Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-l4ctd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-07T02:15:13.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Equality in Yefet Ben ʿElī’s Commentary and Karaite Halakhah

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2013

Ilana Sasson
Ilana Sasson*
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
*
[email protected]
Get access

Extract

Researching the translation and commentary of the tenth century Karaite scholar and exegete Yefet ben ʿElī on the Book of Proverbs, numerous statements that seemed to ring with egalitarianism were found. Some of these statements found in Yefet's commentary on wisdom literature and biblical narrative will be examined in this article. One case in which he speculates on biblical Hebrew syntax will also be examined. Gender equality in Yefet's work is anchored in the principle of logical inference, also known as analogy, qiyās, which served as one of the three major sources for the determination of Karaite halakhah. This article includes also a brief discussion of the role of qiyās in Karaite halakhah on marriage, divorce, and inheritance laws.

Type
Research Article
Information
AJS Review , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , April 2013 , pp. 51 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The term ‘gender equality’ may seem anachronistic, as the concept did not exist in the Middle Ages. However, other terms that convey the same concept have become too specialized. Thus ‘gender analogy’ is related to race and disability discrimination, ‘gender balance’ is related to discrimination in the work place, and ‘gender symmetry’ is related to domestic violence. Therefore, for lack of a better choice, the term ‘gender equality’ will be used despite its limitations.

2. See the text and translation in section A in the appendix. Yefet on Proverbs 18:22–19:2 is part of the forthcoming comprehensive publication of a critical edition of Yefet's translation and commentary on the Book of Proverbs to be published by Brill Publishers. My thanks to the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, the British Library, and the National Library in Jerusalem for granting me access to the manuscripts cited.

3. Yefet uses the couplet ḥasab wa-nasab which pertains to a person's position in society based both on one's social status and ancestral heritage. Roy Mottahedeh discusses the breadth of meaning, use, and significance of these terms, commonly used in the world of medieval Islam. See Mottahedeh, Roy P., Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 97–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4. Compare with Islamic law, kafāʾa, which varies with regard to the ideal match. While the scholars of Medina reduced kafāʾa to the prohibition of a marriage between a pious woman and a libertine, the Ḥanafī school regarded a marriage between two people of the same lineage, social status, seniority in Islam, and similar morality as ideal. See Y. Linant de Bellefonds, “Kafāʾa,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 4:404. See also Schacht, Joseph, “Nikāḥ,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 8:26–28Google Scholar. A detailed discussion of the evolution of the law of kafāʾa in early Islamic law, the integration of the requirement for social equality and religious equality in marriage, can be found in Hammūdah ʿAbd al ʿAṭī, The Family Structure in Islam (Plainfield: American Trust Publications, 1977), 84–97.Google Scholar

5. For a discussion of the age of marriage in Jewish societies in the Middle Ages see Goitein, S. D., The Family, vol. 3 of A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 76–79Google Scholar; Friedman, Mordechai A, “The Ethics of Medieval Jewish Marriage,” in Religion in a Religious Age, ed. Goitein, S. D. (Cambridge: Association for Jewish Studies, 1974), 83–102Google Scholar; Grossman, Avraham, Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Europe in the Middle Ages (Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2001), 63–87Google Scholar; and Olszowy-Schlanger, “Early Karaite Family Law,” in Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources, ed. Polliack, Meira (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 287–9Google Scholar. A Geniza fragment of particular interest is ENA 2445 1–2 which contains a chastisement of the sages of the Talmud for allowing the marriage of three-year-old girls. The fragment, possibly authored by a Karaite, refers, inter alia, to B. Niddah 44b בת שלש שנים מתקדשת בביאה “A girl who is three years old can be betrothed through cohabitation.” See Amir Ashur, “Engagement and Betrothal Documents from the Cairo Geniza” (PhD diss., Tel-Aviv University, 2006), 168. My thanks to Eve Krakowski and Amir Ashur for this reference. For further discussion of the age of marriage in the gaonic period see, inter alia, Libson, Gideon, “Betrothal of an Adult Woman by an Agent in Geonic Responsa: Legal Construction in Accord with Islamic Law” in Esoteric and Exoteric Aspects in Judeo-Arabic Culture, eds. Hary, Benjamin and Ben-Shammai, Haggai (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 175–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I thank the author for this reference.

