Sixteenth-Century Judeo-Spanish estimonies
Études sur le Judaïsme Médiéval Fondées par
Georges Vajda Dirigées par
Paul B. Fenton
OME LII
Te titles published in this series are listed at www.brill.nl/ejm
Sixteenth-Century Judeo-Spanish estimonies An Edition o Eighty-Four estimonies rom the Sephardic Responsa in the Ottoman Empire
By
Annette Benaim
LEIDEN • BOSON 2012
Tis book is printed on acid-ree paper. Library o Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Benaim, Annette. Sixteenth-century Judeo-Spanish testimonies : an edition o eighty-our testimonies rom the Sephardic responsa in the Ottoman Empire / by Annette Benaim. p. cm. — (Études sur le judaïsme médiéval ; v. 52) Includes bibliographical reerences. ISBN 978-90-04-21017-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Jews—urkey—History—16th century. 2. Jews—urkey—Intellectual lie—16th century. 3. Ladino language—urkey. 4. Ladino literature—urkey. 5. Responsa—1040-1600. I. itle. DS135.8B43 2011 305.892’405609031—dc23 2011030298
ISSN 0169-815X ISBN 978-90-04-21017-2 Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Te Netherlands. Koninklijke BrillMartinus NV incorporates the imprints IDC Publishers, Nijhoff Publishers andBrill, VSP.Global Oriental, Hotei Publishing, All rights reserved. No part o this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission rom the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items or internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate ees are paid directly to Te 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 to the blessed memory o my dear ather, Raphael David Garson , who so sadly passed away on the fh day o Passover this year, 23 April 2011, at the age o 89. His traits o wisdom, aith, patience, industry, warm riendliness, goodness, cheerulness and passion or work shall remain within us and all who knew and loved him well orever. "
CONENS
Preace ............................................................................................... Abbreviations ................................................................................... List o ables .................................................................................... List o Images and the Corresponding Libraries rom where they have been Copied ............................................................... Chapter One Introduction .......................................................... 1.1 Aims and Contribution o Book ..................................... 1.1.1 Te Existing Field o Judeo-Spanish Studies .... 1.1.2 Contribution o this Book to Existing Literature ................................................................ 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
xv xix xxi xxiii 1 1 3 7
Presentation Book ......................................................... Responsa andothe Development o Jewish Law ............ 139 Structure and Features o Responsa ............................... 15 Use o Judeo-Spanish in the exts ................................. 18 Ottoman Jewish Lie depicted in the Responsa ............ 20 1.6.1 Historical and Socio-Historical Elements ......... 24 1.6.2 Jewish Economic Lie ........................................... 31 1.6.2.1 Credit ransactions, Debts, Loans ..... 37 1.6.3 Enactments and Communal Ordinances .......... 43 1.6.4 Some Interesting Depictions o Individuals and Legal Scenarios: Marriage and the Agunah...... 47 1.6.5 A Guardianship Issue—wo Legal Views ........ 56 1.6.6 Conclusion .............................................................
61
Chapter wo Research Methods and Sources ......................... 2.1 Complete List o Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish 2.2 Principles o Selection—Corpus Examined ................... 2.3 Methodology and ranscription o the exts ............... 2.3.1 Resources Available .............................................. 2.3.2 ranscription Systems .......................................... 2.3.3 Difficulties Encountered and Decisions aken / Problems and Solutions ....................................... 2.3.4 ranslations into English .....................................
63 63 65 66 69 71 73 76
viii 2.3.5 Representation o Numerals ................................ 2.3.6 Te ranscription System and Guides in this Book ......................................................................... 2.3.6.1 Guide to ranscriptions ......................... 2.3.6.2 Guide to ransliterated Versions: From the Hebrew Alphabet to the Latin Alphabet ......................................... 2.4 Te Problems o extual ransmission ........................... 2.4.1 Introduction ............................................................. 2.4.2 Scanned Copy o ext 11 Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82) ............ ransliteration o ext 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) .......................................................... Scanned Copy o ext 11 the First Edition (Salonica 1595) .................................................... ransliteration o ext 11 (Medina Even HaezerCopy 166) o First Edition, Salonica 1595 ........ Scanned ext 11 o the Second Edition (Salonica 1793) .................................................... ransliteration o ext 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) Second Edition, Salonica 1793 ... Scanned Copy o ext 11 o the Tird Edition (Lvov 1863) .......................................................... Downloaded Copy o ext 11 o the BIURP (2003) in Hebrew ................................................ ransliteration o ext 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) BIURP Edition .............................. 2.4.3 Description o the extual Variations in ext 11
77 78 87 91 92 92 98 99 101 102 104 105 107 108 110
Between the Original Edition (Salonica 1595) and the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project ... 2.4.4 Concluding Statement ............................................
112 118
Chapter Tree Te Language in the Responsa .......................... 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 3.2 Vernacular Jewish Languages ............................................ 3.3 Distinctive Linguistic Features o Judeo-Spanish ........... 3.3.1 Phonology ................................................................. 3.3.1.1 Diphthongisation ..................................... 3.3.1.2 Raising o Final /e/ to /i/ ........................
119 119 120 129 130 130 131
3.3.1.3 Retention Initial // o .................................................... 3.3.1.4 Bilabial, Syllable Final /v/
132 134
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 o /n/ to /m/ ................... 142 3.3.1.9 Te Consonantal Cluster /mp/ ............ 142 3.3.1.10 Retention o /mb/ .................................. 3.3.1.11 Consonantal Group /mr/ ..................... 3.3.1.12 Disappearance o Contrast Between /r/ and /ɾ/ ................................................ 3.3.1.13 Metathesis ............................................... 3.3.1.14 Loss o Distinction Between Final /d/ and /t/ ...................................................... 3.3.1.15 Te Merge Between /ɲ/ and /ni/ ........ 3.3.1.16 Other Innovations o JudeoSpanish .................................................... 3.3.1.17 Other Linguistic Features .....................
143 143 144 145 146 147 148 150
Lexical Retentions ................................. 151 3.3.2 3.3.1.18 Morphology and Syntax ......................................... 155 3.3.3 Vocabulary ............................................................... 164 3.3.3.1 Use o Hebrew ....................................... 165 3.3.3.2 Some Interesting Creations and Uses 178 3.3.3.3 Code-switching ...................................... 180 3.3.3.4 Borrowings rom Other Languages .... 181 3.3.4 Spanish or Judeo-Spanish? .................................... 186 Chapter Four exts ........................................................................ Chapter 4 consists o 84 responsa. Each is presented in the ollowing ormat: summary o the case in English, copy o
191
the Judeo-Spanish content o the srcinal Hebrew text, transcription into Latin characters, translation into English (including translation o the immediate Hebrew ramework where relevant), summary o the respondent’s decision. ext Number in this Book
Original ext Number
Page Number
4.1 Responsa o Rabbi Samuel de Medina in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam(Salonica 1595) ......
Yoreh Deah 1. 2. 3.
191
53
191
88 118
196 199
x 4. 5. 6.
155 157 168
202 205 207
8 12 34
209 211 213
Even Haezer 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
Choshen Mishpat 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
76 166
214 216
5 15 33 52 65
223 227 238 241 250
95 148 170 175 227 262 313 328 339 380 382 393
251 255 261 266 268 271 275 278 280 282 288 290
4.2 Responsa o Rabbi Isaac Adarbi in Divre Rivot (Salonica 1581) ..................................................................... 29. 3 30. 4 31. 10 32. 59 33. 72 34. 92 35. 124 36. 150
296 296 298 304 306 308 310 312 314
xi 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.
189 209 262 279 282
316 324 329 334 337
42. 43. 44. 45.
310 392 413 420
339 346 348 350
4.3 Responsa o Rabbi Jacob Berav 1474–1541 in eshuvot Berav(Venice 1565/1663) .................................................. 46. 15 47. 25
351 351 353
4.4 Responsa o Rabbi David ben Zimra in She’elot Part Iu-eshuvot haRadbaz (Venice 1749) ................................ 48. 294
356 356
4.5 Responsa o Rabbi Elijah Ben Chayim, 1530–1610 in eshuvot Haraanach(Constantinople 1610) .................. 49. 20 50. 29 51. 117
358 358 365 372
4.6 Responsa o Rabbi Elijah Ben Hayyim in Mayim Amukim(Venice 1647) .......................................................
374
Part II 52. 53.
374 375
36 55
4.7 Responsa o Rabbi Joseph ben David in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharibenlev (Constantinople 1573) .......... Part I 54. 9 55. 22 56. 23 57. 101 58.
112
377 377 381 383 386 388
xii Part III 59. 60.
21 104
391 394
4.8
Responsa o Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in
61. 62. 63.
Avkat Rochel(Salonica 1791) .......................................... 80 81 148
396 396 402 403
Responsa o Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Bet Yosef (Salonica 1598) .................................................. 8
406 406
4.9 64.
̣ 4.10 Responsa o Rabbi Aharon ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) o Salonica in orat Emet (Venice 1626)
409
65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.
409 412 413 415 420 422 424
23 5 6 27 92 165
4.11 Responsa o Moses ben Joseph rani in She’elot u-eshuvot haMabit (Venice 1629) ................................ Part I 72. 292 73. Part III 74. 75.
428 428
331
433
82 112
436 443
4.12 Responsa o Rabbi Moses Alshech 1508–1593 in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharam Alshech (Venice 1605) 76. 44 77. 78 78. 103
445 445 446 448
xiii 4.13 Responsa o Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham Hakohen 1530/5–1602 in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashach (Salonica 1586–94) (3 volumes) ...................................... Part I 79. 18 80. 81. Part II 82. 83. 84.
450 450
49 67
452 456
38 134 145
458 460 469
Reerences ........................................................................................... Appendices .......................................................................................... Appendix 1 Tree Sample exts ransliterated ................... Appendix 2 Glossary o Words o urkish Origin in the
479 491 493
....................................................................... Appendix 3 exts Glossary o Hebrew erms ................................ Appendix 4 Details o Respondents and Responsa Collected ................................................................ 510 Appendix 5 List o Respondents, Names o Responsa Collections, Place and Date o Publication Containing Judeo-Spanish in their estimonies Index ....................................................................................................
496 500
516 519
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, or allowing me the strength and the opportunity to unveil the knowledge and to complete the journey, sometimes hazardous, that led to the publication o this book. Tis book encompasses several elds. It identi es, compiles, transcribes, translates and analyses a previously unidenti ed corpus o literature o this size: the Judeo-Spanish testimonies in the responsa o the sixteenth century. Te main body o the book, the ourth chapter, presents a copy o each srcinal text covering eighty-our responsa, a transcription into Latin characters, a translation into English providing an understanding o An the evaluation legal argument and relevant notes mainly on the language. o thetoo, relevant secondary literature is incorporated in Chapters 1 and 3. Te rst chapter discusses the aims o the book and also presents an overview o the responsa literature in the context o the sixteenthcentury Ottoman Empire. An overview o Ottoman Jewish lie is presented. Te value o the Judeo-Spanish testimonies, in terms o the insight they offer into the society, economy, religion and responsa literature o sixteenth-century Ottoman Jewry, is described. Te second chapter explains my research techniques, including problems encountered and decisions taken. It also lists the respondents, with brie bibliographic details, and the responsa in which Judeo-Spanish has been ound. Te 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. Te last section in this chapter analyses the problems o textual transmission through the different editions. A discussion o the variations between the srcinal and subsequent editions is presented through the examination o one sample text. Te third chapter studies the Judeo-Spanish language employed in the responsa. Te distinctive linguistic eatures o the language presented in the texts are described with reerence to phonology, morphology and syntax. Borrowings by Judeo-Spanish rom other languages are examined herewith and special attention is given to borrowings
xvi rom Hebrew. Te language is discussed in relation to other important Judeo-Spanish works. Te study o these texts rom a linguistic perspective constitutes the main aim o the book. At the same time the purpose o the book is to provide a source o texts that would generate urther study whether in linguistics, Sephardic Studies, Hispanic Studies, Jewish Studies whether cultural, historical or legal / halakhic. I have ound the research and study o these testimonies both in nitely educational and entertaining too as I elt transported in a journey along sixteenth century Ottoman Jewish lie. 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 feen years ago where I had to travel abroad to libraries to be able to access and copy rom the printed editions o the responsa. Tere are only speci c main libraries that hold copies o the srcinal editions. oday much o the sources areI available online thus acilitating task orIacob the researcher. am so greatly indebted to the latethe Proessor M. Hassán o Consejo Superior de Investigaciónes Cientí cas (Spanish Council or Scienti c Research) Madrid, or his invaluable guidance, advice and support in the preparation o this work, and to Proessor Elena Romero and the Consejo Superior de Investigaciónes Cientí cas or the use o their acilities. Jacob sat patiently with me ploughing through most o these responsa and teaching me so much o what he knew so well. He had sparked me with the idea o publishing an edited version o the testimonies since I rst 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 o this book, since it was his idea, his "
encouragement and his teaching that has led to its publication. I eel privileged to have been the recipient o the knowledge o such a master o Judeo-Spanish language and studies. I am so thankul to Javier Castaño who has been a source o constant and excellent academic support in so many ways particularly since the demise o Proessor Hassán. I would like to thank Dr Sacha Stern o University College London or his scholarly supervision, excellent support and constant direction whilst preparing the thesis on which this book is based and or his advice on publication. I must also thank Rabbi Asher Sebbag and Rabbi Naphtoli Strauss or their erudite assistance on halakhic matters, and my nephew Josh Garson or his vital technical assistance.
xvii I am indebted to Proessor Ralph Penny, Proessor Emeritus o Romance Philology, or his priceless teaching in Hispanic philology and support at many points during my academic lie in the last thirty three years. I am grateul to the Valmadonna rust Library, Kayla (Roberg) Oppeheimer and Mrs Zimmels o the London School o Jewish Studies library. Ilana ahan at the British Library and the British Library Board have been particularly helpul in providing and allowing me much o the textual material o this book. Special thanks to Dr Dov Hakohen o Yad Ben Zvi Insititute or his most invaluable support and kind assistance and or permitting access to an abundance o texts and images prevalent herewith. I eel privileged to thank Dr Hilary Pomeroy (University College London) or her immense support since I rst met her in 1995. Her dedication to Judeo-Spanish, as re ected in her organisation o the British Judeo-Spanish Conerence, has been indispensable to my academic My continual involvement to date intothe committee development. o the British Judeo-Spanish Conerence continues enhance my career development. I am especially grateul to Proessor Ada Rapoport-Albert or accepting me as an Honorary Research Associate in the Department o Hebrew and Jewish Studies she heads at University College London. My gratitude goes to Proessor Ora (Rodrigue) Shwarzwald o Bar Ilan University who has been so instrumental in the publication o this book, and so gracious in her guidance and patience in its preparation. She provided much positive criticism in the transormation o my thesis into a book. Additionally it gives me pleasure to thank (in no particular order) the assistance o Proessor Raael Arnold, Proessor Isaac Benabu, Dr Chagit Blass, Proessor Bornstein-Makovetsky, Proessor David Bunis, Proessor Bernard Jackson, Dr Aldina Quintana and Proessor Shmuel Reael. I should like to extend my gratitude to Proessor David Latchman, Master o 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 o my research. Tanks to Jennier Pavelko, Katelyn Chin, Karen Cullen at Brill publishers or their kind support during the nal stages o the preparation o this book.
xviii I am grateul to my late uncle, Rabbi Mordejai Edery , proli c translator and commentator o so many Biblical works, who rst helped me decipher Judeo-Spanish responsa and was a great source o inspiration and teaching in many elds o Jewish and Judeo-Spanish Studies. Finally, I would not have been able to have undertaken the task o researching and writing this book were it not or the constant effort, unlimited support, wisdom, such valuable advice, indispensable input in many elds including those o Jewish liturgy, culture, translation o 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 grateul or so much, so unquanti able, to my mother Clara or having raised our amily within a rich cultural and linguistic environment; and also to my brothers, Solly and Meir, their spouses, together with the rest o my extended amily and so many in the Gibraltar Jewish Community "
who the book invaluable background boardhave romprovided which this has been born. or the diverse spring-
ABBREVIAIONS
BES BIU BIURP BL CM CSIC DRAE EH EJ HU JNUL
Biblioteca de Estudios Seardíes (CSIC) Bar-Ilan University Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project British Library Choshen Mishpat Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientí cas Diccionario de la Lengua Española (Real Academia Española) Even Haezer Encyclopaedia Judaica Hebrew University, Jerusalem Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem
RPh SE S UCL QM QMW YD YIBZL
Romance Salonican Philology Edition Sample ext University College London Queen Mary College London Queen Mary & West eld College London Yoreh Deah Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Library, Jerusalem
LIS OF ABLES
able 2.1 able 2.2 able 2.3 able 2.4 able 3.1 able 3.2 able 3.3 able 3.4 able 3.5 able 3.6 able 3.7 able 3.8 able 3.9 able 3.10
List o Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish .......... Guide to ranscriptions ............................................ Te Hebrew Alphabet in Rashi Script .................... Guide to ransliterations—Hebrew to Latin ......... Competing Forms o Initial f and h in Judeo-Spanish in the Corpus .................................... Incidence o Words Containing Bilabial, Syllable nal /v/ in the Corpus ............................................... Periphrastic Verbs ...................................................... Concepts Carrying Unortunate or Negative Connotations ...............................................................
63 88 91 91 133 134 168 169
erms Connected to Religious Worship, Communal Regulations and Jewish CalendarNumerals ...................................................................... 171 Wider Sphere o Religious erminology ................ 172 Blessings ....................................................................... 173 Economic erms ......................................................... 174 Judicial erminology .................................................. 174 ime-related Expressions .......................................... 177
LIS OF IMAGES AND HE CORRESPONDING LIBRARIES FROM WHERE HEY HAVE BEEN COPIED 2.4.2. Scanned Copy o ext 11 Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82) YIBZL1 Scanned Copy o ext 11 the First Edition (Salonica 1595) BL2 Scanned Copy o ext 11 o the Second Edition (Salonica 1793) YIBZL Scanned Copy o ext 11 o the Tird Edition (Lvov 1863) BL ext Number in this Book
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Original ext Number
Library
1. Responsa o Rabbi Samuel de Medina in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam (Salonica 1595) Yoreh Deah 53 BL 88 BL 118 BL 155 BL 157 BL 168 BL Even Haezer 8 BL
8. 9.
12 34 10. 11. Choshen Mishpat 12. 13. 14. 15. 1 2
Yad Izhak Ben Zvi Library, Jerusalem. Te British Library,London.
BL 76 166
BL BL
5 15 33 52
BL BL BL BL
xxiv 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
65 95 148 170 175
BL BL BL BL BL
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
227 262 313 328 339 380 382 393
BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL
2. Responsa o Rabbi Isaac Adarbi in Divre Rivot (Salonica 1581) 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
34 10 59 72 92 124 150 189 209 262 279
BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL BL
41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
282 310 392 413 420
BL BL BL BL BL
3. Responsa o Rabbi Jacob Berav 1474–1541 in eshuvot Berav (Venice 1565/1663) 48. 15 49. 25
YIBZL YIBZL
xxv 4. Responsa o Rabbi David ben Zimra in She’elot u-eshuvot haRadbaz (Venice 1749) Part I 48. 294 5. Responsa o Rabbi Elijah ben Hayyim, 1530–1610 in eshuvot Haraanach (Constantinople 1610) 54. 20 55. 29 56. 117 6. Responsa o Rabbi Elijah ben Hayyim in Mayim Amukim (Venice 1647) Part II 57. 36 58. 55 7. Responsa o Rabbi Joseph ben David in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharibenlev (Constantinople 1573) Part I 54. 9 55. 22 61. 23 62. 101 63. 112 Part III 64. 21 65. 104
YIBZL
BL BL BL
YIBZL YIBZL
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL BL BL
8. Responsa o Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Avkat Rochel (Salonica 1791) 61. 80 62. 81 63. 148
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
9. Responsa o Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Bet Yosef (Salonica 1598) 64. 8
YIBZL
xxvi 10. Responsa o Rabbi Aharon ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) o Salonica in orat Emet (Venice 1626) 65. 2 66. 3 67. 5
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
68. 69. 70. 71.
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
6 27 92 165
11. Responsa o Moses ben Joseph rani in She’elot u-eshuvot haMabit (Venice 1629) Part I 72. 292 73. 331 Part III 74. 75.
82 112
12. Responsa o Rabbi Moses Alshech 1508–1593 in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharam Alshech (Venice 1605) 76. 44 77. 78 78. 103
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
13. Responsa o Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham Hakohen 1530/5–1602 in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashach (Salonica 1586–94) (3 volumes) Part I 79. 80. 81. Part II 82. 83. 84.
18 49 67
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
38 134 145
YIBZL YIBZL YIBZL
CHAPER ONE
INRODUCION 1.1 Aims and Contribution of Book Tis book aims primarily to identiy and analyse a relatively unknown corpus o literature, the Judeo-Spanish testimonies in the responsa, which as yet have not been identi ed as a discrete genre, although there is a literature on related topics. 1 With the advent o the internet enabling the search or Judeo-Spanish in Hebrew books as well as the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, the literary genre presented in this book is now easier to identiy and there is a wealth o material in this genre in the Sephardic responsa.2 Judeo-Spanish literary genres have been listed by Schwarzwald, based on Yaari’s classi cation, 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 rom the rabbinic literature (Schwarzwald 2001: 1). Tere 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 o 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 or an indispensable article on Judeo-Spanish literary genres. (2) For a comprehensive list o existing Ladino materials see Ben-Ur (2001), and Rodrigue (1992b), Yaari (1935), Bunis (1981), Dov Cohen in http//www.hebrewbibliography.com (3) Te presentation o this literature is srcinal. A short article on a ew o the responsa has been published (Benatar 1991: 33–34). Since the completion o 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 o them, o Rabbi Samuel de Medina coincide with those in this book. Teir other ve pertain to the period beyond the scope o this book. Linguistic observations in these articles are interesting and relevant, see Minervini y Varvaro 2007, 2008. 2 For a complete picture o the literature in this genre see Appendices 4 and 5. 3 Te research carried out in this book was completed in June 2010 at which time it was surrendered or publication.
2 However it is pertinent to draw attention to some o 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 Reael, 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 o the Ottoman Empire and o Spain respectively. Te principal aim o this book and its contribution to scholarship is the presentation o the corpus mainly rom a linguistic perspective.5 Te corpus itsel is, by de nition, a linguistic corpus and thereore requires analysis rom a linguistic perspective. Its contribution will be to the study o the history o Judeo-Spanish language and culture as well as to the eld o Hispanic and Judaic Studies. Tis book also has a bearing on the legal contents o the responsa (see, or example, section 1.6.3 on communal enactments, 1.6.4. on marriage and the agunah, 1.6.5 oncontribute guardianship). translation andand clariJewish cationlaw, o the monies to theTe study o responsa sincetestithe legal ramework is the context where the texts occur.6 Novelty in the book lies in the act that: (1) these texts have not yet been identi ed as a genre, deciphered, translated or explained; (2) the texts are one o the rst examples where such large quantities o Judeo-Spanish appear within rabbinic law writings; (3) the texts consist o examples o 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 signi cant contribution to the eld o Judeo-Spanish as it meticulously analyses linguistic eatures across so many regions. (3) Bunis’s contribution to the eld oudeo-Spanish J studies as well as his comparative studies Yiddish are signi cant to the eld. His listed publications can be ound on www.pluto.huji.ac.il/~msladino/davidbunis.htm. (4) Needless to add that all other contributions and publications o Judeo-Spanish studies o the above named scholars can be ound on the internet by initially using search engines. 5 In ‘Te ormation o the Judeo-Spanish koiné’ some o my texts in my unpublished MA thesis and rom 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 or a correct understanding o the text and is indebted to the translator o twelve lines o Judeo-Spanish in a testimony (text 14) ‘or his diligent research and painstaking efforts, his work was crucial to the establishment o the text and its translation’ (Passamaneck 1974: 196).
3 to the spoken language o the period; and (4) the understanding o these particular texts cast light on historiography, social and cultural history.
1.1.1 Te Existing Field of Judeo-Spanish Studies Tere are ten known literary sources published in the sixteenth century in Judeo-Spanish: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
About ten editions o translations o Biblical books namely: Pentateuch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Yehezkiel, Psalms, Song o Songs, listed below in more detail.7 Hešek Šelomo, anonymous work. It includes the translation in Judeo-Spanish o Hebrew verbs in the Bible. Seder Našim, a prayer book or women with laws concerning women. ShulhanCodi ha-Panim, a translation summary o the Shulchan Aruch cation o Jewish Lawand by Joseph Caro. Hovot ha-Lavavot, a translation o the book Duties of the Heart by Bahye Ben Paqquda. Anhagat Ha-haim or El Regimiento de la Vida by R. Moses Almosnino in 1564.8 Fuente Clara, an anonymous work—a discussion o Judaism versus Christianity. Sheerit Yossef, by Joseph Vezino: explanations o the astronomical tables o Abraham Zacuto. Ihus zadikim, a description o the tombs o saintly men buried in Israel.
(10) About ten prayer books (Sidurim, Mahzorim) and Passover Haggadas in Hebrew that contain instructions in Judeo-Spanish. In a linguistic analysis o 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 o Genizah ragments o a Hebrew Ladino glossary o Bible ranslations see Quintana 2008. 8 Note John Zemke’s publication 2004 El regimiento de la vida: tratado de los suenyos (Salonika 1564), (Columbia: University o Missouri).
4 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 o Ezra and Nehemiah, manuscript, Constantinople. 1588. Sefer Hešeq Šelomo, 1588. 1600. Song o Songs, Salonica, 1600 (Bunis 1995: 154–155). Tere is also evidence o a secular literature in Judeo-Spanish, e.g. the publication in Spain o the work Proverbios morales o Šem ov de Carrión (c.1355). Tis was written prior to the expulsion and to the publication o Crónica de los reyes otomanos o Almosnino in Spain under thewritten title oinExtremos y grandezas Constantinople, that was srcinally Hebrew characters wasdetranscribed in Latin characters and treated by the Spanish Christians as their own creations (Shwarzwald 2006: 66). Te language in the manuscript o Proverbios Morales is described as rabbinic Spanish (González Llubera 1947: 10). Judeo-Spanish eatures as well as a vernacular olk tradition.9 Te Ferrara Bible (1553) edited by Hassán & Kapón 1992 and Lazar 1996 presented the rst literal translationrom Hebrew into Judeo-Spanish. Such a system is known as the calque system o translation. 10 Tis language, reerred to by linguists as Ladino, is distinct rom Judeo-Spanish. Te term calque in relation to Judeo-Spanish was initially ormulated by Haïm Vidal Séphiha in his Ferrara editions o the Bible.11 Bunis claims that the tradition o translating the Bible into the vernacular, in this case Ladino, was always an oral tradition rst and secondly a written text-bound tradition (Bunis 1996b: 338). Bunis substantiates his view
See Armistead and Silverman (1971), Armistead (1978) and Pomeroy (2001). Te rst Ladino translation rom the Bib le was described by the editors as ‘traduzida del hebreo palabra por palabra’ (translated rom the Hebrew word or word) (Benabu & Sermoneta 1985: 3). 11 (1) For an extensive list o Séphiha’s notable pioneering contribution to JudeoSpanish see Séphiha 1999: 637. (2) For a historical perspective o Ladino / Judeo-Spanish in Spain, Ladino in Israel today, see Quintana 2002. 9
10
5 with pertinent historical reerences to the orality o this translation tradition rom pre-exilic Spain though to the Ottoman period. Moshe Lazar’s 1995 edition o the 1553 Ferrara siddur is a signi cant asset to this discipline.12 Minervini’s 1992 esti giudeoespagnoli medievali is a most signi cant contribution to Judeo-Spanish studies. Te language in some o Minervini’s texts bears close resemblance to that in the texts in this book, composed o feenth-century Castilian and a type o legal Judeo-Spanish.13 One o Minervini’s lengthy texts consists one o the 1432 aqanot de Valladolid [Valladolid Statutes]. Abraham Benveniste, the chie rabbi o Castile, called a meeting o all the Castilian Jewish delegates to orm a set o taqanot, or ordinances, to guide the Jewish community ollowing tragic events in 1391. Te leaders designed a set o regulations in order to improve the level o education, to support teachers and schools that had been in decline due to nancial issues. Te regulations were written in Hebrew characters in a combination o Hebrew and Spanish (Miller 2004: 52–54). though appearing in 1730, is the Me‘Am — anNoteworthy, encyclopaedic commentary on later the Bible published by RabbiLo’ez Jacob Khuli o Constantinople. Te work is considered ‘the magnum opus o Judeo-Spanish literature’ (Ben-Ur 2001: 59). Motivated in response to a decline in religious knowledge and practices afer the episode o the alse messiah, Shabbetai Zvi (1626–1678), Rabbi Khuli’s book was widespread in Jewish homes. Importantly then, the rabbinical elite now ully accepted rabbinical literature written in Ladino. At the beginning o the twentieth century the work has been translated into Hebrew and English and made an impact in the Ashkenazi world too.Te Me‘Am Lo’ez has been transliterated too by Pascual Pascual Recuero in 1964.14 Other signi cant works containing Judeo-Spanish is the Pele Yoetz o Rabbi Eliezer Papo o Hungary (1785–1826). Te Pele Yoetz is a work o ethical literature and as well as the Me‘Am Lo’ez can also be ound easily on www.hebrewbooks.org.
See also Lazar 1996. (1) See Chapter 3 or a discussion o the language o these texts. (2) Bunis rightly points out the ‘myriad o 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). Te researcher thereore has a duty to de ne and explain their terminology. 14 Pascual Pascual Recuero: MeAm Lo’ez, el gran comentario bíblico sefardí, Madrid: Gredos 1964. 12 13
6 Additionally there is a wealth o Musar literature in Judeo-Spanish. Lehmann ably studies a selection o this literature in his book. He argues that Judeo-Spanish musar literature ‘played a central role in the construction and maintenance o the symbolic and social order o Ottoman Sephardic tradition in an era o transition and that it contributes signi cantly to our understanding o this period’ (Lehmann 2005: 5). Musar literature, a rabbinic ethical literature, plays a major role in the understanding o Jewish history and, though Lehmann looks at the later period o the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the work is rmly in Jewish lie in the earlier centuries portrayed in this book. In a sense his work is also a window o Ottoman Jewish historiography. Te Coplas de Yosef is a valuable illustration o literary language in the sixteenth century. A poem characterising the story o Joseph as in the Bible has as its subtitle entre la Biblia y el Midrash en la poesía judeoespañola. It was rst edited by González-Llubera in 1935 and recently by Girón-Negrón Te language here though literary is argued to be&aMinervini re ection in o 2006. the vernacular (GirónNegrón & 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 urkish borrowings too. Te romance tradition is a literary genre that has survived in JudeoSpanish literature throughout the generations in exile rom preexpulsion Spain. Shmuel Reael studied the Judeo-Spanish ballads and their Spanish roots, linking thematic rameworks to those in Spain (Reael 1996: 95). Judeo-Spanish today experiences an academic revival. Under the proessional guidance o Proessor Shmuel Reael, Bar-Ilan University has an active department o Ladino Studies thriving in publications and education o the language and literature o Sephardic Jews. Judeo-Spanish conerences are currently held annually or at intervals in Israel, Hebrew University and Bar-Ilan University, London, Tessaloniki, oledo and proceedings have been published to spread the teaching o Judeo-Spanish.15 Te biennial British Judeo-Spanish Conerence will be holding its sixteenth conerence in London under the
15 See Conerence Proceedings among many others o Benabu (1992), Donaire (1996), Benaim (1999b), Pomeroy and Alpert (2004). Pomeroy, Pountain & Romero (2008) and Ladinar (2006).
7 able chairmanship o 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 o Judeo-Spanish include that o 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 o Jerusalem, Ben Gurion University, University College London, University o So a, INALCO in Paris, teach courses ully or partially including Judeo-Spanish studies. Bunis’s presentation o the Judeo-Spanish language, in Hebrew, is an important pioneering work in the eld (Bunis 1999a). At the CSIC (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienti cas) some works o encyclopaedic proportions have recently been published by Elena Romero. In Entre dos (o mas) fuegos Romero presents a critical study o one hundred and eighty two texts o song and balladry in Judeo-Spanish rom the seventeenth onwards. year later in 2009 she publishes another criticalcenturies edition, this time oAnineteenth century Salonican texts in Dos colecciones de cuentos sefardies de caracter magico: sipure noraot y sipure pelaot. Alongside the successul academic journal Sefarad edited by Javier Castaño is published in this research centre. 1.1.2 Contribution of this Book to Existing Literature Te transcription, translation, editing and linguistic analysis o these texts urthers our understanding o Judeo-Spanish and its contribution to Hispanic philology may thereore be signi cant.16 Te description o 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 o literature has not been
16 (1) Note that in Sala’s extensive listing o Judeo-Spanish textual sources there is an absence o the genre presented in this corpus (Sala 1996: 57–75). Tis absence still applies to date. (2) Pountain lists the value o the interpretation o texts as a source o data and says it is ‘a skill which no Romance linguist can possibly ignore’. He adds that the study o texts embeds language in its cultural, social and historical matrix and is recently reinstated by modern sociolinguists. It also allows the pursuit o lexical histories in a more interesting way by seeing vocabulary in context, by being able to research better matters o register and style (Pountain 2001: 1–2).
8 presented beore, the linguistic descriptions that reer to this corpus are novel too. Te nature and use o Hebraisms are explained in detail, while urkish borrowings are clari ed in a glossary (see Appendix 2). Tis book makes reerence to other studies and works o JudeoSpanish. In order to justiy the need to work rom srcinal 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. Te result o this transliteration is a mirror representation o the srcinal Hebrew text. Te transliteration o this sample text is also done on various editions including that o the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project. A discussion on the problems o textual transmission ollows the presentation o copies o the text belonging to the various editions and their corresponding transliterations. Research techniques and methodology are closely explained. Tis study adds to the substantial literature on Ottoman Jewish history in that it illustrates aspects o Ottoman Jewish economic, social and religious albeit culture. We experience rst hand in the speech o the protagonists, mediated through at writing, an unrivalled eeling or the daily realities o sixteenth-century Ottoman Jewish lie. Trough the speaker’s social dialect repertoire, the unction o his personal caste or class history is exposed (Halliday 1978: 66). Te status o sixteenth-century Jewish women continues to offer scope or academic inquiry. Inormation provided by the testimonies on women’s issues, particularly in regard to the issues o marriage, divorce and wills, supplement Ruth Lamdan’s work on women in the responsa (Lamdan 2000: 263–268). Lamdan has based much o her research into the status o women on the sixteenth and early seventeenth responsa literature (Lamdan 2000: 8). Lamdan’s book A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century provides a necessary background or a better understanding o the responsa pertaining to the eld o women in this book. Jewish economic, social and religious history can be glimpsed through the responsa. Te clari cation o the testimonies and their immediate ramework serves to shed some light on responsa literature and Jewish jurisprudence. A detailed analysis o two responsa on guardianship sent to two respondents is presented herewith in addition to a uller discussion on some responsa relating to marriage and divorce. Tis book brings to light a selection o responsa which, although too small a sample in number in relation to responsa as an entirety to
9 draw conclusions, does help the understanding o a halakhic system that developed ollowing the usion o the Iberian reugee communities into the existing Ottoman communities. Te meeting o these dierent cultures doubtlessly had an in uence on the evolution o legal decisions some o which have been analysed herewith. Te interdisciplinary nature o this book widens its importance and relevance to a range o academic elds: linguistic, socio-historical, philological legal and that pertaining to the eld o Jewish Studies. Bringing these together through close ocus on a small, discrete body o literature should create a valuable contribution to the discipline o comparative cultural studies. 1.2 Presentation of Book Te book starts with an introductory chapter that deals mainly with the background including details and Ottoman Jewish to lie.the Tetexts, responsa literature as aabout genreresponsa is explained and the structure and eatures o this genre are discussed in the light o the corpus presented. Te reasons or the use o the vernacular within these legal and rabbinic texts are discussed. Ottoman Jewish lie is explored through its representation in our corpus. Section 1.6 is divided into various sub-sections in order to describe aspects o the historical, socio-historical, religious and communal lives o Ottoman Jews in the sixteenth century as re ected through some o the relevant responsa in our corpus. Te description should serve to acilitate an understanding o the context in which the real-lie cases in these responsa take place. Te second chapter consists rst o a list o the particular responsa containing Judeo-Spanish that I have examined to a greater or lesser detail within this study. Tis list includes reerence to other responsa belonging to other centuries that are not included in this corpus. Te next section involves an explanation o the methodology employed in the book, the selection process, the resources available, transcription systems employed by others and a detailed description o the transcription and transliteration systems used in this book on the basis o letter-by-letter correspondences. Tis is ollowed by a guide (section 2.3.7) to each o the transcription and transliteration systems in this book, as well as a chart containing rashi letters. Te guide shows the Judeo-Spanish phoneme expressed by each Hebrew
10 graph, the corresponding modern Spanish phoneme and the modern Spanish grapheme used in the transcription o our corpus. Section 2.4 involves the evaluation o the textual corpus through an analysis o the issues o textual transmission. Tis section begins with an explanation o the editions o various responsa collections, the general issues and variations between editions o responsa. A transliteration o the srcinal in one sample text is carried out rom the srcinal edition, the second and third editions, and rom the BIURP. Te dierences between the various editions, including those o orthography and word-spacing, are examined generally and speci cally. Many o the ootnotes to the ourth chapter also contain inormation about these textual differences. In addition, the date o the edition which the BIURP copies are inserted both as a ootnote at the introduction o each new responsa collection. Te third chapter describes the language o the texts by analysing the main eatures o linguistic interest with reerence to the corpus and tosources other contemporary texts, aslanguage well as and to the major on the historyJudeo-Spanish o the Judeo-Spanish o the Spanish language.17 A detailed examination o the use o Hebrew including Hebrew borrowings ensues; the issue o borrowing and codeswitching is clari ed. Te secondary literature in the relevant linguistic eld is evaluated in the course o the discussion. Te description concerns orthography, phonology (including historical phonology), morphology and syntax. Te non-Castilian dialectal elements are explored with reerence to the corpus. I have included three sample texts in Appendix 1 that have been transliterated sign by sign rom the Hebrew to the Latin script. Tis inclusion is designed to aid text cross-reerencing and to acilitate the understanding o the development o the history o the Judeo-Spanish language with the phonological, phonemic and orthographic inormation provided by the texts. Also or those who are not amiliar with the Hebrew script it provides a mirror copy o the srcinal text. Te ourth chapter consists o the corpus o texts; each responsum is presented with a short summary in English explaining the case concerned. A copy o the srcinal text ollows. Te texts have been 17 Tese include Menéndez Pidal (1950; 1958), Entwistle (1965), Zamora Vicente (1967), Lapesa (1988), Bunis (1993), Harris (1994) and Penny (2004a; 2004b), Quintana (2006), Minervini (1992) Girón-Negrón & Minervini (2006), Shwarzwald (1985), (1993), (2006).
11 selected on the basis o 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 ootnote that it is text belonging to the reply as opposed to the question. So, where upon the rare occasion JudeoSpanish is present in the respondent’s argument (text 75), I have included this translation. Reerences to texts in this book are in the orm o text number, colon, then line number, e.g. (24:3). Reerences to texts made in the orm o ‘S’ (sample text) reer to the texts in Appendix 1. Te 84 texts in this corpus all roughly into various categories. Tere are 23 texts o an economic nature, 15 on aspects on the validity o 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 shoplifing, 1 on the validity o a divorce.o the texts into Spanish characters includes some Te transcription phonetic symbols.18 Tereafer its translation into English is presented. I have included the translation, bracketed and in italics, o the Hebrew ramework preceding and subsequent to the Judeo-Spanish. Tis I have done in many cases where I believe the understanding o the ramework can be enhanced by providing necessary or useul inormation about the testimony. o achieve this purpose I have occasionally opted or paraphrase as opposed to a literal translation o the Hebrew. Also, to ease the ow o the translated language, direct speech is ofen 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 Te srcinal Hebrew ramework that is translated in parenthesis can be ound in the srcinal 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 requency and use o Hebrew within Judeo-Spanish. Te urkish elements in the transcriptions and translations o the texts have been italicised and bolded in order to distin-
18 19
See table 2.2. For example, see the translation o the ramework at the end o text 6.
12 guish them rom the Hebrew words. Te odd word in other languages appearing in the text I have also bolded and italicised but indicated its root in a ootnote. Where the urkish terms appear in the text, a note is added with its translation and urkish etymology in each o the terms’ rst appearance in the text. Finally I am including a brie summary o the decision taken by the respondent in each case. Here the language in translation occasionally appears cumbersome and long-winded. Tis is ofen the result o sacri cing elegant translation or a more literal version in order to represent the srcinal a little closer. In some cases I have included a lengthier version o the decision because the case warrants a closer explanation. Tere are times where the whole picture o the case is not clear. Tis is due to the act that I am not including the entire responsa as that would be well beyond the scope and purpose o this thesis. Tereore i urther clari cation is warranted it is necessary to return to the whole responsa2006. itsel, the Bar Ilan Responsa Project, or to Appendix 5 in Benaim Tese responsa are numbered in accordance with my corpus numbering, so that the corresponding Hebrew ramework and its translation can be easily identi ed. Lines have been numbered in accordance with the line pattern in the srcinal edition. Tis was done in order to achieve regularity within both editions o the same responsum. I have also indicated as a ootnote to each new responsa collection the edition rom which the BIURP was taken. On the basis o the selection outlined above, I decided to edit the texts according to respondent, or the sake o chronological clarity. Te date and place o the recording o cases, and the equivalent Gregorian calendar date, are given when available. Te reerences are divided into primary and secondary sources. Te primary sources consist o the responsa collections consulted or this book and are contained within Appendix 4. Te 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 ormat as that o the srcinal edition scanned into the third chapter. A glossary explaining the urkish borrowings in Judeo-Spanish as attested in the corpus is given in Appendix 2. Te urkish root is identi ed, the source or the nding is indicated and appropriate reerences rom the texts are included. Additionally, a glossary is compiled
13 to explain some recurring relevant Hebrew terms, particularly those pertaining to the eld o Jewish law that warrant a brie explanation in Appendix 3. Appendix 4 is in the orm o a table indicating the respondents, their acronyms, dates and places o birth and death, the names o their responsa collections consulted, dates and place o publication o these responsa, and the number o responsa ound in each collection to contain Judeo-Spanish. Te primary sources are contained within this table. Appendix 5 consists o a list o many responsa o the eighteenth to twentieth centuries that I ound containing JudeoSpanish, this serves to place the work within this book in the context o its literary genre. 1.3 Responsa and the Development of Jewish Law Te and word halakhah (rom the rootto halakh, describes law jurisprudence, as opposed aggadah,‘tothego’) name given toJewish nonlegal material, particularly o the rabbinic literature.20 It is impossible to encapsulate the principles o Jewish law in a ew paragraphs. However, as an introduction to the responsa literature it is helpul to understand that Jewish law is derived rom the Bible and tradition. Te undamental laws derived rom the Pentateuch are believed to de ne the correct Jewish way o lie, according to the will o God. It comprises the revelation o the orah to Israel, orming the oundation o historical Judaism. It is believed that the Oral law was transmitted rom the time o Moses until it was committed to writing, with decrees added by the sages in the Mishnah and almud. Tis nal oeuvre is de ned as rabbinic, as opposed to Biblical, law.21 Te relative binding nature o Biblical and Rabbinic law is a complex issue. Interestingly, Elon clari es the apparent contradiction o the issue that halakhah is divine adhering to the basic tenet that ‘orah is rom heaven’ on the one hand and on the other that ‘the orah is not in
20 Halakhic legislation unctions with two main objectives. (1) o ll a lacuna in the law created in consequence o changed social and economic realities and the emergence o problems which nd no answer in the existing halakhah. In this event, the halakhah serves to add to the existing halakhah. (2) o amend and vary existing halakhah to the extent that this is dictated by the needs o the hour (EJ:714). 21 For more on the development o halakhah, see EJ:1162–1166.
14 Heaven’.22 Elon explains that the meaning o the latter concept as the source o halakhah being divine, but its place, its lie, its development and ormation is in the lie, in society (Elon 1975: 53). Te need or the authority o the halakhic scholars can thereore be better understood. Te divine law needs re-interpretation and understanding, not change, according to context, to each individual case. Te responsa literature consists o the application o the law to individual unprecedented cases by rabbinic scholars. Te responsa literature is born o 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 o judicial standard (Cohen 1959: 41).23 Te need to reer a case to a higher legal authority stems rom a requirement to deal with cases in a manner consonant with contemporary circumstances. Te cases within this legal genre concern social, economic and moral conditions that differ greatly according to place and period. I the existing rules cannot deal with an issue,the or isages the law be are-interpreted in the change, havehad to tond solution by one or light moreoocontextual the legal sources o Jewish law, namely: interpretation, legislation, example and legal reasoning.24 Te responsa literature reveals countless problems that arose over the centuries and exempli es how these methods were utilised to nd solutions (Elon 1994: 1461). Responsa rom the eighth to eighteenth centuries number over 300,000. Since most questions derived rom real lie situations, the responsa literature is ‘practical and pragmatic rather than theoretical and abstract’ (Angel 1994: 669). Responsa became part o case law and entered the legal mainstream as precedent authority (Feldman 1994: 18).
22 Tis notion means that the Written law together with the Oral law was given to Moses at Sinai by God himsel. However, the sages o the Midrash interpret the act that Moses learnt the whole orah in orty days whilst at Sinai to mean that at Sinai Moses learnt the principles in general. Te application o the principles, the shaping and development o halakhah, was lef or the authority o the halakhic scholars (Elon 1975: 53). See Elon (1975: 53) or all the sources to this principle, namely Bava Metzia 59b based on Deutoronomy. 23 Te authority o the dayan (judge) is likened to that o 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 o example that is de ned as the actual circumstances rom which a halakhic rule or principle is derived, a orm o precedent, see Elon (1975: 110–117) or a ull explanation o these terms.
15 1.4 Structure and Features of Responsa A certain structure or ormat is common to the responsa. In brie, the common ormat begins with the question submitted ollowed by the reply by the respondent. Te case orwarded to the respondent included a detailed statement o its acts, the text o relevant enactments and a transcript o testimony. Tis testimony was sometimes presented in the srcinal language, transcribed in Hebrew characters. Te languages o 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). Tis style is common in this corpus. Te responsum itsel was generally written in Hebrew with Aramaic expressions. During the thirteenth century Iberian Jews were ofen using Hebrew, Arabic and Castilian or sometimes differing and or sometimes overlapping purposes, the Iberian taqanot legal statutes (Miller 2004: 58). particularly in Te questions would be sent by rabbis to the respondent by a special agent; ofen the rabbis would accumulate questions beore sending them. Te structure and brevity o style o responsa vary between respondents. Most responsa include detailed discussion o each legal precedent to the case. Te respondent argues the reasons or his agreement or disagreement with his predecessors beore arriving at his own verdict. In some responsa the question does not appear in ull. Some questions were summarized by the copyists, the respondents’ editors. According to Elon, ‘the redactors o 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 o 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 o the srcinal testimonies was vitally important, in particular the wording o wills and contracts, the words used in marriage situations and witness testimonies to agunot cases.26
25 26
Rubashov (1929) discusses the incidence o Yiddish in the Ashkenazi responsa. See agunah in Appendix 3.
16 Te responsa were generally written by the respondents themselves; otherwise, they would dictate to their disciples or to amily members. Copies were then made by these people. Tese were compiled and published, usually by the respondent’s children afer his demise. In some cases, the responsa were not assembled and printed until centuries afer the respondent’s death; or example, some o 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. Tese are apparent in the responsa examined herewith rendering the task o reading the testimony into one that involves a level o interpretation. Here it is pertinent to comment that the Judeo-Spanish in the work o the Me’Am Lo’ez, or instance, is much clearer and accurate and consequently more owing and easier to read than that in the responsa selected or 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. second in textsrespondent. 11, 25, 40 and where that an abridged version is sentthe to the It is 52, ortuitous the variations between texts carry no legal signi cance in these examples. By preserving the Judeo-Spanish, the scribe or copyist shows that a close understanding o 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 Te differences between a scribe and a copyist are explained in Yaakov Elman’s and Israel Gershoni’s discussion o the transmission o texts: Tere must have been a undamental difference between the reproduction ofexts by a hired scribe and a talmid hakham, a learned man or a scholar, who was copying texts or his own use. I suggest calling the ormer a scribe and the latter a copyist (Elman & Gershoni 2000: 230).
Te scholar-copyist would be more likely to interere in the transmission and add his own corrections, with the result that his role becomes that o a critical editor rather than a mere copyist. It is not possible to reach any conclusion in this book about the critical intervention o the copyist, as such interventions are difficult to identiy. According to Goldish the invention o print afer the feenth century led to the presentation o queries very close to their srcinal orms. ‘Te print
Such is the case with texts 6 and 33 on the subject o wills, and with texts 25 and 40 on guardianship, see section 1.6.5. 27
17 shop, working rom an srcinal manuscript, would ofen 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 o the parties involved. In numerous texts presented here, the protagonists are called pseudonymously Re’uben, Šim‘on and Levi.28 Tis appears to be the trend in most responsa, though in many other cases authentic names prevail. For instance, the names o Estrella bat Ab r̠ aham Yisra’el (texts 31 and 64) and Yis ḥ ạ q 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 ollowed by ‘šehú Re’uben’ (who is Re’uben) (text 83:46), indicating the use o both the authentic and the impersonal name. Te obvious reason or omitting authentic names is to obviate damage to the reputation o the parties concerned. Elon mentions two other motives or this practice: (1) to obviate the possibility that the respondent would be tempted to rule in avour o asoparty he may have been acquainted, and (2) that with the whom nal judgement in the casepersonally would be given by the local court beore 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 o people or places were ofen omitted so as not to attract the attention o 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 identiying the parties. Names o places, towns or cities were ofen ctitious too. However, the responsa in this study contain examples o toponyms such as Monastir (text 4), So a (text 27), Skopje (text 40), Salonica (S 68), Nicopolis (text 4), Wallachia (text 65) and others that are authentic. Ephraim Nissan examines whether names are ctitious or real in the Ottoman responsa. For instance, he argues that place names such as ‘iberias’ and ‘Sephoris’ that are almudic, should be regarded with suspicion, noting that there are ofen linguistic indicators suggesting that the respondent is using the toponym simply as a convenient ction. Such indicators include, or example, the conditional ‘i’
(1) See Nissan (1998: 1). (2) Te names Re’uben, Simon and Levi are the rabbinic equivalent o John Doe and Richard Doe. Te names are actually the names o the three oldest sons o Jacob. 29 See Appendix 3 or an explanation o kiddushin. 28
18 in a clause containing the toponym: ‘i in iberias there are three holy communities’ (Nissan 1998: 8). Nissan concludes that textual experience can help to determine the reality o the toponym.
1.5 Use of Judeo-Spanish in the exts Te question arises why some testimonies are lef in Judeo-Spanish by the scribe or printers. Other than the obvious reason o preserving authenticity, it is thought that one o the reasons rabbis were perhaps willing to allow Judeo-Spanish to be used in the responsa is because the language was highly respected. Arguably, or this same reason, Judeo-Spanish was allowed to permeate the liturgical tradition. 30 Te use o vernacular proverbs in sermons was also not unusual (Gutwirth & Rei 1992: 7). Te use o the vernacular within holy texts had already been established in the case o Judeo-Arabic. Rei In explains theway signito cance and uses oJudeo-Arabic Judeo-Arabicwas in also pre-exilic Spain. a similar Judeo-Spanish, written in Hebrew script and not in the Arabic. Rei reers to these as the ‘exotic Jewish languages’ (Rei 2000: 217). Te Jews o medieval Europe also created their own conventions or 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 o the Golden Age in Spain responsa were written either in Hebrew or Arabic. Incidentally, at this time Jews also wrote some scienti c and philosophical books in Arabic which was the cultural language o the non-Jewish world, but notable in Hebrew characters (Shwarzwald 1993: 29). Interestingly Bunis claims that the Jews o medieval Iberia preerred 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 o Barcelona wrote his
30 o this day the Sephardic liturgy contains Judeo-Spanish, such as Hod Hayom, the Haphtarah (last portion o the reading o the Bible) recited on the last day o 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 orah nevi’im veketuvim (trasladado a la lingua espaniola) published in Constantinople in 1873.
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 o the use o a judeolanguage in sacred texts and ultimately the purpose o its use has to be the preservation o the authenticity o 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 o other languages we can see certain characteristics speci c to the group which meant that the same language, when spoken by Jews, was slightly different (Quintana 2002: 169–170). Te use o Hebrew letters to write Spanish was already well practised in Medieval Spain as evidenced in Minervini 1992. Castaño too presents surviving ragments o an expenditure’s register o the Jewish community o arrazona rom 1406–1407 o handwritten Aragonese [aljamía] in Hebrew characters (Castaño 2004: 11).discusses the use o code switching in rabbinic enactments Miller o the pre-exilic period. She believes that language mixing was an acceptable and valued practice because Jews identi ed with both the secular and Jewish worlds in their linguistic usage. Teir ability to draw on either Castilian or Hebrew was evident in their legal ordinances. Te taqanot (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 o bilingualism among Castilian Jews and their dual identity as both Castilians and Jews. Tis is the tradition that travelled with the Spanish Jews to the Balkans into the next century that constitutes the background or the responsa in this book. Te perpetuation o 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 act the Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire were de ned as such as opposed to the other Jewish groups, Byzantines and Ashkenazis. Tis meant attaching 31 I identi ed two responsa o Isaac b. Sheshet Peret containing Judeo-Spanish testimonies: responsa 207 and 208 o She’elot u-eshuvot ha Rivash. 32 Also Romeu Ferré and Hassán believe the reason or the secular literature to be presented in Hebrew characters is to reach a designated readership (Romeu Ferré & Hassán 1992: 167).
20 a different historical and cultural identity to the Spanish Jews, that o a historical and cultural weight o 1,500 years in Spain (Quintana 2002: 171). Arguably, the use o the vernacular in religious writings is by no means con ned to the sixteenth century; it is a continuation o an existing tradition. Additionally, it is helpul 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). Te identi cation o the genre in this book could change Miller’s view that Romance languages ailed to obtain status as ‘sacred’ languages among the Jews (Miller 2000: 125). In act I argue the reverse, that Judeo-Spanish must have been considered o sufficient regard and status to be included in the responsa even as testimonies. 33 Remarkably, the extent o vernacular passages within sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth and some in the twentiethcentury responsa appears unique. Rubashov believes that the inclusion o the vernacular in the rabbinic is intended to preserve testimony intact (Rubashov 1929:responsa 1–2), though interestingly therethe is no comparable phenomenon with Yiddish in the Ashkenazi responsa. Te more obvious reason or preserving these texts in Judeo-Spanish is, o course, or the sake o authenticity and accuracy in the legal interpretation o the cases. 1.6 Ottoman Jewish Life depicted in the Responsa Tis section examines various aspects o Ottoman Jewish lie with speci c and general examples rom the corpus. Te emphasis, however, is to demonstrate how the corpus o texts supports our knowledge and understanding o aspects o the history, economy, religion, communal lie and society o the urkish Jews o the sixteenth century. Te majority o responsa re ect the everyday lie o the average Jew at home, in the synagogue, celebrating the Sabbath and estivals, and dealing with a variety o 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 seardíes de la peninsula balcánica hizo que el idioma gozara de prestigio durante varios siglos’ (Te economic and cultural prestige o the Sephardim in the Balkan peninsula ensured that their language was regarded with prestige during various centuries) (Sala 1996: 361).
21 relations with Gentile neighbours (Finkel 1996: xvii). Issues o marriage, agunah, guardianship are examined rom a legal perspective in the light o illustrations rom the responsa. Te aim o 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 o the responsa as a whole. Te responsa o this period illuminate the lie o Ottoman Jewry,34 revealing its attitude towards the Ottoman state, its rulers, institutions and taxation system, and uncovering aspects o Ottoman trade and the role o Jewish merchants. Aryeh Shmuelevitz observes that, according to the responsa, the Jews were integrated into Ottoman society but maintained a strictly separate communal ramework, with autonomous legal, cultural and taxation systems.35 Nevertheless: they remained an active part o the Ottoman urban society, greatly involved in the daily lie through their participation in the nancial, commercial and proessional activities o urban living (Shmuelevitz 1984: 186–187).
Séphiha notes how the urkish authorities were always surrounded by Jewish advisors and also Jewish doctors, ‘de conseillers juis qui assurerent à l’Empire une prosperité exceptionelle’ (Séphiha 1991: 24). Tis is reminiscent o Jewish lie in medieval Spain where there was an abundance o Jewish physicians appointed to the royal court o Enrique IV (Castaño 1997: 384–385). Te importance o Jewish lie in Salonica is ofen underestimated in the wider context o Jewish history. Afer the expulsion rom Spain in 1492, many exiles made their way to the Ottoman Empire, where the Sultans offered them unconditional hospitality. 36 In the sixteenth 34 Te responsa re ect the legal order prevailing at the time in the sixteenth century. Te Ottoman Empire maintained a legal order in the sixteenth century superior to that in contemporary Europe in its uniormity. Te quality o the legal order in the non-Jewish sphere was matched by the eminence o the Jewish jurists administering the Jewish legal system; these rabbinic authorities being among the most notable in the history o Jewish law (Passamaneck 1974: 181). 35 Legal autonomy was granted by the state to non-Muslims (Ihsanoğlu 2001: 478–9). 36 Te Sultans were: Beyazid ll (1481–1512), Selim l (1512–1520) and Suleiman 1 (the Magni cent) (1520–1566). However, the Jews o urkey did not enjoy equality with Muslim citizens. In the eyes o the law and in the view o government guards, the Jews were in dels and strangers, as were urkey’s Christian subjects. Jews were orbidden to build new synagogues, they were not allowed to own Muslim slaves, they had to dress differently rom Muslims, and neither Jews nor Christians were permitted
22 century Jewish lie ourished in Salonica. Rabbi aitazak’s yeshiva, institute or 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 nanced by the distinguished Gracia Nasi, who exerted great political and nancial in uence over the affairs o the Jewish communities o Italy and the Ottoman Empire (Roth 1992: 130). Te Jewish community o sixteenth-century Salonica had as its spiritual guides outstanding scholars and talented communal leaders (Fendel 2001: 128). Tese qualities emerge in their treatment o the complex communal problems submitted to them and resolved in their responsa.37 Many scholars were also eminent philosophers and students o contemporary science at the same time as they achieved ame as halakhists and authors o rabbinic writing. 38 At the end o the nineteenth century the city’s 90,000 Jews comprised hal its total population, thus being the largest single race in 39
Salonica. World War II the Jews numbered 50,000. Ninety-six per cent oBeore Salonica’s Jews perished in Auschwitz. In Constantinople too the sixteenth century was the golden age o the Jewish community. Sultan Bayazid II. (1481–1512) received the exiles o Spain; and these gave a great impulse to its material and intellectual lie. Moreover, thousands o wealthy Marranos, who had been persecuted in Italy and Portugal, sought reuge in Constantinople, where they resumed their ormer religion. Among these was Joseph Nasi, created Duke o Naxos by Selim II. (1566–74), and Doña Gracia, his mother-in-law, both o whom liberally endowed the community with schools, charitable institutions, and synagogues. Te number
to serve in the army. In the late sixteenth century, a royal decree orbade all nonMuslims to wear turbans or high headgear. Christians were required to wear black bonnets and Jews red bonnets (Goodblatt 1952: 128). Te Sultans, nonetheless, treated the Jews with benevolence. Yet the Sultan’s janissaries victimized Jews; traveling merchants were ofen attacked and robbed. Te Jews resorted to bribing the janissaries to resolve their security problem (Goodblatt 1952: 120–121). 37 Te contribution o these rabbis to the responsa literature is extensive (Zimmels 1971: 394). 38 For inormation on orah Centres in the Ottoman Empire, see Fendel (2001: 99–129). 39 Note that in the nineteenth century there was an efflorescence o the JudeoSpanish mass media that was a direct result o westernization in Salonica. As French was becoming the language o education, the Sephardic communities strengthened and reinorced their existing Judeo-Spanish language (Rodrigue 1992a: 185).
23 o Marranos who settled in Constantinople up to 1574 amounted to 10,000, and the whole Jewish population numbered 30,000. Tere were 44 synagogues, representing as many separate congregations, each o 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 o the Sephardic Diaspora. Communities were divided according to their place o srcin, thus there were separate and sometimes multiple communities [qehalim] rom Aragon, Castile, Sicily, Evora, Lisbon, Catalonia, Italy, Provence, Calabria, Ashkenaz and others. Smyrna (Izmir) displaced Edirne as the third great Jewish center in urkey, a growing mercantile community settled in Smyrna where taxes were lower too. Despite the beginning o the decline o the Empire in the latter part o the sixteenth century the Jews were still in control o commerce (Séphiha 1991: 28). Rabbinic learning ourished thus in Constantinople the sixteenth century Ottoman communities making major in contributions to Jewish culture in many areas (Lehmann 2005: 17). Lehmann points out that the intelligentsia in Constantinople were very grateul to the authorities. He cites the title page o a collection o responsa published in Constantinople in 1556 saying: ‘this book was completed . . . in Istanbul, the ne city, the city o a great king, a aithul 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). Constantinople as well as Salonica orms the backdrop o many responsa in this book. Minna Rozen describes the structure o the congregations o 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 o unctionaries called ma’amad . . . Te members o the ma’amad were known as memunim, behirim, nivrarim, tovei ha-qahal or nikhbadim (dignitaries)’ (Rozen 2002: 78). Some examples o 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 o organisation. For instance the community looked afer its widows and orphans, they each hired their teacher and ritual slaughterer, they supported voluntary societies
24 that cared or the in rm and the poor and they collected unds or the yeshivot (institutes o almudic learning) in the land o Israel. However the Spanish exiles did not have one singular rabbinical authority whilst the Romaniot communities did. Te rabbis o the Spanish communities would ofen coner mutual concerns with each other (Rozen 2002: 79). Rozen bases a greater part o her historical analysis on sources like responsa and rabbinic sermons. Te effect o the Iberian Jews’ arrival in Constantinople as well as the rest o the Ottoman Empire was remarkable. Te immigration increased the number o Jews by ar, expanded its geographical distribution and boosted the community’s involvement in European trade and in the urkish economy. Tey also changed the relationship between the community and the authorities. It is noteworthy that despite a sentiment o gratitude by the Jews to the Ottomans or 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 Te value o the testimonies here is not only ascinating rom a legal perspective but also rom a historical and sociological point o view. 40 o appreciate this argument it is useul to understand the role o the Jewish courts in the Ottoman Empire. Te Jewish courts o the Ottoman 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 o the history o how the Sephardi Jews in uenced existing Ottoman Jewry as they arrived rom Spain, see Minervini & Várvaro 2008, pp. 154–157. 41 Note the struggle at the same time o the rabbis o the Beth Din o 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 o internal autonomy, their juridical autonomy was only substantial by modern standards and should be characterised as a relative one at best. Te Beth Din, Jewish Court, applied Jewish religious law whose jurisdiction covered all areas o lie. However, litigation between Jews and Muslims had to take place in Muslim law courts where Jews were under considerable disadvantage as Islamic law avoured the testimony o Muslim witnesses over that o non-Muslim (Rodrigue 1992a: 166–167).
25 or capital jurisdiction. Teir cases related to pecuniary matters, religious questions including marriage and divorce, and all cases involving Jewish ordinances. Te most powerul sanction open to the Jewish court was the excommunicatory ban, ormerly available to both SpanishJewish and German-Jewish jurisprudence. Upon evidence o sincere repentance, remorse or restitution, the ban could be revoked. Te historical aspects o the texts can be seen by examination o some cases. Matt Goldish presents a worthwhile contribution to this eld in his ‘Jewish Questions—Responsa on Sephardic Life in the Early Modern Period’. In his preace Goldish claims that traditionally responsa has been presented as a source o Jewish historiography, he portrays the responsa rom the narrative perspective, encompassing the emotional presentation o the everyday lives o the members o Sephardic communities. In orty-three translations o testimonies in responsa rom thirty respondents, only a ew such as Karo, Berav and perhaps Alshech are among the best known collections. 44 1579, the murder o 49). a Jew a guard place shortly theInPassover estival (text Tebymotive ortakes the killing appearsbeore to be or keeping the Sabbath.45 In other words, Sabbath observance becomes a orm o identiying the Jew and thereore a suspected motive or the murder. Even i this were not strictly true, the act that it was mentioned by both Gentiles and Jews implies that such events were not unusual at the time. Jewish history unolds rom 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 urkey, who had signi cant authority. Tese Janissaries ofen attacked and robbed Jews in broad daylight (Emmanuel 1936: 117).46 Perhaps this murder, and similar cases, is representative o the cruelties o the Janissaries. Tis military establishment increased its numbers in the sixteenth century (Ihsanoğlu 2001: 388). Te language in the testimony in text 49 reveals political unease. 47 Tis unease climaxes when one o the guards aggressively demands For a review on Goldish 2008 see Benaim 2009. Sabbath observance: see Appendix 3. 46 For detailed historical inormation 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 o his 44 45
26 not to be questioned urther, 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 righten me and do you want to make me a traitor and place me in the hands o the Law? Don’t ask me any more). Te three testimonies o the same responsum each reveal a different aspect o the case, together orming a vivid picture, not only o the death o Kalia but also o street lie in Istanbul in the sixteenth century. Te protagonists are uent in Arabic as well as Judeo-Spanish. Te initial testimony o Ya‘aqob Hakohen is effective and valid, according to the respondent, since the witness overheard the Gentile speaking. Te Gentile spoke spontaneously; he was not asked or probed, he was speaking in innocence. Tis is a situation o mesiach le tumo.48 In act, the testimony describes this in a owing, conversational register: ‘llegose allí un katriği morisco y como nos vido ablar en morisco nos demandó éramos, y le dišimos de Damasco, entonces meneó la cabeçadey dónde 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 rom, and we said rom Damascus. Ten he shook his head and said). Tis is the introduction to the witness’s testimony on Kalia’s death. What appears to be incidental and casual inormation becomes vital in the legal outcome o this case. Te language o the narrative and description o the scene is evidence that the witness spoke voluntarily. Tis case oregrounds several eatures o lie 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). Te guards continue to relate the events o Kalia’s murder. Tey 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 . . .). Te events describe an uneasy existence or the Jew in the streets at the evidence is based on the responsa literature. He claims that ‘the benevolent attitude o the Sultans towards the Jews was not re ected in the conduct o government officials. Some o these were cruel in their dealings with the Jews’ (Goodblatt 1952: 121). 48 See legal glossary (Appendix 3). Te act that the witness spoke without probing is o legal signi cance. When testimony is not directed at the litigation, it counts as evidence o a man’s death and this is sometimes crucial to allow the widow in question to be able to remarry.
27 time. Kalia, a Jew, is murdered apparently or observing an important precept o his religion and Ester’s cousin is verbally abused or being a Jew. Ester’s mother describes this in a actual manner; no surprise or shock is expressed in her language (text 49B:8). Te case in text 55 presents another ascinating acet o sixteenthcentury Jewish lie, the issue o the anusim, the Marranos who had ed rom Portugal via Belgium and now wanted to convert to Judaism in Salonica.49 Te issue o Yisḥ ạ q Ben Nunes, who wants to marry Orosol, 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 ue llamado del padre de Orosol . . . y otros anusim que allí estaban’ (as they were in Belgium on their arrival rom Portugal in order to become Jewish, they were called by Orosol’s ather . . . And other converts who were there already).50 Te problem arises whether these converts may be considered valid witnesses under Jewish law. 51 Orali Levi, in his work on the treatment o converts in the rabbinic literature theselegal converts Levi 1982: 59).examines Tey wereinindetail act the notsituation accordedoequal status(Orali with Jews. Tere was also the issue o whether someone could recite kaddish on
49 (1) Anusim is derived rom the Hebrew meaning ‘compelled’ or ‘orced’. It was and is the name given to Jews who are orced to convert to another religion or political or other reasons. Many Spanish or Portuguese Jews who converted to Christianity during the Inquisition then wished to be reunited with their ellow Jews, but their status was that o converts. Tis had an implication on their validity as witnesses. For a study on anusim and their portrayal in the rabbinic literature, see Orali Levi (1982). (2) Te anusim in the ourteenth and feenth centuries were orced to accept Christian baptism and thus treated as ull 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 o lie. Historians disagree on this (Alpert 2001: 15–16). (3) Beinart discusses the daily lives o these conversos living in Spain. He remarks on their degree o Jewish observance that include the laws o slaughter, the Sabbath laws, the laws o ritual purity etc. (Beinart 1992: 110). (4) Netanyahu, in his anaylisis o 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 orcibly converted. For this reason they were ofen not accepted as valid Jewish witnesses (Netanyahu 1963: 158). (5) See text 61, the respondent’s decision, or issues on converts’ marriages. 50 Note that the expulsion o the Jews rom Portugal is recorded in a ballad (Pomeroy 2001: 101–107). 51 Great disputes arose with regard to the treatment o Crypto-Jews or Marranos rom a legal perspective in the Ottoman Empire. For more on this subject see Shaw (1991: 46–47).
28 behal o an apostate.52 R. Binyamin Ze’ev II 203–204 rules against this (Orali Levi 1982: 47–48). An interesting detail in this same responsum arises when Yisḥ ạ q is declaring his marriage to Orosol.53 Te 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 o kiddushin to her that he [either the witness or Yisḥ ạ q] did not understand). I it was Yisḥ ạ q the protagonist or the witness who did not understand the words o kiddushin, then it becomes legally problematic.54 At this point it is interesting to observe some points with regard to the history o the laws o marriage. Like many rabbis throughout the ages and across the world, the rabbis in Salonica instituted certain rulings pertaining to the laws o marriage. Such rulings (taqanot) are directives enacted by legal scholars, or other competent body, enjoying the orce o law. aqanot constitute one o the legal sources o Jewish law (Elon: 1975: 74).55 Manyamong o these as presented in this book prompted dissatisaction thecases rabbis, leading them to design these rulings. Te rabbis were conronted with many situations where the girl her amily were unhappy that she had accepted kiddushin rom a man, but now wanted to marry another. Ofen the couple were not yet living together, in other words, nissuin had not yet taken place. Clearly, the girls were ofen unaware o the binding legal nature o the moment when kiddushin took place. Te annulment o kiddushin, or rather the process o invalidating the kiddushin, is the easiest way out o this complex situation. Otherwise a divorce must be sought. I a girl marries another man beore seeking a divorce or annulment o the marriage she is considered to have committed adultery. Te rabbis attempt all legal avenues to avoid this situation. It is noteworthy too that these
For kaddish see Appendix 3. Insoar as wedding celebrations are concerned, Goodblatt notes that Jews were already celebrating ormal weddings and there was a ceremony where the bride would be accompanied in the street rom her home with a Holy Scroll. It was decided by the rabbis that such display o affluence was detrimental or the Jews and that they should become more unobtrusive in their behaviour. Arguably, thereore, since marriage in these responsa took place without the mention o a ormal 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. 52 53
29 new rabbinic rulings are bene cial to the status o women, and the rabbis’ sympathy or the weak legal status o women is salient. Te responsum in text 65, sent to Aharon ben Joseph Sasson o Salonica, contains a testimony taken on 29 Ševat 1566 in Salonica.56 Te witness, Yisra’el Šim‘on, recounts how one day he was sitting in his shop when someone he knew joined him. Tey were talking about the evildoings o the king: ll. 3–4 ‘estábamos ablando uno con otro los males que había echo el rey’ (we were talking about the evildoings o the king), when the acquaintance conessed to seeing his riend Yose Ruso, together with his two step-brothers, dead. Te witness’s words offer a valuable picture o Salonican Jewish lie. Jewish shops and shopkeepers, social lie and chats between riends and acquaintances are a eature o the relaxed liestyle that can be seen today in small towns and villages o the Mediterranean. Salonica today has grown into a city, although some side streets with a couple o Jewish shops echo the sixteenth-century liestyle depicted in this and other responsa. Te introductory line: en miin botica asentado vino un conoçido mío’ (text 65:1) (as‘estando I was sitting my shop an acquaintance o mine came) is characteristic. From a historical perspective, it is interesting that the motiveless murder o Jews and others is regarded as commonplace. Tere is no sense o panic, shock or surprise at the event itsel, at least as revealed in the rst witness’s language. Te introduction to the tragic news in this case is as ollows: ‘sin yo le demandar nada me dišo tanbién a su compañero Yose Ruso y a dos hermanastros que siempre iban ǰuntos allé matados’ (text 65:4–6) (without asking him he also said that he ound dead his riend Yose 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 o irrelevant detail. In this way this testimony differs rom others discussed above. It is succinct; it conveys the gist but does not appear to be a aithul transcript. Tere is no sign o the tone o voice or accompanying gestures that would allow an understanding o the witness’s eelings. ext 67, orwarded to the same respondent, presents the case o a witness recounting the unexpected murder o a Jew by the guards
56
Rabbi Aharon ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) o Salonica, see Appendix 4.
30 o Ragusa.57 Tis is one o the most moving o all narratives in the responsa analysed here. Te language, strong, emotional and vivid, recreates the horror o a brutal assassination. Furthermore, the witness expresses a sense o guilt over the murder as his role was totally innocent yet led to tragedy. Tis 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 ve years this Sukot, the abernacles estival, since he has been living in Esalto. 58 While he was in the hotel the guard asked him or one asper and he gave him two. He then overheard the guard speaking to his riend. In this conversation the guard recalls that a riend o 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 or an asper he would give it to me). Te guard recounts how he was involved in the run up to the murder.the Onofficials the Sabbath at eight o’clock in and the evening by in Ragusa to call Mošeh he did so:hell.was 7–9summoned ‘y lo llamé y ue 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). Te 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 o me the guards o Raguśa killed him). Te tone is simple and direct, movingly adding to the verisimilitude o the situation. Furthermore, his anguished guilt can be heard: ‘si yo supiera que lo llamaban para lo matar no lo llamara’ (i I knew that they called him in order to kill him I would not have called him). It appears that lie was indeed dangerous or Jews.59 ext 53 concerns the amous Yose Nasi who took on Re’uben when he was very young and looked afer him. Later Re’uben became rich and powerul 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. Te problem is whether this ban can be revoked on the basis o the testimony recorded in Constantinople. Doña Gracia Mendes and Yose Nasi, her nephew,
57 58 59
Tis is modern Dubrovnik. He adds that this is near the city o Ragusa, modern Dubrovnik. Te cruel behaviour o some urkish officials is discussed earlier in this section.
31 were the most prominent banking amily in the Ottoman service during the sixteenth century.60 Tey developed vast wealth through a network o international enterprises. Tey used their wealth to support many Ottoman Jewish communities (Shaw 1991: 88–89). Afer Gracia’s death, Yose developed even greater ortune and political and economic in uence in Europe as well as in the Ottoman Empire. ext 50 also alludes to the same historical amily. It concerns an issue where the community has to establish the validity o a will. David bequeathed his shop to the congregation o ‘la señora’, named afer Gracia Mendes, who was reerred to as ‘the lady’ and testimonies were brought orward to con rm 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 eeling or the name o Gracia Mendes: ‘no quiero nada que yo me estó aogando, ya la tengo echa 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 a holykeep purpose theletters] lady’s community, and or this reason youorshould themor[the close to your soul). 1.6.2 Jewish Economic Life It is difficult to generalize about the economy o the sixteenthcentury Ottoman Empire, but some aspects o Jewish economic lie and types o commerce during this period will be examined.61 Additionally, contemporary currency and other modes o money transer will be explained. Cases in this corpus are classi ed into categories such as credit transactions, debt transers, thefs and loans.62 Also property ownership, tenure laws, partnership agreements and contracts, maritime risk
60 Gracia Mendes was the most amous businesswoman o the Ottoman Empire, renowned or engineering the Ancona boycott (Shaw 1991: 88, Roth 1992: 134–176). For the history o the Mendes amily see Roth (1992). 61 For more on Jewish economic lie 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 o acts. Rozen uses rabbinic sermons as well as responsa as historical sources. 62 For example, responsum 51 deals with the validity o a loan certi cate, text 74 deals with the question o whether a loan repayment should include the interest.
32 insurance contracts and industrial codes are discussed in this section. 63 Te responsa offer urther insight into the world o Salonican, Constantinoplan as well as the rest o Ottoman Jewry. Te immense scale o 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 silversmiths. Iberian Jews were thought to have introduced gardening as an economic activity to Constantinople. Tey became involved in the production and sale o ood, Tey manuactured products and sold it among themselves. Tey also manuactured wine which was a pro table item in international trade. Te wine was manuactured outside the city; text 1 deals with this commercial activity. Te manuacturing o meat was an unpro table proession and initially many Jews went bankrupt in dealing with ocks, because Ottoman rule had it that meat was considered a basic ood and was obligated to be supplied to the citizens o the main cities. However later on the Jews were prepared to pay higher prices orwho theirwere meat, because o laws, so economically a ew authorized bythe theJewish Jewishdietary community to sell meat became successul, unlike their Muslim colleagues (Rozen 2002: 229–231). Jews lived in dwellings consisting o courtyards surrounded by homes and stores.65 Teir homes were equipped with a stove which
63 For a thorough research into the subject o insurance in rabbinic law, loans and contracts with reerence to some sixteenth century responsa see Passamaneck (1974). Passamaneck draws on ourteen cases which he translates ully into English, his summation and notes constitute a legal analysis that is o great use as background to understanding the cases in this corpus o this subject. 64 Howard Sachar in his chapter entitled ‘Ottoman Dawn’, describes the effect o the large number o Jews living in these areas on the economic climate. He numbers the Ottoman Empire’s Jewish population at about 300,000 by the end o the sixteenth century (Sachar 1994). 65 (1) For more inormation about such dwellings, see Concina (1998). (2) Responsum 70 illustrates how amilies lived together around the courtyard: ‘Ten Yisḥ ạ q testi ed 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’. Another mention o the courtyard type o living is in responsum 21, where the payment or expenses or reurbishment o the house and courtyard is disputed. (3) Tis type o housing set up was most common in Istanbul and Salonica. It resembled the cortijo inherited rom Spain, much like the traditional Muslim han. Tis was a low building stretching around a central courtyard, one, two or even three storeys high, normally with tiled roos, with residences and shops intermixed in some, and constituting a orm o village in itsel (Shaw 1991: 56).
33 opened into a hollow space built into the wall.66 In text 13:98, el forno reers to the stove that Nafali complained about that Abr̠ aham Primo had destroyed and had to be rebuilt. Jews lived in their own quarters, mahalle,67 or sometimes sections o quarters rom which they rarely emerged except to go to the market. Tis type o residential segregation was common to all religious groups (Shaw 1991: 21). Reerences to items o currency, aspros, gerušot, sultanis, ducados and venecianos, which were all used in the urkish Empire at the time, are scattered throughout the texts. Te texts mention aspers, which are reerred to both in the Judeo-Spanish orm aspros and in Hebrew as lebanim. Te urkish orm, akçe, does not occur. However, various cases contain reerences to the Venetian coins—the ducados and escudos that were not legal tender in urkey, but were commonly used by urkish Jews. Other urkish coins mentioned in the texts are sultanis, perachim, zehuvim and gerušot. Sultanis, peraḥim and zehuvim each had the approximate value o 50 aspers, and the Venetian ducat was 68 worth gerúš varied in value over time, rom 40, 50, 55, 48 70 or to 50 100aspers. aspers.Te An understanding o the relationship between economic and communal lie is necessary to ully appreciate the circumstances o these cases. Te community shared unctions and authority in certain areas with other bodies, or example with the guilds organized by the more important crafs and mercantile activities that were responsible or the quality o products, airness o trade, xing o prices and internal order and discipline (Shaw 1991: 57). Jewish communal government was organized according to the standards and principles o the older Jewish communities o Babylonia, Persia and Spain. Beore the arrival o immigrants rom Christian coun-
tries, Jewish communities in urkey were uniorm 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 o this synagogue see jewishencyclopaedia.com-pesaro old synagogue 19/03/06. 67 urkish or quarters. 68 (1) Goodblatt discusses the depreciation o the gerušot in 1582 and its effect on Jewish merchants. He also mentions the practice o the circulation o countereit money (Goodblatt 1952: 47–61). (2) Passamaneck discusses the use and value o the Spanish piaster, the geruš or gerus (texts 11:43, 71:27). He says the piaster in 1497 had a weight o 25.92 grams o silver (Passamaneck 1974: 163).
34 by the Sultan. Afer the arrival o Jews rom Germany, Italy, Hungary and nally Spain, the community was ragmented each into its small autonomous qahal (community), governed according to the custom o their countries o srcin. 69 In text 13, Abr̠ aham Primo is concerned with buying property or his community. In text 28, Re’uben is sent on a mission to collect unds or his community, which subsequently charges him with embezzlement. In order to understand these cases it is helpul to appreciate the nature and structure o communal organisations in Salonica at the time.70 Te corporate character o the traditional Ottoman system did exclude Jews, as well as other non-Muslims, rom state affairs, however the system guaranteed the extensive autonomy o the Jewish community and its institutions (Lehmann 2005: 19). Te in uence and power o the rabbis o communities was clearly ormidable. Shaw, in his historical analysis o the Golden Age o Ottoman Jewry, describes the ‘Ottoman Millet System’ as ollows: Te community comprising Ottoman Jewry was one o several religiously based communal organizations o subjects called, at various times, taife, cema’at, or most commonly in later times, millet. Tis Ottoman institution constituted a sel-governing organization based on religious affinity and directed by religious leaders possessing both secular and religious authority (Shaw 1991: 43).
Te community was also responsible or two types o taxes imposed by the rulers o the Ottoman Empire (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 21). It was the community’s task to collect the rst type o tax rom its individual members, who were divided into three classes, namely rich, middle class and poor.71 Tis tax was a poll tax.72 Te second state tax was a collective type that was imposed on every community and 69 Te purpose o people rom the same srcin grouping themselves together was to ensure that their particular rites, traditions, customs, languages or dialects were maintained and the bonds o Jewishness and the speci c ethnic-regional character protected (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 16). 70 o understand Ottoman Jewish communities, it is helpul to learn about their srcins in pre-Inquisition Spain, see Súarez Bilbao (1995). 71 Note that in the translation o the Hebrew ramework o text 32 it says: ‘Tere were also people who lived here, but were registered in another community so as to pay ewer taxes to the King here in Salonica’. Tis is direct evidence o the economic act that Jews paid their taxes through their communities. 72 (1) Te 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 o poll tax.
35 assessed according to its size and the wealth o its members. 73 Each community appointed a board responsible or determining individual liability. Tere were also other types o occasional taxes; or example, each year, Jewish textile merchants were orced to supply the government with 1,200 pieces o cloth to be used or army.74 Te Jewish community was so much identi ed with the textile industry that they paid their poll tax in cloth to provide or the Janissary corps, a necessary element o Ottoman military success in the classical age. Later afer a long period o decline the Janissary corps was abolished in 1826 and also the textile industry diminished as it became hard to compete against cheaper textiles rom Europe (Lehmann 2005: 18). Tis scal situation highlights the extent to which individual members were answerable and bound to their religious communities, which were modeled on those o 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 o or these communities were eventually by others, merged divided. Each community had itsreplaced own rabbi or judgeothers who was held in high esteem by his congregants. 76 Communities would also impose their own taxes on certain oods like meat, and butchers would usually include this in their prices. Tis is not unlike modern British Value Added ax, 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, thereore, that religion and the community ormed an integral part o people’s lives.
Tis tax was known as Rab Aktcheci in urkish. See Goodblatt (1952: 76). 75 Te Romaniots were Jews who were neither rom Ashkenaz or Sepharad, but were ‘the native Greek-speaking Jews whom the urks ound on the spot when they conquered the srcinal provinces out o which the Ottoman state was ormed. Tese were the communities in western Asia Minor, in the Byzantine capital o Constantinople, in Greece, and in some Balkan cities . . . Teir language was and had or 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). Tere were also Yevanite Jews rom 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 reer to higher authority when necessary. 77 For a more detailed account on the intricacies o the Jewish courts in the region, see Goodblatt (1952: 86–90). 73 74
36 Jewish legal concepts in monetary law are exempli ed in these responsa. For instance, texts 20 and 26 deal with debt-selling; transactions must be carried out in accordance with the law. Te notion o adhering to minhag hasoharim, the custom o the traders, where there was no legal precedent, is evident in many texts. 78 Also the notion o pešarah, ‘compromise’ is a common device in settling nancial and other disputes. Finding a middle way is ofen the best solution as exempli ed in text 15:63 ‘ zo la pešarah’. Documents relating to various partnership agreements are the source o testimony in many cases.79 Reerences are made to trade in Peśaro (text 26), Egypt (texts 18, 34, 57 and 72) Bucharest (text 12) and other cities. Evidence o commercial agreements and business dealings involving the Salonican Jews is presented in texts 14, 16, 22, 32, 41 and 72. In particular, the responsum reerring to an enactment in the wool industry (text 3) is an introduction to the vast world o the Empire’s textile industry. According to Benjamin Braude, the woollen cloth tradeand was vibrant a primecities reason Salonica became oneSalonica o the most long-lived in why modern Jewish history. produced approximately 40,000 pieces o woollen cloth per year, placing it among the major producers in the Mediterranean world.80
78 (1) Tis was the notion o merchants arranging their own business practices according to the basis o the custom, the usages o their class. Tis was provided by Jewish law itsel. Tis was a case o where Jewish law could be disregarded or unenorceable it is better to have the integrity o the whole system maintained than to have part o it spurned. Passamaneck discusses this with reerence to maritime loan (Passamaneck 1974: 189). (2) For an account o Medina’s discussion and sources or the issue o ollowing the mercantile custom o non-Jewish merchants in order to determine procedure or 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 ollowing a dispute. Tey take out a Nazirite vow and then question the binding nature o their vow. Case 58 concerns a partnership agreement between Simon and Re’uben, recorded on uesday 11 Adar 5311 / 17 February 1551, in which one cannot act without the consent o the other. ext 17 deals with the dissolution o a business partnership. ext 41 concerns the binding nature o written agreements and text 59 deals with the partnership agreement between two brothers. Tese examples serve as an illustration o partnership agreements that existed at the time. 80 (1) Braude (1992: 220) describes the wool industry in an article that is very inormative given the scarcity o historical sources on the Jewish wool trade. (2) ‘Te communal base o the cities o Salonica and Saed with ourishing economies and increasing populations relied to a large extent on this [wool] industry’ (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 39).
37 Judeo-Spanish was the language o trade and it is no surprise that many o 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 ellow Sephardim. Tey 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 re ected throughout the cases presented that include details o maritime transportation and ports. Loans and maritime insurance is a common subject o many o the responsa in our corpus. Te boat arriving rom Cyprus (text 11), the ship travelling rom Venice to Alessio (text 14), the boat o the Sultan 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 contribute the knowledge o Ottoman history.Re’uben ravel is evidentand through manytoresponsa, including text 33, where dies outside his hometown in Wallachia and later his brother has legal problems with regard to his power o Re’uben’s will. 1.6.2.1 Credit ransactions, Debts, Loans A credit system was already in use among merchants in the urkish Empire. Many sales, however, still took place on a cash basis. Te creditors, o course, would earn a commission on receiving the money, and they would ofen claim twenty to thirty per cent o the pro t. When merchandise was lost or stolen, there was ofen a problem with deciding where exactly nancial responsibility lay. Letters o credit or
81 Jews were active in similar commerce in the Balkans and were signi cant in regional markets. Benbassa and Rodrigue, in Sephardi Jewry, give a historical account o the commercial lie o the sixteenth century Ottoman Jews and o the degree o business relations between the Jews and their Christian, Arab and urkish neighbours. Apart rom responsa, historical sources or the period are scarce (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 36–65). Note in responsa 3 how the community appears to have a good relationship with urkish traders Mr Zieni and Mr Cara. Also, in the same responsa, Re’uben requests to be allowed to trade reely with his merchant riends. Osre Bie, a urkish moneylender in text 19, illustrates good business relationships between Jews and Gentiles. 82 For background inormation on the Ottoman judicial system see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 268–271).
38 bills o exchange were the standard means o representing the debt (c.. texts 15, 16, 18, 26, 36, 39 and 80). 83 Moneylending, guarantees, agents and the issue o nancial securities are illustrated in the responsa.84 For instance, in text 37, Musa came to borrow money rom a moneylender called Yišma’el Baça with interest and securities. However, this moneylender was araid that even with a security, Musa would not be available at the time o repayment. So, through the intervention o a Jewish person called Re’uben, who agreed to be a guarantor and pay the difference in case o a shortall afer selling the securities, the money was lent to Musa. Musa then went abroad. Te moneylender went to claim his money rom Musa, but could not nd him. So he went to Re’uben, who told him to rst sell the securities and that he would pay the difference. urkish moneylenders appear accordingly.85 Osre Bie was the moneylender in text 19, the moneylender rom Cogiena appears in text 18 and Zul kar (text 13:4) was asked to lend money with interest by ̠ AbResponsa raham Primo. 72 in R. rani’s collection concerns Elias Mapota’s claim o one hundred bars o lead rom the orphans o the deceased Mošeh. 83 (1) Letters o credit were reerred to in the responsa as letras, letras de cam[b]io. Interestingly, although the cambio was a well-known eature o medieval commerce, apparently known to Jewish merchants and practised by them, yet the cambio as a mode o effecting insurance only appears in the rabbinic legal literature in the sixteenth century. In the Middle Ages the cambium, the contract o exchange, was a prominent eature in effecting property insurance. It had two orms: sale and loan. In the case o a loan it was a combination o exchange and credit where the loan was to be paid in a currency differing rom the one o the srcinal 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) ext 19 concerns goods lost at sea and the issue o the guarantee / insurance. 84 Illustrations include responsum 57 where Re’uben guarantees Simon 250 ducats in order to go to Egypt, con rming this and the conditions o repayment in writing. Simon travelled requently between Venice and Egypt and on one o these journeys his money was stolen. Re’uben reuses to reimburse. ext 44 illustrates the agent in action. Case 47 shows a handwritten letter rom Simon to Re’uben regarding payment. Later the receipt is lost, and more evidence is needed regarding the details o this nancial transaction. Case 51 entails a disputed loan certi cate con rming a debt o 100 gold ducats owed by two men to Re’uben. 85 Te common practice o Jews borrowing money rom urks was explained by the act that much o urkish commerce was conducted by the Jews. Jewish merchants borrowed money in order to conduct their businesses. Tere were also instances o Christians borrowing rom Jews (Goodblatt 1952: 123). Tere were Jewish bankers in Constantinople and Salonica. Te customary interest on loans ranged between 6 and 13% (Goodblatt 1952: 54).
39 Elias suggests that he gave Mošeh money to purchase one hundred bars o lead, which Mošeh in turn sent to his brother-in-law Baruk ̠ in Egypt, with his agent Yose. Tereafer, Mošeh wrote to Yose instructing him to use the 100 bars o lead or other stock on his return rom Egypt to Salonica. Elias’s claim is challenged by Abraham, the guardian o Mošeh’s orphans. Te testimony presents the exchange o letters regarding this supposed debt. It starts with a clear account o the lead being sent to Baruk ̠ via the agent, who seems to be Mošeh’s cousin, Yose (ll. 2–10). Te letter depicts the circumstances o trade among sixteenth-century merchants, between such cities as Salonica and Venice, and countries like Flanders and Egypt.86 Te cloth and paper industries ourished on a grand scale. Custom duty was ‘paid at 5% on merchandise imported by Jews or Christians, and 3% on goods imported by Muslims (Ihnasoğlu 2001: 623–625) (Goodblatt 1952: 51). Tis discrimination led to Jewish merchants attempting to avoid payment o duty. It is possible thatbecause Mošehhe didwas nottrying separate the bars o lead rom o hisduty, own merchandise to avoid some payment perhaps on arrival in Egypt, or to avoid thef by official carriers. Robberies o merchandise were requent at the time. ext 26 in our corpus concerns an unpaid debt that srcinated in Ancona. In 1555, Pope Paul IV decreed that all Marranos in Ancona be arrested and their property con scated (Roth 1992: 140–141). All ormer Marranos were to be tried by a court o the Inquisition and, i ound guilty, were to be burned. Yose Nasi and his mother-in-law, Dona Gracia Mendes pleaded with the Sultan or the release o those who were Ottoman subjects. Eventually, the urkish Marranos were released, but twenty our others were burned at the stake. Jewish merchants attempted to boycott the port o Ancona and the Papal states as a whole. Teir activities were transerred to the neighbouring port o Peśaro. Te boycott nally ailed because o pressure rom the Jews o Ancona, who claimed that it would ruin all the Jews living under Papal rule and would bring reprisals upon them. Te city o Ancona suffered many consequences. Many Christian merchants were bankrupted; many merchants were unable to import merchandise produced 86 It is interesting that also in 1267 these types o business dealings were recorded: ‘When David ben Solomon wished to move a huge amount o capital rom Cairo to Qayrawan in 1267 he asked his riend Isaac ben Abraham to take the money as a loan rom him in Egypt and to repay it to him later in the unisian city’ (Rei 2000: 193).
40 in urkey, including hides and leather. Te sale o cloth produced in Ancona also declined (Roth 1992: 157–159). Set against this background is the case o Šemu’el Kalhi (text 26) who owed Yose Oheb a certain sum o money. Yose Oheb passed on this debt to Hodari.87 Te text says that Kalhi paid the questioner’s mother 84 escudos but still owed her money. Te question is whether Kalhi is obliged to pay this debt. Te debt was srcinally 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 reerring to a certain Re’uben o Pesaro, who was sent on behal o the Salonica community on a charity und-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 xed date. As she wanted to return to her native country she gaveabroad, her document to Šim‘on collect to theremind debt onhim theodue Whilst she regularly wrote to Šim‘on his date. duty to collect the loan; she also mentioned that one o 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 or another year. Re’uben says that he was ready to repay the money, but agreed to keep it or another year as he knew o 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 aith, as he thought it would be a shame to drain the capital i it could be well invested. Te widow agreed that at the end o the year Šim‘on should collect the money rom Re’uben and place it on her behal 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 signi cant that he did not send a signed document stating that this was a risk-ree investment.88 Te widow dies and her children demand the money, claiming that their mother only lef the money with Šim‘on provided he sent this document. Šim‘on’s agreement to this condition is clear in his letter 87 Te text reers to el mal en Ancona (text 26:19) ‘the evil in Ancona’ when describing the circumstances o the debt. Tis is a direct reerence to the Ancona boycott described above. 88 A risk-ree investment sounds unlikely at the time!
41 to her. He has had plenty o time to send the document, but has ailed to do so.89 Hence her children claim the capital plus interest rom the investment, as it is now too late to produce the document. Te children also have a letter that Šim‘on wrote to Yehudah, a relative o the widow, afer her death, in which he denies asking or the money and makes no mention o the condition regarding a document. Te children say that Šim‘on’s intentions were doubtul when he collected the money rom Re’uben and that he always intended to keep this money against their mother’s will. Te letter, in Šim‘on’s deence, 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 behal. Tis proves to be commercially unwise; Levi lost the money. Apparently, Levi, ‘una mañana de Šabat que él ue
̣
a tewent lá olvidó llave en elhissayo ol’ weekday (one Sabbath morning he to prayla he orgot keyde in hhis garment). Laterthat ‘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 rom a bag that contained these in the drawer then there were 50,000 aspers) (74:40–42). Tis accounted or the rst o Šim‘on’s losses, in consequence o an unproven burglary. It appears that Levi suffered other nancial losses, though the causes o these losses are not explained. Te letter merely states that Levi had ofen 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 n 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) (or which he had decided never to be accountable, or give any reason about the act that he had lost this amount and made other losses. He said he had paid, and that he would pay me in the uture when he would be making a pro t. Tis is, Gentlemen, what he replied to me on each matter).
89 Tis is one o many examples o the text o evidence o postal networks that were in operation at the time.
42 Finally, Šim‘on adds that he has no option but to wait in the hope o retrieving this money, ‘. . . con viene tener paçiençia y esperar a loque dirá el zemán’ (it is bene cial to be patient and wait or what time will tell) (74:60–61). Šim‘on tries to establish his innocence by blaming 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 inde nitely or payment. Te language o this colourul case brings to lie the characters with all their oibles and complexities. Šim‘on comes across as an unscrupulous chancer; his arguments are devious and tinged with naïveté; his language is imprecise and evasive and offers no proo o the burglary that is possibly a convenient ction designed to delay repayment indeinitely. He appears to be struggling to make a living in a rather picaresque manner. Religious practice is a eature o his lie, ‘una mañana de Šabat que él ue a te lá’ (74:38–39) (one Sabbath morning on his way to prayers). may90be the one o the only historical sources or JewishSuch lie vignettes in the region. When Šim‘on makes his nal offer, attempting to reach a solution by inviting the children to await payment inde nitely, he says, ‘esto es ba’avonot todo lo que . . .’ (this is, or my sins, all that . . .) (74:58). Te notion that his predicament is a orm o paying or one’s sins in this world is amiliar in Jewish thought that stems rom the rabbinic tradition. As a result, the word ba‘avonot is requently used by Jewish speakers.91 Šim‘on invokes the Deity in his expression ‘lema‘an Hašem’ (or the sake o God) (74:21). He purports to be rm in his belies and customs, but his shady ethical conduct prompts the suspicion that his paper piety is calculated simply to invoke sympathy rom the judges. Te documents included in this responsum are valuable rom a legal/ 90 Braude con rms that rabbinic responsa represent a valuable source, in addition to Jewish sermons, printed within the Ottoman Empire (Braude 1992: 228). 91 Te Mishnah in Kiddushin 1:10 states that: ‘He who perorms one mitzvah (precept, positive commandment), good is done to him, his days are prolonged, and he inherits the land. But he who does not perorm one mitzvah, good is not done to him, his days are not prolonged, and he does not inherit the land’. A view o the baraita (the external teaching o a tanna not included in the Mishnah) says that God’s response is to in ict 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 o ba‘avonot ‘or my sins’ in this context. See also ba‘avonotenu los somos mehalelim (text 4:6).
43 halakhic perspective and also or the vivid portrait they offer o the enigmatic Šim‘on. 1.6.3 Enactments and Communal Ordinances In a similar way to the case o vintners (text 1), the case (text 3) presented herewith concerns the protection o the wool industry. Rabbis were involved with saeguarding the economic welare o their congregants and with strengthening businesses in their community.92 Tey carried this out by instituting many enactments, which held the authority o Jewish law, with the ultimate sanction o the excommunicatory ban.93 Examples o these enactments occur in the textile industry, whose producers were so keen to acquire raw wool rom Gentile peasants that they would outbid each other, raising the price o the commodity, which in turn substantially reduced their pro ts. An appreciation o the scale excessive o the textile industry aids an understanding the rabbis’ apparently protectiveness o the wealth o their o congregants. Te wealth o congregants affected the wealth o the community, as taxes were collected by the community and passed on to the state. Tereore, it was in the interest o the community to protect the wealth o its members. Te enactment would comprise xing a price to protect the interests o all the merchants.94 Te wool industry was subject to many other enactments, ranging rom prohibitions against buying raw wool rom outside the city to orbidding the wearing o clothes made outside the city. Te 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 ace serious problems, the price o raw wool began to rise. Given the lucrative nature o the sale o wool abroad, the rabbinical leadership o the Salonica and Edirne communities banned Jews rom being involved with its export (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 40). 93 Te gravity o the threat o 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 harmul practice it was decreed that a xed 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 o sale’ (Goodblatt 1952: 56).
44 Te issue discussed in text 3 is that o buying wool at a xed price. People were orced to buy only rom certain individuals in order to protect the businesses o congregants. Te enactment, recorded in Judeo-Spanish, consists o about ourteen lines o emphatic language ormulating 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 ado’ (text 3:3–5) (that no Jewish man or woman dares to buy wool except at two and a hal per amount o wool in cash and at three on credit). Te enactment begins with the phrase ‘primeramente ordenamos’ (text 3:1–2) ( rst we command). Te rabbinic enactments are orceul and authoritative. Te penalty or transgressing the enactment is explained, ‘ pagará al qahal eḥad as(pro) por vellecino de cuanta lana ćiere’ (text 3:12–13) (that he should pay the community one asper per amount o 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). Te expression theexcommunicatory curse is in Hebrew. had the power torelating exercisetothe ban Te as a community orm o punishment. Te pronouncing o curses by the community to their members was also another orm o punishment.95 Te case sent to Medina is that two days afer this announcement was promulgated Re’uben, a congregant, asks to be allowed to buy wool rom a wholesaler who is his riend. Apparently some o the wardens consent while others disagree. Re’uben goes ahead and buys the wool. Tose wardens who are unhappy with his disobedience claim that Re’uben is liable to pay a ne. Re’uben claims he had permission and owes nothing. A letter rom the Lisbon community in Salonica is sent to Adarbi (text 32). Te subject is a letter about the96 minhagim [religious customs] o the Lisbon community in Salonica. Te sages and leaders o the community met to decide which laws should be reinorced. Tis meeting took place on the Sabbath, 17 amuz 1525. Te problem arises because some people had removed their names rom the communal register, some had listed their names in other communities; others were travellers bene ting rom the amenities offered by the Lisbon 95 See also texts 4:13, 53:8, 9, 83:53, 54, or reerences to threats o curses cast by the community on their members as a orm o punishment. 96 It poses a question identical to another one sent to Ḥ aka̠ m Zvi Ashkenazi in seventeenth century Amsterdam, Ḥ aka̠ m zvi 38.
45 community. Since the people o Salonica had the communal burden o taxpaying, it was decided that no-one was allowed to remove his name rom the communal register. Each communal organisation in Salonica was responsible or paying taxes on behal o its members to the Ottoman tax collectors. Physicians, rabbis and synagogue guards were exempt rom taxation as they spent the majority o 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 aćer bet hakeneset meḥadaš nosaf al baté hakenesiot ašer hem hayom beSaloniqi’ (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, or tax and economic reasons the leaders had to protect their current communities, by not allowing members to start up other synagogues elsewhere. Tis became 98 a taqanah, a ruling made byhad rabbis is and obligatory on this the case community. Rabbinic enactments legalthat orce thereore represents a powerul attempt by the rabbis to protect their communities against dissolution. Tis enactment aims to ensure the nancial, and ultimately the physical survival, o this Lisbon community. An interesting responsa sent to Medina (text 4) concerns Jewish traders, rom the communities o Monastir and Belgrade, wanting to participate in a trade air that happened to take place on the days between the estivals o New Year and the Day o Atonement, and the estival o Sukot, which would sometimes desecrate these Holy days. Since the journey to the air was dangerous and their merchandise was ofen stolen, the rabbis believed that there were too many risks and
prohibited Jews rom attending this air. Tey signed an agreement that was accepted by all the merchants and local people. However, our 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. Teir argument was that i they attended the air they would be able to salvage some o the stolen merchandise and, in any case, there had been so many decrees in Monastir [Bitolj] that people no longer paid attention to them. Teir Rabbi, Abraham
97 98
See Shaw (1991: 77). See taqanah in Appendix 3.
