This tax was a poll tax.72 The second state tax was a collective type that was imposed on every community and

69 The purpose of people from the same origin grouping themselves together was to ensure that their particular rites, traditions, customs, languages or dialects were maintained and the bonds of Jewishness and the specific ethnic-regional character protected (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 16). 70 To understand Ottoman Jewish communities, it is helpful to learn about their origins in pre-Inquisition Spain, see Súarez Bilbao (1995). 71 Note that in the translation of the Hebrew framework of text 32 it says: ‘There were also people who lived here, but were registered in another community so as to pay fewer taxes to the King here in Salonica’. This is direct evidence of the economic fact that Jews paid their taxes through their communities. 72 (1) The rich paid 120 aspers per capita, the middle class paid 60 aspers each and the poor paid 30 aspers; see Goodblatt (1952: 75–81). (2) See text 84B:9–10 as an illustration of poll tax. introduction 35 assessed according to its size and the wealth of its members.73 Each community appointed a board responsible for determining individual liability. There were also other types of occasional taxes; for example, each year, Jewish textile merchants were forced to supply the government with 1,200 pieces of cloth to be used for army.74 The Jewish community was so much identified with the textile industry that they paid their poll tax in cloth to provide for the Janissary corps, a necessary element of Ottoman military success in the classical age. Later after a long period of decline the Janissary corps was abolished in 1826 and also the textile industry diminished as it became hard to compete against cheaper textiles from Europe (Lehmann 2005: 18). This fiscal situation highlights the extent to which individual members were answerable and bound to their religious communities, which were modeled on those of pre-exilic Spain: there were the Romaniot communities, the Lisbon community, the Catalan community, the Sicilian community, the Gerush Sepharad community and others.75 Some of these communities were eventually replaced by others, others merged or divided. Each community had its own rabbi or judge who was held in high esteem by his congregants.76 Communities would also impose their own taxes on certain foods like meat, and butchers would usually include this in their prices. This is not unlike modern British Value Added Tax, except that it was imposed by the community rather than the state. Clearly, the community had economic as well as judicial powers over its congregants.77 It is not surprising, therefore, that religion and the community formed an integral part of people’s lives.

73 This tax was known asRab Aktcheci in Turkish. 74 See Goodblatt (1952: 76). 75 The Romaniots were Jews who were neither from Ashkenaz or Sepharad, but were ‘the native Greek-speaking Jews whom the Turks found on the spot when they conquered the original provinces out of which the Ottoman state was formed. These were the communities in western Asia Minor, in the Byzantine capital of Constan- tinople, in Greece, and in some Balkan cities . . . Their language was and had for long been Greek’ (Lewis 1984: 120). Individual Romaniot Jews still remain in Salonica to this day. For more on the Romaniots see Benbassa and Rodrigue (2000: 11–14). There were also Yevanite Jews from the old Byzantine Empire (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 152). 76 Each rabbi that was employed by a community would be sufficiently well versed in Jewish law to be able to deal with common judicial issues, and would refer to higher authority when necessary. 77 For a more detailed account on the intricacies of the Jewish courts in the region, see Goodblatt (1952: 86–90). 36 chapter one

Jewish legal concepts in monetary law are exemplified in these responsa. For instance, texts 20 and 26 deal with debt-selling; transactions must be carried out in accordance with the law. The notion of adhering to minhag hasoharim, the custom of the traders, where there was no legal precedent, is evident in many texts.78 Also the notion of pešarah, ‘compromise’ is a common device in settling financial and other disputes. Finding a middle way is often the best solution as exemplified in text 15:63‘ fizo la pešarah’. Documents relating to various partnership agreements are the source of testimony in many cases.79 References are made to trade in Peśaro (text 26), Egypt (texts 18, 34, 57 and 72) Bucharest (text 12) and other cities. Evidence of commercial agreements and business dealings involving the Salonican Jews is presented in texts 14, 16, 22, 32, 41 and 72. In particular, the responsum referring to an enactment in the wool industry (text 3) is an introduction to the vast world of the Empire’s textile industry. According to Benjamin Braude, the woollen cloth trade was a prime reason why Salonica became one of the most long-lived and vibrant cities in modern Jewish history. Salonica produced approximately 40,000 pieces of woollen cloth per year, placing it among the major producers in the Mediterranean world.80

78 (1) This was the notion of merchants arranging their own business practices according to the basis of the custom, the usages of their class. This was provided by Jewish law itself. This was a case of where Jewish law could be disregarded or unen- forceable it is better to have the integrity of the whole system maintained than to have part of it spurned. Passamaneck discusses this with reference to maritime loan (Passamaneck 1974: 189). (2) For an account of Medina’s discussion and sources for the issue of following the mercantile custom of non-Jewish merchants in order to determine procedure for Jewish merchants see Passamaneck (1974: 130–131). 79 In responsum 43 Re’uben and Levi, who are business partners, vow never to do business with each other again following a dispute. They take out a Nazirite vow and then question the binding nature of their vow. Case 58 concerns a partnership agreement between Simon and Re’uben, recorded on Tuesday 11 Adar 5311 / 17 February 1551, in which one cannot act without the consent of the other. Text 17 deals with the dissolution of a business partnership. Text 41 concerns the binding nature of written agreements and text 59 deals with the partnership agreement between two brothers. These examples serve as an illustration of partnership agreements that existed at the time. 80 (1) Braude (1992: 220) describes the wool industry in an article that is very informative given the scarcity of historical sources on the Jewish wool trade. (2) ‘The communal base of the cities of Salonica and Safed with flourishing econo- mies and increasing populations relied to a large extent on this [wool] industry’ (Ben- bassa & Rodrigue 2000: 39). introduction 37

Judeo-Spanish was the language of trade and it is no surprise that many of the documents and contracts were drawn up in the vernacular. Jews had good business relations with their Gentile neighbours.81 Sachar explains that this was because wherever Ottoman Jews did business they were able to conduct their trade almost exclusively with their fellow Sephardim. They spoke the same language, operated within their own commercial codes, and resolved their disputes within their own judicial system (Sachar 1994: 84; Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 23).82 Communication, indicating trade, is reflected throughout the cases presented that include details of maritime transportation and ports. Loans and maritime insurance is a common subject of many of the responsa in our corpus. The boat arriving from Cyprus (text 11), the ship travelling from Venice to Alessio (text 14), the boat of the Sul- tan Mehmed sinking near Ancona (text 27), the boat on its way to Constantinople (text 66) and the large and small boats that sank to everyone’s amazement between Myriopithon and Erekli (text 68) all illustrate and contribute to the knowledge of Ottoman history. Travel is evident through many responsa, including text 33, where Re’uben dies outside his hometown in Wallachia and later his brother has legal problems with regard to his power of Re’uben’s will.

1.6.2.1 Credit Transactions, Debts, Loans A credit system was already in use among merchants in the Turk- ish Empire. Many sales, however, still took place on a cash basis. The creditors, of course, would earn a commission on receiving the money, and they would often claim twenty to thirty per cent of the profit. When merchandise was lost or stolen, there was often a problem with deciding where exactly financial responsibility lay. Letters of credit or

81 Jews were active in similar commerce in the Balkans and were significant in regional markets. Benbassa and Rodrigue, in Sephardi Jewry, give a historical account of the commercial life of the sixteenth century Ottoman Jews and of the degree of business relations between the Jews and their Christian, Arab and Turkish neighbours. Apart from responsa, historical sources for the period are scarce (Benbassa & Rodri- gue 2000: 36–65). Note in responsa 3 how the community appears to have a good relationship with Turkish traders Mr Zieni and Mr Cara. Also, in the same responsa, Re’uben requests to be allowed to trade freely with his merchant friends. Osref Bie, a Turkish moneylender in text 19, illustrates good business relationships between Jews and Gentiles. 82 For background information on the Ottoman judicial system see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 268–271). 38 chapter one bills of exchange were the standard means of representing the debt (c.f. texts 15, 16, 18, 26, 36, 39 and 80).83 Moneylending, guarantees, agents and the issue of financial securities are illustrated in the responsa.84 For instance, in text 37, Musa came to borrow money from a moneylender called Yišma’el Baça with interest and securities. However, this moneylender was afraid that even with a security, Musa would not be available at the time of repayment. So, through the intervention of a Jewish person called Re’uben, who agreed to be a guarantor and pay the difference in case of a shortfall after selling the securities, the money was lent to Musa. Musa then went abroad. The moneylender went to claim his money from Musa, but could not find him. So he went to Re’uben, who told him to first sell the securities and that he would pay the difference. Turkish moneylenders appear accordingly.85 Osref Bie was the moneylender in text 19, the moneylender from Cogiena appears in text 18 and Zulfikar (text 13:4) was asked to lend money with interest by Ab̠raham Primo. Responsa 72 in R. Trani’s collection concerns Elias Mapota’s claim of one hundred bars of lead from the orphans of the deceased Mošeh.

83 (1) Letters of credit were referred to in the responsa as letras, letras de cam[b]io. Interestingly, although the cambio was a well-known feature of medieval commerce, apparently known to Jewish merchants and practised by them, yet the cambio as a mode of effecting insurance only appears in the rabbinic legal literature in the sixteenth century. In the Middle Ages the cambium, the contract of exchange, was a prominent feature in effecting property insurance. It had two forms: sale and loan. In the case of a loan it was a combination of exchange and credit where the loan was to be paid in a currency differing from the one of the original loan. However, the Jews did not develop the cambio as an insurance scheme, though they adopted it in their business dealings (Passamaneck 1974: 101–102). (2) Text 19 concerns goods lost at sea and the issue of the guarantee / insurance. 84 Illustrations include responsum 57 where Re’uben guarantees Simon 250 ducats in order to go to Egypt, confirming this and the conditions of repayment in writing. Simon travelled frequently between Venice and Egypt and on one of these journeys his money was stolen. Re’uben refuses to reimburse. Text 44 illustrates the agent in action. Case 47 shows a handwritten letter from Simon to Re’uben regarding payment. Later the receipt is lost, and more evidence is needed regarding the details of this financial transaction. Case 51 entails a disputed loan certificate confirming a debt of 100 gold ducats owed by two men to Re’uben. 85 The common practice of Jews borrowing money from Turks was explained by the fact that much of Turkish commerce was conducted by the Jews. Jewish merchants borrowed money in order to conduct their businesses. There were also instances of Christians borrowing from Jews (Goodblatt 1952: 123). There were Jewish bankers in Constantinople and Salonica. The customary interest on loans ranged between 6 and 13% (Goodblatt 1952: 54). introduction 39

Elias suggests that he gave Mošeh money to purchase one hundred bars of lead, which Mošeh in turn sent to his brother-in-law Baruk̠ in Egypt, with his agent Yosef. Thereafter, Mošeh wrote to Yosef instruct- ing him to use the 100 bars of lead for other stock on his return from Egypt to Salonica. Elias’s claim is challenged by Abraham, the guardian of Mošeh’s orphans. The testimony presents the exchange of letters regarding this supposed debt. It starts with a clear account of the lead being sent to Baruk̠ via the agent, who seems to be Mošeh’s cousin, Yosef (ll. 2–10). The letter depicts the circumstances of trade among sixteenth-century merchants, between such cities as Salonica and Venice, and countries like Flanders and Egypt.86 The cloth and paper industries flourished on a grand scale. Custom duty was ‘paid at 5% on merchandise imported by Jews or Christians, and 3% on goods imported by Mus- lims (Ihnasoğlu 2001: 623–625) (Goodblatt 1952: 51). This discrimination led to Jewish merchants attempting to avoid payment of duty. It is possible that Mošeh did not separate the bars of lead from his own merchandise because he was trying to avoid some payment of duty, perhaps on arrival in Egypt, or to avoid theft by official carriers. Rob- beries of merchandise were frequent at the time. Text 26 in our corpus concerns an unpaid debt that originated in Ancona. In 1555, Pope Paul IV decreed that all Marranos in Ancona be arrested and their property confiscated (Roth 1992: 140–141). All former Marranos were to be tried by a court of the Inquisition and, if found guilty, were to be burned. Yosef Nasi and his mother-in-law, Dona Gracia Mendes pleaded with the Sultan for the release of those who were Ottoman subjects. Eventually, the Turkish Marranos were released, but twenty four others were burned at the stake. Jewish merchants attempted to boycott the port of Ancona and the Papal states as a whole. Their activities were transferred to the neighbouring port of Peśaro. The boycott finally failed because of pressure from the Jews of Ancona, who claimed that it would ruin all the Jews living under Papal rule and would bring reprisals upon them. The city of Ancona suffered many consequences. Many Christian merchants were bank- rupted; many merchants were unable to import merchandise produced

86 It is interesting that also in 1267 these types of business dealings were recorded: ‘When David ben Solomon wished to move a huge amount of capital from Cairo to Qayrawan in 1267 he asked his friend Isaac ben Abraham to take the money as a loan from him in Egypt and to repay it to him later in the Tunisian city’ (Reif 2000: 193). 40 chapter one in Turkey, including hides and leather. The sale of cloth produced in Ancona also declined (Roth 1992: 157–159). Set against this background is the case of Šemu’el Kalhi (text 26) who owed Yosef Oheb a certain sum of money. Yosef Oheb passed on this debt to Hodari.87 The text says that Kalhi paid the questioner’s mother 84 escudos but still owed her money. The question is whether Kalhi is obliged to pay this debt. The debt was originally incurred in Ancona, but when the parties moved to Pesaro, the way in which these transactions took place changed, necessitating consultation with a legal authority to help them solve their dilemma. Notable too is text 28 referring to a certain Re’uben of Pesaro, who was sent on behalf of the Salonica community on a charity fund-raising trip to Constantinople. He was given 3,000 aspers in expenses and his integrity is questioned. In another complex case (text 74) a widow was owed money by Re’uben by a fixed date. As she wanted to return to her native country she gave her document to Šim‘on to collect the debt on the due date. Whilst abroad, she regularly wrote to Šim‘on to remind him of his duty to collect the loan; she also mentioned that one of her children was preparing to marry and she would need the money. Šim‘on ignored all her letters and allowed Re’uben to use the money for another year. Re’uben says that he was ready to repay the money, but agreed to keep it for another year as he knew of the widow’s difficulties. He agreed to pay interest as the money would be well invested. Šim‘on says that he was acting in good faith, as he thought it would be a shame to drain the capital if it could be well invested. The widow agreed that at the end of the year Šim‘on should collect the money from Re’uben and place it on her behalf in a secure, low-risk investment. He should also sign a document agreeing to this. Šim‘on agreed, collected the money and together with his brother Levi made the investment. It is significant that he did not send a signed document stating that this was a risk-free investment.88 The widow dies and her children demand the money, claiming that their mother only left the money with Šim‘on provided he sent this document. Šim‘on’s agreement to this condition is clear in his letter

87 The text refers toel mal en Ancona (text 26:19) ‘the evil in Ancona’ when describing the circumstances of the debt. This is a direct reference to the Ancona boycott described above. 88 A risk-free investment sounds unlikely at the time! introduction 41 to her. He has had plenty of time to send the document, but has failed to do so.89 Hence her children claim the capital plus interest from the investment, as it is now too late to produce the document. The children also have a letter that Šim‘on wrote to Yehudah, a relative of the widow, after her death, in which he denies asking for the money and makes no mention of the condition regarding a document. The children say that Šim‘on’s intentions were doubtful when he collected the money from Re’uben and that he always intended to keep this money against their mother’s will. The letter, in Šim‘on’s defence, deals with several issues. First, he explains how the widow allowed him to invest the money (74:5–10), in order to prove that he had permission to do so. Nevertheless, the respondent’s verdict emphasizes that he does not believe Šim‘on. Later, Šim‘on explains how he decided to give his brother Levi the money to invest on her behalf. This proves to be commercially unwise; Levi lost the money. Apparently, Levi, ‘una mañana de Šabat que él fue a tefilá olvidó la llave en el sayo de ḥol’ (one Sabbath morning that he went to pray he forgot his key in his weekday garment). Later ‘el arel que andaba ala lert(a) tomó la llave y abrió el cašón y tomó de una bolsa su ğilies, que tenía enella y tenía enel cašón es tonces más de 50 mil lebanim’ (the Gentile who was on the lookout took the key and opened the drawer and took out his purse from a bag that contained these in the drawer then there were 50,000 aspers) (74:40–42). This accounted for the first of Šim‘on’s losses, in consequence of an unproven burglary. It appears that Levi suffered other financial losses, though the causes of these losses are not explained. The letter merely states that Levi had often suffered losses that he tried to make up: ‘. . . sin más querer dar mas cuenta ni raźón sinon que había perdido otras pérdidas yque había pagado enque el fin loque medišo que con el tienpo ganase que el mepa garía. Esto es señor loque merespondió tanto de lo uno como de lo otro’ (74:49–54) (for which he had decided never to be accountable, or give any reason about the fact that he had lost this amount and made other losses. He said he had paid, and that he would pay me in the future when he would be making a profit. This is, Gentlemen, what he replied to me on each matter).

89 This is one of many examples of the text of evidence of postal networks that were in operation at the time. 42 chapter one

Finally, Šim‘on adds that he has no option but to wait in the hope of retrieving this money, ‘. . . con viene tener paçiençia y esperar a loque dirá el zemán’ (it is beneficial to be patient and wait for what time will tell) (74:60–61). Šim‘on tries to establish his innocence by blam- ing his brother, but the widow’s children believe that Šim‘on always intended to keep the money. Šim‘on also tries to reach an agreement with the children, on condition that they consent to wait indefinitely for payment. The language of this colourful case brings to life the characters with all their foibles and complexities. Šim‘on comes across as an unscru- pulous chancer; his arguments are devious and tinged with naïveté; his language is imprecise and evasive and offers no proof of the burglary that is possibly a convenient fiction designed to delay repayment indefinitely. He appears to be struggling to make a living in a rather pica- resque manner. Religious practice is a feature of his life, ‘una mañana de Šabat que él fue a tefilá’ (74:38–39) (one Sabbath morning on his way to prayers). Such vignettes may be the one of the only historical sources for Jewish life in the region.90 When Šim‘on makes his final offer, attempting to reach a solution by inviting the children to await payment indefinitely, he says, ‘esto es ba’avonot todo lo que . . .’ (this is, for my sins, all that . . .) (74:58). The notion that his predicament is a form of paying for one’s sins in this world is familiar in Jewish thought that stems from the rabbinic tradition. As a result, the word ba‘avonot is frequently used by Jewish speakers.91 Šim‘on invokes the Deity in his expression ‘lema‘an Hašem’ (for the sake of God) (74:21). He purports to be firm in his beliefs and customs, but his shady ethical conduct prompts the suspicion that his paper piety is calculated simply to invoke sympathy from the judges. The documents included in this responsum are valuable from a legal/

90 Braude confirms that rabbinic responsa represent a valuable source, in addition to Jewish sermons, printed within the Ottoman Empire (Braude 1992: 228). 91 The Mishnah inKiddushin 1:10 states that: ‘He who performs one mitzvah (precept, positive commandment), good is done to him, his days are prolonged, and he inherits the land. But he who does not perform one mitzvah, good is not done to him, his days are not prolonged, and he does not inherit the land’. A view of the baraita (the external teaching of a tanna not included in the Mishnah) says that God’s response is to inflict suffering upon the righteous that will expiate their sins and then enjoy complete bliss in the world to come (Hartman 1988: 941). From this thought stems the notion that one expiates one’s sins through suffering and hence Simon’s use of ba‘avonot ‘for my sins’ in this context. See also ba‘avonotenu los somos mehalelim (text 4:6). introduction 43 halakhic perspective and also for the vivid portrait they offer of the enigmatic Šim‘on.

1.6.3 Enactments and Communal Ordinances In a similar way to the case of vintners (text 1), the case (text 3) presented herewith concerns the protection of the wool industry. Rab- bis were involved with safeguarding the economic welfare of their congregants and with strengthening businesses in their community.92 They carried this out by instituting many enactments, which held the authority of Jewish law, with the ultimate sanction of the excommunicatory ban.93 Examples of these enactments occur in the textile industry, whose producers were so keen to acquire raw wool from Gentile peasants that they would outbid each other, raising the price of the commod- ity, which in turn substantially reduced their profits. An appreciation of the scale of the textile industry aids an understanding of the rabbis’ apparently excessive protectiveness of the wealth of their congregants. The wealth of congregants affected the wealth of the community, as taxes were collected by the community and passed on to the state. Therefore, it was in the interest of the community to protect the wealth of its members. The enactment would comprise fixing a price to protect the interests of all the merchants.94 The wool industry was subject to many other enactments, ranging from prohibitions against buying raw wool from outside the city to forbidding the wearing of clothes made outside the city. The rabbis sought to eliminate competition among their people. However, it is believed that Rabbi Samuel de Medina was less rigorous in this practice (Goodblatt 1952: 57–58).

92 As the Sephardi textile industry began to face serious problems, the price of raw wool began to rise. Given the lucrative nature of the sale of wool abroad, the rabbinical leadership of the Salonica and Edirne communities banned Jews from being involved with its export (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 40). 93 The gravity of the threat of excommunication can be appreciated in responsum 21, where the respondent states that one has to be stricter in the judgement where it involves a ḥerem, the excommunicatory ban, see chap. 4 n. 36. 94 ‘In order to eliminate this harmful practice it was decreed that a fixed price per bale be established and no one be permitted to offer a higher price. It was also enacted that raw wool be bought only on credit, since some merchants were able to get it at a lower price owing to the ready money that they could offer at the time of sale’ (Goodblatt 1952: 56). 44 chapter one

The issue discussed in text 3 is that of buying wool at a fixed price. People were forced to buy only from certain individuals in order to protect the businesses of congregants. The enactment, recorded in Judeo-Spanish, consists of about fourteen lines of emphatic language formulating the prohibition. For example ‘queno sea ośado ningun yehudí hombre ni muǰer de merca’ lana salvo a dos y medio el velleçino de contado y a tres fiado’ (text 3:3–5) (that no Jewish man or woman dares to buy wool except at two and a half per amount of wool in cash and at three on credit). The enactment begins with the phrase ‘prim- eramente ordenamos’ (text 3:1–2) (first we command). The rabbinic enactments are forceful and authoritative. The penalty for transgressing the enactment is explained, pagará‘ al qahal eḥad as(pro) por vellecino de cuanta lana fićiere’ (text 3:12–13) (that he should pay the community one asper per amount of the wool that he makes). Finally, it is made clear that anyone who breaks the rule ‘arur hu bayom’ (text 3:21) (he will be cursed on that day). The expression relating to the curse is in Hebrew. The community had the power to exercise the excommunicatory ban as a form of punishment. The pronouncing of curses by the community to their members was also another form of punishment.95 The case sent to Medina is that two days after this announcement was promulgated Re’uben, a congregant, asks to be allowed to buy wool from a wholesaler who is his friend. Apparently some of the wardens consent while others disagree. Re’uben goes ahead and buys the wool. Those wardens who are unhappy with his disobedience claim that Re’uben is liable to pay a fine. Re’uben claims he had permission and owes nothing. A letter from the Lisbon community in Salonica is sent to Adarbi (text 32). The subject is a letter about theminhagim [religious customs] of the Lisbon community in Salonica.96 The sages and leaders of the community met to decide which laws should be reinforced. This meeting took place on the Sabbath, 17 Tamuz 1525. The problem arises because some people had removed their names from the communal register, some had listed their names in other communities; others were travellers benefiting from the amenities offered by the Lisbon

95 See also texts 4:13, 53:8, 9, 83:53, 54, for references to threats of curses cast by the community on their members as a form of punishment. 96 It poses a question identical to another one sent to Ḥ ak̠am Zvi Ashkenazi in seventeenth century Amsterdam, Ḥ ak̠am Tzvi 38. introduction 45 community. Since the people of Salonica had the communal burden of taxpaying, it was decided that no-one was allowed to remove his name from the communal register. Each communal organisation in Salon- ica was responsible for paying taxes on behalf of its members to the Ottoman tax collectors. Physicians, rabbis and synagogue guards were exempt from taxation as they spent the majority of their time engaged in study and religion. Regular community members were required to pay tax, but visitors and travellers were exempt since they presumably paid taxes in their own communities.97 Additionally, it was decided, ‘non se podía apartar qahal pequeño quier qahal grande ni faćer bet hakeneset meḥadaš nosaf al baté hakenesiot ašer hem hayom beSalo- niqi’ (text 32:2–3) (not to divide any small or large community, and not to make a new synagogue in addition to the existing synagogues at this time in Salonica). In other words, for tax and economic reasons the leaders had to protect their current communities, by not allowing members to start up other synagogues elsewhere. This became a taqanah, a ruling made by rabbis that is obligatory on the community.98 Rabbinic enactments had legal force and therefore this case represents a powerful attempt by the rabbis to protect their communities against dissolution. This enactment aims to ensure the financial, and ultimately the physical survival, of this Lisbon community. An interesting responsa sent to Medina (text 4) concerns Jewish traders, from the communities of Monastir and Belgrade, wanting to participate in a trade fair that happened to take place on the days between the festivals of New Year and the Day of Atonement, and the festival of Sukot, which would sometimes desecrate these Holy days. Since the journey to the fair was dangerous and their merchandise was often stolen, the rabbis believed that there were too many risks and prohibited Jews from attending this fair. They signed an agreement that was accepted by all the merchants and local people. However, four years later some merchants decided to attend this market again and claimed that they were never included in the agreement, which was anyway time-bound. Their argument was that if they attended the fair they would be able to salvage some of the stolen merchandise and, in any case, there had been so many decrees in Monastir [Bitolj] that people no longer paid attention to them. Their Rabbi, Abraham

97 See Shaw (1991: 77). 98 See taqanah in Appendix 3. 46 chapter one

Gascon, ruled that the decree must be respected; the case is submitted to Medina. As to the issue of the time limit, Medina agrees that three years is stipulated in the ban, but if returning to the markets entails the desecration of the Holy days, he cannot condone this. The text states (text 4:15–16) ‘por tienpo de tres años, y tanbién acabo de este tiempo’ ([idiomatic for] for at least a period of three years). The ban says that (text 4:8–9), ‘de no venirmos ningun judío morador de Monesterio ni de ningún otro lugar a la dita feria’ (that no Jew living in Monastir or anywhere else should attend this fair). It also admits that: (text 4:2–6) ‘verdad que vimos la sakaná gedolá que es venir a esta feria etroga y tanbién que los más de los años acaece ser entre los mo‘adim de Roš Hašaná veyom hakipurim veḥag haSukot que ba‘avonotenu los somos meḥalelim’ (it is true that we saw great danger in coming to this trade fair and also that most years it takes place between the New Year, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles; for our sins we transgress them). Text 1 sent to Medina consists of a communal ordinance based on preserving the trade of the city’s Jews. The wine-producing industry appeared to thrive for several centuries in Rhodes (Angel 1980: 43). In fact this question comes to Medina from Rhodes. In order to safeguard the production of wine, the community passed an ordinance forbidding all imported wine for the next twenty years and also prohibiting wine coming from Candia and Anakasia.99 The ruling is in a clear, emphatic twenty-two lines of Judeo-Spanish with a high percentage of relevant Hebrew legal terms. This proved to be a popular responsum as a source of information on trading and wine in the sixteenth century and has been quoted by many historians.100 This lengthy passage from the rabbinic ordinance demonstrates the clarity of rabbinic rulings. The question concerns the permission for consumption of the wine if it were to be made outside the city in the house of a Jew and with no Gentile contact.101 It appears that this question was sent to R. David ben Zimra, who ruled positively. Medina

99 Candia is modern Crete and Anaskasia is modern Chios, an island in the Aegean Sea. 100 ‘They (the Jews) limited the importation of wines and other alcoholic drinks not only to provide secure markets for local producers but also to prevent Jews from angering Muslim religious officials by selling this product to Muslims, for whom it was absolutely forbidden’ (Shaw 1991: 65). 101 This case is also discussed in Goodblatt (1952: 53). introduction 47 is astonished at this. He cites the example of observing the Day of Atonement for two days instead of one. If a person takes on this onus of an extra day, then he is bound by his commitment.102 So too, even if the wine were made in the house of a Jew, since all imported wines are forbidden, the prohibition stands. The enactment states that wines produced in vineyards outside the town or where Gentiles are involved in the business, will be deemed unfit for consumption in Jewish homes and will therefore be prohibited to the city’s Jews: ll. 16–18, ‘Od qibelú kulam de no beber vino dende la vendimia de 5299 vehal’á sino103 fuere hecho en la tierra de dientro, y ningún otro tiqún valga lehak̠šer hayayin hana’aś(á) ḥus ̣ la‘ir vek̠u(leh), ‘ad ki kulam gazerú ‘alehe(m) isur badab̠ar (they all accepted the decree not to drink wine from the harvest of 5299 onwards, if it was not made on land inside the town perimeter, and no other rule will be valid to certify as kosher the wine made outside the town etc. They all agreed that such wine would be prohibited). The ruling will also apply to the wines produced elsewhere. Wine trading has to conform to these rulings if the produce is to be considered kosher. The passage starts with Yosef Levy’s example of the way he made his wine ll. 1–2, ‘en la tierra’ (in his land). It is important to understand the implication of the possessive pronoun in this case; it is because Levy produced the wine himself that his product is trusted, l. 3, ‘por lo cual se escuśa toda sospecha’ (that is therefore above suspicion). The lack of Gentile intervention in the vintage process is essential to render the wine kosher. The enactment follows on l. 12, ‘faćer los vinos behek̠šer en las viñas’ (to make the wines kosher in the vineyards), and ll. 18–19, ‘ningún otro tiqún valga lehak̠šir hayayin hana‘as(á) ḥus ̣ la‘ir’ (no other rule is valid to certify the wine made outside the town as kosher).

1.6.4 Some Interesting Depictions of Individuals and Legal Scenarios: Marriage and the Agunah There are twenty-nine testimonies in this collection that directly concern women as they are on the halakhic validity of marriage and on

102 Discussed in the Hebrew response, see Benaim 2006: 527.ll.29–30. 103 Read: si no, meaning ‘if not’, as opposed to ‘but’. 48 chapter one the problems of the agunah.104 There are also another fourteen testimonies on wills, many of which involve women and women’s issues. Altogether it is fair to say that over half the testimonies touch on the subject of women in Jewish law or on the depiction of the woman of the sixteenth century from many angles. In this section some of these texts are analysed specifically in relation to each of their responsa as a whole and in relation to their legal, historical, social or other context. The institution of marriage is of great importance in Jewish society, both on an individual and national scale, and every avenue is attempted to safeguard its security (Lamdan 2000: 171). It is unsurprising, therefore, that questions were directed at the rabbinical authorities to examine the validity of marriages especially in cases where the women involved wished to marry someone else and so were seeking to annul their previous marriages. Sometimes annulment was the answer and sometimes seeking a divorce was necessary. Since marriages often concerned girls as young as twelve it was inevitable that there were issues that came to rabbinical attention in this regard. The issue of the agunot was a plight that was compounded by these women’s indeterminate status. The woman was neither married, a widow, a divorcee or single, she was not entitled to collect her ketubah or remarry, she lost out on all counts (Lamdan 2000: 202). Leni- ency was practised by rabbis when ruling in agunot cases. This softer approach in rabbinic arbitration dates back to ancient times and the Rambam himself said it is wrongful to scrutinise the evidence of iggun cases (Lamdan 2000: 202–203).105 This section also examines some cases of agunot in particular those whose husband’s death was uncon- clusively proven such as those who drowned at sea or supposedly died on a journey away from their abode. Text 38 concerns the validity of a marriage. It seeks to establish that the object had to be owned by the man offeringkiddushin .106 Part A presents Yehudah Caro who asked his brother Šemu’el if he had any spending money. Šemu’el said he had half a piastre, he took it out and he called his wife [to be] who was preparing a grand festive meal following circumcision. He said to her, ‘Raḥel, take this piastre as kiddushin’. She took it gladly.

104 See Appendix 3 on agunah. 105 For a thorough analysis on the position of women in sixteenth century society seen through the eyes of the responsa literature, see Lamdan 2000. 106 See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. introduction 49

This particular case in Adarbi’s responsa highlights an interesting issue in kiddushin.107 The kiddushin took place without Raḥel’s relatives being present.108 The issue is that Raḥel’s relatives are not present when she accepts the money. But according to Adarbi, an important legal point can be inferred from further illustrations from the text that she already was his intended wife. There is evidence that he was familiar with her. An eye-witness says that he saw Šemu’el Vida Caro take out a twenty-asper coin from his purse. He said to his spouse who was cleaning out the spinach: ‘Raḥel, take this coin as kiddushin from me’. She took it; she laughed and put it in her purse. She was dressed in red (text 38:5–9). It can be inferred from the expressions ‘estaba mondando espinacas’ (she was cleaning the spinach), ‘y se rió’ (and she laughed), that she is already quite intimate with her future spouse’s family. She understands her commitment.109 The couple’s familiarity strengthens the credibility of this marriage. Yehudah’s intended wife is comfortably involved in helping in her future sister-in-law’s kitchen in the prepara- tions for her baby’s circumcision party. The surroundings, the context, the close friendship all depicted in the language, are legally important. Hence, according to Adarbi, the marriage is valid, and Raḥel therefore requires a get, a divorce, in order to be free to remarry. Raḥel’s laughter as she accepts kiddushin could have been due to shyness or exuberance, or perhaps a sign of existing intimacy with her future spouse and his family. The scene of the women preparing food for the circumcision ceremony is familiar in Jewish life throughout the ages to this day.110 The fact that her involvement in this way with the family helps to determine the legal validity of the marriage, substantiates the view that it is essential to understand the language in order

107 This case is examined in my article, Benaim (1999a). 108 Freimann discusses the importance for a girl’s relatives to be present at the time when she accepts the object of kiddushin (Freimann 1964: 166). See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. 109 In the second last paragraph of Adarbi’s reply to this question (not in the Appen- רחל זו היתה משודכת של ר' שמואל הנז' זה dix) the view that couple are familiar is and that ‘Rachel was already his intended wife several days כמה ימים והיה לבו גס בה beforehand and he took her for granted’. Later in the same paragraph, Adarbi asserts that the couple had already been drinking together and are familiar with each other, so it can be assumed that when he offers herkiddushin they are both willing (Divre Rivot 209: second last paragraph of the reply). 110 See Appendix 3 on berit milah. 50 chapter one to appreciate every nuance and detail that help to convey the couple’s existing familiarity. Text 54 depicts Ab̠raham relating that he was coming from Ancona to Kastil Novo, when he encountered a storm: ‘hubieron gran tormenta’ (there was a great storm) (54:3–4). The sailor then, in a very colloquial style, tells him that if he finds that storm frightening, he should have experienced the one he went through on his return from Egypt. He says that he and a few others survived, the rest drowned. The witness asks him if any Jews perished and he replies in the affirmative. He then asks if he knew any of them, to which he replies: ‘que non conocía sinon aun Ya‘aqob Pardo caśado en Saloniqui y que levido muerto en tierra’ (that he did not know anyone except Ya‘aqob Pardo from Salonica who was married, and that he saw him dead on dry land) (54:12–13). The witness repeats the detail that the sailor recognized Pardo on dry land. Recognition of the victim is important to exonerate his widow of the agunah status.111 Understanding of the subtleties of the testimonies is crucial to the legal outcome, as can be appreciated in the close analyses of the texts. In the light of the problems faced by agunot it is unsurprising that a precept exists, stating that the rabbis should try to find a legal way for the agunah to remarry. In one of his responsa, Maimonides 112 claims that it is a transgression when an unjustified onerous application of the Law is performed by a rabbi. In any case, since a competent judge is essential lest the law is not executed to perfection, through the unacceptable circumstance of legalizing a sinful relationship, higher legal authorities must obviously be consulted. Ruth Lamdan, who wrote on the status of Jewish women in the 16th century, believes that the rabbinic judges showed special consideration for women (agunot) in cases of desertion by their husbands. She argues that only in this field does rabbinic law grant judges a degree of flexibility; there was also the covert threat that women whose affairs were left unresolved would be drawn into immorality or would convert to another faith. In view of this fear, she shows how ways were found for even greater leniency; as a result, close to 75% of women whose

111 See Appendix 3 on agunah. 112 Discussed in Elon in 1975: 412. introduction 51 problems were brought to court were granted permission to remarry (Lamdan 1992, 2005: 1). An example of an agunah case can be seen in Medina’s Choshen Mishpat 382 (text 27) Medina was often faced with such cases and was known to rule leniently in favour of these women to lessen their suffering. This short testimony reveals that the sender is in possession of a letter from Ancona dated the 4th of Nissan. Ancona, north-west of Rome, was an important port in the 16th century. The letter explains that a certain Samuel Ṣuriel tells of a boat that sank as a consequence of freak weather and at a distance of ten miles at sea. Only seven people were saved from the disaster. Šelomoh Attar, one of the victims, was found after three days. ̣urielS laid out a large sum of money in order to find Attar, and after finding him dead, says that he was buried where there were other Jewish graves. The question is whether Šelomoh Attar’s wife may remarry on the basis of this written record alone. If it appears, prima facie, that the written testimony is insufficient then the importance of supporting circumstantial testimony becomes clear. The question is whether the testimony is sufficient in this written record to justify confirming the death of a man presumed drowned, and allowing her to remarry. It must also be established that the dead man is Šelomoh Attar, in other words, if there is proof of his identity. The questioner is concerned that the record did not confirm that anyone actually buried him; it only says, ‘allá se enterró donde diće havían otros qebarim de ǰudiós’, (there he was buried where they say there were other Jewish graves) (27:9–10).The problem lies in the fact that he omits to say that he, or someone specific, actually buried him. The other legal problem is the doubt raised by the fact neither the victim’s full name (in the sense that his name did not conform to the accepted structure of Šelomoh ben . . .) or his father’s name, or the name of his city is mentioned in the testimony. If this were a case where the witness to the death doesn’t know the victim then a problem would arise. Here, it appears from the text that the testifier had a real cognisance of the corpse, and that he conveys news about someone who is obviously known to him. He writes ‘solamente haćerle saber. . . .’ (27:1–2) only to recount the incident. There is no doubt as to the truth of Šelomoh Attar’s identity. Ṣuriel himself appears to be well regarded, and since he undertook the financial expenses of recovering the corpse, ‘espendió harto dinero’ (27:8–9), he had to be a man of means. These details point to the fact that the case deals with reputable people whose testimony is credible. 52 chapter one

Interestingly, Medina starts his answer by affirming that the widow of Šelomoh Attar is free to remarry. He then sets out to deal with the legal issues, of which there are two. Medina explains that two witnesses are normally needed to establish evidence of a husband’s death, but in the case of the agunah the evidential requirement can be bent; and if a woman says her husband is dead she is believed. Regarding doubt, every doubt has the status of a Torah doubt and the woman must remain forbidden to other men, in other words, she is still considered a married woman. Then Medina introduces the analogy of first-born animals that can be rendered unfit for sacrifice if they possess a blemish. The definition of a blemish is debatable. In this first-born issue the sin ismide rabbanan.113 Today, when the Temple does not exist, the sin does not carry the force of Biblical law. The result of Medina’s discussion is that if the sin is rabbinical then one may rule more leniently in terms of the exactness of the physical identification. Attar’s corpse was on dry land for a while, during which changes would have occurred, making identification difficult. The parallel is drawn between the identification of a corpse and of a blemish on an animal; both are types of physical identification. There is further need for clarification on the identification issue. A rabbinical prohibition forbids a woman to remarry when her husband has drowned at sea, i.e. in waters that have no limit. In the case of someone who has disappeared in a limited stretch of water, the assumption is that if they do not return they have drowned. If the man disappears at sea, the woman is supposed to wait seven years before remarrying, but if she does remarry, her second husband is not pressurised to divorce her. In the above case, ‘dicho Šelomoh se halló acabo de tres días’, (the said Šelomoh was found after three days). It is not specified whether he was found at sea or on dry land. If the former, the salt water would have preserved him. Rabbi Isaac Alfasi says that five days in the water is the maximum time that a corpse will remain identifiable; in this case it was three days. There is a double doubt here, whether he was found on the sea or not, or whether on the land and not on the sea. Medina supports his decision with the view expressed in the Tosafot that a woman whose husband has drowned at sea is allowed to remarry if the body is found whole, even if it was left on dry land.

113 By Rabbinic as opposed to Biblical law. introduction 53

The fact that Attar was buried ‘donde dićen havían otros qebarim de ǰudiós’, ‘where they say there were other Jewish graves’ (27:9–10) seems to be sufficient evidence for De Medina to rule in favour of this agunah. He maintains that if the corpse were not complete then it would have been mentioned. Medina rules leniently in the woman’s favour because if she were left without either a husband or permission to remarry it would be an injustice. As he claims, he is following the requirement of his predecessors. The phrase ‘donde dićen havían. . . .’, ‘where they say there were other Jewish graves’, is arguably vague; there is some certainty on whether there really were other Jewish graves. Furthermore the point made earlier, about the fact that no specific person actually buried him, could also influence the respondent to rule otherwise. Yet, as Morris Goodblatt observes, Medina relied strongly on common sense: ‘at times when the strict interpretation of the letter of the Law would lead to a decision contrary to common sense, he would by a process of reinterpretation stress the spirit rather than the letter’ (Goodblatt 1952: 37). Another agunah case (text 54) is presented to Joseph ben David known by the acronym of Maharival a Turkish rabbi and judge (posek). Born in Monastir, in 1534 he moved to Salonica and later to Constan- tinople in 1550. One of the testimonies here is quite similar in text 48 sent to Rabbi David ben Zimra and spoken by the same Yisḥ ̣aq. How- ever, another testimony is included in Ibn Lev’s responsa collection that is absent in text 48. As opposed to other situations here the same case is sent in varying forms to both respondents who, incidentally, reach the same conclusion; that Jacob Pardo’s wife is free to remarry. The first testimony, of Abraham de Leon, is taken on Wednesday 20th Kislev 1549 in court, on Monday 2nd Teb̠et 1549 the testimony of Yisḥ ̣aq de Molina is taken in Salonica. So the obvious question is why wasn’t the first testimony included in the Rabbi ben Zimra’s responsa since it was taken prior to Yisḥ ̣aq de Molina’s? Abraham’s words are lively and expressive. He relates that he was coming from Ancona to Kastil Novo and he was experiencing a storm: ‘hubieron gran tormenta’ (there was a great storm) (54:2–3). The sailor then in a very colloquial style tells him that if he finds that storm frightening, he should have experienced the one he went through on his return from Egypt. He says that he and a few others survived, the rest drowned. The witness asks him if any Jews perished and he replies in the affirmative. He then asks if he knew any of them, to which he replies: ‘que noconoçía sinon 54 chapter one aun Ya‘aqob Pardo caśado en Saloniqui, yque levido muerto en tierra. (that he did not know anyone except Jacob Pardo from Salonica who was married, and I saw him dead on dry land) (54:9–11). The witness repeats the detail that the sailor recognized Pardo on dry land. In this testimony the emphasis of the language could suggest that the sailor knew Pardo even better than the second testimony suggests in text 48. Hence this testimony would reinforce the legal argument that the Gentile witness was thoroughly familiar with the victim and his identification of the body is legally acceptable. So it is possible that the first testimony was either omitted through error, or perhaps that whoever submitted the question wanted the verdict to go against the widow’s right to remarry. Ibn Lev starts by confessing to having passed judgement many years previously this in a case concerning the agunah of Yisḥ ̣aq Zadok. He had ruled that the widow remain an agunah, and she did so for ten years. After this time a Jew testified that he had heard from someone who had witnessed the dead bodies on the shore, one of which was Yisḥ ̣aq Zadok, whom he buried. He has now permitted this woman to remarry, even though the corpse was more than three days old, which would normally be legally unacceptable. Such is the case when the witness who saw the corpse is present in the court and can be inter- rogated. In these cases, where the witness present only hears about the case, there is room for flexibility. To substantiate this leniency Ibn Lev brings proof from Maimonides. Ibn Lev feels that on this reasoning, Pardo’s widow is free to remarry. The only difficulty he identifies is the fact that neither witness says he buried the victim, which as discussed above, is a legal requirement according to Maimonides. Ibn Lev adds that it cannot be assumed that the first witness buried him and forgot to tell the second. Ibn Lev resolves this legal obstacle by drawing an argument from the Ran [Nissim ben Re’uben 1320–1380], who explains that the notion of the witness burying the victim is commensurate with the notion of his touching the victim. Since it is likely the witness touched the victim and probably forgot to mention it, as it is a minor detail, hence the testimony is considered to have fulfilled the requirement of the witness having buried the victim. Finally, Ibn Lev states that together with most early commentators who do not need to hear the phrase ‘I buried him’ (unless in the case of the wife’s testimony), he agrees that she is certainly permitted to remarry. Both respondents arrive at the same conclusion though by introduction 55 different arguments. The matter of the missing testimony in text 48 remains unresolved. Sasson deals with yet another agunah case (text 68) concerning a husband drowned at sea. The case is presented from the viewpoint of the witness who was working in Šelomoh David’s house. As two of the men sit down to chat, Ezra Tzadik’s daughter appears. One of them asks the other why the young girl is still unmarried. To this he replies, ‘cómo se ha de casar, que se afogó el marido dentro de la mar y non hay ‘edut sobre él’ (how can she marry if her husband drowned at sea and there is no testimony on him) (68:9–11). This phrase is flowing, realistic and colloquial. What is unclear is why Aharon asks Elias about the girl’s status if he knows it. Presumably he is checking their knowledge of the case. Aharon provides a most detailed account of the accident at sea in a fourteen-line description. In most other responsa, details of the accident are succinct and the testimony concentrates on the facts supporting the legal argument for exonerating the agunah from her status. Aharon relates in vivid detail how he was on a boat from Constanti- nople to Salonica when it sank, and the victim, Matatia Ruso, drowned together with many others. The vivid quality of this description that can be appreciated in the text is particularly evident in the language. Aharon recounts his interaction with the victim, ‘y tanbién le dišo que quería una cantarica de vino y no tuvo tiempo Matatia Ruso de tomar nada de mano de r(ebí) Aharón.’ (he also said he wanted wine, and Matatia Ruso did not have time to take anything from Aharon’s hand) (68:16–18). The Gentile travelling with Aharon also witnessed this and said that he had buried Ruso. This is a case of indirect testimony—one witness through another witness.114 The other witness cannot be questioned as he is absent, therefore his evidence of having seen the victim’s body is believed. The witness is able to describe his features: ll. 30–31 ‘aquel de la cara picada alto de cuerpo kösé’ the one with the pock marked face, with a tall body, sparsely bearded). R. Sasson insists that it is important that the witness previously knew the victim, as a description alone is legally unacceptable.115 On this point R. Sasson contradicts Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham Hakohen,

114 Ed mefi ed, the Mishnah accepts this as valid testimony in agunah cases. 115 Known as simanim in Hebrew legal language. 56 chapter one who was first consulted on this case. R. Hakohen claims that even if the Gentile witness had not mentioned to Aharon that it was Matatia Ruso but had only said it was the person ‘to whom you were talking earlier’, that would be equivalent to having given his name and father’s name. R. Hakohen opines that Ruso’s widow is permitted to remarry. Both rabbis agree on this. This is a picturesque responsum that starts with a scene in a house. The agunah appears and the conversation leads to the testimony of her husband’s death. The scene then moves to the accident at sea and to the pulling out of the bodies from the water and burying the victims: ‘en un arenal en la orilla del mar’, (in a sandpit at the sea shore) (68:32–33). The witness says ‘a los otros dos criaturas saquimos del agua’ (the other two people116 we pulled out of the water) (68:31–32), and finally he excuses himself to Aharon for being late, as he had been burying these victims.

1.6.5 A Guardianship Issue—Two Legal Views The following discussion deals with a responsum concerning a guardianship issue.117 The same question was sent to two different respondents in Salonica in the sixteenth century. Each dealt with the legal implications in different ways. The respondents referred to are R. Samuel De Medina (text 25), and R. Isaac Adarbi (text 40). The question concerns a written testimony recording a dying man’s intentions.

The Query The question refers to a certain Re’uben of Skopye, a dying man who appoints for his children three guardians who reside in Salonica. He jointly appoints his wife Clara guardian118 and makes her owner of his estate on the condition that she looks after the children and promises not to remarry for the next ten years. ‘Tomó de no se caśar por tie(m)po de diez años’ (she undertook not to remarry for ten years) (25:10–11). She must obtain the other three guardians’ consent before

116 Criaturas is a term of endearment for people, shows the human quality of the witness. 117 This discussion has been presented in part in Benaim 1998. 118 ‘When entrusted with guardianship over the person of his ward, he has the duty of directing the latter’s upbringing and education, determining his place of abode, and generally taking care of him’ (Elon 1975: 444). introduction 57 paying out any money. Re’uben sets another condition for Clara at the end of the document: she has to move to Salonica after the year of mourning, ‘con condiçión de como pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui’ (the condition was that as soon as the year of mourning was over she should go to Salonica) (25:15–16). Clara, however, is not willing to move to Salonica. She suffers from poor health, her children are still young, and in Skopye, where she lives now, she has the support of her parents-in-law, who help her with the children. She would therefore like to transfer her powers as guardian in Salonica to another person. Two interrelated questions arise from this case. First, is Clara a guardian with legal powers? Second, does she have the legal right to appoint a substitute guardian in Salonica?

The Response of Rabbi Samuel De Medina The first point examined by Medina is whether a woman can become a guardian at all, and secondly, whether Clara can remain a guardian if she does not move to Salonica. R. Medina cites Rabbi Simon ben Zemach Duran (1361–1444), who says that the Court does not appoint a woman as guardian, and that this applies a fortiori to a widow, thus a husband can definitely exclude his widow from guardianship. The Mishnah (Gittin 52a) says that a woman, a slave or a minor should not be appointed as a guardian. Rashi explains that although women do not normally bother themselves with commercial affairs, a man may appoint a woman as a guardian. The above sources indicate that there is no assumption in Jewish law that a wife is the automatic guardian of her deceased husband’s property. There is also no indication to the contrary: that a woman is prohibited from being a guardian. Yet Medina concludes that in cases where there is doubt about a woman’s suitability, she should not be appointed. To substantiate his decision he cites the Mishnah, Bava Batra 152a. This refers to a case where a dying man verbally expresses how he wants his money to be distributed but dies before his wishes are recorded. The problem is one of ambiguity—did the deceased plan to transfer the money by virtue of the special laws applying to a dying person, which enable him to override the normal rules regarding the formalisation of a gift, or did he plan to do so in a regular manner? Medina opines that in cases of uncertainty, money should not be distributed, and people should not be appointed guardians. The next issue is the intention of the dying man. His final wishes clearly state that he does not want his wife to stay in Skopye. Salonica 58 chapter one has a more religious environment than Skopye. Salonica even used to shut down its port on the Sabbath. There is also a higher standard of health in Salonica. These factors militate against allowing Clara to continue as a guardian in Skopye. Furthermore, communication between the guardians would be difficult if they were not all in the same town. The widow cannot be an effective guardian by staying in Skopye, since she cannot act without consulting the other guardians. From a practical perspective the guardians need to live in the same place. Therefore, in answer to her question whether she can appoint a guardian in her stead, R. Medina says that the problem lies in her own dubious status as guardian. If she has no power or right to be a guardian herself, how can she appoint someone else? However, Medina then cites Maimonides and Jacob ben Asher to demonstrate that the Court is the ‘father of orphans’, so if the person she wishes to appoint is one who would be beneficial to the orphans, the Court may award guardianship to such a person. According to Medina, the Court must also ensure that the other three guardians approve the appointment of this fourth person. Only then, and if the Court deems appointment of a new guardian to be advantageous for the children, can the widow be answered affirmatively. Close analysis of the testimony reveals features that could give a different slant to the case than that portrayed in the responsum. Argu- ably, Clara’s failure to fulfil the requirement of moving to Salonica should not debar her from either continuing as guardian or appointing a substitute. This emerges from an analysis of the dying man’s written intention. He appears extremely keen that his spouse should be a guardian; emphatic words like ‘patrona y señora’, owner and mistress, (25:6–7), express this strong intention. He is also proud that Clara undertook an oath, ‘de su propia veluntad’, out of her own volition (25:9–10), not to remarry for ten years. She has committed herself to this, and thus shows her undivided loyalty to her position as guardian. The majority of the text deals with the husband’s wish that she should become guardian of his children and property: ‘mando que ella sea apotropiśa y mande mi faćienda con tal que no faga ninguna cośa sin orden ni conseǰo de dichos apotroposim y ella pueda dar quitança cual quier debdor mío ansí que dar (I command that she should be a guardian; as long as she does not pay for anything without the consent or advice of the forementioned guardians, she can settle financial introduction 59

matters with any of my creditors) (25:11–14). Only in the last line does he stipulate the condition that he would like her to move to Salonica. If she were unable to fulfil this condition for health reasons, he might perhaps have wished to remove her powers of guardianship. As it happens, the decision is that she can appoint a substitute as long as her choice is beneficial for the orphans and is approved by the other guardians. This in fact accords with the sentiment expressed by the dying man’s intentions. Had Medina’s initial approach been pursued, questioning her suitability as a guardian because she is a woman, and doubting her legal authority, then the dying man’s wish might not have been respected.119

The Response of Rabbi Isaac Adarbi Isaac Adarbi considers whether there is a contradiction in the legal document. In his opinion the issue depends on whether the later condition reverses the initial intention. He begins by saying that he will be careful to judge according to the language of the document, and that he assumes the document was composed in the correct legal form. He quotes earlier sources stating that evidence is not accepted against a valid document, that is, when there is a difference between what witnesses hear the dying man say and the document.120 It is important to note that the document was taken verbatim: the Judeo-Spanish is always preceded by ‘vezé lešonó’, (this is his language). The problem lies in the fact that the document contains two apparently contradictory points. Initially, it names Clara as guardian, ‘sea patrona y señora . . .’ (she may be the owner and mistress) (40:5). Later, it adds a clause that she should move from Skopye to Salonica, ‘de haber con condiçión que como pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui’ (on condition that she should move to Salonica after the year of mourning) (40:13–14). Inter- estingly, Adarbi adds that side issues are not taken into account, nor is attention paid to every single part of the document because it is, after all, a document dictated by a dying person. His next point focuses on resolving this contradiction, drawing on legal precedents to substantiate his argument, as is customary in the

119 See Benaim 1997. 120 Legally defined as a person whose definite outcome is death. However he is not a moribund. The legal differences are too lengthy to describe and not strictly relevant to this particular question. 60 chapter one genre of the Responsa literature. He cites an example from Maharil,121 concerning a contradiction found in a document where the sum of 100 zuz is first mentioned, but is later referred to as 200zuz . The rule is that whatever is written last prevails. This rule is applied to solv- ing ambiguities and difficulties in documents. Adarbi adds that the Tur had previously enunciated this rule. He also cites R. Joseph Karo, who states that when a contradiction is absolute and irreconcilable, one should try to reach a reasonable compromise. He justifies this by saying that since differences in a document might be significant, it is advisable and necessary to keep closely to the document. It may appear difficult to see how Adarbi reconciles this opinion with the above one where he says that attention is not paid to every part of the will. This is an example of what is, presumably, the respondent’s prerogative—to view a case in its context and give importance to different criteria.

Resolving the Contradiction Adarbi follows Karo’s view, striving to reconcile the apparent contradiction in the two phrases. The problem depends on whether the dying man’s intention to appoint Clara as a guardian is conditional on her moving to Salonica. At first he appears to appoint her uncondition- ally, ‘que ella sea patrona y señora sobre todo’ l. 6 (that she should be the owner and mistress of everything/ above all). There is a linguistic ambiguity in the phrase ‘sobre todo’ (above all/on everything) (40:5). It can imply that he invests her with absolute authority, but it can also mean that she is, primarily and absolutely, appointed guardian. Either way, ‘sobre todo’ conveys emphasis and unqualified resolve. Nevertheless the problem remains that a condition is set in the last line. Yet the condition is immediately preceded by the definition of her role as financial guardian. From this Adarbi skilfully concludes that the dying man did not intend to make her guardianship conditional, arguing that the condition affects only the fiduciary aspect. Her power to pay creditors and control over the finances is conditional on her going to Salonica. The only condition of guardianship is that she should not remarry for ten years. It is noteworthy that the language emphasizes that this condition is set by Clara herself.

121 R. Jacob Moelin, Germany, 14th–15th centuries. introduction 61

In principle, therefore, R. Adarbi concludes that she can remain a guardian even from Skopye. Her powers as guardian are unaffected, and there is no legal impediment to her appointing a substitute.

Conclusion of Two Perspectives It is significant that Adarbi reaches his answer by harmonising the apparent contradictions in the document. He distinguishes guardianship in general from power over the settlement of debts. Unlike R. Medina, he does not question her status as a woman in relation to the guardianship issue. A close reading of the subtle nuances of the Judeo-Spanish language of the document suggests that the sentiment implied by the language supports Adarbi’s analysis. Indeed, his aim, as he states at the beginning of his responsum, is to base his legal argument on the language of the document. Medina, however, takes a more comprehensive approach. He is primarily concerned with issues such as assessing the legal status of a woman as guardian. His sensitivity is apparent in his concern that the appointment of a different guardian should not upset the other guardians. His practical common sense is evident when he points to the difficulties in communication between guardians residing in different cities. The importance he attaches to a strictly observant lifestyle is manifest in his emphasis on bringing up the children in Salonica, a city which exuded Torah learning, Jewish observance and a Jewish environment, as opposed to Skopye, where there was little active Jew- ish life. Finally, his fairness, justice, and concern for the unprotected are exemplified in his conclusion. Medina believes that provided the appointment of a new guardian is beneficial to the children, he would grant Clara permission to appoint a guardian in her place. Both rabbis, through quite different paths, conclude that Clara has the legal authority to confer her own status as guardian upon another of her choice.

1.6.6 Conclusion The aim of this section is to put the responsa into its historical, economic, social, communal and halakhic context and to appreciate the value of the responsa as a source in so many of these disciplines. This is highlighted in much of Ruth Lamdan’s writings and research on the status of women in the sixteenth century, where she bases much of her research on responsa, for instance on the guardianship issue, ‘The 62 chapter one responsa literature shows that many husbands, prior to their death, appointed their wives as guardians of their assets and their children, demonstrating their trust in the abilities and skills of their wives, who in many cases gained the support of the religious courts’ (Lamdan 2005: 1). The responsa in this book shed light on the legal processes governing Jewish life in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire. The rabbinic cases, the dry residue of those long-forgotten dramas, represent a law and a legal system intertwined with the realities of life (Passamaneck 1974: 181). In the responsa we can witness the original voices of the protagonists in the events recounted. Cases that concern divorce matters, affirmation of the marriage vows, levirate issues, wills and in general family matters form at least half of the corpus in this book. At this point it is vital to keep in perspective that the ‘episodes that came to court represent only the instances where something went wrong with the orderly course of thing. For every business arrangement that goes sour there must have been hundreds that came off smoothly. For each ruffian there were numerous good and pious folk. If we keep these matters in mind, and we pay careful attention to the construction of the narratives, we can mine incredible historical riches from the responsa’ (Goldish 2008: liii). The responsa themselves cover a diversity of issues, great and small. They offer a fascinating glimpse into the byways of social history, with their delightful ‘impromptu’ vignettes of ordinary people going about their daily lives, preparing food, sitting with their neighbours, engaging in business and—perhaps most quaintly—swindling each other in ways that a modern reader will instantly recognize. The tone of the testimonies, with their easy interplay between differing registers and languages, is the window through which this historical panorama can be viewed. Precise, yet colloquial, the language offers a unique insight into the way of life of a society steeped in its Judaism.122

122 Note example in text 18 where a businessman mentions God eight times in his declaration and believes that all is for the best. CHAPTER TWO

RESEARCH METHODS AND SOURCES

2.1 Complete List of Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish

Here I have listed the responsa that contain some Judeo-Spanish according to the listings in the BIURP CD ROM Responsa Project 11+ together with the particular number of each relevant responsa that I have examined in some detail. There are other responsa, particularly from nineteenth-century Spanish Morocco that are not included in the list as they are not contained in the BIURP nor have I found these in the listings in the websites for Hebrew books. Also appendix 5 lists a further number of responsa containing Judeo-Spanish of the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. Importantly, for the purpose of this book I have only selected and included those from the first half approximately of the sixteenth century, not those in the later sixteenth/seventeenth centuries. I explain this in the methodology (section 2.2). Appendix 4 lists the dates and places of publication of these responsa.1

Table 2.1: List of Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish Author Publication Responsa number Fourteenth Century Isaac b. Sheshet Perfet She’elot u-Teshuvot ha 207, 208 Rivash Sixteenth Century Samuel de Medina She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam Yoreh 53, 88, 118, 155, 157, 168 Deah Choshen Mishpat 16, 33, 52, 65, 95, 148, 170, 175, 227, 262, 313, 328, 339, 380, 382, 393 Even Ha’ezer 8, 12, 34, 76, 166 IsaacAdarbi Divre Rivot 3, 4, 10, 59, 72, 92, 124, 150, 189, 209, 262, 279, 282, 310, 392, 413, 420

1 64 chapter two

Table 2.1 (cont.) Author Publication Responsa number Jacob Berav Teshuvot Be-rav 15, 25 David b. Zimra She’elot u-Teshuvot 294 Haradbaz Elijah b. Ḥayim Teshuvot haRa’anach 20, 29, 119 Mayim Amukim, 33, 55 Part II Joseph b. David She’elot u-Teshuvot 9, 22, 23, 101, 112 (Ibn Lev) Maharibenlev, Part I Part II 21, 104 Joseph b. Ephraim Bet Yosef 8 Caro Avkat Rochel 80, 81, 148 Aharon b. Joseph Torat Emet 2, 3, 5, 6, 27, 95, 165 Sasson Moses b. Joseph Trani She’elot u-Teshuvot 82, 112, 292, 331 Hamabit, Part I Moses Alshech She’elot u-Teshuvot 44, 78, 150 Maharam Alshech Solomon b. Abraham She’elot u-Teshuvot Hakohen Maharashach, Part I 18, 49, 67 Part II 38, 134, 145 Sixteenth/Seventeenth Centuries Joseph b. Moses Trani She’elot u-Teshuvot 138 Maharit Part I Part II 35, 38, 43, 44 Maharam Galante She’elot u-Teshuvot 52, 86, 96 Maharam Galante Chaim Shabtai She’elot u-Teshuvot 18, 31, 35, 36, 44, 52, 56, Hashayachot letur even 59 ha’ezer1 Yom Tov b. Moses She’elot u-Teshuvot 33, 144 Tsahalon Maharitats, Part I Hachadashot 25, 125, 127, 149, 158

1 This responsa collection is not available on the Bar-Ilan responsa project, however I found it on www.hebrewbooks.org. research methods and sources 65

Table 2.1 (cont.) Author Publication Responsa number Seventeenth Century Zevi Hirsch b. Jacob She’elot u-Teshuvot 35, 98 Ashkenazi Hacham Zvi Mordechai Halevi Darke Noam: Even Ha’ezer 32 Choshen Mishpat 45 Abraham b. Ginat Varedim 19 Mordechai Halevi Even Ha’ezer Eighteenth Century David Samuel b. Jacob Michtam LeDavid 1 Pardo Even Haezer Nineteenth Century David Pipano Avne Ha’efod 13, 18 Nose Ha’efod 30

Apart from the above responsa which I have examined in greater detail I include appendix 5 which I collated according to the listings in www .hebrewbooks.org. This website contains over forty thousand Hebrew books and has only been available recently. It is a necessary asset for this type of research and the website www.otzer.org is equally essential. To find Judeo-Spanish amids the Hebrew I performed searches in their responsa collection and then verified its Judeo-Spanish content. This is indeed a proof of the wealth of material in the literary genre of Judeo-Spanish testimonies that there is available in the Sephardic responsa that is recorded to date.

2.2 Principles of Selection—Corpus Examined

Judeo-Spanish is found in the responsa literature in the form of live testimonies, contracts, financial documents and communal ordinances. A concentration of this material appears in the sixteenth as well as in the nineteenth century.2 However, there are a couple of responsa

2 (1) To search for editions of the various responsa it was essential to be familiar with Zedner (1964). (2) See appendix 5. 66 chapter two contain in Judeo-Spanish in the fourteenth century, in She’elot u-Teshuvot haRivash of Isaac Ben Sheshet Perfet in Barcelona, many in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and some as late as in the twentieth century in Livorno and Jerusalem. I compiled the above complete list of responsa (Table 2.1) containing Judeo-Spanish in section 2.1 by performing many searches using the BIURP. Searches consisted of inserting various common words in Judeo-Spanish that are absent or rare in Hebrew in order to end up with the appropriate selection.3 The corpus of literature examined in this book consists of eighty- four sixteenth-century testimonies, some comprising several parts, some that are about ninety lines long and several as short as three lines. The texts selected for presentation here are those of respondents born between 1474 and 1535.

Eighty-four texts are presented here out of the one hundred and fifteen in total that I have examined in detail from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries. I have not included in this collection the responsa of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, for instance of Yom Tov ben Akiva Tsahalon, Maharam Galante, Chaim Shabtai and Joseph ben Moses Trani or of all those listed in Appendix 5. The breadth of texts presented provide sufficient material for the linguistic and other descriptions offered in this book. There is an abundance of material for further research that is beyond the intended scope of this book.

2.3 Methodology and Transcription of the Texts

My initial research consisted of locating responsa, mainly of the sixteenth century, that contained Judeo-Spanish testimony. The responsa in this corpus are all from printed editions and of the earliest available editions.4 At a glance, the Judeo-Spanish language can be recognised within the Hebrew by its higher frequency of certain letters and

se, the reflexive pronoun ,שי que meaning ‘that’, ‘what’ and , קיThese include 3 third-person singular and plural; both these words are meaningless in Hebrew other than representing the numbers 110 and 310 respectively. Also other common words .tanto, etc טאנטו, este איסטי like 4 This is true in all cases exceptPiske ha-Rashdam, see chap. 2 n. 56. research methods and sources 67 lower incidence of other letters.5 The introduction of a couple of different characters denoting different phonemes, for example thegimmel with the diacritic and the double yod, are also characteristic of Judeo- Spanish. I first searched through the collection of two of the best known respondents of the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire, Rabbi Samuel de Medina and Rabbi IsaacAdarbi and identified the relevant responsa.6 My next task was to compare this 1863 library copy to the first edition (1595) that I worked from in a private collection.7 I wrote down all the variations in longhand, distinguishing the first edition from the later one. In this way I could determine the extent of errors and the role of the printers in assessing what to preserve or delete, the importance placed on spelling accuracy, and so on. Judeo-Spanish can sometimes also be found in the responsa as an occasional discrete phrase or even single word in a Hebrew text. Of these, I have included or referred to a few of specific legal interest. Those that are presented in the text are mostly legible and intelligible, though not entirely so. Due to the evolving nature of the Judeo-Span- ish language and the anomalous representation of its speech, some sentences are impossible to decipher; the difficulties are explained in the notes to the texts. Once I established the locations of Judeo-Spanish in the responsa, I worked at finding the original editions. This entailed many visits to various libraries in Israel: the Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem, Hebrew University Library, Bar-Ilan University Library, Valmadonna Trust Library, London School of Jewish Studies and the British Library in London. In some of these libraries I photocopied or obtained scans of the selected texts. In the end, for the purpose of publication, the texts had to be rescanned in order to be of a high enough resolution. Many of these texts were digitally photographed to aid clarity and the ones included in this book proceed from the Yad-Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute Library in Jerusalem and the British Library.8

5 Thealef appears with greater frequency. There is a lower incidence ofh ̣et, ayin, tav and kaf. 6 When I initially searched through Medina’s responsa I did this by browsing, methodically looking through each responsum until I found Judeo-Spanish. 7 The Valmadonna Trust Library, London. 8 This task was completed with the kind assistance and organisation of Dr Dov Cohen of the YIBZL. I am grateful also to my son Jonathan for his patience, diligence and time spent on overseeing this process. 68 chapter two

The next task was to reselect the passages in the vernacular and insert line references before scanning them into the texts section of our corpus.9 Here I occasionally made the decision to enlarge the texts for reasons of clarification. At this stage the responsa were classified as I found them, according to respondent. The next stage involved setting up a system for the transcription of the Judeo-Spanish from Hebrew to Latin characters.10 I produced sample texts that converted the Judeo-Spanish words from the Hebrew alphabet to a transliterated version using the Latin alphabet (Table 2.3). The result is that this version is intelligible to a philologist or linguist, but not to a speaker or reader of Judeo-Spanish. I next produced a version using Spanish orthography but with some phonetic symbols where necessary (Table 2.2). The table indicates the phonemes that are represented by the original Hebrew graph and the phonemes represented by the consequent Spanish graph. Due to many anomalies in the spelling, a significant amount of interpretation had to be made to render the cases intelligible. The texts also show words erroneously elided or separated. These features are common in early texts.11 It has to be noted that the majority of the texts in their original sixteenth- century printed versions appear in the rashi script.12 A header indicating text numbers is inserted throughout Chapter 4 in order to facilitate searching for particular texts. Examples from the text and cross-references are cited using the text number, colon and line number (e.g. 24:3). In cases where the text number is preceded by ST (e.g. ST 49:3) then the citation belongs to Appendix 1 that contains three sample texts. The texts in Appendix 1 are transliterated as a palaeographic representation of the original according to the guide in Table 2.4.

9 Variations in colour and quality of the copies provided are due to different scan- ners in libraries and in my own use over time. 10 For a full historical account of Judeo-Spanish see Hassán (1995: 117–140). 11 The reason given for this by Pilar Romeu (2003) in her research on deciphering early Judeo-Spanish texts, is that printers often lacked space and therefore deleted the spaces between words. A common error, for instance the substitution of a zayin for a vav, occurred because the printing fount would run out of this type, necessitating the substitution of another. 12 See Table 2.3. research methods and sources 69

2.3.1 Resources Available There are some Judeo-Spanish dictionaries available. The most substantial one by Nehama (1977) is from Judeo-Spanish to French, Pas- cual Recuero’s Ladino-Spanish is comparatively basic (Pascual Recuero 1977), Kohen and Kohen-Gordon’s Ladino-English/English-Ladino is quite elaborate and indicates word origins (Kohen & Kohen-Gordon 2000), Bornstein and Bashan’s Ladino-Hebrew index to the foreign vocabulary in the responsa is considerably limited (Bashan & Bornstein 1973), though it is directly relevant to our corpus.13 Other dictionaries include Cherezli, S. Y. 1899: Nuevo chiko diksyonario Judeo-Espagnol— Française, Jerusalem: Abraham Lunz; Passy, A.M. 1999. Klara Perahya, Eli Perahya 1998: Dictionnaire francais judeo-espagnol, Sephardic Folk Dictionary English to Ladino—Ladino to English (IV edition), Los Ange- les: Author’s edition; K. Perahya, K.R. Meranda, S. Danon, R. Sedaka & C. Zakuto. 1998. Diksyonaryo / Sözlük Judeo-Espanyol—Türkçe / Türkçe—Judeo-Espanyol. Occasionally, useful linguistic information and translation was found in the indexes to editions of Judeo-Spanish texts (Luria 1930, Sala 1971, Pascual Recuero 1988, Minervini 1992, Bunis 1993). Bunis’ lexicon is particularly relevant to the Judeo-Spanish vocabulary of Hebrew origin, while the Jastrow Dictionary is vital for Hebrew legal and rabbinic vocabulary (Jastrow 1903). Recently Jas- trow 1926 is available online and is a most formidable tool. Other Hebrew-English dictionaries are consulted, including Gur (1949) and Alcalay (1966). Catalogues and indexes, such as Steinschneider (1852), Cowley (1929) and Friedberg (1951), and of course Medina’s listings (Born- stein 1979) and the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project CD ROM (2003) and recent versions, are altogether instrumental in locating responsa. In the last few years the most useful resource of the websites www.hebrewbooks.org and www.otzar.org have revolutionised research techniques. Also www.hebrew-bibliography.org and rambi website are necessary tools as literary catalogues. A wealth of books, including responsa, the Me-Am Lo’ez, the entire Tanach etc. are available online, many of them in their original editions.

13 Bashan and Bornstein (1973) produced a glossary of a selection of approximately 400 foreign terms used in the Ottoman responsa in all centuries. They are mostly Turkish words and include a few in Judeo-Spanish. In 1979, Bornstein-Makovetsky (as she was later known) published an index to all Medina’s and Adarbi’s responsa. Many Turkish words identified in this study do not appear in Bashan and Bornstein’s glossary. 70 chapter two

Zamora Vicente’s Dialectología española (1967) contains an index where words can be traced to their various dialects and provides invaluable information as to the history of the language; it contains limited information on Judeo-Spanish as does Lapesa’s Historia de la lengua española (1988). Harris’s Death of a Language (1994) is useful for historical background; however, it concentrates more on the current developments of Judeo-Spanish and on the issue of bilingualism of Judeo-Spanish speakers in the United States today. Penny’s History of the Spanish Language (2004a) and Variation and Change in Spanish (2004b) provide essential linguistic information for the understanding of the development of Judeo-Spanish within the context of the development of Castilian and other Spanish dialects. The RAE has its own very useful website (http://www.rae.es) providing a wealth of searching opportunities in terms of orthography and linguistic information. Collins Spanish-English/English-Spanish (Smith, 1977) is considerably useful in this research, while Corominas (1974) assists with word etymology. Turkish dictionaries (Redhouse 1968, 2003; Milet 1998) are needed to decipher many words of Turkish origin in the texts, together with a geographical dictionary of the Ottoman Empire (Mostras 1873). An online Turkish-English dictionary such as http://www .seslisozluk.com/ is also useful, as it assists with finding variations of the same word, which is necessary in the case where the Turkish word has already undergone some change after being borrowed by Judeo- Spanish and travelled through Hebrew orthography. Concordancing tools like corde in http://www.rae.es, as well as http://www.corpusdelespanol.org, are helpful in both describing the incidence of words throughout the centuries and in providing reference to the literary texts in which they appear. The texts themselves can then be accessed. These tools help to confirm cases of Spanish archaisms and also enable access to the exact context of the word in question. TheDiccionario de la Lengua Española in the website http:// www.rae.es is also indispensable in this exercise. Despite this pool of resources, there remains a significant amount of speculation and con- jecture in the interpretation of the texts. The advent of the internet has opened an infinite and unprecedented pool of resources.14 By performing a search on any known academic in

14 See Rachel Amado Bortnick on Ladinokomunita and ‘The Internet and Judeo Spanish’ in Pomeroy & Alpert (2004). research methods and sources 71 the relevant field a list of publications can be obtained which can then be traced to relevant libraries conventional or electronic and made available to the reader. At www.digital.csic.es a wealth of articles in the field of Judeo-Spanish studies can be acquired online including issues from 2001 of the highly regarded academic periodical Sefarad edited by Javier Castaño on www.sefarad.revistas.csic.es. Also the website www.umass.edu/sephardimizrahi/past_issues is instrumental in providing constant updates on academic activity in Judeo-Spanish.15

2.3.2 Transcription Systems There had been ongoing debate between various experts on the transcription of Judeo-Spanish. Professor Iacob Hassán believed that the final product should be understood by a modern Spanish speaker, and that the final system should reflect this (Hassán 1987: 132). Others, in particular those who have arrived at Judeo-Spanish through a Bal- kan or Turkish rather than a Hispanic background, believe that the language should be represented as phonetically as possible. I decided to present the transcription in a form that is in keeping with regular Spanish orthography, but with some diacritics to indicate Hebrew or non-Spanish phonemes. I have tried to keep these diacritics to a minimum. There are many reasons for this. A modern Spanish rendition makes the texts totally accessible to a Hispanic reader. Apart from interesting a small number of academics, the texts also throw light on many aspects of a Spanish-speaking culture, and intelligibility to a wider readership is therefore important. Furthermore, these texts would appeal to students of rabbinics from Spanish-speaking countries like Argentina and Mexico, for whom linguistic clarity is essential. Additionally, the main point is that Judeo-Spanish is essentially Span- ish containing borrowings from other languages, it is not a Balkan or other language, and therefore Spanish orthography is, in my view, the most apt system to use when transcribing from Hebrew characters.16

15 There are countless bibliographical references, listings etc. available on the internet that would impossible to collect, http://huc.edu/sephardic/media/LibraryResearch- Guide.pdf is an example of such avenues of research in the internet. 16 This is substantiated in Hassán 2006 referring to adopting a Spanish orthography: ‘Por mucho que haya desarrollado una norma propia diferente de la española como variedad judía del español, el ladino se inscribe en el marco de las hablas hispánicas’ (Hassán 2006: 47), and later ‘La adición de signos diacríticos para indicar fonética distintiva . . . no es una dura obligación, sino solo una opción possible especialmente 72 chapter two

Naturally, the transcription process warrants a guide and explanation, as can be seen in sections 2.3.7 and 2.3.7.1 respectively. Also since this book is partly a philological study I have felt it necessary to add phonetic symbols that will convey the Judeo-Spanish pronounciation. A transliterated edition of the text produces complete incomprehen- sibility but is of significant interest to philologists. I therefore decided to produce three sample texts in this format so that the linguistic discussion can be illustrated better. Additionally, in the comparison of a sample text in various editions this system is optimum, see section 2.4. Below is an example of this type of transliteration (see also Table 2.3 and Appendix 1):

1. qwmw h’r ‘brhm prymy hnzk myrwqy ‘yl ‘sr dygyw syyndw hbr 2. dy k’r yshq dy q‘ly ‘y qy wydw ‘yl dy’gw k’r ‘brhm hnz’ qy

The more phonetic system used for Ladino has been a rather cumbersome and illogical representation, such as ‘kwanto’ for ‘cuanto’. This system is used currently by the periodical Aki Yerushalayim in Israel. For instance: En el Instituto Maale Adumim para la Dokumentasion de la Lengua Djudeo-espanyola i su Kultura viene de kompletarse estos dias una faza importante del proyekto sentral de la Asosiasion “Sefarad”: El Kata- logo informatiko kompleto de la koleksion de kantes djudeo-espanyoles (romansas, kantigas, koplas i mas).17 I believe the most consistent and also smoother to handle is a modern Spanish orthography. Transcription using modern Spanish orthography is common practice in CSIC in Madrid, currently one of the world’s main centres for publishing academic works of Judeo-Spanish. The academics within CSIC advocate this system for all the reasons stated above, as well as for producing a final product that is neater in appearance. However, in section 2.3.7 I explain the process of using this system involves adjusting the system to cope with the inclusion of phonetic symbols so that the final product is meaningful to philologists too. I made the decision to include the Spanish orthographical ‘h’ in idónea para ediciones críticas y trabajos de calificación académica. (Hassán 2006: 48). In short, a transcriptive system using Hispanic orthography with phonetic symbols where appropriate is ideal for critical editions and academic works. 17 Shaul (1996) Aki Yerushalayim see p. 160. Moshe Shaul is responsible for much of the diffusion of Ladino language and culture in present day Israel. research methods and sources 73 the transcriptions. The inclusion of the silent ‘h’ in transcription gives the text an overall similarity to the Spanish spelling system. Bunis, however, argues that there is a more fixed system in Ladino spelling established in the early nineteenth century, showing also the variations occurring in systems based on French and on Turkish (Bunis 1975: 1, 46, 49). A detailed discussion of the phonology of the texts is provided in Chapter 3 explaining the relevant phenomena with examples from the corpus. Additionally, I have provided three sample texts that have been transliterated in Latin characters that illustrate the historical phonology to which I refer in the linguistic discussion.18

2.3.3 Difficulties Encountered and Decisions Taken / Problems and Solutions Inconsistencies and errors in the printed texts create problems of clarity, rendering some of the texts virtually unintelligible. The texts are presented according to respondents and include some that lack clarity and intelligibility. By translating some of the Hebrew framework, the understanding of the testimony is often improved. The patterns of word separation found in the texts, however illogical, are retained in the transcription. Some common prepositions are frequently joined, like enla, dela, aél. The formdellos , rather than de ellos, is an archaism. However, words are often joined together inconsistently for no apparent reason other than a desire by the printer to save space. These cases are too numerous to list and I have not noted all of them as they are self-explanatory. However, notes are included where this practice results in semantic variation or in an unusual form. Footnotes to each text indicate textual errors, omissions, spelling variations, phonological notes and above all, places where the transcription varies from the text. Additions, consisting of corrections within the transcriptions, are indicated with round brackets. Abbre- viations are written in full in the transcription but the addition is indicated with round brackets. My own interpolations are indicated with square brackets.

18 See transliteration guide, section 2.3.7.2. 74 chapter two

The footnotes also explain locations, toponyms and references to any issues that require explanation. In the translation section, footnotes are often needed to explain the reasons for particular translations, the occasional lack of clarity in translation due to obscurities in the original, and to elucidate legal, religious, cultural, historical and financial obscurities. As the words of Turkish origin are new to the language in this period, a glossary has been compiled at the end of the book with references to the texts (see Appendix 2). The glossary is in fact a summary of the Turkish borrowings; it enables the possibility of understanding the appropriate derivation for each word and the various meanings for each word. It clarifies the reasons for the decisions taken in the translations of Turkish borrowings by Judeo-Spanish. The places in the texts where the Turkish borrowings appear are noted. The relevant sources where the Turkish has been found are documented in this glossary. Additionally, I have inserted a footnote offering a translation of the Turkish borrowing and the Turkish word from where it is derived.19 The Hebrew lexis is fully translated in the translations following each testimony. The Hebrew framing the Judeo-Spanish texts is translated in italics, as well as the Hebrew used where language switching is a natural part of the protagonist’s speech.20 Here I have used my personal judgement to include translations where I believe they are of interest to the understanding of the Judeo-Spanish testimony and where it is reasonable to translate within the requirements of the book. All Hebrew words within the Judeo-Spanish texts are italicised in both the transcriptions and translations. The representation of the Hebrew elements that are italicised in the translations serve the purpose of seeing at a glance the type of lexis that are commonly used in Hebrew. This would be of interest to the field of Judeo-languages, including Yiddish, where one could compare the choice of vocabulary in Hebrew and draw some parallels between Judeo-Spanish and other Judeo-languages. The reasons for such parallels reflect aspects of the similarity of lives of Jews in different countries and in different epochs.

19 See section 3.3.3.4 for a discussion of Turkish terms in the language discussion. 20 This is known as code-switching, see section 3.3.3.3. research methods and sources 75

Hebrew words have been transcribed according to the pronounciation rules in Hebrew. In Judeo-Spanish many Hebrew words are pronounced differently, many are hispanised. This varies too according to the speaker, context, region and epoch. Examples of hispani- sation of Hebrew occur in the pronounciation of proper names (see below). This is also documented by Shwarzwald with illustrations like bet din pronounced as bed̠ din, Šabat as Sabá or Šaba, adam harišón as adamarišon in the speech of some Sephardic Eastern communities (Shwarzwald 1984b: 160). It may well have been the case that the speakers in the testimonies would have hispanised their Hebrew however I have made the decision to adhere to Hebrew phonemes for Hebrew words. The Judeo-Spanish title of rebí in front of the proper name is a courtesy title with no direct English equivalent (similar to ‘Mr’ in English or even ‘Reb’ in Jewish culture, but not identical); it has been omitted in this translation for the sake of fluency. I have kept the title ‘R’, meaning ‘rabbi’. Proper names appear in the context of three languages in the texts. They appear within the Judeo-Spanish, within Hebrew and then in an English language context. It was a difficult decision to take as to which orthography they merited. Here I took certain decisions on the basis of clarity and evenness. I transcribed the names of characters appearing in the texts as I transcribed Hebrew words. I then kept this transcription in italics when the rest of the context is in Italics as in translations into English and non-italicised in the Judeo-Spanish and in English. Yet it has to be understood that in Judeo-Spanish Hebrew names were probably pronounced at a colloquial level. This is evidenced in some documents from pre-Inquisition Spain in Castaño’s Judíos y redes personales . . . (2009). Here Castaño studies a series of unpublished documents showing that municipal council assigned citizenship to Jews in relation to their community by which the local council assumed control of that community. The documents show Jewish names asMosé for Mošeh, Yuçé for Yosef, Simuel for Šemu’el, Salamon for Šelomoh etc. (Castaño 2009: 374). Whether the names would have been pronounced as such in the testimonies in this book is unproven and therefore for the sake of uniformity I have used Hebrew transcriptions for names that are Hebrew based, not for names like Estrella that are unquestionably Spanish. However I used the English rendering of proper names of respondents and of others in the book. So the more common Hebrew names appearing in the texts are rendered as 76 chapter two

Ab̠raham, Yisḥ ̣aq, Ya‘aqob̠, Šemu’el etc. The surnames however I have left in Latin characters, they are generally more Hispanic, e.g. de Ávila, Dardero, Adaroqui, Lucena, etc. The respondents’ names like Rabbi Samuel de Medina, Rabbi Isaac Adarbi etc. as well as the title of their responsa, are treated as the norm for transcription from Hebrew to English. Also Hebrew words, proper names and toponyms quoted in the English discussion and translation are transcribed as is normative from Hebrew to English. There is no punctuation in the original Hebrew texts, so I have inserted appropriate punctuation in both the Judeo-Spanish and Eng- lish versions. In general, Judeo-Spanish syntax prefers long, periphrastic sentences, and this is reflected in the punctuation. Diacritic marks are included with the gimmel (see transcription table, Table 2.2), but are absent otherwise.21 The rare words or phrases that are either illegible, unintelligible or impossible to decipher and bring into context are also indicated in the notes.

2.3.4 Translations into English The English translations of the Judeo-Spanish testimonies often err on the side of the literal, in order to preserve the rhythm and style of the original. To represent the language in an equivalent English of the sixteenth century would be problematic, since English is a class- structured language while Judeo-Spanish belonged to a specific group of people at a specific time and place. In other words, there is no equivalent language system that would have solved the problems of translation. Paraphrasing would have sounded and read better in Eng- lish, but would fail to convey the realism of the originals. Empha- sis, repetition and emotion are conveyed more effectively by literal translation. The language was occasionally interspersed with Turkish, Aramaic and other borrowings from neighbouring cultures. A line for line translation was not appropriate; the result would have been literal to the point of unintelligibility. Such is the case in the Ladino translations of the Bible, where the result is a totally Hebraized Spanish. The transcriptions adhere to the line structure of the original edition.

21 This refers to the diacritic marks in thebet, kaf, daled, pe that are absent in the rashi script and in an unpunctuated text anyway. research methods and sources 77

However, the English translations in our corpus are presented in paragraph form. Line references are grouped according to subject matter. I have divided these paragraphs as and when the context allows this. Paragraph length varies too, according to context. Translations also vary in literality according to context. Here it is essential to point out that the translations involve mainly witness statements, thinking out loud with disjointed thoughts, often incoherent statements. I have frequently replaced an ‘and’ with a comma, or omitted it altogether, for the sake of fluency. Y in Judeo-Spanish does not always mean ‘and’. It can mean ‘when’, ‘that’, who’ or it may be superfluous in a particular context. Y ‘and’ is also a discourse marker of a new topic. I encountered similar difficulties in translating the Hebrew into English. The responsa consist of a technical language used by rabbinic jurists, composed of Hebrew and Aramaic. The language occasionally is wordy and of an embellished register with some Biblical and Talmudical allusion. To translate the language literally often fails to capture the true meaning and has the result of a stilted language, whilst paraphrase is an unpreferred option. Such decisions are taken according to each language situation. Interpolations in square brackets, explanations in the footnotes, some paraphrase and some omission of repetitive or irrelevant material are the resolutions taken to alleviate translation difficulties.

2.3.5 Representation of Numerals There are no separate numerals in Hebrew, instead standard western numerals (1, 2, 3, etc.) are used in Modern Hebrew. In the ancient language there were no separate symbols for numbers, and so it was quite natural to read the words as numbers. In this corpus there are several examples of numerals that are represented by Hebrew letters, as these contain numerical value. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value. These values can be used to write numbers, as the Romans used some of their letters (I, V, X, L, C, M) to represent numbers. Aleph to yod have the values of 1 to 10. Yod through kof have the values 10 to 100, counting by 10s. Kof through tav have the values 100 to 400, counting by 100s. Final letters have the same value as their non-final counterparts. The number 11 would be rendered yod-aleph, the number 12 would be yod-bet, the number 21 would be kaf-aleph, the word Torah (tav-vav-resh-he) has the numerical value 78 chapter two

611, etc. The only significant exception in this pattern is the number 15, which if rendered as 10+5 would be a name of God, so it is normally written tet-vav (9+6). In text 77:4–5, the numerals two and three are represented by the letters bet and gimmel respectively, as well as in texts 42:53 and 74:57. Also yom rišon (text 42:64) ‘Sunday’ is indicated by yom + aleph, where the letter aleph represents the number one that expresses the first day of the week after the Sabbath, i.e. Sunday.

2.3.6 The Transcription System and Guides in this Book A guide to the transcription is included below, but it must be stressed that the transcription is also the result of the comprehension and study of the texts. Here it is poignant to recall Nehama’s words: ‘N’importe quel système de transcription est en principe acceptable, s’il est con- séquent’ (Nehama 1977: XIII). The transcriptions appear in the same line pattern as the original. The conflict in the transcriber lies in the balance between fidelity versus legibility of the texts.22 Additionally, I have added the criteria of intelligibility for the Spanish reader with the notion that one of the purposes of transcribing this corpus is to make it accessible to the Hispanist and not just to the Hebraist. The guide is broadly based on the principles used in Sefarad (CSIC).23 The following section will explain the system used in this book for transcribing the Hebrew texts in the main corpus of this book through the examination of the relevant aspects of each Hebrew letter in turn (see also Tables 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and Appendix 1). It is noteworthy that Hebrew spelling is economical in its use of vowels. The spelling system of Judeo-Spanish in Hebrew characters is simple and its representation is in keeping with phonetic principles (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 6, Schwarzwald 2001: 15). The spelling will often differentiate between Hebrew and non-Hebrew words. Hebrew words will use certain consonants generally absent from Hispanic words, namely the use of aleph as a consonant, and the use of ayin, tsadi, k̠af, taf.24

22 This issue is expounded in Sistemas gráficos del español sefardí(Hassán 1987: 131–133). 23 Sefarad 1998: 219–222. 24 The frequency of thealeph in a Judeo-Spanish text is much higher than in Hebrew; this can be noted in most of the texts provided. Occasionally, some Judeo- Spanish words are written in Hebrew style with the omission of the aleph (e.g. ST 7:3 twmry / tomré). research methods and sources 79

א In an initial position the aleph always indicates the vowel -a. In an internal position it will also represent -a, but the same vowel is implied even with the omission of the aleph.25 The previous consonant would be punctuated with that particular vowel sign (matres lectionis). Since the texts are not punctuated, the vowels have to be interpreted from word recognition. When aleph is followed by a yod, the diagraph is transcribed as e or i, e.g. estuvimos / ∙yšţwbymwš (ST 68:23) ‘we were’. However, in the transliterated version, the diagraph aleph yod is faith- fully represented by ‘>y’. Similarly when the aleph is followed by a vav it represents /o/ or /u/ and will be transcribed accordingly. For wn) says aún (74:27) ‘still’ in Spanish. Aleph occurs<<) אאון example in word final position predominantly when preceded by ayod. Else- where he is used to represent the finala. represents the אב (or aleph bet (vet או Note also that aleph vav diphthong av/ab as in cabśa (67:5). At the end of the word aleph stands either alone, as in allá/∙ly∙y (11:34) ‘there’ or followed by a heh as in había / ∙wy∙h (ST 68:22). The preposition a, that is spelt aleph heh, the heh is never omitted unless it is joined with the following word. In Hebrew words I have transcribed aleph in medial position as ’. In this way the reader is given a more accurate picture of the structure of the original.

ב is represented in ,בּ ב,The plosive and fricative form of the letter bet the Latin version by b or v according to modern Spanish spelling.26 The bet sound has a diacritic in the centre that is incidentally not represented in this unpointed text. For instance, text 45:3 contains estaba written with the bet (intended with the affricatebet /v/); while text 10:1 has bona (intended with the plosive bet /b/) and both are transcribed with the same letter b.27 However it is noteworthy that in the Me’Am

25 Evidence of this is found more often in the later rather than in the earlier editions. 26 For an understanding of the phonemic neutralization between the plosive and the fricative b in Spanish, see Penny 2004a: 97. 27 Note that in the kharjas there is no distinction in the aljamia between the plosive, fricative or velar realizations derived from the Latin B/V. Thevav is reserved for a vocalic function (Benabu 1991: 39). 80 chapter two

Lo’ez this distinction is present throughout with the regular use of diacritic to indicate the affricate, the absence of the diacritic indicates the plosive phoneme. In Chapter 4 I have indicated a b for a bet or vet and of course a v for a vav. Words where v is written in the Spanish can also be represented by a vav, but a bet is a more common rendering (González Llubera 1935: xvii). In other words there is an equalisation of the representation of the bet and vav (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 114). In modern Spanish, the voiced bilabial fricative /ß/ is the phoneme of b and v in intervocalic position. For more on the ‘b, v’ merger see Pountain (2001: 222, 226, 262). In Hebrew words bet rafa, the fricative, is represented in this book by b̠ as in ḥab̠er, and as b for the plosive bet.

ג On its own the velar gimmel is represented simply by g or gu according to the vowel it precedes, e.g. diga (ST 49B:1). However, when written with the diacritic there are a number of phonemic possibilities.28 ג` as The diacritic is a graphical way of dealing with Romance phonemes that have no equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet (Hassán 1987: 129). The gimmel with the diacritic could be representing the phoneme:

(1) /ĉ/ transcribed with ch in both medieval and modern Spanish and in this book, e.g. mucho (ST 49B:4) (2) /ʒ/ transcribed with g in medieval Spanish but with j in modern Spanish.29 However in this book I have transcribed this with ǰ, in this way the appearance of modern Spanish is better preserved without compromising the message of the correct phonetic description. (3) /dʒ/ was perhaps a positional variant of /ʒ/ as was the case in medieval Spanish, where /dʒ/ would arise in initial position such as ǰuicio (text 71:5). This phoneme is transcribed in this book with the phonetic symbol ǰ. The phoneme /dʒ/ may well have been a

28 The realization of the gimmel + diacritic, as adopted by the Jewish poets of Spain, is evidence of the adoption of Arabic orthographical conventions (Benabu 1991: 40). 29 For example, as in mujer; for its phonological development see Penny 2004b: 182. research methods and sources 81

result of the incorporation of loans from Turkish and later French into Judeo-Spanish. It is regarded to be a later phenomenon (Penny 2004b: 180, 186). In fact, there is no certainty either way that it was such in the texts. For this reason in the texts I will transcribe the gimmel with the diacritic in words such as ǰuicio with the same symbol as that transcribing /ʒ/, as ǰuicio. This argument is held by other philology experts in the field (Quintana 2006: 78), (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 163, 165). (4) Note also ğ representing the phoneme /ʒ/ in words such as coğimos.

The transliterated version will showg and g` for the gimmel and the gimmel + diacritic forms respectively. However, often the diacritic is missing and digo / dygw (ST 68:5) ‘I say’ should read as dicho, the past participle ‘said’. Use of diacritics in the texts is irregular and this is detected in other works like Proverbios Morales (González Llubera 1947: 27). Since the diacritics are missing most of the time from the texts I will write the word that is meant in the transcribed version. Occasionally where there is a larger degree of interpretation involved I will write the text version with my interpretation in parenthesis.

ד The daled /d/ or /θ/ is represented in both transcription and transliteration by d. In Spanish and similarly in Judeo-Spanish, the pronunciation varies according to either the position of the letter or the (דּ, ד) phonemes that follow. In a Hebrew punctuated text a diacritic differentiates between allophones, such as /d/ and θ/ /, /s/ and /š/ etc. (Hassán 1987: 124). However, in the case of daled, the diacritic does not appear in the rashi script, note demandó / dym∙ndw (ST 68:8) ‘he asked’ and cargado / q∙rg∙dw (ST 68:13) ‘laden’, todo/ţwdw (ST 49B:2) ‘everything’, all have the same daled.

ה The heh, /h/ in Hebrew is an aspirate and is represented by the consonant h. In its modern Spanish rendition the aspirate is silenced but it is still represented by the letter h as a consonant in both versions. In final position it indicates the vowel -a, in which case its graphical representation is omitted in the transcription, (myntyrh / mentira ST 82 chapter two

(aleph + heh) אה 49B:1 ‘lie’, ∙šţh / está ST 49B:15 ‘is’).30 For example represents the preposition a ‘to’. In the transliteration it would be written as ‘>h’. See also section 3.3.1.3 and Table 3.1.

ו The vav represents (1) the vowel /o/ and /u/, pwr / por (ST 7:2) ‘for’, pwšw / puso (ST 7:3 ‘he put’) and (2) the consonant /v/, wynw / vino (ST 7:4) ‘he came’. As a vowel o never occurs in an initial position. If a vav is present in initial position it would be representing /v/. In an internal or final position thevav used as a vowel could be repre- aleph). In the transcriptions the vav א senting /o/ or /u/, (see above is represented as o, u or v accordingly, and as w in the transliterated versions.

ז The alveolar zayin, /z/ in these texts is used principally where medieval Spanish used z, e.g. dećir (text 3:16) was formerly written as dezir.31 Also caśa (text 11:12), written as caza in medieval Spanish (see Penny 2004a: 101–102), uses a zayin in the Hebrew texts (also maldezirlo ST 49B:8).32 In the transliterated versions z is used and in the transcriptions it will be rendered according to the rules of modern Spanish orthography, yet indicating the pronounciation by the following symbols ś, ć or ź. Once again the appearance of modern Spanish is not compromised. Judeo-Spanish does not differentiate between /dʒ/ as in ג dodze with /z/ as in dezir till after the sixteenth century (see supra (3)).

ח Ḥ et is rendered by h in the transliterated versions and by ḥ in the transcriptions of Hebrew words, e.g. ḥalab (ST 49B:18). It does not appear in Spanish words that use a k̠af for the same fricative glottal phoneme that is transcribed as k̠.

30 In Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali there is an alternation of spellings with a final heh to the omission of this final silent consonant (Minervini 1992: 24). 31 The sibilants are the Old Castilian ones: the voiceless /s/ is distinguished from the voiced /z/ occurring when s falls between vowels or before a voiced consonant in accordingly ז and zayin ש a word. To distinguish this, the Hebrew script uses the sin (Entwistle 1965: 181). See ST 7:4 mwsh, ST 7:11 pwzh. 32 See section 3.3.1.6 on seseo/zezeo. research methods and sources 83

ט Spanish /t/ is rendered by tet in initial and medial position.33 Taf is usually used to indicate /t/ in a final position. In the transliteration of this corpus tet is always rendered by ţ and by ṭ in the transcription, e.g. ṭomó / ţwmw (ST 7:13) ‘he took’.

י ,represents ie ײ Yod is used (1) for both vowels i and e. The doubleyod renders יאי as in también /ţ∙mbyyn (ST 49B:26), whilst yod aleph yod in final position יאה or yod aleph heh יא the diphthong ei. Yod aleph io, as- יו is renders -ia, note ía / ∙y∙h (ST 68:19) ‘he went’, and yod vav in Dio / dyyw (ST 49B:26) ‘God’, (2) for the consonant y is rendered by one, less often by a double yod.34 The transliterated version always writes a y for the yod, and the transcription will render it either as a vowel i, e, or as a consonant y.

ך כ Kaf is one of the four letters (as well as ayin, tsadi, taf ) that is limited to Hebrew words or the odd occasional Arabism (Hassán 1987: 128). כּ kaf with the diacritic represents the same phoneme /k/ as the letter kof. It is transliterated by the symbol k. K̠af (Kaf rafa) /x/ without ק the diacritic renders the Spanish fricative glottal represented by j. In the transcription Hebrew words are transcribed as k and k̠ for kaf and kaf rafa respectively.

ל The /l/ is transcribed as l in both systems. It is important to ascertain whether this consonant is followed by a single or double yod.35 The transcription remains unaltered where the l is followed by a single yod. However, when a double yod follows this consonant, then in the modern rendition it is written as ll to represent /λ/; llamé / ly∙my (text 11:20) ‘I called’, falló / p∙lyyw (ST 68:4) ‘he found’. This is reconfirmed

33 It is also the case in González Llubera’s Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: xviii). 34 Note that in Coplas de Yosef ‘Dio’ is spelt with one yod (González Llubera 1935: 15). -for ll perpetuates the ly of Romance orthog לי Note that the spelling lamed yod 35 raphy and also occurs in Judeo-Catalan (González Llubera 1935: xix). 84 chapter two in the latest edition of the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 83). According to González Llubera, there is usually one yod but when the alveolar /l/ precedes a vav then there are two yods (González- Llubera 1935: xix). In Hebrew words it is rendered simply by l.

מ The mem, /m/, never occurs as a double letter in Hebrew as in Span- ish in principle. It is represented in all versions by m, como / qwmw is very similar to the samech ם ST 68:9) ‘how’, The final lettermem) in the rashi script (see Table 2.3) and is often indistinguishable. For ס transcription of the Hebrew words it is written as m.

נ The nun, /n/, always appears as a single letter, as in Spanish and is transcribed simply as n in all versions in this book, wynw / vino (ST 7:4) ‘he came’, ∙wnh / una (ST 7:10) ‘one’. The diagraphnun+ yod is formulated to describe /ɲ/ since there is no Hebrew letter to represent this phoneme. In the transliterated version it is written as ny, but as ñ in the transcriptions. Note pequeño / pyqynyyw (ST 68:12) ‘small’. In Hebrew words n is used to transcribe the nun and there is no ñ in Hebrew.

ס The samech is represented in the transliterated version by an s and in the transcribed version as a ç. In general, it appears where the medieval Spanish word shows the grapheme ç or s (ST 7:4, 12). Where the phoneme is an apico-alveolar affricate I have used normative Modern Spanish spelling c, z, as opposed to ç for the dental affricate. Section 3.3.1.6. explains seseo, zezeo and its consequences in Judeo-Spanish.

ע in Hebrew is represented in the texts by the vowel עThe letter ayin preceded by the symbol ‘in Hebrew words in the medial position. The deep guttural ayin has no equivalent phoneme in Romance languages and is only present in the texts in Hebrew vocabulary. For example, the name Jacob Ya‘aqob / y>qb (ST 68:5), al inián / >l >nyn (ST 68:16) ‘on the matter’. research methods and sources 85

ף פ The phonemes /f/ and /p/, plosive and fricative, represented in Hebrew are transcribed using the letters f and p where ,פּ and פ by the letters relevant. The diacritic in this letter converts the letter from fricative to plosive.36 Since this punctuation is absent in the rashi script and therefore in this corpus, the context of the word has to be understood before deciding which letter to use. Interestingly in the rashi script of the Me’Am Lo’ez the diacritics are included and facilitate the deciphering process. Note falló / p∙lyyw (ST 68:4) ‘he found’ and pasó / p∙šw (ST 68:14) ‘it passed’ both display the same initial Hebrew letter. In Hebrew words the graphemes p and f are used in this book. Note that /f/ becomes /h/ and /ø/ in different varieties (Penny 2004b: 183). See also section 3.3.1.3.

ץ The tsadi is one of the few Hebrew phonemes with no equivalent in modern Spanish. The medieval ʦ/ / is written in Medieval Spanish as ç occurring in words like alçar ‘to lift’, although this phoneme has disappeared from Judeo-Spanish unless it appears in a Hebrew word. The ʦ/ / and /s/ merge to /s/ in Judeo-Spanish (Pountain 2001: 221). Even then, in speech this phoneme would be Judeo-Hispanized to /s/, though a Hebrew /Judeo-Spanish bilingual speaker will tend to keep the Hebrew phonemes in the words he is familiar with.37 In the transliterated versions, I have represented this phoneme as ş, and in the transcriptions I have transcribed this as sadiq̣ / şdyq (ST 68:7)—here used as a surname, has the meaning ‘righteous’ in Hebrew. Also the toponym sefaṭ / şpt (texts 11:8, 82:7, 8) has tsadi as its initial letter, Misrayiṃ / myşrym (texts 48:5; 54A:6; 54B:4; 74:26) ‘Egypt’ too contains the tsadi.

ק The kof, /k/, is represented in the transliterated version by a q and in the transcribed version it is written with a c or qu according to the

36 See Minervini (1992: 28–29) for a description of the use of the diacritics. 37 This is evidenced from hearing Israeli Judeo-Spanish speakers today and may well have been the case with scribes involved with rabbinic judicial writings. 86 chapter two rules of modern Spanish orthography, e.g. pequeño / pyqynyyw (ST 68:12) ‘small’, como / qwmw (ST 7:7) ‘how’. Hebrew words containing kof have been rendered using q.

ר The resh represents both the vibrant /r/ and the flap ɾ/ / that are normally represented in Spanish orthography by rr and r respectively. Judeo-Spanish sometimes, however, simplifies both phonemes to the flap /ɾ/ both letters to r.38 In the texts I have opted for Spanish orthography: r as in p∙bl∙r / fablar (ST 68:5) ‘to speak’, and rr as in pyrw / perro (cf. standard perro) ‘dog’ (texts 42:20, 22; ST 49B:9).39

שׁ The shin /ʃ/, the pre-palatal fricative, would be represented in medieval Spanish by x in words like dyšw / diǰo (ST 68:11) ‘he said’. In the transliterated version it is written as š. In the transcription too it is represented by ǰ as in diǰo, in this way the modern Spanish look of the text is preserved whilst not compromising the phonetic elements. The punctuated shin is dotted on its top right-hand corner. In the rashi script, they have to be deciphered in the absence of diacritics purely by word recognition. Although in some cases like in saberéš (6: 1), diréš (6: 2) there is a diacritic. Note that the /ʃ/ occurs in words like deǰar or baǰo and diǰo. In Hebrew words the š is used to transcribe the shin.

שׂ The sin has to be recognised as different to the shin through the context in an unpointed text (estos ST 7:10) ‘these’. The punctuatedshin contains a dot on its top left-hand corner. It is represented by the letter s in the transcription, but š in the transliteration in the same way as the shin, since this distinction is not apparent in an unpointed text. In the transcription of Hebrew vocabulary the sin is represented by ś. In medieval Spanish /s/ could be indicating a single or double ‘ss’.40 Note

38 See section 3.3.1.12 for an explanation of the reasons for this representation. 39 González Llubera says, ‘the use of r to represent rr prevails in the transcriptions of Romance languages other than Spanish into Hebrew script, its adoption is merely a persistence of Hebrew orthographic usage’ (González Llubera 1935: xx). 40 “The single ‘s’ and double ‘ss’ in medieval Spanish attest to two different etymolo- gies” (Benabu 1991: 36). research methods and sources 87 that in Coplas de Yosef the scribe does not differentiate the voiced and voiceless sounds and represents both pusieron and pasasen with a sin instead of with a sin or zayin accordingly (González Llubera 1935: xx) (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 83).

ת Like kaf, taf has its phonemic equivalent in tet; both represent /t/ insofar as Spanish is concerned. Thetaf appears in the transcription of Hebrew words e.g. ‘edut (ST 68:11) ‘testimony’, and is represented everywhere by t. It also appears in a final position, e.g.verdat (texts 15:27, 35; 37:40).

Ligature The only example of ligature, i.e. two letters joined up together to al that is a common / אל appear as one letter, is that of aleph lamed occurrence in Hebrew print. In text 13 we findalafim (thousand) written with the aleph and lamed joined as one consonant (text 13:90). Ligature appears very occasionally in the Hebrew words in our texts.