6. BL Or. 2553 (123a). See section B in the appendix for the original text. All translations are mine unless otherwise noted.

7. Yefet further stresses the role of the mother as the educator of her children in his commentary on Proverbs 31:1 in which he says that Lemuel's mother educated her son and disciplined him in the way mothers discipline their children. اذ هي علمته وادبته كما تودب الام ولدها (BL Or. 2553 (130a).

8. See original text in Saadiah, Mishle ʿ im targum u-ferush ha-gaon rabbenu Saadiah ben Yoseph, ed. Qāfiḥ, Yoseph (Jerusalem: Ha-Vaʿad le-Hoṣaʾat Sifrei Rasag, 1976), 180–181Google Scholar.

9. BL Or 2553 (108a). See section C in the appendix for the original text.

10. Saadiah, Mishle, 271: אן אלמדבר אלמגיד יותק בה ויסכן אליה ראיה.

11. Translated according to Adler MS 3357 (128a):

גמעת פי אלקול אלזוג ובניהא וסאיר מא יחצל בה כברהא ודלך פי חיאתהא ובעד מותהא לאנהא תסתחק דלך כמא יסתחק כל פאצ֗ל עאקל דיין כקולה לפי שכלו יהלל איש.

12. For the Arabic see Butbul, Sagit, “The Commentary of Yefet ben ʿEli the Karaite on the Book of Ruth,” Sefunot 23 (2003): 505Google Scholar; for the Hebrew translation see ibid., 548.

13. For a discussion of the role of the wife in choosing a husband in Jewish societies in the Middle Ages see Grossman, Pious, 98–106.

14. Butbul, “Ruth,” 482, for the Hebrew translation see ibid., 522–3.

15. BL Or. 2477 (38a–b). See text in section D in the appendix.

16. Sifrei Bamidbar 41. It is interesting to note that the commentary of Ibn Ezra includes both of Yefet's citations, which discuss the semantic field of דבר ב ‘speak’ to include slanderous talk, and the first solution he offers to the problem of agreement between verb and subject. It is possible that this is one of the cases, already described in modern scholarly literature, in which Ibn Ezra quotes Yefet. About Ibn Ezra's attitude towards Karaites see, among others, Weis, P. R., “Ibn Ezra vehakaraim bahalakhah,” Melilah 1 (1944): 35–53Google Scholar; and Melamed, Ezra Zion, Mefarshe ha-mikra: darkhehem ve-shetotehem, vol. 2(Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1975), 676–8Google Scholar. See also Frank, Daniel, “Ibn Ezra and the Karaite Exegetes Aaron ben Joseph and Aaron ben Elijah,” in Abraham Ibn Ezra y su tiempo, ed. Esteban, Fernando Díaz (Madrid: Asociación Española de Orientalistas, 1990), 99–106Google Scholar.

17. Bereshit Rabba 45:5.

18. Vayikra Rabba 16:1, 17:3; Bamidbar Rabba 7:5, 16:6.

19. Ralbag on Numbers 12:9:

והנה זכר שחרה אף השם יתעלה בם ונסתלקה הנבואה מהם. ואז סר הענן מעל האהל ונגלה שכבר נשארה מרים מצרעת כשלג. וזה לאות כי מרים לבדה דברה כנגד משה זה המאמר הנזכר. ואולם אהרן נתגנה על שלא הוכיח אחותו על זה וחזק את דבריה ועל זה הקדים מרים לאהרן במה שאמר ותדבר מרים ואהרן במשה.

“He remembers here that the Lord, exalted, was angry with them and that the spirit of prophecy was removed from them. Then the cloud was removed from the tent [of meeting] and it was revealed that Miriam remained “leprous as white as snow” (Numbers 12:10). This is a sign that Miriam alone spoke against Moses, as mentioned before. However, Aaron was reprimanded for not rebuking his sister and for supporting her words. Therefore, Miriam precedes Aaron in the verse “Miriam and Aaron spoke” (Numbers 12:1). Gershom, Levi b., Perushe ha-torah le-rabbenu Levi ben Gershom (rlb”g), ed. Levi, Yaakov Leib (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1998), 43Google Scholar. For more on the attitude towards Miriam in reference to Numbers 12:1 by medieval European commentators see Bruria Aran, “Demuyot nashim ba-torah bi-r'i ha-parshanut ha-yehudit bi-yeme ha-benayim” (PhD diss., Bar-Ilan University, 2010), 222–240.