46 Gascon, ruled that the decree must be respected; the case is submitted to Medina. As to the issue o the time limit, Medina agrees that three years is stipulated in the ban, but i returning to the markets entails the desecration o the Holy days, he cannot condone this. Te text states (text 4:15–16) ‘por tienpo de tres años, y tanbién acabo de este tiempo’ ([idiomatic or] or at least a period o three years). Te ban says that (text 4:8–9), ‘de no venirmos ningun judío morador de Monesterio ni de ningún otro lugar a la dita eria’ (that no Jew living in Monastir or anywhere else should attend this air). It also admits that: (text 4:2–6) ‘verdad que vimos la sakaná gedolá que es venir a esta eria 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 air and also that most years it takes place between the New Year, the Day o Atonement and the Feast o abernacles; or our sins we transgress them). ext 1 sent to Medina consists o a communal ordinance based on preserving the trade o the city’s Jews. Te wine-producing industry appeared to thrive or several centuries in Rhodes (Angel 1980: 43). In act this question comes to Medina rom Rhodes. In order to saeguard the production o wine, the community passed an ordinance orbidding all imported wine or the next twenty years and also prohibiting wine coming rom Candia and Anakasia.99 Te ruling is in a clear, emphatic twenty-two lines o Judeo-Spanish with a high percentage o relevant Hebrew legal terms. Tis proved to be a popular responsum as a source o inormation on trading and wine in the sixteenth century and has been quoted by many historians.100 Tis lengthy passage rom the rabbinic ordinance demonstrates the clarity o rabbinic rulings. Te question concerns the permission or consumption o the wine i it were to be made outside the city in the house o 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
Sea.
Candia is modern Crete and Anaskasia is modern Chios, an island in the Aegean
100 ‘Tey (the Jews) limited the importation o wines and other alcoholic drinks not only to provide secure markets or local producers but also to prevent Jews rom angering Muslim religious officials by selling this product to Muslims, or whom it was absolutely orbidden’ (Shaw 1991: 65). 101 Tis case is also discussed in Goodblatt (1952: 53).
47 is astonished at this. He cites the example o observing the Day o Atonement or two days instead o one. I a person takes on this onus o an extra day, then he is bound by his commitment.102 So too, even i the wine were made in the house o a Jew, since all imported wines are orbidden, the prohibition stands. Te enactment states that wines produced in vineyards outside the town or where Gentiles are involved in the business, will be deemed un t or consumption in Jewish homes and will thereore 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 uere hecho en la tierra de dientro, y ningún otro tiqún valga lehakš̠ er hayayin hana’aś(á) ḥus ̣ la‘ir veku̠ (leh), ‘ad ki kulam gazerú ‘alehe(m) isur badaba̠ r (they all accepted the decree not to drink wine rom the harvest o 5299 onwards, i it was not made on land inside the town perimeter, and no other rule will be valid to certiy as kosher the wine made outside the town etc. Tey all agreed that such wine would be prohibited). Te ruling will also apply to the winesi produced elsewhere. trading has to conorm to these rulings the produce is to be Wine considered kosher. Te passage starts with Yose Levy’s example o the way he made his wine ll. 1–2, ‘en la tierra’ (in his land). It is important to understand the implication o the possessive pronoun in this case; it is because Levy produced the wine himsel that his product is trusted, l. 3, ‘por lo cual se escuśa toda sospecha’ (that is thereore above suspicion). Te lack o Gentile intervention in the vintage process is essential to render the wine kosher. Te enactment ollows on l. 12, ‘aćer los vinos behekš̠ er en las viñas’ (to make the wines kosher in the vineyards), and ll. 18–19, ‘ningún otro tiqún valga lehakš̠ ir hayayin hana‘as(á) ḥus ̣ la‘ir’ (no other rule is valid to certiy the wine made outside the town as kosher). 1.6.4 Some Interesting Depictions of Individuals and Legal Scenarios: Marriage and the Agunah Tere are twenty-nine testimonies in this collection that directly concern women as they are on the halakhic validity o marriage and on
102 103
Discussed in the Hebrew response, see Benaim 2006: 527.ll.29–30. Read: si no, meaning ‘i not’, as opposed to ‘but’.
48 the problems o the agunah.104 Tere are also another ourteen testimonies on wills, many o which involve women and women’s issues. Altogether it is air to say that over hal the testimonies touch on the subject o women in Jewish law or on the depiction o the woman o the sixteenth century rom many angles. In this section some o these texts are analysed speci cally in relation to each o their responsa as a whole and in relation to their legal, historical, social or other context. Te institution o marriage is o great importance in Jewish society, both on an individual and national scale, and every avenue is attempted to saeguard its security (Lamdan 2000: 171). It is unsurprising, thereore, that questions were directed at the rabbinical authorities to examine the validity o 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 ofen concerned girls as young as twelve it was inevitable that there were issues rabbinical in this Te that issuecame o thetoagunot was attention a plight that wasregard. compounded by these women’s indeterminate status. Te 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). Leniency was practised by rabbis when ruling in agunot cases. Tis sofer approach in rabbinic arbitration dates back to ancient times and the Rambam himsel said it is wrongul to scrutinise the evidence o iggun cases (Lamdan 2000: 202–203).105 Tis section also examines some cases o agunot in particular those whose husband’s death was unconclusively proven such as those who drowned at sea or supposedly died on a journey away rom their abode. ext 38 concerns the validity o a marriage. It seeks to establish that the object had to be owned by the man offering kiddushin.106 Part A presents Yehudah Caro who asked his brother Šemu’el i he had any spending money. Šemu’el said he had hal a piastre, he took it out and he called his wie [to be] who was preparing a grand estive meal ollowing circumcision. He said to her, ‘Rah ẹ l, take this piastre as kiddushin’. She took it gladly. See Appendix 3 on agunah. For a thorough analysis on the position o women in sixteenth century society seen through the eyes o the responsa literature, see Lamdan 2000. 106 See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. 104 105
49 Tis particular case in Adarbi’s responsa highlights an interesting issue in kiddushin.107 Te kiddushin took place without Rah ẹ l’s relatives being present.108 Te issue is that Rahẹ l’s relatives are not present when she accepts the money. But according to Adarbi, an important legal point can be inerred rom urther illustrations rom the text that she already was his intended wie. Tere is evidence that he was amiliar with her. An eye-witness says that he saw Šemu’el Vida Caro take out a twenty-asper coin rom his purse. He said to his spouse who was cleaning out the spinach: ‘Rahẹ l, take this coin as kiddushin rom me’. She took it; she laughed and put it in her purse. She was dressed in red (text 38:5–9). It can be inerred rom the expressions ‘estaba mondando espinacas’ (she was cleaning the spinach), ‘y se rió’ (and she laughed), that she is already quite intimate with her uture spouse’s amily. She understands her commitment.109 Te couple’s amiliarity strengthens the credibility o this marriage. Yehudah’s intended wie is comortably involved in helping in her uture sister-in-law’s kitchen in the tions or her baby’s circumcision party. Te surroundings, thepreparacontext, the close riendship all depicted in the language, are legally important. Hence, according to Adarbi, the marriage is valid, and Rahẹ l thereore requires a get, a divorce, in order to be ree to remarry. Rah ẹ l’s laughter as she accepts kiddushin could have been due to shyness or exuberance, or perhaps a sign o existing intimacy with her uture spouse and his amily. Te scene o the women preparing ood or the circumcision ceremony is amiliar in Jewish lie throughout the ages to this day.110 Te act that her involvement in this way with the amily helps to determine the legal validity o the marriage, substantiates the view that it is essential to understand the language in order
Tis case is examined in my article, Benaim (1999a). Freimann discusses the importance or a girl’s relatives to be present at the time when she accepts the object o kiddushin (Freimann 1964: 166). See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. 109 In the second last paragraph o Adarbi’s reply to this question (not in the Appendix) the view that couple are amiliar is and that ‘Rachel was already his intended wie several days beorehand and he took her or granted’. Later in the same paragraph, Adarbi asserts that the couple had already been drinking together and are amiliar with each other, so it can be assumed that when he offers her kiddushin they are both willing (Divre Rivot 209: second last paragraph o the reply). 110 See Appendix 3 on berit milah. 107 108
'
'
50 to appreciate every nuance and detail that help to convey the couple’s existing amiliarity. ext 54 depicts Abr̠ aham relating that he was coming rom Ancona to Kastil Novo, when he encountered a storm: ‘hubieron gran tormenta’ (there was a great storm) (54:3–4). Te sailor then, in a very colloquial style, tells him that i he nds that storm rightening, he should have experienced the one he went through on his return rom Egypt. He says that he and a ew others survived, the rest drowned. Te witness asks him i any Jews perished and he replies in the affirmative. He then asks i he knew any o 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 rom Salonica who was married, and that he saw him dead on dry land) (54:12–13). Te witness repeats the detail that the sailor recognized Pardo on dry land. Recognition o the victim is important to exonerate his widow o the agunah status.111 o thein testimonies is crucial to theUnderstanding legal outcome, oas the can subtleties be appreciated the close analyses o the texts. In the light o the problems aced by agunot it is unsurprising that a precept exists, stating that the rabbis should try to nd a legal way or the agunah to remarry. In one o his responsa, Maimonides 112 claims that it is a transgression when an unjusti ed onerous application o the Law is perormed by a rabbi. In any case, since a competent judge is essential lest the law is not executed to perection, through the unacceptable circumstance o legalizing a sinul relationship, higher legal authorities must obviously be consulted. Ruth Lamdan, who wrote on the status o Jewish women in the 16th century, believes that the rabbinic judges showed special consideration or women (agunot) in cases o desertion by their husbands. She argues that only in this eld does rabbinic law grant judges a degree o exibility; there was also the covert threat that women whose affairs were lef unresolved would be drawn into immorality or would convert to another aith. In view o this ear, she shows how ways were ound or even greater leniency; as a result, close to 75% o women whose
111 112
See Appendix 3 on agunah. Discussed in Elon in 1975: 412.
51 problems were brought to court were granted permission to remarry (Lamdan 1992, 2005: 1). An example o an agunah case can be seen in Medina’s Choshen Mishpat 382 (text 27) Medina was ofen aced with such cases and was known to rule leniently in avour o these women to lessen their suering. Tis short testimony reveals that the sender is in possession o a letter rom Ancona dated the 4th o Nissan. Ancona, north-west o Rome, was an important port in the 16th century. Te letter explains that a certain Samuel Sụ riel tells o a boat that sank as a consequence o reak weather and at a distance o ten miles at sea. Only seven people were saved rom the disaster. Šelomoh Attar, one o the victims, was ound afer three days. Sụ riel laid out a large sum o money in order to nd Attar, and afer nding him dead, says that he was buried where there were other Jewish graves. Te question is whether Šelomoh Attar’s wie may remarry on the basis o this written record alone. I it appears, prima acie, that the written testimony is insufficient then the supporting circumstantial testimony clear. Teimportance question is o whether the testimony is sufficient in thisbecomes written record to justiy con rming the death o a man presumed drowned, and allowing her to remarry. It must also be established that the dead man is Šelomoh Attar, in other words, i there is proo o his identity. Te questioner is concerned that the record did not con rm 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).Te problem lies in the act that he omits to say that he, or someone speci c, actually buried him. Te other legal problem is the doubt raised by the act neither the victim’s ull name (in the sense that his name did not conorm to the accepted structure o Šelomoh ben . . .) or his ather’s name, or the name o his city is mentioned in the testimony. I this were a case where the witness to the death doesn’t know the victim then a problem would arise. Here, it appears rom the text that the testi er had a real cognisance o 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. Tere is no doubt as to the truth o Šelomoh Attar’s identity. S ụ riel himsel appears to be well regarded, and since he undertook the nancial expenses o recovering the corpse, ‘espendió harto dinero’ (27:8–9), he had to be a man o means. Tese details point to the act that the case deals with reputable people whose testimony is credible.
52 Interestingly, Medina starts his answer by affirming that the widow o Šelomoh Attar is ree to remarry. He then sets out to deal with the legal issues, o which there are two. Medina explains that two witnesses are normally needed to establish evidence o a husband’s death, but in the case o the agunah the evidential requirement can be bent; and i a woman says her husband is dead she is believed. Regarding doubt, every doubt has the status o a orah doubt and the woman must remain orbidden to other men, in other words, she is still considered a married woman. Ten Medina introduces the analogy o rst-born animals that can be rendered un t or sacri ce i they possess a blemish. Te de nition o a blemish is debatable. In this rst-born issue the sin is mide rabbanan.113 oday, when the emple does not exist, the sin does not carry the orce o Biblical law. Te result o Medina’s discussion is that i the sin is rabbinical then one may rule more leniently in terms o the exactness o the physical identi cation. Attar’s corpse was on dry land or a while, during which changes wouldbetween have occurred, making cation and dicult. Te parallel is drawn the identi cationidenti o a corpse o a blemish on an animal; both are types o physical identi cation. Tere is urther need or clari cation on the identi cation issue. A rabbinical prohibition orbids a woman to remarry when her husband has drowned at sea, i.e. in waters that have no limit. In the case o someone who has disappeared in a limited stretch o water, the assumption is that i they do not return they have drowned. I the man disappears at sea, the woman is supposed to wait seven years beore remarrying, but i 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 ound afer three days). It is not speci ed whether he was ound at sea or on dry land. I the ormer, the salt water would have preserved him. Rabbi Isaac Alasi says that ve days in the water is the maximum time that a corpse will remain identi able; in this case it was three days. Tere is a double doubt here, whether he was ound 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 osafot that a woman whose husband has drowned at sea is allowed to remarry i the body is ound whole, even i it was lef on dry land.
113
By Rabbinic as opposed to Biblical law.
53 Te act 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 or De Medina to rule in avour o this agunah. He maintains that i the corpse were not complete then it would have been mentioned. Medina rules leniently in the woman’s avour because i she were lef without either a husband or permission to remarry it would be an injustice. As he claims, he is ollowing the requirement o his predecessors. Te 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 act that no speci c person actually buried him, could also in uence the respondent to rule otherwise. Yet, as Morris Goodblatt observes, Medina relied strongly on common sense: ‘at times when the strict interpretation o the letter o the Law would lead to a decision contrary to common sense, he would by a process o 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 o Maharival a urkish rabbi and judge (posek). Born in Monastir, in 1534 he moved to Salonica and later to Constantinople in 1550. One o the testimonies here is quite similar in text 48 sent to Rabbi David ben Zimra and spoken by the same Yisḥ ạ q. However, 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 orms to both respondents who, incidentally, reach the same conclusion; that Jacob Pardo’s wie is ree to remarry. Te rst testimony, o Abraham de Leon, is taken on Wednesday 20th Kislev 1549 in court, on Monday 2nd ebe̠ t 1549 the testimony o Yisḥ ạ q de Molina is taken in Salonica. So the obvious question is why wasn’t the rst testimony included in the Rabbi ben Zimra’s responsa since it was taken prior to Yisḥ ạ q de Molina’s? Abraham’s words are lively and expressive. He relates that he was coming rom Ancona to Kastil Novo and he was experiencing a storm: ‘hubieron gran tormenta’ (there was a great storm) (54:2–3). Te sailor then in a very colloquial style tells him that i he nds that storm rightening, he should have experienced the one he went through on his return rom Egypt. He says that he and a ew others survived, the rest drowned. Te witness asks him i any Jews perished and he replies in the affirmative. He then asks i he knew any o them, to which he replies: ‘que noconoçía sinon
54 aun Ya‘aqob Pardo caśado en Saloniqui, yque levido muerto en tierra. (that he did not know anyone except Jacob Pardo rom Salonica who was married, and I saw him dead on dry land) (54:9–11). Te witness repeats the detail that the sailor recognized Pardo on dry land. In this testimony the emphasis o the language could suggest that the sailor knew Pardo even better than the second testimony suggests in text 48. Hence this testimony would reinorce the legal argument that the Gentile witness was thoroughly amiliar with the victim and his identi cation o the body is legally acceptable. So it is possible that the rst 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 conessing to having passed judgement many years previously this in a case concerning the agunah o Yisḥ ạ q Zadok. He had ruled that the widow remain an agunah, and she did so or ten years. Afer this time a Jew testi ed that he had heard rom someone whoḥ ạ had witnessed bodies on now the shore, one this o which Yis q Zadok, whomthe hedead buried. He has permitted womanwas 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 interrogated. In these cases, where the witness present only hears about the case, there is room or exibility. o substantiate this leniency Ibn Lev brings proo rom Maimonides. Ibn Lev eels that on this reasoning, Pardo’s widow is ree to remarry. Te only difficulty he identi es is the act 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 rst witness buried him and orgot to tell the second. Ibn Lev resolves this legal obstacle by drawing an argument rom the Ran [Nissim ben Re’uben 1320–1380], who explains that the notion o the witness burying the victim is commensurate with the notion o his touching the victim. Since it is likely the witness touched the victim and probably orgot to mention it, as it is a minor detail, hence the testimony is considered to have ul lled the requirement o 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 o the wie’s testimony), he agrees that she is certainly permitted to remarry. Both respondents arrive at the same conclusion though by
55 different arguments. Te matter o the missing testimony in text 48 remains unresolved. Sasson deals with yet another agunah case (text 68) concerning a husband drowned at sea. Te case is presented rom the viewpoint o the witness who was working in Šelomoh David’s house. As two o the men sit down to chat, Ezra zadik’s daughter appears. One o them asks the other why the young girl is still unmarried. o this he replies, ‘cómo se ha de casar, que se aogó el marido dentro de la mar y non hay ‘edut sobre él’ (how can she marry i her husband drowned at sea and there is no testimony on him) (68:9–11). Tis phrase is owing, realistic and colloquial. What is unclear is why Aharon asks Elias about the girl’s status i he knows it. Presumably he is checking their knowledge o the case. Aharon provides a most detailed account o the accident at sea in a ourteen-line description. In most other responsa, details o the accident are succinct and the testimony concentrates on the acts supporting the legal argument or exonerating the agunah rom her status. Aharon relates in vivid detail how he was on a boat rom Constantinople to Salonica when it sank, and the victim, Matatia Ruso, drowned together with many others. Te vivid quality o 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 rom Aharon’s hand) (68:16–18). Te Gentile travelling with Aharon also witnessed this and said that he had buried Ruso. Tis is a case o indirect testimony—one witness through another witness.114 Te other witness cannot be questioned as he is absent, thereore his evidence o having seen the victim’s body is believed. Te witness is able to describe his eatures: ll. 30–31 ‘aquel de la cara picada alto de cuerpo kösé’ the one with the pock marked ace, 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,
114 115
Ed me ed, the Mishnah accepts this as valid testimony in agunah cases. Known as simanim in Hebrew legal language.
56 who was rst consulted on this case. R. Hakohen claims that even i 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 ather’s name. R. Hakohen opines that Ruso’s widow is permitted to remarry. Both rabbis agree on this. Tis is a picturesque responsum that starts with a scene in a house. Te agunah appears and the conversation leads to the testimony o her husband’s death. Te scene then moves to the accident at sea and to the pulling out o the bodies rom the water and burying the victims: ‘en un arenal en la orilla del mar’, (in a sandpit at the sea shore) (68:32–33). Te witness says ‘a los otros dos criaturas saquimos del agua’ (the other two people116 we pulled out o the water) (68:31–32), and nally he excuses himsel to Aharon or being late, as he had been burying these victims. 1.6.5 A Guardianship Issue—wo Legal Views Te ollowing discussion deals with a responsum concerning a guardianship issue.117 Te same question was sent to two different respondents in Salonica in the sixteenth century. Each dealt with the legal implications in different ways. Te respondents reerred to are R. Samuel De Medina (text 25), and R. Isaac Adarbi (text 40). Te question concerns a written testimony recording a dying man’s intentions. Te Query Te question reers to a certain Re’uben o Skopye, a dying man who appoints or his children three guardians who reside in Salonica. He jointly appoints his wie Clara guardian118 and makes her owner o his estate on the condition that she looks afer the children and promises not to remarry or the next ten years. ‘omó de no se caśar por tie(m)po de diez años’ (she undertook not to remarry or ten years) (25:10–11). She must obtain the other three guardians’ consent beore
116 Criaturas is a term o endearment or people, shows the human quality o the witness. 117 Tis discussion has been presented in part in Benaim 1998. 118 ‘When entrusted with guardianship over the person o his ward, he has the duty o directing the latter’s upbringing and education, determining his place o abode, and generally taking care o him’ (Elon 1975: 444).
57 paying out any money. Re’uben sets another condition or Clara at the end o the document: she has to move to Salonica afer the year o mourning, ‘con condiçión de como pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui’ (the condition was that as soon as the year o mourning was over she should go to Salonica) (25:15–16). Clara, however, is not willing to move to Salonica. She suffers rom poor health, her children are still young, and in Skopye, where she lives now, she has the support o her parents-in-law, who help her with the children. She would thereore like to transer her powers as guardian in Salonica to another person. wo interrelated questions arise rom this case. First, is Clara a guardian with legal powers? Second, does she have the legal right to appoint a substitute guardian in Salonica? Te Response of Rabbi Samuel De Medina Te rst point examined by Medina is whether a woman can become a guardian at all, and secondly, whether Clara can remain a guardian i she does not (1361–1444), move to Salonica. R. Medina cites Rabbi Simon ben Zemach Duran who says that the Court does not appoint a woman as guardian, and that this applies a ortiori to a widow, thus a husband can de nitely exclude his widow rom guardianship. Te 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. Te above sources indicate that there is no assumption in Jewish law that a wie is the automatic guardian o her deceased husband’s property. Tere is also no indication to the contrary: that a woman is prohibited rom being a guardian. Yet Medina concludes that in cases where there is doubt about a woman’s suitability, she should not be appointed. o substantiate his decision he cites the Mishnah, Bava Batra 152a. Tis reers to a case where a dying man verbally expresses how he wants his money to be distributed but dies beore his wishes are recorded. Te problem is one o ambiguity—did the deceased plan to transer the money by virtue o the special laws applying to a dying person, which enable him to override the normal rules regarding the ormalisation o a gif, or did he plan to do so in a regular manner? Medina opines that in cases o uncertainty, money should not be distributed, and people should not be appointed guardians. Te next issue is the intention o the dying man. His nal wishes clearly state that he does not want his wie to stay in Skopye. Salonica
58 has a more religious environment than Skopye. Salonica even used to shut down its port on the Sabbath. Tere is also a higher standard o health in Salonica. Tese actors militate against allowing Clara to continue as a guardian in Skopye. Furthermore, communication between the guardians would be dicult i they were not all in the same town. Te 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. Tereore, 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. I she has no power or right to be a guardian hersel, how can she appoint someone else? However, Medina then cites Maimonides and Jacob ben Asher to demonstrate that the Court is the ‘ather o orphans’, so i the person she wishes to appoint is one who would be bene cial to the orphans, the Court may award guardianshipthat to such a person. Medina, Court must ensure the other threeAccording guardians to approve thethe appointment o also this ourth person. Only then, and i the Court deems appointment o a new guardian to be advantageous or the children, can the widow be answered affirmatively. Close analysis o the testimony reveals eatures that could give a different slant to the case than that portrayed in the responsum. Arguably, Clara’s ailure to ul l the requirement o moving to Salonica should not debar her rom either continuing as guardian or appointing a substitute. Tis emerges rom an analysis o 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 o her own volition (25:9–10), not to remarry or ten years. She has committed hersel to this, and thus shows her undivided loyalty to her position as guardian. Te majority o the text deals with the husband’s wish that she should become guardian o his children and property: ‘mando que ella sea apotropiśa y mande mi aćienda con tal que no aga 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 or anything without the consent or advice o the orementioned guardians, she can settle nancial
59 matters with any o my creditors) (25:11–14). Only in the last line does he stipulate the condition that he would like her to move to Salonica. I she were unable to ul l this condition or health reasons, he might perhaps have wished to remove her powers o guardianship. As it happens, the decision is that she can appoint a substitute as long as her choice is bene cial or the orphans and is approved by the other guardians. Tis in act 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 Te 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 careul to judge accordingwas to the languageinothethecorrect document, and that he assumes the document composed legal orm. 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). Te problem lies in the act 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 rom Skopye to Salonica, ‘de haber con condiçión que como pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui’ (on condition that she should move to Salonica afer the year o mourning) (40:13–14). Interestingly, Adarbi adds that side issues are not taken into account, nor is attention paid to every single part o the document because it is, afer all, a document dictated by a dying person. His next point ocuses on resolving this contradiction, drawing on legal precedents to substantiate his argument, as is customary in the See Benaim 1997. Legally de ned as a person whose de nite outcome is death. However he is not a moribund. Te legal differences are too lengthy to describe and not strictly relevant to this particular question. 119 120
60 genre o the Responsa literature. He cites an example rom Maharil, 121 concerning a contradiction ound in a document where the sum o 100 zuz is rst mentioned, but is later reerred to as 200 zuz. Te rule is that whatever is written last prevails. Tis rule is applied to solving ambiguities and difficulties in documents. Adarbi adds that the ur 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 justi es this by saying that since differences in a document might be signi cant, 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 o the will. Tis is an example o what is, presumably, the respondent’s prerogative—to view a case in its context and give importance to different criteria. Resolving the Contradiction Adarbi in ollows Karo’s view,Te striving to reconcile thewhether apparentthecontradiction the two phrases. problem depends on dying man’s intention to appoint Clara as a guardian is conditional on her moving to Salonica. At rst he appears to appoint her unconditionally, ‘que ella sea patrona y señora sobre todo’ l. 6 (that she should be the owner and mistress o everything/ above all). Tere 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 unquali ed resolve. Nevertheless the problem remains that a condition is set in the last line. Yet the condition is immediately preceded by the de nition o her role as nancial guardian. From this Adarbi skilully concludes that the dying man did not intend to make her guardianship conditional, arguing that the condition affects only the duciary aspect. Her power to pay creditors and control over the nances is conditional on her going to Salonica. Te only condition o guardianship is that she should not remarry or ten years. It is noteworthy that the language emphasizes that this condition is set by Clara hersel.
121
R. Jacob Moelin, Germany, 14th–15th centuries.
61 In principle, thereore, R. Adarbi concludes that she can remain a guardian even rom Skopye. Her powers as guardian are unaffected, and there is no legal impediment to her appointing a substitute. Conclusion of wo Perspectives It is signi cant that Adarbi reaches his answer by harmonising the apparent contradictions in the document. He distinguishes guardianship in general rom power over the settlement o debts. Unlike R. Medina, he does not question her status as a woman in relation to the guardianship issue. A close reading o the subtle nuances o the Judeo-Spanish language o the document suggests that the sentiment implied by the language supports Adarbi’s analysis. Indeed, his aim, as he states at the beginning o his responsum, is to base his legal argument on the language o the document. Medina, however, takes a more comprehensive approach. He is primarily concerned with issues such as assessing the legal status o a appointment woman as guardian. His sensitivity is apparent in his concern that the o 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. Te importance he attaches to a strictly observant liestyle is maniest in his emphasis on bringing up the children in Salonica, a city which exuded orah learning, Jewish observance and a Jewish environment, as opposed to Skopye, where there was little active Jewish lie. Finally, his airness, justice, and concern or the unprotected are exempli ed in his conclusion. Medina believes that provided the appointment o a new guardian is bene cial 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 coner her own status as guardian upon another o her choice. 1.6.6 Conclusion Te aim o this section is to put the responsa into its historical, economic, social, communal and halakhic context and to appreciate the value o the responsa as a source in so many o these disciplines. Tis is highlighted in much o Ruth Lamdan’s writings and research on the status o women in the sixteenth century, where she bases much o her research on responsa, or instance on the guardianship issue, ‘Te
62 responsa literature shows that many husbands, prior to their death, appointed their wives as guardians o their assets and their children, demonstrating their trust in the abilities and skills o their wives, who in many cases gained the support o the religious courts’ (Lamdan 2005: 1). Te responsa in this book shed light on the legal processes governing Jewish lie in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire. Te rabbinic cases, the dry residue o those long-orgotten dramas, represent a law and a legal system intertwined with the realities o lie (Passamaneck 1974: 181). In the responsa we can witness the srcinal voices o the protagonists in the events recounted. Cases that concern divorce matters, affirmation o the marriage vows, levirate issues, wills and in general amily matters orm at least hal o 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 o thing. For every business arrangement that For goeseach sourruffian there there mustwere havenumerous been hundreds thatpious cameolk. off smoothly. good and I we keep these matters in mind, and we pay careul attention to the construction o the narratives, we can mine incredible historical riches rom the responsa’ (Goldish 2008: liii). Te responsa themselves cover a diversity o issues, great and small. Tey offer a ascinating glimpse into the byways o social history, with their delightul ‘impromptu’ vignettes o ordinary people going about their daily lives, preparing ood, sitting with their neighbours, engaging in business and—perhaps most quaintly—swindling each other in ways that a modern reader will instantly recognize. Te tone o the testimonies, with their easy interplay between diering 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 o lie o 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 or the best.
CHAPER WO
RESEARCH MEHODS AND SOURCES 2.1 Complete List o 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 o each relevant responsa that I have examined in some detail. Tere are other responsa, particularly rom nineteenth-century Spanish Morocco that are not included in the list as they are not contained in the BIURP nor have I ound these in the listings in the websites or Hebrew books. Also appendix 5 lists a urther number o responsa containing Judeo-Spanish o the eighteenth to the twentieth centuries. Importantly, or the purpose o this book I have only selected and included those rom the rst hal approximately o 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 o publication o these responsa.1 able 2.1: List o Responsa Containing Judeo-Spanish Author
Publication
Responsanumber
Fourteenth Century Isaac b. Sheshet Peret She’elot u-eshuvot ha Rivash
207, 208
Sixteenth Century Samuel de Medina
She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam Yoreh Deah Choshen Mishpat Even Ha’ezer
IsaacAdarbi
1
Divre Rivot
53, 88, 118, 155, 157, 168 16, 33, 52, 65, 95, 148, 170, 175, 227, 262, 313, 328, 339, 380, 382, 393 8, 12, 34, 76, 166 3, 4, 10, 59, 72, 92, 124, 150, 189, 209, 262, 279, 282, 310, 392, 413, 420
64 able 2.1 (cont.) Author
Publication
Responsanumber
Jacob Berav
eshuvot Be-rav
15, 25
David b. Zimra
She’elot u-eshuvot Haradbaz eshuvot haRa’anach Mayim Amukim, Part II
294
She’elot u-eshuvot Maharibenlev, Part I Part II
9, 22, 23, 101, 112
Joseph b. Ephraim Caro
Bet Yose Avkat Rochel
8 80, 81, 148
Aharon b. Joseph Sasson
orat Emet
2, 3, 5, 6, 27, 95, 165
Elijah b. Ḥ ayim
Joseph b. David (Ibn Lev)
Moses b. Joseph rani She’elot u-eshuvot Hamabit, Part I Moses Alshech
She’elot u-eshuvot Maharam Alshech
Solomon b. Abraham Hakohen
She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashach, Part I Part II
20, 29, 119 33, 55
21, 104
82, 112, 292, 331 44, 78, 150
18, 49, 67 38, 134, 145
Sixteenth/Seventeenth Centuries Joseph b. Moses rani She’elot u-eshuvot Maharit Part I Part II
138
Maharam Galante
She’elot u-eshuvot Maharam Galante
52, 86, 96
Chaim Shabtai
She’elot u-eshuvot Hashayachot letur even ha’ezer1
18, 31, 35, 36, 44, 52, 56, 59
Yom ov b. Moses sahalon
She’elot u-eshuvot Maharitats, Part I Hachadashot
33, 144
35, 38, 43, 44
25, 125, 127, 149, 158
1 Tis responsa collection is not available on the Bar-Ilan responsa project, however I ound it on www.hebrewbooks.org.
65 able 2.1 (cont.) Author
Publication
Responsanumber
She’elot u-eshuvot Hacham Zvi Darke Noam: Even Ha’ezer Choshen Mishpat
35, 98
Ginat Varedim Even Ha’ezer
19
Seventeenth Century Zevi Hirsch b. Jacob Ashkenazi Mordechai Halevi
Abraham b. Mordechai Halevi
32 45
Eighteenth Century David Samuel b. Jacob Michtam LeDavid Pardo Even Haezer
1
Nineteenth Century David Pipano
Avne Ha’eod Nose
13, 18 30
Apart rom 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. Tis website contains over orty thousand Hebrew books and has only been available recently. It is a necessary asset or this type o research and the website www.otzer.org is equally essential. o nd Judeo-Spanish amids the Hebrew I perormed searches in their responsa collection and then veri ed its Judeo-Spanish content. Tis is indeed a proo o the wealth o material in the literary genre o Judeo-Spanish testimonies that there is available in the Sephardic responsa that is recorded to date. 2.2 Principles o Selection—Corpus Examined Judeo-Spanish is ound in the responsa literature in the orm o live testimonies, contracts, nancial documents and communal ordinances. A concentration o this material appears in the sixteenth as well as in the nineteenth century.2 However, there are a couple o responsa 2
o search or editions o the various responsa it was essential to be amiliar with(1) Zedner (1964). (2) See appendix 5.
66 contain in Judeo-Spanish in the ourteenth century, in She’elot u-eshuvot haRivash o Isaac Ben Sheshet Peret 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 o responsa (able 2.1) containing Judeo-Spanish in section 2.1 by perorming many searches using the BIURP. Searches consisted o inserting various common words in Judeo-Spanish that are absent or rare in Hebrew in order to end up with the appropriate selection.3 Te corpus o literature examined in this book consists o eightyour sixteenth-century testimonies, some comprising several parts, some that are about ninety lines long and several as short as three lines. Te texts selected or presentation here are those o respondents born between 1474 and 1535. Eighty-our texts are presented here out o the one hundred and feen in totalcenturies. that I haveI have examined in detail in rom ourteenth the nineteenth not included thisthe collection the to responsa o the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, or instance o Yom ov ben Akiva sahalon, Maharam Galante, Chaim Shabtai and Joseph ben Moses rani or o all those listed in Appendix 5. Te breadth o texts presented provide sufficient material or the linguistic and other descriptions offered in this book. Tere is an abundance o material or urther research that is beyond the intended scope o this book. 2.3 Methodology and ranscription o the exts My initial research consisted o locating responsa, mainly o the sixteenth century, that contained Judeo-Spanish testimony. Te responsa in this corpus are all rom printed editions and o the earliest available editions.4 At a glance, the Judeo-Spanish language can be recognised within the Hebrew by its higher requency o certain letters and
3 Tese include , que meaning ‘that’, ‘what’ and , se, the re exive pronoun 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 like este , tanto, etc. 4 Tis is true in all cases except Piske ha-Rashdam, see chap. 2 n. 56.
67 lower incidence o other letters.5 Te introduction o a couple o different characters denoting different phonemes, or example the gimmel with the diacritic and the double yod, are also characteristic o JudeoSpanish. I rst searched through the collection o two o the best known respondents o the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire, Rabbi Samuel6 de Medina and Rabbi IsaacAdarbi and identi ed the relevant responsa. My next task was to compare this 1863 library copy to the rst edition (1595) that I worked rom in a private collection. 7 I wrote down all the variations in longhand, distinguishing the rst edition rom the later one. In this way I could determine the extent o errors and the role o the printers in assessing what to preserve or delete, the importance placed on spelling accuracy, and so on. Judeo-Spanish can sometimes also be ound in the responsa as an occasional discrete phrase or even single word in a Hebrew text. O these, I have included or reerred to a ew o speci c legal interest. Tose presented in the textevolving are mostly legible andJudeo-Spanintelligible, thoughthat notare entirely so. Due to the nature o the ish language and the anomalous representation o its speech, some sentences are impossible to decipher; the difficulties are explained in the notes to the texts. Once I established the locations o Judeo-Spanish in the responsa, I worked at nding the srcinal editions. Tis entailed many visits to various libraries in Israel: the Ben-Zvi Institute in Jerusalem, Hebrew University Library, Bar-Ilan University Library, Valmadonna rust Library, London School o Jewish Studies and the British Library in London. In some o these libraries I photocopied or obtained scans o the selected texts. In the end, or the purpose o publication, the texts had to be rescanned in order to be o a high enough resolution. Many o these texts were digitally photographed to aid clarity and the ones included in this book proceed rom the Yad-Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute Library in Jerusalem and the British Library. 8 5 Te ale appears with greater requency. Tere is a lower incidence o hẹ t, ayin, tav and ka. 6 When I initially searched through Medina’s responsa I did this by browsing, methodically looking through each responsum until I ound Judeo-Spanish. 7 Te Valmadonna rust Library, London. 8 Tis task was completed with the kind assistance and organisation o Dr Dov Cohen o the YIBZL. I am grateul also to my son Jonathan or his patience, diligence and time spent on overseeing this process.
68 Te next task was to reselect the passages in the vernacular and insert line reerences beore scanning them into the texts section o our corpus.9 Here I occasionally made the decision to enlarge the texts or reasons o clari cation. At this stage the responsa were classi ed as I ound them, according to respondent. Te next stage involved setting up a system or the transcription o the Judeo-Spanish rom Hebrew to Latin characters.10 I produced sample texts that converted the Judeo-Spanish words rom the Hebrew alphabet to a transliterated version using the Latin alphabet (able 2.3). Te result is that this version is intelligible to a philologist or linguist, but not to a speaker or reader o Judeo-Spanish. I next produced a version using Spanish orthography but with some phonetic symbols where necessary (able 2.2). Te table indicates the phonemes that are represented by the srcinal Hebrew graph and the phonemes represented by the consequent Spanish graph. Due to many anomalies in the spelling, a signi cant amount o interpretation had to be made 11 to render the cases intelligible. Te are textscommon also show erroneously elided or separated. Tese eatures in words early texts. It has to be noted that the majority o the texts in their srcinal sixteenthcentury printed versions appear in the rashi script.12 A header indicating text numbers is inserted throughout Chapter 4 in order to acilitate searching or particular texts. Examples rom the text and cross-reerences are cited using the text number, colon and line number (e.g. 24:3). In cases where the text number is preceded by S (e.g. S 49:3) then the citation belongs to Appendix 1 that contains three sample texts. Te texts in Appendix 1 are transliterated as a palaeographic representation o the srcinal according to the guide in able 2.4.
9 Variations in colour and quality o the copies provided are due to different scanners in libraries and in my own use over time. 10 For a ull historical account o Judeo-Spanish see Hassán (1995: 117–140). 11 Te reason given or this by Pilar Romeu (2003) in her research on deciphering early Judeo-Spanish texts, is that printers ofen lacked space and thereore deleted the spaces between words. A common error, or instance the substitution o a zayin or a vav, occurred because the printing ount would run out o this type, necessitating the 12 substitution o another. See able 2.3.
69 2.3.1 Resources Available Tere are some Judeo-Spanish dictionaries available. Te most substantial one by Nehama (1977) is rom Judeo-Spanish to French, Pascual Recuero’s Ladino-Spanish is comparatively basic (Pascual Recuero 1977), Kohen and Ladino-English/English-Ladino quite elaborate andKohen-Gordon’s indicates word srcins (Kohen & Kohen-Gordonis 2000), Bornstein and Bashan’s Ladino-Hebrew index to the oreign 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 rancais judeo-espagnol, Sephardic Folk Dictionary English to Ladino—Ladino to English (IV edition), Los Angeles: Author’s edition; K. Perahya, K.R. Meranda, S. Danon, R. Sedaka & C. Zakuto. 1998. Diksyonaryo / Sözlük Judeo-Espanyol—ürkçe / ürkçe—Judeo-Espanyol. Occasionally, useul linguistic inormation and translation was ound in the indexes to editions o Judeo-Spanish texts (Luria 1930, Sala 1971, Pascual Recuero 1988, Minervini 1992, Bunis 1993). Bunis’ lexicon is particularly relevant to the Judeo-Spanish vocabulary o Hebrew srcin, while the Jastrow Dictionary is vital or Hebrew legal and rabbinic vocabulary (Jastrow 1903). Recently Jastrow 1926 is available online and is a most ormidable 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 o course Medina’s listings (Bornstein 1979) and the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project CD ROM (2003) and recent aremost altogether in locating In the last ewversions, years the useulinstrumental resource o the websitesresponsa. 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 o books, including responsa, the Me-Am Lo’ez, the entire anach etc. are available online, many o them in their srcinal editions. Bashan and Bornstein (1973) produced a glossary o a selection o approximately 400 oreign terms used in the Ottoman responsa in all centuries. Tey are mostly urkish words and include a ew in Judeo-Spanish. In 1979, Bornstein-Makovetsky (as she was later known) published an index to all Medina’s and Adarbi’s responsa. 13
Many urkish words identi ed in this study do not appear in Bashan and Bornstein’s glossary.
70 Zamora Vicente’s Dialectología española (1967) contains an index where words can be traced to their various dialects and provides invaluable inormation as to the history o the language; it contains limited inormation on Judeo-Spanish as does Lapesa’s Historia de la lengua española (1988). Harris’s Death o a Language (1994) is useul or historical background; however, it concentrates more on the current developments o Judeo-Spanish and on the issue o bilingualism o Judeo-Spanish speakers in the United States today. Penny’s History o the Spanish Language (2004a) and Variation and Change in Spanish (2004b) provide essential linguistic inormation or the understanding o the development o Judeo-Spanish within the context o the development o Castilian and other Spanish dialects. Te RAE has its own very useul website (http://www.rae.es) providing a wealth o searching opportunities in terms o orthography and linguistic inormation. Collins Spanish-English/English-Spanish (Smith, 1977) is considerably useul in this research, while Corominas (1974) assists with word etymology. (Redhouse are needed tourkish decipherdictionaries many words o urkish1968, srcin2003; in theMilet texts, 1998) together with a geographical dictionary o the Ottoman Empire (Mostras 1873). An online urkish-English dictionary such as http://www .seslisozluk.com/ is also useul, as it assists with nding variations o the same word, which is necessary in the case where the urkish word has already undergone some change afer being borrowed by JudeoSpanish and travelled through Hebrew orthography. Concordancing tools like corde in http://www.rae.es, as well as http://www.corpusdelespanol.org, are helpul in both describing the incidence o words throughout the centuries and in providing reerence to the literary texts in which they appear. Te texts themselves can then be accessed. Tese tools help to con rm cases o Spanish archaisms and also enable access to the exact context o the word in question. Te Diccionario de la Lengua Española in the website http:// www.rae.es is also indispensable in this exercise. Despite this pool o resources, there remains a signi cant amount o speculation and conjecture in the interpretation o the texts. Te advent o the internet has opened an in nite and unprecedented pool o resources.14 By perorming a search on any known academic in
14 See Rachel Amado Bortnick on Ladinokomunita and ‘Te Internet and Judeo Spanish’ in Pomeroy & Alpert (2004).
71 the relevant eld a list o 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 o articles in the eld o Judeo-Spanish studies can be acquired online including issues rom 2001 o the highly regarded academic periodical Searad edited by Javier Castaño on www.searad.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 ranscription Systems Tere had been ongoing debate between various experts on the transcription o Judeo-Spanish. Proessor Iacob Hassán believed that the nal product should be understood by a modern Spanish speaker, and that the nal system should re ect this (Hassán 1987: 132). Others, in particular those who have arrived at Judeo-Spanish through a Balkan or urkish than a Hispanic background, believeI that the language should rather be represented as phonetically as possible. decided to present the transcription in a orm 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. Tere are many reasons or this. A modern Spanish rendition makes the texts totally accessible to a Hispanic reader. Apart rom interesting a small number o academics, the texts also throw light on many aspects o a Spanish-speaking culture, and intelligibility to a wider readership is thereore important. Furthermore, these texts would appeal to students o rabbinics rom Spanish-speaking countries like Argentina and Mexico, or whom linguistic clarity is essential. Additionally, the main point is that Judeo-Spanish is essentially Spanish containing borrowings rom other languages, it is not a Balkan or other language, and thereore Spanish orthography is, in my view, the most apt system to use when transcribing rom Hebrew characters.16 15 Tere are countless bibliographical reerences, listings etc. available on the internet that would impossible to collect, http://huc.edu/sephardic/media/LibraryResearchGuide.pd is an example o such avenues o research in the internet. 16 Tis is substantiated in Hassán 2006 reerring to adopting a Spanish orthography: ‘Por mucho que haya desarrollado una norma propia dierente 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 onética distintiva . . . no es una dura obligación, sino solo una opción possible especialmente
72 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 elt it necessary to add phonetic symbols that will convey the Judeo-Spanish pronounciation. A transliterated edition o the text produces complete incomprehensibility but is o signi cant interest to philologists. I thereore decided to produce three sample texts in this ormat so that the linguistic discussion can be illustrated better. Additionally, in the comparison o a sample text in various editions this system is optimum, see section 2.4. Below is an example o this type o transliteration (see also able 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 Te more phonetic system used or Ladino has been a rather cumbersome illogical representation, such as Aki ‘kwanto’ or ‘cuanto’. Tis systemand is used currently by the periodical 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 aza importante del proyekto sentral de la Asosiasion “Searad”: El Katalogo inormatiko 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. ranscription using modern Spanish orthography is common practice in CSIC in Madrid, currently one o the world’s main centres or publishing academic works o Judeo-Spanish. Te academics within CSIC advocate this system or all the reasons stated above, as well as or producing a nal product that is neater in appearance. However, in section 2.3.7 I explain the process o using this system involves adjusting the system to cope with the inclusion o phonetic symbols so that the nal product is meaningul to philologists too. I made the decision to include the Spanish orthographical ‘h’ in idónea para ediciones críticas y trabajos de cali cación académica. (Hassán 2006: 48). In short, a transcriptive system using Hispanic orthography with phonetic symbols where appropriate is ideal or critical editions and academic works. 17 Shaul (1996) Aki Yerushalayim see p. 160. Moshe Shaul is responsible or much o the diffusion o Ladino language and culture in present day Israel.
73 the transcriptions. Te inclusion o the silent ‘h’ in transcription gives the text an overall similarity to the Spanish spelling system. Bunis, however, argues that there is a more xed system in Ladino spelling established in the early nineteenth century, showing also the variations occurring in systems based on French and on urkish (Bunis 1975: 1, 46, 49). A detailed discussion o the phonology o the texts is provided in Chapter 3 explaining the relevant phenomena with examples rom the corpus. Additionally, I have provided three sample texts that have been transliterated in Latin characters that illustrate the historical phonology to which I reer in the linguistic discussion. 18 2.3.3 Difficulties Encountered and Decisions aken / Problems and Solutions Inconsistencies and errors in the printed texts create problems o clarity, rendering some o the texts virtually unintelligible. Telack texts are presented according to respondents and include some that clarity and intelligibility. By translating some o the Hebrew ramework, the understanding o the testimony is ofen improved. Te patterns o word separation ound in the texts, however illogical, are retained in the transcription. Some common prepositions are requently joined, like enla, dela, aél. Te orm dellos, rather than de ellos, is an archaism. However, words are ofen joined together inconsistently or no apparent reason other than a desire by the printer to save space. Tese cases are too numerous to list and I have not noted all o them as they are sel-explanatory. However, notes are included where this practice results in semantic variation or in an unusual orm. Footnotes to each text indicate textual errors, omissions, spelling variations, phonological notes and above all, places where the transcription varies rom the text. Additions, consisting o corrections within the transcriptions, are indicated with round brackets. Abbreviations are written in ull 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 Te ootnotes also explain locations, toponyms and reerences to any issues that require explanation. In the translation section, ootnotes are ofen needed to explain the reasons or particular translations, the occasional lack o clarity in translation due to obscurities in the srcinal, and to elucidate legal, religious, cultural, historical and nancial obscurities. As the words o urkish srcin are new to the language in this period, a glossary has been compiled at the end o the book with reerences to the texts (see Appendix 2). Te glossary is in act a summary o the urkish borrowings; it enables the possibility o understanding the appropriate derivation or each word and the various meanings or each word. It clari es the reasons or the decisions taken in the translations o urkish borrowings by Judeo-Spanish. Te places in the texts where the urkish borrowings appear are noted. Te relevant sources where the urkish has been ound are documented in this glossary. Additionally, I have inserted a ootnote offering a transla19 urkish borrowing and the urkish word rom where it is tion o the derived. Te Hebrew lexis is ully translated in the translations ollowing each testimony. Te Hebrew raming the Judeo-Spanish texts is translated in italics, as well as the Hebrew used where language switching is a natural part o the protagonist’s speech.20 Here I have used my personal judgement to include translations where I believe they are o interest to the understanding o the Judeo-Spanish testimony and where it is reasonable to translate within the requirements o the book. All Hebrew words within the Judeo-Spanish texts are italicised in both the transcriptions and translations. Te representation o the Hebrew
elements that are italicised in the translations serve the purpose o seeing at a glance the type o lexis that are commonly used in Hebrew. Tis would be o interest to the eld o Judeo-languages, including Yiddish, where one could compare the choice o vocabulary in Hebrew and draw some parallels between Judeo-Spanish and other Judeo-languages. Te reasons or such parallels re ect aspects o the similarity o lives o Jews in different countries and in different epochs.
19 20
See section 3.3.3.4 or a discussion o urkish terms in the language discussion. Tis is known as code-switching, see section 3.3.3.3.
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. Tis varies too according to the speaker, context, region and epoch. Examples o hispanisation o Hebrew occur in the pronounciation o proper names (see below). Tis is also documented by Shwarzwald with illustrations like bet din pronounced as bed ̠ din, Šabat as Sabá or Šaba, adam harišón as adamarišon in the speech o 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 or Hebrew words. Te Judeo-Spanish title o rebí in ront o 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 or the sake o uency. I have kept the title ‘R’, meaning Proper ‘rabbi’. names appear in the context o three languages in the texts. Tey 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 o clarity and evenness. I transcribed the names o characters appearing in the texts as I transcribed Hebrew words. I then kept this transcription in italics when the rest o 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. Tis is evidenced in some documents rom pre-Inquisition Spain in Castaño’s Judíos y redes per-
sonales . . . (2009). Here Castaño studies a series o unpublished documents showing that municipal council assigned citizenship to Jews in relation to their community by which the local council assumed control o that community. Te documents show Jewish names as Mosé or Mošeh, Yuçé or Yose, Simuel or Šemu’el, Salamon or Šelomoh etc. (Castaño 2009: 374). Whether the names would have been pronounced as such in the testimonies in this book is unproven and thereore or the sake o uniormity I have used Hebrew transcriptions or names that are Hebrew based, not or names like Estrella that are unquestionably Spanish. However I used the English rendering o proper names o respondents and o others in the book. So the more common Hebrew names appearing in the texts are rendered as
76
Abr̠ aham, Yisḥ ạ q, Ya‘aqob,̠ Šemu’el etc. Te surnames however I have lef in Latin characters, they are generally more Hispanic, e.g. de Ávila, Dardero, Adaroqui, Lucena, etc. Te respondents’ names like Rabbi Samuel de Medina, Rabbi Isaac Adarbi etc. as well as the title o their responsa, are treated as the norm or transcription rom Hebrew to English. Also Hebrew words, proper names and toponyms quoted in the English discussion and translation are transcribed as is normative rom Hebrew to English. Tere is no punctuation in the srcinal Hebrew texts, so I have inserted appropriate punctuation in both the Judeo-Spanish and English versions. In general, Judeo-Spanish syntax preers long, periphrastic sentences, and this is re ected in the punctuation. Diacritic marks are included with the gimmel (see transcription table, able 2.2), but are absent otherwise.21 Te 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 ranslations into English Te English translations o the Judeo-Spanish testimonies ofen err on the side o the literal, in order to preserve the rhythm and style o the srcinal. o represent the language in an equivalent English o the sixteenth century would be problematic, since English is a classstructured language while Judeo-Spanish belonged to a speci c group o people at a speci c time and place. In other words, there is no equivalent language system that would have solved the problems o translation. Paraphrasing would have sounded and read better in English, but would ail to convey the realism o the srcinals. Emphasis, repetition and emotion are conveyed more effectively by literal translation. Te language was occasionally interspersed with urkish, Aramaic and other borrowings rom neighbouring cultures. A line or line translation was not appropriate; the result would have been literal to the point o unintelligibility. Such is the case in the Ladino translations o the Bible, where the result is a totally Hebraized Spanish. Te transcriptions adhere to the line structure o the srcinal edition.
21 Tis reers to the diacritic marks in the bet, ka, daled, pe that are absent in the rashi script and in an unpunctuated text anyway.
77 However, the English translations in our corpus are presented in paragraph orm. Line reerences 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. ranslations 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, ofen incoherent statements. I have requently replaced an ‘and’ with a comma, or omitted it altogether, or the sake o uency. Y in Judeo-Spanish does not always mean ‘and’. It can mean ‘when’, ‘that’, who’ or it may be super uous in a particular context. Y ‘and’ is also a discourse marker o a new topic. I encountered similar difficulties in translating the Hebrew into English. Te responsa consist o a technical language used by rabbinic jurists, composed o Hebrew and Aramaic. Te language occasionally is wordy and o an embellished register with some Biblical and almudical allusion. o translate ails to capture the true meaning and has the language result o aliterally stilted ofen language, whilst paraphrase is an unpreerred option. Such decisions are taken according to each language situation. Interpolations in square brackets, explanations in the ootnotes, some paraphrase and some omission o repetitive or irrelevant material are the resolutions taken to alleviate translation difficulties. 2.3.5 Representation o Numerals Tere 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 or numbers, and so it was quite natural to read the words as numbers. In this corpus there are several examples o numerals that are represented by Hebrew letters, as these contain numerical value. Each letter in the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value. Tese values can be used to write numbers, as the Romans used some o their letters (I, V, X, L, C, M) to represent numbers. Aleph to yod have the values o 1 to 10. Yod through ko have the values 10 to 100, counting by 10s. Ko through tav have the values 100 to 400, counting by 100s. Final letters have the same value as their non- nal counterparts. Te number 11 would be rendered yod-aleph, the number 12 would be yod-bet, the number 21 would be
ka-aleph, the word orah (tav-vav-resh-he) has the numerical value
78 611, etc. Te only signi cant exception in this pattern is the number 15, which i rendered as 10+5 would be a name o 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 rst day o the week afer the Sabbath, i.e. Sunday. 2.3.6 Te ranscription 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 o the comprehension and study o the texts. Here it is poignant to recall Nehama’s words: ‘ N’importe quel système de transcription est en principe acceptable, s’il est conséquent’ (Nehama 1977: XIII). Te transcriptions appear in the same line pattern as the srcinal. Te con ict in the transcriber lies in the 22
balance between delityoversus legibility theSpanish texts. reader Additionally, have added the criteria intelligibility orothe with theI notion that one o the purposes o transcribing this corpus is to make it accessible to the Hispanist and not just to the Hebraist. Te guide is broadly based on the principles used in Searad (CSIC).23 Te ollowing section will explain the system used in this book or transcribing the Hebrew texts in the main corpus o this book through the examination o the relevant aspects o each Hebrew letter in turn (see also ables 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and Appendix 1). It is noteworthy that Hebrew spelling is economical in its use o vowels. Te spelling system o Judeo-Spanish in Hebrew characters is simple and its representation is in keeping with phonetic principles (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 6, Schwarzwald 2001: 15). Te spelling will ofen differentiate between Hebrew and non-Hebrew words. Hebrew words will use certain consonants generally absent rom Hispanic words, namely the use o aleph as a consonant, and the use o ayin, tsadi, ka̠ , ta.24
22 Tis issue is expounded in Sistemas grá cos del español seardí (Hassán 1987: 131–133). 23 Searad 1998: 219–222. 24 Te requency o the aleph in a Judeo-Spanish text is much higher than in Hebrew; this can be noted in most o the texts provided. Occasionally, some JudeoSpanish words are written in Hebrew style with the omission o the aleph (e.g. S 7:3 twmry / tomré).
79
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 o the aleph.25 Te previous consonant would be with that particular vowel sign lectionis). Since thepunctuated texts are not punctuated, the vowels have(matres to be interpreted rom word recognition. When aleph is ollowed by a yod, the diagraph is transcribed as e or i, e.g. estuvimos / ∙yšţwbymwš (S 68:23) ‘we were’. However, in the transliterated version, the diagraph aleph yod is aithully represented by ‘>y’. Similarly when the aleph is ollowed by a vav it represents /o/ or /u/ and will be transcribed accordingly. For example (>>wn) says aún (74:27) ‘still’ in Spanish. Aleph occurs in word nal position predominantly when preceded by a yod. Elsewhere he is used to represent the nal a. Note also that aleph vav or aleph bet (vet) represents the diphthong av/ab as in cabśa (67:5). At the end o the word aleph stands either alone, as in allá/∙ly∙y (11:34) ‘there’ or ollowed by a heh as in había / ∙wy∙h (S 68:22). Te preposition a, that is spelt aleph heh, the heh is never omitted unless it is joined with the ollowing word. In Hebrew words I have transcribed aleph in medial position as ’. In this way the reader is given a more accurate picture o the structure o the srcinal.
Te plosive and ricative orm o the letter bet, , is represented in the Latin version by b or v according to modern Spanish spelling.26 Te 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 affricate bet /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
Evidence o this is ound more ofen in the later rather than in the earlier editions. For an understanding o the phonemic neutralization between the plosive and the ricative b in Spanish, see Penny 2004a: 97. 27 Note that in the kharjas there is no distinction in the aljamia between the plosive, ricative or velar realizations derived rom the Latin B/V. Te vav is reserved or a vocalic unction (Benabu 1991: 39). 25 26
80
Lo’ez this distinction is present throughout with the regular use o diacritic to indicate the affricate, the absence o the diacritic indicates the plosive phoneme. In Chapter 4 I have indicated a b or a bet or vet and o course a v or 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 o the representation o the bet and vav (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 114). In modern Spanish, the voiced bilabial ricative /ß/ is the phoneme o b and v in intervocalic position. For more on the ‘ b, v’ merger see Pountain (2001: 222, 226, 262). In Hebrew words bet raa, the ricative, is represented in this book by b ̠ as in hạ be̠ r, and as b or the plosive bet.
On its own the velar gimmel is represented simply by g or gu according to the vowel it precedes, e.g. diga (S 49B:1). However, when written as ` with the diacritic there are a number o phonemic possibilities.28 Te diacritic is a graphical way o dealing with Romance phonemes that have no equivalent in the Hebrew alphabet (Hassán 1987: 129). Te 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 (S 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 o modern Spanish is better preserved without compromising the message o the correct phonetic description. (3) /dʒ/ was perhaps a positional variant o /ʒ/ as was the case in medieval Spanish, where /dʒ/ would arise in initial position such as ǰuicio (text 71:5). Tis phoneme is transcribed in this book with the phonetic symbol ǰ. Te phoneme /dʒ/ may well have been a
28 Te realization o the gimmel + diacritic, as adopted by the Jewish poets o Spain, is evidence o the adoption o Arabic orthographical conventions (Benabu 1991: 40). 29 For example, as in mujer; or its phonological development see Penny 2004b: 182.
81 result o the incorporation o loans rom urkish and later French into Judeo-Spanish. It is regarded to be a later phenomenon (Penny 2004b: 180, 186). In act, 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. Tis argument is held by other philology experts in the eld (Quintana 2006: 78), (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 163, 165). (4) Note also ğ representing the phoneme /ʒ/ in words such as coğimos. Te transliterated version will show g and g` or the gimmel and the gimmel + diacritic orms respectively. However, ofen the diacritic is missing and digo / dygw (S 68:5) ‘I say’ should read as dicho, the past participle ‘said’. Use o diacritics in the texts is irregular and this is detected in other works like Proverbios Morales (González Llubera 1947: most the time rom the texts I27). willSince writethe thediacritics word thatareis missing meant in the otranscribed version. Occasionally where there is a larger degree o interpretation involved I will write the text version with my interpretation in parenthesis.
Te 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 o the letter or the phonemes that ollow. 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 o /daled , the diacritic not appear in the rashi script, note demandó dym∙ndw (S 68:8)does ‘he asked’ and cargado / q∙rg∙dw (S 68:13) ‘laden’, todo/ţwdw (S 49B:2) ‘everything’, all have the same daled.
Te 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 nal position it indicates the vowel -a, in which case its graphical representation is omitted in the transcription, ( myntyrh / mentira S
82 49B:1 ‘lie’, ∙šţh / está S 49B:15 ‘is’).30 For example (aleph + heh) represents the preposition a ‘to’. In the transliteration it would be written as ‘>h’. See also section 3.3.1.3 and able 3.1.
Te vav represents (1) the vowel /o/ and /u/, pwr / por (S 7:2) ‘or’, pwšw / puso (S 7:3 ‘he put’) and (2) the consonant /v/, wynw / vino (S 7:4) ‘he came’. As a vowel o never occurs in an initial position. I a vav is present in initial position it would be representing /v/. In an internal or nal position the vav used as a vowel could be representing /o/ or /u/, (see above aleph). In the transcriptions the vav is represented as o, u or v accordingly, and as w in the transliterated versions.
Te alveolar , /z/dećir in these is used principally whereas medieval Spanish usedzayin z, e.g. (texttexts 3:16) was ormerly written 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 S 49B:8).32 In the transliterated versions z is used and in the transcriptions it will be rendered according to the rules o modern Spanish orthography, yet indicating the pronounciation by the ollowing symbols ś, ć or ź. Once again the appearance o modern Spanish is not compromised. Judeo-Spanish does not differentiate between /d ʒ/ as in dodze with /z/ as in dezir till afer the sixteenth century (see supra (3)).
Ḥ et is rendered by h in the transliterated versions and by ḥ in the transcriptions o Hebrew words, e.g. hạ lab (S 49B:18). It does not appear in Spanish words that use a ka̠ or the same ricative glottal phoneme that is transcribed as k.̠ 30 In esti giudeoespagnoli medievali there is an alternation o spellings with a nal heh to the omission o this nal silent consonant (Minervini 1992: 24). 31 Te sibilants are the Old Castilian ones: the voiceless /s/ is distinguished rom the voiced /z/ occurring when s alls between vowels or beore a voiced consonant in a word. o distinguish this, the Hebrew script uses the sin and zayin accordingly (Entwistle 1965: 181). See S 7:4 mwsh, S 7:11 pwzh. 32 See section 3.3.1.6 on seseo/zezeo.
83
Spanish /t/ is rendered by tet in initial and medial position.33 a is usually used to indicate /t/ in a nal position. In the transliteration o this corpus tet is always rendered by ţ and by t ̣ in the transcription, e.g. tọ mó / ţwmw (S 7:13) ‘he took’.
Yod is used (1) or both vowels i and e. Te double yod represents ie, as in también /ţ∙mbyyn (S 49B:26), whilst yod aleph yod renders the diphthong ei. Yod aleph or yod aleph heh in nal position is renders -ia, note ía / ∙y∙h (S 68:19) ‘he went’, and yod vav -io, as in Dio / dyyw (S 49B:26) ‘God’, (2) or the consonant y is rendered by one, less ofen by a double yod.34 Te transliterated version always writes a y or the yod, and the transcription will render it either as a vowel i, e, or as a consonant y.
Ka is one o the our letters (as well as ayin, tsadi, ta ) that is limited to Hebrew words or the odd occasional Arabism (Hassán 1987: 128). ka with the diacritic represents the same phoneme /k/ as the letter ko. It is transliterated by the symbol k. Ka̠ (Ka raa) /x/ without the diacritic renders the Spanish ricative glottal represented by j. In the transcription Hebrew words are transcribed as k and k ̠ or ka and ka raa respectively.
Te /l/ is transcribed as l in both systems. It is important to ascertain whether this consonant is ollowed by a single or double yod.35 Te transcription remains unaltered where the l is ollowed by a single yod. However, when a double yod ollows this consonant, then in the modern rendition it is written as ll to represent /λ/; llamé / ly∙my (text 11:20) ‘I called’, alló / p∙lyyw (S 68:4) ‘he ound’. Tis is recon rmed 33 It is also the case in González Llubera’s Coplas de Yose (González Llubera 1935: xviii). 34 Note that in Coplas de Yose ‘Dio’ is spelt with one yod (González Llubera 1935: 15). 35 Note that the spelling lamed yod or ll perpetuates the ly o Romance orthography and also occurs in Judeo-Catalan (González Llubera 1935: xix).
84 in the latest edition o 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 (GonzálezLlubera 1935: xix). In Hebrew words it is rendered simply by l.
Te mem, /m/, never occurs as a double letter in Hebrew as in Spanish in principle. It is represented in all versions by m, como / qwmw (S 68:9) ‘how’, Te nal letter mem is very similar to the samech in the rashi script (see able 2.3) and is ofen indistinguishable. For transcription o the Hebrew words it is written as m.
Te 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 (S 7:4) ‘hediagraph came’, ∙wnh 7:10) ‘one’.to describe /ɲ/ since there is Te nun+/ una yod (S is ormulated 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 (S 68:12) ‘small’. In Hebrew words n is used to transcribe the nun and there is no ñ in Hebrew.
Te 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 (S 7:4, 12). Where the phonemespelling is an apico-alveolar affricate I have normative Spanish c, z, as opposed to ç or theused dental affricate.Modern Section 3.3.1.6. explains seseo, zezeo and its consequences in Judeo-Spanish.
Te letter ayin in Hebrew is represented in the texts by the vowel preceded by the symbol ‘in Hebrew words in the medial position. Te 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 (S 68:5), al inián / >l >nyn (S 68:16) ‘on the matter’.
85
Te phonemes // and /p/, plosive and ricative, represented in Hebrew by the letters and , are transcribed using the letters and p where relevant. Te diacritic in this letter converts the letter rom ricative 36
to plosive.in this Since this punctuation is the absent in has the torashi script and thereore corpus, the context o word be understood beore deciding which letter to use. Interestingly in the rashi script o the Me’Am Lo’ez the diacritics are included and acilitate the deciphering process. Note alló / p∙lyyw (S 68:4) ‘he ound’ and pasó / p∙šw (S 68:14) ‘it passed’ both display the same initial Hebrew letter. In Hebrew words the graphemes p and are used in this book. Note that // becomes /h/ and /ø/ in different varieties (Penny 2004b: 183). See also section 3.3.1.3.
Te is one oTe themedieval ew Hebrew no equivalent tsadiSpanish. modern /ʦ/ isphonemes written inwith Medieval Spanish in as ç occurring in words like alçar ‘to lif’, although this phoneme has disappeared rom Judeo-Spanish unless it appears in a Hebrew word. Te /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 amiliar with.37 In the transliterated versions, I have represented this phoneme as ş, and in the ̣ transcriptions I have transcribed this as sadiq / şdyq (S 68:7)—here used as a surname, has the meaning ‘righteous’ in Hebrew. Also the ̣ toponym seat / şpt (texts 11:8, 82:7, 8) has tsadi as its initial letter, ̣ / myşrym (texts 48:5; 54A:6; 54B:4; 74:26) ‘Egypt’ too conMisrayim tains the tsadi.
Te ko, /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 See Minervini (1992: 28–29) or a description o the use o the diacritics. Tis is evidenced rom hearing Israeli Judeo-Spanish speakers today and may well have been the case with scribes involved with rabbinic judicial writings. 36 37
86 rules o modern Spanish orthography, e.g. pequeño / pyqynyyw (S 68:12) ‘small’, como / qwmw (S 7:7) ‘how’. Hebrew words containing ko have been rendered using q.
Te resh represents both the vibrant /r/ and the ap / ɾ/ that are normally represented in Spanish orthography by rr and r respectively. Judeo-Spanish sometimes, however, simpli es both phonemes to the ap /ɾ/ both letters to r.38 In the texts I have opted or Spanish orthography: r as in p∙bl∙r / ablar (S 68:5) ‘to speak’, and r r as in pyrw / perro (c. standard perro) ‘dog’ (texts 42:20, 22; S 49B:9).39
Te shin /ʃ/, the pre-palatal ricative, would be represented in medieval Spanish by x in words like dyšw / diǰo (S 68:11) ‘he said’. In the transliterated itǰo, is in written as š. the transcription toooitthe is represented byversion this way theInmodern Spanish look ǰ as in di text is preserved whilst not compromising the phonetic elements. Te punctuated shin is dotted on its top right-hand corner. In the rashi script, they have to be deciphered in the absence o 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.
Te sin has to be recognised as different to the shin through the context in ana dot unpointed textlef-hand (estos Scorner. 7:10) It ‘these’. Te punctuated shin contains on its top 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 o Hebrew vocabulary the sin is represented by ś. In medieval Spanish /s/ could be indicating a single or double ‘ss’.40 Note
See section 3.3.1.12 or an explanation o the reasons or this representation. González Llubera says, ‘the use o r to represent rr prevails in the transcriptions o Romance languages other than Spanish into Hebrew script, its adoption is merely a persistence o Hebrew orthographic usage’ (González Llubera 1935: xx). 40 “Te single ‘s’ and double ‘ss’ in medieval Spanish attest to two different etymologies” (Benabu 1991: 36). 38 39
87 that in Coplas de Yose the scribe does not differentiate the voiced and voiceless sounds and represents both pusieron and pasasen with a sin instead o with a sin or zayin accordingly (González Llubera 1935: xx) (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 83).
Like ka, ta has its phonemic equivalent in tet; both represent /t/ insoar as Spanish is concerned. Te ta appears in the transcription o Hebrew words e.g. ‘edut (S 68:11) ‘testimony’, and is represented everywhere by t. It also appears in a nal position, e.g. verdat (texts 15:27, 35; 37:40). Ligature Te only example o ligature, i.e. two letters joined up together to appear as one letter, is that o aleph lamed / al that is a common occurrence Hebrew In text 13 we nd consonant writala m (thousand) ten with theinaleph andprint. lamed joined as one (text 13:90). Ligature appears very occasionally in the Hebrew words in our texts. 2.3.6.1 Guide to ranscriptions 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 or both Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew words. able 2.3 shows the Hebrew letters in the rashi script that is ound in most o the responsa. able 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 or phonemes, that are indicated by obliques //. It has to be noted that the majority o the texts in their srcinal sixteenth-century printed versions appear in the rashi script. Te rashi style is used mainly to write commentaries on texts. Rashi is an acronym o the name o Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (1040–1105 AD), one o the greatest medieval Jewish scholars and Bible commentators, whose commentary appears in this script. Although Rashi himsel did not use this script his commentary appeared in this typeace in the rst Hebrew book printed in Reggio di Calabria in 1475 (Bunis 1975: 4). In act Rashi script is the Sephardic script in which his commentaries were rst published next to the square letter Biblical text. Below, I includewritten a simple tableintotheexempliy the rashi script; each letter has its name below Latin script.
88 able 2.2: Guide to ranscriptions 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 o Hebrew words in italics (column 4) Hebrew Letter
Possible Judeo-Spanish Modern Spanish Grapheme used in Phoneme(s) Phoneme texts
Consonants /a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/
"
41
/a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /u/
/v/
/ß/
/b/
/b/
/g/
/g/
/dʒ/ /ʒ / /ĉ/42 /g/43 /ð/
/x/ /x/ /ʧ/ /g/ /d/
/d/
/d/
/h/44 /a/
/ /45 /a/
/v/ /o/ /u/
/ß/ /o/ /u/
a, e, i, o, u a, e, i, o, u, ’ in medial position v b, b̠ v b, b u) o, (a,g gu (e, i) g ǰ ǰ, ć, ź, ś, ğ
ch g d d D D h h a v o u v, o, u
Tis phoneme and its allophones [d ʒ], [ʒ], appear to be represented similarly by the graphic convention borrowed rom Arabic and is used to render the several realizations o the Arabic letter jim (Benabu 1991: 36). Tese phonemes do not appear in Hebrew words. 42 Tis phoneme only appears in Spanish words at the beginning o a syllable, but at the end o a word in Hebrew and Greek borrowings (Sala 1971: 125). 43 Occasionally the diacritic is erroneously added to the gimmel. Ten, according to word recognition and context one has to interpret the phoneme as just /g/. 44 Te aspirate h is only pronounced in the case o Hebrew words. 45 Te letter h is silent in modern Spanish. 41
46 47 48 49 50
89 able 2.2 (cont.) Hebrew Letter
Possible Judeo-Spanish Modern Spanish Grapheme used in Phoneme(s) Phoneme texts /z/ z
46
,
48
/θ/
ź (a, o, u)
θ
/d /
/ / /s/ /θ/
/h/̣ /t/
/h/ /t/
/e/ /i/ /y/
/e/ /i/ /y/
/y/ /je/ /ei/
/ λ/ /j/ /ie/ /ei/
/h/̣
/x/
/k/
/k/
/l/
/l/
/m/
/m/
/n/
/n/
/s/
/s/ /θ/ /θ/
ść (e, i) ć (e, i) z ḥ 47 t ṭ e i y y ll y y ie ei j k̠ u) o,c (a, qu (e, i) k l l m m n n ç s c (e, i) z (o, a, u) s
46 Te hẹ t is present in Hebrew words only; the ka̠ 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 hẹ t would be h and j. 48 Note that is the Hebrew letter that is used in nal position. Some letters ( ka̠ , mem, nun, e and tzadi) have a nal orm (so t), which is used when they appear at the end o a word.
90 able 2.2 (cont.) Hebrew Letter
Possible Judeo-Spanish Modern Spanish Grapheme used in Phoneme(s) Phoneme texts /‘ /
/‘/
/p/
/p/
,
//
//
, 50
/ ʦ/ /k/
/s/ /k/
/r/ /r/
/r/ /r/̠
/ʃ/
/x/
49
( shin) (
sin)
/s/
a, e, i, o, u (‘ in
/s/
/t/
/t/
/a /e/ /i/ /o/ /ʊ/
/a/ /e/ /i/ /o/ /ʊ/
/e/
/e/
/o/
/o/
/ni/ /ɲ /
/ni/ /ɲ/
/li/ / λ/ /y/
/li/ / λ/ /y/
Hebrewposition words in ) medial p p ṣ u) o, (a,c qu (e, i) q r rr r ǰ, š š s ś
Vowels A E I O U
Diagraphs
49 50
Ayin only appears in Hebrew words. sadi only appears in Hebrew words.
e e o o ni ñ ni (no ñ in Hebrew) li ll y y
91 able 2.3: Te Hebrew Alphabet in Rashi Script
2.3.6.2 Guide to ransliterated Versions: From the Hebrew Alphabet to the Latin Alphabet Tis system is an interpretation o the srcinal based on Minervini’s transliteration system (Minervini 1992: 7), one that I used in my MA thesis (Benaim 1996). able 2.4: Guide to ransliterations—Hebrew to Latin Hebrew Letter
Latin Letter
Consonants
"
` b g ``g d h w z ú ţ y k l m n s > p ş q r š t
92 able 2.4 (cont.) Hebrew Letter
Latin Letter
Diagraphs `y `w ny ly
2.4 Te Problems o extual ransmission 2.4.1 Introduction Tis section explains, describes and comments on the variations between an cation aim toor justiy rom srcinalineditions in editions, this study.with Justi this working can be understood the light o the act that the book has a primary objective o linguistic description and analysis. Te rst part o this section approaches the subject o textual transmission rom a general perspective and also discusses speci c issues that relate to the corpus as a whole. Te next part deals with one particular sample, text 11. Te various editions o this text have been scanned into this section. Each version o the text mirroring each edition has been transliterated according to the guide in able 2.4. Variations between versions, grouped according to speci c phenomena, are described, illustrated and discussed. Finally, the conclusion illustrates the ndings and the purpose o the exercise. In the introductory chapter (section 1.4) I explain the process o printing o the volume o the responsa that usually took place afer the demise o the respondent. Te manuscripts o the questions and replies would have been kept by the amily. In the sixteenth-century in Salonica, the emergence o some o these rst printed editions can be attested. Appendix 1 shows a table o the respondents rom whose responsa this corpus is composed. Te table indicates the various dates and places o publication o the editions o each o their responsa collection. I have listed here the edition that the BIURP (2003) uses. Also, as a ootnote at the beginning o each new respondent in
93 Chapter 4, I have indicated the edition rom which the BIURP has copied.51 Interestingly, the BIURP appears to copy rom the latest editions, though it does not conorm to the same line pattern. However, in some cases where there were no later editions, they obviously copy rom the srcinal edition. For instance, orat Emet, the collection o the respondent R. Aharon b. Joseph Sasson, only appears in one edition in Venice in 1626. BIURP uses a Jerusalem 1961 edition or the rst part o Maharashach’s responsa, yet relies on an earlier edition (Venice 1592) or the second part.52 Te srcinal editions o these responsa are mostly printed in rashi letters.53 Elijah ben Hayim’s collection and Joseph Caro’s Bet Yose are the only ones in this corpus that are printed in block letters. 54 Te BIURP prints its work in block letters, but since it is computerised its ont can be changed with ease. In the case o Medina’s responsa, all editions appear in the rashi script. Te sample textde chosen or analysis this section is part oresponsa the collection o Samuel Medina’s responsain(text 11). 55 Medina’s 56 was published rst in 1595 in Salonica, second in 1793 in Salonica
51 Tis inormation is available on the BIURP website as well as on the CD ROM itsel under Help—List o Books and Editions. 52 See Appendix 4. 53 See able 2.3. 54 As opposed to the cursive orm o the rashi letters, the square block letter is called (merubá). 55 For an index o all his responsa see Bornstein (1979) Mafehot to the Maharaschdam (Bar Ilan University). 56 In act some o Medina’s responsa appeared in an edition Piske ha-Rashdam in
Salonica by David Abraham AzuvivJewish (Bornstein 1979: 65).(1916) Tere vol. are differing views as printed to the exact date o this version. Encyclopaedia 8 says it appeared between 1578 and 1587, Zedner (1964: 675) gives the dates 1580–82, Cowley (1929) says the rst part cameout circa 1589–82 and the second part in 1582, Vinograd (1995) gives 1580–82, Goodblatt however gives 1589 (Goodblatt 1952: 28). According to the Jewish Encyclopaedia (1916) vol. 8, Medina’s responsa numbered 956 that were divided into our parts. Volume one (310 responsa) and two (316) appeared in Piské ha-Rashdam. Goodblatt states that Moses, Medina’s son, was dissatis ed with this incomplete edition because o its poor type and numerous typographical errors and afer his ather’s death he republished the collection under the title o She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam in Salonica, published by the brothers Bathsheva, in 1595 using a new type especially designed or this work by printers rom Venice. In this second republication, the responsa were reclassi ed and rearranged under our headings according to the our divisions o the Arba urim (Bornstein 1979: 65). Tis edition was published in three volumes (Goodblatt 1952: 28). For these reasons I reer to the
94 too, third in Lvov in 1863.57 Tis third edition is the one relied on by the BIURP (2003). I have scanned in a sample o the text o the second and third editions and I have indicated the variations ound in the second edition too. In this corpus, the capitals SE1 indicate the rst Salonican edition, SE2 stand or the second Salonican edition, as SE3 or the third. Te second and third editions have also been transliterated as this is helpul to our understanding o the reasons behind these textual variations and the problems o textual transmission. I have included a scanned copy o text 11 o the Piske Ha-Rashdam edition. From a methodological perspective it was an arduous task to nd this responsum, since this collection has a different numbering to the later ones and the BIURP. Hence, in order to nd the appropriate responsum I had to search manually through six hundred responsa in two volumes held in the BL. As the principal aim o this exercise is to compare the srcinal with the BIURP editions, the line reerences in all editions in this section are consistent with the line pattern o the srcinal edition used in this corpus. I have checked the BIURP against the third edition (1863 Lvov) and, in this sample text, I ound no variation. I ound out that the BIURP copy-typed the responsa and thereore it is noteworthy that despite the act the typist may not have been amiliar with Judeo-Spanish there were no errors in this case.58 Te variations thereore must have occurred between the editions o Salonica and Lvov. Te sample text rom both editions has been transliterated using the system in section 2.3.7.2. Tis system mirrors the Hebrew text by representing each Hebrew letter by an equivalent Latin letter. I have kept to the line pattern o the srcinal edition and, or the sake o ease o 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 rom one version
1595 Salonican edition as the rst and srcinal edition, since this previous one, Piske ha-Rashdam, was incomplete, erroneous, indistinct, and had a poor type. Details o publications as well as a comprehensive index to Medina’s responsa appear in Bornstein’s Mafechot leShe’elot u-eshuvot rebi Shmuel de Medina (1979). 57 Tis publishing centre in Poland is also reerred 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 inormation.
95 to the other. I have also mentioned in the ootnotes to Chapter 4 some o the pertinent variations with the BIURP. Te problems o textual transmission rom one edition to the next can be appreciated in this discussion through the analysis o this one text, since many o 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-reerences to the sample versions in section 2.4.3. Where appropriate, I document the analysis with reerences to other literary sources o this nature. Te categories discussed include variations in spelling ofen with a phonological signi cance, variations in abbreviated orms, missing letters represented by a diacritic (the equivalent o an apostrophe), metathesis,60 word separation patterns, change in the inclusion o the aleph as a consonant, different renderings, scribal or printing errors, misrepresentation o consonants with similar appearance (e.g. the nun and gimmel, the vav and the yod),61 and the phonological and orthorgraphic effect the inclusion or exclusion o diacritics. Many o these variations are o naturally repeated. In all, I ound fy-seven variations accounting or orty-one different types o variations in this sample text o sixty-nine lines between the corpus edition and the BIURP in question. Tere are also some signi cant variations occurring in the other eighty-three texts in this corpus. In text 13 o Samuel de Medina’s responsa, there is an omission in the BIURP o approximately eight lines (ll. 51–58) that consequently alters the testimony. Tis omission is already ound in the third edition, and since BIURP uses Lemberg 1862 edition it is obvious they have carried through the omission. Tis is a consequence o not working rom srcinal editions. Te srcinal text says that Abr̠ aham Primo was not in town, whilst the BIURP says that Abr̠ aham did not want to move house (see text 13:51–58).
59 Tese problems are unsurprising as ‘owing to the circumstances o medieval publication, texts were disseminated at various stages o their creation and revision, and their authors were usually prevented rom controlling what happened to them. Just as there was no scriptural authority over the development o Hebrew scripts, the production o Hebrew books and the transmission o Hebrew texts were not subject to any authoritative initiative or supervision’ (Elman & Gershoni 2000: 236). 60 See section 3.3.1.13. 61 extual conusion between the editions with the consonants resh and the daled is attested (text 34:6) and also between the peh and the cha (text 34:4).
96 In text 32:2, the text varies in the wording used although the meaning has been retained—a orm o paraphrase occurs. Te srcinal 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 preerence or the Hebrew plural ending -im. In text 26:52, justicia ‘justice’ changes orthography, gwšţyšy∙ (SE1) to g` wsţysyyh (BIURP). Te later version represents justicia as two words, substituting the sin or samech.63 Quintana also observes this apparent conusion between the graphemes o sin and samech in the sixteenth century and comments that later in the eighteenth century they are both used indistinctively (Quintana 2006: 79). Tis later version also shows a replacement o a single yod by a double yod and a change o the nal aleph to a heh. However, the variations between the editions in the rest o the texts all within the categories listed in the above paragraph. Common printing errors occur such as the conusion between a (1) vav and a zayin due to their similarity in shape prevail in the corpus and include zinido (text 54A:1) or venido, rivá (text 45:2) or rizá, repovar (S 49B:5) or repozar; (2) resh and daled accounting or depas (text 50B:27) or ropas,64 Daguza (text 54B:2) or Raguza, declado (text 71:34) or declaro; (3) chet or aleph rendering jel (text 42:20) or el, jido (text 74:3) or ido, ají (text 74:16) or ahí; (4) vav and yod giving instances o lo (text 83:73) or le, tedos (text 83:63) or todos, ses (text 43C:2) or sus. Tese errors result in non-sensical language and ofen produce semantic conusion with comic effects such as oso (text 74:38) ‘bear’ or mozo ‘lad’. Errors such as et (text 71:17) or a where a ta replaces a heh may be a consequence o the act that in Hebrew et has the same meaning ‘to’ as a in Spanish.
In this section I have italicised the Judeo-Spanish in order to acilitate this particular discussion. 63 Tis substitution is very common in Judeo-Spanish orthography. Tough it does not occur in the sample text, it occurs occasionally in other texts and I have indicated this with a ootnote. For an explanation o this orthographic phenomenon see Minervini (1992: 31–32). 64 Te word depas contains the additional error o a yod in place o a vav, thus rendering the word quite undecipherable. 62
97 Reerences in this section are made to the Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006 edition o Coplas de Yose, a medieval Spanish poem written in Hebrew characters, esti giudeoespagnoli medievali, medieval Jewish texts in Hebrew characters dating rom the end o the thirteenth century rom Castile and Aragon and to the Me’Am Lo’ez. Also Pascual Recuero’s (1988) edition o 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 Pesah ̣ 1867) to which I reer rom an orthographic perspective in the ollowing analysis. As can be appreciated rom the ollowing discussion, some variations are more signi cant than others, but arguably working rom the earliest edition possible has to be the more direct way o reproducing the language in this corpus. In order to analyse the problems o textual transmission I include o text 11: 1. a scanned copy o Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82) 2. a transliteration o the Piske Ha-Rashdam (incomplete edition) 3. a scanned copy o the rstedition (Salonica 1595) 4. a transliteration o the rst edition 5. a transliteration o the rst edition 6. a scanned copy o the second edition (Salonica 1793) 7. a transliteration o the second edition 8. a scanned copy o the third edition (Lvov 1863) 9. a downloaded copy o the BIURP in Hebrew aligned the same as the srcinal edition 10. a transliteration o the BIURP edition (exactly the same as the third edition) 11. a description o the textual differences between editions 12. a concluding statement.
98 2.4.2 Scanned Copy o ext 11 Piske Ha-Rashdam65 (incomplete edition) (Salonica 1580–82)66
65 Note that the quality o print and clarity is ar worse in the original than in the scanned copy provided herewith. 66 Tis text has been scanned rom the BL, by kind permission o British Library Board.
99 ransliteration o ext 11 (Medina Even Haezer 166) Piske Ha-Rashdam Incomplete Edition Salonica 1580–8267 Te ollowing 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. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
∙yšţh` ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynywr dwqy nw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl p∙lyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h dy g``ypry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw ly∙my dym∙ndyly qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy wyny∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.
dy ∙rdyrw ∙ynyl ly myšmw dy∙h ∙yn lh dyghdwbwţyq∙ dy bs``ţ dywynyyndw lh wynydh ∙yl dwţwr dyl hygw dyl∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl šynyywr dwqy z``lhh dyg``w šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy šy gm hyšyš wm∙` n
67 In this transliteration I have emboldened nine variations occurring in this collection in comparison to the rst complete edition published in 1595. 68 Note that I have used the same numbering o the lines as the Salonica 1595 edition or the sake o uniormity and clarity in this chapter.
100 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
nwţyšy∙ dy šw hygw šyr šw hygw qyš∙ndwšy mwgw qy nw š∙ly∙h ny ∙yrh ∙šw gwšţw rwgwmy qy ly qšţyg∙šy ∙y rypryndyyšy dyšpw∙yš dy ţyynpw wynyyndw g``ynţy dy g``ypry my dyg``w ∙wn gwdyyw qy dy ∙lyy∙ wyny∙h š∙wyyndw qy ∙yl dwţwr šy ∙wy∙` q∙z∙dw ∙yšp∙nţwmy
36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46.
mwgw.qwmw ∙n d∙dw mwg``yr ∙h ∙yšţy ∙wmbry ţynyyndw mwg``yr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙wn hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y
47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58.
qryyndwšy dwţw` ∙ynqwmyndw mwgw ∙y ky∙y` lw∙g``pry myr∙šy ∙y` pwrqy ∙lh dyg``w pyn ∙∙wnmylw qy ∙yrh ţr∙wyšw ∙yrh šw hyg``w ∙lh hm
59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.
drdyrw yş``w ∙y dyšw ∙yrmyw my∙w ∙yn ∙yšţh ∙wrh qy my h∙lyw dygw qy nw ţyngw hyg``wš ∙ymy mwg``yr qydh ∙ţ∙dh ∙šw myrsy ∙yl qw∙l šw ∙yd∙r nw ryqyyry ∙qwny∙d∙r ∙y m∙š qy ţyyny mwg``yr m∙nšybh ∙y pygw dy ∙lyyh ∙y pyynšw qy ∙yn ∙yšţw qy pl∙ţyqw ∙yš bynypyšyw dy my mwgyr pwr šyr ∙wnh mwšh dy ţyyrnh ∙yd∙d ∙y pwr ryšpyqţw dy šw myršy qwmw dyšy mwgw m∙š kw` ∙y ly dyw gţ qwrţ∙dw ∙y pwzw ∙yn pyrqwr∙dwr ∙yn zkwt dy vw∙yšh pygh p∙yšy ryšybydwr šw gţ kw` whtm bcţb hnzkr msdr hgţ hnzkr ywrnw mwrnw wg∙wnnw hdyn
101
Scanned Copy o ext 11 o the First Edition (Salonica 1595)
102 ransliteration o ext 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
rby yšr∙lšynywr d∙dryrw n``
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
p∙lyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h dy g``ypry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw ly∙my dym∙ndyly qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy wyny∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh dyl hygw dyl∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly
26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl ryšpwndyw šynyywr dwqy dyg``w šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my qy z``lhh šy gm hyšy` wm∙` n
103 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.
mwg``yr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙wn hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y
42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52.
pryšyy∙ndwly qy ∙yšţ∙bh ∙wn dwnlwq dy p∙nyyw pryţw ∙y k``h grwswš ∙y ∙wn b∙gd∙dy mwšqy ky ∙wn ţwrqw ly ∙wy∙h d∙dw ∙yšţ∙ndw ∙lyyh šw hyg``w dyšw dyl∙nţy my ∙yšy dwnlwq dy p∙nyw qy lw ţwm∙šy šw hygw pwrqy ∙yrh šw hyg``w š∙lydw dyšwš lwmwš ∙y qryyndwšy ∙y` ∙g``pry ∙y` dwţw` dyg``w mylw ∙ynqwmyndw mwgw ∙y ky lw myr∙šy pwrqy ∙lh pyn ∙∙wn qy ∙yrh ţr∙wyšw ∙yrh šw hyg``w ∙lh hm
53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.
šhšylw ∙t btwšlmh mn d∙rdyrw h lyšh wmn zh lšwnw wn
65. 66. 67. 68. 69.
∙yd∙d ∙y pwr ryšpyqţw dy šw myršy qwmw dyšy mwgw m∙š kw` ∙y ly dyw gţ qwrţ∙dw ∙y pwzw ∙yn pyrqwr∙dw` ∙yn zkwt dy vw∙yšh pygh p∙yšy ryšybydwr šw gţ kw` whtm bcţb hnzkr msdr hgţ hnzkr ywrnw mwrnw wg∙wnnw hdyn
⎥
104
Scanned Copy o ext 11 o the Second Edition (Salonica 1793)
105 ransliteration o ext 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. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
rby d∙rdyrw n``< ly dyšw šynyywr dwqy z``l yšr∙l šynyywr dwţwr pwrky nw ∙yl wwš q∙z∙š pwyš ∙yš rzwn qy q∙zyš p∙rh ţynyr hygwš ∙yl dwţwr ly ryšpwndyw pwyš šynyywr pynšh ww∙yšh šynywry∙h qy yw ∙yšţw ∙h lwmry dy p∙g∙š šyph ww∙yšh šynywry∙h qy ∙yn şpţ ţyngw ∙wn ∙ygo myld∙ndw ∙yl dwqy ly ryšpwndyw qyš∙š šyrh hygw dy ∙yr∙dh ∙yl ly ryšpwndyw šynyywr nw pwrqy ∙yš mwgyr mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y ∙wnyšţh ∙y ∙yš p∙ryynţh dy myš p∙ryynţ∙š ∙y ∙yšţh ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynyywr dwqy nw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
plyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h dy g``ypry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw lyy∙my dym∙ndyly qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy wyny∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh dyl hygw dyl∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly
26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl ryšpwndyw šynyywr dwqy dyg``w šyr šw hyg``w ∙y ∙yl my qy z``lhh šy gm hyšys wm∙` n
69 Note that the line numbers here do not correspond to the scanned copy o the text, but to that o the srcinal and BIURP.
106 34. 35. 36. 37. 38.
dy g``ypry my dyg``w ∙wn gwdyyw qy dy ∙lyy∙ wyny∙h š∙wyyndw qy ∙yl dwţwr šy ∙wy∙` q∙z∙dw ∙yšp∙nţwmy mwgw.qwmw ∙n d∙dw mwg``yr ∙h ∙yšţy ∙wmbry ţynyyndw mwgyr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙wn hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y
39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
whgzwm h
50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61.
wlhywt ţmnwktb šmwtnw hywm ywm k``b lnyšn w∙tqyymh∙mt . ∙hrkn kk r∙nw ∙hr ššlhw mp∙mh gwšţh l⎥myw šl hdwţwr hnzkr dmbšr šhšylw ∙t btw mn h⎥lyšh wmn hybwm z`` l nš∙ wn
62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.
∙qwny∙d∙r ∙y m∙š qy ţyyny mwgyr m∙nšybh ∙y pyg``w dy ∙lyyh ∙y pyynšw qy ∙yn ∙yšţw qy pl∙ţyqw ∙yš bynypyšyw dy my mwgyr pwr šyr ∙wnh mwšh dy ţyyrnh yd∙d ∙y pwr ryšpyqţw dy šw myršy qwmw dyšy mwgw m∙š kw` ∙y ly dyw gţ qwrţ∙dw ∙y pwzw ∙yn pyrqwr∙dwr ∙yn zkwtw dy vw∙yšh pygh p∙yšy ryšybydwr šw gţ kw` whtm bcţb hnzkr msdr hgţ hnzkr ywrnw mwrnw wg∙wnnw hdyn
⎥
107
Scanned Copy o ext 11 o the Tird Edition (Lvov 1863) 70
70 I have not transliterated the text o the third edition as I ound this to be exactly the same as this BIURP edition. extual examples o Medina’s cases (text numbers 11, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28) can be ound in Benaim (1996).
108
Downloaded Copy o ext 11 o the BIURP (2003) in Hebrew 71 "
"
"
.1 '
'
'
' '
'
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 .10 .11 .12 .13 .14 .15 .16 .17 .18 .19 .20 .21 .22 .23 .24 .25 .26 .27 .28
71 Note that I have restructured this responsum to appear in the same line pattern as in the edition in this corpus o Salonica 1597.
109 .29 .30 .31 .32 .33 .34 .35 .36 .37 .38 .39 .40 .41 .42 .43 .44
‘ ‘
'
' '
'
' '
'
.45 .46 .47 .48 .49 .50 .51 .52 .53 .54 .55 .56 .57 .58 .59 .60 .61 .62 .63 .64 .65 .66 .67
' '
'
'
' . '
' ‘
' ' :
'
.68 .69
110
ransliteration o ext 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
z``l pwrky nw wwš q∙z∙š pwyš rzwnšynyywr qy q∙zyšdwţwr p∙rh ţynyr hygwš ∙yl dwţwr ly ∙yš ryšpwndyw pwyš šynyywr pynšh ww∙yšh šynywry∙h qy yw ∙yšţw ∙h lwmry dy phg∙š šyph ww∙yšh šynywry∙h qy ∙yn şpţ ţyngw ∙wn ∙ygo myld∙ndw ∙yl dwqy ly ryšpwndyw qyš∙š šyrh hygw dy ∙yr∙dh ∙yl ly ryšpwndyw šynyywr nw pwrqy ∙yš mwgyr mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y ∙wnyšţh ∙y ∙yš p∙ryynţh dy myš p∙ryynţ∙š ∙y ∙yšţh ∙yn q∙zh dy my ∙yrmnw ∙y ∙yšţwbw šyynpry ∙y pynšh ∙yly∙ qy ∙yš q∙z∙dh qwn mygw ∙yl šynyywr dwqy gw ryplyqw m∙š p∙š∙ndw dy∙š d∙špw∙yš dyl plyšmyynţw dyl šynywr dwqy wynyyndw ∙wnh g∙ly∙h
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
dy g``y pry hlyy∙ndwmy yw ∙yn lh bwţyq∙ dy r` ∙brhm ţrygw wydw ∙yšţ∙r ∙wn mwšw ∙yn prynţy wyšţydw qwn ∙wnh q∙ph dy p∙nyyw dy š∙lwnyqy ∙y ∙wnh gwrh ∙m∙ryly∙ ∙yn lh q∙bysh ∙h mwdw pr∙nqw yw p∙ryšyyndwmy šyr pwr∙šţyrw lw lyy∙my dym∙ndyly qyyn ∙yrh ∙y dy ∙dw wyny∙h ∙yl my ryšpwndyw qy wygy∙h dy gypry ∙y qy ∙yrh hygw dyl dwţwr r` yšr∙l dy ∙rdyrw dw ∙ynyl myšmw dy∙h wynyyndw ∙yl dwţwr ∙yn lh dygh bwţyq∙ ly dy bs``ţ dy lh wynydh dyl hygw dy l∙nţry dyl prwpyw hygw dym∙nd∙dwly šy ∙yrh ∙qyl ∙yl hygw qyl šynyywr dwqy z``l dyg``w
27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
šyr šwkrby hyg``w ∙yl my∙⎥ryšpwndyw qy šy gm hyšyš wm∙` n
72 Line numbers here are made to correspond to that o the srcinal edition to acilitate reerencing.
111 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
mwgw.qwmw ∙n d∙dw mwg``yr ∙h ∙yšţy ∙wmbry ţynyyndw mwgyr ∙yn gypry mwy ∙wnr∙dh ∙y hyrmwzh ∙y qwn ∙yn hygw gm hyqr wnkbd h``r y
41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.
∙mygw pwrqy ryšybţ∙b` ∙yn my bwţyqh ∙y pryšyy∙ndwly qy ∙yšţ∙bh ∙wn dwnlwq dy p∙nyyw pryţw ∙y k``h grwswš ∙y ∙wn b∙gd∙dy mwšqy ky ∙wn ţwrqw ly ∙wy∙h d∙dw ∙yšţ∙ndw ∙lyyh šw ∙ygw dyšw dyl∙nţymy ∙yšy dwnlw` dy p∙nywqy lw ţwm∙šy šw ∙ygw pwrqy ∙yr` šw ∙ygw š∙lydw dy šwš lwmwš ∙y qryyndwšy ∙y` ∙gpry ∙y` dwţw` dyg``w mylw ∙ynqwmyndw mwgw ∙y ky lw myr∙šy pwrqy ∙lh pyn ∙∙wn qy ∙yrh ţr∙wyšw ∙yrh šw ∙ygw ∙lh hm
52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63.
mp∙mh l myw šl hdwţwr hnz` dmbšr šhšylw ∙tgwšţh btw mn h⎥lyšh wmn hybwm z``l nš∙ wn
64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.
bynypyšyw dy my mwgyr pwr šyr ∙wnh mwšh dy ţyyrnh ∙yd∙d ∙y pwr ryšpyqţw dy šw myršy qwmw dyšy mwgw m∙š kw` ∙y ly dyw gţ qwrţ∙dw ∙y pwzw ∙yn pyrqwr∙dwr yn zkwtw dy vw∙yšh pygh p∙yšy ryšybydwr šw gţ kw` whtm bcţb hnz` msdr hgţ hnzkr ywrnw mwrnw wg∙wnnw hdyn
⎥
112 2.4.3 Description o the extual Variations in ext 11 Between the Original Edition (Salonica 1595) and the Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project73 1. Variation in the spelling o šynyywr / señor with one or two yod can be attested. Tere are 11 examples o šynywr (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 o šynyywr (ll. 26, 30, 55) in SE1, 8 (ll. 2, 4, 6, 10, 13, 26, 30, 55) examples in BIURP. Out o these 14 examples there are ve examples where the spelling varies between editions: (ll. 2, 4, 6, 10, 13). It can be seen that in this one text there are ve more cases o the double yod in señor 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 rom the srcinal 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 74
the 18) a‘cloth’ withSE1. a double p∙nyyw / paño yod SE1. in the Also SE2 and BIURP and(l.with singleappears yod in the It is noteworthy that ella appears as ∙lyyh (SE1 l. 63) and ∙ly∙ (BIURP), showing a process o reduction rom 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). Te diphthong in pienso: pyynšw (SE1 l. 63) is lost in the BIURP orm o pynšw in the same process o the reduction o the yod as it also is in Me’Am Lo’ez. Perhaps the Me’Am Lo’ez re ects linguistic changes that took place one hundred and fy years afer the majority o the responsa consulted in this book. 2. Variation in abbreviations; some are written in ull, others abbreviated. For instance, in the SE1 z``lhh (ll. 1, 4, 26) is attested while
z``l in the BIURP edition. Te SE2 edition has z’’l in ll. 1.4, but z’’lhh in l. 26. Tere is a difference in the literal meaning. z ``lhh stands or zijronó lehayé ha’olam habá’, lit. ‘may his memory live in 73 Since the BIURP is an exact copy o the third edition (Lvov 1863) I do not reer separately to this edition but it is axiomatically included in my reerences to the BIURP. Te second edition (Salonica 1793), reerred to as ‘SE2’, is also discussed here. 74 Llamar is represented with a double yod in Pentateuco de Constantinopla (Pascual 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 Te double yod spelling is attested in the spelling o manzillado in Coplas de
Yose (González Llubera 1935: 34).
113 the world to come’, whilst z``l indicates in this case zijronó livrajá ‘o blessed memory’. Interestingly z``l also abbreviates ze lešonó ‘this is his language’. In SE1 it is written in ull, perhaps to distinguish with the above examples, but appears abbreviated in the SE2 and BIURP (l. 53). Te title or rabbi is written in ull: rebí in the SE1 and SE2 (l. 3) but abbreviated to r` in the BIURP edition, then written in ull in all editions in l. 28. Tere are numerous cases in both editions where occasionally the last letter or letters may be omitted or the sake o brevity. For example, ∙yšţh / esta in the BIURP (l. 59) has the nal heh omitted and a diacritic inserted to indicate the omission.76 Tis is not the case in both Salonican editions. In l. 27 in the SE1, the Hebrew word hyšyš has the nal consonant abbreviated and this is indicated by the diacritic. In the BIURP it is written in ull. Yet h∙ywm / haiyum (l. 38) has the nal m abbreviated the SE2 and BIURP and is unabbreviated in SE1.appears in Teinusual Hebrew word hanizkar ‘the orementioned’ ull or abbreviated in both editions and throughout the texts with no particular intended pattern. Hnzkr is written in ull in the SE1 (ll. 28, 52, 68, 68) and only once in the BIURP (l. 68). However, in its shortened orm hnz` it appears only once in the SE1 (l. 49) and our times in the BIURP (ll. 28, 49, 52, 68). As exempli ed in this text, I have noticed in general in this corpus that in the SE1 the unabbreviated orm is more popular. Also era in l. 40 appears in ull in the SE1 but abbreviated with its aleph in nal position represented by a diacritic in the SE2 and BIURP. Final aleph is also omitted and the word ryšybţ∙b∙ / recev-
taba 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 ull and its nal consonant r is omitted in the SE1. 3. Metathesis o -rd is exempli ed in the SE1 d∙dryrw / Dadrero (l. 3) whilst the later editions, SE2 and BIURP, appear to correct this orm to d∙rdyrw (Dardero). However, in the next appearances o this surname (ll. 23, 54), it appears unmetathesized in both editions. Examples o metathesis, such as se acodró abound in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:124). 76
Minervini attests the spelling o esta as ∙šţh (Minervini 1992: 23).