2.3.6.1 Guide to Transcriptions Note that this guide indicates the Hebrew letters, the Judeo-Spanish phonemes expressed by each Hebrew graph, the corresponding modern Spanish phoneme and the grapheme used in this corpus for both Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew words. Table 2.3 shows the Hebrew letters in the rashi script that is found in most of the responsa. Table 2.4 indicates the corresponding Latin grapheme used in transliterating the sample texts in section 2.4 and in Appendix 1. Note that IPA symbols are used for phonemes, that are indicated by obliques //. It has to be noted that the majority of the texts in their original sixteenth-century printed versions appear in the rashi script. The rashi style is used mainly to write commentaries on texts. Rashi is an acronym of the name of Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040–1105 AD), one of the greatest medieval Jewish scholars and Bible commentators, whose commentary appears in this script. Although Rashi himself did not use this script his commentary appeared in this typeface in the first Hebrew book printed in Reggio di Calabria in 1475 (Bunis 1975: 4). In fact Rashi script is the Sephardic script in which his commentaries were first published next to the square letter Biblical text. Below, I include a simple table to exemplify the rashi script; each letter has its name written below in the Latin script. 88 chapter two

Table 2.2: Guide to Transcriptions From the Hebrew alphabet (column 1), to Judeo-Spanish phonemes (column 2), to Modern Spanish phonemes (column 3), to the Graphemes used in texts, indicating graphemes used in the transcription of Hebrew words in italics (column 4) Hebrew Possible Judeo-Spanish Modern Spanish Grapheme used in Letter Phoneme(s) Phoneme texts Consonants a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/ /a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/ a, e, i, o, u/ א a, e, i, o, u, ’ in medial position v/ /ß/ b, v/ ב b̠ בּ /b/ /b/ b, v b (g/ /g/ g (a, o, u/ ג gu (e, i) g dʒ/ /x/ ǰ/ 41ג" /ʒ/ /x/ ǰ, ć, ź, ś, ğ /ĉ/42 /ʧ/ ch /g/43 /g/ g ð/ /d/ d/ ד d דּ /d/ /d/ D D h/44 / /45 h/ ה /a/ /a/ h a v/ /ß/ v/ ו /o/ /o/ o /u/ /u/ u v, o, u

41 This phoneme and its allophones [dʒ], [ʒ], appear to be represented similarly by the graphic convention borrowed from Arabic and is used to render the several realizations of the Arabic letter jim (Benabu 1991: 36). These phonemes do not appear in Hebrew words. 42 This phoneme only appears in Spanish words at the beginning of a syllable, but at the end of a word in Hebrew and Greek borrowings (Sala 1971: 125). 43 Occasionally the diacritic is erroneously added to the gimmel. Then, according to word recognition and context one has to interpret the phoneme as just /g/. 44 The aspirate h is only pronounced in the case of Hebrew words. 45 The letterh is silent in modern Spanish. 46 47 48 49 50 research methods and sources 89

Table 2.2 (cont.) Hebrew Possible Judeo-Spanish Modern Spanish Grapheme used in Letter Phoneme(s) Phoneme texts

(z/ /θ/ ź (a, o, u/ ז /dz/ /θ/ ć (e, i) /s/ ś /θ/ ć (e, i) z ḥ/ /h/ ḥ 47/ 46ח t/ /t/ t/ ט ṭ e/ /e/ e/ י /i/ /i/ i /y/ /y/ y y y/ /λ/ ll/ י י /j/ y /je/ /ie/ /ei/ /ei/ y ie ei ḥ/ /x/ j/ 48כ ,ך k̠ כּ /k/ /k/ c (a, o, u) qu (e, i) k l/ /l/ l/ ל l m/ /m/ m/ מ ם m n/ /n/ n/ נ ן n s/ /s/ ç/ ס /θ/ s /θ/ c (e, i) z (o, a, u) s

46 Theh ̣et is present in Hebrew words only; the k̠af is used in Judeo-Spanish to render /x/. 47 In case where a Hebrew word would be rendered with Spanish orthography, the graphemes representing the ḥet would be h and j. ,is the Hebrew letter that is used in final position. Some letters k( ̠af ך Note that 48 mem, nun, fe and tzadi) have a final form sofit( ), which is used when they appear at the end of a word. 90 chapter two

Table 2.2 (cont.) Hebrew Possible Judeo-Spanish Modern Spanish Grapheme used in Letter Phoneme(s) Phoneme texts a, e, i, o, u (‘ in /‘//‘/ 49ע Hebrew words in medial position) פּ /p/ /p/ p p f/ /f/ f/ פ ,ף f ʦ/ /s/ ṣ/ צ50 ,ץ (k/ /k/ c (a, o, u/ ק qu (e, i) q r/ /r/ r/ ר /r/ /r̠/ rr r שׁ (shin) /ʃ/ /x/ ǰ, š š שׂ (sin) /s/ /s/ s ś t/ /t/ T/ ת Vowels a /a/ A/ ַ ָ e/ /e/ E/ ֶ ֵ i/ /i/ I/ ּ o/ /o/ O/ ו ֹ ʊ//ʊ/U/ ֻו Diagraphs e/ /e/ e/ א י e o/ /o/ o/ א ו o ni/ /ni/ ni/ נ י /ɲ/ /ɲ/ ñ ni (no ñ in Hebrew) li/ /li/ li/ ל י /λ/ /λ/ ll /y/ /y/ y y

49 Ayin only appears in Hebrew words. 50 Tsadi only appears in Hebrew words. research methods and sources 91

Table 2.3: The Hebrew Alphabet in Rashi Script

2.3.6.2 Guide to Transliterated Versions: From the Hebrew Alphabet to the Latin Alphabet This system is an interpretation of the original based on Minervini’s transliteration system (Minervini 1992: 7), one that I used in my MA thesis (Benaim 1996).

Table 2.4: Guide to Transliterations—Hebrew to Latin Hebrew Latin Letter Letter Consonants ` א b ב g ג g`` ג" d ד h ה w ו z ז ú ח ţ ט y י k כ l ל m מ ם n נ ן s ס < ע p ף ş ץ q ק r ר š ש t ת 92 chapter two

Table 2.4 (cont.) Hebrew Latin Letter Letter Diagraphs y` א י w` א ו ny נ י ly ל י

2.4 The Problems of Textual Transmission

2.4.1 Introduction This section explains, describes and comments on the variations between editions, with an aim to justify working from original editions in this study. Justification for this can be understood in the light of the fact that the book has a primary objective of linguistic description and analysis. The first part of this section approaches the subject of textual transmission from a general perspective and also discusses specific issues that relate to the corpus as a whole. The next part deals with one particular sample, text 11. The various editions of this text have been scanned into this section. Each version of the text mirroring each edition has been transliterated according to the guide in Table 2.4. Variations between versions, grouped according to specific phenomena, are described, illustrated and discussed. Finally, the conclusion illustrates the findings and the purpose of the exercise. In the introductory chapter (section 1.4) I explain the process of printing of the volume of the responsa that usually took place after the demise of the respondent. The manuscripts of the questions and replies would have been kept by the family. In the sixteenth-century in Salonica, the emergence of some of these first printed editions can be attested. Appendix 1 shows a table of the respondents from whose responsa this corpus is composed. The table indicates the various dates and places of publication of the editions of each of their responsa collection. I have listed here the edition that the BIURP (2003) uses. Also, as a footnote at the beginning of each new respondent in research methods and sources 93

Chapter 4, I have indicated the edition from which the BIURP has copied.51 Interestingly, the BIURP appears to copy from the latest editions, though it does not conform to the same line pattern. However, in some cases where there were no later editions, they obviously copy from the original edition. For instance, Torat Emet, the collection of the respondent R. Aharon b. Joseph Sasson, only appears in one edition in Venice in 1626. BIURP uses a Jerusalem 1961 edition for the first part of Maharashach’s responsa, yet relies on an earlier edition (Venice 1592) for the second part.52 The original editions of these responsa are mostly printed in rashi letters.53 Elijah ben Hayim’s collection and Joseph Caro’s Bet Yosef are the only ones in this corpus that are printed in block letters.54 The BIURP prints its work in block letters, but since it is computerised its font can be changed with ease. In the case of Medina’s responsa, all editions appear in the rashi script. The sample text chosen for analysis in this section is part of the collection of Samuel de Medina’s responsa (text 11).55 Medina’s responsa was published first56 in 1595 in Salonica, second in 1793 in Salonica

51 This information is available on the BIURP website as well as on the CD ROM itself under Help—List of Books and Editions. 52 See Appendix 4. 53 See Table 2.3. 54 As opposed to the cursive form of the rashi letters, the square block letter is .(merubá) מרובע called 55 For an index of all his responsa see Bornstein (1979) Maftehot to the Mahara- schdam (Bar Ilan University). 56 In fact some of Medina’s responsa appeared in an edition Piske ha-Rashdam in Salonica printed by David Abraham Azuviv (Bornstein 1979: 65). There are differing views as to the exact date of this version. Jewish Encyclopaedia (1916) vol. 8 says it appeared between 1578 and 1587, Zedner (1964: 675) gives the dates 1580–82, Cowley (1929) says the first part came outcirca 1589–82 and the second part in 1582, Vinograd (1995) gives 1580–82, Goodblatt however gives 1589 (Goodblatt 1952: 28). Accord- ing to the Jewish Encyclopaedia (1916) vol. 8, Medina’s responsa numbered 956 that were divided into four parts. Volume one (310 responsa) and two (316) appeared in Piské ha-Rashdam. Goodblatt states that Moses, Medina’s son, was dissatisfied with this incomplete edition because of its poor type and numerous typographical errors and after his father’s death he republished the collection under the title of She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam in Salonica, published by the brothers Bathsheva, in 1595 using a new type especially designed for this work by printers from Venice. In this second republication, the responsa were reclassified and rearranged under four headings according to the four divisions of the Arba Turim (Bornstein 1979: 65). This edition was published in three volumes (Goodblatt 1952: 28). For these reasons I refer to the 94 chapter two too, third in Lvov in 1863.57 This third edition is the one relied on by the BIURP (2003). I have scanned in a sample of the text of the second and third editions and I have indicated the variations found in the second edition too. In this corpus, the capitals SE1 indicate the first Salonican edition, SE2 stand for the second Salonican edition, as SE3 for the third. The second and third editions have also been transliterated as this is helpful to our understanding of the reasons behind these textual variations and the problems of textual transmission. I have included a scanned copy of text 11 of the Piske Ha-Rashdam edition. From a methodological perspective it was an arduous task to find this responsum, since this collection has a different numbering to the later ones and the BIURP. Hence, in order to find the appropriate responsum I had to search manually through six hundred responsa in two volumes held in the BL. As the principal aim of this exercise is to compare the original with the BIURP editions, the line references in all editions in this section are consistent with the line pattern of the original edition used in this corpus. I have checked the BIURP against the third edition (1863 Lvov) and, in this sample text, I found no variation. I found out that the BIURP copy-typed the responsa and therefore it is noteworthy that despite the fact the typist may not have been familiar with Judeo-Spanish there were no errors in this case.58 The variations therefore must have occurred between the editions of Salonica and Lvov. The sample text from both editions has been transliterated using the system in section 2.3.7.2. This system mirrors the Hebrew text by representing each Hebrew letter by an equivalent Latin letter. I have kept to the line pattern of the original edition and, for the sake of ease of comparison. I ensured the same pattern in the BIURP version. In this way textual variations can be seen with accuracy. Additionally, I have put in bold print the word or words that vary from one version

1595 Salonican edition as the first and original edition, since this previous one,Piske ha-Rashdam, was incomplete, erroneous, indistinct, and had a poor type. Details of publications as well as a comprehensive index to Medina’s responsa appear in Bornstein’s Maftechot leShe’elot u-Teshuvot rebi Shmuel de Medina (1979). 57 This publishing centre in Poland is also referred to as Lemberg (Goodblatt 1952: 218). 1863 is the year given by EJ and Friedberg (1951), Bornstein (1979) and BIURP gives 1862. 58 I corresponded with the BIURP helpdesk to secure this information. research methods and sources 95 to the other. I have also mentioned in the footnotes to Chapter 4 some of the pertinent variations with the BIURP. The problems of textual transmission from one edition to the next can be appreciated in this discussion through the analysis of this one text, since many of the variations apply generally too.59 I have listed certain categories that these variations can be grouped in and discussed the various examples within this category with cross-references to the sample versions in section 2.4.3. Where appropriate, I document the analysis with references to other literary sources of this nature. The categories discussed include variations in spelling often with a phonological significance, variations in abbreviated forms, missing letters represented by a diacritic (the equivalent of an apostrophe), metathesis,60 word separation patterns, change in the inclusion of the aleph as a consonant, different renderings, scribal or printing errors, misrepresentation of consonants with similar appearance (e.g. the nun and gimmel, the vav and the yod),61 and the phonological and orthor- graphic effect of the inclusion or exclusion of diacritics. Many of these variations are naturally repeated. In all, I found fifty-seven variations accounting for forty-one different types of variations in this sample text of sixty-nine lines between the corpus edition and the BIURP in question. There are also some significant variations occurring in the other eighty-three texts in this corpus. In text 13 of Samuel de Medina’s responsa, there is an omission in the BIURP of approximately eight lines (ll. 51–58) that consequently alters the testimony. This omission is already found in the third edition, and since BIURP uses Lemberg 1862 edition it is obvious they have carried through the omission. This is a consequence of not working from original editions. The original text says that Ab̠raham Primo was not in town, whilst the BIURP says that Ab̠raham did not want to move house (see text 13:51–58).

59 These problems are unsurprising as ‘owing to the circumstances of medieval publication, texts were disseminated at various stages of their creation and revision, and their authors were usually prevented from controlling what happened to them. Just as there was no scriptural authority over the development of Hebrew scripts, the production of Hebrew books and the transmission of Hebrew texts were not subject to any authoritative initiative or supervision’ (Elman & Gershoni 2000: 236). 60 See section 3.3.1.13. 61 Textual confusion between the editions with the consonants resh and the daled is attested (text 34:6) and also between the peh and the chaf (text 34:4). 96 chapter two

In text 32:2, the text varies in the wording used although the meaning has been retained—a form of paraphrase occurs. The original version has no se podia apartar qahal pequeño ni grande, whilst the BIURP has no se podia apartar quier qahal pequeño quier qahal grande (not to divide any small or large community).62 In text 13:75, sultanis ‘coins’ in the SE1 appears as sultanim in the BIURP, showing a preference for the Hebrew plural ending -im. In text 26:52, justicia ‘justice’ changes orthography, gwšţyšy∙ (SE1) to g` wsţysyyh (BIURP). The later version representsjusticia as two words, substituting the sin for samech.63 Quintana also observes this apparent confusion between the graphemes of sin and samech in the sixteenth century and comments that later in the eighteenth century they are both used indistinctively (Quintana 2006: 79). This later version also shows a replacement of a single yod by a double yod and a change of the final aleph to a heh. However, the variations between the editions in the rest of the texts fall within the categories listed in the above paragraph. Common printing errors occur such as the confusion between a (1) vav and a zayin due to their similarity in shape prevail in the corpus and include zinido (text 54A:1) for venido, rivá (text 45:2) for rizá, repovar (ST 49B:5) for repozar; (2) resh and daled accounting for depas (text 50B:27) for ropas,64 Daguza (text 54B:2) for Raguza, declado (text 71:34) for declaro; (3) chet for aleph rendering jel (text 42:20) for el, jido (text 74:3) for ido, ají (text 74:16) for ahí; (4) vav and yod giving instances of lo (text 83:73) for le, tedos (text 83:63) for todos, ses (text 43C:2) for sus. These errors result in non-sensical language and often produce semantic confusion with comic effects such asoso (text 74:38) ‘bear’ for mozo ‘lad’. Errors such as et (text 71:17) for a where a taf replaces a heh may be a consequence of the fact that in Hebrew et has the same meaning ‘to’ as a in Spanish.

62 In this section I have italicised the Judeo-Spanish in order to facilitate this particular discussion. 63 This substitution is very common in Judeo-Spanish orthography. Though it does not occur in the sample text, it occurs occasionally in other texts and I have indicated this with a footnote. For an explanation of this orthographic phenomenon see Min- ervini (1992: 31–32). 64 The worddepas contains the additional error of a yod in place of a vav, thus rendering the word quite undecipherable. research methods and sources 97

References in this section are made to the Girón-Negrón & Minerv- ini 2006 edition of Coplas de Yosef, a medieval Spanish poem written in Hebrew characters, Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali, medieval Jewish texts in Hebrew characters dating from the end of the thirteenth century from Castile and Aragon and to the Me’Am Lo’ez. Also Pascual Recuero’s (1988) edition of Judeo-Spanish texts in Hebrew characters include Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547), Beur de Almosnino (1564), Salmos de Salónica (1584), Biblia de Constantinopla (1738), Siddurim de Liorna (Šir Haširim 1860, pur šel Pesaḥ 1867) to which I refer from an orthographic perspective in the following analysis. As can be appreciated from the following discussion, some variations are more significant than others, but arguably working from the earliest edition possible has to be the more direct way of reproducing the language in this corpus. In order to analyse the problems of textual transmission I include of text 11:

1. a scanned copy of Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) (Salon- ica 1580–82) 2. a transliteration of the Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) 3. a scanned copy of the first edition (Salonica 1595) 4. a transliteration of the first edition 5. a transliteration of the first edition 6. a scanned copy of the second edition (Salonica 1793) 7. a transliteration of the second edition 8. a scanned copy of the third edition (Lvov 1863) 9. a downloaded copy of the BIURP in Hebrew aligned the same as the original edition 10. a transliteration of the BIURP edition (exactly the same as the third edition) 11. a description of the textual differences between editions 12. a concluding statement. 98 chapter two

2.4.2 Scanned Copy of Text 11 Piske Ha-Rashdam65 (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82)66

65 Note that the quality of print and clarity is far worse in the original than in the scanned copy provided herewith. 66 This text has been scanned from the BL, by kind permission of British Library Board. research methods and sources 99

Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) Piske Ha-Rashdam Incomplete Edition Salonica 1580–8267 The following texts have been transliterated according to the guide in section 2.3.6.2.

168 .šţ∙ndw ∙n∙l qwšqy dyl šynywr dwqy z``lhh qwn ∙yl 2. šynywr dwqy ∙qbzw ∙šţ∙ndw ∙lyy ∙yl šynywr dwţwr 3. r` yšr∙l d∙dryrw n``< ly dyšw ∙yl šynywr dwqy 4. z``lhh šynywr dwţwr pwrkynw wwš q∙z∙š pwyš ∙yš 5. r∙zwn qy q∙zyš p∙rh ţynyr hygwš ∙yl dwţwr ly 6. ryšpwndyw pwyš šynywr pynšh ww∙yšh šynywry∙h 7. qy yw ∙yšţw ∙h lwmry dy p∙g∙š šyph ww∙yšh 8. šynywry∙h qy ∙yn şpţ ţyngw ∙wn ∙ygo myld∙ndw ∙yl 9. dwqy ly ryšpwndyw qyš∙š šyrh hygw dy ∙yr∙dh ∙yl 10. ly ryšpwndyw šynywr nw pwrqy ∙yš mwgyr mwy ∙wnr∙dh 11. ∙y ∙wnyšţh ∙y ∙yš p∙ryynţh dy myš p∙ryynţ∙š ∙y 12. ∙yšţh` ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry 13. ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynywr 14. dwqy nw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl 15. p∙lyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h 16. dy g``ypry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm 17. ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn 18. ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh 19. ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw 20. p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw ly∙my dym∙ndyly 21. qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy 22. wyny∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l 23. dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr 24. ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh 25. dyl hygw dyl∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly 26. šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl šynyywr dwqy z``lhh dyg``w 27. šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy šy gm hyšyš wm∙` 28. n

67 In this transliteration I have emboldened nine variations occurring in this collection in comparison to the first complete edition published in 1595. 68 Note that I have used the same numbering of the lines as the Salonica 1595 edition for the sake of uniformity and clarity in this chapter. 100 chapter two

31. nwţyšy∙ dy šw hygw šyr šw hygw qyš∙ndwšy mwgw qy nw 32. š∙ly∙h ny ∙yrh ∙šw gwšţw rwgwmy qy ly qšţyg∙šy 33. ∙y rypryndyyšy dyšpw∙yš dy ţyynpw wynyyndw g``ynţy 34. dy g``ypry my dyg``w ∙wn gwdyyw qy dy ∙lyy∙ wyny∙h 35. š∙wyyndw qy ∙yl dwţwr šy ∙wy∙` q∙z∙dw ∙yšp∙nţwmy 36. mwgw.qwmw ∙n d∙dw mwg``yr ∙h ∙yšţy ∙wmbry ţynyyndw 37. mwg``yr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙wn 38. hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y

Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the First Edition (Salonica 1595) 102 chapter two

Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) First Edition, Salonica 1595 1. ∙šţ∙ndw ∙n∙l qwšqy dyl šynywr dwqy z``lhh qwn ∙yl 2. šynywr dwqy ∙qbzw ∙šţ∙ndw ∙lyy ∙yl šynywr dwţwr 3. rby yšr∙l d∙dryrw n``< ly dyšw ∙yl šynywr dwqy 4. z``lhh šynywr dwţwr pwrkynwwwš q∙z∙š pwyš ∙yš 5. r∙zwn qy q∙zyš p∙rh ţynyr hygwš ∙yl dwţwr ly 6. ryšpwndyw pwyš šynywr pynšh ww∙yšh šynywry∙h 7. qy yw ∙yšţw ∙h lwmry dy p∙g∙š šyph ww∙yšh 8. šynywry∙h qy ∙yn şpţ ţyngw ∙wn ∙ygo myld∙ndw ∙yl 9. dwqy ly ryšpwndyw qyš∙š šyrh hygw dy ∙yr∙dh ∙yl 10. ly ryšpwndyw šynywr nw pwrqy ∙yš mwgyr mwy ∙wnr∙dh 11. ∙y ∙wnyšţh ∙y ∙yš p∙ryynţh dy myš p∙ryyţ∙š ∙y 12. ∙yšţ` ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry 13. ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynywr 14. dwqy nw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl 15. p∙lyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h 16. dy g``ypry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm 17. ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn 18. ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh 19. ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw 20. p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw ly∙my dym∙ndyly 21. qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy 22. wyny∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l 23. dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr 24. ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh 25. dyl hygw dyl∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly 26. šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl šynyywr dwqy z``lhh dyg``w 27. šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy šy gm hyšy` wm∙` 28. n

37. mwg``yr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙wn 38. hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y

Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the Second Edition (Salonica 1793) research methods and sources 105

Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) Second Edition, Salonica 179369 1. ∙šţ∙ndw ∙n∙l qwšqy dyl šynywr dwqy z``l qwn ∙yl 2. šynywr dwqy ∙qbzw ∙šţ∙ndw ∙lyy ∙yl šynywr dwţwr 3. rby yšr∙l d∙rdyrw n``< ly dyšw ∙yl šynyywr dwqy 4. z``l šynyywr dwţwr pwrky nw wwš q∙z∙š pwyš ∙yš 5. rzwn qy q∙zyš p∙rh ţynyr hygwš ∙yl dwţwr ly 6. ryšpwndyw pwyš šynyywr pynšh ww∙yšh šynywry∙h 7. qy yw ∙yšţw ∙h lwmry dy p∙g∙š šyph ww∙yšh 8. šynywry∙h qy ∙yn şpţ ţyngw ∙wn ∙ygo myld∙ndw ∙yl 9. dwqy ly ryšpwndyw qyš∙š šyrh hygw dy ∙yr∙dh ∙yl 10. ly ryšpwndyw šynyywr nw pwrqy ∙yš mwgyr mwy ∙wnr∙dh 11. ∙y ∙wnyšţh ∙y ∙yš p∙ryynţh dy myš p∙ryynţ∙š ∙y 12. ∙yšţh ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry 13. ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynyywr 14. dwqy nw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl 15. plyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h 16. dy g``ypry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm 17. ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn 18. ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh 19. ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw 20. p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw lyy∙my dym∙ndyly 21. qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy 22. wyny∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l 23. dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr 24. ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh 25. dyl hygw dyl∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly 26. šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl šynyywr dwqy z``lhh dyg``w 27. šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy šy gm hyšys wm∙` 28. n

69 Note that the line numbers here do not correspond to the scanned copy of the text, but to that of the original and BIURP. 106 chapter two

34. dy g``ypry my dyg``w ∙wn gwdyyw qy dy ∙lyy∙ wyny∙h 35. š∙wyyndw qy ∙yl dwţwr šy ∙wy∙` q∙z∙dw ∙yšp∙nţwmy 36. mwgw.qwmw ∙n d∙dw mwg``yr ∙h ∙yšţy ∙wmbry ţynyyndw 37. mwgyr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙wn 38. hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y

Scanned Copy of Text 11 of the Third Edition (Lvov 1863)70

70 I have not transliterated the text of the third edition as I found this to be exactly the same as this BIURP edition. Textual examples of Medina’s cases (text numbers 11, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28) can be found in Benaim (1996). 108 chapter two

Downloaded Copy of Text 11 of the BIURP (2003) in Hebrew 71

שו"ת מהרשד"ם חלק אה"ע סימן קסו

במותב תלתא בית דין כחדא הוינא כד אתא קדמנ׳ הישיש ונשוא פנים כה׳ר אברהם בנבגשת ואחר האיום והגזום באם לא יגיד העיד בתורת עדות 1. וזה תורף דבריו אישטאנדו איניל קושקי דיל שיניור דוקי ז׳ל קון איל 2. שיניור דוקי אקבזו אישטאנדו אליי איל שנייור דוטור 3. ר' ישראל דארדירו נ׳ע לי דישו איל שיניור דוקי 4. ז׳ל שינייור דוטור פורקי נו ווש קאזאש פואיש איש 5. רזון קי קאזיש פארה טיניר היגוש איל דוטור לי 6. רישפונדיו פואיש שינייור פינשה וואישה שיניוריאה 7. קי יו אישטו אה לומרי די פהגאש שיפה וואישה 8. שיניוריאה קי אין צפת טינגו און איגו מילדאנדו איל 9. דוקי לי רישפונדיו קישאש שירה היגו די איראדה איל 10. לי רישפונדיו שינייור נו פורקי איש מוגיר מוי אונראדה 11. אי אונישטה אי איש פריינטה די מיש פאריינטאש אי 12. אישטה אין קאזה די מי אירמנו אי אישטובו שיינפרי 13. אי פינשה איליא קי איש קאזאדה קון מיגו איל שינייור 14. דוקי גו ריפליקו מאש פשאנדו דיאש דישפואיש דיל 15. פלישמיינטו דיל שיניור דוקי ויניינדו אונה גחליאה די 16. גי' פרי הלייאנדומי יו אין לה בוטיקא די ר' אברהם 17. טריגו וידי אישטאר און מושו אין פרינטי וישטידו קון 18. אונה קאפה די פאנייו די שאלוניקי אי אונה גורה 19. אמאריליא אין לה קאביסה אה מודו פראנקו יו 20. פארישיינדומי שיר פוראשטירו לו לייאמי דימאנדילי 21. קיין אירה אי די אדו ויניאה איל מי רישפונדיו קי 22. ויגיאה די גיפרי אי קי אירה היגו דיל דוטור ר' ישראל 23. די ארדירו דו איניל מישמו דיאה ויניינדו איל דוטור 24. אין לה דיגה בוטיקה לי די איל בס׳ט די לה וינידה 25. דיל היגו די לאנטרי דיל פרופיו היגו דימאנדאדולי 26. שי אירה אקיל איל היגו קיל שינייור דוקי ז׳ל דיג׳ו 27. שיר שו היג׳ז אי איל מי רישפונדיו קי שי גם הישיש ומא' 28. נעלה כרבי נחמן הכהן אחרי האיום והגזום הנז'

71 Note that I have restructured this responsum to appear in the same line pattern as in the edition in this corpus of Salonica 1597. research methods and sources 109

29. העיד בתורת עדות וזה תורף דבריו יו אינדו אה 30. ויגיטאר אל שינייור דוטור דיגו אין שו קאזה דאנדומי 31. נוטישא די שו היגו שיר שו היגו קשאנדושי מוגז קי נו 32. שאליאה ני אירה אשו גושטו רוגומי קי לו קשטיגאשי 33. אי ריפרינדיישי דישפואיש דיטיינפו ויניינדו גי‘נטו 34. די גי׳פרי מי דיג‘ו און גודייו קי די אלייא ויניאה 35. שאויינדו קי איל דוטור שי אויאה קאזאדו אישפאנטומי 36. מוגו קומו אן דאדו מגי׳ר אה אישטי אומברי טיניינדו 37. מוגיר אין גיפרי מוי אונראדה אי הירמוזה אי קון אין 38. היגו גם היקר ונכבד ה׳ר יעקב ן' שושן אחרי האיו' 39. והגזום העיד וזה תורף דבריו אישטאנדו איל דוטור 40. די׳גו דוליינטי אינדולי אויג' טא' פורקי איר' מוי מי 41. אמיגו פורקי רישיבטאב' אין מי בוטיקה אי 42. פרישייאנדולי קי אישטאבה און דונלוק די פאנייו 43. פריטו אי כ׳ה גרוסוס אי און באגדאדי מושקי קי און 44. טורקו לי אויאה דאדו אישטאנדו אלייה שו איגו דישו 45. דילאנטימי אישי דונלו' די פאנייוקי לו טומאשי שו 46. איגו פורקי איר' שו איגו שאלידו די שוש לומוש אי 47. קריינדושי איר אגיפרי אי' דוטו' די'גו מילו אינקומינדו 48. מוגו אי קי לו מיראשי פורקי אלה פין אאון קי אירה 49. טראוישו אירה שו איגו אלה הם עדויות האנשים הנז' 50. ולהיות האמת כן חתמנו שמותנו היום יום כ׳ב לניסן 51. ואתקיים. אחר כך ראינו כתב אחד ששלחו 52. מפאמה גושטה לחמיו של הדוטור הנז' דמבשר 53. שהצילו את בתו מן החליצה ומן היבום ז׳ל נשא 54. ונעלה ה׳ר שלמה דארדירו יצ׳ו אישטאש דוש ריגלש וכן 55. פאליסייו איל שינייור שו יירנו הרופא נר'ו אי קומו 56. אומברי פיראקאטדו אין טודש קוזאש פירקורו 57. פאזירלאש קלאראש אי אה טימור דיל דייו ב‘ה אי 58. פיזו צואה וינו אי לייאמי אה שו אירמאנו ה׳ר יעקב 59. דרדירו יצ׳ו אי דישו אירמיו מיאו אין אישטא אורה 60. קי מי האליו דיגו קי נו טינגו היגוש אי מי מוגיר קידה 61. אטאדה אשו מירשי איל קואל שו אידאר נו ריקיירי 62. אקוניאדאר אי מאש קי טייני מוגיר מאנסיבה אי פיגו 63. די אליא אי פינשו קי אין אישטו קי פלאטיקו איש 64. ביניפישיו די מי מוגיר פור שיר אונה מושה די טיירנה 65. אידאד אי פור רישפיקטו די שו מירשי קומו דישי מוגו 66. מאש כו' אי לי דיו גט קורטאדו אי פוזו אזן פירקוראדור 67. אין זכותו די בואישה פיגה פואישי רישיבידור שו גט 68. כו' וחתם בכתב הנז' מסדר הגט הנזכר יורנו מורנו 69. וגאוננו הדין על דרך אמת: 110 chapter two

Transliteration of Text 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) BIURP Edition72 1. šţ∙ndw ∙n∙l qwšqy dyl šynywr dwqy z``l qwn ∙yl 2. šynywr dwqy ∙qbzw ∙šţ∙ndw ∙lyy ∙yl šynyywr dwţwr 3. r` yšr∙l d∙rdyrw n``< ly dyšw ∙yl šynywr dwqy 4. z``l šynyywr dwţwr pwrky nw wwš q∙z∙š pwyš ∙yš 5. rzwn qy q∙zyš p∙rh ţynyr hygwš ∙yl dwţwr ly 6. ryšpwndyw pwyš šynyywr pynšh ww∙yšh šynywry∙h 7. qy yw ∙yšţw ∙h lwmry dy phg∙š šyph ww∙yšh 8. šynywry∙h qy ∙yn şpţ ţyngw ∙wn ∙ygo myld∙ndw ∙yl 9. dwqy ly ryšpwndyw qyš∙š šyrh hygw dy ∙yr∙dh ∙yl 10. ly ryšpwndyw šynyywr nw pwrqy ∙yš mwgyr mwy ∙wnr∙dh 11. ∙y ∙wnyšţh ∙y ∙yš p∙ryynţh dy myš p∙ryynţ∙š ∙y 12. ∙yšţh ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry 13. ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynyywr 14. dwqy gw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl 15. plyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h 16. dy g``y pry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm 17. ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn 18. ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh 19. ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw 20. p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw lyy∙my dym∙ndyly 21. qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy 22. wygy∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l 23. dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr 24. ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh 25. dyl hygw dy l∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly 26. šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl šynyywr dwqy z``l dyg``w 27. šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy šy gm hyšyš wm∙` 28. n

72 Line numbers here are made to correspond to that of the original edition to facilitate referencing. research methods and sources 111

36. mwgw.qwmw ∙n d∙dw mwg``yr ∙h ∙yšţy ∙wmbry ţynyyndw 37. mwgyr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙yn 38. hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y

2.4.3 Description of the Textual Variations in Text 11 Between the Original Edition (Salonica 1595) and the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project73

1. Variation in the spelling of šynyywr / señor with one or two yod can be attested. There are 11 examples ofšynywr (ll. 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15) in the SE1 including šynywry∙h / señoría, 6 examples (ll. 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 15) in BIURP; 3 examples of šynyywr (ll. 26, 30, 55) in SE1, 8 (ll. 2, 4, 6, 10, 13, 26, 30, 55) examples in BIURP. Out of these 14 examples there are five examples where the spelling varies between editions: (ll. 2, 4, 6, 10, 13). It can be seen that in this one text there are five more cases of the double yod inseñor in the SE1 than in the BIURP (see section 3.3.1.15 on ny). In the SE2 šynyywr / señor appears with a double yod and varies from the original edition in six cases (ll. 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13). A double yod is attested in lyy∙my ‘I called’ (l. 20) in the BIURP as opposed to a single yod in the SE1.74 Also p∙nyyw / paño (l. 18) ‘cloth’ appears with a double yod in the SE2 and BIURP and with a single yod in the SE1. It is noteworthy that ella appears as ∙lyyh (SE1 l. 63) and ∙ly∙ (BIURP), showing a process of reduction from a double yod to a single one.75 Similarly yo is spelt in the Me’Am Lo’ez as lyyw (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:216). The diphthong inpienso : pyynšw (SE1 l. 63) is lost in the BIURP form of pynšw in the same process of the reduction of the yod as it also is in Me’Am Lo’ez. Perhaps the Me’Am Lo’ez reflects linguistic changes that took place one hundred and fifty years after the majority of the responsa consulted in this book. 2. Variation in abbreviations; some are written in full, others abbreviated. For instance, in the SE1 z``lhh (ll. 1, 4, 26) is attested while z``l in the BIURP edition. The SE2 edition hasz’’l in ll. 1.4, but z’’lhh in l. 26. There is a difference in the literal meaning.``lhh z stands for zijronó lehayé ha’olam habá’, lit. ‘may his memory live in

73 Since the BIURP is an exact copy of the third edition (Lvov 1863) I do not refer separately to this edition but it is axiomatically included in my references to the BIURP. The second edition (Salonica 1793), referred to as ‘SE2’, is also discussed here. 74 Llamar is represented with a double yod in Pentateuco de Constantinopla (Pas- cual Recuero 1988: 234, 235, 241), in Salmos de Salónica (Pascual Recuero 1988: 266, 280) in Biblia de Constantinopla (Pascual Recuero 1988: 311, 317) in Siddurim de Liorna (Pascual Recuero 1988: 354), but llamase with one yod in Sulhan de Venecia (Pascual Recuero 1988: 287, 300). 75 The doubleyod spelling is attested in the spelling of manzillado in Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 34). research methods and sources 113

the world to come’, whilst z``l indicates in this case zijronó livrajá ‘of blessed memory’. Interestingly z``l also abbreviates ze lešonó ‘this is his language’. In SE1 it is written in full, perhaps to distinguish with the above examples, but appears abbreviated in the SE2 and BIURP (l. 53). The title for rabbi is written in full: rebí in the SE1 and SE2 (l. 3) but abbreviated to r` in the BIURP edition, then written in full in all editions in l. 28. There are numerous cases in both editions where occasionally the last letter or letters may be omitted for the sake of brevity. For example, ∙yšţh / esta in the BIURP (l. 59) has the final heh omitted and a diacritic inserted to indicate the omission.76 This is not the case in both Salonican editions. In l. 27 in the SE1, the Hebrew word hyšyš has the final consonant abbreviated and this is indicated by the diacritic. In the BIURP it is written in full. Yet h∙ywm / haiyum (l. 38) has the finalm abbreviated in the SE2 and BIURP and is unabbreviated in SE1. The usual Hebrew wordhanizkar ‘the forementioned’ appears in full or abbreviated in both editions and throughout the texts with no particular intended pattern. Hnzkr is written in full in the SE1 (ll. 28, 52, 68, 68) and only once in the BIURP (l. 68). However, in its shortened form hnz` it appears only once in the SE1 (l. 49) and four times in the BIURP (ll. 28, 49, 52, 68). As exemplified in this text, I have noticed in general in this corpus that in the SE1 the unabbreviated form is more popular. Also era in l. 40 appears in full in the SE1 but abbreviated with its aleph in final position represented by a diacritic in the SE2 and BIURP. Final aleph is also omitted and the word ryšybţ∙b∙ / recevtaba is abbreviated to recevtab` (l. 41) in the SE2 and BIURP. Such abbreviations are less common in the Salonican editions. However pyrqwr∙dwr / percurador (SE2 and BIURP l. 66) is written in full and its final consonantr is omitted in the SE1. 3. Metathesis of -rd is exemplified in the SE1 d∙dryrw / Dadrero (l. 3) whilst the later editions, SE2 and BIURP, appear to correct this form to d∙rdyrw (Dardero). However, in the next appearances of this surname (ll. 23, 54), it appears unmetathesized in both editions. Examples of metathesis, such as se acodró abound in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:124).

76 Minervini attests the spelling of esta as ∙šţh (Minervini 1992: 23). 114 chapter two

4. Word separation is erratic in the texts and this is an area where there are variations between editions. For instance, pwrky nw wwš / porqué no vos (l. 4) ‘why don’t you’ appears in three words as in standard Spanish in the SE2 and BIURP but as one word in the SE1. Also Chipre ‘Cyprus’ is written separately in l. 16 in the BIURP but joined accurately as one word in the SE1 and SE2. The next example of g``ypry (l. 54) appears as one word in both editions. The word dy l∙nţry / delantre (l. 25) ‘in front of’ appears as one word in the SE1 and SE2, yet unjoined in the later edition. The SE1 gives the correct form.77 In l. 33 in both editions there are different examples of an erratic word separation: dy ţyynpwwynyyndwg``ynţy appears in the SE1 and dyţyynpw wynyyndw g``ynţw/ detienpo viniendo gente in the SE2 and BIURP. The correct word separation should be:de tienpo viniendo gente, neither version is correct, though the later version may be trying to correct word separation. The wordsa vijitar in medieval Spanish ‘to visit’ is written as one word in the SE1 (l. 40) but as two words and in an abbreviated form in the SE2 and BIURP: ∙wyg`` ţ∙`. Additionally, the graphemes yod in interior position and resh in final position are missing, thus rendering this word quite undecipherable. An erratic lack of word separation is present in l. 45 in the BIURP where there are two variations. The wordsdyl∙nţymy / delante mi appear joined in the SE2 and BIURP but correctly separate in the SE1. Also p∙nywqy /paño que appear correctly in the SE1 and incorrectly spaced in the SE2 and BIURP. The BIURP corrects an erroneous word separation dyšwš / desus ‘of his’ (l. 46) that appears joined in the SE. TheMe’Am Lo’ez, in contrast, is in fact a much neater text with a regular display of word separation. 5. Omission of the aleph when used as a vowel is a common variation in the later editions. For instance r∙zwn / raźón ‘reason’ (l. 5) in the SE1 later in the SE2 and BIURP omits the aleph to rzwn.78 Note that in Me’Am Lo’ez razón appears as r∙šwn retaining the aleph as a vowel, yet displaying a consonantal change reflecting phonolical

77 Note that in modern Spanish delante is the norm, see section 3.3.2. paragraph 18. 78 Raźón is spelt with aleph in Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 4, 18) and in Sulhan de Venecia (1712–13) (Pascual Recuero 1988: 289 l. 126). research methods and sources 115

change, also escapar / ∙ysc∙p∙r with an abundance of aleph (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:123) Similarly, plyšmyynţw / fallecimento ‘demise’ (l. 15) in the SE2 and BIURP omits the aleph after the initial consonant peh. Also qyš∙ndwšy / quešándose ‘complaining’ is written in the SE1 and SE2 correctly, but in the BIURP (l. 31) the second grapheme yod is omitted. The reading of this word becomes ambiguous, as it could be read as cajándose (that is senseless) where the first vowel attached to the consonant kof can be interpreted as an aleph.79 6. A different spellingphg∙s / paǰas (l. 7) in the BIURP as opposed to p∙g∙s in the SE1 and SE2 makes no difference in pronunciation.80 The BIURP uses aheh 81 instead of an aleph consonant.82 Also, the Hebrew borrowing zkwt (SE) / zek̠ut ‘merit’ appears in the SE2 and BIURP as zkwtw (l. 67) ‘her merit’ (in this context). As it happens they are both contextually correct. 7. Scribal or printing errors such as the omission of the n in p∙ryynt∙s / parientes ‘relatives’ (l. 11) in the SE1 are later corrected in the SE2 and BIURP. This is a case of scribal correction. Also nwţyšy∙ / noticia (SE1 l. 31) ‘news’ is misspelt in the BIURP with the second last grapheme missing, the yod, rendering the word as it appears as unintelligible.83 The original edition gives the correct orthography. 8. The common misreadings of consonants with a similar appearance, for example the nun and the gimmel prevail in the texts. For example, gw / go (l. 14) in the BIURP when it should be nw/ no ‘no’ as in the SE1 and SE2. The wordgw is meaningless and therefore this is a case where a contextual together with an orthographic decision leads to the correct interpretation and where the original edition is more accurate. Also wygy∙h / vegía (l. 22) in the BIURP edition is meaningless whilst wyny∙h / venía ‘he came’ is the correct orthography.

79 The vowel is absent in an unpointed text. 80 See chap. 4 n. 81 for a translation of pagas/pajas. 81 In earlier manuscripts of Coplas de Yosef the heh is often misread for the aleph (González Llubera 1935: 4). 82 The editor here attests the same variations between earlier and later manuscripts of Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 22). 83 A similar case is attested in Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali with licencia, however noticia appears spelt as in the SE (Minervini 1992: 159, 437). 116 chapter two

9. In the transcription section 2.3.7, the renditions of gimmel with and without the diacritic are explained. The wordhi ǰo ‘son’ in modern Spanish was pronounced with the palatal /ʒ/ in medieval Spanish and remains so in Judeo-Spanish. To convey the palatal, the diacritic is needed otherwise the gimmel is read /g/. Therefore, a cogni- zance of the word is needed for the correct reading. This text shows a variety of spelling in two cases: hygw(š), (ll. 5, 9, 22, 25, 25, 26, 31, 31, 38, 46) in the SE1, and in ll. 5, 9, 22, 25, 25, 26, 31, 31, 38, 60 in the later edition. hyg``wš appears in l. 60 in the SE1; whilst l. 46 in the SE2 and BIURP contains the form ∙ygw / ijo twice in the same line where the heh has been substituted by an aleph. If the spelling were an accurate way of determining phonological change, then this could attest a loss of the aspirate. Also, the form pygw / figo (BIURP l. 62) and pyg``w / fiǰo (SE1) are attested; the original edition shows the correct form ‘son’ as opposed to figo ‘fig’ that is irrelevant here. In one text (SE1), the three forms of phonological relevance are attested: fiǰo, hiǰo and ijo.84 The orthographic representation ofmu ǰer is also varied within the editions. Mwgyr / muger ‘woman’ appears with a /g/ in the SE1 (ll. 10, 60, 64) and in the BIURP (ll. 10, 37, 60, 62, 64). In the SE1 mwg``r (l. 37, 60) is written with the diacritic. Out of five examples, two are written orthographically correct in the SE1 only. How- ever, no diacritics are present in the SE2, so it is noteworthy that they do reappear in the third and BIURP editions. Careless omissions of the diacritic were present in literature such as Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 20) (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 84). Unusually, a zayin replaces the gimmel with diacritic in Sulhan de Venecia (Pascual Recuero 1988: 287, 300) and also represented by a ḥet in Siddurim de Liorna (Pascual Recuero 1988: 326, 335).85 Chipre ‘Cyprus’ has its first consonant represented in the Hebrew alphabet by gimmel + diacritic as there is no equivalent phoneme in Hebrew. If the diacritic is missing, the resulting word is gipre. In the SE1, g``pry (l. 47) appears once and in the SE2 and BIURP it is written without the diacritic.

84 See also Minervini on the use of the diacritic in her edition of the medieval texts in Hebrew characters (Minervini 1992: 29). 85 Interestingly, a chet has been inserted in this nineteenth century text, indicating the modern Spanish pronunciation. research methods and sources 117

10. There are cases in this testimony where avav appears in place of a yod. These printing errors are common in Hebrew due to the fact that the vav is in its shape only an extension of the letter yod.86 However, in many cases meanings and implications can be altered. For example, lw / lo (l. 32) in the SE2 and BIURP instead of ly / le in the SE1 changes the meaning from lo, the direct object pronoun, to le the indirect object pronoun. It is a feature of Judeo- Spanish that the form lo appears in place of le (see pp. 162–163). It could be deduced that the SE1 represents the Castilian feature and the BIURP reflects the Judeo-Spanish form, unless it is a mere printing or scribal error. G``ynţy, / gente) (l. 33) ‘people’ written correctly in the SE1 appears incorrectly written as g``ynţw (gento) in the BIURP that produces a senseless word. This is caused by the problem of writing a vav in place of a yod in final position. The same issue arises in l. 37, where ∙yn /en ‘in’ is attested in the BIURP in place of ∙wn / un ‘a’ (the indefinite article) that appears correctly in the SE1. Furthermore, lyymw / llamó (l. 58) ‘he called’ in the SE1 is attested as lyymy / llamí/é ‘I called’ in the BIURP. Contextually ‘he called’ is the correct form. 11. The wordmwgw / mucho in the SE1 is replaced by mwy / muy (l. 40) in the SE2 and BIURP.87 Neither forms are accepted in this context in modern Spanish, but both forms are identified in Judeo-Spanish. Harris notes the post-expulsion Judeo-Spanish use of muy muncho to express ‘a lot’ (Harris 1994: 81). The context of this use is: era mucho mi amigo and era muy mi amigo both intending to convey ‘he was a very good friend’. The alternating use of both mucho and muy appearing before adjectives, participles and adverbs with a superlative or augmentative meaning can also be seen in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 101).

86 See González Llubera (1935: 18). 87 In fact, since the diacritic is absent, mucho could be read as mugo which is meaningless. 118 chapter two

2.4.4 Concluding Statement I have counted 41 different examples of variations between the editions SE1 and the BIURP, 57 including repeated examples, in this text of 69 lines. Of these variations, about 33 (including repeated examples) were already present in the second edition in Salonica. The BIURP mirrors the third edition from Lvov. These variations therefore occurred with each different edition. It is interesting to note that many variations from the original to the second edition in Salonica in a space of about 198 years include the addition of a yod after the lamed yod and after a nun yod, the omission of the diacritic in muger, and the occasional omission of the aspirate in the case of ijo. There are nine differences between the Piske Ha-Rashdam edition and the first edition. The space of publication between these two versions is approximately fifteen years. If we consider a multiple of this number of variations in the case of another 84 texts where the differences may be even greater in number, then it is clear that it would be less authentic to produce a corpus from a linguistic perspective from the BIURP. It mirrors the third edition (Lvov 1863) that appears 268 years after the original, though 70 years after the second edition (Salonica 1793). Approximately 57% of variations (including repeated variations) took place between the first two editions; that is unsurprising given nearly 200 years difference in time. Further variations took place in the Lvov edition. The fact that there are so many differences indicate the added layers of transmission that exist between editions and therefore there is no question as to the validity and justification for working from original editions. This analysis is completed by the addition of relevant footnotes to the texts in Chapter 4, where I have noted other serious omissions and significant variations between the editions. CHAPTER THREE

THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESPONSA

3.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the context and to define the features of Judeo-Spanish in the light of the corpus of this literature. The analysis of these features describes the language as represented in the texts. By researching the incidences of certain phonological, morphological and lexical phenomena, a description of Judeo-Spanish in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire emerges.1 However it is important to clarify that the findings are a result of examining the eighty-four responsa selected for this book. There are probably about another hundred responsa throughout the centuries that would need to be studied before making any general conclusions. In this analysis, the incidence of borrowings from other languages is described as it appears in this corpus of the texts. Some textual comparisons with my own research in the language in the Me’Am Lo’ez serve to enhance the understanding of the linguistic analysis. TheMe’Am Lo’ez, a Ladino Biblical commentary written approximately one hundred and fifty years after the language portrayed in the responsa in this book, illustrates the development of the a similar type of language, that of a rabbinical register emerging from the same geographical areas such as Constantinople, Salonica, Smyrna and Jerusalem. Judeo-Spanish contains retentions of fifteenth-century Castilian as well as many of its own innovations with its own geographic variations.2 The non-Castilian features of Judeo-Spanish are discussed.

1 Séphiha notes the relevance of the Judeo-Spanish texts for the knowledge of the development of the Spanish language, ‘le judéo-espagnole est un musée vivant de l’état de la langue espagnole d’avant 1492 . . . C’est dire aussi que philologues et historiens de la langue espagnole y trouveront d’abondants elements susceptibles d’enrichir leur science’ (Judeo-Spanish is a live testimony of the Spanish language prior to 1492 . . . Also philologists and historians of the Spanish language will find here many features that is bound to enrich their knowledge) (Ayoun & Séphiha 1992: 311). 2 Within the Judeo-Spanish picture there are many dialectal differences, for example between the eastern and western Balkan varieties (Sala 1996: 26). The main source 120 chapter three

Essentially, this is the language of a people who had spent over seventy years in exile and begun to absorb features of neighbouring languages. The texts collected in this book contain especially valuable information of the Spanish language of the fifteenth century, a testimony of the Sephardim’s speech albeit through writing.3

3.2 Vernacular Jewish Languages

Although facing extinction as a living language,4 Judeo-Spanish, its culture and literature are currently experiencing a revival. No doubt the advent of the Internet has facilitated communication and exchange amongs Judeo-Spanish speakers who are scattered around the globe. Academic books and articles are regularly published, and Judeo- Spanish features on university courses. A significant factor in the history of Judeo-Spanish is the return in the twentieth century of the language back into contact with the Spanish-speaking world from which is was somehow separated for nearly five hundred years (Pountain 2001: 219). Academic publications like the periodical Sefarad in CSIC confirm this reunification. Recent scholarly works like that of Girón-Negrón & Minervini’s 2006 critical edition of the Coplas de Yosef, a midrashic poem believed to be from the sixteenth century, have majorly contributed to the study of linguistics and culture of sixteenth century Sephardic Jewish life. Lehmann’s 2005 publication of Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman Sephardic Culture also enriches the field of Sephardic studies. Some scholars have distinguished between Ladino and Judeo- Spanish. Ladino has been defined by academics as the literal translation

for a descriptive study of the Geographical linguistics of Judeo-Spanish is Quintana’s Geografía lingüística del judeospañol 2006. 3 Spaulding explains the value of the language of the Sephardim as a source of information, ‘Especially valuable is the testimony of the Sephardim, the Spanish Jews . . . Wherever the sefardíes fled, with them went the Spanish of their day, and, living apart as has been their destiny and cut off from the growing stalk of Castilian, they have preserved many of the archaic traits of the Spanish language, as also much of its early popular literature, ballads, proverbs and folk tales’ (Spaulding 1975: 153). 4 Harris discusses that Judeo-Spanish is currently not transmitted to the younger generations, ‘Today Judeo-Spanish is a dying language in the United States, Israel and Turkey, the three countries that now have the largest Sephardic populations in the world. It is a language relegated to the domain of the family and is used almost exclusively among (or with) older people’ (Harris 1994: 197). the language in the responsa 121 from Hebrew into the vernacular usually seen in the religious literature.5 For instance, literal translations of the Bible and many other holy writings in the vernacular were transcribed in the Hebrew script, often side by side with the Hebrew.6 ‘Ladino’, says Bunis, ‘is worthy of scholarly attention’ and is a ‘notable cultural creation of Sephardic Jewry’ (Bunis 1984: 124). Judeo-Spanish (Spanish: judeoespañol) is used by many scholars to describe the speech, although judezmo, español and ladino are used by the current speakers themselves (Penny 2004b: 174). David Bunis, one of the main experts in the field, uses Judezmo to describe the spoken language: ‘accepting the validity of the basic anthropological thesis that a culture must be analyzed from within if one is to correctly interpret and appreciate its real dynamics, and since, as Révah (1970: 223) has observed, the name Judezmo seems to appear with the greatest frequency among its native speakers . . . I have proposed that Judezmo be used retrospectively to signify the language of the Sephardim throughout its historical development and in all its varieties (Bunis 1984: 108). The writings of Yisra’el ̣ ayimH of Belgrade refer to the language as muestra luengua, muestra avla [our language] (Bunis 1996a: 160). Ladino is currently used by some as an umbrella term encompassing all the different varieties of Judeo-Spanish.7 The word ladino is derived primarily from the Latin latinus. Latinus was derived from latius (Alvar 1996: 343). Ladino was extended to describe a Moor or a Jew who spoke Romance, or the language of the Christians. Ladino uses Hebrew syntax, whereas Judeo-Spanish has its own. Ladino is an artificial language created with a pedagogic aim. Vernacular translations of the Bible began in the thirteenth century and flourished in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The Spanish translations followed Hebrew lexical and syntactical models (Miller 2000: 88–89). The principle of adhering to the Hebrew, element by element in translation,

5 Hassán comments on the emphasis on the literal translation as opposed to intent to facilitate comprehension, ‘A los ladinadores sefardíes, al igual que a quienes utiliza- ban la misma técnica teniendo como destino alguna otra lengua judía, no les preocu- paba tanto facilitar el entendimiento cuanto reflejar con fidelidad la verdad hebraica’ (Hassán 2000: 4). 6 See Benabu & Sermoneta 1985: 1–25. 7 The departments in universities in Israel currently call themselves ‘Ladino’. The Bar-Ilan University conference in December 2004 was called ‘Ladino Conference’ and in the conference there was a desire by the academic participants to use ‘Ladino’ in place of ‘Judeo-Spanish’ as the umbrella term. 122 chapter three was established early on in the Aramaic Targumim. This principle prevails in the Ladino translation of Hešeq Šelomó where the syntax tries to mirror-image the Hebrew source text while the grammar and lexicon are clearly Spanish (Bunis 1999a: 158). This is how Ladino entered the Sephardic liturgy.8 Haïm Vidal Séphiha refers to the verb ladinar where the Spanish word corresponds literally to the Hebrew word. The Hagaddah, recited during the Passover festival, exemplifies the use of Ladino for a pedagogic purpose.9 Bunis, in his thorough examination of pre-expulsion Jewish Ibero-Romance, notes the abundance of Ladino translations available at the time. He illustrates with evidence that from the writings of Nahmanides,10 Rabbi Joseph Karo and others it is known that in Purim the Book of Esther was publicly read in ‘[Jewish Castilian] Romance’ la’az in many communities such as those in Castile, Catalonia and Aragon to enable women to understand the original Hebrew text (Bunis 2004: 126). There was some controversy about the halakhic suitability of reading of the Book of Esther in the non-Hebrew language but despite this the practice continued. Addi- tionally, Bunis expands that following the expulsion, the reading of the Passover Haggadah and Ethics of the Fathers [Pirké Avot] in Ladino was widespread.11 Many Sephardic families today recite the Hagaddah in both Hebrew and Ladino.12 Judeo-Spanish is generally defined as the language spoken by the Jews who left Spain and Portugal after the Inquisition; the language travelled with the people and acquired elements of host languages on the way. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 95,000 left Spain in 1492 as from 31 July, the Hebrew date of 9 of Av, same day and month as the destruction of the first and second Temple in Jerusa- lem (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 151). This large number of Iberian

8 See chap. 1 n. 30. 9 For an account and bibliography of the different versions of theHaggadah šel Pesaḥ see Romero 1992: 66–69, also for reference to the Tetauni Haggadah see Alvar 1996: 358. 10 Rabbi Moses ben Naḥman Girondi, 1194–1270. 11 (1) The problems of Ladino, a calque translation, produced often clumsy translation style. Bunis examines this effectively is detail alongside a comparison of translation between the Jewish and non-Jewish translations (Bunis 2004: 133–135). (2) For an analysis and comparisons between Ladino translations of some Hag- gadot see Shwarzwald 1996: 359–371. 12 This is a current custom among the Jews of Gibraltar (noted from personal experience). the language in the responsa 123

Jews by far outnumbered the existing Jewish population. It is essentially fifteenth-century Spanish with borrowings from Hebrew, later incorporating traces of Arabic, Turkish, Greek, French and Italian (Ayoun and Séphiha 1992: 314). Academic discussion has debated whether the Jews of Spain, prior to the Inquisition, spoke a specific language distinct from that of their Gentile neighbours (Penny 1992a: 125–140). Shwarzwald constructively argues and proves that the language of the Jews in Spain was different to that of their non-Jewish counterparts (Shwarzwald 1993: 32). Bunis also assures that there were already regional varieties of Jewish Ibero-Romance, among them Cas- tilian, Catalan, Aragonese, Galician and Portuguese (Bunis 2004: 105).13 Interestingly Bunis brings examples from Spanish Christian literature of the fifteenth century to substantiate that there existed Gentile awareness of Jewish linguistic differences (Bunis 2004: 136). Others put forward the view that the Jews spoke an identical language to that of their Christian and Muslim neighbours except specific references associated with religion, commerce and jurisprudence (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 150). The distinctive characteristics of Judeo-Spanish emerged as a result of the mingling of Jews speaking different regional dialects, such as those of Lisbon and Seville, as they converged in cities such as Salon- ica, Sofia and Belgrade. There were regional differences preserved by separate synagogues for Castile, Aragon and Portugal14 and even for separate towns: sinagogas cordubesas, lisboetas, etc.15 An adapta- tive process occurred, resulting in linguistic homogenization. This produced inter-dialectical features not unique to any of the groups. Judeo-Spanish finally emerged over time as a result of this combina- torial process. Thus the Judeo-Spanish of the sixteenth-century Otto- man Empire is similar to fifteenth-century Spanish but contains many innovations. Judeo-Spanish is described as an extraordinary linguistic

13 See also David Bunis’s extensive work Judezmo: An Introduction to the Language of the Ottoman Sephardim, Jerusalem 1999, H. V. Séphiha, Le judéo-espagnol, Paris 1986. M. C. Bornes-Varol 2004. 14 Though there were regional differences the basis of Judeo-Spanish inter-dialectal levelling is Castilian as there is no evidence of text written in Catalan, Aragonese, Navarrese etc (Minervini 1999: 44). 15 On arrival in Salonica the Sephardim established the following synagogues: ‘Gerush Sepharad, Castilia, Aragon, Catalan and Majorca. The Portuguese arrivals founded these communities: Portugal, Lisbon and Evora’ (Goodblatt 1952: 12). 124 chapter three fossil, where you could suddenly witness the speech of the Spanish Catholic monarchs (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 159). As communities reformed, and the ties between individuals weakened, linguistic innovations spread rapidly. It is impossible to establish whether such innovations took place in one region at a time (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 160). At this point it ought to be mentioned that Italy was also one of the countries where some Spanish exiles fled after the expulsion and there is evidence of a Judeo-Spanish language during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Minervini 1996: 287). The common basis for the existing dialects is akoiné established since the Inquisition with new regional differences.16 The variations were apparent in the people of Constantinople, Salonica, Skopye, Monastir17 and Oran (Entwistle 1965: 180). In Bucharest too a type of koiné was developed that not only contained linguistic usages of the Portuguese and Catalan Jews, who were expulsed at the same time as the Spanish Jews and who had rejected their language in favour of Spanish, but also absorbed linguistic peculiarities of other non-Spanish Jews (Sala 1971: 12–13). The beginning of akoine can be seen in the Coplas as a mirror of the vernacular (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 114). Similarly, Hakitía, the language spoken by the Jews of Morocco, can still be heard in parts of Israel, Venezuela, Canada and, to a lesser extent, Spain, France and Brazil (Serels 1991: 177–181).18 It contains many phono-morphological features of pre-sixteenth-century Spanish

16 (1) A koiné is the new language variety that is created that prefers the linguistically simpler variants available to the community at large. This occurs in cases where there is a creation of a community made up of immigrants who speak different varieties (Penny 2004a: 318). This is the case with Judeo-Spanish. (2) For an explanation of the formation of the Judeo-Spanish koiné in the sixteenth century see Minervini (1999: 41–53). (3) A substantial contribution to this field is made by Quintana-Rodriguez (2004). 17 The origin of the Jews of Monastir can be traced back to the fact that of the five synagogues in Monastir one was known as El Cal de Portugal and the other el Cal de Aragón, and that of the large number of Castilians, Portuguese and Catalonian Jews that settled in Avlona, a port of Albania, at the beginning of the sixteenth century— many of them left the city and settled in Monastir because of the bad climate and unsatisfactory economic conditions (Luria 1930: 328–9). Luria discusses the archaic nature of the Monastir Judeo-Spanish and claims, strengthened by Menéndez Pidal’s observations, that it corresponds in a great measure to the Spanish dialects spoken on the western side of Spain, particularly Leonese (Luria 1930: 332). Note that based on Epstein’s (1980) research, it is suggested there were 48 Jewish families and six bach- elors in Monastir in 1529 (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 156). 18 For a detailed account on Hakitía see Hassán (1998: 1–32). See also José Beno- liel’s Dialecto Judeo-Hispano-Marroqui o Hakitia. Madrid 1977. the language in the responsa 125 and lexical elements of Moroccan Arabic.19 This phenomenon is like that of the Turkish in the Eastern dialects of Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew. The present study investigates the Judeo-Spanish of a slice of the rabbinic literature, a complex mélange offering a different linguistic profile to that previously researched. This language comprises a core element of the vernacular with some added legal and rabbinic terminology, affording an insight into the culture and social mores of the Jews living in the Ottoman Empire. The issue of whether the language in the texts in this book is Ladino or Judeo-Spanish is clear. The texts mainly comprise of a representation of the spoken language containing legal terminology. In this way the language belongs more to an elitist than to popular register.20 Bunis differentiates too between the spoken language and what he terms ‘Rabbinical Judezmo’, which is the language often encountered in these texts (Bunis 1984: 125). Jews in past centuries lived in physical, social, cultural and, of course, religious isolation. Consequently, they developed their own particular forms of speech that reflected both their cultural identity and their desire to communicate amongst themselves in a way that others could not understand, hence the appearance of judeo languages that can be described as varieties of the dominant language culture of the juderias, Jewish quarters. From a sociological perspective, the Jews wished to keep themselves different and used linguistic forms based on their religious and cultural identity which created a unique Jewish language as early as in Medieval Spain (Miller 2000: 141). Bunis suggests there is evidence that the Jewish community of ancient Rome utilized a difference and specific Jewish variety of Latin, differing in many ways from that used at by their non-Jewish counterparts at the same time (Bunis 1984: 105). The intricasies of Judeo-Italian is discussed by Arnold (Arnold 2006b: 110–111). Arnold also looks at the Judeo-Spanish of the Italian Jews and illustrates his argument with texts from the responsa literature such as from Rabbi Chayim Shabtai (1605) (Arnold 2006a: 222–227). Miller discusses the differences between bilingualism and diglossia. She cites the existing definition of

19 Benabu’s Contemporary Texts in Western Judeo-Spanish (Hakitía) include tran- scripts of speakers of Hakitía. Among his informers was my maternal grandmother, señora Ester Ederi. The language shows extensive borrowings from Moroccan Arabic (Benabu 1979: 24–33). 20 On elitist and popular register see Bunis (2004: 108–115). 126 chapter three bilingualism as a characteristic of an individual and diglossia as that of a community (Miller 2000: 28). In these texts, the bilingualism of the scribe is evident, that of the witness is not always clear and with the information provided no conclusions can be reached as to the level of bilingualism of the community. The fact that prayer books had to be translated into Judeo-Spanish in order to reach the masses is perhaps proof that many members of the community were not entirely bilingual.21 The intricate commingling of the two languages contributes to the quotidian tone of these texts, but the intercalation of the Hebrew also serves the various purposes described. At this point it is pertinent to allude to Quintana’s account of the stages of the Jewish educational system in pre-Inquisition Spain:

1. Read and write in Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew. 2. Read all the prayers, and know them by heart. 3. Read the parashah (portion of the Torah that is read every week) in Hebrew with vocalization and its cantillation, and the corresponding chapters of the haftarah, a portion from the Prophets. 4. To learn the parashah and the corresponding chapters of the haftarah in Ladino. 5. Understand the contents of the parashah and the corresponding chapters of the haftarah. 6. To learn the grammar of the Holy Language (Lashon ha-qodesh) in order to be able to speak and write it correctly. (Quintana 2008: 188–189).

Therefore the need to translate the Bible in the vernacular can be understood better. Noticeably testimony is given by men and so it has to be pointed out that the language in these responsa is that spoken by men. The difference in their respective use of Judeo-Spanish lies in the fact that men would have been fluent readers, perhaps speakers, of Hebrew and would therefore bear that influence in the language. Women transmitted the vernacular language through the oral tradition since they

21 This is evident with the Salmos de Salónica (1584), Pentateuco de Constantinopla (1547), Beur de Almosnino (1564) etc. (Pascual Recuero 1988: 264, 226, 246). For a complete list of Judeo-Spanish liturgical literature see Romero (1992: 31–77). the language in the responsa 127 would not have been taught how to read Hebrew.22 Women were the transmitters of the oral Judeo-Spanish tradition in forms of song, poetry, proverb, popular recounts and so the Hebrew component of their language would have been learnt unconsciously through the spoken Judeo-Spanish. Their pronounciation of Hebrew words may well have reflected this idea. It is known that the Iberian communities of Salonica initially lived separately from other communities (Goodblatt 1952: 13). Naturally, business dealings were transacted with the host communities and even with the Turks. Jews would frequently borrow money from their Turk- ish friends, as evident from text 13. In text 18:29, the term for the money lender is presented in Turkish, el saraf, as are many terms like hugit, meaning title-deed, etc. (texts 37:38, 50:2).23 The texts also reveal evidence of inter-city travel. Ab̠raham Primo often left Salonica for Wallachia, a southern province of Romania, while his brother collected the rent. Letters quoted in the responsa were sent from cities such as Famagusta, Ancona and Skopje (13). Noteworthy is the fact that the Judeo-Spanish language survives one hundred years after having left its motherland. Whereas men learnt sufficient Turkish to handle their daily affairs outside their home, Jewish women were not acquainted with Turkish and rarely did Jewish family speak Turkish. Turkish names very rarely appeared in Jewish polls. They were staunch in their identity. In fact the Iberian Jews’ ‘insistence upon preserving their Iberian culture . . . despite their physical distance from Spain, the loyal attachment shown to their Jewish heritage, their religion, and the enormous effort made to continue developing Jewish culture’ was quite singular. They were, in a sense, Spaniards without a motherland. This theme is one that prevails much of Ladino poetry that survived into later generations (Refael 2008: 211). As a point of comparison it is pertinent to note the pattern of Yiddish in the responsa. In the Ashkenazi world, Yiddish, derived from Old High German, is widely spoken even today.24 Zalman Rubashov

22 For more on the Judeo-Spanish language and women see Shwarzwald 1985: 61–62, and the rest of the article that deals with an analysis of Judeo-Spanish literary genres. Also see Lehmann 2005: 121–134, for a discussion of the representation of gender in the rabbinical ethical literature. 23 See Turkish glossary, Appendix 2. 24 Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish bear a similarity in that they are a dialect belonging to the same religious group albeit in widely different circumstances. However Weinreich 128 chapter three lists Yiddish expressions in the testimony of Ashkenazi Responsa from the seventeenth century onwards and explains the importance of preserving the language for the sake of legal accuracy (Rubashov 1929). The amount of Yiddish present in the Ashkenazi responsa is not at all comparable as that found in the Sephardic responsa that is collected in this study. However it is important to acknowledge and define that Yiddish, like Judeo-Spanish is a fusion language. ‘Certain components are chosen from one major and a few minor determinants, and together they create the Jewish fused language’ (Shwarzwald 1985: 139). In this article Shwarzwald examines the Hebrew Aramaic component fused in Judeo-Spanish, some elements having undergone lexical processes and she amply illustrates this linguistic phenomenon. She also draws from Weinreich’s notion of distinguishing between two kinds of Hebrew Aramaic (present in Yiddish and in Judeo-Spanish) in the fused language, namely Whole and Merged Hebrew. Whole Hebrew indicates the recognisable element as in Yiddish báal habáyis, Judeo- Spanish báal abáit (Hebrew Aramaic for master of the house). Con- versely Merged Hebrew is regarded as part of the new Jewish language (Shwarzwald 1985: 140). The article examines the grammatical means through which many Hebrew Aramaic words were fused in Judeo- Spanish albeit sometimes undergoing changes in syntax and in meaning. The merged Hebrew-Aramaic component of Judeo-Spanish is also studied by Bunis (Bunis 1984: 112–119). Yiddish, according to Uriel Weinreich, began to develop in around 1000 A.D. when French and Italian Jews started to migrate to Rhineland. Aviva Ben-Ur claims that Ladino / Judeo-Spanish has had ‘a much shorter time to develop linguistically and literally’ (Ben- Ur 2001: 6). Ben-Ur notes that Ladino never achieved the linguistic hegemony that Yiddish had. She observes the difference in numbers of speakers per language: estimates in the 1930s say that the percentage of Ladino speakers in the years 1900 and 1925 within world Jewry was

says, ‘one should be on guard against drawing any easy analogies between the languages created by the Ashkenazim and Sefardim’ (Weinreich 1970: 385). It is spoken by the older generation and is taught and kept alive in some Chasidic circles and their institutes of learning. Yiddish originated and has been developing as the language of the Ashkenazic community that has been in existence for eleven hundred years or so. For more on the linguistic components of Yiddish see Weinreich (1970: 412–3). the language in the responsa 129 approximately 3% and 2.3% compared to 60.6% and 54.7% of Yiddish speakers. She adds that in the case of Ladino numbers do not represent the impact on the Jewish world as a whole (Ben-Ur 2001: 6).

3.3 Distinctive Linguistic Features of Judeo-Spanish

This section offers an analysis of the distinctive features of Judeo- Spanish in these aljamías.25 The description adds data to the area of linguistic analysis of Judeo-Spanish. Importantly, Judeo-Spanish is a language that is linguistically inconsistent, lacking standardisation, but the following features are characteristic of the language in general. It is noteworthy that Judeo-Spanish is a language, unlike Peninsular Span- ish, that has no standardizing pressure. By virtue of the fact that the language does not belong to any one country in particular and by the fact that its speakers sometimes never came into contact, the language has been allowed to become linguistically diverse lacking in standardization (Penny 2004a: 78–9). There is also a lack of standardization in the process of printing and transmissions of medieval texts.26 I have divided this section into: phonology, including historical phonology; linguistic retentions and innovations; morphology; syntax; use of Hebrew to include the phenomena of borrowings and code- switching; and use of Turkish and other foreign influences.27 The section on Hebrew borrowings is set out according to the relevant thematic categories. Three sample texts transliterated have been appended to this chapter. References to these texts made in the form of ‘ST’ (sample text) followed by the text number illustrate and clarify much of the linguistic discussion (see Appendix 1). References to texts in the corpus are in the form of text number, colon, line number.

25 Aljamías is the Spanish term for vernacular texts that are represented in either Hebrew or Arabic characters. 26 See chap. 2 n. 56. 27 The use of Hebrew within Judeo-Spanish is analysed by Bunis (1993: 15–51). Note that this study would add significantly to his work. 130 chapter three

3.3.1 Phonology

3.3.1.1 Diphthongisation The alternation in Judeo-Spanish between /ie/ and /e/, and between /ue/ and /o/ is a sign of dialect contact.28 The diphthongisation of Latin tonic Ǒ>ue and Ě>ie can be observed in the Castilian dialect as well as that of Leon and Aragon. Many words in Judeo-Spanish contain variants of many words containing vowels that are or are not diphthongised. The variants chosen by Judeo-Spanish did not always conform to the Castilian diphthongised pattern (Penny 2004b: 188). Acorda (31:15) is attested whilst co-existing in the same text with acuerda (31:16). However when the same testimony that was sent to Adarbi is sent to R Joseph Caro acuerda (64:19, 20) appears both times and also in text 27A:4. It is interesting that acuerda / acorda appear with /rd/ unmetathesized contrary to what is expected in Judeo-Span- ish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358).29 Additionally, the BIURP version of Medina’s responsa based on the 1863 Lvov edition attests both forms conta (28:33) and cuenta (28:34) in the same text, whilst the SE (1595) shows cuenta in both these instances. This variation in the latest edition could well be reflecting the Judeo-Spanish of the nineteenth century. Preto ‘black’ (11:43) (cf. standard prieto) is an example of the lack of diphthongization in Judeo-Spanish, as opposed to the central areas of the peninsula. In the fifteenth century Spain was divided (as it is now) between central areas where Latin tonic /ɛ/ and /ɔ/ gave rise to diphthongs [je] and [we] and lateral areas where these remain undiphthongized (Penny 2004b: 188). Therefore in the Sephardic communities in the post–expulsion period there existed competing variants and the variants selected by Judeo-Spanish did not always conform to the pattern in Castilian Spanish. In the texts, cual quier ‘whatever’ (2:3) appears nineteen times clearly קייר with the diphthong with quier clearly written in the Hebrew text as (kyyr). The inconsistency of this diphthongization pattern led to cases like adientro, also seen in Asturias, but not in Castilian. There are nine instances of (a)dientro including adientro (12:46, 13:99, 19:15, 36:15,

28 An excess of diphthongisation is noted in Haquitía in cases like sientado and puedemos (Benabu 1979: 7). See also Minervini & Várvaro on diphthongisation (Min- ervini & Várvaro 2008: 166). 29 That is thatacuerda does not appear as acuedra. the language in the responsa 131

66:1, 73A:1, 74:35, 83:39, 84B:13), all clearly spelt with a double yod in the Hebrew text to indicate the diphthong. This factor of analogy between the diphthongised and undiphthongised forms of verbs led to patterns, unlike in Castilian and American Spanish, in Judeo-Spanish such as rogo / rogar (cf. standard ruego), puedo / pueder (Penny 2004b: 189). However, in the texts puedo (18:50, 80:12), and poder appear nineteen times with no other examples of such diphthongization. Note also in seventeenth century Me’Am Lo’ez the undiphthongized form enpeça and la preba for la prueba (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:215). Note however that the reduction of the diphthong /ei/ to /e/ is a later phenomenon in many Sephardic communities but not in Salon- ica (Quintana 2006: 32). In the texts it is clear that the form pleitos (13:22, 13:97, 84A:3) is attested with the diphthong as it is written in Hebrew with a double yod.

3.3.1.2 Raising of Final /e/ to /i/ Back vowel-raising is typical of many varieties of Judeo-Spanish, a phenomenon that does not occur in Peninsular Spanish. Forms such as nochi, tardi esti that are recorded from parts of the Balkans in later Judeo-Spanish cannot be attested with certainty in the testimonies because of the ambiguity of the yod in Hebrew that can represent either e or i.30 Este appears thirty-three times (e.g. in text 1:27), noche is attested four times (12:32, 45, 56:23, 66:9). It is essential to clarify that the testimonies rely on Hebrew spelling, which forms, in effect, another layer in the transmission process. Similarly the pronunciation of final /o/ as /u/ cannot be attested in the Hebrew unpointed text. Such problems encountered in linguistic criticism of such texts are common to those using unpointed texts as sources (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 164). However it is helpful to see Minervini’s edition of the Valladolid ordinances of the end of the thirteenth century where in some of her pointed texts she attests words like manu, dichu, vasu, vinu, fechu among other examples (Minerv- ini 1992: 44). However Quintana argues that this is a post sixteenth century innovation as she does not find it in sixteenth century texts, though the phenomenon prevailed in the Spanish of the expulsion period (Quintana 2006: 53).

30 This phenomenon of the pronunciation of finale as i is explained in Sala (1971: 29), also see Sala 1996: 365 and Quintana 2006: 50–57. 132 chapter three

3.3.1.3 Initial /f/ The initial /f/, descended from Latin F, is sometimes retained in Judeo- Spanish, according to geographical location. Sometimes the labiodental /f/ is preserved as in forno (13:100) and fasta (23 times in the texts), but often the labiodental fricative /f/ disappears in favour of the aspirate /h/ e.g. hiǰo (ST 49B:19, 11:5), haćer (49C:13). There is also a total suppression of the consonant as in ijo (61B:15), ablar (58:15) etc. The feature of retention of the /h/ came to be restricted to uneducated usage in certain regions and also by certain varieties of Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 191). Note that in the Proverbios Morales initial -f- is general (González-Llubera 1947: 31). By the fifteenth century, it is unlikely that the initial /f/ was used in Old Castile, New Castile or Andalusia, and it was also disappearing in areas of Leon and Aragon.31 However, it was used in Portugal, Galicia and Catalonia, where many Jewish communities were located before the expulsion. The alternation of the different forms used in Judeo- Spanish and in these texts is evidence of the dialect contact situation from which modern Judeo-Spanish emerges.32 In text 11 there is an inconsistent use of the forms fija, hiǰo l. 62, and fija in l. 67; there is also faćerlas, l. 41 and fiźo l. 42. In text 25 we also see an alternation of these forms: hiǰos, l. 3, and fiǰos, l. 5. The forms hallarlo (27:8), se halló, (27:7) are attested but later, the answer, written in Hebrew, quotes the text as se falló.33 Text 71 features alternating forms hiǰas and fijas. The following table illustrates the incidence of various competing forms in this corpus. At this point no conclusion emerges, other than the observation that both forms co-existed and no obvious preference is shown for either form in general. Initial F appears in Judeo-Spanish in its three forms of f, h or the absence of the consonant (Zamora Vicente 1967: 353). In the Ladino translation of the Haggadot as late as the eighteenth century initial -f- is preserved at a time when in Spain it had already disappeared (Shwarzwald 1996: 363).

31 For more on the linguistic history of initial f to h see Entwistle (1965: 159–163), Shwarzwald (1996). 32 Lapesa notes the hesitation between these two consonants in initial position (Lapesa 1988: 528). Pountain notes only the preservation of /f/ in all contexts (Poun- tain 2001: 222). .Reply)—šy p∙lyw/se falló 27) שי פאליו בתוך הים 33 the language in the responsa 133

Table 3.1: Competing Forms of Initial f and h in Judeo-Spanish in the Corpus Word Number of Word initial Number of (modern spelling) Appearances f spelling Appearances hablar34 6fablar35-including 6 fablare, fablaron haćer36-including 14 faćer37 23 haćen, haces, hace haćienda38 11 facienda39 7 hago40 4 fago41 9 hasta42 4 fasta 23 hiće43 1 fiće/se44 6 hiǰa/s45 8 fija/s46 15 hiǰo/s47 26 fiǰo/s48 15 hiźo49 8 fiźo50 15

The conclusive argument here is that there is no Judeo-Spanish preference for initial /f/ over /h/ as reflected in these texts. However, in current speech initial /f/ is maintained in Salonica, Bosnia, Monastir and Karaferia although there are a few examples of the aspirate. Initial /f/ is absent in the Judeo-Spanish of Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria (Zamora Vicente 1967: 354).51 In the Coplas de Yosef a similar hesitation

34 (texts 2:12, 38B:3, 48:3, 54B:3, 58:13, 74:21). Note that the prosthetic a features with the infinitive in the form ahablar (54B:3). 35 (texts 5:2, 26:18, 49A:5, 58:27, 68:5, 80:36). 36 (texts 1:1, 2, 14, 15:16, 49, 16:8, 27:1, 34:3, 37:13, 36, 49C:12, 13, 61A:11, 82:3). 37 (texts 1:5, 5, 12, 14, 3:15, 11:57, 12:23, 15:34, 88, 17:24, 18:20, 36, 32:3, 51:7, 10, 73B:5, 80:7, 23, 83:14, 84A:6, 8, 18, 42). 38 (texts 17:24, 24:2, 34:2, 61B:2, 61C:4, 63A:2, 71:30, 77:2, 79A:2, 79B:4, 81:5). 39 (texts 35:3, 40:10, 47:3, 57:4, 6, 61A:1, 62:2). 40 (texts 46:3, 61A:5, 61B:4, 71:18). 41 (texts 18:22, 32, 63, 50A:4, 50B:6, 30, 47, 71:5, 38). 42 (texts 16:7, 20:5, 61C:4, 78:2). 43 (text 50B:17). 44 (texts 14:11, 17:19, 26:13, 41:7, 50B:7, 37). 45 (texts 23:2, 24:6, 61A:9, 61C:3, 4, 68:6, 8, 71:34). 46 (texts 11:67, 46:1, 60:5, 61A:6, 71:14, 18, 21, 31, 79B:4, 6, 84B:8, 10, 12). 47 (texts 11:5, 8, 9, 22, 25, 25, 26, 27, 31, 31, 38, 44, 46, 46, 49, 60, 13:42, 24:6, 25:2, 38A:2, 38B:12, 40:2, ST 49B:19, texts 61B:5, 72:21). 48 (texts 5:3, 4, 11:62, 25:6, 40:5, 46:1, 63A:3, 76:5, 79A:2, 79B:5, 80:11, 16, 26, 27, 83:23). 49 (texts 13:41, 19:29, 37:11, 23, 24, 36, 38A:2, 50B:39). 50 (texts 1:27, 11:58, 13:75, 15:22, 63, 18:39, 19:4, 31, 26:27, 33, 42, 61A:5, 63C:4, 4, 83:62). 51 For a thorough analysis on the regional variations of initial /f/ throughout several centuries see Quintana 2006: 94–99. 134 chapter three between the f and h is attested (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 89). In Me’Am Lo’ez the forms aćiendo (e.g in Bereshit. pp. 32, 24), ićiera (Bereshit pp. 35) appears countless times.

3.3.1.4 Retention of Bilabial, Syllable Final /v/ Another phonological feature of Judeo-Spanish is the retention of bilabial, syllable-final /v/.52 The labial in the groups b’d, b’t, v’d, v’t retains its labiodental pronunciation in Judeo-Spanish while in modern Span- ish it has become u. This linguistic phenomenon is found in Bosnia and there are some examples in Monastir (Zamora Vicente 1967: 355). The Hebrew letterbet as opposed to vav indicates the presence of this phonological feature. Also in Judeo-Spanish, certainly in some of the surviving varieties, one finds the labial in words that had /au/ in Latin and have come into the language as learned words such as cabśa. The corpus has only one doubtful case, cauśa (ST 49B:9). Here cauśa is spelt with a vav instead of a bet, is indicative of a retention of a labial consonant where the complete vocalization to cauśa did not take place. In fifteenth century peninsular Spanish a hesitation between the forms cabdal and caudal was evident. At this stage the old and new forms co-existed; cauśa was drawn into the same variation. Cabdal appears in the Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g. Bereshit p. 223).

Table 3.2: Incidence of Words Containing Bilabial, Syllable final /v/ in the Corpus Word (with a vav spelling; Number of Word (with a Number of modern spelling) Appearances bet/vet spelling) Appearances caudal 0cabdal53 5 cauśa54 1 cabśa55 3 ciudad 0 cibdad56 3 deuda 0debda57 1 deudor(es) 0 debdor(es)58 6

52 A similar phonological process takes place in the Greek Language particularly in the Salonican region (Symeonidis 1999: 659). 53 (texts 13:66, 17:21, 19:25, 21A:3, 82:5). 54 (ST 49B:9). 55 (texts 18:58, 67:5, 72:9). 56 (texts 13:48, 15:45, 93). 57 (text 26:38). Note that the word is evidently still close to its Latin root: debitas > debdas and deudas in modern Spanish, but Judeo-Spanish still retains this archaism. 58 (texts 6:3, 19:4, 25:14, 26:10, 39, 33:2). the language in the responsa 135

3.3.1.5 Other Retentions

1. The retention of the distinction of the medieval Castilian /b/ and /ß/. According to Penny (2004a: 183), these labials merged before the fifteenth century in initial position. No difference is made in these texts in initial position. However, in intervocalic position the contrast is preserved in most ex-Ottoman Jewish varieties. This is most apparent in the contrast between /b/ and labiodental /v/, as in the imperfect tense ending in -aba may well have been pronounced more like -ava. The problem is that this distinction in is not crystal bet בclear through the medium of Hebrew spelling. The consonant can represent /b/ or /v/ depending on whether it contains a dagesh.59 In an unpointed text this distinction is not apparent and a contextual decision has to be made to differentiate between the phonemes. b/, and the/ ,ב It is usually the case that a bet is written to denote vav. Examples in the texts of vino ו spelling of /v/ is certainly a either meaning ‘he came’ or ‘wine’ appear written with either a vav or a bet with no apparent reason of positioning. There is hesitation in this graphic representation. For instance saber (27:2, 26:24) and saverá (33:1, 26:1), nabe (37:16) and nave (37:19, 54B:6), uba (1:2, 37:35, 19), rebocar (71:40), reboco (71:19), estubo (52:4, 66:7), estava (38B:9, 64:16), andava (38B:9) and andubieron (53:9), havía (67:12) and había (36:16), escrivir (58:8) and escribir (2:7), deber (36:13) and dever (17:22) are among other examples. However, in the light of all this ambiguity it is difficult to ascertain whether the texts exhibit a distinction or a merger of the phonemes /b/ and /v/. This phenomenon is also present in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Min- ervini 2006: 114). Ariza argues that there was no /v/ in Medieval Spain and that it is a later evolutionary feature of Judeo-Spanish (Ariza 1996: 157). 2. A common archaism that is retained in Judeo-Spanish is the vos with second-person plural verb, and the form vuestra frequently used in phrases such as vuesa merçed.60 It is interesting to attest this one example of vuesa merçed (80:25) since according to Zamora Vicente

59 A dot in the letter to denote the plosive consonant -בּ. 60 See relevant table on modes of address 6.3 in Penny (2004b: 184), also Penny (2004a). 136 chapter three

it is not known in Judeo-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 360).61 There are thirty-seven instances ofvos used in the form of polite address (cf. standard usted).62 There are four examples ofvuestra (15:96, 57:4, 6, 73B:6) and ten instances of vuesa(s) (11:6, 7, 67, 13:33, 18:6, 13, 25, 50B:12, 80:2, 25). The same use ofvos is attested in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 103). The forms vuesa and nuesa abound in other texts like the Haggadot, Pirké Avot, a sixteenth century Siddur for women, and in translations of the Bible, of the later sixteenth century and early seventeenth century and attested in later responsa of R Chaim Shabtai (Arnold 2006a: 226). 3. Seavos and haćervos (37:13), sacavos (37:20) are two cases of the retention of the initial consonant by vos where standard Castilian would have os sea, haćeros, sacaos. 4. The use ofnon , an archaism from the Latin NON, alongside no. There are many examples of both uses in the text.Non is also attested in the Pentateuco de Constantinopla (Pascual Recuero 1988: 227). Non is the preferred form alongside no in Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali (Minervini 1992: 436) and expectedly no also alternates with non in Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g. Bereshit: 37, Shemot 1:216). 5. The Judeo-Spanish retention of the medieval system of sibilant phonemes is an archaism. The result is that these phonemes in Judeo-Spanish are more similar to modern Portuguese than to modern Spanish.63 This is one of the reasons why Judeo-Spanish sounds more like Portuguese. The medievalxabón ‘soap’ with the prepalatal fricative /š/ retains the phoneme in Judeo-Spanish. Its voiced counterpart /ʒ/, as in muǰer ‘woman’ is retained, and caśa retains the intervocalic /z/ as the phoneme merges with the /z/ of dezir ‘to say’.64 The voiced dental fricative /z/ in puśo (modern Spanish puso) is represented by the zayin (ST 7:3, 11). Further examples where the Hebrew zayin is used include modern Spanish reposar / repośar (ST 49B:5), cauśa / cauśa (ST 49B:9). In this book the ś represents the phoneme /z/ for Hebrew letter zayin, where the standard modern

61 Attested frequently in Golden Age Literature such as Don Quijote de la Man- cha e.g. (Part 2 chapter IX paragraph 5: ‘Señor -dišo Sancho-, ya que vuesa merced quiere . . .’ 62 The contraction ofvuestra > vuesa > usted is related to the reduced stress in honorifics, see Penny (2004a: 137–139) for an explanation of this linguistic change. 63 See Penny (2004b: 98–101) for the development of sibilants in Spanish. 64 See ST 49B:13 dyzyr. the language in the responsa 137

Spanish spelling takes an s. By adding the accent on the s, according to the guidelines set out by Sefarad, it ensures the word appears like modern Spanish whilst indicating its phonetic equivalent.

In writing, the distinction between /š/ and /ʒ/ is continued by means of its representation by shin and by gimmel plus diacritic respectively (Entwistle 1965: 181). In Castilian, the merger of the three voiced phonemes with the corresponding voiceless phonemes produced the outcome of /š/, /s/, /s/.̣ This change took place after 1492 and did not affect Judeo-Spanish so that the voiced phonemes did not merge with their voiceless counterparts resulting in phonemes that are the same as in Portuguese (Penny 2004b: 182). Moça (modern Spanish moza) has its voiceless dental fricative written in Hebrew script by samech that always represents /ts/ (ST 7:4, 11, 12). Note the use of the zayin in mozo (11:17), but samech in ST 49B:12, 24. Note that Judeo-Spanish dišo (modern Span- ish dijo / diǰo) retains its voiceless pre-palatal fricative /š/ and does not merge with /ʒ/ as in modern Spanish. This phoneme is represented in Hebrew by a shin שׁ (ST 7:6, 9, 9, 11, 12). Examples abound in the Me’Am Lo’ez such as abašo (Bereshit p. 36). There are thirty-three cases ofmu ǰer / muǰeres in the text. The pre- palatal voiced fricative /ʒ/ in muǰer is represented by the gimmel with the diacritic to differentiate between the ʒ/ / and the /g/. The same ʒ/ / represented by the gimmel with the diacritic is exemplified inkatriği (a Turkish borrowing) (ST 49B:7, 13, 14, 17, 23, 24, 28) and in coğimos (49B:16). Occasionally the diacritic is missing but this appears to be a matter of error rather than a reflection of pronunciation. I have indicated in a footnote the instances where it is relevant to mention that the diacritic is missing in the text. By comparison the prepalatal voiced fricatives are lost in the Moroccan responsa of R Malka (Ner Maaravi 75) where mujer and gente appear as mwker and kente respectively, where the voiced phoneme is replaced by the j as in Castilian Spanish.

3.3.1.6 Seseo, zezeo The seseo phenomenon present in Andalusian varieties and Ameri- can varieties of Spanish prevails in all varieties of Judeo-Spanish.65 The

65 Seseo is absolute in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish (Alvar 1996: 374). Also there is no distinction in Oriental Judeo-Spanish speech of the nineteenth century. ‘le sin a le 138 chapter three process is the result of the merger between the voiceless apico-alveolar /s/ as in passo and dental sibilant /ş/ as in almorçar, and its voiced affri- cates /z/ as in mesa and /z/̣ as in dezir.66 However, in Judeo-Spanish, Portuguese and Catalan, where voiced sibilants were retained, there was a parallel merger among the phonemes described as zezeo (Penny 2004b: 185). The outcome of these mergers is a pair of dental fricatives /ş/ and /z/. Hence words like paso and alsar would reflect this and be represented in Hebrew script by a sin or samech while caza modern Spanish caśa and dezir modern Spanish decir / dećir are written with zayin. The same outcome is attested in Portuguese, Occitan and French, but in Catalan the outcome of these mergers is a pair of apico-alveolar sibilants (Penny 2004b: 185–6). Seventeen cases of dećir67 or dezir (ST 49B:13, 16) including in the Hebrew text (ז) maldećir that are represented by the letter zayin reflect the medieval spelling and the Judeo-Spanish speech.68 About thirty-eight instances of caśa are recorded in the texts also spelt with a zayin. Caśa, in the Hebrew script, also has the zayin to represent the /z/ (11:12, 12:41, ST 68:4).69 Caśas (13:31) has the first ‘s’ spelt with a zayin and the final letter spelt with a sin (שׂ) to show consistency in the graphic representation of the language. Note also quiseron (cf. modern Spanish quiśieron) ‘they wanted’, spelt with zayin (ST 68:21). Countless other voiced examples abound in the texts većina (13:61), većindad (13:65), raźón (19:25), aviśó (59:10), catorće (50:3,37), haćéis (39B:4), hićiese (37:32), fiźo (1:27, 11:58), as they also abound in the Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g diće, haće, cośas, in Devarim pp. 34, 35, 40 respectively). The contrasting forms are also apparent such asesposa (38B:6), escusar (74:1). In this book mismo is repeatedly spelt with a sin, yet in

même son que samek. Les Juifs d’Orient ne font aujourd’hui, dans la prononciation, aucune difference entre ces deux lettres’ (thesin has the same sound as the samech. The Oriental Jews do not make any difference in the pronunciation of these two letters) (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 12). 66 For more information on the history of seseo, zezeo see Spaulding (1975: 157– 162), Lapesa (1988: 283–4, 374–6, 510–1, 563–70) and Penny (2004b: 142–3, 185–6). 67 Note that dećir indicates the zayin pronounciation in the middle consonant. This is explained in the transcription tables 2.3.7.1 and 2.3.7.2. 68 Incidentally note that diez (text 15:21, 21, 23, 23) has the last consonant spelt with a sin and not a zayin as in Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 34). 69 Although this is not obvious from the transcription system used in our main corpus, it can be appreciated from this discussion and with the provision of the sample texts. the language in the responsa 139 the Me’Am Lo’ez (Bereshit p. 154) it repeatedly appears as miśmo as it appears with a zayin in the text. Also in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish responsa caśamiento can be found thus illustrating the persistent use of the voiced fricative /z/.70 At this point the development of the voiceless dental fricative /ts/ ‘ç’ needs to be addressed. The sources of /ts/ ‘ç’ in Old Spanish begin with inherited words with an unbroken oral history from Latin to Old Spanish. For instance (c)/t/ + [j] martiu>março, (c)/k/+[j] calcea> calça, /tt/+[j] matiana > ma(n)çana, /kk/ + [j] bracchiu >braço,/pt/+ [j]captiare>caçar,/kt/+[j]directiare>adereçar,initial/k/(e/i)cista>cesta, /sk/(e/i)pisces>peçes,/kk/(e/i) flaccidu > lacio. Note that (c) indicates here ‘any consonant’ and any symbol between the brackets is a condi- tioning factor but one that develops independently of the phoneme(s) in question (Penny 2002: 73). In addition to these inherited words the borrowings from Latin of learned register come in to the language with the /ts/, such as informaçión, diferençia, licençia etc. In mainstream Castilian this phoneme underwent changes and mergers that occurred too late to affect Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2000: 42–44, 181). Yet in the south of Spain the apico-alveolar and its dental sibilants had already merged before the Jews left Spain for the Otto- man Empire so they may well have taken this change in their spoken language. However for the majority of the Spanish Jews the /ts/ was still an integral part of the phonemic structure of their language. These voiced sibilants persisted as they did in Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan and French and there was a parallel merger among this set of phonemes termed zezeo. The outcome ofseseo and zezeo in Judeo-Spanish was a pair of dental fricatives /ts/ and /z/, where the outcome of such mergers was a pair of apico-alveolar sibilants (Penny 2000: 182, 185– 186). This is an example of phonological simplification. Yet .ס The Hebrew letter used to represent /ts/, ‘ç’ is thesamech in this corpus there is an inconsistency of this representation and it -Where the phoneme is an apico .ש is often represented by the sin alveolar affricate I have used normative Modern Spanish spellingc, z, as opposed to ç for the dental affricate.

70 From Ner Maaravi, the responsa of Rabbi Yaakov Malka of eighteenth century Morocco, see Appendix 5. 140 chapter three

It is difficult to ascertain whether this confused representation is in fact a reflection of the pronounciation, a testimony of the neutralisation of the differences between the apico-alveolar and the dental phonemes, or a mere scribal error. Note falecimiento (11:15), pareciéndome (11:20) represented with a sin, pareçiere (59:9), in the same text we see conoces (49B:19) and conoçes (49A:12), ǰusticia (15:76, 26:13, 52, 49B:3, 49C:14) is represented by a sin, esperança (50:42), concluçion (57:5), negoçiado (58:7), fuerças (50:2), forçadamente (38C:3), traiçión (49C:13), poliças (50:2), moça (7:4, 11, 12, 45:3, 4, 6, 9, 83:6, 13, 18, 23, 24, 38, 72, 74, 79) moço/s (12:12, 38, 49A:11, 49B:12, 24, 73B:2, 74:38), mançebo(a)(s) (12:30, 32, 36:10, 45:2, 5, 7, 11:62), mancebo (83:10) and mozo (11:17), moza (11:64, 83:70), parece(r) (18:28, 30:28, 41:8), pareçe (13:62, 15:56, 58, 26:41, 41:12), tercios (44:3) and terçio (44:2), (noticia (11:31) obligación (26:37), liçençia (58:8, 73B:6), licencia (2:7), merçed (61A:5, 72A:2, 15, 80:25), merçé (11:61), mercé (11:65), cabeça (11:19, 49A:7, 60:3, 4, 68:9), cabeza (66:4) pedazo (13:72, 36:14, 42:30), pedaço(s) (37:14, 42:15, 42:36, 61, 49B:6), pedaçico (13:80), ganancia (19:25), ganançia (17:5, 21), 71:33, 74:15, 17, 30), reçibir (30B:16, 22), reçibo (9:3, 43B:1, 3, 43C:2), reçibí (18:24, 61:13), reçibiste (73:3), reçi- bido (17:8, 15), reçibió (30A:3), yet recibí (18:13, 80:1), recibieron (3:14, 19), recibido (17:4, 17), recebidor (11:67). There is uncertainty too with many examples of both cierto (26:4, 26, 49:7, 66:5) and çierto (12:45, 28:6, 31:16, 72:27), and in the same text velleçino (3:4, 14) and vellecino (3:13). Interestingly conoçía is detected with a tsadi instead of a samech, perhaps indicating the actual pronounciation and exemplify- ing the confusion of this phoneme of Judeo-Spanish at this stage of dialect mixing and koineisation of the language. This evidence sheds light due to the higher number ot texts analysed on the absence of illustrations such as pareçe, pedaço etc. in this argument in Orígenes del español (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 168–169). It can be seen that there is often hesitation within the same text of this linguistic phenomenon described above. In the eighteenth century Me’Am Lo’ez, reçiben is noted on the cover Shemot Part 1. In fact the use of samech to represent the dental affricate prevails in theMe’Am Lo’ez, with countless examples can be found on a single page such as çierto, oraçiones, exclamaçión, matan- ças, pareçe, apareçe (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:216). These illustrations point to the fact that this linguistic phenomenon had rooted itself in Judeo-Spanish by this later date. the language in the responsa 141

Note that modern Spanish decir contains the phoneme /θ/ that is absent in Judeo-Spanish. In recent transcriptions, the samech has substituted the sin because of the generality of seseo (Hassán 1992: 166).71

3.3.1.7 Yeísmo The articulation of the descendant of Latin -LL- in both initial and medial position has changed into /λ/ and later into /y/ in many areas including Judeo-Spanish areas. Thisyeismo (merger of /λ/ and /y/) is common in the speech of Andalusia, the Canary Islands and Central and South America. Yeísmo is the absence of an opposition between /λ/ and /j/ [/y/] (Pountain 2001: 188). Interestingly, the first edition of Maḥarashdam (1595) generally reflects the λ/ / pronunciation as it contains words like ella and alla written with an extra yod (27:9), while in the 1863 edition we find that they drop a yod.72 There are many such examples where earlier editions reflect this distinction (58:22), and later editions of the texts do not add the extra yod. An inconsistency in the representation of the diphthongs [ya] and [ye] by either single yod, double yod or yod + aleph can be noted, millas (27:6), hallarlo (27:9).73 Hassán notes that this inconsistency could also be reflecting yeísmo (Hassán 1987: 130), in other words the weakening and change from the /λ/ and /y/ where the extra yod denotes the /λ/. This is contrasted with the consistency found in the manuscript of Orlando el Furioso of 1580 (Minervini 1997: 95). Pountain finds Judeo-Spanish uniformly yeísta (Pountain 2001: 222). Llama / lyyaman with a double yod is noted in Me’Am Lo’ez repeatedly (e.g. in Bereshit p. 35). Yet ll in initial position such as lluvia is written with a single lamed, lwb’yya / luvia (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:173). In Judeo-Spanish today /λ/ no longer exists and like in French and Provençal it has generally become /y/ (Nehama 1977: XIV). Since this is undetected in the texts this must have been a later change.

71 In a Judeo-Spanish newspaper El Telegrafo of 23 January 1894 the samech has totally substituted the sin (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 14–16). 72 The transcription remains unaltered where thel is followed by a single yod, as lamed followed by yod. However when a double yod follows this consonant then in the modern rendition it is written as ll to represent /λ/; llamé / ly∙my (text 11:20) ‘I called’, falló / p∙lyyw (ST 68:4) ‘he found’. According to González Llubera there is usually one yod but when the alveolar /l/ precedes a vav then there are two yods (González Llubera 1935: xix). 73 This is also noted in thekharjas (Benabu 1991: 37). 142 chapter three

3.3.1.8 Labialisation of /n/ to /m/ Additionally, labialisation of initial /n/ changing to /m/ is common in all Judeo-Spanish varieties (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358). In medieval Spanish, the form mos instead of nos as a first person plural pronoun was common (it is still heard today in some rustic speech). The word initial sequence /nue/ is regularly modified to /mue/ in Judeo-Spanish. This process may be an extension of a Peninsular process, now confined to recessive rural use, by which the first-person plural pronoun nos was modified tomos under the double influence of the corresponding singular pronoun me and of the first-person plural ending -mos (Penny 2004b: 179). There may have been a transfer frommos to the possessive pronoun muestro, and thereafter forms such as muevas occur in Judeo-Spanish. Examples are: muevas (13:36 in 3rd edition and BIURP) and nos (4:18, 20, 12:2, 36, 37, 15:25, 26:53, 28:25, 27, 29, 34:2, 49a:5, 6, 84A:30, 36, 84B:22, 23), occurring seventeen times in our texts. Mueva ‘new’ is the prevailing form in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot: 173). The labialisation of the initial consonant of the word nuera took place in Judeo-Spanish and the word became muera, creating a problem. Calling a daughter-in-law nuera by the form muera (the imperative form of ‘to perish’, i.e. that she should perish), was clearly unacceptable, hence the evolution of the form ermuera / ilmuera for ‘daughter-in-law’ which is widely used in modern Judeo-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358, Kohen & Kohen- Gordon 2000: 442). The initial stage of mos for nos is an inherited feature; the later stage, however, is innovatory. The /m/ in the personal pronounmos could be inherited from Spanish as it is also heard in rural varieties in both Spain and America (Penny 2004b: 179, 1990). However, the labialisation of nue to mue was probably innovatory in Judeo-Spanish after 1492 although the form nuestro is also present in our texts, for instance in text 72:10. Interestingly, nos and nosotros appear twenty-four times in the texts, whilst there are only five instances of first person plural pronominal forms with m such as mos and mosotros (83:36, 37, 41, 64, 84A:2). Similarly nuestro(s) (18:1, 72A:10, 72B:3) is used twice in the texts, and muestro appears only once.

3.3.1.9 The Consonantal Cluster /mp/ ,nun) in internal position נ) /A point of graphical interest is /n mem); hence the inclusion in the texts of מ) /written in place of /m words like conprar (13:55), conpañía (17:3), tanbién (4:3), sienpre the language in the responsa 143

(11:12),74 ronpió (27:5). Tanbién appears to be the preferred form in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Bereshit p. 37). Conprar was the predominant spelling of medieval Spanish words with a nasal at the end of the syllable. The change in spelling in peninsular Spanish did not affect Judeo- Spanish orthography. Enpeça for empieza can be seen in the Me’Am Lo’ez many times (e.g Bereshit p. 37) and tienpo alternates with tiempo in this commentary (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:218). In the Ferrara Bible this cluster is represented by -mp- (mem peh), in other words by the orthographic conventions that has prevailed in these Biblical translations texts from the earlier pre-Inquisition period (Benabu 1985: 8). In this corpus -mp- is always represented in the Hebrew by (nun peh) and the transcriptions show this orthography, i.e. -np-.

3.3.1.10 Retention of /mb/ Both forms palomba and paloma are attested in early texts in the twelfth and fourteenth centuries in Spain (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 388– 389). No clear picture emerges with regard to the retention of /mb/ in our s. This is the case too in the eleven responsa studies by Minervini & Várvaro (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 189). Where the corresponding Castilian forms reduce the /mb/ to /m/, Judeo-Spanish retains the /mb/ (Lapesa 1988: 529). However, in the 1595 Maḥarashdam edition Paloma (8:1, 3) (a name; also means ‘dove’) shows the reduction process. The 1863 edition Palomba exemplifies the retention of /mb/. However, plomo (34:4, 72:2, 14, 16) ‘lead’ remains in the reduced form in the 1595 edition and in the BIURP.75 This reduction process, /mb/ to /m/, is also attested in Aragonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 236–237). The retention of /mb/ is inherited from western and northern varieties of Peninsular Romance, namely Galician, Portuguese and Leonese (Penny 1992a: 132).

3.3.1.11 Consonantal Group /mr/ In the eleventh century, regional variations /mr/ and /mbr/ originating from Latin M’N are noted (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 309–310). Interestingly our texts show the preservation of this archaism as well

74 Note that there are four instances of sienpre and seven of siempre in the texts. Also siempre is preferred in Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 13). 75 However in one such instance BIURP clomo appears instead of plomo (text 34:4) but this is a pure copying error of a chaf in place of a bet. 144 chapter three as the form adopted by Castilian.76 The texts exemplify fembras (3:7) ‘women’, nombre (71:2), (hombre (3:3, 11:36, 56, 18:34, 37, 44, 50B:21, 58:21) eight times and homre (55:13) once, but lumre (11:7) in all editions and novemre (71:3).77 Minervini also attests forms like nomre and omre alongside the Castilian forms, nombre and hombre (Minervini 1992: 436, 439).78 Also Coplas de Yosef show the preservation of these consonant groups amidst the Castilian forms too (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 91). Co-existing forms /mr/ and /mbr/ are attested in the Proverbios Morales (González-Llubera 1947: 28). Hombre is attested repeatedly in the Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g. Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:218).

3.3.1.12 Disappearance of Contrast Between /r/ and /ɾ/ The vibrant /r̠/ exists in some varieties of Judeo-Spanish and in those regions where it is absent it would berepresented graphically by a single ‘r’ whereas in modern Spanish there is a distinction between the vibrant /r̠/ and the flap /ɾ/. Hebrew language and orthography only resh it never appears as a double consonant.79 Hence it is ר has a single not surprising that this representation is so, this is also acknowledged in the Coplas de Yosef’s linguistic commentary (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 93). It is impossible therefore to distinguish through spelling between words that in Spanish contain /r/ or /ɾ/. Hence se enterró (27:9), (cf. standard se enterró) meaning ‘he was buried’, could have been mistranslated for se enteró (‘he was informed’); pero (42:20, 22), meaning ‘dog’ (cf. standard perro) can be confused with pero, meaning ‘but’, also note perroĵudió / pyrwg`wdyyw (ST 49B:9). Each time an understanding of the context is the key to deciphering the ambiguity. Other examples include arrimé (ST 49B:4). The loss of contrast is unprecedented in the Spanish-speaking world—a case of Judeo-Spanish innovation (Penny 1996: 57). This lack of distinction

76 By the thirteenth century the archaic form mr is much less common in the Tole- dan region, in some Leonese regions even the archaism mn prevails (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 310). 77 Note that in hombre there is no heh in the Hebrew spelling, but as the spelling system is according to the rules of modern Spanish the h has been inserted. 78 Note also nomrada and famre (cf. standard hambre ‘hunger’) in Coplas de Yosef (González Llubera 1935: 13, 9). 79 I found one source from the nineteenth century Judeo-Spanish press that says that occasionally one finds the double Hebrew letter, ‘cependant on trouve quelque- gyrrh/guerra) (Foulché-Delbosc) גיררה ,(tyyrrh/tierra) טייררה :fois le redoublement 1894: 12). the language in the responsa 145 is contrasted with the position in all other varieties of Spanish, except in creole varieties (Pountain 2001: 196; Penny 2004b: 179). Interest- ingly regional variations can be noted in the disappearance of the vibrant /r/.̠ It is retained in the communities of Greece, Macedonia, Turkey, Israel and Egypt. However the distinction is lost in the Judeo- Spanish in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania (Quintana 2006: 84). In this book I have opted to indicate rr so as to clarify the meaning and to near the modern Spanish equivalent, but I write is as rr (second r in italics ) to represent the above philological argument.

3.3.1.13 Metathesis Metathesis of /rd/ > /dr/ is a regular innovation in most varieties of Judeo-Spanish. Metathesis, in general, indicates a change in the form of a word in which one or more segments are moved to different places in the word (Penny 2004a: 325). This feature appears to be unrecorded in other varieties of Hispano-Romance, and is best regarded as one of the innovations of Judeo-Spanish. Again, our texts demonstrate inconsistencies in words containing this metathesis, and there are also differences between editions. However, the editions examined are two hundred years apart and these variations are therefore unsurprising. The variations could reflect changing speech forms or the printers may have been less familiar with the language. The point is that Judeo- Spanish does not like the flap /ɾ/ directly preceding a consonant. It prefers to displace it to follow the consonant (Nehama 1977: XV). Hence a word like sordo (deaf) becomes sodro. So in text 11:23, 54, 59, the name d’Ardero (1594 edition) is written as such. In line 3 of the same text it appears methathesized to d’Adrero. In the 1863, edition it appears as d’Ardero. In text 28:23 we encounter the word avredarda- rían and later the metathesized form of avredadrarían (l. 16, 1863 edition). Lapesa lists other common metathesis like acodrarsi, guadrar (Lapesa 1988: 530). The /rd/ >/dr/ metathesis is not present in Bosnia (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358). Pountain notes metathesis in pedrites, guadrar and akodrar (Pountain 2001: 226). Quintana points out that in the eighteenth century Una informacion de la aritmetica. Primera parte written in Judeo-Spanish with a Hebrew orthography, metathesis of -rd- is infrequent. This text is supposedly composed by a Turk from Smyrna in a cultured register (Quintana 1996: 299). Other examples of metathesis are at text 50:12 which has teneldas in place of tenedlas, tomaldo (31:5) for tomadlo, poneldos (ST 7:2) for 146 chapter three ponedlos; calrezas in place of clarezas (51:9) is attested.80 Metathesis with -dl is noted as a phonetic characteristic of Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 75). The word cuaderno (28:4, 15, 25, 29, 32) is also written without the metathesis in the 1595 edition; in the 1863 edition appears as cuadreno (28:4, 15, 25, 29, 32). Note also the forms terna, ternia in Coplas de Yosef (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 91). Also, cortaron (26:24, 45) and acortaron (74:36) can be seen in this corpus, yet in the BIURP cotró is attested against the unmetathesized form of cortó (26:46). Interestingly, contarto (26:31) appears in a form of metathesis in place of contrato, as occasionally instead of a metathesis taking place an epenthetic a is produced (Nehama 1977: XV). Interestingly, presonas (27:7) appears metathesized in all editions. Minervini notes that presona and many other examples of metathesis (Minervini 1992: 69–70) are present in texts from the Aragonese region. In the Me’Am Lo’ez presonas appears frequently in its metath- esised form (e.g in Bereshit p. 154). Percurador (11.66) is included in Minervini’s corpus.81 The rest of her examples do not appear in this corpus. Guardar (ST 49B:11) is unmetathesized in its sole appearance in this collection.