20. Wechsler, Michael G., The Arabic Translation and Commentary of Yefet Ben ʿEli the Karaite on the Book of Esther (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 271Google Scholar. For the text in Judeo–Arabic see ibid., 44*.

21. See for example B. Sanhedrin 74b in which it is said that Esther was like the soil of the earth. Ibn Ezra interprets Esther's adjournment of the banquet as originating from her fear of Haman and concern for her own well-being. See Ibn Ezra's commentary in BLO Poc. 184, fol. 37v as quoted in Wechsler, Esther, 272 n. 537. See also Walfish, Barry Dov, Esther in Medieval Garb: Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Esther in the Middle Ages (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993), 39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Grossfeld, Bernard, The Two Targums of Esther, The Aramaic Bible 18 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1991), 155, n. 15Google Scholar. It is important to mention that according to a different tradition, Esther was seen as a seasoned conspiring courtesan as indicated in B. Megillah 15b; see Walfish, Garb, 162–6.On Esther's initiative and active role, see also Berlin, Adele, The JPS Bible Commentary: Esther (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2001), lviiGoogle Scholar. See also Fox, Michael V., Character and Ideology in the Book of Esther (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1991), 199–202.Google Scholar

22. Wechsler, Esther, 45*, 272–3.

23. In his second commentary on Esther Ibn Ezra writes:

ויש שאלה למה לא נכתב השם במגלה הזאת והגאון רב סעדיה ז”ל השיב כי המלך צוה למרדכי שיכתוב המגלה ויעתיקוה בלשון פרס בספר דברי הימים. ואילו היה כותב שם השם הנכבד היו הפרסיים מחליפין אותו בשם עבודה זרה.

“A question persists, why was the name [of God] not mentioned in the scroll. The Gaon, Rabbi Saadiah of blessed memory responded [to this saying] that the king ordered Mordechai to write the scroll in order that it be copied into the chronicles in the Persian language. Therefore, had he written the Honorable Name, the Persians would have altered it on behalf of idol worshiping.” Zedner, Joseph, Abraham Aben Ezra's Commentary on the Book of Esther (London: David Nutt, 1850), 26Google Scholar; Katsenelenbogen, Mordekhai L., Megillat Esther im perushe ha-rishonim (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 2006), 110Google Scholar. See also, Wechsler, Esther, 28, 273. Yet, in the introduction to his first commentary, Ibn Ezra does not cite Saadiah, rather he presents the notion that Mordechai was the author of Esther as his own:

והנה, אין במגילה הזאת זכר ה’, והיא מספרי הקודש, ורבים השיבו כי הוא ”ממקום אחר“ וזה איננו נכון, כי לא נקרא ה’ ”מקום“ בכל ספרי הקודש, רק נקרא ”מעון“ שהוא לעולם גבוה, וקדמונינו ז”ל קראונו ”מקום“ בעבור שכל מקום מלא כבודו. ועוד, מה טעם למלת ”אחר“. והנכון בעיני, שזאת המגילה חיברה מרדכי, וזה טעם ”וישלח ספרים“, וכולם משנה ספר אחד שהוא המגילה, כטעם ”פתשגן“, והעתיקוה הפרסיים ונכתבה בדברי הימים של מלכיהם, והם היו עובדי עבודה זרה, והיו כותבין תחת השם הנכבד והנורא שם תועבתם, כאשר עשו הכותים שכתבו תחת ”בראשית ברא אלהים“ ”ברא אשימא“, והנה כבוד השם שלא יזכירנו מרדכי במגילה.