114 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. Te next example o g``ypry (l. 54) appears as one word in both editions. Te word dy l∙nţry / delantre (l. 25) ‘in ront o’ appears as one word in the SE1 and SE2, yet unjoined in the later edition. Te SE1 gives the correct orm.77 In l. 33 in both editions there are different examples o an erratic word separation: dy ţyynpwwynyyndwg``ynţy appears in the SE1 and dyţyynpw wynyyndw g``ynţw/ detienpo viniendo gente in the SE2 and BIURP. Te correct word separation should be: de tienpo viniendo gente, neither version is correct, though the later version may be trying to correct word separation. words Spanish written as a vijitar oneTe word in the SE1 (l. in 40)medieval but as two words ‘to andvisit’ in anisabbreviated orm in the SE2 and BIURP: ∙wyg`` ţ∙`. Additionally, the graphemes yod in interior position and resh in nal position are missing, thus rendering this word quite undecipherable. An erratic lack o word separation is present in l. 45 in the BIURP where there are two variations. Te words dyl∙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. Te BIURP corrects an erroneous word separation dyšwš / desus ‘o his’ (l. 46) that appears joined in the SE. Te Me’Am Lo’ez, in contrast, is in act a much neater text with a regular display o word separation. 5. Omission o 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 re ecting phonolical 77
18.
Note that in modern Spanish delante is the norm, see section 3.3.2. paragraph
78 Raźón is spelt with aleph in Coplas de Yose (González Llubera 1935: 4, 18) and in Sulhan de Venecia (1712–13) (Pascual Recuero 1988: 289 l. 126).
115 change, also escapar / ∙ysc∙p∙r with an abundance o aleph (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:123) Similarly, plyšmyynţw / allecimento ‘demise’ (l. 15) in the SE2 and BIURP omits the aleph afer 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. Te reading o this word becomes ambiguous, as it could be read as cajándose (that is senseless) where the rst vowel attached to the consonant ko can be interpreted as an aleph.79 6. A different spelling phg∙s / paǰas (l. 7) in the BIURP as opposed to p∙g∙s in the SE1 and SE2 makes no difference in pronunciation.80 Te BIURP uses a heh81 instead o an aleph consonant.82 Also, the Hebrew borrowing zkwt (SE) / zeku̠ t ‘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 o the n in p∙ryynt∙s / ‘relatives’ 11) in SE1correction. are later corrected in the SE2 parientes and BIURP. Tis is (l. a case o the scribal 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 Te srcinal edition gives the correct orthography. 8. Te common misreadings o consonants with a similar appearance, or 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. Te word gw is meaningless and thereore this is a case where a contextual together with an orthographic decision leads to the correct interpretation and where the srcinal 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.
Te vowel is absent in an unpointed text. See chap. 4 n. 81 or a translation o pagas/pajas. 81 In earlier manuscripts o Coplas de Yose the heh is ofen misread or the aleph (González Llubera 1935: 4). 82 Te editor here attests the same variations between earlier and later manuscripts o Coplas de Yose (González Llubera 1935: 22). 83 A similar case is attested in esti giudeoespagnoli medievali with licencia, however noticia appears spelt as in the SE (Minervini 1992: 159, 437). 79 80
116 9. In the transcription section 2.3.7, the renditions o gimmel with and without the diacritic are explained. Te word hiǰo ‘son’ in modern Spanish was pronounced with the palatal /ʒ/ in medieval Spanish and remains so in Judeo-Spanish. o convey the palatal, the diacritic is needed otherwise the gimmel is read /g/. Tereore, a cognizance o the word is needed or the correct reading. Tis text shows a variety o 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 orm ∙ygw / ijo twice in the same line where the heh has been substituted by an aleph. I the spelling were an accurate way o determining phonological change, then this could attest a loss o the aspirate. Also, the orm pygw / go (BIURP l. 62) and pyg``w / ǰo (SE1) are attested; the srcinal edition shows the correct orm ‘son’ as opposed to go ‘ g’ that is irrelevant here. In one text (SE1), the three orms o phonological 84
ǰo, hiǰo and ijo relevance are attested:representation Te orthographic o. muǰer 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 o ve examples, two are written orthographically correct in the SE1 only. However, no diacritics are present in the SE2, so it is noteworthy that they do reappear in the third and BIURP editions. Careless omissions o the diacritic were present in literature such asCoplas de Yose (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
hẹ t in Siddurim de Liorna (Pascual Recuero 1988: 326, 335).85 Chipre ‘Cyprus’ has its rst consonant represented in the Hebrew alphabet by gimmel + diacritic as there is no equivalent phoneme in Hebrew. I 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. See also Minervini on the use o the diacritic in her edition o 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. 84
117 10. Tere are cases in this testimony where a vav appears in place o a yod. Tese printing errors are common in Hebrew due to the act that the vav is in its shape only an extension o 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 o ly / le in the SE1 changes the meaning rom lo, the direct object pronoun, to le the indirect object pronoun. It is a eature o JudeoSpanish that the orm lo appears in place o le (see pp. 162–163). It could be deduced that the SE1 represents the Castilian eature and the BIURP re ects the Judeo-Spanish orm, 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. Tis is caused by the problem o writing a vav in place o a yod in nal position. Te same issue arises in l. 37, where ∙ yn /en ‘in’ is attested in the BIURP in place o ∙SE1. wn / un ‘a’ (the inde nite article) that appears correctly in the 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 orm. 11. Te word mwgw / mucho in the SE1 is replaced by mwy / muy (l. 40) in the SE2 and BIURP.87 Neither orms are accepted in this context in modern Spanish, but both orms are identi ed in Judeo-Spanish. Harris notes the post-expulsion Judeo-Spanish use o muy muncho to express ‘a lot’ (Harris 1994: 81). Te context o this use is: era mucho mi amigo and era muy mi amigo both intending to convey ‘he was a very good riend’. Te alternating use o both mucho and muy appearing beore adjectives, participles and adverbs with a superlative or augmentative meaning can also be seen in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 101).
See González Llubera (1935: 18). In act, since the diacritic is absent, mucho could be read as mugo which is meaningless. 86 87
118 2.4.4 Concluding Statement I have counted 41 different examples o variations between the editions SE1 and the BIURP, 57 including repeated examples, in this text o 69 lines. O these variations, about 33 (including repeated examples) were already in therom second edition Salonica.thereore Te BIURP mirrors the present third edition Lvov. Teseinvariations occurred with each different edition. It is interesting to note that many variations rom the srcinal to the second edition in Salonica in a space o about 198 years include the addition o a yod afer the lamed yod and afer a nun yod, the omission o the diacritic in muger, and the occasional omission o the aspirate in the case o ijo. Tere are nine dierences between the Piske Ha-Rashdam edition and the rst edition. Te space o publication between these two versions is approximately feen years. I we consider a multiple o this number o variations in the case o 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 rom a linguistic perspective rom the BIURP. It mirrors the third edition (Lvov 1863) that appears 268 years afer the srcinal, though 70 years afer the second edition (Salonica 1793). Approximately 57% o variations (including repeated variations) took place between the rst two editions; that is unsurprising given nearly 200 years difference in time. Further variations took place in the Lvov edition. Te act that there are so many differences indicate the added layers o transmission that exist between editions and thereore there is no question as to the validity and justi cation or working rom srcinal editions. Tis analysis is completed by the addition o relevant ootnotes and to the textscant in Chapter 4, where I have other serious omissions signi variations between the noted editions.
CHAPER HREE
HE LANGUAGE IN HE RESPONSA 3.1 Introduction Te purpose o this chapter is to describe the context and to de ne the eatures o Judeo-Spanish in the light o the corpus o this literature. Te analysis o these eatures describes the language as represented in the texts. By researching the incidences o certain phonological, morphological and lexical phenomena, a description o Judeo-Spanish in the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire emerges.1 However it is important to clariy that the ndings are a result o examining the eighty-our responsa selected or this book. Tere are probably about another hundred responsa throughout the centuries that would need to be studied beore making any general conclusions. In this analysis, the incidence o borrowings rom other languages is described as it appears in this corpus o the texts. Some textual comparisons with my own research in the language in the Me’Am Lo’ez serve to enhance the understanding o the linguistic analysis. Te Me’Am Lo’ez, a Ladino Biblical commentary written approximately one hundred and fy years afer the language portrayed in the responsa in this book, illustrates the development o the a similar type o language, that o a rabbinical register emerging rom the same geographical areas such as Constantinople, Salonica, Smyrna and Jerusalem. Judeo-Spanish contains retentions o feenth-century Castilian as well as many o its own innovations with its own geographic variations.2 Te non-Castilian eatures o Judeo-Spanish are discussed.
1 Séphiha notes the relevance o the Judeo-Spanish texts or the knowledge o the development o 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 o the Spanish language prior to 1492 . . . Also philologists and historians o the Spanish language will nd here many eatures that is bound to enrich their knowledge) (Ayoun & Séphiha 1992: 311). 2 Within the Judeo-Spanish picture there are many dialectal differences, or example between the eastern and western Balkan varieties (Sala 1996: 26). Te main source
120 Essentially, this is the language o a people who had spent over seventy years in exile and begun to absorb eatures o neighbouring languages. Te texts collected in this book contain especially valuable inormation o the Spanish language o the feenth century, a testimony o the Sephardim’s speech albeit through writing.3 3.2 Vernacular Jewish Languages Although acing extinction as a living language,4 Judeo-Spanish, its culture and literature are currently experiencing a revival. No doubt the advent o the Internet has acilitated communication and exchange amongs Judeo-Spanish speakers who are scattered around the globe. Academic books and articles are regularly published, and JudeoSpanish eatures on university courses. A signi cant actor in the history o Judeo-Spanish is the return in the twentieth century o the languageis back into contact with theorSpanish-speaking world years rom which was somehow separated nearly ve hundred (Pountain 2001: 219). Academic publications like the periodical Searad in CSIC con rm this reuni cation. Recent scholarly works like that o Girón-Negrón & Minervini’s 2006 critical edition o the Coplas de Yose, a midrashic poem believed to be rom the sixteenth century, have majorly contributed to the study o linguistics and culture o sixteenth century Sephardic Jewish lie. Lehmann’s 2005 publication o Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman Sephardic Culture also enriches the eld o Sephardic studies. Some scholars have distinguished between Ladino and JudeoSpanish. Ladino has been de ned by academics as the literal translation
or a descriptive study o the Geographical linguistics o Judeo-Spanish is Quintana’s Geograía lingüística del judeospañol 2006. 3 Spaulding explains the value o the language o the Sephardim as a source o inormation, ‘Especially valuable is the testimony o the Sephardim, the Spanish Jews . . . Wherever the seardíes ed, with them went the Spanish o their day, and, living apart as has been their destiny and cut off rom the growing stalk o Castilian, they have preserved many o the archaic traits o the Spanish language, as also much o its early popular literature, ballads, proverbs and olk tales’ (Spaulding 1975: 153). 4 Harris discusses that Judeo-Spanish is currently not transmitted to the younger generations, ‘oday Judeo-Spanish is a dying language in the United States, Israel and urkey, the three countries that now have the largest Sephardic populations in the world. It is a language relegated to the domain o the amily and is used almost exclusively among (or with) older people’ (Harris 1994: 197).
121 rom Hebrew into the vernacular usually seen in the religious literature.5 For instance, literal translations o the Bible and many other holy writings in the vernacular were transcribed in the Hebrew script, ofen side by side with the Hebrew.6 ‘Ladino’, says Bunis, ‘is worthy o scholarly attention’ and is a ‘notable cultural creation o 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 o the main experts in the eld, uses Judezmo to describe the spoken language: ‘accepting the validity o the basic anthropological thesis that a culture must be analyzed rom within i 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 requency among its native speakers . . . I have proposed that Judezmo be used retrospectively to signiy the language o the Sephardim throughout its historical development and in all its varieties (Bunis 1984:as 108). Te writings Yisra’elavla Ḥ ayim Belgrade muestra luengua,omuestra reer to the language [ourolanguage] (Bunis 1996a: 160). Ladino is currently used by some as an umbrella term encompassing all the different varieties o Judeo-Spanish.7 Te word ladino is derived primarily rom the Latin latinus. Latinus was derived rom latius (Alvar 1996: 343). Ladino was extended to describe a Moor or a Jew who spoke Romance, or the language o the Christians. Ladino uses Hebrew syntax, whereas Judeo-Spanish has its own. Ladino is an arti cial language created with a pedagogic aim. Vernacular translations o the Bible began in the thirteenth century and ourished in the feenth and sixteenth centuries. TeSpanish translations ollowed Hebrew lexical and syntactical models (Miller 2000: 88–89). Te principle o adhering to the Hebrew, element by element in translation,
5 Hassán comments on the emphasis on the literal translation as opposed to intent to acilitate comprehension, ‘A los ladinadores seardíes, al igual que a quienes utilizaban la misma técnica teniendo como destino alguna otra lengua judía, no les preocupaba tanto acilitar el entendimiento cuanto re ejar con delidad la verdad hebraica’ (Hassán 2000: 4). 6 See Benabu & Sermoneta 1985: 1–25. 7 Te departments in universities in Israel currently call themselves ‘Ladino’. Te Bar-Ilan University conerence in December 2004 was called ‘Ladino Conerence’ and in the conerence there was a desire by the academic participants to use ‘Ladino’ in place o ‘Judeo-Spanish’ as the umbrella term.
122 was established early on in the Aramaic argumim. Tis principle prevails in the Ladino translation o Hešeq Šelomó where the syntax tries to mirror-image the Hebrew source text while the grammar and lexicon are clearly Spanish (Bunis 1999a: 158). Tis is how Ladino entered the Sephardic liturgy.8 Haïm Vidal Séphiha reers to the verb ladinar where the Spanish word corresponds literally to the Hebrew word. Te Hagaddah, recited during the Passover estival, exempli es the use o Ladino or a pedagogic purpose.9 Bunis, in his thorough examination o pre-expulsion Jewish Ibero-Romance, notes the abundance o Ladino translations available at the time. He illustrates with evidence that rom the writings o Nahmanides,10 Rabbi Joseph Karo and others it is known that in Purim the Book o 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 srcinal Hebrew text (Bunis 2004: 126). Tere was some controversy about the halakhic suitability o reading o the Book o Esther in the non-Hebrew thisthe theexpulsion, practice the continued. tionally, Bunislanguage expands but thatdespite ollowing reading Addio the Passover Haggadah and Ethics o the Fathers [Pirké Avot] in Ladino was widespread.11 Many Sephardic amilies today recite the Hagaddah in both Hebrew and Ladino.12 Judeo-Spanish is generally de ned as the language spoken by the Jews who lef Spain and Portugal afer the Inquisition; the language travelled with the people and acquired elements o host languages on the way. It is estimated that between 50,000 and 95,000 lef Spain in 1492 as rom 31 July, the Hebrew date o 9 o Av, same day and month as the destruction o the rst and second emple in Jerusalem (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 151). Tis large number o Iberian
See chap. 1 n. 30. For an account and bibliography o the different versions o the Haggadah šel Pesaḥ see Romero 1992: 66–69, also or reerence to the etauni Haggadah see Alvar 1996: 358. 10 ̣ an Girondi, 1194–1270. Rabbi Moses ben Nah m 11 (1) Te problems o Ladino, a calque translation, produced ofen clumsy translation style. Bunis examines this effectively is detail alongside a comparison o translation between the Jewish and non-Jewish translations (Bunis 2004: 133–135). (2) For an analysis and comparisons between Ladino translations o some Haggadot see Shwarzwald 1996: 359–371. 12 Tis is a current custom among the Jews o Gibraltar (noted rom personal experience). 8 9
123 Jews by ar outnumbered the existing Jewish population. It is essentially feenth-century Spanish with borrowings rom Hebrew, later incorporating traces o Arabic, urkish, Greek, French and Italian (Ayoun and Séphiha 1992: 314). Academic discussion has debated whether the Jews o Spain, prior to the Inquisition, spoke a speci c language distinct rom that o their Gentile neighbours (Penny 1992a: 125–140). Shwarzwald constructively argues and proves that the language o the Jews in Spain was different to that o their non-Jewish counterparts (Shwarzwald 1993: 32). Bunis also assures that there were already regional varieties o Jewish Ibero-Romance, among them Castilian, Catalan, Aragonese, Galician and Portuguese (Bunis 2004: 105).13 Interestingly Bunis brings examples rom Spanish Christian literature o the feenth century to substantiate that there existed Gentile awareness o Jewish linguistic differences (Bunis 2004: 136). Others put orward the view that the Jews spoke an identical language to that o their Christian and Muslim neighbours except speci c reerences associated2008: with150). religion, commerce and jurisprudence (Minervini & Várvaro Te distinctive characteristics o Judeo-Spanish emerged as a result o the mingling o Jews speaking different regional dialects, such as those o Lisbon and Seville, as they converged in cities such as Salonica, So a and Belgrade. Tere were regional differences preserved by separate synagogues or Castile, Aragon and Portugal14 and even or separate towns: sinagogas cordubesas, lisboetas, etc.15 An adaptative process occurred, resulting in linguistic homogenization. Tis produced inter-dialectical eatures not unique to any o the groups. Judeo-Spanish nally emerged over time as a result o this combinatorial process. Tus the Judeo-Spanish o the sixteenth-century Ottoman Empire is similar to feenth-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 o the Ottoman Sephardim, Jerusalem 1999, H. V. Séphiha, Le judéo-espagnol, Paris 1986. M. C. Bornes-Varol 2004. 14 Tough there were regional differences the basis o Judeo-Spanish inter-dialectal levelling is Castilian as there is no evidence o text written in Catalan, Aragonese, Navarrese etc (Minervini 1999: 44). 15 On arrival in Salonica the Sephardim established the ollowing synagogues: ‘Gerush Sepharad, Castilia, Aragon, Catalan and Majorca. Te Portuguese arrivals ounded these communities: Portugal, Lisbon and Evora’ (Goodblatt 1952: 12).
124 ossil, where you could suddenly witness the speech o the Spanish Catholic monarchs (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 159). As communities reormed, 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 o the countries where some Spanish exiles ed afer the expulsion and there is evidence o a Judeo-Spanish language during the feenth and sixteenth centuries (Minervini 1996: 287). Te common basis or the existing dialects is a koiné established since the Inquisition with new regional differences.16 Te variations were apparent in the people o Constantinople, Salonica, Skopye, Monastir17 and Oran (Entwistle 1965: 180). In Bucharest too a type o koiné was developed that not only contained linguistic usages o the Portuguese and Catalan Jews, who were expulsed at the same time as the Spanish Jews and who had rejected their language in avour o Spanish, but also absorbed linguistic peculiarities o can other Jews (Sala 1971: 12–13). Te beginning o a koine benon-Spanish seen in the Coplas as a mirror o the vernacular (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 114). Similarly, Hakitía, the language spoken by the Jews o Morocco, can still be heard in parts o Israel, Venezuela, Canada and, to a lesser extent, Spain, France and Brazil (Serels 1991: 177–181).18 It contains many phono-morphological eatures o pre-sixteenth-century Spanish 16 (1) A koiné is the new language variety that is created that preers the linguistically simpler variants available to the community at large. Tis occurs in cases where there is a creation o a community made up o immigrants who speak different varieties (Penny 2004a: 318). Tis is the case with Judeo-Spanish. (2) For an explanation o the ormation o the Judeo-Spanish koiné in the sixteenth century see Minervini (1999: 41–53). (3) A substantial contribution to this eld is made yb Quintana-Rodriguez (2004). 17 Te srcin o the Jews o Monastir can be traced back to the act that o the ve synagogues in Monastir one was known as El Cal de Portugal and the other el Cal de Aragón, and that o the large number o Castilians, Portuguese and Catalonian Jews that settled in Avlona, a port o Albania, at the beginning o the sixteenth century— many o them lef the city and settled in Monastir because o the bad climate and unsatisactory economic conditions (Luria 1930: 328–9). Luria discusses the archaic nature o 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 o Spain, particularly Leonese (Luria 1930: 332). Note that based on Epstein’s (1980) research, it is suggested there were 48 Jewish amilies and six bachelors in Monastir in 1529 (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 156). 18 For a detailed account on Hakitía see Hassán (1998: 1–32). See also José Benoliel’s Dialecto Judeo-Hispano-Marroqui o Hakitia. Madrid 1977.
125 and lexical elements o Moroccan Arabic.19 Tis phenomenon is like that o the urkish in the Eastern dialects o Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew. Te present study investigates the Judeo-Spanish o a slice o the rabbinic literature, a complex mélange offering a different linguistic pro le to that previously researched. Tis language comprises a core element o the vernacular with some added legal and rabbinic terminology, affording an insight into the culture and social mores o the Jews living in the Ottoman Empire. Te issue o whether the language in the texts in this book is Ladino or Judeo-Spanish is clear. Te texts mainly comprise o a representation o 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 ofen encountered in these texts (Bunis 1984: 125). Jews in past centuries lived in physical, social, cultural and, o course, religious isolation. they their developed their own particular orms o speech Consequently, that re ected both cultural identity and their desire to communicate amongst themselves in a way that others could not understand, hence the appearance o judeo languages that can be described as varieties o the dominant language culture o the juderias, Jewish quarters. From a sociological perspective, the Jews wished to keep themselves different and used linguistic orms 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 o ancient Rome utilized a difference and speci c Jewish variety o Latin, differing in many ways rom that used at by their non-Jewish counterparts at the same time (Bunis 1984: 105). Te intricasies o Judeo-Italian is discussed by Arnold (Arnold 2006b: 110–111). Arnold also looks at the Judeo-Spanish o the Italian Jews and illustrates his argument with texts rom the responsa literature such as rom Rabbi Chayim Shabtai (1605) (Arnold 2006a: 222–227). Miller discusses the differences between bilingualism and diglossia. She cites the existing de nition o 19 Benabu’s Contemporary exts in Western Judeo-Spanish (Hakitía) include transcripts o speakers o Hakitía. Among his inormers was my maternal grandmother, señora Ester Ederi. Te language shows extensive borrowings rom Moroccan Arabic (Benabu 1979: 24–33). 20 On elitist and popular register see Bunis (2004: 108–115).
126 bilingualism as a characteristic o an individual and diglossia as that o a community (Miller 2000: 28). In these texts, the bilingualism o the scribe is evident, that o the witness is not always clear and with the inormation provided no conclusions can be reached as to the level o bilingualism o the community. Te act that prayer books had to be translated into Judeo-Spanish in order to reach the masses is perhaps proo that many members o the community were not entirely bilingual.21 Te intricate commingling o the two languages contributes to the quotidian tone o these texts, but the intercalation o the Hebrew also serves the various purposes described. At this point it is pertinent to allude to Quintana’s account o the stages o 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 o the orah that is read every week) in Hebrew withovocalization anda its cantillation, and the corresponding chapters the hafarah, portion rom the Prophets. 4. o learn the parashah and the corresponding chapters o the hatarah in Ladino. 5. Understand the contents o the parashah and the corresponding chapters o the hafarah. 6. o learn the grammar o the Holy Language (Lashon ha-qodesh) in order to be able to speak and write it correctly. (Quintana 2008: 188–189). Tereore 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. Te difference in their respective use o Judeo-Spanish lies in the act that men would have been uent readers, perhaps speakers, o Hebrew and would thereore bear that in uence in the language. Women transmitted the vernacular language through the oral tradition since they
21 Tis 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 o Judeo-Spanish liturgical literature see Romero (1992: 31–77).
127 would not have been taught how to read Hebrew.22 Women were the transmitters o the oral Judeo-Spanish tradition in orms o song, poetry, proverb, popular recounts and so the Hebrew component o their language would have been learnt unconsciously through the spoken Judeo-Spanish. Teir pronounciation o Hebrew words may well have re ected this idea. It is known that the Iberian communities o Salonica initially lived separately rom other communities (Goodblatt 1952: 13). Naturally, business dealings were transacted with the host communities and even with the urks. Jews would requently borrow money rom their urkish riends, as evident rom text 13. In text 18:29, the term or the money lender is presented in urkish, el sara, as are many terms like hugit, meaning title-deed, etc. (texts 37:38, 50:2).23 Te texts also reveal evidence o inter-city travel. Abr̠ aham Primo ofen lef Salonica or Wallachia, a southern province o Romania, while his brother collected the rent. Letters quoted in the responsa were sent rom cities such as Famagusta, Ancona Noteworthy is the and act Skopje that the(13). Judeo-Spanish language survives one hundred years afer having lef its motherland. Whereas men learnt sucient urkish to handle their daily affairs outside their home, Jewish women were not acquainted with urkish and rarely did Jewish amily speak urkish. urkish names very rarely appeared in Jewish polls. Tey were staunch in their identity. In act the Iberian Jews’ ‘insistence upon preserving their Iberian culture . . . despite their physical distance rom Spain, the loyal attachment shown to their Jewish heritage, their religion, and the enormous effort made to continue developing Jewish culture’ was quite singular. Tey were, in a sense, Spaniards without a motherland. Tis theme is one that prevails much o Ladino poetry that survived into later generations (Reael 2008: 211). As a point o comparison it is pertinent to note the pattern o Yiddish in the responsa. In the Ashkenazi world, Yiddish, derived rom 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 o the article that deals with an analysis o Judeo-Spanish literary genres. Also see Lehmann 2005: 121–134, or a discussion o the representation o gender in the rabbinical ethical literature. 23 See urkish 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 lists Yiddish expressions in the testimony o Ashkenazi Responsa rom the seventeenth century onwards and explains the importance o preserving the language or the sake o legal accuracy (Rubashov 1929). Te amount o Yiddish present in the Ashkenazi responsa is not at all comparable as that ound in the Sephardic responsa that is collected in this study. However it is important to acknowledge and de ne that Yiddish, like Judeo-Spanish is a usion language. ‘Certain components are chosen rom one major and a ew minor determinants, and together they create the Jewish used language’ (Shwarzwald 1985: 139). In this article Shwarzwald examines the Hebrew Aramaic component used in Judeo-Spanish, some elements having undergone lexical processes and she amply illustrates this linguistic phenomenon. She also draws rom Weinreich’s notion o distinguishing between two kinds o Hebrew Aramaic (present in Yiddish and in Judeo-Spanish) in the used language, namely Whole and Merged Hebrew. Whole Hebrew indicatesbáal the recognisable element as in habáyis, abáit (Hebrew Spanish Aramaic orYiddish master báal o the house).JudeoConversely Merged Hebrew is regarded as part o the new Jewish language (Shwarzwald 1985: 140). Te article examines the grammatical means through which many Hebrew Aramaic words were used in JudeoSpanish albeit sometimes undergoing changes in syntax and in meaning. Te merged Hebrew-Aramaic component o 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’ (BenUr 2001: 6). Ben-Ur notes that Ladino never achieved the linguistic hegemony that Yiddish had. She observes the difference in numbers o speakers per language: estimates in the 1930s say that the percentage o 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 Seardim’ (Weinreich 1970: 385). It is spoken by the older generation and is taught and kept alive in some Chasidic circles and their institutes o learning. Yiddish srcinated and has been developing as the language o the Ashkenazic community that has been in existence or eleven hundred years or so. For more on the linguistic components o Yiddish see Weinreich (1970: 412–3).
129 approximately 3% and 2.3% compared to 60.6% and 54.7% o Yiddish speakers. She adds that in the case o Ladino numbers do not represent the impact on the Jewish world as a whole (Ben-Ur 2001: 6).
3.3 Distinctive Linguistic Features o Judeo-Spanish Tis section offers an analysis o the distinctive eatures o JudeoSpanish in these aljamías.25 Te description adds data to the area o linguistic analysis o Judeo-Spanish. Importantly, Judeo-Spanish is a language that is linguistically inconsistent, lacking standardisation, but the ollowing eatures are characteristic o the language in general. It is noteworthy that Judeo-Spanish is a language, unlike Peninsular Spanish, that has no standardizing pressure. By virtue o the act that the language does not belong to any one country in particular and by the act that its speakers sometimes never came into contact, the language has been(Penny allowed to become in standardization 2004a: 78–9).linguistically Tere is also diverse a lack olacking standardization in the process o printing and transmissions o medieval texts. 26 I have divided this section into: phonology, including historical phonology; linguistic retentions and innovations; morphology; syntax; use o Hebrew to include the phenomena o borrowings and codeswitching; and use o urkish and other oreign in uences. 27 Te section on Hebrew borrowings is set out according to the relevant thematic categories. Tree sample texts transliterated have been appended to this chapter. Reerences to these texts made in the orm o ‘S’ (sample text) ollowed by the text number illustrate and clariy much o the linguistic discussion (see Appendix 1). Reerences to texts in the corpus are in the orm o text number, colon, line number.
25 Aljamías is the Spanish term or vernacular texts that are represented in either Hebrew or Arabic characters. 26 See chap. 2 n. 56. 27 Te use o Hebrew within Judeo-Spanish is analysed by Bunis (1993: 15–51). Note that this study would add signi cantly to his work.
130 3.3.1 Phonology 3.3.1.1 Diphthongisation Te alternation in Judeo-Spanish between /ie/ and /e/, and between /ue/ and /o/ is a sign o dialect contact. 28 Te diphthongisation o Latin tonic Ǒ>ue and Ě>ie can be observed in the Castilian dialect as well as that o Leon and Aragon. Many words in Judeo-Spanish contain variants o many words containing vowels that are or are not diphthongised. Te variants chosen by Judeo-Spanish did not always conorm 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-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358).29 Additionally, the BIURP version o Medina’s responsa on(28:34) the 1863 Lvov edition atteststhe both conta (28:33) cuenta orms andbased in the same text, whilst SE (1595) shows cuenta in both these instances. Tis variation in the latest edition could well be re ecting the Judeo-Spanish o the nineteenth century. Preto ‘black’ (11:43) (c. standard prieto) is an example o the lack o diphthongization in Judeo-Spanish, as opposed to the central areas o the peninsula. In the feenth 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). Tereore in the Sephardic communities in the post–expulsion period there existed competing variants and the variants selected by Judeo-Spanish did not always conorm to the pattern in Castilian Spanish. In the texts, cual quier ‘whatever’ (2:3) appears nineteen times clearly with the diphthong withquier clearly written in the Hebrew text as (kyyr). Te inconsistency o this diphthongization pattern led to cases like adientro, also seen in Asturias, but not in Castilian. Tere are nine instances o (a)dientro including adientro (12:46, 13:99, 19:15, 36:15, 28 An excess o diphthongisation is noted in Haquitía in cases like sientado and puedemos (Benabu 1979: 7). See also Minervini & Várvaro on diphthongisation (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 166). 29 Tat is that acuerda does not appear as acuedra.
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. Tis actor o analogy between the diphthongised and undiphthongised orms o verbs led to patterns, unlike in Castilian and American Spanish, in Judeo-Spanish such as rogo / rogar (c. 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 o such diphthongization. Note also in seventeenth century Me’Am Lo’ez the undiphthongized orm enpeça and la preba or la prueba (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:215). Note however that the reduction o the diphthong /ei/ to /e/ is a later phenomenon in many Sephardic communities but not in Salonica (Quintana 2006: 32). In the texts it is clear that the orm 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 o Final /e/ to /i/ Back vowel-raising is typical o many varieties Spanish. o Judeo-Spanish, phenomenon that does not occur in Peninsular Forms sucha as nochi, tardi esti that are recorded rom parts o the Balkans in later Judeo-Spanish cannot be attested with certainty in the testimonies because o the ambiguity o 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 our times (12:32, 45, 56:23, 66:9). It is essential to clariy that the testimonies rely on Hebrew spelling, which orms, in effect, another layer in the transmission process. Similarly the pronunciation o nal /o/ as /u/ cannot be attested in the Hebrew unpointed text. Such problems encountered in linguistic criticism o such texts are common to those using unpointed texts as sources (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 164). However it is helpul to see Minervini’s edition o the Valladolid ordinances o the end o the thirteenth century where in some o her pointed texts she attests words like manu, dichu, vasu, vinu, echu among other examples (Minervini 1992: 44). However Quintana argues that this is a post sixteenth century innovation as she does not nd it in sixteenth century texts, though the phenomenon prevailed in the Spanish o the expulsion period (Quintana 2006: 53).
30 Tis phenomenon o the pronunciation o nal e as i is explained in Sala (1971: 29), also see Sala 1996: 365 and Quintana 2006: 50–57.
132 3.3.1.3 Initial // Te initial //, descended rom Latin F, is sometimes retained in JudeoSpanish, according to geographical location. Sometimes the labiodental // is preserved as in orno (13:100) and asta (23 times in the texts), but ofen the labiodental ricative // disappears in avour o the aspirate /h/ e.g. hiǰo (S 49B:19, 11:5), haćer (49C:13). Tere is also a total suppression o the consonant as in ijo (61B:15), ablar (58:15) etc. Te eature o retention o the /h/ came to be restricted to uneducated usage in certain regions and also by certain varieties o Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 191). Note that in the Proverbios Morales initial -- is general (González-Llubera 1947: 31). By the feenth century, it is unlikely that the initial // was used in Old Castile, New Castile or Andalusia, and it was also disappearing in areas o Leon and Aragon.31 However, it was used in Portugal, Galicia and Catalonia, where many Jewish communities were located beore the expulsion. Te alternation o the different orms used in JudeoSpanish andmodern in theseJudeo-Spanish texts is evidence o the32dialect contact situation rom which emerges. In text 11 there is an inconsistent use o the orms ja, hiǰo l. 62, and ja in l. 67; there is also aćerlas, l. 41 and źo l. 42. In text 25 we also see an alternation o these orms: hiǰos, l. 3, and ǰos, l. 5. Te orms hallarlo (27:8), se halló, (27:7) are attested but later, the answer, written in Hebrew, quotes the text as se alló.33 ext 71 eatures alternating orms hiǰas and jas. Te ollowing table illustrates the incidence o various competing orms in this corpus. At this point no conclusion emerges, other than the observation that both orms co-existed and no obvious preerence is shown or either orm in general. Initial F appears in Judeo-Spanish in its three orms o , h or the absence o the consonant (Zamora Vicente 1967: 353). In the Ladino translation o the Haggadot as late as the eighteenth century initial -- is preserved at a time when in Spain it had already disappeared (Shwarzwald 1996: 363).
31 For more on the linguistic history o initial 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 o // in all contexts (Pountain 2001: 222). 33 (27 Reply)—šy p∙lyw/se alló.
133 able 3.1: Competing Forms o Initial and h in Judeo-Spanish in the Corpus Word (modern spelling)
hablar34 haćer36-including haćen, haces, hace haćienda38 hago40 hasta42 hiće43 hiǰa/s45 hiǰo/s47 hiźo49
Number o Appearances
Word initial spelling
Number o Appearances
6
ablar35-including
6
14
ablare, aćer37 ablaron
23
11 4 4 1 8 26 8
acienda39 ago41 asta će/se44 ja/s46 ǰo/s48 źo50
7 9 23 6 15 15 15
Te conclusive argument here is that there is no Judeo-Spanish preerence or initial // over /h/ as re ected in these texts. However, in current speech initial // is maintained in Salonica, Bosnia, Monastir and Karaeria although there are a ew examples o the aspirate. Initial // is absent in the Judeo-Spanish o urkey, Romania and Bulgaria (Zamora Vicente 1967: 354).51 In the Coplas de Yose a similar hesitation
34 (texts 2:12, 38B:3, 48:3, 54B:3, 58:13, 74:21). Note that the prosthetic a eatures with the in nitive in the orm 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, S 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 o initial // throughout several centuries see Quintana 2006: 94–99.
134 between the and h is attested (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 89). In Me’Am Lo’ez the orms aćiendo (e.g in Bereshit. pp. 32, 24), ićiera (Bereshit pp. 35) appears countless times. 3.3.1.4 Retention o Bilabial, Syllable Final /v/ Another phonological52eature o Judeo-Spanish is the retention o bilabial, syllable- nal /v/. Te labial in the groups b’d, b’t, v’d, v’t retains its labiodental pronunciation in Judeo-Spanish while in modern Spanish it has become u. Tis linguistic phenomenon is ound in Bosnia and there are some examples in Monastir (Zamora Vicente 1967: 355). Te Hebrew letter bet as opposed to vav indicates the presence o this phonological eature. Also in Judeo-Spanish, certainly in some o the surviving varieties, one nds the labial in words that had /au/ in Latin and have come into the language as learned words such as cabśa. Te corpus has only one doubtul case, cauśa (S 49B:9). Here cauśa is spelt with a vav instead o a bet, is indicative o a retention o a labial consonant thepeninsular complete vocalization to cauśa between did not take place. In feenthwhere century Spanish a hesitation the orms cabdal and caudal was evident. At this stage the old and new orms co-existed; cauśa was drawn into the same variation. Cabdal appears in the Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g. Bereshit p. 223). able 3.2: Incidence o Words Containing Bilabial, Syllable nal /v/ in the Corpus Word (with a vav spelling; modern spelling)
caudal
Number o Appearances 0
54
cauśa ciudad deuda deudor(es)
Word (with a Number o bet/vet spelling) Appearances
cabdal53
5
55
01 0 0
cabśa 56 cibdad debda57 debdor(es)58
3 1 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 (S 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).
135 3.3.1.5 Other Retentions 1. Te retention o the distinction o the medieval Castilian /b/ and /ß/. According to Penny (2004a: 183), these labials merged beore the feenth 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. Tis is most apparent in the contrast between /b/ and labiodental /v/, as in the imperect tense ending in -aba may well have been pronounced more like -ava. Te problem is that this distinction in is not crystal clear through the medium o Hebrew spelling. Te consonant bet 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. It is usually the case that a bet is written to denote , /b/, and the spelling o /v/ is certainly a vav. Examples in the texts o vino either came’ reason or ‘wine’ appear written withis either avav or a betmeaning with no‘he apparent o positioning. Tere 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 o all this ambiguity it is difficult to ascertain whether the texts exhibit a distinction or a merger o the phonemes /b/ and /v/. Tis phenomenon is also present in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 114). Ariza argues that there was no /v/ in Medieval Spain and that it is a later evolutionary eature o 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 orm vuestra requently used in phrases such as vuesa merçed.60 It is interesting to attest this one example o vuesa merçed (80:25) since according to Zamora Vicente
A dot in the letter to denote the plosive consonant - . See relevant table on modes o address 6.3 in Penny (2004b: 184), also Penny (2004a). 59 60
136 it is not known in Judeo-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 360).61 Tere are thirty-seven instances o vos used in the orm o polite address (c. standard usted).62 Tere are our examples o vuestra (15:96, 57:4, 6, 73B:6) and ten instances o vuesa(s) (11:6, 7, 67, 13:33, 18:6, 13, 25, 50B:12, 80:2, 25). Te same use o vos is attested in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 103). Te orms vuesa and nuesa abound in other texts like the Haggadot, Pirké Avot, a sixteenth century Siddur or women, and in translations o the Bible, o the later sixteenth century and early seventeenth century and attested in later responsa o R Chaim Shabtai (Arnold 2006a: 226). 3. Seavos and haćervos (37:13), sacavos (37:20) are two cases o the retention o the initial consonant by vos where standard Castilian would have os sea, haćeros, sacaos. 4. Te use o non, an archaism rom the Latin NON, alongside no. Tere are many examples o both uses in the text. Non is also attested in theisPentateuco de Constantinopla Recuero 1988: 227). Non no in esti giudeoespagnoli the preerred orm alongside(Pascual medievali (Minervini 1992: 436) and expectedly no also alternates with non in Me’Am Lo’ez (e.g. Bereshit: 37, Shemot 1:216). 5. Te Judeo-Spanish retention o the medieval system o sibilant phonemes is an archaism. Te result is that these phonemes in Judeo-Spanish are more similar to modern Portuguese than to modern Spanish.63 Tis is one o the reasons why Judeo-Spanish sounds more like Portuguese. Te medieval xabón ‘soap’ with the prepalatal ricative /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/ o dezir ‘to say’.64 Te voiced dental ricative /z/ in puśo (modern Spanish puso) is represented by the zayin (S 7:3, 11). Further examples where the Hebrew zayin is used include modern Spanish reposar / repośar (S 49B:5), cauśa / cauśa (S 49B:9). In this book the ś represents the phoneme /z/ or Hebrew letter zayin, where the standard modern 61 Attested requently in Golden Age Literature such as Don Quijote de la Mancha e.g. (Part 2 chapter IX paragraph 5: ‘ Señor -dišo Sancho-, ya que vuesa merced quiere . . .’ 62 Te contraction o vuestra > vuesa > usted is related to the reduced stress in honori cs, see Penny (2004a: 137–139) or an explanation o this linguistic change. 63 See Penny (2004b: 98–101) or the development o sibilants in Spanish. 64 See S 49B:13 dyzyr.
137 Spanish spelling takes an s. By adding the accent on thes, according to the guidelines set out by Searad, 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 o its representation by shin and by gimmel plus diacritic respectively (Entwistle 1965: 181). In Castilian, the merger o the three voiced phonemes with the corresponding voiceless phonemes produced the outcome o /š/, /s/, /s/.̣ Tis change took place afer 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 ricative written in Hebrew script bysamech that always represents /ts/ (S 7:4, 11, 12). Note the use o the zayin in mozo (11:17), but samech in S 49B:12, 24. Note that Judeo-Spanish dišo (modern Spanish dijowith / diǰo)/ʒretains voiceless pre-palatal does not merge / as in its modern Spanish. Tis ricative phoneme/š/isand represented in Hebrew by a shin (S 7:6, 9, 9, 11, 12). Examples abound in the Me’Am Lo’ez such as abašo (Bereshit p. 36). Tere are thirty-three cases o muǰer / muǰeres in the text. Te prepalatal voiced ricative /ʒ/ in muǰer is represented by the gimmel with the diacritic to differentiate between the ʒ/ / and the /g/. Te same /ʒ/ represented by the gimmel with the diacritic is exempli ed in katriği (a urkish borrowing) (S 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 o error rather than a re ection o pronunciation. I have indicated in a ootnote the instances where it is relevant to mention that the diacritic is missing in the text. By comparison the prepalatal voiced ricatives are lost in the Moroccan responsa o 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 Te seseo phenomenon present in Andalusian varieties and American varieties o Spanish prevails in all varieties o Judeo-Spanish. 65 Te
65 Seseo is absolute in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish (Alvar 1996: 374). Also there is no distinction in Oriental Judeo-Spanish speech o the nineteenth century. ‘le sin a le
138 process is the result o the merger between the voiceless apico-alveolar /s/ as in passo and dental sibilant /ş/ as in almorçar, and its voiced affricates /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). Te outcome o these mergers is a pair o dental ricatives /ş/ and /z/. Hence words like paso and alsar would re ect 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. Te same outcome is attested in Portuguese, Occitan and French, but in Catalan the outcome o these mergers is a pair o apico-alveolar sibilants (Penny 2004b: 185–6). Seventeen cases o dećir 67 or dezir (S 49B:13, 16) including maldećir that are represented by the letterzayin ( ) in the Hebrew text re ect the medieval spelling and the Judeo-Spanish speech. 68 About thirty-eight instances o caśa are recorded in the texts also spelt with a zayin. Caśa, in the also has has the the zayinrst to represent the Caśas (13:31) /z/ (11:12, 12:41, SHebrew 68:4).69 script, ‘s’ spelt with a zayin and the nal letter spelt with a sin ( ) to show consistency in the graphic representation o the language. Note also quiseron (c. modern Spanish quiśieron) ‘they wanted’, spelt with zayin (S 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), źo (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). Te contrasting orms are also apparent such as esposa (38B:6), escusar (74:1). In this book mismo is repeatedly spelt with a sin, yet in
même son que samek. Les Juis d’Orient ne ont aujourd’hui, dans la prononciation, aucune difference entre ces deux lettres’ (the sin has the same sound as the samech. Te Oriental Jews do not make any difference in the pronunciation o these two letters) (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 12). 66 For more inormation on the history o 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. Tis 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 Yose (González Llubera 1935: 34). 69 Although this is not obvious rom the transcription system used in our main corpus, it can be appreciated rom this discussion and with the provision o the sample texts.
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 ound thus illustrating the persistent use o the voiced ricative /z/.70 At this point the development o the voiceless dental ricative /ts/ ‘ç’ needs to be addressed. Te sources o /ts/ ‘ç’ in Old Spanish begin with inherited words with an unbroken oral history rom 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) accidu > lacio. Note that (c) indicates here ‘any consonant’ and any symbol between the brackets is a conditioning actor but one that develops independently o the phoneme(s) in question (Penny 2002: 73). In addition to these inherited words the borrowings rom Latin o learned register come in to the language with the /ts/, such as inormaçión, dierençia, licençia etc. In mainstream Castilian thistophoneme underwent (Penny changes2000: and mergers that occurred too late affect Judeo-Spanish 42–44, 181). Yet in the south o Spain the apico-alveolar and its dental sibilants had already merged beore the Jews lef Spain or the Ottoman Empire so they may well have taken this change in their spoken language. However or the majority o the Spanish Jews the /ts/ was still an integral part o the phonemic structure o their language. Tese voiced sibilants persisted as they did in Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan and French and there was a parallel merger among this set o phonemes termed zezeo. Te outcome o seseo and zezeo in Judeo-Spanish was a pair o dental ricatives /ts/ and /z/, where the outcome o such mergers was a pair o apico-alveolar sibilants (Penny 2000: 182, 185– 186). Tis is an example o phonological simpli cation. Te Hebrew letter used to represent /ts/, ‘ç’ is the samech . Yet in this corpus there is an inconsistency o this representation and it is ofen represented by the sin . Where the phoneme is an apicoalveolar affricate I have used normative Modern Spanish spelling c, z, as opposed to ç or the dental affricate.
70 From Ner Maaravi, the responsa o Rabbi Yaakov Malka o eighteenth century Morocco, see Appendix 5.
140 It is difficult to ascertain whether this conused representation is in act a re ection o the pronounciation, a testimony o the neutralisation o the differences between the apico-alveolar and the dental phonemes, or a mere scribal error. Note alecimiento (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), uerças (50:2), orçadamente (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)ganançia (37:14, 42:15, 42:36, 61, 49B:6), pedaçico (13:80), ganancia (19:25), (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), reçibido (17:8, 15), reçibió (30A:3), yet recibí (18:13, 80:1), recibieron (3:14, 19), recibido (17:4, 17), recebidor (11:67). Tere is uncertainty too with many examples o 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 o a samech, perhaps indicating the actual pronounciation and exempliying the conusion o this phoneme o Judeo-Spanish at this stage o dialect mixing and koineisation o the language. Tis evidence sheds light due to the higher number ot texts analysed on the absence o 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 ofen hesitation within the same text o this linguistic phenomenon described above. In the eighteenth century Me’Am Lo’ez, reçiben is noted on the cover Shemot Part 1. In act the use o samech to represent the dental affricate prevails in the Me’Am Lo’ez, with countless examples can be ound on a single page such as çierto, oraçiones, exclamaçión, matanças, pareçe, apareçe (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:216). Tese illustrations point to the act that this linguistic phenomenon had rooted itsel in Judeo-Spanish by this later date.
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 o the generality o seseo (Hassán 1992: 166).71 3.3.1.7 Yeísmo Te articulation o the descendant o Latin -LL- in both initial and medial position has changed into / λ/ and later into /y/ in many areas including Judeo-Spanish areas. Tis yeismo (merger o /λ/ and /y/) is common in the speech o Andalusia, the Canary Islands and Central and South America. Yeísmo is the absence o an opposition between /λ/ and /j/ [/y/] (Pountain 2001: 188). Interestingly, the rst edition o Mahạ rashdam (1595) generally re ects the /λ/ pronunciation as it contains words like ella and alla written with an extra yod (27:9), while in the 1863 edition we nd that they drop ayod.72 Tere are many such examples where earlier editions re ect this distinction (58:22), and later editions o the texts do not add the extra yod. An inconsistency in the representation o the diphthongs andmillas [ye] by eitherhallarlo single yod + aleph , double yod or yod can be [ya] noted, (27:6), (27:9).73 Hassán notes that this inconsistency could also be re ecting yeísmo (Hassán 1987: 130), in other words the weakening and change rom the /λ/ and /y/ where the extra yod denotes the /λ/. Tis is contrasted with the consistency ound in the manuscript o Orlando el Furioso o 1580 (Minervini 1997: 95). Pountain nds Judeo-Spanish uniormly 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. In a Judeo-Spanish newspaper El elegrao o 23 January 1894 the samech has totally substituted the sin (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 14–16). 72 Te transcription remains unaltered where the l is ollowed by a single yod, as lamed ollowed by yod. However when a double yod ollows this consonant then in the modern rendition it is written as ll to represent /λ/; llamé / ly∙my (text 11:20) ‘I called’, alló / p∙lyyw (S 68:4) ‘he ound’. 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 Tis is also noted in the kharjas (Benabu 1991: 37). 71
142 3.3.1.8 Labialisation o /n/ to /m/ Additionally, labialisation o initial /n/ changing to /m/ is common in all Judeo-Spanish varieties (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358). In medieval Spanish, the orm mos instead o nos as a rst person plural pronoun was common (it is still heard today in some rustic speech). Te word initial sequence /nue/ is regularly modi ed to /mue/ in Judeo-Spanish. Tis process may be an extension o a Peninsular process, now conned to recessive rural use, by which the rst-person plural pronoun nos was modi ed to mos under the double in uence o the corresponding singular pronoun me and o the rst-person plural ending -mos (Penny 2004b: 179). Tere may have been a transer rom mos to the possessive pronoun muestro, and thereafer orms 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 orm in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’eznuera Shemot : 173). labialisation oand the the initial consonant o the word took placeTe in Judeo-Spanish word became muera, creating a problem. Calling a daughter-in-law nuera by the orm muera (the imperative orm o ‘to perish’, i.e. that she should perish), was clearly unacceptable, hence the evolution o the orm ermuera / ilmuera or ‘daughter-in-law’ which is widely used in modern Judeo-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358, Kohen & KohenGordon 2000: 442). Te initial stage omos or nos is an inherited eature; the later stage, however, is innovatory. Te /m/ in the personal pronoun mos could be inherited rom Spanish as it is also heard in rural varieties in both Spain and America (Penny 2004b: 179, 1990). However, the labialisation o nue to mue was probably innovatory in Judeo-Spanish afer 1492 although the orm nuestro is also present in our texts, or instance in text 72:10. Interestingly, nos and nosotros appear twenty-our times in the texts, whilst there are only ve instances o rst person plural pronominal orms 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 Te Consonantal Cluster /mp/ A point o graphical interest is /n/ ( nun) in internal position, written in place o /m/ ( mem); hence the inclusion in the texts o words like conprar (13:55), conpañía (17:3), tanbién (4:3), sienpre
143 (11:12),74 ronpió (27:5). anbién appears to be the preerred orm in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Bereshit p. 37). Conprar was the predominant spelling o medieval Spanish words with a nasal at the end o the syllable. Te change in spelling in peninsular Spanish did not affect JudeoSpanish orthography. Enpeça or 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 rom 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 o /mb/ Both orms palomba and paloma are attested in early texts in the twelfh and ourteenth centuries in Spain (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 388– 389).s.No picture emerges regard to thestudies retention /mb/ in our Tisclear is the case too in thewith eleven responsa by o Minervini & Várvaro (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 189). Where the corresponding Castilian orms reduce the /mb/ to /m/, Judeo-Spanish retains the /mb/ (Lapesa 1988: 529). However, in the 1595 Mahạ rashdam edition Paloma (8:1, 3) (a name; also means ‘dove’) shows the reduction process. Te 1863 edition Palomba exempli es the retention o /mb/. However, plomo (34:4, 72:2, 14, 16) ‘lead’ remains in the reduced orm in the 1595 edition and in the BIURP.75 Tis reduction process, /mb/ to /m/, is also attested in Aragonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 236–237). Te retention o /mb/ is inherited rom western and northern varieties o 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/ srcinating rom Latin M’N are noted (Menéndez Pidal 1950: 309–310). Interestingly our texts show the preservation o this archaism as well
74 Note that there are our instances o sienpre and seven o siempre in the texts. Also siempre is preerred in Coplas de Yose (González Llubera 1935: 13). 75 However in one such instance BIURP clomo appears instead o plomo (text 34:4) but this is a pure copying error o a cha in place o a bet.
144 as the orm adopted by Castilian.76 Te texts exempliy embras (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 orms like nomre and omre alongside the Castilian orms, nombre and hombre (Minervini 1992: 436, 439).78 Also Coplas de Yose show the preservation o these consonant groups amidst the Castilian orms too (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 91). Co-existing orms /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 o Contrast Between /r/ and /ɾ/ Te vibrant /r/̠ exists in some varieties o 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 /r/̠ and the ap /ɾ/. Hebrew language and orthography only 79
has asurprising single resh never appears as a is double consonant. Hence it is not thatitthis representation so, this is also acknowledged in the Coplas de Yose’ s linguistic commentary (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 93). It is impossible thereore to distinguish through spelling between words that in Spanish contain /r/ or /ɾ/. Hence se enterró (27:9), (c. standard se enterró) meaning ‘he was buried’, could have been mistranslated or se enteró (‘he was inormed’); pero (42:20, 22), meaning ‘dog’ (c. standard perro) can be conused with pero, meaning ‘but’, also note perroĵudió / pyrwg`wdyyw (S 49B:9). Each time an understanding o the context is the key to deciphering the ambiguity. Other examples include arrimé (S 49B:4). Te loss o contrast is unprecedented in the Spanish-speaking world—a case o Judeo-Spanish innovation (Penny 1996: 57). Tis lack o distinction 76 By the thirteenth century the archaic orm mr is much less common in the oledan 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 o modern Spanish the h has been inserted. 78 Note also nomrada and amre (c. standard hambre ‘hunger’) in Coplas de Yose (González Llubera 1935: 13, 9). 79 I ound one source rom the nineteenth century Judeo-Spanish press that says that occasionally one nds the double Hebrew letter, ‘cependant on trouve quelqueois le redoublement: (tyyrrh/tierra), ( gyrrh/guerra) (Foulché-Delbosc 1894: 12).
145 is contrasted with the position in all other varieties o Spanish, except in creole varieties (Pountain 2001: 196; Penny 2004b: 179). Interestingly regional variations can be noted in the disappearance o the vibrant /r/̠ . It is retained in the communities o Greece, Macedonia, urkey, Israel and Egypt. However the distinction is lost in the JudeoSpanish in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania (Quintana 2006: 84). In this book I have opted to indicate rr so as to clariy 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 o /rd/ > /dr/ is a regular innovation in most varieties o Judeo-Spanish. Metathesis, in general, indicates a change in the orm o a word in which one or more segments are moved to different places in the word (Penny 2004a: 325). Tis eature appears to be unrecorded in other varieties o Hispano-Romance, and is best regarded as one o the innovations o Judeo-Spanish. our texts demonstrate inconsistencies in words containing thisAgain, metathesis, and there are also differences between editions. However, the editions examined are two hundred years apart and these variations are thereore unsurprising. Te variations could re ect changing speech orms or the printers may have been less amiliar with the language. Te point is that JudeoSpanish does not like the ap / ɾ/ directly preceding a consonant. It preers to displace it to ollow the consonant (Nehama 1977: XV). Hence a word like sordo (dea) becomes sodro. So in text 11:23, 54, 59, the name d’Ardero (1594 edition) is written as such. In line 3 o 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 avredardarían and later the metathesized orm o avredadrarían (l. 16, 1863 edition). Lapesa lists other common metathesis like acodrarsi, guadrar (Lapesa 1988: 530). Te /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 inormacion de la aritmetica. Primera parte written in Judeo-Spanish with a Hebrew orthography, metathesis o -rd- is inrequent. Tis text is supposedly composed by a urk rom Smyrna in a cultured register (Quintana 1996: 299). Other examples o metathesis are at text 50:12 which has teneldas in place o tenedlas, tomaldo (31:5) or tomadlo, poneldos (S 7:2) or
146 ponedlos; calrezas in place o clarezas (51:9) is attested.80 Metathesis with -dl is noted as a phonetic characteristic o Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 75). Te 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 orms terna, ternia in Coplas de Yose (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 orm o cortó (26:46). Interestingly, contarto (26:31) appears in a orm o metathesis in place o contrato, as occasionally instead o 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 o metathesis (Minervini 1992: 69–70) are present in texts rom the Aragonese region. In the Me’Am Lo’ez presonas appears requently in its metathesised orm (e.g in Bereshit p. 154). Percurador (11.66) is included in 81
Minervini’s corpus. Te restisounmetathesized her examples do notsole appear in this Guardar corpus. (S 49B:11) in its appearance in this collection. 3.3.1.14 Loss o Distinction Between Final /d/ and /t/ Te replacement o nal /d/ by /t/ is evident rom the spelling o our texts. Te word cibdad is alternated with the ormcibdat in text 13 in the 1863 edition, but in the earlier edition (1595) cibdad is preerred. In act, there is no instance o cibdat at all in our corpus. Cibdat is noted in Castaño’s feenth century ragments o a register (Castaño 2004: 334). However, the orm verdat (15:27, 35, 37:40, 56:2, 15) appears ve times in all the testimonies, compared to ourteen instances o verdad. Tis could be a genuine variation o the voiced and voiceless consonant. Miatat (33:3, 61:8) appears twice whilst there are our cases o mitad (24:2, 61:2, 82:6, 7). Miatad is common in medieval Spanish as evidenced in Castaño 2004: 333). Conclusively, the nal /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 Tese and other orms o metathesis were very requent in Peninsular GoldenAge Spanish (Penny 2004a: 197). 81 In act, Minervini attests porcurador, c. percurador (Minervini 1992: 451).
147 simply be typographical error perhaps caused by the Resh—Dalet orthographic resemblance, but could also be a orm o metathesis and could also re ect genuine pronunciation. 3.3.1.15 Te Merge Between /ɲ/ and /ni/ Te merge o the phonemes / ɲ/ and /ni/ results in the removal o one phoneme rom the phonology o Judeo-Spanish. Tis phenomenon can be clearly registered in the occasional variation ound in the later editions o the same text. At this point it is essential to clariy that the Hebrew graphic representation o nun ollowed by yod indicates /ni/, whilst a nun ollowed by a double already indicates a presence o 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 ve cases o señoría (11:6, 8, 67:5, 7, 8) spelt ‘synyywry’ in the rst edition as opposed to ‘synywry’ in the second and third editions and the BIURP version o Medina’s responsa. Also there are twelve examples showing isthe same phenomenon the BIURP. In this corpusoanseñora inconsistency detected in the use o ainsingle 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, S 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 (S 49B:1) ‘sirs’ are spelt with a single yod.87
82 Interestingly in the rst example año is spelt anyo in all editions. Te second example it is spelt anyyo in all editions. 83 Tere are countless examples o señor in the texts with varying spellings, see p. 112 on ‘Problems with extual ransmissions’. 84 Out o these three instances mañana appears twice with a double yod and once with a single yod. 85 By both editions it is meant the srcinal 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 srcinal edition o Medina’s responsa (1595) but with two yods in the second (1793) and later editions (1862 and BIURP).
148 3.3.1.16 Other Innovations o Judeo-Spanish Tere are a number o 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 o linguistic eatures described below. All that can be ascertained is what is represented in writing. 1. Te reinorcement o the diphthong /ue/ when it is syllable-initial and when preceded by a consonant in the same syllable. 88 Tereore luego would add a vowel beore the consonant resulting in eluego (Penny 2004b: 179). Tis innovation is cited in the JudeoSpanish o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 365, Quintana 2006: 39). In our texts, however, there are twelve examples o luego (15:60, 84, 22:11, 30B:17, 18, 22 39:4, 42:35, 48, 46:2, 3, 72:22) and none o them are in the orm o eluego. 2. Te labio-velar on-glide generated afer labials and velars such that padre becomes [pwáðre], gato would is realised (Zamora vav between Vicente 1967: 357). Such a process showasa[gwáto] the consonant and the vowel in the rst syllable o these examples and this is absent rom our texts. Tere are nine instances o padre (13:71, 21:6, 47:2, 55:2, 63B:3, 70:3, 3, 80:28, 29), including padres and conpadre, none o which show this innovation. Tere are no cases o gato. Examples o the linguistic phenomenon underlying the spelling suegro/a (Armistead & Silverman 1994: 27), re ecting the acoustic effect o the devoicing o the labio-velar glide [w] preceded by the voiceless [s], are not ound in the texts; suelo (7:3, 4, 11, 29:2, 3, 9) is written as in Spanish. 3. Te palatalization o syllable- nal /s/ to /z/ beore velar /k/. e.g. /buzkár/ as opposed to the standard buscar is unclear in the texts. Tere are two cases o buscar (68:3, 80:9) where the /s/ is represented by the (which can be a shin or sin) in the Hebrew text. Te same spelling o buscar is attested in Minervini’s medieval texts (Minervini 1992: 64).
88 Tis is present in non-standard Peninsular and American Spanish (Penny 2004b: 179, 134–135).
149 4. Te re exive clitic se apparently has a separate orm sen in JudeoSpanish when its reerent is plural (Penny 2004b: 180). Such examples as viéndosen are absent in these texts. 5. Te loss o the nal consonant when ollowed by another clitic pronoun in the rst- and second-person plural object pronouns nos and vos; e.g. no lo in place o nos lo and vo lo in place o vos lo in standard Castilian. In our corpus there are three cases o vos lo 10:2, 31:16, 64:19) and no cases o this known Judeo-Spanish innovation. Noteworthy here is the hesitation o both orms 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 o mos in the Me’Am Lo’ez is to project closeness between the author and his readers (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 94). 6. Te result o an assimilation between earlier nal /s/ and the preceding off-glide [į] results in the second-person plural endings o the present present subjunctive such tense as ćiéredes (57:6) endingindicative with an and /s/. Examples in the present o this can be ound in the texts: caśás (11:4), hayah s (43:1), haberéš (S 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 (S 49B:1). Harris cites Agard as reporting this as an independent innovation in the JudeoSpanish verb orms that result rom an analogical process (Harris 1994: 77). Note also this phenomenon where the second-person plural is used perhaps or a rhetorical purpose and or reasons o 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 o a legal content in cases in this book (as well as in the Me-Am Lo’ez (Quintana 2004b: 75). 7. Tere 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 orms djedió and djodió existed in Rhodes and in Gallipoli. Quintana argues that the Spanish judío also present in sixteenth century Salonica may well have suffered analogical pressure rom the in uence Yiddish yid as the Ashkenazi communities were undergoing a
150 period o linguistic change with the Sephardic in uence, a type o linguistic Sephardisation (Quintana 2006: 232, 233, 428). 8. Tere is some evidence in the texts o articulatory instability o prepalatal 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 o the expected dišo etc. that occurs mostly. Tis phenomenon described here prevalent in Castilian Spanish at the time does not quite root itsel in Judeo-Spanish (Várvaro & Minervini 2008: 168). 3.3.1.17 Other Linguistic Features Tere are several variations discussed in Variation and Change in Spanish (Penny 2004b: 184–193) whose relevance to the texts in this book I would like to examine. 1. Tough there is a signi cant contribution to Judeo-Spanish rom 89 non-Castilian were not manynine to be ound Dona, ansources in this corpus.peninsular honorithere c title, is attested times; it is common in Catalan and has been ound in Aragonese sources (Minervini 1992: 395). Minervini attests many such Aragonisms and Catalanisms in her medieval texts (Minervini 1992: 126). 2. Te adhesion o 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 o this type are attested in aaćer (84A:18), acatando (21A:1), aletra (27:3), alevantar (53:2, 60:3). Tis requent use o the prosthetic a also occurs in Portuguese and in the popular speech o various Hispanic countries (Harris 1994: 78). Note that the use o 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. Te re-enorcement o hue and bue to güe90 that has become normal in Judeo-Spanish is not attested in our texts. In this book, there are seven cases o bueno(s) ‘good’ re ecting the standard Castilian usage as opposed to that adopted generally by Judeo-Spanish.
89 90
Section 3.3 deals with borrowings rom other languages including Portuguese. See Penny 2004b: 191.
151 Minervini, in contrast, attests two cases o güesos ‘bones’ in her medieval texts (Minervini 1992: 415). Te ollowing linguistic eatures are absent in the texts in this corpus: 1. Te depalatalization o /λ/ to /l/ in the instance o another palatal consonant occurring later in the word is not seen in our corpus, yet they appear in the poem Coplas de Yose (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 90). Such words do not experience yeísmo (see section 3.3.1.7) e.g. caleja, luvia (c. Castilian calleja, lluvia). However they do abound in Me’Am Lo’ez , e.g. luvia (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:173). 2. Te process o the creation o a contrast between the voiced dental ricative (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 maniested usion between the apico-alveolar and dental ricative in its medi92
use, e.g caśa, dećir etc. 3. eval Te phenomenon wherebyamarillo becomes amarío and extended to gallina and allí becoming gaína and aí has become general in Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 188). Tis is a case o the deletion o /ǰ/ afer tonic /e/ or /i/. Tis is unsurprising since this development, which is common in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, appears to have taken place during the second hal o the seventeenth century or in the eighteenth century (Alvar 1996: 374). 3.3.1.18 Lexical Retentions 1. A matter o lexical retention is the use o 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. Te presence o such archaic terms and phrases is a most salient eature o Judeo-Spanish since the Sephardim were separated rom Spain thus keeping words that eventually
See Penny 2004b: 186. See Varvaro & Minervini 2008: 169. 93 According to this website muncho appeared in the feenth 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). 91 92
152 disappeared rom the Castilian lexicon (Harris 1994: 82). Agora is the orm that occurs in Old Castilian Spanish that is still used in modern Portuguese, was inherited directly by Judeo-Spanish. Tere are twenty-two instances o agora in the texts and ahora does not eature at all. Tis archaic preservation is documented by Shwarzwald in her lexical analysis (Shwarzwald 1993: 32). Agora is attested in the responsa o Rabbi Chaim Shabtai (1651) and documented as an archaism (Arnold 2006a: 226). At this point it is noteworthy that speakers o Judeo-Spanish came into contact with those o Portuguese at a later stage in history as that o the corpus in this book. Tere was a huge in ux o Portuguese Jews, who immigrated en masse to Italy in the 1530’s. Tese in turn afer Antwerp alling in the hands o the Spanish army went to Ottoman lands in the 17th century (Quintana 2006: 55). 2. Muncho is a not uncommon addition o a nasal; there are precedents in theanother; history o Spanish o words that already nasal macula, and acquire Latin or example, ends have up asa mancha. Muncho is an example o the addition o 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 rom peninsular usage (Zamora Vicente 1967: 361). However muncho/s (48:6, 74:18) only eatures twice in the texts compared to mucho/s appearing nineteen times.94 In an 1824 poem rom etuán the preerence or 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, eatures in the texts orty times, as opposed to así (the modern Spanish orm) eaturing only eight times. Preservation o ansí, an example o 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 ound in the responsa, this is due to the narrow selection o responsa on the basis o which these comments have been made (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 171).
153 4. Onde is another archaism that prevails in this corpus in place o the modern donde, and is a common eature o Aragonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 275).95 Onde could well have been part o the speech o Portuguese Jews (Pountain 2001: 224). We cannot really conclude on a preerence o any orm in the corpus since there are our cases o donde (17:3, 27:4, 6, 9) in the corpus, three cases o onde (63A:1, S 68:25, 27), one case o 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 preerred orm in the texts, both are ancient orms and variations in American Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 439). Tere is a possibility that this conjunction could be pus as the Hebrew script sometimes does not differentiate with the vowels o and u, as pus has been attested in some Sehardic communities north o the Balkans (Quintana 2009: 237). In text(61:8) 42:51,(33:3) the text eatures cuando. Mitad appears mitad condo or as miatat and (24:2, 61:2, 82:6, 7). Miatad is common in Old Spanish. 6. Te use o enchir (inchan (37:18)), meaning llenar ‘to ll’ is listed as an archaism by Harris (1994: 83). 97 7. Te use o man(ç)cebo (12:30, 32, 38B:10, 45:2, 5, 7, 83:10, 40) or ‘young man’ is a lexical retention o which there are eight examples in the texts. Tis retention has only survived in Judeo-Spanish and not in any other variety o the language (Penny 2004b: 185). Tis archaic retention along with preto (11:43) ‘black’ is noted in Death o a Language (Harris 1994: 83) and in Moroccan Judeo-Spanish (Alvar 1996: 377).
95 Onde is attested in Spanish literature 2041 times in the feenth 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 feenth century, 689 times in the sixteenth century and rapidly alling 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 feenth century and 3 times in the sixteenth century (http://www.corpus delespanol.org 1/7/05).
154 8. Te archaism mercar in place o conprar (c. standard comprar) ‘to buy’ prevails in Judeo-Spanish as well as in some Spanish American regions (Harris 1994: 84).98 It is also attested in the JudeoSpanish o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363) (Shwarzwald 1993: 33). Te corpus attests our instances o mercar (1:28, 29, 3:4, 18:6), six examples o mercó (13:1, 23, 37:5, 5, 8, 24). Conpró (13:12) and conpraba (13:15) both appear only once. 9. Te orm veluntad ‘will’ (c. standard voluntad) that is present in medieval Spanish is the accepted Judeo-Spanish word (Nehama 1977: 583).99 Tere is one instance o voluntad (71:39) in the corpus and six instances o veluntad (24:7, 25:10, 40:8, 61A:6, 74:5, 82:2). Minervini shows two examples o each orm in her texts (Minervini 1992: 486), the Salmos de Salónica also attest one instance o veluntad (Pascual Recuero 1988: 264). Examples o change in the atonic vowels o certain nouns, such as veluntad, alduquera (83:47), Monesterio (4:9) are also noted in other responsa (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 166). 10. Other archaic retentions in Judeo-Spanish include buracos (42:16) ‘holes’; the orm 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. Te medieval orm estonces (15:3, 7, 11, 17:8, 29:2, S 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 orm estoncias (Zamora Vicente 1967: 199). Minervini attests the orm estonces once in her texts as well as one instance o entonce (Minervini 1992: 403); estonces is recorded once only and no 98 Note that mercar appears 37 times in the feenth 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 feenth century and once in the sixteenth century (http://www.corpusdelespanol.org 1/7/05). 100 A common adverb in the language o Old Castile and in the authors o the rst hal o the sixteenth century already absent in El Quijote. Included in this category are orms like dende, ende, onde (http://cvc.cervantes.es/obre/quijote/introduccion/apendice/ gutierrez02.htm 22/6/2005). Interestingly, estonces is attested 2978 times in the thirteenth century, eighty times in the ourteenth century, 777 times in the feenth century, 266 times in the sixteenth century and only 3 times in the seventeenth century (http://www.corpusdelespanol .org 1/7/05).
155 instance o entonces in the 1897 Siddurim de Viena (Pascual Recuero 1988: 382). Luria attests two cases o 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. Tere are several examples in the texts o the retention o the medieval orms o the rst-person singular present indicative o estar, dar, ir in Judeo-Spanish (Zamora Vicente 1967: 359, Harris 1994: 77–78). Tere are six examples o estó (11:7, 50A:1, 50B:10, 73B:1, 83:84) in the texts and no example o estoy. Also there are twelve instances o do (8:4, 20:10, 31:16, 51:6, 64:20, 83:44, 69, 70, 71, 74, 82) and no examples o the standard orm doy. Vo (18:47, 50B:4) appears twice in the texts and voy is non-existent. Te present orms so or soy which ollow the same pattern (Penny 2004b: 184) do not occur in the texts. Tis retention is a conservative eature that unites Judeo-Spanish to non-standard peninsular speech (Penny 2004b: 184). Tis archaism is attested in the Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363). It is noteworthy that in the present indicative o the verbser the orms so and somos prevailed with the orms se and semos albeit in different regions. In the more central part o where Judeo-Spanish was spoken in the Ottoman Empire the orms se and semos competed against the orms 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 Notably orm belonging the moreobservation cultured people (Quintana 151). this is atolinguistic o a later period 2006: than that in this book. Benatar claims that there was some palatalisation o the nal consonant ‘s’ in the present and in the uture orms as in sabés (42:9) and caśes (11:5) (Benatar 1991: 97). However in the srcinal copies o these same texts in question, one o She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam 166 and o Divre Rivot 310, I did not see a diacritic in these cases that would make the reading o the sin to that o a shin.101 Te case o caśes is also detected without palatisation in Orígenes
101
See pp. 216–222 and 339–345.
156 del judeoespañol (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2008: 176). However this same article, Orígenes del judeoespañol, claims they have ound no evidence o any palatalisation in their corpus (GirónNegrón & Minervini 2008: 174–175). In his corpus, however, a ew instances have been ound: saberéš (6:1), diréš (6:2), and sabéš (49B:21).102 Te main problem, as mentioned above, is the lack o clarity in the texts, but it can be concluded rom these ndings that there was indeed a hesitation in this palatalisation as ar as one can see rom the graphic representation in the sixteenth century. In later centuries the palatalisation o the ‘s’ ending in verbs is attested in Judeo-Spanish texts even in verbs ending in ir (Girón-Negrón 2008: 174). 2. Te use o the re exive verb venirse is exempli ed in our texts. Tere are two cases in the re exive (4:8, 72A:14) and six cases in the non-re exive orm.103 Minervini’s texts do not show a single instance o the re exive venirse (Minervini 1992: 484). However callarse ‘to become quiet’1977: is re280) exive Castilian in Judeo-Spanish (Nehama butinisstandard non-re exive in theand texts: calló in place o se calló (31:5, 64:7). 3. Te second person o querer in the present tense orm quies (S 7:9, 29:8, 50B:27, S 68:28) is an archaic poetic orm o quieres (Menéndez Pidal 1958: 338), and also a Leonese (mirandés) orm o quieres (Zamora Vicente 1967: 197). Minervini does not attest this orm in her texts. 4. Te second-person plural imperative hablá/hablad etc., could appear in Medieval and Golden-Age Spanish with or without the nal /d/ (Penny 2004b: 191). Te d is not pronounced (Zamora Vicente 1967: 358). Judeo-Spanish has maintained this archaic orm 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. Te analogical addition o a nal /-s/ tohe t singular in the secondperson preterite orms ollowed by the deletion o the internal /s/ rom the singular and plural orms is a linguistic innovation o 102 Here the diacritic determining the palatalisation is aint, though the srcinal copies I worked rom less aint than that copied into this book. 103 Tere are differences in meaning between the re exive and non-re exive orms o venir that are present in Peninsular and American-Spanish. Interestingly, Nehama only lists venir in the non-re exive orm (Nehama 1977: 585–586).
157 Judeo-Spanish. Venites (12:22) is an example o this, however there are ve other examples that do not show this linguistic process: espantastes (54A:5), reçibistes (73A:3), dišistes (80:4), distes (80:4), erastes (80:20) (c. Castilian erraste). Tis innovation is also attested by Sala in the Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 365) and by Pountain (2001: 226). Such verb conjugations developed also in the Judeo-Spanish o North Arica as well as in the East Mediterranean Ottoman Empire (Shwarzwald 1993: 32). Similar structures such as uestes, dexestes appear in the Coplas (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 97). 6. Te endings o the rst-per son preterite orms o -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). Tis is also discussed by Quintana in relation to its geographical distribution (Quintana 2006: 152–153). problem with con rming thisHebrew linguistic innovation in the textsTe is the ambiguity present in the orthography. Te yod can represent the /e/ or /i/ (Minervini 1992: 15) and thereore 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. Tese orms are attested in the Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 365) also in the Coplas de Yose (GirónNegrón & Minervini 2006: 97). Te ambiguity is resolved in the rst-person plural o the preterite tense where demandamos (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 re ects speci cally the Judeo-Spanish orm. 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 orms such as the uture orm terná (79:3) in place o tendrá is attested. Te orm tenrá, which ails to insert the d, is present in Leonese (Zamora Vicente 1967: 192). Additionally, in this instance, the orm has metathesized to terná. wo instances o terne and ternan appear in esti giudeoespagnoli medievali as well as an example o tendrá (Minervini 1992: 337, 320, 476). Similarly, verná (22:17) and vernán (1:22), the uture orm o venir ‘to come’, are attested. ernė, terná uture orms arise in the Coplas (GirónNegrón & Minervini 2006: 97). ernán can be seen on the cover o the srcinal Me’Am Lo’ez on Bereshit (Genesis).
158 Note also saberá (26:1), saberés is noted in other responsa (Minervini & 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 uture orm used as an imperative. Alongside these the regular second person plural uture orm sabréis (38B:1) is also attested. 8. Simpli cations o verbal stems through the extension o the preterite stem to other parts o the verb, e.g. tuvido, ovido (c. standard tenido, hablado) are a merger con ned to rare rural usage (Penny 2004b: 187). No such instances appear in this corpus. 9. Tere are two examples o the archaic preterite trušo (41:5, S 49B:16) ‘he brought’ instead o trašo, standard Spanish (Menéndez Pidal 1958: 319). Te orm trušo prevailed in medieval Spanish.104 It is retained in some Aragonese areas (Zamora Vicente 1967: 272).105 Minervini, however, attests the orm traše and trašio, but not trušo (Minervini 1992: 480).106 Similarly the preterite o 107
108
ver:speech vide ‘I(Menéndez saw’, vidoPidal ‘he saw’, that prevail is retained today in rustic 1958: 320) in Judeo-Spanish, while there are only two examples o standard vi (s 37:24, 56:9) and two o vio (15:41, 74:5). 10. Te use o nal /s/ni the second person singular o preterite verbs is an ancient eature that is common and normal in Judeo-Spanish (Penny 2004b: 191). It is a widespread phenomenon in Spain and America, though stigmatized. Tere are six illustrations in our texts o this orm: venites (12:22), espantastes (54A:5), reçibistes (73A:3), dišistes (80:4), distes (80:4), erastes (80:20) (c. Castilian erraste). However there are also examples to attest the contrary notion, namely viste (46:1, 83:42), dišiste (83:83), ablaste (68:30) and llevaste (78:2).
104 rujo or trušo the preterite orm o traer is persistent in dialectal speech. It was requent in Spanish classics though there was hesitation between both orms trujo, trajo. For a dialogue on the hesitation between these orms see Valdés (1953: 55–56). 105 Te archaic preterite variants o some verbs like truji, trujo, vide, vide are attested in the language o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363). 106 Minervini actually represents the š with and x. 107 Tere are ourteen examples o vide (texts 11:17, 38A:4, 38B:4, 42:1, 23, 45:2, 10, 48:8, S 49B:23, 49C:11, texts 54B:8, 74:27, 45, 83:78). 108 Tere are over thirty examples o vido in the corpus to include text 31:1, S 68:15.
159 11. Te difference between the use o the perect and preterite tenses in Judeo-Spanish and Castilian is that Judeo-Spanish generally restricts the perect to situations which are current while speaking and which may continue in the uture. Tis 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 o the imperect orm o ir, ia(n) (26:9, S 68:15, 19, 20) in place o iba(n) are noted in the texts. Interestingly, these are Galician orms that are not ound in Portuguese; the orm iña is another alternative orm (Entwistle 1965: 308). However Quintana claims these orms srcinate rom Portuguese and she attests them in texts o the second hal o the sixteenth century (Quintana 2006: 154, Quintana 2009: 245). Te orm is also attested in Leonese regions (Zamora Vicente 1967: 97). Te standard orm iba both in Judeo-Spanish and Castilian is used everywhere else in the texts. In the regular orms there is not much deviation rom standard Castilian (Minervinihaber & Várvaro 2008: 13. Te variation o existential between an175). invariably thirdperson 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. Te invariant hubo is standardized in modern Spanish and in America in contrast to Judeo-Spanish where the verb agrees with the noun that ollows. However, in this corpus we have a rather bizarre example o a plural orm o the verb with the subject ollowing in the singular: hubieron una gran tormenta (48:2–3, 54A:2). Tis could be attributed to the analogical phenomenon o agreeing this invariable verb with the complement, leading to a pattern o pluralizing the verb irrespective o the plural status o the complement.110 14. Te use o tener 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 o emphasis like te tengo dicho. ener is sometimes used as an auxiliary 109 See Orígenes del judeo-español on the use o the preterite (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 175–176). 110 See Penny 2004b: 189 ll. 2–7. 111 Also noted in Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 177.
160 in Asturian. However in Mirandan and Portuguese tener and ter have preerence over habér and haver (Luria 1930: 474). Note also the Portuguese orm temos (27:2) or tenemos. 15. Te use o -ra verbal orm as a conditional tense (c. standard -ría) can be seen in the text once súpito pagara o uera en prisión (26:54–55) ‘i he would not pay immediately, he would go to prison . . .’ 16. Te orm a rmare (25:7), quedare (33:5), estudiare (28:16), pasare (3:11, 21, 4:10, 25:16, 40:14) is ound. It is used here as a uture subjunctive and reers to ‘open’ uture conditions’.112 Tis orm prevailed in medieval Spanish till the eighteenth century, and was thereafer restricted to legalese. Te equivalent orm in modern Spanish is a rmara. 17. Te imperect subjunctive orm in the third person singular can be seen to be the same as in Spanish with endings in -ra or -se, valiera (26:56) uera (15:27, 35, 36, 40, 56, 93, 26:54, 55) pagara (26:55), 113 (26:20); though modern Judeo-Spanish ciese (1:9, 26:56), debiese preers the -ra endings. 18. Adverbs such as primera mente 114 (15:33, 25:1, 40:1, 74:8), orzada 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 theMe’Am Lo’ez separated all the time (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:174), as does igual mente (e.g. in Bereshit p. 223). Te use o the preposition delante mí (11:45, 41:9), delante nosotros (12:49), without the preposition de ollowing the adverb as in modern Spanish is attested in the corpus. Te orm delantre (11:25, 47:2) that is the modern Judeo-Spanish orm (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’ uture condition in the use o a rmare in: que siendo que diga dona Clara mi mujer a rmare la šebu‘á (text 25:7) (that i my orementioned wie says that she affirms the oath). 113 Tis 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 rst adjective, apparently common in Aragonese (Minervini 1992: 107).
161 Spanish orm. Te orm enriva (42:35) or arriba ‘above’ is the Judeo-Spanish orm today (Nehama 1977: 175–6). 19. Harris comments on the non-existence o the orm conmigo and the use o con mi in Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 80). However, there are ve instances o con migo (15:31, 18:22, 67:7–8, S 68:28, 74:22) against three instances o con mi (74:21, 83:13, 37) in this corpus. Notably con mi was the Aragonese orm versus the Castilian conmigo. In other sixteenth century works there is a prevalence o con mi and occasional appearance o con migo (Quintana 2009: 234). 20. Te conjunction mas ‘but’ is more requently attested in this corpus than its standard Castilian equivalent pero. Te reasons or a predominance o mas could be through a desire to use mas since it belongs to a literary register in Castilian or it could just be borrowed rom Italian in the case o 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, S 49B:11, six times. mas36:10, pero in74:4) Harris, however, notes that45, substitutes post-expulsion Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 81). Te conjunction ‘and’ is represented by y and not e on occasions when the conjunction precedes the vowel (h)/i/ (Harris 1994: 81). Although this may well be the case, the Hebrew spelling o y as aleph yod is the same as that o e and thereore this eature cannot be proved in these texts. 21. Siendo used as a cauśal conjunction instead o 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). Tis use particularly siendo que ollowed by a subjunctive is also attested in other responsa (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 176). Te gerund can be seen to have a verbal use in the text. Tis 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 o Chaim Shabtai 1651, no. 44, l.2 (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 177). 22. Medieval Spanish orms o de + the pronouns ella, ellos and ellas as della (74:56), dellos (15:91, S 49B:8, 71:33), prevail in the texts. In orm this demonstrates a contraction o like vowels, in meaning it expresses partitive meaning such as ‘some o it/ them’. Elision such as de + el = del, de + este = deste (1:6, 15:12, 46:1, 76:2) where several particles may lose their nal- e beore the article and
162 certain pronouns beginning with e, i, o. Tis phenomenon is documented in the Proverbios Morales (González Llubera 1947: 30). Te second-person plural pronoun os is non-existent in JudeoSpanish. Instead the archaism vos is attested orty- ve times in the texts, and by Sala in the Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans (Sala 1996: 363). 23. Te hypercharacterization o 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 rme/ -a (c. standard rme). Tis phenomenon is not exempli ed in the texts. 24. Judeo-Spanish preserves the article in the case o la agua (42:9. 68:32) ‘the water’ whereas modern Spanish preers el agua (Zamora Vicente 1967: 361). Agua is treated as a eminine noun in all varieties o Spanish but el agua is kept in other varieties o Spanish. Also the eminine gender o n, la n (11:48) (modern Spanish el preserved n) ‘the end’, prevails Aragonese Latin250–251). genders are (Luria 1930:in459, Zamora where Vicentethe1967: Occasionally there is inconsistency in the gender: una edor (42:6) and un edor (42:34). In Judeo-Spanish today edor has a eminine gender whilst in modern Spanish it has a masculine gender. Dolor, too, is given a eminine gender in mucha dolor tengo (67:1–2) (modern Spanish el dolor, masculine gender), the emine gender is present in Aragonese (Luria 1930: 459). 25. Te agreement o the possessive su with the possessor instead o the object possessed is an innovation that is not ound in the texts. Tere are nine examples o sus agreeing with the object that is possessed, e.g. sus manos (15:39), sus cuentas (28:5). 26. Te different usage in North Arican Judeo-Spanish o the lack o distinction made between direct and indirect objects where in the masculine orm a distinction is made between de nite and inde nite reerents (e.g. a él le quieres etc.). 116 Tis lack o 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 or indirect reerent and where the reerent is a person. Te corpus has
116 Tis is according to Penny (2004b: 189) quoting rom Coloma Lleal’s (1992) El judezmo: el dialecto seardí y su historia.
163 about thirty- ve examples o lo used where the reerent is a person (11:20, 48, 12:30, 13:82, 18:41, 41, 30B:1, 46:1,3, 48:8, 49A:16, S 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. Te requent use o loque as a orm o a neutral interrogative pronoun in interrogative phrases whether direct or indirect is considered a morphological in uence rom Portuguese on Judeo-Spanish (Quintana 2009: 245). 28. Te use o diminutives is attested in our texts. Tey are very common in Judeo-Spanish speech in the same way as in Spanish speech. Tey are less common in the written language whether Spanish or Judeo-Spanish. Te registers re ected 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 ormal. Te diminutives pedaçico (13:80), paredica (83:65) appear in the texts. 118
Also velico appears ininthe Hebrew ramework o contained text 9. Te sux ‘-ico’ is common Judeo-Spanish. Spanish a wide range o suffixes which were already in use in the peninsula in the feenth century. Alvar registers this suffix in the Judeo-Spanish o 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 o a medieval retention; modern Spanish avours the sux -ito. 29. Te texts include several examples o a hybrid morphological nature. Te words ladronim (26: in the Hebrew answer section) and debdot (BIURP 26:58) are, in act, Spanish words with Hebrew plural endings.119 Tis is probably due to language intererence, and is a common phenomenon in language-contact situations. Te plural orm might be either the Hebrew or the Judeo-Spanish one. Tis gives rise to three categories o possibility: (1) nouns with only Hebrew endings +im / +ot, (2) nouns with only JudeoSpanish endings + (e)s or (3) nouns with alternative plurals (Shwarzwald 1993: 38). Also the agreement o the Judeo-Spanish
117 118 119
See also Quintana 2006: 164–169. See chap. 4 n. 69. Note also the English ‘cherub’—‘cherubim’ (angels).
164 adjective with the Hebrew noun is evident in get cortado (11:66), lit. ‘a cut divorce bill’, get is a masculine noun in Hebrew. Interestingly, Shwarzwald concludes that the in ection o 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 in ected as in their source and viceversa the more olkroristic 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 in ection o a noun that is not o Hebrew Aramaic source and can be described double plural in ection (Shwarzwald 1993: 42). Under this category o hybrid morphology are illustrations such as apotropisa (25:11, 40:9), Hebrew word with Spanish / JudeoSpanish gender agreement. Incidentally, apotropisa is spelt with a zayin in text 25 and with a samech in text 40, this is an example o the same text sent to two different respondents and this phonological variation is apparent. In thea same textplural apotroposim this time the Hebrew word uses Hebrew ending appears, thus no longer an example o hybrid morphology. 3.3.3 Vocabulary Apart rom differences in vocabulary between western and oriental Judeo-Spanish, the differences between Judeo-Spanish and Spanish are mainly: 1. Preservation o many archaic words which have disappeared rom modern Spanish, some o which have undergone semantic change. 2. Replacement o Spanish words by others borrowed rom host languages. An example o lexical variation is the use o aldiquera ‘pocket’ (38:A9, B6) and alduquera 83:47). In act Quintana notes the same example o alduquera in the same text but not the previous examples in De Medina’s responsa. Judeo-Spanish inherits two orms rom Medieval Spanish, aldikera and aldukera, the ormer derived rom aldica and the second rom alduca, both diminutive orms o alda. Quintana discusses how aldukera is attested in Bitolj and aldikera in Salonica in the sixteenth century. However later in the
165 seventeenth century haldikera persists in Smyrna and this is the orm 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 o Portuguese srcin and attests its popular use in Salonica and Constantinople in the seventeenth century (Quintana 2006: 222–223). Noteworthy is the ormtanbién in the Me’Am Lo’ez (Bereshit p. 37) alongside también in other instances (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:174). Some words were transerred between communities by way o commercial or cultural relations, while others were peculiar to particular communities. Borrowings came mainly rom Hebrew, Arabic, Aramaic, urkish, Greek, French, Portuguese and Italian. In Israel today, Judeo-Spanish speakers are known to have absorbed Yiddish words into their lexicon. Te texts provide a colourul illustration o the linguistic phenomenon described here. 3.3.3.1 Use o Hebrew Te Hebrew lexis in the texts is noteworthy.120 Te Hebrew language is predictably the main source o borrowing o Judeo-Spanish and these borrowings grew signi cantly rom 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 rom the Middle Ages suggests that major patterns o incorporation o Hebrew and Aramaic elements ound today in modern Judeo-Spanish were already established in the earliest, pre-expulsion stage o the language.121 As is See Bunis (1993). Tere is an apparent contradiction between Bunis saying Judeo-Spanish was established beore the Inquisition, and other scholars who claim Judeo-Spanish began in the post-expulsion era. Bunis says that the language consisted o Spanish with Hebrew and Aramaic elements and occasional lexical usion. However, the linguistic changes that de ne Judeo-Spanish are not attested until a long time afer the expulsion; even the testimonies re ect the beginning o these changes. Tereore, the contradiction reers to the exact de nition o Judeo-Spanish; the principle is not in dispute. See Minervini (1999: 41–52). Te whole issue o whether Jews spoke markedly differently rom their Christian and Muslim neighbours is still debated; only in some vocabulary domains can the difference be claimed. 120 121
166 the case o Yiddish, there are countless words to show that concepts rom the domain o Jewish tradition and Jewish group lie to a larger degree are denoted in the Judeo language by words o Hebrew srcin (Weinreich 1970: 404).122 Te incorporation o Hebrew words is evidenced in the Valladolid Statutes or the Jewish communities o Castille showing the alternation o Spanish and Hebrew within a single text (Shwarzwald 1993: 30). Whether the absorption o Hebrew words into Judeo-Spanish took place at a given time is debated among academics. Shwarzwald points out that the process o incorporation o oreign elements into the language may take place at a given time and location in the majority o cases. However in the case o Hebrew terms that are used into JudeoSpanish there may well have been some stages involved. Shwarzwald argues that words with religious and cultural meanings must have been absorbed rst as they had no oreign equivalents. However, she says that words without Jewish content, whether rom Hebrew or another language, would have entered place (Shwarzwald 1993: 40). the language depending on time and Te nature o syntactic borrowing has been explained by philologists. Pountain explains that in order to understand syntactic borrowing one has to delve urther into whether it is essentially a unction o other types o borrowing, lexical or instance, or whether it is better construed as ‘calquing’, ‘transer’ or ‘intererence’. Since syntactic borrowing varies signi cantly according to circumstance, a crucial variable determining the borrowing is that o register (Pountain 2006a: 99). Register varies according to situational context. ‘Situational context may include quite a large number o actors such as the role and nature o the participants in a speech situation and the relations among them; the physical and temporal context o the discourse; its subjectmatter and speakers’ attitudes towards it, and the medium through which the discourse is expressed’ (Pountain 2006b: 5). Hebrew borrowing served a different unction in the case o the Me’Am Lo’ez where the insertion o Hebrew phrases had a didactic and in effect educational purpose. Many Hebraisms here serve to reinorce
122 Te similarities o Yiddish and Judeo-Spanish in their Hebrew-Aramaic component are unsurprising given the socio-religious impact o Hebrew on Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities (Benabu 1979: 9).
167 key phrases used in the weekly liturgy and during special times as that o the main estivals o Passover, Purim etc (Shwarzwald 2006/2007: 109). Te Me’Am Lo’ez contains Judeo-Spanish as a translation o rabbinical exegesis, discourses and argument, the language encountered in this book is a mélange o the vernacular with language o a legal register. Shwarzwald argues that Khuli in this work was ollowing a preexisting literary tradition with Rashi as one o his predecessors, who himsel ollowed other writers who were used to incorporate complex notions into a weaker language structure. Hebrew is an important source o terminology or concepts carrying unortunate or negative connotations, including words subject to taboo.123 Among these are words relating to death, violence and taboo. Here the idea o using Hebrew conveys a stronger eeling, as i the Hebrew word were more powerul and emphatic than its JudeoSpanish counterpart. Interestingly, the same word is sometimes used either in Judeo-Spanish or in Hebrew, depending on the speaker’s mood. Negative concepts ortune are also in Hebrew.such as those expressing poverty and misTe 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 speci c ways.124 In a Jewish letter o oath rom 1360 (Bunis 1993: 17) some examples are ound, including the periphrastic verb azer šebu‘á (to swear). In text 25 we encounter the phrase a rmar la šebu‘á, reerring to Clara undertaking an oath not to remarry or ten years afer her husband’s demise. Other examples o periphrastic verbs and expressions are given in able 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 o language see Fishman (1970).
168 able 3.3: Periphrastic Verbs Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
From Hebrew
125
English ranslation
Reerence(s)
a rmar la šebu‘á
to make an oath
̠ entrar en mikšol estar agunah estar en ta‘anit uera de séke̠ l 126 haber ‘edut haćer pešarah non era maqpid seavos besimantob127 sedme ‘edim ser betelá ser meqayem ser modí‘a ser posel128 tomó por qidušín
to enter into a 18:54 stumbling block to be a deserted wie S 68:7 to ast S 49B:6 outrageous 28:20 to have testimony S 68:11 to make a compromise 15:49 was not exacting 37:49 congratulations 30:26 be my witnesses S 7:13; 29:5 tobeinvalid 15:67 to be authenticated 15:83 tonotiy 2:4;68:5,18 tobeannulled 15:66 she took it as a symbol 29:6 o marriage
25:9
Here it is interesting to compare with a text rom the Valladolid statutes where the similar structure o the Spanish copula ser being requently used with the Hebrew participle as in sean mehụ yavim illustrated in the statutes. Such structures are attested elsewhere in Judeo-Spanish (Minervini 1992: I 120, 216, 221), (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 178– 179). Tese 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 ̣ ǰ 1:173). Tis is comparable haberit (38:8–9) in this book.to ‘que le estaba apare ado sarqé se‘udat
125 Many o these periphrastic expressions could all under the category o 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 o the use o a Hebrew borrowing as a periphrastic verb. 128 (1) For the sake o uniormity, I have included these expressions sometimes with the verb in the in nitive 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).
169 Miller discusses code switching beore Hebrew participles also with illustrations rom the taqanot like ueron metaqqenim (Miller 2004: 64). At this point one can draw countless parallels with the taqanot in style, in its use o Hebraisms and in its rhythm. Tis 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-yehị dim non puedan ni hayan poder . . . taken rom the taqanot in Minervini 1992.129 able 3.4: Concepts Carrying Unortunate or Negative Connotations Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
‘aní 130 bet hakisé gezel hamageá hạ más qebarim ̣ sava’á sakaná
From Hebrew
English ranslation pauper toilet robbery theplague violence graves will danger
Reerence(s) 27:5 13:70,74,76 28:41 37:44 28:41 27:10 11:58 4:2
Alternating the borrowing with the existing Spanish word is common in this corpus. Te alternate reerence to the coins used is also in keeping with this style o Hebrew: rstlebanim, then the vernacular aspros. ext 36 exempli es alternating orms in the use o hạ nut (text 36:2) and debotica (36:15). According to Bunis, numerous Hebraisms were employed inSulhan hapanim and Hovot Halevavot131 (Bunis 1993: 30) in alternation with Hispanic synonyms or near-synonyms, demonstrating that Hebraisms were used out o a desire to use speci c Hebrew terms, their preerence
See Minervini 1992 text 16 pp. 181–255. Te phrase el ‘aní de Šelomoh Attar is Hispanic in structure but contains ‘ani ‘poor man’ to emphasize the negative connotation; in this case it reers to a man who has drowned at sea. 131 Sulhan Hapanim: an anonymous adaptation o Caro’s Shulchan Aruch; Hovot Halevavot: Sadik Formón’s vernacular rendition o Bahya Ibn Pakuda’s Hovot Halevavot, both intended or Ottoman Jews. 129 130
170 governed by actors such as their affective value, exactness o reerence, the opportunities they afforded to expand and vary thelexicon or greater stylistic diversity and to maintain a distinction between Jewish and nonJewish speech. An illustration o the above is a word likea lu ‘even’. Another example o a Hebraism used or emotive appeal is the word nijúš in text 13:35, literally means ‘guess’ denoting a (negative) eeling. Te sister-in-law did not want to move into a new house. Changes o abode were ofen associated with changes in ortune or destiny; i she thought her present abode was affording her good luck, she would eel she was tempting ate by moving. A superstition lingers among Jews today about changing home.Nihụ́ š also possesses a sinister nuance; such terms, or those with secretive connotations were adopted rom Hebrew into the varieties o Judeo-Spanish, including Hakitía. It is argued that most o the vocabulary in able 3.4 is evidence o how Hebrew words were sometimes used as euphemisms or tabooed (Romance) terms. abooed terms included those reerring to disaster, 132
e.g. plague, robbery, violence, graves, wills, pauper, as well as the common tabooed term: toilet. Te use o Hebrew or terms associated with tragedy stems rom the notion that Hebrew is a sacred language, used or religious purposes, and thereore its use offers protection to the speaker rom the disaster reerred to. 133 erms directly related to ideas o worship or religion/communal regulations, the Jewish calendar, months o the year, numer134 als, amounts o money including coins, i.e. the Jewish way o lie, including circumcision and building a booth, are almost always taken rom Hebrew.135 It is important to draw attention to Bunis’s categories o Hebrew words in Ibero-Romance in pre-exilic Spain, some o which have parallels in the categories identi ed 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 o borrowing Hebrew words or negative concepts also has the effect o lessening or weakening the negativity. For instance, Judeo-Spanish speakers today eel more comortable reerring to diseases in Hebrew (e.g. la majalá [the disease] as a euphemism or ‘cancer’), as i the Hebrew language, because o its sanctity, manages to protect the speaker rom the illness he is reerring to. 134 Te use o Hebrew words or concepts concerning Judaism is a phenomenon that also occurs in Yiddish (Weinreich 1970: 398). 135
boothsDuring and dwell the estival in themoorabernacles seven days Jews (Leviticus are commanded 23:42). in the Bible to erect
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 o Hebrew in language to the subjects o taboo, death and mourning such as the use o ̣ or ‘the corpse inside the coffin’, la misvá haćer el kavodto describe the ritual preparation o the dead beore burial (Shwarzwald 1984a: 210–211). able 3.5: erms Connected to Religious Worship, Communal Regulations and Jewish Calendar-136 Numerals Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
From Hebrew
English ranslation Reerence(s)
berit
circumcision
bet hakeneset biné qahal qadós137
synagogue in ront o the holy community intheyear 37:10 a thousand 18:15; 19:3 to build a booth 22:8 Chanukah (estival 16:7 o lights) 9thmonth 19:30 estivals 4:5 1st month 27:3 Passover 20:5 space 22:7 rst 22:15 Sabbath 45:2;49A:10; 49B:11; 67:6; 74:38
bišnat ele haćer la suká Ḥ anuká Kislev mo‘adim Nisán Pesaḥ revaḥ rišoná Šabat
šelihụ t šení Ševat šisá ala m šišim ušnáyim
mission (on behal o the community) second 11th month Six thousand sixty-two
38A:2, 3, 9; 38B:12 22:22;32:3 13:30
28:2,38,8, 40 11, 19, 22:21 20:11 13:13 36:6–7
136 Note the centrality o the Jewish calendar or the observance o precepts including that o the Sabbath, the estivals, the new moon etc. For a history o the Jewish calendar between the second and the tenth century CE see Stern (2001). 137 Qahal is an example o 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 corpus we nd qahal to ‘a synagogue’. in both senses Tisand is noted it has been by Bunis translated (1993:accordingly. 18). However, in our
172 able 3.5 (cont.) Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
From Hebrew
Sukot yehị dé segulá yehudí Yom Kipur
English ranslation Reerence(s) abernacles 4:5;16:7 community members 1:4 Jew 21A:2 Day o Atonement 4:5
Tere are also Hebraisms that relate to the wider sphere o 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 nds countless illustrations o Hebraisms relating to religious terminology neatly interwoven in the Ladino language e.g. ̣ ‘todos eran sadiqim’ (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 hạ yab ̠ mitah’ (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot Chelek Aleph: 12), a lu en las behemot (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot chelek Aleph: 31), ‘el tạ ‘am que no dišo el pasuq’ (Me’Am Lo’ez Devarim: 30), tornemos en tešuba̠ h (Me’Am Lo’ez Devarim: 33, Shemot 1:218), tener la habt̠ ahạ h 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 o religious terminology in pre-exilic Spain (Bunis 2004: 117). Related to this use is the constant use o Hebrew toponyms such as ̣ Misrayim (48:5, 54A:6, 54B:4, 74:26) in the texts, there is no instance o Egipto. Equally and unsurprisingly this use abounds in the Me’Am ̣ Lo’ez (e.g. Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:174). Misrayim belongs to religious / Biblical and liturgical terminology. able 3.6: Wider Sphere o Religious erminology Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
ba‘alé midot tọ vot ba‘alé orá hạ ka̠ m hạ ka̠ m šalem raš‘á sạ diq yešibot
From Hebrew
English ranslation Reerence(s) men o good virtue 15:94 men o orah 15:92 sage 15:90 perectsage 22:4 wicked 15:90 righteous 68:7, 9; 80:37 academies o Jewish 33:5 learning
173 Te use o Hebrew or blessings can be understood in this context. Ofen these blessings appear abbreviated and are appended to proper names in ull. Tese include wishes, invocations, implorations, prayers, e.g. ‘may his name be blessed’ etc. Since they are all a orm o prayer and are thereore 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 rom Hebrew. able 3.7: Blessings Hebrew in From Hebrew English ranslation Judeo-Spanish text
Be‘ezrat Hašem gam zu letobá hạ s vešalom šemó yitbaraḥ tibané vetiqoné bimherá biyamenu ̣ yišmerehu s uró vihạ yehu zihṛ onó librará
‘
with the help o God It shall turn out to be or the best Heavenorbid may His name be blessed may it be speedily rebuilt and redeemed in our days may his Rock guard him and keep him alive o blessed memory
Reerence(s) 19:22 18:63 35:7 21A:4 4:12 11:54, 59; 38:11; 59:12 22:8
Economic terms are nearly always rendered in Hebrew. Jews requently used Hebrew words in business as a kind o secret code. Interestingly, text 26 which deals solely with a nancial matter contains no Hebraism in its 41 lines, except or the words hạ ka̠ mim (26:43, 51) ‘sages’ and pesaq din (26:43) ‘legal decision’, and phrases like pera’ón tob vešalem belí šum pahạ t vehị sarón (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 o Hebraisms (24). erms associated with the selling and purchasing o property are included below. Note that Hebrew nite verbs appearing in ormulaic phrases like ̣ yišmerehu suró vihạ yehu, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, are also common in the aqanot de Valladolid (Miller 2004: 61).