3.3.1.14 Loss of Distinction Between Final /d/ and /t/ The replacement of final /d/ by /t/ is evident from the spelling of our texts. The wordcibdad is alternated with the form cibdat in text 13 in the 1863 edition, but in the earlier edition (1595) cibdad is preferred. In fact, there is no instance of cibdat at all in our corpus. Cibdat is noted in Castaño’s fifteenth century fragments of a register (Castaño 2004: 334). However, the form verdat (15:27, 35, 37:40, 56:2, 15) appears five times in all the testimonies, compared to fourteen instances of verdad. This could be a genuine variation of the voiced and voiceless consonant. Miatat (33:3, 61:8) appears twice whilst there are four cases of mitad (24:2, 61:2, 82:6, 7). Miatad is common in medieval Spanish as evidenced in Castaño 2004: 333). Conclusively, the final /t/ was not as popular as it became in later Judeo-Spanish. In the texts words like edad are written as edar (11:61) in the BIURP, but verdad does not appear as verdar in the later edition. Edar could

80 These and other forms of metathesis were very frequent in Peninsular Golden- Age Spanish (Penny 2004a: 197). 81 In fact, Minervini attests porcurador, cf. percurador (Minervini 1992: 451). the language in the responsa 147 simply be typographical error perhaps caused by the Resh—Dalet orthographic resemblance, but could also be a form of metathesis and could also reflect genuine pronunciation.

3.3.1.15 The Merge Between ɲ/ / and /ni/ The merge of the phonemes ɲ/ / and /ni/ results in the removal of one phoneme from the phonology of Judeo-Spanish. This phenomenon can be clearly registered in the occasional variation found in the later editions of the same text. At this point it is essential to clarify that the Hebrew graphic representation of nun followed by yod indicates /ni/, whilst a nun followed by a double already indicates a presence of the /ɲ/. However, this distinction is not consistent at all in its representation in the corpus or in the subsequent editions. For instance, there are five cases of señoría (11:6, 8, 67:5, 7, 8) spelt ‘synyywry’ in the first edition as opposed to ‘synywry’ in the second and third editions and the BIURP version of Medina’s responsa. Also there are twelve examples of señora showing the same phenomenon in the BIURP. In this corpus an inconsistency is detected in the use of a single or double yod: e.g. año (1:4, 19:30)82 ‘year’, viñas (37:14, 17, 25) ‘vineyards’ spelt with two yods, but with one yod in text 1:12 in all editions; equally erratic is mañana (12:10, 33, 74:38) ‘morning’ and señor83 ‘sir’.84 Paño (11:18, 45) ‘cloth’; compañía (12:7, 17:13, 16, 37:25, 41:11) ‘company’ appear with a double yod, empeñó (13:28) ‘he pawned’ is written with a double yod in both editions.85 Cuñada (13:33, 35, 64, 61B:5, 9, 11, 61C:2) ‘sister-in-law’ appears with a double yod in both editions; pequeño (32:2, 38A:16, ST 68:12) ‘small’ always has a double yod; the surname Gateño (35:3), caña (37:22), daño (12:13, 80:31) ‘harm’ all have a double yod. Note that riñón86 ‘kidney’, dueña (71:36) ‘mistress’ and señores (ST 49B:1) ‘sirs’ are spelt with a single yod.87

82 Interestingly in the first exampleaño is spelt anyo in all editions. The second example it is spelt anyyo in all editions. 83 There are countless examples ofseñor in the texts with varying spellings, see p. 112 on ‘Problems with Textual Transmissions’. 84 Out of these three instances mañana appears twice with a double yod and once with a single yod. 85 By both editions it is meant the original and the BIURP version that is based on the latest edition. 86 Riñón is mentioned twelve times in text 42 and is written with a single yod. 87 Note that paño appears with one yod in the original edition of Medina’s responsa (1595) but with two yods in the second (1793) and later editions (1862 and BIURP). 148 chapter three

3.3.1.16 Other Innovations of Judeo-Spanish There are a number of innovations in Judeo-Spanish that are apparent, occasionally apparent or absent in the language in these texts. Naturally we cannot be certain about the pronunciation of linguistic features described below. All that can be ascertained is what is represented in writing.

1. The reinforcement of the diphthong /ue/ when it is syllable-initial and when preceded by a consonant in the same syllable.88 There- fore luego would add a vowel before the consonant resulting in eluego (Penny 2004b: 179). This innovation is cited in the Judeo- Spanish of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 365, Quintana 2006: 39). In our texts, however, there are twelve examples of luego (15:60, 84, 22:11, 30B:17, 18, 22 39:4, 42:35, 48, 46:2, 3, 72:22) and none of them are in the form of eluego. 2. The labio-velar on-glide generated after labials and velars such that padre becomes [pwáðre], gato is realised as [gwáto] (Zamora Vicente 1967: 357). Such a process would show a vav between the consonant and the vowel in the first syllable of these examples and this is absent from our texts. There are nine instances ofpadre (13:71, 21:6, 47:2, 55:2, 63B:3, 70:3, 3, 80:28, 29), including padres and conpadre, none of which show this innovation. There are no cases of gato. Examples of the linguistic phenomenon underlying the spelling sfuegro/a (Armistead & Silverman 1994: 27), reflecting the acoustic effect of the devoicing of the labio-velar glide [w] preceded by the voiceless [s], are not found in the texts; suelo (7:3, 4, 11, 29:2, 3, 9) is written as in Spanish. 3. The palatalization of syllable-final /s/ to /z/ before velar /k/. e.g. /buzkár/ as opposed to the standard buscar is unclear in the texts. There are two cases ofbuscar (68:3, 80:9) where the /s/ is repre- .which can be a shin or sin) in the Hebrew text) ש sented by the The same spelling ofbuscar is attested in Minervini’s medieval texts (Minervini 1992: 64).

88 This is present in non-standard Peninsular and American Spanish (Penny 2004b: 179, 134–135). the language in the responsa 149

4. The reflexive cliticse apparently has a separate form sen in Judeo- Spanish when its referent is plural (Penny 2004b: 180). Such examples as viéndosen are absent in these texts. 5. The loss of the final consonant when followed by another clitic pronoun in the first- and second-person plural object pronounsnos and vos; e.g. no lo in place of nos lo and vo lo in place of vos lo in standard Castilian. In our corpus there are three cases of vos lo 10:2, 31:16, 64:19) and no cases of this known Judeo-Spanish innovation. Noteworthy here is the hesitation of both forms mos and nos in the texts. Mos appears in text 83 ll.36,37,41. Elsewhere in the texts nos prevails. Shwarzwald explains that the use of mos in the Me’Am Lo’ez is to project closeness between the author and his readers (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 94). 6. The result of an assimilation between earlier final /s/ and the preceding off-glide [į] results in the second-person plural endings of the present indicative and present subjunctive such as fićiéredes (57:6) ending with an /s/. Examples in the present tense of this can be found in the texts: caśás (11:4), hayah s (43:1), haberéš (ST 68:12), habés (18:62, 73B:2, 8), saberéš / saberés / saverés (6:1, 33:1, 38B:1, 49A:2, 50B:16, 83:9, 35, 60), pensés (ST 49B:1). Harris cites Agard as reporting this as an independent innovation in the Judeo- Spanish verb forms that result from an analogical process (Harris 1994: 77). Note also this phenomenon where the second-person plural is used perhaps for a rhetorical purpose and for reasons of emphasis in the Me-Am Lo’ez (Quintana 2004b: 75) (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 92–93). Saberéš / saberés / saverés (6:1, 33:1, 38B:1, 49A:2, 50B:16, 83:9, 35, 60) precedes affirmations of a legal content in cases in this book (as well as in the Me-Am Lo’ez (Quintana 2004b: 75). 7. There are some lexical variations caused by internal phonetic innovations in the language with some regional differences. For instance ĵudió ‘Jew’ has undergone variation over time too. Djidió and djudió is attested in 1595 Fuente Klara published anonymously in Salonica. In some regions it was more common to see djudió in the written language whilst djidió belonged to the spoken language. Rarely the forms djedió and djodió existed in Rhodes and in Gallipoli. Quin- tana argues that the Spanish judío also present in sixteenth century Salonica may well have suffered analogical pressure from the influence Yiddish yid as the Ashkenazi communities were undergoing a 150 chapter three

period of linguistic change with the Sephardic influence, a type of linguistic Sephardisation (Quintana 2006: 232, 233, 428). 8. There is some evidence in the texts of articulatory instability of pre- palatal consonants such as in quiǰo (13:22, 17:13), quiǰeron (13:11), viǰitar (11:30, 50:26), diǰo (11:26, 34, 49A:14) and diǰeron (16:46) instead of the expected dišo etc. that occurs mostly. This phenomenon described here prevalent in Castilian Spanish at the time does not quite root itself in Judeo-Spanish (Várvaro & Minervini 2008: 168).

3.3.1.17 Other Linguistic Features There are several variations discussed inVariation and Change in Spanish (Penny 2004b: 184–193) whose relevance to the texts in this book I would like to examine.

1. Though there is a significant contribution to Judeo-Spanish from non-Castilian peninsular sources there were not many to be found in this corpus.89 Dona, an honorific title, is attested nine times; it is common in Catalan and has been found in Aragonese sources (Minervini 1992: 395). Minervini attests many such Aragonisms and Catalanisms in her medieval texts (Minervini 1992: 126). 2. The adhesion of atonic particles to a verb or noun/pronoun is a well-known practice witnessed in the contractions used in medieval Spanish manuscripts. It is standard practice as regards the articles and prepositions in Hebrew and Arabic. Adhesions of this type are attested in afaćer (84A:18), acatando (21A:1), aletra (27:3), alevantar (53:2, 60:3). This frequent use of the prosthetica also occurs in Portuguese and in the popular speech of various Hispanic countries (Harris 1994: 78). Note that the use of the preposition a is occasionally used preceding a personal direct object as is the case in yo indo a viǰitar al señor dotor dicho. 3. The re-enforcement ofhue and bue to güe90 that has become normal in Judeo-Spanish is not attested in our texts. In this book, there are seven cases of bueno(s) ‘good’ reflecting the standard Castilian usage as opposed to that adopted generally by Judeo-Spanish.

89 Section 3.3 deals with borrowings from other languages including Portuguese. 90 See Penny 2004b: 191. the language in the responsa 151

Minervini, in contrast, attests two cases of güesos ‘bones’ in her medieval texts (Minervini 1992: 415).

The following linguistic features are absent in the texts in this corpus:

1. The depalatalization of λ/ / to /l/ in the instance of another palatal consonant occurring later in the word is not seen in our corpus, yet they appear in the poem Coplas de Yosef (Girón-Negrón & Min- ervini 2006: 90). Such words do not experience yeísmo (see section 3.3.1.7) e.g. caleja, luvia (cf. Castilian calleja, lluvia). However they do abound in Me’Am Lo’ez, e.g. luvia (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:173). 2. The process of the creation of a contrast between the voiced dental fricative (caśa) and the voiced dental affricate in some words like dodze.91 However this contrast may well have been a later phenomenon than that appearing in the texts since there is a manifested fusion between the apico-alveolar and dental fricative in its medieval use, e.g caśa, dećir etc.92 3. The phenomenon wherebyamarillo becomes amarío and extended to gallina and allí becoming gaína and aí has become general in Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 188). This is a case of the deletion of /ǰ/ after tonic /e/ or /i/. This is unsurprising since this development, which is common in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, appears to have taken place during the second half of the seventeenth century or in the eighteenth century (Alvar 1996: 374).

3.3.1.18 Lexical Retentions

1. A matter of lexical retention is the use of the adverbs agora (26:21) and muncho.93 In eighteenth century munchos can still be seen throughout in Me’Am Lo’ez e.g. muncha in Bereshit p. 36, muncho in Devarim p. 30. The presence of such archaic terms and phrases is a most salient feature of Judeo-Spanish since the Sephardim were separated from Spain thus keeping words that eventually

91 See Penny 2004b: 186. 92 See Varvaro & Minervini 2008: 169. 93 According to this website muncho appeared in the fifteenth century literature 1071 times, but 77 times in the sixteenth century and only 11 times in the seventeenth century literature. In 1510 muncho appeared 45 times in Francisco Delicado’s La lozana andaluza (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org 3/7/05). 152 chapter three

disappeared from the Castilian lexicon (Harris 1994: 82). Agora is the form that occurs in Old Castilian Spanish that is still used in modern Portuguese, was inherited directly by Judeo-Spanish. There are twenty-two instances of agora in the texts and ahora does not feature at all. This archaic preservation is documented by Shwarz- wald in her lexical analysis (Shwarzwald 1993: 32). Agora is attested in the responsa of Rabbi Chaim Shabtai (1651) and documented as an archaism (Arnold 2006a: 226). At this point it is noteworthy that speakers of Judeo-Spanish came into contact with those of Portuguese at a later stage in history as that of the corpus in this book. There was a huge influx of Portuguese Jews, who immigrated en masse to Italy in the 1530’s. These in turn after Antwerp falling in the hands of the Span- ish army went to Ottoman lands in the 17th century (Quintana 2006: 55). 2. Muncho is a not uncommon addition of a nasal; there are precedents in the history of Spanish of words that already have a nasal and acquire another; Latin macula, for example, ends up as mancha. Muncho is an example of the addition of a phoneme, a nasal, in a word that already has one. Muncho is still used in modern Spanish but it is restricted to rural use. It is clearly inherited by Judeo-Spanish from peninsular usage (Zamora Vicente 1967: 361). However muncho/s (48:6, 74:18) only features twice in the texts compared to mucho/s appearing nineteen times.94 In an 1824 poem from Tetuán the preference for muncho is evident (Hassán 1977: 330–331). Quintana attests its appearance in the nineteenth century in Salonica, Bulgaria (Quintana 2006: 218–219). 3. Ansí (Penny 2004b: 192), an archaism retained in Judeo-Spanish, features in the texts forty times, as opposed to así (the modern Span- ish form) featuring only eight times. Preservation of ansí, an example of archaic Ibero dialectal lexicon, is attested by Judeo-Spanish researchers (Shwarzwald 1993: 32) (Arnold 2006a: 226) (Minervini 1992: 357) (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 171, 180), among others.

94 Note that in Orígenes del español it is claimed that muncho is not found in the responsa, this is due to the narrow selection of responsa on the basis of which these comments have been made (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 171). the language in the responsa 153

4. Onde is another archaism that prevails in this corpus in place of the modern donde, and is a common feature of Aragonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 275).95 Onde could well have been part of the speech of Portuguese Jews (Pountain 2001: 224). We cannot really conclude on a preference of any form in the corpus since there are four cases of donde (17:3, 27:4, 6, 9) in the corpus, three cases of onde (63A:1, ST 68:25, 27), one case of aonde (71:11). Interestingly, dende (1:16, 84:11) is attested in all Aragonese speech (Zamora Vicente 1967: 275).96 5. Pos (26:32, 38) is used twice but pues appears thirteen times in the texts (11:6, 62, 13:64, 73, 15:57, 66, 83, 26:42, 44, 49:20, 74C:15, 29, 80A:20) as a preferred form in the texts, both are ancient forms and variations in American Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 439). There is a possibility that this conjunction could be pus as the Hebrew script sometimes does not differentiate with the vowelso and u, as pus has been attested in some Sehardic communities north of the Balkans (Quintana 2009: 237). In text 42:51, the text features condo for cuando. Mitad appears as miatat (61:8) (33:3) and mitad (24:2, 61:2, 82:6, 7). Miatad is common in Old Spanish. 6. The use ofenchir (inchan (37:18)), meaning llenar ‘to fill’ is listed as an archaism by Harris (1994: 83).97 7. The use ofman(ç)cebo (12:30, 32, 38B:10, 45:2, 5, 7, 83:10, 40) for ‘young man’ is a lexical retention of which there are eight examples in the texts. This retention has only survived in Judeo-Spanish and not in any other variety of the language (Penny 2004b: 185). This archaic retention along with preto (11:43) ‘black’ is noted in Death of a Language (Harris 1994: 83) and in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish (Alvar 1996: 377).

95 Onde is attested in Spanish literature 2041 times in the fifteenth century, only 579 times in the sixteenth century and 10 times in the seventeenth century mainly in Spanish American literature (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org 3/7/05). 96 Dende is however attested in Spanish literature 5364 times in the fifteenth century, 689 times in the sixteenth century and rapidly falling to 58 times in the seventeenth century (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org 17/05/06). 97 Enchir is not a popular word in medieval Spanish; it is attested only 15 times in the fifteenth century and 3 times in the sixteenth century (http://www.corpus delespanol.org 1/7/05). 154 chapter three

8. The archaismmercar in place of conprar (cf. standard comprar) ‘to buy’ prevails in Judeo-Spanish as well as in some Spanish Ameri- can regions (Harris 1994: 84).98 It is also attested in the Judeo- Spanish of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363) (Shwarzwald 1993: 33). The corpus attests four instances ofmercar (1:28, 29, 3:4, 18:6), six examples of mercó (13:1, 23, 37:5, 5, 8, 24). Conpró (13:12) and conpraba (13:15) both appear only once. 9. The formveluntad ‘will’ (cf. standard voluntad) that is present in medieval Spanish is the accepted Judeo-Spanish word (Nehama 1977: 583).99 There is one instance ofvoluntad (71:39) in the corpus and six instances of veluntad (24:7, 25:10, 40:8, 61A:6, 74:5, 82:2). Minervini shows two examples of each form in her texts (Min- ervini 1992: 486), the Salmos de Salónica also attest one instance of veluntad (Pascual Recuero 1988: 264). Examples of change in the atonic vowels of certain nouns, such as veluntad, falduquera (83:47), Monesterio (4:9) are also noted in other responsa (Min- ervini & Várvaro 2008: 166). 10. Other archaic retentions in Judeo-Spanish include buracos (42:16) ‘holes’; the form huraco is preserved in Portuguese, Galician and Leonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 110, Luria 1930: 536); a lo manco (15:93) ‘at least’ (modern Spanish al menos), the expression is used in Italian and Catalan; mercaderes ‘merchants’ (Catalan merkader), plática (modern Spanish charlar) to chat’. 11. The medieval formestonces (15:3, 7, 11, 17:8, 29:2, ST 49B:21, 49C:6, 11) ‘then’ alternates with the modern Spanish entonces (7:3, 17:18, 21, 24, 49A:7, 49C:9, 50B:4).100 Leonese has a similar form estoncias (Zamora Vicente 1967: 199). Minervini attests the form estonces once in her texts as well as one instance of entonce (Minervini 1992: 403); estonces is recorded once only and no

98 Note that mercar appears 37 times in the fifteenth century, 120 times in the sixteenth century and is not attested in the seventeenth century (http://www.corpus delespanol.org 1/7/05). 99 Veluntad appears 31 times in the fifteenth century and once in the sixteenth century (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org 1/7/05). 100 A common adverb in the language of Old Castile and in the authors of the first half of the sixteenth century already absent in El Quijote. Included in this category are forms like dende, ende, onde (http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/quijote/introduccion/apendice/ gutierrez02.htm 22/6/2005). Interestingly, estonces is attested 2978 times in the thirteenth century, eighty times in the fourteenth century, 777 times in the fifteenth century, 266 times in the sixteenth century and only 3 times in the seventeenth century (http://www.corpusdelespanol .org 1/7/05). the language in the responsa 155

instance of entonces in the 1897 Siddurim de Viena (Pascual Recu- ero 1988: 382). Luria attests two cases of istonsis in the Monastir dialect (Luria 1930: 433). Estonces is common in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:2).

3.3.2 Morphology and Syntax

1. There are several examples in the texts of the retention of the medieval forms of the first-person singular present indicative of estar, dar, ir in Judeo-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 359, Harris 1994: 77–78). There are six examples ofestó (11:7, 50A:1, 50B:10, 73B:1, 83:84) in the texts and no example of estoy. Also there are twelve instances of do (8:4, 20:10, 31:16, 51:6, 64:20, 83:44, 69, 70, 71, 74, 82) and no examples of the standard form doy. Vo (18:47, 50B:4) appears twice in the texts and voy is non-existent. The present forms so or soy which follow the same pattern (Penny 2004b: 184) do not occur in the texts. This retention is a conservative feature that unites Judeo-Spanish to non-standard peninsular speech (Penny 2004b: 184). This archaism is attested in the Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363). It is noteworthy that in the present indicative of the verb ser the forms so and somos prevailed with the forms se and semos albeit in different regions. In the more central part of where Judeo-Spanish was spoken in the Ottoman Empire the forms se and semos com- peted against the forms so and somos that was more widespread in the outer areas (Quintana 2006: 396). Additionally so and somos were used in the written language and hence considered the prestigious form belonging to the more cultured people (Quintana 2006: 151). Notably this is a linguistic observation of a later period than that in this book. Benatar claims that there was some palatalisation of the final consonant ‘s’ in the present and in the future forms as in sabés (42:9) and caśes (11:5) (Benatar 1991: 97). However in the original copies of these same texts in question, one of She’elot u-Teshuvot Maha- rashdam 166 and of Divre Rivot 310, I did not see a diacritic in these cases that would make the reading of the sin to that of a shin.101 The case ofcaśes is also detected without palatisation in Orígenes

101 See pp. 216–222 and 339–345. 156 chapter three

del judeoespañol (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2008: 176). How- ever this same article, Orígenes del judeoespañol, claims they have found no evidence of any palatalisation in their corpus (Girón- Negrón & Minervini 2008: 174–175). In his corpus, however, a few instances have been found: saberéš (6:1), diréš (6:2), and sabéš (49B:21).102 The main problem, as mentioned above, is the lack of clarity in the texts, but it can be concluded from these findings that there was indeed a hesitation in this palatalisation as far as one can see from the graphic representation in the sixteenth century. In later centuries the palatalisation of the ‘s’ ending in verbs is attested in Judeo-Spanish texts even in verbs ending in ir (Girón-Negrón 2008: 174). 2. The use of the reflexive verbvenirse is exemplified in our texts. There are two cases in the reflexive (4:8, 72A:14) and six cases in the non-reflexive form.103 Minervini’s texts do not show a single instance of the reflexivevenirse (Minervini 1992: 484). However callarse ‘to become quiet’ is reflexive in standard Castilian and in Judeo-Spanish (Nehama 1977: 280) but is non-reflexive in the texts: calló in place of se calló (31:5, 64:7). 3. The second person ofquerer in the present tense form quies (ST 7:9, 29:8, 50B:27, ST 68:28) is an archaic poetic form of quieres (Menéndez Pidal 1958: 338), and also a Leonese (mirandés) form of quieres (Zamora Vicente 1967: 197). Minervini does not attest this form in her texts. 4. The second-person plural imperativehablá/hablad etc., could appear in Medieval and Golden-Age Spanish with or without the final /d/ (Penny 2004b: 191). Thed is not pronounced (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358). Judeo-Spanish has maintained this archaic form that modern Spanish has not, e.g. llamá (12:29) ‘call’, vení (30B:10, 83:37) ‘come’, mirá (15:53, 96, 37:2, 72:27, 83:19, 69, 70, 71, 74, 82) ‘see’. 5. The analogical addition of a final /-s/ to the singular in the second- person preterite forms followed by the deletion of the internal /s/ from the singular and plural forms is a linguistic innovation of

102 Here the diacritic determining the palatalisation is faint, though the original copies I worked from less faint than that copied into this book. 103 There are differences in meaning between the reflexive and non-reflexive forms of venir that are present in Peninsular and American-Spanish. Interestingly, Nehama only lists venir in the non-reflexive form (Nehama 1977: 585–586). the language in the responsa 157

Judeo-Spanish. Venites (12:22) is an example of this, however there are five other examples that do not show this linguistic process: espantastes (54A:5), reçibistes (73A:3), dišistes (80:4), distes (80:4), erastes (80:20) (cf. Castilian erraste). This innovation is also attested by Sala in the Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 365) and by Pountain (2001: 226). Such verb conjugations developed also in the Judeo-Spanish of North Africa as well as in the East Mediterranean Ottoman Empire (Shwarzwald 1993: 32). Similar structures such as fuestes, dexestes appear in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 97). 6. The endings of the first-person preterite forms of-ar verbs with /-í/ and /-imos/ endings as opposed to standard hablé, hablamos are common in contemporary spoken Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 181), including Western Judeo-Spanish (Benabu 1979: 8) and the Monastir dialect (Luria 1930: 472). This is also discussed by Quin- tana in relation to its geographical distribution (Quintana 2006: 152–153). The problem with confirming this linguistic innovation in the texts is the ambiguity present in the Hebrew orthography. The yod can represent the /e/ or /i/ (Minervini 1992: 15) and therefore verbal endings such as llamé (11:20), mandé (17:14, 37:15), demandé (15:7, 80:16), busqué (38A:13), could well be llamí, mandí, demandí, busquí. These forms are attested in the Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 365) also in the Coplas de Yosef (Girón- Negrón & Minervini 2006: 97). The ambiguity is resolved in the first-person plural of the preterite tense wheredemandamos (modern Spanish) would have an aleph, instead it has a yod—demandimos (28:26, 49A:13, 66:5, 83:39), ‘we asked’, arecabdimos (26:33) that reflects specifically the Judeo-Spanish form. However this is not always the case since demandamos (42:9, 28, 49) and determinamos (28:21) written with an aleph also prevail in the texts. 7. Unusual verb forms such as the future form terná (79:3) in place of tendrá is attested. The formtenrá , which fails to insert the d, is present in Leonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 192). Additionally, in this instance, the form has metathesized to terná. Two instances of terne and ternan appear in Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali as well as an example of tendrá (Minervini 1992: 337, 320, 476). Similarly, verná (22:17) and vernán (1:22), the future form of venir ‘to come’, are attested. Ternė, terná future forms arise in the Coplas (Girón- Negrón & Minervini 2006: 97). Ternán can be seen on the cover of the original Me’Am Lo’ez on Bereshit (Genesis). 158 chapter three

Note also saberá (26:1), saberés is noted in other responsa (Min- ervini & Várvaro 2008: 176). Saberéš (6:1), saberés / saverés (33:1, 38B:1, 49A:2, 50B:16, 83:9, 35, 60) and diréš (6:2) appear in the texts; a future form used as an imperative. Alongside these the regular second person plural future form sabréis (38B:1) is also attested. 8. Simplifications of verbal stems through the extension of the preterite stem to other parts of the verb, e.g. tuvido, ovido (cf. standard tenido, hablado) are a merger confined to rare rural usage (Penny 2004b: 187). No such instances appear in this corpus. 9. There are two examples of the archaic preterite trušo (41:5, ST 49B:16) ‘he brought’ instead of trašo, standard Spanish (Menén- dez Pidal 1958: 319). The form trušo prevailed in medieval Span- ish.104 It is retained in some Aragonese areas (Zamora Vicente 1967: 272).105 Minervini, however, attests the form traše and trašio, but not trušo (Minervini 1992: 480).106 Similarly the preterite of ver: vide ‘I saw’,107 vido ‘he saw’,108 that is retained today in rustic speech (Menéndez Pidal 1958: 320) prevail in Judeo-Spanish, while there are only two examples of standard vi (s 37:24, 56:9) and two of vio (15:41, 74:5). 10. The use of final /s/ in the second person singular of preterite verbs is an ancient feature that is common and normal in Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 191). It is a widespread phenomenon in Spain and America, though stigmatized. There are six illustrations in our texts of this form: venites (12:22), espantastes (54A:5), reçibistes (73A:3), dišistes (80:4), distes (80:4), erastes (80:20) (cf. Castilian erraste). However there are also examples to attest the contrary notion, namely viste (46:1, 83:42), dišiste (83:83), fablaste (68:30) and llevaste (78:2).

104 Trujo or trušo the preterite form of traer is persistent in dialectal speech. It was frequent in Spanish classics though there was hesitation between both forms trujo, trajo. For a dialogue on the hesitation between these forms see Valdés (1953: 55–56). 105 The archaic preterite variants of some verbs liketruji, trujo, vide, vide are attested in the language of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363). 106 Minervini actually represents the š with and x. 107 There are fourteen examples ofvide (texts 11:17, 38A:4, 38B:4, 42:1, 23, 45:2, 10, 48:8, ST 49B:23, 49C:11, texts 54B:8, 74:27, 45, 83:78). 108 There are over thirty examples ofvido in the corpus to include text 31:1, ST 68:15. the language in the responsa 159

11. The difference between the use of the perfect and preterite tenses in Judeo-Spanish and Castilian is that Judeo-Spanish generally restricts the perfect to situations which are current while speaking and which may continue in the future. This contrast is also inherited by American Spanish (Penny 2004b: 158–161). I have not come across this phenomenon in the texts.109 12. Four examples of the imperfect form of ir, ia(n) (26:9, ST 68:15, 19, 20) in place of iba(n) are noted in the texts. Interestingly, these are Galician forms that are not found in Portuguese; the form iña is another alternative form (Entwistle 1965: 308). However Quin- tana claims these forms originate from Portuguese and she attests them in texts of the second half of the sixteenth century (Quin- tana 2006: 154, Quintana 2009: 245). The form is also attested in Leonese regions (Zamora Vicente 1967: 97). The standard form iba both in Judeo-Spanish and Castilian is used everywhere else in the texts. In the regular forms there is not much deviation from standard Castilian (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 175). 13. The variation of existentialhaber between an invariably third- person singular verb and number agreement between verb and complement that is then construed as the verbal subject is common in Judeo-Spanish speech, e.g. hubo un hombre/ hubieron cuatro hombres. The invarianthubo is standardized in modern Spanish and in America in contrast to Judeo-Spanish where the verb agrees with the noun that follows. However, in this corpus we have a rather bizarre example of a plural form of the verb with the subject following in the singular: hubieron una gran tormenta (48:2–3, 54A:2). This could be attributed to the analogical phenomenon of agreeing this invariable verb with the complement, leading to a pattern of pluralizing the verb irrespective of the plural status of the complement.110 14. The use oftener as an auxiliary verb that prevailed in old and medieval Spanish can be seen in loque tenía’ escrito (28:28–9), nos tenía’ entregado (28:29–30) (modern Spanish haber).111 In modern Spanish this use is restricted to certain expressions of emphasis like te tengo dicho. Tener is sometimes used as an auxiliary

109 See Orígenes del judeo-español on the use of the preterite (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 175–176). 110 See Penny 2004b: 189 ll. 2–7. 111 Also noted in Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 177. 160 chapter three

in Asturian. However in Mirandan and Portuguese tener and ter have preference over habér and haver (Luria 1930: 474). Note also the Portuguese form temos (27:2) for tenemos. 15. The use of-ra verbal form as a conditional tense (cf. standard -ría) can be seen in the text once súpito pagara o fuera en prisión (26:54–55) ‘if he would not pay immediately, he would go to prison . . .’ 16. The formafirmare (25:7), quedare (33:5), estudiare (28:16), pasare (3:11, 21, 4:10, 25:16, 40:14) is found. It is used here as a future subjunctive and refers to ‘open’ future conditions’.112 This form prevailed in medieval Spanish till the eighteenth century, and was thereafter restricted to legalese. The equivalent form in modern Spanish is afirmara. 17. The imperfect subjunctive form in the third person singular can be seen to be the same as in Spanish with endings in -ra or -se, valiera (26:56) fuera (15:27, 35, 36, 40, 56, 93, 26:54, 55) pagara (26:55), ficiese (1:9, 26:56), debiese (26:20); though modern Judeo-Spanish prefers the -ra endings.113 18. Adverbs such as primera mente114 (15:33, 25:1, 40:1, 74:8), forzada mente (39:3), junta mente (25:4, 28:21, 40:3, 84A:27), sola mente (24:5, 61A:4, 61B:16), última mente (71:34) and igual mente115 (79B:5) prevail in the texts mostly but inconsistently separated. Sola mente appears repeatedly in the Me’Am Lo’ez separated all the time (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:174), as does igual mente (e.g. in Bereshit p. 223). The use of the prepositiondelante mí (11:45, 41:9), delante nosotros (12:49), without the preposition de following the adverb as in modern Spanish is attested in the corpus. The formdelantre (11:25, 47:2) that is the modern Judeo-Spanish form (Nehama 1977:118) also appears in the texts alongside delante. Delantre is attested in the 1876 Salonican Haggadah, whilst the 1885 Leghorn Haggadah has delante (Shwarzwald 1996: 359). Delantre is the Old

112 For example, note the ‘open’ future condition in the use of afirmare in: que siendo que diga dona Clara mi mujer afirmare la šebu‘á(text 25:7) (that if my forementioned wife says that she affirms the oath). 113 This includes the Monastir dialect (Luria 1930: 473). 114 Minervini attests primera ment (Minervini 1992: 107, 454). 115 Interestingly, Minervini notes examples where there are two adjectives and the mente is only joined to the first adjective, apparently common in Aragonese (Min- ervini 1992: 107). the language in the responsa 161

Spanish form. The formenriva (42:35) for arriba ‘above’ is the Judeo-Spanish form today (Nehama 1977: 175–6). 19. Harris comments on the non-existence of the form conmigo and the use of con mi in Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 80). However, there are five instances of con migo (15:31, 18:22, 67:7–8, ST 68:28, 74:22) against three instances of con mi (74:21, 83:13, 37) in this corpus. Notably con mi was the Aragonese form versus the Castil- ian conmigo. In other sixteenth century works there is a preva- lence of con mi and occasional appearance of con migo (Quintana 2009: 234). 20. The conjunctionmas ‘but’ is more frequently attested in this corpus than its standard Castilian equivalent pero. The reasons for a predominance of mas could be through a desire to use mas since it belongs to a literary register in Castilian or it could just be borrowed from Italian in the case of ma. Mas (17:27, 26:12, 26, 31:16, 36:16, 64:20, 66:2, 72:29, 79A:1, 80:1, 13, 83:85) appears twelve times, pero (15:73, 18:18, 45, 36:10, ST 49B:11, 74:4) six times. Harris, however, notes that mas substitutes pero in post-expulsion Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 81). The conjunction ‘and’ is represented byy and not e on occa- sions when the conjunction precedes the vowel (h)/i/ (Harris 1994: 81). Although this may well be the case, the Hebrew spelling of y as aleph yod is the same as that of e and therefore this feature cannot be proved in these texts. 21. Siendo used as a cauśal conjunction instead of as its normal use as a gerund is a linguistic innovation that can be seen in the texts nine times (13:1, 15:55, 60, 20:7, 25:5, 8, 39:2, 40:4, 7). This use particularly siendo que followed by a subjunctive is also attested in other responsa (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 176). The gerund can be seen to have a verbal use in the text. This use is common as the testimony is introduced with estando (11:1, 2, 13, 15:1, 31:13, 38:1), hallando (15:1) entrando (56:2) among many other examples. Also estando is noted in the responsa of Chaim Shabtai 1651, no. 44, l.2 (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 177). 22. Medieval Spanish forms of de + the pronouns ella, ellos and ellas as della (74:56), dellos (15:91, ST 49B:8, 71:33), prevail in the texts. In form this demonstrates a contraction of like vowels, in meaning it expresses partitive meaning such as ‘some of it/ them’. Eli- sion such as de + el = del, de + este = deste (1:6, 15:12, 46:1, 76:2) where several particles may lose their final -e before the article and 162 chapter three

certain pronouns beginning with e, i, o. This phenomenon is documented in the Proverbios Morales (González Llubera 1947: 30). The second-person plural pronounos is non-existent in Judeo- Spanish. Instead the archaism vos is attested forty-five times in the texts, and by Sala in the Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363). 23. The hypercharacterization of gender in nouns (Penny 2004b: 189) that has taken place in Catalan and that Judeo-Spanish has inherited more than Castilian, produces results such as firme/ -a (cf. standard firme). This phenomenon is not exemplified in the texts. 24. Judeo-Spanish preserves the article in the case of la agua (42:9. 68:32) ‘the water’ whereas modern Spanish prefers el agua (Zamora Vicente 1967: 361). Agua is treated as a feminine noun in all varieties of Spanish but el agua is kept in other varieties of Spanish. Also the feminine gender of fin, la fin (11:48) (modern Spanish el fin) ‘the end’, prevails in Aragonese where the Latin genders are preserved (Luria 1930: 459, Zamora Vicente 1967: 250–251). Occasionally there is inconsistency in the gender: una fedor (42:6) and un fedor (42:34). In Judeo-Spanish today fedor has a feminine gender whilst in modern Spanish it has a masculine gender. Dolor, too, is given a feminine gender in mucha dolor tengo (67:1–2) (modern Spanish el dolor, masculine gender), the femine gender is present in Aragonese (Luria 1930: 459). 25. The agreement of the possessivesu with the possessor instead of the object possessed is an innovation that is not found in the texts. There are nine examples ofsus agreeing with the object that is possessed, e.g. sus manos (15:39), sus cuentas (28:5). 26. The different usage in North African Judeo-Spanish of the lack of distinction made between direct and indirect objects where in the masculine form a distinction is made between definite and indefinite referents (e.g.a él le quieres etc.). 116 This lack of distinction is attested in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish by Alvar (1996: 376). In standard Castilian and in Spanish American usage the distinction is present (Penny 2004b: 189). In general le is used for indirect referent and where the referent is a person. The corpus has

116 This is according to Penny (2004b: 189) quoting from Coloma Lleal’s (1992)El judezmo: el dialecto sefardí y su historia. the language in the responsa 163

about thirty-five examples oflo used where the referent is a person (11:20, 48, 12:30, 13:82, 18:41, 41, 30B:1, 46:1,3, 48:8, 49A:16, ST 49B:10, 11, 16, 20, 21, 49C:10, 11, 50B:26, 54B:9, 66:2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 67:5, 7, 7, 9, 10, 11, 11, 11, 69:3, 4).117 27. The frequent use ofloque as a form of a neutral interrogative pronoun in interrogative phrases whether direct or indirect is considered a morphological influence from Portuguese on Judeo-Spanish (Quintana 2009: 245). 28. The use of diminutives is attested in our texts. They are very common in Judeo-Spanish speech in the same way as in Spanish speech. They are less common in the written language whether Spanish or Judeo-Spanish. The registers reflected in Judeo-Spanish writing are more spontaneous; that is why more diminutives occur, since diminutives belong to spontaneous registers and tend to become rarer as the writing becomes more formal. The diminutives pedaçico (13:80), paredica (83:65) appear in the texts. Also velico appears in the Hebrew framework of text 9.118 The suffix ‘-ico’ is common in Judeo-Spanish. Spanish contained a wide range of suffixes which were already in use in the peninsula in the fifteenth century. Alvar registers this suffix in the Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans (Alvar 1996: 365). ‘-ico’ was quite widely used then; today its use is restricted to areas like Navarre, Murcia, Eastern Andalusia, Aragon (Harris 1994: 78, Penny 2004b: 184). It is an example of a medieval retention; modern Spanish favours the suffix -ito. 29. The texts include several examples of a hybrid morphological nature. The wordsladronim (26: in the Hebrew answer section) and debdot (BIURP 26:58) are, in fact, Spanish words with Hebrew plural endings.119 This is probably due to language interference, and is a common phenomenon in language-contact situations. The plural form might be either the Hebrew or the Judeo-Spanish one. This gives rise to three categories of possibility: (1) nouns with only Hebrew endings +im / +ot, (2) nouns with only Judeo- Spanish endings + (e)s or (3) nouns with alternative plurals (Shwarzwald 1993: 38). Also the agreement of the Judeo-Spanish

117 See also Quintana 2006: 164–169. 118 See chap. 4 n. 69. 119 Note also the English ‘cherub’—‘cherubim’ (angels). 164 chapter three

adjective with the Hebrew noun is evident in get cortado (11:66), lit. ‘a cut divorce bill’, get is a masculine noun in Hebrew. Inter- estingly, Shwarzwald concludes that the inflection of the Hebrew Aramaic component in Judeo-Spanish is dependent on register so that the more serious or religious the text is the more likely their Hebrew Aramaic words are inflected as in their source and vice- versa the more folkroristic or humorous the text is (Shwarzwald 1993: 39). Ladronim cited above is an exception in lexical terms to these categories as it involves a Hebrew inflection of a noun that is not of Hebrew Aramaic source and can be described double plural inflection (Shwarzwald 1993: 42). Under this category of hybrid morphology are illustrations such as apotropisa (25:11, 40:9), Hebrew word with Spanish / Judeo- Spanish gender agreement. Incidentally, apotropisa is spelt with a zayin in text 25 and with a samech in text 40, this is an example of the same text sent to two different respondents and this phonological variation is apparent. In the same text apotroposim appears, this time the Hebrew word uses a Hebrew plural ending thus no longer an example of hybrid morphology.

3.3.3 Vocabulary Apart from differences in vocabulary between western and oriental Judeo-Spanish, the differences between Judeo-Spanish and Spanish are mainly:

1. Preservation of many archaic words which have disappeared from modern Spanish, some of which have undergone semantic change. 2. Replacement of Spanish words by others borrowed from host languages. An example of lexical variation is the use of faldiquera ‘pocket’ (38:A9, B6) and falduquera 83:47). In fact Quintana notes the same example of falduquera in the same text but not the previous examples in De Medina’s responsa. Judeo-Spanish inherits two forms from Medieval Spanish, faldikera and faldukera, the former derived from faldica and the second from falduca, both diminutive forms of falda. Quintana discusses how faldukera is attested in Bitolj and faldikera in Salonica in the sixteenth century. However later in the the language in the responsa 165

seventeenth century haldikera persists in Smyrna and this is the form preserved in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, Hakitía (Quintana 2006: 189). Interestingly también ‘also’ appears in the texts twice (49B:26, 50:29) and tamién once (47:4). Quintana suggests tamién to be of Portuguese origin and attests its popular use in Salonica and Con- stantinople in the seventeenth century (Quintana 2006: 222–223). Noteworthy is the form tanbién in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Bereshit p. 37) alongside también in other instances (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:174).

Some words were transferred between communities by way of commercial or cultural relations, while others were peculiar to particular communities. Borrowings came mainly from Hebrew, Arabic, Ara- maic, Turkish, Greek, French, Portuguese and Italian. In Israel today, Judeo-Spanish speakers are known to have absorbed Yiddish words into their lexicon. The texts provide a colourful illustration of the linguistic phenomenon described here.

3.3.3.1 Use of Hebrew The Hebrew lexis in the texts is noteworthy.120 The Hebrew language is predictably the main source of borrowing of Judeo-Spanish and these borrowings grew significantly from the sixteenth to the twentieth centuries in the Ottoman Empire (Schwarzwald 2001: 9). It is thought that Jews in Spain began to Judaize Castilian as early as the eleventh century. Written evidence that has survived from the Middle Ages suggests that major patterns of incorporation of Hebrew and Aramaic elements found today in modern Judeo-Spanish were already established in the earliest, pre-expulsion stage of the language.121 As is

120 See Bunis (1993). 121 There is an apparent contradiction between Bunis saying Judeo-Spanish was established before the Inquisition, and other scholars who claim Judeo-Spanish began in the post-expulsion era. Bunis says that the language consisted of Spanish with Hebrew and Aramaic elements and occasional lexical fusion. However, the linguistic changes that define Judeo-Spanish are not attested until a long time after the expulsion; even the testimonies reflect the beginning of these changes. Therefore, the contradiction refers to the exact definition of Judeo-Spanish; the principle is not in dispute. See Minervini (1999: 41–52). The whole issue of whether Jews spoke markedly differently from their Christian and Muslim neighbours is still debated; only in some vocabulary domains can the difference be claimed. 166 chapter three the case of Yiddish, there are countless words to show that concepts from the domain of Jewish tradition and Jewish group life to a larger degree are denoted in the Judeo language by words of Hebrew origin (Weinreich 1970: 404).122 The incorporation of Hebrew words is evidenced in the Valladolid Statutes for the Jewish communities of Cas- tille showing the alternation of Spanish and Hebrew within a single text (Shwarzwald 1993: 30). Whether the absorption of Hebrew words into Judeo-Spanish took place at a given time is debated among academics. Shwarzwald points out that the process of incorporation of foreign elements into the language may take place at a given time and location in the majority of cases. However in the case of Hebrew terms that are fused into Judeo- Spanish there may well have been some stages involved. Shwarzwald argues that words with religious and cultural meanings must have been absorbed first as they had no foreign equivalents. However, she says that words without Jewish content, whether from Hebrew or another language, would have entered the language depending on time and place (Shwarzwald 1993: 40). The nature of syntactic borrowing has been explained by philologists. Pountain explains that in order to understand syntactic borrowing one has to delve further into whether it is essentially a function of other types of borrowing, lexical for instance, or whether it is better construed as ‘calquing’, ‘transfer’ or ‘interference’. Since syntactic borrowing varies significantly according to circumstance, a crucial variable determining the borrowing is that of register (Pountain 2006a: 99). Register varies according to situational context. ‘Situational context may include quite a large number of factors such as the role and nature of the participants in a speech situation and the relations among them; the physical and temporal context of the discourse; its subject- matter and speakers’ attitudes towards it, and the medium through which the discourse is expressed’ (Pountain 2006b: 5). Hebrew borrowing served a different function in the case of the Me’Am Lo’ez where the insertion of Hebrew phrases had a didactic and in effect educational purpose. Many Hebraisms here serve to reinforce

122 The similarities of Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish in their Hebrew-Aramaic component are unsurprising given the socio-religious impact of Hebrew on Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities (Benabu 1979: 9). the language in the responsa 167 key phrases used in the weekly liturgy and during special times as that of the main festivals of Passover, Purim etc (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 109). TheMe’Am Lo’ez contains Judeo-Spanish as a translation of rabbinical exegesis, discourses and argument, the language encountered in this book is a mélange of the vernacular with language of a legal register. Shwarzwald argues that Khuli in this work was following a pre- existing literary tradition with Rashi as one of his predecessors, who himself followed other writers who were used to incorporate complex notions into a weaker language structure. Hebrew is an important source of terminology for concepts carrying unfortunate or negative connotations, including words subject to taboo.123 Among these are words relating to death, violence and taboo. Here the idea of using Hebrew conveys a stronger feeling, as if the Hebrew word were more powerful and emphatic than its Judeo- Spanish counterpart. Interestingly, the same word is sometimes used either in Judeo-Spanish or in Hebrew, depending on the speaker’s mood. Negative concepts such as those expressing poverty and mis- fortune are also in Hebrew. The similarity in Hebrew borrowing that occur in Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish is not coincidental and these similarities and variations reveal patterns that link society and language in specific ways.124 In a Jewish letter of oath from 1360 (Bunis 1993: 17) some examples are found, including the periphrastic verb fazer šebu‘á (to swear). In text 25 we encounter the phrase afirmar la šebu‘á, referring to Clara undertaking an oath not to remarry for ten years after her husband’s demise. Other examples of periphrastic verbs and expressions are given in Table 3.3.

123 For other such illustrations in Judeo-Spanish see section on euphemisms (Harris 1994: 88–91), and (Shwarzwald 1984a). 124 For more on the sociology of language see Fishman (1970). 168 chapter three

Table 3.3: Periphrastic Verbs125 Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text to make an oath 25:9 שבועה afirmar la šebu‘á to enter into a 18:54 מכשול entrar en mik̠šol stumbling block to be a deserted wife ST 68:7 עגונה estar agunah to fast ST 49B:6 תענית estar en ta‘anit outrageous 28:20 שכל fuera de sék̠el 126 to have testimony ST 68:11 עדות haber ‘edut to make a compromise 15:49 פשרה haćer pešarah was not exacting 37:49 מקפיד non era maqpid congratulations 30:26 בסימן טוב seavos besimantob127 be my witnesses ST 7:13; 29:5 עדים sedme ‘edim to be invalid 15:67 בטלה ser betelá to be authenticated 15:83 מקיים ser meqayem to notify 2:4; 68:5, 18 מודיע ser modí‘a to be annulled 15:66 פוסל ser posel128 she took it as a symbol 29:6 קידושין tomó por qidušín of marriage

Here it is interesting to compare with a text from the Valladolid statutes where the similar structure of the Spanish copula ser being frequently used with the Hebrew participle as in sean meḥuyavim illustrated in the statutes. Such structures are attested elsewhere in Judeo-Spanish (Minervini 1992: I 120, 216, 221), (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 178– 179). These structures are present in the statutes alongside the strictly Jewish terms like qahal, ba’ale batim etc. (Shwarzwald 1993: 30). Also in the Me’Am Lo’ez phrases like haćer la se‘udah (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:173). This is comparable to que‘ le estaba apareǰado sarqẹ́ se‘udat haberit (38:8–9) in this book.

125 Many of these periphrastic expressions could fall under the category of legal terminology. 126 Used metaphorically, see chap. 4. n. 337. 127 Equivalent to mázltov in Yiddish (Weinreich 1970: 403), or ‘congratulations’ in English), besimantob (lit., ‘it should be a good sign’) is still the customary congratulatory phrase in many Sephardi circles. However, seavos besimantob is an illustration of the use of a Hebrew borrowing as a periphrastic verb. 128 (1) For the sake of uniformity, I have included these expressions sometimes with the verb in the infinitive when in the textual example the verb may appear declined. (2) Note that this expression together with dar qidušín, dar edut, ser posel, ser modía are also attested by Bunis (1993: 28). the language in the responsa 169

Miller discusses code switching before Hebrew participles also with illustrations from the taqanot like fueron metaqqenim (Miller 2004: 64). At this point one can draw countless parallels with the taqanot in style, in its use of Hebraisms and in its rhythm. This is particularly obvious in the texts in this book which constitute ordinances, wills and those using legal terminology, religious terminology. For instance, text 3: ordenamos queno sea usado ningún yehudí hombre ni muǰer de mercar lana, is very similar to ordenamos que algun qahal y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(egoaló) nin persona alguna, rabbim u-yeḥidim non puedan ni hayan poder . . . taken from the taqanot in Minervini 1992.129

Table 3.4: Concepts Carrying Unfortunate or Negative Connotations Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text pauper 27:5 עני aní 130‘ toilet 13:70, 74, 76 בית הכסא bet hakisé robbery 28:41 גזל gezel the plague 37:44 המגפה hamagefá violence 28:41 חמס ḥamás graves 27:10 קברים qebarim will 11:58 צואה sava’ạ́ danger 4:2 סכנה sakaná

Alternating the borrowing with the existing Spanish word is common in this corpus. The alternate reference to the coins used is also in keeping with this style of Hebrew: firstlebanim , then the vernacular aspros. Text 36 exemplifies alternating forms in the use ofh ̣anut (text 36:2) and debotica (36:15). According to Bunis, numerous Hebraisms were employed in Sulhan hapanim and Hovot Halevavot131 (Bunis 1993: 30) in alternation with Hispanic synonyms or near-synonyms, demonstrating that Hebraisms were used out of a desire to use specific Hebrew terms, their preference

129 See Minervini 1992 text 16 pp. 181–255. 130 The phraseel ‘aní de Šelomoh Attar is Hispanic in structure but contains ‘ani ‘poor man’ to emphasize the negative connotation; in this case it refers to a man who has drowned at sea. 131 Sulhan Hapanim: an anonymous adaptation of Caro’s Shulchan Aruch; Hovot Halevavot: Sadik Formón’s vernacular rendition of Bahya Ibn Pakuda’s Hovot Hal- evavot, both intended for Ottoman Jews. 170 chapter three governed by factors such as their affective value, exactness of reference, the opportunities they afforded to expand and vary the lexicon for greater stylistic diversity and to maintain a distinction between Jewish and non- Jewish speech. An illustration of the above is a word like afilu ‘even’. Another example of a Hebraism used for emotive appeal is the word nijúš in text 13:35, literally means ‘guess’ denoting a (negative) feeling. The sister-in-law did not want to move into a new house. Changes of abode were often associated with changes in fortune or destiny; if she thought her present abode was affording her good luck, she would feel she was tempting fate by moving. A superstition lingers among Jews today about changing home. Niḥúš also possesses a sinister nuance; such terms, or those with secretive connotations were adopted from Hebrew into the varieties of Judeo-Spanish, including Hakitía. It is argued that most of the vocabulary in Table 3.4 is evidence of how Hebrew words were sometimes used as euphemisms for tabooed (Romance) terms. Tabooed terms included those referring to disaster, e.g. plague, robbery, violence, graves, wills,132 pauper, as well as the common tabooed term: toilet. The use of Hebrew for terms associated with tragedy stems from the notion that Hebrew is a sacred language, used for religious purposes, and therefore its use offers protection to the speaker from the disaster referred to.133 Terms directly related to ideas of worship or religion/communal regulations, the Jewish calendar, months of the year, numerals, amounts of money including coins,134 i.e. the Jewish way of life, including circumcision and building a booth, are almost always taken from Hebrew.135 It is important to draw attention to Bunis’s categories of Hebrew words in Ibero-Romance in pre-exilic Spain, some of which have parallels in the categories identified in this chapter. Bunis categorizes the areas in the language where Hebraisms prevailed at the time, namely in (1) abstract thought, argumentation and science,

132 Wills belong both to the legal register as well as the tabooed terminology through its connotation with death. 133 Similarly, the idea of borrowing Hebrew words for negative concepts also has the effect of lessening or weakening the negativity. For instance, Judeo-Spanish speakers today feel more comfortable referring to diseases in Hebrew (e.g. la majalá [the disease] as a euphemism for ‘cancer’), as if the Hebrew language, because of its sanctity, manages to protect the speaker from the illness he is referring to. 134 The use of Hebrew words for concepts concerning Judaism is a phenomenon that also occurs in Yiddish (Weinreich 1970: 398). 135 During the festival of Tabernacles Jews are commanded in the Bible to erect booths and dwell in them for seven days (Leviticus 23:42). the language in the responsa 171

(2) work, vocations, commerce, (3) government and administration (4) positive concepts (5) negative concepts and behaviour, euphemisms, taboo (Bunis 2004: 119–120). Shwarzwald illustrates uses of Hebrew in language to the subjects of taboo, death and mourning such as the use of la misvạ́ for ‘the corpse inside the coffin’,haćer el kavod to describe the ritual preparation of the dead before burial (Shwarzwald 1984a: 210–211).

Table 3.5: Terms Connected to Religious Worship, Communal Regulations and Jewish Calendar-136 Numerals Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text ;circumcision 38A:2, 3, 9 ברית berit 38B:12 synagogue 22:22; 32:3 בית הכנסת bet hakeneset in front of the 13:30 בפני קהל הקדוש bifné qahal qadós137 holy community in the year 37:10 בשנת bišnat a thousand 18:15; 19:3 אלף elef to build a booth 22:8 סוכה haćer la suká Chanukah (festival 16:7 חנוכה Ḥ anuká of lights) 9th month 19:30 כסלו Kislev festivals 4:5 מועדים mo‘adim 1st month 27:3 ניסן Nisán Passover 20:5 פסח Pesaḥ space 22:7 ריבח revaḥ first 22:15 ראשונה rišoná ;Sabbath 45:2; 49A:10 שבת Šabat 49B:11; 67:6; 74:38 ,mission (on behalf 28:2, 8, 11 שליחות šeliḥut of the community) 19, 38, 40 second 22:21 שני šení 11th month 20:11 שבט Ševat Six thousand 13:13 ששה אלפים šisá alafim sixty-two 36:6–7 ששים ושנים šišim ušnáyim

136 Note the centrality of the Jewish calendar for the observance of precepts including that of the Sabbath, the festivals, the new moon etc. For a history of the Jewish calendar between the second and the tenth century CE see Stern (2001). 137 Qahal is an example of a Hebrew element that acquired a different sense in more recent Judeo-Spanish. In Hebrew it means a congregation, community then semanti- cally it changed to ‘a synagogue’. This is noted by Bunis (1993: 18). However, in our corpus we findqahal in both senses and it has been translated accordingly. 172 chapter three

Table 3.5 (cont.) Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text Tabernacles 4:5; 16:7 סוכות Sukot community members 1:4 יחידי סגולה yeḥidé segulá Jew 21A:2 יהודי yehudí Day of Atonement 4:5 יום כיפור Yom Kipur

There are also Hebraisms that relate to the wider sphere of religious terminology (Schwarzwald 2001: 12). Hebraisms in the Me’Am Lo’ez are listed by Shwarzwald and are similar in pattern to those in this book (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 104). Browsing through the Me’Am Lo’ez one finds countless illustrations of Hebraisms relating to religious terminology neatly interwoven in the Ladino language e.g. ‘todos eran sadiqiṃ ’ (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot: 3), se quedaban me’uberet (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot: 9), ‘quien mata a una persona que está dientro de otra persona es ḥayab̠ mitah’ (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot Chelek Aleph: 12), afilu en las behemot (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot chelek Aleph: 31), ‘el ṭa‘am que no dišo el pasuq’ (Me’Am Lo’ez Devarim: 30), tornemos en tešub̠ah (Me’Am Lo’ez Devarim: 33, Shemot 1:218), tener la hab̠taḥah en. (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:218), castigaron a los reš‘aim (Me’Am Lo’ez Yehoshua: 237). Bunis discusses such Hebraisms under the category of religious terminology in pre-exilic Spain (Bunis 2004: 117). Related to this use is the constant use of Hebrew toponyms such as Misrayiṃ (48:5, 54A:6, 54B:4, 74:26) in the texts, there is no instance of Egipto. Equally and unsurprisingly this use abounds in the Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g. Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:174). Misrayiṃ belongs to religious / Biblical and liturgical terminology.

Table 3.6: Wider Sphere of Religious Terminology Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text men of good virtue 15:94 בעלי מידות טובות ba‘alé midot ṭovot men of Torah 15:92 בעלי תורה ba‘alé Torá sage 15:90 חכם ḥak̠am perfect sage 22:4 חכם שלם ḥak̠am šalem wicked 15:90 רשע raš‘á righteous 68:7, 9; 80:37 צדיק sadiq̣ academies of Jewish 33:5 ישיבות yešibot learning the language in the responsa 173

The use of Hebrew for blessings can be understood in this context. Often these blessings appear abbreviated and are appended to proper names in full. These include wishes, invocations, implorations, prayers, e.g. ‘may his name be blessed’ etc. Since they are all a form of prayer and are therefore directed to the Deity they are naturally uttered in Hebrew, the language in which Jews prayed at the time. Salutations such as šalom ‘alehem (59B:15), lit. ‘peace upon you’, are borrowed from Hebrew.

Table 3.7: Blessings Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text with the help of God 19:22 בעזרת ה‘ Be‘ezrat Hašem It shall turn out to be for 18:63 גם זו לטובה gam zu letobá the best Heaven forbid 35:7 חס ושלום ḥas vešalom may His name be blessed 21A:4 שמו יתברך šemó yitbaraḥ may it be speedily 4:12 תבנה ותקונה tibané vetiqoné rebuilt and redeemed במהרה bimherá in our days בימינו biyamenu ;may his Rock guard him 11:54, 59 וישמרהו צורו yišmerehu surọ́ and keep him alive 38:11; 59:12 ויחיהו viḥayehu of blessed memory 22:8 זכרונו לברכה ziḥronó librará

Economic terms are nearly always rendered in Hebrew. Jews frequently used Hebrew words in business as a kind of secret code. Inter- estingly, text 26 which deals solely with a financial matter contains no Hebraism in its 41 lines, except for the words ḥak̠amim (26:43, 51) ‘sages’ and pesaq din (26:43) ‘legal decision’, and phrases like pera’ón tob vešalem belí šum paḥat veḥisarón (22:20–21) ‘a good sum without devaluation or loss’. Some texts, in particular those with an economic, legal content, are laden with Hebraisms (13, 15, 22) others are devoid of Hebraisms (24). Terms associated with the selling and purchasing of property are included below. Note that Hebrew finite verbs appearing in formulaic phrases like yišmerehu surọ́ viḥayehu, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, are also common in the Taqanot de Valladolid (Miller 2004: 61). 174 chapter three

Table 3.8: Economic Terms Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text without devaluation 22:20–21 בלי שום פחת belí šum paḥat or loss וחסרון veḥisarón rental 13:46 בשכירות biśek̠irut plots of land 37:3 קרקעות qarqa‘ot sages 26:43, 51 חכמים ḥak̠amim courtyard 22:7 החצר haḥaser partner 49A:3 חבר ḥaver expenses 28:8 הוצאות hosa’oṭ financial) matter 28:26) ענין inián‘ on his own account 13:13 לחשבונו leḥešbonó aspers 18:15 לבנים lebanim in full 22:24 משלם mešalem middleman 13:81 משתדל mištadel A good sum 22:20 פרעון טוב ושלם pera‘ón tob vešalem gold coins 36:6–7 פרחים טובים peraḥim tobim permission 22:27 רשות rešut interest 13:5 רבית ribit amount 28:6, 37 שיעור Ši‘ur Turk/moneylender 13:39, 44; 37:41 תוגר togar more than 28:40 יותר yoter

It is unsurprising that legal terms are borrowed from Hebrew by Judeo- Spanish. There are many examples of legal expressions in the texts that are in Hebrew but these are instances of code-switching between both languages, see p. 180.

Table 3.9: Judicial Terminology138 Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text on the contrary 28:38 אדרבה aderaba nevertheless 18:7 על כל פנים al kol panim‘ by way of compromise 28:43 בדרך פשרה bedereḥ pešarah as an absolute gift 23:6 במתנה גמורה bemataná gemurá for no reason 22:16–17 בשום צד bešum saḍ

138 This includes associated legal terms. the language in the responsa 175

Table 3.9 (cont.) Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text ,Judge 2:6; 13:81, 93 דיין dayán 95; 38B:16, 16, 16; 58:7; 68:37, 37, 37 absolute 15:63 גמור gamur ,the witness 8:3; 31:8; 50B:7 העד ha‘ed 25, 31; 64:11 cross-examination 83:75 חקירה ודרישה ḥaqirá udrišá presumption of 21ª:1 חזקה ḥazaqá ownership he testified 8:3; 31:8139 העיד he‘id to his younger son 23:6 לבנו קטן libnó qatán pregnant 35:2 מעוברת me‘uberet document 15:43, 51140 מודעה moda‘á trustworthy 3:16 נאמן ne’eman compulsion 15:41, 44141 עונש oneś‘ arbitrators 28:43 פשרנים pasranim so and so 23:10 פלוני ופלוני peloní upeloní legal decision 26:51 פסק דין pesaq din document, register 37:12 כתב ketab act of acquisition 23:7, 51:5 קנין qinián142 proof 19:34 ראיה re’ayá Will 11:58 צואה sava’ạ́ 143 document 2:2; 15:2144 שטר šeṭar condition 22:21 תנאי tena’i plaintiff 28:3 טוען to‘en Copy 15:6, 7, 12145 טופס ṭofes especially 15:29 ובפרט ubifraṭ etcetera 23:4146 וכולי vek̠uleh orphans 33:4 יתומות yetomot

139 There are 38 references throughout the texts altogether. 140 There are 9 references within text 15. 141 There are 18 references throughout the texts altogether. 142 See Appendix 3. 143 This Hebraism along other examples can be seen in theCoplas and is one of such Hebraisms surviving in Modern Judeo-Spanish (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 109). 144 There are 30 references throughout the texts altogether. 145 There are 17 references within text 15. 146 This is one of countless references throughout our corpus; it is also a term that could fit into any of the categories in this discussion. 176 chapter three

Obvious similarites with the use of Hebraisms in a legal context occur with the taqanot, e.g dayan, ‘edut, ‘edim (Minervini 1992: 210–211). It is interesting to note the reasons why expressions of time may have been borrowed from the Hebrew. Time processes have a direct correlation with religious matters. Typically, at the beginning of the Mishnah (Mishnah Berakhot 1:1) a discussion on the timing of the recitation of the Shema (Hear o Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One, Deuteronomy 6:4) ensues. Timing and time-reckoning are central to the laws of family purity, the Sabbath laws, daily prayers and other areas of ritual halakhah (Stern 2003: 46–58).147 Text 11 contains many time-related Hebraisms, e.g. mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘erev ‘from morning till night’. This example is not only a time- related Hebraism but also conveys emphasis; it describes the dedication of Ab̠raham Primo to the development of his property. This is of course legally significant since the testimony will influence the decision to award sole ownership of the property to Primo. At the end of 36, after several lines in Hebrew,148 giving the date of this hearing, an interesting sentence in Judeo-Spanish occurs, sería como semana días qodem Ros Hasaná149 (it must have been like a week [or days] before the New Year). Hebrew qodem is used, probably as it precedes the Hebrew Rosh Hashanah. Additionally, the syntax is in keeping with Hebrew: ‘šab̠u‘a yamim’, i.e. seven days. These are examples of calques of Hebrew as explained in Shwarzwald 1993. Séphiha refers to these as ‘ladinismes’ in his discussion of the influence of ladino on the vernacular, where such calque phrases derived from Ladino, the literal translation of Hebrew to the vernacular, through language interference, enter the spoken language. Séphiha gives other examples e.g. kada uno i uno [kol eḥad ve’eḥad] (Séphiha 1986: 62–71). Other such illustrations prevail in the Coplas, e.g serán aňos siete for šev‘a yamim (Girón-Negrón & -Minervini 2006: 106).

147 For a detailed analysis of the centrality of timing in Jewish law, see Stern (2003: 46–81). In his book, Time and Process in Ancient Judaism, Stern argues the absence of a concept of time in ancient Judaism. He writes that the word zeman for time means only ‘points in time’ or finite periods of time, but that the concept of time as a con- tinuum is absent from rabbinic texts (Stern 2003: 26–41). 148 See BIURP appendix, text 36 l. 21. 149 The Hebrew expression for a week or seven days isšab ̠u‘a yamim lit. a week, days. Hence the Judeo-Spanish expression semana días, that is a Hebrew construction used in Judeo-Spanish. the language in the responsa 177

Noteworthy is the calque syntactical structure al derrocar que derrocaba (13:97) that corresponds with Hebrew grammatical structure. Minervini & Várvaro draw parallels with morir, morirás [mot yamut] (Genesis 2:17) (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 179).

Table 3.10: Time-related Expressions Hebrew in From Hebrew English Translation Reference(s) Judeo-Spanish text after a time 13:25 אחר זמן aḥar zemán in those days 13:29 בימים ההם bayamim hahem at the same time 7:8 באותה שעה be’otá sa‘á at the time . . . 28:19 בשעת beša‘a t Before 36:21150 קודם qodem at the time151 1:11 לפי שעה lefí sa‘á as from here and now 23:7 מעתה ומעכשיו me‘ata ume‘ak̠šav from morning till night 13:24 מהבוקר עד mehaboqer ‘ad הערב ha‘ereb Immediately 22:19 תיכף מיד tek̠ef miyad before 13:29 טרם ṭerem and later 13:28 ואחר כך veaḥar kak̠

Note the use of zemán in al cabo del zemán del servicio ‘at the end of their time of service’. Although zemán is Hebrew, modern Turkish uses zaman, but it can be asserted that this word is borrowed from Hebrew and not from Turkish because of the Hebrew spelling without any vowel letters, zmn. If it had been taken from Turkish it would have been spelt with vowels as zyman (Crews 1955: 229). Apart from the profusion of Hebrew elements composed entirely of Hebrew morphemes, some sixteenth-century texts contain examples of fusions of Hebrew and Hispanic morphemes in single, innovative lexical items (Bunis 1993: 17). Additionally in the Ladino translation of Hešeq Šelomó there arise a few verbs that are derived by affixing bound morphemes of Hispanic origin e.g. enḥeremar, derived from ḥerem ‘excommunication’ yet it is used in Hešeq Šelomó to translate examples of ḥ-r-m in the sense of ‘to devote to, put outside for’ (Bunis 1999b: 175). An example is the noun apotroposa (female guardian) in text 25:9. The word is used in Hebrew, derived from the Greekepitropos ,

150 See qodem, p. 176. 151 Lit., according to the time. 178 chapter three modified by the ‘a’ Spanish suffix. This noun and its adjectival form are also documented by Shwarzwald where she includes similar patterns of morphology (Shwarzwald 1993: 36). Bunis lists over 4,500 words in his lexicon of Hebrew and Aramaic elements in Judeo-Spanish and this give an idea of the vastness of material in this area.152 Bunis also registers the use of Hebrew for names, numbers and abbreviations in pre-exilic texts such as in a Judeo- Aragonese text published by Blasco Orellana (Bunis 2004: 117).

3.3.3.2 Some Interesting Creations and Uses An interesting adaptation occurs when a Jewish concept is reconfigured in a Spanish word. In text 11:45 the verb acuñadar appears. It means to marry one’s brother-in-law and is rooted in the noun cuñado (brother-in-law). It stems from the Biblical command, known as the levirate command, that a childless widow must marry her brother-in- law in order to produce heirs for her deceased husband.153 There is a ceremony that can legally free the woman from this command. The same adaptation occurs in the expression estar en el año de mi madre (38B:13). It is customary in Judaism to mourn for one year following the death of a parent.154 In this case the protagonist could not attend the customary festive meal following a circumcision ceremony as he was in this period of compulsory mourning. A Jewish concept is here reconfigured in a Spanish expression. The verbmeldar appearing as meldando (11:7) occurs frequently in the Ladino literature; it was originally thought to be derived from the Hebrew limud, but is now considered by scholars like Renard and Séphiha to be derived from the Greek melatan ‘study’ (Harris 1994: 59). In the varieties of Judeo-Spanish it indicates both prayer and religious learning. Entwistle only refers to its replacement of leer, failing to mention its meaning of ‘to pray’ (Entwistle 1965: 183). Hence, when modern Spanish uses rezar ‘to pray’ or leer ‘to read’, its Judeo-Spanish equivalent is meldar.155 Also meldado and meldadico, both words used in the context of psalms that are recited before or around burials, or

152 Bunis also lists publications of research inventories and treatments of Judeo- Spanish lexical elements of Hebrew and Aramaic origin since 1914 till 1993 (Bunis 1993: 47). 153 See yibum / chalitzah in Appendix 3. 154 See chap. 4 n. 424. 155 Its Yiddish equivalent is daven, meaning ‘to pray’: ‘lernen’ ‘to study’ is an example of the use of unconventional German that refers to Jewish customs (Weinreich the language in the responsa 179 at designated times during the mourning period, are attested in Judeo- Spanish (Shwarzwald 1984a: 210). Countless illustrations can be found in the Me’Am Lo’ez including meldar, meldara e.g in Devarim 30). The use of the form el Dio (18:22, 41, 61, ST 49B:26, 61B:10, 71:2) as opposed to Spanish Dios has also been much discussed by linguists.156 Some claim that the form Dio entered Judeo-Spanish because the Jews would have wanted to differentiate themselves from the host culture in referring to their God. The motive for this preferred form is undoubtedly religious (Entwistle 1965: 58, 179, 182, 194, Lapesa 1988: 525–6). The dropping of thes could indicate rejection of the notion of plurality within the Deity. However, from a morphological point of view it can be argued that singular nouns ending in s are less frequent in Spanish. There is no inherent notion of plurality in the wordDios ; there must therefore have been analogical and morphological pressure to drop the s. This was the case with Latin words like corpus and tempus that dropped the s (Penny 2004a: 121, 127). Dio always takes the definite article in Judeo-Spanish, i.e. el Dio. Arguably, this has the effect of emphasizing monotheism (Díaz-Mas 1986: 97, Minervini 1992: 394). However, it is noteworthy that in Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali only the form Dios is attested twice (Minervini 1992: 315, 330). Occasion- ally there is hesitation between the two forms as in the work of Isaac Cardoso in Amsterdam in the seventeenth century where both forms are attested in the same verse (Séphiha 1999: 639). Bunis states that the preferred form by the Jews of el Dio in pre-exilic Spain was also to differentiate from the Church-influenced formDios used by the Chris- tians, with its final -s corresponding the Latin nominative -s which is in fact rare in Romance languages (Bunis 2004: 125). Unsurprisingly el Dio occurs in the Coplas de Yosef (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 95) and countless times in the Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g Shemot chelek aleph: 11). Notably even in nineteenth century Yisra’el Haim’s writings el Dio still prevails (Bunis 1996a: 165). Additionally it is of morphological interest that the gender of the Hebrew word borrowed in Judeo-Spanish does not follow the same as that in the original language. Hebrew nouns ending in +a are

1970: 397). Another Yiddish equivalent of meldar is ley’enen ‘to read the Torah’, ‘to read’ in general (Weinreich 1970: 405). 156 Note that in Minervini’s texts (1992) from thirteenth to fourteenth century Spain the form Dio does not appear. 180 chapter three

automatically considered feminine as is the case in Spanish grammar.157 For instance la gezerá (1:13) is treated as feminine in the texts whilst it is masculine in Hebrew.

3.3.3.3 Code-switching There is a marked difference between the use of Hebraisms within Judeo-Spanish, and the use of Hebrew where the language switches entirely into Hebrew for a sentence or more. The above discussion describes how borrowing a word from a different language can be for a specific purpose: whether for the sanctification of religion, for expressing superstitious and negative notions, for use as a secret code or in the use of economic and judicial terminology. Code-switching, however, may take place when the speaker has insufficient knowledge or memory of the language and needs the second language in his expression, as is sometimes the case with current Judeo- Spanish speakers (Harris 1994: 191). Harris explains code-switching as the alternation between two languages within a single discourse that is common in the speech of bilinguals (Harris 1994: 182). Weinreich discusses in detail his view on whether borrowings must affect existing vocabulary by producing either confusion between the content of the new and old word, the disappearance of the old word or the survival of both old and new word with a specialization in its content (Weinreich 1953: 54). However Miller, unlike Bunis, regards the use of Hebraisms in periphrastic verbs as an example of code-switching before Hebrew participles, for instance ‘fueron metaqqenim ‘they were promulgating general statutes’ (Miller 2004: 64).158 As is argued in the above section with ample illustrations the use of Hebrew terms in such instances are regarded as examples of Hebrew borrowings by Judeo-Spanish and not of code-switching. The instances of code-switching in this corpus consist primarily of a lengthier passage of Hebrew and show syntax change. They can be noted mainly in the examples in which the scribe introduces the witness, makes his own interpolations in the course of the testimony, and finally winds up the exposition. In general, the narrative switches to Hebrew. In the corpus, I have italicised these lines of Hebrew that are

157 For more examples of such morphological fusion of loan elements, see Shwarz- wald 1993: 37–38. 158 For Bunis’s perspective see Bunis 1993: 28. the language in the responsa 181 examples of code switching.159 Texts 8, 11, 17, 25, 37, 38, 42, 50, 54, 72 and 80 show the use of code-switching in the introduction to new testimonies. Texts 1, 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 28, 53, 58, 63, 79 and 83 exemplify this use when the witness’s speech consists of phrases or passages of a legal content. Texts 18, 30, 31, 50, 55, 70 and 73 show the switching when the passage describes the Court’s actions or words. Texts 5, 13, 21, 36, 40, 56, 64, 73, 80 and 84 describe happenings outside witness testimony in Hebrew. Predictably, some texts fall into more than one category, but I have classified them above into the predominant category. A distinction is made here between Hebrew used as lexical adaptation and as a distinct language used for coding purposes. Min- ervini’s (1992) earlier texts also show evidence of language switching, but perhaps not to the same extent.

3.3.3.4 Borrowings from Other Languages 1. Borrowing from the Turkish language is predictable and about fifty-seven different words, derived from Turkish, have penetrated the texts.160 It is clear that Ottoman Turkish was the native language of much of the indigenous population in the Ottoman Empire in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries when the Sephardic Jews arrived (Bunis 1984: 121). It was also the administrative language used that had to be learnt by the Jews. Similarly in the Moroccan variety, Hakitía, borrowed elements from North African Arabic would enter the language in a similar way as Turkish entered Ottoman Judeo-Spanish (Bunis 2004: 106). The nature of these borrowings is similar to the phenomenon that has taken place with Hebrew borrowing, except that Turkish borrowings are on a smaller scale as reflected in this corpus. Some economic, judicial and descriptive vocabulary is borrowed from Turkish. Exam- ples are aspro ‘Turkish coin’, gerúš ‘Turkish coin, piastre’, lira ‘gold coin’, vaiboda ‘duke’, donloc ‘cape’, yan torbá ‘money bag’, köse ‘beardless’, mutlagaj ‘attorney’, moalim ‘teacher’, vaiboda ‘duke’ and other examples are indicated in the glossary (see Appendix 2).161 Text 47

159 Note the reverse example in text 27 where at the end of the translation the questioner inserts Judeo-Spanish phrases within his argument in Hebrew—in this case the English translation of the Hebrew is italicised and that of the Judeo-Spanish is left unitalicised. 160 See Appendix 2. 161 Of all the Turkish borrowings listed in our corpus Bunis attests aspro, vaiboda, giftelic, hugit, riza (Bunis 1993: 23). 182 chapter three contains many Turkish key words and phrases in only four lines. Only two of the many Turkish borrowings listed in Death of a Language appear in this corpus: tabán (12:41) ‘ceiling’ and pasá162 (38B:2) ‘governor’ (Turkish title/post) (Harris 1994: 109–118). Shwarzwald notes tavan meaning ‘roof’ and also meaning ‘God’ (Shwarzwald 1993: 33). Text 3 concerns a rabbinic enactment with reference to the wool industry and contains words such as efendi ‘Mr’, chobán ‘shepherd’ and dólia ‘because of’ that are of Turkish origin. Economic terms such as mulquié (13:40) ‘proprietorship’ and hugit (13:95, 37:38) ‘title- deed’ appear.163 Cosque164 (11:1) ‘pavilion’, derived from kösk, is the only Turkish borrowing in text 11. Business terminology such as saraf (18:29) ‘money lender’ and quiregi (18:8) ‘tenant’, derived from kiraci are predictable examples of Turkish borrowing. Judicial terms such as cadí (19:28) ‘judge’ and sigil (19:28) ‘registry’ appear in text 19. Sigil, for instance, has not survived in modern Judeo-Spanish in this sense; Nehama’s dictionary gives the definition ofsigil as ‘a nasal obstruction’. Shwarzwald notes kira ‘rent’ as a borrowing from Arabic (Shwarzwald 1993: 34). Many words in Turkish are, in fact, similar to Arabic. Rizá (45:2, 5, 8, 9) ‘handkerchief’ is the object used as kiddushin. However ridá ‘handkerchief’ is attested as a Turkish borrowing. These are regional variations. Quintana notes ridá in Istanbul and as an alternative in Sofia torizá, rizá is the norm in Sarayevo, Salonica and Smyrna (Quintana 2006: 266). However Shwarzwald lists ridá in her account on influence of other languages on Judeo-Spanish (Shwarz- wald 1993: 33). Makrama (60:4) ‘headdress’ is also noted in Hakitía as mejerma, which in this case would have been a borrowing from Ara- bic. Başá (48:5. 54A:6, 54B:5) ‘governor’ is derived from the Turkish pasá; başá has been retained also in modern Spanish. Muquerí (76:3, 5) ‘muleteer’ appears and ǰuma (83:12, 63) ‘Friday prayers’ derived from the Turkish cuma. Turkish borrowings, many of them associated with dress, also abound in the folkloric tradition (Armistead 1999: 9). Naturally, names of towns and proper names appear in Turkish where appropriate. Names such as Osref bie (19:2, 27) ‘Mr Osref’ and Zulficar effendi

162 Pasa or pasha was used as a term of praise or endearment in Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 314). 163 See Appendix 2 for more textual references. 164 Bunis attests cosque but reads it as cusaque meaning ‘sash’ from the Turkish kusak (1993: 23). This interpretation would not fit contextually in this particular text. the language in the responsa 183

(13:4) ‘Mr. Zulficar’ are distinctly Turkish and refer to individual moneylenders. Significantly, most borrowings are words associated with financial and judicial Turkish authorities, and also with items of clothing. How- ever, only a few of these terms survive. In recent Judeo-Spanish the language turns to Castilian Spanish and drops many of these Turkisms (Quintana-Rodriguez 1999: 598–601). Bashan and Bornstein’s glossary (1973) lists and defines a selection of foreign words found in the responsa of the Ottoman period: the large majority are of Turkish origin. This work is useful but fails to identify the etymology of each word; there is no introduction explanation or notes. Also, there are many Turkish terms identified in this corpus and listed in the Turkish glossary (see Appendix 2) that are missing from Bashan and Bornstein’s work. It is noteworthy that later in the nineteenth century Yisra’el Haim’s writings in Belgrade the deep impact made on Judeo-Spanish by the Balkan languages especially Ottoman Turkish is illustrated (Bunis 1996a: 166).165 Here it is significant to mention that much linguistic research has been carried out with regard to the influence of the Turkish language on Judeo-Spanish as spoken by the Jews of Turkey, for instance in the field of lexical borrowing (Bornes Varol 1996: 215). However the research covers later periods than that in the responsa in this book. As the time framework in the sixteenth century is about one hundred years after the Spanish Jews settled in Ottoman lands, linguistic contact with Turkish was significant but a few centuries later the impact on Judeo-Spanish is much stronger (Varol-Bornes 1996: 213–237). 2. Of syntactical interest are the other foreign influences in the texts, particularly those affecting word order and sentence structure. Borrowings from Portuguese include aletra de (27:3), la dita (4:9, 71:31) and dito (27:8). These also appear frequently in Minervini’s (1992) texts from pre-expulsion Spain. A large Jewish Portuguese community lived in Ancona following the expulsion, which may account for the above-mentioned linguistic influence.166 Additionally the anusim, so many Portuguese converts who arrived in the Ottoman

165 Yisrael Haim was called by linguists the ‘father of Modern Judezmo letters’, also a champion of the Ladino translation tradition in the nineteenth century . . .’ see Bunis 1996. 166 However, in the area of phonology and spelling, I have not found any evidence of the Jewish Portuguese preference of oi over ou (doitor, coisa) (Entwistle 1965: 298); this would have been indicated by an addition of a yod after the vav. Note dotor (11:2, 184 chapter three

Empire account for bearing an influence on the development of Judeo- Spanish. In text 27 the letter is evidently written from Sofia to Skopje and concerns the shipwreck off the coast of Ancona. Ancona was known to be the home of many Jews who had fled from Portugal at the time of the Inquisition. The text uses the wordsla dita, el dito; these are supposedly Portuguese, but could also have been spoken by people who came from the eastern side of the peninsula, from Ara- gon and Zaragoza where there was a large Jewish community. Dito appears frequently in the texts alongside the more frequent use of the Castilian, not just as its function as a past participle but as that of a demonstrative pronoun that is differene in Judeo-Spanish. This is also noted in R Chaim Shabtai’s responsa (Arnold 2006a: 226). However, Minervini & Várvaro cite Crews to argue that this is an Italian borrowing (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 171). In effectdito could well be a borrowing from either Italian or Portuguese, or as a Portuguese or Aragonese form that is inherited in Judeo-Spanish (Quintana 2009: 231). The formditas occurs frequently in Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:173). In text 27:4 the word aletra occurs. This clearly includes a Portu- guese form of the definite article ‘a’; Spanish would have obviously used la letra or the use of the prosthetic ‘a’. The prosthetic a is common in Judeo-Spanish and in Haquitía, Western Judeo-Spanish (Benabu 1979: 6) e.g. abašar; also abastar (12:12, 21, 28:36), apregonar (3:15, 26:19), acuñadar (11:62), amuestra (15:84, 45:7), arreventó (42:33, 46, 48). Prosbook, the addition of sounds, abounds in the Monastir dialect (Luria 1930: 451). Caśal(es) (ST 68:13, 26), Judeo-Spanish for aldea ‘village’ is the same as the Galician and Portuguese form caśal (Zamora Vicente 1967: 371). Caśal is also the Aragonese form (Quintana 2009: 231). Sayo (60:2, 74:39) ‘suit, dress’ is attested in Bulgarian Judeo-Spanish; phonetically it is linked to the Portuguese saiola ‘petticoat’ (Zamora Vicente 1967: 375–6). Seren (1:10, 28:17), the Portuguese personal infinitive, is attested in other sixteenth century works as in the Ladino translations of Sefer šulḥan hapanim, Sefer ḥovot halevavot (Quintana 2009: 229).

4, 22, 23, 30, 35, 39, 52, 71:4) and twenty examples of cośa included in texts 11:56. 13:22, 18:23, 21B:1.5, 25:12, 28:20, 33. the language in the responsa 185

Súpito (20:9, 26:54, 59:13) meaning ‘suddenly / rapidly’ is attested in this corpus. Quintana suggests supeto to be a Portuguese borrowing from súpeto in Judeo-Spanish (Quintana 2009: 249). The Castilian form is súbito. However in Minervini & Várvaro’s transcriptions súpito is used for the same text 26 in this book (Minervini & Várvaro 2007: 155). 3. There are certain expressions that appear to be of Italian origin. For instance: se boltó (42:13) (It. voltarsi) ‘he turned’, quitança (25:14) (It. quietanza) ‘to pay a debt’, conduto (26:34) (It. condotto) ‘conduct’, esquiraso (14:8) (It. schirazzo) ‘boat with square sails’, valutos (83:7) ‘valid’ (Old It. valuto, past participle of valere). 4. Fembras (3:7) is attested in seventeenth-century Aragonese texts (Zamora Vicente 1967: 223). Depués (15:38, 28:3, 60:6, 66:2) has four appearances in the texts versus twenty seven instances of después in the text with one unusual form duespués (48:8). Depués survives in Judeo-Spanish and has its origin in Aragonese (Quintana 2009: 250).167 5. The formsnueso/a/s (2:8, 11, 71:13, 84B:24, 26, 31, 34:2, 4, 8), vueso/a/s (18:8, 11:6, 7, 67, 13:33, 18:6, 13, 25, 50B:12, 80:2, 25), are used concurrently with the Castilian forms nuestro/a, vuestro/a in the Leonese regions of Villaoril, Teberga and Luarca. In the texts we can also attest both forms perhaps as evidence that the Jews in the Balkans who came from Leon would use the nueso form and those from Castile would use the nuestro. 6. Macare (83:53) derived from the Greek makare has two meanings, one of ojalá in Spanish (‘would that’) and ‘even if’; the text uses the word in the latter sense. Also, apotropos (guardian) derives from Greek epitropos (Harris 1994: 118). 7. Idioms such as faćer plaćer (18:24) are Latin constructions that have survived in French but not in modern Spanish, appear in the texts. 8. Harris lists some borrowings from Arabic including alḥad (12:10, 67:10), guay (49A:8, 11), the exclamation ‘ay!’, while noting that words of Arabic origin are less frequent in the Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans than in the North African since it adopts Arabic words via Turkish

167 See Quintana 2009 for a careful analysis of the Aragonese and Portuguese linguistic elements in Judeo-Spanish. 186 chapter three and not directly (Harris 1994: 59–60, 100).168 It is important to note Girón-Negrón & Minervini’s Coplas de Yosef observation of the use of Arabisms in the poem. They note that the use of Arabisms by Medieval Jews was no more frequent than their Christian counterparts (Girón- Negrón & Minervini 2006: 111).

3.3.4 Spanish or Judeo-Spanish? The question here examined is whether it is possible to reach a general conclusion regarding the language of these texts.169 The range of texts presented in this book is so wide in terms of types of text, whether dealing with matters of law, contract, communal ordinances or everyday speech that it is difficult to find any consistent patterns of language. It is important to highlight that a chronological selection of eighty-four texts have been examined in a context of perhaps up to another hundred pertaining to different centuries not included in this study. However, in the light of the corpus presented linguistic inconsistencies can be described that can also point to conclusions. It is known that fifteenth-century Jews spoke the language variety of their neighbours (Castilian, Leonese, Galician or other variety) with some dialectal differences. The language contained borrowings from Hebrew to include religious terminology. Jews in the rabbinic Court spoke the vernacular and had an excellent grasp of Hebrew. The language of quotidian speech has shown an evolution in a dialectical relationship with the surrounding cultures, with the literary language of the rabbinical elite and with Hebrew (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 62). Their bilingualism is reflected in the responsa, where code-switching is frequent.170 Judeo-Spanish of the sixteenth century is essentially Castil- ian though some traits of fifteenth-century Castilian are not chosen by Judeo-Spanish. In essence these are rabbinic legal texts and the language reflects this. This is verified when comparing a secular text of the same period, for instance, Almosnino’s El Regimiento de la Vida, where the

168 Note that alhad is rendered by Arabic al-ahad ‘the first’ (Entwistle 1965: 182). 169 In an analysis of eleven responsa the authors are reluctant to reach conclusions due to the small window of language analysed and to the fact that these are not oral texts, they are written and have travelled through the hands of the copyist and typist (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 185). 170 This phenomenon and rabbinic style of Judeo-Spanish also prevails in the Taqanot de Valladolid (Minervini 1992: 181–256). the language in the responsa 187

language reads more like a medieval Spanish text. It has to be pointed out emphatically that the texts, as a whole, still represent many of the Iberian Spanish norms. Quintana points out the introductory style in the Me’Am Lo’ez, preceding a legal affirmation starting with the future form savrés (Quintana 2004a: 75). This style, which we may call a rabbinic Judeo-Spanish, is frequent in this corpus, as can be seen in section 3.3.1.16. Additionally many illustrations provided in this book from my own reading of the Me’Am Lo’ez substantiate the fact that the language is very similar in style, in its use of Hebraisms, in its rhythm, in its syntax, morphology and phonology despite the fact it appears about two hundred years later. However the Me’Am Lo’ez has a much more flowing style and consequently is easier to decipher than that encountered in these responsa. Also ordenamos que (3:1–2) as an introductory phrase in rabbinic ordinances, typical of rabbinic Judeo-Spanish, is common in the Valladolid taqanot too (Minervini 1992: 227, 229, 232, 233, 235, 238, 239, 241, 242, 247). Morevover the citation from the Psalms (65) in the description of a storm at sea ‘hubieron gran tormenta, y quiśo el š(em) yit(barak)̠ que hisbi‘ah še’ón yamim še’ón galehem’, portrays the extent to which the protagonists were deeply entrenched in their Judaism and the style of the language reflects this profound attachment. The rabbinic style of language is more prevalent in the testimonies concerning ordinances and wills though it does permeate many others. Many testimonies display a linguistic style at a more colloquial level and therefore the added value of these testimonies is that it contains language of varying styles and registers. The vocabulary of the responsa also reflects the relatively high incidence of Turkish words already integrated into the language in the relatively short period since the expulsion, some of which survive, while others fall into the category of ‘temporary borrowings’. The extent and nature of Turkish borrowings reflects the degree of Jewish integration into Ottoman society. The evidence of the testimonies questions the accuracy of Molho’s belief that Ottoman Jews spoke pure Spanish in the sixteenth century, and that in the seventeenth century it began to degenerate (Molho 1950: 152). According to Molho, by the seventeenth century the language was no longer pure Castilian Spanish for it contained many borrowings of Hebrew, Turkish and of other Spanish dialects. Our corpus testifies that ‘pure Spanish’, i.e. Spanish without foreign borrowings, was not spoken in the sixteenth century. Judeo- Spanish in the sixteenth century, as reflected in the texts, is indeed Spanish with borrowings from Hebrew and elsewhere. 188 chapter three

The beginning of a koiné is evidenced in the texts.171 At this point, all that can be asserted is that the responsa literature reflects a language that is mainly Castilian though with evidence of Leonese and Arago- nese elements, with a high proportion of Hebrew, with borrowings from Turkish. The Portuguese language left its mark in Judeo-Spanish and there are some illustrations in the texts and in other responsa (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 186). There are few influences of Ital- ian. The language is primarily a reflection of the culture of Ottoman Jewry. Séphiha cites M. Molho when describing the language of the Jews in exile ‘Asi mientras que los sefardies instruidos empleaban el idioma espanol original en Holanda, Italia y el sur de Francia, un dialecto sui generis se formaba entre los sefaradies de Oriente y de paises adyacentes’ (Séphiha 1986: 128–129). It is noted too that at this point there is no Slavonic influence in the language from Croatian, Serbian or Bulgarian (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 187). This chapter serves as a description of the language as portrayed in the texts. It contains the analysis of the main and minor phonological aspects of Judeo-Spanish to include innovations and retentions in relation to some other major Judeo-Spanish works. The morphology of the language is reviewed and the extent of borrowing from Hebrew is analysed. An understanding of the difference between Hebrew borrowing and Hebrew code-switching can be appreciated in the light of the corpus. A discussion of the orthography of the language permeates the description. Illustrations from the texts as well as from the sample texts transliterated with a different system to enhance the linguistic discussion are provided throughout. References to the major works on the history of the Judeo-Spanish language document this chapter as well as allusions to a few works available in the language that also use the Hebrew script. Additionally section 2.4, on the problems of textual transmission, as well as the footnotes to Chapter 4 contribute to the philological discussion. It can be concluded that the noted substitution of lexical forms, the acquisition of phonetic variants and phonological rules, changes in verbal and pronominal uses distance the language from its Iberian source and its linguistic activity occurring simultane- ously (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 189).

171 To illustrate Judeo-Spanish as a koiné Minervini uses some of my unedited responsa from Benaim 1996 and explains interdialectical contact in sixteenth century Judeo-Spanish (Minervini 1999: 46). the language in the responsa 189

The contribution of these extracts to Judeo-Spanish literature is significant, especially since there are so few literary works of the period, and considering that much linguistic evidence is based on the oral transmission of proverbs, folk culture, ballads and stories.172 It can be concluded that the instability and dynamism of Judeo-Spanish as a language at that stage is evident (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 187). The question of the extent to which orthography reveals information about the pronunciation is debatable, as it is a possibility the written evidence could be the work of the scribe more than of the speaker. Also the rashi script cannot convey every phoneme, it is an unpointed script. Yet arguably, the fact that their linguistic register is non- literary, points to the fact that the texts come close to speech.173 The presentation of this corpus, a written form of the speech of the Ottoman Jews of the sixteenth century, undoubtedly sheds new light on existing linguistic analyses of Judeo-Spanish.174

172 There is a greater amount of folk literature available from later periods, see Romero 2006 on Sephardic ballads with a historical content. 173 The same point is argued in Penny (1992b: 465). 174 Alvar in his analysis of Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans mentions his sources as only either the spoken form or the translation of Biblical texts (Alvar 1996: 362). Therefore the novelty of the presentation of this corpus as a fresh source for linguistic study can be appreciated. CHAPTER FOUR

TEXTS

Chapter 4 consists of 84 responsa. Each is presented in the following format: summary of the case in English, copy of the Judeo-Spanish content of the original Hebrew text, transcription into Latin characters and translation into English (including translation of the immediate Hebrew framework where relevant), summary of the decision.

4.1 Responsa of Rabbi Samuel de Medina in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam (Salonica 1595)1

1. Yoreh Deah 532 In order to protect the kashrut of the Jewish wine industry, communal ordinances regarding the making and selling of wine were instituted.3 These included a prohibition against making, selling or buying wine outside the town limits. However, the community of Rhodes had the custom of making wine outside the city and transporting barrels using Gentile drivers.4 This caused problems and the community went to the opposite extreme, forbidding imported wine for the next 20 years, including wine from Candia (Crete) and Anaskasia (Chios). The issue is whether this decree can be annulled. This enactment was recorded on 22 Ḥ ešvan 5299 / 16 October 1538.5

1 BIURP uses the Lemberg 1862 edition. 2 The testimony is extracted from the reply section that cites the question. 3 Kashrut is Hebrew for the suitability of consumption according to Jewish dietary laws, see Appendix 3. 4 Goodblatt comments on the fact that many teamsters were Gentiles gave rise to halakhic difficulties and that this was brought to the attention of Medina (Goodblatt 1952: 53). 5 (1). All Hebrew dates have been converted to Gregorian dates according to Hebrew Date Converter: http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ and Reingold and Der- showitz (2001). Before 1582, dates are from the Julian calendar and the ten day difference is taken into account. (2). Note that the Jewish calendar is lunar, usually referred to as ‘lunisolar’ because it keeps up with the solar year by adding a 13th lunar month every two or three years. In this respect the Jewish calendar comprises a solar element which distinguishes it from purely lunar calendars such as the Muslim calendar (Stern 2001: 1). 192 chapter four

Figure 1 text 1—yoreh deah 53 193

Vezé tóref lešono(t) habaím bahaskamá: el año de 5297 vek̠u(leh), hana‘alá

1. don Yosef Leví, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu),6 comenzó de haćer lagares enla 2. tierra y traer la uba y ansí haćer el vino, 3. por lo cual se escuśa toda sospecha. Ve’aḥar ze 4. muchos yeḥidé segulá hitnadebú de tanbién el año 5. siguiendo faćer lagares vek̠u(leh), y faćer el modo dicho. 6. Ve’al yedé nidb̠at haqahal hiskimu que el que deste modo 7. fićiere vino, lo habrán porkašer , y de otro modo serán 8. gozerín ‘alav isur. ‘Od katub̠ parnasim ve’anšé 9. ma‘amad queriendo secutar7 el queno fićiese su vino en 10. la tierra de seren gozerín ‘alav isur. Nitkabesụ́ kulam 11. veḥu(leh), veqibelú ‘alehem todo tiqún que le dieren lefí ša’á 12. para faćer los vinos behek̠šer en las viñas, conque 13. me’ak̠šav vehal’á, ellos me‘asmaṃ qibelú ‘alehem la gezerá 14. que el q(ahal) q(adóš) ha fecho de faćer los vinos enla tierra, 15. y el que fuere šogeg o pošea, que su vino sea asur. 16. ‘Od qibelú kulam de no beber vino dende la vendimia de 17. 5299 vehal’á sino8 fuere hecho en la tierra de dien 18. tro, y ningún otro tiqún valga lehak̠šer hayayin hana’aś(á) 19. ḥus ̣ la‘ir vek̠u(leh), ‘ad ki kulam gazerú ‘alehe(m) isur badab̠ar. Y 20. por cuanto ansí como fićimos eltiqún para los 21. vinos que sefaćen enla tierra, ansí lo queremos para 22. los que vernán de fuera, haremos saver el he‘etek 23 de esta nuestra haskamá vek̠u(leh), y los haremos 24. saver non podemos bever vino sino sea fecho beb̠et 25. hayehudim y el goy no tenga ‘ések ninguno, sino en 26. hab̠a’at ha’anavim: y mandando los manhigim de cada 27. tierra de estas ‘edut que se fiźo por este modo, 28. lo podemos mercar y vender; y sino9 no se podrá

6 Note that blessings were generally borrowed from Hebrew, see Table 3.7. For abbreviations see Ashkenazi & Yerdo (1973). 7 Secutar is not used here in the archaic sense of ejecutar (http://www.rae.es/ corde/14/6/04/) (as in secutoria in El Quijote), but in the traditional use of the verb in Judeo-Spanish, meaning ‘to remember’, ‘to evoke’; here it is used as ‘to reprimand’, ‘to punish’ (Pascual Recuero 1977: 127). 8 Read: si no, meaning ‘if not’, as opposed to ‘but’. 9 Read: si no as in l. 17. 194 chapter four

29. mercar ni vender ninguno deniguna10 parte si de esta 30. manera no fuere fecho ‘ad, veha‘ob̠er ‘aleha dinó masur lašamáyim velaberiyot.11 Hayah ze yom 4 (miércoles) 22 leḥešván šenat 5299 layesirạ́ veqayam.

Translation12 (Question: The event was as follows. The community of Rhodes had the custom of making wine outside the city then importing the wine in large barrels. Many problems would occur, for instance gentiles would deliberately or even accidentally touch the wine or the barrels were not made kosher in the right way. There was also the problem of pouring the wine from the large barrels into smaller barrels or bottles which, if done by a Gentile, renders the wine unkosher, according to Rashba insofar as deriving benefit and according to Rosh at least for drinking. Rambam agrees with Rosh. However all agree that the wine is forbidden for drinking.

In light of all the above, the God fearing people decided to go to the other extreme and forbid all wine made outside the city as from today until twenty years time. They also forbade all wine imported from Candia [modern Crete] and Anakasia [modern Chios].

10 Read: de ninguna. 11 This phraselašamayim velaberiyot (by heaven and by the people) has its origin in the Gemara (Kiddushin 40a). In the context of this responsa dino masur lašamayim velaberiyot means that whoever transgresses these rules should be judged by heaven and by the people, implying that he would be judged by the communal rabbi or court. In the original context in Kiddushin, the expression lashamayim velaberiyot is used with reference to two types of righteous men, one who is righteous with heaven only, who is not considered a ‘good’ righteous person, but the one who is righteous with heaven and with his fellow creatures is praised: ela tov lašamayim velaberiyot zehu sadiḳ tov (one who is good to his Heaven and good towards his fellow creatures he is the ‘good’ righteous person) (Kiddushin 40a).This phrase appears thirty-four times in the responsa literature documented in the BIURP (including in Maharashdam YD 53, 155, Marariberav 33) with the implication generally that the person(s) in question should be tried by a human court as well as by God. Note that the phrase also appears preceded by muḥram umenudé lašamayim velaberiyot (text 4:11) (he shall be excommunicated by heaven and by the people). Here the legal significance is that the punishment of excommunication is carried out by the community. Since the communities in Ottoman lands exercised economic and legal powers (see section 1.6.2), the excommunicatory ban meant that its effect would leave any person devastated in many ways. 12 Note that the Hebrew framework that is translated here can be found in the relevant responsa in their collection. text 1—yoreh deah 53 195

This is what is written):

And this is the main part that is present in the document in the year 5297 etc.

(1–8) The respected Yosef Levy13 was the first man to build wine presses in his own land. He procured the grapes to produce the wine, thus making it above suspicion.14 After this many members of the community undertook also the following year to make the wine presses etc. in the said way. Because of these undertakings, the community agreed that whoever made wine in this way, it [the wine] will be considered kosher, and if they made it in any other way the wine will be rendered unkosher.15

(8–15) The committee members and the leaders all agreed and wrote that they wanted to punish those who did not make the wine in their land, who would then render the wine unkosher. They all accepted all the rules they were given at the time to make kosher wines in the vineyards. From now onwards, they received this decree the community made concerning the production of the wines in the land. Whoever transgresses this, whether unintentionally or deliberate, his wine would be prohibited.

(16–19) They all accepted the decree not to drink wine from the harvest of 5299 onwards, if it was not made on a land inside the town perimeter. No other rule would be valid to certify the wine made outside the town as kosher etc. They all agreed that such wine would be prohibited.

(20–22) As we made a rule for wine that is made in the land, that is how we want it [we want the same rule to apply] for wines that will come from outside the town.

(22–30) We will let them have a copy of our document etc. We will inform them that we cannot drink the wine that is not made in a Jew’s

13 Don—the courtesy title is omitted in translation. 14 The wine is considered kosher. 15 Lit., ‘they will decree a transgression upon the consumption of the wine’. 196 chapter four house. The gentile will not be involved in any part of the business, other than bringing the grapes. The leaders of each of these lands will send proof of how the wine has been produced. [They will give evidence that the wine was produced in this way], we can buy or sell it [the wine]; otherwise [if it is not produced according to these rules], it cannot be bought or sold anywhere.

Whoever transgresses this let him be judged by heaven and by the people.16 This was Wednesday 22 ̣ Hešván 5299.

(About all of the above, I saw some people saying that it doesn’t really mean that it [the wine] is permitted in the city but forbidden outside the city, rather that even if it is made outside the city in a Jew’s house who has a wine press in his vineyard and he has no gentile workers, it would be permitted. Rabbi David Ben Zimra agrees with this.

When I saw the actual words of their decrees I was shocked and baffled and I cannot understand how they can permit something which they explicitly forbade on themselves, why should we force ourselves to ‘put an elephant in the eye of an needle’, to be lenient on transgressions?)

Decision:

The ordinance not to drink wine that was produced outside of the city can be annulled, but wine imported from Calandia and Anaskasia cannot be permitted since it has a (nidnud) slight taste of transgression.

2. Yoreh Deah 8817 A binding contract between two partners noted on 11 Adar 5311 / 17 February 1551. Šim‘on agrees with Re’uben that since they have a signed contract, whoever wants to expand the business or acquire any other asset is obliged to inform the other, and that they will share the profits accordingly. In question is the validity of the oaths they undertook, to determine whether they may in fact commercially act independently of each other.

16 See chap. 4 n. 11. 17 The same case is sent to Ibn Lev (text 58). text 2—yoreh deah 88 197

Figure 2 tofes:̣ hahatra’á- hayom yom 3(martes), 11 leḥodeš Adar

1. šenat 5311: digo yo Šim‘ón a Re’uben que 2. por cuanto tenemos un šetaṛ ḥatum que cual quiera 3. que tomare la canpana18 o cual quier otra renda, 4. que es obligado serlo modía uno a otro antes, 5. digo que agora quiero tomar la canpana y ansí 6. mismo lo tengo negociado con el dayán,19 y esto todo 7. fue con licencia que se venga a escribir con 8. migo, y que tenrá20 su parte según esta nuesa 9. escritura, con todos los tenaím que en la dicha 10. escritura están, y sino21 quiere, me dé todo el 11. bitaḥón que diće en la dicha escritura nuesa, que 12. non puede hablar en la dicha canpana según está 13. la escritura.

18 Canpana in the text could be compañía in modern Spanish, not through any linguistic derivation, but based on context. It is more likely to be campaña in the sense of a business venture. 19 Hebrew borrowings of a legal register: dayán ‘judge, tenaím (l. 9) ‘conditions’, bitaḥón (l. 11) ‘guarantee’. 20 Tenrá: commonly seen in these responsa for tendrá. 21 Read: si no meaning ‘if not’; otherwise sino means ‘but’. 198 chapter four

Translation (An agreement between two partners to deal honestly with each other whether concerning the purchase of the business, or about informing each other about the business which they purchase. They agree not to cause each other any financial loss. They also committed to join Levi in partnership if they buy the business of the weighing-house in Salonica in the next three years, as from the 10th of April)

(1–4) The binding contract: the implemented contract takes place today Tuesday the 11th of Adar 1551. I, Šim‘ón, say to Re’uben that inas- much as we have a sealed contract that whoever takes over the business venture or any other business affair22 is obliged to inform the other beforehand.

(5–10) I hereby say that I now want to take over the company. I have negotiated this with the judge. All this was with permission that he agrees to sign with me,23 and that he (Re’uben) will have his share according to our written agreement with all the conditions that are in the said agreement.

(10–13) If he refuses, then he should give me the whole guarantee as it says in our said agreement. He cannot have a say in the said company according to what is written in the document.

(All of the above was accepted under oath except the promise to involve Levi in some of their dealings.)

Decision:

The agreement between them to inform one another of transactions of purchase does not give them the right to prevent the purchase, whether based on logic or on the terms of the agreement. (Even if one of them does violate his oath, his partner is still bound by his oath since they made two separate oaths).

22 Lit., ‘rent’. 23 Lit., ‘to write’. text 3—yoreh deah 118 199

3. Yoreh Deah 118 A community dispute concerns the sale and purchase of wool. The wardens of the community are unhappy that Re’uben has bought wool from a wholesaler who is a friend. Re’uben claims he has been granted permission by some of the wardens. Re’uben is liable to pay a fine since he has transgressed the communal ban on wool purchase. He contests this decision.