“There is no mention of God in this scroll even though it is one of the holy books. Many commented that God is included in “from another place,” but this is not correct, for God is never called “place” in Scripture, only “māʿōn,” which always means ‘high.’ However, the early sages called Him “place” because His glory is omnipresent. In addition, what would be the meaning of the word “another?” What seems right to me is that this scroll was written by Mordechai, as it is written “(Mordechai) sent letters,” which were all copies of one book — the scroll, as it is written “a copy” (patshegen). The Persians copied and added it to the chronicles of their kings, who were idol worshipers. (Had the name of God been mentioned) they would have written instead the name of their abomination, similarly to the Cuthites who, instead of “In the beginning when God created,” wrote ‘Ashima created.’ Therefore, for the sake of the glory of the name (of God), Mordechai did not mention it in the scroll.” Katsenelenbogen, Esther, 1. It is important to add that nowhere in his short and long commentaries on the Book of Esther does Saadiah attribute the writing of the book to Mordechai. In the introduction to his long commentary, he does, however, explain the absence of the name of God in the book, and the difficulty presented by the phrase “from another place” (Ibid., 315). Ibn Ezra's discussion, quoted above, bears significant similarity to that of Saadiah's.

24. Geniza documents indicate that women as a rule were not sent to school. Women were not able to communicate by writing and when they needed either to read or write they were aided by professional copyists; see Goitein, S. D., The Community, vol. 2 of A Mediterranean Society (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 183–5Google Scholar. Goitein comments on a mention of a woman calligrapher: “a noteworthy accomplishment for nonprofessional people in those days, let alone a woman” in Goitein, S. D., A Mediterranean Society: An Abridgment in One Volume, ed. Lassner, Jacob (Berkeley: University of California Press), 1999, 257–8.Google Scholar

25. Wechsler, Esther, 28.

26. Meira Polliack, “Did Esther Write Her Own Book? — The Character of Esther and the Concept of Biblical Authorship in the Commentary of the Karaite Yefet ben Eli,” unpublished paper, quoted in Wechsler, Esther, 28, n. 61.

27. SP Academy of Oriental Studies B367 (22b–23a). I thank David Sklare for providing me with this text. See section E in the appendix.

28. For the passage and its translation see section F of the appendix.

29. With regard to biblical exegesis, the research for this article was limited to Yefet's commentary only. Further studies on this topic should include the examination of the principle of logical inference in the works of other Karaite exegetes. It would have been valuable to compare Yefet's biblical commentaries with his halakhah as reflected in his Book of Precepts. However, in addition to the fact that very little research was done to date on Yefet's Book of Precepts, unfortunately, the extant segments of this treatise do not include discussions that pertain to the topics of this article.

30. Mielziner, Moses, Introduction to the Talmud (New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1968), 152–5Google Scholar. For a detailed discussion of logical inference in Rabbinic literature see the entry “Heqqesh,” in Talmudic Encyclopedia 10:557–75; see also Elon, Menachem, Ha-mishpat ha-‘ivri toldotav, mekorotav, ekronotav vol. 2 (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1973), 289–302Google Scholar.

31. M. Bernard, “Ḳiyās,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 5:238.

32. Schacht, Joseph, The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), 99Google Scholar. For debates on the use of qiyās in Islamic jurisprudence see Gleave, Robert, “Imāmī Shīʿī Refutations of Qiyās,” in Studies in Islamic Legal Theory, ed. Weiss, Bernard G. (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 267–93Google Scholar.

33. ואלתאסע אצ֗אפהֿ שי יקצד אעלאמנא איאה אלי שי הו משהור ענדהא ללתסויה בינהמא

“and the ninth is the addition of something he wishes to teach us to something known to us in order to compare them.” Saadiah, Mishle, 20–21.

34. The three sources for Karaite Halakhah are Scripture (an–nuṣṣ), logical inference (al–qiyās) and consensus (al–ijmāʿ). Qirqisānī, Kitāb al–Anwār wal–Marākib, vol. 2, ed. Nemoy, Leon (New York: The Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1939), § 18:1Google Scholar. Yoram Erder asserts that while the Karaites saw the principle of analogy as a hermeneutical device rooted in Judaism, they debate it in a similar fashion to that of the principle of qiyās in the Islamic law. Erder, Yoram, The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the Qumran Scrolls (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 2004), 58–67Google Scholar.