174 able 3.8: Economic erms Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
From Hebrew
English ranslation Reerence(s)
belí šum pahạ t
without devaluation 22:20–21
veh ị sarón biśek i̠ rut qarqa‘ot hạ ka̠ mim hahạ ser hạ ver ̣ hosa’ot ‘inián lehẹ šbonó lebanim mešalem mištadel pera‘ón tob vešalem perahị m tobim rešut ribit Ši‘ur togar yoter
or loss rental 13:46 plots o land 37:3 sages 26:43,51 courtyard 22:7 partner 49A:3 expenses 28:8 ( nancial) matter 28:26 on his own account 13:13 aspers 18:15 in ull 22:24 middleman 13:81 Agoodsum 22:20 goldcoins 36:6–7 permission 22:27 interest 13:5 amount 28:6, 37 urk/moneylender 13:39, 44; 37:41 more than 28:40
It is unsurprising that legal terms are borrowed rom Hebrew by JudeoSpanish. Tere are many examples o legal expressions in the texts that are in Hebrew but these are instances o code-switching between both languages, see p. 180. able 3.9: Judicial erminology138 Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
aderaba ‘al kol panim bedereḥ pešarah bemataná gemurá ̣ bešum sad
138
From Hebrew
English ranslation
Reerence(s)
on the contrary 28:38 nevertheless 18:7 by way o compromise 28:43 as an absolute gif 23:6 ornoreason 22:16–17
Tis includes associated legal terms.
175 able 3.9 (cont.) Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
dayán
From Hebrew
English ranslation
Reerence(s)
Judge
2:6;13:81,93,
gamur ha‘ed
absolute the witness
hạ qirá udrišá hạ zaqá
cross-examination presumption o ownership hetesti ed to his younger son pregnant document trustworthy compulsion arbitrators soandso legal decision document, register act o acquisition proo Will document condition plaintiff Copy especially etcetera orphans
95; 58:7; 38B:16, 16, 16; 68:37, 37, 37 15:63 8:3; 31:8; 50B:7, 25, 31; 64:11 83:75 21ª:1
he‘id libnó qatán me‘uberet moda‘á ne’eman ‘oneś pasranim peloní upeloní pesaq din ketab qinián142 re’ayá 143 ̣ sava’á šetạ r tena’i to‘en tọ es ubirat ̣ veku̠ leh yetomot
8:3;31:8 139 23:6 35:2 15:43, 51140 3:16 15:41,44 141 28:43 23:10 26:51 37:12 23:7, 51:5 19:34 11:58 2:2; 15:2144 22:21 28:3 15:6,7,12 145 15:29 23:4146 33:4
Tere are 38 reerences throughout the texts altogether. Tere are 9 reerences within text 15. 141 Tere are 18 reerences throughout the texts altogether. 142 See Appendix 3. 143 Tis Hebraism along other examples can be seen in the Coplas and is one o such Hebraisms surviving in Modern Judeo-Spanish (Girón-Negrón & Minervini 2006: 109). 144 Tere are 30 reerences throughout the texts altogether. 145 Tere are 17 reerences within text 15. 146 Tis is one o countless reerences throughout our corpus; it is also a term that could t into any o the categories in this discussion. 139 140
176 Obvious similarites with the use o 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 o time may have been borrowed rom the Hebrew. ime processes have a direct correlation with religious matters. ypically, at the beginning o the Mishnah (Mishnah Berakhot 1:1) a discussion on the timing o the recitation o the Shema (Hear o Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is One, Deuteronomy 6:4) ensues. iming and time-reckoning are central to the laws o amily purity, the Sabbath laws, daily prayers and other areas o ritual halakhah (Stern 2003: 46–58).147 ext 11 contains many time-related Hebraisms, e.g. mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘erev ‘rom morning till night’. Tis example is not only a timerelated Hebraism but also conveys emphasis; it describes the dedication o Abr̠ aham Primo to the development o his property. Tis is o course legally signi cant since the testimony will in uence the decision to award sole ownership o the property to Primo. At the end 148
o 36, afer several lines in Judeo-Spanish Hebrew, giving the date this semana hearing, seríaocomo an interesting sentence occurs, días qodem Ros Hasaná149 (it must have been like a week [or days] beore the New Year). Hebrew qodem is used, probably as it precedes the Hebrew Rosh Hashanah. Additionally, the syntax is in keeping with Hebrew: ‘šabu̠ ‘a yamim’, i.e. seven days. Tese are examples o calques o Hebrew as explained in Shwarzwald 1993. Séphiha reers to these as ‘ladinismes’ in his discussion o the in uence o ladino on the vernacular, where such calque phrases derived rom Ladino, the literal translation o Hebrew to the vernacular, through language intererence, enter the spoken language. Séphiha gives other examples e.g. kada uno i uno [kol ehạ d ve’ehạ d] (Séphiha 1986: 62–71). Other such illustrations prevail in the Coplas, e.g serán aňos siete or šev‘a yamim (Girón-Negrón & -Minervini 2006: 106).
147 For a detailed analysis o the centrality o timing in Jewish law, see Stern (2003: 46–81). In his book, ime and Process in Ancient Judaism , Stern argues the absence o a concept o time in ancient Judaism. He writes that the word zeman or time means only ‘points in time’ or nite periods o time, but that the concept o time as a continuum is absent rom rabbinic texts (Stern 2003: 26–41). 148 See BIURP appendix, text 36 l. 21. 149 Te Hebrew expression or a week or seven days is šabu̠ ‘a yamim lit. a week, days. Hence the Judeo-Spanish expression semana días, that is a Hebrew construction used in Judeo-Spanish.
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).
Hebrew in Judeo-Spanish text
able 3.10: ime-related Expressions From Hebrew English ranslation
ahạ r zemán bayamim hahem be’otá sa‘á beša‘a t qodem leí sa‘á me‘ata ume‘akš̠ av mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘ereb ̠ miyad teke tẹ rem veahạ r kak ̠
Reerence(s)
aferatime 13:25 inthosedays 13:29 atthesametime 7:8 atthetime. 28:19 Beore 36:21150 at the time151 1:11 as rom here and now 23:7 rom morning till night 13:24 Immediately beore andlater
22:19 13:29 13:28
Note the use o zemán in al cabo del zemán del servicio ‘at the end o their time o service’. Although zemán is Hebrew, modern urkish uses zaman, but it can be asserted that this word is borrowed rom Hebrew and not rom urkish because o the Hebrew spelling without any vowel letters, zmn. I it had been taken rom urkish it would have been spelt with vowels as zyman (Crews 1955: 229). Apart rom the prousion o Hebrew elements composed entirely o Hebrew sixteenth-century texts examples o usionsmorphemes, o Hebrew some and Hispanic morphemes in contain single, innovative lexical items (Bunis 1993: 17). Additionally in the Ladino translation o Hešeq Šelomó there arise a ew verbs that are derived by affixing bound morphemes o Hispanic srcin e.g. enhẹ remar, derived rom hẹ rem ‘excommunication’ yet it is used in Hešeq Šelomó to translate examples o h-̣ r-m in the sense o ‘to devote to, put outside or’ (Bunis 1999b: 175). An example is the noun apotroposa (emale guardian) in text 25:9. Te word is used in Hebrew, derived rom the Greek epitropos, 150 151
See qodem, p. 176. Lit., according to the time.
178 modi ed by the ‘a’ Spanish suffix. Tis noun and its adjectival orm are also documented by Shwarzwald where she includes similar patterns o morphology (Shwarzwald 1993: 36). Bunis lists over 4,500 words in his lexicon o Hebrew and Aramaic elements in Judeo-Spanish and this give an idea o the vastness o material in this area.152 Bunis also registers the use o Hebrew or names, numbers and abbreviations in pre-exilic texts such as in a JudeoAragonese 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 recon gured 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 rom the Biblical command, known as the levirate command, that a childless widow must marry her brother-inlaw in order to produce heirs or her deceased husband. 153 Tere is a ceremony that can legally reeexpression the womanestar rom command. Te en this el año de mi madre same adaptation occurs in the (38B:13). It is customary in Judaism to mourn or one year ollowing the death o a parent.154 In this case the protagonist could not attend the customary estive meal ollowing a circumcision ceremony as he was in this period o compulsory mourning. A Jewish concept is here recon gured in a Spanish expression. Te verb meldar appearing as meldando (11:7) occurs requently in the Ladino literature; it was srcinally thought to be derived rom the Hebrew limud, but is now considered by scholars like Renard and Séphiha to be derived rom the Greek melatan ‘study’ (Harris 1994: 59). In the varieties o Judeo-Spanish it indicates both prayer and religious learning. Entwistle only reers to its replacement o leer, ailing to mention its meaning o ‘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 o psalms that are recited beore or around burials, or 152 Bunis also lists publications o research inventories and treatments o JudeoSpanish lexical elements o Hebrew and Aramaic srcin 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 o the use o unconventional German that reers to Jewish customs (Weinreich
179 at designated times during the mourning period, are attested in JudeoSpanish (Shwarzwald 1984a: 210). Countless illustrations can be ound in the Me’Am Lo’ez including meldar, meldara e.g in Devarim 30). Te use o the orm el Dio (18:22, 41, 61, S 49B:26, 61B:10, 71:2) as opposed to Spanish Dios has also been much discussed by linguists.156 Some claim that the orm Dio entered Judeo-Spanish because the Jews would have wanted to differentiate themselves rom the host culture in reerring to their God. Te motive or this preerred orm is undoubtedly religious (Entwistle 1965: 58, 179, 182, 194, Lapesa 1988: 525–6). Te dropping o thes could indicate rejection o the notion o plurality within the Deity. However, rom a morphological point o view it can be argued that singular nouns ending in s are less requent in Spanish. Tere is no inherent notion o plurality in the word Dios; there must thereore have been analogical and morphological pressure to drop the s. Tis was the case with Latin words like corpus and tempus that dropped the s (Penny 2004a: 121, 127). Dio always takes the de nite article in Judeo-Spanish, el Dio. Arguably, this has the effect o emphasizing monotheismi.e. (Díaz-Mas 1986: 97, Minervini 1992: 394). However, it is noteworthy that in esti giudeoespagnoli medievali only the orm Dios is attested twice (Minervini 1992: 315, 330). Occasionally there is hesitation between the two orms as in the work o Isaac Cardoso in Amsterdam in the seventeenth century where both orms are attested in the same verse (Séphiha 1999: 639). Bunis states that the preerred orm by the Jews o el Dio in pre-exilic Spain was also to differentiate rom the Church-in uenced orm Dios used by the Christians, with its nal -s corresponding the Latin nominative -s which is in act rare in Romance languages (Bunis 2004: 125). Unsurprisingly el Dio occurs in the Coplas de Yose (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 o morphological interest that the gender o the Hebrew word borrowed in Judeo-Spanish does not ollow the same as that in the srcinal language. Hebrew nouns ending in + a are
1970: 397). Another Yiddish equivalent o meldar is ley’enen ‘to read the orah’, ‘to read’ in general (Weinreich 1970: 405). 156 Note that in Minervini’s texts (1992) rom thirteenth to ourteenth century Spain the orm Dio does not appear.
180 automatically considered eminine as is the case in Spanish grammar.157 For instance la gezerá (1:13) is treated as eminine in the texts whilst it is masculine in Hebrew. 3.3.3.3 Code-switching Tere is a marked difference between the use o Hebraisms within Judeo-Spanish, and the use o Hebrew where the language switches entirely into Hebrew or a sentence or more. Te above discussion describes how borrowing a word rom a different language can be or a speci c purpose: whether or the sancti cation o religion, or expressing superstitious and negative notions, or use as a secret code or in the use o economic and judicial terminology. Code-switching, however, may take place when the speaker has insucient knowledge or memory o the language and needs the second language in his expression, as is sometimes the case with current JudeoSpanish speakers (Harris 1994: 191). Harris explains code-switching as thecommon alternation between languages (Harris within a1994: single discourse that is in the speechtwo o bilinguals 182). Weinreich discusses in detail his view on whether borrowings must affect existing vocabulary by producing either conusion between the content o the new and old word, the disappearance o the old word or the survival o both old and new word with a specialization in its content (Weinreich 1953: 54). However Miller, unlike Bunis, regards the use o Hebraisms in periphrastic verbs as an example o code-switching beore Hebrew participles, or instance ‘ueron metaqqenim ‘they were promulgating general statutes’ (Miller 2004: 64).158 As is argued in the above section with ample illustrations the use o Hebrew terms in such instances are regarded as examples o Hebrew borrowings by Judeo-Spanish and not o code-switching. Te instances o code-switching in this corpus consist primarily o a lengthier passage o Hebrew and show syntax change. Tey can be noted mainly in the examples in which the scribe introduces the witness, makes his own interpolations in the course o the testimony, and nally winds up the exposition. In general, the narrative switches to Hebrew. In the corpus, I have italicised these lines o Hebrew that are
157 For more examples o such morphological usion o loan elements, see Shwarzwald 1993: 37–38. 158 For Bunis’s perspective see Bunis 1993: 28.
181 examples o code switching.159 exts 8, 11, 17, 25, 37, 38, 42, 50, 54, 72 and 80 show the use o code-switching in the introduction to new testimonies. exts 1, 3, 4, 15, 22, 23, 28, 53, 58, 63, 79 and 83 exempliy this use when the witness’s speech consists o phrases or passages o a legal content. exts 18, 30, 31, 50, 55, 70 and 73 show the switching when the passage describes the Court’s actions or words. exts 5, 13, 21, 36, 40, 56, 64, 73, 80 and 84 describe happenings outside witness testimony in Hebrew. Predictably, some texts all into more than one category, but I have classi ed them above into the predominant category. A distinction is made here between Hebrew used as lexical adaptation and as a distinct language used or coding purposes. Minervini’s (1992) earlier texts also show evidence o language switching, but perhaps not to the same extent. 3.3.3.4 Borrowings rom Other Languages 1. Borrowing rom the urkish language is predictable and about 160 fy-seven words, derivedurkish rom urkish, penetrated texts. It isdifferent clear that Ottoman was thehave native languagethe o much o the indigenous population in the Ottoman Empire in the ourteenth and feenth 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 rom North Arican Arabic would enter the language in a similar way as urkish entered Ottoman Judeo-Spanish (Bunis 2004: 106). Te nature o these borrowings is similar to the phenomenon that has taken place with Hebrew borrowing, except that urkish borrowings are on a smaller scale as re ected in this corpus. Some economic, judicial and descriptive vocabulary is borrowed rom urkish. Examples are aspro ‘urkish coin’, gerúš ‘urkish 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 ext 47
159 Note the reverse example in text 27 where at the end o the translation the questioner inserts Judeo-Spanish phrases within his argument in Hebrew—in this case the English translation o the Hebrew is italicised and that o the Judeo-Spanish is lef unitalicised. 160 See Appendix 2. 161 O all the urkish borrowings listed in our corpus Bunis attests aspro, vaiboda, gifelic, hugit, riza (Bunis 1993: 23).
182 contains many urkish key words and phrases in only our lines. Only two o the many urkish borrowings listed in Death o a Language appear in this corpus: tabán (12:41) ‘ceiling’ and pasá162 (38B:2) ‘governor’ (urkish title/post) (Harris 1994: 109–118). Shwarzwald notes tavan meaning ‘roo’ and also meaning ‘God’ (Shwarzwald 1993: 33). ext 3 concerns a rabbinic enactment with reerence to the wool industry and contains words such as eendi ‘Mr’, chobán ‘shepherd’ and dólia ‘because o’ that are o urkish srcin. Economic terms such as mulquié (13:40) ‘proprietorship’ and hugit (13:95, 37:38) ‘titledeed’ appear.163 Cosque164 (11:1) ‘pavilion’, derived rom kösk, is the only urkish borrowing in text 11. Business terminology such as sara (18:29) ‘money lender’ and quiregi (18:8) ‘tenant’, derived rom kiraci are predictable examples o urkish borrowing. Judicial terms such as cadí (19:28) ‘judge’ and sigil (19:28) ‘registry’ appear in text 19. Sigil, or instance, has not survived in modern Judeo-Spanish in this sense; Nehama’s dictionary gives the de nition o sigil as ‘a nasal obstruction’. Shwarzwald noteswords kira ‘rent’ as a borrowing rom Arabic 1993: 34). Many in urkish are, in act, similar to (Shwarzwald Arabic. Rizá (45:2, 5, 8, 9) ‘handkerchie’ is the object used as kiddushin. However ridá ‘handkerchie’ is attested as a urkish borrowing. Tese are regional variations. Quintana notes ridá in Istanbul and as an alternative in So a to rizá, rizá is the norm in Sarayevo, Salonica and Smyrna (Quintana 2006: 266). However Shwarzwald lists ridá in her account on in uence o other languages on Judeo-Spanish (Shwarzwald 1993: 33). Makrama (60:4) ‘headdress’ is also noted in Hakitía as mejerma, which in this case would have been a borrowing rom Arabic. Başá (48:5. 54A:6, 54B:5) ‘governor’ is derived rom the urkish pasá; başá has been retained also in modern Spanish. Muquerí (76:3, 5) ‘muleteer’ appears and ǰuma (83:12, 63) ‘Friday prayers’ derived rom the urkish cuma. urkish borrowings, many o them associated with dress, also abound in the olkloric tradition (Armistead 1999: 9). Naturally, names o towns and proper names appear in urkish where appropriate. Names such as Osre bie (19:2, 27) ‘Mr Osre’ and Zul car effendi 162 Pasa or pasha was used as a term o praise or endearment in Judeo-Spanish (Harris 1994: 314). 163 See Appendix 2 or more textual reerences. 164 Bunis attests cosque but reads it as cusaque meaning ‘sash’ rom the urkish kusak (1993: 23). Tis interpretation would not t contextually in this particular text.
183 (13:4) ‘Mr. Zul car’ are distinctly urkish and reer to individual moneylenders. Signi cantly, most borrowings are words associated with nancial and judicial urkish authorities, and also with items o clothing. However, only a ew o these terms survive. In recent Judeo-Spanish the language turns to Castilian Spanish and drops many o these urkisms (Quintana-Rodriguez 1999: 598–601). Bashan and Bornstein’s glossary (1973) lists and de nes a selection o oreign words ound in the responsa o the Ottoman period: the large majority are o urkish srcin. Tis work is useul but ails to identiy the etymology o each word; there is no introduction explanation or notes. Also, there are many urkish terms identi ed in this corpus and listed in the urkish glossary (see Appendix 2) that are missing rom 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 165
Ottoman illustrated (Bunis 1996a: 166). Here it is out signi cant tourkish mentionisthat much linguistic research has been carried with regard to the in uence o the urkish language on Judeo-Spanish as spoken by the Jews o urkey, or instance in the eld o lexical borrowing (Bornes Varol 1996: 215). However the research covers later periods than that in the responsa in this book. As the time ramework in the sixteenth century is about one hundred years afer the Spanish Jews settled in Ottoman lands, linguistic contact with urkish was signi cant but a ew centuries later the impact on Judeo-Spanish is much stronger (Varol-Bornes 1996: 213–237). 2. O syntactical interest are the other oreign in uences in the texts, particularly those affecting word order and sentence structure. Borrowings rom Portuguese include aletra de (27:3), la dita (4:9, 71:31) and dito (27:8). Tese also appear requently in Minervini’s (1992) texts rom pre-expulsion Spain. A large Jewish Portuguese community lived in Ancona ollowing the expulsion, which may account or the above-mentioned linguistic in uence.166 Additionally the anusim, so many Portuguese converts who arrived in the Ottoman 165 Yisrael Haim was called by linguists the ‘ather o Modern Judezmo letters’, also a champion o the Ladino translation tradition in the nineteenth century . . .’ see Bunis 1996. 166 However, in the area o phonology and spelling, I have not ound any evidence o the Jewish Portuguese preerence o oi over ou (doitor, coisa) (Entwistle 1965: 298); this would have been indicated by an addition o a yod afer the vav. Note dotor (11:2,
184 Empire account or bearing an in uence on the development o JudeoSpanish. In text 27 the letter is evidently written rom So a to Skopje and concerns the shipwreck off the coast o Ancona. Ancona was known to be the home o many Jews who had ed rom Portugal at the time o the Inquisition. Te text uses the words la dita, el dito; these are supposedly Portuguese, but could also have been spoken by people who came rom the eastern side o the peninsula, rom Aragon and Zaragoza where there was a large Jewish community. Dito appears requently in the texts alongside the more requent use o the Castilian, not just as its unction as a past participle but as that o a demonstrative pronoun that is differene in Judeo-Spanish. Tis 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 effect dito could well be a borrowing rom either Italian or Portuguese, or as a Portuguese or Aragonese orm that is inherited in Judeo-Spanish (Quintana 2009: 231). Te orm ditas occurs requently in Me’Am Lo’ez (Me’Am Lo’ez Shemot 1:173). In text 27:4 the word aletra occurs. Tis clearly includes a Portuguese orm o the de nite article ‘a’; Spanish would have obviously used la letra or the use o the prosthetic ‘a’. Te 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 o sounds, abounds in the Monastir dialect (Luria 1930: 451). Caśal(es) (S 68:13, 26), Judeo-Spanish or aldea ‘village’ is the same as the Galician and Portuguese orm caśal (Zamora Vicente 1967: 371). Caśal is also the Aragonese orm (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 in nitive, is attested in other sixteenth century works as in the Ladino translations o Seer šulhạ n hapanim, Seer họ vot halevavot (Quintana 2009: 229).
4, 22, 23, 30, 35, 39, 52, 71:4) and twenty examples o cośa included in texts 11:56. 13:22, 18:23, 21B:1.5, 25:12, 28:20, 33.
185 Súpito (20:9, 26:54, 59:13) meaning ‘suddenly / rapidly’ is attested in this corpus. Quintana suggests supeto to be a Portuguese borrowing rom súpeto in Judeo-Spanish (Quintana 2009: 249). Te Castilian orm is súbito. However in Minervini & Várvaro’s transcriptions súpito is used or the same text 26 in this book (Minervini & Várvaro 2007: 155). 3. Tere are certain expressions that appear to be o 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 o 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 our appearances in the texts versus twenty seven instances o después in the text with one unusual orm duespués (48:8). Depués survives in Judeo-Spanish and has its 167
srcin in Aragonese (Quintana 250). 84B:24, 26, 31, 34:2, 4, 8), 5. Te orms nueso/a/s (2:8,2009: 11, 71:13, 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 orms nuestro/a, vuestro/a in the Leonese regions o Villaoril, eberga and Luarca. In the texts we can also attest both orms perhaps as evidence that the Jews in the Balkans who came rom Leon would use the nueso orm and those rom Castile would use the nuestro. 6. Macare (83:53) derived rom the Greek makare has two meanings, one o ojalá in Spanish (‘would that’) and ‘even i’; the text uses the word in the latter sense. Also, apotropos (guardian) derives rom Greek epitropos (Harris 1994: 118). 7. Idioms such as aćer 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 rom Arabic including alhạ d (12:10, 67:10), guay (49A:8, 11), the exclamation ‘ay!’, while noting that words o Arabic srcin are less requent in the Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans than in the North Arican since it adopts Arabic words via urkish
167 See Quintana 2009 or a careul analysis o the Aragonese and Portuguese linguistic elements in Judeo-Spanish.
186 and not directly (Harris 1994: 59–60, 100).168 It is important to note Girón-Negrón & Minervini’s Coplas de Yose observation o the use o Arabisms in the poem. Tey note that the use o Arabisms by Medieval Jews was no more requent than their Christian counterparts (GirónNegrón & Minervini 2006: 111). 3.3.4 Spanish or Judeo-Spanish? Te question here examined is whether it is possible to reach a general conclusion regarding the language o these texts.169 Te range o texts presented in this book is so wide in terms o types o text, whether dealing with matters o law, contract, communal ordinances or everyday speech that it is difficult to nd any consistent patterns o language. It is important to highlight that a chronological selection o eighty-our texts have been examined in a context o perhaps up to another hundred pertaining to different centuries not included in this study. However, the lightthat o the presented linguistic inconsistencies can be in described cancorpus also point to conclusions. It is known that feenth-century Jews spoke the language variety o their neighbours (Castilian, Leonese, Galician or other variety) with some dialectal differences. Te language contained borrowings rom Hebrew to include religious terminology. Jews in the rabbinic Court spoke the vernacular and had an excellent grasp o Hebrew. Te language o quotidian speech has shown an evolution in a dialectical relationship with the surrounding cultures, with the literary language o the rabbinical elite and with Hebrew (Benbassa & Rodrigue 2000: 62). Teir bilingualism is re ected in the responsa, where code-switching is requent.170 Judeo-Spanish o the sixteenth century is essentially Castilian though some traits o feenth-century Castilian are not chosen by Judeo-Spanish. In essence these are rabbinic legal texts and the language re ects this. Tis is veri ed when comparing a secular text o the same period, or instance, Almosnino’s El Regimiento de la Vida, where the Note that alhad is rendered by Arabic al-ahad ‘the rst’ (Entwistle 1965: 182). In an analysis o eleven responsa the authors are reluctant to reach conclusions due to the small window o language analysed and to the act that these are not oral texts, they are written and have travelled through the hands o the copyist and typist (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 185). 170 Tis phenomenon and rabbinic style o Judeo-Spanish also prevails in the aqanot de Valladolid (Minervini 1992: 181–256). 168 169
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 o the Iberian Spanish norms. Quintana points out the introductory style in the Me’Am Lo’ez, preceding a legal affirmation starting with the uture orm savrés (Quintana 2004a: 75). Tis style, which we may call a rabbinic Judeo-Spanish, is requent in this corpus, as can be seen in section 3.3.1.16. Additionally many illustrations provided in this book rom my own reading o the Me’Am Lo’ez substantiate the act that the language is very similar in style, in its use o Hebraisms, in its rhythm, in its syntax, morphology and phonology despite the act it appears about two hundred years later. However theMe’Am Lo’ez has a much more owing style and consequently is easier to decipher than that encountered in these responsa. Alsoordenamos que (3:1–2) as an introductory phrase in rabbinic ordinances, typical o rabbinic Judeo-Spanish, is common in the Valladolidtaqanot too (Minervini 1992: 227, 229, 232, 233, 235, 238, 239, 241, 242, 247). Morevover the citation rom the Psalms (65)elš(em) in theyit(barak description a stormše’ón at seayamim ‘hubi)̠ queohisbi‘ah eron gran tormenta, y quiśo še’ón galehem’, portrays the extent to which the protagonists were deeply entrenched in their Judaism and the style o the language re ects this proound attachment. Te rabbinic style o language is more prevalent in the testimonies concerning ordinances and wills though it does permeate many others. Many testimonies display a linguistic style at amore colloquial level and thereore the added value othese testimonies is that it contains language o varying styles and registers. Te vocabulary o the responsa also re ects the relatively high incidence o urkish words already integrated into the language in the relatively short period since the expulsion, some o which survive, while others all into the category o ‘temporary borrowings’. Te extent and nature o urkish borrowings re ects the degree o Jewish integration into Ottoman society. Te evidence o the testimonies questions the accuracy o Molho’s belie 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 or it contained many borrowings o Hebrew, urkish and o other Spanish dialects. Our corpus testi es that ‘pure Spanish’, i.e. Spanish without oreign borrowings, was not spoken in the sixteenth century. JudeoSpanish in the sixteenth century, as re ected in the texts, is indeed Spanish with borrowings rom Hebrew and elsewhere.
188 Te beginning o a koiné is evidenced in the texts.171 At this point, all that can be asserted is that the responsa literature re ects a language that is mainly Castilian though with evidence o Leonese and Aragonese elements, with a high proportion o Hebrew, with borrowings rom urkish. Te Portuguese language lef its mark in Judeo-Spanish and there are some illustrations in the texts and in other responsa (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 186). Tere are ew in uences o Italian. Te language is primarily a re ection o the culture o Ottoman Jewry. Séphiha cites M. Molho when describing the language o the Jews in exile ‘Asi mientras que los seardies instruidos empleaban el idioma espanol srcinal en Holanda, Italia y el sur de Francia, un dialecto sui generis se ormaba entre los searadies de Oriente y de paises adyacentes’ (Séphiha 1986: 128–129). It is noted too that at this point there is no Slavonic in uence in the language rom Croatian, Serbian or Bulgarian (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 187). Tis chapter serves as a description o the language as portrayed in the aspects texts. Itocontains the analysis o theinnovations main and minor phonological Judeo-Spanish to include and retentions in relation to some other major Judeo-Spanish works. Te morphology o the language is reviewed and the extent o borrowing rom Hebrew is analysed. An understanding o the difference between Hebrew borrowing and Hebrew code-switching can be appreciated in the light o the corpus. A discussion o the orthography o the language permeates the description. Illustrations rom the texts as well as rom the sample texts transliterated with a different system to enhance the linguistic discussion are provided throughout. Reerences to the major works on the history o the Judeo-Spanish language document this chapter as well as allusions to a ew works available in the language that also use the Hebrew script. Additionally section 2.4, on the problems o textual transmission, as well as the ootnotes to Chapter 4 contribute to the philological discussion. It can be concluded that the noted substitution o lexical orms, the acquisition o phonetic variants and phonological rules, changes in verbal and pronominal uses distance the language rom its Iberian source and its linguistic activity occurring simultaneously (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 189).
171 o illustrate Judeo-Spanish as a koiné Minervini uses some o my unedited responsa rom Benaim 1996 and explains interdialectical contact in sixteenth century Judeo-Spanish (Minervini 1999: 46).
189 Te contribution o these extracts to Judeo-Spanish literature is signi cant, especially since there are so ew literary works o the period, and considering that much linguistic evidence is based on the oral transmission o proverbs, olk culture, ballads and stories. 172 It can be concluded that the instability and dynamism o Judeo-Spanish as a language at that stage is evident (Minervini & Várvaro 2008: 187). Te question o the extent to which orthography reveals inormation about the pronunciation is debatable, as it is a possibility the written evidence could be the work o the scribe more than o the speaker. Also the rashi script cannot convey every phoneme, it is an unpointed script. Yet arguably, the act that their linguistic register is nonliterary, points to the act that the texts come close to speech.173 Te presentation o this corpus, a written orm o the speech o the Ottoman Jews o the sixteenth century, undoubtedly sheds new light on existing linguistic analyses o Judeo-Spanish.174
172 Tere is a greater amount o olk literature available rom later periods, see Romero 2006 on Sephardic ballads with a historical content. 173 Te same point is argued in Penny (1992b: 465). 174 Alvar in his analysis o Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans mentions his sources as only either the spoken orm or the translation o Biblical texts (Alvar 1996: 362). Tereore the novelty o the presentation o this corpus as a resh source or linguistic study can be appreciated.
CHAPER FOUR
EXS Chapter 4 consists o 84 responsa. Each is presented in the ollowing ormat: summary o the case in English, copy o the Judeo-Spanish content o the srcinal Hebrew text, transcription into Latin characters and translation into English (including translation o the immediate Hebrew ramework where relevant), summary o the decision. 4.1 Responsa o Rabbi Samuel de Medina in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam (Salonica 1595)1 1. Yoreh Deah 532 In order to protect the kashrut o the Jewish wine industry, communal ordinances regarding the making and selling o wine were instituted. 3 Tese included a prohibition against making, selling or buying wine outside the town limits. However, the community o Rhodes had the custom o making wine outside the city and transporting barrels using Gentile drivers.4 Tis caused problems and the community went to the opposite extreme, orbidding imported wine or the next 20 years, including wine rom Candia (Crete) and Anaskasia (Chios). Te issue is whether this decree can be annulled. Tis enactment was recorded on 22 Ḥ ešvan 5299 / 16 October 1538.5 BIURP uses the Lemberg 1862 edition. Te testimony is extracted rom the reply section that cites the question. 3 Kashrut is Hebrew or the suitability o consumption according to Jewish dietary laws, see Appendix 3. 4 Goodblatt comments on the act that many teamsters were Gentiles gave rise to halakhic difficulties and that this was brought to the attention o 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 Dershowitz (2001). Beore 1582, dates are rom the Julian calendar and the ten day dierence is taken into account. (2). Note that the Jewish calendar is lunar, usually reerred to as ‘lunisolar’ because 1 2
it up withthe theJewish solar year by adding a 13thalunar every twodistinguishes or three years. Inkeeps this respect calendar comprises solarmonth element which it rom purely lunar calendars such as the Muslim calendar (Stern 2001: 1).
192
Figure 1
—
193
Vezé tóre lešono(t) habaím bahaskamá: el año de 5297 veku̠ (leh), hana‘alá ̣ 1. don Yose Leví, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu),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’ahạ r ze 4. muchos yehị dé segulá hitnadebú de tanbién el año 5. siguiendo aćer lagares veku̠ (leh), y aćer el modo dicho. 6. Ve’al yedé nidba̠ t haqahal hiskimu que el que deste modo 7. ćiere vino, lo habrán por kašer, y de otro modo serán 8. gozerín ‘alav isur. ‘Od katub ̠ parnasim ve’anšé 9. ma‘amad queriendo secutar7 el queno ćiese su vino en 10. la tierra de seren gozerín ‘alav isur. Nitkabesụ́ kulam 11. vehụ (leh), veqibelú ‘alehem todo tiqún que le dieren leí ša’á 12. para aćer los vinos behekš̠ er en las viñas, conque ̠ q(ahal) ̣ de qibelú 13. que me’ak vehal’á, ellos ha me‘as mam ‘alehem gezerá 14. elšav echo aćer los vinos la enla tierra, q(adóš) 15. y el que uere 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 uere hecho en la tierra de dien 18. tro, y ningún otro tiqún valga lehakš̠ er hayayin hana’aś(á) 19. hụ s ̣ la‘ir veku̠ (leh), ‘ad ki kulam gazerú ‘alehe(m) isur badaba̠ r. Y 20. por cuanto ansí como ćimos el tiqún para los 21. vinos que seaćen enla tierra, ansí lo queremos para 22. los que vernán de uera, haremos saver el he‘etek 23 de esta nuestra haskamá veku̠ (leh), y los haremos 24. saver non podemos bever vino sino sea echo bebe̠ t
25. 26. 27. 28.
hayehudim y el goy no tenga ‘ések ninguno, sino en haba̠ ’at ha’anavim: y mandando los manhigim de cada tierra de estas ‘edut que se źo por este modo, lo podemos mercar y vender; y sino9 no se podrá
6 Note that blessings were generally borrowed rom Hebrew, see able 3.7. For abbreviations see Ashkenazi & Yerdo (1973). 7 Secutar is not used here in the archaic sense o ejecutar (http://www.rae.es/ corde/14/6/04/) (as in secutoria in El Quijote), but in the traditional use o 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 ‘i not’, as opposed to ‘but’. 9 Read: si no as in l. 17.
194 29. mercar ni vender ninguno deniguna10 parte si de esta 30. manera no uere echo ‘ad, veha‘obe̠ r ‘aleha dinó masur lašamáyim velaberiyot.11 Hayah ze yom 4 (miércoles) 22 lehẹ šván šenat 5299 ̣ veqayam. layesirá ranslation12 (Question: Te event was as ollows. Te community o Rhodes had the custom o making wine outside the city then importing the wine in large barrels. Many problems would occur, or instance gentiles would deliberately or even accidentally touch the wine or the barrels were not made kosher in the right way. Tere was also the problem o pouring the wine rom the large barrels into smaller barrels or bottles which, i done by a Gentile, renders the wine unkosher, according to Rashba insoar as deriving bene t and according to Rosh at least or drinking. Rambam agrees with Rosh. However all agree that the wine is orbidden or drinking. In light o all the above, the God earing people decided to go to the other extreme and orbid all wine made outside the city as rom today until twenty years time. Tey also orbade all wine imported rom Candia [modern Crete] and Anakasia [modern Chios].
Read: de ninguna. Tis phrase lašamayim velaberiyot (by heaven and by the people) has its srcin in the Gemara (Kiddushin 40a). In the context o 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 srcinal context in Kiddushin, the expression lashamayim velaberiyot is used with reerence to two types o 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 ellow creatures is praised: ela tov lašamayim velaberiyot zehu ̣ sadik tov (one who is good to his Heaven and good towards his ellow creatures he is the ‘good’ righteous person) (Kiddushin 40a).Tis phrase appears thirty-our 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 muhṛ am umenudé lašamayim velaberiyot (text 4:11) (he shall be excommunicated by heaven and by the people). Here the legal signi cance is that the punishment o 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 ramework that is translated here can be ound in the relevant responsa in their collection. 10 11
—
195
Tis is what is written): And this is the main part that is present in the document in the year 5297 etc. (1–8) Te respected Yose Levy13 was the rst man to build wine presses in his own land. He procured the grapes to produce the wine, thus making it above suspicion.14 Afer this many members o the community undertook also the ollowing year to make the wine presses etc. in the said way. Because o these undertakings, the community agreed that whoever made wine in this way, it [the wine] will be considered kosher, and i they made it in any other way the wine will be rendered unkosher.15 (8–15) Te committee members and the leaders all agreed and wrote that they wanted to punish those who did not make the wine in their land, then given renderat the unkosher. Tey wines all accepted all they were make kosher in the thewho ruleswould the wine time to vineyards. From now onwards, they received this decree the community made concerning the production o the wines in the land. Whoever transgresses this, whether unintentionally or deliberate, his wine would be prohibited. (16–19) Tey all accepted the decree not to drink wine rom the harvest o 5299 onwards, i it was not made on a land inside the town perimeter. No other rule would be valid to certiy the wine made outside the town as kosher etc. Tey all agreed that such wine would be prohibited. (20–22) As we made a rule or wine that is made in the land, that is how we want it [we want the same rule to apply] or wines that will come rom outside the town. (22–30) We will let them have a copy o our document etc. We will inorm them that we cannot drink the wine that is not made in a Jew’s
13 14 15
Don—the courtesy title is omitted in translation. Te wine is considered kosher. Lit., ‘they will decree a transgression upon the consumption o the wine’.
196 house. Te gentile will not be involved in any part o the business, other than bringing the grapes. Te leaders o each o these lands will send proo o how the wine has been produced. [Tey will give evidence that the wine was produced in this way], we can buy or sell it [the wine]; otherwise [i 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 Tis was Wednesday 22 Ḥ ešván 5299. (About all o the above, I saw some people saying that it doesn’t really mean that it [the wine] is permitted in the city but orbidden outside the city, rather that even i 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. WhenI cannot I saw theunderstand actual words theircan decrees I was shocked and baffled and howo they permit something which they explicitly orbade on themselves, why should we orce ourselves to ‘put an elephant in the eye o an needle’, to be lenient on transgressions?) Decision: Te ordinance not to drink wine that was produced outside o the city can be annulled, but wine imported rom Calandia and Anaskasia cannot be permitted since it has a (nidnud) slight taste o transgression. 17
2. Yoreh Deah 88 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 inorm the other, and that they will share the pro ts accordingly. In question is the validity o the oaths they undertook, to determine whether they may in act commercially act independently o each other.
16 17
See Te chap. same 4case n. 11. is sent to Ibn Lev (text 58).
—
197
Figure 2 ̣ toes: hahatra’á- hayom yom 3(martes), 11 lehọ deš Adar
1. šenat 5311: digo yo Šim‘ón a Re’uben que ̣ hạ tum que cual quiera 2. por cuanto tenemos un šetar 18 3. que tomare la canpana 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. ue con licencia que se venga a escribir con 20
8. escritura, migo, y que según 9. contenrá todos su losparte tenaím queesta en lanuesa dicha 21 10. escritura están, y sino quiere, me dé todo el 11. bitahọ́ n 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 o a business venture. 19 Hebrew borrowings o a legal register: dayán ‘judge, tenaím (l. 9) ‘conditions’, bitahọ́ n (l. 11) ‘guarantee’. 20 21
Read: enrá:sicommonly no meaning seen ‘i not’; in these otherwise responsa sino ormeans tendrá.‘but’.
198 ranslation (An agreement between two partners to deal honestly with each other whether concerning the purchase o the business, or about inorming each other about the business which they purchase. Tey agree not to cause each other anybuynancial loss. Tey alsoweighing-house committed to join Levi in partnership i they the business o the in Salonica in the next three years, as rom the 10th o April) (1–4) Te binding contract: the implemented contract takes place today uesday the 11th o Adar 1551. I, Šim‘ón, say to Re’uben that inasmuch as we have a sealed contract that whoever takes over the business venture or any other business affair22 is obliged to inorm the other beorehand. (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) I he reuses, 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 o the above was accepted under oath except the promise to involve Levi in some o their dealings.) Decision: Te agreement between them to inorm one another o transactions o purchase does not give them the right to prevent the purchase, whether based on logic or on the terms o the agreement. (Even i one o them does violate his oath, his partner is still bound by his oath since they made two separate oaths).
22 23
Lit., ‘rent’. Lit., ‘to write’.
—
199
3. Yoreh Deah 118 A community dispute concerns the sale and purchase o wool. Te wardens o the community are unhappy that Re’uben has bought wool rom a wholesaler who is a riend. Re’uben claims he has been granted permission some o thethewardens. Re’uben is liable to pay a He ne since he hasbytransgressed communal ban on wool purchase. contests this decision.
Figure 3
200 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
vezé l(ašón) hahaska(má): primera mente ordenamos queno sea usado24 ningún yehudí hombre ni muǰer de mercar lana, salvo a dos y medio el velleçino25 de contado, y a tres ado, y el ado que no
11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
sea manco de asta dólia26 tanto que sean machos27 como embras,28 tanto que sea lana de señor como de chobán,29 ecebto la lana de Zeini Eendi30 y de Cara alai bigi31 no entran en la haskamah veku̠ leh. Ve‘od32 katebú beso hahaskamah, vezé lešonó: más ordenamos33 que todo yehudí que pasare cual quier haskamah de estas, milevad que es muhṛ am umenudah pagará al qahal ehạ d as(pro)34 por vellecino de cuanta lana ćiere, y sino 35 pagare ehạ d as(pro) por velleçino, recibieron todo el qahal de apregonar y aćer, que no se labre de ningún
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
modoalgúno y a lulaturco o goy esYne’eman de dećir si pasó todas estas haskamah. haskamot son a da‘at de uno y todo es belí ormah umirmah vetahḅ ulah. Y estas haskamot las recibieron todo el ̣ ubigzerat nahaš36 y cual qahal beqol ele qelalá nimreset quier que la pasare, arur hu bayom veku̠ (leh)37
24 Tis could be read equally as usado, the past participle o ‘to get used to’, or osado the past participle o ‘to dare’ which is contextually correct. 25 Read: vellocino. 26 urkish: dolayi, ‘on account o’. 27 Te diacritic mark is missing rom the gimmel. Tis could be mistakenly read as 28magos. Tis orm is attested in Aragonese texts o the seventeenth century (Zamora Vicente 1967: 223). 29 urkish: çoban, ‘shepherd’. 30 urkish: eendi, equivalent to the title ‘Mr’. 31 urkish: alai bii, ‘property owner’. Bunis says beg is urkish or ‘eudal lord’ (Bunis 1993: 23). It could have read begi in which case the meaning ts contextually. 32 BIURP: od. 33 BIURP: or denamos. 34 BIURP: asher. 35 Read: si. 36 Written as an abbreviation n’’h’̣ ’š, this is lit. a nahạ š, a snake; the abbreviation represents a three-old punishment carried out by the community. Communities at the time deployed the maximum punishment o the hẹ rem, the excommunicatory ban, but had other punishments such as deprivation o certain privileges. 37 BIURP: ku̠ leh.
—
201
ranslation (Te Community that made an agreement on the wool [trade]) (1–8) Tis is the language o the agreement: First we command that no Jewish buyTe wool except at two a hal perthis ell in cash,man and or orwoman three ondare credit. credit should notand be less than whether or males or emales, whether [the] wool [is rom] rom the owner or rom the shepherd, except or the wool o Mr. Zieni and o 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 o the enactment saying: we also command that every Jew that transgresses any o these enactments will be excommunicated, and will pay to the whole community one asper per amount o wool that he makes, and i not just one asper per bale o wool. (13–17) Te entire community accepted this in practice: i he [every Jew] were not to pay one asper per ell the wool should not be dealt with in any way; then even a urk or a gentile is believed i he says that anyone was in breach o this enactment. (17–21) Everybody has the inormation concerning all these enactments; they are all without orgery or crookedness. Tese enactments were received by the entire community with a voice o a powerul curse, o a snake,38 or anyone who transgresses it; cursed be he on the day etc. (Afer two days o announcing this agreement in the community, Re’uben one o the members, came and requested that he should be allowed to buy wool rom one o his merchant riends in the same way as Mr. Zieni and Mr. Cara were allowed. Te leaders allowed him to purchase the wool. At that time there were a ew 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 o transgressing the agreement, saying that
38
See chap. 4 n. 36.
202 he has to pay one asper per ell o 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: Te agreement contains a speci c 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 or 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 Te community o Monastir and Belgrade attends a business air in a certain town.isTis sometimes the desecration o holy estivals. Te journey hazardous andinvolves their merchandise is ofen stolen. Te community makes a decree banning congregants rom attending, on 11 Ellul 5342 / 8 September 1582, but our years later its members wish to revoke the communal enactment.
—
203
Figure 4 Part 1
Figure 4 Part 2
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
vezé lešonam bela(šón) ‘a(m) z(ara): anahṇ u họ tmé matạ por ser verdad que veimos39 la sakaná gedolá que es venir a esta eria Etroga, y tanbién que los más delos años acaece ser entre los mo‘adim de Roš Hašaná veyom Hakipurim vehạ g HaSukot,40 41
6. aun que queno ba‘avonotenu los somos mehtodos ạ lelim,somos aun que queramos 7. queramos, por tanto 8. maśkimim deno venirmos ningún ǰudió morador de 9. Monesterio, ni de otro lugar a la dita eria. Y 10. cual quiera que pasare esta haskamah me‘atah
Note the orm veimos in Judeo-Spanish as opposed to vimos in Spanish. In later versions, the names o the estivals (New Year, Day o Atonement and abernacles estivals) are abbreviated. 41 Mehạ lelim, Hebrew or ‘transgressors’. Note the Hebrew borrowing has a Hebrew plural ending that agrees with the Judeo-Spanish subject somos. 39 40
204 11. ume‘ahṣ̌ av será muhṛ am umenudeh lašamayim velaberiyot al da‘a(t) ̣ eh seat, ̣ 12. H(amaqom) B(aruh)̣ H(u), ve‘al da‘at hahm t(ibaneh) v(etikoneh) b(imherah) b(iyamenu), pitó pat kutí yenó 13. yayin neśeh ̣ verabsạ́ bo kol ha’elá veku̠ (leh). Esta haskamah la ̣ de pétah ̣ 14. ćimos que haya para ella ningún sad 15. hạ retạ́ vehatará por tienpo de tres años, y tanbién 16. acabo de este tiempo. A lu que samos42 de 17. conormidad de tornar a venir en esta eria 18. con muchas aseguranzas que nos ćieren, a lu 19. estonses no podamos tornar ni venir por la 20. uerza dita, salvo sobre partido que nos hayan 21. de tornar a dar todas nuestras boticas 22. que tenemos enel día de hoy. ranslation (Te communities o Monastir and Belgrade used to travel to a market and they saw that a desecration o God’s Name would take place: people would desecrate the estivals o Roš Hašanah [New Year] and Yom Kipur [Day o Atonement] and traders would cheat and steal rom Jewish buyers. Also the journey was hazardous because o highwaymen. Because o all the above, they decreed the ollowing): (1–9) Tis 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 air,43 and [we realise] also that on most years it takes place during the estivals o New Year, the Day o Atonement and the Feast o abernacles. For our sins wewetransgress times or unintentionally. Nevertheless, all agreedthese that no Jewintentionally rom Monastir or any other place, would attend the said air. (9–16) Anyone who breaks this ruling rom now on will be excommunicated in heaven and in earth,44 according to God and to the sages
Read: seamos, but a yod is missing in the text. Te name o the air, perhaps derived rom the Hebrew etrog (citron), a symbol o the abernacles estival. 44 See chap. 4 n. 36. 42 43
—
205
̣ ̣ in seat, may it [seat] be speedily rebuilt and redeemed in our days, his [the transgressor’s] bread is [will become] like a bread o a Gentile, his wine is [treated like] a wine o a Gentile, and all curses should go on him. We made this ruling so that there would be no element o regret, or a period o at least three years.
(16–22) Even i we [the undersigned] agree to return to this air with all the assurance we may be given, even then, we cannot come because o the said rule, unless we make a deal [with the Gentile traders] that they return to us all our shops that we possess today. (Tis decree was accepted by all the traders and all the people o the cities or our years. Ten the majority o the traders o Monastir decided to return to their old ways o going to that market. Tey had various reasons or this. Some said they never signed the srcinal decree so it was not applicable to them. Others said they wanted to return to see i they could that con merchandise scated rom which them. I ailed repossess to do so, the theyshops would at had leastbeen sell the they would bring with them. Afer that, they would not continue to travel there. Tey also claimed that there were many decrees in Monastir which were not adhered to and this is an example. Rabbi Abr̠ aham Gascon wanted to enorce the decree and I have been asked my opinion.) Decision: Te intent o any communal agreement is that it can be annulled i the community wishes. Even i some o 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
Figure 5
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
veké̠ n amar: yo so meqabel ‘alay nezirut Šimšon ben Manóah ̣ bá‘al Delilah še‘aqar ’et daltot ‘Aza, vešenikerú Pelištim et ‘enav, si yo más kol yemé hạ yay ablare conél o entrare ensu caśa, yo o mi muǰer o mis ǰos, umsapeqá leh lenoder im amar kak ̠ o im amar: no yo, no mis ǰos, no mi muǰer.
ranslation (Re’uben got angry with his brother and made a vow): (1–4) And he spoke thus: ‘I take upon myselthe Nazirite laws o Šimšón, Manoah’̣ s son and Delilah’s husband, who uprooted the doors o Gaza and whose eyes were gouged by the Philistines, i I, my wie or my children, in all o my lie, were to speak to him or go into his house’. (5–6) Te person who made a vow is in doubt i he said it in this way, or i he said ‘not me, not my children, not my wie’.45 (He then said he thought the sages would annul the vow. Te question is posed whether Re’uben can make peace with his brother, since at the time 45 Te implication is ‘that it applies to me, but not to my children or my wie’. It would be easier to annul his vow on the basis o the second interpretation.
—
207
o 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: Afer 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 act that De Medina believes Re’uben was in ull awareness o his action at the time o making his vow. 6. Yoreh Deah 168 wo brothers had a joint business or many years. Šim‘on died in Wallachia and Re’uben was elsewhere. At the time o his death, Šim‘on called some local businessmen and made a will. Te will was opened later by the judges in Nicopolis.46 Re’uben now wants to be entrusted 47
with distributing the unds, in preerence to the wardens.
Figure 6 46 47
Nicopolis is a town in Asian urkey in the province o Sivas (Mostras 1873: 94). Same testimony as in Divre Rivot 3.
208 0. 1. 2. 3. 4.
ve’elu ̣ hem hadebarim ašer amar besava‘ató: saberéš48 señores que ami hermano peloní le diréš que después que ha pagado atodos los debdores, que de todo loque quedare tomará él la miatad de cuanto se
5. 6. 7. 8.
allará, dela resta49 dará 2 mil as(pros) a yetomot y 2 mil as(pros) a yešibo̠ t de Eres ̣ Yisra’el, si quedare algopartirán50 e(n)tre mis hermanos como hermanos venifar lebet ‘olamó
ranslation (Re’uben and his brother Šim‘on were both dealing with merchandise several days beore Šim‘on’s demise. Re’uben was not present since Šim‘on died outside the town, in the province o Wallachia. Tere, there were businessmen whom Šim‘on called. He made his will in ront o them.) (1–5) Tese are the things he said in his will: you will know gentlemen that you will tell my brother so and so, that afer he has paid all the creditors he should keep hal o the remainder. (5–8) From the rest o that hal he should give two thousand aspers to the orphans, and two thousand aspers to the academies o Jewish learning in the land o Israel. I something were to remain then they should divide this equally between my brothers. Ten he passed on to the next world. (Telate judges o Nicopolis asked Re’uben the ouritsel thousand his brother set aside, as the Courtorregards as theaspers ‘atherthat o 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 o money. All he said was ‘rom the rest o that hal he should give two thousand aspers to the orphans, and two thousand aspers to the academies o Jewish learning in the land o Israel’.
Judeo-Spanish orm o standard sabréis. Similar to the orms restra (Galician), riestra (Salamancan and Asturian) (Zamora Vicente 1967: 359). 50 Read: algo partirán. 48 49
—
209
(Re’uben said that in his amily there were many poor people, including the children o his deceased siblings and [the children] o 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 o Israel’. He also claimed that he is entrusted to distribute this money. He also claimed that his late brother was not rom their city nor was he married to anyone rom their city. He was only a visitor there doing business. Also he did not die in their country . . . Tey have no claim.51 Rabbis, can you instruct as to who is legally correct.) Decision: Te precept o ul lling the wishes o 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 o Israel as mentioned in the will. 7. Even Haezer 852 Donna,53 Yose Arribas’s daughter, arrives at the house o Yose Shitivi who offers her ten gold pieces as a symbol o kiddushin. Donna wishes to know i she is legally married to Yose. Te testimony is recorded on the eve o Šavu‘ot, Tursday 5 Sivan.54
51 For an illustrated analysis on the Jewish law on inheritance, see Gruneld (1987) and Rivlin (1999). 52 Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a:460–461). 53 A common Sephardic name. For more on Sephardic names see BornsteinMakovetsky (1997). 54 Šavu‘ot, see Appendix 3.
210
Figure 7
1. elu hazehubi̠ m 2. por qidušín para una cadena, az amerah lo: poneldos 3. en suelo y los tom(a)ré, entonces puso rebí Yose 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) Yose haniz(kar) alos que allí estaban: sedme ‘edim 7. cómo lo tomó por qidušín. Esto ue 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. la moça, y ella que se iba, dišo Yose por 13. tomó alos que allí estaban: sedme ‘edim querebí lo tomó 14. qidušín ‘ad kan.57 ranslation (Te event was as ollows. Te young girl Donna, Yose Arribas’ daughter, entered the house o Yose Shitivi. Yose had in his hand ten golden coins and Yose asked Donna, ‘do you accept these or kiddushin?’)
55 56 57
Judeo-Spanish or quieres. BIURP: yod is missing. BIURP: elu, im ken.
—
211
(1–7) ‘Tese are the gold coinsor a necklace or the purpose okiddushin’, so she said to him ‘put them on the oor and I will take them’. Ten the orementioned Yose put a ducat on the oor, the maiden came and took the ducat, turned her back in order to leave. [Ten] Yose said to those present as ollows: ‘be mywitnesses that she took it askiddushin’. (7–11) Tis was all the testimony o Mošeh Baça. At the same time Mošeh Franco arrived. He recounted that Yose asked the orementioned Donna, ‘do you want the ducats as kiddushin or a necklace?’, and the maiden said ‘put one on the oor’. (11–15) He put it and the maiden took it. As she was leaving, Yose said to those present ‘be my witnesses that she took it as kiddushin’. Te end. (I so, this testimony was given in ront o me, the undersigned, on Tursday, the IEve Šavu‘ot. Since two it was the IEve o thethe Festival and on time pressing, didonot call another people. accepted testimony mywas 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 brie y as possible, so that there would be no doubt at all in the lack o validity o this marriage or various reasons. Firstly, he omitted to say ‘behold you are betrothed to me’, nor did he say ‘I betrothed you’). Decision: Tere is no issue o a valid marriage here and the coin Donna took is considered rom a legal perspective as i it was by way o embezzlement or a gif. Te marriage is invalid. 8. Even Haezer 1258 Paloma is handed an apple as an object o marriage59 over a meal in public. According to Jewish law, her tacit acceptance o the apple is a valid legal act that could constitute marriage. Te implications o this act are analysed here. Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim 1999a. here has beeninused translate is sometimes used as anMarriage alternative translation thistocontext. Seekiddushin. AppendixBetrothal 3 on kiddushin. 58 59
212
Figure 8
1. kak ̠ amar la bešaat hanetinah: Paloma60 toma esta 2. manzana por qidušín. Vehabahụ rah laqehạ h veqibelah hatapúah ̣ 3. vešateqah. Veha‘ed hab(et) [hašení] he‘id gam ken šeamar la: Paloma 4. toma esta manzana que vos do por qidušín . . . ranslation (Te event happened in Salonica that Ya‘aqob Nabaro was engaged to Palomba, Abr̠ aham Siralog’s daughter. On the Sabbath he brought two young men with him to her house or the Tird Sabbath Meal.61 At the end o 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 or kiddushin?’ She took the apple and did not respond. Te second witness said): (1–4) Tis is what He said to her at the time o handing over the object, ‘Paloma take this apple as kiddushin’. And the maiden took the apple, accepted it and kept silent. Te second witness testi ed that he said to her ‘Paloma take this apple that I am giving you as kiddushin’.62
1863 Lvov edition and BIURP has Palomba. It is customary in the Jewish tradition to celebrate this Tird Sabbath Meal (Seudat Hashelishit) during the late afernoon beore the end o the Sabbath. 62 Although the testimony in this responsum contains little Judeo-Spanish, it is cited in the institution o some kiddushin enactments. Te act that an apple is used as an object or kiddushin is legally noteworthy. Te act that Paloma’s silence is regarded as tacit acceptance o the object and thereore validates the marriage is also pertinent. See appendix 3 on kiddushin. 60 61
—
213
(Tis young girl is now engaged to someone else and denies the whole episode. Please tell us whether the rst or second kiddushin is valid. Does she need a divorce? I so, can we coerce him to do so?) Decision: Te second man’s marriage vows are valid. Te rst husband is obliged to give her a divorce (document o severance) as a stringent measure. Only afer 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? Te testimony is recorded on Monday, 37th day o the ‘Omer [22 Iyyar] 5327/ 1 May 1567.64 Te reply is sent in Ḥ 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. ranslation (Please teach us the law concerning the young girl who was engaged based on the ollowing testimony accepted in Court, as ollows. ‘We three judges accepted the witness who came beore us, Mošeh Menda,
63 64 65
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 460). Te 49 days counted rom the second day o Passover to the Pentecost estival. An example where the text gives digo or dišo.
214 and testi ed on Monday 37th day o the Omer66 1565. Abr̠ aham Aviyod and I were in Mošeh Liyal’s courtyard in the morning, beore morning prayers, when a young man, Ḥ ayim Gateño, came and showed us a thimble and we told him that it was made out o silver. He then took it back and climbed on a barrel and as he was alling, he called Rica. She came out in laughter.67 His embarrassment was obvious.) (1–3) He gave her the orementioned thimble.68 Afer she took it he said to her ‘take this thimble as kiddushin’ and she said ‘I do accept it’. (Afer much interrogation Mošeh said that the girl Rica came out wearing a graceul veil69 over her head, and the thimble had a hole at the bottom. We asked him i any other words were exchanged and he replied ‘no’. Ten Abr̠ aham Aviyod came in ront o us. He testi ed the ollowing: on Monday, 37th [day] o the Omer in the morning beore morning prayers, ‘take this thimble as kiddushin’ . . .). Decision: Te 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. wo witnesses were present. Re’uben claims she is married to him, but she has previously agreed to marry Šim‘on.
See chap 4. n. 64. 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 or ‘ring’ appears in text 10. 69 Ḥ en velico in Judeo-Spanish within the Hebrew text: hẹ n is Hebrew or ‘grace’ used as an adjective to describe the veil, a common structure in Judeo-Spanish. Velo is Spanish or ‘veil’, velico is the diminutive orm. 70 Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 459). 66 67
—
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. ranslation (Te story was as ollows; Re’uben entered the house o Leah and threw a ring at her that landed on her knees whilst she was spinning). (1–2) He said to her in the oreign language ‘Good lady take this ring and note that I am giving it to you as kiddushin’. (And she [Leah] took the ring rom her knees. Tere are witnesses who can testiy on this [that Leah accepted the ring]. Now Re’uben deepens his claim on the kiddushin and says that he betrothed her or himsel. Tereore our prince, our teacher, our righteous rabbi, let us know i this Re’uben is allowed to keep her as a wie 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 perorming the marriage and she is the person accepting the vows. Te acceptance o the ring indicates her agreement to the effect the marriage. Tereore, the marriage vows are valid.
71 72 73
Reads as bona dona—buena dueña in modern Spanish. Note there is only one yod in the Hebrew text to represent /λ/. Note archaic retention do (c. standard doy). See section 3.3.2 para. 1.
216 11. Even Haezer 166 74 D’Ardero, on his deathbed, calls his brother to say that he would like to ree his young widow o her obligation to marry her brother-in-law in order to bear his child.75 Various witnesses testiy to their acquaintance Te aDuke that D’Ardero had a with childDoctor rom aYisra’el previousD’Ardero. relationship, claimsays D’Ardero denies. D’Ardero later married a young wie, and as he is about to die childless rom this second marriage, he believes that she is bound by the levirate command. Te legal request involves a plea to release her rom this bind. Tis is recorded on the 22nd o Nissan. 76
74 75 76
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1997: 199–201). See Appendix 3 on yibum. Te year is not given, Nissan is the rst month o the Hebrew Calendar year.
—
217
Figure 11 Part 1
Figure 11 Part 2
218 1. estando enel köşk77 del señor duque, z(ihṛ onó) l(ehạ yé) h(a‘olam) h(abá), con el 2. señor duque, acabśó estando allí el señor dotor 3. rebí Yisra’el d’Adrero, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), le dišo el señor duque, 4. z(ihṛ onó) l(ehạ yé) h(a‘olam) h(abá): señor dotor, ¿porquénovos78 caśás?,pues es 5. raźón que caśés para tener hi ǰos.79 El dotor le 6. respondió: pues señor, ¿pensa vuesa señoría 7. que yo estó 80 a lumre de paǰas?81 Sepa vuesa ̣ 8. señoría que en seat tengo un hiǰo meldando. El 9. duque le respondió: quizás será hi ǰo 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. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
alecimiento del señor viniendo una galea de Chipre, hallándome yoduque, en la botica de r(ebí) Abr̠ aham rigo, vide estar un mozo en rente vestido con una capa de paño de Sanoliqui82 y una gora amarilla en la cabeça a modo ranco. Yo, pareciéndome ser orastero, lo llamí,83 demandile quién era y de adó venía. Él me respondió que venía de Chipre y que era hiǰo del dotor r(ebí) Yisra’el de Ardero. Yo, enel mismo día, viniendo el dotor
urkish: köşk, ‘villa, pavilion’. Read: por qué no vos. 79 Diacritic missing in the text. Could be mistakenly read as higos ‘ gs’ that is contextually incorrect. 80 Archaism or estoy. 81 (1). Te j in pa ǰas is represented erroneously with a without the diacritic, there are several such instances in the texts where the diacritic is missing. Could be mistakenly read as pagas ‘pay’. (2). Te expression a lumbre de pajas in medieval Spanish can also be seen in Fernando 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. Te DRAE describes this adverbial expression as one used to indicate brevity. 82 Sanoliqui seems to be a colloquial error or saloniqui. 83 Tis text could be read as llamé or llamí; the latter orm is consistent with the orm o the ollowing verb demandile, common in Judeo-Spanish. 77 78
—
219
24. en la dicha84 botica, le di el bes(imán) t(ob)̠ 85 de la venida 25. del hiǰo delantre del propio hiǰo, demandándole 26. si era aquél el hiǰo quel señor duque, z(ihṛ onó) l(ehạ yé) h(a‘olam) h(abá), diǰo86 27. ser su hiǰo, y él me respondió que sí. Gam hayaší(š) um(e‘od) ̣ an Hakohén ahạ ré ha’iyum veha’gizum 28. na‘alá k(ebod) r(ebí) Nahm hanizkar 29. he‘id betorat ‘edut, vezé tóre deb a̠ rav: 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. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.
̠ hiǰo. Gam hayakar venikbad har(ebí) Ya‘acob (Be)n Susan, ahạ ré ha’iyum vehagizum he‘id vezé tóre debarav: estando el dotor dicho doliente, índole avigitar porque era mucho mi amigo porque recebtaba en mi botica, y pareciéndole que estaba un donluk88 de paño preto y 2589 gerušot90 y un bagdadí müşkî91 que un turco le había dado, estando allá su hiǰo. Dišo delante mí: ese donluk de paño que lo tomase su hiǰo, porque era su hiǰo salido desus lomos. Y queriéndose i(r) aChipre, e(l) dot(or) dicho melo encomendó mucho, y que lo mirase porque ala n,aun que era traveso92 era su hiǰo. Ele hem ‘eduyot ha‘anašim haniz(karim) velihyot ha’emet, ken h ạ tamnu šemotenu hayom yom 22 leniśán
ext says diga, diacritic is missing. 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 or dišo. 87 Read: tiempo viniendo. 88 urkish: donluk, ‘a length o cloth’. 89 It is unclear whether it is 25 or 55 as the could just be a (samech) that has been partially erased in the text. 90 Hebrew word rom urkish: guruş, ‘piastre’. 91 urkish: müşkî, ‘dark-coloured’. 92 Spanish: travieso. 84 85
220 51. 52. 53. 54.
ve’etqayam. Ahạ r kak ̠ raínu ketab ̠ ahẹ r šešalehụ́ miFama gusta leh ̣ amiv šel hadotor hanizkar demeba̠ ser ̣ et bitó min hahạ lisạ́ umin hayibum, ze lešonó: nisá šehisilu ̣ vena‘alá har(ebí) Šelomó D’Ardero, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu) ̠ estas dos reglas. Vekén
55. aleçió el señor su yerno haroé, n(etreh) Ra(hạ maná) u(arqeh), y como 56. hombre percatado en todas cośas, percuró 57. aćerlas claras y a temor del Dio, b(aruk)̠ H(u), y ̣ 58. źo sava’á vino y llamó a su hermano har(ebí) Ya ‘acob ̣ 59. D’Ardero, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), 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 ǰo 63. de ella; y pienso que en esto que platico es 64. 65. 66. 67. 68.
bene 93cio de mi muǰer de porsuser una moza tierna y por respecto mercé, comode diše mucho edad, más ku̠ (leh). Y le dio get cortado y puśo un percuradó(r) en zeku̠ t de vuesa ǰa, uese reçebidor su get veku̠ (leh), vehạ tam baketab ̠ hanizkar mesader haget haniz(kar), yorenu morenu 69. uge’onenu hadín al dérek ̠ ha’emet ranslation (We were sitting as a Court, when the elderly Abr̠ aham came beore us and testi ed;) (1–9) As he [Abr̠ aham 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 o Doctor Yisra’el D’Ardero, o blessed memory, the Duke said ‘Doctor, why don’t you get married, or marriage is a reason to beget children’. Te doctor replied ‘your grace thinks that I am thoughtless and inconsistent.94 Your grace should know that I have ̣ a son in seat who is learning95 [orah]’. 93 94 95
Note edad written as edar in line 61. More colloquially, ‘that I am in the clouds’. Meldar means to pray or to learn orah, see section 3.3.3.2.
—
221
Te Duke replied ‘Perhaps he is the son o a loose woman’. (10–13) He replied ‘No, sir, she is a very noble and honest woman; she is a relative o my amily, she has always lived in my brother’s house and she believes she is married to me’. (13–14) Te Duke did not insist any urther. (14–27) ‘Several days afer the Duke’s death, there came a boat rom Cyprus. As I was in Abr̠ aham rigo’s shop, I saw, opposite me, a young man wearing a cape made out o Salonican cloth and a yellow cap on his head worn in a Western European manner. As it seemed to me he was a oreigner, I called him, asked him who he was and where he came rom. He replied that he came rom Cyprus and that he was Israel D’Ardero’s son. Tat same day I saw the doctor in the orementioned shop and I congratulated him on his son’s arrival in ront o hishis own son; him iinthat the son that the Duke reerred to as son, andasking he replied thewas affirmative’. (27–33) Also the elderly and distinguished Nachman Hakohen gave testimony, and these are his words, ‘When I went to visit the orementioned doctor in his house he inormed 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) Afer some time, when some people had arrived rom 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 beautiul wie 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 orementioned doctor was eeling ill, I went to see him because he was a very good riend o mine as he wrote prescriptions in my shop. He had with him a cape made out o a dark material, 25 piastres, and a dark-coloured cloth, srcinating rom Baghdad
222 that a urk had given him when his son was there. He said in ront o me that his son should take the cape, since this was his son who had emerged rom his loins. As his son wanted to go to Cyprus, the orementioned doctor insisted that I should look afer him, because, afer all, even though he was wayward, he was still his son’. (49–54) Tese are the witnesses, the above-mentioned people who have told the truth, thus we have sealed and signed their names today, 22nd o Nissan. Afer that we saw another letter which he had sent rom Famagusta96 to the ather-in-law o the above mentioned doctor, it [the letter] brought the news that his daughter was saved rom the need todo chalitzah [exemption ceremony] and rom 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 careul man as he was, he wanted to clariy matters. As he was Godearing he made a willkeep , called brother Ya‘aqob D’Ardero, may his Rock guard him and himhis alive, and said, (59–66) ‘My brother, at this moment in time that I nd mysel, I say that I have no children and that my wie is bound to you, her age does not be t marriage to her brother-in-law, and besides, he has a young wie and a son with her. I think that what I am arguing is bene cial to my wie, as she is o a tender age and out o respect or you etc.’. (66–67) And he gave her a cut divorce bill and designated a procurator to receive the divorce bill in the merit o your daughter. He is the receiver o your divorce bill. (68–69) Te above mentioned letter was signed, the divorce was arranged, our leader, our teacher, our judge lead us to the gateway o truth. Decision: De Medina rules that this woman is ree rom all levirate duties. He makes this decision and admits he rules leniently.
96 97
Famagusta, Maghoữssa: a town and port in Cyprus (Mostras 1873: 163). Known as yibum, see Appendix 3.
—
223
12. Choshen Mishpat 5 Tis responsum is characteristically colourul involving a thef in a shop, a murder, deamation o character, warning pleas to those about to commit a crime and a vivid description o a possible suicide. Te witnesses, ̣ ayim, Mošeh and David MarH visit the the house where are the guilty. suspected murderAngel took place. Te question is whether suspects
Figure 12
224 1. vezé lešonó; por 2. encuanto98 nos hallímos aquí en Bucareste los 3. rmados abašo, y vino har(ebí) Abr̠ aham bar r(ebí) Eliézer, ̣ y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), 4. y dio ‘edut como de una yan torbá99 que se robó de ̠ ̠ Amato, 5. la botica de har(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q Roos y de har(ebí) hạ bib ̣ 6. que el100 bahụ r har(ebí) Yudá Roos, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), 101 tenía en ella 7. como 4 mil as(pros), y dela compañía de har(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q Roos, 8. y har(ebí) hạ bi̠ b ̠ Amato mil y 1,600 as(pros) que le atorgó 102 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(ihạ yehu), y 11. ue a rebí Abr̠ aham 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 105 algún mal, diše, y ueron 14. enla ćiese los señores dichosallí a 15. botica de har(ebí) Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ dicho, y allaron ̣ 16. r(ebí) Ya‘aqob bar hạ bi̠ b,̠ y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), y le 106 dišeron: mirad de sacar 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 uesen a rebí Yehudah Roos, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), y a r(ebí) 20. Yose108 Roos y les diciesen que se dešen y que 21. abaste ya, y rebí Yehudah Roos dicho le enpušó 22. a(rebí) Abr̠ aham bar Eliezer dicho: ¿para esto venistes aquí,
BIURP: enc uanto, incorrect splitting o words. urkish: yan, ‘side’, torba, ‘bag’—‘money-bag’. 100 BIURP: quere el. 101 BIURP: temía meaning ‘he eared’ instead o ‘he had’. 102 I this were atornó ‘he returned’ that a gimmel was mistakenly written in place o a nun it would make better sense. 103 Alhad is a borrowing rom Arabic alxad ‘Sunday’ or ‘the rst 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. 98 99
— 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
225
para aćer si mata? Yse ueron, y cerraron la 109 puerta el dicho k(ebo̠ d) r(ebí) Yudá veYose Roos y se ueron. Este ‘edut es de har(ebí) Abr̠ aham Eliezer y el na‘alá har(ebí) David Ben Osa dicho, diće el mismo ‘edut: si non que se asentó enla botica de har(ebí) hạ bi̠ b ̠ dicho, y que
̠ ̠ dicho le rogó: por amor del Dio, rebí Ya‘aqob bar hạ bib id y llamá110 a rebí Abr̠ aham bar Eliezer y irés111 aesos112 mançebos, y les dirés que lo dešen al muchacho que no acontezc(a) algún desastre. Y quedó allí el mançebo el mešaret el día y la noche, y la mañana amaneçió muerto. Dićen los dichos har(ebí) Yudá113 y har(ebí) Yose dichos, que él mismo se ahorcó veqayam. 35. Yisḥ ạ q Leví Baruk ̠ Galiepapa Baruk ̠ vek(ebod) r(ebí) Eliyá Mošé Ánğel 36. ‘edut ahẹ r: por encuanto nos llamó har(ebí) Ḥ ab̠ ib̠
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
114
37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.
Amatodišeron en Bucareste, y nos ahorcado amostró una caśa por onde que se había el moço, lo cual la uimos aver el na‘alá har(ebí) David Osa ̠ y su hermano har(ebí) Abraham Osa y har(ebí) David MarḤ ayim, y vimos como el tabán115 de aquella caśa estaba enbarrado encima, y por debaǰo estaban de tal modo los maderos y las tablas, que no había modo de se poder poner cuerda, y cuenta más que aquella noche que aleçió el moço, supimos de çierto que durmieron dientro aquella caśa conel muchacho, har(ebí) Šemu’el Estreliga, vehar(ebí) Yudá Roos, vehar(ebí) Yose Roos dicho arriba, y por haver pasado esto
49. delante nosotros, rmados aquí Mošeh Ánğel David 50. MarḤ ayim.116 BIURP: has la missing rom the text. Note the imperative orm llamá or llamad. 111 BIURP: iros, second person plural in place o rst person singular command orm. 112 BIURP: ajisos. 113 BIURP: Yehuda. 114 BIURP: caba, a vav is written in place o a zayin, producing a non-sensical result. 115 urkish: taban, ‘ oor’. 116 Tis text is much more accurate and intelligible in the srcinal edition than the third edition. 109 110
226 ranslation (I was asked about the undersigned testimonies, whether Ya‘aqob bar hạ bi̠ b ̠ Amato is completely ree rom all claims or not.) (1–9) is his language: AsEliezer’s we, the son, undersigned, ourselves here inTis Bucharest, Ab̠ raham, came andound testi ed how a money-bag was stolen rom Yiṣ ḥ aq Roos’s and Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ Amato’s shop; that the youngster Yehudah Roos and Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ Amato had in it about 4,000 aspers; and that rom Yiṣ ḥ aq Roos and Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ Amato’s company, a urther 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 Ab̠ raham, Eliezer’s son, and said to him ‘Let us go to those lads and tell them that it is enough, that they should rerain rom doing any harm, that they should not become urkish,117 or cause any damage’, I said. ̣ ab̠ ib̠ ’s shop and there they (14–21) Te orementioned men went to H met Ya‘aqob, Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ ’s son, and they said to him: Be sure to take that lad out o there beore he commits any harm. And the said Ya‘aqob, ̣ H ab̠ ib̠ ’s son, replied ‘For the love o God, you should go to Yehudah Roos and 118 to Yose Roos and tell them to stop, [tell them] that it is enough’. ̠ raham, Eliezer’s (21–25) Te said Yehudah Roos pushed the said Ab 119 son, ‘is this why you have come here, to see i he has killed?’ Tey closed the door o Yehudah and Yose Roos[‘s house] and they went.
(25–31) Tis testimony is given by Ab̠ raham Eliezer and the distinguished David ben Osa. Tey give the same testimony in that he sat in the said Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ ’s shop, and Ya‘aqob bar Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ pleaded with him to go ‘or the love o God, go and call Ab̠ raham, Eliezer’s son, and go to Idiom or ‘they should not misbehave’. Tis 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) o the consequences. I this was omitted the offender could not be executed. In property offences the requirement o a warning was doubtul (Jackson 1972: 230). 119 ext says acer, ‘to do, to make’, but contextually this should be saber, scribal error perhaps? 117 118
—
227
those youngsters and tell them to say to leave the young man alone, so that no disaster occurs’. (31–35) Te young chap, the attendant, stayed there the whole night and day, and in the morning he was ound dead. Te said Yehudah and Yose say that he de nitely hanged himsel. (35–38) Yiṣ ḥ aq Levy Baruk Galiepapa Baruk120 and the respected Elias Mošeh Ángel gave another testimony: ‘As Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ Amato called us in Bucharest and showed us a house where they say the lad hanged himsel, (38–44) we subsequently went to see the distinguished David Osa and his brother Ab̠ raham Osa, and David Marchayim; we saw how the oor o that house was ull o mud on top. Below, the oorboards and timbers were placed in such a way that there was no way he could have put a rope there’. (44–50) He tells urther: ‘the night the lad died we knew or certain that the orementioned Šemu’el Estreliga, Yehudah Roos and Yose Roos had slept in the house with the young man. Tis is what happened in ront o us’. We sign here, Mošeh Ángel, David Marchayim. Decision: It is nearly certain that the youth died in the hands o Judah and Joseph Roos as they were earul or their money and did not watch their actions. Tey are liable or punishment as seen t by the Jewish Court ̠ ̠ is aultless o the city that lies adjacent to the corpse. Ya‘aqob bar Ḥ abib and every Jew should help him.
13. Choshen Mishpat 15 Ab̠ raham Primo owned a property.121 Elias, Ab̠ raham’s son, asks or the property back rom Leon. Leon is the son o Ab̠ raham Ḥ atim, who Perhaps repetitional error. Other cases concerning property ownership and tenure laws include texts 21 and 22. Te problem o whether the reurbishment expenses had to be calculated in the sale o the property is the issue in 21. 120 121
228 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 ather has not been repaid, he has kept it. Te responsum involves a legal issue on rights o tenure. 122
Figure 13 Part 1
122
For a thorough explanation on rights o tenure, see Emmanuel (1936: 75–81).
—
229
Figure 13 Part 2
230
Figure 13 Part 3
0. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
. . . he‘id har(ebí) Yose Elazar como ̣ dicho siendo har(ebí) Abr̠ aham Primo, haniz(kar) mercó el hạ ser ̠ ̣ ̣ ̣ haber de k(ebod)r(ebí) Yishaq de Kalo, y que vido el dicho k(ebod )r(ebí) Abr̠ aham hanizkar, que llevaba un büklü123 para enpresentar124 a Źul kar,125 motivile126 de la marata,127 para que le diese dineros a ribit sobre el dicho ̣ , y ansí tomó dineros del dicho motivile sobre hạ ser ̣ dicho. Y después ue hạ be̠ r el dicho har(ebí) el hạ ser ̣ Abr̠ aham de su hermano har(ebí) Mošeh, y(išmerehu) s(uró)
ạ yehu), ̣ 9. v(ih Vehe‘id har(ebí) Mošeh Ángel, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), ̠ como har(ebí) Abraham hanizkar ̣ para el q(ahal) q(adóš), n(etreh) Ra(hạ maná) 10. mercaba el dicho hạ ser u(arqeh), en 8 mil
urkish: büklü ‘olded’ implying a olded piece o paper, a contract. Archaic orm o presenter, meaning regular, ‘to give as a gif’ (Pascual Recuero 1977: 49). 125 Zul car is used here as a proper name, see Appendix 2. 126 urkish: motivile, ‘administrator’. 127 Arabic: marāta, ‘tannery, tanyard’. 123 124
— 11. 12. 13. 14.
231
aspros, y el q(ahal) q(adóš) no lo quiǰeron. Ahạ r kak,̠ 128 echaron preśo al patrón y se abatió y las conpró rebí Abr̠ aham hanizkar en šišá ala m lebanim lehẹ šbonó, y le acuśó el qahal qadóš, n(etreh) Ra(hạ maná) u(arqeh): ¿por qué agora que eran más
15. baratas no las conpraba para qodeš? Y dišo rebí ̣ ̣ 16. Abr̠ aham, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu): por eso daría en hạ ser hanizkar lugar ̣ del qodeš, ašer hu esló ̣ bayamim 17. para B(et) H(akeneset) del hạ ser hahem, 18. era šuta el dicho har(ebí) Abr̠ aham de har(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q de Kalo, ̣ 19. y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu). Ahạ r zemán, ue hạ be̠ r de su heṛ mano r(ebí) Mošeh, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), veke̠ mó ̣ 20. ke̠ n he‘id rebí Yeudah Adaroque, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), ̠ como har(ebí) Abraham ̣ para el qahal qadós, 21. hanizkar, mercaba el dicho hạ ser 129
22. 23. 24. 25.
n(etreh) ạ maná) ser cośa Ra(h de pleitos, y u(arqeh), y el q(ahal) q(adóš) no quiǰo por r(ebí) Abr̠ aham las mercó lehẹ šbonó, y él las raguó y estaba sobre la rágua mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘ereb,̠ har(ebí) Abr̠ aham haniz(kar), leba̠ dó. Veahạ r zemán, demandó
har(ebí) Yehudah 26. hanizkar lehar(ebí) Mošeh ahị v hanizka(r)¿en qué iba har(ebí) Abr̠ aham 27. ahị h en ráguas? Y le respondió: tiene muchos 28. dineros. Ve’ahạ r kak,̠ empeñó harebí Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) el ̣ . hạ ser ̣ 29. Ubayamim hahem era hạ be̠ r de har(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q de Kalo terem 30. šutau(t) har(ebí) Mošeh ahị v. Ve’ah(̣ ar) k(ak)̠ sabe que ueron hạ be̠ rim 31. con ahị v hanizkar, y después de las caśas 130
128 Tere 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 o the numerous Hebraisms in Old Judeo-Spanish (Bunis 1993: 18); I would suggest that the above time-related expressions all within this category o Hebrew borrowing. See able 3.10. 129 Note the same irregular Spanish orm in the secular literature (Romeu Ferré 2004: 184). 130 BIURP: cabas, see chap. 4 n. 116.
232 32. raguadas131 le demandó el dicho har(ebí) Yehudah ̣ 33. le har(ebí) Mošeh, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), ¿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 133 36. nuebas. Ahạ r ze se ueron los dichos hermanos a ̣ a har(ebí) 37. Vlaia.134 Y el waywode135 alquiló el dicho hạ ser 38. Yehudah haniz(kar), y después de entrado har(ebí) Yehudah biršut 39. vekoak ̠ hatogar136 me acuśó biné haq(ahal) q(adóš), n(etreh) Ra(hạ maná) u(arkeh), har(ebí) Abr̠ aham (H)hạ ti(m) 40. n(uhọ́ ) e(den), como entraba har(ebí) Yehudah en mülkiye137 y hạ zaqá 41. de har(ebí) Abr̠ aham Primo, por lo cual hiźo carta el 42. dicho har(ebí) Yehudah de contentar a los hiǰos de har(ebí) 43. Abr̠ aham hanizkar. Veahạ r kak,̠ las compró el dicho har(ebí)
̠ ̣ Gosto Abraham, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), caśas togar y sacóAbdel hạ ser a har(ebí) har(ebí) Yehudah hanizkarlas. Vek e̠ n del he‘id r̠ aham ̣ biseki̠ rut de har(ebí) Mošeh cómo tomó una caśa del hạ ser y que aél pagó el seki̠ ru(t). Esto era no estando har(ebí) Abr̠ aham Primo hanizkar enla çibdad. Uke̠ mó ke̠ n he‘id ̣ r(ebí) Abr̠ aham Bibás, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), como moró ̣ en una caśa mehahạ ser 50. y pagó el quiere lehar(ebí) Mošeh hanizkar, ve’ahị v har(ebí) Abr̠ aham 51. Primo haniz(kar)138 no estaba ba‘ír. Veke̠ n he‘id har(ebí) Bonós ̣ 52. b(en) k(ebod)h(arab)̠ Ahạ rón, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), y él dišo es qarob ̠ marido de una
44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
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 o Romania. 135 urkish: waywode, ‘officer’. 136 (1). Meaning ‘with the permission and strength o the moneylender’ (the urk); business terminology is commonly couched in Hebrew. (2). ogar means ‘urk’, then came to mean ‘merchant’ and in this context ‘moneylender’, see Bunis (1993: 26). Here Bunis notes the biblical anthroponym togarmá (Genesis 10:3) which among Sephardim meant ‘urkey’. Also Arabic has tāğir meaning ‘merchant’. 137 urkish: mülkiyet, ‘proprietorship’. 138 BIURP omits rom this point to the end o l. 58.
—
233
53. hermana de k(ebod)r(ebí) Abr̠ aham Ḥ atim, n(uhọ́ ) e(den),139 y tienen dos ̣ 54. hermanas con k(ebod)r(ebí) Abr̠ aham Primo, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu). Y ue me‘id ̣ era hạ be̠ r de su hermano 55. cómo al conprar el hạ ser 56. har(ebí) Mošeh hanizkar. Vehe‘id ha(rebí) Neḥ emiah b(en) k(ebod) h(arab) Gabriel, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), cómo 57. har(ebí) Abr̠ aham Primo haniz(kar) conpró las caśas y él 58. las raguó, y que la muǰer de ha(rebí) Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) 59. no se quiśo pasar enlas caśas, porque har(ebí) Abr̠ aham ̣ , lo cual ešet 60. quiśo140 que morase su hermano gam ken behạ ser ̠ 61. har(ebí) Abraham haniz(kar) no quería morar većina de su cuñado, 62. har(ebí) Mošeh, y le dišo har(ebí) Neḥ emiah lehar(ebí) Mošeh: pareçe que 63. para vos se raguaron, y le respondió que él no 64. culpa nada, puesVe‘od su cuñada no secuando quiereništateú mudar 65. en su većindad. he‘id que 66. ha’ahị m rebí Mošeh haniz(kar) no puso cabdal ninguno. Vehe‘id ̣ 67. r(ebí) Ya‘aqob Rimok̠ , y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), como r(ebí) Abr̠ aham 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. Veahạ r 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 a ǰado.141 Ahạ r kak,̠ 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(hạ maná) u(arqeh). Ahạ r zemán źo har(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 ̣ , y har(ebí) Mošeh Primo 80. pedaçico para el dicho hạ ser 139 140 141 142 143
Can also be nišmató ‘eden, ‘his soul is in paradise’. BIURP has hẹ t instead o ko as initial consonant. Proverbial idiom meaning ‘you give rom what does not belong to you’. urkish: ext has sultani, cortigo. ‘coin’.
234 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.
era mištadel, y pleitaba delante el dayán, asta que lo libró ansí en la rágua delas caśas. Andaba ha(rebí) Mošeh comprando teǰas y madera, veké̠ n he‘id como su muǰer le dišo ler(ebí) Abr̠ aham Primo haniz(kar), que por qué no andaba su hermano ha(rebí)
86. 87. 88. 89.
Mošeh en la rágua como él, y le respondió que su hermano ha(rebí) Mošeh era más ra’úi para estar en la botica144 que en la rágua, que conoce los mercaderes.Vehe‘id ha(rebí) Nafalí b(en) k(ebo̠ d) h(arab)̠ ubia, z(ikr̠ onó) l(eḥ ayé) h(a‘olam) h(abá), ̣ por 6 ala m, 90. como ha(rebí) Ab̠ raham Primo compró el hạ ser 91. y el dicho ha(rebí) Abr̠ aham estab(a) sobre la rágua 92. mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘ereb,̠ y un día ue el dicho ha(rebí) 93. Nafalí lebet hadayán y alló leha(rebí) Abr̠ aham hanizkar le 94. demandó: ¿qué buscas? Le respondió r(ebí) Abr̠ aham haniz(kar): ̣ de este dayán 95. quiero emsallar145 el hüccet146 del hạ ser 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101.
que sea rmado dederrocar 3 qades que paraderrocaba que sea seguro de pleitos. Ansí al ha(rebí) ̣ que el orno Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) una pared147 del dicho hạ ser de ha(rebí) Nafalí haniz(kar) era dientro de la dicha pared, y le acuśó: ¿qué me derrocas el orno? y le respondió ha(rebí) Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) que se lo raguaría, veke̠ n hayah, veke̠ n 102. he‘id como ha(rebí) Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) veahị v ha(rebí) Mošeh moraron ̣ ... 103. ǰuntos en el dicho hạ ser ranslation (Elias Primo came under the auspices o his ather to claim a certain courtyard rom Leon hạ tim, saying that the above courtyard belongs to his ather Abr̠ aham. Leon claims that his ather bought it rom Elias and ‘Aibudah’ . . . and a big argument ensued between them until we, the undersigned, accepted all the testimonies concerning this courtyard. Tis is the testimony):
1863 edition adds ‘ más’. A Judeo-Spanish adaptation rom the urkish: emsal ‘to copy’. 146 urkish: hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. 147 Note that pared ‘wall’ mutates to padér in Bulgaria, Rumania and Serbia, Tis lexical variation is caused by internal phonetic innovations (Quintana 2006: 237). 144 145
—
235
(1–8) Te witness Yose Elazar testi es that the abovementioned Ab̠ raham Primo bought the abovementioned yard, while he was in partnership with Yiṣ ḥ aq de Kalo. He saw Ab̠ raham taking a olded document [contract] in order to give (as a present) to Zul car, the administrator o a tannery, so that he would give him money, which was to be repaid with interest, or this courtyard. And so he took the money rom the administrator or the said property. Tereafer, the said Ab̠ raham was in partnership with his brother Mošeh. (9–19) Te witness Mošeh Ángel testi ed that Ab̠ raham bought the yard on behal o the Holy Community or 8,000 aspers, but the Holy Community did not want it. Ten the owner was incarcerated, and he went down, and Ab̠ raham bought them or6,000 aspers or himsel. Te Holy Congregation accused him as to why, now that it was cheaper, did he did not buy it or a holy purpose. Ab̠ raham said that or this reason he would make room in the yard to build a synagogue. At that ̣ aq Kalo was his partner, afer a while he was partner with his time Yiṣ hMošeh. brother
(20–31) Yehudah Adaroqui testi ed and con rmed that Ab̠ raham bought the yard or 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 or himsel, developed it and worked in it, and Ab̠ raham was there by himsel rom morning till night. Afer a period o time, Yehudah asked Mošeh about his nancial situation, and he replied that he had a lot o money. Afer this Ab̠ raham mortgaged the yard. At that time [o the purchase] o the yard he was a partner o Yiṣ ḥ aq Kalo, beore he became partner with his brother Mošeh. At a later stage it was known that he became partners with his orementioned brother. (31–38) Afer 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 eels negative148 about moving into new houses. Later the two brothers went to Wallachia and the officer rented out the above-mentioned property to Yehudah.
Nihụ š literally means ‘guess’, indicating ‘eeling’, in this context it denotes a negative eeling. 148
236 (38–45) Yehudah said that afer moving into the house, with the permission and backing o the moneylender, Ab̠ raham Ḥ atim, may his soul rest in Eden, accused me in ront o the Holy Community asking why Yehudah was entering in the proprietorship o Ab̠ raham Primo, and was claiming a presumption o tenancy rights. For this reason, in order to contest this, Yehudah wrote to the children o Ab̠ raham Primo. Ab̠ raham later bought the property rom the moneylender, and then evicted Yehudah. (45–48) A witness, Ab̠ raham Gosto, said he rented a house in the yard rom Mošeh and he paid the rent to him [Mošeh] when Ab̠ raham Primo was not in town. (49–51) Te witness, Ab̠ raham Bib̠ as, related that he had lived in one o the houses in the yard and paid rent to Mošeh, when his brother Ab̠ raham Primo was not in the city. (51–65) Also the witness, Bonos, the son o Aḥ aron, said he is a relative, the husband o Ab̠ raham Ḥ atim’s sister, and they have two sisters [sisters-in-law in common] with Ab̠ raham Primo. He testi ed that he was a partner o his brother Mošeh when he bought the yard. Te witness Neḥ emia, Gabriel’s son, testi ed how Ab̠ raham Primo bought these houses and developed them, and that Ab̠ raham’s wie did not want to move into these houses. Since Ab̠ raham wanted his brother to live in this property too, his wie did not want to be a neighbour o her brother-in-law, Mošeh. Neḥ emia told Mošeh that it seemed that the houses were built or 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 testi ed that when the brothers became partners, Mošeh did not advance any capital. (67–70) A witness, Ya‘aqob Rimoj, testi ed that Ab̠ raham bought the houses or the Holy Community and then took them or himsel. Te Holy Community accused him or not buying it or them, and he replied that in return he would make room to build a toilet. (70–79) Afer some time, Mošeh said that i his brother had promised that he would give, rom what did not belong to him, a signi cant piece to my godson, then Mošeh said, that since his brother had mentioned
—
237
this, he would give this: that instead o a toilet he would give 5 coins to the Holy Community. Ten Mošeh built a toilet or his household. He regretted this, and closed up the passageway or the toilet o the Holy Community, and said that i his brother had promised this, he should have given it rom his own pocket. And so he took a small part rom a Gentile lady or the said courtyard. (79–89) Mošeh Primo was the manager o the property, and he argued in ront o the judge until he was ree in this way rom the construction o the houses. Mošeh was busy buying timber and tiles. He then testi ed that when Ab̠ raham Primo’s wie 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, Nafali, son o ubia, said that Ab̠ raham Primo bought the property ortill sixnight thousand He said Ab̠ raham was inNathe property rom morning . One. day the abovementioned tali went to the Judge’s house and saw Ab̠ raham. Ab̠ raham asked him what he was searching or, he answered to Ab̠ raham that he wanted to obtain149 the title-deed o the yard rom this judge, and that he wanted it signed by three judges so that it would be protected against lawsuit. Also, he related the act that Ab̠ raham demolished a wall in the said yard which contained Nafali’s oven. Nafali accused him ‘Why are you destroying my oven?’ Ab̠ raham said he would not destroy it, and so it was. And he testi ed how the above mentioned Ab̠ raham and his brother Mošeh lived together in the said property. ̠ (Afer accepting all these testimonies Elias told us that when Ab raham Ḥ atim bought the property rom the Arab, he was on his death-bed, he came in ront o the leaders.150 Tey called Abr̠ aham to the Court and asked him why he bought it as it was his ather’s [Elias’ ather] Abr̠ aham Primo, this was in ammuz (1577). Also Šemu’el Ben Abr̠ aham Melamed testi ed that at the time o the purchase o the courtyard, Elias’ mother said to her brother Ab r̠ aham hạ tim the buyer ‘why are
Tis is a suggested translation, see appendix 2 or emsal. Te claim is made by Elias, son o Abraham Primo on behal o his ather rom Leon, Abraham Ḥ atim’s son. 149 150
238 you buying this courtyard as it belongs to me?’ He answered ‘when you or your husband bring the money that I gave or the courtyard to the Arab merchant, then I will return it’. Based on these testimonies, Elias claimed on behal o his ather that he would like to be judged based on the rulings o the judges in that city and he will accept [judgment]. Elias replied that he does not want to abide by the rulings o the elders o the city; instead they should send the case outside the city because there is no orah scholar in his community. All this we copied letter by letter as was written in the letter given to us by the judges o the Sepharad Community, and now you have the obligation to settle this matter). Decision: According to De Medina the courtyard is in the legal ownership o Abr̠ aham Primo and his heirs. Nafali’s testimony strengthens Ab r̠ aham Primo’s right to the property. Te law is with Elias in the whole o 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 or this purpose on 15 Adar 5318 / 3 February 1558. Te ship he travels on is caught in a storm and its goods are con scated by the authorities. Re’uben reuses to pay on the grounds that he only guaranteed the money in case o shipwreck or thef. His nancial 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 or his purpose. Saloniqui is written as Salonaca. rinta or trenta appears as trienta. Te translation o line 11 says ‘and with wax I seal the truth’ supposedly rom ‘y por cien anchela verdad’—which he says should be read asy por cera sello la verdad’ is indeed ar removed rom the srcinal 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 o the concepts o insurance, risks o transportation, the cambio in Jewish law through various responsa cases is laudable. Trough the examination o thirteen sixteenth century responsa he is able to clariy and illustrate these monetary issues.
—
239
Figure 14 ̣ 5318 15 Adar rišón, pagarés por 1. beVenesia 152
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
ésta de camio a Yosea trenta 100 ducados çincuenta por ducado días dede aspros, llegada la ropa en Saloniqui, son por otros tantos habidos aquí de Re’ubén de libras153 6 soldos 4 por ducado, y dichos dineros corren risgo154 sobre vente y ocho balas de mersas155 cargados156 en esquiraso,157 patrón Demo Barbare158 asta Alessu y non más digo que de Alessu par(a) allá non corren dichos dineros risgo, y al tienpo le arés159 buen pagamiento, y por ser ansí la verdad će yo la preśente, Šim‘ón
Cambio—meaning note o exchange. urkish: barbare, ‘barbarous’. 154 Read: riesgo. 155 urkish: mersas ‘harbour’. 156 Grammatically it should read: cargadas. 157 Te nearest equivalent is esquiraza in modern Spanish meaning a ormer ship with square sails, derived rom Italian schirazzo (http://www.rae.es/diccionariodela lenguaespañola/ 28/02/06). Hence it appears that the Italian orm is used here, this is unsurprising since the letter is written in Venice. 158 urkish barbare ‘barbarous’, but here this appears to be a proper noun. 159 Read: pagarés—you shall pay. 152 153
240 ranslation (Re’uben lent 100 ducats to Šim‘on in Venice in the local currency, in order to secure rom Levi, Šim‘on’s partner, 50 aspos per ducat. Re’uben accepted responsibility or 100 ducats or 28 transport expenses that Šim‘on hadthe rom Venice to Alessio. theŠim‘on arrivalaccepted o the merchandise in Alessio, responsibility ell on Afer Šim‘on. the money and wrote a document to Re’uben on behal o 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 o the money is Re’uben’s rom Venice till Alessio.) (1–6) In Venice on 15 Adar l, you shall pay according to this letter o exchange, 100 ducats to Yose; 50 aspers per ducat, thirty days afer the arrival in the harbour o the merchandise in Salonica. It [rate o exchange] is in keeping with such others [merchandise] here belonging to Re’uben, six liras,160 4 soldos per ducat. (6–12) Tese monies insure [lit. carry the risk] 28 bales rom the port loaded aboard the square-sail boat whose owner was Demo Barbari, till Alessio. I am not including any urther than to Alessio or 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. (Aferwards the ship lef Venice. Due to a storm, it changed direction and arrived in Ancona. Whilst in port, the news o the merchandise on the ship became known. All the merchandise was con scated in the name o king. Now claims was romnotŠim‘on that he Šim‘on should return all the his money as theRe’uben responsibility his, and since claimed that he accepted all the responsibility rom Venice till Alessio, as it is written in the document. What is the difference between pirates on the sea and robbers in the port? Tis 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 o the libra/pound later in the eighteenth century, (http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/abstract/miscellaneous/ currency/1799/c_1799Spain2.html 2/8/2005).
—
241
occurrence; I only accepted the liability in the case o pirates or storms’. What is the law in such a case, especially as Re’uben wants to take money rom Šim‘on?) Decision: Šim‘on is absolved rom payment since Re’uben’s legal responsibility includes this occurrence. Tis is so according to orah law and according to merchants’ custom.161 15. Choshen Mishpat 52 Te issue here concerns an argument between Ya‘aqob Nabarro and Daniel ragano, the agent o Šelomoh Seneor. 162 Te respondent nds proo against Ya‘aqob who appears to be a man o low morals. Ya‘aqob claims to have paid the money, taken a debt certi cate back claiming and torn the it up, but Daniel hastries a copy o the himsel document and is now money. Ya‘aqob to deend by saying that when he paid his debt he was unaware that Daniel still possessed a copy o the srcinal contract which should have been torn up at the time o payment together with the srcinal. 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 o the contract and also says that, in any case, the contract was signed under coercion and is thereore invalid.
See chap. 1 n. 78 or an explanation o ‘merchant’s custom’. Such names srcinate rom Spain; Seneor was the name o the chie rabbi and supreme judge o Castile in the late 1470s (Wein 1994: 202). Castaño makes reerence to the lack o historical inormation available on Castilian Jewry beore Rabbi Abraham Seneor comes into power (Castaño 1997: 381). 161 162
242
Figure 15 Part 1
—
243
Figure 15 Part 2
al rib šenaal ben har(ebí) Ya‘aqob Nabaro uben har(ebí) Daniel ragano 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 ̣ .163 2. Daniel ragano a demandarme la debda del šetar 164 3. Y estonces me avine conél, y le pagué, y tomé mi ̣ enla mano de poder de rebí Daniel hanizkar. Y 4. šetar ̣ desu mano no supe 5. en verdad, que cuando tomé el šetar ̣ 6. que rebí Daniel tenía este toes, y poreso165 no selo166 167
7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
̣ šetarehá demandé estonçes, de manera en dećir: este toes ̣ no le queda kóak ̠ para que me que pueda beyadí ̣ verdadero que con él me mai bae,169 porque ya el šetar demandó, lo tomé de su mano, y tampoco yo tuve lugar de sospechar estonces que el demandador tuviese ̣ ̣ toes deste šet(ar) enla mano, porque asegún mi poco ingenio170 y saver, pienso que sea pecado ̣ a Bet Din haćer a ningún demandador toes de ̣ , sin que tomen primero el šetar ̣ mismo de poder šetar de el demandador y lo rompan, porque si no haćen ̣ primero y después ansí, cogerá con el šetar ̣ demandará con el toes como a mí, señores, me acontece agora, que ansí como ue aeste Bet ̣ Din y le ćieron este toes pudiera ir a otros diez Bate Dinín, y aćer otros diez 168
163 Šetar—Hebrew borrowing meaning ‘document’. Tis responsum is particular or its numerous Hebrew borrowings in judicial terminology, see able 4.9. 164 Could be tomí, also in l. 5. 165 Read: por eso. 166 BIURP: sule the yod and vav have been conused in the rendering o this word. 167 Could be demandí. 168 BIURP: lo. 169 Tis expression is Aramaic. 170 First edition gives ingenio, third edition (Lvov 1863)—ingeniero.