Figure 3 200 chapter four

1. vezé l(ašón) hahaska(má) : primera 2. mente ordenamos 3. queno sea usado24 ningún yehudí hombre ni muǰer de 4. mercar lana, salvo a dos y medio el velleçino25 5. de contado, y a tres fiado, y el fiado que no 6. sea manco de fasta dólia26 tanto que sean machos27 7. como fembras,28 tanto que sea lana de señor como 8. de chobán,29 ecebto la lana de Zeini Efendi30 y de 9. Cara alai bigi31 no entran en la haskamah vek̠uleh. Ve‘od32 10. katebú besof hahaskamah, vezé lešonó : más ordenamos33 que todo 11. yehudí que pasare cual quier haskamah de estas, 12. milevad que es muḥram umenudah pagará al qahal eḥad 13. as(pro)34 por vellecino de cuanta lana fićiere, y sino35 14. pagare eḥad as(pro) por velleçino, recibieron todo el 15. qahal de apregonar y faćer, que no se labre de ningún 16. modo y afilu turco o goy es ne’eman de dećir si 17. pasó algúno la haskamah. Y todas estas haskamot 18. son a da‘at de uno y todo es belí ormah umirmah 19. vetaḥbulah. Y estas haskamot las recibieron todo el 20. qahal beqol ele qelalá nimreseṭ ubigzerat nahaš36 y cual 21. quier que la pasare, arur hu bayom vek̠u(leh)37

24 This could be read equally asusado, the past participle of ‘to get used to’, or osado the past participle of ‘to dare’ which is contextually correct. 25 Read: vellocino. 26 Turkish: dolayi, ‘on account of’. 27 The diacritic mark is missing from the gimmel. This could be mistakenly read as magos. 28 This form is attested in Aragonese texts of the seventeenth century (Zamora Vicente 1967: 223). 29 Turkish: çoban, ‘shepherd’. 30 Turkish: efendi, equivalent to the title ‘Mr’. 31 Turkish: alai bii, ‘property owner’. Bunis says beg is Turkish for ‘feudal lord’ (Bunis 1993: 23). It could have read begi in which case the meaning fits contextually. 32 BIURP: od. 33 BIURP: or denamos. 34 BIURP: asher. 35 Read: si. 36 Written as an abbreviation n’’ḥ’’š, this is lit. a naḥaš, a snake; the abbreviation represents a three-fold punishment carried out by the community. Communities at the time deployed the maximum punishment of the ḥerem, the excommunicatory ban, but had other punishments such as deprivation of certain privileges. 37 BIURP: k̠uleh. text 3—yoreh deah 118 201

Translation (The Community that made an agreement on the wool [trade])

(1–8) This is the language of the agreement: First we command that no Jewish man or woman dare buy wool except at two and a half per ell in cash, and for three on credit. The credit should not be less than this whether for males or females, whether [the] wool [is from] from the owner or from the shepherd, except for the wool of Mr. Zieni and of Mr. Cara the mansion owner,

(8–13) that [Zieni’s and Cara’s wool] does not enter this prohibition etc. Also they wrote at the end of the enactment saying: we also command that every Jew that transgresses any of these enactments will be excommunicated, and will pay to the whole community one asper per amount of wool that he makes, and if not just one asper per bale of wool.

(13–17) The entirecommunity accepted this in practice: if he [every Jew] were not to pay one asper per ell the wool should not be dealt with in any way; then even a Turk or a gentile is believed if he says that anyone was in breach of this enactment.

(17–21) Everybody has the information concerning all these enactments; they are all without forgery or crookedness. These enactments were received by the entire community with a voice of a powerful curse, of a snake,38 for anyone who transgresses it; cursed be he on the day etc.

(After two days of announcing this agreement in the community, Re’uben one of the members, came and requested that he should be allowed to buy wool from one of his merchant friends in the same way as Mr. Zieni and Mr. Cara were allowed. The leaders allowed him to purchase the wool. At that time there were a few individuals who warned Re’uben that this permission was illegal and they were unhappy about this decision. Re’uben ignored them and purchased the wool. Now these individuals are accusing Re’uben of transgressing the agreement, saying that

38 See chap. 4 n. 36. 202 chapter four he has to pay one asper per ell of wool that he bought. Re’uben claims that he was given permission just like the two other people. Please tell us who is correct.)

Decision:

The agreement contains a specific clause that it is not to be annulled without everybody’s agreement. Re’uben is not trusted to say that he erred and thought that the permission he received was valid; hence he is liable by law for breaching an agreement. In any case, one who breaches a communal agreement is not subject to excommunication until it is publicly announced.

4. Yoreh Deah 155 The community of Monastir and Belgrade attends a business fair in a certain town. This sometimes involves the desecration of holy festivals. The journey is hazardous and their merchandise is often stolen. The community makes a decree banning congregants from attending, on 11 Ellul 5342 / 8 September 1582, but four years later its members wish to revoke the communal enactment. text 4—yoreh deah 155 203

Figure 4 Part 1

Figure 4 Part 2

1. vezé lešonam bela(šón) ‘a(m) z(ara): anaḥnu ḥotmé 2. matạ por ser verdad que veimos39 la sakaná gedolá que 3. es venir a esta feria Etroga, y tanbién 4. que los más delos años acaece ser entre los 5. mo‘adim de Roš Hašaná veyom Hakipurim veḥag HaSukot,40 6. que ba‘avonotenu los somos meḥalelim,41 aun que queramos 7. aun queno queramos, por tanto todos somos 8. maśkimim deno venirmos ningún ǰudió morador de 9. Monesterio, ni de otro lugar a la dita feria. Y 10. cual quiera que pasare esta haskamah me‘atah

39 Note the form veimos in Judeo-Spanish as opposed to vimos in Spanish. 40 In later versions, the names of the festivals (New Year, Day of Atonement and Tabernacles festivals) are abbreviated. 41 Meḥalelim, Hebrew for ‘transgressors’. Note the Hebrew borrowing has a Hebrew plural ending that agrees with the Judeo-Spanish subject somos. 204 chapter four

11. ume‘ah ̣šav será muḥram umenudeh lašamayim velaberiyot al da‘a(t) 12. H(amaqom) B(aruḥ) H(u), ve‘al da‘at haḥmeh sefat,̣ t(ibaneh) v(etikoneh) b(imherah) b(iyamenu), pitó pat kutí yenó 13. yayin neśeḥ verabsạ́ bo kol ha’elá vek̠u(leh). Esta haskamah la 14. fićimos que haya para ella ningúns aḍ de pétaḥ 15. ḥaretạ́ vehatará por tienpo de tres años, y tanbién 16. acabo de este tiempo. Afilu que samos42 de 17. conformidad de tornar a venir en esta feria 18. con muchas aseguranzas que nos fićieren,afilu 19. estonses no podamos tornar ni venir por la 20. fuerza dita, salvo sobre partido que nos hayan 21. de tornar a dar todas nuestras boticas 22. que tenemos enel día de hoy.

Translation (The communities of Monastir and Belgrade used to travel to a market and they saw that a desecration of God’s Name would take place: people would desecrate the festivals of Roš Hašanah [New Year] and Yom Kipur [Day of Atonement] and traders would cheat and steal from Jewish buyers. Also the journey was hazardous because of highwaymen. Because of all the above, they decreed the following):

(1–9) This is their language in the vernacular: we, the undersigned, as is it is true that we saw what a great danger it is to come to this Etroga business fair,43 and [we realise] also that on most years it takes place during the festivals of New Year, the Day of Atonement and the Feast of Tabernacles. For our sins we transgress these times intentionally or unintentionally. Nevertheless, we all agreed that no Jew from Monastir or any other place, would attend the said fair.

(9–16) Anyone who breaks this ruling from now on will be excommunicated in heaven and in earth,44 according to God and to the sages

42 Read: seamos, but a yod is missing in the text. 43 The name of the fair, perhaps derived from the Hebrewetrog (citron), a symbol of the Tabernacles festival. 44 See chap. 4 n. 36. text 5—yoreh deah 157 205 in sefat,̣ may it [sefat]̣ be speedily rebuilt and redeemed in our days, his [the transgressor’s] bread is [will become] like a bread of a Gentile, his wine is [treated like] a wine of a Gentile, and all curses should go on him. We made this ruling so that there would be no element of regret, for a period of at least three years.

(16–22) Even if we [the undersigned] agree to return to this fair with all the assurance we may be given, even then, we cannot come because of the said rule, unless we make a deal [with the Gentile traders] that they return to us all our shops that we possess today.

(This decree was accepted by all the traders and all the people of the cities for four years. Then the majority of the traders of Monastir decided to return to their old ways of going to that market. They had various reasons for this. Some said they never signed the original decree so it was not applicable to them. Others said they wanted to return to see if they could repossess the shops that had been confiscated from them. If they failed to do so, they would at least sell the merchandise which they would bring with them. After that, they would not continue to travel there. They also claimed that there were many decrees in Mona- stir which were not adhered to and this is an example.

Rabbi Ab̠raham Gascon wanted to enforce the decree and I have been asked my opinion.)

Decision:

The intent of any communal agreement is that it can be annulled if the community wishes. Even if some of the members died, the remaining members are entitled to annul the agreement.

5. Yoreh Deah 157 Re’uben is angry with his brother and vows to be a Nazirite like Šimšon. He was later asked to make peace with his brother. Can his vow be annulled? 206 chapter four

Figure 5

1. vek̠én amar: yo so 2. meqabel ‘alay nezirut Šimšon ben Manóaḥ bá‘al Delilah še‘aqar 3. ’et daltot ‘Aza, vešenikerú Pelištim et ‘enav, si yo más 4. kol yemé ḥayay fablare conél o entrare ensu caśa, 5. yo o mi muǰer o mis fiǰos, umsapeqá leh lenoder im 6. amar kak̠ o im amar: no yo, no mis fiǰos, no mi muǰer.

Translation (Re’uben got angry with his brother and made a vow):

(1–4) And he spoke thus: ‘I take upon myself the Nazirite laws of Šimšón, Manoaḥ’s son and Delilah’s husband, who uprooted the doors of Gaza and whose eyes were gouged by the Philistines, if I, my wife or my children, in all of my life, were to speak to him or go into his house’.

(5–6) The person who made a vow is in doubt if he said it in this way, or if he said ‘not me, not my children, not my wife’.45

(He then said he thought the sages would annul the vow. The question is posed whether Re’uben can make peace with his brother, since at the time

45 The implication is ‘that it applies to me, but not to my children or my wife’. It would be easier to annul his vow on the basis of the second interpretation. text 6—yoreh deah 168 207 of his vow he was sure the sages would annul it. Are we [the rabbi(s) asking the question to the respondent] allowed to annul his vow?)

Decision:

After citing various sources and examining the issues involved, De Medina does not allow Re’uben to annul his vow. Among other reasons the overriding one is the fact that De Medina believes Re’uben was in full awareness of his action at the time of making his vow.

6. Yoreh Deah 168 Two brothers had a joint business for many years. Šim‘on died in Wallachia and Re’uben was elsewhere. At the time of his death, Šim‘on called some local businessmen and made a will. The will was opened later by the judges in Nicopolis.46 Re’uben now wants to be entrusted with distributing the funds, in preference to the wardens.47

Figure 6

46 Nicopolis is a town in Asian Turkey in the province of Sivas (Mostras 1873: 94). 47 Same testimony as in Divre Rivot 3. 208 chapter four

0. ve’elu 1. hem hadebarim ašer amar besava‘ató:̣ saberéš48 señores 2. que ami hermano peloní le diréš que después que ha 3. pagado atodos los debdores, que de todo loque 4. quedare tomará él la miatad de cuanto se 5. fallará, dela resta49 dará 2 mil as(pros) a yetomot 6. y 2 mil as(pros) a yešib̠ot de Eres ̣ Yisra’el, si quedare 7. algopartirán50 e(n)tre mis hermanos como hermanos 8. veniftar lebet ‘olamó

Translation (Re’uben and his brother Šim‘on were both dealing with merchandise several days before Šim‘on’s demise. Re’uben was not present since Šim‘on died outside the town, in the province of Wallachia. There, there were businessmen whom Šim‘on called. He made his will in front of them.)

(1–5) These are the things he said in his will: you will know gentlemen that you will tell my brother so and so, that after he has paid all the creditors he should keep half of the remainder.

(5–8) From the rest of that half he should give two thousand aspers to the orphans, and two thousand aspers to the academies of Jewish learning in the land of Israel. If something were to remain then they should divide this equally between my brothers. Then he passed on to the next world.

(The judges of Nicopolis asked Re’uben for the four thousand aspers that his late brother set aside, as the Court regards itself as the ‘father of the orphans’. Re’uben said that he was not prepared to hand them any money as his brother never said that he would give the community this amount of money. All he said was ‘from the rest of that half he should give two thousand aspers to the orphans, and two thousand aspers to the academies of Jewish learning in the land of Israel’.

48 Judeo-Spanish form of standard sabréis. 49 Similar to the forms restra (Galician), riestra (Salamancan and Asturian) (Zamora Vicente 1967: 359). 50 Read: algo partirán. text 7—even haezer 8 209

(Re’uben said that in his family there were many poor people, including the children of his deceased siblings and [the children] of the town. As to the two thousand which Šim‘on had bequeathed to Israel, he never said that the communal leaders should send to Israel. He only said ‘and you will tell my brother to send two thousand aspers to the land of Israel’. He also claimed that he is entrusted to distribute this money. He also claimed that his late brother was not from their city nor was he married to anyone from their city. He was only a visitor there doing business. Also he did not die in their country . . . They have no claim.51 Rabbis, can you instruct as to who is legally correct.)

Decision:

The precept of fulfilling the wishes of a dead person is imposed on Re’uben. But he is obligated to give the charity to the poor who dwell in the city where Šim‘on died and to send money to the land of Israel as mentioned in the will.

7. Even Haezer 852 Donna,53 Yosef Arribas’s daughter, arrives at the house of Yosef Shitivi who offers her ten gold pieces as a symbol ofkiddushin . Donna wishes to know if she is legally married to Yosef. The testimony is recorded on the eve of Šavu‘ot, Thursday 5Sivan .54

51 For an illustrated analysis on the Jewish law on inheritance, see Grunfeld (1987) and Rivlin (1999). 52 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a:460–461). 53 A common Sephardic name. For more on Sephardic names see Bornstein- Makovetsky (1997). 54 Šavu‘ot, see Appendix 3. 210 chapter four

Figure 7

1. elu hazehub̠im 2. por qidušín para una cadena, az amerah lo: poneldos 3. en suelo y los tom(a)ré, entonces puso rebí Yosef haniz(kar) 4. un ducado en suelo y vino la moça y tomó el 5. ducado, y voltó las espaldas para irse, y 6. dišo r(ebí) Yosef haniz(kar) alos que allí estaban: sedme ‘edim 7. cómo lo tomó por qidušín. Esto fue me‘id betor(at) ‘ed(ut) 8. Mošeh Basa ‘a(d) k(an). Be’otah ša‘ah ba Mošeh Franco y 9. dišo como le dišo rebí Yosi haniz(kar) leDonna haniz(keret): ¿quies55 10. estos ducados por qiduší(n) para una cadena? Y 11. dišo la moça: pon uno enel suelo, y lo puso y lo56 12. tomó la moça, y ella que se iba, dišo rebí Yosef 13. alos que allí estaban: sedme ‘edim que lo tomó por 14. qidušín ‘ad kan.57

Translation (The event was as follows. The young girl Donna, Yosef Arribas’ daughter, entered the house of Yosef Shitivi. Yosef had in his hand ten golden coins and Yosef asked Donna, ‘do you accept these for kiddushin?’)

55 Judeo-Spanish for quieres. 56 BIURP: elu, yod is missing. 57 BIURP: im ken. text 8—even haezer 12 211

(1–7) ‘These are the gold coins for a necklace for the purpose of kiddushin’, so she said to him ‘put them on the floor and I will take them’. Thenthe forementioned Yosef put a ducat on the floor, the maiden came and took the ducat, turned her back in order to leave. [Then] Yosef said to those present as follows: ‘be my witnesses that she took it as kiddushin’.

(7–11) This was all the testimony of Mošeh Baça. At the same time Mošeh Franco arrived. He recounted that Yosef asked the forementioned Donna, ‘do you want the ducats as kiddushin for a necklace?’, and the maiden said ‘put one on the floor’.

(11–15) He put it and the maiden took it. As she was leaving, Yosef said to those present ‘be my witnesses that she took it as kiddushin’. The end.

(If so, this testimony was given in front of me, the undersigned, on Thurs- day, the Eve of Šavu‘ot. Since it was the Eve of the Festival and time was pressing, I did not call another two people. I accepted the testimony on my own, letter by letter. Since the young girl and her brother are very depressed about the matter, they asked me to write a ruling on whether the marriage was valid in this situation. In order to calm them down, I wrote these lines as briefly as possible, so that there would be no doubt at all in the lack of validity of this marriage for various reasons. Firstly, he omitted to say ‘behold you are betrothed to me’, nor did he say ‘I betrothed you’).

Decision:

There is no issue of a valid marriage here and the coin Donna took is considered from a legal perspective as if it was by way of embezzlement or a gift. The marriage is invalid.

8. Even Haezer 1258 Paloma is handed an apple as an object of marriage59 over a meal in public. According to Jewish law, her tacit acceptance of the apple is a valid legal act that could constitute marriage. The implications of this act are analysed here.

58 This responsa is discussed in Benaim 1999a. 59 Marriage here has been used to translate kiddushin. Betrothal is sometimes used as an alternative translation in this context. See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. 212 chapter four

Figure 8

1. kak̠ amar la bešaat hanetinah: Paloma60 toma esta 2. manzana por qidušín. Vehabaḥurah laqeḥah veqibelah hatapúaḥ 3. vešateqah. Veha‘ed hab(et) [hašení] he‘id gam ken šeamar la: Paloma 4. toma esta manzana que vos do por qidušín . . .

Translation (The event happened in Salonica that Ya‘aqob Nabaro was engaged to Palomba, Ab̠raham Siralog’s daughter. On the Sabbath he brought two young men with him to her house for the Third Sabbath Meal.61 At the end of the meal she brought some apples to the table, Ya‘aqob took one apple and handed it to her saying ‘do you accept this apple for kiddushin?’ She took the apple and did not respond. The second witness said):

(1–4) This is what He said to her at the time of handing over the object, ‘Paloma take this apple as kiddushin’. And the maiden took the apple, accepted it and kept silent. The second witness testified that he said to her ‘Paloma take this apple that I am giving you as kiddushin’.62

60 1863 Lvov edition and BIURP has Palomba. 61 It is customary in the Jewish tradition to celebrate this Third Sabbath Meal Seu-( dat Hashelishit) during the late afternoon before the end of the Sabbath. 62 Although the testimony in this responsum contains little Judeo-Spanish, it is cited in the institution of some kiddushin enactments. The fact that an apple is used as an object for kiddushin is legally noteworthy. The fact that Paloma’s silence is regarded as tacit acceptance of the object and therefore validates the marriage is also pertinent. See appendix 3 on kiddushin. text 9—even haezer 34 213

(This young girl is now engaged to someone else and denies the whole episode. Please tell us whether the first or second kiddushin is valid. Does she need a divorce? If so, can we coerce him to do so?)

Decision:

The second man’s marriage vows are valid. The first husband is obliged to give her a divorce (document of severance) as a stringent measure. Only after can the second man marry her.

9. Even Haezer 3463 Ḥ ayim Gateño shows the witnesses a silver thimble that he is about to hand over to Rica. Does Rica’s acceptance bind her in matrimony to Ḥ ayim? The testimony is recorded on Monday, 37th day of the‘Omer [22 Iyyar] 5327/ 1 May 1567.64 The reply is sent inH ̣ ešvan 1567.

Figure 9

1. venatán la ha’dedal haniz(kar) y 2. después que lo tomó le dišo:65 toma este dedal por 3. qidušín, y ella dišo: y yo que lo reçibo.

Translation (Please teach us the law concerning the young girl who was engaged based on the following testimony accepted in Court, as follows. ‘We three judges accepted the witness who came before us, Mošeh Menda,

63 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 460). 64 The 49 days counted from the second day of Passover to the Pentecost festival. 65 An example where the text gives digo for dišo. 214 chapter four and testified on Monday 37th day of the Omer66 1565. Ab̠raham Aviyod and I were in Mošeh Liyal’s courtyard in the morning, before morning prayers, when a young man, Ḥ ayim Gateño, came and showed us a thimble and we told him that it was made out of silver. He then took it back and climbed on a barrel and as he was falling, he called Rica. She came out in laughter.67 His embarrassment was obvious.)

(1–3) He gave her the forementioned thimble.68 After she took it he said to her ‘take this thimble as kiddushin’ and she said ‘I do accept it’.

(After much interrogation Mošeh said that the girl Rica came out wearing a graceful veil69 over her head, and the thimble had a hole at the bottom. We asked him if any other words were exchanged and he replied ‘no’. Then Ab̠raham Aviyod came in front of us. He testified the following: on Monday, 37th [day] of the Omer in the morning before morning prayers, ‘take this thimble as kiddushin’ . . .).

Decision:

The witnesses are invalid because their words were contradictory in their investigation. Rica can marry whoever she wishes.

10. Even Haezer 76 70 Whilst Leah was weaving in her house Re’uben entered and threw her a ring which she took. Two witnesses were present. Re’uben claims she is married to him, but she has previously agreed to marry Šim‘on.

66 See chap 4. n. 64. 67 Ḥ adrica is the Judeo-Spanish word used here within the Hebrew to convey ‘a laughing manner’ (Nehama 1977: 248). 68 Dedal is a thimble; it could mean a ‘ring’, but anillo for ‘ring’ appears in text 10. 69 Ḥ en velico in Judeo-Spanish within the Hebrew text: ḥen is Hebrew for ‘grace’ used as an adjective to describe the veil, a common structure in Judeo-Spanish. Velo is Spanish for ‘veil’, velico is the diminutive form. 70 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 459). text 10—even haezer 76 215

Figure 10

1. ve’amar la bilšón la‘az: bona dona71 2. toma este anillo,72 y mira que vos lo do73 por qidušín.

Translation (The story was as follows; Re’uben entered the house of Leah and threw a ring at her that landed on her knees whilst she was spinning).

(1–2) He said to her in the foreign language ‘Good lady take this ring and note that I am giving it to you as kiddushin’.

(And she [Leah] took the ring from her knees. There are witnesses who can testify on this [that Leah accepted the ring]. Now Re’uben deepens his claim on the kiddushin and says that he betrothed her for himself. Therefore our prince, our teacher, our righteous rabbi, let us know if this Re’uben is allowed to keep her as a wife seeing that she has already been betrothed to Šim‘on by acquisition.)

Decision:

From the testimony it is clear that he is the one who is performing the marriage and she is the person accepting the vows. The acceptance of the ring indicates her agreement to the effect the marriage. Therefore, the marriage vows are valid.

71 Reads as bona dona—buena dueña in modern Spanish. ./in the Hebrew text to represent /λ י Note there is only one yod 72 73 Note archaic retention do (cf. standard doy). See section 3.3.2 para. 1. 216 chapter four

11. Even Haezer 166 74 D’Ardero, on his deathbed, calls his brother to say that he would like to free his young widow of her obligation to marry her brother-in-law in order to bear his child.75 Various witnesses testify to their acquaintance with Doctor Yisra’el D’Ardero. The Duke says that D’Ardero had a child from a previous relationship, a claim D’Ardero denies. D’Ardero later married a young wife, and as he is about to die childless from this second marriage, he believes that she is bound by the levirate command. The legal request involves a plea to release her from this bind. This is recorded on the 22nd of Nissan.76

74 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1997: 199–201). 75 See Appendix 3 on yibum. 76 The year is not given,Nissan is the first month of the Hebrew Calendar year. text 11—even haezer 166 217

Figure 11 Part 1

Figure 11 Part 2 218 chapter four

1. estando enel köşk77 del señor duque, z(iḥronó) l(eḥayé) h(a‘olam) h(abá), con el 2. señor duque, acabśó estando allí el señor dotor 3. rebí Yisra’el d’Adrero, n(uḥó) e(den), le dišo el señor duque, 4. z(ih ̣ronó) l(eḥayé) h(a‘olam) h(abá): señor dotor, ¿porquénovos78 caśás?,pues es 5. raźón que caśés para tener hiǰos.79 El dotor le 6. respondió: pues señor, ¿pensa vuesa señoría 7. que yo estó80 a lumre de paǰas?81 Sepa vuesa 8. señoría que en sefaṭ tengo un hiǰo meldando. El 9. duque le respondió: quizás será hiǰo de errada. El 10. le respondió: señor, no, porque es muǰer muy honrada 11. y honesta y es parienta de mis parientas, y 12. est(á) en caśa de mi hermano y estuvo sienpre 13. y pensa ella que es caśada con migo. El señor 14. duque no replicó más. Pasando días después del 15. falecimiento del señor duque, viniendo una galea de 16. Chipre, hallándome yo en la botica de r(ebí) Ab̠raham 17. Trigo, vide estar un mozo en frente vestido con 18. una capa de paño de Sanoliqui82 y una gora 19. amarilla en la cabeça a modo franco. Yo, 20. pareciéndome ser forastero, lo llamí,83 demandile 21. quién era y de adó venía. Él me respondió que 22. venía de Chipre y que era hiǰo del dotor r(ebí) Yisra’el 23. de Ardero. Yo, enel mismo día, viniendo el dotor

77 Turkish: köşk, ‘villa, pavilion’. 78 Read: por qué no vos. 79 Diacritic missing in the text. Could be mistakenly read as higos ‘figs’ that is contextually incorrect. 80 Archaism for estoy. without the diacritic, there ג Thej in paǰas is represented erroneously with a .(1) 81 are several such instances in the texts where the diacritic is missing. Could be mistakenly read as pagas ‘pay’. (2). The expressiona lumbre de pajas in medieval Spanish can also be seen in Fer- nando de Rojas, La Celestina (Rojas et al. 2000: 250), where in the edition by Francisco J. Lobera, Guillermo Serés, Paloma Díaz-Mas. See chap 4. n. 94. TheDRAE describes this adverbial expression as one used to indicate brevity. 82 Sanoliqui seems to be a colloquial error for saloniqui. 83 This text could be read asllamé or llamí; the latter form is consistent with the form of the following verb demandile, common in Judeo-Spanish. text 11—even haezer 166 219

24. en la dicha84 botica, le di el bes(imán) t(ob̠)85 de la venida 25. del hiǰo delantre del propio hiǰo, demandándole 26. si era aquél el hiǰo quel señor duque, z(iḥronó) l(eḥayé) h(a‘olam) h(abá), diǰo86 27. ser su hiǰo, y él me respondió que sí. Gam hayaší(š) um(e‘od) 28. na‘alá k(ebod) r(ebí) Naḥman Hakohén aḥaré ha’iyum veha’gizum hanizkar 29. he‘id betorat ‘edut, vezé tóref deb̠arav: yo indo a 30. viǰitar al señor dotor dicho en su caśa, dándome 31. noticia de su hiǰo ser su hiǰo, quešándose mucho que no 32. salía ni era asu gusto, rogóme que le castigase 33. y reprendiese. Después de tiempoviniendo87 gente 34. de Chipre, me diǰo un ǰudió que de allá venía 35. saviendo que el dotor se había caśado: espantóme 36. mucho cómo han dado muǰer a este hombre teniendo 37. muǰer en Chipre muy honrada y hermośa y con un 38. hiǰo. Gam hayakar venik̠bad har(ebí) Ya‘acob (Be)n Susan, aḥaré ha’iyum 39. vehagizum he‘id vezé tóref debarav: estando el dotor 40. dicho doliente, índole avigitar porque era mucho mi 41. amigo porque recebtaba en mi botica, y 42. pareciéndole que estaba un donluk88 de paño 43. preto y 2589 gerušot90 y un bagdadí müşkî91 que un 44. turco le había dado, estando allá su hiǰo. Dišo 45. delante mí: ese donluk de paño que lo tomase su 46. hiǰo, porque era su hiǰo salido desus lomos. Y 47. queriéndose i(r) aChipre, e(l) dot(or) dicho melo encomendó 48. mucho, y que lo mirase porque ala fin, aun que era 49. traveso92 era su hiǰo. Ele hem ‘eduyot ha‘anašim haniz(karim) 50. velihyot ha’emet, ken ḥatamnu šemotenu hayom yom 22 leniśán

84 Text says diga, diacritic is missing. 85 Besiman tob, Hebrew borrowing, lit., ‘it should be with a good sign (meaning luck)’—the congratulatory phrase. 86 Here and in l. 34, diǰo appears for dišo. 87 Read: tiempo viniendo. 88 Turkish: donluk, ‘a length of cloth’. samech) that has) ס could just be a כ It is unclear whether it is 25 or 55 as the 89 been partially erased in the text. 90 Hebrew word from Turkish: guruş, ‘piastre’. 91 Turkish: müşkî, ‘dark-coloured’. 92 Spanish: travieso. 220 chapter four

51. ve’etqayam. Aḥar kak̠ raínu ketab̠ aḥer šešaleḥú 52. miFama gusta leḥ amiv šel hadotor hanizkar demeb̠aser 53. šehis ilụ et bitó min haḥalisạ́ umin hayibum, ze lešonó: nisá 54. vena‘alá har(ebí) Šelomó D’Ardero, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu) estas dos reglas. Vek̠én 55. faleçió el señor su yerno harofé, n(etreh) Ra(ḥamaná) u(farqeh), y como 56. hombre percatado en todas cośas, percuró 57. faćerlas claras y a temor del Dio, b(aruk̠) H(u), y 58. fiźos ava’ạ́ vino y llamó a su hermano har(ebí) Ya ‘acob 59. D’Ardero, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y dišo: hermano mío, en esta hora 60. que me hallo, digo que no tengo hiǰos y mi muǰer queda 61. atada asu merçé, el cual su edar no requiere 62. acuñadar y más que tiene muǰer mançeba y fiǰo 63. de ella; y pienso que en esto que platico es 64. beneficio de mi muǰer por ser una moza de tierna 65. edad,93 y por respecto de su mercé, como diše mucho 66. más k̠u(leh). Y le dio get cortado y puśo un percuradó(r) 67. en zek̠ut de vuesa fiǰa, fuese reçebidor su get 68. vek ̠u(leh), veḥatam baketab̠ hanizkar mesader haget haniz(kar), yorenu morenu 69. uge’onenu hadín al dérek̠ ha’emet

Translation (We were sitting as a Court, when the elderly Ab̠raham came before us and testified;)

(1–9) As he [Ab̠raham the witness] was in the Duke’s pavilion’ building] may his [the Duke’s] memory be blessed in the world to come, possibly in the presence of Doctor Yisra’el D’Ardero, of blessed memory, the Duke said ‘Doctor, why don’t you get married, for marriage is a reason to beget children’. The doctor replied ‘your grace thinks that I am thoughtless and inconsistent.94 Your grace should know that I have a son in sefaṭ who is learning95 [Torah]’.

93 Note edad written as edar in line 61. 94 More colloquially, ‘that I am in the clouds’. 95 Meldar means to pray or to learn Torah, see section 3.3.3.2. text 11—even haezer 166 221

The Duke replied ‘Perhaps he is the son of a loose woman’.

(10–13) He replied ‘No, sir, she is a very noble and honest woman; she is a relative of my family, she has always lived in my brother’s house and she believes she is married to me’.

(13–14) The Duke did not insist any further.

(14–27) ‘Several days after the Duke’s death, there came a boat from Cyprus. As I was in Ab̠raham Trigo’s shop, I saw, opposite me, a young man wearing a cape made out of Salonican cloth and a yellow cap on his head worn in a Western European manner. As it seemed to me he was a foreigner, I called him, asked him who he was and where he came from. He replied that he came from Cyprus and that he was Israel D’Ardero’s son. That same day I saw the doctor in the forementioned shop and I congratulated him on his son’s arrival in front of his own son; asking him if that was the son that the Duke referred to as his son, and he replied in the affirmative’.

(27–33) Also the elderly and distinguished Nachman Hakohen gave testimony, and these are his words,

‘When I went to visit the forementioned doctor in his house he informed me that this was his son. He complained that his son had not turned out nor did he behave according to his taste. He begged me to punish and reprimand him [his son].

(33–38) After some time, when some people had arrived from Cyprus, a Jew who knew that the doctor had got married, told me ‘I was greatly shocked to see how they had allowed this man to marry, as he already had a very honest and beautiful wife in Cyprus and they have a son too’.

(38–49) Also, the well known and revered Ya‘aqob Ben Sussan gave testimony, and these are his words:

‘Once, when the forementioned doctor was feeling ill, I went to see him because he was a very good friend of mine as he wrote prescrip- tions in my shop. He had with him a cape made out of a dark material, 25 piastres, and a dark-coloured cloth, originating from Baghdad 222 chapter four that a Turk had given him when his son was there. He said in front of me that his son should take the cape, since this was his son who had emerged from his loins. As his son wanted to go to Cyprus, the forementioned doctor insisted that I should look after him, because, after all, even though he was wayward, he was still his son’.

(49–54) These are the witnesses, the above-mentioned people who have told the truth, thus we have sealed and signed their names today, 22nd of Nissan. After that we saw another letter which he had sent from Fama- gusta96 to the father-in-law of the above mentioned doctor, it [the letter] brought the news that his daughter was saved from the need to do chalitzah [exemption ceremony] and from the levirate.97 Šelomoh D’Ardero, may his G-d guard him and keep him alive, brought out these two rules,

(54–59) ‘So your son-in-law the doctor died, and as a careful man as he was, he wanted to clarify matters. As he was Godfearing he made a will, called his brother Ya‘aqob D’Ardero, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, and said,

(59–66) ‘My brother, at this moment in time that I find myself, I say that I have no children and that my wife is bound to you, her age does not befit marriage to her brother-in-law, and besides, he has a young wife and a son with her. I think that what I am arguing is beneficial to my wife, as she is of a tender age and out of respect for you etc.’.

(66–67) And he gave her a cut divorce bill and designated a procura- tor to receive the divorce bill in the merit of your daughter. He is the receiver of your divorce bill.

(68–69) The above mentioned letter was signed, the divorce was arranged, our leader, our teacher, our judge lead us to the gateway of truth.

Decision:

De Medina rules that this woman is free from all levirate duties. He makes this decision and admits he rules leniently.

96 Famagusta, Maghoữssa: a town and port in Cyprus (Mostras 1873: 163). 97 Known as yibum, see Appendix 3. text 12—choshen mishpat 5 223

12. Choshen Mishpat 5 This responsum is characteristically colourful involving a theft in a shop, a murder, defamation of character, warning pleas to those about to commit a crime and a vivid description of a possible suicide. The witnesses, Mošeh Angel and David MarḤayim, visit the house where the suspected murder took place. The question is whether the suspects are guilty.

Figure 12 224 chapter four

1. vezé lešonó ; por 2. encuanto98 nos hallímos aquí en Bucareste los 3. firmados abašo, y vino har(ebí) Ab̠raham bar r(ebí) Eliézer, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), 4. y dio ‘edut como de una yan torbá99 que se robó de 5. la botica de har(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq Rofos y de har(ebí) ḥab̠ib̠ Amato, 6. que el100 baḥur har(ebí) Yudá Rofos, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), tenía101 en ella 7. como 4 mil as(pros), y dela compañía de har(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq Rofos, 8. y har(ebí) ḥab̠ib̠ Amato mil y 1,600 as(pros) que le atorgó102 el 9. muchacho, Yehudah bar Gersón que la había robado él. Y 10. mañana de alhad103 vino hana’ala har(ebí) David Ben Osa, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y 11. fue a rebí Ab̠raham bar Eliezer dicho: vamos a esos104 12. moços y les digamos que abaste que se dešen queno se 13. siga algún daño dello, que no se tornase turco o 14. fićiese algún mal, diše, y fueron los señores dichos 15. enla105 botica de har(ebí) Ḥ ab̠ib̠ dicho, y fallaron allí a 16. r(ebí) Ya‘aqob bar ḥab̠ib̠, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y le dišeron: mirad de sacar106 17. a ese muchacho antes que acontezca algún mal, y 18. les respondió har(ebí) Ya‘aqob bar Ḥ abib dicho: por amor 19. del Dio107 que fuesen a rebí Yehudah Rofos, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y a r(ebí) 20. Yosef108 Rofos y les diciesen que se dešen y que 21. abaste ya, y rebí Yehudah Rofos dicho le enpušó 22. a(rebí) Ab̠raham bar Eliezer dicho: ¿para esto venistes aquí,

98 BIURP: enc uanto, incorrect splitting of words. 99 Turkish: yan, ‘side’, torba, ‘bag’—‘money-bag’. 100 BIURP: quere el. 101 BIURP: temía meaning ‘he feared’ instead of ‘he had’. 102 If this were atornó ‘he returned’ that a gimmel was mistakenly written in place of a nun it would make better sense. 103 Alhad is a borrowing from Arabic alxad ‘Sunday’ or ‘the first day’ (Harris 1994: 59). 104 BIURP: a jisos. 105 BIURP: etsla, a Hebraism. 106 BIURP: cacar. 107 Por amor del Dio: singular Dio is peculiar to Judeo-Spanish (For God’s sake). 108 BIURP: Yosed. text 12—choshen mishpat 5 225

23. para faćer si mata? Yse fueron, y cerraron la109 24. puerta el dicho k(eb̠od) r(ebí) Yudá veYosef Rofos y se fueron. 25. Este ‘edut es de har(ebí) Ab̠raham Eliezer y el na‘alá 26. har(ebí) David Ben Osa dicho, diće el mismo ‘edut: si non 27. que se asentó enla botica de har(ebí) ḥab̠ib̠ dicho, y que 28. rebí Ya‘aqob bar ḥab̠ib̠ dicho le rogó: por amor del Dio, 29. id y llamá110 a rebí Ab̠raham bar Eliezer y irés111 30. aesos112 mançebos, y les dirés que lo dešen al 31. muchacho que no acontezc(a) algún desastre. Y quedó allí 32. el mançebo el mešaret el día y la noche, y la 33. mañana amaneçió muerto. Dićen los dichos har(ebí) 34. Yudá113 y har(ebí) Yosef dichos, que él mismo se ahorcó veqayam. 35. Yis ḥ ̣aq Leví Baruk̠ Galiepapa Baruk̠ vek(ebod) r(ebí) Eliyá Mošé Ánğel 36. ‘edut aḥer: por encuanto nos llamó har(ebí) Ḥ ab̠ib̠ 37. Amato en Bucareste, y nos amostró una caśa114 38. onde dišeron que se había ahorcado el moço, por 39. lo cual la fuimos aver el na‘alá har(ebí) David Osa 40. y su hermano har(ebí) Abraham̠ Osa y har(ebí) David MarḤ ayim, 41. y vimos como el tabán115 de aquella caśa estaba 42. enbarrado encima, y por debaǰo estaban de 43. tal modo los maderos y las tablas, que no había 44. modo de se poder poner cuerda, y cuenta más que 45. aquella noche que faleçió el moço, supimos de çierto 46. que durmieron dientro aquella caśa conel muchacho, 47. har(ebí) Šemu’el Estreliga, vehar(ebí) Yudá Rofos, vehar(ebí) Yosef 48. Rofos dicho arriba, y por haver pasado esto 49. delante nosotros, firmados aquíMošeh Ánğel David 50. MarḤ ayim.116

109 BIURP: has la missing from the text. 110 Note the imperative form llamá for llamad. 111 BIURP: iros, second person plural in place of first person singular command form. 112 BIURP: ajisos. 113 BIURP: Yehuda. 114 BIURP: caba, a vav is written in place of a zayin, producing a non-sensical result. 115 Turkish: taban, ‘floor’. 116 This text is much more accurate and intelligible in the original edition than the third edition. 226 chapter four

Translation (I was asked about the undersigned testimonies, whether Ya‘aqob bar ḥab̠ib̠ Amato is completely free from all claims or not.)

(1–9) This is his language: As we, the undersigned, found ourselves here in Bucharest, Ab̠raham, Eliezer’s son, came and testified how a money-bag was stolen from Yisḥ ̣aq Rofos’s and Ḥ ab̠ib̠ Amato’s shop; that the youngster Yehudah Rofos and Ḥ ab̠ib̠ Amato had in it about 4,000 aspers; and that from Yisḥ ̣aq Rofos and Ḥ ab̠ib̠ Amato’s company, a further 1,600 aspers was given to the young man Yehudah, Geršon’s son.

(9–14) On a weekday morning, the respected David ben Osa, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, came and went to Ab̠raham, Eliezer’s son, and said to him ‘Let us go to those lads and tell them that it is enough, that they should refrain from doing any harm, that they should not become Turkish,117 or cause any damage’, I said.

(14–21) The forementioned men went to ̣abH ib̠ ’s̠ shop and there they met Ya‘aqob, Ḥabib̠ ’s̠ son, and they said to him: Be sure to take that lad out of there before he commits any harm. And the said Ya‘aqob, Ḥabib̠ ’s̠ son, replied ‘For the love of God, you should go to Yehudah Rofos and to Yosef Rofos and tell them to stop, [tell them] that it is enough’.118

(21–25) The said Yehudah Rofos pushed the said Abraham,̠ Eliezer’s son, ‘is this why you have come here, to see119 if he has killed?’ They closed the door of Yehudah and Yosef Rofos[‘s house] and they went.

(25–31) This testimony is given by Ab̠raham Eliezer and the distinguished David ben Osa. They give the sametestimony in that he sat in the said Ḥ ab̠ib̠’s shop, and Ya‘aqob bar Ḥ ab̠ib̠ pleaded with him to go ‘for the love of God, go and call Ab̠raham, Eliezer’s son, and go to

117 Idiom for ‘they should not misbehave’. 118 This action expresses the warning given to the offender. Note that in capital cases, tannaitic law required that the offender receive and accept a warning hatra’ah( ) of the consequences. If this was omitted the offender could not be executed. In property offences the requirement of a warning was doubtful (Jackson 1972: 230). 119 Text says facer, ‘to do, to make’, but contextually this should be saber, scribal error perhaps? text 13—choshen mishpat 15 227 those youngsters and tell them to say to leave the young man alone, so that no disaster occurs’.

(31–35) The young chap,the attendant, stayed there the whole night and day, and in the morning he was found dead. The said Yehudah and Yosef say that he definitely hanged himself.

(35–38) Yisḥ ̣aq Levy Baruk Galiepapa Baruk120 and the respected Elias Mošeh Ángel gave another testimony: ‘As Ḥ ab̠ib̠ Amato called us in Bucharest and showed us a house where they say the lad hanged himself,

(38–44) we subsequently went to see the distinguished David Osa and his brother Ab̠raham Osa, and David Marchayim; we saw how the floor of that house was full of mud on top. Below, the floorboards and timbers were placed in such a way that there was no way he could have put a rope there’.

(44–50) He tells further: ‘the night the lad died we knew for certain that the forementioned Šemu’el Estreliga, Yehudah Rofos and Yosef Rofos had slept in the house with the young man. This is what happened in front of us’. We sign here, Mošeh Ángel, David Marchayim.

Decision:

It is nearly certain that the youth died in the hands of Judah and Joseph Rofos as they were fearful for their money and did not watch their actions. They are liable for punishment as seen fit by the Jewish Court of the city that lies adjacent to the corpse. Ya‘aqob bar Ḥ ab̠ib̠ is faultless and every Jew should help him.

13. Choshen Mishpat 15 Ab̠raham Primo owned a property.121 Elias, Ab̠raham’s son, asks for the property back from Leon. Leon is the son of Ab̠raham Ḥ atim, who

120 Perhaps repetitional error. 121 Other cases concerning property ownership and tenure laws include texts 21 and 22. The problem of whether the refurbishment expenses had to be calculated in the sale of the property is the issue in 21. 228 chapter four lent money to Mošeh Primo. Mošeh Primo gave Ḥ atim the property as a security. Leon claims the property is his, on the grounds that since his father has not been repaid, he has kept it. The responsum involves a legal issue on rights of tenure.122

Figure 13 Part 1

122 For a thorough explanation on rights of tenure, see Emmanuel (1936: 75–81). text 13—choshen mishpat 15 229

Figure 13 Part 2 230 chapter four

Figure 13 Part 3

0. . . . he‘id har(ebí) Yosef Elazar como 1. har(ebí) Ab̠raham Primo, haniz(kar) mercó el ḥaseṛ dicho siendo 2. h ̣ab̠er de k(ebod)r(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq de Kalo, y que vido el dicho k(ebod )r(ebí) 3. Ab ̠raham hanizkar, que llevaba un büklü123 para 4. enpresentar124 a Źulfikar,125 motivile126 de la marata,127 5. para que le diese dineros a ribit sobre el dicho 6. h ̣aseṛ , y ansí tomó dineros del dicho motivile sobre 7. el ḥaseṛ dicho. Y después fue ḥab̠er el dicho har(ebí) 8. Ab ̠raham de su hermano har(ebí) Mošeh, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), 9. Vehe‘id har(ebí) Mošeh Ángel, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), como har(ebí) Ab̠raham hanizkar 10. mercaba el dicho ḥaseṛ para el q(ahal) q(adóš), n(etreh) Ra(ḥamaná) u(farqeh), en 8 mil

123 Turkish: büklü ‘folded’ implying a folded piece of paper, a contract. 124 Archaic form of presenter, meaning regular, ‘to give as a gift’ (Pascual Recuero 1977: 49). 125 Zulficar is used here as a proper name, see Appendix 2. 126 Turkish: motivile, ‘administrator’. 127 Arabic: marāta, ‘tannery, tanyard’. text 13—choshen mishpat 15 231

11. aspros, y el q(ahal) q(adóš) no lo quiǰeron. Aḥar kak̠,128 echaron 12. preśo al patrón y se abatió y las conpró rebí 13. Ab ̠raham hanizkar en šišá alafim lebanim leḥešbonó, y le 14. acuśó el qahal qadóš, n(etreh) Ra(ḥamaná) u(farqeh): ¿por qué agora que eran más 15. baratas no las conpraba para qodeš? Y dišo rebí 16. Ab ̠raham, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu): por eso daría en ḥaseṛ hanizkar lugar 17. para B(et) H(akeneset) del ḥaseṛ del qodeš, ašer hu eslọ́ bayamim hahem, 18. era šutaf el dicho har(ebí) Ab̠raham de har(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq de Kalo, 19. y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu). Aḥar zemán, fue ḥab̠er de su hermano r(ebí) Mošeh, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), vek̠emó 20. k ̠en he‘id rebí Yeudah Adaroque, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), como har(ebí) Ab̠raham 21. hanizkar , mercaba el dicho ḥaseṛ para el qahal qadós, 22. n(etreh) Ra(ḥamaná) u(farqeh), y el q(ahal) q(adóš) no quiǰo129 por ser cośa de pleitos, y 23. r(ebí) Ab̠raham las mercó leḥešbonó, y él las fraguó 24. y estaba sobre la frágua mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘ereb̠, 25. har(ebí) Ab̠raham haniz(kar), leb̠adó. Veaḥar zemán, demandó har(ebí) Yehudah 26. hanizkar lehar(ebí) Mošeh aḥiv hanizka(r)¿en qué iba har(ebí) Ab̠raham 27. ah ̣ih en fráguas? Y le respondió: tiene muchos 28. dineros. Ve’aḥar kak̠, empeñó harebí Ab̠raham haniz(kar) el ḥaseṛ . 29. Ubayamim hahem era ḥab̠er de har(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq de Kalo tereṃ 30. šutafu(t) har(ebí) Mošeh aḥiv. Ve’aḥ(ar) k(ak̠) sabe que fueron ḥab̠erim 31. con aḥiv hanizkar, y después de las caśas130

128 There are several such Hebrew expressions in this responsa that are time-related: Ahar zemán (ll: 19) mehaboquer ad haerev l. 24 Veahar zemán l. 25 Veahar caj l. 36 Ahar ze l. 43 Veahar caj l. 70 Veahar zeman l. 75 mehaboquer ad haerev l. 92. Bunis attests kol zeman as one of the numerous Hebraisms in Old Judeo-Spanish (Bunis 1993: 18); I would suggest that the above time-related expressions fall within this category of Hebrew borrowing. See Table 3.10. 129 Note the same irregular Spanish form in the secular literature (Romeu Ferré 2004: 184). 130 BIURP: cabas, see chap. 4 n. 116. 232 chapter four

32. fraguadas131 le demandó el dicho har(ebí) Yehudah 33. le har(ebí) Mošeh, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), ¿qué es la sibá que vuesa cuñada no 34. se pasa en las caśas? Y le respondió: diće mi 35. cuñada132 que tiene nijúš de entrar en caśas 36. nuebas.133 Aḥar ze se fueron los dichos hermanos a 37. Vlaia.134 Y el waywode135 alquiló el dicho ḥaseṛ a har(ebí) 38. Yehudah haniz(kar), y después de entrado har(ebí) Yehudah biršut 39. vekoak ̠ hatogar136 me acuśó bifné haq(ahal) q(adóš), n(etreh) Ra(ḥamaná) u(farkeh), har(ebí) Ab̠raham (H)ḥati(m) 40. n(uh ̣ó) e(den), como entraba har(ebí) Yehudah en mülkiye137 y ḥazaqá 41. de har(ebí) Ab̠raham Primo, por lo cual hiźo carta el 42. dicho har(ebí) Yehudah de contentar a los hiǰos de har(ebí) 43. Ab ̠raham hanizkar. Veaḥar kak̠, las compró el dicho har(ebí) 44. Ab ̠raham, n(uḥó) e(den), las caśas del togar y sacó del ḥaseṛ a 45. har(ebí) Yehudah hanizkar. Vek̠en he‘id har(ebí) Ab̠raham Gosto 46. cómo tomó una caśa del ḥaseṛ bisek̠irut de har(ebí) Mošeh 47. y que aél pagó el sek̠iru(t). Esto era no estando 48. har(ebí) Ab̠raham Primo hanizkar enla çibdad. Uk̠emó k̠en he‘id 49. r(ebí) Ab̠raham Bibás, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), como moró en una caśa mehaḥaseṛ 50. y pagó el quiere lehar(ebí) Mošeh hanizkar, ve’aḥiv har(ebí) Ab̠raham 51. Primo haniz(kar)138 no estaba ba‘ír. Vek̠en he‘id har(ebí) Bonfós 52. b(en) k(ebod)h(arab̠) Aḥarón, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y él dišo es qarob̠ marido de una

131 Fraguar is used in recent Judeo-Spanish in the same sense as ‘to build’ (Zamora Vicente 1967: 370). 132 BIURP: cunia. 133 Lvov edition (1863) has muevas. 134 Present day Wallachia, a southern province of Romania. 135 Turkish: waywode, ‘officer’. 136 (1). Meaning ‘with the permission and strength of the moneylender’ (the Turk); business terminology is commonly couched in Hebrew. (2). Togar means ‘Turk’, then came to mean ‘merchant’ and in this context ‘mon- תוגרמה eylender’, see Bunis (1993: 26). Here Bunis notes the biblical anthroponym togarmá (Genesis 10:3) which among Sephardim meant ‘Turkey’. Also Arabic has tāğir meaning ‘merchant’. 137 Turkish: mülkiyet, ‘proprietorship’. 138 BIURP omits from this point to the end of l. 58. text 13—choshen mishpat 15 233

53. hermana de k(ebod)r(ebí) Ab̠raham Ḥ atim, n(uḥó) e(den),139 y tienen dos 54. hermanas con k(ebod)r(ebí) Ab̠raham Primo, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu). Y fue me‘id 55. cómo al conprar el ḥaseṛ era ḥab̠er de su hermano 56. har(ebí) Mošeh hanizkar. Vehe‘id ha(rebí) Neḥemiah b(en) k(ebod) h(arab) Gabriel, n(uḥó) e(den), cómo 57. har(ebí) Ab̠raham Primo haniz(kar) conpró las caśas y él 58. las fraguó, y que la muǰer de ha(rebí) Ab̠raham haniz(kar) 59. no se quiśo pasar enlas caśas, porque har(ebí) Ab̠raham 60. quiśo140 que morase su hermano gam ken beḥaseṛ , lo cual ešet 61. har(ebí) Ab̠raham haniz(kar) no quería morar većina de su cuñado, 62. har(ebí) Mošeh, y le dišo har(ebí) Neḥemiah lehar(ebí) Mošeh: pareçe que 63. para vos se fraguaron, y le respondió que él no 64. culpa nada, pues su cuñada no se quiere mudar 65. en su većindad. Ve‘od he‘id que cuando ništatefú 66. ha’ah ̣im rebí Mošeh haniz(kar) no puso cabdal ninguno. Vehe‘id 67. r(ebí) Ya‘aqob Rimok̠, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), como r(ebí) Ab̠raham haniz(kar) compraba las 68. caśas para el q(ahal) q(adóš), y después las tomó para 69. sí, y le acuśó el q(ahal) q(adóš) y respondió que haría 70. maqom lebet hakiseh. Veaḥar zeman, dišo r(ebí) Mošeh: que si su 71. hermano prometió de da(r) que del pan de mi conpadre 72. buen pedazo a mi afiǰado.141 Aḥar kak̠, dišo har(ebí) Mošeh: 73. que pues que su hermano lo había sacado por la 74. boca, que lo daría, que bimeqom del bet hakiseh 75. daría 5 sultanis142 leqahal qadós, n(etreh) Ra(ḥamaná) u(farqeh). Aḥar zemán fiźohar(ebí) 76. Mošeh haniz(kar) un bet hakiseh para su cortiǰo,143 y el 77. del qahal qadós después se arrepintió y cerró el paso. 78. Y dišo: que si su hermano aprometió, que lo diese 79. de su bolsa. Ansí de una goyá se tomó un 80. pedaçico para el dicho ḥaseṛ , y har(ebí) Mošeh Primo

139 Can also be nišmató ‘eden, ‘his soul is in paradise’. 140 BIURP has ḥet instead of kof as initial consonant. 141 Proverbial idiom meaning ‘you give from what does not belong to you’. 142 Turkish: sultani, ‘coin’. 143 Text has cortigo. 234 chapter four

81. era mištadel, y pleitaba delante el dayán, 82. fasta que lo libró ansí en la frágua delas 83. caśas. Andaba ha(rebí) Mošeh comprando teǰas y 84. madera, vek̠én he‘id como su muǰer le dišo ler(ebí) Ab̠raham 85. Primo haniz(kar), que por qué no andaba su hermano ha(rebí) 86. Mošeh en la frágua como él, y le respondió que 87. su hermano ha(rebí) Mošeh era más ra’úi para estar 88. en la botica144 que en la frágua, que conoce los 89. mercaderes.Vehe‘id ha(rebí) Naftalí b(en) k(eb̠od) h(arab̠) Tubia, z(ik̠ronó) l(eḥ ayé) h(a‘olam) h(abá), 90. como ha(rebí) Ab̠raham Primo compró el ḥaseṛ por 6 alafim, 91. y el dicho ha(rebí) Ab̠raham estab(a) sobre la frágua 92. mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘ereb̠, y un día fue el dicho ha(rebí) 93. Naftalí lebet hadayán y falló leha(rebí) Ab̠raham hanizkar le 94. demandó: ¿qué buscas? Le respondió r(ebí) Abraham̠ haniz(kar): 95. quiero emsallar145 el hüccet146 del ḥaseṛ de este dayán 96. que sea firmado de 3qades para que sea seguro 97. de pleitos. Ansí al derrocar que derrocaba ha(rebí) 98. Ab ̠raham haniz(kar) una pared147 del dicho ḥaseṛ que el forno 99. de ha(rebí) Naftalí haniz(kar) era dientro de la dicha pared, 100. y le acuśó: ¿qué me derrocas el forno? y le respondió 101. ha(rebí) Ab̠raham haniz(kar) que se lo fraguaría, vek̠en hayah, vek̠en 102. he‘id como ha(rebí) Ab̠raham haniz(kar) veaḥiv ha(rebí) Mošeh moraron 103. ǰ untos en el dicho ḥaseṛ . . .

Translation (Elias Primo came under the auspices of his father to claim a certain courtyard from Leon ḥatim, saying that the above courtyard belongs to his father Ab̠raham. Leon claims that his father bought it from Elias and ‘Aibudah’ . . . and a big argument ensued between them until we, the undersigned, accepted all the testimonies concerning this courtyard. This is the testimony):

144 1863 edition adds ‘más’. 145 A Judeo-Spanish adaptation from the Turkish: emsal ‘to copy’. 146 Turkish: hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. 147 Note that pared ‘wall’ mutates to padér in Bulgaria, Rumania and Serbia, This lexical variation is caused by internal phonetic innovations (Quintana 2006: 237). text 13—choshen mishpat 15 235

(1–8) The witness Yosef Elazartestifies that the abovementioned Ab̠raham Primo bought the abovementioned yard, while he was in partnership with Yisḥ ̣aq de Kalo. He saw Ab̠raham taking a folded document [contract] in order to give (as a present) to Zulficar, the administrator of a tannery, so that he would give him money, which was to be repaid with interest, for this courtyard. And so he took the money from the administrator for the said property. Thereafter, the said Ab̠raham was in partnership with his brother Mošeh.

(9–19) The witness Mošeh Ángeltestified that Ab̠raham bought the yard on behalf of the Holy Community for 8,000 aspers, but the Holy Community did not want it. Then the owner was incarcerated, and he went down, and Abraham̠ bought them for 6,000 aspers for himself. The Holy Congregation accused him as to why, now that it was cheaper, did he did not buy it for a holy purpose. Ab̠raham said that for this reason he would make room in the yard to build a synagogue. At that time Yisḥ ̣aq Kalo was his partner, after a while he was partner with his brother Mošeh.

(20–31) Yehudah Adaroqui testified and confirmed that Ab̠raham bought the yard for the Holy Community, but the Holy Community did not want it because they regarded it to be tainted with legal problems. So he bought it for himself, developed it and worked in it, and Ab̠raham was there by himself from morning till night. After a period of time, Yehudah asked Mošeh about his financial situation, and he replied that he had a lot of money. After this Ab̠raham mortgaged the yard. At that time [of the purchase] of the yard he was a partner of Yisḥ ̣aq Kalo, before he became partner with his brother Mošeh. At a later stage it was known that he became partners with his forementioned brother.

(31–38) After the houses were built Yehudah asked Mošeh the reason why his sister-in-law does not move into the houses. He replied that his sister-in-law feels negative148 about moving into new houses. Later the two brothers went to Wallachia and the officer rented out the above-mentioned property to Yehudah.

148 Niḥuš literally means ‘guess’, indicating ‘feeling’, in this context it denotes a negative feeling. 236 chapter four

(38–45) Yehudah said that after moving into the house, with the permission and backing of the moneylender, Ab̠raham Ḥ atim, may his soul rest in Eden, accused me in front of the Holy Community asking why Yehudah was entering in the proprietorship of Ab̠raham Primo, and was claiming a presumption of tenancy rights. For this reason, in order to contest this, Yehudah wrote to the children of Ab̠raham Primo. Ab̠raham later bought the property from the moneylender, and then evicted Yehudah.

(45–48) A witness, Ab̠raham Gosto, said he rented a house in the yard from Mošeh and he paid the rent to him [Mošeh] when Ab̠raham Primo was not in town.

(49–51) The witness, Ab̠raham Bib̠as, related that he had lived in one of the houses in the yard and paid rent to Mošeh, when his brother Ab̠raham Primo was not in the city.

(51–65) Also the witness, Bonfos, the son of Aḥaron, said he is a relative, the husband of Ab̠raham Ḥ atim’s sister, and they have two sisters [sisters-in-law in common] with Ab̠raham Primo. He testified that he was a partner of his brother Mošeh when he bought the yard. The witness Neḥemia, Gabriel’s son, testified how Ab̠raham Primo bought these houses and developed them, and that Ab̠raham’s wife did not want to move into these houses. Since Ab̠raham wanted his brother to live in this property too, his wife did not want to be a neighbour of her brother-in-law, Mošeh. Neḥemia told Mošeh that it seemed that the houses were built for him. He replied that he was not to blame, as his sister-in-law did not want to live in his vicinity.

(65–66) He also testified that when the brothers became partners, Mošeh did not advance any capital.

(67–70) A witness, Ya‘aqob Rimoj, testified that Ab̠raham bought the houses for the Holy Community and then took them for himself. The Holy Community accused him for not buying it for them, and he replied that in return he would make room to build a toilet.

(70–79) After some time, Mošeh said that if his brother had promised that he would give, from what did not belong to him, a significant piece to my godson, then Mošeh said, that since his brother had mentioned text 13—choshen mishpat 15 237 this, he would give this: that instead of a toilet he would give 5 coins to the Holy Community. Then Mošeh built a toilet for his household. He regretted this, and closed up the passageway for the toilet of the Holy Community, and said that if his brother had promised this, he should have given it from his own pocket. And so he took a small part from a Gentile lady for the said courtyard.

(79–89) Mošeh Primo was the manager of the property, and he argued in front of the judge until he was free in this way from the construction of the houses. Mošeh was busy buying timber and tiles. He then testified that when Ab̠raham Primo’s wife said to him ‘why isn’t your brother in the building with you?’ he had replied ‘my brother Mošeh is more suited to being in the shop, as he knows the merchants, than to being on the building site’.

(89–103) A witness, Naftali, son of Tubia, said that Ab̠raham Primo bought the property for six thousand. He said Ab̠raham was in the property from morning till night. One day the abovementioned Naf- tali went to the Judge’s house and saw Ab̠raham. Ab̠raham asked him what he was searching for, he answered to Ab̠raham that he wanted to obtain149 the title-deed of the yard from this judge, and that he wanted it signed by three judges so that it would be protected against lawsuit. Also, he related the fact that Ab̠raham demolished a wall in the said yard which contained Naftali’s oven. Naftali accused him ‘Why are you destroying my oven?’ Ab̠raham said he would not destroy it, and so it was. And he testified how the above mentioned Ab̠raham and his brother Mošeh lived together in the said property.

(After accepting all these testimonies Elias told us that when Ab̠raham Ḥ atim bought the property from the Arab, he was on his death-bed, he came in front of the leaders.150 They called Ab̠raham to the Court and asked him why he bought it as it was his father’s [Elias’ father] Ab̠raham Primo, this was in Tammuz (1577). Also Šemu’el Ben Ab̠raham Melamed testified that at the time of the purchase of the courtyard, Elias’ mother said to her brother Ab̠raham ḥatim the buyer ‘why are

149 This is a suggested translation, see appendix 2 foremsal. 150 The claim is made by Elias, son of Abraham Primo on behalf of his father from Leon, Abraham Ḥ atim’s son. 238 chapter four you buying this courtyard as it belongs to me?’ He answered ‘when you or your husband bring the money that I gave for the courtyard to the Arab merchant, then I will return it’. Based on these testimonies, Elias claimed on behalf of his father that he would like to be judged based on the rulings of the judges in that city and he will accept [judgment]. Elias replied that he does not want to abide by the rulings of the elders of the city; instead they should send the case outside the city because there is no Torah scholar in his community. All this we copied letter by letter as was written in the letter given to us by the judges of the Sepharad Com- munity, and now you have the obligation to settle this matter).

Decision:

According to De Medina the courtyard is in the legal ownership of Ab̠raham Primo and his heirs. Naftali’s testimony strengthens Ab̠raham Primo’s right to the property. The law is with Elias in the whole of his claim against Le’on.

14. Choshen Mishpat 33151 Re’uben lends money to Šim‘on and accepts the commercial risk. A document is drawn up for this purpose on 15 Adar 5318 / 3 February 1558. The ship he travels on is caught in a storm and its goods are confiscated by the authorities. Re’uben refuses to pay on the grounds that he only guaranteed the money in case of shipwreck or theft. His financial responsibility is in question.

151 Note that this case has been translated and discussed in Passamaneck (1974: 166– 171, 196–197). Passamaneck has this Judeo-Spanish extract in particular transcribed and translated for his purpose. Saloniqui is written as Salonaca. Trinta or trenta appears as trienta. The translation of line 11 says ‘and with wax I seal the truth’ supposedly from ‘y por cien anchela verdad’—which he says should be read as y por cera sello la verdad’ is indeed far removed from the original that clearly says ‘y por ser ansí la verdad’ ‘as this is the truth’ (see text 14:11 in the above transcription and translation). Passamaneck’s analysis of the concepts of insurance, risks of transportation, the cambio in Jewish law through various responsa cases is laudable. Through the examination of thirteen sixteenth century responsa he is able to clarify and illustrate these monetary issues. text 14—choshen mishpat 33 239

Figure 14

1. beVenesiạ 5318 15 Adar rišón, pagarés por 2. ésta de camio152 a Yosef 100 ducados de aspros, 3. çincuenta por ducado a trenta días de 4. llegada la ropa en Saloniqui, son por otros 5. tantos habidos aquí de Re’ubén de libras153 6 soldos 6. 4 por ducado, y dichos dineros corren risgo154 sobre 7. vente y ocho balas de mersas155 cargados156 en 8. esquiraso ,157 patrón Demo Barbare158 fasta Alessu y 9. non más digo que de Alessu par(a) allá non corren dichos 10. dineros risgo, y al tienpo le farés159 buen 11. pagamiento, y por ser ansí la verdad fiće yo la 12. preśente, Šim‘ón

152 Cambio—meaning note of exchange. 153 Turkish: barbare, ‘barbarous’. 154 Read: riesgo. 155 Turkish: mersas ‘harbour’. 156 Grammatically it should read: cargadas. 157 The nearest equivalent isesquiraza in modern Spanish meaning a former ship with square sails, derived from Italian schirazzo (http://www.rae.es/diccionariodela lenguaespañola/ 28/02/06). Hence it appears that the Italian form is used here, this is unsurprising since the letter is written in Venice. 158 Turkish barbare ‘barbarous’, but here this appears to be a proper noun. 159 Read: pagarés—you shall pay. 240 chapter four

Translation (Re’uben lent 100 ducats to Šim‘on in Venice in the local currency, in order to secure from Levi, Šim‘on’s partner, 50 aspos per ducat. Re’uben accepted responsibility for 100 ducats for 28 transport expenses that Šim‘on had from Venice to Alessio. After the arrival of the merchandise in Alessio, the responsibility fell on Šim‘on. Šim‘on accepted the money and wrote a document to Re’uben on behalf of his partner Levi, saying that he would pay Re’uben or his agent the 100 ducats. In the document it was written that the responsibility of the money is Re’uben’s from Venice till Alessio.)

(1–6) In Venice on 15 Adar l, you shall pay according to this letter of exchange, 100 ducats to Yosef; 50 aspers per ducat, thirty days after the arrival in the harbour of the merchandise in Salonica. It [rate of exchange] is in keeping with such others [merchandise] here belonging to Re’uben, six liras,160 4 soldos per ducat.

(6–12) These monies insure [lit. carry the risk] 28 bales from theport loaded aboard the square-sail boat whose owner was Demo Barbari, till Alessio. I am not including any further than to Alessio for these monies do not insure [beyond Alessio]. At the right time you will pay him the correct amount. As this is the truth, I wrote the present [document], Šim‘on.

(Afterwards the ship left Venice. Due to a storm, it changed direction and arrived in Ancona. Whilst in port, the news of the merchandise on the ship became known. All the merchandise was confiscated in the name of the king. Now Re’uben claims from Šim‘on that he should return all his money as the responsibility was not his, and since Šim‘on claimed that he accepted all the responsibility from Venice till Alessio, as it is written in the document. What is the difference between pirates on the sea and robbers in the port? This happens many times when a ship is diverted. All the responsibility is still on the insurer whether it is burnt or stolen etc. and he can never claim ‘I never imagined such an

160 Soldos were approximately one-twentieth of the libra/pound later in the eighteenth century, (http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/miscellaneous/ currency/1799/c_1799Spain2.html 2/8/2005). text 15—choshen mishpat 52 241 occurrence; I only accepted the liability in the case of pirates or storms’. What is the law in such a case, especially as Re’uben wants to take money from Šim‘on?)

Decision:

Šim‘on is absolved from payment since Re’uben’s legal responsibility includes this occurrence. This is so according to Torah law and according to merchants’ custom.161

15. Choshen Mishpat 52 The issue here concerns an argument between Ya‘aqob Nabarro and Daniel Tragano, the agent of Šelomoh Seneor.162 The respondent finds proof against Ya‘aqob who appears to be a man of low mor- als. Ya‘aqob claims to have paid the money, taken a debt certificate back and torn it up, but Daniel has a copy of the document and is now claiming the money. Ya‘aqob tries to defend himself by saying that when he paid his debt he was unaware that Daniel still possessed a copy of the original contract which should have been torn up at the time of payment together with the original. Ya‘aqob, who is apparently asked by Daniel (Šelomoh’s agent) to repay a debt that he says he has already paid, argues how the court should never have issued the claimant with a copy of the contract and also says that, in any case, the contract was signed under coercion and is therefore invalid.

161 See chap. 1 n. 78 for an explanation of ‘merchant’s custom’. 162 Such names originate from Spain; Seneor was the name of the chief rabbi and supreme judge of Castile in the late 1470s (Wein 1994: 202). Castaño makes reference to the lack of historical information available on Castilian Jewry before Rabbi Abra- ham Seneor comes into power (Castaño 1997: 381). 242 chapter four

Figure 15 Part 1 text 15—choshen mishpat 52 243

Figure 15 Part 2 al rib šenafal ben har(ebí) Ya‘aqob Nabaro uben har(ebí) Daniel Tra- gano šeluhó šel har(ebí) Šelomoh Seneor. Ve’ele hem hate‘anot šeta‘án har(ebí) Ya‘aqob haniz(kar) lehinaseḷ mitebi‘at

1. har(ebí) Daniel hanizkar. Yo estando en Andrinópoli, vino 2. Daniel Tragano a demandarme la debda del šetaṛ .163 3. Y estonces me avine conél, y le pagué, y tomé164 mi 4. šet aṛ enla mano de poder de rebí Daniel hanizkar. Y 5. en verdad, que cuando tomé el šetaṛ desu mano no supe 6. que rebí Daniel tenía este tofeṣ , y poreso165 no selo166 7. demandé167 estonçes, de manera que en este tofeṣ 8. no168 le queda kóak̠ para que me pueda dećir: šetarehạ́ beyadí 9. mai bae,169 porque ya el šetaṛ verdadero que con él me 10. demandó, lo tomé de su mano, y tampoco yo tuve lugar 11. de sospechar estonces que el demandador tuviese 12. t ofeṣ deste šet(ar)̣ enla mano, porque asegún mi poco 13. ingenio170 y saver, pienso que sea pecado 14. a Bet Din haćer a ningún demandador tofeṣ de 15. šet aṛ , sin que tomen primero el šetaṛ mismo de poder 16. de el demandador y lo rompan, porque si no haćen 17. ansí, cogerá con el šetaṛ primero y después 18. demandará con el tofeṣ como a mí, señores, me 19. acontece agora, que ansí como fue aeste Bet 20. Din y le fićieron estet ofeṣ pudiera ir a 21. otros diez Bate Dinín, y faćer otros diez

163 Šetar—Hebrew borrowing meaning ‘document’. This responsum is particular for its numerous Hebrew borrowings in judicial terminology, see Table 4.9. 164 Could be tomí, also in l. 5. 165 Read: por eso. 166 BIURP: sule the yod and vav have been confused in the rendering of this word. 167 Could be demandí. 168 BIURP: lo. 169 This expression is Aramaic. 170 First edition gives ingenio, third edition (Lvov 1863)—ingeniero. 244 chapter four

22. t ofesiṃ como éste a171 quizá lo fiźo, y 23. demandarme ha de diez en diez años, como agora 24. que de diez años para acá no meha172 demandado 25. nada por muchas većes que nos havemos topado tanto 26. con el dicho Daniel, como con dicho don Šelomó, como con 27. todos dos ǰuntos. Y si fuera verdat que yo no me 28. aviné con él y le pagué, no esperara fasta 29. agora a demandarme ubifrat despué(s) de muerto 30. David Bueno. Segúndo que sin eso entiendo que no 31. tiene con migo más que ševu‘at heset173 como malvé ‘al 32. pe porque según entiendo este tofeṣ es pasul174 33. por muchas partes, primera mente que Bet Din no175 34. puede176 faćer tal tofeṣ sin que primero ronpan 35. el šetaṛ , y si fuera verdat que así lo fićieran 36. fuera raźón que escribieran eneste177 tofeṣ como 37. ronpieron el šetaṛ primero, antes que le entregasen 38. el tofeṣ , o dieran ‘edut que depués de escrito178 39. el tofeṣ , no salió el šetaṛ de sus manos fasta 40. que se rompió, o que fueran me‘idi(m) como lo dio o que 41. lo ronpió rebí Daniel hanizkar meḥmat ones y vio queno179 42. lo escriben ansí. Segunda raźón es que según 43. entiendo del tofeṣ y del lašón dela moda‘á que el 44. ones que escriben no es ones mirando bien que allí no 45. escribe salvo que los mercaderes dela çibdat 46. le diǰeron180 que era aire andar tras el David porque 47. su intención en deg(š)ar181 la ley no era solo para 48. niegar la debda y demandar las prendas, y por 49. esta cabśa se pusieron mercaderes en haćer pešarah

171 Prosthetic a. 172 Read: me ha. 173 Type of oath. 174 BIURP: pasu/paso. 175 BIURP: lo, the negative notion is omitted in this later edition. 176 BIURP: pujede. 177 Read: en este. 178 BIURP: ḥescrito, yet another case where a ḥet is written in place of an aleph in the later edition. 179 Read: que no. 180 Diacritic missing from the gimmel. Could be read as diǰeron or dišeron. 181 Here again the gimmel is written without the diacritic, the word would be thus read as degar. Contextually it is obviously dešar. text 15—choshen mishpat 52 245

50. y que aél no le agradó la pešarah, y que le dig(ǰ)eron 51. que era anús [ones],182 y que por tanto fue moser moda‘á 52. y que B(et) D(in) oyeron asu demanda, y escribieron 53. moda‘á . Por tanto mirá señores, si este ones es 54. ones 183 para184 desbaratar el concierto185 o con qué 55. raźón186 ficieronB(et) D(in) esta moda‘á, no siendo este 56. ones ones y otro ones fuera este, no pareçe 57. que y pues que B(et) D(in) no lo escribieron, que por este 58. solo ones pareçe por el lašón del šetaṛ que fue 59. moser moda‘á, que ansí diće lak̠én ‘al kol hadeb̠arim ha’ele 60. aní moser moda‘á vek̠u(leh). Luego no siendo el ones ones 61. no187 es la moda‘á moda‘á ni el tofeṣ tofeṣ .Tercera 62. raźón es cuando bien fuere el ones que ellos 63. dićen188 ones gamur, digo que cuando fiźo la pešarah que él 64. diće, fue meb̠ateḷ todas las moda’ot, y fue posel 65. todo ‘edut que se hallase que contradišese aquella 66. pešarah, y pues él fue posel todo ‘edut que 67. contradišese aquella pešarah, la moda‘á es beteláḥ . 68. Cuarta raźón es que cuando bien fuer(e) ones para 69. él, no189 fuere ones para mí y llevarame a Din, 70. y demandarame bifné dayané Yisra’el este ones 71. que le faćía David Bueno, y amonestarame qué si190 72. faćía aquella pešarah conél, lo faćía porque 73. era forzado, pero que para de mí aél no lo 74. consentía, yo no era beḥezqat moser que selo 75. había de ir a dećir, ni estaba beḥezqat ilem 76. que no pudiese haber de mí ǰusticia. Quinta 77. raźón es que el šetaṛ primero asmọ́ no estaba 78. mequyam , qui el tofeṣ no dićen Bet Din que estaba 79. mequyam , y que ellos qiyemuhu qedeḥazé, sino diće

182 Read: ones ‘compelled’; not anús ‘a convert’. 183 BIURP has this word missing. 184 BIURP: patra, a taf is written in place of an aleph. 185 In the sense of agreement. 186 BIURP: raon/rabon, non-sensical renditions. 187 BIURP: k̠uleh, a k̠af is written in place of a nun and therefore the abbreviation for k̠uleh is assumed erroneously. 188 BIURP: diven. 189 The 1863 edition haslo instead of no, totally altering the meaning. 190 BIURP: li. 246 chapter four

80. vímoslo que estaba fuerte y firme, y ni diće 81. ešarnuhi veqiyemanuhi quedeḥazé, de modo que para él 82. demandar con el tofeṣ , había menester ser mequyam, 83. y este no puede serlo meqayem pues que él no 84. amuestra el šetaṛ asmọ́ . Luego condo191 yo no 85. quiśiese dećir quehe192 pagado como es verdad que lo 86. he pagado, salvo que es pasul, bastaba 87. porque para esto ha menester afirmarlo, lo que no 88. puede faćer, cuanta más dićiendo que pague que es 89. raźón sea ne’emán. Secena193 raźón es que los ‘edim de 90. B(et) D(in) hem eḥad haḥam, ve’eḥad rašá, ve’eḥad tam, que por 5 91. ásperos dará ‘edut šeqer el uno dellos como 92. lo prebaré be‘edim kešerim. Y mug(ch)os ba‘alé Torá 93. había enl(a) çibdad par(a) B(et) D(in), o alo manco fueran 94. ba‘alé midot tovoṭ , anšé emet sone’é besạ́ y no rašá, 95. que esto demuestra, ser este pasul, por tanto 96. señores mirá en cargo de vuestra194 conciençia 97. la raźón y el din veha’emet vehašalom ahavú ki hamišpaṭ 98. le’elim hu

Translation On the lawsuit that occurred between Ya‘aqob Nabarro and Daniel Tragano, the agent of Šelomoh Seneor, and these are the claims that the forementioned Ya‘aqob made to defend himself from the claims of

(1–10) the forementioned Daniel. ‘When I was in Andrianople,195 Daniel Tragano came to ask me for payment of the debt under the contract [we made]. Then I met196 with him and I paid him. I took the contract in my hand from Daniel. The truth is that when I took thecontract from his

191 Read: cuando. 192 Read: que he. 193 Note that it is sexta in modern Spanish. actually with aleph as opposed as the ,וואישטירה Note vuestra is written as 194 forms attested by Quintana at the same epoch in a letter from Sefat to Alexandria (Quintana 2006: 35).The point of the variant /bw/ alternating with /w/ is subtstanti- ated by this example. 195 Andrianopoli or Edirne is a city and province, one of the 11 provinces of Euro- pean Turkey (see Mostras 1873: introduction). 196 Avenirse can also mean to agree a matter with someone (http://www.rae.es/ diccionariodelalenguaespañola 1/7/04). Both meanings are acceptable here. text 15—choshen mishpat 52 247 possession, I was not aware that Daniel also had a copy of the contract,197 and because of this I did not ask him for it at the time. So under [according to the rules of] this copy of the contract he would not have had any power to ask me what the contract is doing in my possession198 [and therefore you still owe me the money], because the real contract that he asked me for, I had already taken from his possession.

(10–22) Neither did I have reason to suspect at the time, that the defen- dant would have a copy of this contract in his possession. According to my simple intelligence and knowledge, I believe that it is a sin in the court to make for a claimant a copy of this contract; without first taking the original contract from the hands of the claimant and tearing it. If this is not done then he will take the first contract and will make a claim, as is the case with myself at the moment, Gentlemen, in the same way as he went to this court and they made this copy, he could go to another ten courts and make another ten copies, as he has probably done now.

(22–27) He will make this demand on me every ten years, as in the last ten years he has never demanded anything from me, however many times we may have bumped into one another, whether the forementioned Daniel, or Solomon, or both of them at one time.

(27–30) If it was true that I had not met with him and paid him, he would not have waited till now to make these demands, especially till after the death of David Bueno.

(30–42) Secondly, that without that, I understand that he can only demand of me an oath as if it were a verbal loan, for I understand this copy [of the contract] is invalid on many accounts. Firstly, the court cannot issue such a copy [of the contract] without first tearing the [original] contract. And if it was true that they did this, it would be appropriate for them to write in this copy [of the contract], confirming that they had broken the firstcontract before giving the copy [of the contract]. Or they would give evidence that after having written the copy [of the contract], the contract did not leave their hands until it was torn up, or the court should be witness as to the fact that Daniel was forced to tear it. He saw that they did not write this in this way.

197 See Appendix 3 for tofeṣ (contract). 198 Lit., ‘the contract is in my hand’; [and so] what do you want? 248 chapter four

(42–51) The second reason is, as far as I understand from thecontract and from the language of the coercion notification,199 that the coercion he wrote under is not so, seeing that the only thing written was that the traders of the town had told him that it was a waste of time to follow David, because his intention to break [lit. to part from] the law was not just in order to deny the debt and demand the goods. For this reason, the traders resorted to making a compromise. He was not pleased with the compromise and they told him that he was compelled [to agree], so he declared the transaction he was about to carry out to be invalid.200

(52–61) The court heard his plea and wrote thenotification .201 There- fore, see, Gentlemen that this coercion is one to break the agreement.202 With what reason did the court issue this notification if this coercion was not so? It does not appear so [i.e. the document does not imply in any way that it was an untrue coercion], and since the court did not write it, then according to the language of the contract it was coercion. It [the coercion notification] says because‘ of all these things I declare the transaction invalid’.203 Then if thecoercion is not genuine, the coercion notification is invalid, and the copy [of the contract] is invalid.

(61–67) The third reason is that if thecoercion is one that they call an absolute coercion. I say that when he made the compromise he said the coercion notifications were invalidated and all the testimony that was found to contradict that compromise was annulled. As he invalidated any evidence that contradicted that compromise the coercion notification is invalid.

(68–76) The fourth reason is that whereas it was a propercoercion for him, it would not be compelling for me. He will take me to the court and ask me before the judges of Yisra’el about this coercion that was

199 A moda’a—notification, means an affidavit made by a person stating that a legal transaction he is about to execute is being forced against his will (Grunfeld 1987: 58). 200 See Talmud Bavli Bava Batra 40a–40b (Scherman and Zlotowitz, 2001a) for an explanation of the concept of moda’a. In brief, a man is allowed to invalidate what he is about to sign through a coercion notification. 201 Notification of coercion. 202 Interestingly, Medina states in the response that the giving of the notification validates the original document and Jacob is obliged to pay the rest of the debt that the claimant says is unpaid. 203 Moser moda’a is the lodging of a protest by one who claims to be the victim of a forced agreement (Grunfeld 1987: 57). text 15—choshen mishpat 52 249 made to him by David Bueno; warning me that if I made that compromise with him, I did it because I was forced to. Between us, I did not agree, and I was not an informer who had to tell him, nor was I considered dumb to the point that there would be no justice for me.

(76–89) The fifth reason is that the first contract itself was not implemented in a way that the copy [of the contract] was not authenticated by the court, as the court does not say that the copy [of the contract] was authenticated; and [yet] they authenticated it accordingly. But he said that we saw it was strong and firm, and he does not say ‘I allowed it’ and it was authenticated accordingly. So, for him to make demands of the copy [of the contract], it had to be authentic. This cannot be authenticated as he does not show the contract itself. Then, if I would not want to say that I have paid, as the truth is I have paid, and say that it is invalid, it would suffice. For this reason it is necessary to sign it.204 This he cannot do, how much more by saying that I should pay, that is true.

(89–97) The sixth reason is that thewitnesses that form the Court, one of them is pious, one is wicked and one is simple,205 who for 10 aspers would give false testimony, [this is the case] with one of them as I will prove with kosher [valid] witnesses. There weremany men of Torah in the town [suitable] for the court; at least that they should be men of good virtue, men who hate bribes, who are not wicked; so this proves him to be invalid. So, Gentlemen, look into your conscience for the truth and for judgement.206

Decision:

Ya‘aqob Nabarro claims are not to be trusted because, according to the legal principle of (umdena d’muchach) proven assessment, his partner, his brother-in-law, has left Judaism and was in the habit of stealing. His claims are also invalid by Torah law.

204 Long-winded and confusing paragraph. Difficult to translate with fidelity to its literal meaning. The point here is that Jacob tries to say the document was not verified by the Court; this is untrue according to Medina’s response. 205 An interesting analogy to the Haggadah, the four sons symbolising four different types, almost as a point of humour. 206 This text is unusual, in that the Judeo-Spanish is not a testimony, but rather a litigant’s halakhic argument. It is pertinent to observe that the scribe chose to leave it in the original Judeo-Spanish, probably to preserve authenticity in the content, but particularly in style and tone. 250 chapter four

16. Choshen Mishpat 65 In respect of a debt Šim‘on owes Re’uben, he proposes to make a payment as follows: Re’uben gets his lad Levi to pay Yehudah, Re’uben’s agent, part of his debt and promises to pay the balance later. Later Šim‘on refuses to pay Re’uben and Re’uben’s testimony is not believed.

Figure 16

1. Re’ubén hosị́ ketab̠ šel ḥalifín al Šim‘ón šekatubá, z(e) l(ešonó): hageb̠ir 2. Leví pagarés por 3. esta pirimera207 mía de canbio lageb̠ir Ye’udah, 4. šehú šalíah šel Re’ubén, ásperos vente mil por otros 5. tantos havidos208 aquí de Re’ubén que son de resto de 6. cuenta quele quedimos adever lo dicho, y pagarlos 7. es desde Sukot hasta Ḥ anuká en coronas, pera 8. angora y haćerle es buen pagamento hasa‘íṛ Šim‘ón

207 Read: primera. 208 Note that the b in habidos as well as in adeber l.6 is written with a vav in the text reflecting pronounciation. Often it is represented by a bet. t 16—choshen mishpat 65 and t 17—choshen mishpat 95 251

Translation (1–8) Re’uben took out a chalifin209 document on Šim‘on, and this is the language:210 You will pay the young lad Levi for this first letter of exchange211 of mine to the young lad Yehudah, who is Re’uben’s agent: 20,000 aspers you have here that belong to Re’uben, the rest of the account we owe the amount stated, and will pay in crowns from Tab- ernacles until Ḥ anukah, but for now pay him well, the youth Šim‘on.

(Re’uben and Šim‘on are in Salonica, Levi and Yehudah are in Con- stantinople, this letter arrived to Yehudah, Re’uben’s agent, who showed it to Levi, Šim‘on’s friend. Levi said to Yehudah that he will pay at the right time. He signed that he will pay immediately and on time. Now Šim‘on wrote to Levi saying that he will not pay any money to Yehudah, as he made a condition with Re’uben that when he [Re’uben] brings Yehudah’s document, Levi wants to repay the money so that Re’uben will pay the above amount. Now Re’uben came and says that he knows nothing as he already gave the money, the proof was that Šim‘on wrote that the money had already been received for another amount given by Re’uben).

Decision:

Šim‘on’s claims are trusted according to the merchants’ custom and he is exempt from taking an oath because Re’uben’s claim is uncertain.

17. Choshen Mishpat 95 The case concerns an argument regarding the amount to be settled between the partners, Re’uben and Šim‘on, on the dissolution of their business partnership.

209 An act of acquisition (kinyan) effected through exchange, a binding force in Jewish monetary law, see Appendix 3. 210 For cases on cambio by Medina not in this book, see She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam YD 218 and 221. For a discussion on these, see Passamaneck (1974: 126–134). 211 The notion ofcambio ‘letter of exchange’ was in fact a mode of insurance. For a detailed illustrated examination of Medina’s view on the cambio as practised by the Jewish merchants of his region, see Passamaneck (1974: 127–131). Although here Medina discusses the maritime loan, the letter of exchange was also used for loans. 252 chapter four

Figure 17 text 17—choshen mishpat 95 253

1. bilšón ze: yo 2. demando que Šim‘ón cuando espartimos 3. la conpañía medio212 un escrito de su mano donde 4. dećía enél loque había recibido de mí, y la 5. gan(a)nçia213 que había, y un dinero de una esclaba, 6. y después escrivía loque de todo lo dicho me havía 7. dado, y según aquella cuenta con lo que después 8. he reçibido deloque estonces quedaba dicho que me 9. queda a deber según aquella cuenta como 5 mil y 10. 500 as(pros), quemelos214 dé ‘ad kan tebi‘at Re’uben. 11. Hešib Šim‘ón bilšón ze : que Re’uben tenía 12. una cantidad de dinero en mi 13. compañía enla botica, y cuando se quiǰo apartar 14. de mí, me demandó su cuenta y sela mandé por 15. escrito, enla cual dećía loque havía reçibido 16. de él para la compañía, y de loque parecía 17. haver ganado, y de lo que havía recibido como p(a)recía215 18. por aquella cuenta. Y digo agora que entonces 19. cuando fiće cuenta y le di aquella, fue 20. pensando queno havía de venir el fuego y se havía 21. de perder cabdal y ganançia, y entonces el 22. dever era que havía de esperar aque se vendiesen 23. las ropas y que se co(b)rasen216 las ditas. Y yo 24. porle faćer plaćer, le quiśe dar entonces su haćienda 25. de contado, y sienpre quedaba asu risco.217 Agora 26. quese218 perdió todo, no le quiero dar loque restó en 27. mi poder que quedaba asu risco, mas antes le 28. demando que me torne loque le he dado, y deloque diće 29. de la esclaba tanbién la puśe en aquella 30. cuenta, y lo primero que le pagué es la esclaba 31. ‘ad kan tešuvat Šim‘ón

212 Read: me dio, meaning ‘he gave me’, and not medio, meaning ‘half ’. 213 BIURP: gansia: incorrect rendition. 214 Read: que me los. 215 Text reads precia; the intervocalic a is missing, should read parecí. Note that it is written correctly in the previous line. 216 Here the text has coarasen instead of cobrasen—a rare error in which one letter, aleph, is written in place of another, bet. 217 Note Judeo-Spanish risco for mod. Spanish riesgo. 218 Read: que se. 254 chapter four

Translation (Seeing as the question came before the sage Rabbi Šemu’el Halevi and he decided the reverse to my ruling, I have rewritten an answer rejecting his words, one by one, stating):

(1–10) In this language:219 I state that when we split up, Šim‘on gave me a hand-written document written in which he stated the amount he had received from me, the earnings and a sum of money of a female slave. Then he wrote [the amount] I had given him according to that account. Later I received what was stated then; that according to that account about 500 aspers is still owing and that he should give them to me. Re’uben’s account ends here.

(10–23) Šim‘on replied in this language: Re’uben had a sum of money in my company in the shop. When he wanted to split from me he asked for his account, I sent it to him in writing, where it stated [the amount] I had received from him for the company, [the amount] he appeared to have earned, [the amount] he had received as it appeared on that account. Then I declare that when I made up the account and I gave it to him, I thought that the fire would not take place and the money and earning would be lost. So it was appropriate to wait until the merchandise was sold in order to collect the said amounts (debts).

(23–31) In order to please him, I wanted to give him his estate in cash and it always remained in his risk.220 Now that all has been lost I do not want to give him [the amount] remaining in my possession, this was still at his risk. But before I asked him to return [the amount] I had given him and what he referred to about the slave, I had also included it in the account. The first thing I paid him for, was [what was owing to] his female slave. Šim‘on’s reply ends here.

Decision:

After rejecting the words of Rabbi Šemu’el Halevi one by one, Rabbi Samuel de Medina once more rules according to his own precedence in

219 This means both ‘in this Judeo-Spanish language’ that is different to the Hebrew, also means ‘in these words’. 220 In other words, he was still responsible for insuring it. To understand the concept of risks in commercial life in sixteenth century Ottoman Empire see Passamaneck (1974: 10–20, 23–24). text 18—choshen mishpat 148 255 the previous responsa, Ḥ ošen Mišpat no. 94, that Re’uben does not have the legal power to obligate Šim‘on.

18. Choshen Mishpat 148 Re’ubén was given by his partners a sum of money to buy material to take to Egypt. They dispute whether their terms and conditions were verbal or written.

Figure 18 Part 1 256 chapter four

Figure 18 Part 2 text 18—choshen mishpat 148 257

1. y aun que por nuestro partido en esto no tenés 2. parte, salvo lo que tornamos a dećir que todo 3. fuese uno aquí en Rodnic, escribírmeis si 4. sois contente221 en esta partida si quierés 5. parte tanto enla conprada fiada como en 6. la que se mercará, y venga vuesa repuesta sin 7. falta al kol panim con este portador Potco 8. vueso kiraci.222 Velazé šalejú tešuvah šekak̠ hayah res ̣ onó šekén 9. yihyé ḥelqam bamesí bakol mikol kol, vehašutafim a‘anúṭ 10. šekulam ḥatemú baketab̠ hahú vehú amar ki lo ḥatam ki 11. im peloní levad, vehešivu ‘ od vehar’ú ketab̠ yadó nir’á bef(anav) 12. šekén ‘aśá śiqná hameśí bešutafut kulam, v(ezé) l(ešonó): solamente 13. respondenté alas vuesas que recibí con223 Potco haniz(kar) 14. cuanto que dićes dela seda blanc(a) hast(a)agor(a) havemos 15. repartido como 42 élef leb̠anim, y tocan amí 21 16. alafim, y rebí Yisḥ ̣aq Erisa224 21 alafim, y lemaḥar se 17. faće, holgame de guevir 225 y espero enel š(emó) y(itbaraḥ) que se 18. fallará, aun que ya vos digo bale cara, pero a se enpleará el resto. Aun tengo por 226ש"פ .19 20. enplear como 15 élef leb̠anim, veré b(aruḥ) H(ašem) de faćer lo 21. meǰor que pudiere. Yo no digo más sino cómo lo piense, 22. y cómo lo fago ansí lo faga el Dio con migo en 23. mis cośas. Cuanto aloque dićes que torne dineros 24. por emplear, noes porque fue lo que torné como tres 25. mil y no importa que toda vuesa copia va 26. esmerzada la cantidad, es esta de cobre 27. son como 680 quintales, uno dos amás o manco, 28. y de seda, l’ 500 as(pros) según me parece, porque ala 29. hora de la partida conpré del sarraf 227 750 dra(mas)228 30. de Cogiena229 a 510, y 140 de Rodnic a 400 aspros

221 Should be contentos. 222 Turkish kiraçi, ‘tenant’. 223 BIURP: cots, a final tsadi in place of a final nun is written incorrectly, probably due to the similarity in shape of these two letters. 224 Here Erisa is written with a samech; in line 31 it is written with a zayin, hence Eriza. 225 Guebir or gueber (Hebrew borrowing) but the vav spelt with a bet, ‘eminent man’ (Bunis 1993: 147). .Šem Tob̠ [proper name], as in l. 32 ש"ט Probably 226 227 Turkish: sarraf, ‘moneylender’. 228 A Greek weight. 229 Perhaps Kogilnik in Moldavia which is on the same lateral as Rodna in Romania. 258 chapter four

31. y otras 100 a escuśo de rebí Yisḥ ̣aq Eriza (fagovos a saver que pasé gran fatig(a ש"ט a230 .32 33. a traerla fasta aquí, que sienpre pensé cómo231 34. mandaría232 hombre har(ebí) Mošeh Ben Yaíš—y nome lo 35. mandó, y hube de traerla beḥeb̠rá del turco que tengo 36. conmigo, y maté un caballo por faćer dos días 37. de camino en uno, y por fuir de unos hombres 38. que recelaba de encontrar, y arodeí por camino(s) 39. muy mesukani(m), y t(odá) l(a’El) se fiźo bien. Cuanto alo que dećiés 40. que le lleve al señor har(ebí) Ab̠raham Ben Naḥmías, digo que 41. folgaré de lo servir que mierto233 lo deseo mug(ch)o, y el Dio 42. sabe que este viaǰe más tengo su cuidado por lo 43. que aél toca más que amí. Díšome el señor su 44. tío que si hubiera venido el hombre suyo, que me la 45. diera, pero no ha venido, que no puede ser, aun que el 46. Dio save234 con esta nuestra la fatiga que 47. llevo por ir del modo que vo con una sicsan’235 mía, 48. que ya agora debašo de mí no puede llevar nada, 49. y con todo folgará delo servir. ‘Od her’ú ketab̠ 50. šehayah omer v(ezé) l(ešonó) : y ansí tanbién ferá236 si puedo 51. manar el gaste f(u)era mi caśa en vestidos y 52. alguna ropa, aun que por otros os lo tengo 53. aviśado, y nunca237 he visto repuesta de ello, yla 54. presona no quería entrar en miḥšol ḥas vešalom. 55. Ad šenir’á mize šehaketab̠im hayú mo‘ilim afilu le‘inyán 56. šeb̠u‘á, ‘od her’ú ketab̠ meGalipol vezé lešonó: yo vos diše 57. por otras que por vos tirar de pecar, escontra 58. mí sin cabśa, y no tuviésedeis que dećir vos escribe(o), 59. que fuese todo montón, porque no pensaséš lo que

230 The name Šem Tob̠. 231 BIURP: quimi. 232 BIURP: mandariat. 233 Mierto is written erroneously for cierto. 234 In ll.42 sabe is written with a bet, ll.46 with a vav, hence transcribed as save. 235 Contextually it could be a ‘mule’ or ‘horse’; sisane (Turkish) is a person or place where they melt glass (Bashan & Bornstein 1973: 49). 236 Should be verá. 237 Note that nunca and not the form nuncua is attested in this corpus. Nuncua was prevalent in some areas and groups in medieval Castilian, and also in the Judeo- Spanish of Istambul and in Haquitía (Quintana 2006: 38). text 18—choshen mishpat 148 259

60. esos vos dićen que mi fatoría no me puede238 61. mancar que el Dio B(aruk̠) H(u) save la verdad. Cuanto 62. me havés dado de perda este viaǰe, y con todo digo 63. gam zu le toḅ ̠á y salvamiento, que del resto no fago 64. cuenta, salvo salvamiento.

Translation (Partners claimed from Re’uben that they gave him a certain amount of money to take to Egypt and that he should give them an account of all his dealings. Re’uben replied that they should produce a document stating this. They said this was agreed by word of mouth, apart from the document that was written by Re’uben. Re’uben claimed that he made a condition that no documents should matter between them unless he goes to Franquia.239 The partners answered that it appeared from the document that it did not matter. On the fifth day (Thursday) they returned to the judge and looked at Re’uben’s letter, this is the language):

(1–8) Although you do not have a share in our interest in this, except that we said it all happened240 here in Rodna,241 write to me [to inform me] if you are happy with this share, [or] if you want a share in the purchase on credit as well as in the one paid one. However, your reply should come with the agent, Potco, your tenant.

(8–12) In respect of this they sent a reply explaining their reasoning that their share of the silk should be complete and the partners claimed that they all signed this document. He denied signing this just with so and so. They showed him his own writing [to prove to him] that it is clear they bought the silk altogether, and this is the language:

(12–18) I am only replying to your news that I received with Potco. With reference to your argument regarding the white silk, till now we

238 BIURP: paturiem, quite an inexplicable rendering of puede. 239 Franquia was known to Sephardim in the time of the Ottoman Empire as Chris- tian Western Europe, which was non-Ottoman. The Frankish Empire, that ended in approximately 1000 A.D. comprised of what became later France and Germany. According to Goodblatt, Franquia is another name for Italy, but sometimes refers to other countries of the Mediterranean (Goodblatt 1952: 122). 240 Lit., ‘that all was one’. 241 Rodna, Romania. 260 chapter four have shared out about 42 thousand aspers; I have 21 thousand and Yisḥ ̣aq Erisa has 21,000. Tomorrow it will be done and trust my word of man, I hope to God that it will happen.

(18–21) Although [let me] tell you it is expensive but the rest shall be invested with Šem Tob,242 I still have about 15,000 aspers to spend. I will ensure, God willing, to do the best possible with them.

(21–23) I am only expressing my thoughts and my actions and so God should act [in] the same [way] with me [as I do with others] in His things.

(23–31) Insofar as what you say that I should return the money I had not used, it was not that I took about 3,000—and it is irrelevant that all your money is included here: in copper about 680 hundredweights, give one or two more or less; 1,500 aspers of silk, it seems to me, because at the time of departure I bought from the moneylender from Cogiena 750 dramas243 at 510 and from the one from Rodna, 140 at 400 aspers, and another 100 behind Yisḥ ̣aq Eriza’s back to Šem Tob̠.

(31–37) I tell [lit. make it known to you] you that I had great trouble in bringing this here, I always thought he would send me a man like Mošeh Ben Yaiš and he did not send him to me. I had to bring it together with the Turk who works for me and I killed a horse for making a two-day journey in one.

(37–39) Also for fleeing from some men that I was dreading to meet I went along many dangerous ways and, thank God, all was well.

(39–43) As to your requirement that I should take to Ab̠raham ben Naḥmias, I say I shall be delighted to do this, as I certainly want to do this. God knows that I will be very careful in this journey as it is more important for him than for me.

(43–49) Your uncle told me that if his man would have come, he would have given it to me, but he has not come and it cannot be so. Though God

242 Text must have written this abbreviation in error for Šem Tob̠ who appears in this testimony. 243 A measure of weight equal to 3,205 grams. text 19—choshen mishpat 170 261 only knows the difficulty in travelling the way I have to with mymule that can carry nothing else below. Even then I am happy to serve you.

(49–55) They saw another letter that said, this is their language: thus also he will see if I can manage the expense of clothing and goods outside my home, though I have warned him about this through others. I have never seen a reply about this and one does not want to enter into a stumbling block, God forbid.

(55–56) It appears from this that the letters would help even concerning an oath, they also showed him a letter from Callipolis, this is the language:

(56–64) I told you in other letters that in order to draw you away from sin, it is against me and without reason, I did not have to say that I am writing to you, that everything was a lie, because you did not realise that what those respected men tell you that I cannot be away from my factory that God, may He be blessed, knows the truth.244 As to what you have made me lose in this journey, it shall be for the best and for my salvation, the rest I am not even counting, just my salvation.

Decision:

The claimants are trusted both according to the principle of assessment and according to the merchants’ custom after taking an oath that they are speaking the truth. Re’uben’s claim that he used his own money to cover expenses is not to be trusted, since he has already been regarded as a person who claims with falsehood. According to Torah law this claim does not exempt him from payment.

19. Choshen Mishpat 170 Aharon Mes‘od is Osref ’s guarantor in a financial transaction. Mes‘od is now refusing to honour the guarantee after the goods that were bought

244 I have kept to a very literal translation in this paragraph to maintain the rhythm, the verisimilitude of the situation. What he really means is that it is not true that he cannot be away from his work in order to undertake this journey. He decided to make the journey even if it is for his own loss. He comes across as an apparently God-fearing man, he mentions God eight times, and therefore believes that whatever God sends him to do shall be for the best. 262 chapter four were lost at sea. The respondent must assess whether he is liable. The transaction was recorded 12 Kislev 5336/ 15 November 1575.

Figure 19 text 19—choshen mishpat 170 263

1. . . .vezé lešonó: por encuanto 2. Natán suri,̣ y(ismereu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), tomó de Osref Bie grus(os) cuatrociento(s) 3. que son as(pros) šišá asar élef,245 los cuales Natán Suri los 4. tomó y selos escribió sobre él, yse fiźo debdor 5. delos dichos as(pros), y yo Aḥaron Mes‘od le salí fianza 6. por toda la dicha suma. Y por le salir fiança 7. me dio el terçio delos dichos dicisés mil as(pros) por 8. mi cuento, y dita moneda quedó en mano de dito Natán 9. Suri para que la esmereçase tanto sus dos tercio 10. como mitercio. Y los dichos 16 mil as(pros) esmerzó 11. dicho Natán Suri enla estroga aspr(os) 13 mil, y 167 12. en tantas mantas peludas, y costaron las 13. dichas mantas con el kiere246 puestas en Alessu, 14. as(pros) 13 mil247 y 167, y el resto fasta la suma 15. delos 16 mil as(pros) van esmerzados dientro de 16. cordobanes 990 de dito Natán, que son los dichos248 17. cordobanes de su cuento yallá va el resto que 18. son as(pros), dos mil y 833 que mandó en Alessu el dicho 19. Natán. Y yo Aḥarón Mes‘od coro en el terçio dela 20. dicha249 suma de 16 mil as(pros) el aḥarayut,250 tanto detierra 21. como por mar de ida y de venida, y dela gananci(a) 22. que B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem)251 si ganare yo, Aḥarón, tomaré mi tercio B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem) 23. como el risco que corre mi terçio. Yo Aḥarón me obligo 24. de responder ael tienpo de el pagamiento, tanto 25. con la ganancia como con el cabdal a raźón 26. de diez por 100 a el año, que ansí los tenemos de 27. los herederos252 de Osref Bii que están escritos

245 Occasionally numerical quantities of money are borrowed from Hebrew. 246 Turkish: kira, ‘rent’. 247 The 1863 edition has 12,000 instead of 13,000. 248 BIURP has this entire line omitted from its text. 249 BIURP: Dina, a nun is written in place of a gimmel, rendering this word into the proper noun Dina in place of dicha. 250 Noted by Bunis also as a borrowing meaning ‘responsibility’ (1993:36). 251 This could also beva , but the diacritic implies an abbreviation. 252 The final s is omitted and abbreviated in later editions. 264 chapter four

28. enel253 sicil254 de kadí255 y se declara cómo el 29. esmerzo de las mantas se hiźo en cinco de 30. tišrí, y de los cordobanes en 12 de Kislev año de 31. 5336, y de el día que se fiźo los esmerzos corre 32. el aḥarayut sobre cada uno por su parte, y por 33. ser verdad todo lo sobre dicho escrito arriba 34. pago de mi mano por buena re’ayá, 12 Kislev 5336, Aharón Mes‘od.

Translation (Natan Tsuri and Aaron Mes‘od were partners. The case concerns a sum of money for which they designated a moneylender. This is the testimony that Aaron Mes‘od signed):

(1–10) And this is his language: As Natan Tsuri took from Osref Bie256 400 gerushot 257 that are 16,000 aspers (that Natan Tsuri took),258 he [lit. Natan became a debtor in respect of them] owed this money, I, Aharon Mes‘od insured him on the entire sum.259 For giving him this insurance, he gave me a third of the said 16,000 aspers on my account. Then the said money remained in the said Natan Tsuri’s hand, so that he would invest his two thirds as well as my third.

(10–19) The said Natan Tsuri spent 16,000 aspers: 13,000 in the business fair and 167 in many hairy blankets.260 The said blankets cost 13,167 including the transport cost of delivering them to Alessio.261 The

253 BIURP: egel. 254 Turkish: sicil, ‘registry’. 255 Turkish: kadi, ‘judge’. 256 The name indicates this moneylender may have been a Turk; this was common at the time. In Jewish law there is a prohibition against receiving interest from a loan (ribit), and it is therefore less complicated to use a Gentile moneylender. 257 Turkish coin, see Goodblatt (1952: 59). 258 Repeated in the original text. 259 Insurance in its modern sense means a procedure under which one party, in consideration of the payment of a premium, contracts to indemnify another party against economic loss due to a specified risk. In medieval systems, various methods were used to gain the purpose of insurance without a separate and independent contract of indemnity (Passamaneck 1974: 25). See Passamaneck (1974: 166–171) for an illustrated account of Medina’s view on maritime insurance. 260 Manta, ‘blanket’ in Spanish; ‘blanket’ or ‘fabric’ in Turkish, apparently taken from Spanish http://www.seslisozluk.com/). 261 Alessio: a port, modern Lezhe, Albania. text 19—choshen mishpat 170 265 said Natan invested the rest of the sum of the 16,000 on 990 goatskins. These are the said goatskins in his account. The said Natan Tsuri sent the remainder 2,833 aspers to Alessio.

(19–26) I, Aharon Mes‘od, am responsible262 for the third of the said amount of 16,000 aspers, whether by land, as well as by sea, there and back. As to the profit, if I do earn profit, please God, I, Aharon will take my third [share] with the help of God, as well as the risk that my third runs. I, Aharon, take it upon myself to respond at the time of payment, in respect of the gain, as well as in respect of the capital, at a rate of ten per cent per year.

(26–34) This is how the heirs of Mr. Osref uphold this. I see that this is written in the judge’s registry, and it is declared that the investment of the blankets was done on 5 Tishri, and of the goatskins on 12 Kislev 5336. From the day the investment has been done, the [financial] responsibility lies with each one individually. And as all that I have said and written above here is true, I pay out of my own money as a good proof of this.

12 Kislev 5336 (25 November 1575), Aharon Mes‘od.

(Later it happened that the blankets were lost whilst travelling on a ship in the middle of the ocean. Now Natan Tsuri claims from Aaron Mes‘od that he should pay a third of the loss as he accepted in writing. He should also pay a third of the interest payable to the moneylender, as he accepted in writing. Aaron is mocking him and refusing to pay a third of the loss and interest. We need to know if Aaron is correct not to pay, since no acquisition was written in the document, or should he be believed to say that he paid, or is there any other reason for which he might not have to pay. Please let us know the ruling in this case.)

Decision:

Aharon is obligated to pay his part, both according to the merchants’ custom and to Torah law even if a formal act of acquisition was never performed.

262 In the sense that he is insuring him for this money against risks. 266 chapter four

20. Choshen Mishpat 175 After the Passover festival, Re’uben fails to confirm the oath he made to Šim‘on. Šim‘on says he does not want to make any further oath to Re’uben since he has already transgressed the oath in the document below. They seek authority to verify the validity of the oath in the following document recorded on Wednesday 8 Ševat 5346, 27 January 1586, in Constantinople.

Figure 20

1. bezé 2. ha’ofen: otorgo yo 3. Re’uben ben Ya‘aqob como cincuent(a) mil y cuatrociento(s) 4. as(pros) que debe Yosef, son de Šim‘ón, y me obligo que si 5. hasta Pesaḥ Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) no pagare hanizk(ar) Yosef, que me conten text 20—choshen mishpat 175 267

6. to que se valga de mi ropa en Ancona Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem). Siendo 7. que me mandare a llamar y no viniere yo 8. acobrarlos, de lo cual me obligo bešeb̠u‘á de tek̠ef 263 9. como me mandare allámar venir de súpito Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) 10. a mi despeśa, y por ser verdá le do ésta de mi264 11. mano hayom 4(miércoles) 8 de šeb̠at 5346, poh Qustandin(a).

Translation (Re’uben, the son of Ya‘aqob, made himself obligated to Šim‘on through this handwritten document)

(1–6) This is the language: I give to Re’uben, son of Ya‘aqob, about 50,400 aspers that Yosef owes. They belong to Šim‘on. I commit that if I don’t pay the forementioned Yosef, with the help of God, by Pesaḥ [Passover], then he can avail himself of my merchandise in Ancona, with the help of God.

(6–11) If he calls me and I wouldn’t come to receive them, for which I am committing myself under oath—as soon as he calls me I will come immediately—please God, at my expense. As this is the truth, I hand him this today, Wednesday 8 Ševat 5346 here in Constantinople.

(Šim‘on came after Passover and asked him to come and certify the oath. Re’uben did not bother. Now there is a dispute between them, Šim‘on says that he does not want to make an oath to Re’uben, since he transgressed the oath in writing which is in Šim‘on’s hand, so he is suspected of lying. Furthermore, Šim‘on claims that he has some of Re’uben’s articles, so Šim‘on can make an oath and keep them. How- ever, Re’uben claims that if a person makes an oath not to pay, he does not make an oath to accept payment. What is the law?)