35. Hirschfeld, Hartwig, Qirqisānī Studies (London: Fredrick Hall, 1918), 43.Google Scholar

36. For a detailed description of Yefet's use of qiyās in his commentary on the Book of Proverbs see Ilana Sasson, “Methods and Approach in Yefet Ben ʿElī Al–Baṣrī’s Translation and Commentary on the Book of Proverbs” (PhD diss., The Jewish Theological Seminary, 2010), 214–18.

37. ... וכן כל מאן דנסיב אשה בציביניה דיליה דמתבעי ליה למנסב ולא מתבעי ליה לאביו לאנסוביה אתתא דלא צבי בה ואשה נמי לא מתבעי לה לאינסובי אילא בציבינה ולא מתבעי ליה לאביה לאנסובה למאן לדא צביא ביה.

Harkavy, A., Zikaron la-rishonim (St. Petersburg, 1903; repr., Jerusalem: Hoṣaʾat Makor Inc., 1969), 113Google Scholar.

38. Judith Olszowy-Schlanger asserts that Babylonian Rabbanite marriage documents did not include passages indicating the agreement of the bride to marry the groom. However, some of the Palestinian marriage documents, especially those written in Tyre, do include such passages. Olszowy-Schlanger suggests that this was an indication of a Karaite influence. Olszowy-Schlanger, Judith, Karaite Marriage Documents from the Cairo Geniza (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 173, 205–207Google Scholar. See Friedman's critique of Olszowy-Schlanger's work in Friedman, “Al yaḥas ha-ketubot ha-kara'iyot la-ketubot ha-'ereẓ yisra'eliyot min ha-geniza,” in Ḥeker ha-geniza le'aḥar me'a shanah (Te‘udah 15) ed. Friedman, Mordechai Akiva (Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1999), 145–57Google Scholar; and Olszowy-Schlanger's response in Olszowy-Schlanger, “Ha-ketubot ha-kara'iyot min ha-geniza mekora shel ha-masoret ha-mishpatit ha-kara'it,” in Ḥeker ha-geniza, 127–44. See also Friedman, “Termination of the Marriage Upon the Wife's Request: A Palestinian Ketubba Stipulation,” PAAJR 37 (1969): 29–55Google Scholar; and idem, “Divorce Upon the Wife's Demand as Reflected in Manuscripts from the Cairo Geniza,” JLA 4 (1981):103–26Google Scholar. It is important to note that in the world of medieval Islam marriages were not prompted by romantic sentiments, rather they were motivated by social and economic considerations. In some cases the motivation for marriage was political; ibid., 123. See also Rustow, Marina, Heresy and the Politics of Community (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), 239–65Google Scholar, and Rapoport, Yossef, Marriage, Money and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39. וקא אמא והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה ערות דבר דאי לא שפרא בעיניה דאשכח בה מילי סניתא ולא ניחא ליה בגוה מגריש לה בין דלא צבי בה הוא ובין לא צביא ביה היא.

Harkavy, Zikaron, 119.

40. For a discussion of the prohibition to divorce attributed to the Sadducees by the Karaites and its refutation by Qirqisānī see Erder, Mourners, 141. More on the evolution of the Karaite laws of divorce see Revel, Bernard, The Karaite Halakah (Philadelphia: Cahan Printing Co., 1913; repr., 1970), 27–28Google Scholar.

41. See the Damascus Document (CD 5:9–10): ומשפט העריות לזכרים הוא כתוב וכהם הנשים “And the rules of incest are in male language, but they apply to women as well.” See Wacholder, Ben Zion, The New Damascus Document (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 36–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The influence of the Dead Sea scrolls on Karaite ideology has been the subject of numerous studies. It is sufficient to mention Erder, Mourners; idem, “The Karaites and the Second Temple Sects,” in Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources, ed. Polliack, Meira (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 119–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Wieder, Naphtali, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute: 2005)Google Scholar.

42. המונע מאשתו א’ משלש אלה שארה כסותה ועונתה כופין אותו להוציאה בגט שלם ובשילום כתובתה מלא שנ’ ואם שלש אלה וגו’: הוא כסף שנתן במחירה.

Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Mas'at Binyamin in Aaron Ben Yoseph, Mibḥar Yesharim, ed. A. Firkovitch (Gozlva [Eupatoria], 1834), Appendix, 6. See also Nemoy, Leon, Karaite Anthology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), 27Google Scholar.

