Friday, 11 May 2012

Zahna and Messiah

--


PRINCESS ZAHNA AND THE HOLY MESSIAH:

“Hofnai or Kaphnai, born 530, was the 32nd Exilarch who ruled from 560-580 in Baghdad. He was from the lineage of King David. He gave his daughter Princess Zahna in marriage to Asad, the son of Hashim of Mecca. Asad had a daughter called Fatima. She married Abu Talib and gave birth to Ali, the First Holy Imam, Leader. Ali was born inside Kabah, the Holy House built by Abraham for the worship of One True God. Therefore, Imam Ali was the descendent of King David through his grandmother Princess Zahna. Islam teahes that the Awaited Messiah is the 12th and final Holy Imam. Hence, the expected Messiah is from the line of King David. Through Lady Fatima the holy bloodlines of both sons of Abraham unite in the coming Ruler of the World. The ancient books speak of the coming of a powerful man to bring peace and justice on Earth. The Holy Messiah will have the Divine Right to rule the world.”

[Eid ul Fitr - 20.8.2012]

--

Two articles on the history of Princess Zahna, the descendent of King David of Jerusalem.


# INTRODUCTION:

Exilarchs were rulers of the exiled desendents of Abraham. They led the exiled comminity of faithful after they were forced out of the Holy Land. They went into different parts of the world. Here are names of those who  went to Iraq:
Names of 1-29 Exilarchs in Baghdad have been omitted:
30. Mar-Zutra II, 512-520, (Mar Zutra II 508-520) descendant of 23 via Nathan. Descent goes Kahana, Nathan, Kahana (Khanai), Zutra, Maremar, Haninai, Mar-Zutra II.
interim: 520-550. His son, Sutra (I) (Mar-Zutra) 'Rav', 'Prince of Israel', founded a new dynasty of Palestinian 'Nesi'im', circa AD 550, ending the interim that followed the deposition of Gamaliel VI (House of Hillel 'The Great') in AD 425.* Apparently, Mar-Zutra II inherited the Exilarchate through his mother, Havah, daughter and heiress of 29.

31. Ahunai [Huna-Mar II], 550-560, son of 30 (Huna Mar 550-560)

32. Hofnai, 560-581, son of 31 (Kafnai 560-581)

33. Haninai, 581-589, son of 32 (Haninai 581-589)

34. Mar-Zutra III, 589, descendant of 23 via Nathan. Descent goes Kahana, Nathan, Kahana (Khanai), Zutra, Maremar, Haninai, Hizkiah, David, Mar-Zutra III
interim: 589-614 (Regency 589-610)

35. Nehemiah II, 614-640, son of 32

--
Exilarch

(Hebrew: Rosh Galut, Aramaic: Reish Galuta - lit. "head of the exile", Greek: Æchmalotarcha) #

Exilarch refers to the leaders of the Diaspora Jewish community in Babylon following the deportation of King Jeconiah and his court into Babylonian exile after the first fall of Jerusalem in 597 BCE and augmented after the further deportations following the destruction of the kingdom of Judah in 587 BCE. The people in exile were called golah (Jeremiah 28:6, 29:1; Ezekiel passim) or galut (Jeremiah 29:22).

The Greek term has continued to be applied to the position, notwithstanding changes to the position over time, which was at most times purely honorific. The origin of this dignity is not known, but the princely post was hereditary in a family that traced its descent from the royal Davidic line. It was recognized by the state and carried with it certain prerogatives. The first historical documents referring to it date from the time when Babylon was part of the Parthian Empire. The office lasted to the middle of the 6th century CE, under different regimes (the Arsacids and Sassanids). During the beginning of 6th century Mar-Zutra II formed a politically independent state where he ruled from Mahoza for about seven years. He was eventually defeated by Kavadh I, King of Persia.[1] The position was restored in the 7th century, under Arab rule. Exilarchs continued to be appointed through the 11th century. Under Arab rule, Muslims treated the exilarch with great pomp and circumstance.

Development and organization

The history of the exilarchate falls naturally into two periods, separated by the beginning of the Arabic rule in Babylonia. Nothing is known about the office before the 2nd century, including any details about its founding or beginnings. It can merely be said in general that the golah, the Jews living in compact masses in various parts of Babylon, tended gradually to unite and create an organization, and that this tendency, together with the high regard in which the descendants of the house of David living in Babylon were held, brought it about that a member of this house was recognized as "head of the golah." The dignity became hereditary in this house, and was finally recognized by the state, and hence became an established political institution, first of the Arsacid and then of the Sassanid empire.