244 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
̣ toesim como éste a171 quizá lo źo, y demandarme ha de diez en diez años, como agora que de diez años para acá no meha172 demandado nada por muchas većes que nos havemos topado tanto con el dicho Daniel, como con dicho don Šelomó, como con
27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.
todos dos ǰuntos. Y si uera verdat que yo no me aviné con él y le pagué, no esperara asta agora a demandarme ubirat despué(s) de muerto David Bueno. Segúndo que sin eso entiendo que no tiene con migo más que ševu‘at heset173 como malvé ‘al ̣ pe porque según entiendo este toes es pasul174 por muchas partes, primera mente que Bet Din no175 ̣ puede176 aćer tal toes sin que primero ronpan ̣ , y si uera verdat que así lo ćieran el šetar ̣ uera raźón que escribieran eneste177 toes como ̣ primero, antes que le entregasen ronpieron el šetar 178
̣̣ 38. el toes, onodieran de escrito ̣ que 39. salió el‘edut šetar de depués sus manos asta
40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.
que se rompió, o que ueran me‘idi(m) como lo dio o que ̣ at ones y vio queno179 lo ronpió rebí Daniel hanizkar mehm lo escriben ansí. Segunda raźón es que según ̣ entiendo del toes y del lašón dela moda‘á que el ones que escriben no es ones mirando bien que allí no escribe salvo que los mercaderes dela çibdat le diǰeron180 que era aire andar tras el David porque su intención en deg(š)ar181 la ley no era solo para niegar la debda y demandar las prendas, y por esta cabśa se pusieron mercaderes en haćer pešarah
Prosthetic a. Read: me ha. 173 ype o 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: hẹ scrito, yet another case where a hẹ t is written in place o an aleph in the later edition. 179 Read: que no. 180 Diacritic missing rom 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. 171 172
—
245
50. 51. 52. 53. 54.
y que aél no le agradó la pešarah, y que le dig(ǰ)eron que era anús [ones],182 y que por tanto ue moser moda‘á y que B(et) D(in) oyeron asu demanda, y escribieron moda‘á. Por tanto mirá señores, si este ones es ones183 para184 desbaratar el concierto185 o con qué
55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.
raźón186 cieron B(et) D(in) esta moda‘á, no siendo este ones ones y otro ones uera este, no pareçe que y pues que B(et) D(in) no lo escribieron, que por este ̣ que ue solo ones pareçe por el lašón del šetar ̠ moser moda‘á, que ansí diće lakén ‘al kol hadeba̠ rim ha’ele aní moser moda‘á veku̠ (leh). Luego no siendo el ones ones ̣ ̣ no187 es la moda‘á moda‘á ni el toes toes.ercera raźón es cuando bien uere el ones que ellos dićen188 ones gamur, digo que cuando źo la pešarah que él diće, ue meba̠ teḷ todas las moda’ot, y ue posel todo ‘edut que se hallase que contradišese aquella
66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.
pešarah, y pues él uepešarah, posel todo ‘edut que ̣ contradišese aquella la moda‘á es beteláh. Cuarta raźón es que cuando bien uer(e) ones para él, no189 uere ones para mí y llevarame a Din, y demandarame biné dayané Yisra’el este ones que le aćía David Bueno, y amonestarame qué si190 aćía aquella pešarah conél, lo aćía porque era orzado, pero que para de mí aél no lo consentía, yo no era behẹ zqat moser que selo había de ir a dećir, ni estaba behẹ zqat ilem que no pudiese haber de mí ǰusticia. Quinta ̣ primero asmó ̣ raźón es que el šetar no estaba
̣ 78. mequyam, qui el toes no dićen Bet Din que estaba 79. mequyam, y que ellos qiyemuhu qedehạ zé, sino diće
Read: ones ‘compelled’; not anús ‘a convert’. BIURP has this word missing. 184 BIURP: patra, a ta is written in place o an aleph. 185 In the sense o agreement. 186 BIURP: raon/rabon, non-sensical renditions. 187 BIURP: ku̠ leh, a ka̠ is written in place o a nun and thereore the abbreviation or ku̠ leh is assumed erroneously. 188 BIURP: diven. 189 Te 1863 edition has lo instead o no, totally altering the meaning. 190 BIURP: li. 182 183
246 80. 81. 82. 83. 84.
vímoslo que estaba uerte y rme, y nidiće ešarnuhi veqiyemanuhi quedehạ zé, de modo que para él ̣ demandar con el toes, había menester ser mequyam, y este no puede serlo meqayem pues que él no ̣ asmó. ̣ amuestra el šetar Luego condo191 yo no
85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95.
quiśiese dećir quehe192 pagado como es verdad que lo he pagado, salvo que es pasul, bastaba porque para esto ha menester a rmarlo, lo que no puede aćer, cuanta más dićiendo que pague que es raźón sea ne’emán. Secena193 raźón es que los ‘edim de B(et) D(in) hem ehạ d hahạ m, ve’ehạ d rašá, ve’ehạ d tam, que por 5 ásperos dará ‘edut šeqer el uno dellos como lo prebaré be‘edim kešerim. Y mug(ch)os ba‘alé orá había enl(a) çibdad par(a) B(et) D(in), o alo manco ueran ̣ ba‘alé midot tovot , anšé emet sone’é besạ́ y no rašá, que esto demuestra, ser este pasul, por tanto 194
96. la señores en cargo de vuestra conciençia 97. raźón mirá y el din veha’emet vehašalom ahavú ki hamišpat ̣ 98. le’elim hu ranslation On the lawsuit that occurred between Ya‘aqob Nabarro and Daniel ragano, the agent o Šelomoh Seneor, and these are the claims that the orementioned Ya‘aqob made to deend himsel rom the claims o (1–10) the orementioned Daniel. ‘When I was in Andrianople,195 Daniel ragano came to ask me or payment o the debt under thecontract [we 196
made].rom TenDaniel. I met Te withtruth him isand I paid I took thecontract in my hand that whenhim. I took thecontract rom his
Read: cuando. Read: que he. 193 Note that it is sexta in modern Spanish. 194 Note vuestra is written as , actually with aleph as opposed as the orms attested by Quintana at the same epoch in a letter rom Seat to Alexandria (Quintana 2006: 35).Te point o the variant /bw/ alternating with /w/ is subtstantiated by this example. 195 Andrianopoli or Edirne is a city and province, one o the 11 provinces o European urkey (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. 191 192
—
247
possession, I was not aware that Daniel also had acopy o the contract,197 and because o this I did not ask him or it at the time. So under [according to the rules o] thiscopy o the contract he would not have had any power to ask me what the contract is doing in my possession198 [and thereore you still owe me the money], because the real contract that he asked me or, I had already taken rom his possession. (10–22) Neither did I have reason to suspect at the time, that the deendant would have a copy o this contract in his possession. According to my simple intelligence and knowledge, I believe that it is a sin in the court to make or a claimant acopy o this contract; without rst taking the srcinal contract rom the hands o the claimant and tearing it. I this is not done then he will take the rstcontract and will make a claim, as is the case with mysel at the moment, Gentlemen, in the same way as he went to this court and they made thiscopy, he could go to another ten courts and make another tencopies, 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 rom me, however many times we may have bumped into one another, whether the orementioned Daniel, or Solomon, or both o them at one time. (27–30) I 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 afer the death o David Bueno. (30–42) Secondly, that without that, I understand that he can only demand o me an oath as i it were a verbal loan, or I understand this copy [o the contract] is invalid on many accounts. Firstly, the court cannot issue such a copy [o the contract] without rst tearing the [srcinal] contract. And i it was true that they did this, it would be appropriate or them to write in this copy [o the contract], con rming that they had broken the rst contract beore giving the copy [o the contract]. Or they would give evidence that afer having written the copy [o the contract], the contract did not leave their hands until it was torn up, or the court should be witness as to the act that Daniel was orced to tear it. He saw that they did not write this in this way. 197 198
̣ See Appendix 3 or toes (contract). Lit., ‘the contract is in my hand’; [and so] what do you want?
248 (42–51) Te second reason is, as ar as I understand rom thecontract and rom the language o the coercion noti cation,199 that the coercion he wrote under is not so, seeing that the only thing written was that the traders o the town had told him that it was a waste o time to ollow David, because his intention to break [lit. to part rom] the law was not just in order to deny the debt and demand the goods. For this reason, the traders resorted to making acompromise. He was not pleased with the compromise and they told him that he wascompelled [to agree], so he declared the transaction he was about to carry out to beinvalid.200 (52–61) Te court heard his plea and wrote the noti cation.201 Tereore, see, Gentlemen that this coercion is one to break the agreement.202 With what reason did the court issue this noti cation i 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 o the contract it was coercion. It [the coercioninvalid noti cation] says ‘because o all these things Ithe declare i the coercion is not genuine, coerthe transaction ’.203 Ten cion noti cation is invalid, and the copy [o the contract] is invalid. (61–67) Te third reason is that i the coercion is one that they call an absolute coercion. I say that when he made the compromise he said the coercion noti cations were invalidated and all the testimony that was ound to contradict that compromise was annulled. As he invalidated any evidence that contradicted that compromise the coercion noti cation is invalid. (68–76) Te ourth reason is that whereas it was a proper coercion or him, it would not be compelling or me. He will take me to the court and ask me beore the judges o Yisra’el about this coercion that was
199 A moda’a—noti cation, means an affidavit made by a person stating that a legal transaction he is about to execute is being orced against his will (Gruneld 1987: 58). 200 See almud Bavli Bava Batra 40a–40b (Scherman and Zlotowitz, 2001a) or an explanation o the concept o moda’a. In brie, a man is allowed to invalidate what he is about to sign through a coercion noti cation. 201 Noti cation o coercion. 202 Interestingly, Medina states in the response that the giving o the noti cation validates the srcinal document and Jacob is obliged to pay the rest o the debt that the claimant says is unpaid. 203
Moser moda’a (Gruneld is the lodging a protest by one who claims to be the victim o a orced agreement 1987:o57).
—
249
made to him by David Bueno; warning me that i I made that compromise with him, I did it because I was orced to. Between us, I did not agree, and I was not an inormer who had to tell him, nor was I considered dumb to the point that there would be no justice or me. (76–89) Te fh reason is that the rstcontract itsel was not implemented in a way that thecopy [o the contract] was notauthenticated by the court, as the court does not say that thecopy [o the contract] was authenticated; and [yet] they authenticated it accordingly. But he said that we saw it was strong and rm, and he does not say ‘I allowed it’ and it was authenticated accordingly. So, or him to make demands o the copy [o the contract], it had to beauthentic. Tis cannot be authenticated as he does not show thecontract itsel. Ten, i I would not want to say that I have paid, as the truth is I have paid, and say that it isinvalid, it would suffice. For this reason it is necessary to sign it.204 Tis he cannot do, how much more by saying that I should pay, that istrue. (89–97) Te sixth reason is that the witnesses that orm the Court, one o them is pious, one is wicked and one is simple,205 who or 10 aspers would give alse testimony, [this is the case] with one o them as I will prove with kosher [valid] witnesses. Tere were many men o orah in the town [suitable] or the court; at least that they should be men o good virtue, men who hate bribes, who are not wicked; so this proves him to be invalid. So, Gentlemen, look into your conscience or the truth and or judgement.206 Decision: Ya‘aqob Nabarro claims are not to be trusted because, according to the legal principle o (umdena d’muchach) proven assessment, his partner, his brother-in-law, has lef Judaism and was in the habit o stealing. His claims are also invalid by orah law. 204 Long-winded and conusing paragraph. Difficult to translate with delity to its literal meaning. Te point here is that Jacob tries to say the document was not veri ed by the Court; this is untrue according to Medina’s response. 205 An interesting analogy to the Haggadah, the our sons symbolising our different types, almost as a point o humour. 206 Tis 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 srcinal Judeo-Spanish, particularly in style and tone. probably to preserve authenticity in the content, but
250 16. Choshen Mishpat 65 In respect o a debt Šim‘on owes Re’uben, he proposes to make a payment as ollows: Re’uben gets his lad Levi to pay Yehudah, Re’uben’s agent, part o his debt and promises to pay the balance later. Later Šim‘on reuses to pay Re’uben and Re’uben’s testimony is not believed.
Figure 16
1. Re’ubén hosị́ ketab ̠ šel hạ liín al Šim‘ón šekatubá, z(e) l(ešonó): hagebi̠ r 2. Leví pagarés por 3. esta pirimera207 mía de canbio lagebi̠ r 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. es cuenta dicho, y pera pagarlos 7. desdequele Sukotquedimos hasta Ḥ aadever nuká enlocoronas, ̣ 8. angora y haćerle es buen pagamento hasa‘ír Šim‘ón
Read: primera. Note that the b in habidos as well as in adeber l.6 is written with a vav in the text re ecting pronounciation. Ofen it is represented by a bet. 207 208
—
—
251
ranslation (1–8) Re’uben took out a chali n209 document on Šim‘on, and this is the language:210 You will pay the young lad Levi or this rst letter o exchange211 o mine to the young lad Yehudah, who is Re’uben’s agent: 20,000 herestated, that belong Re’uben, the rest the accountaspers we oweyou thehave amount and willtopay in crowns romoabernacles until Ḥ anukah, but or now pay him well, the youth Šim‘on. (Re’uben and Šim‘on are in Salonica, Levi and Yehudah are in Constantinople, this letter arrived to Yehudah, Re’uben’s agent, who showed it to Levi, Šim‘on’s riend. 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 proo was that Šim‘on wrote that the money had already been received or another amount given by Re’uben). Decision: Šim‘on’s claims are trusted according to the merchants’ custom and he is exempt rom taking an oath because Re’uben’s claim is uncertain. 17. Choshen Mishpat 95 Te case the concerns an Re’uben argument thethe amount to beosettled between partners, andregarding Šim‘on, on dissolution their business partnership.
209 An act o acquisition (kinyan) effected through exchange, a binding orce in Jewish monetary law, see Appendix 3. 210 For cases on cambio by Medina not in this book, see She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashdam YD 218 and 221. For a discussion on these, see Passamaneck (1974: 126–134). 211 Te notion o cambio ‘letter o exchange’ was in act a mode o insurance. For a detailed illustrated examination o Medina’s view on the cambio as practised by the Jewish merchants o his region, see Passamaneck (1974: 127–131). Although here Medina discusses the maritime loan, the letter o exchange was also used or loans.
252
Figure 17
— 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
bilšón ze: yo demando que Šim‘ón cuando espartimos la conpañía medio212 un escrito de su mano donde dećía enél loque había recibido de mí, y la gan(a)nçia213 que había, y un dinero de una esclaba,
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
y después escrivía loque de todo lo dicho me havía dado, y según aquella cuenta con lo que después he reçibido deloque estonces quedaba dicho que me queda a deber según aquella cuenta como 5 mil y 500 as(pros), quemelos214 dé ‘ad kan tebi‘at Re’uben. Hešib Šim‘ón bilšón ze: que Re’uben tenía una cantidad de dinero en mi compañía enla botica, y cuando se quiǰo apartar de mí, me demandó su cuenta y sela mandé por escrito, enla cual dećía loque havía reçibido de él para la compañía, y de loque parecía
253
215
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
haveraquella ganado, y de lo que havía como p(a)recía por cuenta. Y digo agorarecibido que entonces cuando će cuenta y le di aquella, ue pensando queno havía de venir el uego y se havía de perder cabdal y ganançia, y entonces el dever era que havía de esperar aque se vendiesen las ropas y que se co(b)rasen216 las ditas. Y yo porle aćer plaćer, le quiśe dar entonces su haćienda de contado, y sienpre quedaba asu risco.217 Agora quese218 perdió todo, no le quiero dar loque restó en mi poder que quedaba asu risco, mas antes le 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
Read: me dio, meaning ‘he gave me’, and not medio, meaning ‘hal ’. BIURP: gansia: incorrect rendition. 214 Read: que me los. 215 ext 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 o cobrasen—a rare error in which one letter, aleph, is written in place o another, bet. 217 Note Judeo-Spanish risco or mod. Spanish riesgo. 218 Read: que se. 212 213
254 ranslation (Seeing as the question came beore 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 rom me, the earnings and a sum o money o a emale slave. Ten 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 o money in my company in the shop. When he wanted to split rom me he asked or his account, I sent it to him in writing, where it stated [the amount] I had received rom him or the company, [the amount] he appeared to have earned, [the amount] he had received as it appeared on that account. Ten I declare that when I made up the account and I gave it to him, I thought that the re 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 beore I asked him to return [the amount] I had given what he to about I had[what also included it inhim theand account. Tereerred rst thing I paidthe himslave, or, was was owing to] his emale slave. Šim‘on’s reply ends here. Decision: Afer rejecting the words o Rabbi Šemu’el Halevi one by one, Rabbi Samuel de Medina once more rules according to his own precedence in 219 Tis 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 or insuring it. o understand the concept o 10–20, risks in23–24). commercial lie in sixteenth century Ottoman Empire see Passamaneck (1974:
—
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 o money to buy material to take to Egypt. Tey dispute whether their terms and conditions were verbal or written.
Figure 18 Part 1
256
Figure 18 Part 2
— 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
257
y aun que por nuestro partido en esto no tenés parte, salvo lo que tornamos a dećir que todo uese uno aquí en Rodnic, escribírmeis si sois contente221 en esta partida si quierés parte tanto enla conprada ada como en la que se mercará, y venga vuesa repuesta sin alta al kol panim con este portador Potco vueso kiraci.222 Velazé šalejú tešuvah šekak ̠ hayah res ̣ onó šekén ̣ yihyé hẹ lqam bamesí bakol mikol kol, vehašuta m t a‘anú ̠ šekulam hạ temú baketab hahú vehú amar ki lo hạ tam ki im peloní levad, vehešivu ‘ od vehar’ú ketab ̠ yadó nir’á be(anav) šekén ‘aśá śiqná hameśí bešutaut kulam, v(ezé) l(ešonó):solamente respondenté alas vuesas que recibí con223 Potco haniz(kar) cuanto que dićes dela seda blanc(a) hast(a)agor(a) havemos repartido como 42 éle leba̠ nim, y tocan amí 21 ala m, y rebí Yiṣ ḥ aq Erisa224 21 ala m, y lemahạ r se 225
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
aće, holgame espero enelpero š(emó) allará, aun quedeyaguevir vos digoy bale cara, a y(itbarah)̣ que se 226 se enpleará el resto. Aun tengo por enplear como 15 éle leba̠ nim, veré b(aruh)̣ H(ašem) de aćer lo meǰor que pudiere. Yo no digo más sino cómo lo piense, y cómo lo ago ansí lo aga el Dio con migo en mis cośas. Cuanto aloque dićes que torne dineros por emplear, noes porque ue lo que torné como tres mil y no importa que toda vuesa copia va esmerzada la cantidad, es esta de cobre son como 680 quintales, uno dos amás o manco, y de seda, l’ 500 as(pros) según me parece, porque ala "
29. hora de la partida conpré del sarra 227 750 dra(mas)228 30. de Cogiena229 a 510, y 140 de Rodnic a 400 aspros Should be contentos. urkish kiraçi, ‘tenant’. 223 BIURP: cots, a nal tsadi in place o a nal nun is written incorrectly, probably due to the similarity in shape o 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). 226 Probably Šem ob̠ [proper name], as in l. 32. 227 urkish: sarra, ‘moneylender’. 221 222
"
228 229
A Greek Kogilnik weight. in Moldavia which is on the same lateral as Rodna in Romania. Perhaps
258 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
y otras 100 a escuśo de rebí Yisḥ ạ q Eriza a230 agovos a saver que pasé gran atig(a) a traerla asta aquí, que sienpre pensé cómo 231 mandaría232 hombre har(ebí) Mošeh Ben Yaíš—y nome lo mandó, y hube de traerla behẹ br̠ á del turco que tengo conmigo, y maté un caballo por aćer dos días de camino en uno, y por uir de unos hombres que recelaba de encontrar, y arodeí por camino(s) muy mesukani(m), y t(odá) l(a’El) se źo bien. Cuanto alo que dećiés que le lleve al señor har(ebí) Ab̠ raham Ben Naḥ mías, digo que olgaré de lo servir que mierto233 lo deseo mug(ch)o, y el Dio sabe que este viaǰe más tengo su cuidado por lo que aél toca más que amí. Díšome el señor su tío que si hubiera venido el hombre suyo, que me la diera, pero no ha venido, que no puede ser, aun que el "
234
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.
Dio save esta nuestra atiga llevo por ir con del modo que volacon unaque sicsan’235 mía, que ya agora debašo de mí no puede llevar nada, y con todo olgará delo servir. ‘Od her’ú ketab ̠ šehayah omer v(ezé) l(ešonó): y ansí tanbién erá236 si puedo manar el gaste (u)era mi caśa en vestidos y alguna ropa, aun que por otros os lo tengo aviśado, y nunca237 he visto repuesta de ello, yla presona no quería entrar en mihṣ̌ ol hạ s vešalom. Ad šenir’á mize šehaketabi̠ m hayú mo‘ilim a lu le‘inyán šebu̠ ‘á, ‘od her’ú ketab ̠ meGalipol vezé lešonó: yo vos diše por otras que por vos tirar de pecar, escontra mí sin cabśa, y no tuviésedeis que dećir vos escribe(o), que uese todo montón, porque no pensaséš lo que
Te name Šem ob̠ . BIURP: quimi. 232 BIURP: mandariat. 233 Mierto is written erroneously or 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 (urkish) is a person or place where they melt glass (Bashan & Bornstein 1973: 49). 236 Should be verá. 237 Note that nunca and not the orm nuncua is attested in this corpus. Nuncua was prevalent in some areas and groups in medieval Castilian, and also in the JudeoSpanish o Istambul and in Haquitía (Quintana 2006: 38). 230 231
— 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.
259
esos vos dićen que mi atoría no me puede 238 mancar que el Dio B(aruk)̠ H(u) save la verdad. Cuanto me havés dado de perda este via ǰe, y con todo digo ̣ á̠ y salvamiento, que del resto no ago gam zu le tob cuenta, salvo salvamiento.
ranslation (Partners claimed rom Re’uben that they gave him a certain amount o money to take to Egypt and that he should give them an account o all his dealings. Re’uben replied that they should produce a document stating this. Tey said this was agreed by word o mouth, apart rom 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 Te partners answered that it appeared rom the document that it did not matter. On the fh day (Tursday) 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 inorm me] i you are happy with this share, [or] i 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 o this they sent a reply explaining their reasoning that their share o the silk should be complete and the partners claimed that they all signed this document. He denied signing this just with so and so. Tey 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 reerence to your argument regarding the white silk, till now we
BIURP: paturiem, quite an inexplicable rendering o puede. Franquia was known to Sephardim in the time o the Ottoman Empire as Christian Western Europe, which was non-Ottoman. Te Frankish Empire, that ended in approximately 1000 A.D. comprised o what became later France and Germany. According to Goodblatt, Franquia is another name or Italy, but sometimes reers to other countries o the Mediterranean (Goodblatt 1952: 122). 240 Lit., ‘that all was one’. 241 Rodna, Romania. 238 239
260 have shared out about 42 thousand aspers; I have 21 thousand and Yiṣ ḥ aq Erisa has 21,000. omorrow it will be done and trust my word o 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 ob,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) Insoar 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 o silk, it seems to me, because at750 thedramas time o243departure I bought rom moneylender rom at 510 and rom the onetherom Rodna, 140 at Cogiena 400 aspers, and another 100 behind Yiṣ ḥ aq Eriza’s back to Šem ob̠ . (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 urk who works or me and I killed a horse or making a two-day journey in one. (37–39) Also or eeing rom 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 Ab̠ raham ben Naḥ mias, I say I shall be delighted to do this, as I certainly want to do this. God knows that I will be very careul in this journey as it is more important or him than or me. (43–49) Your uncle told me that i his man would have come, he would have given it to me, but he has not come and it cannot be so. Tough God
242
ext must have written this abbreviation in error or Šem ob̠ who appears in
this243testimony. A measure o weight equal to 3,205 grams.
—
261
only knows the difficulty in travelling the way I have to with my mule that can carry nothing else below. Even then I am happy to serve you. (49–55) Tey saw another letter that said, this is their language: thus also he will see i I can manage the expense o 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 orbid. (55–56) It appears rom this that the letters would help even concerning an oath, they also showed him a letter rom Callipolis, this is the language: (56–64) I told you in other letters that in order to draw you away rom 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 244 that what those respected tell you knows that I cannot be away my Asrom to what actory that God, may Hemen be blessed, the truth. you have made me lose in this journey, it shall be or the best and or my salvation, the rest I am not even counting, just my salvation.
Decision: Te claimants are trusted both according to the principle o assessment and according to the merchants’ custom afer 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 alsehood. According to orah law this claim does not exempt him rom payment. 19. Choshen Mishpat 170 Aharon Mes‘od is Osre ’s guarantor in a nancial transaction. Mes‘od is now reusing to honour the guarantee afer the goods that were bought
I have kept to a very literal translation in this paragraph to maintain the rhythm, the verisimilitude o the situation. What he really means is that it is not true that he cannot be away rom his work in order to undertake this journey. He decided to make the journey even i it is or his own loss. He comes across as an apparently God-earing 244
man,tohedomentions Godtheeight him shall be or best.times, and thereore believes that whatever God sends
262 were lost at sea. Te respondent must assess whether he is liable. Te transaction was recorded 12Kislev 5336/ 15 November 1575.
Figure 19
—
263
1. . . .vezé lešonó: por encuanto ̣ ̣ 2. Natán suri, y(ismereu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), tomó de Osre Bie grus(os) cuatrociento(s) 3. que son as(pros) šišá asar éle,245 los cuales Natán Suri los 4. tomó y selos escribió sobre él, yse źodebdor 5. delos dichos as(pros), y yo Ahạ ron Mes‘od le salí anza 6. por toda la dicha suma. Y por le salir ança 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 asta la suma 15. delos 16 mil as(pros) van esmerzados dientro de 248
16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
990sudecuento dito Natán, queel son dichos cordobanes de yallá va restolosque son as(pros), dos mil y 833 que mandó en Alessu el dicho Natán. Y yo Ahạ rón Mes‘od coro en el terçio dela dicha249 suma de 16 mil as(pros) el ahạ rayut,250 tanto detierra como por mar de ida y de venida, y dela gananci(a) que B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem)251 si ganare yo, Ahạ rón, tomaré mi tercio B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem) como el risco que corre mi terçio. Yo Ahạ rón me obligo de responder ael tienpo de el pagamiento, tanto con la ganancia como con el cabdal a raźón de diez por 100 a el año, que ansí los tenemos de
27. los herederos252 de Osre Bii que están escritos
Occasionally numerical quantities o money are borrowed rom Hebrew. urkish: kira, ‘rent’. 247 Te 1863 edition has 12,000 instead o 13,000. 248 BIURP has this entire line omitted rom its text. 249 BIURP: Dina, a nun is written in place o a gimmel, rendering this word into the proper noun Dina in place o dicha. 250 Noted by Bunis also as a borrowing meaning ‘responsibility’ (1993:36). 251 Tis could also be va, but the diacritic implies an abbreviation. 245 246
252
Te nal s is omittedand abbreviated in later editions.
264 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
enel253 sicil254 de kadí255 y se declara cómo el esmerzo de las mantas se hiźo en cinco de tišrí, y de los cordobanes en 12 de Kislev año de 5336, y de el día que se źo los esmerzos corre el ahạ rayut 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. ranslation (Natan suri and Aaron Mes‘od were partners. Te case concerns a sum o money or which they designated a moneylender. Tis is the testimony that Aaron Mes‘od signed): (1–10) And this is his language: As Natan suri took rom Osre Bie 256 400 gerushot 257 that are 16,000 aspers (that Natan suri took),258 he [lit. Natan became a debtor in respect o them]259owed this money, I, Aharon Mes‘od insured him on the entire sum. For giving him this insurance, he gave me a third o the said 16,000 aspers on my account. Ten the said money remained in the said Natan suri’s hand, so that he would invest his two thirds as well as my third. (10–19) Te said Natan suri spent 16,000 aspers: 13,000 in the business air and 167 in many hairy blankets.260 Te said blankets cost 13,167 including the transport cost o delivering them to Alessio.261 Te BIURP: egel. urkish: sicil, ‘registry’. urkish: kadi, ‘judge’. 256 Te name indicates this moneylender may have been a urk; this was common at the time. In Jewish law there is a prohibition against receiving interest rom a loan (ribit), and it is thereore less complicated to use a Gentile moneylender. 257 urkish coin, see Goodblatt (1952: 59). 258 Repeated in the srcinal text. 259 Insurance in its modern sense means a procedure under which one party, in consideration o the payment o a premium, contracts to indemniy another party against economic loss due to a speci ed risk. In medieval systems, various methods were used to gain the purpose o insurance without a separate and independent contract o indemnity (Passamaneck 1974: 25). See Passamaneck (1974: 166–171) or an illustrated account o Medina’s view on maritime insurance. 260 Manta, ‘blanket’ in Spanish; ‘blanket’ or ‘abric’ in urkish, apparently taken rom Spanish http://www.seslisozluk.com/). 261 Alessio: a port, modern Lezhe, Albania. 253 254 255
—
265
said Natan invested the rest o the sum o the 16,000 on 990 goatskins. Tese are the said goatskins in his account. Te said Natan suri sent the remainder 2,833 aspers to Alessio. (19–26) I, Aharon Mes‘od, am responsible262 or the third o the said amount o 16,000 aspers, whether by land, as well as by sea, there and back. As to the pro t, i I do earn pro t, please God, I, Aharon will take my third [share] with the help o God, as well as the risk that my third runs. I, Aharon, take it upon mysel to respond at the time o payment, in respect o the gain, as well as in respect o the capital, at a rate o ten per cent per year. (26–34) Tis is how the heirs o Mr. Osre uphold this. I see that this is written in the judge’s registry, and it is declared that the investment o the blankets was done on 5 ishri, and o the goatskins on 12 Kislev 5336. From the day the investment has been done, the [ nancial] responsibility liesabove with here each isone individually. And all money that I have said and written true, I pay out o myasown as a good proo o 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 o the ocean. Now Natan suri claims rom Aaron Mes‘od that he should pay a third o the loss as he accepted in writing. He should also pay a third o the interest payable to the moneylender, as he accepted in writing. Aaron is mocking him and reusing to pay a third o the loss and interest. We need to know i 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 or 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 orah law even i a ormal act o acquisition was never perormed. 262
In the sense that he is insuring him or this money against risks.
266 20. Choshen Mishpat 175 Afer the Passover estival, Re’uben ails to con rm the oath he made to Šim‘on. Šim‘on says he does not want to make any urther oath to Re’uben since he has already transgressed the oath in the document below. seek authority the validity o the5346, oath27 in January the ollowing Tey document recordedtoonveriy Wednesday 8 Ševat 1586, in Constantinople.
Figure 20
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
bezé ha’oen: otorgo yo Re’uben ben Ya‘aqob como cincuent(a) mil y cuatrociento(s) as(pros) que debe Yose, son de Šim‘ón, y me obligo que si hasta Pesaḥ Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) no pagare hanizk(ar) Yose, que me conten
— 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
267
to que se valga de mi ropa en Ancona Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem). Siendo que me mandare a llamar y no viniere yo acobrarlos, de lo cual me obligo bešebu̠ ‘á de teke̠ 263 como me mandare allámar venir de súpito Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) a mi despeśa, y por ser verdá le do ésta de mi 264
̠ 5346, poh Qustandin(a). 11. mano hayom 4(miércoles) 8 de šebat
ranslation (Re’uben, the son o Ya‘aqob, made himsel obligated to Šim‘on through this handwritten document) (1–6) Tis is the language: I give to Re’uben, son o Ya‘aqob, about 50,400 aspers that Yose owes. Tey belong to Šim‘on. I commit that i I don’t pay the orementioned Yose, with the help o God, by Pesah ̣ [Passover], then he can avail himsel o my merchandise in Ancona, with the help o God. (6–11) I he calls me and I wouldn’t come to receive them, or which I am committing mysel 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 afer Passover and asked him to come and certiy 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 o lying. Furthermore, Šim‘on claims that he has some o Re’uben’s articles, so that Šim‘on make an oath andnot keep them.heHowever, Re’uben claims i a can person makes an oath to pay, does not make an oath to accept payment. What is the law?) Decision: Šim‘on is trusted by virtue o an oath to collect his debt rom Re’uben’s assets in his possession, both according to orah law and to the merchants’ custom. Even i he did not have any o Re’uben’s assets, he is 263 264
ype o oath. BIURP: di/de.
268 entitled to collect his debt rom Re’uben because they had perormed an act o acquisition with an oath and according to orah law. 21. Choshen Mishpat 227 Re’uben buys the tenancy rights to a shop in Belgrade. Te shop burns down; Re’uben rebuilds it and ees the town because he has many creditors. Tere is a second re, and the shop is rebuilt by someone who subsequently sells it to Yehudah. Afer 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 o the tenancy rights are in dispute. 266
Figure 21 265 Tis part o the inormation o the case in contained in the introduction to case 21. 266 Tis testimony is extracted rom the reply.
—
269
Part A 0. . . .Ve‘od ahẹ ret y mirando 1. y acatando267 son me’abe̠ dim mamonam šel Yisra’el la hạ zaqah 2. que habrá mercado el yehudí que habrá puesto aquel 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
poco de cabdal enella, aquel tal sin temor del š(emó) yit(barak)̠ lo mercan, y no miran ni se acuerdan cuanto(s) lavín de toratenu haqedošah pasan veku̠ leh, ‘ad queriendo poner remedio enello enel dicho cabso, y que los ǰudiós268 perdidos ni gastados hiskimu veku̠ (leh)
Part B Šekatub 1. be’ariku̠ t que si visto el valor de la hạ zaqá a cosa269 2. tacsada kenizkar, hạ zerú vekatebú̠ 270 ansí mismo si haviere echo 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
̠ tal comprador ̣ ziq vek hamahapague ‘Od katub ̠ la lemata mente eluleh. valor asta de laque tal primerahạ zaqá a cosa tacsada kenizkar, y más la meg(ǰ)oría que tuviere echo. ‘Od hạ zerú vekatebú̠ todo el valor dela hạ zaqah y la meg(ǰ)oría que hubiere eg(ch)o.
ranslation Part A (Concerning Re’uben who lived in a house and spent money to plaster it, then Šim‘on bought the tenure rights rom the moneylender and an argument broke out. Šim‘on worth, Re’uben wants all his expenses paid. wants I was to onepayo the the current judges and I ruled in Re’uben’s avour. Firstly, so that he should not lose all the expenses he put in the house): 267 Tis is a 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 Te change rom ĵudío to ĵudió in Judeo-Spanish obeys the ollowing law in Vulgar Latin, ‘when two vowels are contiguous the more sonorous o the two receives the accent’ (Luria 1930: 28). See Quintana 2006: 232. 269 Interestingly this is one o ew instances where cosa is written with a sin and not with a zayin. 270 ‘Tey went back and wrote’ the reason or a Hebrew borrowing here and in l. 7 is doubtlessly or reasons o emphasis.
270 (1–7) Furthermore as I was looking and judging that they are wasting Jewish people’s money, the rights o tenure that the Jew will have bought, in which he will have invested some capital and without ear o God271 they buy it and do not see how many o the negative commandments o our Holy Law they transgress etc., till they [get to the stage when they] want to x this in the 272 said case, and the Jews who lost and wasted [their money] agreed etc. Part B (Tereore it seems very strongly that the buyer should pay in a way that the owner o the rights o tenure should not lose out, because he is suffering enough by being evicted rom the house which he acquired and wants. Tereore he should not lose his money as well. Tis is also clear rom the wording o the ollowing agreement). (1–7) In ull, given the value rights o exactly tenure as ai taxed element as mentioned, they went back o andthewrote this they were still keeping it etc. It is also written below that the buyer should rst pay or the value o these rights at an agreed xed price, plus the reurbishment he may have made. Also they went back and wrote down all the value o the rights and the reurbishment he made. (I wanted to know that i rom the rules o the agreements that are not written by simple-minded men,273 that said: the value o the rights o tenure and o the reurbishment and i their intention was not pay or the reurbishment expenses, then they would only have written the value o the rights o tenure that the property would be worth. Why would they write and reiterate twenty-two times the value etc., Tere are two points with regard to the value o the house itsel, [1] Its worth worked out through the value o renting, [2] the rights o tenure without taking into account what the Jew paid to reurbish the house or the courtyard.
Lit. ‘the Blessed Name’. Te translation o this paragraph reads as disjointed and un owing as the srcinal Judeo-Spanish. 273 Te Aramaic phrase katli kani is lit., reedcutters in the meadow—implying men o simple or common intelligence. Here the phrase is used with sarcasm to mean: the men who x such agreements are not simple-minded individuals. 271 272
—
271
A person spends a lot o money on reurbishment and then the renting ends up costing him more than covering his expenses. Here the creators o the agreement wanted to stop him transgressing the command o ‘you shall not covet’. Tereore he is liable to pay or all the expenses. As this is a case o a doubtul excommunication, one has to be stricter and the owner o the rights o tenure has to be given back the money.) Decision: Re’uben lost his tenancy rights as he lef the city. But i it becomes clear that when he lef the city he had planned to return, he does not lose all that he had built. In any case, it is not possible to orce Judah’s heirs to pay because they held the shop or three years, or they held it two years and their ather or one year, or their ather held the shop one day and they completed the tenancy rights in the three years. Tey claim that they inherited rom their ather and they do not know how he came to possess it. I this is so their claim is valid. However i it is clari ed that Levi sold the shop to Judah and Levi has no proo that he bought rom Re’uben, since it is not possible to make Judah’s heirs pay at all, Levi is obligated to pay Re’uben the cost o the house that Re’uben built, and also the cost o the house that Levi built, because he built without permission. Only the cost o 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 Te 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. Te testimony is recorded on 25 Adar 5282 / 22 February 1522.
272
Figure 22 Part 1
Figure 22 Part 2
—
273
. . . Saloniqui que por los me‘ulim hayašiš don Šemu’el Albo ̣ 1. verebí Yudá274 Balançi verebí Yose Zeḥ ut, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), como memunim ̣ 2. miq(ahal) q(adóš) Gerús, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), bišmam ubešem kol haq(ahal) q(adóš) hanizkar vinieron y 3. dieron y trespasaron toda la caśa enque moraba 4. hahạ m hašalem kebo̠ d har(ebí) Ya‘aqob Ben Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ , z(ihṛ onó) l(ibr̠ aká̠ ), ve’almenató ahạ r motó 5. moró275 así, y por la manera que ellos la tuvieron ̣ vešimušav, y una 6. y la posearon im revaḥ hahạ ser ̣ 7. casilla que está berevaḥ hahạ s(er) enque el dicho hạ ka̠ m 8. z(ihṛ onó) l(ibr̠ aká̠ ), 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 dicho v(ihạ yehu), por ella laalcual caśaq(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) s(uró) ̣ vešimušeha ue vendida y oto(r)gada por 13. verevah hahạ ser 14. los dichos memunim bišmam ubešem kol haq(ahal) q(adóš), ̣ y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), 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 ̣ , salvo para hạ ka̠ m que verná277 al q(ahal) q(adóš) hanizkar, 17. sad 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 teke̠ miyad los 32 ducados que pagó ̣ vešalem 20. por ella, y que de ella le paguen par‘ón tov
21. belí šum pahạ t vehị sarón. 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)
Here the text says Yuda instead o the classic Yehudah. BIURP: mor. ‘Te said trustees, (sold it) in their and in the whole community’s name’—though this appears to be an example o code-switching it is argued that as separate words all the words in this line classiy under Hebrew borrowing or their association with religious and communal lie, see able 3.5. 276
277 Note the Judeo-Spanish orm verná (Nehama 1977: 586) as opposed to vendrá in modern Castilian. See section 3.3.2.7. 274 275
274 23. 24. 25. 26.
hanizc(ar) queran tornar a tomar de él la dicha caśa, que pagándole mešalem todos los dichos 32 ducados que pagó por ella, que se la puedan tom(ar), y non por otro 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 allara, y quedará libhị ratam 29. mehaq(ahal) q(adóš) haniz(kar) dela tomar por el tanto. ranslation (On the second o Adar Sheni 1522 I was asked): (1–5) In Salonica the respected elders Šemu’el Albo and Yehudah Balançi and Yose Zacut, [testiy] that the trustees rom the Gerush community, in their name and in the name o the entire community came, gave and passed down the entire house where the perect sage, Ya‘aqob ben Ḥ ab̠ ib̠ , o blessed memory, and his widow, lived afer his death. (5–12) Because o the way they obtained it and possessed the expanse o the yard with its contents, a small hut that is in the expanse o the courtyard where the said sage, o blessed memory, made his abernacles tent, the acts 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 orementioned Holy Community, or a price o thirty-two ducats that thereafer Ya‘aqob paid to the said Holy Community 278 (12–15) thatand same house. Tesaid expanse o theincourtyard its contents wasorsold given by the trustees, their andand in the said community’s name, to the said Ya‘aqob Hašemeš with the ollowing conditions: (15–21) the rst condition is that or no reason279 in the world can they take it away in any way rom her, unless it is or a sage who may come to the Holy Community; and with this the condition that they cannot 278 Te style o this paragraph illustrates the witness testiying, thinking out loud, as it were, as he goes along. 279 Lit., ‘or no being in the world’.
—
275
evict her rom the said house, unless they immediately give her the 32 ducats that were paid on her behal. Tey should pay her a good sum without devaluation or loss. (21–26) A second condition is that i the said Ya‘aqob Hašemeš wishes to leave to any other synagogue, and the said community want to take the said house rom him, they should pay in ull all the said 32 ducats he paid or it. Tey cannot take it rom him in any other way. (26–29) I 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 or whatever he would nd. And it would remain or lie up to the Holy Community to take it (rom a third party) or that amount. (Tebuyer, above strengthened trustees wanted arrange a document sale tobyYa‘aqob the withto all the powers o the oCourt, proper acquisition and oath in the name o 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 o 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 urther will. Ya‘aqob’s son claims that the will should be annulled as his ather recovered rom his illness, and died later, and that he should receive the double portion o the total inheritance due to him as Ya‘aqob’s rst-born.
276
Figure 23
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
diće que le ha de dar asu hiǰa 7 ala m ve 500 ásperos con una saya de grana rośada, y un ropón de grana morada, y una saya de gamelote y una veku(leh). ‘Ad esto asta aquí dicho biné Y(om) (ob) Obadia, ubiné rebí Yose ben Sur, dišo más, que deša libnó qatán bemataná gemurá beqinián ušebu‘á el cortig(ǰ)o me‘atá ume‘akš̠ av y el resto de su aćiend(a) que paguen asu mu ǰer la ketubá, y el resto que se lo partan entre los hermano(s) 280
̣ 10. savé y esto dišo rebí Ya‘aqob hanizkar betor(at) sava’á biné vesavé peloní, upeloní
ranslation (Tese are the words o Ya‘aqob de Ávila on his deathbed, concerning his property. Tese are the words o his will on Wednesday 8 Elul 1541):
280
BIURP: hermanoa.
—
277
(1–7) He says that they should give his daughter seven thousand ve 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 ront o Yom ov Obadia, and in ront o Yose Ben sor. He also said that his young son, as an absolute gif as a symbol or payment and promise, should get the courtyard, as rom here and now, by acquisition and oath. (8–10) From the rest o his estate they should pay his wie according to what is due to her under the marriage contract. Te remainder should be divided equally among the brothers. Tis is what Ya‘aqob said in his will in ront o so and so. (Ya‘aqob got out o his bed afer this will and recovered. Later he passed away without writing another will. His son claims that this will is invalid, since his ather recovered afer writing his will. Tereore he wants his double portion o all his ather’s property as he is the rst-born). 285
281 Goodblatt has ascertained the relative value o money during this period. Te annual salary o one store manager was 3,000 aspers a year, whilst another earned 8,000 aspers. A ather who gave his daughter 50,000 aspers or 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 ather would start saving or his daughter’s dowry rom the moment o her birth. He would also purchase the clothes that she would wear rom the time o her marriage or the rest o her lie. Te clothes would be turned inside-out and worn throughout her lie. Te bride’s motherin-law would inspect the clothes as part o the dowry beore the marriage and the value o the clothes would be written down in the contract drawn up at the time o the couple’s engagement (shidduchin). Te robes, a true indication o the amily’s wealth, would thereore be paramount in a ather’s mind when considering her daughter’s inheritance. See also account on clothes in sixteenth century Constantinople (Rozen 2002: 284–302). 283 Te meaning here is unclear, gamilote, gamilote is a oliage. 284 A noun is missing in the text. 285 According to Biblical sources, detailed provisions are made with regard to the legal order o succession (Numbers 27:8–11, Deuteronomy 21:16–17). Te right o the rst-born male to a double portion o the estate is set out in Deuteronomy 21:17. Te males o the amily have a legal right to succeed their ather; emales inherit automatically only in the absence o a male heir. For an extensive analysis on the law o inheritance o the rst-bon son throughout the halakhic literature and with reerence to some wills rom the Cairo Genizah, see Rivlin (1999: 30–38).
278 Decision: Te youngest son is entitled to the courtyard because his ather has given it to him by virtue o a ormal act o acquisition and o an oath that is effective rom now onwards. Also the daughter is entitled to the assets that her ather said he would give her. Even i they were not in her possession it is decided according to the legal principle o assessment286 that this was her ather’s wish. 24. Choshen Mishpat 328 It appears that the law o the land ruled that a man’s estate be divided between his wie and children, his wie receiving hal and his children the other hal. Out o 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 o trying to override this law.
Figure 24
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
vezé lešonó: declaro que en toda mi haćienda tiene mi hermano la mitad, y yo otro tanto enla que él tiene por si, y aun quela mía sea más, él la ayudó aganar, y mi intençión ue siempre ést(a) sola mente, le pido por merçed
286
See Appendix 3 on umdenah.
—
279
6. que, muriendo él sin hiǰos,287 haga hereder(a) ami hiǰa 7. caśando ella asu veluntad. ranslation (Concerning the rom secondthequestion theisGentiles in this inherited kingdom have a law that fy perthat centallthat automatically by a man’s sons and daughters, he can also give a third to whomever he wishes.288 However, rom the fy per cent entitled to his wie 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 lef one daughter rom his wie 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) Tis is the language: I declare that in all my estate my brother has hal 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 i he dies childless, then he should make my daughter his heir, allowing her to marry at her wish. Decision: Šim‘on is entitled to hal the assets, as Re’uben wrote in his will. However the transaction between Re’uben and Šim‘on is not regarded as inheritance. Te respondent views this transaction as either aaccording to the legal principle o oreiting o rights or o a gif between Re’uben and Šim‘on. Tis is contradictory to the Maharik’s opinion in Shoresh 90 whereishea wrote that principle o oreiting onlythe exists in situations where there debt involved. Te only reason why respondent decides to ollow according to the principles o oreiting or gif is because the assets were already in Šim‘on’s possession beore Re’uben died. When Šim‘on died, Re’uben’s daughter became entitled to the assets.
287 Note the orms hiǰo and hiǰa, as opposed to ǰo and ǰa, ound in nearly all the other Medina texts. 288 For the problems and solutions o such cases where Jewish law is in con ict with the law o the land see Gruneld (1987: 56–69).
280 25. Choshen Mishpat 339289 Te dying Re’uben set certain conditions or his wie Clara in ul lment o which she would become joint guardian o his children and estate. Since Clara cannot meet some o the conditions, she would like to appoint someone else as a guardian.
Figure 25 ̣ mehm ̣ at mitá, vezé lešonó: Re’uben haya šeki̠ b merá vesivá
1. Primera mente 291 ̣ 2. mando cómo dešo290 por apotroposim de mis hiǰos292 a 289 Tis case is discussed in detail in Benaim (1998: 15–19) and Benaim (1997: 199–201). 290 Tis could also be read as dišo in place o dicho, but dešo seems to make more sense. 291 Apotropos: guardian. Hebrew word, srcinally rom Greek, adapted into Judeo-
Spanish, Bunis 104. in line 6 with the orm ǰos. 292 Tesee orm hiǰos1993: alternates
—
281
3. har(ebí) Ya‘aqob ben Atar vehar(ebí) Yose Sassón verebí Yose 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 ǰos, ella sea patrona y ̣ ̣ 7. señora sobre todo veku(leh). Ahạ r kak ̠ behemšek ̠ sava’ató sivá 8. vekatab,̠ vezé lešonó: y si declara que siendo que diga 9. Dona Clara mi mu ǰer a rmare la šebu̠ ‘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 aćiend(a), con tal que no aga 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.
ranslation Re’uben was gravely ill on his death bed, and made a will because o his impending death, and this is the language:298 (1–7) First I appoint as a guardian 299 to my children the ollowing: Ya‘aqob Ben Attar, Yose Sasson and Yose Lindo, who are residents o Salonica together with my wie Clara. I proclaim that i my orementioned wie says she wishes to be with my children, she should be the owner and mistress [the one in control] above all.
Doña in modern Spanish. Read: propia. 295 BIURP has omitted this word. 296 BIURP has ansi written with an initial ayin in place o an aleph. 297 Que ound in later editions. 298 Elon identi es three types o wills, namely, (1). Te gif by a healthy person. (2). Te gif by a critically ill person (a schiv merah) (Elon 1975: 453). (3). Te gif in contemplation o death. Ibn Ezra, in a commentary on Deuteronomy 21:16, explains that one can inherit through a gif made by a healthy person, through a will made by an ill person, or through legal disposition in a court o justice afer the testator’s demise (Edery 1991: 170). Te wishes o a schiv merah, the sick person, may be expressed verbally, in writing or by implication. For a worthwhile analysis and illustrations rom responsa on the subject o the schiv merah see Gruneld (1987: 47–53). 299 Te apotropos or guardian can reer to the person appointed to look afer the 293 294
orphans orhave to have nancial appears to this dual role.powers or with both roles. In this responsa the guardian
282 (7–16) Afer this, in the continuation o his will on his death bed, he commanded and wrote: it is declared that i my orementioned wie says that she affirms the oath she undertook out o her own volition not to remarry or ten years. I order that she may be the guardian and look afer my property as long as she does not do anything without the advice and consent o the above-named guardians. She can settle nancial matters with any o my debtors, or pay out, on condition that afer a year she moves to Salonica. (And now the woman called Clara asked i she could appoint a person to deal on her behal in Salonica, as she is a woman o ill health with young children who are looked afer as well as hersel, by her parents. I she goes to Salonica, there is no-one to look afer her. So please inorm us is she can appoint someone else.)300 Decision: Afer much analysis and discussion the result is that she can appoint someone o her choice as long as it is bene cial or the orphans and that the appointment should not con ict with the other guardians. Tis is in keeping with the dying man’s intentions and wishes. 26. Choshen Mishpat 380 Tis question concerns an unpaid debt that srcinated in Ancona. Šemu’el Kalhi owes Yose Oheb a sum o money. Yose Oheb passes on this debt to Jodara. Te debt was srcinally incurred in Ancona; they move to Pesaro, where nancial regulations are different, so they need legal advice as to whether Kalhi is liable or the debt.
300 A discussion about this case giving two legal perspectives o Medina and Adarbi is contained in section 1.6.5.
—
283
Figure 26
284 1. Saverá301 que en 2. Ancona debía Šemu’el 3. Calí a Yose Ohe(b̠ ) 4. cierto dinero. Y el 5. dicho Yose Oheb trespasó la mayor parte de esta 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
copia302 a Ab̠ raham Hodara, y después a mi padre trespasó 84 escudos de oro, y al pagamiento tanbién Yose Oheb se obligó. Usábase en Ancon(a) aćieren estas trespasaduras, algunos lo ían dećir a aquél que quedaba debdor en cómo en él le trespasaban tanto dinero, o se lo querían traspasar, si se lo querían dećir, mas no paraque por vía de ǰusticia le ćese nada al caśo, porque el que pagaba era obligado de ir a tomar el contrato, el cual no lo podía tomar sino aquél aquien era trespasado, porque el escribano escribía ael
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
303 contrato la trespasasión por parte pie del madre. No ablaron ael dicho Šemu’el Calí demi lo cual, cuando ue el mal en Ancona, apregonaron304 que quien debiese a Portugués lo uese a dećir. Diće que vido el contrapo305 y ue a dećir que debía a mi madre y a Abr̠ aham Hodara. Agora demandile el dinero, da raźón por si que nole ćieron saber a él tienpo que cortaron la deta,306 por lo cual diće que no es obligado a pagar, y mas diće que el ó al dicho Yose Oheb ciertos cordobanes que le źopól(i)za de canbio, que era a pagar a 3 meses y el concrato307 que él a Yose
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 o quantity. 303 Read: de mi. 304 BIURP: mepregonaron, an initial mem instead o an aleph, incorrectly indicating the indirect pronoun me meaning ‘to me’. 305 Read: contrato. 306 Deta an Itlaianism or debda, or deuda in modern Spanish. 307 308
Lettertime error, concrato in placeor o contrato, contrato. an example o metathesis and error. Tis is written contarto
—
285
32. 33. 34. 35. 36.
debe Yose Oheb, que pos Yose Oheb quedó obligado cuando źo eltrespaso, que arecabdimos de él, porque sabe que está con salvo condoto309 en Péśaro,310 que nada no pudimos haver, y por el contrato, estando todos dos aquí podíamos tomar de cual
37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.
quier311que quiśiésemos por ser la312obligación cada uno porsí toda la debda. Bien que pos él es el debdor principal, a él es uso tomar, y no teniendo éste por dónde pagar, tomará el otro. Conteneremos aloque pareçe raźón enque el contrato313 que se314 źo en Franquia sea rme. Pues así se uśaba allá. Dićen nos, que han dicho hạ ka̠ mim que no tenemos raźón pues que no se lo ćimossaver cuando sobre él cortaron la deta Šemu’el Calí de lo que cortó a Hodara, le tiene pago y réstale adever 84 escudos, y está amarrado a dos
48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59.
amarras si leél ćieren a nos, pagar ya ha el otro porque deve pagar dos većes 84 no escudos de haver solamente 84. Esta inormaçión dará alos señeros315 hạ ka̠ mim y sacará un pesaq din de la ǰusticia que tenemos, porque por él se gobiernen, porque así nos aconseǰaron que ćiésemos antes que le demandásemos, porque si uera en Ancona súpito pagara, o uera en priśión y las dichas raźones queda316 ninguna le valiera allá nada, porque si aba por 6meses, era para él tienpo se 317 pagar y quedar debdo(r) por lo que devían por tienpo de año. Y esta inormación basta.
309 Condoto, Italian or conducto in the sense o ‘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 rom 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 o a sin, re ecting phonological change. 315 Should read señores. 316 317
Read: quetyping da. error se instead o de. Probably
286 ranslation (1–8) You will know that, in Ancona, Šemu’el Kalhi owed Yose Oheb a certain sum o money. Te said Yose Oheb passed on the maǰority o the bene t o this sum [debt] to Ab̠ raham Jodara. Ten he [Yose ] passed on 84 [o thewas debt] to my Yose Oheb committed to golden ensure escudos this payment made [o ather. the debt by either him or Šemu’el Kalhi]. (8–14) Tis type o 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 o money, or the money was intended to be transerred to him. Tey would want to say that this was not so, so that under the rule o 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 or insuring the debt]. (15–18) Te latter [i.e. the one who takes the contract] could only take the contract rom the one to whom the contract had been transerred.319 Te scribe wrote down at the oot o the contract the transer o the debt to my mother.320 (18–22) Tey did not talk to the orementioned Šemu’el Kalhi. When tragedy beell the Jews in Ancona 321 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 Ab̠ raham Jodara.
318 A promissory note. Maimonides in Mishneh orah explains the legalities o promissory notes (1982:9–12). 319 o understand better the notion o transerence o debts in the sixteenth century, see Passamaneck (1974: 51–52). 320 Te questioner’s ather (Yose 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 con scated. All ormer Marranos (Jews who converted to the Christian aith to escape persecution but who continued to practice Judaism secretly) were to be tried by a court o the Inquisition and i ound guilty were condemned to be burnt. Don Joseph Nasi and his mother-in-law, Doña Gracia Mendes, pleaded with the Sultan or the release o those who were Ottoman subjects. urkish Marranos were released, 24 others were burnt at the stake. Tere was an unsuccessul attempt by Jews to boycott trade in the port o Ancona. For more on the Ancona boycott see Roth (1992: 134–175).
—
287
(23–28) Now I asked him or the money. Te reason he gives is that they did not let him know in time that they split the debt, and or this reason he says he is not obliged to pay. He also says he lent Yose Oheb certain goatskins or repayment in three months, (28–34) and also the contract which he owed Yose Oheb, consisting o headcoverings, was or one year. Now he says that with the 84 escudos that he [Yose] gave rom that contract, he [Yose] wanted to pay part o what he owed, because he [Yose] remained obliged to do so when he passed on the money. He knows he has a sae 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] rom anyone we wish, since they both have their own obligation to the debt. (38–43) he is the mainthe debtor, is customary start upon. with him. I he hasSince no means to pay, otheritperson will betocalled We shall adhere to what appears reasonable, even though the contract made in Franquia is a rm one.322 Tis is how it was done there. (43–50) Te orementioned sages 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 transerred to Jodara. He has to pay him and still owes 84 escudos. He is bound in two ways i 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) Tis inormation will give our sages an opportunity to bring out a legal decision according to our law, which should govern them in their decision. Tus we were advised to do this beore questioning, because i this had occurred in Ancona he would have had to pay or go to prison. None o the reasons he gives would have been valid. I they lent money or a six month period, he would have to pay or remain a debtor or the whole year. Tis inormation suffices.
322 Franquia was known to Sephardim in the times o the Ottoman Empire as Christian Western Europe that was non-Ottoman. Here it probably reerred to present-day Italy.
288 Decision: De Medina’s nal 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 o distinction between capital and pro t. Kalhi should thereore 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 pro t. She should get the actual capital o the debt. 27. Choshen Mishpat 382323 Tis short testimony reveals that the sender is in possession o a letter rom Ancona dated 4th o Nissan. Te letter explains that Šemu’el ṣ uriel describes a boat that sank due to reak weather at a distance o ten miles at sea. Šelomoh Attar was among the victims o the disaster; his body was ound afer three days. Tetoquestion whether it isopossible to allow the wie o Šelomoh Attar remarryison the basis this written record alone.
Figure 27 323
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1997: 201–203).
—
289
Re’ubén tošav Soía 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(ihạ yehu), que aletra325 es de cuatro de Nisán 4. aviśa que el navío de Me’emet326 reis327 donde ue 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 suriel harto329 9. dinero a hallarlo, y allá se enterró donde diće 10. havían ya otros qebarim330 de ǰudiós. ‘ad kan.
ranslation Re’uben residing in So a wrote to Šim‘on in Skopje the ollowing, in the secular language letter (1–7) by letter, word by word : Tis, in brie, is just to inorm him that we have a letter rom Šemu’el ṣ uriel rom Ancona telling us that the letter is dated the 4th o Nissan. He tells me that the boat o the sultan Mehmed, where one o the people in it was poor Šelomoh Attar, broke apart because o reak weather. Tis happened ten miles into sea where only seven people were saved. (7–10) Te above-mentioned Šelomoh Attar was ound afer three days; the above-mentioned ṣ uriel spent a large sum o money in order emos is Portuguese or tenemos. Aletra is Portuguese or la letra, could also be prosthetic a. 326 urkish: Mehmed, ‘sultans o the urkish Empire’. 327 urkish: reis, ‘sailor in charge’. 328 Presonas: metathesis or 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 o mucho (much, a lot) and muy (very). Tis meaning remains in modern Spanish in ormal literary register and more generally in Latin America. Te more usual meaning in modern Spanish or harto is the pejorative one o ‘(stuffed) ull o ood’ alongside the meaning o ‘ed up’ (Pountain 2001: 158). Nehama attests the same archaic sense o arto and arto (Nehama 1977: 58, 205). 324 325
330
associated with death are endowed with a sense o awe by invariable beingWords expressed in Hebrew.
290 to nd him; and there he was buried, where he says there were already other Jewish graves. Te end. (Now the question is asked, i 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 ather’s name, or the name o the victim’s city. Furthermore, it is written the orementioned Šelomoh Attar was ound afer three days. It does not say that he was ound immediately afer he was washed ashore or later and that his eatures changed afer two hours. Also, it does not say ‘I buried him’, instead it says ‘and there he was buried where there were other Jewish graves’. Tis is not equivalent to saying ‘I buried him’. What is the judgement or this deserted woman in this case?) 331 Decision: De Medina rules other leniently in avour o the agunah. is allowed to remarry. Among reasons Medina supports his She decision with the view expressed in the osaot which says that a woman whose husband has drowned at sea is allowed to remarry i the body is ound whole even i it was lef on dry land. Te act that Attar was buried where there were other Jewish graves seems to be sufficient evidence or him to rule in avour o this agunah. 28. Choshen Mishpat 393 Re’uben is sent to Constantinople on behal o the community to collect money or charity. He spends not only his expense money, but also another 3,000 aspers and presents his claim to the community. Te community nds his claim outrageous; they undertake to check all Re’uben’s accounts in detail.
331 Tis is an interesting example o where the Judeo-Spanish is intercalated in the Hebrew argument, i.e. examples o code-switching. Note the non-italicised here represents Judeo-Spanish.
—
291
Figure 28 Part 1
292
Figure 28 Part 2
— 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.
293
cómo es verdad que en viniendo dito Re’ubén del dito šelihut ̣ ̣ de Quštandinah, ue to‘én dito Re’ubén. Ki depués332 de bien amemoriado y estudiado ensu cuaderno de sus cuentas que al calnzaba 333 y allaba en çierto sin alta, haberá gastado el dito ši‘ur de moneda que le habían entregado en la hora del šelihut para las hoza’o(t) ditas, y sobre ellas le eran en débito las qehilot, šelošet ala m lebanim de otros tantos que había gastado sobre la cantidad que le habían entregado beša‘at hašelihut. Y sobre eso demandó y dierençió mucho q(ue)nolas334 q(ehilot) qe(odošot) atanto que dito Re’uben qaas ̣ venišbá bes(eer) (orá) behọ q biné rabim ve‘al da‘at ve‘a(l) da‘at 335 haq(ehilot) qe(odošot) como ̣ ̠ era emet veyasib que había echo cuenta su cuaderno, que de pués336 de estudiare bienpor y mirado, allaraypor su escrito seren las q(ehilot) qe(odošot) en débito aél más de tre(s) mil asp(ros), sobre la cantidad dela moneda ̠ ̣ que se le había entregado beša‘at hašelihụ t lesorek 337 ̠ qol hahozaot. Y por ser la cośa uera de śékel gurar tanto gaste, determinamos ǰunta mente338 de irmos en caśa de dito Re’uben y mirar su escrito, y ver si se averdaderían sus p(a)labra(s) para salirmos de su cargo, por lo cual uimos en su caśa y nos entregó el cuaderno que tenía’339 sobre ese inián. Y le demandimos si tenía otro340
BIURP corrects this to después. Read: alcanzaba as one word. 334 Te yod is missing rom 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 Śeke̠ l is a Hebrew borrowing denoting intelligence. It is used here metaphorically meaning ‘outrageous’; lit., something outside [ar rom] intelligence. It is attested by Bunis in the expression tienes un śeke̠ l de arsato (you have the intelligence o Aristotle) ‘you are brilliant’ (Bunis 1993: 39). 338 Split adverb typically in Judeo-Spanish. 339 Te apostrophe at the end o tenía’ implies that a letter is missing—teníah; this is repeated in lines 27, 29, 30. 340 BIURP omits this word. 332 333
294 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
escrito sobre ese inián, y nos dišo que no tenía’ otro escrito ni otro hešbón, auera de loque tenía’ escrito en el dito cuaderno, que nos tenía’ entregado, que todo tenía’ enél escrito, meróš ve‘ad so qelal urat ad so perutá ah ạ roná, por
32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.
tanto paramos miente’ enel dicho cuaderno, y ćimos 341 ̣ um ̣ cuenta todo cośa por cośa quelal urat besims nimrás,̣ a tanto que metimos en cuenta una espada que perdió por camino. anbién asta un lebe̠ n de tisporet y con todo no abastó a esmaltir342 a lu el ši‘ur de la moneda que se le entregó beša‘at ̠ kol hahoza’ot, salvo aderaba se alló ̣ hašelihụ t lesorek en débito de aquel dinero que se le entregó beša‘at hašelihut yoter mišelošet ala m leba̠ nim, y viendo las q(ehilot) qe(odošot) el gezel y el hạ más que cometía dito Re’uben de aće(r), depositaron las no343 q(ehilot) qe(odošot),y dito Re’uben
̠ pešarah 43. Re’uben dayanim que upasranim 44. tornase ydecondenaron loque habíabederek quedado enlas a dito 45. manos mil asp(ros).
ranslation (Te story was that the community sent an agent to go to Constantinople or various community matters. Te 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) Te truth is that when the said Re’uben came rom the orementioned mission Constantinople, argued afer having well memorised androm analysed his accountshebook, thatthat certainly tallied and ailed; he must have spent the said sum o money that he was given at the time o the mission or the said expenses. Above these expenses, the community owed him 3 thousand aspers or other items or which he had already paid out the money, and that was extra to the amount he had been given at the time o the mission. Code-switching instances here and in l. 33 or the purposes o introducing standard phrases rom Gemara terminology. 342 Could be an Italian borrowing smaltire, ‘to spend, consume’. 343 Tis is another example where the diacritic is missing rom the gimmel, making 341
this digas instead o dichas.
—
295
(12–20) Tis 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 beore many people and the community, in order to deend his truth. He said he had kept an account in his book, and afer looking at it and analysing it careully, it was ound 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 o 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 orementioned Re’uben’s house and look at his writings to see whether his words hold true and whether we could ree ourselves rom 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 i he had anything written down on this matter. Herom replied that he had in nothing else he written, nor anyus. other apart what appeared the book was showing He account said he had everything written down, rom the beginning to the end, the general and the particulars. (31–38) Hence we xed our attention on the orementioned book. We analysed every detail, the general and the particulars extremely concisely, to such an extent that we added to the expenses a sword that he lost on the journey. We counted even one asper, rom a haircut. Even then it [the amount showing] was even insufficient to cover the amount o money he was given at the time o the mission to cover all his expenses. (38–45) Yet, on the contrary, he owed more than 3 thousand aspers apart rom the amount he was given to cover his expenses at the time o the mission. Seeing the violence and robbery that the orementioned Re’uben was committing, the judges and arbitrators condemned him on behal o the community. By way o compromise they [the judges and arbitrators] asked the orementioned 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 interrogated all the witnesses in Salonica.)
296 Decision: In the end De Medina says Re’uben is disquali ed rom taking oaths and testiying. He says that i he (Re’uben) repents, subjects himsel to a beating, asts and returns to God then God will have mercy on him. Te community should have mercy on him and act with kindness and the compromise should stand. He should thereore pay 1,000 aspers provided he repents. 4.2 Responsa o Rabbi Isaac Adarbi in Divre Rivot (Salonica 1581)344 29. Divre Rivot 3 Yose gives Donna ten gold coins or a necklace that he wants her to accept as a symbol o betrothal. She asks him to put them on the oor beore taking them. Terethis areevent two witnesses event. Now Donna wishes to veriy whether constitutestoathis legally valid marriage.
Figure 29 344
BIURP uses the Sidilkov 1833 edition.
—
297
1. Elu hazehuvim por qidušín pra345 una cadena y 2. amerá lo: poneldos en suelo y los tomaré, y estonces puso 3. rebí Yose 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 Yose 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 Yose 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 Yose a los ‘edim: 11. sedme ‘edimque los tomó por qidušín ranslation (Te story was that a young girl, named Donna entered Yose’s house. Yose had ten gold coins in his hand and he said to Donna): (1–7) ‘Tese are the gold coins as kiddushin or a necklace’, and so she said to him ‘put them on the oor and I will take them’. Ten the orementioned Yose put a ducat on the oor. Te maiden came and took the ducat, turned her back in order to leave and the said Yose said to those present ‘be a witness to how she took it as kiddushin’. Tis was the testimony o Mošeh Basat. (7–11) At the same time Mošeh Franco arrived. He recounted that Yose asked the orementioned Donna i she wanted the ducats as kiddushin or a necklace and the maiden asked him to put them on the oor. He them and the ‘be maiden tookthat them leaving, Yose saidput to those present witness sheand tookasitshe as was kiddushin’. (Our Rabbis, what is the law in this case, does she need a divorce or not?)
Read: para. In text 7 the name o the witness appears as Mošeh Basa with a heh as the last letter; here the last letter appears as a ta. Te Bar Ilan version also has Basa. 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. 345 346
298 Decision: Tere is no issue o a valid marriage at all since she told him to put the coins on the ground and the ground belongs to him. Tereore she does not need a divorce. 30. Divre Rivot 4349 Te legal validity o the marriage o Sete to Yom ov is in issue; Sete reuses to attend court. Te actions that could validate her betrothal to Yom ov are set on Purim 5313/ 28 February 1553, recorded on Tursday 25 amuz 5313/ 7 July 1553.350
Figure 30A
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 462). Purim is a Jewish estival, celebrated on 14 Adar. Purim commemorates the time when the Jewish people living in Persia, approximately 358 B.C., were saved rom extermination by the courage o a young Jewish woman called Ester. It is customary to read Megillat Ester , the book o Ester, on Purim. 349 350
—
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 Part B 1. Y lo llamó que viniese asu caśa 351 2. acomer352 con él en la se‘ud(á) de Purim yque venían paseando 3. del canto de rebí Šemu’el para la uente. Ve’anu Bet Din h(̣ atum) m(ata) 4. ša’alnu lehar(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q: be’eze ša‘a mehayom hayah ze? Vehešiv šehayah ša‘at 5. haminhạ h, vešehayah ša‘at kendi vešeaba̠ r derek ̠ pétah ̠ rebí 6. Abr̠ aham hanizc(ar), vešehayah sam bepétah rebí Ab r̠ aham hanizkar haponeh lašuc, 7. rebí Yom ob haniz(kar), y que estaba la muǰer de rebí Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) 8. en el hạ lal del obi de la pared dela puerta, yque pasaron 9. él con rebí Ya‘aqob yque rebí Yom ob haniz(kar) llamó lerebí Ya‘aqob 10. vení yque estaba con rebí yseallegó 11. y Ya‘aqob estonses haniz(kar), quedose rebí Yomcon ob rebí acá Ya‘aqob haniz(kar) h(anizcar) ala muǰer, 12. de rebí Abr̠ aham haniz(kar): señora llamalda353 acá, yque llamó 13. la muǰer de rebí Abr̠ aham 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 ob 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 ob hanizk(ar) un pérak ̠ veneciano nuebo de la 19. alriquera,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 srcinal, seems like an in uence rom modern Spanish. 352 Prosthetic ‘a’ see section 3.3.3.4. 353 Note metathesis llamalda or llamadla. 354 Here Sese mistakenly appears twice instead o Sete. BIURP has Sete. 355 BIURP writes hanizkeret in ull. 356 Perhaps error or aldriquera, ‘purse’. Note the variants alduquera in Salonica, alkudera in Bosnia (Zamora Vicente 1967: 369). Te text is closer to the standard Spanish aldriquera.
—
301
20. y tornó r(ebí) Ya‘aqob h(anizkar) el ducado beyad rebí Yom ob h(anizkar), y 21. tornó rebí Yom ob h(anizkar) y dišo ala moza otra vez, ¿querés 22. Sete reçibir qidušín dime? Y luego be’otó reg‘a dio rebí Y(om) (ob) ̣ 23. hanizk(ar) hapérak ̠ asmó beyad Sete h(anizkeret), y le dišo rebí Yom ob hanizkar 24. leSete haniz(keret), tehí li mequdešet bepérak ̠ ze kedat Mošeh veYisra’el. Y que 25. rebí Yisḥ ạ q hanizkar demandó ala moça: ¿cómo vos llamáis? Yque ̣ 26. ella le dišo, Sete. Y que le dišo rebí Yisḥ ạ q, seavos besimantob. 27. Gam ken anu b(et) d(in), ša‘alnu lerebí Yisḥ ạ q haniz(kar): ¿be’eze min kob‘a hayah 28. beróš Sete haniz(keret)? Ve’amar še’eno zok e̠ r enpero que le parece que
29. estaba tocada ala portugueśa ranslation Part A (Yom ov came to our Court on Tursday 24 amuz 5313 [1553] and claimed that this past Purim, around the time o afernoon prayers—we asked him to indicate the time o day and he replied that it was a time o ‘kendi’.357 He was speaking to Abr̠ aham’s wie at the entrance o her house and she asked him i she could borrow one hundred and twenty aspers as she owed this to a bank. He replied that since her [Ab r̠ aham’s wie]want daughter Seteher once a ool o him, as well known, he does not to lend themade money. However, i it sheis [Sete’s mother] will assure that Sete will accept kiddushin rom him, then he is prepared to lend her the money. She replied ‘only i 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 urkish means ‘one’s own’, ‘himsel ’. I cannot athom the relevance.
302 (1–3) Sete was behind the ornamental cover on the lef side, she opened the cover, and there she received the kiddushin. Part B (At the same time, Yisḥ ạ q testi ed, afer being thoroughly warned, the ollowing): (1–5) He called him to invite him or the Purim estive meal. Tey walked past the corner o Šemu’el’s house towards the ountain. We, the Court signed below, asked Yiṣ ḥ aq, ‘What time o day was this?’ He answered that it was at the time o afernoon prayers, and the time o kendi358 (5–10) and as they passed the door o Ab̠ raham’s house, there at Ab̠ raham’s door—Ab̠ raham was going out to the market—the orementioned Yomo ov Ab̠ 359 raham’s werepast in the o theand thickness o the wall theand door, he waswie going withspace Ya‘aqob, Yom ov called Ya‘aqob ‘come here’. (10–15) He was with Ya‘aqob and he drew near with Ya‘aqob. Yom ov remained with Ab̠ raham’s wie. ‘Madam, call her here’, and Ab̠ raham’s wie called out ‘Sete, come out here’, Sete lifed an ornamental cover which was in ront o the door. Sete came out with her mother. Yom ov (15–20) said to Sete ‘tell me, would you like to receive kiddushin rom me?’ Sete looked at her mother in the ace and said ‘yes’. Ten Yom ov brought out a new Venetian coin rom his purse and Ya‘aqob took it rom his hand and showed it. (21–24) Ya‘aqob returned it to Yom ov’s hand. Ten Yom ov turned to the maiden again and said ‘Sete, tell me, would you like to receive kiddushin rom me?’ Ten at the same time Yom ov himsel handed her the orementioned coin. Yom ov said to Sete ‘Be betrothed to me with this coin in accordance with the law o Mošeh and Israel’,
358 359
See supra n. 357. I ndthis an unsatisactory translation in the context. Meaning ‘the doorpost’.
—
303
(24–29) Yiṣ ḥ aq said to them ‘congratulations’. We also asked Yisḥ ạ q what type o headcovering Sete wore, and he replied that he could not remember. He thought that she wore a Portuguese style headcovering. (We also asked Yisḥ ạ q i he could describe Sete’s type o clothing, but he said he could not remember). (We asked Isaac i he knew Sete and he replied that i he saw her he would recognise her. We accepted all these testimonies in Sete’s absence, as one o the witnesses warned Yom ov that he wanted to leave the city, as can be seen by the document. We also went to the Court o Es ̣ Ḥ ayim360 three times to warn Abr̠ aham that his daughter should appoint a lawyer to voice her opinions in the court. However, she did not do this.) Decision: Te marriage vows between Yom ov and Sete are valid. Even though the witnesses did not testiy in her presence (as they sent messengers a number o times to her ather requesting her to authorise someone and she reused, and also because one o the witnesses wished to leave the city, although he thereafer 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. Te marriage vows that she accepted rom someone else afer the testimony was accepted in her absence is not binding and she does not need a divorce rom the second man. Even i we say that the validity o the second marriage is doubtul since the testimony was accepted in her absence, in any case the validity o her rst marriage was already claried in the Jewish Court. According to all opinions the second man must divorce her and the rst man can marry her. Tereore, i the witnesses are still available, it is recommended that they testiy again beore her, but i they have lef and are unavailable, the rst man can marry her without the second man divorcing her. Even i we say that there is a slight concern that the second marriage is valid, the second man should 360
Lit., ‘the tree o lie’, this appears to be the name o a Court, o a community.
304 divorce her and the rst should then marry her. (Rabbi David Ibn Avi Zimra wrote that a testimony that is given in the absence o the opponent is accepted in cases where the purpose is to guard a person rom transgression). 31. Divre Rivot 10361 Yisra’el, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, hands over a tambourine to Estrella as an object o betrothal. In order or the marriage to be valid, the respondent needs to ascertain the true owner o the tambourine, and also analyse the words o kiddushin uttered in this scene.362
Figure 31
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Como un día en el barandado de rebí Yisra’el de Lucena, vido cómo estaba asentado rebí Yisra’el bar har(ebí) Šemu’el de Lucena con un pandero en su mano. Y vino Estrella bat rebí Ab̠ raham Yisra’el y demandóle el pandero, y rebí Yisra’el hanizkar le dišo: tomaldo por qidušín, y Estrella hanizk(eret) lo tomó y calló 361 362
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 461–462). Same case as in Bet Yose 8, text 64.
—
305
6. y uese. Veša‘alnu et pi rebí David ¿be’eze yom hayah hama‘aseh? Ve’amar 7. lanu še’eno zoke̠ r 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) hešib,̠ 9. šeló yad‘á mimí hayah. Ek ̠ ha(rebí) Yisra’el han(izkar) ve’Estrella hanizk(eret) amerú 10. lanu šehapandero hayah šel Sarah bat rebí Yisḥ ạ q de Lucena. Veahạ r kol 11. haniz(kar) ba leanenu rebí Abr̠ aham 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 363
15. por y noqidušín, se acorda si lesedišo, tomaldoçierto por qidušín 16. o vosqidušín, lo do por mas que le acuerda quenon 17. le dišo para mí.364 ranslation (We were sitting as a Court, when David Liscas testi ed): (1–6) One day on the railing o Israel de Lucena, I saw Israel, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, sitting with a tambourine in his hand. Ten Estrella, Ab̠ raham Yisra’el’s daughter, came along and asked the orementioned Israel or the tambourine. He said to her ‘take it as kiddushin’. Estrella took it, remained silent and went off. (6–10) We then asked David [i he knew] what day this orementioned act occurred. He replied that he did not remember on what day this took place. David testi ed under oath and we asked him [i he knew] to whom the tambourine belonged. Te orementioned witness said he did not know to whom it belonged. We asked him ‘how come Yisra’el and
In text 64, acorda is diphthongised to acuerda. Tis text is unusual in that Hebrew is intercalated with Judeo-Spanish in a distinct way; it is not just a matter o including Hebrew words or phrases within archaic Spanish, but o oscillation between Hebrew and Judeo-Spanish within the text. 363 364
306 Estrella told us the tambourine belonged to Sarah, Isaac de Lucena’s daughter?’ (11–17) Afer all this, the witness Ab̠ raham Samanon came to testiy: ‘one day on the mentioned railing he saw the orementioned Yisra’el, Šemu’el’s son, with a tambourine in his hand. Ten Estrella came and asked him or 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 ‘rom me’.365 (We also asked him i 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 amuz 5317 [1577]. We also asked Yisra’el and Estrella i Sarah was aware o the act the he took the tambourine. Tey replied that she was not aware o it. Yisra’el also told us that this was all in donealso in jest hadtambourine no intentionbelonged to marrytoher. TeyHowever, [Yisra’el and Estrella] saidand thathethis Sarah. the witnesses said that they did not know i it was this one [tambourine] or a similar one. Please tell us i a divorce is necessary or not.) Decision: Te language ‘take this as kiddushin’ is unclear. Tose who are concerned with unclear language are o 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 o the owner is called a thie. Also conession evidence is not accepted in Jewish law (Sanhedrin 9b says that no man can call himsel a wrongdoer). Te result is that Estrella needs a divorce i she is to remarry as, according to Adarbi, the marriage vows were effective. 32. Divre Rivot 59 Tis responsum concerns a declaration that both large and small communities need to be looked afer. Te declaration also orbids See appendix 3, kiddushin, or an explanation o the implication o uttering o omadlo por qidusín para mí’ (take it as an object o betrothal rom me). 365
—
307
the establishment o any new synagogues in Salonica. It orms part o a lengthy discussion o rabbinic enactments, and it is this part that is written in the vernacular, recorded on Shabat 17 ammuz 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 aćer bet hakeneset mehạ daš nosa al batei hakenesiyot 3. ašer hem hayom beSaloniqi . . . ranslation (On the Sabbath 17th o ammuz 5285 [1525], whilst the leaders o 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 rom the community. Tere were also some people who removed their names rom this community and registered with another. Tere were also people who lived here, but were registered in another community so as to pay ewer taxes to the King here in Salonica.366 Tey claimed that they are not registered in this city. It was also decreed (1–4) as rom 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 (Tis is what was decided at this time and was ordered to be written. It was designated to last or a long time and to be signed by all the sages o the community. Does this decision need to be upheld?) Decision: a. When one member o the community leadership dies, the power o the remaining members is annulled until the community appoints someone in his stead. b. Part o the community is not entitled to cancel a community agreement that was accepted by the various orms o excommunication. A decision reached by a committee requires a committee or its cancellation. It seems that even i all the community agrees, young and old alike, they have not the power to cancel a ormer agreement. c. Tose who diverge rom the community, even i they are not a cohesive community, transgress the excommunicatory ban. 33. Divre Rivot 72367 Šim‘on leaves a will naming the various bene ciaries o his estate. Tis testimony enables the judges and leaders o the community to ask Re’uben or a sum o money that Šim‘on had lef or a charitable purpose. Re’uben believes he should determine the distribution o the money.
Figure 33 367
Same case as in text 6.
— 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
309
saberés señores que a mi hermano peloní le diréš que despu és que haya pagado a todos los debdores, que de todo lo que quedare tomara él la miatat, de cúanto se hallará de la resta dará dos mil aspros a yetomot, y dos mil aspros alas yešibot de eres ̣ Yisra’el, si quedare algo partirán
6. entre mis hermanos como hermanos. Venifar lebet olamó. ranslation (Re’uben and Šim‘on are brothers who have been business partners or some time. Šim‘on passed away; Re’uben was not there as he passed away out o town in Wallachia. Šim‘on called some businessmen and made a will in ront o them): (1–6) You should know gentlemen that my brother so and so, you will advise that afer paying the creditors, he should take hal the remainder. Te other hal should be distributed in this way: 2000 aspers to the orphans, 2000 aspers to the religious institutions in the land o Israel. I any amount is remaining, it should be shared among my brothers as brothers [i.e. equally]. And he passed on to the next world. (Te judges o Nicopolis are claiming our thousand aspers rom Re’uben that Šim‘on set aside or the orphans. Re’uben said that in his amily there were many poor people, including the children o his deceased siblings and o the town. Te 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 land oHeIsrael’. He alsothat claimed thatbrother he is entrusted to distribute thisthemoney. also claimed his late was not rom their city, nor was he married to anyone rom their city. He was only a visitor there doing business. Also he did not die in their country . . . Tey have no claim. Rabbis, can you instruct as to who is legally correct.) Decision: All o Re’uben’s claims are legally correct.
310 34. Divre Rivot 92368 Here the testimony is shorter than that in text 72 sent to R Moses rani.369 Re’uben claims that he gave the late Šim‘on money to purchase 100 bars o lead that Šim‘on sent to Egypt to his brother-in-law with an agent. Te respondent must decide the validity o the claim.
Figure 34
Vezé lešonó: 1. 2. 3. 4.
como quier que mi sobrino vos habrá escrito largo sobre lo que nos toca anuesa haćienda, yo non escribo salvo haćer le saber cómo por cuenta de rebí Reub(én) ya hemandado 100 quintales de plomo370 mezclado(s) con los nuesos, por locual
5. lepido de371merçé ami primo que se los entregue dela 6. cantidad que éllleva372 que hemandado373 yo, porque los dichos 100
Same case as text 72, sent to Moses rani. Tis 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. ext 72 appears to use proper names whilst here the standard impersonal Re’uben is used. 370 BIURP has clomo; a cha has been written or 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 ollowing line. Also BIURP has mandaro, common resh or daled error. 368 369
—
311
7. quintales no entran encuenta delo que he mandado por 8. cuenta nuesa, y enesto non haya alta porque asílos 374 9. tengo cargados ami cuenta ranslation (Šim‘on and Yissaka̠ r are partners in business export merchandise and who buy merchandise or sale. Šim‘on lives in one town and Yissak a̠ r 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. Te merchandise returned to this port [in Yissaka̠ r’s town] and over the course o 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 Yissaka̠ r 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 rst 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 Yissaka̠ r’s merchandise. Tis 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 o lead mixed with ours with Re’uben, or which I plead with my cousin to give them to him rom the quantity that he is carrying or me on our behal. Tis is not necessary as I have charged them to my account. (Beore 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 o lead o your merchandise belong to me, as this was my agreement with Šim‘on’. He told him all the above. Tey then went to Šim‘on’s widow and asked her i she knew anything about the above inormation. She, together Read: así los. Pator, this could be an error or patron meaning ‘owner’, as pator means nothing in Hebrew, Spanish or urkish. 374 375
312 with an older son rom 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 o the delay. Tey agreed with Yissaka̠ r that when the merchandise would arrive, he [Re’uben] would receive his share. Te merchandise arrived.) Decision: Money is not to be removed rom the ownership o the young orphan because we claim on his behal. Te contents o Šim‘on’s letter to Re’uben are not taken into account or various legal reasons. 35. Divre Rivot 124 A dying man conditionally bequeaths certain sums to his wie. He believes is carrying his she child. It transpires that is not pregnant, andthat theshe issue is whether is still entitled to theshe bequest.
Figure 35
—
313
‘al ‘inyan matenat šekib ̠ mer‘á vezé lešonó: 1. ‘od amar lanu 2. cómo la muǰer está me‘uberet,376 y que uese con har(ebí) David 3. Gateño, apotropós de esta acienda, ‘ od dicho que leden377 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
ala muǰer de su ketubah cinco mil aspro(s) de ropa y tres mil aspros en aspros, y estos mil aspros que son demaśiados de su ketubá es que se obligó de criar ala criatura tres años aueras de vestidos, y si hạ s vešalo(m)378 no379 sale a luz, que le den los dichos mil aspros ansí como ansí por el buen servicio
ranslation On the subject o a dying man and this is his language. (1–9) He told us that his wie is pregnant and that she should go with David Gatenio, the guardian o this estate. He also said that his wie should be given the same amount under her marriage contract, the said written 5000 aspers o clothes, 3000 aspers in aspers,380 and these 1000 aspers which are outside o her marriage contract Also she is obliged to bring up this child three years in clothing, and i, Heaven orbid, she does not give birth, she should be given the said 1000 aspers or her good service. (In the end, it became clear that the widow was not pregnant. Te question is whether the inheritance o a thousand aspers is due to her according to what the deceased lef in his will, as he said ‘or her good 381
service’). 376 Te word ‘pregnant’ is preerred in Hebrew, perhaps due to the sacred nature o the state. An element o superstition, in which protection is ensured by the use o sacred language, is certainly the reason. Also used in Me’Am Lo’ez (Shwarzwald 2006/7: 81). See discussion ollowing table 3.5. 377 Read: le den. 378 Hebrew borrowing meaning ‘Heaven orbid’. 379 BIURP: ni. 380 Meaning ‘in cash’. 381 A similar style to this will, also using the phrase me a eito buenos servicios, effectively meaning ‘or her good service’ can be appreciated in Minervini (1992: 260), text 17.
314 Decision: Tis will and gif are o no real signi cance since at the beginning he assumed that his wie was pregnant. Te act is she was not pregnant. 36. Divre Rivot 150 Tis is apparently the continuation o a previous responsum. Te issue is that Re’uben wishes to extricate himsel rom a debt o 64 gold pieces to Levi. Te case is discussed on 12–17 Av 5324 / 31 July–5 August 1564, the ruling given on 19 Kislev 5329 / 9 December 1568. Ab̠ raham Saluriel testi es.
Figure 36
—
315
1. en un dia de aquella semana que se 2. alló el dicho r(ebí) A(b̠ raham) haniz(kar) behạ nut Re’ub̠ en haniz(kar), que quería 3. pagarle un poco de dinero que le devía, y non lo dišo a r(ebí) 4. Re’ub̠ en haniz(kar) sinon que uese ‘ed delo siguiente: que Yehudah veRe’ub̠ en haniz(kar) le‘il estaban con Šim‘ón, y hićieron cuenta, y en la cuenta se halló que debían Re’u b̠ en veYehudah leŠim‘ón šišim382 vešenayim perahị m tobi̠ m vešišim ve’arba‘á arigues, los cuales le acaró el dicho Šim‘ón quelos diesen a Yissak̠ ar haniz(kar) le‘il beanav del dicho Yissak̠ ar, y tomolos el dicho Yissak̠ ar haniz(kar) venatán qinyán 10. meRe’uben veYehudah hahạ be̠ rim haniz(kerim), pero non quiśo ha’arigues y dišo 11. Šim‘ón a los hạ be̠ rim dichos: dalde me’a ve‘esrim perahị m tobi̠ m 12. y queles soltaba los šišá perahị m. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Gam los kenhamar quenon sabe osisinon le quedaban a deber más, ạ be̠ rimbetorat dichos‘edut al dicho Šim‘ón, y todo esto ue dientro enla debotica de Re’uben haniz(kar), ‘od amar que non había eneste ma‘amad dicho mas que él y r(ebí) Ya‘aqob y Re’uben veYehudah veYissahạ r veŠim‘ón haniz(kerim)
ranslation (Later on, Re’uben brought witnesses to support his second claim and this is the testimony o the witnesses that was testi ed in ront o the Court. Abr̠ aham Saluriel testi ed beore the Court the ollowing): (1–11) Onetoday o him that week that Ab was inheRe’uben’s shopand when he wanted pay back some o̠ raham the money owed him, he didn’t tell Re’uben, but he was a witness o the ollowing: that Yehudah and Re’uben were with Šim‘on and they nalised their accounts. In doing so it was apparent that Re’uben and Yehudah owed Šim‘on sixty-two aspers and sixty-our arigues383 that Šim‘on conronted and said should be given to Yissak̠ ar in ront o Yissak̠ ar. He took an acquisition rom Re’uben to Yehudah, their orementioned partners.
382 Note that terms or coins and amounts are borrowed rom Hebrew, see able 3.8. 383 I could not ndthe srcin o this coin.
316 (11–12) but he didn’t want the aspers, and Šim‘on said to the orementioned 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 i the partners owed more to the orementioned 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 Yissak̠ ar’s and the orementioned Šim‘on’s. (So too, Ya‘aqob came and testi ed con rming all the above; however he could not remember when exactly this took place. Aferwards, I asked Re’uben when Šim‘on’s protest to Levi had taken place. He answered ‘it must have been about a week beore the New Year’. All this came beore me on Tursday 19 Kislev 5325 [1565].) Decision: Tis testimony does not exempt Re’uben rom paying sixty-our gold pieces to Levi. It is also possible that in the time that passed between the ̠ and the second by Levi), Šim‘on had two reerrals (the rst by Yissak ar sold merchandise to Re’uben with the consequence that Re’uben owed Šim‘on money. Even i Šim‘on would admit that Re’uben does not owe him anything afer the rst reerral, he would not be trusted to cause Levi any loss. 37. Divre Rivot 189385 Ya‘aqob Ezra and Yose aitazac argue over the ownership o a arm. Tis testimony is recorded on 20 Ellul 5326 / 4 September 1566.
Gold coins. Te Judeo-Spanish testimony is included in responsum 189, but the case is answered in responsum 190, in act the case presented in 189 is unrelated to the vernacular text. 384 385
—
317
Figure 37 Part 1
318
Figure 37 Part 2
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
̣ ke(bo̠ d) r(ebí) Ya‘aqob ‘Ezrá ta‘an vetab‘á lerebí Yose a‘itazaq cómo el çiflik386 de Musa mirá que eran de rebí Šemu’el aitazaq, y todos los qarqa‘ot que tocan ael çiflik dicho. Vehešib ̠ rebí Yose hanizkar cómo son suyos, que los mercó de rebí Yose Almosnino, y el dicho rebí Yose los mercó de rebí Šemu’el aitazaq, y de su muǰer y de todo amostró ̣ ̣ cómo rebí Yose Almosnino había mercado de šetarot: šetar ̣ cómo él rebí Šemu’el, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), y de su muǰer, y šetar mercó de387 rebí Yose Almosnino. Verebí Ya‘aqob hanizkar hešib ̠ lo 388 cómo el ̣ šeqaná r(ebí) Yose Almosnino zemanó bišnat 5323, ver(ebí) šetar Šemu’el, n(uhọ́ ) e(den) vendimió y hiźo su vino šenat 5324 ve5325, ve‘od amostró rebí Ya‘aqob ketab ̠ yadó šel rebí Yose aitazaq cómo escribe asu hermano rebí Šelomoh vezé lešonó: ésta haćervos saber cómo
14. vendimiamos en el390orete389 dos pedazos de viñas delas 15. yetomot, y mandé una carosa y seis cargas de uba y 16. aquí quedaron en la nabe 16 cargas que no salió más, y
urkish çiflik, ‘arm’. BIURP: do. 388 Tis text is a good example o code-switching. Te 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 urkish orta, ‘middle’. 390 Could also be read as mandí. 386 387
— 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
319
creo que hoy enternimos en las viñas del buklik391 yera392 quela peśen y393 inchan dos botas de ella medio agua y medio mosto, y la uba dela nave daréis a acone y tomar dinero, y sacavos a Caraga de encima, vehaketab ̠ está hạ tum bo r(ebí) Yose aitazaq. Ver(ebí) Yose hešib ̠ al
̣ hata‘aná harišoná como la caña de rebí Yose Almosnino ue muy394 buena, ysi mi hermano hiźo vino šenat 5324 vešenat 5325 ̣ quizá le mercó la uba y hiźo vino. Velata‘aná šeniyá del ketab ̠ respondió cómo tiene viñas en compañía con otros y para saber loque meriende395 cada cośa, escribí el ketab. ̣ ‘Od ta‘an ve’amar ke(bod )r(ebí) Ya‘aqob cómo le dišo r(ebí) Yose aitazaq al 28. pe: quiero dar mil metros de vino a acone porque le vendí 29. ael mismo acone mil metros le‘erek ̠ a 12 as(pros) o 13 as(pros) 30. para tener apareǰado para pagar al emín396 del kapán397
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.
31. yvehar(ebí) a Caraga. Hešib ̠ lo r(ebí) Yose que no sabe loque se diće ̣ 32. Ya‘aqob ledišo quele hićiese una šebu‘á. ‘Od ta‘an ke(bod) r(ebí) Ya‘aqob cómo 33. el çiflik de Zonesto ledemandó r(ebí) Yose 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) Yose: este çiflik de 38. Zoneste es mío queansí tengo el hüccet399 de ello como es ̠ rebí Ya‘aqob še a() a(l) pi que el hüccet está 39. mío. Vehešib400 sobre 40. vos, la verdat es que es de rebí Šemu’el, y se escribió401 41. el hüccet sobre rebí Yose ue porque el togar non aba de 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401
urkish bölük, ‘company’. Read: y era. BIURP: ymera. Judeo-Spanish does not write e beore i. BIURP: muzi. Must be me riende, meaning ‘yields to me’, not meriende ‘to have lunch’. urkish emir, ‘man in charge’. urkish kapan, ‘weighing house’. Read: me dé. urkish hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. Read: vehešib,̠ (and he answered) but the heh reads like an aleph. BIURP: escrisió.
320 42. él, sino de vos, vere’ayá cómo el çiflik es suyo de r(ebí) Šemu’el 43. que él aró y comió todos los perot del çiflik, y él alquiló caśas a yehudim 44. bizmán hamageah.402 Veke̠ n ba r(ebí) Ya‘aqob 45. Kataribas vehe‘id cómo rebí Šemu’el le alquiló la caśa y ̠ ba hahạ kam ̠ 46. aél pagó el quieré.403 Veken rebí Šemu’el aitazaq ve’amar 47. cómo pagó quieré de una caśa a rebí Šemu’el, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), veke̠ mó ke̠ n 48. yeš li ’edim ahẹ rim ‘al ze. ‘Al ze hešib ̠ que era su 49. hermano y non era maqpid404 con él en los alquilés. ‘Od 50. amar rebí Ya‘aqob como harás405 hạ tnó rebí Šemu’el el çiflik de 51. Zoneste umahạ r ubaná vehisqir ‘ad yom moto kol ze ab a̠ r beanenu.
ranslation406 (1–4)407Ya‘aqob Ezra argued and claimed to Yose aitazac that Musa’s arm belonged to Šemu’el aitazaq, and all the lands belonged to the said arm. (4–7) Te orementioned Yose replied that they belonged to him, that the said Yose had bought them rom Šemu’el aitazaq and his wie. He showed contracts to prove all this: (7–9) a contract saying that Yose Almosnino had bought rom Šemu’el, may he rest in Eden, (a contract saying that he bought) and rom Yose Almosnino.
402 (1)Note the Hebrew borrowing bizmán ‘at the time o’ hamageah ‘the plague’. Could this be a reerence to the Bubonic plague. Although this plague appeared in orce in the seventeenth century there were previous outbreaks in the Ottoman lands and in Venetian territory. (2) See ables 3.10 and 3.4 respectively. 403 Alquiler as a noun is the modern equivalent. 404 Te adjective maqpid ‘exacting’ is borrowed rom Hebrew or reasons o emphasis. 405 urkish: haraset, ‘arming’—‘he armed’. 406 Tis testimony appears without the more usual introduction in Hebrew. 407 Can also be translated as: ‘the Sultan’s inheritance’ (see Appendix 2).
—
321
(9–11) Te orementioned Ya‘aqob replied that the contract Yose 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) Ten Ya‘aqob showed a letter rom Yose aitazac to his brother Šelomoh and this is the language: this is to let you know that we harvested in the middle [o the land], two sections o vineyards belonging to the orphans, and I sent a carriage and six packets o grapes, and here in the ship there were sixteen packets remaining. (17–20) I believe today we went into the vines o the company, ‘they must have weighed them and lled up two boots, hal water and hal must.408 Te grape rom the ship you shall give to acone and take money, and keep Caraga409 off your back’.410 (20–24) Te letter is signed here by Yose aitazaq. Yose replied on the rst made claim the thatwine YoseinAlmosnino’s product was very ‘i my brother thengood: perhaps he the years 5324 and 5325, bought the wine and made the wine’. (24–26) o the second claim o 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 Yose aitazaq told him ‘I want to give one thousand metres o wine to acone because I sold to the very acone one thousand metres to the value o 12 or 13 aspers; the money should be divided between paying the man in charge o weighing the merchandise, and Caraga’. (31–32) Yose 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 armer demanded permission rom Yose. In order to sell this [the merchandise] at a good
408 409 410
Unermented grape juice. acone and Caraga seem to be names o moneylenders. Te language switches rom indirect to direct speech without introduction.
322 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 pro t or my daughter, and Yose replied: (37–42) Zoneste’s arm 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. Te title-deed was written in Yose ’s name because the urk did not trust him, he only trusted you. (42–44) Te proo as to the reason the arm belongs to Šemu’el is that he ploughed and ate all the ruits o the arm. He rented houses to Jews at the time o the plague’. (44–46) So Ya‘aqob Kataribas came and testi ed that Šemu’el rented him the house and he paid the rent to him, (46–48) And so the sage Šemu’el aitazaq came and recounted that he paid the rent o a house to Šemu’el, may he rest in Eden, and so I have other witnesses on this. (48–51) o 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 arm. He sold, built and rented it out till the day o his death. All this happened beore us. (Te answer afer hearing R Ya‘aqob Ezra’s claims and Yose ’s answers, I will answer in order o the questions. Firstly, his claim that Musa’s arm and the surrounding lands belonged to his [Ezra’s] son-in-law and he now wants to claim rom them [the lands] his daughter’s marriage contract. Tis claim has no substance [right] because Yose produced to the Court a document written and signed [sealed] that his [Ezra’s] daughter and son-in-law sold the elds and all the lands and since she hersel sold it then she has removed her rights on the land and she accepted on hersel the responsibility o the sale. How can he [the ather] come and claim the arm and the land seeing that Yose is also in possession at
—
323
the moment? Even i this land were in the possession o young orphans, even then the Court would remove them rom the possession because o this document, all the more so here in this case because he himsel is in possession o and he [Yose] also has a document saying that he bought it [the lands] rom the one that she sold it to and the srcinal sale document). Decision: Musa has no part in the securities since Yišma’el, the governor, did not orget 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. Te decision ollows on in the ollowing responsa 190 as ollows: Joseph had ownership o Musa’s arm and its land rom the time that Šemu’el was still alive. He has a document that he bought it rom the person who bought it rom the widow. He has a document testiying that the widow hersel sold the arm and the lands. Ya‘aqob’s (the widow’s ather) 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 ruit rom the rst buyer is a convincing claim to keep his possession by virtue o his document. Te act that Joseph in his handwritten note related to the arm as belonging to the (emale) 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 avours the buyer. Even though Joseph contradicts the witnesses, the contradictions related to insigni cant details. Since it is perceived that people do not remember such details his contradictions do not render him legally untrustworthy. Tereore, Ya‘aqob Ezra has no claim against Joseph regarding the arm Muso’s arm and its lands. In respect to Zoneste’s arm, 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 or a number o years. Te arm is liened to Ya‘aqob’s daughter’s marriage contract. But i Joseph has a document that was done in a court that he bought it rom the rst owners, the document supercedes the report. Even though Ya‘aqob’s son-in-law ate
324 the arm’s ruit or three years without anyone protesting his rights, this is o no consequence since he held the property on the basis o his claim o acquisition rom the rst owners afer Joseph had already purchased it rom the rst owners. 38. Divre Rivot 209411 Te amiliarity between Šemu’el Vida Caro and Raḥ el is assessed through the testimony in order to ascertain the validity o their marriage.
Figure 38A Part 1
411
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim (1999a: 458–459).
—
325
Figure 38A Part 2 and 38B
Part A 1. 2. 3. 4.
como un412 día que rebí Yehuda Vida Caro hiźo berit413 un hiǰo me allí allí, y después del berit me rogó una ǰudía que le escribiese allí una carta, la cual estando escribiéndola vide
412 413
BIURP: u. See appendix 3 or an explanation o berit.