43. Corinaldi, Michael, The Personal Status of the Karaites (Jerusalem: Reuven Mas, 1984), 65–66, 91–3Google Scholar.

44. In his Book of Precepts, Levi ben Yefet mentions the possibility of granting a divorce without a divorce bill. However, he concludes that is it more favorable to exert all efforts to force the husband to grant a divorce bill. (Levi ben Yefet, Book of Percepts, found in the manuscript Oxford Bodleian, Reggio 5 [169] as cited in Corinaldi, Status, 66–7). However, the Karaite sage Aaron ben Elijah holds in his treatise Gan Eden that Levi ben Yefet did, in fact, legitimize divorce without a divorce bill under certain circumstances, such as the rape of the wife or her engagement in prostitution: ובן יפת אומר כיון שנאסרה עליו אינה צריכה גט. “Ben Yefet says, because she is forbidden for him, she does not need a get.” Aaron ben Elijah, Sefer ha-miẓvot ha-gadol Gan Eden, ed. Judah Savskan (Gozlva [Eupatoria], 1864), 155. See also Yosef Algamil's edition of Caleb Afendopolo's Hebrew translation of Levi ben Yefet's Book of Precepts: Levi ben Yefet, Sefer ha-miẓvot, vol. 4, ed. Yosef Algamil; trans., Caleb Afendopolo (Ashdod: Machon Tiferet Yosef Le-Heker Ha-Yahadut Ha-Karait, 2002), 1186–7.

45. לשלח אותה כן גם יעבור לה לשלח אותו (כאשר יעבור (מותר. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts, manuscript Oxford Bodleian, Reggio 5 (169) as cited in Corinaldi, Status, 68. It is worth noting that a survey of all extant manuscripts of Yefet's Book of Precepts gives evidence that none includes a discussion on the topic of marriage or divorce. It is also noteworthy that in his Kitāb al-Anwār Qirqisānī mentions a divorce initiated by the wife saying: فان سال سائل عمن طلبت هي الطلاق هل يجب لها ان تطلق فسنقول في ذلك فيما بعد “and if someone asks whether a woman can legally demand a divorce, we shall discuss it in the following.” Qirqisānī, al-Anwār, vol. 3, §VI 71.6. However, such discussion was not found anywhere in the entire book.

46. See M. Yevamot 14:1, M. Ketubot 7: 1–5; 7:9–10. See also Friedman, “Demand,” 103.

47. See Rosen-Zvi, Ishay, “‘Even if One Found a More Beautiful Woman:’ An Analysis of Grounds for Divorce in Rabbinic Literature,” JSIJ 3 (2004): 1–11Google Scholar. See also idem, “Ha-madir ve-ha-muderet mishnat ketubot perek 7 u-tfisat hanisu'in ha-tana'it,” Dine Yisrael 26 (2010): 91–119Google Scholar.

48. Y. Ketubot 38a. See also Friedman, “Termination,” 33.

49. Friedman, “Developments in Jewish Marriage and Family Law as Reflected in the Cairo Geniza Documents,” in Judaeo-Arabic Studies, ed. Golb, Norman (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 130Google Scholar. A woman's right for divorce was also recognized by Maimonides who says that a woman should not be forced to remain “like a prisoner” with a husband whom she finds hateful. Mishne Torah, Ishut, 14:8.

50. Judah Hadassi, Eshkol ha-kofer (Gozlva [Eupatoria], 1836), §366. See also Corinaldi, Status, 69–71, and Olszowy-Schlanger, “Early,” 287–9.

51. Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, 155.

52. Bashyachi, Eliyahu, Aderet Eliyahu (Odessa, 1870), 320Google Scholar. See also Corinaldi, Status, 74–79, and Olszowy-Schlanger, “Early,” 287–9. Bashyachi's commitment to the principle of qiyās and to egalitarianism is apparent also in his opinion on prayer, as he says: המתחייב בתפלה הוא האיש והבוגר וכן האשה והבוגרת “Prayer is obligatory for adult man and adult woman;” idem, Aderet, 193. See also Holdheim, Samuel, Ma'amar ha'ishut (Berlin, 1861), 53Google Scholar.