Decision:

Šim‘on is trusted by virtue of an oath to collect his debt from Re’uben’s assets in his possession, both according to Torah law and to the merchants’ custom. Even if he did not have any of Re’uben’s assets, he is

263 Type of oath. 264 BIURP: di/de. 268 chapter four entitled to collect his debt from Re’uben because they had performed an act of acquisition with an oath and according to Torah law.

21. Choshen Mishpat 227 Re’uben buys the tenancy rights to a shop in Belgrade. The shop burns down; Re’uben rebuilds it and flees the town because he has many creditors. There is a second fire, and the shop is rebuilt by someone who subsequently sells it to Yehudah. After Yehudah’s demise, his heirs try to sell the shop,265 at which point Re’uben returns to claim his shop. His claim and the value of the tenancy rights are in dispute.266

Figure 21

265 This part of the information of the case in contained in the introduction to case 21. 266 This testimony is extracted from the reply. text 21—choshen mishpat 227 269

Part A

0. . . .Ve‘od aḥeret y mirando 1. y acatando267 son me’ab̠edim mamonam šel Yisra’el la ḥazaqah 2. que habrá mercado el yehudí que habrá puesto aquel 3. poco de cabdal enella, aquel tal sin temor del 4. š(emó) yit(barak̠) lo mercan, y no miran ni se acuerdan cuanto(s) 5. lavín de toratenu haqedošah pasan vek̠uleh, ‘ad queriendo 6. poner remedio enello enel dicho cabso, y que los 7. ǰ udiós268 perdidos ni gastados hiskimu vek̠u(leh)

Part B Šekatub

1. be’arik̠ut que si visto el valor de la ḥazaqá a cosa269 2. tacsada kenizkar, ḥazerú vekateb̠ú270 ansí mismo si haviere fecho 3. hamaḥaziq vek̠uleh. ‘Od katub̠ lemata fasta que primera- 4. mente pague el tal comprador la valor de la tal 5. ḥazaqá a cosa tacsada kenizkar, y más la meg(ǰ)oría 6. que tuviere fecho. ‘Od ḥazerú vekateb̠ú todo el valor dela 7. ḥazaqah y la meg(ǰ)oría que hubiere feg(ch)o.

Translation Part A

(Concerning Re’uben who lived in a house and spent money to plaster it, then Šim‘on bought the tenure rights from the moneylender and an argument broke out. Šim‘on wants to pay the current worth, Re’uben wants all his expenses paid. I was one of the judges and I ruled in Re’uben’s favour. Firstly, so that he should not lose all the expenses he put in the house):

267 This isa catando where the a is prosthetic. Similar to Hebrew constructions where the preposition is joined prosthetically to a noun or verb, see section 3.3.1.17.2. 268 The change from ĵudío to ĵudió in Judeo-Spanish obeys the following law in Vulgar Latin, ‘when two vowels are contiguous the more sonorous of the two receives the accent’ (Luria 1930: 28). See Quintana 2006: 232. 269 Interestingly this is one of few instances where cosa is written with a sin and not with a zayin. 270 ‘They went back and wrote’ the reason for a Hebrew borrowing here and in l. 7 is doubtlessly for reasons of emphasis. 270 chapter four

(1–7) Furthermore as I was looking and judging that they are wast- ing Jewish people’s money, the rights of tenure that the Jew will have bought, in which he will have invested some capital and without fear of God271 they buy it and do not see how many of the negative com- mandments of our Holy Law they transgress etc., till they [get to the stage when they] want to fix this in the said case, and the Jews who lost and wasted [their money] agreed etc.272

Part B

(Therefore it seems very strongly that the buyer should pay in a way that the owner of the rights of tenure should not lose out, because he is suffering enough by being evicted from the house which he acquired and wants. Therefore he should not lose his money as well. This is also clear from the wording of the following agreement).

(1–7) In full, given the value of the rights of tenure as a taxed element as mentioned, they went back and wrote this exactly as if they were still keeping it etc. It is also written below that the buyer should first pay for the value of these rights at an agreed fixed price, plus the refurbishment he may have made. Also they went back and wrote down all the value of the rights and the refurbishment he made.

(I wanted to know that if from the rules of the agreements that are not written by simple-minded men,273 that said: the value of the rights of tenure and of the refurbishment and if their intention was not pay for the refurbishment expenses, then they would only have written the value of the rights of tenure that the property would be worth. Why would they write and reiterate twenty-two times the value etc., There are two points with regard to the value of the house itself, [1] Its worth worked out through the value of renting, [2] the rights of tenure without taking into account what the Jew paid to refurbish the house or the courtyard.

271 Lit. ‘the Blessed Name’. 272 The translation of this paragraph reads as disjointed and unflowing as the original Judeo-Spanish. 273 The Aramaic phrase katli kani is lit., reedcutters in the meadow—implying men of simple or common intelligence. Here the phrase is used with sarcasm to mean: the men who fix such agreements are not simple-minded individuals. text 22—choshen mishpat 262 271

A person spends a lot of money on refurbishment and then the renting ends up costing him more than covering his expenses. Here the creators of the agreement wanted to stop him transgressing the command of ‘you shall not covet’. Therefore he is liable to pay for all the expenses. As this is a case of a doubtful excommunication, one has to be stricter and the owner of the rights of tenure has to be given back the money.)

Decision:

Re’uben lost his tenancy rights as he left the city. But if it becomes clear that when he left the city he had planned to return, he does not lose all that he had built. In any case, it is not possible to force Judah’s heirs to pay because they held the shop for three years, or they held it two years and their father for one year, or their father held the shop one day and they completed the tenancy rights in the three years. They claim that they inherited from their father and they do not know how he came to possess it. If this is so their claim is valid.

However if it is clarified that Levi sold the shop to Judah and Levi has no proof that he bought from Re’uben, since it is not possible to make Judah’s heirs pay at all, Levi is obligated to pay Re’uben the cost of the house that Re’uben built, and also the cost of the house that Levi built, because he built without permission. Only the cost of the wood and the stones shall be deducted, and Levi shall pay Re’uben all the rest. Additionally, Šim‘on who bought the tenancy rights on the house that Re’uben lives in is legally bound to pay Re’uben all his expenses.

22. Choshen Mishpat 262 The Gerush Holy Community sold a house to Ya‘aqob Hašemeš subject to certain conditions allowing the rabbi’s widow to live in it, and to determining the price in any subsequent sale by Ya‘aqob. The testimony is recorded on 25 Adar 5282 / 22 February 1522. 272 chapter four

Figure 22 Part 1

Figure 22 Part 2 text 22—choshen mishpat 262 273

. . . Saloniqui que por los me‘ulim hayašiš don Šemu’el Albo 1. verebí Yudá274 Balançi verebí Yosef Zeḥut, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), como memunim 2. miq (ahal) q(adóš) Gerús, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), bišmam ubešem kol haq(ahal) q(adóš) hanizkar vinieron y 3. dieron y trespasaron toda la caśa enque moraba 4. ha ḥam hašalem keb̠od har(ebí) Ya‘aqob Ben Ḥ ab̠ib̠, z(iḥronó) l(ib̠rak̠á), ve’almenató aḥar motó 5. moró275 así, y por la manera que ellos la tuvieron 6. y la posearon im revaḥ haḥaseṛ vešimušav, y una 7. casilla que está berevaḥ haḥas(er)̣ enque el dicho ḥak̠am 8. z(iḥronó) l(ib̠rak̠á), haćía la suká todo como dicho es, vendieron 9. hamemunim hanizkarim bišmam ubešem kol haq(ahal) q(adóš) hanizkar276 lerebí 10. Ya‘aqob Hasemeš mehaqahal qadoš hanizkar por precio de 11. trenta y dos ducados, que luego el dicho r(ebí) Ya‘aqob 12. pagó al dicho q(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), por ella la cual caśa 13. verevah haḥaseṛ vešimušeha fue vendida y oto(r)gada por 14. los dichos memunim bišmam ubešem kol haq(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), al dicho r(ebí) 15. Ya‘aqob Hasemeš hanizkar im elu hatena’im. Rišoná, que para 16. ninguna beriá ba‘olam non sela puedan quitar bešum 17. s aḍ , salvo para ḥak̠am que verná277 al q(ahal) q(adóš) hanizkar, ve‘im ze 18. hatena’i que non le puedan eg(ch)ar de la caśa dig(ch)a y 19. menos que le tornen tek̠ef miyad los 32 ducados que pagó 20. por ella, y que de ella le paguen par‘ón toṿ vešalem 21. belí šum paḥat veḥisarón. Ve‘od tena’i šeni que si el dicho 22. r(ebí) Ya‘aqob Hasemeš hanizc(ar) se quera ir le’eze bet hakeneset y el q(ahal) q(adóš)

274 Here the text says Yuda instead of the classic Yehudah. 275 BIURP: mor. ‘The said trustees, (sold it) in their and in the whole community’s name’—though this appears to be an example of code-switching it is argued that as separate words all the words in this line classify under Hebrew borrowing for their association with religious and communal life, see Table 3.5. 276 277 Note the Judeo-Spanish form verná (Nehama 1977: 586) as opposed to vendrá in modern Castilian. See section 3.3.2.7. 274 chapter four

23. hanizc(ar) queran tornar a tomar de él la dicha caśa, 24. que pagándole mešalem todos los dichos 32 ducados que 25. pagó por ella, que se la puedan tom(ar), y non por otro 26. ningún modo. Y si el dicho q(ahal) q(adóš) no la qui(e)ra que el dicho 27. rebí Ya‘aqob la pueda vender, veharešut beyadó dela vender 28. a quien qu(i)era por loque fallara, y quedará libḥiratam 29. mehaq(ahal) q(adóš) haniz(kar) dela tomar por el tanto.

Translation (On the second of Adar Sheni 1522 I was asked):

(1–5) In Salonica the respected elders Šemu’el Albo and Yehudah Balançi and Yosef Zacut, [testify] that the trustees from the Gerush community, in their name and in the name of the entire community came, gave and passed down the entire house where the perfect sage, Ya‘aqob ben Ḥ ab̠ib̠, of blessed memory, and his widow, lived after his death.

(5–12) Because of the way they obtained it and possessed the expanse of the yard with its contents, a small hut that is in the expanse of the courtyard where the said sage, of blessed memory, made his Taber- nacles tent, the facts are as I am telling you, the said trustees, sold it in their and in the whole community’s name to Ya‘aqob Hašemeš and the forementioned Holy Community, for a price of thirty-two ducats that thereafter Ya‘aqob paid to the said Holy Community 278

(12–15) for that same house. The expanse of the courtyard and its contents was sold and given by the said trustees, in their and in the said community’s name, to the said Ya‘aqob Hašemeš with the following conditions:

(15–21) the first condition is that for no reason279 in the world can they take it away in any way from her, unless it is for a sage who may come to the Holy Community; and with this the condition that they cannot

278 The style of this paragraph illustrates the witness testifying, thinking out loud, as it were, as he goes along. 279 Lit., ‘for no being in the world’. text 23—choshen mishpat 313 275 evict her from the said house, unless they immediately give her the 32 ducats that were paid on her behalf. They should pay hera good sum without devaluation or loss.

(21–26) A second condition is that if the said Ya‘aqob Hašemeš wishes to leave to any other synagogue, and the said community want to take the said house from him, they should pay in full all the said 32 ducats he paid for it. They cannot take it from him in any other way.

(26–29) If the said Holy Community does not want the house, the said Ya‘aqob should be able to sell it, and the rights to sell it should be in his hands, to whoever and for whatever he would find. And it would remain for life up to the Holy Community to take it (from a third party) for that amount.

(The above trustees wanted to arrange a document of sale to Ya‘aqob the buyer, strengthened with all the powers of the Court, by proper acquisition and oath in the name of God.)

Decision:

Re’uben’s son has no tenancy right on the house and the house is held by the community. Since the duration that Ya‘aqob lived in the house is worth more than the value of the money that was stipulated between him and the community, the house shall be returned to the community without any consideration.

23. Choshen Mishpat 313 Ya‘aqob de Ávila made a will on Wednesday 1 Ellul 5301/ 24 August 1541. He then recovered and at a later date died without making a further will. Ya‘aqob’s son claims that the will should be annulled as his father recovered from his illness, and died later, and that he should receive the double portion of the total inheritance due to him as Ya‘aqob’s first-born. 276 chapter four

Figure 23

1. diće que 2. le ha de dar asu hiǰa 7 alafim ve 500 ásperos con 3. una saya de grana rośada, y un ropón de grana 4. morada, y una saya de gamelote y una veku(leh). ‘Ad 5. esto fasta aquí dicho bifné Y(om) T(ob) Obadia, ubifné rebí 6. Yosef ben Sur, dišo más, que deša libnó qatán bemataná gemurá 7. beqinián ušebu‘á el cortig(ǰ)o me‘atá ume‘ak̠šav y el 8. resto de su faćiend(a) que paguen asu muǰer la ketubá, 9. y el resto que se lo partan entre los hermano(s)280 10. savé vesavé, y esto dišo rebí Ya‘aqob hanizkar betor(at) sava’ạ́ bifné peloní upeloní

Translation (These are the words of Ya‘aqob de Ávila on his deathbed, concerning his property. These are the words of his will on Wednesday 8 Elul 1541):

280 BIURP: hermanoa. text 23—choshen mishpat 313 277

(1–7) He says that they should give his daughter seven thousand five hundred aspers,281 a dress in a scarlet cloth, a robe in a purple cloth,282 a dress in gamilote283 a284 etc. He said this in front of Yom Tov Obadia, and in front of Yosef Ben Tsor. He also said that his young son, as an absolute gift as a symbol for payment and promise, should get the courtyard, as from here and now, by acquisition and oath.

(8–10) From the rest of his estate they should pay his wife according to what is due to her under the marriage contract. The remainder should be divided equally among the brothers. This is what Ya‘aqob saidin his will in front of so and so.

(Ya‘aqob got out of his bed after this will and recovered. Later he passed away without writing another will. His son claims that this will is invalid, since his father recovered after writing his will. Therefore he wants his double portion of all his father’s property as he is the first-born).285

281 Goodblatt has ascertained the relative value of money during this period. The annual salary of one store manager was 3,000 aspers a year, whilst another earned 8,000 aspers. A father who gave his daughter 50,000 aspers for a dowry was regarded as very wealthy. One who owner 40,000 aspers was wealthy, one who owned 5–10,000 aspers was deemed middle class and one who owned less than 5,000 aspers would be looked upon as poor (Goodblatt 1952: 58–59). 282 From pre-exilic Spain, it was the custom that the father would start saving for his daughter’s dowry from the moment of her birth. He would also purchase the clothes that she would wear from the time of her marriage for the rest of her life. The clothes would be turned inside-out and worn throughout her life. The bride’s mother- in-law would inspect the clothes as part of the dowry before the marriage and the value of the clothes would be written down in the contract drawn up at the time of the couple’s engagement (shidduchin). The robes, a true indication of the family’s wealth, would therefore be paramount in a father’s mind when considering her daughter’s inheritance. See also account on clothes in sixteenth century Constantinople (Rozen 2002: 284–302). 283 The meaning here is unclear,gamilote, gamilote is a foliage. 284 A noun is missing in the text. 285 According to Biblical sources, detailed provisions are made with regard to the legal order of succession (Numbers 27:8–11, Deuteronomy 21:16–17). The right of the first-born male to a double portion of the estate is set out in Deuteronomy 21:17. The males of the family have a legal right to succeed their father; females inherit automatically only in the absence of a male heir. For an extensive analysis on the law of inheritance of the first-bon son throughout thehalakhic literature and with reference to some wills from the Cairo Genizah, see Rivlin (1999: 30–38). 278 chapter four

Decision:

The youngest son is entitled to the courtyard because his father has given it to him by virtue of a formal act of acquisition and of an oath that is effective from now onwards. Also the daughter is entitled to the assets that her father said he would give her. Even if they were not in her possession it is decided according to the legal principle of assessment286 that this was her father’s wish.

24. Choshen Mishpat 328 It appears that the law of the land ruled that a man’s estate be divided between his wife and children, his wife receiving half and his children the other half. Out of the children’s share only a third could be given to anyone else. A declaration by Šim‘on in his will asking his brother to make a similar provision in his will has the purpose of trying to override this law.

Figure 24

1. vezé lešonó: declaro que en toda mi 2. haćienda tiene mi hermano la mitad, y yo otro 3. tanto enla que él tiene por si, y aun quela mía 4. sea más, él la ayudó aganar, y mi intençión 5. fue siempre ést(a) sola mente, le pido por merçed

286 See Appendix 3 on umdenah. text 24—choshen mishpat 328 279

6. que, muriendo él sin hiǰos,287 haga hereder(a) ami hiǰa 7. caśando ella asu veluntad.

Translation (Concerning the second question that all the Gentiles in this kingdom have a law that from the fifty per cent that is automatically inherited by a man’s sons and daughters, he can also give a third to whomever he wishes.288 However, from the fifty per cent entitled to his wife and the two thirds to his sons and daughters, he may not distribute, whether a large or small amount, to anybody else in the world. Re’uben died in this kingdom and he left one daughter from his wife named Sarah. He also had a younger brother called Šim‘on who used to deal with all the property which his brother sent to him.)

(1–7) This is the language: I declare that in all my estate my brother has half interest. I also have a share in his estate, and even though mine is greater, he helped to earn it [my share]. My intention was always this one: I beg him that if he dies childless, then he should make my daughter his heir, allowing her to marry at her wish.

Decision:

Šim‘on is entitled to half the assets, as Re’uben wrote in his will. How- ever the transaction between Re’uben and Šim‘on is not regarded as inheritance. The respondent views this transaction as either aaccording to the legal principle of forfeiting of rights or of a gift between Re’uben and Šim‘on. This is contradictory to the Maharik’s opinion in Shoresh 90 where he wrote that principle of forfeiting only exists in situations where there is a debt involved. The only reason why the respondent decides to follow according to the principles of forfeiting or gift is because the assets were already in Šim‘on’s possession before Re’uben died. When Šim‘on died, Re’uben’s daughter became entitled to the assets.

287 Note the forms hiǰo and hiǰa, as opposed to fiǰo and fiǰa, found in nearly all the other Medina texts. 288 For the problems and solutions of such cases where Jewish law is in conflict with the law of the land see Grunfeld (1987: 56–69). 280 chapter four

25. Choshen Mishpat 339289 The dying Re’uben set certain conditions for his wife Clara in fulfilment of which she would become joint guardian of his children and estate. Since Clara cannot meet some of the conditions, she would like to appoint someone else as a guardian.

Figure 25

Re’uben haya šek̠ib merá vesivạ́ meḥmat mitá, vezé lešonó:

1. Primera mente 2. mando cómo dešo290 por apotroposiṃ 291 de mis hiǰos292 a

289 This case is discussed in detail in Benaim (1998: 15–19) and Benaim (1997: 199–201). 290 This could also be read asdišo in place of dicho, but dešo seems to make more sense. 291 Apotropos: guardian. Hebrew word, originally from Greek, adapted into Judeo- Spanish, see Bunis 1993: 104. 292 The formhi ǰos alternates in line 6 with the form fiǰos. text 25—choshen mishpat 339 281

3. har(ebí) Ya‘aqob ben Atar vehar(ebí) Yosef Sassón verebí Yosef Lindo, 4. moradores de Saloniqui, ǰunta mente con dona293 Clara 5. mi muǰer. Y mando que siendo que diga mi muǰer quiera 6. estar con mis fiǰos, ella sea patrona y 7. señora sobre todo veku(leh). Aḥar kak̠ behemšek̠ sava’atọ́ sivạ́ 8. vekatab ̠, vezé lešonó: y si declara que siendo que diga 9. Dona Clara mi muǰer afirmare lašeb ̠u‘á que de su 10. porpia294 veluntad tomó de no se caśar por tie(m)po de295 11. diez años, mando que ella sea apotropiça y 12. mande mi faćiend(a), con tal que no faga ninguna cośa 13. sin orden y conseǰo de dichos apotroposi(m), y ella 14. pueda dar quitança a cual quier debdor mío, 15. ansí296 de297 dar comode haber con condiçión que como 16. pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui.

Translation Re’uben was gravely ill on his death bed, and made a will because of his impending death, and this is the language:298

(1–7) First I appoint as a guardian299 to my children the following: Ya‘aqob Ben Attar, Yosef Sasson and Yosef Lindo, who are residents of Salonica together with my wife Clara. I proclaim that if my forementioned wife says she wishes to be with my children, she should be the owner and mistress [the one in control] above all.

293 Doña in modern Spanish. 294 Read: propia. 295 BIURP has omitted this word. 296 BIURP has ansi written with an initial ayin in place of an aleph. 297 Que found in later editions. 298 Elon identifies three types of wills, namely, (1). The gift by a healthy person. (2). The gift by a critically ill person (a schiv merah) (Elon 1975: 453). (3). The gift in contemplation of death. Ibn Ezra, in a commentary on Deuteronomy 21:16, explains that one can inherit through a gift made by a healthy person, through a will made by an ill person, or through legal disposition in a court of justice after the testator’s demise (Edery 1991: 170). The wishes of a schiv merah, the sick person, may be expressed verbally, in writing or by implication. For a worthwhile analysis and illustrations from responsa on the subject of the schiv merah see Grunfeld (1987: 47–53). 299 Theapotropos or guardian can refer to the person appointed to look after the orphans or to have financial powers or with both roles. In this responsa the guardian appears to have this dual role. 282 chapter four

(7–16) After this, in the continuation of his will on his death bed, he commanded and wrote: it is declared that if my forementioned wife says that she affirms the oath she undertook out of her own volition not to remarry for ten years. I order that she may be the guardian and look after my property as long as she does not do anything without the advice and consent of the above-named guardians. She can settle financial matters with any of my debtors, or pay out, on condition that after a year she moves to Salonica.

(And now the woman called Clara asked if she could appoint a person to deal on her behalf in Salonica, as she is a woman of ill health with young children who are looked after as well as herself, by her parents. If she goes to Salonica, there is no-one to look after her. So please inform us is she can appoint someone else.)300

Decision:

After much analysis and discussion the result is that she can appoint someone of her choice as long as it is beneficial for the orphans and that the appointment should not conflict with the other guardians. This is in keeping with the dying man’s intentions and wishes.

26. Choshen Mishpat 380 This question concerns an unpaid debt that originated in Ancona. Šemu’el Kalhi owes Yosef Oheb a sum of money. Yosef Oheb passes on this debt to Jodara. The debt was originally incurred in Ancona; they move to Pesaro, where financial regulations are different, so they need legal advice as to whether Kalhi is liable for the debt.

300 A discussion about this case giving two legal perspectives of Medina and Adarbi is contained in section 1.6.5. text 26—choshen mishpat 380 283

Figure 26 284 chapter four

1. Saverá301 que en 2. Ancona debía Šemu’el 3. Calí a Yosef Ohe(b̠) 4. cierto dinero. Y el 5. dicho Yosef Oheb trespasó la mayor parte de esta 6. copia302 a Ab̠raham Hodara, y después a mi padre 7. trespasó 84 escudos de oro, y al pagamiento 8. tanbién Yosef Oheb se obligó. Usábase en Ancon(a) 9. faćieren estas trespasaduras, algunos lo ían 10. dećir a aquél que quedaba debdor en cómo en él le 11. trespasaban tanto dinero, o se lo querían traspasar, 12. si se lo querían dećir, mas no paraque por vía de 13. ǰ usticia le fićese nada al caśo, porque el que 14. pagaba era obligado de ir a tomar el contrato, 15. el cual no lo podía tomar sino aquél aquien era 16. trespasado, porque el escribano escribía ael 17. pie del contrato la trespasasión por parte 18. demi303 madre. No fablaron ael dicho Šemu’el Calí 19. lo cual, cuando fue el mal en Ancona, apregonaron304 20. que quien debiese a Portugués lo fuese a dećir. 21. Diće que vido el contrapo305 y fue a dećir que debía 22. a mi madre y a Ab̠raham Hodara. 23. Agora demandile el dinero, da raźón por si que nole 24. fićieron saber a él tienpo que cortaron la deta,306 25. por lo cual diće que no es obligado a pagar, y 26. mas diće que el fió al dicho Yosef Oheb ciertos 27. cordobanes que le fiźo pól(i)za de canbio, que era 28. a pagar a 3 meses y el concrato307 que él a Yosef 29. Oheb devía, era de tocas por tienpo de año. 30. Diće agora que con los ochenta y cuatro escudos 31. que él dio de aquel contarto,308 sí quiere pagar de lo que

301 Presumably, this is the witness speaking. Unusual in that it is not indicated in an introduction to the testimony. 302 In the sense of quantity. 303 Read: de mi. 304 BIURP: mepregonaron, an initial mem instead of an aleph, incorrectly indicating the indirect pronoun me meaning ‘to me’. 305 Read: contrato. 306 Deta an Itlaianism for debda, or deuda in modern Spanish. 307 Letter error, concrato in place of contrato. 308 This timecontarto is written for contrato, an example of metathesis and error. text 26—choshen mishpat 380 285

32. debe Yosef Oheb, que pos Yosef Oheb quedó obligado 33. cuando fiźo el trespaso, que arecabdimos de él, 34. porque sabe que está con salvo condoto309 en Péśaro,310 35. que nada no pudimos haver, y por el contrato, 36. estando todos dos aquí podíamos tomar de cual 37. quier que quiśiésemos por ser la obligación cada uno 38. porsí311 toda la debda. Bien que312 pos él es el 39. debdor principal, a él es uso tomar, y no teniendo 40. éste por dónde pagar, tomará el otro. Con- 41. teneremos aloque pareçe raźón enque el contrato313 42. que se314 fiźo en Franquia sea firme. Pues así se 43. uśaba allá. Dićen nos, que han dicho ḥak̠amim que no 44. tenemos raźón pues que no se lo fićimos saver 45. cuando sobre él cortaron la deta Šemu’el Calí 46. de lo que cortó a Hodara, le tiene pago y réstale 47. adever 84 escudos, y está amarrado a dos 48. amarras si le fićieren pagar a nos, no pagar a el 49. otro porque él deve dos većes 84 escudos y ha 50. de haver solamente 84. Esta informaçión dará 51. alos señeros315 ḥak̠amim y sacará un pesaq din de la 52. ǰ usticia que tenemos, porque por él se gobiernen, 53. porque así nos aconseǰaron que fićiésemos antes que 54. le demandásemos, porque si fuera en Ancona súpito 55. pagara, o fuera en priśión y las dichas 56. raźones queda316 ninguna le valiera allá nada, porque 57. si fiaba por 6 meses, era para él tienpo se317 58. pagar y quedar debdo(r) por lo que devían por tienpo 59. de año. Y esta información basta.

309 Condoto, Italian for conducto in the sense of ‘business mode, ethic’ (http://www .rae.es/diccionariodelalenguaespañola 14/06/04/), Old Italian salvo condotto. 310 BIURP: Pevaro. 311 BIURP just writes por. 312 Bien que is equivalent to the French construction meaning ‘although’, though this is no evidence that it is borrowed from French. It is used in this context in medieval Spanish. 313 BIURP: contraó. 314 In this line BIURP writes se with a samech in place of a sin, reflecting phonological change. 315 Should read señores. 316 Read: que da. 317 Probably typing error se instead of de. 286 chapter four

Translation (1–8) You will know that, in Ancona, Šemu’el Kalhi owed Yosef Oheb a certain sum of money. The said Yosef Oheb passed on the maǰority of the benefit of this sum [debt] to Ab̠raham Jodara. Then he [Yosef ] passed on 84 golden escudos [of the debt] to my father. Yosef Oheb committed to ensure this payment was made [of the debt by either him or Šemu’el Kalhi].

(8–14) This type of transaction was commonly entered into in Ancona. Some people would say to the one who remained the debtor that he would be given a certain sum of money, or the money was intended to be transferred to him. They would want to say that this was not so, so that under the rule of law something would be done about it, because the one who was making the payment [the debtor] was obliged to go and take the contract318 [i.e. accept responsibility for insuring the debt].

(15–18) The latter [i.e. the one who takes the contract] could only take the contract from the one to whom the contract had been transferred.319 The scribe wrote down at the foot of the contract the transfer of the debt to my mother.320

(18–22) They did not talk to the forementioned Šemu’el Kalhi. When tragedy befell the Jews in Ancona321 it was announced that whoever owed money to a Portuguese should say so. He said he saw the contract and said he [Kalhi] owed money to my mother and to Ab̠raham Jodara.

318 A promissory note. Maimonides in Mishneh Torah explains the legalities of promissory notes (1982:9–12). 319 To understand better the notion of transference of debts in the sixteenth century, see Passamaneck (1974: 51–52). 320 The questioner’s father (Yosef Oheb) died and his mother became the one to whom money is owed. 321 In 1555 Pope Paul IV decreed that all Marranos in Ancona be arrested and their property confiscated. All former Marranos (Jews who converted to the Chris- tian faith to escape persecution but who continued to practice Judaism secretly) were to be tried by a court of the Inquisition and if found guilty were condemned to be burnt. Don Joseph Nasi and his mother-in-law, Doña Gracia Mendes, pleaded with the Sultan for the release of those who were Ottoman subjects. Turkish Marranos were released, 24 others were burnt at the stake. There was an unsuccessful attempt by Jews to boycott trade in the port of Ancona. For more on the Ancona boycott see Roth (1992: 134–175). text 26—choshen mishpat 380 287

(23–28) Now I asked him for the money. The reason he gives is that they did not let him know in time that they split the debt, and for this reason he says he is not obliged to pay. He also says he lent Yosef Oheb certain goatskins for repayment in three months,

(28–34) and also the contract which he owed Yosef Oheb, consisting of headcoverings, was for one year. Now he says that with the 84 escudos that he [Yosef] gave from that contract, he [Yosef] wanted to pay part of what he owed, because he [Yosef] remained obliged to do so when he passed on the money. He knows he has a safe pass in Pesaro

(35–38) and that we were not able to receive any money. As to the contract, because both parties are here, we can take [the money] from anyone we wish, since they both have their own obligation to the debt.

(38–43) Since he is the main debtor, it is customary to start with him. If he has no means to pay, the other person will be called upon. We shall adhere to what appears reasonable, even though the contract made in Franquia is a firm one.322 This is how it was done there.

(43–50) The forementionedsages tell us that we are in the wrong, as we did not let him [Kalhi] know when they split the debt and what proportion was transferred to Jodara. He has to pay him and still owes 84 escudos. He is bound in two ways if they made him pay us and the other one, because then he owes 84 escudos twice, when in reality he owes only 84 escudos.

(50–59) This information will give oursages an opportunity to bring out a legal decision according to our law, which should govern them in their decision. Thus we were advised to do this before questioning, because if this had occurred in Ancona he would have had to pay or go to prison. None of the reasons he gives would have been valid. If they lent money for a six month period, he would have to pay or remain a debtor for the whole year. This information suffices.

322 Franquia was known to Sephardim in the times of the Ottoman Empire as Chris- tian Western Europe that was non-Ottoman. Here it probably referred to present-day Italy. 288 chapter four

Decision:

De Medina’s final decision is that Kalhi is liable to pay the widow but he admits he does not know the exact sum (84 escudos is the amount mentioned in the text). He then uses the point of distinction between capital and profit. Kalhi should therefore pay her back the capital which was the money taken out, the rest should either go to Oheb or stay with him so that the widow should not make a profit. She should get the actual capital of the debt.

27. Choshen Mishpat 382323 This short testimony reveals that the sender is in possession of a letter from Ancona dated 4th of Nissan. The letter explains that Šemu’el surieḷ describes a boat that sank due to freak weather at a distance of ten miles at sea. Šelomoh Attar was among the victims of the disaster; his body was found after three days. The question is whether it is possible to allow the wife of Šelomoh Attar to remarry on the basis of this written record alone.

Figure 27

323 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1997: 201–203). text 27—choshen mishpat 382 289

Re’ubén tošav Sofía katab leŠim‘ón šebEscopia kadebarim ha’eleh bilšón la‘az, ot

1. be’o(t)milah bemilah: Ésta en breve solamente haćerle 2. saber cómo de Ancona temos324 letra, me aviśa har(ebí) 3. Šemu’el suri’el,̣ y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), que aletra325 es de cuatro de Nisán 4. aviśa que el navío de Me’emet326 reis327 donde fue 5. el ‘aní de Selomó Atar se ronpió be‘onot šoté el 6. monte, diez millas en mar donde no escaparon 7. que siete presonas,328 y u(n) dicho Šelomó Atar se halló 8. acabo de tres días, que espendió dito surieḷ harto329 9. dinero a hallarlo, y allá se enterró donde diće 10. havían ya otros qebarim330 de ǰudiós. ‘ad kan.

Translation Re’uben residing in Sofia wrote to Šim‘on in Skopje the following, in the secular language letter

(1–7) by letter, word by word: This, in brief, is just to inform him that we have a letter from Šemu’el surieḷ from Ancona telling us that the letter is dated the 4th of Nissan. He tells me that the boat of the sultan Mehmed, where one of the people in it was poor Šelomoh Attar, broke apart because of freak weather. This happened ten miles into sea where only seven people were saved.

(7–10) The above-mentioned Šelomoh Attar was found after three days; the above-mentioned surieḷ spent a large sum of money in order

324 Temos is Portuguese for tenemos. 325 Aletra is Portuguese for la letra, could also be prosthetic a. 326 Turkish: Mehmed, ‘sultans of the Turkish Empire’. 327 Turkish: reis, ‘sailor in charge’. 328 Presonas: metathesis for personas, see section 3.3.1.13, also Quintana 2006: 107–109. 329 Harto is used extensively in the Golden Age period in Spain in the same sense as in this text of mucho (much, a lot) and muy (very). This meaning remains in modern Spanish in formal literary register and more generally in Latin America. The more usual meaning in modern Spanish for harto is the pejorative one of ‘(stuffed) full of food’ alongside the meaning of ‘fed up’ (Pountain 2001: 158). Nehama attests the same archaic sense of arto and farto (Nehama 1977: 58, 205). 330 Words associated with death are endowed with a sense of awe by invariable being expressed in Hebrew. 290 chapter four to find him; and there he was buried, where he says there were already other Jewish graves. The end.

(Now the question is asked, if based on the above, Šelomoh Attar’s widow is permitted to remarry. As it seems, she is not permitted because the witness did not mention the victim’s name, or the victim’s father’s name, or the name of the victim’s city. Furthermore, it is written the forementioned Šelomoh Attar was found after three days. It does not say that he was found immediately after he was washed ashore or later and that his features changed after two hours. Also, it does not say ‘I buried him’, instead it says ‘and there he was buried where there were other Jewish graves’. This is not equivalent to saying ‘I buried him’. What is the judgement for this deserted woman in this case?)331

Decision:

De Medina rules leniently in favour of the agunah. She is allowed to remarry. Among other reasons Medina supports his decision with the view expressed in the Tosafot which says that a woman whose husband has drowned at sea is allowed to remarry if the body is found whole even if it was left on dry land. The fact that Attar was buried where there were other Jewish graves seems to be sufficient evidence for him to rule in favour of this agunah.

28. Choshen Mishpat 393 Re’uben is sent to Constantinople on behalf of the community to collect money for charity. He spends not only his expense money, but also another 3,000 aspers and presents his claim to the community. The community finds his claim outrageous; they undertake to check all Re’uben’s accounts in detail.

331 This is an interesting example of where the Judeo-Spanish is intercalated in the Hebrew argument, i.e. examples of code-switching. Note the non-italicised here represents Judeo-Spanish. text 28—choshen mishpat 393 291

Figure 28 Part 1 292 chapter four

Figure 28 Part 2 text 28—choshen mishpat 393 293

1. cómo es 2. verdad que en viniendo dito Re’ubén del dito šelihut 3. de Quštandinaḥ , fue to‘éṇ dito Re’ubén. Ki depués332 4. de bien amemoriado y estudiado ensu cuaderno 5. de sus cuentas que al calnzaba333 y fallaba en 6. çierto sin falta, haberá gastado el dito ši‘ur 7. de moneda que le habían entregado en la hora del 8. šelihut para las hoza’o(t) ditas, y sobre ellas 9. le eran en débito las qehilot, šelošet alafim lebanim 10. de otros tantos que había gastado sobre la 11. cantidad que le habían entregado beša‘at hašelihut. 12. Y sobre eso demandó y diferençió mucho q(ue)nolas334 13. q(ehilot) qe(odošot) atanto que dito Re’uben qafas ̣ venišbá bes(efer) T(orá) beḥoq 14. bifné rabim ve‘al da‘at ve‘a(l) da‘at335 haq(ehilot) qe(odošot) como era emet veyasiḅ ̠ 15. que había fecho cuenta por su cuaderno, y que de 16. pués336 de estudiare bien y mirado, fallara por 17. su escrito seren las q(ehilot) qe(odošot) en débito aél más 18. de tre(s) mil asp(ros), sobre la cantidad dela moneda 19. que se le había entregado beša‘at hašeliḥut lesoreḳ ̠ 20. qol hahozaot. Y por ser la cośa fuera de śék̠el337 21. figurar tanto gaste, determinamosǰ unta mente338 22. de irmos en caśa de dito Re’uben y mirar su 23. escrito, y ver si se averdaderían sus p(a)labra(s) 24. para salirmos de su cargo, por lo cual fuimos 25. en su caśa y nos entregó el cuaderno que tenía’339 26. sobre ese inián. Y le demandimos si tenía otro340

332 BIURP corrects this to después. 333 Read: alcanzaba as one word. 334 Theyod is missing from the text, hence que no las is written as q(ue)nolas. 335 Ve‘al da‘at is repeated in error. 336 See section 3.3.3.4.4. 337 Śek̠el is a Hebrew borrowing denoting intelligence. It is used here metaphorically meaning ‘outrageous’; lit., something outside [far from] intelligence. It is attested by Bunis in the expression tienes un śek̠el de arsato (you have the intelligence of Aristotle) ‘you are brilliant’ (Bunis 1993: 39). 338 Split adverb typically in Judeo-Spanish. 339 The apostrophe at the end of tenía’ implies that a letter is missing—teníah; this is repeated in lines 27, 29, 30. 340 BIURP omits this word. 294 chapter four

27. escrito sobre ese inián, y nos dišo que no tenía’ 28. otro escrito ni otro hešbón, afuera de loque 29. tenía’ escrito en el dito cuaderno, que nos tenía’ 30. entregado, que todo tenía’ enél escrito, meróš 31. ve‘ad sof qelal ufrat ad sof perutá aḥaroná, por 32. tanto paramos miente’ enel dicho cuaderno, y fićimos 33. cuenta todo cośa por cośa quelal ufrat besimṣ uṃ nimrás,̣ 341 34. a tanto que metimos en cuenta una espada que 35. perdió por camino. Tanbién fasta un leb̠en de 36. tisporet y con todo no abastó a esmaltir342 afilu 37. el ši‘ur de la moneda que se le entregó beša‘at 38. hašelih ̣ut lesoreḳ ̠ kol hahoza’ot, salvo aderaba se falló 39. en débito de aquel dinero que se le entregó beša‘at 40. hašelihut yoter mišelošet alafim leb̠anim, y viendo las 41. q(ehilot) qe(odošot) el gezel y el ḥamás que cometía dito Re’uben 42. de faće(r), depositaron las no343 q(ehilot) qe(odošot), y dito Re’uben 43. dayanim upasranim y condenaron bederek̠ pešarah a dito 44. Re’uben que tornase de loque había quedado enlas 45. manos mil asp(ros).

Translation (The story was that the community sent an agent to go to Constanti- nople for various community matters. The agent was given money to cover his expenses to travel and return home. On his arrival, he was asked about his travels and this was his reply):

(1–11) The truth is that when the said Re’uben came from the forementioned mission from Constantinople, he argued that after having well memorised and analysed his accounts book, that certainly tallied and failed; he must have spent the said sum of money that he was given at the time of the mission for the said expenses. Above these expenses, the community owed him 3 thousand aspers for other items for which he had already paid out the money, and that was extra to the amount he had been given at the time of the mission.

341 Code-switching instances here and in l. 33 for the purposes of introducing standard phrases from Gemara terminology. 342 Could be an Italian borrowing smaltire, ‘to spend, consume’. 343 This is another example where the diacritic is missing from the gimmel, making this digas instead of dichas. text 28—choshen mishpat 393 295

(12–20) This is why he was demanding that the difference should be paid out to him by the holy community. Consequently the said Re’uben spontaneously took an oath with a Bible before many people and the community, in order to defend his truth. He said he had kept an account in his book, and after looking at it and analysing it care- fully, it was found in his writing that the community owed him more than 3,000 aspers; over and above the money he had been given at the time of the mission to cover his expenses.

(20–26) Since such a high expense claim appeared to be outrageous, we decided to go together to the forementioned Re’uben’s house and look at his writings to see whether his words hold true and whether we could free ourselves from his claim. For these reasons we went to his house. He handed over to us his accounts book on this matter.

(26–31) We asked him if he had anything written down on this matter. He replied that he had nothing else written, nor any other account apart from what appeared in the book he was showing us. He said he had everything written down, from the beginning to the end, the general and the particulars.

(31–38) Hence we fixed our attention on the forementioned book. We analysed every detail, the general and the particulars extremely con- cisely, to such an extent that we added to the expenses a sword that he lost on the journey. We counted even one asper, from a haircut. Even then it [the amount showing] was even insufficient to cover the amount of money he was given at the time of the mission to cover all his expenses.

(38–45) Yet, on the contrary, he owed more than 3 thousand aspers apart from the amount he was given to cover his expenses at the time of the mission. Seeing the violence and robbery that the forementioned Re’uben was committing, the judges and arbitrators condemned him on behalf of the community. By way of compromise they [the judges and arbitrators] asked the forementioned Re’uben to return 1,000 aspers he had remaining in his hands.

(All the above was accepted by us in the Court, we thoroughly inter- rogated all the witnesses in Salonica.) 296 chapter four

Decision:

In the end De Medina says Re’uben is disqualified from taking oaths and testifying. He says that if he (Re’uben) repents, subjects himself to a beating, fasts and returns to God then God will have mercy on him. The community should have mercy on him and act with kindness and the compromise should stand. He should therefore pay 1,000 aspers provided he repents.

4.2 Responsa of Rabbi Isaac Adarbi in Divre Rivot (Salonica 1581)344

29. Divre Rivot 3 Yosef gives Donna ten gold coins for a necklace that he wants her to accept as a symbol of betrothal. She asks him to put them on the floor before taking them. There are two witnesses to this event. Now Donna wishes to verify whether this event constitutes a legally valid marriage.

Figure 29

344 BIURP uses the Sidilkov 1833 edition. text 29—divre rivot 3 297

1. Elu hazehuvim por qidušín pra345 una cadena y 2. amerá lo : poneldos en suelo y los tomaré, y estonces puso 3. rebí Yosef haniz(kar) un ducado en suelo, y vino la moça y tomó 4. el ducado, y voltó las espaldas para irse, y dišo 5. rebí Yosef el dicho alos que allí estaban: sedme ‘edim cómo 6. lo tomó por qidušín, ze he‘id betorat ‘edut Mošeh Basat.346 7. Beotá sa‘á ba Mošeh Franco y dišo cómo le dišo rebí Yosef 8. haniz(kar) leDonna347 haniz(keret): ¿quies estos ducados por qidušín para una 9. cadena? Ydišo la moza por uno en el suelo y lo puso y 10. lo tomó la moza, y ella que seiba348 dišo rebí Yosef a los ‘edim: 11. sedme ‘edimque los tomó por qidušín

Translation (The story was that a young girl, named Donna entered Yosef’s house. Yosef had ten gold coins in his hand and he said to Donna):

(1–7) ‘These are the gold coins as kiddushin for a necklace’, and so she said to him ‘put them on the floor and I will take them’. Then the forementioned Yosef put a ducat on the floor. The maiden came and took the ducat, turned her back in order to leave and the said Yosef said to those present ‘be a witness to how she took it as kiddushin’. This was the testimony of Mošeh Basat.

(7–11) At the same time Mošeh Franco arrived. He recounted that Yosef asked the forementioned Donna if she wanted the ducats as kiddushin for a necklace and the maiden asked him to put them on the floor. He put them and the maiden took them and as she was leaving, Yosef said to those present ‘be witness that she took it as kiddushin’.

(Our Rabbis, what is the law in this case, does she need a divorce or not?)

345 Read: para. 346 In text 7 the name of the witness appears as Mošeh Basa with a heh as the last letter; here the last letter appears as a taf. The Bar Ilan version also hasBasa. 347 In text 7 the name appears as Dina; here it looks like Donna, both common Sephardic names (see Bornstein-Makovetsky 1997: 26). 348 Very unclear in the text; much clearer in Medina’s 1595 edition, which has que se iba. 298 chapter four

Decision:

There is no issue of a valid marriage at all since she told him to put the coins on the ground and the ground belongs to him. Therefore she does not need a divorce.

30. Divre Rivot 4349 The legal validity of the marriage of Sete to Yom Tov is in issue; Sete refuses to attend court. The actions that could validate her betrothal to Yom Tov are set on Purim 5313/ 28 February 1553, recorded on Thursday 25Tamuz 5313/ 7 July 1553.350

Figure 30A

349 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 462). 350 Purim is a Jewish festival, celebrated on 14 Adar. Purim commemorates the time when the Jewish people living in Persia, approximately 358 B.C., were saved from extermination by the courage of a young Jewish woman called Ester. It is customary to read Megillat Ester, the book of Ester, on Purim. text 30—divre rivot 4 299

Figure 30B Part 1

Figure 30B Part 2

Part A

1. veše Sete haniz(keret) hayetá detrás del paramento de la parte 2. izquierda, y descubrió Sete el paramento y de allí 3. reçibió los qidušín . . . 300 chapter four

Part B

1. Y lo llamó que viniese asu caśa351 2. acomer352 con él en la se‘ud(á) de Purim yque venían paseando 3. del canto de rebí Šemu’el para la fuente. Ve’anu Bet Din ḥ(atum) m(ata) 4. ša’alnu lehar(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq: be’eze ša‘a mehayom hayah ze? Vehešiv šehayah ša‘at 5. haminh ̣ah, vešehayah ša‘at kendi vešeab̠ar derek̠ pétah̠ rebí 6. Ab ̠raham hanizc(ar), vešehayah sam bepétah rebí Ab̠raham hanizkar haponeh lašuc, 7. rebí Yom Tob haniz(kar), y que estaba la muǰer de rebí Ab̠raham haniz(kar) 8. en el ḥalal del obi de la pared dela puerta, yque pasaron 9. él con rebí Ya‘aqob yque rebí Yom Tob haniz(kar) llamó lerebí Ya‘aqob 10. vení acá yque estaba con rebí Ya‘aqob haniz(kar), yseallegó con 11. rebí Ya‘aqob haniz(kar) y estonses quedose rebí Yom Tob h(anizcar) ala muǰer, 12. de rebí Ab̠raham haniz(kar): señora llamalda353 acá, yque llamó 13. la muǰer de rebí Ab̠raham haniz(keret): Sese354 sal acá, yque alzó Sese 14. un paramento que estaba delante la puerta, yque s 15. salió Sese h(anizkeret) enpar desu madre yque rebí Yom Tob haniz(kar) 16. le diće leSete haniz(keret): ¿querés reçibir qidušín dime? Y que Sete 17. hanizk(eret )355 miró ala madre enla cara y luego dišo Sete, sí, 18. y que luego sacó rebí Yom Tob hanizk(ar) un pérak̠ veneciano nuebo de la 19. falriquera,356 y selo tomó rebí Ya‘aqob dela mano y lo amostró

351 BIURP has casa written with a shin and not a zayin as in the original, seems like an influence from modern Spanish. 352 Prosthetic ‘a’ see section 3.3.3.4. 353 Note metathesis llamalda for llamadla. 354 Here Sese mistakenly appears twice instead of Sete. BIURP has Sete. 355 BIURP writes hanizkeret in full. 356 Perhaps error for faldriquera, ‘purse’. Note the variants falduquera in Salonica, falkudera in Bosnia (Zamora Vicente 1967: 369). The text is closer to the standard Spanish faldriquera. text 30—divre rivot 4 301

20. y tornó r(ebí) Ya‘aqob h(anizkar) el ducado beyad rebí Yom Tob h(anizkar), y 21. tornó rebí Yom Tob h(anizkar) y dišo ala moza otra vez, ¿querés 22. Sete reçibir qidušín dime? Y luego be’otó reg‘a dio rebí Y(om) T(ob) 23. hanizk(ar) hapérak̠ asmọ́ beyad Sete h(anizkeret), y le dišo rebí Yom Tob hanizkar 24. leSete haniz(keret), tehí li mequdešet bepérak̠ ze kedat Mošeh veYisra’el. Y que 25. rebí Yisḥ ̣aq hanizkar demandó ala moça: ¿cómo vos llamáis? Yque 26. ella le dišo, Sete. Y que le dišo rebí Yisḥ ̣aq, seavos besimantoḅ . 27. Gam ken anu b(et) d(in), ša‘alnu lerebí Yisḥ ̣aq haniz(kar): ¿be’eze min kob‘a hayah 28. beróš Sete haniz(keret)? Ve’amar še’eno zok̠er enpero que le parece que 29. estaba tocada ala portugueśa

Translation Part A

(Yom Tov came to our Court on Thursday 24 Tamuz 5313 [1553] and claimed that this past Purim, around the time of afternoon prayers—we asked him to indicate the time of day and he replied that it was a time of ‘kendi’.357 He was speaking to Ab̠raham’s wife at the entrance of her house and she asked him if she could borrow one hundred and twenty aspers as she owed this to a bank. He replied that since her [Ab̠raham’s wife] daughter Sete once made a fool of him, as it is well known, he does not want to lend her the money. However, if she [Sete’s mother] will assure that Sete will accept kiddushin from him, then he is prepared to lend her the money. She replied ‘only if the witnesses do not know her’. He then replied that there were two passers by that were known to him and who can keep a secret and who would not reveal it unless they were asked by him to do so. He then took out a Venetian coin that he showed them and then handed it to her).

357 Kendi in Turkish means ‘one’s own’, ‘himself ’. I cannot fathom the relevance. 302 chapter four

(1–3) Sete was behind the ornamental cover on the left side, she opened the cover, and there she received the kiddushin.

Part B

(At the same time, Yisḥ ̣aq testified, after being thoroughly warned, the following):

(1–5) He called him to invite him for the Purim festive meal. They walked past the corner of Šemu’el’s house towards the fountain. We, the Court signed below, asked Yisḥ ̣aq, ‘What time of day was this?’ He answered that it was at the time of afternoon prayers, and the time of kendi358

(5–10) and as they passed the door of Ab̠raham’s house, there at Ab̠raham’s door—Ab̠raham was going out to the market—the forementioned Yom Tov and Ab̠raham’s wife were in the space of the thickness of the wall of the door,359 he was going past with Ya‘aqob, and Yom Tov called Ya‘aqob ‘come here’.

(10–15) He was with Ya‘aqob and he drew near with Ya‘aqob. Yom Tov remained with Ab̠raham’s wife. ‘Madam, call her here’, and Ab̠raham’s wife called out ‘Sete, come out here’, Sete lifted an ornamental cover which was in front of the door. Sete came out with her mother. Yom Tov (15–20) said to Sete ‘tell me, would you like to receive kiddushin from me?’ Sete looked at her mother in the face and said ‘yes’. Then Yom Tov brought out a new Venetiancoin from his purse and Ya‘aqob took it from his hand and showed it.

(21–24) Ya‘aqob returned it to Yom Tov’s hand. Then Yom Tov turned to the maiden again and said ‘Sete, tell me, would you like to receive kiddushin from me?’ Thenat the same time Yom Tov himself handed her the forementioned coin. Yom Tov said to Sete ‘Be betrothed to me with this coin in accordance with the law of Mošeh and Israel’,

358 See supra n. 357. I find this an unsatisfactory translation in the context. 359 Meaning ‘the doorpost’. text 30—divre rivot 4 303

(24–29) Yisḥ ̣aq said to them ‘congratulations’. We also asked Yisḥ ̣aq what type of headcovering Sete wore, and he replied that he could not remember. He thought that she wore a Portuguese style headcovering.

(We also asked Yisḥ ̣aq if he could describe Sete’s type of clothing, but he said he could not remember).

(We asked Isaac if he knew Sete and he replied that if he saw her he would recognise her. We accepted all these testimonies in Sete’s absence, as one of the witnesses warned Yom Tov that he wanted to leave the city, as can be seen by the document. We also went to the Court of Es ̣ Ḥ ayim360 three times to warn Ab̠raham that his daughter should appoint a lawyer to voice her opinions in the court. However, she did not do this.)

Decision:

The marriage vows between Yom Tov and Sete are valid. Even though the witnesses did not testify in her presence (as they sent messengers a number of times to her father requesting her to authorise someone and she refused, and also because one of the witnesses wished to leave the city, although he thereafter changed his mind and did not leave) in such cases, witnesses are accepted even when the opponent is not present according to all opinions and they are judged according to their testimony.

The marriage vows that she accepted from someone else after the testimony was accepted in her absence is not binding and she does not need a divorce from the second man. Even if we say that the validity of the second marriage is doubtful since the testimony was accepted in her absence, in any case the validity of her first marriage was already clarified in the Jewish Court. According to all opinions the second man must divorce her and the first man can marry her. Therefore, if the witnesses are still available, it is recommended that they testify again before her, but if they have left and are unavailable, the first man can marry her without the second man divorcing her. Even if we say that there is a slight concern that the second marriage is valid, the second man should

360 Lit., ‘the tree of life’, this appears to be the name of a Court, of a community. 304 chapter four divorce her and the first should then marry her. (Rabbi David Ibn Avi Zimra wrote that a testimony that is given in the absence of the opponent is accepted in cases where the purpose is to guard a person from transgression).

31. Divre Rivot 10361 Yisra’el, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, hands over a tambourine to Estrella as an object of betrothal. In order for the marriage to be valid, the respondent needs to ascertain the true owner of the tambourine, and also analyse the words of kiddushin uttered in this scene.362

Figure 31

1. Como un día en el barandado de rebí Yisra’el de Lucena, vido 2. cómo estaba asentado rebí Yisra’el bar har(ebí) Šemu’el de Lucena 3. con un pandero en su mano. Y vino Estrella bat rebí Ab̠raham 4. Yisra’el y demandóle el pandero, y rebí Yisra’el hanizkar le dišo: 5. tomaldo por qidušín, y Estrella hanizk(eret) lo tomó y calló

361 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 461–462). 362 Same case as in Bet Yosef 8, text 64. text 31—divre rivot 10 305

6. y fuese. Veša‘alnu et pi rebí David ¿be’eze yom hayah hama‘aseh? Ve’amar 7. lanu še’eno zok̠er be’eze yom hayah. Kol ze he‘id rebí David betorat 8. ‘edut veša‘alnu al hapandero hanizkar šel mi hayah, veha‘ed haniz(kar) hešib̠, 9. šeló yad‘á mimí hayah. Ek̠ ha(rebí) Yisra’el han(izkar) ve’Estrella hanizk(eret) amerú 10. lanu šehapandero hayah šel Sarah bat rebí Yisḥ ̣aq de Lucena. Veaḥar kol 11. haniz(kar) ba lefanenu rebí Ab̠raham Samanón vehe‘id betorat ‘edut: cómo 12. un día en el barandado han(izkar), vido como estaba rebí 13. Yisra’el bar Šemu’el han(izkar) estando con un pandero en sumano, 14. yvino Estrella han(izkeret), yle demandó el pandero y dioselo 15. por qidušín, y no se acorda363 si le dišo, tomaldo por qidušín 16. o vos lo do por qidušín, mas que se le acuerda çierto quenon 17. le dišo para mí.364

Translation (We were sitting as a Court, when David Liscas testified):

(1–6) One day on the railing of Israel de Lucena, I saw Israel, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, sitting with a tambourine in his hand. Then Estrella, Ab̠raham Yisra’el’s daughter, came along and asked the forementioned Israel for the tambourine. He said to her ‘take it as kiddushin’. Estrella took it, remained silent and went off.

(6–10) We then asked David [if he knew] what day this forementioned act occurred. He replied that he did not remember on what day this took place. David testified under oath and we asked him [if he knew] to whom the tambourine belonged. The forementioned witness said he did not know to whom it belonged. We asked him ‘how come Yisra’el and

363 In text 64, acorda is diphthongised to acuerda. 364 This text is unusual in that Hebrew is intercalated with Judeo-Spanish in a distinct way; it is not just a matter of including Hebrew words or phrases within archaic Spanish, but of oscillation between Hebrew and Judeo-Spanish within the text. 306 chapter four

Estrella told us the tambourine belonged to Sarah, Isaac de Lucena’s daughter?’

(11–17) After all this, the witness Ab̠raham Samanon came to testify: ‘one day on the mentioned railing he saw the forementioned Yisra’el, Šemu’el’s son, with a tambourine in his hand. Then Estrella came and asked him for the tambourine. He gave it to her as kiddushin, but he does not remember whether he said to her ‘take it as kiddushin’ or ‘I give it to you as kiddushin’, but what he certainly remembers is that he did not say ‘from me’.365

(We also asked him if he knew to whom the tambourine belonged and he said ‘no’. He also could not remember on which day it occurred. All the above was accepted on Monday 2 Tamuz 5317 [1577]. We also asked Yisra’el and Estrella if Sarah was aware of the fact the he took the tambourine. They replied that she was not aware of it. Yisra’el also told us that this was all in done in jest and he had no intention to marry her. They [Yisra’el and Estrella] also said that this tambourine belonged to Sarah. However, the witnesses said that they did not know if it was this one [tambourine] or a similar one. Please tell us if a divorce is necessary or not.)

Decision:

The language ‘take this as kiddushin’ is unclear. Those who are concerned with unclear language are of the opinion that Estrella needs a divorce because she kept quiet and silence is considered consent. Yisra’el is not trusted to claim that he took Sarah’s tambourine without her knowledge because one who borrows an object without the knowledge of the owner is called a thief. Also confession evidence is not accepted in Jewish law (Sanhedrin 9b says that no man can call himself a wrong- doer). The result is that Estrella needs a divorce if she is to remarry as, according to Adarbi, the marriage vows were effective.

32. Divre Rivot 59 This responsum concerns a declaration that both large and small communities need to be looked after. The declaration also forbids

365 See appendix 3, kiddushin, for an explanation of the implication of uttering of Tomadlo por qidusín para mí’ (take it as an object of betrothal from me). text 32—divre rivot 59 307 the establishment of any new synagogues in Salonica. It forms part of a lengthy discussion of rabbinic enactments, and it is this part that is written in the vernacular, recorded on Shabat 17 Tammuz 5285/ 8 July 1525.

Figure 32

‘od g(am) k(en) gazerú

1. que mehayom hazé vehal’a no se podía apartar qahal pequeño 2. ni grande, ni faćer bet hakeneset meḥadaš nosaf al batei hakenesiyot 3. ašer hem hayom beSaloniqi . . .

Translation (On the Sabbath 17th of Tammuz 5285 [1525], whilst the leaders of the congregation in Salonica were gathered to see what needed to be arranged, they noticed that many people made their own groups and removed their names from the community. There were also some people who removed their names from this community and registered with another. There were also people who lived here, but were registered in another community so as to pay fewer taxes to the King here in Salonica. 366 They claimed that they are notregistered in this city.

It was also decreed

(1–4) as from today not to divide any small or large community, and not to make a new synagogue in addition to the existing synagogues at this time in Salonica.

366 See chap. 1 n. 71 and 72. 308 chapter four

(This is what was decided at this time and was ordered to be written. It was designated to last for a long time and to be signed by all the sages of the community. Does this decision need to be upheld?)

Decision: a. When one member of the community leadership dies, the power of the remaining members is annulled until the community appoints someone in his stead. b. Part of the community is not entitled to cancel a community agreement that was accepted by the various forms of excommunication. A decision reached by a committee requires a committee for its cancel- lation. It seems that even if all the community agrees, young and old alike, they have not the power to cancel a former agreement. c. Those who diverge from the community, even if they are not a cohe- sive community, transgress the excommunicatory ban.

33. Divre Rivot 72367 Šim‘on leaves a will naming the various beneficiaries of his estate. This testimony enables the judges and leaders of the community to ask Re’uben for a sum of money that Šim‘on had left for a charitable purpose. Re’uben believes he should determine the distribution of the money.

Figure 33

367 Same case as in text 6. text 33—divre rivot 72 309

1. saberés señores que a mi hermano peloní le diréš que despu 2. és que haya pagado a todos los debdores, que de todo lo que 3. quedare tomara él la miatat, de cúanto se hallará de la 4. resta dará dos mil aspros a yetomot, y dos mil aspros 5. alas yešibot de eres ̣ Yisra’el, si quedare algo partirán 6. entre mis hermanos como hermanos. Veniftar lebet olamó.

Translation (Re’uben and Šim‘on are brothers who have been business partners for some time. Šim‘on passed away; Re’uben was not there as he passed away out of town in Wallachia. Šim‘on called some businessmen and made a will in front of them):

(1–6) You should know gentlemen that my brother so and so, you will advise that after paying the creditors, he should take half the remainder. The other half should be distributed in this way: 2000 aspers to the orphans, 2000 aspers to the religious institutions in the land of Israel. If any amount is remaining, it should be shared among my brothers as brothers [i.e. equally]. And he passed on to the next world.

(The judges of Nicopolis are claiming four thousand aspers from Re’uben that Šim‘on set aside for the orphans. Re’uben said that in his family there were many poor people, including the children of his deceased siblings and of the town. The two thousand which Šim‘on had bequeathed to Israel, he never said that the communal leaders should send to Israel. He only said ‘and you will tell my brother to send two thousand aspers to the land of Israel’. He also claimed that he is entrusted to distribute this money. He also claimed that his late brother was not from their city, nor was he married to anyone from their city. He was only a visitor there doing business. Also he did not die in their country . . . They have no claim. Rabbis, can you instruct as to who is legally correct.)

Decision:

All of Re’uben’s claims are legally correct. 310 chapter four

34. Divre Rivot 92368 Here the testimony is shorter than that in text 72 sent to R Moses Trani.369 Re’uben claims that he gave the late Šim‘on money to purchase 100 bars of lead that Šim‘on sent to Egypt to his brother-in-law with an agent. The respondent must decide the validity of the claim.

Figure 34

Vezé lešonó:

1. como quier que mi sobrino vos habrá escrito largo sobre 2. lo que nos toca anuesa haćienda, yo non escribo salvo 3. haćer le saber cómo por cuenta de rebí Reub(én) ya hemandado 4. 100 quintales de plomo370 mezclado(s) con los nuesos, por locual 5. lepido de merçé ami primo que se los entregue dela 6. cantidad371 que éllleva372 que hemandado373 yo, porque los dichos 100

368 Same case as text 72, sent to Moses Trani. 369 This text is nine lines whilst text 72 is twenty-nine lines, ll. 3–9 here are exactly the same as ll. 1–7 in text 72. Text 72 appears to use proper names whilst here the standard impersonal Re’uben is used. 370 BIURP has clomo; a chaf has been written for a peh. 371 Resh in text; contextually daled is correct. 372 Appears odd with three l’s; the words él lleva are joined. 373 Here the words he mandado are joined, but not in the following line. Also BIURP has mandaro, common resh for daled error. text 34—divre rivot 92 311

7. quintales no entran encuenta delo que he mandado por 8. cuenta nuesa, y enesto non haya falta porque asílos374 9. tengo cargados ami cuenta

Translation (Šim‘on and Yissak̠ar are partners in business export merchandise and who buy merchandise for sale. Šim‘on lives in one town and Yissak̠ar lives in another by the sea. From there [the town by the sea] the merchandise was not sent to their owners,375 Levi and Yehudah who live abroad. The merchandise returned to this port [in Yissak̠ar’s town] and over the course of time, Re’uben went to Šim‘on’s abode and saw him dealing with the merchandise that he was exporting. He too wanted to do so and to send letters and to leave an owner abroad, as Šim‘on and Yissak̠ar were doing. When Šim‘on noticed this, he said to Re’uben ‘why are you doing this? How much money do you have? Give it to me and I will buy merchandise and I will write to my owners, saying that the first sale will be on their account and will be sent to them’. Re’uben agreed and gave the money to Šim‘on. Re’uben sent the merchandise together with Šim‘on and Yissak̠ar’s merchandise. This is what was written in the letter that Šim‘on sent to Yehudah, his owner. Yehudah was Re’uben’s brother-in-law.)

(1–9) As my nephew has written to you at length regarding what is due to our estate, I am only writing to let you know how I have sent 100 bars of lead mixed with ours with Re’uben, for which I plead with my cousin to give them to him from the quantity that he is carrying for me on our behalf. This is not necessary as I have charged them to my account.

(Before the merchandise arrived, Šim‘on passed away intestate, leaving a young son. When Re’uben heard this, he went to Yissachar, Šim‘on’s partner. He said to him ‘a hundred weights of lead of your merchandise belong to me, as this was my agreement with Šim‘on’. He told him all the above. They then went to Šim‘on’s widow and asked her if she knew anything about the above information. She, together

374 Read: así los. 375 Pator, this could be an error for patron meaning ‘owner’, as pator means nothing in Hebrew, Spanish or Turkish. 312 chapter four with an older son from another marriage, answered that Šim‘on had said the truth and that they knew he [Šim‘on] had not received anything in return, as Šim‘on used to say that he was embarrassed because of the delay. They agreed with Yissak̠ar that when the merchandise would arrive, he [Re’uben] would receive his share. The merchandise arrived.)

Decision:

Money is not to be removed from the ownership of the young orphan because we claim on his behalf. The contents of Šim‘on’s letter to Re’uben are not taken into account for various legal reasons.

35. Divre Rivot 124 A dying man conditionally bequeaths certain sums to his wife. He believes that she is carrying his child. It transpires that she is not pregnant, and the issue is whether she is still entitled to the bequest.

Figure 35 text 35—divre rivot 124 313

‘al ‘inyan matenat šekib̠ mer‘á vezé lešonó:

1. ‘od amar lanu 2. cómo la muǰer está me‘uberet,376 y que fuese con har(ebí) David 3. Gateño, apotropós de esta facienda, ‘od dicho que leden377 4. ala muǰer de su ketubah cinco mil aspro(s) de ropa y tres 5. mil aspros en aspros, y estos mil aspros que son 6. demaśiados de su ketubá es que se obligó de criar ala 7. criatura tres años afueras de vestidos, y si ḥas vešalo(m)378 8. no379 sale a luz, que le den los dichos mil aspros ansí como 9. ansí por el buen servicio

Translation On the subject of a dying man and this is his language.

(1–9) He told us that his wife is pregnant and that she should go with David Gatenio, the guardian of this estate. He also said that his wife should be given the same amount under her marriage contract, the said written 5000 aspers of clothes, 3000 aspers in aspers,380 and these 1000 aspers which are outside of her marriage contract Also she is obliged to bring up this child three years in clothing, and if, Heaven forbid, she does not give birth, she should be given the said 1000 aspers for her good service.

(In the end, it became clear that the widow was not pregnant. The question is whether the inheritance of a thousand aspers is due to her according to what the deceased left in his will, as he said ‘for her good service’).381

376 The word ‘pregnant’ is preferred in Hebrew, perhaps due to the sacred nature of the state. An element of superstition, in which protection is ensured by the use of sacred language, is certainly the reason. Also used in Me’Am Lo’ez (Shwarzwald 2006/7: 81). See discussion following table 3.5. 377 Read: le den. 378 Hebrew borrowing meaning ‘Heaven forbid’. 379 BIURP: ni. 380 Meaning ‘in cash’. 381 A similar style to this will, also using the phrase me a feito buenos servicios, effectively meaning ‘for her good service’ can be appreciated in Minervini (1992: 260), text 17. 314 chapter four

Decision:

This will and gift are of no real significance since at the beginning he assumed that his wife was pregnant. The fact is she was not pregnant.

36. Divre Rivot 150 This is apparently the continuation of a previous responsum. The issue is that Re’uben wishes to extricate himself from a debt of 64 gold pieces to Levi. The case is discussed on 12–17 Av 5324 / 31 July–5 August 1564, the ruling given on 19 Kislev 5329 / 9 December 1568. Ab̠raham Saluriel testifies.

Figure 36 text 36—divre rivot 150 315

1. en un dia de aquella semana que se 2. falló el dicho r(ebí) A(b̠raham) haniz(kar) beḥanut Re’ub̠en haniz(kar), que quería 3. pagarle un poco de dinero que le devía, y non lo dišo a r(ebí) 4. Re’u b̠en haniz(kar) sinon que fuese ‘ed delo siguiente: que Yehu- dah veRe’ub̠en 5. haniz(kar) le‘il estaban con Šim‘ón, y hićieron cuenta, y en 6. la cuenta se halló que debían Re’u b̠en veYehudah leŠim‘ón šišim382 7. vešenayim peraḥim tob̠im vešišim ve’arba‘á arigues, los cuales le 8. acaró el dicho Šim‘ón quelos diesen a Yissa k̠ar haniz(kar) le‘il 9. befanav del dicho Yissak̠ar, y tomolos el dicho Yissak̠ar haniz(kar) venatán qinyán 10. meRe’uben veYehudah haḥab̠erim haniz(kerim), pero non quiśo ha’arigues y dišo 11. Šim‘ón a los ḥab̠erim dichos: dalde me’a ve‘esrim peraḥim tob̠im 12. y queles soltaba los šišá peraḥim. 13. Gam ken amar betorat ‘edut quenon sabe si le quedaban a deber 14. más, los ḥab̠erim dichos al dicho Šim‘ón, o sinon y todo esto 15. fue dientro enla debotica de Re’uben haniz(kar), ‘od amar 16. que non había eneste ma‘amad dicho mas que él y r(ebí) Ya‘aqob y 17. Re’uben veYehudah veYissaḥar veŠim‘ón haniz(kerim)

Translation (Later on, Re’uben brought witnesses to support his second claim and this is the testimony of the witnesses that was testified in front of the Court. Ab̠raham Saluriel testified before the Court the following):

(1–11) One day of that week that Ab̠raham was in Re’uben’s shop when he wanted to pay him back some of the money he owed him, and he didn’t tell Re’uben, but he was a witness of the following: that Yehu- dah and Re’uben were with Šim‘on and they finalised their accounts. In doing so it was apparent that Re’uben and Yehudah owed Šim‘on sixty-two aspers and sixty-four arigues383 that Šim‘on confronted and said should be given to Yissak̠ar in front of Yissak̠ar. He took an acquisition from Re’uben to Yehudah, their forementioned partners.

382 Note that terms for coins and amounts are borrowed from Hebrew, see Table 3.8. 383 I could not find the origin of this coin. 316 chapter four

(11–12) but he didn’t want the aspers, and Šim‘on said to the forementioned partners ‘give one hundred and twenty gold coins384 and he [Šim‘on] gave six aspers.

(13–17) Also he said under oath that he did not know if the partners owed more to the forementioned Šim‘on or not. All this took place in Re’uben’s shop. He also said there was no testimony other than Ya‘aqob and Re’uben’s, Yehudah’s and Yissak̠ar’s and the forementioned Šim‘on’s.

(So too, Ya‘aqob came and testified confirming all the above; however he could not remember when exactly this took place. Afterwards, I asked Re’uben when Šim‘on’s protest to Levi had taken place. He answered ‘it must have been about a week before the New Year’. All this came before me on Thursday 19 Kislev 5325 [1565].)

Decision:

This testimony does not exempt Re’uben from paying sixty-four gold pieces to Levi. It is also possible that in the time that passed between the two referrals (the first by Yissakar̠ and the second by Levi), Šim‘on had sold merchandise to Re’uben with the consequence that Re’uben owed Šim‘on money. Even if Šim‘on would admit that Re’uben does not owe him anything after the first referral, he would not be trusted to cause Levi any loss.

37. Divre Rivot 189385 Ya‘aqob Ezra and Yosef Taitazac argue over the ownership of a farm. This testimony is recorded on 20Ellul 5326 / 4 September 1566.

384 Gold coins. 385 The Judeo-Spanish testimony is included in responsum 189, but the case is answered in responsum 190, in fact the case presented in 189 is unrelated to the vernacular text. text 37—divre rivot 189 317

Figure 37 Part 1 318 chapter four

Figure 37 Part 2

1. ke(b̠od) r(ebí) Ya‘aqob ‘Ezrá ta‘aṇ vetab‘á lerebí Yosef Ta‘itazaq 2. cómo el çiftlik386 de Musa mirá que eran 3. de rebí Šemu’el Taitazaq, y todos los qarqa‘ot que tocan ael 4. çiftlik dicho. Vehešib̠ rebí Yosef hanizkar cómo son suyos, que los 5. mercó de rebí Yosef Almosnino, y el dicho rebí Yosef los mercó 6. de rebí Šemu’el Taitazaq, y de su muǰer y de todo amostró 7. šetarot:̣ šetaṛ cómo rebí Yosef Almosnino había mercado de 8. rebí Šemu’el, n(uḥó) e(den), y de su muǰer, y šetaṛ cómo él mercó de387 9. rebí Yosef Almosnino. Verebí Ya‘aqob hanizkar hešib̠ lo388 cómo el 10. šet aṛ šeqaná r(ebí) Yosef Almosnino zemanó bišnat 5323, ver(ebí) Šemu’el, n(uḥó) e(den) 11. vendimió y hiźo su vino šenat 5324 ve5325, ve‘od amostró 12. rebí Ya‘aqob ketab̠ yadó šel rebí Yosef Taitazaq cómo escribe asu 13. hermano rebí Šelomoh vezé lešonó: ésta haćervos saber cómo 14. vendimiamos en el orete389 dos pedazos de viñas delas 15. yetomot , y mandé390 una carosa y seis cargas de uba y 16. aquí quedaron en la nabe 16 cargas que no salió más, y

386 Turkish çiftlik, ‘farm’. 387 BIURP: do. 388 This text is a good example of code-switching. The language switches to Hebrew as the new witness is being introduced, like a narrator in a play, see code-switching, section 3.3.3.3. 389 Turkish orta, ‘middle’. 390 Could also be read as mandí. text 37—divre rivot 189 319

17. creo que hoy enternimos en las viñas del buklik391 yera392 18. quela peśen y393 inchan dos botas de ella medio agua y 19. medio mosto, y la uba dela nave daréis a Tacone y 20. tomar dinero, y sacavos a Caraga de encima, vehaketab̠ 21. está ḥatum bo r(ebí) Yosef Taitazaq. Ver(ebí) Yosef hešib̠ al hata‘anạ́ 22. harišoná como la caña de rebí Yosef Almosnino fue muy394 23. buena, ysi mi hermano hiźo vino šenat 5324 vešenat 5325 24. quizá le mercó la uba y hiźo vino. Velata‘anạ́ šeniyá del ketab̠ 25. respondió cómo tiene viñas en compañía con otros 26. y para saber loque meriende395 cada cośa, escribí el ketab. 27. ‘Od ta‘aṇ ve’amar ke(bod )r(ebí) Ya‘aqob cómo le dišo r(ebí) Yosef Taitazaq al 28. pe : quiero dar mil metros de vino a Tacone porque le vendí 29. ael mismo Tacone mil metros le‘erek̠ a 12 as(pros) o 13 as(pros) 30. para tener apareǰado para pagar al emín396 del kapán397 31. y a Caraga. Hešib̠ lo r(ebí) Yosef que no sabe loque se diće vehar(ebí) 32. Ya‘aqob ledišo quele hićiese una šebu‘á. ‘Od ta‘aṇ ke(bod) r(ebí) Ya‘aqob cómo 33. el çiftlik de Zonesto ledemandó r(ebí) Yosef aél liçen(ç)ia que 34. para venderse bien vendido había menester desbaratarlo y 35. venderse la madera porsí yla teǰa porsí, y yo lediše 36. hace mucho enbuena hora, y ansí lo hiźo, digo que medé398 loque 37. rindió lepera’ón ketubat bití, vehešiv r(ebí) Yosef: este çiftlik de 38. Zoneste es mío queansí tengo el hüccet399 de ello como es 39. mío. Vehešib̠400 rebí Ya‘aqob še a(f) a(l) pi que el hüccet está sobre 40. vos, la verdat es que es de rebí Šemu’el, y se escribió401 41. el hüccet sobre rebí Yosef fue porque el togar non fiaba de

391 Turkish bölük, ‘company’. 392 Read: y era. BIURP: ymera. 393 Judeo-Spanish does not write e before i. 394 BIURP: muzi. 395 Must be me riende, meaning ‘yields to me’, not meriende ‘to have lunch’. 396 Turkish emir, ‘man in charge’. 397 Turkish kapan, ‘weighing house’. 398 Read: me dé. 399 Turkish hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. 400 Read: vehešib̠, (and he answered) but the heh reads like an aleph. 401 BIURP: escrisió. 320 chapter four

42. él, sino de vos, vere’ayá cómo el çiftlik es suyo de r(ebí) Šemu’el 43. que él aró y comió todos los perot del çiftlik, y él alquiló caśas a yehudim 44. bizmán hamagefah.402 Vek̠en ba r(ebí) Ya‘aqob 45. Kataribas vehe‘id cómo rebí Šemu’el le alquiló la caśa y 46. aél pagó el quieré.403 Vek̠en ba haḥak̠am rebí Šemu’el Taitazaq ve’amar 47. cómo pagó quieré de una caśa a rebí Šemu’el, n(uḥó) e(den), vek̠emó k̠en 48. yeš li ’edim aḥerim ‘al ze. ‘Al ze hešib̠ que era su 49. hermano y non era maqpid404 con él en los alquilés. ‘Od 50. amar rebí Ya‘aqob como harás405 ḥatnó rebí Šemu’el el çiftlik de 51. Zoneste umaḥar ubaná vehisqir ‘ad yom moto kol ze ab̠ar befanenu.

Translation406 (1–4) Ya‘aqob Ezra argued and claimed to Yosef Taitazac that Musa’s farm407 belonged to Šemu’el Taitazaq, and all the lands belonged to the said farm.

(4–7) The forementionedYosef replied that they belonged to him, that the said Yosef had bought them from Šemu’el Taitazaq and his wife. He showed contracts to prove all this:

(7–9) a contract saying that Yosef Almosnino had bought from Šemu’el, may he rest in Eden, (a contract saying that he bought) and from Yosef Almosnino.

402 (1)Note the Hebrew borrowing bizmán ‘at the time of’ hamagefah ‘the plague’. Could this be a reference to the Bubonic plague. Although this plague appeared in force in the seventeenth century there were previous outbreaks in the Ottoman lands and in Venetian territory. (2) See Tables 3.10 and 3.4 respectively. 403 Alquiler as a noun is the modern equivalent. 404 The adjective maqpid ‘exacting’ is borrowed from Hebrew for reasons of emphasis. 405 Turkish: haraset, ‘farming’—‘he farmed’. 406 This testimony appears without the more usual introduction in Hebrew. 407 Can also be translated as: ‘the Sultan’s inheritance’ (see Appendix 2). text 37—divre rivot 189 321

(9–11) The forementioned Ya‘aqob replied that the contract Yosef Almosnino bought in the year 5323, Šemu’el, may he rest in Eden, harvested and made his wine in the years 5324 and 5325.

(11–16) Then Ya‘aqob showed a letter from Yosef Taitazac to his brother Šelomoh and this is the language: this is to let you know that we harvested in the middle [of the land], two sections of vineyards belonging to the orphans, and I sent a carriage and six packets of grapes, and here in the ship there were sixteen packets remaining.

(17–20) I believe today we went into the vines of the company, ‘they must have weighed them and filled up two boots, half water and half must.408 The grape from the ship you shall give to Tacone and take money, and keep Caraga409 off your back’.410

(20–24) The letter is signed here byYosef Taitazaq. Yosef replied on the first claim that Yosef Almosnino’s product was very good: ‘if my brother made the wine in the years 5324 and 5325, then perhaps he bought the wine and made the wine’.

(24–26) To the second claim of the letter, he replied that he has vines in partnership with others ‘and in order to know how much each thing yields to me, I wrote the letter’.

(27–31) Ya‘aqob then claimed and said exactly what Yosef Taitazaq told him ‘I want to give one thousand metres of wine to Tacone because I sold to the very Tacone one thousand metres to the value of 12 or 13 aspers; the money should be divided between paying the man in charge of weighing the merchandise, and Caraga’.

(31–32) Yosef replied that he does not know what he is saying, and Ya‘aqob told him to make an oath.

(32–35) Ya‘aqob also argued that Zoneste’s farmer demanded permission from Yosef. In order to sell this [the merchandise] at a good

408 Unfermented grape juice. 409 Tacone and Caraga seem to be names of moneylenders. 410 The language switches from indirect to direct speech without introduction. 322 chapter four price, it was necessary to dismantle this, and sell the timber and tiles separately.

(35–37) I told him that he should do it with my blessing and he did it. I say that he should give me the profit for my daughter, and Yosef replied:

(37–42) Zoneste’s farm is mine, as I possess its title-deed, it means it belongs to me. And Ya‘aqob replied ‘even though the title-deed is in your name, the truth is that it belongs to Šemu’el. Thetitle-deed was written in Yosef ’s name because the Turk did not trust him, he only trusted you.

(42–44) The proof as to the reason the farm belongs to Šemu’el is that he ploughed and ate all the fruits of the farm. He rented houses to Jews at the time of the plague’.

(44–46) So Ya‘aqob Kataribas came and testified thatŠemu’el rented him the house and he paid the rent to him,

(46–48) And so the sage Šemu’el Taitazaq came and recounted that he paid the rent of a house to Šemu’el, may he rest in Eden, and so I have other witnesses on this.

(48–51) To this he replied that it was his brother [that he paid the rent to his brother], and that he was not exacting with him in the rentals. Also Ya‘aqob said that Šemu’el’s son-in-law cultivated Zoneste’s farm. He sold, built and rented it out till the day of his death. All this happened before us.

(The answer after hearing R Ya‘aqob Ezra’s claims and Yosef ’s answers, I will answer in order of the questions. Firstly, his claim that Musa’s farm and the surrounding lands belonged to his [Ezra’s] son-in-law and he now wants to claim from them [the lands] his daughter’s marriage contract. This claim has no substance [right] because Yosef produced to the Court a document written and signed [sealed] that his [Ezra’s] daughter and son-in-law sold the fields and all the lands and since she herself sold it then she has removed her rights on the land and she accepted on herself the responsibility of the sale. How can he [the father] come and claim the farm and the land seeing that Yosef is also in possession at text 37—divre rivot 189 323 the moment? Even if this land were in the possession of young orphans, even then the Court would remove them from the possession because of this document, all the more so here in this case because he himself is in possession of and he [Yosef] also has a document saying that he bought it [the lands] from the one that she sold it to and the original sale document).

Decision:

Musa has no part in the securities since Yišma’el, the governor, did not forget the debt but Re’uben and Šim‘on tried to convince him to erase the debt. Since Yišma’el gave them the securities and they intended to acquire them, they share the securities and shall divide them between themselves.

The decision follows on in the following responsa 190 as follows:

Joseph had ownership of Musa’s farm and its land from the time that Šemu’el was still alive. He has a document that he bought it from the person who bought it from the widow. He has a document testifying that the widow herself sold the farm and the lands. Ya‘aqob’s (the widow’s father) claim that it was not a true sales document is not a valid claim. Usually one has to prove one’s right to an acquisition. Joseph’s claim that perhaps Šemu’el repurchased the fruit from the first buyer is a con- vincing claim to keep his possession by virtue of his document. The fact that Joseph in his handwritten note related to the farm as belonging to the (female) orphans answers this claim. It is also possible to say that he did this so as not to show that he has many possessions knowing that the Court favours the buyer. Even though Joseph contradicts the witnesses, the contradictions related to insignificant details. Since it is perceived that people do not remember such details his contradictions do not render him legally untrustworthy. Therefore, Ya‘aqob Ezra has no claim against Joseph regarding the farm Muso’s farm and its lands. In respect to Zoneste’s farm, since the matter is well-known and an unrelenting rumour exists that it belongs to Ya‘aqob’s son-in-law and that he held this property for a number of years. The farm is liened to Ya‘aqob’s daughter’s marriage contract. But if Joseph has a document that was done in a court that he bought it from the first owners, the document supercedes the report. Even though Ya‘aqob’s son-in-law ate 324 chapter four the farm’s fruit for three years without anyone protesting his rights, this is of no consequence since he held the property on the basis of his claim of acquisition from the first owners after Joseph had already purchased it from the first owners.

38. Divre Rivot 209411 The familiarity between Šemu’el Vida Caro and Raḥel is assessed through the testimony in order to ascertain the validity of their marriage.

Figure 38A Part 1

411 This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 458–459). text 38—divre rivot 209 325

Figure 38A Part 2 and 38B

Part A

1. como un412 día 2. que rebí Yehuda Vida Caro hiźo berit413 un hiǰo me fallí allí, y 3. después del berit me rogó una ǰudía que le escribiese 4. allí una carta, la cual estando escribiéndola vide

412 BIURP: u. 413 See appendix 3 for an explanation of berit. 326 chapter four

5. andar por caśa a rebí Šemu’el Vida Caro, al cual lo414 6. preguntó su hermano rebí Yehudah haniz(kar) si tenía algún dinero 7. para gastar, y respondió rebí Šemu’el hanizk(ar): aquítengo415 medio gerúš, 8. y sacólo, y llamó a su esposa que le estaba 9. apareǰado sarqẹ́ se‘udat haberit y díšole Raḥel: toma este 10. gerúš por qidušín para ti, y ella lo tomó besefer panim 11. yafot aḥar kak̠ ba befanenu beB(et) D(in) r(ebí) Ab̠raham Sidi Caro y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu) v(eaḥar) 12. ha’iyumim vehagizumim hare’uyim leha‘asot bo’im lo yagid vek̠u(leh), qam al 13. raglav vehe‘id betorat ‘edut vek̠én amar:416 un día busqué417 a Šemu’el 14. Vida Caro haniz(kar) beb̠et aḥiv r(ebí) Yehudah haniz(kar), y hallando la 15. puerta de la calle atornada la enpušé, y entrando vide 16. que estaba Šemu’el haniz(kar) con un gerúš pequeño enla mano 17. dićiendo a su espoś(a) Rahel: toma este gerúš por qidušín para 18. mí, y ella lo tomó yse quedó conél.

Part B

1. . . . saberéis señores como un día estando en el cortiǰo 2. del pasá418 me dišo rebí Yudá Vida Caro, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), que fuese a su caśa que 3. me quería hablar una palabra, y de allí a un poco 4. fue y estando sentando sobre una caša, vide a rebí 5. Šemu’el Vida Caro, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), que sacó un gerúš de vente aspros de 6. la faldiquera, y dišo a su esposa la cual estaba 7. mondando espinacas: Raḥel toma este gerúš por qidušín 8. para mí, y ella lo tomó, y se rió, y lo metió en la

414 BIURP: li. 415 Read: aquí tengo. 416 Note one of the standard introductory phrases to witness testimony, also attested in the responsa of Chaim Shabtai (1651), no. 44, ll.1. 417 Could be busquí. 418 Turkish for ‘governor’. text 38—divre rivot 209 327

9. faldiquera, que andava vestida de colorado, y estava 10. un sofer alí419 escribiendo, y un mançebo Balançi y 11. otros ǰudiós, y después me conbidó rebí Yehudah hanizkar que 12. me quedase a la se‘udá del berit de su hiǰo, yyo420 por 13. estar en el año del mi madre421 no me quedé, kol ze he‘id rebí 14. Mošeh sarfatị hanizkar befanenu bet din betorat ‘edut velire’ayá katab̠nu 15. veh ̣atamnu šemotenu po bayom eḥad yod [11] letišrí 5329 vehakol qayam. 16. Mošeh Amram dayán. Selomó ben Susan dayán. Yehudah Sarano dayán.

Translation Part A

(This is the sworn testimony of Šem Tov Azubib):

In a session of three judges forming a Court of Law the witness relates:

(1–7) one day I was in Yehudah Vida Caro’s house as it was his son’s circumcision. After the circumcision a Jewess pleaded with me to write a letter for her there. As I was writing it, I saw Šemu’el Vida Caro walking around the house. His brother Yehudah asked him for some spending money.

(7–10) Šemu’el said ‘here I have half a piastre’. He took it out and called his wife422 (to be) who was preparing a grand festive meal following circumcision.423 He said to her ‘Raḥel, take this piastre as kiddushin’. She took it

419 Read: allí. 420 Read: y yo. 421 See chap. 4 n. 424. 422 It is apparent from the reply that the couple were already intended for each other, see note 94. 423 (1) Women played a significant role in the transmission of Sephardic culture (Cohen 1999: 494). (2) See appendix 3 on berit milah. 328 chapter four

(10–13) gladly, then Ab̠raham Sidi Caro, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, came before us and, after all the threats and warnings that were fitting if he did not speak, he stood up, testified under oath and said:

(13–18) One day I was looking for the above-mentioned Šemu’el Vida Caro in his brother Yehudah’s house. As I saw the main door ajar, I pushed it open. As I came in, I saw Šemu’el holding a small piastre in his hand and saying to his wife Raḥel ‘take this piastre as kiddushin’. She took it and kept it.

Part B

In a session of a Court of Law comprising three judges, the witness Mošeh Sarfati testifies:

(1–6) You should know, sirs, that one day I was in the governor’s courtyard. Yehudah Vida Caro asked me into his house. He said he wanted to have a word with me. A little later he sat on a stool. I saw Šemu’el Vida Caro take out a twenty-asper coin from his purse.

(6–13) He said to his wife, who was cleaning out the spinach ‘Raḥel, take this piastre as kiddushin from me’. She took it; she laughed and put it in her purse. She was dressed in red, there was a scribe writing, there was a young man, Balansi and other Jews. Later the above-mentioned Yehudah invited me to stay for his son’s circumcision festive meal. I didn’t stay because I was in the year of mourning424 following my mother’s death.

424 It is customary that the period of mourning for a parent is one year during which it is usual to abstain from festivity. The notion of mourning has both Biblical and Talmudic sources. It is recorded that Abraham mourned for Sarah (his wife) and wept for her (Genesis 23:2). Jacob mourned ‘many days’ for the supposed death of Joseph. David lamented for Absalom, in spite of the latter’s ill conduct. The mourning for an only son was profound (Amos viii. 10). The days of mourning for parents were generally observed (Genesis 27:41). Joseph mourned seven days for his father (ibid. 1:10), while the mourning of the captive Gentile woman lasted thirty days (Deu- teronomy 21:13), showing that the Gentile period of mourning for a parent exceeded that of the Hebrews. The death of a person who had been esteemed and honored in life was publicly lamented by the people as a tribute of respect. Jacob was thus honored in Egypt when he died; the Egyptians organized an elaborate public funeral, and their mourning for him lasted seventy days (Genesis 1:3). Among the Hebrews a public text 39—divre rivot 262 329

(13–16) The aforementioned Mošeh sarfatị testified all this before us, the Court, as a testimony As evidence of this we wrote and signed our names here on 11 Tišri 5329 and all [the testimony] is valid.

Judge Mošeh Amram, Judge Šelomoh ben Sussan, Judge Yehudah Sarano

Decision:

Raḥel should not be permitted to marry without receiving a divorce bill from Šemu’el. She requires a divorce as testimony of her marriage even in the absence of the opponent is accepted post facto. Also Rabbi David Ben Zimra wrote that the reason why testimony of a marriage is accepted in the absence of the opponent is in order to save a person from transgression. The fact that Šemu’el’s relative was there at the time of the marriage does not invalidate the rest of the witnesses. It seems that even if someone else comes and marries her, the marriage will not be valid, but this would be a matter to be decided by the judges.

39. Divre Rivot 262 The issue is whether one or two debts are to be paid. The claimant says he is owed twice but the judge thinks there is only one debt. It is recorded on 10 Ševat 5329 / 28 January 1569.425

Figure 39A mourning never exceeded thirty days, even in the case of their greatest prophet, Moses (Deuteronomy: 34:8) (jewishencyclopaedia.com-mourning 18/03/06). 425 This testimony is extracted from the reply. 330 chapter four

Figure 39B

Figure 39C

Part A

1 . . .‘od vos mando un šetaṛ 2. que había fecho cuando los echó preśos el ḥak̠am r(ebí) Mošeh de 3. 190 zehubim. ‘od be’igeret šenit. Y vos mando otro 4. šet aṛ que tenía yo aquí que había fecho cuando los echó preśos 5. el ḥak̠am rebí Mošeh. Era el šetaṛ de 190 sult’ [anes]

Part B

1. vezé lešonó: el šetaṛ de los 190 zehubim 2. que vos mandé y la letra si non la hubiéredes menester que text 39—divre rivot 262 331

3. los mandés luego porque me importa.426 Avíśame luego si 4. cobráis o loque haćéis . . .

Part C

1. vesé lešonó: y vos torno a 2. escribir que siendo cavśo que el dicho šetaṛ y la letra de 3. canbio no hubiéredes de menester, forćada mente que me lo 4. tornaseis a mandar luego, porque me inporta 5. šesariḳ ̠ ledaqdeq ma r(osé)̣ l(omar) non hubiéredes menester

Translation Part A (I have read and reread all the documents and letters of both parties and I have found without doubt that there are no two debts between both parties—there is only one [debt] relating to the letter [of credit]. Eliyahu wanted to confirm the original debt in writing so that Ya‘aqob cannot say ‘I have already paid it’ when the debt is [in fact] due. However it is clear that he never lent any more money and Ya‘aqob only owes the original debt. If Eliyahu took any extra [money] he must return it.427

The reason is that the original letter of credit was dated 10 Ševat 5329 and two months later on 5 Nissan the credit of 12,000 aspers was not paid. So how can one imagine that he lent the Ashkenazim [German Jews] an extra 190 gold coins since he had not received his original loan back? Even if you want to say that he was so sure the Ashkenazim would pay the credit, it was well known at the time that they were incapable of paying. Furthermore Eliyahu wrote several times in a letter to his late brother):

(1–3) I am sending you a document that I had done when the sage R Mošeh had fixed the amount at190 gold coins.

(3–5) Furthermore in the second letter: I am also sending you another document in my possession that I made when the sage Rabbi Mošeh had fixed the amount. Thedocument was [worth] 190 gold coins.

426 Note Judeo-Spanish inporta for importa in modern Spanish. 427 Here I have included the translation of a section before the Judeo-Spanish frame in order to clarify the issues involved. 332 chapter four

Translation Part B (Furthermore if he is correct that he lent an extra 190 gold coins, how could Eliyahu risk his money by sending the document to Constanti- nople without the stamp and authenticity of the Court. Even children know that the document can get lost on the way. He also sent it without authorising anyone to claim with it [the document]. So what was the purpose of sending it? At least for the original letter of credit he relied on the authorisation of R Šelomoh Eliman and R Mošeh Zalmi who gave permission to the sage R Yeḥiel Anabi to follow his rulings. However, who is he relying on for the purpose of this debt? Therefore it is obvious that the document and the letter [of credit] are one and the same. So Eliyahu has no further claim on the Ashkenazim.

Furthermore after much persuasion Eliyahu Cohen is claiming matters that he himself knows are false . . . He wrote this letter to his brother):

(1–4) This is his language: the document of the 190 gold coins I sent you and the [exchange] letter—if you do not need them, send them later because they are important to me.428 Let me know later on if you take the money or whatever you do . . .

(We see that he asked for it to be written immediately; a year and a half later he claimed that letter [of credit] in court. It was written on 29 Ševat 5331 that Eliyahu claimed 200 gold coins. How could he claim that since a year and a half transpired since it [the document] was sent to Constantinople? How is it that in that time he did not know that the letter [of credit] was paid as he required? Did he also not know that the letter [of credit] was only [worth] 133 gold coins? We can see that he is dishonest).

Translation Part C (Furthermore I would like to understand his intention in those two letters)

428 In modern Spanish me importa means ‘I mind’—here it is used in a financial context. text 39—divre rivot 262 333

(1–6) This is the language [of the document]: I am writing to you again as in case you do not need the forementioned document and bill of exchange, you have to return it to me, because it is important to me as I need to know the precise details of what it [the document] says. You will not need it [the document and bill of exchange].

(If it means he cannot claim payment, then that is impossible, because he does need to claim.

Just that he cannot claim with them [the document and bill of exchange]. Furthermore, why is it necessary to say ‘because it is important to me’, it is obvious if the claiming of the debt is dependent on these [documents] then they would know it. Therefore it is clear from the words ‘that it is important’ that they should pay. [This is so] especially since they sent the authorisation based on the authority of R Yeḥiel and his brother. They would pay all [the money] that they are asking. If this was a new loan, how could it be paid from this document, since it does not authorise anyone and no mention is made on the original authorisation about any further loans. It is obvious that the document and the letter [of credit] are one and the same. It also seems from his words and letters that he is dishonest as he says that once the letter [of credit] is paid back they should return him the letter [of credit] ‘because it is important to me’ to produce false claims as we saw before).429

Decision:

There are legal assumptions that can be made that provide certain proof that no two debts existed. However Eliyahu wanted to confirm the original debt with a document so that he cannot claim that he has already paid the debt. If it does turn out that Ya‘aqob paid the debt, Eliyahu has no claim against him. But, it seems from the words of Yechiel Anaby that he did not fully pay all the 133 gold coins of Ya‘aqob’s assets. The Tur (in siman 12) wrote that a judge that always leads to a compromise is commended. Therefore since the first judges decreed that Ya‘aqob should pay Eliyahu four thousand nine hundred aspers and Eliyahu had already received three thousand, five hundred and ten aspers, therefore I rule that two

429 Note that the unitalicised words are in Judeo-Spanish. 334 chapter four thousand aspers should remain in Eliyahu’s possession, and he must return the remaining one thousand five hundred and ten aspers to Ya‘aqob.

40. Divre Rivot 279430 Re’ub̠en was dying as he made a will in Skopje appointing his wife Clara as a joint guardian of his estate and of their children. Her status as guardian is questioned.

Figure 40

430 This case is discussed in detail in Benaim (1998: 15–19), also in Benaim (1997: 203–205). text 40—divre rivot 279 335 vezé

1. lešonó : Primera mente 2. declaro431 como deǰo por apotroposim de mis hiǰos432 ler(ebí) Ya‘aqob 3. AviAtar433 velerebí Yosef Sassón velerebí Yosef Lindo,434 ǰunta mente con 4. Clara mi muǰer. Y mando que siendo que dita Clar(a) quiera estar 5. con mis fiǰos, ella sea patrona y señora sobre todo 6. vek ̠u(leh). Aḥar kak̠ behemšek̠ sava’atọ́ sivạ́ vekatab̠ ve’amar:435 y si declara 7. que siendo que diga436 dona437 Clara mi muǰer afirmare lašeb ̠u‘á438 8. que de su propia veluntad, tomó de no se caśar por tienpo 9. de diez años, mando que ella sea apotropiśa y mande 10. mi faćienda, con tal que non faga ninguna cośa sin orden y 11. conseǰo de dichos apotroposim, rebí Ya‘aqob Aviatar y rebí 12. Yosef Sassón,439 y ella pueda dar quitança acual440 quier 13. débito441 mio, ansí de442 dar como de haber con condiçión que 14. como pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui vek̠u(leh), vehayah kol ze 15. be’Escopie

Translation (Re’uben was a dying man and he made a will from his death bed.)

And this is

431 Note the equivalent responsum sent to Medina, text 25 has mando instead of declare. 432 The formhi ǰos alternates in line 6 with fiǰos. 433 Medina, text 25, has Ben Attar instead of Avi Attar. 434 Medina, text 25, has the following phrase here: moradores de Saloniqui. 435 Medina, text 25, has vezé lešonó. 436 Could be either diga or dicha, both are contextually acceptable. 437 Doña in modern Spanish. 438 Note šeb̠u‘á ‘oath’ and apotropos(a),(im) ‘guardian(s)’ as the only two legal terms borrowed from Hebrew in this text. Line 6 contains an example of code-switching. 439 The repetition of the names of the guardians is omitted in Medina. 440 Read: a cual. 441 Medina has debdor, meaning debtor. 442 Que found in later editions. 336 chapter four

(1–7) his language: First I appoint as a guardian to my children the following: Ya‘aqob AviAttar, Yosef Sasson and Yosef Lindo who are residents of Salonica together with my wife Clara.443 I proclaim that as my forementioned wife wishes to be with my children, she may be the owner and mistress above all.

(7–15) After this in the continuation of his will on his death bed, he commanded and wrote: it is declared that if my wife says she affirms the oath not to remarry for ten years, that she undertook out of her own volition, I order that she may be the guardian and look after my property as long as she does not do anything without the advice and consent of the above named guardians, Ya‘aqob AviAttar and Yosef Lindo. She can settle financial matters with any of my debtors or pay out, on condition that after a year she moves to Salonica etc.444 All this took place in Skopje.

(He said that Clara does not want to leave Skopje even after a year. Therefore it is not fitting that she should be in charge of the property as her husband commanded, ‘on condition that after a year she moves to Salonica’. Our teachers, on whose side is the law?).

Decision:

Adarbi explains that when the content at the end of the document contradicts that at the beginning, the respondent makes a decision according to what is said at the end of the document. However it is always best to settle the contradiction.

Therefore, according to the document, Clara was initially appointed as a guardian of her children without the condition that she should go to Salonica. The condition that he later added, that she should go to Salonica, relates to the additional authority that she received as guardian of his property.

In any case Clara is still the guardian of the property.

443 Doña is a courtesy title that has no equivalent in English and is therefore omitted in translation. 444 See Benaim 1998. text 41—divre rivot 282 337

41. Divre Rivot 282 Ab̠raham ben En gives Me’ir Cazes some goods to sell in Salonica and asks him to give whatever remains unsold to Šelomoh de Medina. Me’ir changes the original agreement. The issue is whether the first agreement is binding.445

Figure 41

1. šehem rebí Yisḥ ̣aq 2. Gasqón vešelujó šel harebí Me’ir Cazés 3. vehú rebí Yosef Cazés aḥiv šeharébí Šelomoh de Medina katab̠ 4. be’igerat šeluḥá lerebí Ab̠raham ben En vezé lešonó: después vino rebí Yisḥ ̣aq 5. Gasqón en que trušo carta cómo él venía sobre esta 6. ropa, y que yo mirase con él en loque hubiese menester, y yo 7. ansí lo fiće, que en cual quier cosa que me demandaba le 8. dećía mi parecer. Agora cuando se hubo de partir el dicho 9. rebí Yisḥ ̣aq Gascón vino delante mí con rebí Yosef Cazés, y dišo 10. que el dicho rebí Yosef Cazés no había fecho cośa ninguna sin 11. su compañía, y el dicho rebí Yosef dišo que él non había fecho

445 This testimony is extracted from the reply. 338 chapter four

12. cośa ninguna sin el dicho rebí Yisḥ ̣aq, y a mi veer me pareçe 13. que el dicho rebí Yisḥ ̣aq ha fecho enello todo lo posible, ‘ad kan.

Translation (Reply:

But when looking deeper into the matter, it seems that even though Šelomoh was not present at the sale of the clothes, the sale of the agency of Me’ir Cazes and Isaac Gascon is a valid sale and Ab̠raham ben En has no claim against them at all. The exchange document that Ab̠raham handed to Me’ir Cazes with reference to the clothes, allowing him or his representative (subject to the acknowledgement of Šelomoh de Medina) to sell them, is as follows: They agreed between them that Me’ir would send the above garments with his permission to Salonica and they would be sold subject to the acknowledgment of Šelomoh de Medina or anyone else appointed in his place. We see that Šelomoh was given permission to appoint an agent in his place. Therefore, Me’ir’s agent can claim that Šelomoh appointed an agent in his place to sell the clothes and no witnesses are needed in this case according to Ramban. So Ab̠raham cannot enforce an oath since he does not have a definite claim that Šelomoh did not appoint an agent in his place.)

(1–8) They were Yisḥ ̣aq Gascon and Me’ir Cazes’s agent, who is Yosef Cazes his [Me’ir Cazes’s] brother. Šelomoh de Medina writes in the letter that he sent to Ab̠raham ben En, this is his language: then Yisḥ ̣aq Gascon came when he broke the letter that stated how he brought the letter on how he was getting along with this merchandise,446 and that I should see to whatever was necessary with him. I did it so. I gave him my opinion on anything he asked me.

(8–13) Now when the said Yisḥ ̣aq Gascon had to leave, he came before me with Yosef Cazes and said that the said Yosef Cazes had done nothing without him The said Yosef said he had never done anything without the said Yisḥ ̣aq. In my view, the said Yisḥ ̣aq had done all that was possible. The end.

446 Or it could mean, ‘came to have this merchandise’. text 42—divre rivot 310 339

Decision:

Ab̠raham has no claim on Me’ir. He fulfilled his obligation by bringing Yisḥ ̣aq’s handwritten account of what had been done. Therefore, it is clear that Me’ir and his messenger are not obligated to give an account to Abraham.

42. Divre Rivot 310 A question arises as to the kashrut of an animal. The decision is based on whether the kidney of the animal was putrid. Many witnesses give colourful testimonies as to the state of the animal’s kidney as it was handled by the Turkish butcher; they are recorded on Sunday 23 Nis- san 5335 / 3 April 1575 in Monastir (modern Bitolj).

Figure 42 Part 1 340 chapter four

Figure 42 Part 2 text 42—divre rivot 310 341 venišb‘á šeb̠u‘á ḥamurá besefer torá beḥoq vehe‘id kol

1. ašer ra’á be’inyán behemá aḥat šenišḥatá lefanav ve’amar: yo vide 2. sacar una koliá buena del carnicero turco espoliador 3. del carnicero ǰudió y la dio en poder de un turco y 4. cuando fue a sacar la otra, apretó la mano enla 5. koliá otra, y en apretando la mano sintió rebí Ab̠raham 6. dicho una fedor grande, y de la mano del espoliador 7. turco vido corer una agua asada, yel 8. espoliador dicho echó el riñón de la mano en el lodo, y 9. le demandamos: ¿pues de adónde sabés que la agua salió 10. del riñón? Y dišo, ¿pues de adónde había de ser? 11. Ah ̣ar ze ba rebí David Argis vehe‘id bekoak̠ haḥ umrot hanizkarot 12. ve’amar : que el segundo riñón non lo vido sacar sinon que oyó 13. hamiá 447 delos que dećían que fedía, y cuando se boltó vido 14. la koliá en la boca del keleb̠, y sacaron al keleb̠ y el 15. dicho448 rebí David fue a ver un pedaço de koliá color de koliá 16. buracado, y non sabía de qué eran los buracos y demandaron 17. al turco porqué lo echó, dišo, porque tenía agua. ‘od ba rebí 18. Yehuda ben Yakar vehe‘id tehilat debarav kenizkar le‘il mehakoliá harišon(á): 19. después sacó el otro y vido ser riñón y dišo 20. el turco ensacándolo ¡o cómo fiede! y lo echó al perro, 21. y me allegué a ver, ydela fedor non pude estar, y yo diše: 22. mira que afilu el perro non la quiee comer dela fedor. 23. ‘Od ba rebí Yaacov Calderón vehe‘id bek̠ol haḥumrot hanizkarot: vide la 24. koliá ser449 haespoliador dicho y sentí gran fedor,450 y por 25. los dedos de el espoliador dicho resumaba non sé si 26. era agua o materia, 27. y el espoliador dišo: ¡o cómo fiede! Y lo echólakeleb 28. y le demandamos si la hedor era de el 29. riñón, y dišo que non sabía si era de el

447 Turkish hamia, ‘foreign citizen’. 448 BIURP: digo. 449 1862 edition has beyad ‘in the hand of ’, here to help the understanding of the testimony. 450 Later editions give hedor for fedor. 342 chapter four

30. riñón o de otra cośa, y vido un pedazo del riñón en 31. su color. Aḥar ze ba rebí Barzilay de Le’on 32. vehe‘id kenizkar le‘il ve’amar: cuando fue a sacar el 33. otro riñón le arreventó en la mano, y se le hinchó la mano 34. de materia godra, y sintió un fedor muy grande y 35. lo echó luego451 lakeleb̠, y el keleb̠ comió el sevo de enriba452 y 36. del riñón quedó un pedaço en tierra color de riñón 37. podrido. Gam rebí Sabetay Romano he‘id ve’amar: cuando fue 38. a sacar el otro sacó y echólo a rayo de la pared 39. y le quedó la mano moǰada y que tanbién sintió fedor. 40. Gam rebí Ya‘aqob ben Ezra he‘id ve’amar: cuando sacó el otro 41. riñón, dišo el turco: ¡o cúanto mucho fiede este riñón! 42. Y era453 podrido. Y sacólo y echólo lakeleb̠ y le quedó aguada 43. en la mano, y yo tanbién sentí la fedor y dišo que era del 44. riñón, y que tanbién lo vido podrido, que estaba en 45. su color y como deshecho. Gam rebí Ab̠raham Krespín 46. he‘id : que al sacar del riñón segundo, le arreventó en la 47. mano y se le hinchó de agua fedorenta, que yo entendí la 48. fedor grande en arreventando, y el turco lo echó luego 49. lakeleb y la demandamos si la fedor era del riñón o del 50. sevo, y dišo que non sabía. Gam r(ebí) Ab̠raham Falcón he‘id 51. ve’amar : condo454 sacó el otro abrió la riñonada, y dio un 52. bafo de fedor, y al arrancar que lo arrancó cayó en tierra 53. 2 o 3 gotas de materia, y se hinchó la mano de materia 54. y echólo ala pared y el keleb̠ lo lanbió, veša‘alnu lo si la 55. materia era del riñón o del sevo, ve’amar: lo yad‘ati.455 56. Gam r(ebí) Yehudá b(en) ke(bod) harab Šelomoh Capsut he‘id ve’amar: cuando fue a 57. sacar el otro lo echó en tierra y vino el keleb̠ y lo tomó, 58. veša‘alnu lo si sintió fedor y dišo: non. Vegam ša‘alnu si vido 59. materia y dicho: non, sinon que lo vido blanco befí hakeleb̠, non sé 60. si era sevo o materia, y el keleb̠ comió lo blanco de 61. arriba veaḥar kak̠ comió el riñón, y vido un pedaço de 62. riñón en tierra color de riñón. kol ha‘ed uyot he‘idu

451 BIURP: luego luego for lo echó luego. 452 Arriba ‘above’ in modern Spanish. 453 Normally estaba would be used in modern Spanish in place of era. 454 Means cuando, ‘when’. 455 Evidence of the witness’s ease in switching from Hebrew to Judeo-Spanish. text 42—divre rivot 310 343

63. lifné memuné hašté qehilot qedošot ašer be‘ir Monesterio bayom 64. 1(yom rišón), 23 lejodeš Nisán šenat 5335, veša‘al hašoel ma yihyé mišpat 65. behemá zo, terefá o kešerá:

Translation (The case456 was brought before the Court in Monastir.)