326 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. 9. 10. 11.
y sacólo, y llamó a su esposa que le estaba ̣ apareǰado sarqé se‘udat haberit y díšole Raḥ el: toma este gerúš por qidušín para ti, y ella lo tomó beseer panim yaot ahạ r kak ̠ ba beanenu beB(et) D(in) r(ebí) Abr̠ aham Sidi Caro ̣ y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu) v(eahạ r) 12. ha’iyumim vehagizumim hare’uyim leha‘asot bo’im lo yagid veku̠ (leh), qam al 13. raglav vehe‘id betorat ‘edut veké̠ n amar:416 un día busqué417 a Šemu’el 14. Vida Caro haniz(kar) bebe̠ t ahị v r(ebí) Yehudah haniz(kar), y hallando la 15. que puerta de laŠemu’el calle atornada la enpušé, entrando videenla mano 16. estaba con un ygerúš pequeño haniz(kar) 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 corti ǰo ̣ 2. del pasá418 me dišo rebí Yudá Vida Caro, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), que uese a su caśa que 3. me quería hablar una palabra, y de allí a un poco 4. ue y estando sentando sobre una caša, vide a rebí ̣ 5. Šemu’el Vida Caro, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), que sacó un gerúš de vente aspros de 6. la aldiquera, y dišo a su esposa la cual estaba 7. mondando espinacas: Raḥ el toma este gerúš por qidušín 8. para mí, y ella lo tomó, y se rió, y lo metió en la
BIURP: li. Read: aquí tengo. 416 Note one o the standard introductory phrases to witness testimony, also attested in the responsa o Chaim Shabtai (1651), no. 44, ll.1. 417 Could be busquí. 418 urkish or ‘governor’. 414 415
— 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
327
aldiquera, que andava vestida de colorado, y estava un soer alí419 escribiendo, y un mançebo Balançi y otros ǰudiós, y después me conbidó rebí Yehudah hanizkar que me quedase a la se‘udá del berit de su hiǰo, yyo420 por estar en el año del mi madre421 no me quedé, kol ze he‘id rebí
̣ 14. Mošeh sarati hanizkar beanenu bet din betorat ‘edut velire’ayá katabn̠ u 15. vehạ tamnu šemotenu po bayom ehạ d yod [11] letišrí 5329 vehakol qayam. 16. Mošeh Amram dayán. Selomó ben Susan dayán. Yehudah Sarano dayán.
ranslation Part A (Tis is the sworn testimony o Šem ov Azubib): In a session o three judges orming a Court o Law the witness relates: (1–7) one day I was in Yehudah Vida Caro’s house as it was his son’s circumcision. Afer the circumcision a Jewess pleaded with me to write a letter or her there. As I was writing it, I saw Šemu’el Vida Caro walking around the house. His brother Yehudah asked him or some spending money. (7–10) Šemu’el said ‘here I have hal a piastre’. He took it out and called his wie422 (to be) who was preparing a grand estive meal ol423
lowing circumcision. dushin’. She took it
He said to her ‘Raḥ el, take this piastre as kid-
Read: allí. Read: y yo. 421 See chap. 4 n. 424. 422 It is apparent rom the reply that the couple were already intended or each other, see note 94. 423 (1) Women played a signi cant role in the transmission o Sephardic culture (Cohen 1999: 494). (2) See appendix 3 on berit milah. 419 420
328 (10–13) gladly, then Abr̠ aham Sidi Caro, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive, came beore us and, afer all the threats and warnings that were tting i he did not speak, he stood up, testi ed under oath and said: (13–18) One day I was looking or 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 wie Raḥ el ‘take this piastre as kiddushin’. She took it and kept it. Part B In a session o a Court o Law comprising three judges, the witness Mošeh Sarati testi es: (1–6) You Yehudah should know, one washouse. in theHe governor ’s courtyard. Vida sirs, Caro that asked meday intoI his 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 rom his purse. (6–13) He said to his wie, who was cleaning out the spinach ‘Raḥ el, take this piastre as kiddushin rom 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 or his son’s circumcision estive meal. I didn’t stay because I was in the year o mourning 424 ollowing my mother’s death.
424 It is customary that the period o mourning or a parent is one year during which it is usual to abstain rom estivity. Te notion o mourning has both Biblical and almudic sources. It is recorded that Abraham mourned or Sarah (his wie) and wept or her (Genesis 23:2). Jacob mourned ‘many days’ or the supposed death o Joseph. David lamented or Absalom, in spite o the latter’s ill conduct. Te mourning or an only son was proound (Amos viii. 10). Te days o mourning or parents were generally observed (Genesis 27:41). Joseph mourned seven days or his ather (ibid. 1:10), while the mourning o the captive Gentile woman lasted thirty days (Deuteronomy 21:13), showing that the Gentile period o mourning or a parent exceeded that o the Hebrews. Te death o a person who had been esteemed and honored in lie was publicly lamented by the people as a tribute o respect. Jacob was thus honored in Egypt when he died; the Egyptians organized an elaborate public uneral, and their mourning or him lasted seventy days (Genesis 1:3). Among the Hebrews a public
—
329
̣ (13–16) Te aorementioned Mošeh sarati testi ed all this beore us, the Court, as a testimony As evidence o this we wrote and signed our names here on 11 išri 5329 and all [the testimony] is valid.
Judge Mošeh Amram, Judge Šelomoh ben Sussan, Judge Yehudah Sarano Decision: Rahẹ l should not be permitted to marry without receiving a divorce bill rom Šemu’el. She requires a divorce as testimony o her marriage even in the absence o the opponent is accepted post acto. Also Rabbi David Ben Zimra wrote that the reason why testimony o a marriage is accepted in the absence o the opponent is in order to save a person rom transgression. Te act that Šemu’el’s relative was there at the time o the marriage does not invalidate o theelse witnesses. It seems that eventhei rest someone 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 Te issue is whether one or two debts are to be paid. Te 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 o their greatest prophet, Moses (Deuteronomy: 34:8) (jewishencyclopaedia.com-mourning 18/03/06). 425 Tis testimony is extracted rom the reply.
330
Figure 39B
Figure 39C
Part A ̣ 1 . . .‘od vos mando un šetar 2. que había echo cuando los echó preśos el hạ ka̠ m r(ebí) Mošeh de 3. 190 zehubim. ‘od be’igeret šenit. Y vos mando otro ̣ que tenía yo aquí que había echo cuando los echó preśos 4. šetar ̣ de 190 sult’ [anes] 5. el hạ ka̠ m rebí Mošeh. Era el šetar
Part B ̣ de los 190 zehubim 1. vezé lešonó: el šetar 2. que vos mandé y la letra si non la hubiéredes menester que
—
331
3. los mandés luego porque me importa.426 Avíśame luego si 4. cobráis o loque haćéis . . . Part C 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
vesé lešonó: y vos torno a ̣ y la letra de escribir que siendo cavśo que el dicho šetar canbio no hubiéredes de menester, orćada mente que me lo tornaseis a mandar luego, porque me inporta ̠ ledaqdeq ma r(osé) ̣ ̣ l(omar) non hubiéredes menester šesarik
ranslation Part A (I have read and reread all the documents and letters o both parties and I have ound without doubt that there are no two debts between both parties—there is only one [debt] relating to the letter [o credit]. Eliyahu wanted to con rm the srcinal debt in writing so that Ya‘aqob cannot say ‘I have already paid it’ when the debt is [in act] due. However it is clear that he never lent any more money and Ya‘aqob only owes the srcinal debt. I Eliyahu took any extra [money] he must return it. 427 Te reason is that the srcinal letter o credit was dated 10 Ševat 5329 and two months later on 5 Nissan the credit o 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 srcinal loan back? Even i 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 o 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 xed the amount at 190 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 xed the amount. Te document was [worth] 190 gold coins. Note Judeo-Spanish inporta or importa in modern Spanish. Here I have included the translation o a section beore the Judeo-Spanish rame in order to clariy the issues involved. 426 427
332 ranslation Part B (Furthermore i he is correct that he lent an extra 190 gold coins, how could Eliyahu risk his money by sending the document to Constantinople without the stamp and authenticity o the Court. Even children know that the document can get lostit on thedocument]. way. He also authorising anyone to claim with [the Sosent whatit without was the purpose o sending it? At least or the srcinal letter o credit he relied on the authorisation o R Šelomoh Eliman and R Mošeh Zalmi who gave permission to the sage R Yehị el Anabi to ollow his rulings. However, who is he relying on or the purpose o this debt? Tereore it is obvious that the document and the letter [o credit] are one and the same. So Eliyahu has no urther claim on the Ashkenazim. Furthermore afer much persuasion Eliyahu Cohen is claiming matters that he himsel knows are alse . . . He wrote this letter to his brother): (1–4) Tis is his language: the document o the 190 gold coins I sent you and the [exchange] letter—i you do not need them, send them later because they are important to me.428 Let me know later on i you take the money or whatever you do . . . (We see that he asked or it to be written immediately; a year and a hal later he claimed that letter [o 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 hal transpired since it [the document] was sent to Constantinople? How is it that in that time he did not know that the letter [o credit] was paid as he required? Did he also not know that the letter [o credit] was only [worth] 133 gold coins? We can see that he is dishonest). ranslation 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 nancial context.
—
333
(1–6) Tis is the language [o the document]: I am writing to you again as in case you do not need the orementioned document and bill o exchange, you have to return it to me, because it is important to me as I need to know the precise details o what it [the document] says. You will not need it [the document and bill o exchange]. (I 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 o exchange]. Furthermore, why is it necessary to say ‘because it is important to me’, it is obvious i the claiming o the debt is dependent on these [documents] then they would know it. Tereore it is clear rom the words ‘that it is important’ that they should pay. [Tis is so] especially since they sent the authorisation based on the authority o R Yeh ị el and his brother. Tey would pay all [the money] that they are asking. I this was a new loan, how could be paid rom thisondocument, it does not authorise anyone and noit mention is made the srcinalsince authorisation about any urther loans. It is obvious that the document and the letter [o credit] are one and the same. It also seems rom his words and letters that he is dishonest as he says that once the letter [o credit] is paid back they should return him the letter [o credit] ‘because it is important to me’ to produce alse claims as we saw beore).429 Decision: Tere are legal assumptions that can be made that provide certain proo that no two debts existed. However Eliyahu wanted to con rm the srcinal debt with a document so that he cannot claim that he has already paid the debt. I it does turn out that Ya‘aqob paid the debt, Eliyahu has no claim against him. But, it seems rom the words o Yechiel Anaby that he did not ully pay all the 133 gold coins o Ya‘aqob’s assets. Te ur (in siman 12) wrote that a judge that always leads to a compromise is commended. Tereore since the rst judges decreed that Ya‘aqob should pay Eliyahu our thousand nine hundred aspers and Eliyahu had already received three thousand, ve hundred and ten aspers, thereore I rule that two 429
Note that the unitalicised words are in Judeo-Spanish.
334 thousand aspers should remain in Eliyahu’s possession, and he must return the remaining one thousand ve hundred and ten aspers to Ya‘aqob. 430
40. Divre Rivot 279 Re’ub̠ en was dying as he made a will in Skopje appointing his wie Clara as a joint guardian o his estate and o their children. Her status as guardian is questioned.
Figure 40
430 Tis case is discussed in detail in Benaim (1998: 15–19), also in Benaim (1997: 203–205).
—
335
vezé 1. lešonó: Primera mente 2. declaro431 como deǰo por apotroposim de mis hiǰos432 ler(ebí) Ya‘aqob 3. AviAtar433 velerebí Yose Sassón velerebí Yose Lindo,434 ǰunta mente con 4. Clara mi muǰer. Y mando que siendo que dita Clar(a) quiera estar 5. con mis ǰos, ella sea patrona y señora sobre todo ̣ ̣ 6. veku̠ (leh). Ahạ r kak ̠ behemšek ̠ sava’ató sivá vekatab ̠ ve’amar:435 y si declara 7. que siendo que diga 436 dona437 Clara mi muǰer a rmare la šebu̠ ‘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 aćienda, con tal que non aga ninguna cośa sin orden y 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.
439 440 conseǰSassón, o de dichos apotroposim, Ya‘aqob Aviatar y rebí Yose y ella pueda darrebí quitança acual quier 441 442 débito mio, ansí de dar como de haber con condiçión que como pasare el año se vaya a Saloniqui veku̠ (leh), vehayah kol ze be’Escopie
ranslation (Re’uben was a dying man and he made a will rom his death bed.) And this is
431 Note the equivalent responsum sent to Medina, text 25 has mando instead o declare. 432 Te orm hiǰos alternates in line 6 with ǰos. 433 Medina, text 25, has Ben Attar instead o Avi Attar. 434 Medina, text 25, has the ollowing 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 šebu̠ ‘á ‘oath’ and apotropos(a),(im) ‘guardian(s)’ as the only two legal terms borrowed rom Hebrew in this text. Line 6 contains an example o code-switching. 439 Te repetition o the names o the guardians is omitted in Medina. 440 Read: a cual. 441 Medina has debdor, meaning debtor. 442 Que ound in later editions.
336 (1–7) his language: First I appoint as a guardian to my children the ollowing: Ya‘aqob AviAttar, Yose Sasson and Yose Lindo who are residents o Salonica together with my wie Clara. 443 I proclaim that as my orementioned wie wishes to be with my children, she may be the owner and mistress above all. (7–15) Afer this in the continuation o his will on his death bed, he commanded and wrote: it is declared that i my wie says she affirms the oath not to remarry or ten years, that she undertook out o her own volition, I order that she may be the guardian and look afer my property as long as she does not do anything without the advice and consent o the above named guardians, Ya‘aqob AviAttar and Yose Lindo. She can settle nancial matters with any o my debtors or pay out, on condition that afer a year she moves to Salonica etc.444 All this took place in Skopje. (He said that Claratting doesthat notshe want to leave a year. Tereore it is not should be inSkopje charge even o theafer property as her husband commanded, ‘on condition that afer a year she moves to Salonica’. Our teachers, on whose side is the law?). Decision: Adarbi explains that when the content at the end o the document contradicts that at the beginning, the respondent makes a decision according to what is said at the end o the document. However it is always best to settle the contradiction. Tereore, according to the document, Clara was initially appointed as a guardian o her children without the condition that she should go to Salonica. Te condition that he later added, that she should go to Salonica, relates to the additional authority that she received as guardian o his property. In any case Clara is still the guardian o the property.
443 Doña is a courtesy title that has no equivalent in English and is thereore omitted in translation. 444 See Benaim 1998.
—
337
41. Divre Rivot 282 Ab̠ raham 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 srcinal agreement. Te issue is whether the rst 445
agreement is binding.
Figure 41
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 445
šehem rebí Yisḥ ạ q Gasqón vešelujó šel harebí Me’ir Cazés vehú rebí Yose Cazés ah ị v šeharébí Šelomoh de Medina katab ̠ ̠ be’igerat šeluhạ́ lerebí Abraham ben En vezé lešonó: después vino rebí Yiṣ ḥ aq Gasqón en que trušo carta cómo él venía sobre esta ropa, y que yo mirase con él en loque hubiese menester, y yo ansí lo će,que en cual quier cosa que me demandaba le dećía mi parecer. Agora cuando se hubo de partir el dicho rebí Yiṣ ḥ aq Gascón vino delante mí con rebí Yose Cazés, y dišo que el dicho rebí Yose Cazés no había echo cośa ninguna sin su compañía, y el dicho rebí Yose dišo que él non había echo Tis testimony is extracted rom the reply.
338 12. cośa ninguna sin el dicho rebí Yiṣ ḥ aq, y a mi veer me pareçe 13. que el dicho rebí Yiṣ ḥ aq ha echo enello todo lo posible, ‘ad kan. ranslation (Reply: But when looking deeper into the matter, it seems that even though Šelomoh was not present at the sale o the clothes, the sale o the agency o Me’ir Cazes and Isaac Gascon is a valid sale and Abr̠ aham ben En has no claim against them at all. Te exchange document that Abr̠ aham handed to Me’ir Cazes with reerence to the clothes, allowing him or his representative (subject to the acknowledgement o Šelomoh de Medina) to sell them, is as ollows: Tey 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 o Šelomoh de Medina or anyone else appointed in his place. We see that Šelomoh was given permission to appoint an agent in his place. Tereore, 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 Abr̠ aham cannot enorce an oath since he does not have a de nite claim that Šelomoh did not appoint an agent in his place.) (1–8) Tey were Yisḥ ạ q Gascon and Me’ir Cazes’s agent, who is Yose Cazes his [Me’ir Cazes’s] brother. Šelomoh de Medina writes in the letter that he sent to Abr̠ aham ben En, this is his language: then Yiṣ ḥ 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 toonwhatever my opinion anythingwas he necessary asked me.with him. I did it so. I gave him (8–13) Now when the said Yiṣ ḥ aq Gascon had to leave, he came beore me with Yose Cazes and said that the said Yose Cazes had done nothing without him Te said Yose said he had never done anything without the said Yiṣ ḥ aq. In my view, the said Yiṣ ḥ aq had done all that was possible. Te end.
446
Or it could mean, ‘came to have this merchandise’.
—
339
Decision: Abr̠ aham has no claim on Me’ir. He ul lled his obligation by bringing Yisḥ ạ q’s handwritten account o what had been done. Tereore, 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 o an animal. Te decision is based on whether the kidney o the animal was putrid. Many witnesses give colourul testimonies as to the state o the animal’s kidney as it was handled by the urkish butcher; they are recorded on Sunday 23 Nissan 5335 / 3 April 1575 in Monastir (modern Bitolj).
Figure 42 Part 1
340
Figure 42 Part 2
—
341
venišb‘á šebu̠ ‘á hạ murá beseer torá behọ q vehe‘id kol 1. ašer ra’á be’inyán behemá ah ạ t šenišhạ tá leanav 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 ue a sacar la otra, apretó la mano enla 5. koliá otra, y en apretando la mano sintió rebí Abr̠ aham 6. dicho una edor 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. Ahạ r ze ba rebí David Argis vehe‘id bekoak ̠ haḥ umrot hanizkarot 12. ve’amar: que el segundo riñón non lo vido sacar sinon que oyó 13. hamiá447 delos que dećían que edía, y cuando se boltó vido 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
448 en la boca del keleb,̠ y sacaron al keleb ̠ y el la koliá dicho rebí David ue a ver un pedaço de koliá color de koliá buracado, y non sabía de qué eran los buracos y demandaron al turco porqué lo echó, dišo, porque tenía agua. ‘od ba rebí Yehuda ben Yakar vehe‘id tehilat debarav kenizkar le‘il mehakoliá harišon(á): después sacó el otro y vido ser riñón y dišo el turco ensacándolo ¡o cómo ede! y loechó al per ro, y me allegué a ver, ydela edor non pude estar, y yo diše: mira que a lu el perro non la quiee comer dela edor. ‘Od ba rebí Yaacov Calderón vehe‘id beko̠ l hahụ mrot hanizkarot: vide la koliá ser449 haespoliador dicho y sentí gran edor,450 y por los dedos de el espoliador dicho resumaba non sé si era agua o materia, y el espoliador dišo: ¡o cómo ede! Yol echó lakeleb y le demandamos si la hedor era de el riñón, y dišo que non sabía si era de el
urkish hamia, ‘oreign citizen’. BIURP: digo. 449 1862 edition has beyad ‘in the hand o ’, here to help the understanding o the testimony. 450 Later editions give hedor or edor. 447 448
342 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.
riñón o de otra cośa, y vido un pedazo del riñón en su color. Ahạ r ze ba rebí Barzilay de Le’on vehe‘id kenizkar le‘il ve’amar: cuando ue a sacar el otro riñón le arreventó en la mano, y se le hinchó la mano de materia godra, y sintió un edor muy grande y
35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
lo echó luego451 lakeleb,̠ y el keleb ̠ comió el sevo de enriba452 y del riñón quedó un pedaço en tierra color de riñón podrido. Gam rebí Sabetay Romano he‘id ve’amar: cuando ue a sacar el otro sacó y echólo a rayo de la pared y le quedó la mano moǰada y que tanbién sintió edor. Gam rebí Ya‘aqob ben Ezra he‘id ve’amar: cuando sacó el otro riñón, dišo el turco: ¡o cúanto mucho ede este riñón! Y era453 podrido. Y sacólo y echólo lakeleb ̠ y le quedó aguada en la mano, y yo tanbién sentí la edor y dišo que era del riñón, y que tanbién lo vido podrido, que estaba en su color y como deshecho. Gam rebí Abr̠ aham Krespín
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56.
he‘id: que delderiñón le que arreventó en la la mano y sealle sacar hinchó aguasegundo, edorenta, yo entendí edor grande en arreventando, y el turco lo echó luego lakeleb y la demandamos si la edor era del riñón o del sevo, y dišo que non sabía. Gam r(ebí) Abr̠ aham Falcón he‘id ve’amar: condo454 sacó el otro abrió la riñonada, y dio un bao de edor, y al arrancar que lo arrancó cayó en tierra 2 o 3 gotas de materia, y se hinchó la mano de materia y echólo ala pared y el keleb ̠ lo lanbió, veša‘alnu lo si la materia era del riñón o del sevo, ve’amar: lo yad‘ati.455 Gam r(ebí) Yehudá b(en) ke(bod) harab Šelomoh Capsut he‘id ve’amar: cuando ue a
57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.
sacar el otro lo echó en tierra y vino el keleb ̠ y lo tomó, veša‘alnu lo si sintió edor y dišo: non. Vegam ša‘alnu si vido materia y dicho: non, sinon que lo vido blanco beí hakeleb,̠ non sé si era sevo o materia, y el keleb ̠ comió lo blanco de arriba veahạ r kak ̠ comió el riñón, y vido un pedaço de riñón en tierra color de riñón. kol ha‘ed uyot he‘idu
451 452 453 454 455
BIURP: luego luego or lo echó luego. Arriba ‘above’ in modern Spanish. Normally estaba would be used in modern Spanish in place o era. Means cuando, ‘when’. Evidence o the witness’s ease in switching rom Hebrew to Judeo-Spanish.
—
343
63. liné 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, tereá o kešerá: ranslation (Te case456 was brought beore the Court in Monastir.) Abr̠ aham Lidma made a rm oath on the orah and testi ed to (1–10) everything he saw when an animal was slaughtered in ront o his eyes and said: ‘I saw a perect kidney being extracted by the urkish porger working or the Jewish butcher.457 He gave it to a urk. 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 Ab̠ raham experienced a oul (1). Tis case deals with kashrut—suitability or 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 unctionary. Tese slaughterers were apparently ofen employed by individual butchers. o monitor the slaughterers, an inspector was employed to visit the abattoirs. In towns with a smaller Jewish population the slaughterer would work or a Gentile butcher and sell meat to the Jews (Goodblatt 1952: 72). In the case in question, the urkish porger works or a Jewish butcher. Goodblatt comments that Medina requently complained about the disregard in the abattoirs o Salonica o the laws concerning inspection o animals’ lungs, known as bedikat ha-reah (Goodblatt 1952: 101–102). Spanish Jews allowed the esh o an animal with a lesion in the lung to be eaten, provided there was no peroration in the lung i one blew into it. German and Hungarian Jewry orbade consumption o such an animal. On the issue o allowing the eating o heleb, the at covering certain inner parts o the animal, attitudes also varied. German Jews were less particular about this prohibition, whilst Spanish Jews did not eat it at all. Violation o the dietary laws and traditions resulted in nes or other punishment. Te ollowing responsum illustrates the centrality o dietary law in Jewish lie and provides a vivid picture o meat-selling at the time. Tis case also illustrates the organisation o evidence by the scribe beore presenting the case to a higher authority. (2). Note that one o the many aspects o 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 o natural causes (Deuteronomy 14:21) or that were killed by other animals are unsuitable or consumption. In addition, the animal must have no disease or aws in the organs at the time o slaughter. Tese restrictions do not apply to sh, only to the ocks and herds (Numbers 11:22). Hence the discussion on the state o the animal’s kidney is essential to establish the suitability o this animal or consumption. 456
457
Lit., exoliator.
344 smell. He could see hot water trickling rom the urk’s hands, who in turn threw the kidney on the mud. We asked him how he knew that the water came out o the kidney. He replied ‘Where else would it be coming rom?’ (11–17) Afer this David Argish testi ed and said that he did not see the second kidney being taken out, but he heard that a oreign citizen458 said it was smelling oul. He turned and said ‘I saw the kidney in the dog’s mouth’. Tey brought the dog out. Te above-mentioned David saw a piece o the kidney in a kidney colour that had holes. He did not know why there were holes. Tey asked the urk why he threw it out. He said it was because it was ull o water. (18–22) Yehudah ben Yakar testi ed to the rst kidney and said that he saw the other kidney being taken out. ‘As the urk was extracting it, he was saying that it had a bad smell. He then threw it to the dog. I drew it, but not ostand thesmell’. smell and I said that not evennear the to dogseecould eatI itcould because its bad (23–31) Ya‘aqob Kalderon testi ed: ‘I saw the kidney in the hands o the porger and I could sense the awul smell. I could see in his ngers 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 rom the kidney. He said he was unsure whether it was emerging rom the kidney or elsewhere. I saw a piece o the kidney in its right colour’. (31–37) Afer this Barzilay de Le’on cameto testiy and said : ‘when he took out the other kidney it burst in his hand, his hand was lled with a dense matter and he sensed the strong smell. He then threw it to the dog; the dog ate the at on top and all that remained was a piece o kidney in the colour o a rotten (putrid) kidney’. (37–39) Sabetay Romano also testi ed 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-
steinliteral the 1973:meaning. 22). Te translation o this sentence is based on the context more than on
—
345
(40–45) Also Ya‘aqob ben Ezra testi ed: ‘When the urk 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 rom its colour that it was rotten, as i disintegrated’. ̠ (45–50) Abraham Krespin testi ed too: ‘As he took out the second kidney it burst in his hand. His hand was lled with a oul-smelling liquid. I could sense the oul smell and as it burst, the urk threw it at the dog. We asked him i the smell came rom the kidney or rom the at, and he said he did not know’.
(50–56) Abr̠ aham Falkun also testi ed and said: ‘when he brought out the other one he opened the kidney area and there was a oul smell. As he pulled it out, two or three drops o matter ell on the ground. His hand was lled with this matter. He then threw it at the wall. Te dog licked it. We asked him i the matter was rom the kidney or rom the at around it. He said: ‘I did not know’. (56–62) Yehudah, Šelomoh Kapsot’s son, testi ed and said: ‘When he extracted the other one he threw it to the ground, the dog came and took it. We asked him i he could sense the stench. He said ‘no’. We also asked him i 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 at or the matter, the dog ate the white part at the top then it ate the kidney. I saw a piece o the kidney on the ground aferwards, and it was the usual colour o a kidney’. (62–65) All these witnesses testi ed in Monastir459 on Sunday 23 Nissan 1572, the questioner asks or judgement on whether this animal is kosher or not. Decision: Since there is cause or concern here that putrid mucus has been emitted rom the kidney, the kidney needs to be checked. Permission cannot not be granted on the basis o a doubtul situation where the mucus could have been rom the kidney, or not. Also, since one rabbi has already
459
Bitolj, Yugoslavia.
346 decided the animal to be orbidden, another rabbi cannot permit it afer the rst has prohibited it. Te animal is thereore not kosher. 43. Divre Rivot 392 Re’uben reuses to do business with two o his associates ollowing a dispute. He takes a Nazirite vow. Tereafer he regrets his decision and wants to know i 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
—
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 ranslation (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 pro t rom 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 pro t rom 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 i you were to have any rights to any more bene t rom me and i I ever dealt with you any more.461 (Naphtali told him ‘i your vow was like this it cannot be annulled. However i it was like this it can’. Re’uben replied that he could not remember which one o the two he had said. It seems that Re’uben said): Part C. I receive Šimšón’s Nazirite vows with all their conditions.
BIURP: ses. Excellent example o how grammatical tense reveals the exact intent o the speaker. 460 461
348 (Naphtali asked us . . .Instruct us, our Rabbis i there is an annulment to this vow?) Decision: Here, there is a possibility o considering this vow doubtul in its validity because he could have made this vow using the language used or promises which is ineffective in this case. Also i he did not mention one o 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 o Salonica’s great rabbis. 44. Divre Rivot 413 Tis is a short document containing a ew lines in Judeo-Spanish nancial agreement between two people on account o aregarding disputedthe money guarantee.
Figure 44
Mitok ̠ haketab ̠ šel 1. 2. 3. 4.
har(ebí) Ahạ rón Saké̠ n koteb:̠ y yo por le salir ança me dio el terçio dela moneda pormi cuento, y quedó en mano suya para que la esmerse, y tanto los dos tercios suyos como mi tercio veku̠ (leh)
—
349
ranslation (Reply: I saw the question concerning the difference between Natan suri and Aharon Mes‘od. Te document wastowritten andcorrect. signedFrom by Aaron and I will answer in brie what appears me to be the question it seems that Aaron never received any o the our hundred gurus, instead they remained in Natan suri’s possession. Tey were never even partners in this transaction, as according to Maimonidies, Chapter 4, Hilchot Sheluchin,462 people only become partners i both bring money into a wallet and they both lif the wallet. 463 However in our case, Natan took the money rom the moneylender and it never lef his possession. So it seems that Aaron has no part in the loss o 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 rom Aharon’s document): (1–4) In Aharon Saḥ en’s document it says: in order that I should insure him the money, he gave me a third o the money on my account, and it remained in his hands so that he would invest his two-thirds share o the money, as well as my third etc. Decision: Since he [Aharon] said that a third o the pro t is his, it appears that he appointed him [Natan] as an agent and Natan agreed to be his agent. 464 Te necessary. law stipulates that to become no acquisition are Tereore, Aharonanis agent, responsible or a thirdorowitnesses the loss, in the same way as he would have taken a third o the pro t, had there been any.)
462 Te laws o business partnership and appointing an agent can be seen in Maimonides 1982: 9–12. 463 Kinyan—this is the process by which the nancial agreement becomes valid, see Appendix 3. 464 Tis is according to Maimonides 1982: 37.
350 45. Divre Rivot 420 Te validity o a marriage is in question. Tis clear and lively testimony, recorded on Tursday 10 Sivan 5337 / 27 May 1577 in Salonica, describes how a young lad gives Sol a handkerchie as an object o betrothal and words that may bindmarriage them inneeds marriage. Sol now wishes to utters remarry the validity o this to be As examined in order to ascertain the need or a divorce.
Figure 45
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 465 466 467
Vehe‘id: še bayom Šabat ahạ r minhạ́ vide un mançebo tenía una rizá465 que estaba cerca de una muǰer caśada, y una moça šemá Sol, dišo la muǰer caśada ala moça, ¡o qué466 ermośa rizá! Y dišo al mançebo, déšanos ver esa rizá, dišo él: manda por ella. Dišo la muǰer ala moça: va por ella. Vino la moça al mançebo y díšole: diće que le amuestres esa rizá. iró él la rizá y diósela y díšole: tehé li mequdešet,467 y la moça tomó la rizá y la dio ala muǰer caśada, y no vide más veku̠ (leh) urkish rido, ‘handkerchie ’, see Appendix 2. BIURP: rivá. En qué meaning qué.
Standard wedding practice today is haré at mequdešet betaba‘at zu qedattoMošé veYisrael (text 60:7, 8) (behold you are betrothed to me with lithis ring according the
—
—
351
ranslation (We were sitting as a Court, afer the threats etc, Joel): (1–5) testi ed: that on the Sabbath afer the afernoon prayers, I saw 468
a young lady lad who a handkerchie was standing married and ahad young lady called Sol.and Tewho married lady saidnear to thea young lady ‘what a beautiul handkerchie !’ She said to the young lad ‘let us see the handkerchie ’. (5–10) He said ‘call her’. She said to the young lady ‘go or her [the girl]’. Te young lady came to the young lad and asked him to show her the handkerchie. He pulled out the handkerchie, gave it to her and said ‘Be married to me’. And the maiden took the handkerchie 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. Te rabbis agree that her tacit acceptance is not to be interpreted as admission to his words. Tis is not so as she is acting as a messenger or the lady. Te rabbis add that she appeared to intend to do the will o the lady who sent her. As soon as she received the handkerchie she passed it on to the lady. 4.3 Responsa o Rabbi Jacob Berav 1474–1541 in eshuvot Berav (Venice 1565/1663)470 46. eshuvot Berav 15 A moving testimony, recorded in Rashit. 471 It describes a drowning Jew concerned with inorming the surviving witness that he leaves a wie and child, so that he can testiy to his death in order to ensure his widow may remarry without any legal problem. law o Moses and Israel), as opposed to the above tehé li that translates ‘be betrothed/ married to me . . .’. 468 It could also be a scar, just as pañuelo in Spanish can mean both ‘scar ’ and ‘handkerchie’. 469 A clear testimony. 470 471
BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1958 edition. A port in Egypt.
352
Figure 46
. . .te 1. encargo la alma riǰas que un ǰudió deste Lias que tiene muǰer y un ǰo y una ǰa que lo viste 2. aogar. Y el mozo472 dišo que él luego revolvió atrás y de con tino473 3.
udió, y por que elnunca más ǰmiraba
4. lo vido, que luego se despareció el yehudí, kol elu diberú hagoy ranslation (A gentile came and said that while he and Re’uben were in a ship, it capsized and as they were swimming to saety Re’uben became tired and asked the gentile to wait or him. Te gentile reused, so Re’uben told him that wherever he would nd Jewish people, he should say): (1–3) I entrust you474 with the act that a Jew rom Lias475 who has a wie,speaking son and daughter, that you [this ishethe drowning Jew to the Gentile]. Tesaw ladhim saiddrown that when next looked back, he looked or the Jew continuously. He never saw him again and the Jew then disappeared. Te gentile said all this.
Unclear whether a sin or samech here to represent the apicoalveolar phoneme. De contino, meaning continuamente, can be seen in later religious poetry o Hayim Yom ob Magula (Romero 2003: 265). 474 Lit. ‘your heart’. 475 Lias could be short or the toponym Lyaskovik, urkish Léskowik—a province o European urkey outside Albania (Mostras 1873: 160). 472 473
—
353
(We veri ed and ound no one who went to Lias who was married and who had a son and daughter, except or Šemu’el Crespi. A pupil testi ed that Šemu’el went with gentiles on a ship, to travel to Rashit. Can his wie remarry based on this testimony?)476 Decision: Te 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 i 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. eshuvot Berav 25 Te text concerns a copy o a handwritten letter rom Šim‘on to Re’ub̠ en regarding payment. is lost,transaction. and more evidence is needed regarding theLater detailstheoreceipt this nancial
476 Tis case is asking or a ruling based on indirect testimony, ‘ed mipi ‘ed. Secondhand testimony as opposed to eyewitness testimony is discussed in the case o capital cases in Jackson (1972: 229–231). However, in agunot cases the respondent would ofen 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 i she has already married she need not divorce (see teshuva in eshuvot Berav 15). 477 Tis is a legal expression to indicate waters or a sea where the other side o the shore cannot be seen, i.e.in nite seas. When someone witnesses another drowning in a sea o this description the testimony is more legally problematic than when a man drowns in ‘ nite waters’.
354
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 miswritten as 26, an error repeated in subsequent responsa. Inaccuracy o this type is not uncommon in the responsa, especially those that have no number. Te apparent line across the responsum is a old in this srcinal copy (Venice 1565) in the BL. 479 BIURP: vepecianos. Note the samech or 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 urkish: nakil, ‘transer’—‘monetary transer’.
—
355
3. el yerno del moallim483 en mi mano, de como era el paga vekil mütlak484 de todas su aćienda(s), y que lo aćía 4. vekil tamién para que cobrase estos cien veneçianos. ranslation (Re’uben owed a hundred gold coins in tax payable to the King, and appointed Šim‘on to pay on his behal. 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 ollowing): (1–4) Do not be araid that he pays these 100 Venetian coins to me at his ather’s expense, because he [Šim‘on] should only give them to him [Re’uben] in ront o witnesses. I have a copy in my hand that the son-in-law o the master sent in my hand, stating how he [Šim‘on] paid the attorney rom all his estate. Te 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 or the receipt, but he did not give it to him. Is Šim‘on responsible or this payment since he did not give the receipt?) Decision: It is a well known act 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. Tereore, Šim‘on is obligated to pay Re’uben.
483 484
urkish: muallim, ‘master’. urkish: vekil mütlak, ‘attorney with unlimited power’.
356 4.4 Responsa o Rabbi David ben Zimra in She’elot u-eshuvot haRadbaz (Venice 1749)485 (Part I) 48. HaRadbaz 294 A Gentile witnesses the drowning o Ya‘aqob Pardo o Salonica and identi es his corpse on dry land. Pardo’s widow needs this evidence, recorded on 22 Ḥ ešvan, to ree her rom agunah status.
Figure 48
1. vezé ašer diber vehe‘id r(ebí) Yis ḥ ạ q 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 Misrayim en una nave del başá488 que llevó tan gran tormenta, 6. que se perdió la nave en la cual venían munchos ǰudíos yse 7. aogaron.Y con quien su más plática teníase llamaba Ya‘aqob 485 BIURP uses the Warsaw 1882 edition that is reproduced in Jerusalem in 1972 or parts I–VII, part VIII is taken rom the Bnei Brak 1975 edition. Tis responsum belongs to the rst part. 486 ext 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 o Aragosta. 488 urkish: paşa, ‘governor’. See Appendix 2.
—
357
8. Pardo de Saloniqui, elcual vide duespués 489 muerto en tierra, y lo 9. conoçí. odo esto lo oí ael marinero dicho nimás ni manco, 10. velihyot šekol ze aba̠ r leanenu.490 ranslation (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 ollowing testimony was received): (1–5) Tis is what the orementioned witness Yisḥ ạ q said: as he was coming rom 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 rom 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. Te one with whom he had most conversation was called Ya‘aqob Pardo rom Salonica. I saw him afer he died on land, I recognised him. All this I heard rom the sailor who said no more, no less. All this happened beore us. (Tere is a dispute between the sages o Salonica as to whether Ya‘aqob Pardo’s widow is allowed to remarry.)491 Decision: Ya’aqob Pardo’s wie is permitted to marry according to the Gentile’s testimony as heisspoke withouttoprompting andohethealso said that[the he knew him well. Tis in addition the opinion Rishonim early sages o the eleventh to feenth centuries] who used to allow a woman to remarry in cases where witnesses recognise the dead person even without any tangible proo.
Read: después. 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 o agunot were also recorded in pre-Inquisition Spain (Roth 1994: 187–189). 489 490
358 4.5 Responsa o Rabbi Elijah Ben Chayim, 1530–1610 in eshuvot Haraanach (Constantinople 1610)492 49. Haraanach 20 K̠ alia, Mordek̠ ai’s son, is ound dead. Te testimonies are vital to prove the identi cation o the victim. Tis is necessary evidence to ree Ester, K̠ alia’s widow, rom the position o agunah. Tere are three testimonies to this case, recorded in Constantinople in 5338/1578.
Figure 49A
492
BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1960 edition.
—
359
Figure 49B Part 1
Figure 49B Part 2
360
Figure 49C
estimony A estimony o Ya‘aqob, son o Yiṣ ḥ aq Hakohen, recorded on Monday 24 Adar 5338 / 3 March 1578 1. betorat ‘edut belašón searadí veké̠ n 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
amar: saberés señores que a tienpo que estaba yo con un hạ ver mío enla orilla dela mar enel Escutar,493 lavando una escobilla, en esto llegóse ahí un katriği494 morisco y como nos vido ablar en morisco, nos demandó de dónde éramos y le dišimos que de Damasco. Entonces meneó la cabeça y dišo:
493 494
A district o Istanbul. urkish: kadir, ‘official’.
— 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
361
guay495 de aquel desdichado hạ leblí 496 que iba a Cara isar que por se adelantar de la carabana para repośar el Šabat, ue matado con un katriği y un moço mío, y le dišimos: guay, dišo: ventura agas,497 conocía quien podía ser de sonos, ¿no conoçes a K̠ alia el yerno del Başán? Demandimos: ¿cómo supiste que ueron matados? Diǰo: como uimos la caravana adelante los vimos a todos tres matados, y coğimos tierra y piedras y lo cubrimos.
estimony B estimony given by the mother o the aguna, Ester, Kalia’s wie on uesday 4 Nissan 5338 / 12 March 1578 1. no pensés señores que por ser yo madre diga mentira, 2. ui h(̣ as) ạ lila), que todo loque 3. yove(h al Escutar conyo undiré mi sobrino poren unestos mi los días pasados 4. mesiḷ he’et, y habiendo caminado mucho por allí me arrimé 5. en una botica rente 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 cauśa 500 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 rom Arabic, probably via urkish, meaning ‘ay!’ see section 3.3.3.4. 496 From Aleppo. Hebrew hạ leb, ‘li’ ending is urkish. 497 Aga is ‘master’ in urkish (Bashan & Bornstein 1973: 2); but the texts says agas—a possible error. BIURP: agav. 498 BIURP: repovar. 499 Te letter aleph here represents the numeral ‘one’. 500 Note the spelling o causa with a vav as opposed to a bet as in other cases. 501 BIURP: senga. 502 1863 edition has matmaron.
362 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.
lo conoce que él melo trušo.503 Yo le torné504 a dećir: dímelo505 por tuvida506 ¿quién es ese ǰudió? Respondió el katriği y dišo: ¿eres tú de hạ lab? Díšele yo: sí. Díšome: ¿pues non conoces a K̠ alia hiǰo de Mordek̠ ai? Díšele yo: sí lo conozco. Dišo: pues ése es el que mataron.
21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
Estonces le de mandó507 mi sobrino: ¿cómo sabéš que lo mataron que yo sé que está vivo? Respondió el katriği y le dišo: ho ǰo k508 si yo le vide a él, el katriği y a mi moço todos tres matados, ¿cómo dićes tú que está vivo? Esto es por la cuenta que he de dar al Dio lo que en esto sé, y también Mošeh Monyon, que está aquí, abló él con un arabiado con el mismo este katriği.
estimony C estimony o Mošeh Monyon on uesday 5 Nissan 5338 / 13 March 1578 1. belašón searadí veke̠ n 2. amar: saverés señores que ha muchos días que andando 3. yoaquí enEstanbol509 con un ǰudió arabiado ue 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 K̠ alia 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
Note truǰo or modern Spanish trajo, ‘he brought’. Could be torní. 505 BIURP: dípelo. 506 Tis 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 urkish. 509 Unusual word joining. 503 504
—
363
12. katriği se turbó510 y dišo: muchas preguntas me haćes 511 13. miedo mi, y ¿qué me querés haćer traiçión, y ponerme en 14. poder de la ǰusticia? no medemandes más. ranslation estimony A given by Ya‘aqob son o Yiṣ ḥ aq Hakohen (We were asked to investigate the matter concerning Ester, Kalia’s wie, who or many years has been trapped as an agunah. 512 Tis is Ya‘aqob’s testimony): (1–7) In a court o law in the Sephardic language he said as ollows: You should know gentlemen that as I was with a riend o 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 rom. We said rom Damascus. (7–16) Ten he shook his head and said ‘what a shame about that unortunate lad rom Aleppo who was heading or Caraisar, and as he went ahead o the caravan in order to rest on the Sabbath, he was killed together with another guard and one o my lads. We said ‘how awul’, and he said ‘I know sir, 513 and did you know which one o us it could be’. ‘Don’t you know Kalia, 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 ront, we saw three bodies. Ten we took some earth and stones and covered them’ [the bodies]. estimony B given by the mother o Ester the agunah, wie o Kalia (Concerning the same problem, we have the testimony o Yocheved, the mother o the agunah, in Spanish): 510 Bar-Ilan Responsa Project gives turbó (he was troubled, conused). which makes better sense, although the text reads trobó meaning ‘he ound’. 511 Tis text has most verbs in the second person singular with a zayin 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 (1–9) Do not think, gentlemen, that because I am the mother I would lie, God orbid. I will relate what happened in the last ew days. I went to Escutar with my nephew and because o a delay,514 and having walked quite a lot around there I drew near a shop opposite the caravanserai515 in order to rest as I was asting. Tere by the door o 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 o that Jewdog one o his relatives asked me to take him to Caraisar, but because he observed his Sabbath they killed him, a cousin o mine and one o my riends. He should have a bad lie’. When I heard the guard say this, and I asked the guard in Arabic ‘who is the Jew they killed?’ (15–20) Te guard replied ‘Tat dog over there—don’t you know that he brought him to me? I turned to him and said “I ask you on your tell ‘yes’. me who thedon’t Jew was”. Te guard saidMordek ‘are you ̠ ai’srom Iliesaid ‘Well, you know K̠ alia, son?’Aleppo?’ ‘Yes, I know him’. (20–28) ‘Well, he is the one they killed’. Ten I asked my nephew ‘how come they killed him i I know he is alive?’ Te guard said ‘Woe to him; I personally saw the guard, my lad and him, the three o them dead’. Te guard said that how can he [Ester’s nephew] possibly say he [K̠ alia] is alive? Tis 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. estimony C o 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
Lit., ‘a delay that saved me’ (it is unclear what it saved her rom). For inormation on roadways and caravanserai o the period see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 627–9). 514 515
—
365
was a guard who was standing by a window. Te angry Jew spoke to that guard in Arabic or quite a while, and then the angry Jew said to me ‘don’t you know, Mošeh, that this guard told me they killed K̠ alia, Bašan’s son-in-law?’ (9–14) Ten I said in urkish to the guard ‘how do you know they killed him?’ Te urkish guard replied ‘I saw with my own eyes’. Ten the guard became troubled and said ‘you are asking too many questions, you righten me, do you want to be a traitor to me and put me in the hands o the law, don’t ask me any more [questions]’. Decision: Ester is permitted to marry based on Ya’aqob and Yok e̠ ved’s testimony that they heard rom the Gentile who said without being prompted that Ka̠ lia died. Also Mošeh’s testimony in the name o the Jew who spoke to the Gentile suffice inKorder alloworEster to remarry, despite the in actArabic he didshould not mention a̠ lia’stoname Ka̠ lia’s city. It is possible to conclude that Mošeh knew he meant the same K a̠ lia in question. 50. Haraanach 29 Te community must establish whether David really bequeathed his shop afer his death or the holy purpose o the community, and various witnesses are asked to testiy to his last wishes.
366
Figure 50 Part 1
—
367
Figure 50 Part 2
Part A 1. 2. 3. 4.
elu hadeba̠ rim: yo estó doliente que me estó aogando toma todas las póliças y uerças y hugipes516 de la botica que está en ella rebí David catorće que la ago qodeš para el qahal dela señora517
Part B 1. gam belašón la‘az un día se 2. alló con él rebí Šemu’el Atas en la misma botica 3. 4. 5. 6.
del nifar que estaba arrimado botica, y ,díšole entonces: yo meen vosudemisma tras518 de mi hermano que me mandan llamar y de las uerças de mi botica en poder de har(ebí) pe(loní) haniz(kar), que ago la botica qodeš 7. al qahal de la señora, ¿ će bien? vehạ zar ha‘ed ve’amar lo: muy
516 urkish: hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. BIURP: hugites, it appears that the later edition has a more accurate rendition o this urkish borrowing. 517 Reerring to the amous Gracia Nasi, see Roth (1992). 518 Read: detrás.
368 8. bien ćisteš.Vekešeḥ azar medarkó šehayah ba har(ebí) pelo(ní) behị zuqim 9. hahem letitam lanifar ve’am(ar) lo: toma estas cartas díšo10. le: no quiero nada que yo me estó aogando, ya la tengo 11. echa qodeš la botica para el qahal de la señora. 12. Por eso teneldas519 en cargo de vuesa alma. 13. Ve‘od ba ‘ed ahẹ r ve’amar ze betorat ‘edut : que un día y520 14. estando el nifar en su botica le dišo este ‘ed 15. al nifar: šalom aleke̠ m,521 vehehẹ zir lo: šalom, ve’amar lo hanifar 16. elu hadeba̠ rim: saberés r(ebí) pelo(ní) que se alló ui 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 áceme 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, le dišo: cada vezahque me llamaredes yo 23. iré. Ve‘od yheb i̠ u ‘edi(m) ẹ ri(m) še’enam me’anšé haqahal vehe‘idu 24. betora(t) edu(t) behụ mré šegazarnu ‘aleha šeyagidu ha’emet ve’elu hadeba̠ r(im) 25. še’am(ar) ha‘ed ha’á(le) belašón la‘az: como un día antes de morir 26. hanifar hanizkar ue a viǰitar lo y le demandó: ¿qué 27. ropas524 tienes, quies algo, y qué aćes 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 o metathesis, ld or dl. BIURP: esos nigudas; note that this is quite a different rendition to the srcinal, resulting in a senseless expression. See section 3.3.1.13. 520 Te 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 urkish: hüccet, ‘title-deeds’. 523 Conmigo, in modern Spanish. 524 BIURP: depas, note that a resh is written in place o a daled and a yod in place o 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. Tis 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.
—
369
30. 31. 32. 33.
bueno, dećía muchas većes: la botica la ago qodeš para el qahal de la señora. Vezé ha‘ed šehe‘id kol elu ̣ šehú nisui lebat hadeba̠ rim, hu qarob ̠ šel hanifar hanizkar misad dodató, ve‘od hebi̠ u ‘ed(im) ahẹ rim še’enam gam ken mehaqahal ve’amar
34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
528 e(had) mehem: como vido al nifar hanizkar en el heqdéš de Esnimit,529 y le demandó si tenía alguna cośa, yle dišo que una botica tenía en Qustandinah que estaba en ella catorće, će qodeš para el qahal dela señora, y después que vino aquí en Qustandinah dišo otra vez que la hiźo qodeš, que este zeku̠ t le quedaba. Ve‘ed ahẹ r ba veqam al raglav vehe‘id betorat ‘edut ne’emaná ahạ r ha’iyum vehagizum šegazerú ‘alav, ele koh deba̠ rav: el otro lag la’omer tuvo la gira mi esperança tami’ esta y vino ahí el nifar haniz(kar), yle dieron medio geruš enpreśentado por530 verlo triste y doliente, díšele yo: a tanto aba
45. hermano timiento es venido, vende la botica no se laninguno goćen tu 46. y tu tío, respondiome : no que se lagoźará 47. ni la vendo porque la ago qodeš para el qahal de la 48. señora. ranslation Part A (One o the community members was in possession o a shop. Afer he passed away, the community leaders took possession o the shop, claiming that the deceased gave over his shop to the community. However the inheritors the right, deceased told the community leaders that i theyowere theydenied shouldthis. bringTey proo o this. Tey consequently brought witnesses who testi ed the ollowing): (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 or ourteen
Te letter aleph ollowed by mehem, meaning ‘one o them’. oponym; Esné was a district in Upper Egypt near the River Nile (Mostras 1873: 4). 530 BIURP: pir. 528 529
370 years that I am consecrating it531 or the Lady’s [Gracia Mendes’s] community. Part B (1–8) also in the oreign language: one day he met Šemu’el Atas in the same shop o the deceased who was leaning in his own shop. He said to him ‘then i I go behind my brother who is calling me and the deeds o my shop in the power o so and so, that I am making the shop or the holy purpose o the Lady’s synagogue. Did I do the right thing?’ Te witness came back and said to him ‘you did the right thing’. (8–12) When he returned rom his journey and so and so was there with these certi cates 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 or a holy purpose theletters] Lady’sclose community and or this reason you should keep themor[the to your, soul’. (13–19) Ten 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’. Te [presently] deceased said to him these words: ‘you should know so and so who ound me, testi ed that I am donating my shop or the holy purpose o the Lady’s community and the title-deeds and licences (letters o consent) that belonged to it should all be given to the orementioned 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 o two men in the Lady’s community’. He replied and said ‘whenever you call me I shall come’. (23–28) Ten they brought other witnesses who were not rom the community, they testi ed under oath. With the stringencies that we imposed
531 He means that by giving the shop to charity, or a religious purpose he is sanctiying it. Tis is an illustration o heckdesh—consecrated property, or the laws on consecrated property see Elon (1975: 701–708). 532 A literal translation o ‘hello’.
—
371
upon them to tell the truth, these are the words the rst witness testi ed in the oreign language: that he went to visit him one day beore the orementioned 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 or 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 or the holy purpose o the Lady’s community. (31–34) Tis is the witness who testi ed all these things, he is a relative o the orementioned deceased, as he is married to his uncle’s daughter. Additionally they brought other witnesses who were also not rom the community; one o them said: (34–38) that he saw the orementioned deceased in the holy property o Esnimit, and in heConstantinople asked him i he or possessed anything. He replied he had a shop ourteen years, and that he that has consecrated it or the Lady’s synagogue. (38–39) Afer he came here to Constantinople he repeated that he donated the shop or a holy purpose. Tat was the privilege that still remained his [own]. (40–41) Another witness came, stood up and testi ed under oath according to the stringencies he undertook upon himsel; these are his words: (41–44) ‘the other day on the 33rd day o the ‘Omer,533 my hope was turned. I had a party to which the orementioned deceased came and they gave him hal a gerúš as they saw him looking sad and in pain. (44–48) I said to him: you have lost so much o your strength; you should sell your shop so that your brother and uncle do not bene t rom it’. He replied ‘no-one will bene t rom it, nor am I selling it, I am donating it or the holy purpose o the Lady’s community’.534 Instead o saying día, meaning day, they reer to the 33rd day o the Omer, known as Lag Ba’omer. Te omer are the days counted between the Passover and Pentecost estivals. Lag Ba’omer is a estive day within this period. 534 Tis translation, unlike others, lends itsel to being broken up into smaller sections. 533
372 (Tis last testimony was not taken beore the Court and he had not sworn on his testimony. What is the law?) Decision: Te question o witnesses rom the Holy Community being valid in order to testiy on matters o the Holy Community is dependent on the local custom. In any case, witnesses can become unbiased and become valid witnesses. Tere is disagreement whether when a verbal bequest made without a ormal act o acquisition is equally valid to one made with a ormal act o acquisition. In view o this, the respondent says, it is up to the judge or their own rabbi to decide. 51. Haraanach 117 Tis responsum entails a disputed loan certi cate con rming a debt o 100 gold ducats owed by two men to Re’uben.
Figure 51
1. vezé halašón: yo abašo 2. rmado debo aRe’ub̠ en ducados ciento de oro en oro 3. por tantos que de él reçibí emprestados, los
— 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
373
cuales me obligo de pagar de hayom535 a ses meśes y de esto tomí qinián ensu mano, y todo tiempo que este mi escrito será rme, do crédito a dito Re’ub̠ en para aćerle bueno todo lo de arriba, con su sola palabra decalro536 que este escrito volaga537
̣ con todas las calreźas538 que suelen 9. como šetar 10. aćer para rmeźa delo dicho arriba
ranslation (A handwritten letter that says): (1–4) in this language: I, the undersigned, owe Re’uben one hundred pure gold ducats which I received rom him in loan, or which I commit to pay him anytime rom now to six months time. (5–10) From this I took acquisition in his hand. As long as this document is rm539 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 clari cations540 that are normally adhered to in signing the above. (Is he believed to have said that he paid or not?) Decision: I it is possible to ascertain the verisimilitude o Re’uben’s handwriting, i.e that it is not orged, he can collect the debt. Tis is so as it is written that the legal orce obythewitnesses. handwritten should beexplicitly comparable to a document validated Tis letter is so since it is written in the letter that the lender should be trusted to say that the debt was not paid.
535 536 537 538 539 540
‘oday’ is in Hebrew used here or reasons o emphasis. Read: declare. Read: valga. Read: clareza; calrezas is either metathesis or misspelling. Meaning ‘unchangeable’. Perhaps ‘conditions’.
374 4.6 Responsa o Rabbi Elijah Ben Hayyim in Mayim Amukim (Venice 1647)541 (Part II) 52. Mayim Amukim 36 Te sense o this testimony is clari ed either by reading the Hebrew, or through knowledge o the testimony o Mahạ rashdam EH 166 on the levirate issue. It is the same case, but in Medina’s responsum a uller testimony is included. Te Court has to ascertain the parental circumstances o a boy reerred to in this testimony, as this bears on whether the boy’s ather’s new wie is liable to ul l the levirate command ollowing the death o her husband.
Figure 52
1. quesi 2. honrada será de alguna muǰer ada vehešib :̠ no parientes señor porque 3. y honesta y eserrparienta de mis y estáes muy 4. en caśa de mi hermano y estubo siempre y pensa ella que 5. está caśada con migo ranslation (1–5) that i he is rom a loose woman542 and he replied ‘no sir, because she is very noble and honest and is a relative o my relatives and is
BIURP uses the Berlin 1778 edition. Note that this seems to be the same case as text 11. In act the text makes sense only in context o Medina’s responsum. 541 542
—
—
375
in my brother’s house and she has always been and she thinks she is married to me’. Decision: Te woman is permitted to marry without having to perorm the ceremony that rees her rom abiding to the levirate command. Tis is decreed according to all opinions. 53. Mayim Amukim Chelek Bet 55 Te amous Yose Nasi took on Re’uben when he was very young and looked afer him.543 Later Re’uben became rich and powerul 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. Te problem is whether this ban can be544revoked on the basis o the testimony recorded in Constantinople.
Figure 53
Joseph was the husband o doña Gracia Nasi, one o the most amous Sephardic women (Baron 1983: 99–103). 544 Tis testimony is extracted rom the reply. 543
376 1. por cuanto se545 alló en Qustandinah hombres tenedos 2. por ǰudiós y percuraron de alevantar 3. cośa endevoda546 contra el lustrísimo señor donYose 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 h(̣ as) ve(hạ lila). Y ševaḥ la’el que los sacó a luź 6. y hubo su pago el ‘oke̠ r Yisra’el Re’ub̠ en que en tal anduvo con todo 7. anahṇ u họ tmé mata somos mahṛ imim, y menden y mešametim y meqalelin 8. y mererim beko̠ l erurin šebatorá a’el beliya‘al Re’ube̠ n, y a todos los 9. que en tal cavśo andubieron ranslation (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 Yose Nasi, may his honour be raised . It was such a dangerous matter or the said gentleman, may his honour be raised, and or all the Jewish people, G-d orbid. (5–9) Tank God he identi ed them and the enemy o Israel, Re’uben, paid or this; as he was involved. We, the undersigned, curse Re’uben and all those whothewere with with excommunications and renunciations, and all curses in him, the orah. (Tey should be cursed in the day, cursed in the night, cursed when they sleep, cursed when they get up, cursedwhen they travel, they should receive all the curses in the orah. o 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 o Perachya Hakohen, Eliyahu Uziel, Šelomoh Halevi, David Ben-Nachmias—the sages o Saed.)
545 546
Why Indebida doesprobably the se have means a diacritic, ‘intended’. implying an abbreviation?
—
377
Decision: A ban, according to many opinions but not Nachmanides’s, is a rabbinic ordinance. In case o 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 or a several reasons. So since here it concerns the minister, the revoking o the ban should be allowed as one should not be in danger o igniting his wrath. 4.7 Responsa o Rabbi Joseph ben David in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharibenlev (Constantinople 1573)547 (Part I) 54. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 9548 Witnesses recount the horror o a ship that sinks at sea with ew survivors. Te identi cation o Ya‘aqob Pardo o Salonica is necessary to ree his widow rom agunah status.549 It is recorded on Monday 2 ebe̠ t 5309 / 3 December 1548.
Figure 54A 547 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1959–60 edition or Parts 1–2 and the Amsterdam 1726 edition or Parts 3 and 4. 548 I had great difficulty in nding Ibn Lev’s responsa sinc e many had no numbers. 549 were ofen no numbers or up to ten responsa. Tere Same case as HaRadbaz 294, text 48.
378
Figure 54B
Part A 1. bebo̠ ’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(barak)̠ que hisbi‘ah še’ón yamim 4. še’ón galehem,553 y después díšoles un marinero: ¿dequé 554 5. vos espantastes dever aesto? Yo meallí en Lanbe ̣ 6. que se undió del başá555 viniendo de Misrayim que seundió 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. en Ya‘aqob en Saloniqui, muerto 11. tierra.Pardo Zehucaśado mašehe‘id r(ebí) Abr̠ yque ahamlevido de Le’on, y(išmerehu) ̣ s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), hanizkar 12. betora(t) ‘edu(t), y después deescrito todo lo de arriba BIURP: ziniedo. A province in north-west Spain, but is unlikely to be relevant here. 552 oponym unidenti ed; it is a Greek proper name, also used as a name o a company in urkey. 553 Tis phrase is copied rom a verse in ehilim, Psalm 65. 554 Read: de qué. 555 urkish paşa, ‘governor’. See Appendix 2. 556 ext has intervocalic c in conocía with a , in effect a phonemic representation instead o the samech. 550 551
—
379
13. dišo tornando adećir el ‘edut dicho quedišo el marinero: 14. en tierra loconocí, vehakol sarir veqayam557 Part B 1. har(ebí)558Yiṣ ḥ aq hanizkar dišo ansí que viniendo deAncona para 2. Ragusa que hubieron una gran tormenta, el día 3. siguiente559 vinieron ahablar560 sobre tormentas enque ̣ 4. vino uno, y dišo que viniendo de Misrayim 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. aogaron. 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. odo 10. esto lo oí dećir ael tarinero561 nimás ni menos . . . ranslation (Concerning the case o a man who saw a dead body immediately or afer death: Tere is a difference between whether he saw him on dry land or whether he was ejected out o the sea. I this happened in a large ocean, is it necessary or the witness to state that he buried him? Can we rely on one witness on behal o another witness, i the rst one stated that he buried him, but the second did not? Does it help to say that he touched him afer he died or that he moved him rom place to place? On Wednesday 20 Kislev 1549, we accepted Ab r̠ aham Leon’s testimony. He testi ed the ollowing): Part A 1st testimony o Ab̠ raham Leon (1–6) As he was returning rom Ancona to Castil Novo he said thus: that as he was returning rom Ancona to Castil Novo, there was a great storm when he was in Goliana, and God wanted to calm the roar o
557 558 559 560 561
Note same case HaRadbaz 294, slightly different testimony. BIURP: Daguza. BIURP: siguiete, the nun is missing. Note hablar, not ablar. ariner: misspelling or marinero.
380 the seas and the roar o its waves and then the sailor said to them ‘why were you araid to see this? I ound mysel in Lanbe on the Governor’s ship coming rom Egypt which sank beore everyone’s eyes, (6–10) I and a ew others escaped alive’. I asked him i there were any Jews there, and he said ‘yes’. I asked i he knew anyone. He said he only knew Ya‘aqob Pardo, who is married in Salonica, (10–14) whom he saw dead on land. Tat is what the witness Abr̠ aham de Leon said in a court o law. Afer 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 estimony (1–6) Te aorementioned Yiṣ ḥ aq said that on returning rom Ancona to Ragusa [modern Dubrovnik] thereone wasoa them great storm. therom next day they were talking about storms, said heOn came 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 rom Salonica, whom I saw afer he died on land. I recognised him, all this I heard the sailor say, no more no less. (All this happened beore us and everything was sealed and authenticated.) Decision: Te woman is permitted to marry since it is written that one should be more lenient in the case o 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 o the required conditions to permit the woman were ul lled by the rst witness whose testimony is being quoted. She is thereore allowed to remarry. 562
Recognition and identi o the rom dead man legall y vital in to establish his death and thereafer releasecation his widow beingis an agunah. Seeorder Appendix 3.
—
381
55. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 22 Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes gives kiddushin to Orosol in Flanders. He had come rom Portugal in order to become Jewish.563 Ab̠ raham Cavallero is one o the witnesses. Te validity o the marriage is in question.
Figure 55
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
questando en Flandes que venían de Portugal para ser ǰudiós ue llamado deel padre de Orosol haniz(keret) en su caśa, yestaba allí Avi’acar y otros anusim que allí estaban y están, y de ellos vinieron acá deaquel camino, y se alevantó uno de ellos y dišo: saber señore(s) que sois aquí llamados para que rebí Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes da qidušín aOrosol haniz(keret). Y ansí sealevantó el dicho Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes behahí ša‘atá yledió un,564 y ledišo ciertas palabras de qidušín, veša‘a lnu lo im hisiqu be’inyán ah ẹ r, quešeqam ehạ d
563 564
Jews ed romanillo Spain (ring) in 1492appears to Portugal, see Weinhere. (1994: 209). Contextually to be omitted
382 11. mehem ve’amar: ek ̠ r(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q 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. Yiṣ ḥ aq ben Nunes daba qidušín ala dicha Orosol, teke̠ 15. umiyad seabantó565 y le dio un anillo, yledišo pala(b)ras 16. de qidušín, que él noentendió. ranslation (Concerning a witness who said she was married in ront o him and a witness who said that she acknowledged kiddushin in ront o him. Can these two testimonies be reconciled? I they were brought to the Court and one was ound to be invalid, are all the rest invalid, what i the invalid one did not come to testiy? What is the case i the witness heard but does not understand the meaning o the words o kiddushin, are we concerned that the man said the wrong words. Any woman who comes rom Portugal or Castille, as a daughter o a convert, we do not accept the kiddushin since it took place afer the Inquisition. I they moved rom Portugal to urkey and settled in Flanders or Venice, does that kiddushin have any validity? Concerning the discussion o Rashba, between a man who says that he gave her kiddushin and she denied it. We were a Court when Isaac and Orosol came beore us and Isaac said he betrothed Orosol on the way rom Portugal to Flanders. She denies this vehemently and Abr̠ aham Caballero came and testi ed beore us, this is his language): (1–8) As he was in Flanders566 and had come rom Portugal in order to become Jewish,567 he was called by Orosol’s ather. In his [Orosol’s ather’s] house were Aviyakar and otherconverts who were and are there. Tey all came here rom that direction. One o them stood up and said:
Must be se alevantó. Modern Belgium (est.1829). 567 Anusim: or more inormation on converts in the responsa, see Orali Levi (1982). 565 566
—
383
(6–12) ‘you should know gentlemen that you have been called here so that Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes gives kiddushin to Orosol, thus the aormentioned Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes rose and said with this [ring],568 he gave her one [ring], he said certain words o kiddushin. We asked him i they stopped on another matter, when one o them rose and asked ‘how does Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes want to marry the orementioned?’569 (12–16) He said that as soon as the men who were called, so that Yiṣ ḥ aq Ben Nunes could give kiddushin to Orosol, nished saying these words, Yiṣ ḥ aq rose immediately, gave her a ring and said words o kiddushin that he [Yisḥ ạ q or the witness] did not understand.570 (Concerning the same case, the witness Yose Gaon came and testi ed that he asked Orosol i she accepted the marriage vows and she said ‘yes’. She now vehemently denies this. Tis took place on the rst o Av 1544, here in Salonica. Is there any sense to this kiddushin?)571 Decision: Te marriage vows are not valid since the witnesses are not ully edged Jews. Tey are Portuguese converts [anusim]. Tey chose to stay in Portugal in that situation instead o leaving. Tereore, Orosol is permitted to marry whoever she wishes. 56. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 23 Yom ov Elmalech brings witnesses to testiy that he is married to Sete, daughter o Ab̠ raham Alandare. Te marriage requires validation. It is recorded on 6 ammuz 5311 / 10 June 1551.
Te word ring is implied. Note that Ben Nunes is a name documented in Spain in the feenth century, Jaco Ben Nunes was a physician appointed to the court o Enrique IV (Castaño 1997: 383). 570 See chap. 1 n. 49 or the legal implications o this situation and or a historical perspective o the Portuguese converts. 571 Te annulment o kiddushin, or rather the process o invalidating the kiddushin, is the easiest way out o this complex situation. See Appendix 3 on kiddushin. 568 569
384
Figure 56572
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
ve’amar betorat ‘edut: que la verdat es que una tarde entrando en caśa derebí Ab̠ raham Alandari, y llamaron a ‘arbit573 y uese rebí Ab̠ raham a ‘arbit, y su muǰer en caśa de una većina. Y él cuando vido que se ueron quería salirse él tanbién, y le dišo rebí Yom ob:
572 573
Note the prayers. absence o a number on this responsum in the srcinal edition. Evening
—
385
7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
espera un poco y el esperó y tomó una pita de seda con un cabo de plata, y se lo dio en la mano de Sete, que la llamó y vi Y después le dišo: toma esto por qiduš(ín), y ella le dišo: volveos acá y salieron. Et kol
12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22.
ze he‘id betorat ‘edut, y dišo tanbién betorat ‘edut quela tomó y no la echó. Ahạ r kak ̠ ba rebí David Aroques veahạ r šenehq̣ ar kera’ui lehagid ha’emet, qam ve’amar betorat ‘edut: que la verdat es que él, tese 574 con rebí Yom ob hanizkar, y le había dicho que quería dar qidušín. Y vido que se ue rebí Ab̠ raham haniz(kar) a ‘arbit, y su muǰer en caśa de una većina. Y llamó r(ebí) Yom ob aSete y estaba detrás de la puerta de el barandado, y vino y le dio en su mano una pita de seda con el cabo de plata, y la tomó y dándosela dišo: toma575 esto por qidušín y le dišo: volveo acá
23. esta noche. ranslation (Concerning Rashba’s opinion, on whether a divorce is needed in cases where marriage was discussed beore and the money was handed over afer. I she later married someone else [without receiving a divorce] must she leave him or not? 576 We were residing as a Court when Yom ov Elmalech asked us to accept testimony rom his witnesses that he gave kiddushin to Sete Alandare. Mošeh de Liria came and testi ed.) (1–5) And he said in the testimony: that the truth is that one afernoon as go he to wasevening entering the house o Ab̠went rahamto Alandare they called to prayers. Ab̠ raham prayers, his wie was him in a neighbour’s house. (5–10) When he saw that they had gone, he also wanted to leave. Yom ov said ‘wait a little’. He waited and he took a measure 577 o silk with Should this be Sete? BIURP: tanja. 576 See Appendix 3 on kiddushin on the serious consequences aced by a woman i she were to remarry beore being reed rom her rst marriage. 577 Pita is still used in American Spanish to mean ‘pita thread’ (http://www.cor574 575
pusdelespanol.org Smith (1971: 435)).5/7/05 http://www.rae.es/diccionariodelalenguaespañola/ 5/7/2005,
386 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 lef. All this was [said] in the testimony. He also said in the testimony that she took it and did not reject it. Ten David Aroques came who, afer he swore to tell the truth, testi ed: the truth is that Sete [was in the company o] the said Yom ov. He said to her that he had wanted to give her kiddushin. (16–23) He saw that Ab̠ raham went to evening prayers and his wie was in the neighbour’s house, Yom ov called Sete who was behind the door o the railing. She came and he gave her in her hand a measure o 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: Te marriage vows are invalid as Yom ov Elmalech did not say ‘to me’ and not ‘behold I’. Tereore Sete is ree to marry as she pleases. 57. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 101 Re’uben guarantees Šim‘on 250 ducats in order to go to Egypt, con rming this and the conditions o repayment in writing. Šim‘on travelled requently between Venice and Egypt and on one o these journeys his money was stolen. Re’uben reuses to reimburse him, on the grounds that his travels were excessive.
Figure 57 Part 1
—
387
Figure 57 Part 2
1. Primera 2. mente vos he consoñido578 aquí matayim vehạ mišim perahị m los 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
cuales vos hevuestra rogado aćienda, los empleéis emplearedes y si en vosloque pareciere de ir en Veneçia, digo por concluçión que todo lo que ćieredes de vuestra aćienda pagáis de los dichos ducados que lo habré por bien echo
ranslation (Re’uben told Šim‘on he would pay him to take money to Egypt to buy merchandise. In the document he wrote that i he wants to travel to Venice, 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 o 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 [reerring to question 100]: the event was as ollows: Re’uben gave two hundred and fy 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 or you here 250 perahim that I have asked you to invest in whatever way you wish with your estate. I you eel you want to go to Venice in the end, I tell you whatever you do 578
Read: consignado.
388 out o your estate, you should pay the said ducats and I will have done it or the best. (Te 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 rom the merchants’ custom and it is impossible to prove by the language o the document i he had permission to make so many journeys, he cannot take an oath that he did not commit a crime. He thereore loses out and is obliged to pay. 58. Maharibenlev Chelek Aleph 112 Tis text involves a partnership agreement between Šim‘on and Re’uben, recorded on uesday 11 Adar 5311 / 17 February 1551, in which one cannot act without the consent o the other.579
Figure 58 Part 1 579
Same testimony as text 2.
—
389
Figure 58 Part 2
1. hayom yo(m) šeliší 11 lahọ deš 2. adar šenat 5311 digo yo Šim‘ón a ̣ hạ tu(m) que cual 3. Re’ub̠ en que por cuanto tenemos un šetar 4. quiere que tomare la canpana 580 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 ue 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 bitahọ́ n, 12. que diće en la dicha escritura nuestra que non 13. puede hablar en la dicha canpana según esta 14. escritura, beko’ak ̠ hahụ mrot umequyemet behọ tamav hahatra’á 15. hazot hayom yom šeliší 11 lahọ deš Adar šenat 5311, que por ̣ hạ tum581 que cual quir582 tomare la 16. cuanto tenemos un šetar 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
580 581 582 583 584
See chap. 4 n. 18. Read: hạ tam, meaning ‘sealed’. Read: quier. Read: que es. BIURP: sia.
390 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.
o mandar con él, o que mande hombre él, o que medé585 una escritura desu man(o), para que lo escriban allí586 beseer hamelek,̠ y(arom) h(odó), yque terá587 su parte según está en nuestra escritura, con todos los tena’im que en la dicha escritura está, y sinon quiere que me 588
26. 27. 28. 29.
todo el bitahọ́ n que diće en la dicha escritura nues(a) que non puede ablar en la dicha canpana según este escrito, beko’ak ̠ hahụ mrot gam zot mequyemet behọ tmeha.
ranslation [a document o authorisation] (From the 10th o next April, however, all the other oaths will be on them or ten years and all the stringencies were accepted concerning Re’uben and Simon. However, in so ar as the responsibility to Levi is concerned, they did not accept all the stringencies. A document o authorisation): (1–5) oday uesday 11th Adar 5311, I, Šim‘on, say to Re’uben inasmuch as we have a signed contract that whoever takes over the company or any other asset is obliged to inorm 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) I 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:
Read: me dé, BIURP: mende. Read: allá, apostrophe indicates aleph missing; note representation o /ll/ phoneme with two yods ollowed by the apostrophe. 587 Read: terná. 588 Contextually, should be dé. 585 586
—
391
(14–15) with the power o the terms and conditions implemented in this legal warning by signature on uesday 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 notiy the other that he wants to take over the company. (19–23) Tis is the way I have negotiated it in Constantinople, that i he wants to come we will go or i 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) I he does not wish to, he should put all the trust in me that is mentioned in the said agreement. is not that he cannot have oa say in the said company according to thisItagreement, with the power the terms and conditions this is also implemented by your signature.589 Decision: Each one o them is trusted to claim that he intended something speci c. Since they accepted upon themselves to abide by the more stringent opinion o 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 o the rabbis o Salonica to decide the matter because o their great wisdom, and also because they can investigate the truth directly rom those who ask the question. (Part III) 59. Maharibenlev Chelek Gimmel 21 Te testimony belongs to the eld o monetary law. wo brothers query a written contract as to the details o a nancial agreement between them, recorded on 9 Ellul 5328 / 2 September 1568. 589
Tis text contains many repetitive, long-winded, unclear phrases.
392
Figure 59 Part 1
Figure 59 Part 2
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
̣ belašón la‘az: veo queredes mandarme šetar 590 de cama sultanis que digo por vos acomodar. Hagas ̣ 65 sultanis por otro año ‘ad kan. Vekatab ̠ ze dicho šetar ̣ hu meyom 27 lemenahẹ m,591 y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), 1568,‘od ̣ ketab ̠ ahẹ r hosi’u šecatab ̠ lo bayom 9 elul 5328, vezé lešonó: así veo poníades ̣ en póliça leahị ha, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), que ansí es bien, y ansí mismo harés y lo mismo señor harés en la que hićierdes 592 lešaná haba’á be‘e(zrat) H(ašem), y como dićes darés el útil de este año. odo harés como vos pareçiere honesto que
urkish: sultani, ‘coin’. Tis reers to the month o Av, lit. consolation. Av is known as the month o consolation; the ninth o Av, ishabe’ab, is the day o mourning or the destruction o the emple. 592 Read: hićiéredes. 590 591
—
393
10. ya digo me contento, y teniendo aviśo, y ansí pagando ̣ de los diećiséis 11. los asp(ros) ocho mil y 265 y hecho šetar ̣ 12. mil y quinientos asp(ros) im ahị ha, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu) letišrí B(aruk)̠ H(ašem) 13. súpito vos mandaré la póliça be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) ‘ad kan ranslation (Re’uben brought out a document against Šim‘on, stating that he owes him three hundred and ve golden perachim rom what he had previously given him. Šim‘on claims that he has given Re’uben over sixty thousand aspers that he took as xed interest, so the document is invalid, since it incorporates the loan with the interest, even though in the document it is written ‘objects o gold’. Apparently it is the custom that all documents that charge interest, write ‘objects o gold’. Tis is also proven rom another document, written by Re’uben himsel, concerning this matter and these are his words): (1–3) In the oreign language: I see that you want to send me a contract o however many coins I say, so as to accommodate you. Make the said contract 65 coins or another year. Te end. (3–9) And he wrote this rom 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 ne, 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. Tank God as I have made a contract in ishri or the 16,500 aspers with his brother, may God guard him and keep him alive, I will send you the contract immediately, God willing. Te 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 Decision: Šim‘on is not trusted to claim that he has given Re’uben over sixty thousand aspers that he took as xed interest because conession 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 proo 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 o gold’. 60. Maharibenlev Chelek Gimmel 104 Tis text contains a neat description o the handing over o a ring and o the uttering o the standard phrase that binds couples in legal matrimony. Te testimony includes a detailed description o the girl’s attire. Te respondent must ascertain the validity o this marriage.
Figure 60
1. na‘arah ahạ t vestida 2. en un sayo azul y un makramá593 blanco en la
593
urkish makrama, ‘headdress’.
— 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
395
cabeça594 cobiśada595 la cara, y alevantaron el makramá596 de la cabeça, y demandáronle que quién er(a). Y dišo que era ulana ǰa de ulano, honbre conoçido en aquella çibdat y depués deesto tomó597 un anillo y díšole: haré at mequdešet li betaba‘at zu
8. kedat Mošeh veYisra’el. ranslation (It appears that the opinion o Rosh is that i the husband is in town, it is considered as i her testimony is in ront o him. Unless we distinguish between marriage—that is done publicly and engagements that are done privately. It is very difficult or me [to judge this] as in such a situation he should have explained his position. Te fh discussion concerns a situation when witnesses came and testi ed 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 scar over her head with her ace covered. Tey lifed the covering over her head and asked her who she was. (5–8) She said she was so and so, the daughter o so and so, a wellknown man in that city. Afer this, he took the ring and said to her ‘Behold you are betrothed to me with this ring according to the law o Moses and o Israel’. (We disregarded the invalid witness who testi ed on the kiddushin and we wrote ruling is permitted. I decided to publish part o these laws sincea they arethat veryshedeep and important.)
594 Here and in line 4 is an unusual representation o the letter ç with a tsadi instead o with samech that is normally restricted to the representation Hebrew words. 595 Tis is also cobijada in Spanish meaning, ‘covered’. 596 Here the text differs rom l. 2, makrama instead o marama. Nehama (1977: 347/320) says maramán is a wrap worn over the head by women, especially on pilgrimages to the cemetery. 597 BIURP: somó.
396 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 o marriage according to some opinions. Te witnesses that testi ed in the opponent’s absence could testiy again in his presence. A woman whose husband is in the city and accepts marriage vows rom another man not in the presence o 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 i he shall not come and appear beore 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 beore her. 4.8 Responsa o Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Avkat Rochel (Salonica 1791)598 61. Avkat Rochel 80 A question posed by R Moses rani concerned a couple who were converts as a result o the Spanish expulsion, and Re’uben leaves a will. Šim‘on also writes his will. Tis case is complex since it involves various issues. Te wills are written with the intention o overriding the law o the land stipulating the distribution o money and estate. It happens that Re’uben instructs his brother on the contents o his will. Te bene ciaries o the will on one side travel to Flanders, where the king con scates their money or living overtly as Jews. Tey have to meet the costs o retrieving this money which they then want both sides to share, and deduct rom the estate. Te dispute concerns the costs. Te testimony is recorded in Flanders.
598
BIURP uses the Leipzig (1859) edition.
—
397
Figure 61A
Figure 61B and 61C
398 Part A 1. . . . vezé lešonó: declaro que en toda mi aćienda 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. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.
aganar y mi inte(n)çión ue ansí siempre sola mente lo źo por merçed que muriendo él sin hiǰos hago heredera amí ǰa Sara cuando ella asu veluntad ‘ad kan. Vekatub ̠ ‘od beša‘a va(tó) belašón hazé: y digo más que ensu aćiend(a) tiene la miatad su muǰer Ḥ aná y por heredera en los dos terçios dela otra miatad600 su hiǰa Sarah, y que del último treçio601 tomen lo que uere necesario praa 602 las despeźas que en su testamento mandara haćer, y loque quedare del terçio dicho deša para su muǰer Ḥ aná ‘ad kan
Part B ̣ 1. ‘Od sivá Šim‘ón hanizkar beša‘a t petirató belašón la‘az vezé lešonó: 2. y porque mi haćienda está der ramada por 3. muchas y diversas partes para la cobrança de allí, 4. quero que se haga como asta aquí por lo cual hago mi 5. cuñada Ḥ aná603 testamendera, para que con Abr̠ aham veYose 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. 10. 11. 12.
mi cuñada sea prinçipal, y en alta suya, lo que el Dio non mandare enrada AgustínEnriques, ha biendo por rme y por vueldra todo loque ladicha mi cuñada con los otros hićieron,605 sin los poder tomar cuenta
Unusual lack o separation between él and tiene. Read: mitad. 601 Read: tercio. 602 Read: para. 603 Note Ḥ aná his wie, and Ḥ aná his sister-in-law. 604 Read: autenticado. 605 Tis syntax, with the verb at the end, is reminiscent o the Spanish o the Renaissance period, e.g. as in Rojas’s La Celestina (Rojas et al. 2000). 599 600
—
399
13. ningún gömü,606 ni reçibo ni otra ǰusticia ninguna por 14. que yo conío que lo harán muy bien, y como hićiera 15. y tengo hiǰo en sus caćiendas607 Part C 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
̣ sava‘ató ̣ ‘Od katav bešetar belašón la‘az, vezé lešonó: y declaro que y por bien que la dicha Ḥ aná mi cuñada seatutera608 de la dicha Diná mi hiǰa, y ademies609 tartura610 y su haćienda hasta dela dicha Diná mi hi ǰa sea en edad de caśar, y dela poder reğir y a demi(es) ni starar ‘ad kan lešonó.
ranslation (Te story was as ollows; Re’uben, one o the converts rom Spain, married Ḥ aná, whilst they were in captivity. Tey decided between them at the time o their marriage, that i he died beore his wie, then his assets should be divided fy/ fy; fy per cent or her and fy per cent or the children. Tis was all documented. Tis decision is applicable even without their decision, based on the law o the land.611 Te law adds that o the fy per cent due to his children, the dying person may give one third to whomever he wishes. However the remaining two thirds and the fy per cent due to his wie 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 rom his town to his brother’s town. Beore his demise, Re’uben wrote a will in the oreign language): Part A (1–4) this are his words: I declare that in all my estate my brother Šim‘on should have hal, I have another part in what he has o his urkish: gömü, ‘ nding’. Read: haćiendas. 608 Read: sea tutora. 609 Read: además. 610 urkish: tartura, ‘wheel’, but the intention here is to write tutera, Spanish or ‘guardian’, ‘person in charge’. 611 See Rivlin 1999: 293–295 on the issue o inheritance vis-à-vis the law o the land. 606 607
400 own. Even i 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 o mercy. I he dies childless, I will make my daughter Sarah the heiress when she becomes o age. Te end. (7–11) It was also written in his will in this language: I also say that his wie Ḥ aná owns hal o his estate, and her daughter Sara is the heiress o two-thirds o the other hal. Tey should take whatever necessary o the last third [o the money] to meet the payments stated in his will, the remainder should be given to his wie Ḥ aná. Te end. (We ound in one o 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 o Re’uben’s possessions. It is also clear rom their ledgers, the amount they both possessed and Šim‘on was dealing with both their assets.) (Furthermore, Šim‘on stated beore he died:) Part B (1–6) Te orementioned Šim‘on also commanded at the time o his death in the vernacular, as ollows: 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-inlaw, Ḥ aná, the executor o the will, so that she and Ab̠ raham and Yose are in charge o the payments. (6–15) Only with this meeting this will is authenticated, because I am happy with everything the ormentioned have done as long as my sister-in-law Ḥ aná is the principal executor. In her absence, God orbid,612 Augustín Enriques [should be the principal executor], afer he has rmed up and validated everything my said sister-in-law has done with the others, without taking into account any nding or mandate 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.
—
401
(It was also written in his will): Part C (1–6) He also wrote in his will in the vernacular, as ollows: I declare that although the said Ḥ aná, my sister-in-law, should be the guardian o the said Dinah my daughter and also in charge o her estate until the said Dinah my daughter is o age to marry; she should also be in charge o my estate and . . . his words end here. Decision: Te monetary conditions stipulated between the converts [anusim] at the time o marriage continue to exist when they become practising Jews, both by secular law and by Jewish law. Tis is so because this was the custom, because the conditions were written in their courts and because the law o the land is applicable here. (Maimonides stipulates that one should invalidate a contract o a gif 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 o Re’uben and Ḥaná, the conditions remain ̣ aná because Re’uben died in the same place the conditions were made. H is entitled to hal o Re’uben’s assets also by virtue o what is written in his will. But she is entitled by virtue o the conditions made between them to only hal o his assets, afer they divide all o Re’uben’s and Šim‘on’s assets and give hal o them to Šim‘on. Although based on law o the land Re’uben cannot give Šim‘on hal the assets that his wie is entitled to, and rom the two thirds that his sons and daughters are entitled to, but according to Re’uben’s will Šim‘on has the right to hal o all the assets. In respect to Ḥ aná’s expenses, i it becomes clear by Abr̠ aham and Yose ’s testimony (which said the expenses were laid out) that the expenses were solely or the sake o saving the assets o Rivkah and her daughter Dinah, the expenses should be taken only rom Rivkah’s and Dinah’s assets and i no testimony exists that the expenses were only or this purpose, Ḥ aná is believed afer taking an oath.
402 But the expenses Ḥ aná had aferwards when the Caesar ound out that they travelled to Italy are imposed on all Ḥ aná and Rivkah’s and their daughters’ assets. ̣ aná Te expenses and losses that they had in Venice because Rivka sued H in the secular courts and the appointment o the Gentile to vouch or them, have to be paid entirely by Rivkah according to the law o ‘moser’ (one who hands over someone else’s money to a crook). I she doesn’t own enough money to pay or those expenses it should be taken rom Dinah’s assets as the expenses were paid to save Dinah’s assets rom alling into Rivkah’s possession. I Rivkah does not know the amount o expenses, Ḥaná is trusted to claim them by making anoath. I 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 Tis responsum appears to be a continuation o the previous responsum 80.
Figure 62
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
̣ m(a) š(ekatav) Re’uben besava‘ató: declaro que en todo mi aćienda tiene mi hermano Šim‘ón la miatad 613 y yo otro tanto en la que él tiene porsí, que aun que la mía sea más/él lo ayudó aganar, y mi inte(n)ción ue ansí siempre . . .
613
Read: mitad.
—
—
403
ranslation (From the above it can be seen that there was no kiddushin and no legal acquisition in any orm and thereore these two converts, Jewish rom birth (taking account o the Gemara’s view on converts) it can be proven that there is no case or 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 hal. I also have a similar amount in his estate. Even i mine is greater he has helped to earn it, this was always my intention. (It is clear that this was not meant as a gif, rather he said that it was always his intention that they should divide it equally. Tereore Šim‘on may not take anything rom his brother’s assets. Instead, everything should go to Sarah, Re’uben’s daughter. Rashba has explained a similar situation: even i he would have said it was meant as a gif, it still would not have counted as it was not done in ront o Jewish witnesses.) Decision: Te conditions stipulated between the converts at the time o their marriage, even i written beore the secular courts o law are not valid or a number o reasons. Since no valid marriage vows were in place. In respect to means the willthe no gif gif would was given act o acquisition was done by which havesince beennoacquired. Tereore, Sarah bat Re’uben inherits all her ather’s assets and Šim‘on has no part in them at all. But hạ ná can hold the assets in her possession or her sustenance all the days o her widowhood until she claims the rights o her marriage contract. 63. Avkat Rochel 148 Tis is actually a translation o a reply to a question that is not included in the collection as it was lost. Interestingly, the reply contains much
404 Judeo-Spanish. From this reply it seems that a man was claiming money rom the property o a deceased, and that the guardian was trying to deend the orphans.
Figure 63 Part 1
Figure 63 Part 2
—
405
Part A ra’iti ma šecatab ̠ ha’apotropos lit‘on ba‘ed hayatom 1. vezé lešonó: por onde su to‘en que sabemos cierto 2. 3. 4. 5.
̠ que non le era encargo ku(leh) ad ynon condena la haćienda aél un ǰo salía de cargo našibe̠ nu al pi darkó, que sabemos çierto que non le era en cargo ku̠ (leh)
Part B 1. umá šekatab ̠ tanto su madre daba̠ r temá mi natán nenanut 2. le’em al bená y si uese cargo de 3. sus padres . . . Part C 1. y cuenta más, que dišo que si seguía hẹ rem setam ̣ 2. ku̠ (leh) ad salvo con re’ayá berurá en la šetar vedebari(m) s(b)ateli(m)614 ̣ 3. hem šeharé yeš re’ayá berurá bešemeš besahorayim, veké̠ n m(a) š(ekatab)̠ que 4. el que źo ku̠ (leh) no źo entender a B(et) D(in) como el nifar 5. no se le alló a (lu) una perutá contante ku̠ (leh) ranslation Part A (1–5) I saw what was written by the guardian on behal o the orphans and these are his words: Trough his claimant we know or 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 or certain that he was not responsible etc.616 614 615 616
ext incorrectly has a shin in place o bet. Lit., ‘to condemn’. Unclear.
406 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 i he would have been in charge o his parents’, (Who knows i 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. ruthully we do not need all o this, because even i he did not owe him anything at all, only i 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 proo this is nonsense617 and invalid there isdidproo as clear as the suntheat Court noon and so it is that or whoever it etc., did not make understand written how the deceased did not ail to account even or a single peruta (coin), etc. Decision: One who states in ront o witnesses, ‘I owe you a certain amount and you are my witnesses’, is legally bound by these words. Tis is the situation in this case and thereore he is obliged to pay the money that he admitted to, and that money should be collected rom his heirs. 4.9 Responsa o Rabbi Joseph Caro 1488–1575 in Bet Yose (Salonica 1598)618 64. Bet Yose 8619 Yisra’el, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, hands over a tambourine to Estrella as an object o betrothal. In order or the marriage to be valid, the 617 618 619
Lit., ‘this has no dawn’. BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1960 edition.
Tisisisdiscussed the sameinquestion is sent to text 31, Adarbi in Divre Rivot 10. Tis responsa Benaimthat (1999a: 461–462).
—
407
respondent needs to ascertain the true owner o the tambourine and also analyse the words o kiddushin uttered in this scene.
Figure 64
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
ve’amar como un día en el barandado de rebí Yisra’el de Lucena, vido cómo estaba asentado rebí Yisra’el har(ebí) Šemu’el de Lucena con un pandero en su mano, y vino Estrella bat rebí Ab̠ raham Yisra’el y demandóle el pandero, y rebí Yisra’el hanizkar le dišo: tomaldo por qidušín, y Estrella hanizkeret
408 7. lo tomó y calló y uese.620 Veša‘alnu et pi rebí 8. David hanizkar ¿be’eze yom hayah hama‘asé hanizkar? Ve’amar lanu 9. še’eno zoke̠ r be’eze yom hayah. Kol ze he‘id rebí Yehudá 10. hanizkar betorat ‘edut veša‘alnu ‘ al hapandero šel mi hayah, 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
veha‘ed hanizkar hešiv seló yad‘á mimí hayah ek ha(rebí)Yisra’el hanizkar veEstrella hanizkeret amerú lanu šehapandero hi šel Sara bat har(ebí) Yisḥ ạ q de Lucena. Veahạ r kol ze ba leanenu rebí Abraham Samanón vehe‘id betorat ‘edut: como un día en el barandado hanizkar le‘il 621 vido como estava rebí Yisra’el han(izcar) l(em‘ala) asentado con un pandero ensu mano, y vino Estrella han(izkeret) l(em‘ala) y le demandó el pandero ydióselo por qidušín y no se acuerda si le dišo tomaldo por qidušín, o622 vos lo do por qidušín, mas que se le acuerda çierto que no623 le dišo para mí.624
ranslation (We were sitting as a Court when David Liskas testi ed under witness law): (1–7) he said: one day on the railing o Israel de Lucena, I saw Israel, Šemu’el de Lucena’s son, sitting with a tambourine in his hand. Ten Estrella, Ab̠ raham Israel’s daughter, came along and asked the orementioned Israel or the tambourine. He said to her ‘take it as kiddushin’, Estrella took it and kept silent and went off. (7–13) Court] then asked David remembered the day thatWe this[the happened. He replied that hewhether did not he remember on what day this took place. We then asked the next witness Yehudah i he knew to whom the tambourine belonged. Te orementioned witness said he 620 Here the rst yod should be a vav, and there is an unusual samech in place o sin, reads as eçe. 621 1863 edition has h(anizkar) l(ema‘ala). 622 Tis could be y or o, based on the act that part o the vav is rubbed out, as is the case with do in line 20. 623 BIURP: lo, the error and absence o the negative no changes the entire point o this testimony. 624 Tis text is an example o the easy switching between Hebrew and JudeoSpanish.
—
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) Afer all this the witness, Ab̠ raham Samanon, came to testiy: ‘one day on the previously mentioned railing he saw the orementioned Israel, Šemu’el’s son, with a tambourine in his hand. Ten Estrella came and asked him or 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 ‘rom me’. (He testi ed all this under witness law. We asked him i he knew whose tambourine it was and he said ‘no’. He also could not remember what day it was. All the above was veri ed and signed on Monday the 20th o ammuz 1557. We also asked Yisra’el and Estrella whether he took the tambourine with Sarah’sYisra’el permission. Tey without Sarah’s knowledge. also told us replied that allthat this he wastook doneit in jest and that he had no intention o marriage. Also, witnesses testied that the tambourine belonged to Sarah. However, the witnesses o 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 o the witnesses said that Yisra’el had said ‘take it as a symbol o the marriage vows’, but he did not say ‘rom me’. Te marriage is invalid. 4.10 Responsa o Rabbi Aḥ aron ben Joseph Sasson (1550–1626) o Salonica in orat Emet (Venice 1626)625 65. orat Emet 2 Te witness Israel Šim‘on, a resident o Vidin, testi es to seeing the body o Yose Ruso and burying him. Te question is whether the 625
BIURP uses the Venice 1626 edition, same as above.
410 victim’s widow is ree to remarry. Te 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 ablando uno con otro los males que 4. había echo el rey blao 627 y el de sivio, sin yo le demandar 5. nada, me dišo: tanbién a su compañero Yose Ruso y a dos 6. hermanastros que sempre iban ǰuntos los allé628 matados 629
7. y tanbién los enterr é r(ebí) yo. Esto ue me‘id ahạ r que ha’iyumim 8. dišo Yisra’el haniz(kar) él era hạ vehagizumi(m) be̠ r de har(ebí) Yose 9. Ruso haniz(kar), vehašené hermanastros hem Yisḥ ạ q ve’Aron veYisḥ ạ q Amiel, ̣ poh Saloniqi veqayam. 10. hayah ze bayom 29 leŠevat 5327 layesirá
626 Vidin is a city north o Bulgaria near Wallachia, a southern province o Romania. See map o migration within the Ottoman Empire (Barnavi 1992: 131). 627 From Wallachia. 628 Could be allí. 629 Could be enterí.
—
411
ranslation (Te testimony o Yisra’el Šim‘on rom Vidin): (1–4) Tus he spoke in the oreign language: as I was sitting in my shop in Vidin a gentile the acquaintance mine.out As by he the sawKing me he to me andI saw we discussed evildoingsocarried o came Wal630 lachia and o Sivas. (4–7) Without my prompting him 631 he also said to me ‘I ound my companion Yose Ruso and two o his step-brothers who were always with him, dead and I personally buried them’. (7–10) Tis was testi ed (afer the threats and warnings)632 and the orementioned witness Israel also said that he was a riend o the orementioned Yose Ruso and that his two step-brothers were called Yisḥ ạ q and Aharon Amiel.633 Tis testimony was taken and sealed on 29 Ševat 5327 (1566) in Salonica. (All this was on uesday 29 Ševat 5327 here in Salonica. Please tell us i Yose Ruso’s wie is allowed to marry.) Decision: She is allowed to remarry or several reasons. Te Gentile spoke without being prompted and he knew the name o the deceased. Te act that he did not name the ather o the deceased or town does not affect the validity o the testimony. Te Gentile also con rmed that he buried him, and mentions three other people whom he appears to know well.
A province in urkey. Tis spontaneous witness testimony is legally important, see mesiaḥ le tumo in Appendix 3. 632 Tis reers to the usual threats and warnings that witnesses were given beore testiying in court. 633 In translation, I omit the apparent repetition o ‘Isaac’. Tere were only two brothers, and in any case brothers would not have the same name. 630 631
412 66. orat Emet 3 Zraya, the witness, testi es that he saw the body o Nissim hurled by the waves and was with the body or over an hour. Te 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 aogó 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 635
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
ondas leydaba la cabeza aly edicho nel har(ebí) navío, todo ̣ ia siera dedía demandimos Zerahesto lo vido cierto muerto, y respondió y dišo que lo vido cierto muerto sin dubda ninguna, y dišo como estubo sobre él como una hora y más desde que lo vido muerto. 636
634 635 636
Here dientro appears, but dentro in orat Emet 6 l. 10. Read: en el. Read: de día.
—
—
413
ranslation (We were discussing the matter concerning an agunah, when Zraya Chanukah came orward and testi ed that once while he was traveling on a ship on the way to Constantinople, together with other Jews and with Nissim ten the miles son oaway Yehudah big storm raged broke the anchors rom Rames, Castille.aWhilst Nissim wasand standing on the side o the ship, a big wave came and threw him into the water. Zraya testi ed): (1–4) In testimony he recounts how he saw the orementioned Nissim who drowned at sea. He also adds that he saw him afer he died as the sea was pushing him in and out o 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 de nitely dead. He recounted that he was with him or over an hour approximately afer he saw him dead. (Sunday 19 Ḥ ešvan 1500 here in Salonica. Is Nissim’s wie allowed to remarry?) Decision: Te respondent affirms that as the witness saw Nissim oating on the water and testi es that the sea was casting him abou his head was hitting the ship by the thrust o the big waves. Te witness was sure the victim overevidence him aferwards orthe over an hour. Tereore all was this dead shouldhebestood enough to con rm victim’s death and permit the woman in question to remarry. 67. orat Emet 5 Tis is a case about releasing the widow o Mošeh Hassan rom the agunah status. Mošeh was unexpectedly assassinated by guards in Ragusa.
414
Figure 67
1. vehayah omer lo betok ̠ hadebarim ahẹ rim 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 eno ǰo 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 ue con8. 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. alhạ d 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. ranslation (We were sitting as a Court concerning an agunah, when Abr̠ aham came beore us and testi ed that ve years ago this coming abernacles estival, he was in Esphalt near the city o Ragusa. Whilst he was in a hotel there, a gentile who was a guard in a place called Lazarito asked him or one asper to buy a raki.637 Abr̠ aham gave him two aspers and 637
urkish or a2003: drink111). known as arac or aguardiente, an alcoholic drink made rom aniseed (Romero
—
415
he heard the gentile to whom he had given the two aspers talking to his riend 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 riend o mine, who, whenever I asked or any asper [money] he would give it to me. I am very angry that because o me he was killed by the guards o Raguśa. (5–12) One Sabbath at twenty hours,640 the said guards o 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 ollowing Saturday night641 they buried him in clothes over there. I 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. ̠ gentilesHakohen (Abraham recounted to us the above conversation with the two as a testimony on Wednesday 20 Kislev 1597 in Salonica.)
Decision: Mošeh’s wie is permitted to remarry. 68. orat Emet 6 Elias bar Ya‘aqob brings this testimony to the Court. As Aharon is ̣ talking to Elias, the daughter o Ezra sadik appears. She is the widow o Matatia Ruso who drowned at sea. Aharon relates his version o the death o Matatia. He hears rom a Gentile the act that he had just buried Matatia Ruso, with a detailed account o his appearance. His testimony, recounted spontaneously, is vital in order to veriy the death o the victim and to ree his widow o 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 o a man’s death and this is sometimes crucial to allow the widow in question to be able to remarry. See mesiach le tumo in Hebrew glossary, Appendix 3. 639 Present-day Dubrovnik. 640 At 8 o’clock in the evening. 641
Noche de alhạ d, surviving Judeo-Spanish translation o Motzae Shabbat, the eve afer the Sabbath.