53. Corinaldi, Status, 92–93, and Olszowy-Schlanger, “Early,” 287–9. Eliyahu Qazaz, a late nineteenth to early twentieth century Karaite sage said the following about divorce laws and the Karaite reform “Moses entrusted the permission for renouncing the marriage to the husband... The wife's destiny depended on the unlimited volition of the husband, any slight dislike was enough reason for divorce... It is hard not to see in this a most humiliating outlook of the ancient oriental man towards women. However, the Karaite sages set a limit on the volition of the husband in that they prohibited renouncing of marriage without the involvement of the court. They defined the concept of geṭ in dictates that are based on common sense and on principles of uprightness. According to these dictates it is not only possible for the husband to claim a geṭ, but also the wife.” Translated from the Hebrew as quoted in Corinaldi, Status, 85–86.

54. Hadassi, Eshkol ha-kofer, §256. See also Harkavy, Zikaron, 120.

55. The position of early Karaite sages on inheritance laws is mostly found in the chronicles of later medieval Karaites. For example, Hadassi, Eshkol ha-kofer, §252, 256; Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, 266–7; and Bashyachi, Aderet, 272–3. See also Ginzberg, Louis, Genizah Studies in Memory of Doctor Solomon Schechter, vol. 2 (New York, The Jewish Theological Seminary, 1929), 470–71Google Scholar.

56. For a survey of Rabbinic inheritance laws pertaining to daughters and wives see Rivlin, Joseph, Inheritance and Wills in Jewish Law (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1999), 41–86Google Scholar. For common practices with regard to laws of inheritance see idem, “Trumat ha-geniza le-ḥeker dine yerusha vetẓava'ot,” in Ḥeker ha-geniza, Te‘udah 15, 241–55Google Scholar.

57. Hadassi, Eshkol ha-kofer, §256. Louis Ginzberg published two Geniza fragments of Karaite origin (51 and 52), which he suggests were authored by Daniel al-Qūmisī. The opinion expressed in the first fragment (51) is that sons have priority over the inheritance of landholdings in the land of Israel, but with regard to all other land and possessions daughters and sons inherit equal shares. The second fragment (52) includes a discussion of inheritance laws between husband and wife. According to this fragment, when a wife dies her property goes back to her father's family, unlike Rabbanite halakhah, which claims that the husband inherits the wife. (Ginzberg, Genizah Studies, 470–74). Ginzberg's identification of al-Qūmisī as the author of fragment 51 is tenuous as it conflicts with Hadassi's account. In addition, Jacob Mann is at odds with Ginzberg's position and challenges the latter's identification, classification and analysis of several fragments in his collection. Mann agrees with Ginzberg that fragment 52 was authored by al-Qūmisī, but disputes Ginzberg's interpretation of the fragment. See Mann, Jacob, “Genizah Studies,” AJSLL 46 (1930): 270–75Google Scholar. Whether these fragments were indeed authored by Daniel al-Qūmisī or not, the opinions expressed in them reflect a spirit of egalitarianism and a humanitarian approach to inheritance laws. With regard to the fate of the wife's possessions after her death see Rivlin, Inheritance and Wills in Jewish Law (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1999), 69–86Google Scholar. See also Friedman, “ha-ketubot,” 151–56.

58. Bashyachi explains his position saying:

לכן הטוב והנכון שתירש הבת שליש הנחלה והטעם שיקח הזכר שנים והנקבה אחד. אמנם החכם רבינו יפת ובנו ר’ לוי ורוב החכמים לא הורישו לבת כל עקר אמנם חייבו לזכרים להשיא הבנות לפי כבודם והם יחזרו על הפתחים ובטוב דייקו בזה: אמנם עתה באלה הזמנים שנכרת שבט המושל מישראל ולא נתנהגו הבנים הזכרים במשפט אחותם בזה אמנם יניחו אותן לחזור על הפתחים הטוב והנכון לפי דעתי להוריש לבת חלק שליש כדי שתנשא או להתפרנס לפי דעת החכמים שנתנהגו בזה כפי מה שספר רבינו דוד הנשיא מצורף שנטה בזה גם החכם ר’ יוסף בהורישו לבת בשוה עם הזכרים.