Ab̠raham Lidma made a firm oath on the Torah and testified to

(1–10) everything he saw when an animal was slaughtered in front of his eyes and said:

‘I saw a perfect kidney being extracted by the Turkish porger working for the Jewish butcher.457 He gave it to a Turk. When he was about to take out the other one, he pressed his hand on the other kidney and at this moment the above-mentioned Ab̠raham experienced a foul

456 (1). This case deals with kashrut—suitability for consumption according to Jewish dietary laws, see Appendix 3. In the responsa there is evidence regarding the ritual slaughterer (shochet) employed by the community as a religious functionary. These slaughterers were apparently often employed by individual butchers. To moni- tor the slaughterers, an inspector was employed to visit the abattoirs. In towns with a smaller Jewish population the slaughterer would work for a Gentile butcher and sell meat to the Jews (Goodblatt 1952: 72). In the case in question, the Turkish porger works for a Jewish butcher. Goodblatt comments that Medina frequently complained about the disregard in the abattoirs of Salonica of the laws concerning inspection of animals’ lungs, known as bedikat ha-reah (Goodblatt 1952: 101–102). Spanish Jews allowed the flesh of an animal with a lesion in the lung to be eaten, provided there was no perforation in the lung if one blew into it. German and Hungarian Jewry forbade consumption of such an animal. On the issue of allowing the eating of heleb, the fat covering certain inner parts of the animal, attitudes also varied. German Jews were less particular about this prohibition, whilst Spanish Jews did not eat it at all. Violation of the dietary laws and traditions resulted in fines or other punishment. The following responsum illustrates the centrality of dietary law in Jewish life and provides a vivid picture of meat-selling at the time. This case also illustrates the organisation of evidence by the scribe before presenting the case to a higher authority. (2). Note that one of the many aspects of kashrut is that mammals and birds that may be eaten must be slaughtered in accordance with Jewish law, as expressed above (Deuteronomy 12:21). Animals that died of natural causes (Deuteronomy 14:21) or that were killed by other animals are unsuitable for consumption. In addition, the animal must have no disease or flaws in the organs at the time of slaughter. These restrictions do not apply to fish, only to the flocks and herds (Numbers 11:22). Hence the discussion on the state of the animal’s kidney is essential to establish the suitability of this animal for consumption. 457 Lit., exfoliator. 344 chapter four smell. He could see hot water trickling from the Turk’s hands, who in turn threw the kidney on the mud. We asked him how he knew that the water came out of the kidney. He replied ‘Where else would it be coming from?’

(11–17) After this David Argish testified and said that he did not see the second kidney being taken out, but he heard that a foreign citizen458 said it was smelling foul. He turned and said ‘I saw the kidney in the dog’s mouth’. They brought thedog out. The above-mentioned David saw a piece of the kidney in a kidney colour that had holes. He did not know why there were holes. They asked the Turk why he threw it out. He said it was because it was full of water.

(18–22) Yehudah ben Yakar testified to the first kidney and said that he saw the other kidney being taken out. ‘As the Turk was extracting it, he was saying that it had a bad smell. He then threw it to the dog. I drew near to see it, but I could not stand the smell and I said that not even the dog could eat it because of its bad smell’.

(23–31) Ya‘aqob Kalderon testified: ‘I saw the kidney in the hands of the porger and I could sense the awful smell. I could see in his fingers either water or some matter and he was saying “Oh what a terrible smell!” He then threw it to the dog. We asked him whether the smell was coming from the kidney. He said he was unsure whether it was emerging from the kidney or elsewhere. I saw a piece of the kidney in its right colour’.

(31–37) After this Barzilay de Le’on cameto testify and said: ‘when he took out the other kidney it burst in his hand, his hand was filled with a dense matter and he sensed the strong smell. He then threw it to the dog; the dog ate the fat on top and all that remained was a piece of kidney in the colour of a rotten (putrid) kidney’.

(37–39) Sabetay Romano also testified and said: ‘when he took out the other one he threw it at the wall. His hand remained wet and he could sense the stench’.

458 ‘One who lived in the Ottoman Empire and enjoyed privileges’ (Bashan & Born- stein 1973: 22). The translation of this sentence is based on the context more than on the literal meaning. text 42—divre rivot 310 345

(40–45) Also Ya‘aqob ben Ezra testified: ‘When the Turk took out the other kidney he commented on its stench and it was rotten. He brought it out and threw it to the dog. His hand was wet and I could also see from its colour that it was rotten, as if disintegrated’.

(45–50) Ab̠raham Krespin testified too: ‘As he took out the second kidney it burst in his hand. His hand was filled with a foul-smelling liquid. I could sense the foul smell and as it burst, the Turk threw it at the dog. We asked him if the smell came from the kidney or from the fat, and he said he did not know’.

(50–56) Ab̠raham Falkun also testified and said: ‘when he brought out the other one he opened the kidney area and there was a foul smell. As he pulled it out, two or three drops of matter fell on the ground. His hand was filled with this matter. He then threw it at the wall. The dog licked it. We asked him if the matter was from the kidney or from the fat around it. He said: ‘I did not know’.

(56–62) Yehudah, Šelomoh Kapsot’s son, testified and said: ‘When he extracted the other one he threw it to the ground, the dog came and took it. We asked him if he could sense the stench. He said ‘no’. We also asked him if he saw the matter and he said he did not; he saw that it was white in the dog’s mouth. I do not know whether it was the fat or the matter, the dog ate the white part at the top then it ate the kidney. I saw a piece of the kidney on the ground afterwards, and it was the usual colour of a kidney’.

(62–65) All these witnesses testified in Monastir459 on Sunday 23 Nis- san 1572, the questioner asks for judgement on whether this animal is kosher or not.

Decision:

Since there is cause for concern here that putrid mucus has been emitted from the kidney, the kidney needs to be checked. Permission cannot not be granted on the basis of a doubtful situation where the mucus could have been from the kidney, or not. Also, since one rabbi has already

459 Bitolj, Yugoslavia. 346 chapter four decided the animal to be forbidden, another rabbi cannot permit it after the first has prohibited it. The animal is therefore not kosher.

43. Divre Rivot 392 Re’uben refuses to do business with two of his associates following a dispute. He takes a Nazirite vow. Thereafter he regrets his decision and wants to know if he is legally bound by this promise.

Figure 43

Part A

1. yo reçibo nezirut Šimšón queno hayah s demi más provecho y de 2. no tratar yo más con vosotros text 43—divre rivot 392 347

Part B

1. yo reçibo nezirut 2. Šimšón que no hayará de mi más provecho, y de no tratar más 3. con vosotros, vepa‘am hayah omer šeamar: yo reçibo nezirut 4. Šimšón si más demi provecho hubiéredes, y si yo tratare 5. más con vosotros

Part C

1. Yo 2. reçibo nezirut Šimšón con todos sus460 tena’im

Translation (Re’uben was dealing with Šim‘on and Levi, he used to give them merchandise to sell and through them, Re’uben was able to do business. One day, Re’uben made a vow never to deal with them again. He now regrets this.)

Part A. I receive Šimšón’s Nazirite vows so that you will no longer gain any profit from me and so as not to deal with you any more.

Part B. I receive Šimšón’s Nazirite vows so that you will no longer gain any profit from me and so as not to deal with you any more.Once he had said that he said: I receive the Šimšón’s Nazirite vows if you were to have any rights to any more benefit from me and if I ever dealt with you any more.461

(Naphtali told him ‘if your vow was like this it cannot be annulled. However if it was like this it can’. Re’uben replied that he could not remember which one of the two he had said. It seems that Re’uben said):

Part C. I receive Šimšón’s Nazirite vows with all their conditions.

460 BIURP: ses. 461 Excellent example of how grammatical tense reveals the exact intent of the speaker. 348 chapter four

(Naphtali asked us . . .Instruct us, our Rabbis if there is an annulment to this vow?)

Decision:

Here, there is a possibility of considering this vow doubtful in its validity because he could have made this vow using the language used for promises which is ineffective in this case. Also if he did not mention one of God’s names then it could invalidate the nazirite vows. In any case, Adarbi says he has has annulled Re’uben’s vow in conjunction with one of Salonica’s great rabbis.

44. Divre Rivot 413

This is a short document containing a few lines in Judeo-Spanish regarding the financial agreement between two people on account of a disputed money guarantee.

Figure 44

Mitok̠ haketab̠ šel

1. har(ebí) Aḥarón Sak̠én koteb̠: y yo por le salir fiança me dio el 2. terçio dela moneda pormi cuento, y quedó en mano suya 3. para que la esmerse , y tanto los dos tercios suyos como 4. mi tercio vek̠u(leh) text 44—divre rivot 413 349

Translation (Reply:

I saw the question concerning the difference between Natan Tsuri and Aharon Mes‘od. The document was written and signed by Aaron and I will answer in brief what appears to me to be correct. From the question it seems that Aaron never received any of the four hundred gurus, instead they remained in Natan Tsuri’s possession. They were never even partners in this transaction, as according to Maimonidies, Chap- ter 4, Hilchot Sheluchin,462 people only become partners if both bring money into a wallet and they both lift the wallet.463 However in our case, Natan took the money from the moneylender and it never left his possession. So it seems that Aaron has no part in the loss of the money. Nevertheless, even though there is no partnership bind, there are legal binds relating to ‘Shelichut’ [appointing an agent], since Aharon appointed Natan as an agent to buy the merchandise, as can be seen from Aharon’s document):

(1–4) In Aharon Saḥen’s document it says: in order that I should insure him the money, he gave me a third of the money on my account, and it remained in his hands so that he would invest his two-thirds share of the money, as well as my third etc.

Decision:

Since he [Aharon] said that a third of the profit is his, it appears that he appointed him [Natan] as an agent and Natan agreed to be his agent. The law stipulates that to become an agent, no acquisition or witnesses are necessary.464 Therefore, Aharon is responsible for a third of the loss, in the same way as he would have taken a third of the profit, had there been any.)

462 The laws of business partnership and appointing an agent can be seen in Mai- monides 1982: 9–12. 463 Kinyan—this is the process by which the financial agreement becomes valid, see Appendix 3. 464 This is according to Maimonides 1982: 37. 350 chapter four

45. Divre Rivot 420 The validity of a marriage is in question. This clear and lively testimony, recorded on Thursday 10 Sivan 5337 / 27 May 1577 in Salonica, describes how a young lad gives Sol a handkerchief as an object of betrothal and utters words that may bind them in marriage. As Sol now wishes to remarry the validity of this marriage needs to be examined in order to ascertain the need for a divorce.

Figure 45

1. Vehe‘id: 2. še bayom Šabat aḥar minḥá vide un mançebo tenía una rizá465 3. que estaba cerca de una muǰer caśada, y una moça 4. šemá Sol, dišo la muǰer caśada ala moça, ¡o qué466 fermośa 5. rizá ! Y dišo al mançebo, déšanos ver esa rizá, dišo él: 6. manda por ella. Dišo la muǰer ala moça: va por ella. 7. Vino la moça al mançebo y díšole: diće que le amuestres 8. esa rizá. Tiró él la rizá y diósela y díšole: tehé li 9. mequde šet,467 y la moça tomó la rizá y la dio ala muǰer 10. caśada, y no vide más vek̠u(leh)

465 Turkish rido, ‘handkerchief ’, see Appendix 2. BIURP: rivá. 466 En qué meaning qué. 467 Standard wedding practice today is haré at mequdešet li betaba‘at zu qedat Mošé veYisrael (text 60:7, 8) (behold you are betrothed to me with this ring according to the text 45—divre rivot 420 and text 46—teshuvot berav 15 351

Translation (We were sitting as a Court, after the threats etc, Joel):

(1–5) testified: that on the Sabbath after the afternoon prayers, I saw a young lad who had a handkerchief 468 and who was standing near a married lady and a young lady called Sol. The married lady said to the young lady ‘what a beautiful handkerchief !’ She said to the young lad ‘let us see the handkerchief ’.

(5–10) He said ‘call her’. She said to the young lady ‘go for her [the girl]’. The young lady came to the young lad and asked him to show her the handkerchief. He pulled out the handkerchief, gave it to her and said ‘Be married to me’. And the maiden took the handkerchief and gave it to the married lady. I did not see anything else, etc.469

Decision:

It seems that she is to be allowed to remarry without a divorce. The rabbis agree that her tacit acceptance is not to be interpreted as admission to his words. This is not so as she is acting as a messenger for the lady. The rabbis add that she appeared to intend to do the will of the lady who sent her. As soon as she received the handkerchief she passed it on to the lady.

4.3 Responsa of Rabbi Jacob Berav 1474–1541 in Teshuvot Berav (Venice 1565/1663)470

46. Teshuvot Berav 15 A moving testimony, recorded in Rashit.471 It describes a drowning Jew concerned with informing the surviving witness that he leaves a wife and child, so that he can testify to his death in order to ensure his widow may remarry without any legal problem.

law of Moses and Israel), as opposed to the above tehé li that translates ‘be betrothed/ married to me . . .’. 468 It could also be a scarf, just as pañuelo in Spanish can mean both ‘scarf ’ and ‘handkerchief’. 469 A clear testimony. 470 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1958 edition. 471 A port in Egypt. 352 chapter four

Figure 46

. . .te

1. encargo la alma riǰas que un ǰudió deste Lias que tiene muǰer y un fiǰo y una fiǰa que lo viste 2. afogar. Y el mozo472 dišo que él luego revolvió atrás y de con tino473 miraba por el 3. ǰudió, y que nunca más 4. lo vido, que luego se despareció el yehudí, kol elu diberú hagoy

Translation (A gentile came and said that while he and Re’uben were in a ship, it capsized and as they were swimming to safety Re’uben became tired and asked the gentile to wait for him. The gentile refused, so Re’uben told him that wherever he would find Jewish people, he should say):

(1–3) I entrust you474 with the fact that a Jew from Lias475 who has a wife, son and daughter, that you saw him drown [this is the drowning Jew speaking to the Gentile]. The lad said that when he next looked back, he looked for the Jew continuously. He never saw him again and the Jew then disappeared. The gentile said all this.

472 Unclear whether a sin or samech here to represent the apicoalveolar phoneme. 473 De contino, meaning continuamente, can be seen in later religious poetry of Hayim Yom Tob Magula (Romero 2003: 265). 474 Lit. ‘your heart’. 475 Lias could be short for the toponym Lyaskovik, Turkish Léskowik—a province of European Turkey outside Albania (Mostras 1873: 160). text 47—teshuvot berav 25 353

(We verified and found no one who went to Lias who was married and who had a son and daughter, except for Šemu’el Crespi. A pupil testified that Šemu’el went with gentiles on a ship, to travel to Rashit. Can his wife remarry based on this testimony?)476

Decision:

The gentile is regarded to have given a trustworthy testimony because his words were unprompted. However since the gentile saw the Jew drown in ‘waters that have no end’477 she should not remarry ab initio, but if she did remarry she is not obligated to get divorced. Any rabbi who allows her to remarry ab initio without a divorce should be banned.

47. Teshuvot Berav 25 The text concerns a copy of a handwritten letter from Šim‘on to Re’ub̠en regarding payment. Later the receipt is lost, and more evidence is needed regarding the details of this financial transaction.

476 This case is asking for a ruling based on indirect testimony, ‘ed mipi ‘ed. Second- hand testimony as opposed to eyewitness testimony is discussed in the case of capital cases in Jackson (1972: 229–231). However, in agunot cases the respondent would often accept indirect testimony though not in this case since the indirect witness did not see the dead body. Berav rules that Crespi’s widow may not remarry but if she has already married she need not divorce (see teshuva in Teshuvot Berav 15). 477 This is a legal expression to indicate waters or a sea where the other side of the shore cannot be seen, i.e.infinite seas. When someone witnesses another drowning in a sea of this description the testimony is more legally problematic than when a man drowns in ‘finite waters’. 354 chapter four

Figure 47478

1. esos cien veneçianos479 no hayéš480 miedo que él paga melos 2. para buenosadespecho481 de su padre, por que non se los dé si no delantre ‘edi(m) y tengo un nakil482 que le enbió

478 I have copied the whole page to show how the number 25 in the text is miswrit- ten as 26, an error repeated in subsequent responsa. Inaccuracy of this type is not uncommon in the responsa, especially those that have no number. The apparent line across the responsum is a fold in this original copy (Venice 1565) in the BL. 479 BIURP: vepecianos. Note the samech for the ‘ç’ is illegible and in l.4 a tsadi is used to represent the phoneme. 480 Could also be hayah s. 481 Read: buenos a despecho. 482 Turkish: nakil, ‘transfer’—‘monetary transfer’. text 47—teshuvot berav 25 355

3. el yerno del moallim483 en mi mano, de como era el paga vekil müt- lak484 de todas su faćienda(s), y que lo faćía 4. vekil tamién para que cobrase estos cien veneçianos.

Translation (Re’uben owed a hundred gold coins in tax payable to the King, and appointed Šim‘on to pay on his behalf. He told him to obtain a receipt when he paid, as it is well known that anyone who pays and does not obtain a receipt has to pay again. He agreed to do so. He warned him again and Šim‘on wrote the following):

(1–4) Do not be afraid that he pays these 100 Venetian coins to me at his father’s expense, because he [Šim‘on] should only give them to him [Re’uben] in front of witnesses. I have a copy in my hand that the son-in-law of the master sent in my hand, stating how he [Šim‘on] paid the attorney from all his estate. The attorney did it also so that he could receive these 100 Venetian coins.

(Now Re’uben is asked to pay the money and when he asked Šim‘on for the receipt, but he did not give it to him. Is Šim‘on responsible for this payment since he did not give the receipt?)

Decision:

It is a well known fact that one who pays the tax and does not obtain a receipt must pay again. Šim‘on committed a crime by not taking a receipt and especially in this case since Re’uben warned him explicitly to take a receipt. Therefore, Šim‘on is obligated to pay Re’uben.

483 Turkish: muallim, ‘master’. 484 Turkish: vekil mütlak, ‘attorney with unlimited power’. 356 chapter four

4.4 Responsa of Rabbi David ben Zimra in She’elot u-Teshuvot haRadbaz (Venice 1749)485

(Part I) 48. HaRadbaz 294 A Gentile witnesses the drowning of Ya‘aqob Pardo of Salonica and identifies his corpse on dry land. Pardo’s widow needs this evidence, recorded on 22 Ḥ ešvan, to free her from agunah status.

Figure 48

1. vezé ašer diber vehe‘id r(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq 2. haniz(kar) l(ema‘ala): din(g)o486 ansí que viniendo de Ancona para Aragosta487 que hubieron 3. una gran tormenta, y el día siguiente vinieron a hablar 4. sobre tormentas enque vino un marinero y dišo que viniendo 5. de Misrayiṃ en una nave del başá488 que llevó tan gran tormenta, 6. que se perdió la nave en la cual venían munchos ǰudíos yse 7. afogaron.Y con quien su más plática teníase llamaba Ya‘aqob

485 BIURP uses the Warsaw 1882 edition that is reproduced in Jerusalem in 1972 for parts I–VII, part VIII is taken from the Bnei Brak 1975 edition. This responsum belongs to the first part. 486 Text says dino; the nun should probably have been a gimmel. 487 Aragozena is a location in Greece, there are currently some restaurants in Greece by the name of Aragosta. 488 Turkish: paşa, ‘governor’. See Appendix 2. text 48—haradbaz 294 357

8. Pardo de Saloniqui, elcual vide duespués489 muerto en tierra, y lo 9. conoçí. Todo esto lo oí ael marinero dicho nimás ni manco, 10. velihyot šekol ze ab̠ar lefanenu.490

Translation (You asked me about a ship carrying Jewish people that sunk in the sea. Among them was a Jew who lived in Salonica called Ya‘aqob Pardo and the following testimony was received):

(1–5) This is what the forementioned witness Yisḥ ̣aq said: as he was coming from Ancona to Aragosta there was a big storm and on the next day they were talking about the storm. A sailor said that when he came from Egypt, in the governor’s ship, he was caught in a big storm

(6–10) where the ship was lost, and many travelling Jews were drowned. The one with whom he had most conversation was called Ya‘aqob Pardo from Salonica. I saw him after he died on land, I recognised him. All this I heard from the sailor who said no more, no less. All this happened before us.

(There is a dispute between the sages of Salonica as to whether Ya‘aqob Pardo’s widow is allowed to remarry.)491

Decision:

Ya’aqob Pardo’s wife is permitted to marry according to the Gentile’s testimony as he spoke without prompting and he also said that he knew him well. This is in addition to the opinion of the Rishonim [the early sages of the eleventh to fifteenth centuries] who used to allow a woman to remarry in cases where witnesses recognise the dead person even without any tangible proof.

489 Read: después. 490 Same case as Maharibenlev Part 1 9; however, this responsum contains only the latter testimony given by the sailor. 491 For a thorough historical analysis on agunot see Lamdan 2000: 202–211. Earlier cases of agunot were also recorded in pre-Inquisition Spain (Roth 1994: 187–189). 358 chapter four

4.5 Responsa of Rabbi Elijah Ben Chayim, 1530–1610 in Teshuvot Haraanach (Constantinople 1610)492

49. Haraanach 20 K̠alifa, Mordek̠ai’s son, is found dead. The testimonies are vital to prove the identification of the victim. This is necessary evidence to free Ester, K̠alifa’s widow, from the position of agunah. There are three testimonies to this case, recorded in Constantinople in 5338/1578.

Figure 49A

492 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1960 edition. text 49—haraanach 20 359

Figure 49B Part 1

Figure 49B Part 2 360 chapter four

Figure 49C

Testimony A

Testimony of Ya‘aqob, son of Yisḥ ̣aq Hakohen, recorded on Monday 24 Adar 5338 / 3 March 1578

1. betorat ‘edut belašón sefaradí vek̠én 2. amar : saberés señores que a tienpo que estaba yo 3. con un ḥaver mío enla orilla dela mar enel 4. Escutar,493 lavando una escobilla, en esto llegóse 5. ahí un katriği494 morisco y como nos vido fablar en 6. morisco, nos demandó de dónde éramos y le dišimos 7. que de Damasco. Entonces meneó la cabeça y dišo:

493 A district of Istanbul. 494 Turkish: kadir, ‘official’. text 49—haraanach 20 361

8. guay 495 de aquel desdichado ḥaleblí 496 que iba a Cara 9. isar que por se adelantar de la carabana para 10. repośar el Šabat, fue matado con un katriği y un 11. moço mío, y le dišimos: guay, dišo: ventura agas,497 12. conocía quien podía ser de sonos, ¿no conoçes a 13. K̠alifa el yerno del Başán? Demandimos: ¿cómo supiste 14. que fueron matados? Diǰo: como fuimos la caravana 15. adelante los vimos a todos tres matados, y 16. coğimos tierra y piedras y lo cubrimos.

Testimony B

Testimony given by the mother of the aguna, Ester, Kalifa’s wife on Tuesday 4 Nissan 5338 / 12 March 1578

1. no pensés señores que por ser yo madre diga mentira, 2. h ̣(as) ve(ḥalila), que yo diré todo loque en estos los días pasados 3. fui yo al Escutar con un mi sobrino por un mi 4. mes iḷ he’et, y habiendo caminado mucho por allí me arrimé 5. en una botica frente del carbaçara por reposar,498 6. que estaba en ta‘anit, y enla puerta del 7. carbaçara, estaban ciertos katriğis moros, y 8. como vieron ami sobrino uno499 dellos enpezó amaldećirlo 9. y dišo alos otros: por cauśa500 de aquel perro ǰudió 10. que me dio un su pariente que lo llevase a Caraiçar 11. aquel pero por guardar su Šabat lo mataron a él, 12. y a un mi primo y a un mi moço, mal mundo tenga.501 13. Yo cuando oí dećir esto al katriği grité, y diše 14. al katriği en ‘arabí: ¿quién es ese ǰudió que mataron?502 15. Me respondió el katriği: ese perro que está allí no

495 A borrowing from Arabic, probably via Turkish, meaning ‘ay!’ see section 3.3.3.4. 496 From Aleppo. Hebrew ḥaleb, ‘li’ ending is Turkish. 497 Aga is ‘master’ in Turkish (Bashan & Bornstein 1973: 2); but the texts says agas—a possible error. BIURP: agav. 498 BIURP: repovar. 499 The letteraleph here represents the numeral ‘one’. 500 Note the spelling of causa with a vav as opposed to a bet as in other cases. 501 BIURP: senga. 502 1863 edition has matmaron. 362 chapter four

16. lo conoce que él melo trušo.503 Yo le torné504 a dećir: dímelo505 17. por tuvida506 ¿quién es ese ǰudió? Respondió el katriği 18. y dišo: ¿eres tú de ḥalab? Díšele yo: sí. Díšome: ¿pues 19. non conoces a K̠alifa hiǰo de Mordek̠ai? Díšele yo: sí lo 20. conozco. Dišo: pues ése es el que mataron. 21. Estonces le de mandó507 mi sobrino: ¿cómo sabéš que lo 22. mataron que yo sé que está vivo? Respondió el 23. katriği y le dišo: ho ǰofik508 si yo le vide a él, 24. el katriği y a mi moço todos tres matados, ¿cómo 25. dićes tú que está vivo? Esto es por la cuenta que 26. he de dar al Dio lo que en esto sé, y también Mošeh 27. Monyon, que está aquí, fabló él con un arabiado 28. con el mismo este katriği.

Testimony C

Testimony of Mošeh Monyon on Tuesday 5 Nissan 5338 / 13 March 1578

1. belašón sefaradí vek̠en 2. amar : saverés señores que ha muchos días que andando 3. yoaquí enEstanbol509 con un ǰudió arabiado fue por 4. una calle y estaba un katriği parado en una 5. ventana. Fabló el ǰudió arabiado con aquel katriği 6. en morisco un buen pedaço, y estonces 7. el arabiado me dišo a mí: ¿no sabés r(ebí) Mošeh que este 8. katriği me dišo que mataron a K̠alifa el yerno del 9. Bašán? Entonces yodiše en turquesco al katriği: 10. ¿cómo sabés tú que lo mataron? Respondiome el katriği 11. en turquesco: yo lo vide con mis oǰos estonces el

503 Note truǰo for modern Spanish trajo, ‘he brought’. 504 Could be torní. 505 BIURP: dípelo. 506 This phrase is quite indistinct in 1863 edition, resulting in te pilo bor tu vira. Also, the phrase is repeated in this edition. 507 Read: demandó. 508 Ho means ‘woe’ in Hebrew the rest is Turkish. 509 Unusual word joining. text 49—haraanach 20 363

12. katriği se turbó510 y dišo: muchas preguntas me haćes511 13. miedo mi, y ¿qué me querés haćer traiçión, y ponerme en 14. poder de la ǰusticia? no medemandes más.

Translation Testimony A given by Ya‘aqob son of Yisḥ ̣aq Hakohen

(We were asked to investigate the matter concerning Ester, Kalifa’s wife, who for many years has been trapped as an agunah.512 This is Ya‘aqob’s testimony):

(1–7) In a court of law in the Sephardic language he said as follows:

You should know gentlemen that as I was with a friend of mine by the seashore in Escutar washing a small broom, a Moorish official arrived. As he saw that we were speaking in Arabic, he asked us where we were from. We said from Damascus.

(7–16) Then he shook his head and said ‘what a shame about that unfortunate lad from Aleppo who was heading for Caraisar, and as he went ahead of the caravan in order to rest on the Sabbath, he was killed together with another guard and one of my lads. We said ‘how awful’, and he said ‘I know sir,513 and did you know which one of us it could be’. ‘Don’t you know Kalifa, Bašan’s son-in-law?’ We asked him ‘how do you know that they were killed?’ He replied ‘as we in the caravan reached them in front, we saw three bodies. Then we took some earth and stones and covered them’ [the bodies].

Testimony B given by the mother of Ester the agunah, wife of Kalifa

(Concerning the same problem, we have the testimony of Yocheved, the mother of the agunah, in Spanish):

510 Bar-Ilan Responsa Project gives turbó (he was troubled, confused). which makes better sense, although the text reads trobó meaning ‘he found’. 511 This text has most verbs in the second person singular with azayin ending as opposed to samech or sin in most other texts. Could this be a phonetic representation? 512 An enchained woman. See appendix 3 on agunah. 513 Lit., ‘good luck’, but the literal translation is contextually strange. 364 chapter four

(1–9) Do not think, gentlemen, that because I am the mother I would lie, God forbid. I will relate what happened in the last few days. I went to Escutar with my nephew and because of a delay,514 and having walked quite a lot around there I drew near a shop opposite the cara- vanserai515 in order to rest as I was fasting. There by the door of the caravanserai, there were certain Moorish guards, who when they saw my nephew began to curse him and said to the others,

(9–14) ‘because of that Jewdog one of his relatives asked me to take him to Caraisar, but because he observed his Sabbath they killed him, a cousin of mine and one of my friends. He should have a bad life’. When I heard the guard say this, and I asked the guard in Arabic ‘who is the Jew they killed?’

(15–20) The guard replied ‘That dog over there—don’t you know that he brought him to me? I turned to him and said “I ask you on your life tell me who the Jew was”. The guard said ‘are you fromAleppo ?’ I said ‘yes’. ‘Well, don’t you know K̠alifa, Mordek̠ai’s son?’ ‘Yes, I know him’.

(20–28) ‘Well, he is the one they killed’. Then I asked my nephew ‘how come they killed him if I know he is alive?’ The guard said ‘Woe to him; I personally saw the guard, my lad and him, the three of them dead’. The guard said that how can he [Ester’s nephew] possibly say he [K̠alifa] is alive? This is the account I will have to give God about what I know. Also Mošeh Monyon, who is here, spoke to an angry man who was the same guard.

Testimony C of Mošeh Monyon

(Concerning the same case, we have Mošeh Monyon’s testimony in Spanish, he said):

(1–9) You should know gentlemen, that many days ago as I was walking here in Istanbul with an angry Jew who walked along a street, there

514 Lit., ‘a delay that saved me’ (it is unclear what it saved her from). 515 For information on roadways and caravanserai of the period see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 627–9). text 50—haraanach 29 365 was a guard who was standing by a window. The angry Jew spoke to that guard in Arabic for quite a while, and then the angry Jew said to me ‘don’t you know, Mošeh, that this guard told me they killed K̠alifa, Bašan’s son-in-law?’

(9–14) Then I said in Turkish to the guard ‘how do you know they killed him?’ The Turkish guard replied ‘I saw with my own eyes’. Then the guard became troubled and said ‘you are asking too many questions, you frighten me, do you want to be a traitor to me and put me in the hands of the law, don’t ask me any more [questions]’.

Decision:

Ester is permitted to marry based on Ya’aqob and Yok̠eved’s testimony that they heard from the Gentile who said without being prompted that K̠alifa died. Also Mošeh’s testimony in the name of the Jew who spoke to the Gentile in Arabic should suffice in order to allow Ester to remarry, despite the fact he did not mention K̠alifa’s name or K̠alifa’s city. It is possible to conclude that Mošeh knew he meant the same K̠alifa in question.

50. Haraanach 29 The community must establish whether David really bequeathed his shop after his death for the holy purpose of the community, and various witnesses are asked to testify to his last wishes. 366 chapter four

Figure 50 Part 1 text 50—haraanach 29 367

Figure 50 Part 2

Part A

1. elu hadeb̠arim: yo estó doliente que me estó afogando 2. toma todas las póliças y fuerças y hugipes516 3. de la botica que está en ella rebí David catorće 4. que la fago qodeš para el qahal dela señora517

Part B

1. gam belašón la‘az un día se 2. falló con él rebí Šemu’el Atas en la misma botica 3. del niftar, que estaba arrimado en su misma 4. botica, y díšole entonces: yo me vo de tras518 de mi 5. hermano que me mandan llamar y de las fuerças de mi 6. botica en poder de har(ebí) pe(loní) haniz(kar), que fago la botica qodeš 7. al qahal de la señora, ¿fiće bien?veh ̣azar ha‘ed ve’amar lo: muy

516 Turkish: hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. BIURP: hugites, it appears that the later edition has a more accurate rendition of this Turkish borrowing. 517 Referring to the famous Gracia Nasi, see Roth (1992). 518 Read: detrás. 368 chapter four

8. bien fićisteš.Vekešeḥ azar medarkó šehayah ba har(ebí) pelo(ní) beḥizuqim 9. hahem letitam laniftar ve’am(ar) lo : toma estas cartas díšo- 10. le: no quiero nada que yo me estó afogando, ya la tengo 11. fecha qodeš la botica para el qahal de la señora. 12. Por eso teneldas519 en cargo de vuesa alma. 13. Ve‘od ba ‘ed aḥer ve’amar ze betorat ‘edut: que un día y520 14. estando el niftar en su botica le dišo este ‘ed 15. al niftar: šalom alek̠em,521 veheḥezir lo: šalom, ve’amar lo haniftar 16. elu hadeb̠arim: saberés r(ebí) pelo(ní) que se falló fui contante 17. que mi botica la hiće qodeš al qahal de la señora, y los 18. hüccetes522 y permiśas que tenía, todas las di en 19. poder de r(ebí) pe(loní) haniz(kar), y fáceme tanto plaćer que vengas 20. con mí523 que la quiero escribir en cas(a) de el motívile 21. sobre dos hombres de el qahal dela señora, y le 22. respondió, y le dišo: cada vez que me llamaredes yo 23. iré. Ve‘od heb̠iu ‘edi(m) aḥeri(m) še’enam me’anšé haqahal vehe‘idu 24. betora(t) edu(t) beḥumré šegazarnu ‘aleha šeyagidu ha’emet ve’elu hadeb̠ar(im) 25. še’am(ar) ha‘ed ha’á(lef) belašón la‘az: como un día antes de morir 26. haniftar hanizkar fue a viǰitar lo y le demandó: ¿qué 27. ropas524 tienes, quies algo, y qué faćes dela botica? Respo 28. ndiole: la boticala525 dešo para el qahal dela s526 29. señora, y también dišo527 al ‘ed que cuando estaba

519 Note example of metathesis, ld for dl. BIURP: esos nigudas; note that this is quite a different rendition to the original, resulting in a senseless expression. See section 3.3.1.13. 520 The text is unclear here; a letter may be missing, BIURP corrects this error by omitting this extra aleph. 521 Statutory greeting in Hebrew still common, lit., ‘peace be with you’. 522 Turkish: hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. 523 Conmigo, in modern Spanish. 524 BIURP: depas, note that a resh is written in place of a daled and a yod in place of a vav, thus producing a senseless word that is undecipherable. 525 Read: botica la. 526 It appears that señora was going to be inserted into this line and was then placed on the next line. This error is corrected in BIURP. 527 Note that dišo, dešo (l. 28) and dešó are represented by the same Hebrew letters and that it is context that determines the interpretation. text 50—haraanach 29 369

30. bueno, dećía muchas većes: la botica la fago qodeš 31. para el qahal de la señora. Vezé ha‘ed šehe‘id kol elu 32. hadeb̠arim, hu qarob̠ šel haniftar hanizkar misaḍ šehú nisui lebat 33. dodató, ve‘od heb̠iu ‘ed(im) aḥerim še’enam gam ken mehaqahal ve’amar 34. e(had) mehem:528 como vido al niftar hanizkar en el heqdéš de 35. Esnimit,529 y le demandó si tenía alguna cośa, yle dišo 36. que una botica tenía en Qustandinah que estaba 37. en ella catorće, fićeqodeš para el qahal dela 38. señora, y después que vino aquí en Qustandinah 39. dišo otra vez que la hiźo qodeš, que este zek̠ut le quedaba. 40. Ve‘ed aḥer ba veqam al raglav vehe‘id betorat ‘edut ne’emaná aḥar 41. ha’iyum vehagizum šegazerú ‘alav, ele koh deb̠arav: el otro lag 42. la’omer tuvo la gira mi esperança tami’ fiesta y vino 43. ahí el niftar haniz(kar), yle dieron medio geruš enpreśentado 44. por530 verlo triste y doliente, díšele yo: a tanto aba 45. timiento es venido, vende la botica que no se la goćen tu 46. hermano y tu tío, respondiome : no se lagoźará ninguno 47. ni la vendo porque la fago qodeš para el qahal de la 48. señora.

Translation Part A

(One of the community members was in possession of a shop. After he passed away, the community leaders took possession of the shop, claiming that the deceased gave over his shop to the community. However the inheritors of the deceased denied this. They told the community leaders that if they were right, they should bring proof of this. They consequently brought witnesses who testified the following):

(1–4) these are the words: I am in pain as I am suffocating, take all the policies, deeds and title-deeds in the shop that David is in for fourteen

528 The letteraleph followed by mehem, meaning ‘one of them’. 529 Toponym; Esné was a district in Upper Egypt near the River Nile (Mostras 1873: 4). 530 BIURP: pir. 370 chapter four years that I am consecrating it531 for the Lady’s [Gracia Mendes’s] community.

Part B

(1–8) also in the foreign language: one day he met Šemu’el Atas in the same shop of the deceased who was leaning in his own shop. He said to him ‘then if I go behind my brother who is calling me and the deeds of my shop in the power of so and so, that I am making the shop for the holy purpose of the Lady’s synagogue. Did I do the right thing?’ The witness came back and said to him ‘you did the right thing’.

(8–12) When he returned from his journey and so and so was there with these certificates to give to the deceased. He said to him [the deceased when he was alive] ‘take these letters’. He said to him ‘I don’t want anything, I am choking. I have already donated the shop for a holy purpose for the Lady’s community, and for this reason you should keep them [the letters] close to your soul’.

(13–19) Then another witness came and said this under oath: that one day when the deceased was in his shop, this witness said to the deceased ‘Peace be with you’,532 and he replied to him ‘Peace/Hello’. The [pres- ently] deceased said to him these words: ‘you should know so and so who found me, testified that I am donating my shop for theholy purpose of the Lady’s community and the title-deeds and licences (letters of consent) that belonged to it should all be given to the forementioned so and so.

(19–23) It gives me such pleasure that you come with me, that I want to write this in the administrator’s house in the name of two men in the Lady’s community’. He replied and said ‘whenever you call me I shall come’.

(23–28) Then they brought other witnesses who were not from the community, they testified under oath. With the stringencies that we imposed

531 He means that by giving the shop to charity, for a religious purpose he is sanc- tifying it. This is an illustration ofheckdesh— consecrated property, for the laws on consecrated property see Elon (1975: 701–708). 532 A literal translation of ‘hello’. text 50—haraanach 29 371 upon them to tell the truth, these are the words the first witness testified in the foreign language: that he went to visit him one day before the forementioned deceased died, and he asked him ‘what are your possessions, do you want anything, what are you going to do with the shop?’ He replied:

(28–31) ‘I am leaving the shop for the Lady’s community’, and the witness also said that when he was well he used to say many times ‘I am donating the shop for the holy purpose of the Lady’s community.

(31–34) This is the witness who testified all these things, he is a relative of the forementioned deceased, as he is married to his uncle’s daughter. Additionally they brought other witnesses who were also not from the community; one of them said:

(34–38) that he saw the forementioned deceased in the holy property of Esnimit, and he asked him if he possessed anything. He replied that he had a shop in Constantinople for fourteen years, and that he has consecrated it for the Lady’s synagogue.

(38–39) After he came here to Constantinople he repeated that he donated the shop for a holy purpose. That was the privilege that still remained his [own].

(40–41) Another witness came, stood up and testified under oath according to the stringencies he undertook upon himself; these are his words:

(41–44) ‘the other day on the 33rd day of the ‘Omer,533 my hope was turned. I had a party to which the forementioned deceased came and they gave him half a gerúš as they saw him looking sad and in pain.

(44–48) I said to him: you have lost so much of your strength; you should sell your shop so that your brother and uncle do not benefit from it’. He replied ‘no-one will benefit from it, nor am I selling it, I am donating it for the holy purpose of the Lady’s community’.534

533 Instead of saying día, meaning day, they refer to the 33rd day of the Omer, known as Lag Ba’omer. The omer are the days counted between the Passover and Pentecost festivals. Lag Ba’omer is a festive day within this period. 534 This translation, unlike others, lends itself to being broken up into smaller sections. 372 chapter four

(This last testimony was not taken before the Court and he had not sworn on his testimony. What is the law?)

Decision:

The question of witnesses from the Holy Community being valid in order to testify on matters of the Holy Community is dependent on the local custom. In any case, witnesses can become unbiased and become valid witnesses. There is disagreement whether when a verbal bequest made without a formal act of acquisition is equally valid to one made with a formal act of acquisition. In view of this, the respondent says, it is up to the judge or their own rabbi to decide.

51. Haraanach 117 This responsum entails a disputed loan certificate confirming a debt of 100 gold ducats owed by two men to Re’uben.

Figure 51

1. vezé halašón: yo abašo 2. firmado debo aRe’ub̠en ducados ciento de oro en oro 3. por tantos que de él reç ibí emprestados, los text 51—haraanach 117 373

4. cuales me obligo de pagar de hayom535 a ses meśes 5. y de esto tomí qinián ensu mano, y todo tiempo que 6. este mi escrito será firme, do crédito a dito 7. Re’ub̠en para faćerle bueno todo lo de arriba, con su 8. sola palabra decalro536 que este escrito volaga537 9. como šetaṛ con todas las calreźas538 que suelen 10. faćer para firmeźa delo dicho arriba

Translation (A handwritten letter that says):

(1–4) in this language: I, the undersigned, owe Re’uben one hundred pure gold ducats which I received from him in loan, for which I commit to pay him anytime from now to six months time.

(5–10) From this I took acquisition in his hand. As long as this document is firm539 I give credit to the said Re’uben to honour all the above; with his sole word I declare that this document should be valid as a contract with all the clarifications540 that are normally adhered to in signing the above.

(Is he believed to have said that he paid or not?)

Decision:

If it is possible to ascertain the verisimilitude of Re’uben’s handwriting, i.e that it is not forged, he can collect the debt. This is so as it is written that the legal force of the handwritten letter should be comparable to a document validated by witnesses. This is so since it is explicitly written in the letter that the lender should be trusted to say that the debt was not paid.

535 ‘Today’ is in Hebrew used here for reasons of emphasis. 536 Read: declare. 537 Read: valga. 538 Read: clareza; calrezas is either metathesis or misspelling. 539 Meaning ‘unchangeable’. 540 Perhaps ‘conditions’. 374 chapter four

4.6 Responsa of Rabbi Elijah Ben Hayyim in Mayim Amukim (Venice 1647)541

(Part II) 52. Mayim Amukim 36 The sense of this testimony is clarified either by reading the Hebrew, or through knowledge of the testimony of Maḥarashdam EH 166 on the levirate issue. It is the same case, but in Medina’s responsum a fuller testimony is included. The Court has to ascertain the parental circumstances of a boy referred to in this testimony, as this bears on whether the boy’s father’s new wife is liable to fulfil the levirate command following the death of her husband.

Figure 52

1. quesi 2. será de alguna muǰer errada vehešib̠: no señor porque es muy 3. honrada y honesta y es parienta de mis parientes y está 4. en caśa de mi hermano y estubo siempre y pensa ella que 5. está caśada con migo

Translation (1–5) that if he is from a loose woman542 and he replied ‘no sir, because she is very noble and honest and is a relative of my relatives and is

541 BIURP uses the Berlin 1778 edition. 542 Note that this seems to be the same case as text 11. In fact the text makes sense only in context of Medina’s responsum. t 52—mayim amukim 36 & t 53—mayim amukim chelek bet 55 375 in my brother’s house and she has always been and she thinks she is married to me’.

Decision:

The woman is permitted to marry without having to perform the ceremony that frees her from abiding to the levirate command. This is decreed according to all opinions.

53. Mayim Amukim Chelek Bet 55 The famous Yosef Nasi took on Re’uben when he was very young and looked after him.543 Later Re’uben became rich and powerful and trusted by Nasi. At a later stage Nasi noticed he was acting wickedly and rebelling against him. He tried to trick Nasi and other Jews, so all the rabbis excommunicated him. The problem is whether this ban can be revoked on the basis of the testimony recorded in Constantinople.544

Figure 53

543 Joseph was the husband of doña Gracia Nasi, one of the most famous Sephardic women (Baron 1983: 99–103). 544 This testimony is extracted from the reply. 376 chapter four

1. por cuanto se545 falló en Qustandinah hombres tenedos 2. por ǰudiós y percuraron de alevantar 3. cośa endevoda546 contra el lustrísimo señor donYosef Nasí, y(arum) h(odó), 4. y era cośa de grandísimo peligro tanto al dicho señor, y(arum) h(odó), 5. como a todos los ǰudiós ḥ(as) ve(ḥalila). Y ševaḥ la’el que los sacó a luź 6. y hubo su pago el ‘oker̠ Yisra’el Re’uben̠ que en tal anduvo con todo 7. anah ̣nu ḥo tmé mata somos maḥrimim, y menden y mešametim y meqalelin 8. y mererim bek̠ol erurin šebatorá a’el beliya‘al Re’ub̠en, y a todos los 9. que en tal cavśo andubieron

Translation (All the rabbis have agreed to this and this is correct law. Who would dare to argue against all these rabbis, as all these words are true? Signed Šemu’el Kalhi.)

(1–5) It happened in Constantinople; men who were regarded as Jews who tried to raise something inappropriate against the illustrious Yosef Nasi, may his honour be raised. It was such a dangerous matter for the said gentleman, may his honour be raised, and for all the Jewish people, G-d forbid.

(5–9) Thank God he identified them andthe enemy of Israel, Re’uben, paid for this; as he was involved. We, the undersigned, curse Re’uben and all those who were with him, with excommunications and renun- ciations, and all the curses in the Torah.

(They should be cursed in the day, cursed in the night, cursed when they sleep, cursed when they get up, cursed when they travel, they should receive all the curses in the Torah. To those who are innocent, may peace be with them. Dated Friday 1 Elul 1573, signed Šemu’el de Medina, Mordechai Matalon, Isaac Adarbi, Daniel son of Perachya Hakohen, Eliyahu Uziel, Šelomoh Halevi, David Ben-Nachmias—the sages of Safed.)

545 Why does the se have a diacritic, implying an abbreviation? 546 Indebida probably means ‘intended’. text 54—maharibenlev chelek aleph 9 377

Decision:

A ban, according to many opinions but not Nachmanides’s, is a rabbinic ordinance. In case of doubt the respondent rules according to the more lenient opinion. According to Maimonides’s opinion three laymen are able to cancel the ban. Also according to Rabbi Abraham ben David (Ra’avad) the ban can be annulled for a several reasons. So since here it concerns the minister, the revoking of the ban should be allowed as one should not be in danger of igniting his wrath.

4.7 Responsa of Rabbi Joseph ben David in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharibenlev (Constantinople 1573)547

(Part I) 54. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 9548 Witnesses recount the horror of a ship that sinks at sea with few sur- vivors. The identification of Ya‘aqob Pardo of Salonica is necessary to free his widow from agunah status.549 It is recorded on Monday 2 Teb̠et 5309 / 3 December 1548.

Figure 54A

547 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1959–60 edition for Parts 1–2 and the Amsterdam 1726 edition for Parts 3 and 4. 548 I had great difficulty in finding Ibn Lev’s responsa since many had no numbers. There were often no numbers for up to ten responsa. 549 Same case as HaRadbaz 294, text 48. 378 chapter four

Figure 54B

Part A

1. beb ̠o’ó me’Ancona lekastel novo y dišo ansí: que viniendo550 2. d’Ancona aCastil Novo551 estando en Goliana,552 hubieron 3. gran tormenta, y quiśo el š(em) yit(barak̠) que hisbi‘ah še’ón yamim 4. še’ón galehem,553 y después díšoles un marinero: ¿dequé554 5. vos espantastes dever aesto? Yo mefallí en Lanbe 6. que se fundió del başá555 viniendo de Misrayiṃ que sefundió 7. aoǰos de todo vivo, y escapamos yo y otros y 8. demandile sihabían allí ǰudiós, y dišo quesí, pregu(n)tele 9. si conoçía556 algunos, y dišo que noconoçía sinon aun 10. Ya‘aqob Pardo caśado en Saloniqui, yque levido muerto 11. en tierra. Zehu mašehe‘id r(ebí) Ab̠raham de Le’on, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), hanizkar 12. betora(t) ‘edu(t), y después deescrito todo lo de arriba

550 BIURP: ziniedo. 551 A province in north-west Spain, but is unlikely to be relevant here. 552 Toponym unidentified; it is a Greek proper name, also used as a name of a company in Turkey. 553 This phrase is copied from a verse inTehilim , Psalm 65. 554 Read: de qué. 555 Turkish paşa, ‘governor’. See Appendix 2. in effect a phonemic representation ,צ Text has intervocalic c in conocía with a 556 instead of the samech. text 54—maharibenlev chelek aleph 9 379

13. dišo tornando adećir el ‘edut dicho quedišo el marinero: 14. en tierra loconocí, vehakol sarir veqayam557

Part B

1. har(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq hanizkar dišo ansí que viniendo deAncona para 2. Ragusa558 que hubieron una gran tormenta, el día 3. siguiente559 vinieron ahablar560 sobre tormentas enque 4. vino uno, y dišo que viniendo de Misrayiṃ en una nave de 5. el başá que hubo tan gran tormenta que se perdió 6. la nave, en lo cual venían muchos ǰudiós yse 7. afogaron. Y con quien yo más plática tenía se 8. llamaba Ya‘aqob Pardo de Saloniqui, en lo cual vide yo 9. aél después muerto en tierra, y lo conocí. Todo 10. esto lo oí dećir ael tarinero561 nimás ni menos . . .

Translation (Concerning the case of a man who saw a dead body immediately or after death: There is a difference between whether he saw him on dry land or whether he was ejected out of the sea. If this happened in a large ocean, is it necessary for the witness to state that he buried him? Can we rely on one witness on behalf of another witness, if the first one stated that he buried him, but the second did not? Does it help to say that he touched him after he died or that he moved him from place to place?

On Wednesday 20 Kislev 1549, we accepted Ab̠raham Leon’s testimony. He testified the following):

Part A 1st testimony of Ab̠raham Leon

(1–6) As he was returning from Ancona to Castil Novo he said thus: that as he was returning from Ancona to Castil Novo, there was a great storm when he was in Goliana, and God wanted to calm the roar of

557 Note same case HaRadbaz 294, slightly different testimony. 558 BIURP: Daguza. 559 BIURP: siguiete, the nun is missing. 560 Note hablar, not fablar. 561 Tariner: misspelling for marinero. 380 chapter four the seas and the roar of its waves and then the sailor said to them ‘why were you afraid to see this? I found myself in Lanbe on the Governor’s ship coming from Egypt which sank before everyone’s eyes,

(6–10) I and a few others escaped alive’. I asked him if there were any Jews there, and he said ‘yes’. I asked if he knew anyone. He said he only knew Ya‘aqob Pardo, who is married in Salonica,

(10–14) whom he saw dead on land. That is what the witness Ab̠raham de Leon said in a court of law. After having written everything, he turned to the testimony: ‘I state that the sailor said: “I recognised him on land” ’.562 And all is sealed.

Part B 2nd Testimony

(1–6) The aforementioned Yisḥ ̣aq said that on returning from Ancona to Ragusa [modern Dubrovnik] there was a great storm. On the next day they were talking about storms, one of them said he came from Egypt in the Governor’s ship and there was such a storm that the ship got lost,

(6–10) there were many Jews who drowned, the one with whom I had the most conversation was called Ya‘aqob Pardo from Salonica, whom I saw after he died on land. I recognised him, all this I heard the sailor say, no more no less.

(All this happened before us and everything was sealed and authenticated.)

Decision:

The woman is permitted to marry since it is written that one should be more lenient in the case of indirect testimony. It is vitally important to establish is that the witness spoke voluntarily without being prompted in response to questions. Also we assume that the rest of the required conditions to permit the woman were fulfilled by the first witness whose testimony is being quoted. She is therefore allowed to remarry.

562 Recognition and identification of the dead man is legally vital in order to establish his death and thereafter release his widow from being an agunah. See Appendix 3. text 55—maharibenlev chelek aleph 22 381

55. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 22

Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes gives kiddushin to Orosol in Flanders. He had come from Portugal in order to become Jewish.563 Ab̠raham Cavallero is one of the witnesses. The validity of the marriage is in question.

Figure 55

1. questando en Flandes que venían de Portugal para 2. ser ǰudiós fue llamado deel padre de Orosol 3. haniz(keret) en su caśa, yestaba allí Avi’acar y otros 4. anusim que allí estaban y están, y de ellos 5. vinieron acá deaquel camino, y se alevantó uno de 6. ellos y dišo: saber señore(s) que sois aquí llamados 7. para que rebí Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes da qidušín aOrosol haniz(keret). 8. Y ansí sealevantó el dicho Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes behahí 9. ša‘atá yledió un,564 y ledišo ciertas palabras de 10. qidušín, veša‘a lnu lo im hifsiqu be’inyán aḥer, quešeqam eḥad

563 Jews fled from Spain in 1492 to Portugal, see Wein (1994: 209). 564 Contextually anillo (ring) appears to be omitted here. 382 chapter four

11. mehem ve’amar: ek̠ r(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes hanizkar rosẹ́ leqadéš et 12. hanizkeret ? Y dišo que acabando dedećir aquellas palabras 13. aquel homre que eran llamados para que el dicho rebí 14. Yisḥ ̣aq ben Nunes daba qidušín ala dicha Orosol, tek̠ef 15. umiyad seabantó565 y le dio un anillo, yledišo pala(b)ras 16. de qidušín, que él noentendió.

Translation (Concerning a witness who said she was married in front of him and a witness who said that she acknowledged kiddushin in front of him. Can these two testimonies be reconciled? If they were brought to the Court and one was found to be invalid, are all the rest invalid, what if the invalid one did not come to testify? What is the case if the witness heard but does not understand the meaning of the words of kiddushin, are we concerned that the man said the wrong words. Any woman who comes from Portugal or Castille, as a daughter of a convert, we do not accept the kiddushin since it took place after the Inquisition. If they moved from Portugal to Turkey and settled in Flanders or Venice, does that kiddushin have any validity?

Concerning the discussion of Rashba, between a man who says that he gave her kiddushin and she denied it.

We were a Court when Isaac and Orosol came before us and Isaac said he betrothed Orosol on the way from Portugal to Flanders. She denies this vehemently and Ab̠raham Caballero came and testified before us, this is his language):

(1–8) As he was in Flanders566 and had come from Portugal in order to become Jewish,567 he was called by Orosol’s father. In his [Orosol’s father’s] house were Aviyakar and other converts who were and are there. They all came here from that direction. One of them stood up and said:

565 Must be se alevantó. 566 Modern Belgium (est.1829). 567 Anusim: for more information on converts in the responsa, see Orfali Levi (1982). text 56—maharibenlev chelek aleph 23 383

(6–12) ‘you should know gentlemen that you have been called here so that Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes gives kiddushin to Orosol, thus the aformen- tioned Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes rose and said with this [ring],568 he gave her one [ring], he said certain words of kiddushin. We asked him if they stopped on another matter, when one of them rose and asked ‘how does Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes want to marry the forementioned?’569

(12–16) He said that as soon as the men who were called, so that Yisḥ ̣aq Ben Nunes could give kiddushin to Orosol, finished saying these words, Yisḥ ̣aq rose immediately, gave her a ring and said words of kiddushin that he [Yisḥ ̣aq or the witness] did not understand.570

(Concerning the same case, the witness Yosef Gaon came and testified that he asked Orosol if she accepted the marriage vows and she said ‘yes’. She now vehemently denies this. This took place on the first of Av 1544, here in Salonica. Is there any sense to this kiddushin?)571

Decision:

The marriage vows are not valid since the witnesses are not fully fledged Jews. They are Portuguese converts [anusim]. They chose to stay in Por- tugal in that situation instead of leaving. Therefore, Orosol is permitted to marry whoever she wishes.

56. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 23 Yom Tov Elmalech brings witnesses to testify that he is married to Sete, daughter of Ab̠raham Alfandare. The marriage requires valida- tion. It is recorded on 6 Tammuz 5311 / 10 June 1551.

568 The wordring is implied. 569 Note that Ben Nunes is a name documented in Spain in the fifteenth century, Jaco Ben Nunes was a physician appointed to the court of Enrique IV (Castaño 1997: 383). 570 See chap. 1 n. 49 for the legal implications of this situation and for a historical perspective of the Portuguese converts. 571 The annulment of kiddushin, or rather the process of invalidating the kiddushin, is the easiest way out of this complex situation. See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. 384 chapter four

Figure 56572

1. ve’amar betorat ‘edut: que la 2. verdat es que una tarde entrando en caśa derebí 3. Ab̠raham Alfandari, y llamaron a ‘arbit573 y 4. fuese rebí Ab̠raham a ‘arbit, y su muǰer en caśa 5. de una većina. Y él cuando vido que se fueron 6. quería salirse él tanbién, y le dišo rebí Yom Tob:

572 Note the absence of a number on this responsum in the original edition. 573 Evening prayers. text 56—maharibenlev chelek aleph 23 385

7. espera un poco y el esperó y tomó una pita de 8. seda con un cabo de plata, y se lo dio en la mano 9. de Sete, que la llamó y vi Y después 10. le dišo: toma esto por qiduš(ín), y ella le 11. dišo: volveos acá y salieron. Et kol 12. ze he‘id betorat ‘edut, y dišo tanbién betorat ‘edut 13. quela tomó y no la echó. Aḥar kak̠ ba rebí David Aroques 14. veah ̣ar šeneḥqar kera’ui lehagid ha’emet, qam ve’amar betorat 15. ‘edut : que la verdat es que él, tese574 con rebí Yom Tob 16. hanizkar , y le había dicho que quería dar qidušín. 17. Y vido que se fue rebí Ab̠raham haniz(kar) a ‘arbit, y su muǰer 18. en caśa de una većina. Y llamó r(ebí) Yom Tob aSete y 19. estaba detrás de la puerta de el barandado, 20. y vino y le dio en su mano una pita de seda con el 21. cabo de plata, y la tomó y dándosela dišo: 22. toma575 esto por qidušín y le dišo: volveo acá 23. esta noche.

Translation (Concerning Rashba’s opinion, on whether a divorce is needed in cases where marriage was discussed before and the money was handed over after. If she later married someone else [without receiving a divorce] must she leave him or not? 576 We were residing as a Court when Yom Tov Elmalech asked us to accept testimony from his witnesses that he gave kiddushin to Sete Alfandare. Mošeh de Liria came and testified.)

(1–5) And he said in the testimony: that the truth is that one afternoon as he was entering the house of Ab̠raham Alfandare they called him to go to evening prayers. Ab̠raham went to prayers, his wife was in a neighbour’s house.

(5–10) When he saw that they had gone, he also wanted to leave. Yom Tov said ‘wait a little’. He waited and he took a measure577 of silk with

574 Should this be Sete? 575 BIURP: tanja. 576 See Appendix 3 on kiddushin on the serious consequences faced by a woman if she were to remarry before being freed from her first marriage. 577 Pita is still used in American Spanish to mean ‘pita thread’ (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org 5/7/05 http://www.rae.es/diccionariodelalenguaespañola/ 5/7/2005, Smith (1971: 435)). 386 chapter four a silver end, and he handed it to Sete whom he had called. She came, then he said to her ‘take this as kiddushin’.

(10–16) She said to them ‘come back here’ and they left. All this was [said] in the testimony. He also said in the testimony that she took it and did not reject it. Then David Aroques came who, after he swore to tell the truth, testified: the truth is that Sete [was in the company of] the said Yom Tov. He said to her that he had wanted to give her kiddushin.

(16–23) He saw that Ab̠raham went to evening prayers and his wife was in the neighbour’s house, Yom Tov called Sete who was behind the door of the railing. She came and he gave her in her hand a measure of silk with a silver end, she took it. As he gave it to her he said to her ‘have this as kiddushin’. She said ‘come back here tonight’.

Decision:

The marriage vows are invalid as Yom Tov Elmalech did not say ‘to me’ and not ‘behold I’. Therefore Sete is free to marry as she pleases.

57. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 101 Re’uben guarantees Šim‘on 250 ducats in order to go to Egypt, confirming this and the conditions of repayment in writing. Šim‘on travelled frequently between Venice and Egypt and on one of these journeys his money was stolen. Re’uben refuses to reimburse him, on the grounds that his travels were excessive.

Figure 57 Part 1 text 57—maharibenlev chelek aleph 101 387

Figure 57 Part 2

1. Primera 2. mente vos he consoñido578 aquí matayim veḥamišim peraḥim los 3. cuales vos he rogado los empleéis en loque 4. emplearedes vuestra faćienda, y si vos pareciere 5. de ir en Veneçia, digo por concluçión que todo lo que 6. fićieredes de vuestra faćienda pagáis de los dichos 7. ducados que lo habré por bien fecho

Translation (Re’uben told Šim‘on he would pay him to take money to Egypt to buy merchandise. In the document he wrote that if he wants to travel to Ven- ice, he should do with his money what he does with his own. Šim‘on went to Egypt, then on to Venice, then again to Egypt and back to Venice and he was robbed of all his money. Re’uben claims that he did not tell him to do so many journeys. Šim‘on claims that he understood he was allowed to do whatever necessary like he would do with his own money. What is the law in this case? 100 [referring to question 100]: the event was as follows: Re’uben gave two hundred and fifty coins to Šim‘on to go to Egypt and gave him 6 per cent to buy him merchandise and this is what was written):

(1–7) First I have consigned for you here 250 perahim that I have asked you to invest in whatever way you wish with your estate. If you feel you want to go to Venice in the end, I tell you whatever you do

578 Read: consignado. 388 chapter four out of your estate, you should pay the said ducats and I will have done it for the best.

(The question is based on the issue that Šim‘on made too many journeys between Egypt and Venice. Re’uben claims that this is unusual. Šim‘on claims that he had permission to do as he wished with the money. Our righteous teacher, instruct us as to the law.)

Decision:

Since Šim‘on veered from the merchants’ custom and it is impossible to prove by the language of the document if he had permission to make so many journeys, he cannot take an oath that he did not commit a crime. He therefore loses out and is obliged to pay.

58. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 112 This text involves a partnership agreement between Šim‘on and Re’uben, recorded on Tuesday 11 Adar 5311 / 17 February 1551, in which one cannot act without the consent of the other.579

Figure 58 Part 1

579 Same testimony as text 2. text 58—maharibenlev chelek aleph 112 389

Figure 58 Part 2

1. hayom yo(m) šeliší 11 laḥodeš 2. adar šenat 5311 digo yo Šim‘ón a 3. Re’ub̠en que por cuanto tenemos un šetaṛ ḥatu(m) que cual 4. quiere que tomare la canpana580 o cual quiere otra 5. renda que es obligado serlo modía uno a otro 6. antes, digo que agora quiero tomar la canpana y 7. ansí mismo lo tengo negoçiado con el dayán. Y esto 8. todo fue con liçençia que se venga a escrivir con 9. migo, y que tenrá su parte según esta nuestra 10. escritura con todos los tena’im que enla dicha 11. escritura están, y si no quiere, me dé todo el bitaḥón, 12. que diće en la dicha escritura nuestra que non 13. puede hablar en la dicha canpana según esta 14. escritura, beko’ak̠ haḥumrot umequyemet beḥotamav hahatra’á 15. hazot hayom yom šeliší 11 laḥodeš Adar šenat 5311, que por 16. cuanto tenemos un šetaṛ ḥatum581 que cual quir582 tomare la 17. canpana o cual quier otra renda quees583 obligado 18. seer modía antes uno a otro 19. que agora quiere tomar la canpana, y ansi lo tengo 20. ya584 negoçiado en Qustandin(ah) quesi quiere venir quevamos

580 See chap. 4 n. 18. 581 Read: ḥatam, meaning ‘sealed’. 582 Read: quier. 583 Read: que es. 584 BIURP: sia. 390 chapter four

21. o mandar con él, o que mande hombre él, o que medé585 22. una escritura desu man(o), para que lo escriban allí586 23. besefer hamelek̠, y(arom) h(odó), yque terá587 su parte según está 24. en nuestra escritura, con todos los tena’im que 25. en la dicha escritura está, y sinon quiere que me588 26. todo el bitaḥón que diće en la dicha escritura nues(a) 27. que non puede fablar en la dicha canpana 28. según este escrito, beko’ak̠ haḥumrot gam zot 29. mequyemet beḥotmeha.

Translation [a document of authorisation] (From the 10th of next April, however, all the other oaths will be on them for ten years and all the stringencies were accepted concerning Re’uben and Simon. However, in so far as the responsibility to Levi is concerned, they did not accept all the stringencies.

A document of authorisation):

(1–5) Today Tuesday 11th Adar 5311, I, Šim‘on, say to Re’uben inas- much as we have a signed contract that whoever takes over the company or any other asset is obliged to inform the other.

(6–11) In accordance with this I say that I now want to take over the company and I have negotiated this with the judge. All this was with permission that he comes to write with me, and that he [Re’uben, his partner] has his share according to our written agreement with all the conditions that are in the said agreement.

(11–14) If he does not want then he should put all the trust in me as it says in our said agreement, he cannot have a say in the said agreement according to what is written:

585 Read: me dé, BIURP: mende. 586 Read: allá, apostrophe indicates aleph missing; note representation of /ll/ phoneme with two yods followed by the apostrophe. 587 Read: terná. 588 Contextually, should be dé. text 59—maharibenlev chelek gimmel 21 391

(14–15) with the power of the terms and conditions implemented in this legal warning by signature on Tuesday 11 Adar 5311.

(15–19) As we have a signed contract saying that whoever takes over the company and any other asset, he is obliged to notify the other that he wants to take over the company.

(19–23) This is the way I have negotiated it in Constantinople, that if he wants to come we will go or if he wants to send someone with him, or send a man, or give me a hand-written agreement so that they will write it over there in the Royal Book, may he [the king] be praised,

(23–25) he can retrieve his share as it is written in our agreement with all the conditions set in our agreement.

(25–29) If he does not wish to, he should put all the trust in me that is mentioned in the said agreement. It is not that he cannot have a say in the said company according to this agreement, with the power of the terms and conditions this is also implemented by your signature.589

Decision:

Each one of them is trusted to claim that he intended something specific. Since they accepted upon themselves to abide by the more stringent opinion of the rabbis and sages and undoubtedly there will be a sage that will rule stringently on this matter, the respondent says he cannot rule leniently or stringently and says it is the responsibility of the rabbis of Salonica to decide the matter because of their great wisdom, and also because they can investigate the truth directly from those who ask the question.

(Part III) 59. Maharibenlev Chelek Gimmel 21 The testimony belongs to the field of monetary law. Two brothers query a written contract as to the details of a financial agreement between them, recorded on 9 Ellul 5328 / 2 September 1568.

589 This text contains many repetitive, long-winded, unclear phrases. 392 chapter four

Figure 59 Part 1

Figure 59 Part 2

1. belašón la‘az : veo queredes mandarme šetaṛ 2. de cama sultanis590 que digo por vos acomodar. Hagas 3. dicho šetaṛ 65 sultanis por otro año ‘ad kan. Vekatab̠ ze 4. hu meyom 27 lemenaḥem,591 y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), 1568,‘od hosi’ụ ketab̠ aḥer 5. šecatab̠ lo bayom 9 elul 5328, vezé lešonó: así veo poníades 6. en póliça leaḥiha, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), que ansí es bien, y ansí mismo 7. harés y lo mismo señor harés en la que hićierdes592 8. lešaná haba’á be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) , y como dićes darés el útil de 9. este año. Todo harés como vos pareçiere honesto que

590 Turkish: sultani, ‘coin’. 591 This refers to the month ofAv , lit. consolation. Av is known as the month of consolation; the ninth of Av, Tishabe’ab, is the day of mourning for the destruction of the Temple. 592 Read: hićiéredes. text 59—maharibenlev chelek gimmel 21 393

10. ya digo me contento, y teniendo aviśo, y ansí pagando 11. los asp(ros) ocho mil y 265 y hecho šetaṛ de los diećiséis 12. mil y quinientos asp(ros) im aḥiha, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu) letišrí B(aruk̠) H(ašem) 13. súpito vos mandaré la póliça be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) ‘ad kan

Translation (Re’uben brought out a document against Šim‘on, stating that he owes him three hundred and five golden perachim from what he had previously given him. Šim‘on claims that he has given Re’uben over sixty thousand aspers that he took as fixed interest, so the document is invalid, since it incorporates the loan with the interest, even though in the document it is written ‘objects of gold’. Apparently it is the custom that all documents that charge interest, write ‘objects of gold’. This is also proven from another document, written by Re’uben himself, concerning this matter and these are his words):

(1–3) In the foreign language: I see that you want to send me a contract of however many coins I say, so as to accommodate you. Make the said contract 65 coins for another year. The end.

(3–9) And he wrote this from 27 Av 5328 / 31 August 1568, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, they brought out another document that was written on 9 Elul 5328 / 12 September 1568, and this is the language: I see thus that you made a contract with your brother, may God guard him and keep him alive, that is fine, and you will do the same in the one you will do next year, please God and as you say you will give this year’s interest.

(9–13) You will do everything you deem honest that I say I am happy with; and as long as I have notice, I will pay the 8,265 aspers. Thank God as I have made a contract in Tishri for the 16,500 aspers with his brother, may God guard him and keep him alive, I will send you the contract immediately, God willing. The end.

(From all these words, it is clear that the document includes the capital and the interest. A document which has both [capital and interest] only the capital needs to be paid, it is treated as a verbal loan, so Šim‘on should be believed when he says he has paid sixty thousand aspers in interest. Our teachers, our rabbis, what is the law?) 394 chapter four

Decision:

Šim‘on is not trusted to claim that he has given Re’uben over sixty thousand aspers that he took as fixed interest because confession evidence is not valid in Jewish law. In this case he is not trusted to say that he paid the loan because there is no proof in the document that the loan is incorporated with the interest. Šim‘on is not trusted to claim that the custom is that all documents that charge interest write ‘objects of gold’.

60. Maharibenlev Chelek Gimmel 104 This text contains a neat description of the handing over of a ring and of the uttering of the standard phrase that binds couples in legal matrimony. The testimony includes a detailed description of the girl’s attire. The respondent must ascertain the validity of this marriage.

Figure 60

1. na‘arah aḥat vestida 2. en un sayo azul y un makramá593 blanco en la

593 Turkish makrama, ‘headdress’. text 60—maharibenlev chelek gimmel 104 395

3. cabeça594 cobiśada595 la cara, y alevantaron el 4. makramá596 de la cabeça, y demandáronle que quién er(a). 5. Y dišo que era fulana fiǰa de fulano, honbre 6. conoçido en aquella çibdat y depués deesto 7. tomó597 un anillo y díšole: haré at mequdešet li betaba‘at zu 8. kedat Mošeh veYisra’el.

Translation (It appears that the opinion of Rosh is that if the husband is in town, it is considered as if her testimony is in front of him. Unless we distinguish between marriage—that is done publicly and engagements that are done privately. It is very difficult for me [to judge this] as in such a situation he should have explained his position. The fifth discussion concerns a situation when witnesses came and testified that Re’uben called them and asked them to see that he was marrying so and so, they went in the evening and saw):

(1–4) A maiden is dressed in a blue cape and a white scarf over her head with her face covered. They lifted the covering over her head and asked her who she was.

(5–8) She said she was so and so, the daughter of so and so, a well- known man in that city. After this, he took the ring and said to her ‘Behold you are betrothed to me with this ring according to the law of Moses and of Israel’.

(We disregarded the invalid witness who testified on the kiddushin and we wrote a ruling that she is permitted. I decided to publish part of these laws since they are very deep and important.)

594 Here and in line 4 is an unusual representation of the letter ç with a tsadi instead of with samech that is normally restricted to the representation Hebrew words. 595 This is alsocobijada in Spanish meaning, ‘covered’. 596 Here the text differs from l. 2,makrama instead of marama. Nehama (1977: 347/320) says maramán is a wrap worn over the head by women, especially on pil- grimages to the cemetery. 597 BIURP: somó. 396 chapter four

Decision:

A woman is not trusted to tell her husband that she was betrothed to another man since she could have said that her husband divorced her in her own interest. Written testimony is not valid in cases of marriage according to some opinions. The witnesses that testified in the opponent’s absence could testify again in his presence.

A woman whose husband is in the city and accepts marriage vows from another man not in the presence of her husband or says that he divorced her not in his presence is trusted to be telling the truth.

In the case where a man gave a divorce bill and stipulated that if he shall not come and appear before her etc. the divorce will become valid, and he did not leave the city at all, one should accept the stringent opinion [that the divorce is annulled] even though he did not appear before her.

4.8 Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Avkat Rochel (Salonica 1791)598

61. Avkat Rochel 80 A question posed by R Moses Trani concerned a couple who were converts as a result of the Spanish expulsion, and Re’uben leaves a will. Šim‘on also writes his will. This case is complex since it involves various issues. The wills are written with the intention of overriding the law of the land stipulating the distribution of money and estate. It happens that Re’uben instructs his brother on the contents of his will. The beneficiaries of the will on one side travel to Flanders, where the king confiscates their money for living overtly as Jews. They have to meet the costs of retrieving this money which they then want both sides to share, and deduct from the estate. The dispute concerns the costs. The testimony is recorded in Flanders.

598 BIURP uses the Leipzig (1859) edition. text 61—avkat rochel 80 397

Figure 61A

Figure 61B and 61C 398 chapter four

Part A

1. . . . vezé lešonó: declaro que en toda mi faćienda tiene mi 2. hermano Šim‘ón la mitad, y yo otro tanto enlo que 3. éltiene599 por si, y aunquela mía sea más, él lo ayudó 4. aganar y mi inte(n )çión fue ansí siempre sola mente 5. lo fiźo por merçed que muriendo él sin hiǰos hago 6. heredera amí fiǰa Sara cuando ella asu veluntad ‘ad kan. 7. Vekatub ̠ ‘od beša‘a va(tó) belašón hazé: y digo más que ensu faćiend(a) 8. tiene la miatad su muǰer Ḥ aná y por heredera en los 9. dos terçios dela otra miatad600 su hiǰa Sarah, y que del 10. último treçio601 tomen lo que fuere necesario praa602 11. las despeźas que en su testamento mandara haćer, y 12. loque quedare del terçio dicho deša para su 13. muǰer Ḥ aná ‘ad kan

Part B

1. ‘Od sivạ́ Šim‘ón hanizkar beša‘a t petirató belašón la‘az vezé lešonó: 2. y porque mi haćienda está derramada por 3. muchas y diversas partes para la cobrança de allí, 4. quero que se haga como fasta aquí por lo cual hago mi 5. cuñada Ḥ aná603 testamendera, para que con Ab̠raham veYosef 6. tengan cargo dela mandar cobrar sola mente con el 7. capítulo esto testamie(n)to auten ti cado604 porque yo me 8. contento de todo loque los dichos hićieron, con tanto que Ḥ aná 9. mi cuñada sea prinçipal, y en falta suya, lo que 10. el Dio non mandare enrada AgustínEnriques, ha biendo 11. por firme y por vueldra todo loque ladicha mi cuñada 12. con los otros hićieron,605 sin los poder tomar cuenta

599 Unusual lack of separation between él and tiene. 600 Read: mitad. 601 Read: tercio. 602 Read: para. 603 Note Ḥaná his wife, and Ḥaná his sister-in-law. 604 Read: autenticado. 605 This syntax, with the verb at the end, is reminiscent of the Spanish of the Renais- sance period, e.g. as in Rojas’s La Celestina (Rojas et al. 2000). text 61—avkat rochel 80 399

13. ningún gömü,606 ni reçibo ni otra ǰusticia ninguna por 14. que yo confío que lo harán muy bien, y como hićiera 15. y tengo hiǰo en sus caćiendas607

Part C

1. ‘Od katav bešetaṛ sava‘atọ́ belašón la‘az, vezé lešonó: y declaro que 2. y por bien que la dicha Ḥ aná mi cuñada seatutera608 3. de la dicha Diná mi hiǰa, y ademies609 tartura610 y su 4. haćienda hasta dela dicha Diná mi hiǰa sea en 5. edad de caśar, y dela poder reğir y a demi(es) ni 6. starar ‘ad kan lešonó.

Translation (The story was as follows; Re’uben, one of the converts from Spain, married Ḥ aná, whilst they were in captivity. They decided between them at the time of their marriage, that if he died before his wife, then his assets should be divided fifty/fifty; fifty per cent for her and fifty per cent for the children. This was all documented. This decision is applicable even without their decision, based on the law of the land.611 The law adds that of the fifty per cent due to his children, the dying person may give one third to whomever he wishes. However the remaining two thirds and the fifty per cent due to his wife he may not give to anybody. Re’uben died in that kingdom leaving a daughter Sarah. He also had a younger brother who was dealing with all his brother’s assets that he would send from his town to his brother’s town. Before his demise, Re’uben wrote a will in the foreign language):

Part A

(1–4) this are his words: I declare that in all my estate my brother Šim‘on should have half, I have another part in what he has of his

606 Turkish: gömü, ‘finding’. 607 Read: haćiendas. 608 Read: sea tutora. 609 Read: además. 610 Turkish: tartura, ‘wheel’, but the intention here is to write tutera, Spanish for ‘guardian’, ‘person in charge’. 611 See Rivlin 1999: 293–295 on the issue of inheritance vis-à-vis the law of the land. 400 chapter four own. Even if mine is more, he helped to earn it; this was always my intention.

(4–6) He only did this [helped to earn the money] out of mercy. If he dies childless, I will make my daughter Sarah the heiress when she becomes of age. The end.

(7–11) It was also written in his will in this language: I also say that his wife Ḥ aná owns half of his estate, and her daughter Sara is the heiress of two-thirds of the other half. They should take whatever necessary of the last third [of the money] to meet the payments stated in his will, the remainder should be given to his wife Ḥ aná. The end.

(We found in one of Re’uben’s notebooks, that his assets were much greater than his brother’s. Also in Šim‘on’s ledger it is written that he had a large part of Re’uben’s possessions. It is also clear from their ledgers, the amount they both possessed and Šim‘on was dealing with both their assets.)

(Furthermore, Šim‘on stated before he died:)

Part B

(1–6) The forementioned Šim‘on also commanded at the time of his death in the vernacular, as follows: Because my estate is divided in many and diverse portions, when the money is to be distributed, I want it to be done as it is stated. In this respect I make my sister-in- law, Ḥ aná, the executor of the will, so that she and Ab̠raham and Yosef are in charge of the payments.

(6–15) Only with this meeting this will is authenticated, because I am happy with everything the formentioned have done as long as my sister-in-law Ḥ aná is the principal executor. In her absence, God forbid,612 Augustín Enriques [should be the principal executor], after he has firmed up and validated everything my said sister-in-law has done with the others, without taking into account any finding or man- date or any other law, because I trust that they will do this very well, as I have a son in their estate.

612 Lit., something God should not send. text 61—avkat rochel 80 401

(It was also written in his will):

Part C

(1–6) He also wrote in his will in the vernacular, as follows: I declare that although the said Ḥ aná, my sister-in-law, should be the guardian of the said Dinah my daughter and also in charge of her estate until the said Dinah my daughter is of age to marry; she should also be in charge of my estate and . . . his words end here.

Decision:

The monetary conditions stipulated between the converts [anusim] at the time of marriage continue to exist when they become practising Jews, both by secular law and by Jewish law. This is so because this was the custom, because the conditions were written in their courts and because the law of the land is applicable here.

(Maimonides stipulates that one should invalidate a contract of a gift drawn up in secular courts, however in this case according to his opinion the contract would be valid since it was openly and publically written).

Moreover, marriage contracts that were drawn up in secular courts are considered like sales and loan bills that are valid according to all opinions. Certainly, in the case of Re’uben and Ḥaná, the conditions remain because Re’uben died in the same place the conditions were made. Ḥaná is entitled to half of Re’uben’s assets also by virtue of what is written in his will. But she is entitled by virtue of the conditions made between them to only half of his assets, after they divide all of Re’uben’s and Šim‘on’s assets and give half of them to Šim‘on. Although based on law of the land Re’uben cannot give Šim‘on half the assets that his wife is entitled to, and from the two thirds that his sons and daughters are entitled to, but according to Re’uben’s will Šim‘on has the right to half of all the assets.

In respect to Ḥ aná’s expenses, if it becomes clear by Ab̠raham and Yosef ’s testimony (which said the expenses were laid out) that the expenses were solely for the sake of saving the assets of Rivkah and her daughter Dinah, the expenses should be taken only from Rivkah’s and Dinah’s assets and if no testimony exists that the expenses were only for this purpose, Ḥ aná is believed after taking an oath. 402 chapter four

But the expenses Ḥ aná had afterwards when the Caesar found out that they travelled to Italy are imposed on all Ḥ aná and Rivkah’s and their daughters’ assets.

The expenses and losses that they had in Venice because Rivka sued ̣anáH in the secular courts and the appointment of the Gentile to vouch for them, have to be paid entirely by Rivkah according to the law of ‘moser’ (one who hands over someone else’s money to a crook). If she doesn’t own enough money to pay for those expenses it should be taken from Dinah’s assets as the expenses were paid to save Dinah’s assets from falling into Rivkah’s possession. If Rivkah does not know the amount of expenses, Ḥaná is trusted to claim them by making an oath. If Rivkah denies Ḥaná’s claims, Ḥaná can take Rivkah’s assets that are in her possession.

But the loss they incurred because the Gentile did not agree to the amount that Rivkah paid him, is imposed on all assets.

62. Avkat Rochel 81 This responsum appears to be a continuation of the previous responsum 80.

Figure 62

1. m(a) š(ekatav) Re’uben besava‘atọ́ : declaro que en todo mi 2. faćienda tiene mi hermano Šim‘ón la miatad613 3. y yo otro tanto en la que él tiene porsí, que aun que 4. la mía sea más/él lo ayudó aganar, y mi inte(n)ción 5. fue ansí siempre . . .

613 Read: mitad. text 62—avkat rochel 81 and text 63—avkat rochel 148 403

Translation (From the above it can be seen that there was no kiddushin and no legal acquisition in any form and therefore these two converts, Jewish from birth (taking account of the Gemara’s view on converts) it can be proven that there is no case for claim here—in marriage or monetary.

Reply:

My answer to the above question is):

(1–5) What Re’uben wrote in his will: I declare that in all my estate my brother Šim‘on has half. I also have a similar amount in his estate. Even if mine is greater he has helped to earn it, this was always my intention.

(It is clear that this was not meant as a gift, rather he said that it was always his intention that they should divide it equally. Therefore Šim‘on may not take anything from his brother’s assets. Instead, everything should go to Sarah, Re’uben’s daughter. Rashba has explained a similar situation: even if he would have said it was meant as a gift, it still would not have counted as it was not done in front of Jewish witnesses.)

Decision:

The conditions stipulated between the converts at the time of their marriage, even if written before the secular courts of law are not valid for a number of reasons. Since no valid marriage vows were in place. In respect to the will no gift was given since no act of acquisition was done by which means the gift would have been acquired.

Therefore, Sarah bat Re’uben inherits all her father’s assets and Šim‘on has no part in them at all. But ḥaná can hold the assets in her possession for her sustenance all the days of her widowhood until she claims the rights of her marriage contract.

63. Avkat Rochel 148 This is actually a translation of a reply to a question that is not included in the collection as it was lost. Interestingly, the reply contains much 404 chapter four

Judeo-Spanish. From this reply it seems that a man was claiming money from the property of a deceased, and that the guardian was trying to defend the orphans.

Figure 63 Part 1

Figure 63 Part 2 text 63—avkat rochel 148 405

Part A ra’iti ma šecatab̠ ha’apotropos lit‘on ba‘ed hayatom

1. vezé lešonó: por onde su to‘en que sabemos cierto 2. que non le era encargo k̠u(leh) ad ynon condena la haćienda 3. aél un fiǰo salía de cargo 4. našib̠enu al pi darkó, que sabemos 5. çierto que non le era en cargo k̠u(leh)

Part B

1. umá šekatab̠ tanto su madre dab̠ar temá mi natán nenanut 2. le’em al bená y si fuese cargo de 3. sus padres . . .

Part C

1. y cuenta más, que dišo que si seguía ḥerem setam 2. k ̠u(leh) ad salvo con re’ayá berurá en la šetaṛ vedebari(m) s(b)ateli(m)614 3. hem šeharé yeš re’ayá berurá bešemeš besahorayim,̣ vek̠én m(a) š(ekatab̠) que 4. el que fiźok ̠u(leh) no fiźo entender aB(et) D(in) como el niftar 5. no se le falló afi(lu) una perutá contante k̠u(leh)

Translation Part A

(1–5) I saw what was written by the guardian on behalf of the orphans and these are his words:

Through his claimant we know for sure that it was not in his charge etc. He does not allocate615 the estate to him, his son ended up [being] responsible, we will deal with it in the same manner, as we know for certain that he was not responsible etc.616

614 Text incorrectly has a shin in place of bet. 615 Lit., ‘to condemn’. 616 Unclear. 406 chapter four

Part B

(1–3) Concerning what he wrote ‘as his mother’, it is an unbelievable matter, how can we trust a mother’s testimony on her son and where it says ‘and if he would have been in charge of his parents’,

(Who knows if he gave the other brother his part, or perhaps he intended to give him the same as the other one, but did not manage to because he died. Truthfully we do not need all of this, because even if he did not owe him anything at all, only if he said ‘be my witnesses that I owe him money’, he is obligated to pay the money).

Part C

(1–5) He goes on to say more. He says that he was stamped in the excommunication seal etc., unless with a clear proof this is nonsense617 and invalid for there is proof as clear as the sun at noon and so it is written that whoever did it etc., did not make the Court understand how the deceased did not fail to account even for a single peruta (coin), etc.

Decision:

One who states in front of witnesses, ‘I owe you a certain amount and you are my witnesses’, is legally bound by these words. This is the situation in this case and therefore he is obliged to pay the money that he admitted to, and that money should be collected from his heirs.

4.9 Responsa of Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Bet Yosef (Salonica 1598)618

64. Bet Yosef 8619 Yisra’el, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, hands over a tambourine to Estrella as an object of betrothal. In order for the marriage to be valid, the

617 Lit., ‘this has no dawn’. 618 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1960 edition. 619 This is the same question that is sent to text 31, Adarbi inDivre Rivot 10. This responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 461–462). text 64—bet yosef 8 407 respondent needs to ascertain the true owner of the tambourine and also analyse the words of kiddushin uttered in this scene.

Figure 64

1. ve’amar como un día en el barandado de rebí 2. Yisra’el de Lucena, vido cómo estaba asentado rebí 3. Yisra’el har(ebí) Šemu’el de Lucena con un pandero en su 4. mano, y vino Estrella bat rebí Ab̠raham Yisra’el y 5. demandóle el pandero, y rebí Yisra’el hanizkar le 6. dišo: tomaldo por qidušín, y Estrella hanizkeret 408 chapter four

7. lo tomó y calló y fuese.620 Veša‘alnu et pi rebí 8. David hanizkar ¿be’eze yom hayah hama‘asé hanizkar? Ve’amar lanu 9. še’eno zok̠er be’eze yom hayah. Kol ze he‘id rebí Yehudá 10. hanizkar betorat ‘edut veša‘alnu ‘ al hapandero šel mi hayah, 11. veha‘ed hanizkar hešiv seló yad‘á mimí hayah ek ha(rebí)Yisra’el 12. hanizkar veEstrella hanizkeret amerú lanu šehapandero 13. hi šel Sara bat har(ebí) Yisḥ ̣aq de Lucena. Veaḥar kol ze ba 14. lefanenu rebí Abraham Samanón vehe‘id betorat ‘edut: como 15. un día en el barandado hanizkar le‘il 621 vido como 16. estava rebí Yisra’el han(izcar) l(em‘ala) asentado con un pandero 17. ensu mano, y vino Estrella han(izkeret) l(em‘ala) y le demandó 18. el pandero ydióselo por qidušín y no se 19. acuerda si le dišo tomaldo por qidušín, o622 vos lo 20. do por qidušín, mas que se le acuerda çierto que 21. no623 le dišo para mí.624

Translation (We were sitting as a Court when David Liskas testified under witness law):

(1–7) he said: one day on the railing of Israel de Lucena, I saw Israel, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, sitting with a tambourine in his hand. Then Estrella, Ab̠raham Israel’s daughter, came along and asked the forementioned Israel for the tambourine. He said to her ‘take it as kiddushin’, Estrella took it and kept silent and went off.

(7–13) We [the Court] then asked David whether he remembered the day that this happened. He replied that he did not remember on what day this took place. We then asked the next witness Yehudah if he knew to whom the tambourine belonged. The forementioned witness said he

620 Here the first yod should be a vav, and there is an unusual samech in place of sin, reads as fieçe. 621 1863 edition has h(anizkar) l(ema‘ala). 622 This could bey or o, based on the fact that part of the vav is rubbed out, as is the case with do in line 20. 623 BIURP: lo, the error and absence of the negative no changes the entire point of this testimony. 624 This text is an example of the easy switching between Hebrew and Judeo- Spanish. text 65—torat emet 2 409 did not know to whom it belonged. We asked him how it happened that Yisra’el and Estrella told us the tambourine belonged to Sarah, Isaac de Lucena’s daughter.

(13–21) After all this the witness, Ab̠raham Samanon, came to testify: ‘one day on the previously mentioned railing he saw the forementioned Israel, Šemu’el’s son, with a tambourine in his hand. Then Estrella came and asked him for the tambourine. He gave it to her as kiddushin, but he does not remember whether he said to her ‘take it as kiddushin’ or ‘I give it to you as kiddushin’, but what he certainly remembers is that he did not say ‘from me’.

(He testified all this under witness law. We asked him if he knew whose tambourine it was and he said ‘no’. He also could not remember what day it was. All the above was verified and signed on Monday the 20th of Tammuz 1557. We also asked Yisra’el and Estrella whether he took the tambourine with Sarah’s permission. They replied that he took it without Sarah’s knowledge. Yisra’el also told us that all this was done in jest and that he had no intention of marriage. Also, witnesses testified that the tambourine belonged to Sarah. However, the witnesses of the kiddushin did not know who owned the tambourine. Is there any validity in this kiddushin?

Decision:

It appears to me that this marriage is completely invalid. Firstly since one of the witnesses said that Yisra’el had said ‘take it as a symbol of the marriage vows’, but he did not say ‘from me’. The marriage is invalid.

4.10 Responsa of Rabbi Aḥaron ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) of Salonica in Torat Emet (Venice 1626)625

65. Torat Emet 2 The witness Israel Šim‘on, a resident of Vidin, testifies to seeing the body of Yosef Ruso and burying him. The question is whether the

625 BIURP uses the Venice 1626 edition, same as above. 410 chapter four

victim’s widow is free to remarry. The testimony is recorded on 29 Ševat 5327 / 8 February 1567 in Salonica.

Figure 65 ko amar

1. belašón la‘az: estando en mi botica asentado en Vidin,626 2. vino un ‘akum conoçido mío, y como me vido se allegó amí, 3. y estábamos fablando uno con otro los males que 4. había fecho el rey blao627 y el de sivio, sin yo le demandar 5. nada, me dišo: tanbién a su compañero Yosef Ruso y a dos 6. hermanastros que sempre iban ǰuntos los fallé628 matados 7. y los enterré629 yo. Esto fue me‘id aḥar ha’iyumim vehagizumi(m) 8. y tanbién dišo r(ebí) Yisra’el haniz(kar) que él era ḥab̠er de har(ebí) Yosef 9. Ruso haniz(kar), vehašené hermanastros hem Yisḥ ̣aq ve’Aron veYisḥ ̣aq Amiel, 10. hayah ze bayom 29 leŠevat 5327 layesirạ́ poh Saloniqi veqayam.

626 Vidin is a city north of Bulgaria near Wallachia, a southern province of Roma- nia. See map of migration within the Ottoman Empire (Barnavi 1992: 131). 627 From Wallachia. 628 Could be fallí. 629 Could be enterí. text 65—torat emet 2 411

Translation (The testimony of Yisra’el Šim‘on from Vidin):

(1–4) Thus he spoke in the foreign language: as I was sitting in my shop in Vidin I saw a gentile acquaintance of mine. As he saw me he came to me and we discussed the evildoings carried out by the King of Wal- lachia and of Sivas.630

(4–7) Without my prompting him631 he also said to me ‘I found my companion Yosef Ruso and two of his step-brothers who were always with him, dead and I personally buried them’.

(7–10) This wastestified (after the threats and warnings)632 and the forementioned witness Israel also said that he was a friend of the forementioned Yosef Ruso and that his two step-brothers were called Yisḥ ̣aq and Aharon Amiel.633 This testimony was taken and sealed on 29 Ševat 5327 (1566) in Salonica.

(All this was on Tuesday 29 Ševat 5327 here in Salonica. Please tell us if Yosef Ruso’s wife is allowed to marry.)

Decision:

She is allowed to remarry for several reasons. The Gentile spoke without being prompted and he knew the name of the deceased. The fact that he did not name the father of the deceased or town does not affect the validity of the testimony. The Gentile also confirmed that he buried him, and mentions three other people whom he appears to know well.

630 A province in Turkey. 631 This spontaneous witness testimony is legally important, seemesiah ̣ lefi tumo in Appendix 3. 632 This refers to the usual threats and warnings that witnesses were given before testifying in court. 633 In translation, I omit the apparent repetition of ‘Isaac’. There were only two brothers, and in any case brothers would not have the same name. 412 chapter four

66. Torat Emet 3 Zraya, the witness, testifies that he saw the body of Nissim hurled by the waves and was with the body for over an hour. The question is whether Nissim’s widow can remarry. It is recorded on Sunday 19 Ḥ ešvan 5327 / 1 November 1566.

Figure 66

1. betorat ‘edut: cómo vido a r(ebí) Nissim haniz(kar) que se afogó dientro634 2. de la mar. Y mas dišo que lo vido depués de muerto que 3. la mar lo llevaba y lo traía, y con las grandes 4. ondas le daba la cabeza y e nel635 navío, todo esto era 5. dedía636 y demandimos al dicho har(ebí) Zeraḥia si lo vido cierto 6. muerto, y respondió y dišo que lo vido cierto muerto 7. sin dubda ninguna, y dišo como estubo sobre él como 8. una hora y más desde que lo vido muerto.

634 Here dientro appears, but dentro in Torat Emet 6 l. 10. 635 Read: en el. 636 Read: de día. text 66—torat emet 3 and text 67—torat emet 5 413

Translation (We were discussing the matter concerning an agunah, when Zraya Chanukah came forward and testified that once while he was traveling on a ship on the way to Constantinople, together with other Jews and with Nissim the son of Yehudah Rames, a big storm raged and broke the anchors ten miles away from Castille. Whilst Nissim was standing on the side of the ship, a big wave came and threw him into the water. Zraya testified):

(1–4) In testimony he recounts how he saw the forementioned Nissim who drowned at sea. He also adds that he saw him after he died as the sea was pushing him in and out of the water, the big waves hitting his head against the boat.

(4–8) All this took place in the daytime. We asked the said Zraya whether he was certain that the victim was definitely dead. He recounted that he was with him for over an hour approximately after he saw him dead.

(Sunday 19 Ḥ ešvan 1500 here in Salonica. Is Nissim’s wife allowed to remarry?)

Decision:

The respondent affirms that as the witness saw Nissim floating on the water and testifies that the sea was casting him abou his head was hitting the ship by the thrust of the big waves. The witness was sure the victim was dead he stood over him afterwards for over an hour. There- fore all this should be enough evidence to confirm the victim’s death and permit the woman in question to remarry.

67. Torat Emet 5 This is a case about releasing the widow of Mošeh Hassan from the agunah status. Mošeh was unexpectedly assassinated by guards in Ragusa. 414 chapter four

Figure 67

1. vehayah omer lo betok̠ hadebarim aḥerim šehayah medaber: mucha 2 dolortengo por un ǰudió que llamaban Mošeh Hassán que era 3. cónsolo morador de Raguśa que era mi amigo, que cuando yo 4. le demandaba algún aspro me lo daba, y tengo enoǰo que 5. por mi cabśa lo mataron la señoría de Raguśa, que un 6. día de Šabat a las vente horas me mandaron la dicha 7. señoría de Raguśa que lo llamase, y lo llamí y fue con- 8. migo en una cámara de la señoría y allí le dieron 9. con un mazo en la cabeça y lo mataron y la noche de 10. alḥad siguiente lo enterraron vestido allí, y si yo supiera 11. que lo llamaban para lo matar no lo llamara, y dećía 12. que todo aquello havía visto.

Translation (We were sitting as a Court concerning an agunah, when Ab̠raham came before us and testified that five years ago this coming Tabernacles festival, he was in Esphalt near the city of Ragusa. Whilst he was in a hotel there, a gentile who was a guard in a place called Lazarito asked him for one asper to buy a raki.637 Ab̠raham gave him two aspers and

637 Turkish for a drink known as arac or aguardiente, an alcoholic drink made from aniseed (Romero 2003: 111). text 68—torat emet 6 415 he heard the gentile to whom he had given the two aspers talking to his friend who was in that hotel):

(1–5) During the conversation638 he said ‘I am very hurt about an incident concerning a Jew called Mošeh Hassan, who was the resident consul in Raguśa639 and a friend of mine, who, whenever I asked for any asper [money] he would give it to me. I am very angry that because of me he was killed by the guards of Raguśa.

(5–12) One Sabbath at twenty hours,640 the said guards of Raguśa asked me to call him and I called him. He went with me to a room in the guards’ building, and there they hit him with a stick on his head and they killed him. On the following Saturday night641 they buried him in clothes over there. If I knew that they called him in order to kill him, I would not have called him’. He said that he had seen all this.

(Ab̠raham Hakohen recounted to us the above conversation with the two gentiles as a testimony on Wednesday 20 Kislev 1597 in Salonica.)

Decision:

Mošeh’s wife is permitted to remarry.

68. Torat Emet 6 Elias bar Ya‘aqob brings this testimony to the Court. As Aharon is talking to Elias, the daughter of Ezra sadiḳ appears. She is the widow of Matatia Ruso who drowned at sea. Aharon relates his version of the death of Matatia. He hears from a Gentile the fact that he had just buried Matatia Ruso, with a detailed account of his appearance. His testimony, recounted spontaneously, is vital in order to verify the death of the victim and to free his widow of agunah status.

638 From a legal perspective it is important to establish that the witness spoke unprompted. When testimony is not directed at the litigation it counts as evidence of a man’s death and this is sometimes crucial to allow the widow in question to be able to remarry. See mesiach lefi tumoin Hebrew glossary, Appendix 3. 639 Present-day Dubrovnik. 640 At 8 o’clock in the evening. 641 Noche de alḥad, surviving Judeo-Spanish translation of Motzae Shabbat, the eve after the Sabbath. 416 chapter four

Figure 68 Part 1

Figure 68 Part 2 text 68—torat emet 6 417

1. kam al raglav vehe‘id ve’amar ek̠ hu diber emet: que él 2. estando trabaǰando en caśa de har(ebí) Šelomó David, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), vino 3. abuscarlo rebí Aḥarón bar Ab̠raham miq(ahal) q(adóš) Quiena,642 y(eḥoneneha) E(lión) a(mén), y no lo 4. falló en caśa a r(ebi) Selomó David haniz(kar), y asentose dito har(ebí) 5. Ah ̣arón bar Ab̠raham haniz(kar) a fablar con rebí Eliyá bar Ya‘aqob dicho, 6. y estando fablando con r(ebí) Eliyá haniz(kar) salió la hiǰa de 7. rebí Ezrá sadic,̣ z(ik̠ronó librajá), que está agunah y la vido rebí Aḥar6n bar 8. Ab ̠raham haniz(kar) demandó a r(ebí) Eliyá: por qué no se caśa la hiǰa 9. de rebi Ezrá sadic̣ haniz(kar), y r(ebí) Eliyá respondió: como se ha643 de 10. caśar que se afogó el marido de ntro644 de la mar y non 11. hay ‘edut sobre él; y respondió rebí Aḥarón hanizk(ar) y dišo: 12. haberés645 de saber que yo estando en un navio pequeño 13. cargado qe yayin ancorado entre dos caśales646—Miriopiti647 14. y Erekli,648 pasó un navío grande que venía de Qustanti(nah) 15. y ía649 a Saloniqui, y que él vido en aquel navío lerebí 16. Matatiá Ruso y fabló conél ‘al in’ián piqadón e(ḥad), y tanbién le 17. dišo que quería una cantarica de vino, y no tuvo tienpo 18. Matatiá Ruso de tomar nada de mano de r(ebí) Aḥarón haniz(kar), porque 19. el navío grande ía de prisa pasando el navío dito

642 Read: Quiana, see chap. 4 n. 657. 643 Error in spacing here could alter the meaning; text has sea, meaning ‘be’, but se ha means ‘ought to’. 644 Read: dentro. 645 Archaic form of habréis. 646 Casal is the Judeo-Spanish equivalent of Spanish aldea ‘village’. It is closer to the Galician meaning ‘a part of the village’, and Portuguese casal ‘a small group of houses’ (Zamora Vicente 1967: 371). 647 Final letter could be read as vav or yud; neither reading is obvious. Myriopiton, a village situated on the sea of Marmara (Mostras 1873: 166). 648 Erekli (Eribolea Heraclea Britica), city in Turkey situated on the gulf of the Black Sea (Mostras 1873: 142). 649 Note the Galician form of the imperfect of ir also in ll. 19, 20 and ían in text 26:9, see Entwistle (1965: 308). The formia is also attested as the imperfect of ser in Leonese in Curueña, Murias, Laciana, Babia and El Bierzo (Zamora Vicente 1967: 97). 418 chapter four

20. onde ía rebí Matatiá Ruso adelante; caminaría como 21. una milla y quiśi ron650 los del navío voltar la vela del 22. navío que había tenpentá651 enla mar, y ala voltada de 23. la vela el navío se fundió, y estuvimos mirando la 24. maravilla cómo se afogaron todos, y el ‘akum652 de mi 25. navío onde yo estaba salió, y fue a dar aviśo alos 26. ‘akum del caśal, que es lugar de Oanlik653 que es enfrente 27. de Mármara; cuando tornó el akum al navío onde 28. yo estab(a), era mesíah lefí tumó con migo y dišo: quies654 saver 29. Aḥarón qué tardí, que venimos de enterrar aquel rebí Matatiá 30. Ruso que fablaste conél, aquel dela cara picada, alto de 31. cuerpo köse:655 aél y otras dos criaturas saquimos 32. dela agua y los enterramos en un arenal enla 33. orilla dela mar, por eso tardí hata656 agora. Todo 34. esto me dišo r(ebí) Aḥarón bar Ab̠raham allí asentado. 35. Veliz k̠ut velire’ayah ḥatamnu šemotenu anu B(et) D(in) bayom 29 leNisán 5357 36. layes irạ́ besaloniqi veqayam 37. Šelomó Lebet Haleví dayán, Leví Cozin dayán, Ya‘aqob Rubio dayán.

Translation (–2– 0) In a united session of three judges we, the undersigned, were in the court when Elias, the son of Ya‘aqob came to us and after threats and warnings, he

(1–11) rose, testified and said how he spoke the truth: as he was working in the house of Šelomoh David, may God guard him and keep him alive, Aharon, Abraham’s̠ son, from the Turkish community of Chiana,657 may

650 These words are normally joined asquiśieron ; could be read as quiśeron. 651 Modern Spanish: tempestad. 652 Abbreviation for ‘ob̠ed kok̠abim umazalot. 653 Oanlik; this toponym is most similar to Avanlí, a town in Turkey, but it is not opposite Marmara. 654 Quies is an archaic poetic form of quieres (Menéndez Pidal 1958: 338), and also a Leonese (mirandés) form of quieres (Zamora Vicente 1967: 197). 655 Köse: the only word in this text from a non-Hispanic or Hebraic origin that is not a toponym. Turkish, see Appendix 2. 656 Hata (cf. modern Spanish hasta) could well be a loose pronunciation of hasta as is common in some Andalusian speech, although asta is also attested in Judeo-Spanish (Nehama 1977: 64) and appears as hasta in four other instances in the texts. 657 Chiana is a small town in Italy in the region around Ancona. It is this community in Salonica to which the text alludes, see Molho (1950: 226) and Galante (1941: 168). text 68—torat emet 6 419

God strengthen it, came to look for him and did not find theforementioned Šelomoh David at home. The said Aharon, Abraham’s̠ son, sat down with the said Elias, Ya‘aqob’s son. He sat down to speak to Elias. The daughter of Ezra Tzadik,of blessed memory, who is an [agunah] enchained woman, appeared. Aharon, and Elias replied Abraham’s̠ son saw her and asked Elias why the daughter of Ezra Tzadik is not married, with the question as to how he expects her to be married if her husband drowned at sea and there is no testimony about him?

(11–20) The said Aharon replied ‘you should know that when I was in a small boat laden with wine, anchored between two villages, Myriophi- ton and Erekli, a large boat that came and went from Constantinople to Salonica went past’. In that ship he saw Matatia Ruso.658 He spoke to him on the subject of depositing goods,659 and he also said to him that he wanted a pitcher of wine. Matatia Ruso did not have time to take anything from Aharon’s hand because the large boat hurried past, where Matatia Ruso stood at the front, going ahead of the said small boat.

(20–27) After it had advanced about a mile, those in the large boat tried to turn the sail of the ship as there was a storm in the sea. As they turned the sail, the boat sank. We watched the marvel of how they all drowned. Thegentile 660 in my boat went to warn the gentiles of the village of Avanlik opposite Marmara.

(27–34) When the Gentile turned the boat I was in, he spoke in a spontaneous manner to me and said661 ‘do you want to know, Aharon, that I was delayed as we have just buried that Matatia Ruso to whom you spoke, the one with the pockmarked face, with a tall body and beardless.662 We took him and another two people663 out of the water,

658 Note that this testimony changes from direct to indirect speech. 659 ‘Al in’ián piqadón: these are the laws about depositing goods with someone and the financial responsibilities incurred (under the subject of loans). (Mishnah, Bava Kama 9: 7) (BIURP 2003). 660 Can also mean ‘captain of the ship’. 661 The judge allows the testimony on grounds of spontaneity, as the information is retrieved without probing. See mesiach lefi tumo in Appendix 3. Therefore, Aharon realises that the Gentile who saw the victim drown becomes a valid witness in the agunah case. 662 Description and recognition of the victim is of vital legal significance. 663 Criaturas is a term of endearment. According to DRAE 12th edition criaturas is used colloquially to mean propiedades de niño ‘childlike properties’; used in this sense of tenderness in Lazarillo de Tormes (fifteenth century Spanish novel—anonymous author). 420 chapter four and we buried them in a sandpit at the seashore, that is why I was delayed until now’. All this he related to me when Aharon, Ab̠raham’s son, was sitting there.

(35–37) Out of merit and proof we, the Court, signed our names on 29 Nissan 5357 / 17 April 1597, created in Salonica, judge Šelomoh Lebet, judge Levy Cozin, judge Ya‘aqob Rubio.

Decision:

Matatia Ruso’s wife is permitted to marry on the basis of this testimony as the Gentile witness mentions the victim’s name.

69. Torat Emet 27 A man is killed by two gangsters. The murderers are caught and pun- ished. The widow is pregnant and gives birth to a child who dies within thirty days. Under the levirate command she may have to marry the deceased man’s brother, if the child she bore was not fully formed, or born before term. Also, the document she provides about her husband’s death may not exonerate her from the status of agunah.

Figure 69 text 69—torat emet 27 421 veyeš beyad ha’išá

1. šetaṛ mišené anašim ib̠rim katub̠ veḥatom vezé lešonó: por ser 2. verdad que trušeron en Esaco los ‘akum que mataron al 3. desdichado de peloní y dišeron que ellos lo mataron, el 4. uno de ellos lo enpalaron aquí. Por verdad de eso 5. afirmados aquí.‘ad kan

Translation (This concerns a man who did not return home. The matter was researched and it was found that thieves had killed him. One of the thieves was caught by the authorities and hanged. The wife has a document written and signed by two servants, stating):

(1–5) The woman had in her hand a document from two Jewish people written and sealed, and this is the language: as it is true that the gentiles who killed so and so brought him to Esaco and said they had killed him. One of them was put on a stick over here.664 This is the truth according to the undersigned. The end.