416
Figure 68 Part 1
Figure 68 Part 2
—
417
1. kam al raglav vehe‘id ve’amar ek ̠ hu diber emet: que él 2. estando trabaǰando en caśa de har(ebí) Šelomó David, y(išmerehu) ̣ s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), vino 3. abuscarlo rebí Ahạ rón bar Abr̠ aham miq(ahal) q(adóš) Quiena,642 y(ehọ neneha) E(lión) a(mén), y no lo 4. alló en caśa a r(ebi) Selomó David haniz(kar), y asentose dito har(ebí) 5. Ahạ rón bar Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) a ablar con rebí Eliyá bar Ya‘aqob dicho, 6. y estando ablando con r(ebí) Eliyá haniz(kar) salió la hiǰa de ̣ 7. rebí Ezrá sadic, z(ikr̠ onó librajá), que está agunah y la vido rebí Ahạ r6n bar 8. Abr̠ aham haniz(kar) demandó a r(ebí) Eliyá: por qué no se caśa la hiǰa ̣ 9. de rebi Ezrá sadic haniz(kar), y r(ebí) Eliyá respondió: como se ha643 de 644
10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.
caśar que sobre se aogó marido derebí ntroAhạ de mar y nony dišo: hay ‘edut él; yelrespondió rónlahanizk(ar) haberés645 de saber que yo estando en un navio pequeño cargado qe yayin ancorado entre dos caśales646—Miriopiti647 y Erekli,648 pasó un navío grande que venía de Qustanti(nah) y ía649 a Saloniqui, y que él vido en aquel navío lerebí Matatiá Ruso y abló conél ‘al in’ián piqadón e(hạ d), y tanbién le dišo que quería una cantarica de vino, y no tuvo tienpo Matatiá Ruso de tomar nada de mano de r(ebí) Ahạ rón haniz(kar), porque 19. el navío grande ía de prisa pasando el navío dito
Read: Quiana, see chap. 4 n. 657. Error in spacing here could alter the meaning; text has sea, meaning ‘be’, but se ha means ‘ought to’. 644 Read: dentro. 645 Archaic orm o habréis. 646 Casal is the Judeo-Spanish equivalent o Spanish aldea ‘village’. It is closer to the Galician meaning ‘a part o the village’, and Portuguese casal ‘a small group o 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 o Marmara (Mostras 1873: 166). 648 Erekli (Eribolea Heraclea Britica), city in urkey situated on the gul o the Black Sea (Mostras 1873: 142). 649 Note the Galician orm o the imperect o ir also in ll. 19, 20 and ían in text 26:9, see Entwistle (1965: 308). Te orm ia is also attested as the imperect o ser in Leonese in Curueña, Murias, Laciana, Babia and El Bierzo (Zamora Vicente 1967: 97). 642 643
418 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.
onde ía rebí Matatiá Ruso adelante; caminaría como una milla y quiśi ron650 los del navío voltar la vela del navío que había tenpentá651 enla mar, y ala voltada de la vela el navío se undió, y estuvimos mirando la maravilla cómo se aogaron todos, y el ‘akum652 de mi
25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.
navío onde yo estaba salió, y ue a dar aviśo alos ‘akum del caśal, que es lugar de Oanlik653 que es enrente de Mármara; cuando tornó el akum al navío onde yo estab(a), era mesíah leí tumó con migo y dišo: quies654 saver Ahạ rón qué tardí, que venimos de enterrar aquel rebí Matatiá Ruso que ablaste conél, aquel dela cara picada, alto de cuerpo köse:655 aél y otras dos criaturas saquimos dela agua y los enterramos en un arenal enla orilla dela mar, por eso tardí hata656 agora. odo esto me dišo r(ebí) Aḥ arón bar Ab̠ raham allí asentado. Velizku̠ t velire’ayah hạ tamnu šemotenu anu B(et) D(in) bayom 29
leNisán ̣ 5357 36. layes irá besaloniqi veqayam 37. Šelomó Lebet Haleví dayán, Leví Cozin dayán, Ya‘aqob Rubio dayán. ranslation (–2– 0) In a united session o three judges we, the undersigned, were in the court when Elias, the son o Ya‘aqob came to us and afer threats and warnings, he (1–11) rose, testi ed and said how he spoke the truth: as he was working in the house o Šelomoh David,may God guard him and keep him alive, 657
Aharon, Ab̠ raham’s son, rom the urkishcommunity o Chiana,
may
Tese words are normally joined as quiśieron; could be read as quiśeron. Modern Spanish: tempestad. 652 Abbreviation or ‘obe̠ d koka̠ bim umazalot. 653 Oanlik; this toponym is most similar to Avanlí, a town in urkey, but it is not opposite Marmara. 654 Quies is an archaic poetic orm o quieres (Menéndez Pidal 1958: 338), and also a Leonese (mirandés) orm o quieres (Zamora Vicente 1967: 197). 655 Köse: the only word in this text rom a non-Hispanic or Hebraic srcin that is not a toponym. urkish, see Appendix 2. 656 Hata (c. modern Spanish hasta) could well be a loose pronunciation o hasta as is common in some Andalusian speech, although asta is also attested in Judeo-Spanish (Nehama 1977: 64) and appears as hasta in our other instances in the texts. 657 Chianatoiswhich a smallthe town Italy insee theMolho region (1950: around226) Ancona. It is this(1941: community in Salonica textinalludes, and Galante 168). 650 651
—
419
God strengthen it, came to look or him and did not nd theoremen̠ raham’s son, sat tioned Šelomoh David at home. Te said Aharon, Ab down with the said Elias, Ya‘aqob’s son. He sat down to speak to Elias. Te daughter o Ezra zadik, o blessed memory, who is an [agunah] enchained woman, appeared. Aharon, and Elias replied Ab̠ raham’s son saw her and asked Elias why the daughter o Ezra zadik is not married, with the question as to how he expects her to be married i her husband drowned at sea and there is notestimony about him? (11–20) Te said Aharon replied ‘you should know that when I was in a small boat laden withwine, anchored between two villages, Myriophiton and Erekli, a large boat that came and went rom Constantinople to Salonica went past’. In that ship he saw Matatia Ruso.658 He spoke to him on the subject o depositing goods,659 and he also said to him that he wanted a pitcher o wine. Matatia Ruso did not have time to take anything rom Aharon’s hand because the large boat hurried past, where Matatia Ruso stood at the ront, going ahead o the said small boat. (20–27) Afer it had advanced about a mile, those in the large boat tried to turn the sail o the ship as there was a storm in the sea. As they turned the sail, the boat sank. We watched the marvel o how they all drowned. Te gentile660 in my boat went to warn the gentiles o the village o 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 ace, with a tall body and beardless.662 We took him and another two people 663 out o the water, Note that this testimony changes rom direct to indirect speech. ‘Al in’ián piqadón: these are the laws about depositing goods with someone and the nancial responsibilities incurred (under the subject o loans). (Mishnah, Bava Kama 9: 7) (BIURP 2003). 660 Can also mean ‘captain o the ship’. 661 Te judge allows the testimony on grounds o spontaneity, as the inormation is retrieved without probing. See mesiach le tumo in Appendix 3. Tereore, Aharon realises that the Gentile who saw the victim drown becomes a valid witness in the agunah case. 662 Description and recognition o the victim is o vital legal signi cance. 663 Criaturas is a term o endearment. According to DRAE 12th edition criaturas is used colloquially to mean propiedades de niño ‘childlike properties’; used in this sense o tenderness in Lazarillo de ormes ( feenth century Spanish novel—anonymous author). 658 659
420 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, Ab̠ raham’s son, was sitting there. (35–37) Out o merit and proo 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 wie is permitted to marry on the basis o this testimony as the Gentile witness mentions the victim’s name. 69. orat Emet 27 A man is killed by two gangsters. Te murderers are caught and punished. Te pregnant and gives birth a child whotodies within thirty days.widow Underis the levirate command sheto may have marry the deceased man’s brother, i the child she bore was not ully ormed, or born beore term. Also, the document she provides about her husband’s death may not exonerate her rom the status o agunah.
Figure 69
—
421
veyeš beyad ha’išá ̣ mišené anašim ibr̠ im katub ̠ vehạ tom vezé lešonó: por ser 1. šetar 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. a rmados aquí. ‘ad kan ranslation (Tis concerns a man who did not return home. Te matter was researched and it was ound that thieves had killed him. One o the thieves was caught by the authorities and hanged. Te wie has a document written and signed by two servants, stating): (1–5) Te woman had in her hand a document rom 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 o them was put on a stick over here. 664 Tis is the truth according to the undersigned. Te end. (Te woman was pregnant. She then gave birth to a child who died within thirty days. She has a document rom the Court stating that two women testi ed that Ester gave birth and subsequently lost the child within thirty days. Is the testimony o women accepted in order to release her rom the levirate duty,665 just like the testimony o women is accepted to testiy the death o her husband [in the case o agunot]? Secondly, can it be understood rom the words ‘zera’ šel qayama’ [lit. 666
children who thereore persevere]reeing [written in the document] the duty child and was ully ormed his mother rom the that levirate 667 chalitzah. As Rambam writes in Hilchot Yibum chapter 1, i we cannot rely on this, can we orce the woman to do chalitzah or not?)
A orm o torture. See yibum in Appendix 3. 666 Tis implies in this context that the child was already a ormed child. 667 A symbolic ceremony inorder to ree the woman bound by the levirate command to marry her deceased husband’s brother in order to produce an heir rom her duty. 664 665
422 Decision: Women are not trusted to testiy that their child was born afer a ull term pregnancy in order to exempt her rom 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 rom this command as the child was born alive. When it is a doubtul case it is completely prohibited or a man to marry his brother’s widow. He is orced to perorm the ceremony that rees him rom 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 rom the question. 70. orat Emet 92 Someone lays claim to a relative’s estate. Proo is needed as to the blood relationship between these people beore the eligibility o the claim can be determined.
Figure 70
—
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 . . . ranslation (Šelomoh, Vidal Ḥ onen’s son, asked us to accept the testimony o 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. Ten Yisḥ ạ q testi ed 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 ạ q asked them ‘how are you related?’ Tey replied that his ather Yomtov was rst cousin to Vidal, Šelomoh’s ather. Tus Isaac heard this many times rom the brothers. Ten Chanania Russo testi ed that he was also present when Šelomoh called Ḥ ayim, Yomtov’s son to join him in his wedding east.) (1–4) We are related, as I do not have another relative here in Salonica other than him. Ten he asked him how they were related, and he replied ‘we are second cousins, my ather and his ather were rst cousins’. (Tese are all the testimonies accepted here in Salonica. Judge Ḥ ayim Abr̠ aham, son o Mošeh de Boton. Judge Meir Ḥ avan. Judge Abr̠ aham Yisḥ ạ qi). Decision: Te respondent says there is a concern i a closer relative exists and i the one who possesses the money is allowed to retain it in his possession.
668 In the Hebrew introduction o the question the word primo ‘cousin’ is used in Judeo-Spanish.
424 71. orat Emet 165 Re’uben makes a will that he later changes. Oro, Clara’s daughter, makes a claim based on the rst will. Te respondent has to decide the legal validity o Oro’s claim. Te wills are recorded on 5 May (10 Iyar 5359) and 6 November 1599 (28 Ḥ ešvan 5360).
Figure 71 Part 1
—
425
Figure 71 Part 2
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 669 670
̣ ketubá esló ̣ savaá ̣ Re’uben met venimsat zu vezé lešonó; en nombre del Dio a días seis de novemre de 1599 en caśa de la morad(a) veku̠ (leh), allándome yo Yišai Cohen dotor por la gracia del š(em) yit(barak)̠ sano y de mi ǰuicio linpio enpero mal dispuesto del cuerpo, ago, y ordeno éste mi último testamento revocando y caśando y anulando cual quier otro testamento o ǰunta del que por el pasado asta este día hubiese echo, por lo cual recomendo la alma al š(em) y(itbarak)̠
el cuerpo ordeno que sea an enterr en la los helugar yaonde se ent(i)err misado hermanos plo ǰa669 delquiero breos. Declaro haver echo de mi mano una nota de todo mi mobil’ asta veku(leh), dešo a la nuesa sinagoga de los hebreos veku(leh), dešo a dona Oro ǰa de dona Clara Ben Šek̠ em para ayuda de su dote cien ducados veku(leh), y todo el resto de mis bienes tanto dinero como vestidos y otra ropa dešo a670 dona Joya, que ue muǰer de Yose Sorogano, y a las dos ǰas de dita Joya veku(leh). Apotroposim y comisarines hago Cannot ndsrcin or meaning o ploǰa; contextually, it could be a ‘plot’. BIURP: et. In act this is the Hebrew word or a, ‘to’.
426 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. ǰa de dona Clara Ben Šek̠ em, y le doy al encuentro un 22. escrito de cincuenta úngaros los cuales he de haber de 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.
Šelomoh Javillo sobre tanta madera de ragua navío, la cual madera esta en el magaćín de dito Javillo. Declaro como el día de hoy que cinco de mayo del 1599, he do671 haber de Šelomoh Javillo como pareçe por otro escrito de su mano escudos 196, de gerúš 36 por escudo. Declaro más cómo he de haber de Aḥ arón Amadeo veku̠ (leh), de claro cómo he de haber de pel(oní) veku̠ (leh), declaro como tengo en 30. caśa veku̠ (leh) ésta mi haćienda con los ducados dośientos veku(leh). 31. Dešo ala dita Joya y sus ǰas y todos estos dineros 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40.
que dešo tanto en contante cúanto en debidos tengan a gana(n)çcia. Y la ganançia dellos se désea la dita Joya y sus hiǰas672 ku̠ (leh). Última mente digo y declaro673 que así contante como prendas, como escrituras, todo esté en mano de dicha, la cual quiero sea dueña y padrona674 de que ninguno le pueda demandar cuenta ni cośa ninguna, porque de todo la ago patrona absoluta mente, y quiero que ésta mi voluntad675 non se pueda rebocar en ningún modo.
ranslation (1–5) Re’uben died and a document was ound with him and this is the language: In the name o God,676 on the sixteenth o November 1599, in the house o the abode etc., as I, Yishai Cohen, the doctor, by the grace
671 672 673 674 675 676
Read: de. Note the different orm hiǰas as opposed to ǰas elsewhere in the text. BIURP: declado. Read: patrona. It is unclear i the text means to write veluntad or voluntad. Lit., ‘the Name be blessed’.
—
427
o the Blessed God, eel 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 o all my possessions, (13–18) I bequeath to our synagogue o the Jews etc., and I bequeath to Oro, Clara Ben Šek̠ em’s daughter in order to help with her dowry one hundred ducats etc. and all the rest o my estate, money as well as clothes and other goods should go to Joya who was Yose Sorogano’s wie and to both daughters o the said Joya etc. (18–19) I make so and so the guardians and protectors, to so and so and so and so, and i so and so do not want, then so and so in place o so and so. (19–23) I am changing the donation o one hundred ducats which was going to Oro, Clara Ben Šek̠ em’s daughter and I give her a note 677 o fy ungars that Šelomoh Havillo owes me rom so much timber used or building ships. (23–27) Tis timber is in the said Havillo’s shop. I declare this today, 5 May 1599. I should have rom another written document rom Havillo’s own hand, one hundred and ninety six escudos, thirty six piastres per escudo.678
A document stating the amount o money. Tirty-six gerushot per escudo provides inormation on the exchange rate at the time. Te gerush was the most sought-afer coin by urkish merchants. At times it was worth orty, fy and fy- ve aspers. In 1582 Sultan Murad III depreciated the gerushot to orty aspers in order to make up or nancial losses incurred in the wars against Persia and Austria (Goodblatt 1952: 59–60). 677 678
428 (28–34) I declare urthermore that I should have rom Aharon Amadeo etc. and should have rom 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. Te 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 o the orementioned, whom I want to be the owner and boss, to whom no-one can call to account or anything whatsoever. I put her in control o absolutely everything and I want my wish not to be revoked in any way. Decision: Tis will is completely annulled or a number o reasons. Clara’s gif is annulled. 4.11 Responsa o Moses ben Joseph rani in She’elot u-eshuvot haMabit (Venice 1629)680 (Part I) 72. HaMabit Chelek Aleph 292681 Elias claims rom Ab̠ raham, the guardian o the orphans o the late Mošeh, stock to the value o 100 bars o lead. Elias claims that he gave the late Mošeh money to purchase these 100 bars o lead that Mošeh sent to Egypt to his brother-in-law Baruk̠ with an agent, Yose. Te respondent has to decide the validity o the claim.
679 680 681
Implying letters o credit. BIURP uses the Lemberg 1861 or Parts 1–3. Same case as text 34, Divre Rivot 92.
—
429
Figure 72A
430
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 nuestoros 682 por lo cual le pido de merçed ̣ 3. a mi señor primo kebod rebí Yose, y(išmerehu) s (uró) v(ihạ yehu), 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. alta, porque ansí lostengo cargos ami cuenta y 8. ansí selo pido de merçé a mi señor primo veku̠ (leh), y por 9. cabśa de los caretero(s) non lo aparté aquí salbo queva 683 10. mezclado con lo nuestros, y en esto non haya 11. alta ‘ad kan: veketab ̠ ahẹ r šelaḥ ahạ r kak ̠ lek(ebod) r(ebí) Yose vezé nusó: 12. señor Primo con kebo̠ d rebí Selomó Besudo vos escribí una 13. cart(a) por lo cual vos es cribía684 que diésedes a k(ebo̠ d) r(ebí) ̣ 14. Baruk̠ , y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), 100 quintales deplomo por lo cual por él venirse
682 683 684
Read: nuestros. Read: queword va. separation. Unusual
—
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 alta que sean venidos en el 19. primer pasaǰ(e) ‘ad kan. ‘od katab ̠ leahị v šel k(ebod) r(ebí) Eliyá ̠ hatobe‘a 20. vezé nusó: a lo que dećís que vos mande recabdo687 par(a) el 21. señor k(ebo̠ d) r(ebí) Eliyá dicho: hiǰo, que cad(a) hora espero a Mošeh 22. Primo en viniendo luego sela mandaré B(e‘ezrat) H(ašem) veku̠ (leh), salvo que 23. lo que diće que vino detorno dea quella688 mercaduría’, digo ̣ 24. por vida de Abr̠ aham, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), que a (lu) lo que teníamos allí’ dela 25. alta non vino nimeno(s), se vendió allí mas de 100 quintales en 26. todo asta’ la ora dela partid(a) del navío y eso 689 27. hubiera mirá si era menester costes, y çiertomercadoría’ quesi 28. venido algún para retorno de aquella que 29. hićiera más dela raźón, mas por vida de Ab̠ raham veku̠ (leh).
Part B 1. 2. 3. 4.
šekatab:̠ porque los dichos 100 quintales non entran en cuenta de lo que hemandado por cuento nuestro y por cabśa de los careteros non lo aparté salvo que iba mezclado
ranslation (I am writing concerning what appears to me to be a hundred bars o lead that Elias Mappot, orphan o Mošeh, who claims that he gave Mošeh one hundred bars o lead to be sent to Egypt to Baruk,̠ his brother-in-law. Mošeh wrote to Baruk ̠ saying that he should accept it rom Yose the messenger. He also wrote in another document to Yose, that when Baruk ̠ leaves Egypt to return to Salonica, he should transer BIURP: con, note that con means ‘with’, non means ‘no’. Crews, who lists this as part o the lexis o Salonica and Sarajevo, says Chérézli translated this as emplette ‘purchase’ (Crews 1955: 222). 687 Recabdo, modern Spanish: recaudo. 685 686
688 689
de aquella. as beore. Read: mercadería
432 the hundred bars o lead to another batch o merchandise and send it to him. Mošeh died beore the merchandise arrived. Now Elias asks Abr̠ aham, 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 o lead with our merchandise in respect o my cousin Yose, may his Rock guard him and keep him alive. [I asked ] that he should deliver them rom the quantity that he is taking belonging to me, as the said 100 bars o lead are not included what I have sent. Tis [the inclusion o the 100 bars o lead] is not necessary because, in this way, the insurance will be on my account, and this is what I have asked rom my respectable cousin etc. (8–11) Because o the guard carriers I did not separate them here, so 690 it went mixed up with ours etc, in this way there should be nothing missing.691 Te end. (11–19) Later Mošeh wrote to Yose saying: ‘My revered cousin, I sent you a letter with the respected Šelomoh Besodo saying you should give to Baruk 100 bars o lead that you will not have given him because he came back. I thereore plead with you that you should take 100 bars o lead rom the cargo and keep it 692 separate or me and send them with the rst (people) who come back to us, with the help o God. For this reason it does not matter i they do not come in the rst shipping’. Te end.
Lit., ‘except’ or ‘only that’. Tis reerence to hiding the merchandise rom the guard carriers could be or a couple o reasons. (1). Tere were requent losses o lie and property during travel by land and sea (Goodblatt 1952: 52). (2). Tere was custom duty imposed at a higher percentage or Jews and Christians than or Muslims. Tis could be an attempt to conceal merchandise rom the authorities to avoid payment o custom duty since Goodblatt argues that the discrimination o Jewish merchants encouraged them to avoid payment altogether (Goodblatt 1952: 51). However, the payment o custom duty is mentioned in l. 27. 692 Lit., ‘to spend’. 690 691
—
433
(19–25) Ten he wrote to the brother o Elias, the claimant, saying ‘[in reply to] your advice that I should send Elias a bill on your behal, I say that I am waiting every hour or Mošeh Primo to come and then I will send it to him please God etc. As to his view about what returned rom that merchandise, I say, on the lie o Ab̠ raham, that rom our merchandise included what was missing, everything came intact. (25–29) Over 100 bars o lead were sold there until the time the ship lef and this [the money rom the sale] was needed or custom duty. Certainly i anything would have come back rom that merchandise it would have been more understandable, on the lie o Ab̠ raham etc.’ (Furthermore, the widow and step-son wrote a document o admission in hẹ šván 1554 that it is well-known to them that the merchandise rom Egypt is replacing the lead that the late Mošeh sent with Ab r̠ aham to Yose in Egypt: a hundred bars o lead rom Elias who gave seven thousand aspers to Mošeh.) Part B (1–4) he wrote ‘because the said 100 bars o lead should not be included in what I have sent on our account and because o the guard carriers I did not separate them. In act they went mixed up together’. Decision: Te respondent explains that i someone commits himsel in writing he cannot claim that he did not mean it seriously and thereore Eliyahu is trusted. He advises that the Jewish Court should appoint three merchants that are experts in negotiation and in accounting and the threee o 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 or her marriage vows to be invalidated. Te kiddushin setting, recorded on Monday 20 Ševat 5322 / 26 January 1562, is analysed in order to grant the nulli cation o these vows. Te maiden must express signs o regret.
434
Figure 73A
Figure 73B
Part A 1. 2. 3. 4.
ve’amar la: toma este testimil693 con lo que está dientro del por qidušín para mí uasetá yadah veqibelah testemil vehạ zar ve’amar la: reçibistes esto por qidušín para mí y dišo694 sí.
693 694
urkish: testi, ‘pitcher’. BIURP: gido.
—
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. hạ tum mata ša‘alnu lana‘arah šehayetah nitsebet bah ạ lón ahạ t šeyes ̣ eah al ze 4. haderek,̠ ve’amarnu la: vos habet696 echo sobre vos algun neder o 5. šebu‘á697 de aćer 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. Veahạ r 9. kak ̠ ‘asinu la heterah. ranslation (Monday 20 Ševat 1562 here in Egypt, in ront o the committee o sages, we had witnesses beore us: Ya‘aqob Mes‘od rom Portugal testi ed that on Tursday 17 Ševat, he knew that Ester was in the lof in the house, with a window that overlooks the street. He got up rom his table and went to the entrance o Ester’s abode. Ten Raa’el Shaltiel and Yehudah who were looking or him when he had lef his table ound 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 o Miriam Ben Šabat?’ She said ‘yes’. He then asked ‘do you want to accept marriage vows rom me?’ She said ‘yes’. He then said to Yehudah and Raa’el ‘take note o who she is and look at this pitcher and its contents that I am going to use as a symbol or marriage’. He then took a our legged bench, climbed on it and): Part A (1–4) He said to her ‘take this pitcher and its contents as kiddushin rom me’. She stretched out her hand and took the pitcher. He repeated to her ‘have you received this as kiddushin rom me?’ She said ‘yes’.
695 696 697
Pos: pues beore it diphthongizes, see section 3.3.1.18.5. Read: habéis. Neder ‘promise’ and šebu‘á ‘oath’ are Hebrew borrowing o a legal terminology.
436 (Te sages asked the witnesses i they knew her. Raa’el said that he knew her beore [the kiddushin]. Yehudah said that he might have recognised her. Mošeh said he did recognise her. Ten Miriam, Ester’s mother brought a document saying ‘I, Ester, orbid on mysel any money or objects given to me or 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 i she was standing by the window that looked on to the street and we told her ‘have you made any promise or vow to nulliy any kiddushin so that you do not take advantage o 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] i youinvalidated have regretted we them.it?’ She said ‘yes I have regretted this’. Aferwards Decision: Ya‘aqob’s marriage vows are invalid because Esther orbade hersel to bene t rom the marriage money. Furthermore, only Raa’el knew her, there are no two witnesses, even Raa’el did not see her clearly as it was in the darkness o night and there is no testimony. (Part III) 74. HaMabit Chelek Gimmel 82 A widow is owed money by Re’uben rom a xed term loan. As she wants to return to her native country she gives her document to Šim‘on to collect the debt on her behal. Šim‘on then obtains the widow’s permission to invest the money on her behal. Afer her death, her children claim this money with interest rom Šim‘on.
—
437
Figure 74 Part 1
438
Figure 74 Part 2
—
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 likt̠ ob 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(uhọ́ ) 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. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
diese aélRe’uben, a ganançia, quepor él los tomaría lo tenía enque muncho quecomo meǰoró, y me ̣ , que si los quiśera dišo nunca conmi hubo mesiut dar aunque como vido que por esta vía no podía con mi, uese a hablar al dicho Re’uben que lema‘an Hašem hićiese con migo que se los diese queestarían muy seguros703 y que sería ganarlo aél enque me lo dicho ̣ lehatot ̣ ’oznai enque cómo pe‘amim rabot, y may rasiti vieron quenon quería, y vieron que yo estaba para ̣ partirme leMisrayim, puso achaques mil diciendo queno 704 lostenía aún, enque como vide que no había ̣ , yque tanto me ahincaban705 díšele un día mesiut
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 reer to a dead person. See also ‘aboo, Death and Mourning Expressions in Judeo-Spanish’ Sharzwald 1984a. 700 Here the diacritic on the nal shin is aint. 701 Te text has a vav between the l and t sound, which must be an error. 702 BIURP: ahị́ , this happens to mean ‘my brother’ in Hebrew, but it is senseless in this context. 703 BIURP: seguos. 704 Word separation error is more requent here than in other texts. 705 DRAE says ahincar has a secondary meaning o ‘to rush’.
440 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.
oǰos,706 y que le daría aquellos a ganançia y lediera otros tantos mios más, en tal quetratase como las ğentes, yque yo me dešaría de mi viaǰe y tomile ševu‘á hạ murá, que cada cuando quese los demandase ansí unos como otros, que dientro de vente días que los había de dar, enque por acortar díselos707 todos ǰuntos, y enpeçó a tratar, enque siguiendo el trato tomó un negro moço708 blao, y una mañana de Šabat que él ue a te lah709 olvidó la llave enel sayo de họ l, y el arel que andaba ala lerta 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 leba̠ nim. Ycomo tomó aquello, hincholó el oǰo y dešó el resto, y no pareció ‘ad hayom vehiyú bikl̠ al ansí que des pués vide yo conque šekol
46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.
reğía deél enpecé demandarle gentes mil enque no Como tomí mása que vente y tantos lebanim. sintió que yo quería levantar el dinero, que el de loque tenía cerró con todo ala banda sin más querer dar más cuenta ni raźón sinon que había perdido otras pérdidas yque había pagado, enque al n loque medišo que con el tienpo ganase que el mepagaría. Esto es señor loque merespondió tanto de lo uno como de lo otro.anbién mepuśo a vueltas de sus esparćedores del dinero que había en perestado710 a su yerno della cuando estuvo aquí dos mil y 50 lebanim, los cuales les debe aun que ella selos tiene, esto es ba‘avonot todo loque se tiene hecho de aquello, y de loque con ello su aǰunto ka ‘et con viene tener paçiençia y esperar a loque dirá ̣ conél por bien el zemán siganare habrá algún mesiut que de otro modo nada non vale ni aprovecha
ext says hiǰos, but this makes no sense here. Tis could be read as díselos, ‘I gave them to him’ or dejelos, ‘I lef them’. 708 BIURP: ozo. 709 It is interesting to note that words like te lah that are not o Iberioromance srcin can experience neutralisation o the vowel /e/ to /i/ in some regions. Tis has been documented in Sarajevo and Bitola. See table in Quintana 2006: 46. 706 707
710
Read: prestado.
—
441
ranslation (Furthermore, concerning the sons o the widow, they have a letter rom Šim‘on Yehudah, her [the widow’s] relative, who inormed him concerning the widow’s death. When he saw that she died, he changed and wrote to his mind, not mention borrowing the moneywhat and came the widow’s reply.and He did completely deniedabout the previous letter and this is his letter, word or word): (1–9) I did think, sirs, o reeing these rascals, now, Duke, since the perpetrator is the one who is ree and is writing about them over here. However you should consider that afer it will emerge that he saw the contents o 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 o the deceased lady. (9–18) You should know gentlemen, that Maras brought me a letter rom the deceased, saying that I should take them [the money to be invested] rom 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 or pro t. When in all that commotion Levi elt I was about to take possession o them, he asked me to give them to him at a pro t. He said he would take possession o 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 pro t rom me. [He said to me that] i I wanted to give them Itoshould him, he sawspeak that tohethe could persuade methe with this argument, go to said not Re’uben that, or sake o 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 reused, and they saw that I was about to leave or 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 or it [the 711 712
Unclear paragraph. Or it could mean ‘that I am winning them rom him’.
442 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 pro t, (30–38) and also some o 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 or 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 o investing he took on a black lad rom Wallachia. (38–44) On a Sabbath morning on his way to the morning service, he orgot 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 rom 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 lef the rest [o the money]. (44–53) ill this day it has never turned up. So afer I saw this I began to ask people with ull determination not to take rom him more than twenty odd thousand aspers. As he elt that I wanted to take the money or which he had resorted never to be accountable, or give any reason about the act that he had lost this amount and made other losses, he said he had paid and that he would pay me in the uture when he would be making a pro t. (53–62) Tis 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 or him. Tis is, or our sins, what has been done about it. Now is the right and appropriate time or all o us to be patient and wait or what time will tell. I there will be a gain it will be rom some unexpected pro t rom him. Any other way o dealing with this is worthless and nonbene cial.
713 714
As opposed to the robe he would wear on the Sabbath. Arel: Hebrew borrowing lit., the ‘uncircumcised’, i.e. the Gentile.
—
443
(Concerning this letter, the heirs, the children o 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 conesses his wrongdoing, his actions prove that rom 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 o the widow. Can he be innocent o his negligence concerning the orementioned 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, hal o what he saved rom Levi belongs to the orphans and the rest he is obliged to make up because he committed a crime. I the money yielded pro t 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 Tere is an interesting discussion in this responsum, based entirely on linguistic nuance and distinction between Judeo-Spanish and Hebrew. Te respondent argues that in the oreign language the use o sea as opposed to seré is vitally important. Sea implies curse—i.e. the jussive subjunctive used in cursing. Seré implies intention. Te respondent has to validate or annul an oath made in a moment o ury.
Figure 75
444 1. veqa‘as veqaas ̣ ve’amar: yo sea nazir Šimšón si morare en 2. esta caśa715 ranslation (Te concerns Re’uben, whose ather did not allow him to x what question he wanted in the house.) (1–2) He was angry, he jumped and said : that I should become a Nazirite like Samson, i 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 ziere tal cośa [I should be damned i I did such a thing] . . . Decision: His language does not constitute an acceptance o the nazirite vows.
715 Although this is a very short extract o Judeo-Spanish it has been included to show the importance o understanding the vernacular in order to ully comprehend the legal analysis. 716 Tis question is o linguistic interest, in that the tense used is legally signi cant. Tere is only one sentence in Judeo-Spanish, yet it is one that the respondent reers to directly in replying to the Nazirite issue. Te problem is that Re’uben’s ather 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 i I were to live in this house). Te subjunctive mood in ‘sea’ (should be) as opposed to ‘seré’ (I will be) is vitally important. Te respondent argues that the language does not re ect any intention on the speaker’s part to undertake the commitment o nazirut. Intention is essential, according to cited sources, or the ul lment o this undertaking. Te word ‘sea’ may imply a curse, it deploys the jussive subjunctive used when cursing. rani gives an example o the use o ‘sea’ in another context: ‘que yo sea malogrado si ciere tal cośa’ (that I should be cursed i 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 ortune). Te point is that the speaker ails to use the uture tense ‘seré’ (I will be).
—
445
4.12 Responsa o Rabbi Moses Alshech 1508–1593 in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharam Alshech (Venice 1605)717 76. Maharam Alshech 44 ̣ , Mošeh was murdered by thieves and the testimony o his In seat death is recounted here. Te legal issue is whether his widow is ree to remarry on the strength o these words.
Figure 76
1. la muerte de 2. Ya‘aqob Cohen, H(ašem) yinqum, ue deste modo, que él y una ǰudía salieron de hạ lev 3. para la a de hạ má718 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 leí tumó a ̣ Mošeh mi ǰo y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), y en 6. esto ba‘avonot no hay saeq que tan bien aeste modo oimos otro ‘edut vešalom
717 718 719
BIURP uses the Lemberg 1789 edition. urkish: hamia, ‘oreign citizen’. urkish: mükâri, ‘muleteer’.
446 ranslation (Tis was the news that was received): (1–3) Te death o Ya‘aqob Cohen, may it be avenged by God , took place this way. He720and Jewess were leaving Aleppo to the house o theinoreign citizen anda the muleteer took them on another route to kill them. (4–6) Other thieves came and killed them [Ya‘aqob and the muleteer].721 Ten one muleteer told the ollowing to another muleteer, a relative o the muleteer they killed. [Tis was heard] spontaneously by my son Mošeh, may God guard him and keep him alive. It is doubtless that, or our sins, in this way we heard another testimony.722 (It is also written there. Te above I heard rom Mošeh Gabizon. All this ̣ was veri ed and signed on Monday 2 Elul 1562 here in s eat.) Decision: Te woman is permitted to marry based on what was written. 77. Maharam Alshech 78 Re’uben travels and leaves his wie as an agunah. In his marriage contract he made an oath never to leave town without giving his wie a divorce. Re’uben’s ather-in-law brings the marriage contract to the Rabbi or clari cation. Tis is Re’uben’s reply.
720 Tis could be an allusion to Joseph or Gracia Nasi, an example o a oreign citizen living in the Ottoman Empire and enjoying privilege. 721 For a legal analysis on the Hebrew Biblical and post-Biblical terms or a thie, whether ganav or gazlan see Jackson (1972: 1–40). 722 Te implication is that Moses heard this conversation between both muleteers. It was a spontaneous, unprompted testimony o Jacob Cohen’s death. Tis constitutes valid testimony in order to ree Jacob’s wie rom remaining an agunah. See mesiach le tumo in Appendix 3.
—
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 hạ ka̠ m peloní, y venga carta rmada 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 ranslation (Re’uben went rom Yisra’el abroad, leaving his wie 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 or his wie. wo years later, he wrote a letter to his ather who lived in the same place as his wie, stating):
723 724
Bet and gimmel: note that numerals are given in Hebrew. urkish: mahalle, ‘district’.
448 (1–2) It was written in the oreign language: i she wants her divorce, I will send it to her as long as she is not thinking o keeping all my estate, because I was not on good terms with them. (3–6) Write to me telling me what is happening, i they are satis ed with this. Let me know [what happens], place the marriage contract in the power o the certain sage and obtain a letter signed by his hand, or two or three o 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 o the world. Tey will not hear rom me as I want nothing to do with such people. Te end. (Afer a time, he sent a divorce bill to his wie signed by the judges o that place. In it, it says ‘give this divorce bill to my wie wherever you nd ehr’). Decision Te 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 wie’s brother. Šim‘on takes the object and reuses to return it to Re’uben. Re’uben makes oaths in the name o God that i the article is not returned within three days, he will divorce his wie. Later Re’uben regrets these vows and wishes to annul them.
Figure 78
—
449
Vezé 1. ha’oen: yo reçibo nezirut Šimšón bar Manoah ̣ ba‘al Delil(a) beko̠ l tena’av que 2. si hasta el ǰueves no725 tornas aquello, que me llevaste de dar get a mi muǰer. 3. ‘ad kan ranslation (Re’uben lef an object in his house or Šim‘on, his wie’s brother. Šim‘on came and took the object. Re’uben heard and became angry. He asked Šim‘on to return it, Šim‘on reused. Re’uben then said ‘i you do not return it in three days I will divorce my wie’ and he said the ollowing): (1–3) And this is the language: I take on the Nazirite laws o Šimšón, Manoaḥ ’s son, Delilah’s husband, with all the conditions. I by Tursday you do not return that object you took away rom me, I will then divorce my wie. Te end. (Re’uben now regrets his action and is asking or an invalidation [o the vow] or various reasons. Firstly, as he said that the vow should be with the acceptance o 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 o the New Year, he should annul all uture vows. Tis is what he does every year. However at the time o the vow he did not remember this annulment. Does he have permission not to divorce his wie?) Decision: Te vow is annulled since on the eve o the New Year [erev Roš Hašanah] he annulled all vows he had made. He thereore does have permission not to divorce his wie.
725
Te vav appears like a nal nun.
450 4.13 Responsa o Rabbi Solomon Ben Abraham Hakohen 1530/5–1602 in She’elot u-eshuvot Maharashach (Salonica 1586–94) (3 volumes)726
(Part I) 79. Maharashach Chelek Aleph 18 Re’uben has a married daughter and a pregnant wie and is about to make a will. Te conditions o the will are outlined below.
Figure 79A and B 726 BIURP uses the Jerusalem 1961 edition or Part 1, and the Venice 1592 edition or Part 2.
—
451
Part A ̣ 1. vezé halašón hakatub besava’á bilšón la‘az: mas diće que si727 2. B(e‘ezrat) H(ašém) pariere su muǰer ǰo o ǰa, toda aquella haćienda
3. en poder del apotropós la terná728 por su hẹ šbón asta 4. que crezca, y después le será entregada beyadam ‘ad kan Part B 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
bilšón la‘az: así declarí quesi h(̣ as) ve(šalom) la criatura que su muǰer pariere viniesea morir antes de tener ben o bat, en tal cavśo quiere que toda su haćienda queavança hereden su ǰa la caśada, y los ǰos desu hermano peloní, igual mente cada uno de todos ellos entrando tanbién su ǰa
729lo da 7. de conellos partir todo bešavé , y esto ạ́ se 8. agora igual bilšóny mataná kadín ve hahalah
ranslation (Re’uben had a married daughter. His wie was pregnant. Ten Re’uben became atally ill and appointed Šim‘on as a guardian o his property to deal with it and to distribute a part [o 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 lef to the son or daughter that his wie will have. Tis is the words o the will): Part A (1–4) Tis is the language written in the will in the oreign tongue: he says that i, please God, his wie has a boy or girl then she will have on her account all the estate in the power o the guardian until the child grows up. Ten it will be passed over to him. Te end.
BIURP: cosi. endrá is the standard Spanish uture orm, see section 3.3.2. 729 Tis text is very indistinct. With the help o BIURP (2003) it can be deciphered, although this later version is ull o errors. 727 728
452 (Aferwards, he commanded that i the son or daughter that his wie 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. Tis is the language o the will): Part B (1–8) In the oreign tongue: In this way I declared that i, God orbid, the child was to die beore having a son or daughter, in such a case then all his estate that is lef shall be inherited equally by his married daughter and by the sons o his brother so and so. All should be shared equally. He bequeaths it rom now as a gif, according to the judgement and the law. (Now the question is asked that since this child is a true heir, does he have the should right togosay thatbrother’s afer his/her [the unborn child’s] death the property to his sons or not?) Decision: Te 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 Tis is a section rom the reply, not the question. It consists o a written account o the disputed nancial arrangement between Šim‘on and Re’uben’s son.
—
453
Figure 80 Part 1
Figure 80 Part 2
454 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
vezé nusak ̠ haketab: mas agora en esta hora recibí una carta vuesa y me escribís de lo que vos aće Re’uben. La verdad que vos diga, yo siempre lo pensé todo esto ̣ delos diecisés como vos me dišistes quele distes el šetar mil as(pros) que ya creo que vos acordarés cuando vos diše ̣ , yo aquí como habías erado en habedle dado el šetar que él sienpre pensó de aćer grande hamosị́ en nuestra moneda, yno se le ha echo es por uerza 730 que ha de buscar mil tranpas para veer si podrá pelear por dónde poder trabar más. Aquí vino el ǰo de Re’uben y no lo he visto aún y este correo está de prisa y no vos puedo responder aquella carta, mas Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem) con otro correo que estará aquí un par dedías pare por vos mandar alguna avor. 731 Si pudiere más para loque dićes quele demande yo aquí ael ǰo de
17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.
Re’uben que me diga que cómo pagó dieciséis mil as(pros), saviendoél comolostomó la escritura que me había dado tanbién amí. Niegará, tedirá cómo no me debía nada, y pues errastes en darle la escritura sin tomar ‘edim como no tenía más demanda con vos. Veahạ r kak ̠ ba ketab a(le) miyad Leví hanizkar šekatab ̠ leŠim‘ón vezé lešonó: deesta no será más sino aćer le saber como reçibí una suya en lo cual me escribe vuesa merçed que vos escribiera por el ǰo de Re’uben, en lo cual los días pasados me vino aquí en la hoğara732 el ǰo de Re’uben yme dišo ciertas palabras ymedió una carta desu padre yme dišo que no escribiera coentra733 su padre, yque él aquí me daría segurança por los vente mil áspe(ros) que todo daño y interés que me viniere de ese pleito, que él melos haría734 buenos y otras çiertas palabras mucho más ondas735 en cośas queno le
730 Here it appears to be a sin and not samech or the apico alveolar; admittedly the text is not clear. 731 Should be algún avor. 732 urkish: hoğara, ‘shop’. 733 ext has cuentra. 734 Occasionally the initial silent ‘h’ is included in the text. 735 Meaning hondas—cosas hondas, ‘proound matters’.
— 34. 35. 36. 37.
455
eran dado aél aentender enellas, y yo la verdad tomí mucho hitpa‘alut y qaastị bišbu̠ ‘á de eneste echo no ablar bien nimal no auna parte ni ̣ aotra. Al hakol yorenu hamoreh moreh sadiq hadín ‘im mi?
ranslation (Re’uben claims that Šim‘on owes him twenty thousand aspers. Tey agreed to abide by the decision o the judges. Šim‘on says that he paid the money back in this way. Levi was owed sixteen thousand aspers rom Re’uben’s son that Re’uben said he would pay. Te remaining our thousand aspers, Šim‘on gave to a gentile, to whom Re’uben owed money. Tereore Šim‘on claims that he is completely ree o any debt). (1–7) Tis is the writing o the document: at this time I receive your letter where you inorm me what Re’uben is doing to you. o tell you the truth, I always suspected this when you told me that you gave him a contract or the sixteen thousand aspers that I am sure you remember when I told you that you were wrong to give him thecontract, (7–10) as he always thought o making a big pro t out o our money. I he has not done so, it is because he must have ound a thousand ways to cheat to see i he can strive to nd more ways o deceiving. (11–15) Re’uben’s son came here and I have not seen him yet. Tis 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 o days I will send you some good news [lit. bene t]. (15–22) I 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 [ nancial] demand o you. (22–27) Afer this, a document written to Šim‘on came [written] by the orementioned 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 ew days,
456 (27–33) He said736 certain words to me, he gave me a letter rom his ather and asked me not to write against his ather and that he will give me [ nancial] assurance with reerence to the twenty thousand aspers, that he would compensate me or any loss or interest that would be incurred on me as a result o this case. [He said] certain other words (33–37) and many more proound points in matters were not clear to him. I honestly was very careul, 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: I Re’uben claimed that Levi did not write any document, Re’uben is a alse claimant and Šim‘on is exempt. Even i he claims that what Levi wrote is not reerring to this debt, he is not trusted to cancel Šim‘on’s claim since he is obliged to ul l the ruling o the arbitration. 81. Maharashach Chelek Aleph 67 A document that explains how a man gives a divorce to his wie afer she has thrown him out o their home, denied everything and kept all her husband’s possessions.
Figure 81 736 Tis verb is in the present tense and ‘looked’ is in the uture tense in the srcinal, but only makes sense in the past tense in translation.
— 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
457
Vezé lešonó belašón la‘az: bien sabés que este get quedó737 ami muǰer que su anus oneś neki̠ l, que bien sabes que me echó de caśa, y se me alevanta con todo lo mío que me lo negaba todo, yno había remedio desacar mi haćienda de su poder . . .
ranslation (Te man who divorced claimed that he was threatened by his ather. Tis is not called divorcing under orce, also he has no obligation o honouring his parents [in this case] he does not have to listen to his ather in order to divorce.) (1–5) And this is his language in the oreign tongue: you know very well about this divorce I am giving my wie, [about the act that] her conversion is a deceitul coercion. You well know that she threw me out o our home and she has kept all my belongings. She has denied everything and there was no way I could remove my estate rom her possession . . . (I do not know this man who wants a divorce, but it seems that he did not have much money as his ather was cruel, to the extent that he ended up working in a lowly job, with wool. So how can he say that his wie took his assets, since even her dowry was not returned?) Decision: Te woman is permitted to remarry and she does not need another divorce because husband allthe the divorce notices when he gave the divorce. On the the basis o the cancelled claim that was given under duress, the divorce is not annulled since he was not entirely coerced. Additionally one o the witnesses o the notice is invalid and so all the testimony is invalidated.
737
Should be que do meaning que doy (that I give).
458 (Part II) 82. Maharashach Chelek Bet 38 Mošeh Attias leaves a will distributing his wealth, amounting to 100,000 aspers. Te deceased man’s brother-in-law was a great scholar who the institute o Jewish learning Salonica was in dire need headed o money. Te question is whether theinwill can beand changed, and some o the money lef to charity can go to the sister and brotherin-law, on the grounds that without money, the latter would have to abandon his learning and teaching.
Figure 82
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
̣ v(e)z(é) l(ašón) hasava’á ̣ : yo tenía veluntad de belašón la‘az vehem dibré hamesavé haćer una obra buena, y non sabía cómo la repart(ir), agora digo que dešo cien mil asp(ros) para738 que anden a ganançia y el cabdal esté siempre rme. Y la ganançia la mitad para el heqdeš de ̣ ‘aniyé seat, t(ibaneh) v(eticoneh) b(imherah) b(iyamenu), y la otra mitad para una
738
BIURP: aara.
—
459
̣ , t(ibaneh) 8. yešibah, para que melden por mi alma739 en seat 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(ihạ yehu), 740 ̣ ‘ad kan lašón hasava’á
ranslation (Just beore the demise o Mošeh Attias, he lef one hundred thousand aspers to hekdesh741 that can be seen in the document o the will): (1–6) And this is the language o the will in the oreign language and these are the words o 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 lef to gain interest and the capital should always remain secure. (6–10) Te interest should be [allotted as ollows:] hal or the sacred ̣ , may it be rebuilt speedily in our lietime, property o the poor in seat and the other hal or an institute o almudic learning so that they ̣ , may it be rebuilt speedily in our lieshould pray or my soul in seat time. Te money should be in the power o two main people in Salonica together with my brother, may God guard him and keep him alive. Te language o the will nishes here. (He [Mošeh Attias] has a riend, who is married to his sister, who is a great almudic scholar. He learns all day and has no income. He has daughters o marriageable age and has no means o doing so [affording theirlearning marriage]. travel to collect unds and have to stop andHe thiswould wouldhave affectto the whole centre o almudic learning in Salonica as he is their leader . . . Te question is thereore asked i the charity money can be directed to his [the deceased] brother-in-law, on the grounds that they are helping a almudic institute and children. Can they get permission to change the will?)
739 740 741
Te concept o ilui nishmat (‘in memory o the soul o . . .’). Tis will is particularly clear and intelligible. ‘Charitable purpose’, see hekdesh, Appendix 3.
460 Decision: Te treasurers are entitled to deviate rom the will and to use the money or the needs o his brother-in-law Binyamin and or his daughters’ dowry. 83. Maharashach Chelek Bet 134742 wo testimonies are recorded in relation to this case, one in Monastir and one in Salonica. Te question is whether Re’uben is legally married to the young woman to whom he hands over a ring as an object o betrothal, or whether she is ree to marry someone else. Te respondent believes the kiddushin is invalid or various reasons.
742
Tis responsa is discussed in Benaim 1999a.
—
461
Figure 83 Part 1
462
Figure 83 Part 2
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Vekatub ̠ lematah que él por agora no quería demandar nada que asu tiempo él demandaría o aquí o a otro lugar, tornáronle a dećir haB(et) D(in) que por eso estaban todos a ǰuntados para saver la verdad de esto que los demandadores dećían que querían caśar esta moça, o saver si los qidušín eran valutos.743 Respondió Re’uben hanizkar ve’amar que era
8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
verdad que él la había sido meqadéš lipelonít. Demandáronle B(et) D(in): ¿de qué modo?, respondió: saverés señores como rogué a dos o tres mancevos mis amigos hoy a medio día, estando los turcos en ǰuma744 que me ćiesen un plaćer 745 que quería que viniesen con mi que quería dar qidušín a una moça. Y tomé un anillo y se lo mostré, y lo ui a aćer y
743 744 745
Italian: valid (Old It. valuto, past participle o valere). urkish: ǰuma is the Islamic Holy day. French idiom—aire plaisir.
— 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
463
peśaba un metical746 y siete checardites747 y los748 llevé a los ‘edim al cortiǰo, y ellos quedaron abašo los dos ‘edim, y uno ue con él arriba y batí a la puerta y me abrió la moça, y diše yo a los ‘edim: ¿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 Naḥ um, y(išmerehu) ̣ s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), primo 23. con hermano de la moça, ǰos de dos hermanos de la 24. moça, y otro es Yose Basa un bahụ r orastero 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 ueron mahṛ i(m) que va 27. al e(šet) i(š) uba‘al, vešalah ̣ veqare’ú haBet Din haniz(kar) le‘edi(m) hanizk(arim) veša‘alú 28. inyán leorastero šehayah harišón ma ‘edut hayah me‘id ‘al 29. han(izkar) l(ema‘ala), vehešiv haorastero han(izkar) l(ema‘ala) šehú be’inyán han(izkar) l(ema‘ala) lo 30. hayah yode‘a lo miná velo miqnatam,749 hạ zerú lomar lo haBet Din haniz(kar) 31. re’eh mah še’atah omer vehešiv : lo que he dicho digo 750 que no sé 32. nada sobre este cavśo, con esto diǰéronle que se 33. uese y salió uera. Ba ha’ahẹ r šehú Selomó Boa 34. vegazar ‘alav hạ ka̠ m 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 Yose Baça y a Manuel Naḥ um 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 uimos asta la puerta 39. del cortiǰo y le demandimos: ¿entrasteis dientro 746 Spanish word rom Arabic miţqāl; a measure o weight equivalent to 4.25 grams. 747 urkish: çekirdek, grains, a measure o weight o gold and o precious stones, about a quarter o a carat. 748 BIURP: lot. 749 A Hebrew idiom meaning that he had no knowledge o the matter. 750 One digo seems to be super uous, unless the text intends: lo que he dicho digo and the diacritic is missing rom the rst digo.
464 40. 41. 42. 43. 44.
del cortiǰo? Dišo que sí, y subió este mancevo el meqadéš ariba y mos dišo: ¿estás abašo? Mira que do qidušín. Demandámosle B(et) D(in): ¿viste alguna?751 Dišo: en aquella caśa habían cuatro o cinco muǰeres, non vide quien eran. Otro que dišo: mira hermanos que do qidus(ín).
45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55.
Estando en esta hạ quirah vederisah a este ‘edut de este ‘ed sacó el Ḥ ayim šehú Re’uben, han(izkar) l(em‘ala), un papel dela alduquera y dišo: buenos qidušín tengo dado que aquí me tengo a rmado. Los ‘edim demandáronle la carta, dišo que si752 le echasen meah hạ ramot no la daría. Ahạ r kak ̠ hạ zerú haB(et) D(in) vešalehụ́ liqró leorastero Baça ve’amerú lo šeharebí Ḥ ayim hineh. Omer que lo tenía a rmado en una carta por ‘ed, que diese el ‘edut de lo que savía, y dišo que macare753 le echasen setenta hạ ramot que él no diría nada asta que los otros dos diesen el ‘edut, que había tomado šebu‘ah beseer 754
56. torah darque ‘edut . Amrú lo haB(et) D(in)hatarah, que era orçado 57. de dardeel no ‘edut para la šebu‘ah le darían 58. y le dimos hatarah, y después, ahạ ré haiyum vehagizum 59. vegazerú ‘alav hẹ rem 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 orastero y 62. me orçó asta que me źo ir, enesto uimos 63. todos755 tres ǰuntos hoy a oras dela ǰuma al 64. cortiǰo de harab Yose Naḥ um, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), quedimos mos otros756 65. tres abašo arrimados en una paredica ronte 66. del barandado del dito Naḥ um, n(uhọ́ ) e(den), y subió ariba el 67. dito Ḥ ayim y había una manta de ronte de la Presumably the word muǰer is missing rom this sentence. Note that shin yod could indicate a variety o meanings. It could be se, meaning the third person re exive pronoun, or sé, meaning ‘I know’, or si, meaning ‘i’, or sí, meaning ‘yes’. Te context determines the correct transcription. 753 From the Greek makare, meaning Spanish ojalá (‘would that’); also has the meaning o ‘even i’, as in this case. 754 Another example o language switching. 755 BIURP: tedos. 756 Should be one word, mosotros; note the initial m instead o n, nosotros ofen ound in Judeo-Spanish. It is interesting that this orm does not appear more ofen, suggesting that the Judeo-Spanish has not yet ully evolved. 751 752
—
465
68. 69. 70. 71. 72.
puerta, y la alzó y dišo: ¿estás abaǰo vos otros?757 Y dišo: mirá que do un anillo y lo dio en mano de una moza, y dišo: mirá que do qidus(ín). Y le demandaron B(et) D(in) al ‘ed, cuando dišo mirá que do qidušín, si tenía la moça el anillo en la mano, o al dar del anillo
73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83.
lo dišo. Respondió el dito Baça: ya tenía el anillo en la mano la moça y dišo: mirá que do qidus(ín) y le ćimos758 hạ qirah vederišah, y dišo el ‘ed dos tres cuatro većes del modo dicho. Y le demandaron B(et) D(in) al ‘ed, ¿conoces la moça? Respondió: yo so orastero no la conoz(c)o, otro que vidi dar un anillo a una moça. El otro ‘edut de Manuel Naḥ um no se tomó. Gam ken se declara que si bien dio ‘edut el orastero Baça vehạ zar bediburó ve’amar que en la hora que dió el anillo, dišo: mirá que do qidušín y lo759 dišeron Bet Din:760 ¿pos asta agora no dišiste de
84. otro modo, tornas? tan D(in) lehar(ebí) 85. torbado que¿cómo no sé lote que digoRespondió: más. Ša‘alúestó haB(et) 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, aba̠ r biné ‘edim al zeh yorenu hamoreh ̣ 90. lisdaqah hadin le’amitó vesahạ r adonenu qaul min hašamayim ranslation (Re’uben who lives in Monastir claimed he was to aRe’uben Jewish girl. Te Court wanted to investigate thisthat matter, so engaged they called on Friday and he said the ollowing): (1–7) It says below that he, or now, did not want to ask anything that he would have asked at the time here or in another place. Te Court
757 758 759 760 761
Read: vosotros. Read: le ćimos. BIURP: le. Occasionally Bet Din is written in ull. Continuity and oscillation between Hebrew and Judeo-Spanish.
466 then told him that it is or that reason that they were all convened in order to know the truth about this. Te questioners said that they wanted to marry off this girl, and they needed to know i the marriage vows were valid. (7–13) Te orementioned Re’uben replied. He said that it was true that he betrothed the said lady. Te Court asked him ‘in what way?’ He replied ‘you should know, gentlemen, I pleaded with two or three youngsters, who were my riends, at midday today, as the urks were at Friday prayers, that they should do me a avour 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. Te maiden opened the door and I said to the witnesses: (19–20) ‘Are you down below?’ Tey replied ‘yes’, ‘see that I am giving her kiddushin’. Tese are my (Re’uben’s) words. (20–27) Te Court asked us who the two or three witnesses were. He said that one o them was Manuel Naḥ um, may God guard him and keep him alive, a rst cousin o the girl. Both he and the girl were the children o two brothers. Te other [witness ] is Yose Baça, a young oreigner, who has recently arrived here rom Veria. 763 Te other [witness] is Šelomoh Boa, both are witnesses o the ore-mentioned Court, who were excommunicated on grounds o adultery and whom we orgave. (27–33) Te Court called the orementioned witnesses and asked the oreigner to be the rst to give us testimony on the matter. Te oreigner replied he did not know and had no knowledge o the matter. Tey 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.
762 763
Also a weight. Veria is a city in Greece.
—
467
(33–42) Ten another one, who was Šelomoh Boa, came. Te sage o the city summoned him to testiy and say what he knew about the orementioned matter. He replied ‘you should know gentlemen that this Re’uben called me, Yose Baça and Manuel Naḥ um. He pleaded with us to come with him as he wanted to give kiddushin to a girl. We went up to the door o the courtyard and we asked him i he went into the courtyard and he said ‘yes’. Te young lad, the betrother, went up and he said to us ‘are you downstairs? See [be a witness] that I am giving kiddushin’. Te Court asked him ‘did you see any particular woman764 in that house?’ (42–50) ‘Tere were our or ve women. I could not see who they were. Te 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 rom his purse, and said ‘I have given good kiddushin as I have the witnesses’ signature here. Te witnesses him or thisheletter he not saidgive that iteven i they cast upon him still and would to them. oneasked hundred curses (50–59) Later the Court called the oreigner, Baça. Tey told him that Ḥ ayim said he had it all con rmed in a witness letter and that he should testiy what he knew. He then said that even i they threw on him seventy curses he would not testiy until the other two testi ed, as he had made a vow beore the Holy orah not to testiy. Te Court said that he was orced to testiy, that the Court can invalidate the vow and we invalidated the vow. Aferwards, the Court threatened him with excommunication so that he would testiy what he knew on the subject. (59–68) Te ore-mentioned [witness] stood up and said ‘you should know gentlemen, that I did not want to get involved in any o this because I am a oreigner and he orced me until he made me go. We went, the three o us together, today at the time o the Friday prayers to the courtyard o Yose Naḥ um, may his soul be blessed. We remained Lit., ‘did you see anyone?’ In the sense o ‘be a witness to’. 766 Tese translations are very literal to the point where the English is quite stilted, but the rhythm and style o the dialogue is preserved in order to re-enact the scene as closely as possible. Tis phrase means ‘I am perorming 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. 764 765
468 downstairs near a wall opposite the railing o the said Naḥ um. Te said Ḥ ayim went upstairs and there was a covering768 in ront o the door. He lifed it and said ‘are you downstairs?’ (69–79) Ten he said ‘see [be a witness to the act] that I am giving her a ring’. He handed the ring to a girl and said ‘see [be a witness to the act] that I am giving kiddushin’. Te Court asked the witness i 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. Te said Baça answered that the girl already had the ring in her hand beore he said ‘see that I am giving her kiddushin’. We cross-examined him. Te witness repeated three or our times the way in which it happened and the Court o Law asked him ‘do you know the girl?’ He replied ‘I am a oreigner, I don’t know her, all I know is that a ring was given to a girl’. ̣ um was (79–90) Te other o Manuel Nahtestiy taken. it was declared that itestimony the oreigner Baça did andnotthen wentAlso 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 o Law told him ‘you said this to us differently, how come you change?’ he replied ‘I am so conused that I don’t know what I am saying any more’. Te Court asked Ḥ ayim, who was Re’uben, i he had any more witnesses, and he said he had no more witnesses. Te Court asked him ‘i you had more witnesses what would they be like?’ and he replied ‘i I had more witnesses I would invalidate them’.769 All this took place beore witnesses. On this, our teacher o law, please teach us the true judgement and the reward to our master will be twoold rom heaven.
Decision: Tere is no issue here o a valid marriage as one o the witnesses o the marriage was a relative o the girl and so all the testimony is annulled. Additionally the witnesses did not see the betrothed girl.
Lit. ‘blanket’ or ‘piece o abric’. Te logic o this answer is unclear. It could also mean ‘I, my marriage vows, would be invalidated’. 768 769
—
469
84. Maharashach Chelek Bet 145 Te ollowing texts, recorded on Tursday 11 Av 5337 / 25 July 1577, consist o the rules o a community on leadership and the nancial contribution o the local Sephardic community o Callipolis 770 and the Romanian community.
Figure 84 Part 1
770
urkish: Guélibolou, see Appendix 2.
470
Figure 84A Part 2
—
471
Figure 84B
Part A 1. lihyot que 2. asta agora ver(e)mos aver hị luq leba̠ bo̠ t entre mos771 3. otros de lo cual seseguía muchos pleitos y daños
771
BIURP: nos.
472 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
ael qahal qadós. Y por miedo y reçelo que cuanto más uese peor uese, por eso hiskamnu todos nos otros qahal qadós rmados abašo de aćer estos tiqunim siguientes. Y primeroes772 que ningún ǰudió de los de aquí rmados abašo pueda aćer
9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.
̣ de quéšer ni con los rmados aquí ni con otro mesiut ningún. ‘Od hiskamnu que ue, pusieran de gaba’im dende hoy asta Roš Hašaná hab(a’á) r(išoná), asta un año, B(e‘ezrat) H(ašém), y todo este tiempo que sirvieren les damos poder a los dichos gaba’im, que puedan llamar a cual quier que ellos quiǰeren para cual quier neçeçidad que se siguiere en el qahal, y llamarán cinco aueras ellos y non pueda ningún de los que llamarán reusar nada, salvo que teke̠ umiyad que ueren llamados salgan aaćer su ma‘amad. Y acabo del zemán del serviçio llamarán los dichos gaba’im a tres
20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31.
zeqenim,para y entre çinco sacarán dos gaba’im queellos siervan otro año, yotros que ninguno pueda reuśar. ’Od hiskamnu que todo as(pros) que se ̣ prometiere para sedaq(á), o cual quier honbre que rindiere ̣ es mehyav ̣ 773 de dar lo en poder cual se quier misvá, de los gaba’im que ueren bayamim hahem.’od hiskamnu que toda taqaná que hićieren los gaba’im que ueren bayamim hahem, ǰunta mente con los cinco que llamaren ael ma‘amad que somos mehụ yavim delo a rmar todos los rmados abašo, y el que reuśare en ello me‘atah ume‘aks̠ av lo tenemos por nibdal de nos otros,774 milebad que pasa hẹ rem ušbu‘ah. ‘Od hiskamnu que cual
32. 33. 34. 35.
quier honbre que reuśare en cual quier taqaná de las775 dichas arriba o cual quier que non quiǰere rmar esta carta, somos meqabelim ‘alenu bigzerak ̠ najaš776 ubi̠ sbu̠ ‘ah de no entrar, lo be’aveló velo begiló, y esto
Read: primero es, two words. Te hẹ t in mehụ yav appears as ta 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 o nidui hẹ rem šemata. 772 773
—
473
36. reebimos777 sobre nos otros mehayom ad taslum asará 37. šanim resụ m Be‘e(zrat) H(ašem), vehayah zeh peh Galipol yom heh,778 11 lahọ deš 38. av šenat 5337, vehakol sarir ubarir veqayam. ‘Od hiskamnu 39. šeahạ r ‘abo̠ r hazemán, o betok ̠ hazemán non se pueda ̣ kulam, y si uno solo dišere desbaratar sino ba‘asat que no es contento quese desaga esta dicha haskamah non se pueda desaćer, vehakol sarir ubarir veqayam ‘ad kan. Ahạ r šekatevú vehạ temú hahaskamah haniz(keret) kol haqahal, 44. lo rasụ́ bené Romania lahạ tom itam lihyot ‘ imam
40. 41. 42. 43.
Part B 1. Nos otros anšé hamaamad biršut kol haq(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) ̣ s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), le’ahabat
8. 9. 10. 11.
̣ hašalom y tenía por ver que el q(ahal) q(adóš), y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ih ạ yehu), neçesidad por que nitrabú ha‘aniyim yno había posiblidad enel q(ahal) q(adóš) para lo poder surir como asta agora, laké̠ n, nos aǰuntamos todos le’ahaba̠ t hašalom con yehidé segulah mibené romania ku̠ (le) los que rmaren aquí abašo, por encuanto puśimos lepasrán le’iqar ume‘od ne‘elam kebo̠ d harebí Yisra’el Asayul, y mandó queayudasen en toda ǰa de rey,779 jus ̣ miqese golgalta hanikrá haaragi,780 que se entiende el cuerpo del haaragi que en todo resto de ǰa de rey, pagasen los giz(barim) en cada millar aspros 120.
12. 13. 14. 15.
Declaramos y dećimos que en toda ǰa que tocare anel781 qahal qadós de las puertas adientro, quier para ‘aniy(im) quier para heqdešot, quier para todo sarké̠ sibur mirando782 kese golgalta, han de pagar en cada millar
2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
Read: recibimos. BIURP: dejebimos. Day 5, jueves, Tursday. 779 BIURP: roy, this appears to be the error o a vav in place o a yod, rather than the French word roi or ‘king’. 780 urkish: haraç ‘poll tax’. 781 Read: en el. 782 Instead o in the sense o ‘looking’ it is used in the less usual sense o ‘concerning’ (http://www.rae.es/diccionariodelalenguaespañola 15/05/04). 777 778
474 16. asp(ros) 120, digo ciento y vente y si cabśo uere que ̣ 17. alguno de estos señores mibené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), rmados 18. abašo uere ‘oqer dirató de aquí abašarán de 19. estos 140 asp(ros) el ‘erek ̠ que pagaba él entre los ̣ 20. bené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), dichos. Y si viniere otro mihụ s,̣ lo 21. serán ma‘arihị m los propios bené romania dichos, y 22. aquel ‘erek ̠ 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 a rmamos esto ̣ 25. aestos señores mibené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), y son mehuyavim ̣ 26. kol anšé haqahal qadós, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), de lo rmar ̠ mikóak de nuesa haskamah 27. que tenemos que todo loque mandaren los dos gizbarim 784
28. con los cinco queser ellos delo a rmar y los ̣ peh umesase 29. no puede ninguno possacaren, eh , y ellos ̣ 30. anšé romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), gam ken qibelú ‘alehem de rmar 31. todas nuesas haskamot, digo esto que tenemos 32. escrito. Ahạ ré hada ’od hiskamnu que toda vez que 33. llamaren los dos gizbarim a ma‘amad, que sean mehụ yabi̠ m ̣ 34. de llamar dos de los bené romania, y(išmerehu) s(uró) v(ihạ yehu), betok ̠ de los 35. çinco de modo que vienen aser tres searadim, y dos 36. mibené romania, y todo lo que mandaren estos son 37. mehụ yabi̠ m anšé haq(ahal) q(adóš) de lo rmar mikóah ̣ de la ševu‘ah 38. y nahạ š que todos tenemos . . .785 ranslation (. . . I you reuse to pay then we request that you no longer live amongst us, as we have no use o you dwellers o Romania.)
Possibly, obedecimos. In l. 23 the samech was clear in the rst consonant, here it is doubtul, hence the spelling ‘c’ instead o ‘ç’. 785 Very pedantic language in part B, unlike the style o the other Maharashach texts. 783 784
—
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 o ear and dread that this would deteriorate, we, the entire undersigned holy community, agreed to make the ollowing rules. (7–10) Te rst 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 rom now till the ollowing Rosh Hashanah [New Year], or a year, God willing. All this time that they will be in office, we give the said leaders power to call on anyone they please, or whatever need o the community. (15–18) Tey will call upon ve o them, and none o them will be able to they arereuse, called they upon.have just to ul l their communal duty as soon as (18–22) At the end o their time o service, these leaders will call upon three elders. Between the ve leaders they will nd two other leaders to serve another year and no-one will be able to reuse. (22–25) We also agreed that each asper that is promised or charity, or any man who gives money or 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 ve members who are appointed in the committee, must be upheld by all o us signed below. Whoever rejects this we, here and now, ostracize him rom us, as he undergoes excommunication with an oath. (31–38) We also agreed that any man who disobeys any o the abovementioned rules or who reuses to sign this letter will be undertaken by the community, under the punishment o najas under oath, not to
Lit., ‘division o souls’. ̣ de quéšer, lit., reality o contact/connection. Note Spanish ‘de’ between Mesiut two Hebrew borrowings. 786 787
476 include him whether in mourning or in celebration. Tis we received rom today until ten years time,788 God willing. Tis was the voice o Callipolis on Tursday 11 Av 5337; everything is sealed. (38–42) We also agreed that afer this period, or during this period , the rules cannot be changed unless it is with everyone’s consent. I 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. Te end. (43–44) Afer the entire community had written and sealed the abovementioned 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. Tese are the words o the document): Part B (1–4) We, the committee members, with the permission o the entire holy community, or the sake o peace and seeing that the holy community, may God guard it and keep it alive, has the need. Te 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, or the sake o peace, with the members o the Romanian people etc., who are signed below. For this reason we appointed as an arbitrator the cherished and praiseworthy Rabbi Yisra’el Asayul who said they should help every Jewish girl apart rom the poll tax called the haaragi.789 It is understood that the essence o this tax is that or every Jewish girl the leaders should pay 120 aspers in every thousand. (12–16) We declare and state that or every Jewish girl that touches the holy community inside its doors, whether or the poor or or holy
788 789
Lit., ten consecutive years. See chap. 1 n. 72 on poll tax.
—
477
purpose, or or the needs o 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 o these men are Romaniote, may God guard them and keep them alive. Te undersigned who uproot their living rom here shall pay 140 aspers, less than he paid among the above-mentioned Romaniotes. (20–24) I any o these Romaniotes come rom 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 o our ruling. (24–29) We affirm this to these gentlemen o the Romaniote people, may God guard them and keep them alive. All these people o the holy community are obliged to sign this rom the strength o our ruling [to abide by] everything the two above-mentioned treasurers [decide], together or with the other ve they select, so that no-one can open their mouths complain. (29–32) Te Romaniote people, may God guard them and keep them alive, also undertook to sign all our rulings that we have written down. (32–38) Afer this page we also agreed that each time the orementioned 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 ve, thus making it three Sephardim and two Romaniotes. Te people o the holy community are obliged to sign everything that these people command, with the strength o the oath and punishment that we all have . . . (Under these conditions, they lived in peace and harmony or ourteen years. Whoever o the Romaniotes moved out was exempt rom paying and whoever moved in would be liable to pay. Recently the community claimed that the decision o the others was not binding and that the Romaniotes should have to pay the ull amount like all the other community members).
478 Decision: It is impossible to demand anything rom 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 beore the Sephardic community. (Even though community provisions are customarily cancelled with the agreement o the community, however one o the community members can prevent the annulment). Te respondent says that the act that there is a rumour that was a previous ban that the community should not split itsel to orm a new community is an issue or concern.
REFERENCES
Primary Sources Te responsa have been integrated into Appendix 4 in a detailed table consisting o all the responsa collections consulted, including the extra thirty one responsa that appear outside the time rame o this book and over sixty responsa in Appendix 5. Culi, Yaakov, Me’Am Lo’ez 1 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 almud 2 with Teir Dates o 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 Alasi (Ri) Haalas 1013–1103 Isaac ben Sheshet (Rivash) 1326–1408 Jacob b. Asher, R (ur) 1269–1343 Jacob b. Meir (Rabbenu am) 1100–1171 Joseph b. Ephraim Caro (Bet Yose) 1488–1575 Joseph Colon (Maḥarik) 1420–1480 Joseph aitazak 1470–1551 Moses ben Nachman (Nachmanides) 1194–1270 Moses b. Maimon (Rambam) 1138–1204 Nissim Re’uben (Ran) 1320–1380 Samuel ben b. Meir (Rashbam) 1080–1160 Simeon ben zemach Duran (Rashbatz) 1361–1444 Solomon b. Aderet (Rashba) 1235–1310 Solomon Yitzchaki (Rashi) 1040–1105
My citations rom the Me’Am Lo’ez in this book are in the orm Me’Am Lo’ez, Book ollowed by Numbers 1 or 2 where relevant ollowed by the page number as listed on the website cited above. 2 Tese are some o the main commentators that are cited in the responsa by the respondents. 1
480 Secondary Sources ——, 1873. Seer orah neviim veketuvim (trasladado a la lingua espaniola) [Te Bible in Hebrew with a Ladino translation in Hebrew characters alongside] (Constantinople: Estamperia de A. H. Buiajen). Alcalay, Re’uben, 1966. Te Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary (el 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. Te Jews o Rhodes (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press and the Union o Sephardic Communities). ——, 1994. ‘Te Responsa Literature in the Ottoman Empire as a Source or the Study o Ottoman Jewry in Levy’, in Te Jews o the Ottoman Empire, ed. Avigdor (Princeton, New Jersey: Te Darwin Press), pp. 669–683. Ariza, Manuel, 1996. ‘El judeoespañol’, eds., Winried Busse & Marie-Christine VarolBornes, in Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 155–171. Armistead, Samuel G., and Joseph H. Silverman, 1971. Te Judeo-Spanish Ballad Chapbooks o Yacob Abr̠ aham Yoná (Berkeley: University o Caliornia 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 Literature’, in Te Proceedings o the enth Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies , ed. Annette Benaim (London: Dept. o 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 [Tesaurus o Hebrew Abbreviations] (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass). Ayoun, Richard, and Séphiha Haïm,V., ed., 1992. Séarades d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, 70 Portraits (Paris: Liana Lévy). Baer, Yitzchak, 1961. A History o the Jews in Christian Spain, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society o America). Barnavi, 1994.W. (London: Kuperard). A Historical oTe the Western Jewish People Barnett, Eli, R., and M. Shwab,Atlas 1989. Sephardim (Grendon Northants: Gibraltar Books). Baron, S. W., 1983. A Social and Religious History o the Jews (Columbia: Columbia University Press). Bašan, Eliezer, and Leah Bornstein,3 1973. Mivchar monchim loazim besirut hasheelot
u-teshuvot shel hatkuah haotomanit (Selection o Foreign erms in the Responsa o the Ottoman Period) (Internal publication o BIU). Beinart, Haim, 1992. ‘Conversos’, in Spain and the Jews, the Seardi Experience 1492 and Afer, ed. E. Kedouri (London: Tames & Hudson), pp. 92–122.
3
Known as Bornstein-Makovetsky in later publications.
481 Benabu, Isaac, 1979. Contemporary exts in Western Judeo-Spanish (hakitía)—A Linguistic Appraisal (author’s typescript presented in the 1st Judeo-Spanish British Conerence, University o Glasgow). ——, 1992. Circa 1492—Proceedings o the Jerusalem Colloquium: Litterae Judaeorum in erra Hispanica (Jerusalem: Hebrew University o Jerusalem/Misgav). ——, 1991. ‘Orthography in the Hispano-Romance Kharjas in Hebrew Characters’, in
Poesía estró ca; actas del Primer Congreso Internacional sobre poesía estró ca 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 ransmission o the Judeo-Spanish ranslation o the Bible: Eastern and Western raditions Compared (Jerusalem: Judeo-Romance Languages), pp. 1–26. Benaim, Annette, 1996. Six Responsa o Rabbi Samuel de Medina—A Legal and Linguistic Analysis, M.A. thesis (London: London School o Jewish Studies/QMWC). ——, 1997. ‘Te reatment o Women in a Legal Context as re ected in the JudeoSpanish estimonies o the Responsa o Rabbi Samuel De Medina’, in Quien hubiese tal ventura Medieval Hispanic Studies in Honour o Alan Deyermond , ed. A. M. Beresord (London: Dept. o Hispanic Studies, QMWC), pp. 199–205. ——, 1998. ‘A Case o Guardianship: wo Halakhic Perspectives’, in Le’ela No.46 (London: London School o Jewish Studies, September 1998), pp. 15–19. ——, 1999a. ‘Le dixo tomadlo por quiduxín’, inJewish Studies at the urn o the wentieth Century—Proceedings o the Sixth EAJS Conerence oledo 1998, Judit argarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 457–463. ——, ed., 1999b. Te Proceedings o the enth Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies (London: Dept. o Hispanic Studies, QMWC). ——, 2006. Judeo-Spanish estimonies in Sixteenth Century Responsa, Phd Tesis (School o Oriental and Arican Studies, London University). ——, 2009. Review oJewish Questions. Responsa on Sephardic Lie o the Early Modern Period by Matt Goldish (Madrid CSIC: Searad 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 o the Judeo-Spanish Community 14th–20th Centuries (Caliornia: University o Caliornia 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 searadi, raduction en bulgare du Manuel de Judéo-Espagnol, (So a: Organization o the Jews in Bulgaria Shalom). ——, 2008a. ‘Le judéo-espagnol Séphiha, (Berne, Peter Lang). d’Istanbul’ inSephardica- Hommage a Haïm-Vidal ——, 2008b. Manual o Judeo-Spanish—Language and Culture, English translation o Manuel de Judéo-espagnol (Maryland: University Press o Maryland). Bornstein, Leah, 1979. Mafehot to the Maḥaraschdam—Index to the Responsa o 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 o Divorce’ in Tese are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, eds., Aharon Demsky, Joseph A. Rei, and Joseph abory. (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press), pp. 13–26. Braude, Benjamin, 1992. ‘Te Rise and Fall o Salonica Woollens 1500–1650 echnology ranser and Western Competition’ in Jews, Christian and Muslims in the Mediterranean World afer 1492, ed. Alisa Meyuhas Ginio (London: Frank Cass). Bunis, David Monson, 1975. A Guide to Reading and Writing Judezmo. 2d ed. 1976. (New York: Te Judezmo Society).
482 ——, 1981. Sephardic Studies: A Bibliography or Research. 1981. (New York: Garland Press and YIVO Institute or Jewish Research). ——, 1984. ‘Some Problems in Judezmo Linguistics.’Mediterranean Language Review 1 (Heidelberg: Heidelberg University) pp. 92–126. ——, 1993. A Lexicon o the Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in Modern Judezmo (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Press). ——, 1996a. ‘Yisra’el Haim o Belgrade and the History o Judezmo Linguistics’ in ed., Jean Baumgarten and Sophie Kessler-Mesguich, Histoire, Epistomologie, Langage (XVIII, ascicule 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. ‘ranslating rom the Head and rom the Heart: Te Essentially Oral Nature o the Ladino Bible ranslation radition, in eds., Winried Busse & MarieChristine Varol-Bornes, Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 337–357. ——, 1999a. Judezmo: An Introduction to the Language o the Ottoman Sephardim. (Jerusalem: Magnes Press) (in Hebrew). ——, 1999b. ‘Hebrew Elements inSeer Hešeq Šelomo [Venice, 1587/88]’, in ed. Shelomo Morag, Moshe Bar-Asher and Maria Mayer-Modena,Vena hebraica in judaeorum linguis, (Milan: University o Milan). ——, 2004. ‘Distinctive Characteristics o Jewish Ibero-Romance, Circa 1492’, Hispania Judaica Bulletin, ed. Yom-ov Assis and Raquel Ibáñez-Sperber. (Jerusalem: Hebrew University) pp. 105–137. Busse, Winried & 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 feenth 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 arazona’ in Searad 64 (Madrid: CSIC) pp. 315–340. —— & Del Rey Granell, Susana, 2009. ‘Judíos y redes personales en ierra de Campos durante la segunda mitad del siglo XV: un cuaderno de minutas de avecindamientos de Villalón’ in Searad 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 radition in Judaism (New York: Jewish Teological Seminary o America). Cohen, Esther, 1999. ‘El Rol de la Mujer Judía’ in Jewish Studies at the urn o the
wentieth o the Sixth(Leiden: EAJS Conerence oledo 1998, Judit argarona Century—Proceedings Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos Brill), pp. 491–497. Concina, Ennio, 1998. A History o Venetian Architecture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Corominas, Joan, 1974. Diccionario crítico etimológico de la lengua castellana (Madrid: Gredos). Cowley, 1929. Concise Catalogue (Oxord: Oxord University Press). Crews, Cynthia, 1955. ‘Notes on Judaeo-Spanish II’, Proceedings o the Leeds Philosophical Society (Literary and Historical Section) , VII (Part IV): 217–230. Díaz-Mas, Paloma, 1986. Los seardíes—historia, lengua y cultura (Barcelona: Riopiedras). Edery, Mordejai, 1991. Deutoronomio y hafarot en versión castellana traducción y comentarios (Buenos Aires: Fundación Cabuli). Elman, Yaakov, and Israel Gershoni, eds., 2000. ransmitting Jewish raditions: Orality, extuality & Cultural Diffusion (New Haven & London: Yale University Press).
483 Elon, Menachem, 1975. Te Principles o Jewish Law (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House). ——, 1994. Jewish Law, vols. I–III (Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society Philadelphia). Emmanuel, Isaac, Samuel, 1936. Histoire des israelites de Salonique (Paris: Tonon). Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971. Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House). Entwistle, William, James, 1965. Te Spanish Language (London: Faber & Faber). Feldman, David, 1994. ‘Te Structure o Jewish Law’, in Jewish Law and Legal Teory, M. P. Golding (England: Dartmouth Publishing Company), pp. 3–21. Fendel, Zechariah, 2001. Lights o the Exile Early Acharonim (New York: Hashkaa Publications). Finkel, Avraham, Yaakov, 1996. Te Responsa Anthology (New Jersey: Jason Aronson). Fishman, Joshua, Aaron, 1970. Readings in the Sociology o Language (Te Hague, Paris: Mouton). Foulché-Delbosc, R., 1894. ‘La transcription hispano-hebraïque’, in La revue hispanique, Vol. 1 (Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck, and New York: Te Hispanic Society o America), pp. 5–16. Friedberg, Bernhard, 1951. Bet eked sepharim, 4 vols, reprinted (Jerusalem, 1970 and el Aviv 1971: no publisher detailed). Friedman, Mordejai, Akiva, 1980. Jewish Marriage in Palestine, vol. 1 (el Aviv University, Jewish Teological Seminary o America). Freimann, Abraham, Hayyim, 1964. Seder kiddushin venisuin (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook). Galante, Abraham, 1941. Histoire des juis d’Istanbul (Istanbul: Imprimerie Hüsnütabiat). Gerber, Jane, S., 1980. Jewish Society in Fez 1450–1700 (Leiden: Brill). Girón-Negrón, Luis Manuel & Minervini, Laura, 2006. Las coplas de Yose. Entre la Biblia y el Midrash en la poesía judeoespañola, estudios, edición y notas (Madrid: Gredos). Goldish, Matt, 2008. Jewish Questions—Responsa on Sephardic Lie o the Early Modern Period (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). González Llubera, Ignacio, 1935. Coplas de Yoçe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). ——, 1947. Proverbios Morales (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Goodblatt, Morris, S., 1952. Jewish Lie in urkey in the 16th Century as Re ected in the Legal Writings o Šemu’el De Medina (New York: Te Jewish Teological Seminary). Graetz, Heinrich, 1956. History o the Jews, vol. IV (Philadelphia: Te Jewish Publication Society o America). Gruneld, Isidor, 1987. Te Jewish Law o Inheritance (Michigan: argum Press). Gubbay, Lucien, and Abraham Levy, 1992. Te Sephardim (London: Carnell Limited). Gur, Yehudah, 1949. Milon ivri [Hebrew Dictionary] (el Aviv: Dvir). Gutwirth, Eliezer, and Rei, Stean, Clive, 1992. en Centuries o Hispano-Jewish Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, 1978. Language as Social Semiotic (London: Edward Arnold). Harris, racy, K., 1994. Death o a Language: Te History o Judeo-Spanish (Newark, Del.: University o Delaware). Hartman, David, 1988. ‘Suffering’, in Contemporary Jewish Religious Tought, Arthur Cohen and Paul Mendes-Flohr (London: Collier Macmillan), pp. 939–946. Hassán, Iacob, Moses, 1977. Un cantar ¿seardí? sobre el ¿nauragio? de 1638 in El siglo XVll hispanomarroqui (Rabat: Facultad de Letras), pp. 311–331.
484 ——, 1987. ‘Sistemas grá cos del español seardí’, inActas del 1 Congreso Internacional de Historia de la Lengua Española , ed. M. Ariza, A. Salvador and A. Viudas (Madrid: Arco Libros), pp. 125–137. ——, 1995. ‘El español seardí (Judeoespañol, Ladino)’, in La lengua española hoy, ed. Manuel Seco and Gregorio Salvador (Madrid: Fundación Juan March), pp. 117–140. ——, 1998. ‘estimonios antiguos de la jaquetía’, in La lengua y la literatura españolas en Arica, 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 o Jewish Law (Oxord: Oxord University Press). Hirschberg, Haim, Z., 1974. A History o the Jews in North Arica, vol. 1 (Leiden: Brill). Ihsanoğlu, Ekmeleddin, ed., 2001. History o the Ottoman State, Society and Civilisation, Vol. 1 (Istanbul: IRCICA). Jackson, Bernard, S., 1972. Tef in Early Jewish Law (Oxord: Clarendon Press). Jastrow, Marcus, 1903. A Dictionary o the argumim, the almud Babli and Yerushalmi, and Te 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. Te Status o Jewish Women in the Communities o Egypt, Syria and Palestine in the 16th Century (el Aviv: Ph.D. book, el Aviv University). ——, 2000. A Separate People: Jewish Women in Palestine, Syria and Egypt in the Sixteenth Century (Leiden: Brill). ——, 2005. ‘Levant: Women in the Jewish Communities afer the Ottoman Conquest o 1517 in Jewish Women’s Archive, Jewish Women’s Encyclopaedia (2005) http:// jwa.org/encyclopaedia/author/lamdan-ruth. Lapesa, Raael, 1988. Historia de la lengua española (Madrid: Gredos). Lazar, Moshe, ed., 1996. Biblia de Ferrara (Madrid: urner). Lehmann, Matthias, 2002a. Judeo-Spanish Musar Literature and the ransormation o
Ottoman Sephardic Society (eighteenth through nineteenth centuries) (Berlin: Ph.D. book, Freie University Berlin). ——, 2002b. ‘Te Intended Reader o Ladino Rabbinic Literature’,Jewish History, 16: 283–309. ——, 2005. Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman Sephardic Culture (Bloomington: Indiana University Press). Lewis, Bernard, 1984. Te Jews o Islam (New Jersey: Princeton University Press). Luria, Max, A., 1930. ‘A Study o the Monastir Dialect o Judeo-Spanish Based on Oral Material Collected in Monastir, Yugoslavia’, in La Revue Hispanique, No.176 (New York: Te Hispanic Society o America, Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck), pp. 23–589. Maimonides, Moses,4 1982. Mishneh orah, vol. 6 Nezikin, Kinyan, Hilchot Shluchin Veshotphin (Jerusalem: Mesorah Publications).
4
Born in Cordoba, Spain 1138–1204.
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 Afer 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 aqanot o 1432’ inProceedings o the welfh British Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies, Hilary Pomeroy & Michael Alpert, eds. (Leiden, Boston: Brill). Milet, 1998. Milet Comprehensive Dictionary (urkish-English) (London: available rom Oriental Collection o the British Library). Minervini, Laura, 1992. esti giudeoespanoli medievali (Napoli: Liguori Editore). ——, 1996. ‘Per una storia lingüística degli ebrei spagnoli in Italia nel cinquecento en el Seicento’ eds., Winried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes, in Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 287–294. ——, 1997. ‘An Aljamiado Version o “Orlando Furioso”. A Judeo-Spanish ranscription o Jeronimo de Urrea’s ranslation’ in Hispano-Jewish Civilization Afer 1492:
Te Fourth International Congress or Research and Study o Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim), pp. 191–201.
——, 1999. ‘Te Formation o the Judeo-Spanish Koiné: Dialect Convergence in the Sixteenth Century’, in Te Proceedings o the enth Conerence on Judeo -Spanish Studies, ed. Annette Benaim (London: Dept. o Hispanic Studies, QMWC). Minervini, Laura & Várvaro Alberto, 2007. ‘Orígenes del judeoespañol (1): extos’ 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 seardíes de Salónica (Madrid: CSIC Arias Montano). Moran, A. Vahid, 1985. Büyük ürkçe-Inglizce sözlük. A urkish-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. Te Marranos according to Hebrew Sources o the Fifeenth Century and early Sixteenth Centuries (New York: reprinted rom Te Proceedings o the American Academy or Jewish Research) (held at the British Library). Neuman, Abraham, A., 1948. ‘JewishSociety Courts’oinAmerica), , Abraham Neuman Te Jews pp. in Spain (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication 112–147. Nissan, Ephraim, 1998. Fictitious oponyms in the Responsa: Bašan’s Ruleset Revisited (Jerusalem: Aluma Dept o Mathematics, Bar Ilan University). Orali Levi, Moisés, 1982. Los conversos en la literatura rabínica (Salamanca: Calatrava). Pascual Recuero, Pascual, 1977. Diccionario básico ladino-español (Barcelona: Ameller Ediciones). ——, 1988. Ortograía 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 o Minervini’,Romance Philology, 47: 464–468. ——, 1996. ‘Judeo-Spanish varieties beore and afer the Expulsion’, in Donaire, No. 6 (London: Spanish Embassy and Queen Mary & West eld College) pp. 54–58. ——, 2004a. History o the Spanish Language (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
486 ——, 2004b. Variation and Change in Spanish (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Pomeroy, Hilary, 2001. An Edition and Study o the Secular Ballads in the Sephardic Ballad Notebook o Halia Isaac Cohen (London: Ph.D. book, QMWC). Pomeroy, Hilary and Michael Alpert, eds., 2004. Proceedings o the welfh British Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies (2001) (Leiden, Boston: Brill). Pomeroy, Hilary, Christopher J. Pountain, Elena Romero eds, 2008. Proceedings o the Fourteenth British Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies (2006) (London: Dept. o Hispanic Studies, QM). Pountain, Christopher, J., 2001. A History o the Spanish Language Trough exts (London: Routledge). ——, 2006a. ‘Syntactic Borrowing as a Function o Register’, in Anna Laura Lepschy & Arturo osi (eds), Rethinking Languages in Contact. Te Case o Italian. (Oxord: Legenda), pp. 99–111. ——, 2006b. ‘owards a history o register in Spanish’, inSpanish in Context, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company), 3:1 pp. 5–24. Quintana-Rodriguez, Aldina, 1996. ‘Una inormasión de la aritmétika y una Muestra de los Cuentos’ eds., Winried 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 urn o the wentieth Century—Proceedings o the Sixth EAJS Conerence oledo 1998 , Judit argarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 593–602. ——, 2002. ‘Ladino: a Historical Perspective’ inLos judíos españoles según las uentes hebreas (Spain: Museo de Bellas Artes Valencia) pp. 169–176. ——, 2004a. Geograía lingüística del judeospañol en los Balcanes y en urquía (Jerusalem: Ph.D. book, Hebrew University, Jerusalem). ——, 2004b. ‘Sobre la transmisión y el ormulismo en elMe’Am Lo’ez de Jacob Juli’ in eds., Pomeroy & Alpert 2004. Proceedings o the welfh British Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies (2001) (Leiden, Boston: Brill). ——, 2006. Geograía lingüística del judeospañol. Estudio sincrónico y diacrónico (Berne: Peter Lang). ——, 2008. ‘From the Master’s Voice to the Disciple’s Script Genizah Fragments o a Bible Glossary in Ladino’ in Hispania Judaica Bulletin (Jerusalem: Te Mandel Institute o Jewish Studies) pp. 187–235. ——, 2009. ‘Aportación lingüística de los romances aragonés y portugués a la coiné judeoespañola’ in David Bunis, Proceedings o Te Sixth International Congress or
Research on the Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage, Languages and Literatures o Sephardic and Oriental Jews. (Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim) pp. 221–255.
Redhouse, James, 1968. Redhouse urkish-English, English-urkish Dictionary (Istanbul: Yayinevi). ——, 2003. Redhouse urkish-English, English-urkish Dictionary (Istanbul: SEV Matbaacilik ve Yayincilik Eğitim ic. A.S.). Reael, Shmuel, 1996. ‘A Study o Dream and Legendary Dimension in the JudeoSpanish Romance’ in eds., Winried Busse & Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes, Hommage a Haïm Vidal Séphiha (Berne, New York: Peter Lang) pp. 95–105. ——, 2008. ‘Spain, Greece or Jerusalem: Te Yearning or a Motherland in Te Poetry o Greek Jews’ in ed., Rozen, Minna 2008, Homelands and Diasporas. Greeks, Jews and their Migrations. (London: auris) pp. 211–223. Rei, Stean, Clive, 2000. A Jewish Archive rom Old Cairo (Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press). Reingold, Edward, M., and Nachum Dershowitz, 2001. Calendrical Calculations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). Rico, Francisco, ed., 1990. Lazarillo de ormes (anonymous author) (Madrid: Cátedra). Rivlin, Joseph, 1999. Inheritance and Wills in Jewish Law (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press).
487 Rodrigue, Aron, 1992a. ‘Te Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire’ in Spain and the Jews, ed. E. Kedouri (London: Tames & 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 Arzalluz, and Francisco Rico, eds., 2000. La Celestina (Barcelona: Editorial Crítica). Romero, Elena, 1992. La creación literaria en lengua seardí (Madrid: MAPFRE). ——, 1998. Ḥ ayimYom-ob Magula y su poesía moralizante (Madrid: Searad CSIC). ——, 2003. Seis coplas seardies de ‘castiguerio’ de Yom-tob Magula (Madrid: CSIC). ——, 2008a. ‘Las coplas seardíes de contenido histórico’ in ed. Hilary Pomeroy, Christopher J. Pountain, Elena Romero Proceedings o the Fourteenth British Conerence on Judeo-Spanish Studies (London: Dept. o Hispanic Studies, QM). ——, 2008b. Entre dos (o más) uegos (Madrid: CSIC). ——, 2009. Dos colecciones de cuentos seardíes 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 tipograía seardíes (siglo XIV)’, presented at the 13th British Judeo-Spanish Conerence (London: UCL & QM). Romeu Ferré, Pilar, 2004. El Sueño Premonitorio de Moisés Almosnino sobre Yose Nasí en el ‘ratado de los Sueños’ (Salónica 1564) in Searad 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 o the House o Nasi (Philadelphia: Te Jewish Publication Society o America). Roth, Norman, 1994. Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain, Cooperation and Con ict (Leiden: Brill). ——, 1995. Conversos, Inquisition and the Expulsion o the Jews rom Spain (Wisconsin: University o Wisconsin Press). Rozen, Minna, 2002. A History o the Jewish Community in Istanbul. Te Formative Years 1453–1566. (Leiden, Boston: Brill). Rubashov, Zalman, 1929. Yiddishe Gevi’us Eidus in die Shailes u-eshuvos (Warsaw: Yivo Historical Studies). Sachar, Howard, M., 1994. Farewell España, Te World o the Sephardim Remembered (New York: Alred A. Knop). Sala, Marius, 1971. Phonétique et phonologie du judéo-espagnol de Bucarest (Te Hague and‘El Paris: Mouton). Balcánico’, inManual de Dialectología Hispánica: El ——, 1996. Judeo-Español 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. Te Chumash, Haforos, Te Five Megillos, Stone edn. (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 2000. almud Bavli. ractate Gittin (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 2001a. almud Bavli. ractate Bava Batra, vol. 1 (New York: Mesorah Publications). ——, 2001b. almud Bavli. ractate Kiddushin (New York: Mesorah Publications). Searad, 1998. Revista de estudios hebráicos, seardiés y de oriente próximo (Madrid: CSIC) año 58, asc. 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 Cardosoin Jewish Studies at the
urn o the wentieth Century—Proceedings o the Sixth EAJS Conerence oledo 1998, Judit argarona Borrás and Angel Sáenz-Badillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 637–640.
488 Serels, Mitchell, 1991. A History o the Jews o angiers in the Nineteenth and wentieth Centuries (New York: Sepher Hermon Press). Shaul, Moshe, 1996. Aki Yerushalayim—Revista kulturala djudeo-espanyola no.53 (Judeo-Spanish Cultural Magazine) (Jerusalem: Searad and the Maale Adumim Institute). Shaw, Stanord, J., 1991. Te Jews o the Ottoman Empire and the urkish Republic (New York: New York University Press). Shmuelevitz, Aryeh., 1984. Te Jews o the Ottoman Empire in the late Fifeenth and the Sixteenth Centuries (Leiden: Brill). Shwarzwald, Ora, 1984a. ‘aboo, Death and Mourning Expressions in Judeo-Spanish’ in LeSonenu La’am 64 pp. 203–214. ——, 1984b. ‘Determining Criteria or the Fusion o the Hebrew-Aramaic Component in Judeo-Spanish’ in Milet 2 (Everyman’s University Annual) pp. 357–367. ——, 1985. ‘Te Fusion o 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 o Judeo-Spanish’in Folia Linguistica XXVII (1–2): 27–44. ——, 1996. ‘Methodological problems in Comparing the Lexicon o the Ladino Haggadas in eds., Winried 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 exto’ in Ladinar (Actas del primer encuentro académico programático “El español saluda al judeoespañol (Ladino)”) IV: 2006, pp. 57–82. ——, 2006/2007. ‘Le style duMe’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 rom 1943 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University o Caliornia Press). Steinschneider, Moritz, 1852. Catalogus hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana , 3 vols. (Berlin: no publisher given). Stern, Sacha, 2001. Calendar and Community (Oxord: Oxord University Press). ——, 2003. ime and Process in Ancient Judaism (Oxord: 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 esalónica en contacto con la lengua griega’, in Jewish Studies at the urn o the wentieth Century—Proceedings
o the Sixth EAJS Conerence oledo 1998 , Judit argarona Borrás and Angel SáenzBadillos (Leiden: Brill), pp. 658–666. Valdes, Juan de, 1953. Diálogo de la lengua, [ Clásicos Castellanos 86, ed. José F. Montesinos] (Madrid: Espasa-Calpe). Vinograd, Yeshayahu, 1995. Otser haseer haivri (Jerusalem: Hamachon Lebibliogra a Memechushevet). Wein, Berel, 1994. Herald o Destiny—Te Story o the Jews in the Medieval Era 750– 1650 (New York: Shaar Press). Weinreich, Max, 1970. ‘Yidishkayt and Yiddish’ in Readings in the Sociology o Language, J. A. Fishman (Te Hague and Paris: Mouton), pp. 382–413. Weinreich, Uriel, 1953. Languages in Contact (New York: Publications o the Linguistic Circle o New York). Yaari, Abraham, 1934. Reshimot Sire Ladino. Catalogue o Judeo-Spanish Books in the Jewish National and University Library o Jerusalem. (Jerusalem: University o Jerusalem Press).
489 ——, 1967. Hebrew Printing at Constantinople (Jerusalem: Te Magnes Press, Hebrew University). Zamora Vicente, Alonso, 1967. Dialectología española (Madrid: Gredos). Zedner, Joseph, 1964. Catalogue o Hebrew Books in the British Museum. Te rustees o the British Museum (Norwich: Lithographic reprint by Jarrold & Sons). Zimmels, Hirsch, J., 1971. ‘Te Contributions o the Sephardim to the Responsa Literature till the beginning o the 16th Century’ in Te 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 o this research. Te internet today has proved to be a most exciting research tool with in nite possibilities. Below I have listed a ew signi cant ones: Hebrew Date Converter: http://www.hebcal.com/converter/ Reerence: Edward M. Reingold and Nachum Dershowitz, 2001. Calendrical Calculations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press). http://www.kultur.gov.tr/portal/tarih_en.asp?belgeno=1347 [Inormation on Ottoman coins rom the urkish government].
Te Responsa Project, CD ROM, version 8, 1972–2000, by the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel.
Te Responsa Project, CD ROM, version 11 plus, 2003, by the Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan Israel. http://www.seslisozluk.com/—urkish 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
HREE SAMPLE EXS RANSLIERAED Tese three sample texts (S) have been transliterated according to the guide in able 2.4 in order to illustrate much o the discussion in Chapter 4. ext 7. She’elot u-eshuvot Mahạ rashdam, Even Haezer 8 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.
lw hzyhwbym pwr qdwšyn p∙rh wnh qdynh ∙z ∙mrh lw pwnyldwš ∙yn šw∙ylw y lwš ţwmry ynţwnšyš pwšw rby ywšy p hnz` ∙wn dwqdw ∙yn šw∙ylw ∙y wynw lh mwzh ∙y ţwmw ∙yl dwq∙dw ∙y bwlţw l∙š ∙yšp∙ld∙š p∙rh ∙yršy ∙y dyšw r` ywšyp hnz` ∙lwš qy ∙lyy ∙yšţ∙bn šydmy >dym qwmw lw ţwmw pwr qydwšyn. ∙yšţw pw∙y m>yd bţwr` >dw` mšy b∙šh >k b∙wţh š>h b∙ mšy pr∙nqw ∙y dyšw qwmw ly dyšw rby ywšy hnz` ldwnh hnz` qyyš ∙yšţwš dwq∙dwš pwr qydwšy` p∙rh ∙wnh q∙dynh ∙y dyšw lh mwšh pwn ∙wnw ∙ynyl šw∙ylw ∙y lw pwzw ∙y lw ţwmw lh mwšh ∙y ∙ylyh qy šy ∙ybh dyšw rby ywšyp ∙lwš qy ∙lyy ∙yšţ∙bn šydmy >dym qy lw ţwmw pwr qydwšyn
ext 49. eshuvot haRa’anach 20, estimony B1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
nw pynšyš šynywryš qy pwr šyr yw m∙dry dygh mynţyrh `w qy yw dyry ţwdw lwqy ∙ynyšţw š lwš dy∙š pš∙dwš pw ∙y yw ∙l ∙yšqwţ∙r qwn ∙wn my šwbrynw pwr ∙wn my mşl h ∙ţ ∙y ∙byyndw q∙myn∙dw mwg`w pwr ∙lyy my ∙rymy ∙yn ∙wnh bwţyqh prynţy dyl q∙rb∙s∙rh pwr rypwz∙r qy yšţ∙bh ∙yn t>nyty ∙y ∙ynlh pw ∙yrţh dyl q∙rb∙s∙rh ∙yšţ∙b∙n šyyrţwš q∙ţryg`š mwrwš ∙y
1 Note that this text is one o the ew that is block script Hebrew and not rashi script.
494 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.
qwmw wyyrwn ∙my šwbrynw ∙ dylywš ynpyšw ∙m∙ldyzyrlw y dyš` w ∙lwš ∙wţrwš pwr q∙wz∙ dy ∙qwyl pyrwg`wdyyw qy my dyyw ∙wn šw p∙ryynţy qy lw lyyb∙šy ∙h q∙r∙ysr ∙qwyl pyrw pwr gw∙rd∙r šw šbt lw m∙ţ∙rwn ∙h ∙yl y ∙h ∙wn my prymw ∙y ∙h ∙wn my mwsw m∙l mwndw ţyngh
13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.
yw qw∙ndw ∙w ∙y dyzyr ∙yšţw ∙l q∙ţryg` gryţy ∙y dyšy ∙l q∙ţryg` ∙yn >rby qyyn ∙yš ∙yšy g`wdyyw qy m∙ţ∙rwn my ryšpwndyyw yl q∙ţryg` ∙yšy pyrw qy ∙yšţh ∙ ∙y nw lwqwnwšy qy ∙yl mylw ţrwšw yw ly ţwrny ∙ dyzyr dymylw pwr ţwwyd∙ qyyn ∙yš ∙yšy g`wdyyw ryšpwndyw ∙yl q∙ţryg` y dyjšw ∙yryš ţw dy lb dyšyly yw šy dyšwmy pw ∙yš nwn qwnwšyš ∙h kly`p∙ hyg`w dy mrdky dyšyly yw šy lw qwnwšqw dyšw pw ∙yš ∙yšy ∙yš ∙yl qy m∙ţ∙rwn yšţwnšyš ly dy m∙ndw my šwbrynw qwmw š∙byš qylw m∙ţ∙rwn qy yw šy qy ∙yšţh bybw ryšpwndyyw ∙yl q∙ţryg``y ∙y ly dyšw hw g``wpyq šy yw ly wydy ∙h ∙yl
24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
yl q∙ţryg`y ∙ mybybw mwsw∙yšţw ţwdwš ţryš lh m∙ţ∙dwš qwmw dyzyš ţw qy∙y∙yšţh yš pwr qw ∙ynţh qy y dy d∙r ∙l dyyw lwqy ∙yn yšţw šy ∙y ţ∙mbyyn mwšy mwnywn qy ∙yšţh ∙qy p∙blw ∙yl qwn ∙wn >r∙by∙dw qwn ∙yl myšmw ∙yšţy q∙ţrygy``
ext 68. orat Emet 6 1. 2. 3. 4.
q∙m ∙l r∙gl∙w wyhyyd wy∙m∙r yg hw dybyr ymyţ: qy yl ∙šţ∙ndw ţr∙b∙g`∙ndw ywn q∙zh dy h``r šlmh dwd y`nw wynw ∙bwšq∙rlw rby ∙hrn br ∙brhm m``qq qyy∙nh y`>∙ ∙y nw lw p∙lyyw ∙yn q∙zh ∙h r šlmh dwd hnz` ∙y ∙šynţwsy dyţw h``r
5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.