“Therefore, the right way is that a daughter receives one third of the inheritance; meaning, the son receives two (parts) and the daughter one. True, the sage our Rabbi Yefet and his son R. Levi and most of the sages did not permit any inheritance for daughters at all. However, they required the sons to sponsor the marriage of daughters according to their means even if it drained the resources of the sons and they were right. However, in our times, with lack of legislative authority, sons do not treat their sisters according to this custom; instead, they let them panhandle. Therefore, the right thing, in my opinion, is to bequeath daughters one third so that they may get married or use it for their livelihood. This is in accordance with the opinion of some sages, as reported by our Rabbi David the Nasi, including the sage R. Joseph, who decreed that the share of daughters be equal to that of sons” (Bashyachi, Aderet, 272).

59. SP AOS B365 (102a–b), courtesy of David Sklare. See text and translation in appendix G.

60. Comprehensive discussions of the influence of Islam on Karaite thought can be found, inter alia, in Wieder, Naphtali, Islamic Influences on the Jewish Worship (Oxford: East and West Library, 1947), 47–82Google Scholar; Haggai Ben-Shammai, “The Doctrines of Religious Thought of Abû Yûsuf Yaʿqûb a-Qirqisânî and Yefet ben ʿElî” (PhD diss., The Hebrew University, 1977), 8–35; Drory, Rina, The Emergence of Jewish-Arabic Literary Contacts at the Beginning of the Tenth Century (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1988), 81–128Google Scholar; and Erder, Mourners, 110–115, 355–63. This section is not meant as a comprehensive discussion of the influence of Islam on Karaite exegesis and halakhah, rather the intention is to highlight certain aspects relevant to the topics with which this article deals. While a more extensive study is called for, it is beyond the scope of this article.

61. See for example Qurʿān 33:35. See also Hussain, Jamila, Islamic Law and Society: An Introduction (Sydney: The Federation Press, 1999), 46Google Scholar.

62. Qurʿān 4:32. See also Hussain, Islamic Law, 46. See also Engineer, Asghar Ali, The Rights of Women in Islam (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1992), 54–56Google Scholar.

63. Qurʿān 4:1; 7:189. See Engineer, Rights, 42–43. In addition to verses that advocate equality of the genders there are some controversial verses in the Qurʿān that insinuate the superiority of men over women. See for example, Qurʿān 4:34. For trends of interpretation see Engineer, Rights, 49–54.

64. Hussain, Islamic Law, 47–48. See also bibliography there.

65. See A. K. S. Lambton, “al-Marʾa,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 6:477.

66. Rapoport's research on marital law in the Islamic world deals mainly with late medieval period between the thirteenth and the sixteenth centuries. He shows that women were the initiators of the ḫulʿ and that they typically forwent their late fees in order to get out of the marriage. In some rare cases the divorce was granted without the husband's consent. Rapoport, Marriage, 4, 69–75. About the laws and practices of ṭalāq see, among others, J. Schacht and A. Layish, “Ṭalāḳ,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 10:151–7.

67. Rapoport, Marriage, 76–77. See also Chafik Chehata, “Faskh,” Encyclopaedia of Islam2 2:836. For further discussions of divorce in Islam see ʿAbd al ʿAṭī, Family, 217–49; Engineer, Rights, 120–43; and Hussain, Islamic Law, 86–102.

68. Qurʿān 2:180; 4:7, 11, 12. See also ʿAbd al ʿAṭī, Family, 250–83 and Hussain, Islamic Law, 104.

69. Genesis 2:18.

70. Illegible text of one to two words, comprised of eight characters.

71. Deuteronomy 24:1.

72. Perhaps a scribal error for فليقال (qll III imperfect).

73. Proverbs 14:7.

74. 1 Samuel 25:3.

75. Genesis 4:1.

76. Ezekiel 16:25.

77. MT: וְאָץ בְּרַגְלַיִם חוֹטֵא lit: “the one who hastens by means of [his] legs is a sinner.”

78. Psalms 78:19.

79. Numbers 21:5.

80. Job 19:18.

81. Ezekiel 16:27.

82. Leviticus 25:46.

83. Proverbs 19:14.

84. Deuteronomy 21:16.