(The woman was pregnant. She then gave birth to a child who died within thirty days. She has a document from the Court stating that two women testified that Ester gave birth and subsequently lost the child within thirty days. Is the testimony of women accepted in order to release her from the levirate duty,665 just like the testimony of women is accepted to testify the death of her husband [in the case of agunot]? Secondly, can it be understood from the words ‘zera’ šel qayama’ [lit. children who persevere]666 [written in the document] that the child was fully formed therefore freeing his mother from the levirate duty and chalitzah.667 As Rambam writes in Hilchot Yibum chapter 1, if we cannot rely on this, can we force the woman to do chalitzah or not?)

664 A form of torture. 665 See yibum in Appendix 3. 666 This implies in this context that the child was already a formed child. 667 A symbolic ceremony in order to free the woman bound by the levirate command to marry her deceased husband’s brother in order to produce an heir from her duty. 422 chapter four

Decision:

Women are not trusted to testify that their child was born after a full term pregnancy in order to exempt her from the levirate command. In any case, the man in question is prohibited to marry his brother’s widow since according to biblical law she is exempt from this command as the child was born alive. When it is a doubtful case it is completely prohibited for a man to marry his brother’s widow. He is forced to perform the ceremony that frees him from this duty. All the above is under the assumption that sufficient evidence exists that her husband died which, according to the respondent, is not clear from the question.

70. Torat Emet 92 Someone lays claim to a relative’s estate. Proof is needed as to the blood relationship between these people before the eligibility of the claim can be determined.

Figure 70 text 70—torat emet 92 423

1. somos parientes que non tengo en Saloniqui otro pariente 2. que éste, ve’az ša‘al mimenu ma hayah haqirbah šeyéš benehem, vehešiv lo: 3. somos primos segundos que su padre con mi padre eran 4. primos hermanos . . .

Translation (Šelomoh, Vidal Ḥ onen’s son, asked us to accept the testimony of witnesses concerning how he was related to Ḥ ayim, Yomtov Ḥ onen’s son. We accepted his request and he brought Isaac de Leon and Ḥ anania Ruso concerning their relationship. Then Yisḥ ̣aq testified saying that the young man Ḥ ayim Ḥ onen and his brother were related to Yomtov Ḥ onen, they grew up in his courtyard. He said that many times they called him Šelomoh my cousin.668 So Yisḥ ̣aq asked them ‘how are you related?’ They replied that his father Yomtov was first cousin to Vidal, Šelomoh’s father. Thus Isaac heard this many times from the brothers. Then Chanania Russo testified that he was also present when Šelomoh called Ḥ ayim, Yomtov’s son to join him in his wedding feast.)

(1–4) We are related, as I do not have another relative here in Salon- ica other than him. Then he asked him how they were related, and he replied ‘we are second cousins, my father and his father were first cousins’.

(These are all the testimonies accepted here in Salonica. Judge ̣ ayimH Ab̠raham, son of Mošeh de Boton. Judge Meir Ḥ avan. Judge Ab̠raham Yisḥ ̣aqi).

Decision:

The respondent says there is a concern if a closer relative exists and if the one who possesses the money is allowed to retain it in his possession.

668 In the Hebrew introduction of the question the word primo ‘cousin’ is used in Judeo-Spanish. 424 chapter four

71. Torat Emet 165 Re’uben makes a will that he later changes. Oro, Clara’s daughter, makes a claim based on the first will. The respondent has to decide the legal validity of Oro’s claim. The wills are recorded on 5 May (10 Iyar 5359) and 6 November 1599 (28 Ḥ ešvan 5360).

Figure 71 Part 1 text 71—torat emet 165 425

Figure 71 Part 2

1. Re’uben met venimsaṭ ketubá eslọ́ savaạ́ zu vezé lešonó; en 2. nombre del Dio a días seis de 3. novemre de 1599 en caśa de la morad(a) vek̠u(leh), fallándome 4. yo Yišai Cohen dotor por la gracia del š(em) yit(barak̠) sano y de mi 5. ǰ uicio linpio enpero mal dispuesto del cuerpo, fago, 6. y ordeno éste mi último testamento revocando y 7. caśando y anulando cual quier otro testamento 8. o ǰunta del que por el pasado fasta este día 9. hubiese fecho, por lo cual recomendo la alma al š(em) y(itbarak̠) 10. el cuerpo quiero y ordeno que sea enterrado en la 11. ploǰa669 del lugar aonde se ent(i)erran mis hermanos los he- 12. breos. Declaro haver fecho de mi mano una nota de todo mi 13. mobil’ fasta veku(leh), dešo a la nuesa sinagoga de los hebreos 14. veku(leh) , dešo a dona Oro fiǰa de dona Clara Ben Šek̠em para 15. ayuda de su dote cien ducados veku(leh), y todo el resto de mis 16. bienes tanto dinero como vestidos y otra ropa dešo 17. a670 dona Joya, que fue muǰer de Yosef Sorogano, y a las dos 18. fiǰas de dita Joya veku(leh). Apotroposim y comisarines hago

669 Cannot find origin or meaning ofplo ǰa; contextually, it could be a ‘plot’. 670 BIURP: et. In fact this is the Hebrew word for a, ‘to’. 426 chapter four

19. lepel(oní) vepel(oní) y non queriendo pel(oní), sea en su lugar pel(oní). Reboco 20. el donativo de cien duc(ados) los cuales dešaba a dona Or(o) 21. fiǰa de dona Clara Ben Šek̠em, y le doy al encuentro un 22. escrito de cincuenta úngaros los cuales he de haber de 23. Šelomoh Javillo sobre tanta madera de fragua navío, la 24. cual madera esta en el magaćín de dito Javillo. Declaro 25. como el día de hoy que cinco de mayo del 1599, he do671 26. haber de Šelomoh Javillo como pareçe por otro escrito 27. de su mano escudos 196, de gerúš 36 por escudo. 28. Declaro más cómo he de haber de Aḥarón Amadeo vek̠u(leh), de 29. claro cómo he de haber de pel(oní) vek̠u(leh), declaro como tengo en 30. caśa vek̠u(leh) ésta mi haćienda con los ducados dośientos veku(leh). 31. Dešo ala dita Joya y sus fiǰas y todos estos dineros 32. que dešo tanto en contante cúanto en debidos se 33. tengan a gana(n)çcia. Y la ganançia dellos se dé a la 34. dita Joya y sus hiǰas672 k̠u(leh). Última mente digo y declaro673 35. que así contante como prendas, como escrituras, todo 36. esté en mano de dicha, la cual quiero sea dueña y 37. padrona674 de que ninguno le pueda demandar cuenta ni 38. cośa ninguna, porque de todo la fago patrona absoluta 39. mente, y quiero que ésta mi voluntad675 non se pueda 40. rebocar en ningún modo.

Translation (1–5) Re’uben died and a document was found with him and this is the language:

In the name of God,676 on the sixteenth of November 1599, in the house of the abode etc., as I, Yishai Cohen, the doctor, by the grace

671 Read: de. 672 Note the different formhi ǰas as opposed to fiǰas elsewhere in the text. 673 BIURP: declado. 674 Read: patrona. 675 It is unclear if the text means to write veluntad or voluntad. 676 Lit., ‘the Name be blessed’. text 71—torat emet 165 427 of the Blessed God, feel healthy and clear in my mind but ill in my body.

(5–9) I make and order this, my last will that it should revoke, cancel and annul any other will or words that I have made in the past till this day.

(9–13) I now entrust my soul to the Blessed God, my body to be buried in the same plot in the place where my brothers the Jews are buried. I declare that I have made a note with my own hand of all my possessions,

(13–18) I bequeath to our synagogue of the Jews etc., and I bequeath to Oro, Clara Ben Šek̠em’s daughter in order to help with her dowry one hundred ducats etc. and all the rest of my estate, money as well as clothes and other goods should go to Joya who was Yosef Sorogano’s wife and to both daughters of the said Joya etc.

(18–19) I make so and so the guardians and protectors, to so and so and so and so, and if so and so do not want, then so and so in place of so and so.

(19–23) I am changing the donation of one hundred ducats which was going to Oro, Clara Ben Šek̠em’s daughter and I give her a note677 of fifty ungars that Šelomoh Havillo owes me from so much timber used for building ships.

(23–27) This timber is in the said Havillo’s shop. I declare this today, 5 May 1599. I should have from another written document from Havillo’s own hand, one hundred and ninety six escudos, thirty six piastres per escudo.678

677 A document stating the amount of money. 678 Thirty-sixgerushot per escudo provides information on the exchange rate at the time. The gerush was the most sought-after coin by Turkish merchants. At times it was worth forty, fifty and fifty-five aspers. In 1582 Sultan Murad III depreciated the gerushot to forty aspers in order to make up for financial losses incurred in the wars against Persia and Austria (Goodblatt 1952: 59–60). 428 chapter four

(28–34) I declare furthermore that I should have from Aharon Amadeo etc. and should have from so and so etc. I declare that I have at home etc., my estate with the two hundred ducats etc. I bequeath, to the said Joya and her daughters, all this money that I leave in cash and however much is owed at interest. The interest should be given to the said Joya and her daughters, etc.

(34–40) Lastly, I say and declare that the cash as well as articles and written documents,679 all this should be in the hands of the forementioned, whom I want to be the owner and boss, to whom no-one can call to account for anything whatsoever. I put her in control of absolutely everything and I want my wish not to be revoked in any way.

Decision:

This will is completely annulled for a number of reasons. Clara’s gift is annulled.

4.11 Responsa of Moses ben Joseph Trani in She’elot u-Teshuvot haMabit (Venice 1629)680

(Part I) 72. HaMabit Chelek Aleph 292681 Elias claims from Ab̠raham, the guardian of the orphans of the late Mošeh, stock to the value of 100 bars of lead. Elias claims that he gave the late Mošeh money to purchase these 100 bars of lead that Mošeh sent to Egypt to his brother-in-law Baruk̠ with an agent, Yosef. The respondent has to decide the validity of the claim.

679 Implying letters of credit. 680 BIURP uses the Lemberg 1861 for Parts 1–3. 681 Same case as text 34, Divre Rivot 92. text 72—hamabit chelek aleph 292 429

Figure 72A 430 chapter four

Figure 72B

(Mošeh wrote this to Baruk)

Part A

1. por cuanto de k(ebod) r(ebí) Eliyah he mandado quintales de 2. plomo con los nuestoros682 por lo cual le pido de merçed 3. a mi señor primo kebod rebí Yosef, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), que selos entregue dela 4. cantidad que él lleva que he mandado yo, porque los 5. dichos 100 quintales non entran en cuenta deloque 6. he mandado yo por cuento nuest(o)ro en esto non haya 7. falta, porque ansí lostengo cargos ami cuenta y 8. ansí selo pido de merçé a mi señor primo vek̠u(leh), y por 9. cabśa de los caretero(s) non lo aparté aquí salbo queva683 10. mezclado con lo nuestros, y en esto non haya 11. falta ‘ad kan: veketab̠ aḥer šelaḥ aḥar kak̠ lek(ebod) r(ebí) Yosef vezé nusó: 12. señor Primo con keb̠od rebí Selomó Besudo vos escribí una 13. cart(a) por lo cual vos es cribía684 que diésedes a k(eb̠od) r(ebí) 14. Baruk̠, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), 100 quintales deplomo por lo cual por él venirse

682 Read: nuestros. 683 Read: que va. 684 Unusual word separation. text 72—hamabit chelek aleph 292 431

15. non685 los habrés dado, pido vos de merçed queel esmerço686 16. delo que montaré 100 quintales deplomo, quemelo desmerçes 17 a parte, y que los mandes con los primero(s) que viniere(n) 18. B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem), y en esto non haya falta que sean venidos en el 19. primer pasaǰ(e) ‘ad kan. ‘od katab̠ leaḥiv šel k(ebod) r(ebí) Eliyá hatob̠e‘a 20. vezé nusó: a lo que dećís que vos mande recabdo687 par(a) el 21. señor k(eb̠od) r(ebí) Eliyá dicho: hiǰo, que cad(a) hora espero a Mošeh 22. Primo en viniendo luego sela mandaré B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem) vek̠u(leh), salvo que 23. lo que diće que vino detorno dea quella688 mercaduría’, digo 24. por vida de Ab̠raham, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), que afi(lu) lo que teníamos allí’ dela 25. falta non vino nimeno(s), se vendió allí mas de 100 quintales en 26. todo fasta’ la ora dela partid(a) del navío y eso 27. mirá si era menester para costes, y çierto quesi 28. hubiera venido algún retorno de aquella mercadoría’689 que 29. hićiera más dela raźón, mas por vida de Ab̠raham vek̠u(leh).

Part B

1. šekatab̠: porque 2. los dichos 100 quintales non entran en cuenta de lo que 3. hemandado por cuento nuestro y por cabśa de los 4. careteros non lo aparté salvo que iba mezclado

Translation (I am writing concerning what appears to me to be a hundred bars of lead that Elias Mappot, orphan of Mošeh, who claims that he gave Mošeh one hundred bars of lead to be sent to Egypt to Baruk̠, his brother-in-law. Mošeh wrote to Baruk̠ saying that he should accept it from Yosef the messenger. He also wrote in another document to Yosef, that when Baruk̠ leaves Egypt to return to Salonica, he should transfer

685 BIURP: con, note that con means ‘with’, non means ‘no’. 686 Crews, who lists this as part of the lexis of Salonica and Sarajevo, says Chérézli translated this as emplette ‘purchase’ (Crews 1955: 222). 687 Recabdo, modern Spanish: recaudo. 688 Read: de aquella. 689 Read: mercadería as before. 432 chapter four the hundred bars of lead to another batch of merchandise and send it to him. Mošeh died before the merchandise arrived. Now Elias asks Ab̠raham, the guardian, to hand over the merchandise.)

Part A

Mošeh wrote this to Baruk̠

(1–8): as instructed by the revered gentleman, Elias, I sent there one hundred bars of lead with our merchandise in respect of my cousin Yosef, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive. [I asked ] that he should deliver them from the quantity that he is taking belonging to me, as the said 100 bars of lead are not included what I have sent. This [the inclusion of the 100 bars of lead] is not necessary because, in this way, the insurance will be on my account, and this is what I have asked from my respectable cousin etc.

(8–11) Because of the guard carriers I did not separate them here, so690 it went mixed up with ours etc, in this way there should be nothing missing.691 The end.

(11–19) Later Mošeh wrote to Yosef saying:

‘My revered cousin, I sent you a letter with the respected Šelomoh Besodo saying you should give to Baruk 100 bars of lead that you will not have given him because he came back. I therefore plead with you that you should take 100 bars of lead from the cargo and keep it692 separate for me and send them with the first (people) who come back to us, with the help of God. For this reason it does not matter if they do not come in the first shipping’.The end.

690 Lit., ‘except’ or ‘only that’. 691 This reference to hiding the merchandise from the guard carriers could be for a couple of reasons. (1). There were frequent losses of life and property during travel by land and sea (Goodblatt 1952: 52). (2). There was custom duty imposed at a higher percentage for Jews and Christians than for Muslims. This could be an attempt to conceal merchandise from the authorities to avoid payment of custom duty since Goodblatt argues that the discrimination of Jewish merchants encouraged them to avoid payment altogether (Goodblatt 1952: 51). However, the payment of custom duty is mentioned in l. 27. 692 Lit., ‘to spend’. text 73—hamabit chelek aleph 331 433

(19–25) Then he wrote to the brother of Elias, the claimant, saying ‘[in reply to] your advice that I should send Elias a bill on your behalf, I say that I am waiting every hour for Mošeh Primo to come and then I will send it to him please God etc. As to his view about what returned from that merchandise, I say, on the life of Ab̠raham, that from our merchandise included what was missing, everything came intact.

(25–29) Over 100 bars of lead were sold there until the time the ship left and this [the money from the sale] was needed for custom duty. Certainly if anything would have come back from that merchandise it would have been more understandable, on the life of Ab̠raham etc.’

(Furthermore, the widow and step-son wrote a document of admission in ḥešván 1554 that it is well-known to them that the merchandise from Egypt is replacing the lead that the late Mošeh sent with Ab̠raham to Yosef in Egypt: a hundred bars of lead from Elias who gave seven thousand aspers to Mošeh.)

Part B

(1–4) he wrote ‘because the said 100 bars of lead should not be included in what I have sent on our account and because of the guard carriers I did not separate them. In fact they went mixed up together’.

Decision:

The respondent explains that if someone commits himself in writing he cannot claim that he did not mean it seriously and therefore Eliyahu is trusted. He advises that the Jewish Court should appoint three merchants that are experts in negotiation and in accounting and the threee of them together with the Court should rule accordingly.

73. HaMabit Chelek Aleph 331 A maiden accepts kiddushin without her mother’s permission. She then asks for her marriage vows to be invalidated. Thekiddushin setting, recorded on Monday 20 Ševat 5322 / 26 January 1562, is analysed in order to grant the nullification of these vows. The maiden must express signs of regret. 434 chapter four

Figure 73A

Figure 73B

Part A

1. ve’amar la: toma este testimil693 con lo que está dientro 2. del por qidušín para mí ufasetá yadah veqibelah testemil 3. veh ̣azar ve’amar la: reçibistes esto por qidušín para mí 4. y dišo694 sí.

693 Turkish: testi, ‘pitcher’. 694 BIURP: gido. text 73—hamabit chelek aleph 331 435

Part B

1. estó hablando con esta 2. moça y pos695 que habés venido aquí qui(e)ro le dar qidušín ve’anu 3. h ̣atum mata ša‘alnu lana‘arah šehayetah nitsebet baḥalón aḥat šeyes ̣ eah al ze 4. haderek ̠, ve’amarnu la: vos habet696 fecho sobre vos algun neder o 5. šebu‘á 697 de faćer asuri(m) cual sequer qidušín por aprovechar 6. vos de ellos sin liçençia de vuestra madre. Amrá 7. lanu : sí. Veša‘alnu la: querés que vos hagamos heter(a) de ello si 8. vos habés arepentide y dišo: sí que me arrepentido. Veaḥar 9. kak ̠ ‘asinu la heterah.

Translation (Monday 20 Ševat 1562 here in Egypt, in front of the committee of sages, we had witnesses before us: Ya‘aqob Mes‘od from Portugal testified that on Thursday 17 Ševat, he knew that Ester was in the loft in the house, with a window that overlooks the street. He got up from his table and went to the entrance of Ester’s abode. Then Rafa’el Shaltiel and Yehu- dah who were looking for him when he had left his table found him below the window where Ester was seen. He saw a woman at the window and called out to her ‘are you Ester the daughter of Miriam Ben Šabat?’ She said ‘yes’. He then asked ‘do you want to accept marriage vows from me?’ She said ‘yes’. He then said to Yehudah and Rafa’el ‘take note of who she is and look at this pitcher and its contents that I am going to use as a symbol for marriage’. He then took a four legged bench, climbed on it and):

Part A

(1–4) He said to her ‘take this pitcher and its contents as kiddushin from me’. She stretched out her hand and took the pitcher. He repeated to her ‘have you received this as kiddushin from me?’ She said ‘yes’.

695 Pos: pues before it diphthongizes, see section 3.3.1.18.5. 696 Read: habéis. 697 Neder ‘promise’ and šebu‘á ‘oath’ are Hebrew borrowing of a legal terminology. 436 chapter four

(The sages asked the witnesses if they knew her. Rafa’el said that he knew her before [the kiddushin]. Yehudah said that he might have recognised her. Mošeh said he did recognise her. Then Miriam, Ester’s mother brought a document saying ‘I, Ester, forbid on myself any money or objects given to me for marriage, unless my mother knows about it’).

Part B

(1–7) As I was talking to the maiden and as you have come here I want to give her kiddushin. We, the undersigned, asked the maiden if she was standing by the window that looked on to the street and we told her ‘have you made any promise or vow to nullify any kiddushin so that you do not take advantage of them [the kiddushin vows] without your mother’s permission?’ She said to us ‘yes’.

(7–9) We asked her ‘do you want us to invalidate them [the vows] if you have regretted it?’ She said ‘yes I have regretted this’. Afterwards we invalidated them.

Decision:

Ya‘aqob’s marriage vows are invalid because Esther forbade herself to benefit from the marriage money. Furthermore, only Rafa’el knew her, there are no two witnesses, even Rafa’el did not see her clearly as it was in the darkness of night and there is no testimony.

(Part III) 74. HaMabit Chelek Gimmel 82 A widow is owed money by Re’uben from a fixed term loan. As she wants to return to her native country she gives her document to Šim‘on to collect the debt on her behalf. Šim‘on then obtains the widow’s permission to invest the money on her behalf. After her death, her children claim this money with interest from Šim‘on. text 74—hamabit chelek gimmel 82 437

Figure 74 Part 1 438 chapter four

Figure 74 Part 2 text 74—hamabit chelek gimmel 82 439

1. . . .bien pensé señor de escusar estos 2. renglones, agora tanto, duque por ser el portado(r) 3. el que es de escuśado698 es el escribir cośa de idos 4. de por acá, pero después considere que 5. saldría que su veluntad que vio lo que por ésta 6. me escribís que os escriba todo loque por 7. acá pasa, al que ra’iti lik̠tob ésta berebí en 8. respuesta de la suya, y digo primera mente que 9. para loque aquí estaba de la que descansó,699 tenga 10. en poder de Re’uben. Sabréš700 señor que Maras me 11. vino una letra de n(uḥó) e(den), diciendo que los tomase de 12. Re’uben, y los pusiese en otra parte que me 13. pareçiese meǰor, enque hiće kol hištadalvati701 porque 14. me los diera que tenía muy bien enque ponerlos a 15. ganançia, pues en aquellos comedias sintiolo 16. ahí702 Leví que andaba yo por tomarlo, díšome quese los 17. diese aél a ganançia, que él los tomaría como 18. lo tenía Re’uben, enque por muncho que meǰoró, y me 19. dišo nunca conmi hubo mesiuṭ , que si los quiśera 20. dar aunque como vido que por esta vía no podía 21. con mi, fuese a hablar al dicho Re’uben que lema‘an Hašem 22. hićiese con migo que se los diese queestarían muy 23. seguros703 y que sería ganarlo aél enque me lo dicho 24. pe‘amim rabot, y may rasitị lehatoṭ ’oznai enque cómo 25. vieron quenon quería, y vieron que yo estaba para 26. partirme leMisrayiṃ , puso achaques mil diciendo queno 27. lostenía704 aún, enque como vide que no había 28. mes iuṭ , yque tanto me ahincaban705 díšele un día 29. que pues que ansí era que percurase que abrid los

698 Note that the s in excusar in l.1 is written with a sin and in excuśado with a zayin. 699 La que descansó and la descansada are popular euphemisms in Judeo-Spanish even today to refer to a dead person. See also ‘Taboo, Death and Mourning Expres- sions in Judeo-Spanish’ Sharzwald 1984a. 700 Here the diacritic on the finalshin is faint. 701 The text has avav between the l and t sound, which must be an error. 702 BIURP: aḥí, this happens to mean ‘my brother’ in Hebrew, but it is senseless in this context. 703 BIURP: seguos. 704 Word separation error is more frequent here than in other texts. 705 DRAE says ahincar has a secondary meaning of ‘to rush’. 440 chapter four

30. oǰos,706 y que le daría aquellos a ganançia y 31. lediera otros tantos mios más, en tal 32. quetratase como las ğentes, yque yo me dešaría 33. de mi viaǰe y tomile ševu‘á ḥamurá, que cada cuando 34. quese los demandase ansí unos como otros, que 35. dientro de vente días que los había de dar, enque 36. por acortar díselos707 todos ǰuntos, y enpeçó a 37. tratar, enque siguiendo el trato tomó un negro 38. moço708 blao, y una mañana de Šabat que él fue a 39. tefilah 709 olvidó la llave enel sayo de ḥol, y el 40. arel que andaba ala lerta tomó la llave 41. y abrió el cašón y tomó de una bolsa su 42. ğilies que tenía enella, y tenía enel cašón es 43. tonces más de 50 mil leb̠anim. Ycomo tomó aquello, 44. hincholó el oǰo y dešó el resto, y no pareció ‘ad 45. hayom vehiyú bik̠lal ansí que des pués vide yo conque šekol 46. reğía enpecé a demandarle gentes enque no 47. tomí deél más que vente y tantos mil lebanim. Como 48. sintió que yo quería levantar el dinero, que el de 49. loque tenía cerró con todo ala banda sin más querer 50. dar más cuenta ni raźón sinon que había perdido 51. otras pérdidas yque había pagado, enque al fin 52. loque medišo que con el tienpo ganase que el mepa- 53. garía. Esto es señor loque merespondió tanto 54. de lo uno como de lo otro.Tanbién mepuśo a vueltas 55. de sus esparćedores del dinero que había en 56. perestado710 a su yerno della cuando estuvo aquí 57. dos mil y 50 lebanim, los cuales les debe aun que ella 58. selos tiene, esto es ba‘avonot todo loque se tiene 59. hecho de aquello, y de loque con ello su aǰunto ka ‘et 60. con viene tener paçiençia y esperar a loque dirá 61. el zemán siganare habrá algún mesiuṭ conél por bien 62. que de otro modo nada non vale ni aprovecha

706 Text says hiǰos, but this makes no sense here. 707 This could be read asdíselos, ‘I gave them to him’ or dejelos, ‘I left them’. 708 BIURP: ozo. 709 It is interesting to note that words like tefilah that are not of Iberioromance origin can experience neutralisation of the vowel /e/ to /i/ in some regions. This has been documented in Sarajevo and Bitola. See table in Quintana 2006: 46. 710 Read: prestado. text 74—hamabit chelek gimmel 82 441

Translation (Furthermore, concerning the sons of the widow, they have a letter from Šim‘on Yehudah, her [the widow’s] relative, who informed him concerning the widow’s death. When he saw that she died, he changed and wrote what came to his mind, and did not mention about borrowing the money and the widow’s reply. He completely denied the previous letter and this is his letter, word for word):

(1–9) I did think, sirs, of freeing these rascals, now, Duke, since the perpetrator is the one who is free and is writing about them over here. However you should consider that after it will emerge that he saw the contents of your writing. He should write all about what is happening over here, on what I saw being written here in reply to yours711 [your letter]. Firstly, Re’uben should be empowered with the belongings of the deceased lady.

(9–18) You should know gentlemen, that Maras brought me a letter from the deceased, saying that I should take them [the money to be invested] from Re’uben, and that I should put them [the money] elsewhere as I tried my hardest to get her to obtain them, because I had a good place to invest them for profit. When in all that commotion Levi felt I was about to take possession of them, he asked me to give them to him at a profit. He said he would take possession of them in the same way as Re’uben did.

(18–23) However much they improved [rose in value], he said he has never made any profit from me. [He said to me that] if I wanted to give them to him, he saw that he could not persuade me with this argument, I should go to speak to the said Re’uben that, for the sake of God, he [Re’uben] should tell me [Šim‘on] to give them to him [Levi], that they [money] are secure and would earn him interest.712

(23–30) He did tell me repeatedly, and I wanted to cover my ears as to how they saw that I refused, and they saw that I was about to leave for Egypt. He gave a thousand excuses saying that he still did not have them. As I saw there was no gain, and I was in a rush for it [the

711 Unclear paragraph. 712 Or it could mean ‘that I am winning them from him’. 442 chapter four money], I said to him one day that as it was so, he should make sure he opens his eyes, and I would give him the money at a profit,

(30–38) and also some of my own money, as long as he dealt with matters properly. I said that I would cancel my journey. I took an oath so that whenever he wished either party could ask for the money and that in twenty days it [the money] would have to be returned. In order to abbreviate the procedure, I gave them all at once to him. He began to invest and in the process of investing he took on a black lad from Wallachia.

(38–44) On a Sabbath morning on his way to the morning service, he forgot the key in his weekday garment,713 and the Gentile,714 who was on the lookout, took the key, opened the drawer and took out his money from a bag he had in the drawer. At the time he had more than 50,000 aspers. As he took them, his eyes swelled [with greed], and left the rest [of the money].

(44–53) Till this day it has never turned up. So after I saw this I began to ask people with full determination not to take from him more than twenty odd thousand aspers. As he felt that I wanted to take the money for which he had resorted never to be accountable, or give any reason about the fact that he had lost this amount and made other losses, he said he had paid and that he would pay me in the future when he would be making a profit.

(53–62) This is, Sir, what he replied to me as to one or the other matter, he also novated to me the debts owed to him by his creditors. He had lent her son-in-law when he was here 2,000 or 50 aspers that he still owes, although she is holding them for him.

This is,for our sins, what has been done about it. Now is the right and appropriate time for all of us to be patient and wait for what time will tell. If there will be a gain it will be from some unexpected profit from him. Any other way of dealing with this is worthless and non- beneficial.

713 As opposed to the robe he would wear on the Sabbath. 714 Arel: Hebrew borrowing lit., the ‘uncircumcised’, i.e. the Gentile. text 75—hamabit chelek gimmel 112 443

(Concerning this letter, the heirs, the children of the widow, claimed to Šim‘on that his words contradicted each other and it is clear that he is not trustworthy. Now he admits and confesses his wrongdoing, his actions prove that from the beginning he was dishonest with the widow seeing that Re’uben wanted to lend with interest and pay him in order to send her the money in one go. He kept it and returned it to Re’uben, against the will of the widow. Can he be innocent of his negligence concerning the forementioned money?)

Decision:

Šim‘on committed a crime whilst giving the money to Levi. Since he mixed the widow’s money with his own money when giving them to Levi, half of what he saved from Levi belongs to the orphans and the rest he is obliged to make up because he committed a crime. If the money yielded profit when it was in Re’uben’s possession or in his possession, this too must be paid to the orphans.

75. HaMabit Chelek Gimmel 112 There is an interesting discussion in this responsum, based entirely on linguistic nuance and distinction between Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew. The respondent argues that in the foreign language the use of sea as opposed to seré is vitally important. Sea implies curse—i.e. the jussive subjunctive used in cursing. Seré implies intention. The respondent has to validate or annul an oath made in a moment of fury.

Figure 75 444 chapter four

1. veqa‘as veqafas ̣ ve’amar: yo sea nazir Šimšón si morare en 2. esta caśa715

Translation (The question concerns Re’uben, whose father did not allow him to fix what he wanted in the house.)

(1–2) He was angry, he jumped and said: that I should become a Nazir- ite like Samson, if I lived in this house.716

(Reply: It appears to me that what he said yo sea [that I should be] is not like I will be, as that would have been yo seré [I will be]. Yo sea [I should be] is like a curse. For example yo sea malogrado si fiziere tal cośa [I should be damned if I did such a thing] . . .

Decision:

His language does not constitute an acceptance of the nazirite vows.

715 Although this is a very short extract of Judeo-Spanish it has been included to show the importance of understanding the vernacular in order to fully comprehend the legal analysis. 716 This question is of linguistic interest, in that the tense used is legally significant. There is only one sentence in Judeo-Spanish, yet it is one that the respondent refers to directly in replying to the Nazirite issue. The problem is that Re’uben’s father did not allow him to repair an item in the house, at which Re’uben became irate: ‘yo sea nazir Simsón si morare en esta casa’ (that I should be a Nazir if I were to live in this house). The subjunctive mood in ‘sea’ (should be) as opposed to ‘seré’ (I will be) is vitally important. The respondent argues that the language does not reflect any intention on the speaker’s part to undertake the commitment of nazirut. Intention is essential, according to cited sources, for the fulfilment of this undertaking. The word ‘sea’ may imply a curse, it deploys the jussive subjunctive used when cursing. Trani gives an example of the use of ‘sea’ in another context: ‘que yo sea malogrado si ficiere tal cośa’ (that I should be cursed if I should do such a thing). However, the jussive subjunctive is also used to imply blessings: ‘que seas dichoso, que tengas buen mazal’ (may you be lucky, that you should experience good fortune). The point is that the speaker fails to use the future tense ‘seré’ (I will be). text 76—maharam alshech 44 445

4.12 Responsa of Rabbi Moses Alshech 1508–1593 in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam Alshech (Venice 1605)717

76. Maharam Alshech 44 In sefaṭ , Mošeh was murdered by thieves and the testimony of his death is recounted here. The legal issue is whether his widow is free to remarry on the strength of these words.

Figure 76

1. la muerte de 2. Ya‘aqob Cohen, H(ašem) yinqum, fue deste modo, que él y una ǰudía salieron de ḥalev 3. para la a de ḥamá718 y el muquerí 719 los llevó por otro camino para matarlos, y 4. vinieron otros ladrones y mataron a ellos, y a el muquerí esto dišo un 5. muquerí pariente de el muquerí que mataron, mesíaḥ lefí tumó a Mošeh mi fiǰo y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y en 6. esto ba‘avonot no hay safeq que tan bien aeste modo oimos otro ‘edut vešalom

717 BIURP uses the Lemberg 1789 edition. 718 Turkish: hamia, ‘foreign citizen’. 719 Turkish: mükâri, ‘muleteer’. 446 chapter four

Translation (This was the news that was received):

(1–3) The death of Ya‘aqob Cohen,may it be avenged by God, took place in this way. He and a Jewess were leaving Aleppo to the house of the foreign citizen720 and the muleteer took them on another route to kill them.

(4–6) Other thieves came and killed them [Ya‘aqob and the muleteer].721 Then onemuleteer told the following to another muleteer, a relative of the muleteer they killed. [This was heard]spontaneously by my son Mošeh, may God guard him and keep him alive. It is doubtless that, for our sins, in this way we heard another testimony.722

(It is also written there. The above I heard from Mošeh Gabizon. All this was verified and signed on Monday 2 Elul 1562 here in efat.)ṣ

Decision:

The woman is permitted to marry based on what was written.

77. Maharam Alshech 78 Re’uben travels and leaves his wife as an agunah. In his marriage contract he made an oath never to leave town without giving his wife a divorce. Re’uben’s father-in-law brings the marriage contract to the Rabbi for clarification. This is Re’uben’s reply.

720 This could be an allusion to Joseph or Gracia Nasi, an example of a foreign citizen living in the Ottoman Empire and enjoying privilege. 721 For a legal analysis on the Hebrew Biblical and post-Biblical terms for a thief, whether ganav or gazlan see Jackson (1972: 1–40). 722 The implication is that Moses heard this conversation between both muleteers. It was a spontaneous, unprompted testimony of Jacob Cohen’s death. This constitutes valid testimony in order to free Jacob’s wife from remaining an agunah. See mesiach lefi tumoin Appendix 3. text 77—maharam alshech 78 447

Figure 77

1. belašón la‘az: si quiere su get selo mandaré mas hade seer de modo 2. queno se piensen quedar con toda mi haćienda, porque no tuve bien con ellos. 3. Escríbeme todo loque pasa, si quisieren contentarse mandámelo adećir y mete 4. la ketubá en poder deel ḥak̠am peloní, y venga carta firmada de su mano y dos o 5. tres723 de la mahalle,724 y yo le mandaré su get, y sino sépase que ael cabo deel mundo 6. me iré, que no sepan de mí, que no quiero estar con tal gente ‘ad kan

Translation (Re’uben went from Yisra’el abroad, leaving his wife as an agunah, going against his vow written in a document that states that he will not leave this place unless he leaves a divorce bill for his wife. Two years later, he wrote a letter to his father who lived in the same place as his wife, stating):

723 Bet and gimmel: note that numerals are given in Hebrew. 724 Turkish: mahalle, ‘district’. 448 chapter four

(1–2) It was written in the foreign language: if she wants her divorce, I will send it to her as long as she is not thinking of keeping all my estate, because I was not on good terms with them.

(3–6) Write to me telling me what is happening, if they are satisfied with this. Let me know [what happens], place the marriage contract in the power of the certain sage and obtain a letter signed by his hand, or two or three of them [men or sages] in the district. I will send her the divorce and it should be known that I will go to the end of the world. They will not hear from me as I want nothing to do with such people. The end.

(After a time, he sent a divorce bill to his wife signed by the judges of that place. In it, it says ‘give this divorce bill to my wife wherever you find her’).

Decision

The woman is undoubtedly permitted to marry according to all opinions.

78. Maharam Alshech 103 Re’uben leaves an article in Šim‘on’s house. Šim‘on is his wife’s brother. Šim‘on takes the object and refuses to return it to Re’uben. Re’uben makes oaths in the name of God that if the article is not returned within three days, he will divorce his wife. Later Re’uben regrets these vows and wishes to annul them.

Figure 78 text 78—maharam alshech 103 449

Vezé

1. ha’ofen : yo reçibo nezirut Šimšón bar Manoaḥ ba‘al Delil(a) bek̠ol tena’av que 2. si hasta el ǰueves no725 tornas aquello, que me llevaste de dar get a mi muǰer. 3. ‘ad kan

Translation (Re’uben left an object in his house for Šim‘on, his wife’s brother. Šim‘on came and took the object. Re’uben heard and became angry. He asked Šim‘on to return it, Šim‘on refused. Re’uben then said ‘if you do not return it in three days I will divorce my wife’ and he said the following):

(1–3) And this is the language: I take on the Nazirite laws of Šimšón, Manoaḥ’s son, Delilah’s husband, with all the conditions. If by Thurs- day you do not return that object you took away from me, I will then divorce my wife. The end.

(Re’uben now regrets his action and is asking for an invalidation [of the vow] for various reasons. Firstly, as he said that the vow should be with the acceptance of Levi who surely does not want the divorce. Secondly, Re’uben said that since he had been a child, he was always quick-tempered and his rabbi told him that on every eve of the New Year, he should annul all future vows. This is what he does every year. However at the time of the vow he did not remember this annulment. Does he have permission not to divorce his wife?)

Decision:

The vow is annulled since on the eve of the New Year [erev Roš Hašanah] he annulled all vows he had made. He therefore does have permission not to divorce his wife.

725 Thevav appears like a finalnun. 450 chapter four

4.13 Responsa of Rabbi Solomon Ben Abraham Hakohen 1530/5–1602 in She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashach (Salonica 1586–94) (3 volumes)726

(Part I) 79. Maharashach Chelek Aleph 18 Re’uben has a married daughter and a pregnant wife and is about to make a will. The conditions of the will are outlined below.

Figure 79A and B

726 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1961 edition for Part 1, and the Venice 1592 edition for Part 2. text 79—maharashach chelek aleph 18 451

Part A

1. vezé halašón hakatub besava’ạ́ bilšón la‘az: mas diće que si727 2. B(e‘ezrat) H(ašém) pariere su muǰer fiǰo o fiǰa, toda aquella haćienda 3. en poder del apotropós la terná728 por su ḥešbón fasta 4. que crezca, y después le será entregada beyadam ‘ad kan

Part B

1. bilšón la‘az: 2. así declarí quesi ḥ(as) ve(šalom) la criatura que su muǰer pariere 3. viniesea morir antes de tener ben o bat, en tal cavśo 4. quiere que toda su haćienda queavança hereden su fiǰa la 5. caśada, y los fiǰos desu hermano peloní, igual mente 6. cada uno de todos ellos entrando tanbién su fiǰa 7. conellos igual y partir todo bešavé, y esto se lo da 8. de agora bilšón mataná kadín ve hahalaḥá729

Translation (Re’uben had a married daughter. His wife was pregnant. Then Re’uben became fatally ill and appointed Šim‘on as a guardian of his property to deal with it and to distribute a part [of the property] to charity. He [Šim‘on] was also instructed to give his brother’s children two hundred gold coins. He [Re’uben] instructed all the property to be left to the son or daughter that his wife will have. This is the words of the will):

Part A

(1–4) This is the language written in the will in the foreign tongue: he says that if, please God, his wife has a boy or girl then she will have on her account all the estate in the power of the guardian until the child grows up. Then it will be passed over to him. The end.

727 BIURP: cosi. 728 Tendrá is the standard Spanish future form, see section 3.3.2. 729 This text is very indistinct. With the help of BIURP (2003) it can be deciphered, although this later version is full of errors. 452 chapter four

(Afterwards, he commanded that if the son or daughter that his wife would give birth to, would die, since he would have no offspring who would merit to inherit his property, then his married daughter and his brother’s children should divide it all equally between them. This is the language of the will):

Part B

(1–8) In the foreign tongue: In this way I declared that if, God forbid, the child was to die before having a son or daughter, in such a case then all his estate that is left shall be inherited equally by his married daughter and by the sons of his brother so and so. All should be shared equally. He bequeaths it from now as a gift, according to the judgement and the law.

(Now the question is asked that since this child is a true heir, does he have the right to say that after his/her [the unborn child’s] death the property should go to his brother’s sons or not?)

Decision:

The married daughter is entitled to all the assets. Re’uben’s brother’s sons receive only the 200 gold pieces that Re’uben bequeathed to them.

80. Maharashach Chelek Aleph 49 This is a section from the reply, not the question. It consists of a written account of the disputed financial arrangement between Šim‘on and Re’uben’s son. text 80—maharashach chelek aleph 49 453

Figure 80 Part 1

Figure 80 Part 2 454 chapter four

1. vezé nusak̠ haketab: mas agora en esta hora recibí una 2. carta vuesa y me escribís de lo que vos faće Re’uben. 3. La verdad que vos diga, yo siempre lo pensé todo esto 4. como vos me dišistes quele distes el šetaṛ delos diecisés 5. mil as(pros) que ya creo que vos acordarés cuando vos diše 6. yo aquí como habías erado en habedle dado el šetaṛ , 7. que él sienpre pensó de faćer grande hamosị́ en 8. nuestra moneda, yno se le ha fecho es por fuerza730 9. que ha de buscar mil tranpas para veer si 10. podrá pelear por dónde poder trabar más. 11. Aquí vino el fiǰo de Re’uben y no lo he visto aún 12. y este correo está de prisa y no vos puedo 13. responder aquella carta, mas Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) con 14. otro correo que estará aquí un par dedías 15. pare por vos mandar alguna favor.731 Si pudiere más 16. para loque dićes quele demande yo aquí ael fiǰo de 17. Re’uben que me diga que cómo pagó los 18. dieciséis mil as(pros), saviendoél como tomó la escritura 19. que me había dado tanbién amí. Niegará, tedirá cómo no 20. me debía nada, y pues errastes en darle la 21. escritura sin tomar ‘edim como no tenía más 22. demanda con vos. Veaḥar kak̠ ba ketab a(lef) miyad Leví hanizkar 23. šekatab̠ leŠim‘ón vezé lešonó: deesta no será más sino faćer 24. le saber como reçibí una suya en lo cual me 25. escribe vuesa merçed que vos escribiera por el 26. fiǰo de Re’uben, en lo cual los días pasados me vino 27. aquí en la hoğara732 el fiǰo de Re’uben yme dišo 28. ciertas palabras ymedió una carta desu padre 29. yme dišo que no escribiera coentra733 su padre, 30. yque él aquí me daría segurança por los vente mil 31. áspe(ros) que todo daño y interés que me viniere de ese 32. pleito, que él melos haría734 buenos y otras 33. çiertas palabras mucho más fondas735 en cośas queno le

730 Here it appears to be a sin and not samech for the apico alveolar; admittedly the text is not clear. 731 Should be algún favor. 732 Turkish: hoğara, ‘shop’. 733 Text has cuentra. 734 Occasionally the initial silent ‘h’ is included in the text. 735 Meaning hondas—cosas hondas, ‘profound matters’. text 80—maharashach chelek aleph 49 455

34. eran dado aél aentender enellas, y yo la verdad 35. tomí mucho hitpa‘alut y qafastị bišb̠u‘á de eneste 36. fecho no fablar bien nimal no auna parte ni 37. aotra. Al hakol yorenu hamoreh moreh sadiq̣ hadín ‘im mi?

Translation (Re’uben claims that Šim‘on owes him twenty thousand aspers. They agreed to abide by the decision of the judges. Šim‘on says that he paid the money back in this way. Levi was owed sixteen thousand aspers from Re’uben’s son that Re’uben said he would pay. The remaining four thousand aspers, Šim‘on gave to a gentile, to whom Re’uben owed money. Therefore Šim‘on claims that he is completely free of any debt).

(1–7) This is the writing of the document: at this time I receive your letter where you inform me what Re’uben is doing to you. To tell you the truth, I always suspected this when you told me that you gave him a contract for the sixteen thousand aspers that I am sure you remember when I told you that you were wrong to give him the contract,

(7–10) as he always thought of making a big profit out of our money. If he has not done so, it is because he must have found a thousand ways to cheat to see if he can strive to find more ways of deceiving.

(11–15) Re’uben’s son came here and I have not seen him yet. This post is in a rush and I cannot reply to your letter but, please God, with the next post that will be here in a couple of days I will send you some good news [lit. benefit].

(15–22) If I can manage to do what you say about asking Re’uben’s son how he paid those sixteen thousand aspers knowing how he took the document that was also given to me. He will deny and tell you he did not owe me anything. It was your mistake that you gave him this document without witnesses as he had no more [financial] demand of you.

(22–27) After this, a document written to Šim‘on came [written] by the forementioned Levi’s hand, this is the language: this is nothing else but to let you know that I have received yours [your letter], where you write to me asking me to write to you with regard to Re’uben’s son, who came here to the shop in the last few days, 456 chapter four

(27–33) He said736 certain words to me, he gave me a letter from his father and asked me not to write against his father and that he will give me [financial] assurance with reference to the twenty thousand aspers, that he would compensate me for any loss or interest that would be incurred on me as a result of this case. [He said] certain other words

(33–37) and many more profound points in matters were not clear to him. I honestly was very careful, and I undertook the oath not to say anything good or bad on this matter to either party. On all this [case], my teacher, on whose side does justice lie?

Decision:

If Re’uben claimed that Levi did not write any document, Re’uben is a false claimant and Šim‘on is exempt. Even if he claims that what Levi wrote is not referring to this debt, he is not trusted to cancel Šim‘on’s claim since he is obliged to fulfil the ruling of the arbitration.

81. Maharashach Chelek Aleph 67 A document that explains how a man gives a divorce to his wife after she has thrown him out of their home, denied everything and kept all her husband’s possessions.

Figure 81

736 This verb is in the present tense and ‘looked’ is in the future tense in the original, but only makes sense in the past tense in translation. text 81—maharashach chelek aleph 67 457

1. Vezé lešonó belašón la‘az: bien 2. sabés que este get quedó737 ami muǰer que su 3. anus oneś nek̠il, que bien sabes que me echó de caśa, y se 4. me alevanta con todo lo mío que me lo negaba todo, 5. yno había remedio desacar mi haćienda de su poder . . .

Translation (The man who divorced claimed that he was threatened by his father. This is not called divorcing under force, also he has no obligation of honouring his parents [in this case] he does not have to listen to his father in order to divorce.)

(1–5) And this is his language in the foreign tongue: you know very well about this divorce I am giving my wife, [about the fact that] her conversion is a deceitful coercion. You well know that she threw me out of our home and she has kept all my belongings. She has denied everything and there was no way I could remove my estate from her possession . . .

(I do not know this man who wants a divorce, but it seems that he did not have much money as his father was cruel, to the extent that he ended up working in a lowly job, with wool. So how can he say that his wife took his assets, since even her dowry was not returned?)

Decision:

The woman is permitted to remarry and she does not need another divorce because the husband cancelled all the notices when he gave the divorce. On the basis of the claim that the divorce was given under duress, the divorce is not annulled since he was not entirely coerced. Additionally one of the witnesses of the notice is invalid and so all the testimony is invalidated.

737 Should be que do meaning que doy (that I give). 458 chapter four

(Part II) 82. Maharashach Chelek Bet 38 Mošeh Attias leaves a will distributing his wealth, amounting to 100,000 aspers. The deceased man’s brother-in-law was a great scholar who headed the institute of Jewish learning in Salonica and was in dire need of money. The question is whether the will can be changed, and some of the money left to charity can go to the sister and brother- in-law, on the grounds that without money, the latter would have to abandon his learning and teaching.

Figure 82

1. v(e)z(é) l(ašón) hasava’ạ́ 2. belašón la‘az vehem dibré hamesavẹ́ : yo tenía veluntad de 3. haćer una obra buena, y non sabía cómo la 4. repart(ir), agora digo que dešo cien mil asp(ros) para738 5. que anden a ganançia y el cabdal esté siempre 6. firme. Y la ganançia la mitad para elheqdeš de 7. ‘aniyé sefat,̣ t(ibaneh) v(eticoneh) b(imherah) b(iyamenu), y la otra mitad para una

738 BIURP: aara. text 82—maharashach chelek bet 38 459

8. yešibah , para que melden por mi alma739 en sefaṭ , t(ibaneh) v(eticoneh) b(imherah) b(iyamenu), y 9. el dinero esté en poder de dos principales en 10. Saloniqui ǰunto conmi hermano, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), ‘ad kan lašón hasava’ạ́ 740

Translation (Just before the demise of Mošeh Attias, he left one hundred thousand aspers to hekdesh741 that can be seen in the document of the will):

(1–6) And this is the language of the will in the foreign language and these are the words of the will: I had the wish to do something good and I did not know how to divide it [the money]. Now I state that I bequeath one hundred thousand aspers to be left to gain interest and the capital should always remain secure.

(6–10) The interest should be [allotted as follows:] half for the sacred property of the poor in sefaṭ , may it be rebuilt speedily in our lifetime, and the other half for an institute of Talmudic learning so that they should pray for my soul in sefaṭ , may it be rebuilt speedily in our lifetime. The money should be in the power of two main people in Salon- ica together with my brother, may God guard him and keep him alive. The language of the will finishes here.

(He [Mošeh Attias] has a friend, who is married to his sister, who is a great Talmudic scholar. He learns all day and has no income. He has daughters of marriageable age and has no means of doing so [affording their marriage]. He would have to travel to collect funds and have to stop learning and this would affect the whole centre of Talmudic learning in Salonica as he is their leader . . . The question is therefore asked if the charity money can be directed to his [the deceased] brother-in-law, on the grounds that they are helping a Talmudic institute and children. Can they get permission to change the will?)

739 The concept ofilui nishmat (‘in memory of the soul of . . .’). 740 This will is particularly clear and intelligible. 741 ‘Charitable purpose’, see hekdesh, Appendix 3. 460 chapter four

Decision:

The treasurers are entitled to deviate from the will and to use the money for the needs of his brother-in-law Binyamin and for his daughters’ dowry.

83. Maharashach Chelek Bet 134742 Two testimonies are recorded in relation to this case, one in Monastir and one in Salonica. The question is whether Re’uben is legally married to the young woman to whom he hands over a ring as an object of betrothal, or whether she is free to marry someone else. The respondent believes the kiddushin is invalid for various reasons.

742 This responsa is discussed in Benaim 1999a. text 83—maharashach chelek bet 134 461

Figure 83 Part 1 462 chapter four

Figure 83 Part 2

1. Vekatub ̠ lematah que él por agora no quería 2. demandar nada que asu tiempo él demandaría o 3. aquí o a otro lugar, tornáronle a dećir haB(et) D(in) que 4. por eso estaban todos aǰuntados para saver 5. la verdad de esto que los demandadores dećían que 6. querían caśar esta moça, o saver si los qidušín 7. eran valutos.743 Respondió Re’uben hanizkar ve’amar que era 8. verdad que él la había sido meqadéš lipelonít. 9. Demandáronle B(et) D(in): ¿de qué modo?, respondió: saverés 10. señores como rogué a dos o tres mancevos mis 11. amigos hoy a medio día, estando los turcos en 12. ǰ uma744 que me fićiesen un plaćer745 que quería que viniesen 13. con mi que quería dar qidušín a una moça. Y tomé 14. un anillo y se lo mostré, y lo fui a faćer y

743 Italian: valid (Old It. valuto, past participle of valere). 744 Turkish: ǰuma is the Islamic Holy day. 745 French idiom—faire plaisir. text 83—maharashach chelek bet 134 463

15. peśaba un metical746 y siete checardites747 y los748 16. llevé a los ‘edim al cortiǰo, y ellos quedaron abašo 17. los dos ‘edim, y uno fue con él arriba y batí 18. a la puerta y me abrió la moça, y diše yo a los ‘edim: 19. ¿estás allí abašo? Respondieron: sí, mirá que le do 20. qidušín , estas son palabras meRe’uben. Ša‘alú 21. mimenu haB(et) D(in) esos dos o tres ‘edim, que tenés, quién son? 22. Dišo que el uno era Manuel vekebod rebí Naḥum, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), primo 23. con hermano de la moça, fiǰos de dos hermanos de la 24. moça, y otro es Yosef Basa un baḥur forastero 25. rećién venido aquí de Veria, y el otro es un Šelomó 26. Boa que son me‘edim haB(et) D(in) han(izkar) l(ema‘ala) que lo fueron maḥri(m) que va 27. al e(šet) i(š) uba‘al, vešalaḥ veqare’ú haBet Din haniz(kar) le‘edi(m) hanizk(arim) veša‘alú 28. leforastero šehayah harišón ma ‘edut hayah me‘id ‘al 29. inyán han(izkar) l(ema‘ala), vehešiv haforastero han(izkar) l(ema‘ala) šehú be’inyán han(izkar) l(ema‘ala) lo 30. hayah yode‘a lo miná velo miqnatam,749 ḥazerú lomar lo haBet Din haniz(kar) 31. re’eh mah še’atah omer vehešiv: lo que he dicho digo750 que no sé 32. nada sobre este cavśo, con esto diǰéronle que se 33. fuese y salió fuera. Ba ha’aḥer šehú Selomó Boa 34. vegazar ‘alav ḥak̠am hašalem meha‘ir, šeyaid veyagid ma šeyode‘a 35. be’inyán han(izkar) l(emala) vehešiv ve’amar: saverés señores como a mí 36. y a Yosef Baça y a Manuel Naḥum mos llamó este 37. Re’uben han(izcar) l(em‘ala) y mos rogó vení con mi que quiero dar 38. qidušín a una moça, y fuimos fasta la puerta 39. del cortiǰo y le demandimos: ¿entrasteis dientro

746 Spanish word from Arabic miţqāl; a measure of weight equivalent to 4.25 grams. 747 Turkish: çekirdek, grains, a measure of weight of gold and of precious stones, about a quarter of a carat. 748 BIURP: lot. 749 A Hebrew idiom meaning that he had no knowledge of the matter. 750 One digo seems to be superfluous, unless the text intends:lo que he dicho digo and the diacritic is missing from the firstdigo. 464 chapter four

40. del cortiǰo? Dišo que sí, y subió este mancevo el 41. meqadéš ariba y mos dišo: ¿estás abašo? Mira que do 42. qidušín . Demandámosle B(et) D(in): ¿viste alguna?751 Dišo: en 43. aquella caśa habían cuatro o cinco muǰeres, non vide 44. quien eran. Otro que dišo: mira hermanos que do qidus(ín). 45. Estando en esta ḥaquirah vederisah a este ‘edut 46. de este ‘ed sacó el Ḥ ayim šehú Re’uben, han(izkar) l(em‘ala), un 47. papel dela falduquera y dišo: buenos qidušín tengo 48. dado que aquí me tengo afirmado. Los‘edim demandáronle 49. la carta, dišo que si752 le echasen meah ḥaramot no la 50. daría. Aḥar kak̠ ḥazerú haB(et) D(in) vešaleḥú liqró leforastero 51. Baça ve’amerú lo šeharebí Ḥ ayim hineh. Omer que lo tenía 52. afirmado en una carta por‘ed , que diese el ‘edut 53. de lo que savía, y dišo que macare753 le echasen setenta 54. h ̣aramot que él no diría nada fasta que los otros 55. dos diesen el ‘edut, que había tomado šebu‘ah besefer 56. torah de no dar ‘edut. Amrú lo haB(et) D(in) que754 era forçado 57. de dar el ‘edut que para la šebu‘ah le darían hatarah, 58. y le dimos hatarah, y después, aḥaré haiyum vehagizum 59. vegazerú ‘alav ḥerem šeyagid mašehayah yode‘a be’inyán han(izkar) l(em‘ala), kam al 60. raglav ve’amar: saverés señores que yo no me quería 61. meter en nada de esto porque so un forastero y 62. me forçó fasta que me fiźo ir, en esto fuimos 63. todos755 tres ǰuntos hoy a oras dela ǰuma al 64. cortiǰo de harab Yosef Naḥum, n(uḥó) e(den), quedimos mos otros756 65. tres abašo arrimados en una paredica fronte 66. del barandado del dito Naḥum, n(uḥó) e(den), y subió ariba el 67. dito Ḥ ayim y había una manta de fronte de la

751 Presumably the word muǰer is missing from this sentence. 752 Note that shin yod could indicate a variety of meanings. It could be se, meaning the third person reflexive pronoun, or sé, meaning ‘I know’, or si, meaning ‘if’, or sí, meaning ‘yes’. The context determines the correct transcription. 753 From the Greek makare, meaning Spanish ojalá (‘would that’); also has the meaning of ‘even if’, as in this case. 754 Another example of language switching. 755 BIURP: tedos. 756 Should be one word, mosotros; note the initial m instead of n, nosotros often found in Judeo-Spanish. It is interesting that this form does not appear more often, suggesting that the Judeo-Spanish has not yet fully evolved. text 83—maharashach chelek bet 134 465

68. puerta, y la alzó y dišo: ¿estás abaǰo vos otros?757 69. Y dišo: mirá que do un anillo y lo dio en mano de 70. una moza, y dišo: mirá que do qidus(ín). Y le demandaron 71. B(et) D(in) al ‘ed, cuando dišo mirá que do qidušín, si tenía 72. la moça el anillo en la mano, o al dar del anillo 73. lo dišo. Respondió el dito Baça: ya tenía el 74. anillo en la mano la moça y dišo: mirá que do qidus(ín) 75. y lefićimos758 ḥaqirah vederišah, y dišo el ‘ed dos tres 76. cuatro većes del modo dicho. Y le demandaron B(et) D(in) 77. al ‘ed, ¿conoces la moça? Respondió: yo so forastero 78. no la conoz(c)o, otro que vidi dar un anillo a una 79. moça. El otro ‘edut de Manuel Naḥum no se tomó. 80. Gam ken se declara que si bien dio ‘edut el 81. forastero Baça veḥazar bediburó ve’amar que en la hora 82. que dió el anillo, dišo: mirá que do qidušín y lo759 83. dišeron Bet Din:760 ¿pos fasta agora no dišiste de 84. otro modo, ¿cómo te tornas? Respondió: estó tan 85. torbado que no sé lo que digo más. Ša‘alú haB(et) D(in) lehar(ebí) Ḥ ayim 86. šehú Re’uben han(izkar) l(em’ala) im hayú lo ‘od ‘edim, vehešiv que no 87. tenía más ‘edim.761 Ve’amerú lo haB(et) D(in): si tubieres más 88. ‘edim ¿cómo será? Respondió: teniendo más ’edim los 89. so posel. Kol ze, ab̠ar bifné ‘edim al zeh yorenu hamoreh 90. lis daqaḥ hadin le’amitó vesaḥar adonenu qaful min hašamayim

Translation (Re’uben who lives in Monastir claimed that he was engaged to a Jewish girl. The Court wanted to investigate this matter, so they called Re’uben on Friday and he said the following):

(1–7) It says below that he, for now, did not want to ask anything that he would have asked at the time here or in another place. The Court

757 Read: vosotros. 758 Read: le fićimos. 759 BIURP: le. 760 Occasionally Bet Din is written in full. 761 Continuity and oscillation between Hebrew and Judeo-Spanish. 466 chapter four then told him that it is for that reason that they were all convened in order to know the truth about this. The questioners said that they wanted to marry off this girl, and they needed to know if the marriage vows were valid.

(7–13) Theforementioned Re’uben replied. He said that it was true that he betrothed the said lady. The Court asked him ‘in what way?’ He replied ‘you should know, gentlemen, I pleaded with two or three youngsters, who were my friends, at midday today, as the Turks were at Friday prayers, that they should do me a favour and come with me as I wanted to give kiddushin to a maiden.

(13–18) I took a ring and I showed it to them. I had it made and it weighed one dram and seven gicardetes.762 I took it to the two witnesses in the courtyard, who stayed downstairs, and one [witness] went with me upstairs and knocked at the door. The maiden opened the door and I said to the witnesses:

(19–20) ‘Are you down below?’ They replied ‘yes’, ‘see that I am giving her kiddushin’. These are my Re’uben( ’s) words.

(20–27) The Court asked us who the two or three witnesses were. He said that one of them was Manuel Naḥum, may God guard him and keep him alive, a first cousin of the girl. Both he and the girl were the children of two brothers. The other [witness] is Yosef Baça, a young foreigner, who has recently arrived here from Veria.763 The other [witness] is Šelomoh Boa, both are witnesses of the fore-mentioned Court, who were excommunicated on grounds of adultery and whom we forgave.

(27–33) The Court called the forementioned witnesses and asked the foreigner to be the first to give us testimony on the matter. The foreigner replied he did not know and had no knowledge of the matter. They asked him ‘do you realize what you have said?’ He replied ‘what I say is that I don’t know anything about this case’, and with this they asked him to leave and he went outside.

762 Also a weight. 763 Veria is a city in Greece. text 83—maharashach chelek bet 134 467

(33–42) Then another one, who was Šelomoh Boa, came. The sage of the city summoned him to testify and say what he knew about the forementioned matter. He replied ‘you should know gentlemen that this Re’uben called me, Yosef Baça and Manuel Naḥum. He pleaded with us to come with him as he wanted to give kiddushin to a girl. We went up to the door of the courtyard and we asked him if he went into the courtyard and he said ‘yes’. The young lad, thebetrother , went up and he said to us ‘are you downstairs? See [be a witness] that I am giving kiddushin’. The Court asked him ‘did you see any particular woman764 in that house?’

(42–50) ‘There were four or five women. I could not see who they were. The other one said ‘look765 brothers, I am giving kiddushin’.766 During this interrogation within the testimony, this witness Ḥ ayim, who is Re’uben,767 brought out a paper from his purse, and said ‘I have given good kiddushin as I have the witnesses’ signature here. The witnesses asked him for this letter and he said that even if they cast upon him one hundred curses he still would not give it to them.

(50–59) Later the Court called the foreigner, Baça. They told him that Ḥ ayim said he had it all confirmed in a witness letter and that he should testify what he knew. He then said that even if they threw on him seventy curses he would not testify until the other two testified, as he had made a vow before the Holy Torah not to testify. The Court said that he was forced to testify, that the Court can invalidate the vow and we invalidated the vow. Afterwards, the Court threatened him with excommunication so that he would testify what he knew on the subject.

(59–68) The fore-mentioned [witness] stood up and said ‘you should know gentlemen, that I did not want to get involved in any of this because I am a foreigner and he forced me until he made me go. We went, the three of us together, today at the time of the Friday prayers to the courtyard of Yosef Naḥum, may his soul be blessed. We remained

764 Lit., ‘did you see anyone?’ 765 In the sense of ‘be a witness to’. 766 These translations are very literal to the point where the English is quite stilted, but the rhythm and style of the dialogue is preserved in order to re-enact the scene as closely as possible. This phrase means ‘I am performing the betrothal vows’. 767 Re’uben is the impersonal name (the John Doe equivalent) used in most responsa; Ḥ ayim appears to be his real name. 468 chapter four downstairs near a wall opposite the railing of the said Naḥum. The said Ḥ ayim went upstairs and there was a covering768 in front of the door. He lifted it and said ‘are you downstairs?’

(69–79) Then he said ‘see [be a witness to the fact] that I am giving her a ring’. He handed the ring to a girl and said ‘see [be a witness to the fact] that I am giving kiddushin’. The Court asked the witness if the girl had the ring in her hand when he uttered ‘see that I am giving kiddushin’, or did he say it [the phrase ‘see that I am giving her kiddushin’] as he gave her the ring. The said Baça answered that the girl already had the ring in her hand before he said ‘see that I am giving her kiddushin’. We cross-examined him. Thewitness repeated three or four times the way in which it happened and the Court of Law asked him ‘do you know the girl?’ He replied ‘I am a foreigner, I don’t know her, all I know is that a ring was given to a girl’.

(79–90) The othertestimony of Manuel Naḥum was not taken. Also it was declared that if the foreigner Baça did testify and then went back on his word and said that at the time that he gave her the ring he said ‘see that I am giving her kiddushin’, and when the Court of Law told him ‘you said this to us differently, how come you change?’ he replied ‘I am so confused that I don’t know what I am saying any more’. The Court asked Ḥ ayim, who was Re’uben, if he had any more witnesses, and he said he had no more witnesses. The Court asked him ‘if you had more witnesses what would they be like?’ and he replied ‘if I had more witnesses I would invalidate them’.769 All this took place before witnesses. On this, our teacher of law, please teach us the true judgement and the reward to our master will be twofold from heaven.

Decision:

There is no issue here of a valid marriage as one of the witnesses of the marriage was a relative of the girl and so all the testimony is annulled. Additionally the witnesses did not see the betrothed girl.

768 Lit. ‘blanket’ or ‘piece of fabric’. 769 The logic of this answer is unclear. It could also mean ‘I, my marriage vows, would be invalidated’. text 84—maharashach chelek bet 145 469

84. Maharashach Chelek Bet 145 The following texts, recorded on Thursday 11 Av 5337 / 25 July 1577, consist of the rules of a community on leadership and the financial contribution of the local Sephardic community of Callipolis770 and the Romanian community.

Figure 84 Part 1

770 Turkish: Guélibolou, see Appendix 2. 470 chapter four

Figure 84A Part 2 text 84—maharashach chelek bet 145 471

Figure 84B

Part A

1. lihyot que 2. fasta agora ver(e)mos aver ḥiluq leb̠ab̠ot entre mos771 3. otros de lo cual seseguía muchos pleitos y daños

771 BIURP: nos. 472 chapter four

4. ael qahal qadós. Y por miedo y reçelo que cuanto más 5. fuese peor fuese, por eso hiskamnu todos nos 6. otros qahal qadós firmados abašo de faćer estos 7. tiqunim siguientes. Y primeroes772 que ningún ǰudió 8. de los de aquí firmados abašo pueda faćer 9. mesiuṭ de quéšer ni con los firmados aquí ni con otro 10. ningún. ‘Od hiskamnu que fue, pusieran de gaba’im 11. dende hoy fasta Roš Hašaná hab(a’á) r(išoná), fasta un año, 12. B(e‘ezrat) H(ašém) , y todo este tiempo que sirvieren les damos 13. poder a los dichos gaba’im, que puedan llamar a cual 14. quier que ellos quiǰeren para cual quier neçeçidad 15. que se siguiere en el qahal, y llamarán cinco 16. afueras ellos y non pueda ningún de los que 17. llamarán refusar nada, salvo que tek̠ef umiyad que fueren 18. llamados salgan afaćer su ma‘amad. Y acabo del zemán 19. del serviçio llamarán los dichos gaba’im a tres 20. zeqenim , y entre ellos çinco sacarán otros dos 21. gaba’im para que siervan otro año, y que ninguno 22. pueda refuśar. ’Od hiskamnu que todo as(pros) que se 23. prometiere para sedaq(á)̣ , o cual quier honbre que rindiere 24. cual se quier misvạ́ , es meḥyav773 de dar lo en poder 25. de los gaba’im que fueren bayamim hahem.’od hiskamnu 26. que toda taqaná que hićieren los gaba’im que fueren 27. bayamim hahem, ǰunta mente con los cinco que llamaren 28. ael ma‘amad que somos meḥuyavim delo afirmar todos 29. los firmados abašo, y el que refuśare en ello 30. me‘atah ume‘ak̠sav lo tenemos por nibdal de nos otros,774 31. milebad que pasa ḥerem ušbu‘ah. ‘Od hiskamnu que cual 32. quier honbre que refuśare en cual quier taqaná de las775 33. dichas arriba o cual quier que non quiǰere firmar 34. esta carta, somos meqabelim ‘alenu bigzerak̠ najaš776 35. ub̠isb̠u‘ah de no entrar, lo be’aveló velo begiló, y esto

772 Read: primero es, two words. 773 Theh ̣et in meḥuyav appears as taf in the text but this does not make sense. Hebrew borrowing meaning ‘obliged’. 774 Read: nosotros. 775 BIURP: los. 776 A particular punishment designated by the community, an abbreviation of nidui ḥerem šemata. text 84—maharashach chelek bet 145 473

36. reebimos777 sobre nos otros mehayom ad taslum asará 37. šanim resufiṃ Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem), vehayah zeh peh Galipol yom heh,778 11 laḥodeš 38. av šenat 5337, vehakol sarir ubarir veqayam. ‘Od hiskamnu 39. šeaḥar ‘ab̠or hazemán, o betok̠ hazemán non se pueda 40. desbaratar sino ba‘asaṭ kulam, y si uno solo dišere 41. que no es contento quese desfaga esta dicha 42. haskamah non se pueda desfaćer, vehakol sarir ubarir 43. veqayam ‘ad kan. Aḥar šekatevú veḥatemú hahaskamah haniz(keret) kol haqahal, 44. lo rasụ́ bené Romania laḥatom itam lihyot ‘ imam

Part B

1. Nos otros anšé hamaamad biršut kol haq(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), le’ahabat 2. hašalom y por ver que el q(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), tenía neçesidad 3. por que nitrabú ha‘aniyim yno había posiblidad enel 4. q(ahal) q(adóš) para lo poder sufrir como fasta agora, lak̠én, 5. nos aǰuntamos todos le’ahab̠at hašalom con yehidé segulah 6. mibené romania k̠u(le) los que firmaren aquí abašo, por 7. encuanto puśimos lepasrán le’iqar ume‘od ne‘elam keb̠od harebí Yisra’el 8. Asayul, y mandó queayudasen en toda fiǰa de rey,779 9. jus ̣ miqesef golgalta hanikrá haaragi,780 que se entiende 10. el cuerpo del haaragi que en todo resto de fiǰa de 11. rey, pagasen los giz(barim) en cada millar aspros 120. 12. Declaramos y dećimos que en toda fiǰa que tocare 13. anel781 qahal qadós de las puertas adientro, quier para ‘aniy(im) 14. quier para heqdešot, quier para todo sark̠é sibur 15. mirando782 kesef golgalta, han de pagar en cada millar

777 Read: recibimos. BIURP: dejebimos. 778 Day 5, jueves, Thursday. 779 BIURP: roy, this appears to be the error of a vav in place of a yod, rather than the French word roi for ‘king’. 780 Turkish: haraç ‘poll tax’. 781 Read: en el. 782 Instead of in the sense of ‘looking’ it is used in the less usual sense of ‘concerning’ (http://www.rae.es/diccionariodelalenguaespañola 15/05/04). 474 chapter four

16. asp(ros) 120, digo ciento y vente y si cabśo fuere que 17. alguno de estos señores mibené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), firmados 18. abašo fuere ‘oqer dirató de aquí abašarán de 19. estos 140 asp(ros) el ‘erek̠ que pagaba él entre los 20. bené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), dichos. Y si viniere otro miḥus,̣ lo 21. serán ma‘ariḥim los propios bené romania dichos, y 22. aquel ‘erek̠ pagará al q(ahal), si poco si mucho, y nos otros 23. çinco que nos sacaron los dos gizbarim y lo abedecio783 24. mos mikóah de nuesa haskamah. Lo afirmamos esto 25. aestos señores mibené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), y son mehuyavim 26. kol anšé haqahal qadós, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), de lo firmar mikóak̠ de nuesa haskamah 27. que tenemos que todo loque mandaren los dos gizbarim 28. con los cinco784 que ellos sacaren, delo afirmar y 29. no puede ninguno ser poseḥ peh umesafsef, y ellos los 30. anšé romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), gam ken qibelú ‘alehem de firmar 31. todas nuesas haskamot, digo esto que tenemos 32. escrito. Aḥaré hadaf ’od hiskamnu que toda vez que 33. llamaren los dos gizbarim a ma‘amad, que sean meḥuyab̠im 34. de llamar dos de los bené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró)̣ v(iḥayehu), betok̠ de los 35. çinco de modo que vienen aser tres sefaradim, y dos 36. mibené romania , y todo lo que mandaren estos son 37. meh ̣uyab̠im anšé haq(ahal) q(adóš) de lo firmarmikóah ̣ de la ševu‘ah 38. y naḥaš que todos tenemos . . .785

Translation (. . . If you refuse to pay then we request that you no longer live amongst us, as we have no use of you dwellers of Romania.)

783 Possibly, obedecimos. 784 In l. 23 the samech was clear in the first consonant, here it is doubtful, hence the spelling ‘c’ instead of ‘ç’. 785 Very pedantic language in part B, unlike the style of the other Maharashach texts. text 84—maharashach chelek bet 145 475

Part A

(1–7) It happens that until now we see disagreements786 between us that brought about many cases and damage to the holy community. Out of fear and dread that this would deteriorate, we, the entire undersigned holy community, agreed to make the following rules.

(7–10) The first one is that no Jew who has signed here can have any connection787 with those undersigned or with anyone else.

(10–15) We also agreed that they would appoint the leaders from now till the following Rosh Hashanah [New Year], for a year, God willing. All this time that they will be in office, we give the saidleaders power to call on anyone they please, for whatever need of the community.

(15–18) They will call upon five of them, and none of them will be able to refuse, they have just to fulfil theircommunal duty as soon as they are called upon.

(18–22) At the end of their time of service, these leaders will call upon three elders. Between the five leaders they will find two otherleaders to serve another year and no-one will be able to refuse.

(22–25) We also agreed that each asper that is promised for charity, or any man who gives money for an honour during prayers, he is obliged to hand over this money to the leaders at that time.

(25–31) We also agreed that every rule that is instituted by the current leaders together with those five members who are appointed in the committee, must be upheld by all of us signed below. Whoever rejects this we, here and now, ostracize him from us, as he undergoes excommunication with an oath.

(31–38) We also agreed that any man who disobeys any of the above- mentioned rules or who refuses to sign this letter will be undertaken by the community, under the punishment of najas under oath, not to

786 Lit., ‘division of souls’. 787 Mesiuṭ de quéšer, lit., reality of contact/connection. Note Spanish ‘de’ between two Hebrew borrowings. 476 chapter four include him whether in mourning or in celebration. This we received from today until ten years time,788 God willing. This was the voice of Callipolis on Thursday 11 Av 5337; everything is sealed.

(38–42) We also agreed that after this period, or during this period, the rules cannot be changed unless it is with everyone’s consent. If one only person expresses that he is unhappy then this new ruling should be dismantled so that it [the structure] does not dissolve. All is sealed. The end.

(43–44) After the entire community had written and sealed the above- mentioned ruling, the Romaniote people did not want to join them.

(On condition that at every meeting some Romanians would be present but they would have to pay one hundred and twenty aspers. These are the words of the document):

Part B

(1–4) We, the committee members, with the permission of the entire holy community, for the sake of peace and seeing that the holy community, may God guard it and keep it alive, has the need. The poor have increased in number; there had been no possibility in the holy community to experience this until now.

(4–11) For this purpose we all gathered together, for the sake of peace, with the members of the Romanian people etc., who are signed below. For this reason we appointed as an arbitrator the cherished and praise- worthy Rabbi Yisra’el Asayul who said they should help every Jewish girl apart from the poll tax called the haaragi.789 It is understood that the essence of this tax is that for every Jewish girl the leaders should pay 120 aspers in every thousand.

(12–16) We declare and state that for every Jewish girl that touches the holy community inside its doors, whether for the poor or for holy

788 Lit., ten consecutive years. 789 See chap. 1 n. 72 on poll tax. text 84—maharashach chelek bet 145 477 purpose, or for the needs of the community concerning the poll tax, [the members] should pay 120 aspers in every thousand.

(16–20) I am saying one hundred and twenty in case any of these men are Romaniote, may God guard them and keep them alive. The undersigned who uproot their living from here shall pay 140 aspers, less than he paid among the above-mentioned Romaniotes.

(20–24) If any of these Romaniotes come from outside they are obliged to pay. He will pay that amount whether too much or too little. We, the two treasurers, instituted this with the power of our ruling.

(24–29) We affirm this to these gentlemen of the Romaniote people, may God guard them and keep them alive. All these people of the holy community are obliged to sign this from the strength of our ruling [to abide by] everything the two above-mentioned treasurers [decide], together with the other five they select, so that no-one can open their mouths or complain.

(29–32) The Romaniote people,may God guard them and keep them alive, also undertook to sign all our rulings that we have written down.

(32–38) After this page we also agreed that each time the forementioned treasurers are called up to the committee they should be obliged to call two Romaniotes, may God guard them and keep them alive, within the five, thus making it three Sephardim and two Romaniotes. The people of the holy community are obliged to sign everything that these people command, with the strength of the oath and punishment that we all have . . .

(Under these conditions, they lived in peace and harmony for fourteen years. Whoever of the Romaniotes moved out was exempt from paying and whoever moved in would be liable to pay. Recently the community claimed that the decision of the others was not binding and that the Romaniotes should have to pay the full amount like all the other community members). 478 chapter four

Decision:

It is impossible to demand anything from the Romaniote community because earlier generations exempted them. According to Biblical law they are exempt because the king exempted them and also because came to the city before the Sephardic community. (Even though community provisions are customarily cancelled with the agreement of the community, however one of the community members can prevent the annulment).

The respondent says that the fact that there is a rumour that was a previous ban that the community should not split itself to form a new community is an issue for concern. REFERENCES

Primary Sources

The responsa have been integrated into Appendix 4 in a detailed table consisting of all the responsa collections consulted, including the extra thirty one responsa that appear outside the time frame of this book and over sixty responsa in Appendix 5.

Culi, Yaakov, Me’Am Lo’ez1 on http://hebrewbooks.org

Yehoshua, 1851 Salonica Bereshit, Smyrna 1864 Shemot chelek aleph, 1884 Jerusalem Shemot chelek bet, 1884 Jerusalem 1884 Devarim chelek aleph 1773 Constantinople (this commentary was completed by Rabbi Yitzchak Bechor Agruiti)

Legal Authorities, Commentators on the Talmud2 with Their Dates of Birth and Death

Abraham b. David (Ra’avad) c.1125–1198 Asher b. Yehiel (Rosh) 1250–1327 Ezekiel Landau (Noda B’Yuda) 1713–1793 Gershom b. Judah (Me’or ha Golah) 960–1028 Isaac b. Jacob Alfasi (Rif) Haalfas 1013–1103 Isaac ben Sheshet (Rivash) 1326–1408 Jacob b. Asher, R (Tur) 1269–1343 Jacob b. Meir (Rabbenu Tam) 1100–1171 Joseph b. Ephraim Caro (Bet Yosef) 1488–1575 Joseph Colon (Maḥarik) 1420–1480 Joseph Taitazak 1470–1551 Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) 1194–1270 Moses b. Maimon (Rambam) 1138–1204 Nissim ben Re’uben (Ran) 1320–1380 Samuel b. Meir (Rashbam) 1080–1160 Simeon ben Tzemach Duran (Rashbatz) 1361–1444 Solomon b. Aderet (Rashba) 1235–1310 Solomon Yitzchaki (Rashi) 1040–1105

1 My citations from the Me’Am Lo’ez in this book are in the form Me’Am Lo’ez, Book followed by Numbers 1 or 2 where relevant followed by the page number as listed on the website cited above. 2 These are some of the main commentators that are cited in the responsa by the respondents. 480 references

Secondary Sources

——, 1873. Sefer Torah neviim veketuvim (trasladado a la lingua espaniola) [The Bible in Hebrew with a Ladino translation in Hebrew characters alongside] (Constanti- nople: Estamperia de A. H. Buiajen). Alcalay, Re’uben, 1966. The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary(Tel Aviv: Miskal Publishing). Almosnino, Moses, 1564. El regimiento de la vida (Salonica). Alpert, Michael, 2001. Crypto-Judaism and the Spanish Inquisition (Chippenham, Wiltshire: Anthony Rowe Ltd.). Alvar, Manuel, ed., 1996. Manual de dialectología hispánica: El español de España (Barcelona: Editorial Ariel). Angel, Marc, D., 1980. The Jews of Rhodes(New York: Sepher-Hermon Press and the Union of Sephardic Communities). ——, 1994. ‘The Responsa Literature in the Ottoman Empire as a Source for the Study of Ottoman Jewry in Levy’, in The Jews of the Ottoman Empire, ed. Avigdor (Princ- eton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press), pp. 669–683. Ariza, Manuel, 1996. ‘El judeoespañol’, eds., Winfried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol- Bornes, in Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 155–171. Armistead, Samuel G., and Joseph H. Silverman, 1971. The Judeo-Spanish Ballad Chapbooks of Yacob Ab̠raham Yoná (Berkeley: University of California Press). Armistead, Samuel, et al., 1978. El romancero judeoespañol en el archivo Menéndez Pidal: catalógo- índiće de romances y canciones, 3 vols (Madrid: CSMP). Armistead, Samuel, 1999. ‘Near Eastern and Balkan Elements in Sephardic Oral Lit- erature’, in The Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies, ed. Annette Benaim (London: Dept. of Hispanic Studies, QMWC), pp. 1–20. Arnold, Raphael, 2006. ‘Spracharkaden. Die Sprache der sephardischen Juden in Italien im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert’. (Heidelberg: C. Winter Verlag). ——, 2006b. ‘Laboratorio culturale. Il Ghetto veneziano e le sue tre Nazioni’, in: S. Winter (a cura di), Veneziano l’altro l’altrove, (Venice: Open library ) pp. 99–126. Ashkenazi, Samuel, and Dov Yerdo, 1973. Otser rashe tevot [Thesaurus of Hebrew Abbreviations] (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass). Ayoun, Richard, and Séphiha Haïm,V., ed., 1992. Séfarades d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, 70 Portraits (Paris: Liana Lévy). Baer, Yitzchak, 1961. A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America). Barnavi, Eli, 1994. A Historical Atlas of the Jewish People (London: Kuperard). Barnett, R., and W. M. Shwab, 1989. The Western Sephardim (Grendon Northants: Gibraltar Books). Baron, S. W., 1983. A Social and Religious History of the Jews (Columbia: Columbia University Press). Bašan, Eliezer, and Leah Bornstein,3 1973. Mivchar monchim loazim besifrut hasheelot u-teshuvot shel hatkufah haotomanit (Selection of Foreign Terms in the Responsa of the Ottoman Period) (Internal publication of BIU). Beinart, Haim, 1992. ‘Conversos’, in Spain and the Jews, the Sefardi Experience 1492 and After, ed. E. Kedouri (London: Thames & Hudson), pp. 92–122.

3 Known as Bornstein-Makovetsky in later publications. references 481

Benabu, Isaac, 1979. Contemporary Texts in Western Judeo-Spanish (hakitía)—A Lin- guistic Appraisal (author’s typescript presented in the 1st Judeo-Spanish British Conference, University of Glasgow). ——, 1992. Circa 1492—Proceedings of the Jerusalem Colloquium: Litterae Judaeorum in Terra Hispanica (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem/Misgav). ——, 1991. ‘Orthography in the Hispano-Romance Kharjas in Hebrew Characters’, in Poesía estrófica; actas del Primer Congreso Internacional sobre poesía estrófica árabe y hebrea y sus paralelos romances (Madrid 1989), ed. F. Y. Sáenz-Badillos Corriente, (Madrid: Madrid Universidad Complutense), pp. 31–42. Benabu, Isaac, and Sermoneta, Joseph, 1985. On the Transmission of the Judeo-Span- ish Translation of the Bible: Eastern and Western Traditions Compared (Jerusalem: Judeo-Romance Languages), pp. 1–26. Benaim, Annette, 1996. Six Responsa of Rabbi Samuel de Medina—A Legal and Lin- guistic Analysis, M.A. thesis (London: London School of Jewish Studies/QMWC). ——, 1997. ‘The Treatment of Women in a Legal Context as reflected in the Judeo- Spanish Testimonies of the Responsa of Rabbi Samuel De Medina’, in Quien hubiese tal ventura Medieval Hispanic Studies in Honour of Alan Deyermond, ed. A. M. Beresford (London: Dept. of Hispanic Studies, QMWC), pp. 199–205. ——, 1998. ‘A Case of Guardianship: Two Halakhic Perspectives’, in Le’ela No.46 (London: London School of Jewish Studies, September 1998), pp. 15–19. ——, 1999a. ‘Le dixo tomadlo por quiduxín’, in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twen- tieth Century—Proceedings of the Sixth EAJS Conference Toledo 1998, Judit Targa- rona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 457–463. ——, ed., 1999b. The Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies (London: Dept. of Hispanic Studies, QMWC). ——, 2006. Judeo-Spanish Testimonies in Sixteenth Century Responsa, Phd Thesis (School of Oriental and African Studies, London University). ——, 2009. Review of Jewish Questions. Responsa on Sephardic Life of the Early Modern Period by Matt Goldish (Madrid CSIC: Sefarad volume 69 no. 1), pp. 237 –239. Benatar, Jacqueline, 1991. ‘Le Judéo-espagnol de Salonique à travers les réponses de S. de Medina et I Adarbi’ (Yod. 33–34: 95–99). Benbassa, E., and A. Rodrigue, 2000. Sephardi Jewry: A History of the Judeo-Spanish Community 14th–20th Centuries (California: University of California Press). Ben-Ur, Aviva, 2001. A Ladino Legacy (Alexander NC: Alexander Books). Bornes Varol, Marie-Christine, 2004. Manuel de judéo-espagnol: Langue et culture, Nouvelle édition revue et augmentée, (Paris: Langues et mondes—L’Asiathèque). ——, 2007. Livro de djudezmo lingua i kultura sefaradi, Traduction en bulgare du Manuel de Judéo-Espagnol, (Sofia: Organization of the Jews in Bulgaria Shalom). ——, 2008a. ‘Le judéo-espagnol d’Istanbul’ in Sephardica- Hommage a Haïm-Vidal Séphiha, (Berne, Peter Lang). ——, 2008b. Manual of Judeo-Spanish—Language and Culture, English translation of Manuel de Judéo-espagnol (Maryland: University Press of Maryland). Bornstein, Leah, 1979. Maftehot to the Maḥaraschdam—Index to the Responsa of Rabbi Shmuel de Medina (Ramat Gan: BIU Press). Bornstein-Makovetsky, Leah, 1997. ‘Jewish Names in Istanbul in the 18th and 19th Centuries, a Study Based on Bills of Divorce’ in These are the Names: Studies in Jew- ish Onomastics, eds., Aharon Demsky, Joseph A. Reif, and Joseph Tabory. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press), pp. 13–26. Braude, Benjamin, 1992. ‘The Rise and Fall of Salonica Woollens 1500–1650 Tech- nology Transfer and Western Competition’ in Jews, Christian and Muslims in the Mediterranean World after 1492, ed. Alisa Meyuhas Ginio (London: Frank Cass). Bunis, David Monson, 1975. A Guide to Reading and Writing Judezmo. 2d ed. 1976. (New York: The Judezmo Society). 482 references

——, 1981. Sephardic Studies: A Bibliography for Research. 1981. (New York: Garland Press and YIVO Institute for Jewish Research). ——, 1984. ‘Some Problems in Judezmo Linguistics.’ Mediterranean Language Review 1 (Heidelberg: Heidelberg University) pp. 92–126. ——, 1993. A Lexicon of the Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in Modern Judezmo (Jeru- salem: Hebrew University Press). ——, 1996a. ‘Yisra’el Haim of Belgrade and the History of Judezmo Linguistics’ in ed., Jean Baumgarten and Sophie Kessler-Mesguich, Histoire, Epistomologie, Langage (XVIII, fascicule 1): La linguistique de l’hébreu et des langues juives, (Paris: Société d’Histoire et d’Epistomologie des Sciences du Langage and PUV) pp. 151–166. ——, 1996b. ‘Translating from the Head and from the Heart: The Essentially Oral Nature of the Ladino Bible Translation Tradition, in eds., Winfried Busse & Marie- Christine Varol-Bornes, Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 337–357. ——, 1999a. Judezmo: An Introduction to the Language of the Ottoman Sephardim. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press) (in Hebrew). ——, 1999b. ‘Hebrew Elements in Sefer Hešeq Šelomo [Venice, 1587/88]’, in ed. Shel- omo Morag, Moshe Bar-Asher and Maria Mayer-Modena, Vena hebraica in judaeorum linguis, (Milan: University of Milan). ——, 2004. ‘Distinctive Characteristics of Jewish Ibero-Romance, Circa 1492’, His- pania Judaica Bulletin, ed. Yom-Tov Assis and Raquel Ibáñez-Sperber. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University) pp. 105–137. Busse, Winfried & Varol-Bornes, Marie-Christine, 1996. Hommage á Haïm Vidal Séphiha, Sephardica series (Berne, New York: Peter Lang). Castaño, Javier, 1997. ‘Social Networks in a Castilian Jewish Aljama and the Court Jews in the fifteenth century: A Preliminary Survey (Madrid 1440–1475)’ in La España medieval (Madrid: Universidad Complutense). ——, 2004. ‘Nuevos documentos hebráicos, aljamiados de Aragón (1). Fragmentos de un registro contable de pagos de la aljama de Tarazona’ in Sefarad 64 (Madrid: CSIC) pp. 315–340. —— & Del Rey Granell, Susana, 2009. ‘Judíos y redes personales en Tierra de Campos durante la segunda mitad del siglo XV: un cuaderno de minutas de avecindamien- tos de Villalón’ in Sefarad vol. 69:2 (Madrid: CSIC) pp. 361–382. Cervantes Saavedra, Miguel de, (1547–1616), 1978. El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha (Barcelona: Antalbe). Cohen, Boaz, 1959. Law and Tradition in Judaism (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America). Cohen, Esther, 1999. ‘El Rol de la Mujer Judía’ in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century—Proceedings of the Sixth EAJS Conference Toledo 1998, Judit Targarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 491–497. Concina, Ennio, 1998. A History of Venetian Architecture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Corominas, Joan, 1974. Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana (Madrid: Gredos). Cowley, 1929. Concise Catalogue (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Crews, Cynthia, 1955. ‘Notes on Judaeo-Spanish II’, Proceedings of the Leeds Philo- sophical Society (Literary and Historical Section), VII (Part IV): 217–230. Díaz-Mas, Paloma, 1986. Los sefardíes—historia, lengua y cultura (Barcelona: Riopie- dras). Edery, Mordejai, 1991. Deutoronomio y haftarot en versión castellana traducción y comentarios (Buenos Aires: Fundación Cabuli). Elman, Yaakov, and Israel Gershoni, eds., 2000. Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textuality & Cultural Diffusion(New Haven & London: Yale University Press). references 483

Elon, Menachem, 1975. The Principles of Jewish Law (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House). ——, 1994. Jewish Law, vols. I–III (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society Philadel- phia). Emmanuel, Isaac, Samuel, 1936. Histoire des israelites de Salonique (Paris: Thonon). Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971. Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House). Entwistle, William, James, 1965. The Spanish Language(London: Faber & Faber). Feldman, David, 1994. ‘The Structure of Jewish Law’, in Jewish Law and Legal Theory, M. P. Golding (England: Dartmouth Publishing Company), pp. 3–21. Fendel, Zechariah, 2001. Lights of the Exile Early Acharonim (New York: Hashkafa Publications). Finkel, Avraham, Yaakov, 1996. The Responsa Anthology (New Jersey: Jason Aronson). Fishman, Joshua, Aaron, 1970. Readings in the Sociology of Language (The Hague, Paris: Mouton). Foulché-Delbosc, R., 1894. ‘La transcription hispano-hebraïque’, in La revue hispanique, Vol. 1 (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, and New York: The Hispanic Society of America), pp. 5–16. Friedberg, Bernhard, 1951. Bet eked sepharim, 4 vols, reprinted (Jerusalem, 1970 and Tel Aviv 1971: no publisher detailed). Friedman, Mordejai, Akiva, 1980. Jewish Marriage in Palestine, vol. 1 (Tel Aviv Uni- versity, Jewish Theological Seminary of America). Freimann, Abraham, Hayyim, 1964. Seder kiddushin venisuin (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook). Galante, Abraham, 1941. Histoire des juifs d’Istanbul (Istanbul: Imprimerie Hüsnüta- biat). Gerber, Jane, S., 1980. Jewish Society in Fez 1450–1700 (Leiden: Brill). Girón-Negrón, Luis Manuel & Minervini, Laura, 2006. Las coplas de Yosef. Entre la Biblia y el Midrash en la poesía judeoespañola, estudios, edición y notas (Madrid: Gredos). Goldish, Matt, 2008. Jewish Questions—Responsa on Sephardic Life of the Early Mod- ern Period (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). González Llubera, Ignacio, 1935. Coplas de Yoçef (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ——, 1947. Proverbios Morales (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Goodblatt, Morris, S., 1952. Jewish Life in Turkey in the 16th Century as Reflected in the Legal Writings of Šemu’el De Medina (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary). Graetz, Heinrich, 1956. History of the Jews, vol. IV (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publica- tion Society of America). Grunfeld, Isidor, 1987. The Jewish Law of Inheritance(Michigan: Targum Press). Gubbay, Lucien, and Abraham Levy, 1992. The Sephardim(London: Carnell Limited). Gur, Yehudah, 1949. Milon ivri [Hebrew Dictionary] (Tel Aviv: Dvir). Gutwirth, Eliezer, and Reif, Stefan, Clive, 1992. Ten Centuries of Hispano-Jewish Cul- ture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, 1978. Language as Social Semiotic (London: Edward Arnold). Harris, Tracy, K., 1994. Death of a Language: The History of Judeo-Spanish(Newark, Del.: University of Delaware). Hartman, David, 1988. ‘Suffering’, inContemporary Jewish Religious Thought, Arthur Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (London: Collier Macmillan), pp. 939–946. Hassán, Iacob, Moses, 1977. Un cantar ¿sefardí? sobre el ¿naufragio? de 1638 in El siglo XVll hispanomarroqui (Rabat: Facultad de Letras), pp. 311–331. 484 references

——, 1987. ‘Sistemas gráficos del español sefardí’, inActas del 1 Congreso Interna- cional de Historia de la Lengua Española, ed. M. Ariza, A. Salvador and A. Viudas (Madrid: Arco Libros), pp. 125–137. ——, 1995. ‘El español sefardí (Judeoespañol, Ladino)’, in La lengua española hoy, ed. Manuel Seco and Gregorio Salvador (Madrid: Fundación Juan March), pp. 117–140. ——, 1998. ‘Testimonios antiguos de la jaquetía’, in La lengua y la literatura españolas en Africa, ed. C. Caśado Fresnillo (Melilla: V. Centenario de Melilla), pp. 147–169. ——, 2000. ‘Es el Ladino Judeoespañol Calco?’, (unpublished, presented at the quinto congreso internacional de la lengua Española 31/1–4/2 2000, Valencia). ——, 2006. ‘El estudio del ladino: entre la tradición española y la tradición israelí’ in Ladinar Vol. IV (Actas del primer encuentro académico programático “El español saluda al judeoespañol (Ladino)”) (Israel: Bar- Ilan University), pp. 43–55. Hassán, Iacob, M., and U. M. Kapón, eds., 1992. La Biblia de Ferrara. (1553), 2 vols (Madrid: Separad, Universidad de Sevilla & CSIC). Hecht, N., Bernard S. Jackson, Stephen M. Passamaneck, D. Piatelli, and A. M. Rabello, eds., 1996. An Introduction to the History and Sources of Jewish Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press). Hirschberg, Haim, Z., 1974. A History of the Jews in North Africa, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill). Ihsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin, ed., 2001. History of the Ottoman State, Society and Civilisa- tion, Vol. 1 (Istanbul: IRCICA). Jackson, Bernard, S., 1972. Theft in Early Jewish Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press). Jastrow, Marcus, 1903. A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and The MidRashic Literature(London: Luzac & Co.). Kohen, Elli, and Dahlia Kohen-Gordon, 2000. Ladino-English/English-Ladino Concise Encyclopaedic Dictionary (Judeo-Spanish), [Hippocrene Concise Dictionary], (New York: Hippocrene Books). Lamdan, Ruth, 1992. The Status of Jewish Women in the Communities of Egypt, Syria and Palestine in the 16th Century (Tel Aviv: Ph.D. book, Tel Aviv University). ——, 2000. A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria and Egypt in the Six- teenth Century (Leiden: Brill). ——, 2005. ‘Levant: Women in the Jewish Communities after the Ottoman Conquest of 1517 in Jewish Women’s Archive, Jewish Women’s Encyclopaedia (2005) http:// jwa.org/encyclopaedia/author/lamdan-ruth. Lapesa, Rafael, 1988. Historia de la lengua española (Madrid: Gredos). Lazar, Moshe, ed., 1996. Biblia de Ferrara (Madrid: Turner). Lehmann, Matthias, 2002a. Judeo-Spanish Musar Literature and the Transformation of Ottoman Sephardic Society (eighteenth through nineteenth centuries) (Berlin: Ph.D. book, Freie University Berlin). ——, 2002b. ‘The Intended Reader of Ladino Rabbinic Literature’,Jewish History, 16: 283–309. ——, 2005. Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman Sephardic Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Lewis, Bernard, 1984. The Jews of Islam(New Jersey: Princeton University Press). Luria, Max, A., 1930. ‘A Study of the Monastir Dialect of Judeo-Spanish Based on Oral Material Collected in Monastir, Yugoslavia’, in La Revue Hispanique, No.176 (New York: The Hispanic Society of America, Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck), pp. 23–589. Maimonides, Moses,4 1982. Mishneh Torah, vol. 6 Nezikin, Kinyan, Hilchot Shluchin Veshotphin (Jerusalem: Mesorah Publications).

4 Born in Cordoba, Spain 1138–1204. references 485

Menéndez Pidal, Ramón, 1950. Orígenes del español (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). ——, 1958. Manual de gramática histórica española (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). Meyuhas Ginio, Alisa, ed., 1992. Jews, Christians and Muslims in the Mediterranean World After 1492 (London: Frank Cass). Miller, Elaine, R., 2000. Jewish Multiglossia: Hebrew, Arabic and Castilian in Medieval Spain (Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta). ——, 2004. ‘Hebrew Verb Forms in the Valladolid Taqanot of 1432’ in Proceedings of the Twelfth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies, Hilary Pomeroy & Michael Alpert, eds. (Leiden, Boston: Brill). Milet, 1998. Milet Comprehensive Dictionary (Turkish-English) (London: available from Oriental Collection of the British Library). Minervini, Laura, 1992. Testi giudeoespanoli medievali (Napoli: Liguori Editore). ——, 1996. ‘Per una storia lingüística degli ebrei spagnoli in Italia nel cinquecento en el Seicento’ eds., Winfried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes, in Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 287–294. ——, 1997. ‘An Aljamiado Version of “Orlando Furioso”. A Judeo-Spanish Transcrip- tion of Jeronimo de Urrea’s Translation’ in Hispano-Jewish Civilization After 1492: The Fourth International Congress for Research and Study of Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim), pp. 191–201. ——, 1999. ‘The Formation of the Judeo-Spanish Koiné: Dialect Convergence in the Sixteenth Century’, in The Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies, ed. Annette Benaim (London: Dept. of Hispanic Studies, QMWC). Minervini, Laura & Várvaro Alberto, 2007. ‘Orígenes del judeoespañol (1): Textos’ in Revista de historia de la lengua española no. 2 (Spain: Universidad de la Rioja) pp. 147–172. ——, 2008. ‘Orígenes del judeoespañol (ll) Comentario linguístico’ in Revista de historia de la lengua española no. 3 (Spain: Universidad de la Rioja) pp. 149–195. Molho, Michael, 1950. Usos y costumbres de los sefardíes de Salónica (Madrid: CSIC Arias Montano). Moran, A. Vahid, 1985. Büyük Türkçe-Inglizce sözlük. A Turkish-English Dictionary (Istanbul: Adam Yayinlari). Mostras, Konstantin, G., 1873. Dictionnaire géographique de l’empire ottoman. (St Petersbourg: Commissionaires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences). Nehama, J., 1977. ‘con la col. de Jesús Cantera’, Dictionnaire du judéo-espagnol (Madrid: CSIC). Netanyahu, Benzion, 1963. The Marranos according to Hebrew Sources of the Fifteenth Century and early Sixteenth Centuries (New York: reprinted from The Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research) (held at the British Library). Neuman, Abraham, A., 1948. ‘Jewish Courts’ in The Jews in Spain, Abraham Neuman (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America), pp. 112–147. Nissan, Ephraim, 1998. Fictitious Toponyms in the Responsa: Bašan’s Ruleset Revisited (Jerusalem: Aluma Dept of Mathematics, Bar Ilan University). Orfali Levi, Moisés, 1982. Los conversos en la literatura rabínica (Salamanca: Calatrava). Pascual Recuero, Pascual, 1977. Diccionario básico ladino-español (Barcelona: Ameller Ediciones). ——, 1988. Ortografía del ladino (Granada: Universidad de Granada). Passamaneck, Stephen, M., 1974. Insurance in Rabbinic Law (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press). Penny, Ralph, 1992a. ‘Dialect Contact and Social Networks in Judeo-Spanish’, Romance Philology, 46: 125–140. ——, 1992b. ‘A Review of Minervini’, Romance Philology, 47: 464–468. ——, 1996. ‘Judeo-Spanish varieties before and after the Expulsion’, in Donaire, No. 6 (London: Spanish Embassy and Queen Mary & Westfield College) pp. 54–58. ——, 2004a. History of the Spanish Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). 486 references

——, 2004b. Variation and Change in Spanish (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pomeroy, Hilary, 2001. An Edition and Study of the Secular Ballads in the Sephardic Ballad Notebook of Halia Isaac Cohen (London: Ph.D. book, QMWC). Pomeroy, Hilary and Michael Alpert, eds., 2004. Proceedings of the Twelfth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies (2001) (Leiden, Boston: Brill). Pomeroy, Hilary, Christopher J. Pountain, Elena Romero eds, 2008. Proceedings of the Fourteenth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies (2006) (London: Dept. of Hispanic Studies, QM). Pountain, Christopher, J., 2001. A History of the Spanish Language Through Texts (London: Routledge). ——, 2006a. ‘Syntactic Borrowing as a Function of Register’, in Anna Laura Lepschy & Arturo Tosi (eds), Rethinking Languages in Contact. The Case of Italian. (Oxford: Legenda), pp. 99–111. ——, 2006b. ‘Towards a history of register in Spanish’, in Spanish in Context, (Amster- dam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 3:1 pp. 5–24. Quintana-Rodriguez, Aldina, 1996. ‘Una informasión de la aritmétika y una Muestra de los Cuentos’ eds., Winfried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes, in Hommage à Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 295–314. ——, 1999. ‘Proceso de recastellanización del judesmo’, in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century—Proceedings of the Sixth EAJS Conference Toledo 1998, Judit Targarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 593–602. ——, 2002. ‘Ladino: a Historical Perspective’ in Los judíos españoles según las fuentes hebreas (Spain: Museo de Bellas Artes Valencia) pp. 169–176. ——, 2004a. Geografía lingüística del judeospañol en los Balcanes y en Turquía (Jeru- salem: Ph.D. book, Hebrew University, Jerusalem). ——, 2004b. ‘Sobre la transmisión y el formulismo en el Me’Am Lo’ez de Jacob Juli’ in eds., Pomeroy & Alpert 2004. Proceedings of the Twelfth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies (2001) (Leiden, Boston: Brill). ——, 2006. Geografía lingüística del judeospañol. Estudio sincrónico y diacrónico (Berne: Peter Lang). ——, 2008. ‘From the Master’s Voice to the Disciple’s Script Genizah Fragments of a Bible Glossary in Ladino’ in Hispania Judaica Bulletin (Jerusalem: The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies) pp. 187–235. ——, 2009. ‘Aportación lingüística de los romances aragonés y portugués a la coiné judeoespañola’ in David Bunis, Proceedings of The Sixth International Congress for Research on the Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage, Languages and Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jews. (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim) pp. 221–255. Redhouse, James, 1968. Redhouse Turkish-English, English-Turkish Dictionary (Istan- bul: Yayinevi). ——, 2003. Redhouse Turkish-English, English-Turkish Dictionary (Istanbul: SEV Mat- baacilik ve Yayincilik Eğitim Tic. A.S.). Refael, Shmuel, 1996. ‘A Study of Dream and Legendary Dimension in the Judeo- Spanish Romance’ in eds., Winfried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes, Hom- mage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 95–105. ——, 2008. ‘Spain, Greece or Jerusalem: The Yearning for a Motherland in The Poetry of Greek Jews’ in ed., Rozen, Minna 2008, Homelands and Diasporas. Greeks, Jews and their Migrations. (London: Tauris) pp. 211–223. Reif, Stefan, Clive, 2000. A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press). Reingold, Edward, M., and Nachum Dershowitz, 2001. Calendrical Calculations (Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press). Rico, Francisco, ed., 1990. Lazarillo de Tormes (anonymous author) (Madrid: Cátedra). Rivlin, Joseph, 1999. Inheritance and Wills in Jewish Law (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan Uni- versity Press). references 487

Rodrigue, Aron, 1992a. ‘The Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire’ in Spain and the Jews, ed. E. Kedouri (London: Thames & Hudson), pp. 162–188. ——, 1992b. Guide to Ladino Materials in the Harvard College Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Library). Rojas, Fernando, Gullermo Serés, Paloma Díaz-Mas, Carlos Mota, Iñigo Ruiz Arzal- luz, and Francisco Rico, eds., 2000. La Celestina (Barcelona: Editorial Crítica). Romero, Elena, 1992. La creación literaria en lengua sefardí (Madrid: MAPFRE). ——, 1998. Ḥ ayimYom-Tob Magula y su poesía moralizante (Madrid: Sefarad CSIC). ——, 2003. Seis coplas sefardies de ‘castiguerio’ de Yom-tob Magula (Madrid: CSIC). ——, 2008a. ‘Las coplas sefardíes de contenido histórico’ in ed. Hilary Pomeroy, Chris- topher J. Pountain, Elena Romero Proceedings of the Fourteenth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies (London: Dept. of Hispanic Studies, QM). ——, 2008b. Entre dos (o más) fuegos (Madrid: CSIC). ——, 2009. Dos colecciones de cuentos sefardíes de carácter mágico: sipuré noraot y sipuré pelaot—edición y estudio (Madrid: CSIC). Romeu, Pilar, 2003. ‘Contribución al la historia de la imprenta y la tipografía sefardíes (siglo XIV)’, presented at the 13th British Judeo-Spanish Conference (London: UCL & QM). Romeu Ferré, Pilar, 2004. El Sueño Premonitorio de Moisés Almosnino sobre Yosef Nasí en el ‘Tratado de los Sueños’ (Salónica 1564) in Sefarad 64: 1 (Madrid: CSIC). Romeu Ferré, Pilar, and Iacob M. Hassán, 1992. ‘Apuntes sobre la lengua de la crónica de los reyes otomanos de Moisés Almosnino según la edicion del manuscrito aljamiado del siglo XVI’, in Actas del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Espanola, eds. M. Ariza, R. Cano, J. M. Mendoza, and A. Narbona (Madrid: Pabellón de España), pp. 161–169. Roth, Cecil, 1992. Doña Gracia of the House of Nasi (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publica- tion Society of America). Roth, Norman, 1994. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain, Cooperation and Conflict (Leiden: Brill). ——, 1995. Conversos, Inquisition and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Wiscon- sin: University of Wisconsin Press). Rozen, Minna, 2002. A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul. The Formative Years 1453–1566. (Leiden, Boston: Brill). Rubashov, Zalman, 1929. Yiddishe Gevi’us Eidus in die Shailes u-Teshuvos (Warsaw: Yivo Historical Studies). Sachar, Howard, M., 1994. Farewell España, The World of the Sephardim Remembered (New York: Alfred A. Knopf). Sala, Marius, 1971. Phonétique et phonologie du judéo-espagnol de Bucarest (The Hague and Paris: Mouton). ——, 1996. ‘El Judeo-Español Balcánico’, in Manual de Dialectología Hispánica: El Español de España, M. Alvar (Barcelona: Editorial Ariel). Scherman, Nosson, and Meir Zlotowitz, 1985, 1989. Artscroll Mishnah Series, Seder Nashim, vol. III (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 1993. The Chumash, Haftoros, The Five Megillos, Stone edn. (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 2000. Talmud Bavli. Tractate Gittin (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 2001a. Talmud Bavli. Tractate Bava Batra, vol. 1 (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 2001b. Talmud Bavli. Tractate Kiddushin (New York: Mesorah Publications). Sefarad, 1998. Revista de estudios hebráicos, sefardiés y de oriente próximo (Madrid: CSIC) año 58, fasc. 1. Séphiha, Haïm-Vidal, 1986. Le judéo-espagnole (Paris: Editions Entente). ——, 1991. L’agonie des judéo-espagnols (Paris: Editions Entente). ——, 1999. El ladino (judeo-español calco) de Ishac Cardoso in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century—Proceedings of the Sixth EAJS Conference Toledo 1998, Judit Targarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 637–640. 488 references

Serels, Mitchell, 1991. A History of the Jews of Tangiers in the Nineteenth and Twenti- eth Centuries (New York: Sepher Hermon Press). Shaul, Moshe, 1996. Aki Yerushalayim—Revista kulturala djudeo-espanyola no.53 (Judeo-Spanish Cultural Magazine) (Jerusalem: Sefarad and the Maale Adumim Institute). Shaw, Stanford, J., 1991. The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic (New York: New York University Press). Shmuelevitz, Aryeh., 1984. The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the late Fifteenth and the Sixteenth Centuries (Leiden: Brill). Shwarzwald, Ora, 1984a. ‘Taboo, Death and Mourning Expressions in Judeo-Spanish’ in LeSonenu La’am 64 pp. 203–214. ——, 1984b. ‘Determining Criteria for the Fusion of the Hebrew-Aramaic Component in Judeo-Spanish’ in Milet 2 (Everyman’s University Annual) pp. 357–367. ——, 1985. ‘The Fusion of the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexical Component in Judeo-Spanish’ in Judeo-Romance Languages, ed., Benabu & J. Sermoneta, (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim) pp. 139–159. ——, 1993. ‘Morphological Aspects in the Development of Judeo-Spanish’in Folia Lin- guistica XXVII (1–2): 27–44. ——, 1996. ‘Methodological problems in Comparing the Lexicon of the Ladino Hag- gadas in eds., Winfried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes,. Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha, (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 359–372. ——, 2006. ‘Géneros en judeoespañol según las caracteristicas externas e internas del Texto’ in Ladinar (Actas del primer encuentro académico programático “El español saluda al judeoespañol (Ladino)”) IV: 2006, pp. 57–82. ——, 2006/2007. ‘Le style du Me’am Lo’ez: une tradition linguistique’ in Yod (nouvelle série) 11/12: 2006–7, pp. 77–112. Smith, Colin, 1971, 1977. Collins Spanish-English English-Spanish Dictionary (London & Glasgow: William Collins, Sons & Co.). Spaulding, Robert, K., 1975. How Spanish Grew reprinted from 1943 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press). Steinschneider, Moritz, 1852. Catalogus hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana, 3 vols. (Berlin: no publisher given). Stern, Sacha, 2001. Calendar and Community (Oxford: Oxford University Press). ——, 2003. Time and Process in Ancient Judaism (Oxford: Portland). Súarez-Bilbao, Fernando, 1995. Las Ciudades Castellanas y sus Juderías en el Siglo XV (Madrid: Caja de Madrid). Symeonidis, Haralambos, 1999. ‘El judeoespañol de Tesalónica en contacto con la lengua griega’, in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century—Proceedings of the Sixth EAJS Conference Toledo 1998, Judit Targarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz- Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 658–666. Valdes, Juan de, 1953. Diálogo de la lengua, [Clásicos Castellanos 86, ed. José F. Mon- tesinos] (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). Vinograd, Yeshayahu, 1995. Otser hasefer haivri (Jerusalem: Hamachon Lebibliografia Memechushevet). Wein, Berel, 1994. Herald of Destiny—The Story of the Jews in the Medieval Era 750– 1650 (New York: Shaar Press). Weinreich, Max, 1970. ‘Yidishkayt and Yiddish’ in Readings in the Sociology of Lan- guage, J. A. Fishman (The Hague and Paris: Mouton), pp. 382–413. Weinreich, Uriel, 1953. Languages in Contact (New York: Publications of the Linguis- tic Circle of New York). Yaari, Abraham, 1934. Reshimot Sifre Ladino. Catalogue of Judeo-Spanish Books in the Jewish National and University Library of Jerusalem. (Jerusalem: University of Jerusalem Press). references 489

——, 1967. Hebrew Printing at Constantinople (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University). Zamora Vicente, Alonso, 1967. Dialectología española (Madrid: Gredos). Zedner, Joseph, 1964. Catalogue of Hebrew Books in the British Museum. The Trustees of the British Museum (Norwich: Lithographic reprint by Jarrold & Sons). Zimmels, Hirsch, J., 1971. ‘The Contributions of the Sephardim to the Responsa Lit- erature till the beginning of the 16th Century’ in The Sephardi Heritage, R. Barnett (London: Valentine, Mitchell), pp. 367–402.