∙hrn br ∙brhm hnz` ∙hqnp∙bl∙r rbys∙lyyw ∙ly∙ brlhy>qb ∙y ∙yšţ∙ndw p∙bl∙ndw r` ∙ly∙qwn hnz` h`ghdygw dy rby >zr∙ şdyq z``l qy ∙yšţh ∙gwnh ∙y lh wydw rby ∙hrn br ∙br hnz` dym∙ndw ∙h r` ∙ly∙ pwr qy nw šy q∙zh lh hyg`h dy rby >zr∙ şdyq hnz` ∙ţ r ∙ly∙ ryšpwndyyw qwmw šy ∙h dy q∙z∙r qy šy ∙pwgw ∙yl m∙rydw dy nţrw dy lh m∙r ∙y nwn ∙yy >dwt šwbry ∙yl ∙y ryšpwndyyw rby ∙h∙rn hnzk ∙y dyšw : ∙byryš dy š∙byr qy yw ∙yšţ∙ndw ∙yn ∙wn n∙wy∙w pyqynyyw q∙rg∙dw qy yyn ∙nqr∙dw ∙ynţry dwš q∙z∙1 š myrywpţy ∙y ∙yryqly p∙šw ∙wn n∙wy∙w gr∙ndy qy wyny∙h dy qšţ∙nţy` ∙y y∙ ∙ š∙lwnyqy y qy yl wydw ∙yn ∙qyl n∙wy∙w lrby mtty∙ rwsw ∙y p∙blw qnyl >l >nyn pqdwn ∙` ∙y ţ∙nbyyn ly
495 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.
dyšw qy qyry∙h ∙wn∙ q∙nţ∙ryqh dy wynw y nw ţwbw ţyynpw mtty∙ rwsw dy ţwm∙r n∙dh dy m∙nw dy r` ∙hrn hnz pwrqy ∙yl n∙wy∙w gr∙ndy ∙y∙h dy pryšh p∙š∙ndw ∙yl n∙wy∙w dyţw wndy ∙y∙h rby mtty∙ rwsw ∙dyl∙nţy q∙myn∙ry∙h qwmw ∙wnh mylyy∙ ∙y qyzy rwn lwš dyl n∙wy∙w bwlţ∙r lh wylh dyl
22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.
n∙wy∙w qy ∙wy∙h ţynpynţh ∙ñil m∙r ∙y ∙lh bwlţ∙dh dy l∙ wylh yl n∙wy∙w šy pwndyw ∙y ∙yšţwbymwš myr∙ndw lh m∙r∙bylyy∙ qwmw šy ∙pwg∙rwn ţwdwš ∙y ∙yl >kwm dy my n∙wy∙w wndy yw yšţ∙bh š∙lyyw ∙y pw∙y ∙h d∙r ∙byzw ∙lwš ∙ >kwm dyl q∙z∙l qy ∙yš lwg∙r dy ∙w∙nlyq qy ∙yš ∙ynprynţy dy m∙rm∙rh : qw∙ndw ţwrnw ∙yl >k``wm ∙l n∙wy∙w ∙wndy yw ∙yšţ∙b ∙yrh mšíyh lypy ţwmw qwn mygw y dyšw qyyš š∙wyr ∙hrn qy ţ∙rdy qy wynymwš dy ∙ynţyr∙r ∙qyl rby mttyh rwsw qy p∙bl∙šţy qwnyl ∙qyl dylh q∙rh pyq∙dh ∙lţw dy qw∙yrpw qyywsy ∙∙yl ∙y ∙wţr∙š dwš qry∙ţwr∙š š∙qymwš dylh ∙gw∙h ∙y lwš ynţyr∙mwš ∙yn ∙wn ∙ryn∙l ∙ynlh
33. ∙yšţw ∙wrylyy∙ ţ∙rdy ∙lyy h∙ţh∙šynţ∙dw. ∙gwrh : ţwdw 34. mydylh dyšwm∙r r` pwr ∙hrn ∙yšw br ∙brhm
APPENDIX 2
GLOSSARY OF WORDS OF URKISH ORIGIN IN HE EXS agas alai bigi aspro/s
başá barbare buklik büklü çekirdek çóban kadí kapán katriği ǰuma
koske
1
text 49:11 aga, agah ‘master’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 2). text 3:9 alai bii ‘property, mansion-owner’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 5), beg ‘eudal lord’ (Bunis 1993: 23). 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, ‘urkish coin’, (http://www.seslisozluk.com 10.5.05/), ‘leben/lebanim’ in Hebrew.2 text 48:5, 54A:6, 54B:5 paşa—retained in modern Spanish rom urkish, ‘governor’, ‘general’ (Redhouse 2003: 469). text 14.8 barbar, ‘barbarous’ (Moran 1985: 100). text 37:17 bölük, ‘company’ (http://www.seslisozluk.com/ 11/5/05). text 13:3 büklü ‘olded piece o paper’, implying a contract (Redhouse 2003). text 83:15 chicardetes ‘grains, a measure o weight o gold and o precious stones, about a quarter o a carat. text 3:8 chobán, ‘shepherd’ (Redhouse 2003: 119). text 19:28 qadi, (Redhouse 2003: 301), ‘religious judge’ (c. Gerber 1980: 162), kadi, ‘judge’ (Moran 1985: 454). text 37:30 kapan, ‘weighing house’, ‘warehouse’ (c. Ihsanoğlu 2001: 608). text 49A:5, 10, S 49B:7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 23, 24, 28, 49C:5, 8, 9, 10, 12. kadir, ‘mighty’, ‘powerul’, hence the official in power. (http://www.seslisozluk.com/11/5/05). text 83:12, 83:63 ǰuma or chuma; cuma is Friday, the Islamic holy day (Redhouse 2003: 99). text 11:1 köşk, ‘villa’, ‘summer house’, ‘pavilion’ (Redhouse 1968: 680a).
1 In this section my reerence to the texts ollowing the word is according to my numbering. 2 For more inormation on sixteenth century urkish currency, see Ihsanoğlu (2001: 595–601).
497 dólia donluk eendi emir
emsallar esmaltir Guélibolou çiflik guruş haaraçi
hamiá harás hoğara hüccet, gömü
text 3:6 dolayi, ‘on account o’, ‘because o’ (Redhouse 2003: 147). text 11:42 donluk, ‘length o cloth given to soldiers’ (Redhouse 1968: 309b). text 3:8 eendi, ‘urkish title or a man o humble status’ (Redhouse 2003: 159). Te Janissary eendi was the man who kept the pay-rolls (c. Ihsanoğlu 2001: 384). text 37:30 emir, ‘the man in charge’ (Redhouse 2003: 167), ormerly ‘mayor’ (Moran 1985: 271). Emin, ‘sure’, ‘certain’ (Redhouse 2003: 167). Emir is contextually correct in this particular passage. text 13:95 emsal n.pl., ‘equals’, ‘matches’ (Moran 1985: 272), in this context emsallar means ‘to equal’, ‘to match’ in the sense o ‘to copy’, ‘to obtain’. text 28.36 esman, ‘cost’, ‘price’ (rare use) (Moran 1985: 280). Esmaltir here means ‘to cover the cost’. 84: and Introduction, Galipol or urkish Guelibolou was atext town port on the Marmara river in the province o Adrianople (Mostras 1873: 152). Modern ‘Gallipoli’. text 37:2, 4, 33, 37, 42, 43, 50 çiflik, ‘arm’ (Redhouse 2003: 116), ‘sultan’s inheritance’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 12). texts 11:43, 38A:7, 10, 16, 71:27 guruş, kuruş, ‘piastre’ (Redhouse 1968: 417a, 689a). text 84B:9, 10 haraç, ‘protection money’ (Redhouse 2003: 229), haradj, ‘urkish poll tax that was spent on cloth or Janissary uniorms’ (Barnett and Shwab 1989: 213). texts 42:13, 76:3 hamia, ‘a oreign citizen living in the Ottoman Empire and enjoying privileges’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 22). text 37:50 haraset, ‘arming’ ‘agriculture’ (Moran 1985: 355). Possibly ‘he cultivated’. text 80:27 hoğara, ‘shop’, ‘room’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 17). texts 13:95, 37:38, 39, 41, 50B:18, hüccet, ormerly ‘titledeeds’ (Moran 1985: 386). text 61B:13 gömü, ‘buried treasure’, ‘ nding’ (Moran 1985: 328).
498 libra mahalle maramá meemet
mersas mülkiye muallim motivile mükâri műşkî, nakil orete kira köse kiraci reis rey
rizá
text 14:5 lira, ‘Ottoman gold coin’ (Redhouse 2003: 383). text 76:5 mahalle, ‘street’ or ‘district’ (Redhouse 2003: 387). text 60:2 makrama, ‘handkerchie’ or ‘scar’, ‘headdress’ (Moran 1985: 588). text 27:4 derived rom Mehmed, linguistically represented typically in Judeo-Spanish by meemet ( nal d written with a t as in verdat). Mehmed was the name o many sultans o the Ottoman Empire; see also Mehmed the Conqueror (c. Gubbay & Levy 1992: 109). text 14:7 mersas, ‘harbour’, ‘anchorage’ (Moran 1985: 615). text 13:40 mülkiyet, ‘proprietorship’ (Redhouse 2003: 420). text 47:3 muallim, ‘teacher/master’ (http://www.seslisozluk .com/ 10/5/05); the orm moalim, in the text is an Arabism o the urkish word. text 13:4 motivile, ‘regional administrator’, ‘money clerk’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 29), mütevelli, ‘trustee’ (Redhouse 2003) text 76:3, 5 (twice), mükâri, ‘muleteer’ (Redhouse 1968). text 11:43 műşkî, ‘musky’, ‘dark-coloured’ (Redhouse 1968: 837b). text 47:2 nakil ‘transport’ (Redhouse 2003: 426), ‘transer’ (Moran 1985: 689), here it means a copy or receipt, in the sense o ‘monetary transer’. text 37:14 could be rom orta, ‘middle’ (Moran 1985: 719). text 19:13 kira, ‘rent’ (Redhouse 2003: 349); could this mean ‘transport’ in the sense o the rent paid or the journey? S 68:31 köse, ‘beardless’ (Redhouse 2003: 363). text 18:8 kiraci, ‘tenant’ (Redhouse 2003: 350). text 27:4 ‘sailor in charge’, ‘head’ (Bašan & Bornstein 1973: 49). text 84B:8 normally means ‘king’ in Spanish (modern Spanish or Judeo-Spanish), so ‘ ja de rey’ could be a king’s daughter or ollowing the Hebrew idiom, bat melek ̠ (a Jewish girl). Also reaya (Moran 1985: 776) is a non-Muslim adult male (c. Barnett & Shwab 1989: 212); either way she is a ‘Jewish girl’. text 45:2, 5, 8, 9 rido, ‘handkerchie’ (Nehama 1977: 482). Interestingly, as the object happens to be used as kiddushin, riza also means ‘consent’ (Redhouse 2003: 493).
499 sarra sicil sultan/is tabán tartura testimil waywode
vekil mutlagaj vekil yan torbá zül kar
text 18:29, sarra, ‘moneylender’ ‘money-changer’ (Moran 1985: 809). text 19:28 sicil, ‘registry’ (http://www.seslisozluk.com/ 12/5/05). texts 13:75, 59:2, 3 sultani, ‘coin named afer the sultan’ (Rare Ottoman Coins in (http://www.kultur.gov. tr/portal/tarih_en. asp?belgeno=1347 12/5/05). text 12:41 taban, ‘ oor’ (Redhouse 2003: 563). text 61C:3 tartura, ‘wheel’ (Moran 1985: 909). text 3.1, 2 could be rom testi, ‘(earthenware) jug’, ‘pitcher’ (Moran 1985: 946). text 13.37 waywode, srcinally this was a title given to a military commander, then applied to governors o towns and provinces (http://www.seslisozluk.com/ 12/5/05). text 47:3 vekil mütlak, ‘an attorney with unlimited power’. Mütlak ‘absolute’ (http://www.seslisozluk. com/12/5/05). text 47:4 ‘attorney’ (Redhouse 2003: 640). text 12:4, yan, ‘side’; torba, ‘bag’ (Redhouse 2003: 651, 610). It is used in the sense o ‘money-bag’. text 13:4 ‘two-bladed sword o Ali the Caliph, carried by the Janissary officers’ (c. Ihsanoğlu 2001: 377).
APPENDIX 3
GLOSSARY OF HEBREW ERMS 1 agency / shelichut a legal doctrine enabling a person (the principal) to perorm a legal act through another (the agent), in such a manner that it will be recognized as the legal act o the principal, whereby a person’s possible eld o legal activity is extended beyond the normal physical and other limitations.2 agunah lit. the state o being restrained or held back. (1) Te agunah is de ned as ‘a married woman who or whatsoever reason is separated rom her husband and cannot remarry, either because she cannot obtain a divorce rom him, or because it is unknown whether he is still alive’ (Elon 1975: 409). Te main Biblical source or the divorce laws is Deuteronomy 24:1: ‘I a man marries a woman and lives with her, and it will be that she will not nd avour in his eyes or he ound in her a matter o immorality, and he wrote her a bill o divorce, and he presented it into her hand, and he sent her rom his house’.3 Te main legal eature here is that in order or a divorce to be effective, the man must give the woman a document stating that she is being sent away rom 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 de nition or explanation and are included in this glossary, particularly since they occur repeatedly. Te context in which these terms occur is considered in the de nition. Tese de nitions have been taken or adapted mainly rom Elon (1975) Te Principles o Jewish Law and the glossary in the ractates o 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 Tis translation is taken rom Scherman and Zlotowitz (2003), Deuteronomy 24:1.
501 Tis document is reerred 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. Tereore it is essential that the husband, or sometimes his messenger, delivers the divorce bill to his wie. It is deduced rom Deuteronomy 24:1 that a man may send a messenger to deliver the document o severance. Te Bible’s diction veshilcha (and he will send her), suggests that the divorce document may be sent through an agent. Another de nition o an agunah is a woman who is doubtully divorced or widowed and wishes to con rm her reedom in order to remarry. Te woman can be ‘doubtully’ divorced in cases where she isa separated rom because her husband but cannot obtain divorce either he reuses or because he is absent. Usually, rabbinic and communal pressure is exerted on the husband so that he will ultimately grant his wie a get. Tis is ofen effective in resolving the situation, but i not, there is little the law can do to unbind the woman rom her status as an agunah. One possibility is to annul the marriage, in terms o nding an inconsistency in the srcinal kiddushin ceremony. For instance, in some circumstances, the validity o the witnesses can be questioned and can serve to annul the marriage. It is signi cant that the woman must receive the divorce bill in person. However, in some cases the signature o one hundred rabbis can serve to validate the divorce when the woman is unwilling to receive or accept the divorce.4 However, the law also offers the husband the possibility o contracting an additional marriage,5 as there is
4 5
Tis only allows an Ashkenazi man to remarry. Known as heter nissuin.
502 no Biblical prohibition against bigamy. In contrast, the woman aces serious consequences i she were to remarry beore being reed rom her rst marriage. Te result would be an adulterous union intolerable in Jewish law. Te children o this prohibited union are regarded as mamzerim, who are not only treated as social outcasts but are also legally prohibited rom marrying a Jew, and their children inherit this damaging legal and social status. (2) Te other agunah situation occurs when a woman is ‘doubtully’ widowed, that is, when it is unknown whether her husband is dead or alive. As has been noted, the disappearance o a husband where there is no proo o death is insufficient to ree the woman o agunah status. Conclusive proo o his death is essential. Knowledge o the whereabouts o his burial place or whether he was buried by Proo Jews also acilitates the legalrequired con rmation o his death. o identity is naturally to establish the man’s death. Evidence as to the circumstances in which the death occurred is ofen not considered sucient proo o death as it could be entirely the opinion o the witness and thereore a subjective account o the death. Te witness must testiy to the act o death or the Respondent to be satis ed that death actually occurred. berit milah a Hebrew borrowing, lit. means a covenant. Tis reers to berit milah, the covenant o circumcision. Te commandment to circumcise is given at Genesis 17:10–14 and Leviticus 12:3. Te covenant was srcinally made
bet din chalitzah get
with Abraham. It is the rst commandment speci c to the Jews. Circumcision is supposed to be perormed on the eighth day o a boy’s lie. It is customary to conduct a estive meal usually in the presence o ten men, a minyan, ollowing the act o circumcision. lit. ‘house o judgement’, court; Rabbinical court comprised minimally o three judges. Such a court is empowered to rule on civil matters. see yibum. a) bill o divorce: the document that effects the dissolution o a marriage when it is placed in the wie’s possession. b) any document.
503 halakhah haskamah
hekdesh
Kaddish
kashrut
kiddushin
a) a Biblical law; b) (cap.) the body o Biblical law; c) in cases o dispute, the position accepted as de nitive by the later authorities and ollowed in practice. an agreement, an approbation. In Jewish literature it has several meanings o which two are relevant to this book: (a) Rabbinic approval and approbation o the legal decisions o colleagues, normally attached to the srcinal legal decision and articulated with it. (b) In Spain and later in the Oriental communities used or statutes and ordinances enacted by the community. a) items consecrated to the emple treasury or as offerings; hekdesh can have two levels o sanctity: monetary sanctity and physical sanctity. Property owned by the emple treasury is said to have monetary sanctity. Such property can be redeemed or can be sold by the hekdesh treasurers and the proceeds o the redemption or sale become hekdesh in its place.mourner’s prayer that is said is Hebrew or a traditional daily with a quorum o at least ten Jewish males who are over the age o thirteen. Tis prayer is recited by the mourner rom the day o burial, daily or the rst eleven months, and on the anniversary o the death. dietary laws—the collective term or the Jewish laws and customs pertaining to the types o ood permitted or consumption and their preparation. Kashrut is derived rom kasher—‘ t’ or ‘proper’. Te word appears only three times in the Bible (Ester 8:5, Ecclesiastes 10:10, 11:6) and even then not in connection with ood. For details onkashrut see EJ pp. 26–44, see also chap. 4 n. 456. the procedure that validates Jewish marriages. It is an act perormed between a man and woman, leading to a change in their personal status, i.e. rom bachelorhood to a status which remains unchanged until the death o either party or their divorce rom one another (Elon 1975: 356). Brie y, kiddushin involves the man handing over an object o minimal value that the spouse accepts. Te man must pronounce the appropriate words o kiddushin beore two valid witnesses. It is vital that the man declares his intentions to his betrothed in such a way that she understands his intentions. Tis act is a binding legal contract.
504 Te object o kiddushin must be o a certain minimum value, one peruta, i.e. a copper coin equivalent to the minimum unit o monetary value. Te Mishnah (Kiddushin 2:1) recognizes even a date (the ruit) as an object as kiddushin. Te requirement is that the date must be o the minimum value stipulated. Te two signi cant legal points emerging rom the testimonies concern the object o kiddushin and the words uttered in relation to kiddushin. Objects vary rom ‘una naranja’, an orange (Maharashdam 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 Yose 8). Within an entire Hebrew text, the name o the object o kiddushin alone is requently written in Judeo-Spanish in the Hebrew script. For example, there are several responsa where the single word ‘limones’ or ‘naranjas’ is ound in Judeo-Spanish. Tereore, an understanding o the language is vital in order to comprehend the ollowing legal requirements o kiddushin: (1). the weight and in turn the value o the object in question. (2). the need or two witnesses to testiy to the handing over o the object o kiddushin. It is also legally required or the man to own the object o kiddushin. Freimann (1964: 165–166) cites responsum in text 8 in his analysis o the history o rabbinic enactments in the eld o marriage. Like many rabbis throughout the ages and across the world, the rabbis in Salonica instituted certain rulings pertaining to the laws o marriage. Such rulings (takkanot) are directives enacted by legal scholars, or other competent bodies, enjoying the orce o law. akkanot constitute one o the sources o 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 o kiddushin (Freimann 1964: 166), in order to protect her rom an unwanted marriage. Insisting on the presence o a sage and a woman’s relatives ensures that the marriage contract is made known to the amily and becomes the responsibility o the wider community.
505 On 7 Hẹ švan 1568 eight distinguished rabbis in Salonica, including R. Samuel de Medina and R. Isaac Adarbi, placed a hẹ rem, the excommunicatory ban, on those who did not adhere to their rulings with reerence to kiddushin. Te rabbis stated that the marriage must take place in the presence o ten men above the age o eighteen years. Tey added that a chazan (the leader o the service) and a sage should also be present. In any case, i this condition were not met the respondent might invalidate the marriage vows, and kiddushin would have to be repeated at the time o nissiun (the time when the couple would live together). Apparently, several months afer this decree, such an episode occurred and both R. Adarbi and R. Medina carried out the excommunication. Te issue o whether the witnesses are valid where kiddushin is carried out without meeting the requirements o thesebetween new local laws subject o disagreement the rabbinic two rabbis. Forwas the aenactments o 1568 and the laws on kiddushin in Salonica, its suburbs, Seres, Monastir, So a, 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 Biblical and almudic law. Te rst stage, called erusin or kiddushi(n), is rendered loosely in English as ‘betrothal’ (Friedman 1980: 192). For legal de nitions on shidduchin, kiddushin and nissu’in see Elon (1975: 353–359). Note the legal orce o the phrase tomadlo por qidusín para mí. (take it as an object o betrothal rom me) expresses a clear intent on the man’s part, and becomes clearly comprehensible to his uture wie. Te rabbis would not rule against a marriage i this requirement were the only one not met. Te words have to be equivalent to ‘behold you are consecrated unto me by this ring, according to the law o Moses and o Israel’ (Elon 1975: 356). ‘Para mí’ can also be implied. Implication and nuance o language assumes the same legal orce as the words uttered by the participants. Examples o the legal signi cance o the omission o ‘para mí’ are ound in responsa 31, 64, 73concerning and 83. Examples in many responsa marriage.o nuance appear
506 Note that the woman aces serious consequences i she were to remarry beore being reed rom her rst marriage. Te result would be an adulterous union unacceptable in Jewish law. Te children o this prohibited union are regarded as
kinyan
kinyan chali n
kinyan kesse mesiach le tumo
minchah mo’adim
mamzerim, not only treated as social outcasts but also legally prohibited rom marrying Jews, and their children inherit this damaging legal and social status. See Elon (1975 435–437). ormal act o acquisition. An action that causes an agreement or exchange to be legally binding; the act whereby a person voluntarily obtains legal rights. lit. acquisition by exchange. a) Even exchange: an exchange o two items o comparable value, in which each item serves as payment or the other. Te acquisition o any o affects the acquisition o the theitems other.automatically b) Uneven exchange: an item o relatively negligible value is given in order to effect the acquisition o the item or sale. A handkerchie or the like is traditionally used. acquisition through money; transer o money. this is a rabbinic concept usually involving cases where a woman’s husband has disappeared and in order to remarry she needs con rmation o his death. Despite great enthusiasm to liberate a woman in such a situation, there is ear among rabbinic authorities that testimony brought in such circumstances may be tendentious. However, when individuals make incidental comments where the implications o their remarks are unknown to them, then there are no qualms about accepting the implications o their comments. Credibility is presumed or statements made or purposes unconnected with the litigation (Elon 1975: 602). the afernoon prayer service. the estivals.
507 moda‘á
nazir
neder pikadon sava’á
Shabbat
a moda‘á—noti cation, means an affidavit made by a person stating that a legal transaction he is about to execute is being orced against his will (Gruneld 1987: 58). a Nazirite is a person who vows or a speci c period to abstain rom partaking o grapes or any o their products, whether intoxicating or not, cutting his hair and touching a corpse (Elon 1975: 907). Te Nazirite took on an almost priestly role; i he did not speciy the period o 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 gures. a vow. Tere are two basic categories o vows; (a) restrictive vows, (b) vows to donate to hekdesh. an object deposited with a custodian or saeakeeping. will. Elon de nes a will in Jewish law as ‘a person’s disposition o his property in avour o another in such manner that the testator retains the property or his rights to it until his death’ (Elon 1975: 453). the Sabbath. Te seventh day o the week, Saturday, devoted to worship and rest rom work. Te sancti cation o the day in many ways including abstaining rom work, travel, etc. stems rom the Biblical commandment to observe the Sabbath based on the verses: In the beginning . . . the
heaven and the earth were nished, and all their array. And on the seventh day God nished the work which He had been doing, and He ceased on the seventh day rom all the work which He had done. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctied it, because on it God ceased rom all the work o creation which He had done’ (Genesis 2:103). Shavuot/ Šavu‘ot the Festival o Weeks, is the second o the three major estivals with both historical and agricultural signi cance. Agriculturally, it commemorates the time when the rst ruits were harvested and
508 brought to the emple, and is known as Hag ha-Bikurim (the Festival o the First Fruits). Historically, it celebrates the giving o the orah at Mount Sinai, and is also known as Hag Matan oratenu (the Festival o the Giving o Our orah). Te Biblical source or this estival is: ‘You shall
shetar takkanah
te llah tereah
tọ es
orah
count or yourselves—rom the day afer the shabbat, rom the day when you bring the Omer o the waving— seven shabbats, they shall be complete. Until the day afer the seventh Sabbath you shall count, fy days . . . You shall convoke on this very day—there shall be a holy convocation or yourselves—you shall do no laborious work; it is an eternal decree in your dwelling places or your generations’ (Leviticus 21:15–16, 21). legal document, a contract. a directive enacted by the halakhic scholars or other competent body enjoying the orce o law. It constitutes one o the sources o Jewish law. Tewhich takkanah in Jewish law is legal akin to that part o legislation in other legal systems is termed subordinate. Te written orah is the constitution—the supreme legislation o Jewish law, as in the orah itsel power is delegated to the halakhic scholars to create takkanot (EJ 714). prayer, speci cally the daily prayer services and the additions added on the Sabbath and estivals. In Sephardic usage, it speci cally reers to the morning prayer service. a) a person, animal or bird that has a aw in one o its organs which will cause its death within twelve months. Te meat o such an animal or bird is orbidden, even i it has undergone valid ritual slaughter. b) a generic term or all non-kosher ood. the tọ es is the document’s orm containing the rest o the document’s text including a summary o all the signi cant inormation contained in the tore (a document’s essence, speciying its date, the names o the principals and the pertinent acts particular to the document). except or the document’s date (Scherman and Zlotowitz 2001a:glossary). Essentially, a tọ es is equivalent to a photocopy with some variations to ensure it is not conused with the srcinal. the ve books o Moses: the Pentateuch.
509 umdena Umdena is a concept commonly used by halakhic writers to ll gaps in a wide range o halakhic elds: civil law (dine mamonot), criminal law (including dine neashot), amily law etc. It can be applied as an assumption o actual events or as an assessment o the intentions o the parties. By
yibum
applying ‘umdena, a variety o legal constructions becomes applicable, according to the nature o each case. Tus, ‘umdena can replace the actual evidence, ‘umdena can be the ground or validating constitutive acts and so on. See Gemara commentaries on umdena, almud ractate Bava Batra 131–132b, 146b. Also see Shlomo Yose Levin: almudic Encyclopaedia, vol. 1 col. 295, entry—umdena. levirate marriage. When a man dies childless, the orah provides or one o his brothers to marry the widow. Tis marriage is called yibum. Pending this, the widow is orbidden to marry anyone else. Te surviving brother, upon whom thethe obligation perorm commandment alls, is called yavam. to Te widowthis is called the yevamah. Yibum is effected only through cohabitation. I the brother should reuse to perorm yibum, he must release her rom her yibum-bond by perorming the alternate rite o a chalitzah in which she removes his shoe beore the court and spits beore him, declaring: ‘So should be done to the man who will not build his brother’s house’ (Deuteronomy 25:5–10).
s oni t elcl oc as n
4 IX D N E P P A
D E C EL L O C SA N O ESP R D N A S N E D N O SP E R F O LSI A E D
opes r ri e th o es m an e th ,h ate d and trh ib o se acl p d an s tae d ,s m nyo rc a ri eh t , tns dne op es R o lbe a
,a sn pso er es e th o no i atc lib up o e alc p dn a se ta d s,is eh tn e arp in no i cet lol c hc ae n snai op se r o r be unm eh t de, tl us con
o as re n b op s m u eR N
.y no im t est hs nia p -oS deu J ian nto c to oni tc ell co h ace n ndiu o as no ps re o ebr m nu hte and
o ec al P
oni ta lbic uP
oni atc i blu P
et a D
onit c lel leot C o i as n pos e R / h rti B o cea Pl
ht ea D
s ateD ). .. m yn as roc nw A onk (
o e ohr mt aN uA
ht i w d uon
hs i anp Sedo uJ
2 e opln it n tas no C 6 541 t vuo h
2
1
otne r di av i R
g ebr m Le
ec nie V
ec nie V
9 551
5 801
3 661
9 741 t vuo 5) h 8 es (2 u- 3 za olt bd ’ee ar hS aH
2
ina p ,Sa no le rca B
s eri gl A
av R eiB otv u she 3) 6( od e ol , dae qau de M aS
–62 13
80 14
–47 14
es 18) u- 5( olt 1 hs ’ee av hS iR
sha iv R eth s heS .b ca Isa
sn ia tn oc lny o 25 6
avr bei r ḥaa M
te re P
14 15
ina pS
d?e aS
–97 14
37 15
za bd a R ar im Z . avr bd ob e iv acJ B D a
o1n orv Li, no it die t rsi F. sn iot die 5 971 k,
si th ot alt to ni nos
tied ne ve s er a er e T .n oi t die ts r tsi is 9 rai 174 B , ne 49 B 3 I— II m u nso V , p 729 se 1, r m o em la r su ed re kr J o ni w I de sa tn ;t i s . eprr reh .) oni 2,8 ts 51 t 9 no. ied 18 ina 1( t it 8 , n gr id 5 w o e e 9 as c b 97 ,1 ar 49 ide W7 r 18, m lea I— 1e Fe an s I ic es il ur -V ne , V eJ I: V nio s s s ; t seu seu eus 00 ecl 3 l P P P – o R R R 1a ac U I U I U I s s B B B no no 1 2 3 espr espr
511 o a r sn be op s m u eR N o ec a Pl
oni ta ilc bu P
oin atc i bul P
et a D
oitn c lel leo C o it a sn pos e R / ht ir B o cea Pl
ht ea D
s ateD
).t
). .. m yn as roc nw A onk (
n c(o
4 idx enp pA
o e ohr mt aN uA
h it w dn uo
h ins paS eod uJ
.h 5 C2 e opln it cai cai hc tna ec oln oln spi sno nie aS aS Li C V 1
1 e ulm 89 o 5 V1 t vuo h )
3
1 791 )7 12 (
9 851
3 571 t vuo h
4
ec nie V
6 601
9 621 t dn vuo a ) h ) 8 es (806 ve ephl (24 )l .bl A 6 l) al u- 7 ti e in olt b rịa kle m a e ha h m 70 ’ee m a i MC ( G 3( hS H
es (63 5 hel u- 4 e oc olt so R t ’ee tY ak hS eB vA
es uolt ’ee hS
o eld o
de aS
?e l opn i ir t sta tan no sn o MC
cai no alS
de aS
–88 14
57 15
–50 15
/00 15
08 15
e os Y et B
hp e osJ
08 15
evL bIn im rah p ro .E a b C
.b hp e osJ
ibt a M
idv a D
nia r b. hp se se s o o J M
itr w is ac in ol aS ;n
si ht ) U H ( re k s ca u H g nti tio aalot ssor de de C e o shil aci r’s rP e n b o di ot pu laS en g sa h in w 557 scn dro n 1 i c . ito a teS ca lep id n ( h o e ee s’ g int a b u u nso ev nde oth nat s a i spe hy n e,l no p r a ed o C si m n 3 e eli ti 7 .Tre c na 51 onsit )th ..diffi nsto teda id 59 s. C d e 9 u L B 62 1( nn m ro in 71 dar A , g ;‘e 06 en o t 5 m ad ni ad 1s oe e a th ert V s dn htt tra m ma p o A )1 uob st r 59 a r n 3— tr 1( yt e oiat ap rg ian ht ir e t s a 0,6 bd re eta ov e c 1–9 iFr nu dL ns Z ow 951 tog beto IB . hs .) n oni .n , in rs Y itd oi em rd a 3 oi . e ti las occ pep 43. dit ino 06 de ru A a p e ti 9 9 eJ e. re y si de ,1 581 — pl het elw T . 61 2 o m el gi, –1 tni re oC no 18 as z s n ve ,) tii ,v u pi rt a 25 de o eJr Le ap tsn w o 8 Lv se se s:e oC .H 1r aci se su su s n ts ed no su u e i l P P P i k e a P R R R 375 car hn S7 R U I U I U I 1 b sc 5 U I B B B –0 in ni 51 B e 4 5 6 561 ent St( sai 7 ne e w te b s rta p ere h
84 95 o.n yr nte ,
512 o a r sn be op s m u eR N o ec a Pl
oni ta ilc bu P
oni ta cil bu P
et a D
onit c lel leot C o i a sn op es R / trh i B o cea Pl
ht ea D
s ateD
).t
.). . m yn as or nw c A onk (
n c(o
4 idx enp pA
o r e oh mt aN uA
h it w dn uo
h ins paS eod uJ
9
ha e D . Y
ta ph is M ,h 6 C 71
cai oln aS
cai oln aS
5 3 591 791 t vuo h8 es uolt ’ee hS
ac in o alS
3 861
dam sha r ) hạa 000 M 1(
cai no alS
–60 08 51 15 am hds raạ ha M ed le u
vo vL
nia ed
aS M m
5 H .E 3
ec nie V
71
lirn e B
5 0 601 771 t 01 vuo hc h eh es A ls u- m olt rạa ) ’ee ha 0 hS M 41( ?d e Sa lpe /s on cus iar am d a AD –70 15
39 15
h hc dso eh a sl ak AH h ehc sl A s se o M
3 e opln it cai ec tna oln nie sno aS V C 1 581
7 581
)0 34 ( 1 otv i R er iv D
0 611 t vuo h
)5 21 (
es 12 h u- anc olt a’a ’ee R hS ah
le ac ca op in in na o o ir alS alS dA
?e pol na ir d A
?–01 15
?01 16
i rba d A ca Isa
?48 15
–03 15 hc a an’ a R im ay H .b ah Elij
8
sa er w eo a r nso eth ps ;) re 2 si 4.2 o Tn 5). 471 991 ,3 ( 3: d 7 rag 69 o 1 in ira Va ni (Y tea an d lt si Su th eh re t dn yb u n .n de ab oi ts g t edi tlio ntin n ipr 955 s i 1 ti as eh , a t tea w m d er ro ish het t n de se e kr vi h o g w w 1)5 671 ,Ie 91 –1 ta ( 3 d rge 061 no tai dbe gn i ri ic ublp .Frn du sa .n oit pel o i o no. 98 .no iti ed nti d it –4 it e 0 n id 9 di 3 6 at e 5 e 3 9 s 36 1s 89 18 ,1 no e , mC 18, ivg 17, ov lea ni v ) v ikl su d voL 51 ovL Sid eJr et 9 in ess 1( sse sse sse pr g u re u u u k P b P P P oo R de R R R b IU ri U I U I U I y B F B B B lno 9
0 1
1 1
2 1
. env ig tae d et a m ix rop pa an sa w 106 1 nda n w on kn u si r eay tc xae het het
513 o a re sn b op s m u eR N o ec a Pl
oni ta ilc bu P
oni atc i bul P
et a D
oitn c lel leot aC o i sn op es R / ht ir B o cea lP
ht ea D
s ateD
).t
). .. m yn as roc nw A onk (
n c(o
4 idx enp pA
o r e oh mt aN uA
h it w dn uo
h ins paS eod uJ
2
3 h. C
ec nie V
cai oln aS
467 1 31
im uk m A m yai )41 M 1(
94– 6 581 t vuo h
3 h. C
7
ec nie V
4
se m ul vo 3 )7 13 (
es 1 ach u- sh olt rạa ’ee ha hS M
6 621
4 .l eh C 3
2
ec nie V
cai oln aS
1 641 t vuo h
5 641
ec nie V
8 601 t 7 vuo 1 et ) h na es 215( es G al u- 61 t u- m olt rịa olt rạa ) ’ee ha ’ee ha 5 hS M hS M 21(
2)3 2( 51 te m E t rao
cai no alS
? cai no alS
cai no alS
e pol ni tn tas no C
–02 15
10 16
–05 15
62 16
cha hs raạ ha M
1 .l eh C e opln it n tas no C
1 651 t vuo h es uolt ’ee hS
de aS
e pol ni tn tas no C
e d e m o a R S
cai no alS
–86 15
93 16
–02 15
–05 15
ti ṛa ha M no se s s .b m n . asS oM e no aha ho nb hp .b i r k o es h an m o b a ra o pe r olS A H ḥA J Jos
01 16
m rạa ten ha al a MG aij der te o n se M ala s . o b G M
ne ev ru t tle hạo ayh sa H
s.n o tii ed t enu . q sn sbe oit su edi no 87 .n en 91 oi eb ,m itd ev le e a sa 29 eh ur 51 re Je, ,e ht m inc sa sih e n, ad V o a 2- iitd hc tr e a aP la H ,n ni rti o gi a ti r ha die eoh M , . 1 t 1 n .n 69 ,n 68 oiti oi 1, tioi 1,v ed itd m d o 0 e ela e6 vL 96 88 su 2 — ,1 71 re 61 –2 m ,n -J1 ,ce 1 ela lir rt in tsr su e a e a r B P V :p Je s s s s s seu seu seu seu seu P P P P P RRRRR U I U I U I U I U I B B B B B
re e’z ah
74 16
sḥa hr haa M i m ta aih ba Ch . S R
3 1
4 1
5 1
6 1
7 1
514 o a r sn be op s m u eR N o ec a Pl
oni ta ilc bu P
oni ta cil bu P
et a D
onit c lel leot C o i as n pos e R / h rti B o cea Pl
). .. m yn as roc nw A onk (
n c(o
4 idx enp p A
h ins paS eod uJ
2
5
ec nie V
m lea su eJr
4 0 591 981 ) t vuo zta 224 h )6 tir 8 ( es (29 ̣haa 1 ot u- ztta M hsa olt rịa ’te da ’ee ha v’ hc hS M hS aH
ht ea D
s ateD
).t
h it w dn uo
o e ohr mt a uA N
de aS –95 15
re af
2
1 e opln it n tas no C 71 17– 6 711
ec nie V 7 691
83 16
58 ?- 16
.b n vo s loa soe ah m s oY M
m ad re st m A
m i 76) rad 1( eV 91 ta ie a nni 9)2 rka om D N G 3(
.. ..
zt at riạ ha M
2
02
d?e aS
iv e al H ia ejd r o M
or ia C
or ia C – 506 1 c.
.b vo m o Y sa e . m nas ayim ih al sa hus h er L Y B n n.o ho it ca i ed dM t)p na ir L scu U na JN m eth m or to g
2 711 t vuo h es uolt ’ee hS
?o ira C
)5 4 m ah 1 2( 2 ach iv z C d aln o ,Pg ai r va eb or em ML
21 17
–06 16
81 17
iv Z akm ̣ah aij der i o ve am l ha M r . a b b H A
h src i iH ev Z
b coa J. b
i azn ek sh A
81( rdin 0–8 coc 19, sia t m lae hat usr vai k Je, A to . b sah vo d ha m .n -aC oY iot H sa die taz n .n al t io o ari dite dit ignr el o . ,M no nsa na 16 no i i i itd ops igr 71 tdi e eR o ple e 4 7 o 2 691 anl 691 nit 491 ,e Ir ,e na ,n icn aB icn stn rbi e e e o e V ht V C D s , s s s seu nol seu seu seu P a P P P R has R R R U U I I U I U I B es B B B s9 0 1 8 1 oM1 2 2
515 o a r sn be op s m u eR N o ec a Pl
oni ta ilc bu P
oin atc i bul P
et a D
oitn c lel leo C o it a sn pos e R / ht ir B o cea Pl
ht ea D
s ateD
).t
). .. m yn as roc nw A onk (
n c(o
4 idx enp pA
o e ohr mt aN uA
h it w dn uo
h ins paS eod uJ
22
1
1
2
cai oln aS
a oS
a oS
772 1
3 911
8 921
idv a e-D L m a htc )0 i 31 M(
do -epha 1(9) 23 H ie )I. l vn vo A(
43) do 4 ( h 2) -epa ol.I v H ie o ’e t os pra N(
cie ne V
m el sau erJ
ac in o alS
ai arg lu ,B a oS
–81 17
09 17
–15 81
52 19
o le dar u P m aS cbo di a.J v aD b
on pia P di v aD
.n iot die la ing . . i n n or toii toii 2 d d 771 e3 e8 ,a 91 92 c 1 1 noi ,a ,a l Sa So So s s s seu seu seu P P P RRR U I U I U I B B B 2 2
3 2
4 2
APPENDIX 5
LIS OF RESPONDENS, NAMES OF RESPONSA COLLECIONS, PLACE AND DAE OF PUBLICAION CONAINING JUDEO SPANISH IN HEIR ESIMONIES I have listed the responsa collections and their relevant respondents below that contain some Judeo-Spanish in their testimony. Tere are thirty- ve 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 o Judeo-Spanish available in the responsa and also as a point o reerence. Naturally there is also a wealth o Judeo-Spanish material available in works other than responsa such as printed sermons, laws etc. Respondent
Responsa Collection
Place o publication
Moshe Beneviste
Pnei Moshe Vol. 3
Constantinople
Shelomoh ben Yose Amarillo
KeremShelomoh
Salonica
1719
Avraham Yitzchaki
Zerah Avraham Vols 1–2
Constantinople
1732
Moshe Yisrael
Masat Moshe
Raael Mildolo
Mayim Rabim Vols 1–2
Isaac ben Judah Rappoport
Bate Kehunah vol. 3
YoseIrgis Avraham Gateño
DivreYose Sh’u seror Hakese 2
Constantinople Amsterdam
Date o publication 1719
1735 1737
Smyrna
1736
Livorno
1742
Salonica
1756
1 I have lef these names with the orthography that appears on their website www. hebrewbooks.org. 2 I have put Sh’u as an abbreviation or She’elot u-eshuvot.
517 Appendix 5 (cont.) Respondent EliyahuMizrahi Yaakov ben Abraham Costaro YoseKovo Abraham ben Judah de Boton
Responsa Collection MayimAmukim
Place o publication Berlin Livorno 3
Ohale Yaakov GivotOlam
Salonica
Sh’u Mahzeh Avraham
Salonica
Moses ben Sh’u Berakh Mosheh Livorno Mordechai Galante4
Date o publication 1778 1783 1784 1795 1809
Abraham ben Samuel Alkalai
Sh’u Hesed leAbraham
Salonica
1813
Hayim Abraham Istrosah
Sh’u Yerekh Abraham vols 1–2
Salonica
1815
Yose ben Shemuel Modiyano
Sh’u Rosh Mashbir vols 1–2
Salonica
1821
Yonah ben Chanoch
Nechpah Va-kese Vol. 2
Constantinople
1843
Chaim Nissim Shelomoh ben Mordechai
Mikhtav Shelomoh
Salonica
1855
Shelomoh ben Chaim Chaliliv
Omar Shelomoh
Salonica
1864
Raael David Karaso
Yedei David
Salonica
1867
Yose Alandari
Sh’u Porat Yose
Smyrna
1868
Abraham Unkava
Keren Cheneh Vol. 2
Livorno
1869
Chaim Palagi
Chokekei Lev vols 1–2
Salonica
1840
Chaim veshalom vol. 2
Smyrna
1872
Hukat Hachaim
Smyrna
1873
3 4
Tis collection is rom sixteenth-century Egypt. From Syria srcinally.
518 Appendix 5 (cont.) Respondent
Responsa Collection
Place o publication
Date o publication
Eliezer de oledo
Mishnat Eliezer
Salonica
1872
Yitzchak ben Gualid
vol. 2 Vayomer Yitzchak vol. 1
Livorno
1876
Raael Asher ben Yaakov Kovo
Shaar Asher
Salonica
1877
Shalom Moses ben Chayyim Abraham Gagin
Sh’u Yismach Lev
Jerusalem
1878
Chaim Modai
Sh’u Hayim le-Olam Smyrna Vols 1–2
1879
Shemuel ben Chabib
Omar Shmuel
Salonica
1886
Mosheh Castro Sh’u Yarim Mosheh Salonica Shemuel ben Avodat Hashem Salonica Mordechai Matalon
1890 1893
Yehudah Kovo
Yuda Yaaleh
Salonica
1893
Eliyahu Hazan
Sh’u aalumot lev Vol. 3
Livorno
1903
Yose Nissim Burla
Vayeshev Yose
Jersusalem
1905
Yaakov Malka
5
Ner Maaravi Vols 1–2 Jerusalem
1930
Rabbi Yaakov Malka, o eighteenth-century Morocco, settled in etuan during the 1738 amine and became the head o the rabbinic tribunal. His responsa was published later in 1930 in Jerusalem. 5
INDEX
Below a comprehensive index including technical, linguistic and legal terms. Words are cited as they appear in the text and the list comprises o both Judeo-Spanish spelling, Modern Spanish spelling, many Hebrew words with transcriptions in either Hispanic or English spelling or in phonetics. Te letter t behind a page locator indicates a table.
abašar, 184 abašo, 137 abastar, 184 ablar, 132 acatando, 150 aćiendo, 133, 134 acodrarsi, 145 acorda, 130 acortaron, 146 acuerda, 130 acuñadar, 178, 184 adamarišon, 75 adam harison, 75
a rmara, 160 a rmare, 160 a rmar la šebu‘á, 167
Adarbi, Isaac, Rabbi, in Divre Rivot communal matters, 306–308 excommunicatory ban, 505 nancial matters contracts, written, 337–339 credit transactions, debts, loans, 314–316, 329–334 guarantors, 348–349 property ownership (tenancy), 316–324 guardianship o children and property, 59–61, 334–336 kosher ood and drink, 44–45, 339–346
Agard, 149 agas, 361n497, 496 aggadah, 13 agora, 151, 152 la agua, 162 el agua, 162 agunot status o women, 48, 50–56, 288–290, 351–365, 377–380, 412–422, 445–448, 500–502 ahí, 96 ahora, 152 akçe, 33 Aki Yerushalayim, 72 akodrar, 145 alai bigi, 496 Alcalay, Re’uben, 69 aldea, 184 aleph, 67n5, 78, 79, 95, 96, 113, 114–115, 116, 157 aleph bet (vet), 79 aleph heh, 79 aleph lamed, 87 aleph vav, 79
marriage, validity o, 48–49, 324–329, 350–351, 505 296–306, minhagim o Lisbon community, 44–45 Nazirite vow, 346–348 wills, validity o, 308–312, 334–336 Adarbi, Isaac, Rabbi, reputation, 22, 67 adiento, 130 adientro, 130 (a)dientro, 130 adonde, 153 Adret, Solomon, Rabbi, 19 adultery, 28 aél, 73 aaćer, 150 a lu, 170
aleph 150,79, 184141, 161 aletra,yod, aletra de, 183 alevantar, 150 Alasi, Isaac, Rabbi, 52 alḥad, 185 aljamías, 129 alla, 141 allí, 151 al menos, 154 almorçar, 138 Almosnino, Moses, 186 alsar, 138 Alshech, Moses, Rabbi credit transactions, debts, loans, 452–456
520 divorce, 448–450 divorce, validity o, 456–457 marriage, validity o, 460–478 reputation, 25
, She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharam Alshech 445–478 wills, validity o, 450–452, 458–460 women’s status as agunah, 445–446 women’s status as agunot, 446–448 Alvar, Manuel, 162, 163 amarillo, amarío, 151 amarío, 151 American Spanish, 158, 159, 162 amuestra, 184 Ancona boycott, 39–40 Ancona Jewish community, 183–184 Andalusians, 18 andava, 135 anduberion, 135 anillo, 504 annulment o kiddushin, 28 annulments, 28, 48 año, 147 años, 46 ansí, 152 anusim, 27, 183–184 apareçe, 140 apotropisa, 58, 164, 177 apotropos, 58, 164, 185 apotroposim, 58, 164 apregonar, 184 Arabic, 18, 26 Arabic borrowings, 182 Arabic language borrowings, 186 Aragonese in Hebrew characters, 19 Aragonese Judeo-Spanish, 157, 161, 162 Aragonese language, 186 arecabdimos, 157 Ariza, M., 135 Armistead, Samuel, 2 Arnold, Raphael, 125 arreventó, 184 arriba, 161 arrimé, 144 arur hu bayom, 43n92 Asher, Jacob ben, 58 Ashkenazi, 5, 127–128, 149–151 Ashkenazi communities, 23 Ashkenazi responsa, 15, 20, 128 aspros, 33 aspro/s, 169, 181, 496 Asturian, 160 atroposa, 58, 164 Auschwitz, 22
Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino i su Kultura, 7 aviśó, 138 avredadrarían, 145 avredardarían, 145 ay!, 185 ayin, 67n5, 78, 83, 84 /b/, 135 başá, 182, 496 ba’ale, 168 ba‘avonot, 42 back vowel-raising (/e/ to /i/), 131 Balkan Judeo-Spanish, 20n33, 131, 154, 157, 162, 164, 183 ballads/balladry, 6, 7 /b/ and /ß/, 135 barbare, 496 Bar-Ilan University, 6 Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project, 8, 12, 69 Bashan, 69, 183 batim, 168 Bayazid II, 22 bed̠ din, 75 behirim, 23 Benatar, Jacqueline, 155 Ben Chayim, Elijah, Rabbi, in Teshuvot Haraanach, 358–373 Ben Gurion University, 7 Ben Hayyim, Elijah, Rabbi, in Mayim Amukim, 374–377 Ben-Ur, Aviva, 2, 128 Benveniste, Abraham, 5 Berav, Jacob, Rabbi, 25, 351–355 berit milah, 502 bet, 78, 79–80, 134, 135 bet din, 75, 502
betbaté hakeneset meḥaašer daš nosa al hakenesiot hem hayom beSaloniqi, 45 bet raa, 80 Beur de Almosino, 97 Biblia de Constantinopla, 97 Biblia de Ferrara (Lazar), 4–5 Biblical law, 13 bilabial, syllable- nal /v/, 134, 134t bilingualism, 19, 125–126 BIURP Bar-Ilan University Responsa Project onts, 93 morphology and syntax, 163 phonology, 130, 142–143 research using, 63, 66
521 translations rom the, 10, 11–12 transliterations, 493–495 variations between editions, 94, 95–97, 112–118 Bornstein, Leah, 69, 183 borrowings, 71, 74, 165–167, 181–185, 187–188, 496–499 Braude, Benjamin, 36 bueno(s), 150 buklik, 496 büklü, 496 Bulgarian Judeo-Spanish, 184 Bunis, David Monson, 2, 4–5, 7, 18, 69, 73, 121–122, 123, 125, 128, 165n121, 169–171, 172, 178–180 buracos, 154 buscar, 148 busqué, 157 busquí, 157 buzkár, 148 Byzantine Jews, 19
cabdal, 133, 134 cabeça, 140 cabeza, 140 al cabo del zemán del servicio, 177 cabśa, 134 cadí, 182 caleja, 151 callarse, 156 calleja, 151 calló, 156
Castilian, 5, 15, 19, 70, 117, 119–120, 130–131, 135–137, 139, 144, 149–152, 156–159, 161–162, 183–188 Castilian Jews, 19 Castilian Judeo-Spanish, 122–123, 162, 165 Catalan, 123–124, 138–139, 154, 162 catorće, 138 caudal, 133, 134 cauśa, 134, 136 caza, 138 çekirdek, 496 cema’at, 34 chalitzah, 222, 421, 502, 509 charity und-raising, 34, 40, 290–296 charlar, 154 chazan, 505 Cherezlik, S. Y., 69 chet, 96 Chipre, gipre, 116 chobán, 182, 200, 496 Christians, language o, 123 cibdad, 146 cibdat, 140, 146 cierto, 140 çiflik, 497 clarezas, 146 çóban, 496 code-switching, 169, 174, 180–181 coğimos, 137
Collins Spanish-English/English-Spanish
calques o Hebrew, 176–177 calque system o translation, 4 calrezas, 146 cambio, 38n3 cambium, 38n3 caña, 147
(Smith), 70 communal matters bequeath o a shop in a will, 365–372 charity und-raising, 34, 40, 290–296 community sae-keeping, 44–45, 306–308 curses, 44
Cardoso, Isaac, 178–180 Caro, Joseph, Rabbi, 22, 93 Caro, Joseph, Rabbi, responsa Avkat Rochel, 396–406 Bet Yose, 409–428 levirate command, 422–423 marriage, validity o, 409–411 wills, validity o, 396–409, 424–428 women’s status asagunot, 412–422 caśa, 136, 138, 151 Caśal(es), 184 caśamiento, 139 caśas, 138 caśás, 149 caśes, 155 Castaño, Javier, 2, 7, 19, 71
eliminating competition, 43 preserving Jewish trade, 46–47 trade air ban, 46, 202–205 trade airs, 45–46, 202–205 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 wool sale and purchase, 43–44, 199–202 compañía, 147 comparative cultural studies, 9 concluçion, 140 condo, 153 condotto, 185 conduto, 185 con mi, 161 conmigo, 161 con migo, 161
522 conoces, 140 conoçes, 140 conoçía, 140 conpadre, 148 conpañía, 142 conpraba, 153 conprar, 142, 143, 154 conpró, 154
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cienti cas (CSIC), 7, 72 consonantal cluster /mp/, 142–143 consonantal group /mr/, 143–144 Constantinople, 22–24, 32, 165. See also Ottoman Jewish lie conta, 130 contarto, 146 contracts, 241–249 oral, 255–261 written, 76n79, 337–339, 391–394 contrato, 146 converts, validity as witnesses, 27–29 Coplas de Yose (Girón-Negrón & Minervini), 6, 87, 97, 116, 117, 120, 133, 135, 136, 144, 146, 151, 157, 176, 179, 185, 186 copyist vs. scribe, 16 Corominas, Joan, 70 cortó, 146 cosque, 182 cotaron, 146 cotró, 146 Cowley, 69 credit transactions, debts, loans, 36–44, 127, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288, 314–316, 329–334, 353–355, 372–373, 386–388, 428–433, 436–443, 452–456 Crews, Cynthia, 184 criaturas, 56n116
Crónica los reyes otomanos, 4 , 146 cuadernode cuadreno, 146 cual quier, 130 cuando, 153 cuenta, 130 Culi, Jacob, Rabbi, 5, 167 cuma, 182 cuñada, 147 cuñado, 178 currency (legal tender), 33 curses, 44 /d/, 146–147 d∙rdyrw, 113
orçadamente, 140
d’Adrero, 145 daled, 81, 96 daño, 147 Danon, S., 69 dar, 155 Dardero, 113 d’Ardero, 145 David, Joseph ben, Rabbi, in She’elot
u-Teshuvot Maharibenlev
contracts, written, 391–394 credit transactions, debts, loans, 386–388 marriage, validity o, 381–386, 394–396 partnership agreements, 388–394 women’s status as agunot, 53, 377–380 David, Joseph ben, Rabbi (Maharival), 53 dayan, 14n23, 176 Day o Atonement, 45, 46, 47, 204 d∙dryw, 113 death language o, 171, 178–179 necessary conditions to declare, 48, 50, 51–55 Death o a Language (Harris), 70, 153, 181 debdot, 163 deber, 135 debiese, 160 debotica, 169 debt and credit, 266–268 dećir, 138 decir, 138, 141 dećir, 151 declado, 96 declaro, 96 de ellos, 73 dela, 73
delante mi 160–161 mí,, 114 delante nosotros, 160–161 delantre, 114, 160–161 della, 161–162 dellos, 73, 161–162 demandamos, 157 demandé, 157 demandí, 157 demandimos, 157 dende, 153 depués, 185 al derrocar que derrocaba, 177 después, 185 deste, 161 desus, 114
523 determinamos, 157 de tienpo viniendo gente, 114 dexestes, 157 dezir, 136, 138 diacritics, transcriptions, 71, 76, 80–81 Dialectología española(Vicente), 70 Díaz-Mas, Paloma, 2 Diccionario de la Lengua Española, 69–70 dichu, 131 dictionaries, 69–70 dierençia, 139 diglossia, 125–126 di eron, 150 di o, 137, 150 dijo, 137 dine mamonot, 509 dine neashot, 509 el Dio, 179 Dio, 179 Dios, 179 diphthongisation, 130–131 diréš, 156, 158 dišiste, 158 dišistes, 158 dišo, 150 dišo, dijo, 137 distes, 157 dištes, 158 la dita, 183–184 ditas, 183–184 el dito, 183–184 dito, 183–184 divorce, 28, 49, 448–450 divorce, validity o, 456–457 Divre Rivot, 155 djedió, 149 djidió, 149
djodió 149 djudió,, 149 do, 155 dodze, 151 dólia, 182, 497 el dolor, 162 dolor, 162 dona, 150 donde, 153 donloc, 181 donluk, 497 Dos colecciones de cuentos seardíes de cáracter mágico: sipuré noraot y siupré pelaot, 7 doy, 155 ducados, 33
dueña, 147 duespués, 185 Duran, Simon ben Zemach, Rabbi, 57 dyl∙nţymy, 114 dyšwš, 114 dy ţyynpwwynyyndwg``ynţy, 114 dyţyynpw wynyyndw g``ynţw, 114 economic terminology, 181–182 economic terms in Hebrew, 173, 174t edad, 146 edar, 146 ‘edim, 176 Edirne Jews, 43n92 educational system, Jewish, 126 ‘edut, 176 eendi, 182, 497 Egipto, 172 /e/ - /i/, 131 ella, 112, 141, 161–162 ellos, 161–162 Elman, Yaakov, 16 Elon, Menachem, 12–14, 15, 17, 507 El Regimiento de la Vida(Almosnino), 186 el sara, 127 eluego, 148 emir, 497 Emmanuel, Isaac Samuel, 25 empeñó, 147 empieza, 143 emsallar, 497 en, 117 enactments, 43–47 enchir, 153 enḥeremar, 177 enla, 73 enpeça, 131, 143 Enrique IV, 21 enriva, 161 entonces, 155 entrando, 161
Entre dos (o más) uegos(Romero), 7 Entwistle, William James, 178 epitropos, 177, 185 equiraso, 185 era, 113 era mucho mi amigo, 117 era muy mi amigo, 117 erastes, 157, 158 ermuera, 142 erraste, 157, 158 erusin, 505 escapar, 115
524 escribir, 135 escrivir, 135 escusar, 138 esmaltir, 497 español, 121 espantastes, 157, 158 espendió harto dinero, 51 esperança, 140 esposa, 138 esta, 113 estando, 161 estar, 155 estar en el año de mi madre, 178 estava, 135 este, 161 esti, 131 estó, 155 estó, estoy, 155 estonces, 155 estoncias, 155 estoy, 155 estubo, 135 estudiare, 160 Ethics o the Fathers, 122 /e/ to /i/, 131 exclamaçión, 140 excommunicatory ban, 25, 30, 43, 43n98, 44, 375–377, 505 Extremos y grandezas de Constantinople, 4 //, 85, 132–134 ablaste, 158 aćerlas, 132 aćer plaćer, 185 aldikera, 164 aldiquera, 164 aldukera, 164 alduquera, 154, 164 140 alecimiento allecimento,, 115
// and /h/, 132–134, 133 t asta, 132 azer šebu‘á, 167 Feast o abernacles, 46, 204 echu, 131 embras, 144, 185 Ferrara Bible, 4–5, 142, 143 Festival o the First Fruits, 508 Festival o the Giving o Our orah, 508 Festival o Weeks, 507–508 íćiéredes, 149 ciese, 160 go, 116 ja, 132
jas, 132 jos, 132 n, 162 la n, 162 el n, 162 nancial matters categories, 31–32 contracts, 76n79, 241–249, 255–261, 337–339, 391–394 credit transactions, debts, loans, 36–44, 127, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288, 314–316, 329–334, 353–355, 372–373, 386–388, 428–433, 436–443, 452–456 goods lost at sea/ guarantors, 261–265 guarantors, 348–349 language o, 37, 127, 173, 181–183 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 monetary law, 36 parties named, authentic and impersonal, 17 partnership agreements, 36, 196–198, 205–207, 251–255, 388–394 property ownership (tenancy), 227–238, 268–275, 316–324 rme/ -a, 162 źo, 132, 138 ap /r/, 86, 144–145 el orno, 33 orno, 132 orzada mente, 160 Freimann, 504, 505 French Jews, 128 Friedberg, Bernhard, 69 Fuente Klara, 149 uera, 160 uerças, 140 ueron metaqqenim, 169, 180
uestes, 157 gaína, 151 Galante, Maharam, 66 gallina, 151 Gascon, Abraham, Rabbi, 45–46 Gateño, 147 gato, 148 Gayyat, Isaac ibn, 18 gente, 117, 137 German-Jewish jurisprudence, 25 Gershoni, Israel, 16 ger’uš, 181 gerušot, 33 get, 49, 164, 502 la gezerá, 180
525 gimmel, 67, 78, 80–81, 115, 116, 137 gimmel plus diacritic, 80n28, 81, 116, 137 Girón-Negrón, Luis Manuel Coplas de Yose, 6, 87, 97, 116, 117, 120, 133, 135, 136, 144, 146, 151, 157, 176, 179, 185, 186 Las coplas de Yose, 135, 136 Orígenes del judoespañol, 155–156 glossary Hebrew terms, 500–509 urkish borrowings, 74, 496–499 gnanaçia, 140 gnanacia, 140 go, 115 God, numerical value o letters in, 78 Goldish, Matt, 16, 23, 25 gömü, 497 González-Llubera, Ignacio, 6, 84, 133, 144, 162 Goodblatt, Morris, 53 goods lost at sea/ guarantors, 261–265 g``pry, 116 Gracia Mendes, Doña, 22, 30–31, 39 guadrar, 145 guarantors, 348–349 guardar, 146 guardianship o children and property, 56–61, 62, 280–282, 334–336 guay, 185 güe, 150 Guélibolou, 497 güesos, 151 guilt o murder suspects, 223–227 Gur, Yehudah, 69 guruş, 497 gw, 115 gwato, 148 g``ynţw, 117
haćer, 132 haćer el kavod, 171 haćer la se‘udah, 168 haćerle, 51 haćeros, 136 haćervos, 136
g``ynţy 114 g``ypry,, 117
, 79 he Hebrew
/h/, 132–134 haaraçi, 497 haber, 159 hab’er, 160 haberéš, 149 habes, 149 había, 135 hablá, 156 hablad, 156 hablado, 158 hablamos, 157 hablé, 157 haćéis, 138
Hacham Bashi, 33–34 Hagaddah, 122 Haggadot, 132 Hag ha-Bikurim, 508 Hag Matan Toratenu, 508 Haim, Yisra’el, 179, 183 haiyum, 113 ḥaka̠ mim, 173 Hakitía, 124–125, 165, 170, 181, 182, 184 Hakohen, Solomon ben Abraham, Rabbi, 22, 55–56 halakhah, 5, 13–14, 176, 503 halakhic legislation, unctions o, 13n20 halakhic scholars, 14, 508 halakhic system, contribution o this book to understanding, 9 haldikera, 165 hallando, 161 hallarlo, 132, 141 hamiá, 497 hanizkar, 113 ḥanut, 169 harás, 497 Harris, racy K., 70, 117, 149, 153, 161, 178, 181, 185 haskamah, 503 Hassán, Iacob, 2, 4, 71 haver, 160 havía, 135 hayah, 149 Hayim, Elijah ben, 93 Ḥ ayim, Yisra’el o Belgrade, 121 hispanization o, 75 numerical value o letters in, 77–78 in the responsa, reasons or using, 18–19 in the texts, 19, 165–178, 168t, 169t, 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t transcription system Hebrew → Latin, 91–92t, 94 Hebrew → phoneme → grapheme, 88–90t Rashi script, 91t translations into English, 77 ormat, 74
526 understood by women, 122 vocabulary in, 165–178, 168t, 169t, 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t Hebrew Aramic, 128 Hebrew-Hispanic morphemes, 177 Hebrew Univarsity o Jerusalem, 7 heh, 81–82, 96, 113, 115 hekdesh, 503, 507 ḥerem, 177, 505 Hešeq Šelomó, 122, 177 hẹ t, 67n5, 82–83, 116 heter nissuin, 501 hićiese, 138 hi as, 132 hi o, 116, 132 hijos, 132 Hispanic philology, contribution o this book to, 7
Histoire des Israelites de Salonique (Emmanuel), 25
Historia de la lengua española(Lapesa), 70
History o the Spanish Language(Penny), 70
hnz`, 113 hnzkr, 113 hoğara, 497 ḥol’, 41 hombre, 144 Hovot Halevavot, 169 hubieron una gran tormenta, 159 hubieron cuatro hombres, 159 hubo un hombre, 159 hüccet, 497 hue, bue, 150 hugit, 127, 182 huraco, 154 hyg``wš, 116 , 116 hygw(š) hyšyš, 113 h∙ywm, 113 /i/, 131 ia(n), 159 iba(n), 159 Iberian, Hebrew letters to write, 15, 18–19 Iberian Jews, 9, 23–24, 32, 122–123, 127 Iberian taqanot, 15 Ibero-Romance, 170 Ibn Lev, Rabbi, 53–55 ićiera, 133 /ie/ - /e/, 130–131 iggun, 48
igual mente, 160 ijo, 116, 118, 132 ilmuera, 142 iña, 159 INALCO, 7 inchan, 153
inormaçión, 139 the Inquisition, 39, 123 internet, 1–2, 70, 71, 120 ir, 155, 159 Islamic law, 24n43 Istanbul Jews, 25–27 istonsis, 155 Italian borrowings, 185 Italian Jews, 23, 123–124, 128, 152 Janissaries, 25, 35
Jastrow Dictionary, 69
Jewish Castilian Romance’ la’az, 122 Jewish courts, 24–25 Jewish diaspora, 122–123, 124 Jewish Ibero-Romance, 122, 123 Jewish law, 13–18, 24–25. See also taqanot Jewish Questions (Goldish), 25
Jewish Questions-Responsa on Sephardic Lie in the Early Modern Period (Goldish), 25 Judeo-Arabic, 18–20 Judeo-Italian, 125 judeolanguage, 19 Judeo-Spanish additional resources, 5, 69–71, 489 ballads, 6 beginnings, 122–123 de ned, 122 development o, 128–129, 183–184 dictionaries, 69–70 Hebrew-Aramaic component, 128
innovations, introduction,123–124, 119–120 145 Ladino vs., 4, 120–122 Musar literature in, 6 oral tradition, 126–127 recognizing within the texts, 66–67 revival, 120 standardization o, 129 urkish borrowings rom, 74, 496–499 vernacular olk tradition, 4 Judeo-Spanish, distinctive linguistic eatures absent, 151 additional, 150–151 analysis overview, 129
527 borrowings, 71, 74, 165–167, 187–188, 496–499 emergence o, 123–124 innovations assilimation o earlier nal /s/ and preceding off-glide, 149 dipthong /ue/, 150 nal consonant ollowed by clitic pronoun, 149 internal phonemes, 149–150 labio-velar on-glide, 147 palatalization o syllable- nal /s/ to /z/, 148 pre-palatal consonants, 150 re exive clitic se, 149 morphology and syntax, 155–164 phonology archaism vos/vuestra, 135–136 back vowel-raising (/e/ to /i/), 131 bilabial, syllable- nal /v/, 134, 134t consonantal cluster /mp/, 142–143 consonantal group /mr/, 143–144 diphthongisation, 130–131 nal /d/ and /t/ distinction, 146–147 initial // and /h/, 132–134, 133 t labial /b/ and /ß/, 135 labialisation o /n/ to /m/, 142 lexical retentions, 151–155 merger between /ɲ/ and /ni/, 147 metathesis, 145–146 non alongside no, 136 retention o /mb/, 143 seavos, haćervos, sacavos, 136 seseo, zezeo, 137–141 sibilant phonemes, 136–137 vibrant /r/̠ and ap /r/ contrast, 144–145 voiceless dental ricative, 139
yeísmo, 141 vocabulary adaptations, 178–180 borrowings, 181–185 code-switching, 169, 174, 180–181 primary, 164 use o Hebrew, 165–178, 168t, 169t, 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t Judeo-Spanish Conerence, 6–7 Judeo-Spanish koiné, 124 Judeo-Spanish literary genres, 1, 6 Judeo-Spanish literature, 4, 120 Judeo-Spanish o the Balkans (Sala), 157, 163 Judeo-Spanish studies
contribution o this book to, 7–9, 183–184 contributors to, 1–2 existing eld o (known literary studies, 16th), 3–7 present-day revival, 6–7, 120 teaching manuals, 7 Judezmo, 121, 125 judezmo, 121 judicial terminology, 174–175t, 181, 182 judió, 149 udío, 149 uma, 182, 496 junta mente, 160 usticia, 140
kada uno i uno, 176 kaddish, 27–28, 503 kadí, 496
ka̠ , 78, 82, 83 ka, 67n5, 83, 87 ka raa, 83 kapán, 496 Kapón, 4 Karo, Joseph, Rabi, 25, 59, 122 kasher, 503 kashrut, 503 katriği, 137, 496 ketubah, 48 Khuli, Jacob, 5 kiddushin, 28, 501, 503–506. See also marriage kinyan, 506 kinyan chali n, 506 kinyan kesse, 506 kira, 498 kiraci, 182, 498 ko /k/, 83, 85–86, 115 Kohen, Elli, 69 Dahlia, 69 Kohen-Gordon, koiné, 124n1, 187–188 köse, 181, 498 kosher ood and drink, 32, 44–47, 191–196, 339–346 kösk, 182 koske, 496 /l/, 83 la’az, 122 ladinar, 122 Ladino. See also Me’Am Lo’ez the Bible, translations into, 4–5 development o, 128–129
528 dictionaries, 69 Judeo-Spanish vs., 4, 120–122 poetry in, 127 speakers o, statistics, 128–129 transcription system, 72–73 translations, 76, 132 ladino, derivation, 121 Ladino Bible textx, 3–4
Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman Sephardic Culture (Lehmann), 120 Ladino Studies, 6 ladronim, 163, 164 Lamdan, Ruth, 2, 8, 50–51, 61–62 lamed, 83–84, 141 lamed yod, 118 language o death, 171, 178–179 o nance, 37, 127, 173, 181–183 o narratives, 15–20, 29–30, 42, 62, 125 o the responsa, 37, 125, 186–189 o Sephardim, 19, 20n33, 121, 130, 131 o Spanish Jews, 123 tabooed, 169t, 170, 171 o testimonies, 15 o time, 176, 177t o trade, 37, 127, 173, 182 language mixing, 19 Lapesa, Raphael, 70, 131, 145 Las coplas de Yose (Girón-Negrón & Minervini), 135, 136 Lazar, Moshe, 4–5 le, 96, 117, 162 lebanim, 33, 41, 169 leer, 178 legal contents o the responsa communal matters bequeath o a shop in a will, 365–372 charity und-raising, 34, 40, 290–296 community 306–308 sae-keeping, 44–45, preserving Jewish trade, 46–47 pronouncing o curses, 44 trade air ban, 46 trade airs, 45–46, 202–205 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 wool industry, 43–44 wool sale and purchase, 43–44, 199–202 contracts, 241–249 oral, 255–261 written, 76n79, 337–339, 391–394 credit transactions, debts, loans, 36–44, 127, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288, 314–316, 329–334, 353–355,
372–373, 386–388, 428–433, 436–443, 452–456 divorce, 448–450, 456–457 enactments, 43–47 excommunicatory ban, 25, 30, 43, 44, 375–377, 505 nancial matters, categories, 31–32 guarantors, 348–349 guardianship o children and property, 56–61, 280–282, 334–336 guilt o murder suspects, 223–227 kosher ood and drink, 32, 44–47, 191–196, 339–346 levirate command, 216–222, 374–375, 422–423 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 marriage, validity o, 28–29, 47–51, 209–216, 296–306, 324–329, 350–351, 381–386, 394–396, 409–411, 433–436, 460–478, 505 monetary law, 36 Nazirite vow, 36n79, 205–207, 346–348, 443–444 oaths and vows, 36n79, 205–207, 346–348, 443–444, 448–450 partnership agreements, 36, 196–198, 205–207, 251–255, 388–394 property ownership (tenancy), 227–238, 268–275, 316–324 shoplifing, 223–227 trade introduction, 36–37 Jewish, preserving, 46–47 language o, 37 wine industry, 46–47, 191–196 wool industry, 36, 46–47 trade airs, 46 wills, validity o, 31, 56–61, 207–209, 275–282, 396–409, 308–314, 424–428, 334–336, 450–452, 458–460 women’s status as agunot, 48, 50–56, 288–290, 351–353, 356–365, 377–380, 412–422, 445–448 legal system, Spanish Jews, 24–25 legal terminology, 169, 173–176, 175–175t Lehmann, Matthias, 6, 120 lema’an Hašem, 42 Leonese, 154, 157, 159, 186 la letra, 184 letras, 38n3 letras de cam[b]io, 38n3 Levi, Orali, 27–28
529 Levin, Shlomo Yosu, 509 levirate command, 178, 216–222, 374–375, 422–423, 509 libra, 498 licençia, 139 liçençia, 140 licencia, 140 limones, 504 limud, 178 lira, 181 literary language, sixteenth century, 6 llama, 141 llamá, 156 llamé, 157 llamí, 157 llamó, 117 llenar, 153 llevaste, 158 lluvia, 141, 151 lo, 96, 117, 163 a lo manco, 154 loque, 163 loque tenía escrito, 159 luego, 148 lumre, 144 Lunz, Abraham, 69 Luria, Max A., 155 luvia, 141, 151 lw, 117 lwb’yya, 141 lw’byya, 141 ∙ly∙, 112 ly, 117 lyyaman, 141 ∙lyyh, 112 lyymw, 117 lyy∙my, 112 lyyw, 112 /m/, 142, 143 m, 84 ma, 46, 161 ma’amad, 23 ma’aseh, 14n24 macare, 185 macula, 152 mahalle, 33, 498 Maḥarashdam, 141 Maimonides, Moses, 16, 50, 54, 58 makare, 185 Makovetsky, Leah Bornstein, 2 makrama, 182 maldećir, 138 mamzerim, 502, 506
mañana, 147 man(ç)cebo, 153 mancebo, 140 mançebo(a)(s), 140 mancha, 152 mandé, 157 mandí, 157 manu, 131 maramá, 498 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 Marranos, 22–23, 27–29, 39 marriage history o the laws o, 28 levirate duties, 178, 509 validity o, 17, 28–29, 47–51, 209–216, 296–306, 324–329, 350–351, 381–386, 394–396, 409–411, 433–436, 460–478, 503–506 mas, 46, 161 matanças, 140 /mb/, 143 me, 142 Me’Am Lo’ez, 5, 16, 69, 97, 112–114, 118–119, 136, 138–139, 140, 149, 151, 155, 157, 160, 166–168, 172, 179, 184, 186–187 Medina, Samuel de, Rabbi, reputation, 22, 67 Medina, Samuel de, Rabbi, responsa Choshen Mishpat, 51–53, 209–222, 223–296 communal matters ban on wool sale and purchase, 199–202 charity und-raising, 290–296 eliminating competition, 43 trade airs, 46, 202–205 nancial matters contracts, 241–249, debts, 255–261 credit transactions, loans, 250–251, 266–268, 282–288 goods lost at sea/ guarantors, 261–265 maritime insurance, 238–241 partnership agreements, 196–198, 205–207, 251–255 property ownership (tenancy), 227–238, 268–275 guardianship cases, 56–59, 61, 280–282 guilt o murder suspects, 223–227 levirate command, 216–222 marriage, validity o, 211–215, 505 oaths and vows, 205–207, 266–268 shoplifing, 223–227
530 trade airs, 46 wills, validity o, 56–59, 207–209, 275–282 women’s status as agunah, 51–53, 288–290 Yoreh Deah, 191–209 meemet, 498 mehaboqer ‘ad ha‘erev, 176 mejerma, 182 melatan, 178–179 meldadico, 178–179 meldano, 178–179 meldar, 178–179 mem /m/, 84, 142–143 memunim, 23 mercaderes, 154 mercar, 154 mercé, 140 merçé, 140 merçed, 140 mercó, 154 Merged Hebrew, 128 merkader, 154 mersas, 498 mesa, 138 mesiach le tumo, 26, 506 metathesis, 145–146 miatad, 146 miatat, 146, 153 mide rabbanan, 52 Migash, Joseph ibn, 18 millas, 141 Miller, Elaine R., 19, 20, 125–126, 169, 178 minchah, 506 Minervini, Laura, 2, 19, 69, 154, 158, 177, 183, 184 Coplas de Yose, 6, 87, 97, 116, 117, 120, 133, 176, 135, 179, 136, 186 144, 146, 151, 157,
Orígenes del judoespañol, 140, 155–156 Taqanot de Valladolid, 131 Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali, 5, 97, 136, 157, 179
minhag hasoharim, 36 minhagim, 44 minyan, 502 mirá, 156 Mirandan, 160 mismo, 138–139 Misṛ ayim, 172 la misṿ á, 171 mitad, 146, 153 mitzvah, 42n91
moço/s, 140 mo’adim, 506 moalim, 181 moça, 137, 140 moda‘á, 507 Molho, M., 188 Molho, Michael, 187 Monastir dialect, 134, 157, 184 monesterio, 154 monetary law, 36 morir, 177 morirás, 177 Moroccan Judeo-Spanish, 124–125, 162, 165 morphology and syntax, 155–164 Morrocan Jews, 124–125 mos, 142, 149 mosotros, 142 mosotros, 142 motivile, 498 moza, 137, 140 mozo, 96, 140 /mp/, 142–143 /mr/, 143–144 mśmo, 138–139 muallim, 498 mucha dolor tengo, 162 mucho, 117 muchos, 152 mucho/s, 152 mue, 142 muera, 142 muestro, 142 muevas, 142 muger, 116, 118 mu er, 116, 136, 137 mujer, 137 mu eres, 60, 137
mükâri 498 mülkiye,,498 mulquié, 182 muncha, 151 muncho, 151, 152 munchos, 151 muncho/s, 152 muquerí, 182 murder, witness testimonies o, 25–27, 29–30 murder o a Jew by a guard or Sabbath observance, 25–27 Musar/musar literature in Judeo-Spanish, 6 műşkî, 498 Muslims, 21n36, 24n43, 46n100, 123 mutlagaj, 181
531 muy, 117 muy muncho, 117 mwg``r, 116 mwgy, 117 mwgyr, 116 mwker, 137 mwy, 117 /n/, 142 /ɲ/ and /ni/ merger, 147 nabe, 135 Nachmanides, 122 nakil, 498 Nasi, Gracia, 22, 30–31, 39 Nasi, Joseph/Yose (Duke o Naxos), 22, 30–31, 39, 375–377 nave, 135 nazir, 507 Nazirite vow, 36n79, 205–207, 346–348, 443–444, 507 neder, 507 negoçiado, 140 Nehama, J., 69, 182 New Year estival, 46, 204 niḥúš, 170 nijúš, 170 nikhbadim, 23 Nissan, Ephraim, 17–18 nissuin, 28 nissu’in, 505 nissuin, 505 nivrarim, 23 no, 115, 136 noche, 131 nochi, 131 no lo, 149 nombre, 144 nomre, 144 , 136 non non-kosher ood, 508 North Arican Arabic, 181 North Arican Judeo-Spanish, 162 nos, 142, 149 nos lo, 149 nosotros, 142 nos tenía entregado, 159 noticia, 115, 140 novemre, 144 /n/ to /m/ labialisation, 142 nue, 142 nuera, 142 nuesa, 136 nueso/a/s, 185 nuestro/a, 185
nuestro(s), 142 Nuevo chiko diksyonario Judeo-EspagnolFrançaise (Cherezlik), 69 nun /n/, 84, 115, 142 nun peh, 143 nun yod, 84, 118, 147 nun yod yod, 147 nw, 115 nwţyšy, 115 oaths and vows, 36n79, 205–207, 266–268, 346–348, 443–444, 448–450 obligación, 140 ojalá, 185 omre, 144 onde, 153 oraçiones, 140 Oral law, 13, 14n22 oral tradition Ladino, 4 o women, 126–127 ordenamos, 187 orete, 498 Orígenes del español(Minervini & Vávaro), 140 Orígenes del judoespañol(Girón-Negrón & Minervini), 155–156 Orlando el Furioso, 141 oso, 96 Osre bie, 182 os sea, 136 Ottoman Empire Studies, contributors to, 2 Ottoman Jewish communites autonomy o community and institutions, 21, 34 bilingualism in, 126 communal government, 33–34 economics, 33–35o, 45 ensuring survival government, 33–34 internal and juridical autonomy, 24n43 ma’amadin, 23–24 organizational patterns, 23–24, 33–34 population statistics, 22, 23 qahal ragmentation, 34 regional dialects, 123, 125–126 secular responsibilities, 23–24 structure o, 34, 35 taxation, 34–35 Ottoman Jewish courts, 24–25 Ottoman Jewish historiography, 6, 8 Ottoman Jewish lie in the courts, 24n43
532 depicted in the responsa, 20–24 economic, 21, 23, 31–35, 38n85, 43 homes/residential segregation, 32–33 language o, 24 population statistics, 32n64 rabbis in uence and power, 34 Ottoman Millet System, 34 Ottoman responsa literature studies, contributors to, 2 Ottoman Sephardic tradition, 6 Ottoman urkish, 181, 183 ovido, 158 /p/, 85 padre, 148 pagara, 160
pagará al qahal eḥad as(pro) por vellecino de cuanta lana ćiere, 43n92 paloma, 143 palomba, 143 pandero, 504 paño, 112, 147 Papo, Eliezer Rabbi, 5 para mí, 505 pareçe, 140 parece(r), 140 pareciéndome, 140 pareçiere, 140 paredica, 163 parientes, 115 partnership agreements, 36, 196–198, 205–207, 251–255, 388–394 pasá, 182 pasare, 160 pasasen, 87 Pascual Recuero, Pascual, 5 paso, 138 passo, 138 Passover Passy, A. readings M., 69 in Ladino, 122 Paul IV, 39 pedaçico, 140 pedaço(s), 140 pedaçico, 163 pedaço, 140 pedazo, 140 pedrites, 145 peh, 115 Pele Yoetz(Papo), 5 Penny, Ralph, 2, 70, 135, 150 pensés, 149
Pentateuco de Constinantinopla (Recuero), 97, 136
pequeño, 147
perachim, 33 Perahya, Eli, 69 Perahya, Klara, 69
pera’ón tob vešalem belí šum paḥat vehị sarón, 173 percurador, 113, 146 Peret, Isaac Ben Sheshet, 66 pero, 144, 161 perro, 144 perro udió, 144 pesaq din, 173 pešarah, 36 pešarah (compromise), 36 p∙g∙s, 115 phg∙s, ja as, 115 phonemes, 85, 88–90t, 136–137 phonology archaism vos/vuestra, 135–136 back vowel-raising (/e/ to /i/), 131 bilabial, syllable- nal /v/, 134, 134t consonantal cluster /mp/, 142–143 consonantal group /mr/, 143–144 diphthongisation, 130–131 nal /d/ and /t/ distinction, 146–147 initial // and /h/, 132–134, 133 t labial /b/ and /ß/, 135 labialisation o /n/ to /m/, 142 lexical retentions, 151–155 merger between /ɲ/ and /ni/, 147 metathesis, 145–146 non alongside no, 136 retention o /mb/, 143 seavos, haćervos, sacavos, 136 seseo, zezeo, 137–141 sibilant phonemes, 136–137 vibrant /r/̠ and ap /r/ contrast, 144–145 voiceless dental ricative, 139
yeísmo, 141 physicians in the royal court, Jewish, 21 pienso, 112 pikadon, 507 Piske ha-Rashdam, 93n56 Piske Ha-Rashdam, 97–118 plática, 154 pleitos, 131 plomo, 143 plosive consonants, 135n59 plosive orms, 79–80, 85 plyšmyynţw, 115 p∙nywqy, 114 p∙nyyw, 112 poder, 131 poliças, 140
533 poll tax, 34–35 Pomeroy, Hilary, 7 ponedlos, 145–146 poneldos, 145–146 porqué no vos, 114 Portugese borrowings, 183–184, 188 Portugese Jews, 152 Portugese language, 160, 163 pos, 153 Pountain, Christopher, 131, 141, 145, 157, 166 la preba, 131 presona, 146 presonas, 146 preto, 130, 153 prieto, 130 primera mente, 160 print, invention o, 16–17 proper names, 182 property ownership, 176, 227–238, 268–275, 316–324 Proverbios Morales, 4 Proverbios Morales (Gonzalez-Llubera), 144, 162
Proverbios morales o Šem Tov de Carrión, 4 p∙ryynt∙s, 115 pueder, 131 puedo, 131 puedo, pueder, 131 pues, 153 punctuation, 76 Purim, 122 pusieron, 87 puso, 136 puśo, 136 pwrky nw wwš, 114 pygw, 116
pyg``w, pynšw, 112o, 116 pyrqwr∙dwr, 113 pyrwg`wdyyw, 144 pyynšw, 112 qahal, 31, 34, 45, 168 qodem, 176 qodeš, 31 quedare, 160 que le estaba apare ado sạ rqé se‘udat haberit, 168 querer, 156 quešándose, 115 quier, 130 quieres, 156
quies, 156 qui eron, 150 qui o, 150 Quintana-Rodriguez, Aldina, 2, 19, 126, 131, 145, 149, 152, 157, 159, 164, 165, 182, 185, 186 quiregi, 182 quiseron, 138 quiśieron, 138 quitança, 185 quitanza, 185 qyš∙ndwšy, 115
r`, 178 rabbinic Judeo-Spanish, 186–187 Rabbinic law, 13 Rambam, 48 Ran (Re’uben, Nissim ben), 54 Rashi (Yitzchaki, Shlomo), 87, 167 Rashi script, 87, 91t raźón, 114, 138 rebí, 113 rebí (as title), 75 rebocar, 135 reboco, 135 recevtab`, 113 recevtaba, 113 reçibestes, 158 reçibí, 140 recibido, 140 reçibido, 140 recibidor, 140 recibi eron, 140 reçibió, 140 reçibir, 140 reçibiste, 140 reçibistes, 157 reçibo, 140 Recuero, Pascual, Reael, Shmuel, 2, 69, 6 97, 116, 136, 155 Rei, Stean, 18 reis, 498 religious terminology, 170–172, 171–172t, 173t Renard, 178 reposar, 136 repośar, 136 repovar, 96 repozar, 96 resh, 86, 96, 114, 144 responsa. See also legal contents o the responsa additional resources, 69–71, 489 common ormat/structure, 15
534 copying process, results o, 16–17 development o Jewish law and, 13–18 diversity o issues covered, 62 everyday lie depicted in the, 20–30, 62 Hebrew to Judeo-Spanish translation, calque system o, 4 language o narratives, 15–20, 30, 42, 62, 125 parties named, 17 places named, 17–18 publication o, 16, 92 the question in the, 15 statistics, 8th to 18th century, 14 textual transmission, difficulties in, 8 use o Judeo-Spanish in, 18–20 witness testimony.See witness testimony responsa, historical and socio-historical elements business relations with Gentiles, 37 communication indicating trade, 37 cultural identity, 123, 125–126 currency used, 33 economic, 39–40, 43 ethical conduct, 40–42 language used, 37, 125, 186–189 travel, 37, 45–46, 127 responsa, Judeo-Spanish additional resources, 65 corpus o texts 18th to 20th century, 13, 516–518 basis o selection, 10–11 categories, 11 chronology, 12 complete list, 63–65t orm o reerences to, 11 glossary, 12–13, 500–509 linguistic eatures absent, 151
textual transmission problems abbreviations, 112–113 metathesis, 113 printing errors, 96 spelling variations, 112 variations between editions, 94–97, 112–118 word separation, 114 transcription guide, 87–91, 91t transcription system, 71–73. See also transcriptions translations diacritics, 76 into English, 76–77 ormat, 73–75 numerals representation, 77–78 proper names, 75–76 punctuation, 76 transliterations examples, 72, 493–495 transliterations guide, 91, 91–92t Re’uben, Nissim ben (Ran), 54 Révah, 121 rey, 498 rezar, 178 ridá, 182 riñón, 147 rivá, 96 rizá, 96, 182, 498 Rodrigue, Aron, 24n43 rogar, 131 rogo, 131 romance languages, 20, 121–122 Romaniot Jews, 24 Romaniots, 35n75 Romero, Elena, 2, 7 ronpió, 143 ropas, 96 Rosh Hashanah, 176
numbering, 12 overview, 510–515 overview (table), 13 reerence sources, 12, 13, 510–515 translated language, 11–12 responsa literature, 14, 62 responsa study corpus examined, principles o selection, 65–66 methodology, 66–68 problems and solutions, 73–76 purpose o, 2–3 resources, 1, 69–71, 489 textual transmission edition used, 92–93, 97 line patterns, 94–95
royal court, 21 2, 23–24 Rozen, Minna, r∙šwn, 114 Rubashov, Zalman, 20, 127–128 ruego, 131 ryšybţ∙b∙, 113 r∙zwn, 114 rzwn, 114 /š/, /s/, /,s/, 137 šabu̠ ‘a yamin, 176 Sabá, 75 Šabat, 41, 42, 75 saber, 51, 135
saberá, saberés, saberéš, saverés, 158 saberés, 149 sample text chosen or analysis, 93–94 saberéš, 156
535 saberés, 158 saberéš, 158 sabés, 155 sabéš, 156 sabréis, 158 sacaos, 136 sacavos, 136 Sachar, Howard M., 37 saiola, 183–184 sakaná gedolá, 46 Sala, Marius, 157, 163 Salmos de Salónica, 97 Salmos de Salónica (Recuero), 154 šalom ‘alehem, 173 Salonica anusim in, 27 Jewish population, 22 Lisbon community in, 44–45 Muslims in, 21n36 Portugese language in, 165 present-day, 29 religious environment, 57–58, 60 structure o communal organisations, 34–35 textile industry in, 36 wool industry, 36 Salonican Jews in Auschwitz, 22 commerce, 127 community isolation, 127 leaders and scholars o, 22 lie o, 21–23 minhagim letter, 44–45 murder o, 29 organizational structure, 34 population statistics, 22 social lie, 29 taxation, 45 wool export , 22 ban, 43n92 yeshiva Salonican texts, 7 samech, 84, 137, 138, 139, 140–141, 164 sara, 182, 499 Sasson, Aharon ben Joseph, 29, 55–56, 93 sava’á, 507 saverá, 135 saverés, 149, 158 savrés, 186 Šavu’ot, 507 sayo, 183–184 schirazzo, 185 scribe vs. copyist, 16 se, 149, 155 se acodró, 113
sean meḥuyavim, 168
seavos, 136 se boltó, 186 se calló, 156 Sedaka, R., 69 se enteró, 144 se enterró, 144 se alló, 132 Searad, 7, 71, 120
Seer Hešeq Šelomo (Bunis), 3 se halló, 132, 141 Selim II, 22 semos, 46, 155 señor, 112, 147 señora, 147 señores, 147 señoría, 112, 147
A Separate People (Lamdan), 8 Sephardic Jews, 6, 23 Sephardic liturgy, 18n30, 122 Sephardic responsa, 19 Sephardic script, 167 Sephardic Studies, 120 Sephardim language o, 19, 20n33, 121, 130, 131 trade, 37 Séphiha, Haïm Vidal, 2, 4, 21, 122, 176, 178, 188 ser, 155, 168 serán aňos siete or šev‘a yamim, 176 seren, 184
sería como semana días qodem Ros Hasaná, 176 ses, 96 seseo, 137–141 seseo, zezeo, 139 Seudat Hashelishit, 212n61 suegro/a, 148 Shabbat, 507
Shabtai, Chayim, Rabbi, 66, 125, 136, 152, 184 Shavuot (Šavu‘ot), 507–508 She’elot u-Teshuvot haRivash(Peret), 66 She’elot u-Teshuvot Maharashdam , 155 shelichut, 500 Shema, 176 shetar, 508 shidduchin, 505 shin, 86, 137, 148, 155 Shmuelevitz, Aryeh, 21 shoplifing, 223–227 Shwarzwald, Ora, 1, 2, 123, 128, 149, 152, 164, 166, 167, 171–172, 176, 178, 182 sicil, 499 Siddurim de Liorna (Recuero), 97, 116, 155
536 siendo, 161 siendo que, 161 sienpre, 142 sigil, 182 Šimšón the Great, 507 sin, 86–87, 138, 139, 140, 141, 148, 155 Skopye, 56, 57–59, 61 Smith, Colin, 70 so, 155 sodro, 145 solamente, 51 sola mente, 160 somos, 46, 155 song, Judeo-Spanish, 7 sordo, 145 soy, 155 Spanish, Hebrew letters to write, 19 Spanish-Jewish jurisprudence, 24–25 Spanish Jews, 20, 24–25, 122–123, 126 Spanish orthography, 71–73, 88–90t /ß/, 135 Steinschneider, Moritz, 69 Stern, Sacha, xvi, 191 súbito, 185 suelo, 148 Suleyman, Sultan, 23 Sulhan de Venecia (Recuero), 116 Sulhan hapanim, 169 sultanis, 33 sultan/is, 499 supeto, 185 súpeto, 185 súpito, 185 súpito pagara o uera en prisión, 160 sus, 96, 162 sus cuentas, 162 sus manos, 162 šynyywr, 112 112 šynywry∙h synyywry, ,147 /t/, 146–147 tabán, 182, 499 tabooed language, 169t, 170, 171 ta, 78, 83, 87, 96 taie, 34 aitazak, Rabbi, 22 takkanah, 508 takkanot, 504 talmid hakham, 16 Talmudic Encyclopaedia (Levin), 509 Talmud Tractate Bava Batra, 509 también, 165 tamién, 165
Tanach, 69 tanbién, 142, 143 Taqanot de Valladolid, 5, 166, 168, 173, 187
Taqanot de Valladolid(Minervini), 131 taqanot/taqanah, 15, 28, 45, 169 tardi, 131 argumim, 122 tartura, 499 tav, 67n5, 83 tavan, 182 taxation, 34–35 te lá, 41, 42 te llah, 508 temos, 160 tendrá, 157 tenedlas, 145 teneldas, 145 tenemos, 160 tener, 159–160 tenido, 158 tenrá, 157 ter, 159–160 terçio, 140 tercios, 140 tereah, 508 terna, 146 terná, 157 ternia, 146
Testi giudeoespagnoli medievali (Minervini), 5, 82n30, 97, 115n83, 136, 157, 179 testimil, 499 testimonies. See witness testimony tet, 83, 87 te tengo dicho, 159 tet-vav, 78 textile industry, 35, 36, 43–44 textual transmission abbreviations, 112–113 edition used, 92–93, 97 line patterns, 94–95 metathesis, 113 printing errors, 96 sample text chosen or analysis, 93–94 spelling variations, 112 variations between editions, 94–97, 112–118 word separation, 114 tiempo, 143 tienpo, 143 time, language o, 176, 177t todos, 96 tọ es, 508
537 tomadlo, 145 tomadlo por qidusín para mi, 505 tomaldo, 145 toponyms, 172 Torah, 508 Torat Emet(Sasson), 93 tore, 508 Tosaot, 52 tovei ha-qahal, 23 trade Ancona boycott, 39–40 ban on wool sale and purchase, 43–44, 199–202 cloth and paper industry, 39 competition, eliminating, 43 custom duty, 39 goods lost at sea, 38n84, 261–265 introduction, 36–37 Jewish, preserving, 46–47 language o, 37, 127, 173, 182 maritime insurance, 37–38, 238–241 price xing, 43–44 reerences to in texts, 36–37 textile industry, 36, 43–44 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 wool industry, 36, 43–44, 182 trade airs, 45–46, 202–205 traiçión, 140 rani, Moses ben Joseph, Rabbi credit transactions, debts, loans, 38–39, 428–433, 436–443 marriage, validity o, 433–436 mentioned, 66 oaths and vows, 443–444 , 428–446 She’elot u-Teshuvot haMabit transcription guide, 87–91, 91t transcriptions ̣ 82–83, 116 het, //, 85 /l/, 83 /p/, 85 aleph, 78, 79, 95, 96, 113, 114–115, 116, 157 aleph bet (vet), 79 aleph heh, 79 aleph lamed, 87 aleph vav, 79 aleph yod, 79, 141, 161 ayin, 67n5, 78, 83, 84 bet, 78, 79–80 bet raa, 80 chet, 96 daled, 81, 96 diacritics, 71, 76, 80–81
ap /r/, 86 ormatting, 74–75, 85, 94 gimmel, 78, 80–81, 115, 116 gimmel plus diacritic, 80n28, 81, 116 Hebrew, 75 Hebrew → Latin, 91–92t, 94 Hebrew → phoneme → grapheme, 88–90t Hebrew → Rashi, 91t heh, 81–82, 96, 113, 115 ka̠ , 78, 82, 83 ka, 67n5, 83, 87 ka raa, 83 ko /k/, 83, 85–86, 115 lamed, 83–84, 141 lamed yod, 118 ligature, 87 mem /m/, 84, 143 nun /n/, 84, 115, 142 nun plus yod, 84 nun yod, 118, 147 nun yod yod, 147 orthography, 72 peh, 115 phonemes, 85, 88–90t phonology, 72–73 punctuation, 76 resh, 86, 96, 114 samech, 84, 138, 139, 140, 141, 164 setting up a, 68, 91t shin, 86, 148, 155 sin, 86–87, 138, 140, 141, 148, 155 Spanish orthography, 71–73, 88–90 t ta, 78, 83, 87, 96 tav, 83 tet, 83, 87 tsadi, 78, 83, 85, 140 vav, 80, 82, 96, 117, 134, 135, 147, 148 , 80 /r/, 86 vet vibrant word separation patterns, 73 yod, 83, 96, 112, 114, 117, 118, 131, 141, 157 yod aleph, 79, 83, 141 yod aleph heh, 83 yod aleph yod, 83 yod vav, 83 yod yod (double yod), 67, 83–84, 96, 112, 131, 141 zayin, 82, 96, 116, 136, 138, 139, 164 translation, calque system o, 4 transliterations, 72 traše, 158 traše, trašio, 158
538 trašio, 158 travel language o, 127 reerences to in texts, 37, 127 trušo, trašo, 158 tsadi, 78, 83, 85, 140 sahalon, Yom ov ben Akiva, 66 urkish borrowings, 74, 181–183, 188, 496–499 urkish dictionaries, 70 urkish Jews. See Ottoman Jewish lie urks, money lending by, 127 tuvido, 158
uba, 135 /ue/ - /o/, 130–131 ultima mente, 160 umdena, 509 un, 117 una edor/un edor, 162
Una inormacion de la aritmetica, 145 una naranja, 504 un edor, 162 University College London, 7 University o So a, 7 usted, 136 /v/, 134 /v/, 134, 134t /v/, 135 vaiboda, 181 valere, 185
Valladolid Taqanot, 5, 166, 168, 173, 187 Valladolid Taqanot(Minervini), 131 Value Added ax, 34–35 valuto, 185 valutos, 185
Variation and Change in Spanish (Penny), 70, 150 Varol, Marie-Christine Bornes, 2, 7 Várvaro, Alberto, 140, 177, 184 vasu, 131 vav, 80, 82, 96, 117, 134, 135, 147, 148 većina, 138 većindad, 138 vegía, 115 vekil, 499 vekil mutlagaj, 499 velico, 163 vellcino, 140 velleçino, 140 veluntad, 154 venecianos, 33 vení, 156
venía, 115 venido, 96 venir, 46, 157 venirse, 156 venites, 157, 158 verdad, 146 verdar, 146 verdat, 146 verná, 157 vernacular, 20 vernán, 157 veshilcha, 501 vet, 80, 134 vezé lešonó, 14 vi, 158 vibrant, 86 vibrant /r/̠ , 144–145 vibrant /r/, 86 Vicente, Zamora, 70, 135–136 vide, 158 vido, 158 viéndosen, 149 vijitar, 114 vi itar, 150 viñas, 147 vino, 135 vinu, 131 vio, 158 viste, 158 vo, 155 vocabulary adaptations, 178–180 borrowings, 181–185 code-switching, 169, 174, 180–181 primary, 164 use o Hebrew, 165–178, 168t, 169t, 171–172t, 173t, 174–175t, 177t voiceless dental ricative, 139
vo lo, 149 , 186 voltarsi voluntad, 154 vos, 135–136 vos lo, 149 voy, 155 vuesa, 136 vuesa merçed, 135 vuesa(s), 135–136 vueso/a/s, 185 vuestra, 135–136 vuestro/a, 185 waywode, 499 Weinrich, Uriel, 128, 178 Whole Hebrew, 128
539 wills language o, 19, 169 languages o, 19 validity o, 31, 56–61, 207–209, 275–282, 308–314, 334–336, 396–409, 424–428, 450–452, 458–460 wine trade, 46–47, 191–196 witness testimony language o, 15–20, 29–30, 31 validity o, 27–29, 51, 54–55 ∙wn, 117 women agunot status, 48, 50–56, 288–290, 351–353, 356–365, 377–380, 412–422, 445–448 guardianship cases, 56–61, 280–282, 334–336 leniency in rulings affecting, 28–29, 50–53 non-Hebrew language used with, 122 oral tradition, 126–127 in the responsa, scholarship on, 8 wool industry, 36, 43–44, 182 Written law, 14n22 wygy∙h, 115 ∙wyg`` ţ∙`., 114 wyny∙h, 115
xabón, 136 Yaari, Abraham, 1 yan torbá, 181 yan torbá, 499 yavam, 509 yeísmo, 141 yeísmo, 141, 151 yeísta, 141 , 22 yeshiva , 509 yevamah Yevanite Jews, 35n75 ∙ygw, 116 yibum, 509 yid, 149
Yiddish, 74, 127–129, 165–166 yišmerehu sụ ró viḥayehu, 173 Yitzchaki, Shlomo (Rashi), 87, 167 ∙yn, 117 yo, 112 yod, 83, 96, 112, 114, 117, 118, 131, 141, 157 yod aleph, 79, 83, 141 yod aleph heh, 83 yod aleph yod, 83 yod vav, 83 yod yod (double yod), 67, 83–84, 96, 112, 131, 141 yo indo a vi itar al señor dotor dicho, 150 yom plus aleph, 78 yom rišon, 78 ∙ysc∙p∙r, 115 ∙yšţh, 113 /z/, 136 Zakuto, C., 69 zaman, 177 Zaragoza Jewish community, 184 zayin, 82, 96, 116, 136–137, 138, 139, 164 Ze’ev, Binyamin, Rabbi, 28 zehuvim, 33 zeku̠ t, 115 ze lešonó, 113 zemán, 42, 177 zezeo, 137–141 zijronó lehayé ha’olam habá , 112 zijronó livrajá, 113 Zimra, David ben, Rabbi, 46–47, 53 zkwtw, 115 zkwy, 115 z``l, 112–113 z’’l, 112–113
z’’lhh 112–113 z``lhh, ,112–113 zmn, 177 Zul car effendi, 182–183 zül kar, 499 zuz, 60