Electronic Sources

In the present time it is quite an impossible task to list every single website one has consulted in the course of this research. The internet today has proved to be a most exciting research tool with infinite possibilities. Below I have listed a few significant ones:

Hebrew Date Converter: http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ Reference: Edward M. Reingold and Nachum Dershowitz, 2001. Calendrical Calculations (Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press). http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/tarih_en.asp?belgeno=1347 [Information on Ottoman coins from the Turkish government].

The Responsa Project, CD ROM, version 8, 1972–2000, by the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.

The Responsa Project, CD ROM, version 11 plus, 2003, by the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan Israel. http://www.seslisozluk.com/—Turkish English Dictionary online.

Diccionario de la lengua española. 2001.http://www.buscon.rae.es/diccionario/drae.htm http://www.cryptojews.com/Ladino_Italy_Schwarzwald.html http://www.jewishencyclopaedia.com http://www.corpusdelespanol.org http://www.ladino-biu.com http://www.hebrew-bibliography.com www.otzer.org www.hebrewbooks.org www.tyndalearchive.com/tabs/jastrow jnul.huji.ac.il/rambi/ http://jwa.org/encyclopaedia/author/lamdan-ruth APPENDICES APPENDIX 1

THREE SAMPLE TEXTS TRANSLITERATED

These three sample texts (ST) have been transliterated according to the guide in Table 2.4 in order to illustrate much of the discussion in Chapter 4.

Text 7. She’elot u-Teshuvot Maḥarashdam, Even Haezer 8 1. lw hzyhwbym 2. pwr qdwšyn p∙rh wnh qdynh ∙z ∙mrh lw pwnyldwš 3. ∙yn šw∙ylw y lwš ţwmry ynţwnšyš pwšw rby ywšy p hnz` 4. ∙wn dwqdw ∙yn šw∙ylw ∙y wynw lh mwzh ∙y ţwmw ∙yl 5. dwq∙dw ∙y bwlţw l∙š ∙yšp∙ld∙š p∙rh ∙yršy ∙y 6. dyšw r` ywšyp hnz` ∙lwš qy ∙lyy ∙yšţ∙bn šydmy >dym 7. qwmw lw ţwmw pwr qydwšyn. ∙yšţw pw∙y m>yd bţwr` >dw` 8. mšy b∙šh >k b∙wţh š>h b∙ mšy pr∙nqw ∙y 9. dyšw qwmw ly dyšw rby ywšy hnz` ldwnh hnz` qyyš 10. ∙yšţwš dwq∙dwš pwr qydwšy` p∙rh ∙wnh q∙dynh ∙y 11. dyšw lh mwšh pwn ∙wnw ∙ynyl šw∙ylw ∙y lw pwzw ∙y lw 12. ţwmw lh mwšh ∙y ∙ylyh qy šy ∙ybh dyšw rby ywšyp 13. ∙lwš qy ∙lyy ∙yšţ∙bn šydmy >dym qy lw ţwmw pwr 14. qydwšyn

Text 49. Teshuvot haRa’anach 20, Testimony B1 1. nw pynšyš šynywryš qy pwr šyr yw m∙dry dygh mynţyrh w qy yw dyry ţwdw lwqy ∙ynyšţw š lwš dy∙š pš∙dwš`ח .2 3. pw ∙y yw ∙l ∙yšqwţ∙r qwn ∙wn my šwbrynw pwr ∙wn my 4. mşl h ∙ţ ∙y ∙byyndw q∙myn∙dw mwg`w pwr ∙lyy my ∙rymy 5. ∙yn ∙wnh bwţyqh prynţy dyl q∙rb∙s∙rh pwr rypwz∙r 6. qy yšţ∙bh ∙yn t>nyty ∙y ∙ynlh pw ∙yrţh dyl 7. q∙rb∙s∙rh ∙yšţ∙b∙n šyyrţwš q∙ţryg`š mwrwš ∙y

1 Note that this text is one of the few that is block script Hebrew and not rashi script. 494 appendices

8. qwmw wyyrwn ∙my šwbrynw ∙ dylywš ynpyšw ∙m∙ldyzyrlw 9. y dyš` w ∙lwš ∙wţrwš pwr q∙wz∙ dy ∙qwyl pyrwg`wdyyw 10. qy my dyyw ∙wn šw p∙ryynţy qy lw lyyb∙šy ∙h q∙r∙ysr 11. ∙qwyl pyrw pwr gw∙rd∙r šw šbt lw m∙ţ∙rwn ∙h ∙yl 12. y ∙h ∙wn my prymw ∙y ∙h ∙wn my mwsw m∙l mwndw ţyngh 13. yw qw∙ndw ∙w ∙y dyzyr ∙yšţw ∙l q∙ţryg` gryţy ∙y dyšy 14. ∙l q∙ţryg` ∙yn >rby qyyn ∙yš ∙yšy g`wdyyw qy m∙ţ∙rwn 15. my ryšpwndyyw yl q∙ţryg` ∙yšy pyrw qy ∙yšţh ∙ ∙y nw 16. lwqwnwšy qy ∙yl mylw ţrwšw yw ly ţwrny ∙ dyzyr dymylw 17. pwr ţwwyd∙ qyyn ∙yš ∙yšy g`wdyyw ryšpwndyw ∙yl q∙ţryg` lb dyšyly yw šy dyšwmy pw ∙yšח y dyjšw ∙yryš ţw dy .18 19. nwn qwnwšyš ∙h kly`p∙ hyg`w dy mrdky dyšyly yw šy lw 20. qwnwšqw dyšw pw ∙yš ∙yšy ∙yš ∙yl qy m∙ţ∙rwn 21. yšţwnšyš ly dy m∙ndw my šwbrynw qwmw š∙byš qylw 22. m∙ţ∙rwn qy yw šy qy ∙yšţh bybw ryšpwndyyw ∙yl 23. q∙ţryg``y ∙y ly dyšw hw g``wpyq šy yw ly wydy ∙h ∙yl 24. yl q∙ţryg`y ∙y ∙ my mwsw ţwdwš ţryš m∙ţ∙dwš qwmw 25. dyzyš ţw qy ∙yšţh bybw ∙yšţw yš pwr lh qw ∙ynţh qy 26. y dy d∙r ∙l dyyw lwqy ∙yn yšţw šy ∙y ţ∙mbyyn mwšy 27. mwnywn qy ∙yšţh ∙qy p∙blw ∙yl qwn ∙wn >r∙by∙dw 28. qwn ∙yl myšmw ∙yšţy q∙ţrygy``

Text 68. Torat Emet 6 1. q∙m ∙l r∙gl∙w wyhyyd wy∙m∙r yg hw dybyr ymyţ: qy yl 2. ∙šţ∙ndw ţr∙b∙g`∙ndw ywn q∙zh dy h``r šlmh dwd y`nw wynw 3. ∙bwšq∙rlw rby ∙hrn br ∙brhm m``qq qyy∙nh y`>∙ ∙y nw lw 4. p∙lyyw ∙yn q∙zh ∙h r šlmh dwd hnz` ∙y ∙šynţwsy dyţw h``r 5. ∙hrn br ∙brhm hnz` ∙h p∙bl∙r qwn rby ∙ly∙ br y>qb dygw 6. ∙y ∙yšţ∙ndw p∙bl∙ndw qn r` ∙ly∙ hnz` s∙lyyw lh h`gh dy 7. rby >zr∙ şdyq z``l qy ∙yšţh ∙gwnh ∙y lh wydw rby ∙hrn br 8. ∙br hnz` dym∙ndw ∙h r` ∙ly∙ pwr qy nw šy q∙zh lh hyg`h 9. dy rby >zr∙ şdyq hnz` ∙ţ r ∙ly∙ ryšpwndyyw qwmw šy ∙h dy 10. q∙z∙r qy šy ∙pwgw ∙yl m∙rydw dy nţrw dy lh m∙r ∙y nwn 11. ∙yy >dwt šwbry ∙yl ∙y ryšpwndyyw rby ∙h∙rn hnzk ∙y dyšw : 12. ∙byryš dy š∙byr qy yw ∙yšţ∙ndw ∙yn ∙wn n∙wy∙w pyqynyyw 13. q∙rg∙dw qy yyn ∙nqr∙dw ∙ynţry dwš q∙z∙1 š myrywpţy 14. ∙y ∙yryqly p∙šw ∙wn n∙wy∙w gr∙ndy qy wyny∙h dy qšţ∙nţy` 15. ∙y y∙ ∙ š∙lwnyqy y qy yl wydw ∙yn ∙qyl n∙wy∙w lrby 16. mtty∙ rwsw ∙y p∙blw qnyl >l >nyn pqdwn ∙` ∙y ţ∙nbyyn ly appendix 1 495

17. dyšw qy qyry∙h ∙wn∙ q∙nţ∙ryqh dy wynw y nw ţwbw ţyynpw 18. mtty∙ rwsw dy ţwm∙r n∙dh dy m∙nw dy r` ∙hrn hnz pwrqy 19. ∙yl n∙wy∙w gr∙ndy ∙y∙h dy pryšh p∙š∙ndw ∙yl n∙wy∙w dyţw 20. wndy ∙y∙h rby mtty∙ rwsw ∙dyl∙nţy q∙myn∙ry∙h qwmw 21. ∙wnh mylyy∙ ∙y qyzy rwn lwš dyl n∙wy∙w bwlţ∙r lh wylh dyl 22. n∙wy∙w qy ∙wy∙h ţynpynţh ∙ñil m∙r ∙y ∙lh bwlţ∙dh dy 23. l∙ wylh yl n∙wy∙w šy pwndyw ∙y ∙yšţwbymwš myr∙ndw lh 24. m∙r∙bylyy∙ qwmw šy ∙pwg∙rwn ţwdwš ∙y ∙yl >kwm dy my 25. n∙wy∙w wndy yw yšţ∙bh š∙lyyw ∙y pw∙y ∙h d∙r ∙byzw ∙lwš 26. ∙ >kwm dyl q∙z∙l qy ∙yš lwg∙r dy ∙w∙nlyq qy ∙yš ∙ynprynţy 27. dy m∙rm∙rh : qw∙ndw ţwrnw ∙yl >k``wm ∙l n∙wy∙w ∙wndy 28. yw ∙yšţ∙b ∙yrh mšíyh lypy ţwmw qwn mygw y dyšw qyyš š∙wyr 29. ∙hrn qy ţ∙rdy qy wynymwš dy ∙ynţyr∙r ∙qyl rby mttyh 30. rwsw qy p∙bl∙šţy qwnyl ∙qyl dylh q∙rh pyq∙dh ∙lţw dy 31. qw∙yrpw qyywsy ∙∙yl ∙y ∙wţr∙š dwš qry∙ţwr∙š š∙qymwš 32. dylh ∙gw∙h ∙y lwš ynţyr∙mwš ∙yn ∙wn ∙ryn∙l ∙ynlh 33. ∙wrylyy∙ dylh m∙r pwr ∙yšw ţ∙rdy h∙ţh ∙gwrh : ţwdw 34. ∙yšţw my dyšw r` ∙hrn br ∙brhm ∙lyy ∙šynţ∙dw. APPENDIX 2

GLOSSARY OF WORDS OF TURKISH ORIGIN IN THE TEXTS1 agas text 49:11 aga, agah ‘master’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 2). alai bigi text 3:9 alai bii ‘property, mansion-owner’ (Bašan & Born- stein 1973: 5), beg ‘feudal lord’ (Bunis 1993: 23). aspro/s asper or akçe texts 13:11, 14:2, 18:30, 33:4 (twice), text 35:4, 5 (three times), texts 8, 38B:5, 67:4, 84B:11; as(pro/s) text 3:13, 14, ‘Turkish coin’, (http://www.seslisozluk.com 10.5.05/), ‘leben/lebanim’ in Hebrew.2 başá text 48:5, 54A:6, 54B:5 paşa—retained in modern Spanish from Turkish, ‘governor’, ‘general’ (Redhouse 2003: 469). barbare text 14.8 barbar, ‘barbarous’ (Moran 1985: 100). buklik text 37:17 bölük, ‘company’ (http://www.seslisozluk.com/ 11/5/05). büklü text 13:3 büklü ‘folded piece of paper’, implying a contract (Redhouse 2003). çekirdek text 83:15 chicardetes ‘grains, a measure of weight of gold and of precious stones, about a quarter of a carat. çóban text 3:8 chobán, ‘shepherd’ (Redhouse 2003: 119). kadí text 19:28 qadi, (Redhouse 2003: 301), ‘religious judge’ (cf. Gerber 1980: 162), kadi, ‘judge’ (Moran 1985: 454). kapán text 37:30 kapan, ‘weighing house’, ‘warehouse’ (cf. Ihsanoğlu 2001: 608). katriği text 49A:5, 10, ST 49B:7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 28, 49C:5, 8, 9, 10, 12. kadir, ‘mighty’, ‘powerful’, hence the official in power. (http://www.seslisozluk.com/11/5/05). ǰuma text 83:12, 83:63 ǰuma or chuma; cuma is Friday, the Islamic holy day (Redhouse 2003: 99). koske text 11:1 köşk, ‘villa’, ‘summer house’, ‘pavilion’ (Redhouse 1968: 680a).

1 In this section my reference to the texts following the word is according to my numbering. 2 For more information on sixteenth century Turkish currency, see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 595–601). appendix 2 497 dólia text 3:6 dolayi, ‘on account of’, ‘because of’ (Redhouse 2003: 147). donluk text 11:42 donluk, ‘length of cloth given to soldiers’ (Redhouse 1968: 309b). efendi text 3:8 efendi, ‘Turkish title for a man of humble status’ (Redhouse 2003: 159). The Janissaryefendi was the man who kept the pay-rolls (cf. Ihsanoğlu 2001: 384). emir text 37:30 emir, ‘the man in charge’ (Redhouse 2003: 167), formerly ‘mayor’ (Moran 1985: 271). Emin, ‘sure’, ‘certain’ (Redhouse 2003: 167). Emir is contextually correct in this particular passage. emsallar text 13:95 emsal n.pl., ‘equals’, ‘matches’ (Moran 1985: 272), in this context emsallar means ‘to equal’, ‘to match’ in the sense of ‘to copy’, ‘to obtain’. esmaltir text 28.36 esman, ‘cost’, ‘price’ (rare use) (Moran 1985: 280). Esmaltir here means ‘to cover the cost’. Guélibolou text 84: Introduction, Galipol or Turkish Guelibolou was a town and port on the Marmara river in the province of Adrianople (Mostras 1873: 152). Modern ‘Gallipoli’. çiftlik text 37:2, 4, 33, 37, 42, 43, 50 çiftlik, ‘farm’ (Redhouse 2003: 116), ‘sultan’s inheritance’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 12). guruş texts 11:43, 38A:7, 10, 16, 71:27 guruş, kuruş, ‘piastre’ (Redhouse 1968: 417a, 689a). haaraçi text 84B:9, 10 haraç, ‘protection money’ (Redhouse 2003: 229), haradj, ‘Turkish poll tax that was spent on cloth for Janissary uniforms’ (Barnett and Shwab 1989: 213). hamiá texts 42:13, 76:3 hamia, ‘a foreign citizen living in the Ottoman Empire and enjoying privileges’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 22). harás text 37:50 haraset, ‘farming’ ‘agriculture’ (Moran 1985: 355). Possibly ‘he cultivated’. hoğara text 80:27 hoğara, ‘shop’, ‘room’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 17). hüccet, texts 13:95, 37:38, 39, 41, 50B:18, hüccet, formerly ‘title- deeds’ (Moran 1985: 386). gömü text 61B:13 gömü, ‘buried treasure’, ‘finding’ (Moran 1985: 328). 498 appendices libra text 14:5 lira, ‘Ottoman gold coin’ (Redhouse 2003: 383). mahalle text 76:5 mahalle, ‘street’ or ‘district’ (Redhouse 2003: 387). maramá text 60:2 makrama, ‘handkerchief’ or ‘scarf’, ‘headdress’ (Moran 1985: 588). meemet text 27:4 derived from Mehmed, linguistically represented typically in Judeo-Spanish by meemet (final d written with a t as in verdat). Mehmed was the name of many sultans of the Ottoman Empire; see also Mehmed the Conqueror (cf. Gubbay & Levy 1992: 109). mersas text 14:7 mersas, ‘harbour’, ‘anchorage’ (Moran 1985: 615). mülkiye text 13:40 mülkiyet, ‘proprietorship’ (Redhouse 2003: 420). muallim text 47:3 muallim, ‘teacher/master’ (http://www.seslisozluk .com/ 10/5/05); the form moalim, in the text is an Arabism of the Turkish word. motivile text 13:4 motivile, ‘regional administrator’, ‘money clerk’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 29), mütevelli, ‘trustee’ (Red- house 2003) mükâri text 76:3, 5 (twice), mükâri, ‘muleteer’ (Redhouse 1968). műşkî, text 11:43 műşkî, ‘musky’, ‘dark-coloured’ (Redhouse 1968: 837b). nakil text 47:2 nakil ‘transport’ (Redhouse 2003: 426), ‘transfer’ (Moran 1985: 689), here it means a copy or receipt, in the sense of ‘monetary transfer’. orete text 37:14 could be from orta, ‘middle’ (Moran 1985: 719). kira text 19:13 kira, ‘rent’ (Redhouse 2003: 349); could this mean ‘transport’ in the sense of the rent paid for the journey? köse ST 68:31 köse, ‘beardless’ (Redhouse 2003: 363). kiraci text 18:8 kiraci, ‘tenant’ (Redhouse 2003: 350). reis text 27:4 ‘sailor in charge’, ‘head’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 49). rey text 84B:8 normally means ‘king’ in Spanish (modern Spanish or Judeo-Spanish), so ‘fija de rey’ could be a king’s daughter or following the Hebrew idiom, bat melek̠ (a Jew- ish girl). Also reaya (Moran 1985: 776) is a non-Muslim adult male (cf. Barnett & Shwab 1989: 212); either way she is a ‘Jewish girl’. rizá text 45:2, 5, 8, 9 rido, ‘handkerchief’ (Nehama 1977: 482). Interestingly, as the object happens to be used as kiddushin, riza also means ‘consent’ (Redhouse 2003: 493). appendix 2 499 sarraf text 18:29, sarraf, ‘moneylender’ ‘money-changer’ (Moran 1985: 809). sicil text 19:28 sicil, ‘registry’ (http://www.seslisozluk.com/ 12/5/05). sultan/is texts 13:75, 59:2, 3 sultani, ‘coin named after the sultan’ (Rare Ottoman Coins in (http://www.kultur.gov. tr/portal/tarih_en. asp?belgeno=1347 12/5/05). tabán text 12:41 taban, ‘floor’ (Redhouse 2003: 563). tartura text 61C:3 tartura, ‘wheel’ (Moran 1985: 909). testimil text 3.1, 2 could be from testi, ‘(earthenware) jug’, ‘pitcher’ (Moran 1985: 946). waywode text 13.37 waywode, originally this was a title given to a military commander, then applied to governors of towns and provinces (http://www.seslisozluk.com/ 12/5/05). vekil mutlagaj text 47:3 vekil mütlak, ‘an attorney with unlimited power’. Mütlak ‘absolute’ (http://www.seslisozluk. com/12/5/05). vekil text 47:4 ‘attorney’ (Redhouse 2003: 640). yan torbá text 12:4, yan, ‘side’; torba, ‘bag’ (Redhouse 2003: 651, 610). It is used in the sense of ‘money-bag’. zülfikar text 13:4 ‘two-bladed sword of Ali the Caliph, carried by the Janissary officers’ (cf. Ihsanoğlu 2001: 377). APPENDIX 3

GLOSSARY OF HEBREW TERMS1 agency / shelichut a legal doctrine enabling a person (the principal) to perform a legal act through another (the agent), in such a manner that it will be recognized as the legal act of the principal, whereby a person’s possible field of legal activity is extended beyond the normal physical and other limitations.2 agunah lit. the state of being restrained or held back. (1) Theagunah is defined as ‘a married woman who for whatsoever reason is separated from her husband and cannot remarry, either because she cannot obtain a divorce from him, or because it is unknown whether he is still alive’ (Elon 1975: 409). The main Biblical source for the divorce laws is Deuteronomy 24:1: ‘If a man marries a woman and lives with her, and it will be that she will not find favour in his eyes for he found in her a matter of immorality, and he wrote her a bill of divorce, and he presented it into her hand, and he sent her from his house’.3 The main legal feature here is that in order for a divorce to be effective, the man must give the woman a document stating that she is being sent away from him; this act severs their relationship.

1 Many Hebrew words and terms are translated in the section on Hebrew borrowing in Chapter 4. However, there are some terms that require definition or explanation and are included in this glossary, particularly since they occur repeatedly. The context in which these terms occur is considered in the definition. These definitions have been taken or adapted mainly from Elon (1975) The Principles of Jewish Law and the glossary in the Tractates of Kiddushin and Gittin, Bava Basra respectively in Scherman and Zlotowitz (1985, 1989, 2000, 2001a, 2001b) and Maimonides (1982). 2 For more on agency see Elon (1975: 167–171). 3 This translation is taken from Scherman and Zlotowitz (2003), Deuteronomy 24:1. appendix 3 501

This document is referred to as the get. Failing this requirement, the divorce is invalid and the woman is an agunah, unable to remarry. According to Jewish law it is not the Court, but the couple, that carries out the divorce. Therefore it is essential that the husband, or sometimes his messenger, delivers the divorce bill to his wife. It is deduced from Deuteronomy 24:1 that a man may send a messenger to deliver the document of severance. The Bible’s dictionveshilcha (and he will send her), suggests that the divorce document may be sent through an agent. Another definition of anagunah is a woman who is doubtfully divorced or widowed and wishes to confirm her freedom in order to remarry. The woman can be ‘doubtfully’ divorced in cases where she is separated from her husband but cannot obtain a divorce either because he refuses or because he is absent. Usually, rabbinic and communal pressure is exerted on the husband so that he will ultimately grant his wife a get. This is often effective in resolving the situation, but if not, there is little the law can do to unbind the woman from her status as an agunah. One possibility is to annul the marriage, in terms of finding an inconsistency in the original kiddushin ceremony. For instance, in some circumstances, the validity of the witnesses can be questioned and can serve to annul the marriage. It is significant that the woman must receive the divorce bill in person. However, in some cases the signature of one hundred rabbis can serve to validate the divorce when the woman is unwill- ing to receive or accept the divorce.4 However, the law also offers the husband the possibility of contracting an additional marriage,5 as there is

4 This only allows an Ashkenazi man to remarry. 5 Known as heter nissuin. 502 appendices

no Biblical prohibition against bigamy. In contrast, the woman faces serious consequences if she were to remarry before being freed from her first marriage. The result would be an adulterous union intolerable in Jewish law. The children of this prohibited union are regarded as mamzerim, who are not only treated as social outcasts but are also legally prohibited from marrying a Jew, and their children inherit this damaging legal and social status. (2) The otheragunah situation occurs when a woman is ‘doubtfully’ widowed, that is, when it is unknown whether her husband is dead or alive. As has been noted, the disappearance of a husband where there is no proof of death is insufficient to free the woman of agunah status. Conclusive proof of his death is essential. Knowledge of the whereabouts of his burial place or whether he was buried by Jews also facilitates the legal confirmation of his death. Proof of identity is naturally required to establish the man’s death. Evidence as to the circumstances in which the death occurred is often not considered sufficient proof of death as it could be entirely the opinion of the witness and therefore a subjective account of the death. The witness must testify to the fact of death for the Respondent to be satisfied that death actually occurred. berit milah a Hebrew borrowing, lit. means a covenant. This refers to berit milah, the covenant of circumcision. The commandment to circumcise is given at Genesis 17:10–14 and Leviticus 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews. Circumcision is supposed to be performed on the eighth day of a boy’s life. It is customary to conduct a festive meal usually in the presence of ten men, a minyan, following the act of circumcision. bet din lit. ‘house of judgement’, court; Rabbinical court comprised minimally of three judges. Such a court is empowered to rule on civil matters. chalitzah see yibum. get a) bill of divorce: the document that effects the dissolution of a marriage when it is placed in the wife’s possession. b) any document. appendix 3 503 halakhah a) a Biblical law; b) (cap.) the body of Biblical law; c) in cases of dispute, the position accepted as definitive by the later authorities and followed in practice. haskamah an agreement, an approbation. In Jewish literature it has several meanings of which two are relevant to this book: (a) Rabbinic approval and approbation of the legal decisions of colleagues, normally attached to the original legal decision and articulated with it. (b) In Spain and later in the Oriental communities used for statutes and ordinances enacted by the community. hekdesh a) items consecrated to the Temple treasury or as offer- ings; hekdesh can have two levels of sanctity: monetary sanctity and physical sanctity. Property owned by the Temple treasury is said to have monetary sanctity. Such property can be redeemed or can be sold by the hekdesh treasurers and the proceeds of the redemption or sale become hekdesh in its place. Kaddish is Hebrew for a traditional mourner’s prayer that is said daily with a quorum of at least ten Jewish males who are over the age of thirteen. This prayer is recited by the mourner from the day of burial, daily for the first eleven months, and on the anniversary of the death. kashrut dietary laws—the collective term for the Jewish laws and customs pertaining to the types of food permitted for consumption and their preparation. Kashrut is derived from kasher—‘fit’ or ‘proper’. The word appears only three times in the Bible (Ester 8:5, Ecclesiastes 10:10, 11:6) and even then not in connection with food. For details on kashrut see EJ pp. 26–44, see also chap. 4 n. 456. kiddushin the procedure that validates Jewish marriages. It is an act performed between a man and woman, leading to a change in their personal status, i.e. from bachelorhood to a status which remains unchanged until the death of either party or their divorce from one another (Elon 1975: 356). Briefly,kiddushin involves the man handing over an object of minimal value that the spouse accepts. The man must pronounce the appropriate words ofkiddushin before two valid witnesses. It is vital that the man declares his intentions to his betrothed in such a way that she understands his intentions. This act is a binding legal contract. 504 appendices

The object ofkiddushin must be of a certain minimum value, one peruta, i.e. a copper coin equivalent to the minimum unit of monetary value. The Mishnah Kid-( dushin 2:1) recognizes even a date (the fruit) as an object as kiddushin. The requirement is that the date must be of the minimum value stipulated. The two significant legal points emerging from the testimonies concern the object of kiddushin and the words uttered in relation to kiddushin. Objects vary from ‘una naranja’, an orange (Maharash- dam EH 1, 2) and three ‘limones’, lemons (Maharashdam EH 3) to others like an ‘anillo’, a ring (54. Maharibenlev Part I, 22) and a ‘pandero’ a tambourine (63. Bet Yosef 8). Within an entire Hebrew text, the name of the object of kiddushin alone is frequently written in Judeo-Spanish in the Hebrew script. For example, there are several responsa where the single word ‘limones’ or ‘naranjas’ is found in Judeo-Spanish. Therefore, an understanding of the language is vital in order to comprehend the following legal requirements of kiddushin: (1). the weight and in turn the value of the object in question. (2). the need for two witnesses to testify to the handing over of the object of kiddushin. It is also legally required for the man to own the object of kiddushin. Freimann (1964: 165–166) cites responsum in text 8 in his analysis of the history of rabbinic enactments in the field of marriage. Like many rabbis throughout the ages and across the world, the rabbis in Salonica instituted certain rulings pertaining to the laws of marriage. Such rulings (takkanot) are directives enacted by legal scholars, or other competent bodies, enjoying the force of law. Takkanot constitute one of the sources of Jewish law (Elon 1975: 74). Freimann observes that among many local rabbinic laws, one stated that the woman’s relatives should be present at the time of kiddushin (Freimann 1964: 166), in order to protect her from an unwanted marriage. Insisting on the presence of a sage and a woman’s relatives ensures that the marriage contract is made known to the family and becomes the responsibility of the wider community. appendix 3 505

On 7 Ḥešvan 1568 eight distinguished rabbis in Salonica, including R. Samuel de Medina and R. Isaac Adarbi, placed a ḥerem, the excommunicatory ban, on those who did not adhere to their rulings with reference to kiddushin. The rabbis stated that the marriage must take place in the presence of ten men above the age of eighteen years. They added that achazan (the leader of the service) and a sage should also be present. In any case, if this condition were not met the respondent might invalidate the marriage vows, and kiddushin would have to be repeated at the time of nissiun (the time when the couple would live together). Apparently, several months after this decree, such an episode occurred and both R. Adarbi and R. Medina carried out the excommunication. The issue of whether the witnesses are valid where kiddushin is carried out without meeting the requirements of these new local rabbinic laws was a subject of disagreement between the two rabbis. For the enactments of 1568 and the laws on kiddushin in Salonica, its suburbs, Seres, Monastir, Sofia, see Freimann (1964: 242–248). Friedman writes, in his discussion, as to the stage at which the marriage contract was written ‘marriage is effected through two distinct stages according to Bibli- cal and Talmudic law. The first stage, callederusin or kiddushi(n), is rendered loosely in English as ‘betrothal’ (Friedman 1980: 192). For legal definitions onshidduchin , kiddushin and nissu’in see Elon (1975: 353–359). Note the legal force of the phrase tomadlo por qidu- sín para mí. (take it as an object of betrothal from me) expresses a clear intent on the man’s part, and becomes clearly comprehensible to his future wife. The rabbis would not rule against a marriage if this requirement were the only one not met. The words have to be equivalent to ‘behold you are consecrated unto me by this ring, according to the law of Moses and of Israel’ (Elon 1975: 356). ‘Para mí’ can also be implied. Implication and nuance of language assumes the same legal force as the words uttered by the participants. Examples of the legal significance of the omission of ‘para mí’ are found in responsa 31, 64, 73 and 83. Examples of nuance appear in many responsa concerning marriage. 506 appendices

Note that the woman faces serious consequences if she were to remarry before being freed from her first marriage. The result would be an adulterous union unacceptable in Jewish law. The children of this prohibited union are regarded as mamzerim, not only treated as social outcasts but also legally prohibited from marrying Jews, and their children inherit this damaging legal and social status. See Elon (1975 435–437). kinyan formal act of acquisition. An action that causes an agreement or exchange to be legally binding; the act whereby a person voluntarily obtains legal rights. kinyan chalifin lit. acquisition by exchange. a) Even exchange: an exchange of two items of comparable value, in which each item serves as payment for the other. The acquisition of any of the items automatically affects the acquisition of the other. b) Uneven exchange: an item of relatively negligible value is given in order to effect the acquisition of the item for sale. A handkerchief or the like is traditionally used. kinyan kessef acquisition through money; transfer of money. mesiach lefi tumo this is a rabbinic concept usually involving cases where a woman’s husband has disappeared and in order to remarry she needs confirmation of his death. Despite great enthusiasm to liberate a woman in such a situation, there is fear among rabbinic authorities that testimony brought in such circumstances may be tendentious. How- ever, when individuals make incidental comments where the implications of their remarks are unknown to them, then there are no qualms about accepting the implications of their comments. Credibility is presumed for statements made for purposes unconnected with the litigation (Elon 1975: 602). minchah the afternoon prayer service. mo’adim the festivals. appendix 3 507 moda‘á a moda‘á—notification, means an affidavit made by a person stating that a legal transaction he is about to execute is being forced against his will (Grunfeld 1987: 58). nazir a Nazirite is a person who vows for a specific period to abstain from partaking of grapes or any of their products, whether intoxicating or not, cutting his hair and touching a corpse (Elon 1975: 907). The Nazirite took on an almost priestly role; if he did not specify the period of the vow, it was understood to be thirty days. Šimšón the Great (Judges 13:7) and Samuel (Samuel 1:21) are the best known Nazirite figures. neder a vow. There are two basic categories of vows; (a) restrictive vows, (b) vows to donate to hekdesh. pikadon an object deposited with a custodian for safe- keeping. sava’á a will. Elon defines a will in Jewish law as ‘a person’s disposition of his property in favour of another in such manner that the testator retains the property or his rights to it until his death’ (Elon 1975: 453). Shabbat the Sabbath. The seventh day of the week, Satur- day, devoted to worship and rest from work. The sanctification of the day in many ways including abstaining from work, travel, etc. stems from the Biblical commandment to observe the Sab- bath based on the verses: In the beginning . . . the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their array. And on the seventh day God finished the work which He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day from all the work which He had done. And God blessed the seventh day and sancti- fied it, because on it God ceased from all the work of creation which He had done’ (Genesis 2:103). Shavuot/ Šavu‘ot the Festival of Weeks, is the second of the three major festivals with both historical and agricul- tural significance. Agriculturally, it commemorates the time when the first fruits were harvested and 508 appendices

brought to the Temple, and is known as Hag ha-Bikurim (the Festival of the First Fruits). Historically, it celebrates the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai, and is also known as Hag Matan Toratenu (the Festival of the Giving of Our Torah). The Biblical source for this festival is: ‘You shall count for yourselves—from the day after the shabbat, from the day when you bring the Omer of the waving— seven shabbats, they shall be complete. Until the day after the seventh Sabbath you shall count, fifty days . . . You shall convoke on this very day—there shall be a holy convoca- tion for yourselves—you shall do no laborious work; it is an eternal decree in your dwelling places for your generations’ (Leviticus 21:15–16, 21). shetar legal document, a contract. takkanah a directive enacted by the halakhic scholars or other competent body enjoying the force of law. It constitutes one of the legal sources of Jewish law. The takkanah in Jewish law is akin to that part of legislation which in other legal systems is termed subordinate. The written Torah is the constitution—the supreme legislation of Jewish law, as in the Torah itself power is delegated to the halakhic scholars to create takkanot (EJ 714). tefillah prayer, specifically the daily prayer services and the additions added on the Sabbath and festivals. In Sephardic usage, it specifically refers to the morning prayer service. terefah a) a person, animal or bird that has a flaw in one of its organs which will cause its death within twelve months. The meat of such an animal or bird is forbidden, even if it has undergone valid ritual slaughter. b) a generic term for all non-kosher food. ṭofes the ṭofes is the document’s form containing the rest of the document’s text including a summary of all the significant information contained in the toref (a document’s essence, specifying its date, the names of the principals and the pertinent facts particular to the document). except for the document’s date (Scherman and Zlotowitz 2001a:glossary). Essentially, a ṭofes is equivalent to a photocopy with some variations to ensure it is not confused with the original. Torah the five books of Moses: the Pentateuch. appendix 3 509 umdena Umdena is a concept commonly used by halakhic writers to fill gaps in a wide range of halakhic fields: civil lawdine ( mamonot), criminal law (including dine nefashot), family law etc. It can be applied as an assumption of factual events or as an assessment of the intentions of the parties. By applying ‘umdena, a variety of legal constructions becomes applicable, according to the nature of each case. Thus, ‘umdena can replace the actual evidence, ‘umdena can be the ground for validating constitutive acts and so on. See Gemara commentaries on umdena, Talmud Tractate Bava Batra 131–132b, 146b. Also see Shlomo Yosef Levin: Tal- mudic Encyclopaedia, vol. 1 col. 295, entry—umdena. yibum levirate marriage. When a man dies childless, the Torah provides for one of his brothers to marry the widow. This marriage is called yibum. Pending this, the widow is forbidden to marry anyone else. The surviving brother, upon whom the obligation to perform this commandment falls, is called the yavam. The widow is called theyevamah . Yibum is effected only through cohabitation. If the brother should refuse to perform yibum, he must release her from her yibum-bond by performing the alternate rite of a chalitzah in which she removes his shoe before the court and spits before him, declaring: ‘So should be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house’ (Deuteronomy 25:5–10). APPENDIX 4

DETAILS OF RESPONDENTS AND RESPONSA COLLECTED

Table of Respondents, their acronyms, dates and places of birth and death, the names of their responsa collections consulted, the number of responsa in each collection in parenthesis, dates and place of publication of these responsa, and the number of responsa found in each collection to contain Judeo-Spanish testimony. Name of Acronym Dates Place of Birth / Title of Publication Place of Number of Author (known as . . .) Death Responsa Collection Date Publication Responsa found with Judeo-Spanish

Isaac b. Sheshet Rivash 1326– Barcelona, Spain She’elot u-Teshuvot 1546 Constantinople 2 Perfet 1408 Algiers Rivash1 (518) 1559 Riva di Trento 1805 Lemberg Jacob Maḥariberav 1474– Maqueda, Toledo Teshuvot Bei-Rav2 1663 Venice 2 Berav 1541 Safed (63) David b. Zimra Radbaz 1479– Spain She’elot u-Teshuvot 1749 Venice 1 1573 Safed? Haradbaz3 (2285)

1 BIURP uses Vilna, 1879 edition. 2 BIURP uses Jerusalem, 1958 edition. 3 BIURP uses: I-VII—Warsaw, 1882, reprinted in Jerusalem, 1972, VIII—Bnei Brak, 1975 editions. First edition, Livorno 1652 only contains responsa 1–300; Venice 1749 contains the rest; as I worked from responsum 394, 1749 is its first edition. There are seven editions in total to this responsa collection, see Friedberg (1951). appendix 4 511 between ג onica is writ- Responsa ker (HU) this Number of found with , entry no.5948 Judeo-Spanish 1 3 5 Ch. 2 Catalogus Place of Publication Salonica Salonica Lipsich Constantinople Venice (Steinschneider’s Date Publication Volume 1 1598 1791 1859 1573 1606 1629 Venice 4 (217) 5 difficile definiendus’ (63) (248) 4 (806) 6 . 7 Title of ̣ arib.lev Annus Responsa Collection She’elot u-Teshuvot Bet Yosef Avkat Rochel She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah (Chelek Aleph and Gimmel) (370 in all) She’elot u-Teshuvot Hamabit Death Toledo Safed Monastir Constantinople? Salonica Safed Dates Place of Birth / 1575 1580 1580 Acronym (known as . .) .) Bet Yosef 1488– Ibn Lev 1505– Mabit 1500 / cont BIURP uses Jerusalem, 1960 edition. BIURP uses Leipzig, 1859 edition. BIURP uses: parts 1–2—Jerusalem, 1959–1960, part 3—Amsterdam, 1726 editions. This responsa edition was published in three BIURP uses Lvov, 1861 edition. b. Ephraim Caro 4 5 6 7 David Joseph Trani 1560–1573 in Constantinople. According to Friedberg (1951) and Vinograd (1995) there may have been a 1557 Salonica edition; Sal is a 1557 Salonica edition. This edition shows no variation from the one in BL dated 1573 Constantinople. ten in brackets. However there appears to be uncertainty about the date; ‘ (Steinschneider 1852), Cowley p. 343). YIBZL dates the first part as 1560 from Constantinople, though according to Professor Hac Joseph Appendix 4 ( Name of Author Joseph b. Moses b. 512 appendices 2); therefore Responsa responsa was Number of found with Judeo-Spanish Y. Deah 6 Ch, Mishpat 17 E.H 5 3 17 Place of Publication Salonica Salonica Lvov Venice Berlin Salonica Venice 9 Date Publication 1595 1793 1863 1605 1770 1587 1610 Constantinople 3 10 8 (125) (430) 1581 12 11 Title of ̣ arashdam ̣ aram Alshech Responsa Collection She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah (1000) She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah (140) Divre Rivot She’elot u-Teshuvot ha Ra’anach Death Salonica Salonica Adrianople Damascus/Safed? Salonica Salonica Adrianople Adrianople? Dates Place of Birth / 1580 1507– 1593 1584? 1610? ̣ arashdam 1506– Acronym (known as . .) .) Mah Hakadosh cont BIURP uses Lvov, 1863 edition. Friedberg (1951) gives 1594–98 as publication date, I worked from the 1595 edition. BIURP uses Lvov, 1789 edition. BIURP uses Sidilkov, 1833 edition. BIURP uses Jerusalem, 1960 edition. Friedberg (1951) gives this date, it is not listed under date in Vinograd (1995). This Medina 8 9 10 11 12 the only book printed in Constantinople during 1603–1617 when there was a printing ban by Sultan (Yaari 1967: 33, 147 no.24 the exact year is unknown and 1610 was an approximate date given. Samuel de Appendix 4 ( Name of Author Moses Alshech Alshech Isaac AdarbiElijah b. Hayim Ra’anach 1530– 1510?– appendix 4 513 1 4 3 ג א 3 א ב

Responsa Number of found with Judeo-Spanish Ch. Chel. Chel. Place of Publication Salonica Ch. Constantinople Venice Date Publication 16471586–94 Venice3 volumes 2 1641 1645 1608 Venice1651 Salonica 3 2 17 13 (317) 14 (232) 1626 Venice 7 15 ̣ ot letur even (215) 16 Title of ̣ arit ̣ aram Galante ̣ arashach Responsa Collection Mayim Amukim (141) Torat Emet She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah (125) Hashayah ha’ezer She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah Death Safed Constantinople Salonica She’elot u-Teshuvot Salonica Constantinople Rome Safed Salonica Salonica? Dates Place of Birth / 1639 1647 1550– 1626 1520– 1610 1601 ̣ ash 1550– ̣ arit 1568– ̣ arashach 1520– ̣ aram Acronym (known as . .) .) Mah Mah Mah Galante Maharh cont BIURP uses Berlin, 1788 edition. BIURP uses Part 1-Jerusalem, 1961 edition, 2-Venice, 1592 edition. BIURP uses Venice, 1626 edition, the original as there have been no subsequent editions. BIURP uses: parts 1–2—Lvov, 1861, Maharit Hachadashim, Jerusalem, 1978 editions. BIURP uses Jerusalem, 1960 edition. ̣ aron b. Trani Abraham Hakohen Joseph Sasson b. Mordejai Galante Shabtai 13 14 15 16 17 Joseph b. Moses Appendix 4 ( Name of Author Solomon b. Ah Moses R. Chaim 514 appendices ov b. Responsa Number of found with Judeo-Spanish 2 5 Place of Publication Venice Jerusalem Date Publication 1594 1980 16971716–1717 Venice Constantinople 1 1712 2 Amsterdam 2 20 (242) 18 ̣ aritatz (167) Title of 19 (245) ̣ aritatz(296) 21 Responsa Collection Darkei Noam She’elot u-Teshuvot Mah Sh’ vet’ Mah Hachadashot Ginnat Veradim (392) She’elot u-Teshuvot Chacham Tzvi Death . Cairo Safed Safed? Cairo Cairo? Moravia Lemberg, Poland Dates Place of Birth / 1685 after 1638 c.1650– 1712 1718 ̣ aritatz 1559– Acronym ̣ akam Zvi 1660– (known as . .) .) Mah h cont BIURP uses Venice, 1694 edition, Maritatz Ha-Chadashot, Jerusalem, 1980–81 (from manuscript) edition. BL has his name as Yom T BIURP uses Venice, 1697 original edition. BIURP uses Constantinople 1716 original edition. BIURP uses Debrin, 1942 edition. Moses Tsahalon b. Mordejai Halevi b. Jacob Ashkenazi 18 19 20 21 Moses Tsahalon, the Bar Ilan Responsa edition as Yom Tov b. Akiva that is according to JNUL and Machon Yerushalayim. Mordejai Halevi ?- Yom Tov b. Appendix 4 ( Name of Author Abraham Zevi Hirsch appendix 4 515 Responsa Number of found with Judeo-Spanish 1 2 Place of Publication Sofia Sofia Date Publication 17721913 Salonica1928 1 22 (34) 24 (19) Title of 23 Responsa Collection Nose’ei Ha-ephod (part of vol. II) Michtam Le-David (130) Avnei Ha-ephod (vol. I) Death Venice Jerusalem Salonica Sofia, Bulgaria Dates Place of Birth / 1718– 1790 1925 Acronym (known as . .) .) cont BIURP uses Salonica, 1772 original edition. BIURP uses Sofia, 1913 edition. BIURP uses Sofia, 1928 edition. b. Jacob Pardo 22 23 24 David Samuel Appendix 4 ( Name of Author David Pipano 1851– APPENDIX 5

LIST OF RESPONDENTS, NAMES OF RESPONSA COLLECTIONS, PLACE AND DATE OF PUBLICATION CONTAINING JUDEO-SPANISH IN THEIR TESTIMONIES

I have listed the responsa collections and their relevant respondents below that contain some Judeo-Spanish in their testimony. There are thirty-five respondents and thirty seven collections.1 I have not yet researched the entire corpus but I have included it because it is important to realise the abundance of Judeo-Spanish available in the responsa and also as a point of reference. Naturally there is also a wealth of Judeo-Spanish material available in works other than responsa such as printed sermons, laws etc.

Respondent Responsa Place of Date of Collection publication publication Moshe Beneviste Pnei Moshe Vol. 3 Constantinople 1719 Shelomoh ben Yosef Kerem Shelomoh Salonica 1719 Amarillo Avraham Yitzchaki Zerah Avraham Constantinople 1732 Vols 1–2 Moshe Yisrael Masat Moshe Constantinople 1735 Rafael Mildolo Mayim Rabim Amsterdam 1737 Vols 1–2 Isaac ben Judah Bate Kehunah vol. 3 Smyrna 1736 Rappoport Yosef Irgis Divre Yosef Livorno 1742 Avraham Gateño Sh’uT2 Tseror Salonica 1756 Hakesef

1 I have left these names with the orthography that appears on their website www. hebrewbooks.org. 2 I have put Sh’uT as an abbreviation for She’elot u-Teshuvot. appendix 5 517

Appendix 5 (cont.) Respondent Responsa Place of Date of Collection publication publication Eliyahu Mizrahi Mayim Amukim Berlin 1778 Yaakov ben Ohale Yaakov Livorno3 1783 Abraham Costaro Yosef Kovo Givot Olam Salonica 1784 Abraham ben Sh’uT Mahzeh Salonica 1795 Judah de Boton Avraham Moses ben Sh’uT Berakh Mosheh Livorno 1809 Mordechai Galante4 Abraham ben Sh’uT Hesed Salonica 1813 Samuel Alkalai leAbraham Hayim Abraham Sh’uT Yerekh Salonica 1815 Istrosah Abraham vols 1–2 Yosef ben Shemuel Sh’uT Rosh Mashbir Salonica 1821 Modiyano vols 1–2 Yonah ben Chanoch Nechpah Va-kesef Constantinople 1843 Vol. 2 Chaim Nissim Mikhtav Shelomoh Salonica 1855 Shelomoh ben Mordechai Shelomoh ben Omar Shelomoh Salonica 1864 Chaim Chaliliv Rafael David Karaso Yedei David Salonica 1867 Yosef Alfandari Sh’uT Porat Yosef Smyrna 1868 Abraham Unkava Keren Cheneh Vol. 2 Livorno 1869 Chaim Palagi Chokekei Lev Salonica 1840 vols 1–2 Chaim veshalom Smyrna 1872 vol. 2 Hukat Hachaim Smyrna 1873

3 This collection is from sixteenth-century Egypt. 4 From Syria originally. 518 appendices

Appendix 5 (cont.) Respondent Responsa Place of Date of Collection publication publication Eliezer de Toledo Mishnat Eliezer Salonica 1872 vol. 2 Yitzchak ben Gualid Vayomer Yitzchak Livorno 1876 vol. 1 Rafael Asher ben Shaar Asher Salonica 1877 Yaakov Kovo Shalom Moses ben Sh’uT Yismach Lev Jerusalem 1878 Chayyim Abraham Gagin Chaim Modai Sh’uT Hayim le-Olam Smyrna 1879 Vols 1–2 Shemuel ben Chabib Omar Shmuel Salonica 1886 Mosheh Castro Sh’uT Yarim Mosheh Salonica 1890 Shemuel ben Avodat Hashem Salonica 1893 Mordechai Matalon Yehudah Kovo Yuda Yaaleh Salonica 1893 Eliyahu Hazan Sh’uT Taalumot lev Livorno 1903 Vol. 3 Yosef Nissim Burla Vayeshev Yosef Jersusalem 1905 Yaakov Malka5 Ner Maaravi Vols 1–2 Jerusalem 1930

5 Rabbi Yaakov Malka, of eighteenth-century Morocco, settled in Tetuan during the 1738 famine and became the head of the rabbinic tribunal. His responsa was published later in 1930 in Jerusalem. INDEX

Below a comprehensive index including technical, linguistic and legal terms. Words are cited as they appear in the text and the list comprises of both Judeo-Spanish spelling, Modern Spanish spelling, many Hebrew words with transcriptions in either Hispanic or English spelling or in phonetics. The lettert behind a page locator indicates a table. abašar, 184 afirmara, 160 abašo, 137 afirmare, 160 abastar, 184 afirmar la šebu‘á, 167 ablar, 132 Agard, 149 acatando, 150 agas, 361n497, 496 aćiendo, 133, 134 aggadah, 13 acodrarsi, 145 agora, 151, 152 acorda, 130 la agua, 162 acortaron, 146 el agua, 162 acuerda, 130 agunot status of women, 48, 50–56, acuñadar, 178, 184 288–290, 351–365, 377–380, 412–422, adamarišon, 75 445–448, 500–502 adam harison, 75 ahí, 96 Adarbi, Isaac, Rabbi, in Divre Rivot ahora, 152 communal matters, 306–308 akçe, 33 excommunicatory ban, 505 Aki Yerushalayim, 72 financial matters akodrar, 145 contracts, written, 337–339 alai bigi, 496 credit transactions, debts, loans, Alcalay, Re’uben, 69 314–316, 329–334 aldea, 184 guarantors, 348–349 aleph, 67n5, 78, 79, 95, 96, 113, 114–115, property ownership (tenancy), 116, 157 316–324 aleph bet (vet), 79 guardianship of children and property, aleph heh, 79 59–61, 334–336 aleph lamed, 87 kosher food and drink, 44–45, 339–346 aleph vav, 79 marriage, validity of, 48–49, 296–306, aleph yod, 79, 141, 161 324–329, 350–351, 505 aletra, 150, 184 minhagim of Lisbon community, aletra de, 183 44–45 alevantar, 150 Nazirite vow, 346–348 Alfasi, Isaac, Rabbi, 52 wills, validity of, 308–312, 334–336 alḥad, 185 Adarbi, Isaac, Rabbi, reputation, 22, 67 aljamías, 129 adiento, 130 alla, 141 adientro, 130 allí, 151 (a)dientro, 130 al menos, 154 adonde, 153 almorçar, 138 Adret, Solomon, Rabbi, 19 Almosnino, Moses, 186 adultery, 28 alsar, 138 aél, 73 Alshech, Moses, Rabbi afaćer, 150 credit transactions, debts, loans, afilu, 170 452–456 520 index

divorce, 448–450 Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino i su divorce, validity of, 456–457 Kultura, 7 marriage, validity of, 460–478 aviśó, 138 reputation, 25 avredadrarían, 145 She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam Alshech, avredardarían, 145 445–478 ay!, 185 wills, validity of, 450–452, 458–460 ayin, 67n5, 78, 83, 84 women’s status as agunah, 445–446 women’s status as agunot, 446–448 /b/, 135 Alvar, Manuel, 162, 163 başá, 182, 496 amarillo, amarío, 151 ba’ale, 168 amarío, 151 ba‘avonot, 42 American Spanish, 158, 159, 162 back vowel-raising (/e/ to /i/), 131 amuestra, 184 Balkan Judeo-Spanish, 20n33, 131, 154, Ancona boycott, 39–40 157, 162, 164, 183 Ancona Jewish community, 183–184 ballads/balladry, 6, 7 Andalusians, 18 /b/ and /ß/, 135 andava, 135 barbare, 496 anduberion, 135 Bar-Ilan University, 6 anillo, 504 Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project, 8, annulment of kiddushin, 28 12, 69 annulments, 28, 48 Bashan, 69, 183 año, 147 batim, 168 años, 46 Bayazid II, 22 ansí, 152 bed̠ din, 75 anusim, 27, 183–184 behirim, 23 apareçe, 140 Benatar, Jacqueline, 155 apotropisa, 58, 164, 177 Ben Chayim, Elijah, Rabbi, in Teshuvot apotropos, 58, 164, 185 Haraanach, 358–373 apotroposim, 58, 164 Ben Gurion University, 7 apregonar, 184 Ben Hayyim, Elijah, Rabbi, in Mayim Arabic, 18, 26 Amukim, 374–377 Arabic borrowings, 182 Ben-Ur, Aviva, 2, 128 Arabic language borrowings, 186 Benveniste, Abraham, 5 Aragonese in Hebrew characters, 19 Berav, Jacob, Rabbi, 25, 351–355 Aragonese Judeo-Spanish, 157, 161, 162 berit milah, 502 Aragonese language, 186 bet, 78, 79–80, 134, 135 arecabdimos, 157 bet din, 75, 502 Ariza, M., 135 bet hakeneset meḥadaš nosaf al Armistead, Samuel, 2 baté hakenesiot ašer hem hayom Arnold, Raphael, 125 beSaloniqi, 45 arreventó, 184 bet rafa, 80 arriba, 161 Beur de Almosino, 97 arrimé, 144 Biblia de Constantinopla, 97 arur hu bayom, 43n92 Biblia de Ferrara (Lazar), 4–5 Asher, Jacob ben, 58 Biblical law, 13 Ashkenazi, 5, 127–128, 149–151 bilabial, syllable-final /v/, 134, 134t Ashkenazi communities, 23 bilingualism, 19, 125–126 Ashkenazi responsa, 15, 20, 128 BIURP Bar-Ilan University Responsa aspros, 33 Project aspro/s, 169, 181, 496 fonts, 93 Asturian, 160 morphology and syntax, 163 atroposa, 58, 164 phonology, 130, 142–143 Auschwitz, 22 research using, 63, 66 index 521

translations from the, 10, 11–12 Castilian, 5, 15, 19, 70, 117, 119–120, transliterations, 493–495 130–131, 135–137, 139, 144, 149–152, variations between editions, 94, 95–97, 156–159, 161–162, 183–188 112–118 Castilian Jews, 19 Bornstein, Leah, 69, 183 Castilian Judeo-Spanish, 122–123, 162, borrowings, 71, 74, 165–167, 181–185, 165 187–188, 496–499 Catalan, 123–124, 138–139, 154, 162 Braude, Benjamin, 36 catorće, 138 bueno(s), 150 caudal, 133, 134 buklik, 496 cauśa, 134, 136 büklü, 496 caza, 138 Bulgarian Judeo-Spanish, 184 çekirdek, 496 Bunis, David Monson, 2, 4–5, 7, 18, 69, cema’at, 34 73, 121–122, 123, 125, 128, 165n121, chalitzah, 222, 421, 502, 509 169–171, 172, 178–180 charity fund-raising, 34, 40, 290–296 buracos, 154 charlar, 154 buscar, 148 chazan, 505 busqué, 157 Cherezlik, S. Y., 69 busquí, 157 chet, 96 buzkár, 148 Chipre, gipre, 116 Byzantine Jews, 19 chobán, 182, 200, 496 Christians, language of, 123 cabdal, 133, 134 cibdad, 146 cabeça, 140 cibdat, 140, 146 cabeza, 140 cierto, 140 al cabo del zemán del servicio, 177 çiftlik, 497 cabśa, 134 clarezas, 146 cadí, 182 çóban, 496 caleja, 151 code-switching, 169, 174, 180–181 callarse, 156 coğimos, 137 calleja, 151 Collins Spanish-English/English-Spanish calló, 156 (Smith), 70 calques of Hebrew, 176–177 communal matters calque system of translation, 4 bequeath of a shop in a will, 365–372 calrezas, 146 charity fund-raising, 34, 40, 290–296 cambio, 38n3 community safe-keeping, 44–45, cambium, 38n3 306–308 caña, 147 curses, 44 Cardoso, Isaac, 178–180 eliminating competition, 43 Caro, Joseph, Rabbi, 22, 93 preserving Jewish trade, 46–47 Caro, Joseph, Rabbi, responsa trade fair ban, 46, 202–205 Avkat Rochel, 396–406 trade fairs, 45–46, 202–205 Bet Yosef, 409–428 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 levirate command, 422–423 wool sale and purchase, 43–44, marriage, validity of, 409–411 199–202 wills, validity of, 396–409, 424–428 compañía, 147 women’s status as agunot, 412–422 comparative cultural studies, 9 caśa, 136, 138, 151 concluçion, 140 Caśal(es), 184 condo, 153 caśamiento, 139 condotto, 185 caśas, 138 conduto, 185 caśás, 149 con mi, 161 caśes, 155 conmigo, 161 Castaño, Javier, 2, 7, 19, 71 con migo, 161 522 index conoces, 140 d’Adrero, 145 conoçes, 140 daled, 81, 96 conoçía, 140 daño, 147 conpadre, 148 Danon, S., 69 conpañía, 142 dar, 155 conpraba, 153 Dardero, 113 conprar, 142, 143, 154 d’Ardero, 145 conpró, 154 David, Joseph ben, Rabbi, in She’elot Consejo Superior de Investigaciones u-Teshuvot Maharibenlev Cientificas (CSIC), 7, 72 contracts, written, 391–394 consonantal cluster /mp/, 142–143 credit transactions, debts, loans, consonantal group /mr/, 143–144 386–388 Constantinople, 22–24, 32, 165. See also marriage, validity of, 381–386, Ottoman Jewish life 394–396 conta, 130 partnership agreements, 388–394 contarto, 146 women’s status as agunot, 53, 377–380 contracts, 241–249 David, Joseph ben, Rabbi (Maharival), 53 oral, 255–261 dayan, 14n23, 176 written, 76n79, 337–339, 391–394 Day of Atonement, 45, 46, 47, 204 contrato, 146 d∙dryw, 113 converts, validity as witnesses, 27–29 death Coplas de Yosef (Girón-Negrón & language of, 171, 178–179 Minervini), 6, 87, 97, 116, 117, 120, necessary conditions to declare, 48, 50, 133, 135, 136, 144, 146, 151, 157, 176, 51–55 179, 185, 186 Death of a Language (Harris), 70, 153, copyist vs. scribe, 16 181 Corominas, Joan, 70 debdot, 163 cortó, 146 deber, 135 cosque, 182 debiese, 160 cotaron, 146 debotica, 169 cotró, 146 debt and credit, 266–268 Cowley, 69 dećir, 138 credit transactions, debts, loans, 36–44, decir, 138, 141 127, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288, dećir, 151 314–316, 329–334, 353–355, 372–373, declado, 96 386–388, 428–433, 436–443, 452–456 declaro, 96 Crews, Cynthia, 184 de ellos, 73 criaturas, 56n116 dela, 73 Crónica de los reyes otomanos, 4 delante mi, 114 cuaderno, 146 delante mí, 160–161 cuadreno, 146 delante nosotros, 160–161 cual quier, 130 delantre, 114, 160–161 cuando, 153 della, 161–162 cuenta, 130 dellos, 73, 161–162 Culi, Jacob, Rabbi, 5, 167 demandamos, 157 cuma, 182 demandé, 157 cuñada, 147 demandí, 157 cuñado, 178 demandimos, 157 currency (legal tender), 33 dende, 153 curses, 44 depués, 185 al derrocar que derrocaba, 177 /d/, 146–147 después, 185 d∙rdyrw, 113 deste, 161 forçadamente, 140 desus, 114 index 523 determinamos, 157 dueña, 147 de tienpo viniendo gente, 114 duespués, 185 dexestes, 157 Duran, Simon ben Zemach, Rabbi, 57 dezir, 136, 138 dyl∙nţymy, 114 diacritics, transcriptions, 71, 76, 80–81 dyšwš, 114 Dialectología española (Vicente), 70 dy ţyynpwwynyyndwg``ynţy, 114 Díaz-Mas, Paloma, 2 dyţyynpw wynyyndw g``ynţw, 114 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 69–70 economic terminology, 181–182 dichu, 131 economic terms in Hebrew, 173, 174t dictionaries, 69–70 edad, 146 diferençia, 139 edar, 146 diglossia, 125–126 ‘edim, 176 diˇeron, 150 Edirne Jews, 43n92 diˇo, 137, 150 educational system, Jewish, 126 dijo, 137 ‘edut, 176 dine mamonot, 509 efendi, 182, 497 dine nefashot, 509 Egipto, 172 el Dio, 179 /e/ - /i/, 131 Dio, 179 ella, 112, 141, 161–162 Dios, 179 ellos, 161–162 diphthongisation, 130–131 Elman, Yaakov, 16 diréš, 156, 158 Elon, Menachem, 12–14, 15, 17, 507 dišiste, 158 El Regimiento de la Vida (Almosnino), dišistes, 158 186 dišo, 150 el saraf, 127 dišo, dijo, 137 eluego, 148 distes, 157 emir, 497 dištes, 158 Emmanuel, Isaac Samuel, 25 la dita, 183–184 empeñó, 147 ditas, 183–184 empieza, 143 el dito, 183–184 emsallar, 497 dito, 183–184 en, 117 divorce, 28, 49, 448–450 enactments, 43–47 divorce, validity of, 456–457 enchir, 153 Divre Rivot, 155 enḥeremar, 177 djedió, 149 enla, 73 djidió, 149 enpeça, 131, 143 djodió, 149 Enrique IV, 21 djudió, 149 enriva, 161 do, 155 entonces, 155 dodze, 151 entrando, 161 dólia, 182, 497 Entre dos (o más) fuegos (Romero), 7 el dolor, 162 Entwistle, William James, 178 dolor, 162 epitropos, 177, 185 dona, 150 equiraso, 185 donde, 153 era, 113 donloc, 181 era mucho mi amigo, 117 donluk, 497 era muy mi amigo, 117 Dos colecciones de cuentos sefardíes de erastes, 157, 158 cáracter mágico: sipuré noraot y siupré ermuera, 142 pelaot, 7 erraste, 157, 158 doy, 155 erusin, 505 ducados, 33 escapar, 115 524 index escribir, 135 fijas, 132 escrivir, 135 fijos, 132 escusar, 138 fin, 162 esmaltir, 497 la fin, 162 español, 121 el fin, 162 espantastes, 157, 158 financial matters espendió harto dinero, 51 categories, 31–32 esperança, 140 contracts, 76n79, 241–249, 255–261, esposa, 138 337–339, 391–394 esta, 113 credit transactions, debts, loans, 36–44, estando, 161 127, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288, estar, 155 314–316, 329–334, 353–355, estar en el año de mi madre, 178 372–373, 386–388, 428–433, estava, 135 436–443, 452–456 este, 161 goods lost at sea/ guarantors, 261–265 esti, 131 guarantors, 348–349 estó, 155 language of, 37, 127, 173, 181–183 estó, estoy, 155 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 estonces, 155 monetary law, 36 estoncias, 155 parties named, authentic and estoy, 155 impersonal, 17 estubo, 135 partnership agreements, 36, 196–198, estudiare, 160 205–207, 251–255, 388–394 Ethics of the Fathers, 122 property ownership (tenancy), /e/ to /i/, 131 227–238, 268–275, 316–324 exclamaçión, 140 firme/ -a, 162 excommunicatory ban, 25, 30, 43, 43n98, fiźo, 132, 138 44, 375–377, 505 flap /r/, 86, 144–145 Extremos y grandezas de Constantinople, 4 el forno, 33 forno, 132 /f/, 85, 132–134 forzada mente, 160 fablaste, 158 Freimann, 504, 505 faćerlas, 132 French Jews, 128 faćer plaćer, 185 Friedberg, Bernhard, 69 faldikera, 164 Fuente Klara, 149 faldiquera, 164 fuera, 160 faldukera, 164 fuerças, 140 falduquera, 154, 164 fueron metaqqenim, 169, 180 falecimiento, 140 fuestes, 157 fallecimento, 115 /f/ and /h/, 132–134, 133t gaína, 151 fasta, 132 Galante, Maharam, 66 fazer šebu‘á, 167 gallina, 151 Feast of Tabernacles, 46, 204 Gascon, Abraham, Rabbi, 45–46 fechu, 131 Gateño, 147 fembras, 144, 185 gato, 148 Ferrara Bible, 4–5, 142, 143 Gayyat, Isaac ibn, 18 Festival of the First Fruits, 508 gente, 117, 137 Festival of the Giving of Our Torah, 508 German-Jewish jurisprudence, 25 Festival of Weeks, 507–508 Gershoni, Israel, 16 fíćiéredes, 149 ger’uš, 181 ficiese, 160 gerušot, 33 figo, 116 get, 49, 164, 502 fija, 132 la gezerá, 180 index 525 gimmel, 67, 78, 80–81, 115, 116, 137 haćer, 132 gimmel plus diacritic, 80n28, 81, 116, 137 haćer el kavod, 171 Girón-Negrón, Luis Manuel haćer la se‘udah, 168 Coplas de Yosef, 6, 87, 97, 116, 117, 120, haćerle, 51 133, 135, 136, 144, 146, 151, 157, haćeros, 136 176, 179, 185, 186 haćervos, 136 Las coplas de Yosef, 135, 136 Hacham Bashi, 33–34 Orígenes del judoespañol, 155–156 Hagaddah, 122 glossary Haggadot, 132 Hebrew terms, 500–509 Hag ha-Bikurim, 508 Turkish borrowings, 74, 496–499 Hag Matan Toratenu, 508 gnanaçia, 140 Haim, Yisra’el, 179, 183 gnanacia, 140 haiyum, 113 go, 115 ḥakamim̠ , 173 God, numerical value of letters in, 78 Hakitía, 124–125, 165, 170, 181, 182, 184 Goldish, Matt, 16, 23, 25 Hakohen, Solomon ben Abraham, Rabbi, gömü, 497 22, 55–56 González-Llubera, Ignacio, 6, 84, 133, halakhah, 5, 13–14, 176, 503 144, 162 halakhic legislation, functions of, 13n20 Goodblatt, Morris, 53 halakhic scholars, 14, 508 goods lost at sea/ guarantors, 261–265 halakhic system, contribution of this g``pry, 116 book to understanding, 9 Gracia Mendes, Doña, 22, 30–31, 39 haldikera, 165 guadrar, 145 hallando, 161 guarantors, 348–349 hallarlo, 132, 141 guardar, 146 hamiá, 497 guardianship of children and property, hanizkar, 113 56–61, 62, 280–282, 334–336 ḥanut, 169 guay, 185 harás, 497 güe, 150 Harris, Tracy K., 70, 117, 149, 153, 161, Guélibolou, 497 178, 181, 185 güesos, 151 haskamah, 503 guilt of murder suspects, 223–227 Hassán, Iacob, 2, 4, 71 Gur, Yehudah, 69 haver, 160 guruş, 497 havía, 135 gw, 115 hayah, 149 gwato, 148 Hayim, Elijah ben, 93 g``ynţw, 117 Ḥ ayim, Yisra’el of Belgrade, 121 g``ynţy, 117 he, 79 g``ypry, 114 Hebrew hispanization of, 75 /h/, 132–134 numerical value of letters in, 77–78 haaraçi, 497 in the responsa, reasons for using, haber, 159 18–19 hab’er, 160 in the texts, 19, 165–178, 168t, 169t, haberéš, 149 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t habes, 149 transcription system había, 135 Hebrew → Latin, 91–92t, 94 hablá, 156 Hebrew → phoneme → grapheme, hablad, 156 88–90t hablado, 158 Rashi script, 91t hablamos, 157 translations hablé, 157 into English, 77 haćéis, 138 format, 74 526 index

understood by women, 122 igual mente, 160 vocabulary in, 165–178, 168t, 169t, ijo, 116, 118, 132 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t ilmuera, 142 Hebrew Aramic, 128 iña, 159 Hebrew-Hispanic morphemes, 177 INALCO, 7 Hebrew Univarsity of Jerusalem, 7 inchan, 153 heh, 81–82, 96, 113, 115 informaçión, 139 hekdesh, 503, 507 the Inquisition, 39, 123 ḥerem, 177, 505 internet, 1–2, 70, 71, 120 Hešeq Šelomó, 122, 177 ir, 155, 159 ḥet, 67n5, 82–83, 116 Islamic law, 24n43 heter nissuin, 501 Istanbul Jews, 25–27 hićiese, 138 istonsis, 155 hiˇas, 132 Italian borrowings, 185 hiˇo, 116, 132 Italian Jews, 23, 123–124, 128, 152 hijos, 132 Hispanic philology, contribution of this Janissaries, 25, 35 book to, 7 Jastrow Dictionary, 69 Histoire des Israelites de Salonique Jewish Castilian Romance’ la’az, 122 (Emmanuel), 25 Jewish courts, 24–25 Historia de la lengua española (Lapesa), Jewish diaspora, 122–123, 124 70 Jewish Ibero-Romance, 122, 123 History of the Spanish Language (Penny), Jewish law, 13–18, 24–25. See also taqanot 70 Jewish Questions (Goldish), 25 hnz`, 113 Jewish Questions-Responsa on Sephardic hnzkr, 113 Life in the Early Modern Period hoğara, 497 (Goldish), 25 ḥol’, 41 Judeo-Arabic, 18–20 hombre, 144 Judeo-Italian, 125 Hovot Halevavot, 169 judeolanguage, 19 hubieron una gran tormenta, 159 Judeo-Spanish hubieron cuatro hombres, 159 additional resources, 5, 69–71, 489 hubo un hombre, 159 ballads, 6 hüccet, 497 beginnings, 122–123 hue, bue, 150 defined, 122 hugit, 127, 182 development of, 128–129, 183–184 huraco, 154 dictionaries, 69–70 hyg``wš, 116 Hebrew-Aramaic component, 128 hygw(š), 116 innovations, 123–124, 145 hyšyš, 113 introduction, 119–120 h∙ywm, 113 Ladino vs., 4, 120–122 Musar literature in, 6 /i/, 131 oral tradition, 126–127 ia(n), 159 recognizing within the texts, 66–67 iba(n), 159 revival, 120 Iberian, Hebrew letters to write, 15, 18–19 standardization of, 129 Iberian Jews, 9, 23–24, 32, 122–123, 127 Turkish borrowings from, 74, 496–499 Iberian taqanot, 15 vernacular folk tradition, 4 Ibero-Romance, 170 Judeo-Spanish, distinctive linguistic Ibn Lev, Rabbi, 53–55 features ićiera, 133 absent, 151 /ie/ - /e/, 130–131 additional, 150–151 iggun, 48 analysis overview, 129 index 527

borrowings, 71, 74, 165–167, 187–188, contribution of this book to, 7–9, 496–499 183–184 emergence of, 123–124 contributors to, 1–2 innovations existing field of (known literary assilimation of earlier final /s/ and studies, 16th), 3–7 preceding off-glide, 149 present-day revival, 6–7, 120 dipthong /ue/, 150 teaching manuals, 7 final consonant followed by clitic Judezmo, 121, 125 pronoun, 149 judezmo, 121 internal phonemes, 149–150 judicial terminology, 174–175t, 181, 182 labio-velar on-glide, 147 judió, 149 palatalization of syllable-final /s/ to ˇudío , 149 /z/, 148 ˇuma , 182, 496 pre-palatal consonants, 150 junta mente, 160 reflexive cliticse , 149 ˇusticia , 140 morphology and syntax, 155–164 phonology kada uno i uno, 176 archaism vos/vuestra, 135–136 kaddish, 27–28, 503 back vowel-raising (/e/ to /i/), 131 kadí, 496 bilabial, syllable-final /v/, 134, 134t k̠af, 78, 82, 83 consonantal cluster /mp/, 142–143 kaf, 67n5, 83, 87 consonantal group /mr/, 143–144 kaf rafa, 83 diphthongisation, 130–131 kapán, 496 final /d/ and /t/ distinction, 146–147 Kapón, 4 initial /f/ and /h/, 132–134, 133t Karo, Joseph, Rabi, 25, 59, 122 labial /b/ and /ß/, 135 kasher, 503 labialisation of /n/ to /m/, 142 kashrut, 503 lexical retentions, 151–155 katriği, 137, 496 merger between /ɲ/ and /ni/, 147 ketubah, 48 metathesis, 145–146 Khuli, Jacob, 5 non alongside no, 136 kiddushin, 28, 501, 503–506. See also retention of /mb/, 143 marriage seavos, haćervos, sacavos, 136 kinyan, 506 seseo, zezeo, 137–141 kinyan chalifin, 506 sibilant phonemes, 136–137 kinyan kessef, 506 vibrant /r/̠ and flap /r/ contrast, kira, 498 144–145 kiraci, 182, 498 voiceless dental fricative, 139 kof /k/, 83, 85–86, 115 yeísmo, 141 Kohen, Elli, 69 vocabulary Kohen-Gordon, Dahlia, 69 adaptations, 178–180 koiné, 124n1, 187–188 borrowings, 181–185 köse, 181, 498 code-switching, 169, 174, 180–181 kosher food and drink, 32, 44–47, primary, 164 191–196, 339–346 use of Hebrew, 165–178, 168t, 169t, kösk, 182 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t koske, 496 Judeo-Spanish Conference, 6–7 Judeo-Spanish koiné, 124 /l/, 83 Judeo-Spanish literary genres, 1, 6 la’az, 122 Judeo-Spanish literature, 4, 120 ladinar, 122 Judeo-Spanish of the Balkans (Sala), 157, Ladino. See also Me’Am Lo’ez 163 the Bible, translations into, 4–5 Judeo-Spanish studies development of, 128–129 528 index

dictionaries, 69 372–373, 386–388, 428–433, Judeo-Spanish vs., 4, 120–122 436–443, 452–456 poetry in, 127 divorce, 448–450, 456–457 speakers of, statistics, 128–129 enactments, 43–47 transcription system, 72–73 excommunicatory ban, 25, 30, 43, 44, translations, 76, 132 375–377, 505 ladino, derivation, 121 financial matters, categories, 31–32 Ladino Bible textx, 3–4 guarantors, 348–349 Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman guardianship of children and property, Sephardic Culture (Lehmann), 120 56–61, 280–282, 334–336 Ladino Studies, 6 guilt of murder suspects, 223–227 ladronim, 163, 164 kosher food and drink, 32, 44–47, Lamdan, Ruth, 2, 8, 50–51, 61–62 191–196, 339–346 lamed, 83–84, 141 levirate command, 216–222, 374–375, lamed yod, 118 422–423 language maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 of death, 171, 178–179 marriage, validity of, 28–29, 47–51, of finance, 37, 127, 173, 181–183 209–216, 296–306, 324–329, of narratives, 15–20, 29–30, 42, 62, 125 350–351, 381–386, 394–396, of the responsa, 37, 125, 186–189 409–411, 433–436, 460–478, 505 of Sephardim, 19, 20n33, 121, 130, 131 monetary law, 36 of Spanish Jews, 123 Nazirite vow, 36n79, 205–207, tabooed, 169t, 170, 171 346–348, 443–444 of testimonies, 15 oaths and vows, 36n79, 205–207, of time, 176, 177t 346–348, 443–444, 448–450 of trade, 37, 127, 173, 182 partnership agreements, 36, 196–198, language mixing, 19 205–207, 251–255, 388–394 Lapesa, Raphael, 70, 131, 145 property ownership (tenancy), Las coplas de Yosef (Girón-Negrón & 227–238, 268–275, 316–324 Minervini), 135, 136 shoplifting, 223–227 Lazar, Moshe, 4–5 trade le, 96, 117, 162 introduction, 36–37 lebanim, 33, 41, 169 Jewish, preserving, 46–47 leer, 178 language of, 37 legal contents of the responsa wine industry, 46–47, 191–196 communal matters wool industry, 36, 46–47 bequeath of a shop in a will, 365–372 trade fairs, 46 charity fund-raising, 34, 40, 290–296 wills, validity of, 31, 56–61, 207–209, community safe-keeping, 44–45, 275–282, 308–314, 334–336, 306–308 396–409, 424–428, 450–452, preserving Jewish trade, 46–47 458–460 pronouncing of curses, 44 women’s status as agunot, 48, 50–56, trade fair ban, 46 288–290, 351–353, 356–365, trade fairs, 45–46, 202–205 377–380, 412–422, 445–448 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 legal system, Spanish Jews, 24–25 wool industry, 43–44 legal terminology, 169, 173–176, wool sale and purchase, 43–44, 175–175t 199–202 Lehmann, Matthias, 6, 120 contracts, 241–249 lema’an Hašem, 42 oral, 255–261 Leonese, 154, 157, 159, 186 written, 76n79, 337–339, 391–394 la letra, 184 credit transactions, debts, loans, 36–44, letras, 38n3 127, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288, letras de cam[b]io, 38n3 314–316, 329–334, 353–355, Levi, Orfali, 27–28 index 529

Levin, Shlomo Yosuf, 509 mañana, 147 levirate command, 178, 216–222, man(ç)cebo, 153 374–375, 422–423, 509 mancebo, 140 libra, 498 mançebo(a)(s), 140 licençia, 139 mancha, 152 liçençia, 140 mandé, 157 licencia, 140 mandí, 157 limones, 504 manu, 131 limud, 178 maramá, 498 lira, 181 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 literary language, sixteenth century, 6 Marranos, 22–23, 27–29, 39 llama, 141 marriage llamá, 156 history of the laws of, 28 llamé, 157 levirate duties, 178, 509 llamí, 157 validity of, 17, 28–29, 47–51, 209–216, llamó, 117 296–306, 324–329, 350–351, llenar, 153 381–386, 394–396, 409–411, llevaste, 158 433–436, 460–478, 503–506 lluvia, 141, 151 mas, 46, 161 lo, 96, 117, 163 matanças, 140 a lo manco, 154 /mb/, 143 loque, 163 me, 142 loque tenía escrito, 159 Me’Am Lo’ez, 5, 16, 69, 97, 112–114, luego, 148 118–119, 136, 138–139, 140, 149, 151, lumre, 144 155, 157, 160, 166–168, 172, 179, 184, Lunz, Abraham, 69 186–187 Luria, Max A., 155 Medina, Samuel de, Rabbi, reputation, luvia, 141, 151 22, 67 lw, 117 Medina, Samuel de, Rabbi, responsa lwb’yya, 141 Choshen Mishpat, 51–53, 209–222, lw’byya, 141 223–296 ∙ly∙, 112 communal matters ly, 117 ban on wool sale and purchase, lyyaman, 141 199–202 ∙lyyh, 112 charity fund-raising, 290–296 lyymw, 117 eliminating competition, 43 lyy∙my, 112 trade fairs, 46, 202–205 lyyw, 112 financial matters contracts, 241–249, 255–261 /m/, 142, 143 credit transactions, debts, loans, m, 84 250–251, 266–268, 282–288 ma, 46, 161 goods lost at sea/ guarantors, ma’amad, 23 261–265 ma’aseh, 14n24 maritime insurance, 238–241 macare, 185 partnership agreements, 196–198, macula, 152 205–207, 251–255 mahalle, 33, 498 property ownership (tenancy), Maḥarashdam, 141 227–238, 268–275 Maimonides, Moses, 16, 50, 54, 58 guardianship cases, 56–59, 61, 280–282 makare, 185 guilt of murder suspects, 223–227 Makovetsky, Leah Bornstein, 2 levirate command, 216–222 makrama, 182 marriage, validity of, 211–215, 505 maldećir, 138 oaths and vows, 205–207, 266–268 mamzerim, 502, 506 shoplifting, 223–227 530 index

trade fairs, 46 moço/s, 140 wills, validity of, 56–59, 207–209, mo’adim, 506 275–282 moalim, 181 women’s status as agunah, 51–53, moça, 137, 140 288–290 moda‘á, 507 Yoreh Deah, 191–209 Molho, M., 188 meemet, 498 Molho, Michael, 187 mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘erev, 176 Monastir dialect, 134, 157, 184 mejerma, 182 monesterio, 154 melatan, 178–179 monetary law, 36 meldadico, 178–179 morir, 177 meldano, 178–179 morirás, 177 meldar, 178–179 Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, 124–125, 162, mem /m/, 84, 142–143 165 memunim, 23 morphology and syntax, 155–164 mercaderes, 154 Morrocan Jews, 124–125 mercar, 154 mos, 142, 149 mercé, 140 mosotros, 142 merçé, 140 mosotros, 142 merçed, 140 motivile, 498 mercó, 154 moza, 137, 140 Merged Hebrew, 128 mozo, 96, 140 merkader, 154 /mp/, 142–143 mersas, 498 /mr/, 143–144 mesa, 138 mśmo, 138–139 mesiach lefi tumo, 26, 506 muallim, 498 metathesis, 145–146 mucha dolor tengo, 162 miatad, 146 mucho, 117 miatat, 146, 153 muchos, 152 mide rabbanan, 52 mucho/s, 152 Migash, Joseph ibn, 18 mue, 142 millas, 141 muera, 142 Miller, Elaine R., 19, 20, 125–126, 169, muestro, 142 178 muevas, 142 minchah, 506 muger, 116, 118 Minervini, Laura, 2, 19, 69, 154, 158, 177, muˇer, 116, 136, 137 183, 184 mujer, 137 Coplas de Yosef, 6, 87, 97, 116, 117, 120, muˇeres, 60, 137 133, 135, 136, 144, 146, 151, 157, mükâri, 498 176, 179, 186 mülkiye, 498 Orígenes del judoespañol, 140, 155–156 mulquié, 182 Taqanot de Valladolid, 131 muncha, 151 Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali, 5, 97, muncho, 151, 152 136, 157, 179 munchos, 151 minhag hasoharim, 36 muncho/s, 152 minhagim, 44 muquerí, 182 minyan, 502 murder, witness testimonies of, 25–27, mirá, 156 29–30 Mirandan, 160 murder of a Jew by a guard for Sabbath mismo, 138–139 observance, 25–27 Misrayiṃ , 172 Musar/musar literature in Judeo-Spanish, 6 la misvạ́ , 171 műşkî, 498 mitad, 146, 153 Muslims, 21n36, 24n43, 46n100, 123 mitzvah, 42n91 mutlagaj, 181 index 531 muy, 117 nuestro(s), 142 muy muncho, 117 Nuevo chiko diksyonario Judeo-Espagnol- mwg``r, 116 Française (Cherezlik), 69 mwgy, 117 nun /n/, 84, 115, 142 mwgyr, 116 nun peh, 143 mwker, 137 nun yod, 84, 118, 147 mwy, 117 nun yod yod, 147 nw, 115 /n/, 142 nwţyšy, 115 /ɲ/ and /ni/ merger, 147 nabe, 135 oaths and vows, 36n79, 205–207, Nachmanides, 122 266–268, 346–348, 443–444, 448–450 nakil, 498 obligación, 140 Nasi, Gracia, 22, 30–31, 39 ojalá, 185 Nasi, Joseph/Yosef (Duke of Naxos), 22, omre, 144 30–31, 39, 375–377 onde, 153 nave, 135 oraçiones, 140 nazir, 507 Oral law, 13, 14n22 Nazirite vow, 36n79, 205–207, 346–348, oral tradition 443–444, 507 Ladino, 4 neder, 507 of women, 126–127 negoçiado, 140 ordenamos, 187 Nehama, J., 69, 182 orete, 498 New Year festival, 46, 204 Orígenes del español (Minervini & niḥúš, 170 Vávaro), 140 nijúš, 170 Orígenes del judoespañol (Girón-Negrón nikhbadim, 23 & Minervini), 155–156 Nissan, Ephraim, 17–18 Orlando el Furioso, 141 nissuin, 28 oso, 96 nissu’in, 505 Osref bie, 182 nissuin, 505 os sea, 136 nivrarim, 23 Ottoman Empire Studies, contributors no, 115, 136 to, 2 noche, 131 Ottoman Jewish communites nochi, 131 autonomy of community and no lo, 149 institutions, 21, 34 nombre, 144 bilingualism in, 126 nomre, 144 communal government, 33–34 non, 136 economics, 33–35 non-kosher food, 508 ensuring survival of, 45 North African Arabic, 181 government, 33–34 North African Judeo-Spanish, 162 internal and juridical autonomy, 24n43 nos, 142, 149 ma’amad in, 23–24 nos lo, 149 organizational patterns, 23–24, 33–34 nosotros, 142 population statistics, 22, 23 nos tenía entregado, 159 qahal fragmentation, 34 noticia, 115, 140 regional dialects, 123, 125–126 novemre, 144 secular responsibilities, 23–24 /n/ to /m/ labialisation, 142 structure of, 34, 35 nue, 142 taxation, 34–35 nuera, 142 Ottoman Jewish courts, 24–25 nuesa, 136 Ottoman Jewish historiography, 6, 8 nueso/a/s, 185 Ottoman Jewish life nuestro/a, 185 in the courts, 24n43 532 index

depicted in the responsa, 20–24 perachim, 33 economic, 21, 23, 31–35, 38n85, 43 Perahya, Eli, 69 homes/residential segregation, 32–33 Perahya, Klara, 69 language of, 24 pera’ón tob vešalem belí šum paḥat population statistics, 32n64 veḥisarón, 173 rabbis influence and power, 34 percurador, 113, 146 Ottoman Millet System, 34 Perfet, Isaac Ben Sheshet, 66 Ottoman responsa literature studies, pero, 144, 161 contributors to, 2 perro, 144 Ottoman Sephardic tradition, 6 perroˇudió, 144 Ottoman Turkish, 181, 183 pesaq din, 173 ovido, 158 pešarah, 36 pešarah (compromise), 36 /p/, 85 p∙g∙s, 115 padre, 148 phg∙s, jaˇas, 115 pagara, 160 phonemes, 85, 88–90t, 136–137 pagará al qahal eḥad as(pro) por vellecino phonology de cuanta lana fićiere, 43n92 archaism vos/vuestra, 135–136 paloma, 143 back vowel-raising (/e/ to /i/), 131 palomba, 143 bilabial, syllable-final /v/, 134, 134t pandero, 504 consonantal cluster /mp/, 142–143 paño, 112, 147 consonantal group /mr/, 143–144 Papo, Eliezer Rabbi, 5 diphthongisation, 130–131 para mí, 505 final /d/ and /t/ distinction, 146–147 pareçe, 140 initial /f/ and /h/, 132–134, 133t parece(r), 140 labial /b/ and /ß/, 135 pareciéndome, 140 labialisation of /n/ to /m/, 142 pareçiere, 140 lexical retentions, 151–155 paredica, 163 merger between /ɲ/ and /ni/, 147 parientes, 115 metathesis, 145–146 partnership agreements, 36, 196–198, non alongside no, 136 205–207, 251–255, 388–394 retention of /mb/, 143 pasá, 182 seavos, haćervos, sacavos, 136 pasare, 160 seseo, zezeo, 137–141 pasasen, 87 sibilant phonemes, 136–137 Pascual Recuero, Pascual, 5 vibrant /r/̠ and flap /r/ contrast, paso, 138 144–145 passo, 138 voiceless dental fricative, 139 Passover readings in Ladino, 122 yeísmo, 141 Passy, A. M., 69 physicians in the royal court, Jewish, 21 Paul IV, 39 pienso, 112 pedaçico, 140 pikadon, 507 pedaço(s), 140 Piske ha-Rashdam, 93n56 pedaçico, 163 Piske Ha-Rashdam, 97–118 pedaço, 140 plática, 154 pedazo, 140 pleitos, 131 pedrites, 145 plomo, 143 peh, 115 plosive consonants, 135n59 Pele Yoetz (Papo), 5 plosive forms, 79–80, 85 Penny, Ralph, 2, 70, 135, 150 plyšmyynţw, 115 pensés, 149 p∙nywqy, 114 Pentateuco de Constinantinopla p∙nyyw, 112 (Recuero), 97, 136 poder, 131 pequeño, 147 poliças, 140 index 533 poll tax, 34–35 quies, 156 Pomeroy, Hilary, 7 quiˇeron, 150 ponedlos, 145–146 quiˇo, 150 poneldos, 145–146 Quintana-Rodriguez, Aldina, 2, 19, 126, porqué no vos, 114 131, 145, 149, 152, 157, 159, 164, 165, Portugese borrowings, 183–184, 188 182, 185, 186 Portugese Jews, 152 quiregi, 182 Portugese language, 160, 163 quiseron, 138 pos, 153 quiśieron, 138 Pountain, Christopher, 131, 141, 145, quitança, 185 157, 166 quitanza, 185 la preba, 131 qyš∙ndwšy, 115 presona, 146 presonas, 146 r`, 178 preto, 130, 153 rabbinic Judeo-Spanish, 186–187 prieto, 130 Rabbinic law, 13 primera mente, 160 Rambam, 48 print, invention of, 16–17 Ran (Re’uben, Nissim ben), 54 proper names, 182 Rashi (Yitzchaki, Shlomo), 87, 167 property ownership, 176, 227–238, Rashi script, 87, 91t 268–275, 316–324 raźón, 114, 138 Proverbios Morales, 4 rebí, 113 Proverbios Morales (Gonzalez-Llubera), rebí (as title), 75 144, 162 rebocar, 135 Proverbios morales of Šem Tov de reboco, 135 Carrión, 4 recevtab`, 113 p∙ryynt∙s, 115 recevtaba, 113 pueder, 131 reçibestes, 158 puedo, 131 reçibí, 140 puedo, pueder, 131 recibido, 140 pues, 153 reçibido, 140 punctuation, 76 recibidor, 140 Purim, 122 recibi eron, 140 pusieron, 87 reçibió, 140 puso, 136 reçibir, 140 puśo, 136 reçibiste, 140 pwrky nw wwš, 114 reçibistes, 157 pygw, 116 reçibo, 140 pyg``w, fiˇo , 116 Recuero, Pascual, 69, 97, 116, 136, 155 pynšw, 112 Refael, Shmuel, 2, 6 pyrqwr∙dwr, 113 Reif, Stefan, 18 pyrwg`wdyyw, 144 reis, 498 pyynšw, 112 religious terminology, 170–172, 171–172t, 173t qahal, 31, 34, 45, 168 Renard, 178 qodem, 176 reposar, 136 qodeš, 31 repośar, 136 quedare, 160 repovar, 96 que le estaba apareˇado sarqẹ́ se‘udat repozar, 96 haberit, 168 resh, 86, 96, 114, 144 querer, 156 responsa. See also legal contents of the quešándose, 115 responsa quier, 130 additional resources, 69–71, 489 quieres, 156 common format/structure, 15 534 index

copying process, results of, 16–17 textual transmission problems development of Jewish law and, 13–18 abbreviations, 112–113 diversity of issues covered, 62 metathesis, 113 everyday life depicted in the, 20–30, 62 printing errors, 96 Hebrew to Judeo-Spanish translation, spelling variations, 112 calque system of, 4 variations between editions, 94–97, language of narratives, 15–20, 30, 42, 112–118 62, 125 word separation, 114 parties named, 17 transcription guide, 87–91, 91t places named, 17–18 transcription system, 71–73. See also publication of, 16, 92 transcriptions the question in the, 15 translations statistics, 8th to 18th century, 14 diacritics, 76 textual transmission, difficulties in, 8 into English, 76–77 use of Judeo-Spanish in, 18–20 format, 73–75 witness testimony. See witness numerals representation, 77–78 testimony proper names, 75–76 responsa, historical and socio-historical punctuation, 76 elements transliterations examples, 72, 493–495 business relations with Gentiles, 37 transliterations guide, 91, 91–92t communication indicating trade, 37 Re’uben, Nissim ben (Ran), 54 cultural identity, 123, 125–126 Révah, 121 currency used, 33 rey, 498 economic, 39–40, 43 rezar, 178 ethical conduct, 40–42 ridá, 182 language used, 37, 125, 186–189 riñón, 147 travel, 37, 45–46, 127 rivá, 96 responsa, Judeo-Spanish rizá, 96, 182, 498 additional resources, 65 Rodrigue, Aron, 24n43 corpus of texts rogar, 131 18th to 20th century, 13, 516–518 rogo, 131 basis of selection, 10–11 romance languages, 20, 121–122 categories, 11 Romaniot Jews, 24 chronology, 12 Romaniots, 35n75 complete list, 63–65t Romero, Elena, 2, 7 form of references to, 11 ronpió, 143 glossary, 12–13, 500–509 ropas, 96 linguistic features absent, 151 Rosh Hashanah, 176 numbering, 12 royal court, 21 overview, 510–515 Rozen, Minna, 2, 23–24 overview (table), 13 r∙šwn, 114 reference sources, 12, 13, 510–515 Rubashov, Zalman, 20, 127–128 translated language, 11–12 ruego, 131 responsa literature, 14, 62 ryšybţ∙b∙, 113 responsa study r∙zwn, 114 corpus examined, principles of rzwn, 114 selection, 65–66 methodology, 66–68 /š/, /s/, /,s/, 137 problems and solutions, 73–76 šabu‘a̠ yamin, 176 purpose of, 2–3 Sabá, 75 resources, 1, 69–71, 489 Šabat, 41, 42, 75 textual transmission saber, 51, 135 edition used, 92–93, 97 saberá, saberés, saberéš, saverés, 158 line patterns, 94–95 saberés, 149 sample text chosen for analysis, 93–94 saberéš, 156 index 535 saberés, 158 seavos, 136 saberéš, 158 se boltó, 186 sabés, 155 se calló, 156 sabéš, 156 Sedaka, R., 69 sabréis, 158 se enteró, 144 sacaos, 136 se enterró, 144 sacavos, 136 se falló, 132 Sachar, Howard M., 37 Sefarad, 7, 71, 120 saiola, 183–184 Sefer Hešeq Šelomo (Bunis), 3 sakaná gedolá, 46 se halló, 132, 141 Sala, Marius, 157, 163 Selim II, 22 Salmos de Salónica, 97 semos, 46, 155 Salmos de Salónica (Recuero), 154 señor, 112, 147 šalom ‘alehem, 173 señora, 147 Salonica señores, 147 anusim in, 27 señoría, 112, 147 Jewish population, 22 A Separate People (Lamdan), 8 Lisbon community in, 44–45 Sephardic Jews, 6, 23 Muslims in, 21n36 Sephardic liturgy, 18n30, 122 Portugese language in, 165 Sephardic responsa, 19 present-day, 29 Sephardic script, 167 religious environment, 57–58, 60 Sephardic Studies, 120 structure of communal organisations, Sephardim 34–35 language of, 19, 20n33, 121, 130, 131 textile industry in, 36 trade, 37 wool industry, 36 Séphiha, Haïm Vidal, 2, 4, 21, 122, 176, Salonican Jews 178, 188 in Auschwitz, 22 ser, 155, 168 commerce, 127 serán aňos siete for šev‘a yamim, 176 community isolation, 127 seren, 184 leaders and scholars of, 22 sería como semana días qodem Ros life of, 21–23 Hasaná, 176 minhagim letter, 44–45 ses, 96 murder of, 29 seseo, 137–141 organizational structure, 34 seseo, zezeo, 139 population statistics, 22 Seudat Hashelishit, 212n61 social life, 29 sfuegro/a, 148 taxation, 45 Shabbat, 507 wool export ban, 43n92 Shabtai, Chayim, Rabbi, 66, 125, 136, yeshiva, 22 152, 184 Salonican texts, 7 Shavuot (Šavu‘ot), 507–508 samech, 84, 137, 138, 139, 140–141, 164 She’elot u-Teshuvot haRivash (Perfet), 66 saraf, 182, 499 She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam, 155 Sasson, Aharon ben Joseph, 29, 55–56, 93 shelichut, 500 sava’á, 507 Shema, 176 saverá, 135 shetar, 508 saverés, 149, 158 shidduchin, 505 savrés, 186 shin, 86, 137, 148, 155 Šavu’ot, 507 Shmuelevitz, Aryeh, 21 sayo, 183–184 shoplifting, 223–227 schirazzo, 185 Shwarzwald, Ora, 1, 2, 123, 128, 149, 152, scribe vs. copyist, 16 164, 166, 167, 171–172, 176, 178, 182 se, 149, 155 sicil, 499 se acodró, 113 Siddurim de Liorna (Recuero), 97, 116, sean meḥuyavim, 168 155 536 index siendo, 161 Tanach, 69 siendo que, 161 tanbién, 142, 143 sienpre, 142 Taqanot de Valladolid, 5, 166, 168, 173, sigil, 182 187 Šimšón the Great, 507 Taqanot de Valladolid (Minervini), 131 sin, 86–87, 138, 139, 140, 141, 148, 155 taqanot/taqanah, 15, 28, 45, 169 Skopye, 56, 57–59, 61 tardi, 131 Smith, Colin, 70 Targumim, 122 so, 155 tartura, 499 sodro, 145 tav, 67n5, 83 solamente, 51 tavan, 182 sola mente, 160 taxation, 34–35 somos, 46, 155 tefilá, 41, 42 song, Judeo-Spanish, 7 tefillah, 508 sordo, 145 temos, 160 soy, 155 tendrá, 157 Spanish, Hebrew letters to write, 19 tenedlas, 145 Spanish-Jewish jurisprudence, 24–25 teneldas, 145 Spanish Jews, 20, 24–25, 122–123, 126 tenemos, 160 Spanish orthography, 71–73, 88–90t tener, 159–160 /ß/, 135 tenido, 158 Steinschneider, Moritz, 69 tenrá, 157 Stern, Sacha, xvi, 191 ter, 159–160 súbito, 185 terçio, 140 suelo, 148 tercios, 140 Suleyman, Sultan, 23 terefah, 508 Sulhan de Venecia (Recuero), 116 terna, 146 Sulhan hapanim, 169 terná, 157 sultanis, 33 ternia, 146 sultan/is, 499 Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali supeto, 185 (Minervini), 5, 82n30, 97, 115n83, 136, súpeto, 185 157, 179 súpito, 185 testimil, 499 súpito pagara o fuera en prisión, 160 testimonies. See witness testimony sus, 96, 162 tet, 83, 87 sus cuentas, 162 te tengo dicho, 159 sus manos, 162 tet-vav, 78 šynyywr, 112 textile industry, 35, 36, 43–44 šynywry∙h, 112 textual transmission synyywry, 147 abbreviations, 112–113 edition used, 92–93, 97 /t/, 146–147 line patterns, 94–95 tabán, 182, 499 metathesis, 113 tabooed language, 169t, 170, 171 printing errors, 96 taf, 78, 83, 87, 96 sample text chosen for analysis, 93–94 taife, 34 spelling variations, 112 Taitazak, Rabbi, 22 variations between editions, 94–97, takkanah, 508 112–118 takkanot, 504 word separation, 114 talmid hakham, 16 tiempo, 143 Talmudic Encyclopaedia (Levin), 509 tienpo, 143 Talmud Tractate Bava Batra, 509 time, language of, 176, 177t también, 165 todos, 96 tamién, 165 tofeṣ , 508 index 537 tomadlo, 145 flap /r/, 86 tomadlo por qidusín para mi, 505 formatting, 74–75, 85, 94 tomaldo, 145 gimmel, 78, 80–81, 115, 116 toponyms, 172 gimmel plus diacritic, 80n28, 81, 116 Torah, 508 Hebrew, 75 Torat Emet (Sasson), 93 Hebrew → Latin, 91–92t, 94 toref, 508 Hebrew → phoneme → grapheme, Tosafot, 52 88–90t tovei ha-qahal, 23 Hebrew → Rashi, 91t trade heh, 81–82, 96, 113, 115 Ancona boycott, 39–40 k̠af, 78, 82, 83 ban on wool sale and purchase, 43–44, kaf, 67n5, 83, 87 199–202 kaf rafa, 83 cloth and paper industry, 39 kof /k/, 83, 85–86, 115 competition, eliminating, 43 lamed, 83–84, 141 custom duty, 39 lamed yod, 118 goods lost at sea, 38n84, 261–265 ligature, 87 introduction, 36–37 mem /m/, 84, 143 Jewish, preserving, 46–47 nun /n/, 84, 115, 142 language of, 37, 127, 173, 182 nun plus yod, 84 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 nun yod, 118, 147 price fixing, 43–44 nun yod yod, 147 references to in texts, 36–37 orthography, 72 textile industry, 36, 43–44 peh, 115 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 phonemes, 85, 88–90t wool industry, 36, 43–44, 182 phonology, 72–73 trade fairs, 45–46, 202–205 punctuation, 76 traiçión, 140 resh, 86, 96, 114 Trani, Moses ben Joseph, Rabbi samech, 84, 138, 139, 140, 141, 164 credit transactions, debts, loans, 38–39, setting up a, 68, 91t 428–433, 436–443 shin, 86, 148, 155 marriage, validity of, 433–436 sin, 86–87, 138, 140, 141, 148, 155 mentioned, 66 Spanish orthography, 71–73, 88–90t oaths and vows, 443–444 taf, 78, 83, 87, 96 She’elot u-Teshuvot haMabit, 428–446 tav, 83 transcription guide, 87–91, 91t tet, 83, 87 transcriptions tsadi, 78, 83, 85, 140 ḥet, 82–83, 116 vav, 80, 82, 96, 117, 134, 135, 147, 148 /f/, 85 vet, 80 /l/, 83 vibrant /r/, 86 /p/, 85 word separation patterns, 73 aleph, 78, 79, 95, 96, 113, 114–115, yod, 83, 96, 112, 114, 117, 118, 131, 116, 157 141, 157 aleph bet (vet), 79 yod aleph, 79, 83, 141 aleph heh, 79 yod aleph heh, 83 aleph lamed, 87 yod aleph yod, 83 aleph vav, 79 yod vav, 83 aleph yod, 79, 141, 161 yod yod (double yod), 67, 83–84, 96, ayin, 67n5, 78, 83, 84 112, 131, 141 bet, 78, 79–80 zayin, 82, 96, 116, 136, 138, 139, 164 bet rafa, 80 translation, calque system of, 4 chet, 96 transliterations, 72 daled, 81, 96 traše, 158 diacritics, 71, 76, 80–81 traše, trašio, 158 538 index trašio, 158 venía, 115 travel venido, 96 language of, 127 venir, 46, 157 references to in texts, 37, 127 venirse, 156 trušo, trašo, 158 venites, 157, 158 tsadi, 78, 83, 85, 140 verdad, 146 Tsahalon, Yom Tov ben Akiva, 66 verdar, 146 Turkish borrowings, 74, 181–183, 188, verdat, 146 496–499 verná, 157 Turkish dictionaries, 70 vernacular, 20 Turkish Jews. See Ottoman Jewish life vernán, 157 Turks, money lending by, 127 veshilcha, 501 tuvido, 158 vet, 80, 134 vezé lešonó, 14 uba, 135 vi, 158 /ue/ - /o/, 130–131 vibrant, 86 ultima mente, 160 vibrant /r/,̠ 144–145 umdena, 509 vibrant /r/, 86 un, 117 Vicente, Zamora, 70, 135–136 una fedor/un fedor, 162 vide, 158 Una informacion de la aritmetica, 145 vido, 158 una naranja, 504 viéndosen, 149 un fedor, 162 vijitar, 114 University College London, 7 viˇitar, 150 University of Sofia, 7 viñas, 147 usted, 136 vino, 135 vinu, 131 /v/, 134 vio, 158 /v/, 134, 134t viste, 158 /v/, 135 vo, 155 vaiboda, 181 vocabulary valere, 185 adaptations, 178–180 Valladolid Taqanot, 5, 166, 168, 173, 187 borrowings, 181–185 Valladolid Taqanot (Minervini), 131 code-switching, 169, 174, 180–181 Value Added Tax, 34–35 primary, 164 valuto, 185 use of Hebrew, 165–178, 168t, 169t, valutos, 185 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t Variation and Change in Spanish (Penny), voiceless dental fricative, 139 70, 150 vo lo, 149 Varol, Marie-Christine Bornes, 2, 7 voltarsi, 186 Várvaro, Alberto, 140, 177, 184 voluntad, 154 vasu, 131 vos, 135–136 vav, 80, 82, 96, 117, 134, 135, 147, 148 vos lo, 149 većina, 138 voy, 155 većindad, 138 vuesa, 136 vegía, 115 vuesa merçed, 135 vekil, 499 vuesa(s), 135–136 vekil mutlagaj, 499 vueso/a/s, 185 velico, 163 vuestra, 135–136 vellcino, 140 vuestro/a, 185 velleçino, 140 veluntad, 154 waywode, 499 venecianos, 33 Weinrich, Uriel, 128, 178 vení, 156 Whole Hebrew, 128 index 539 wills Yiddish, 74, 127–129, 165–166 language of, 19, 169 yišmerehu surọ́ viḥayehu, 173 languages of, 19 Yitzchaki, Shlomo (Rashi), 87, 167 validity of, 31, 56–61, 207–209, ∙yn, 117 275–282, 308–314, 334–336, yo, 112 396–409, 424–428, 450–452, yod, 83, 96, 112, 114, 117, 118, 131, 141, 458–460 157 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 yod aleph, 79, 83, 141 witness testimony yod aleph heh, 83 language of, 15–20, 29–30, 31 yod aleph yod, 83 validity of, 27–29, 51, 54–55 yod vav, 83 ∙wn, 117 yod yod (double yod), 67, 83–84, 96, 112, women 131, 141 agunot status, 48, 50–56, 288–290, yo indo a viˇitar al señor dotor dicho, 150 351–353, 356–365, 377–380, yom plus aleph, 78 412–422, 445–448 yom rišon, 78 guardianship cases, 56–61, 280–282, ∙ysc∙p∙r, 115 334–336 ∙yšţh, 113 leniency in rulings affecting, 28–29, 50–53 /z/, 136 non-Hebrew language used with, 122 Zakuto, C., 69 oral tradition, 126–127 zaman, 177 in the responsa, scholarship on, 8 Zaragoza Jewish community, 184 wool industry, 36, 43–44, 182 zayin, 82, 96, 116, 136–137, 138, 139, Written law, 14n22 164 wygy∙h, 115 Ze’ev, Binyamin, Rabbi, 28 ∙wyg`` ţ∙`., 114 zehuvim, 33 wyny∙h, 115 zekut̠ , 115 ze lešonó, 113 xabón, 136 zemán, 42, 177 zezeo, 137–141 Yaari, Abraham, 1 zijronó lehayé ha’olam habá, 112 yan torbá, 181 zijronó livrajá, 113 yan torbá, 499 Zimra, David ben, Rabbi, 46–47, 53 yavam, 509 zkwtw, 115 yeísmo, 141 zkwy, 115 yeísmo, 141, 151 z``l, 112–113 yeísta, 141 z’’l, 112–113 yeshiva, 22 z’’lhh, 112–113 yevamah, 509 z``lhh, 112–113 Yevanite Jews, 35n75 zmn, 177 ∙ygw, 116 Zulficar effendi, 182–183 yibum, 509 zülfikar, 499 yid, 149 zuz, 60