Such was the exilarchate as it appears in Talmudic literature, the chief source for its history during the first period, and which provides our only information regarding the rights and functions of the exilarchate. For the second, Arabic, period, there is a very important and trustworthy description of the institution of the exilarchate (See the sections Installation ceremonies and Income and privileges); this description is also important for the first period, because many of the details may be regarded as having persisted from it.


Holders of the office

The following list of exilarchs is based on the evidence detailed in the following sections.

Biblical and rabbinic

Exilarchs listed in the Second Book of Kings, the Books of Chronicles and in the Seder Olam Zutta, some possibly legendary, are:
Probably historical exilarchs also found in the Seder Olam Zutta:
David ben Zakkai was the last exilarch to play an important part in history. His son Judah survived him only by seven months. At the time of Judah's death, he left a twelve-year-old son, whose name is unknown. The only later exilarch whose name is recorded is Hezekiah, an exilarch who in 1038 also became gaon of Pumbedita, but was imprisoned and tortured to death in 1040. He was the last exilarch and the last gaon.

Karaite

Karaite princes beginning in the 8th century, after the time of David ben Judah:

Traced to Jehoiachin

Tradition has it that the first exilarch was Jehoiachin, a king of Judah carried off to captivity in Babylonia in 597 BCE. A chronicle from about the year 800 - the Midrashic Seder 'Olam Zuta - fills up the gaps in the early history of the exilarch. The captive king's advancement at Evil-merodach's court - with which the narrative of the Second Book of Kings closes (2 Kings 25:27) - was apparently regarded by the author of the Seder 'Olam Zuta as the origin of the exilarchate. A list including generations of the descendants of the king is given in I Chronicles 3:17 et seq.
A commentary to Chronicles [Kirchheim 1874, p. 16] dating from the school of Saadia Gaon quotes Judah ibn Kuraish to the effect that the genealogical list of the descendants of David was added to the book at the end of the period of the Second Temple, a view which was shared by the author of the list of exilarchs in Seder 'Olam Zuta. This list has been synchronistically connected with the history of the Second Temple, with Shechaniah being mentioned as having lived at the time of the Temple's destruction. The following are enumerated as his predecessors in office: Salathiel, Zerubbabel, Meshullam, Hananiah, Berechiah, Hasadiah, Jesaiah, Obadiah, and Shemaiah, all of which names are also found in I Chron. 3. (compare the list with the variants given in [Lazarus 1890]).
The names of the next two exilarchs - Hezekiah and Akkub - are also found at the end of the Davidic list in Chronicles. Then follows Nahum, with whom the authentic portion of the list probably begins, and who may, perhaps, be assigned to the time of the Hadrianic persecution (135). This is the period in which are found the first allusions in traditional literature to the exilarch.

First historic mention

In the account referring to the attempt of a teacher of the Law from the land of Israel, Hananiah, nephew of Joshua ben Hananiah, to render the Babylonian Jews independent of the authority residing in the land of Israel, a certain Ahijah is mentioned as the temporal head of the former, probably, therefore, as exilarch [Berakhot 63a, b], while another source substitutes the name Nehunyon for Ahijah [Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 19a]. It is not improbable that this person is identical with the Nahum mentioned in the list [Lazarus 1890, p. 65].
The danger threatening the authority residing in the land of Israel was fortunately averted; at about the same time, Rabbi Nathan, a member of the house of exilarchs, came to land of Israel, and by virtue of his scholarship was soon classed among the foremost tannaim of the post-Hadrianic time. His Davidic origin suggested to Rabbi Meïr the plan of making the Babylonian scholar nasi (prince) in place of the Hillelite Simon ben Gamaliel. But the conspiracy against the latter failed [Horayot 13b]. Rabbi Nathan was subsequently among the confidants of the patriarchal house, and in intimate relations with Simon ben Gamaliel's son Judah I (also known as Judah haNasi).
Rabbi Meïr's attempt, however, seems to have led Judah I to fear that the Babylonian exilarch might come to the land of Israel to claim the office from Hillel's descendant. He discussed the subject with the Babylonian scholar Hiyya, a prominent member of his school [Horayot 11b], saying that he would pay due honor to the exilarch should the latter come, but that he would not renounce the office of nasi in his favor [Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 32b]. When the body of the exilarch Huna, who was the first incumbent of that office explicitly mentioned as such in Talmudic literature, was brought to the land of Israel during the time of Judah I, Hiyya drew upon himself Judah's deep resentment by announcing the fact to him with the words "Huna is here" (Yerushalmi Kilayim 32b).
A tannaitic exposition of Genesis 49:10 [Sanhedrin 5a] which contrasts the Babylonian exilarchs, ruling by force, with Hillel's descendants, teaching in public, evidently intends to cast a reflection on the former. But Judah I had to listen at his own table to the statement of the youthful sons of the above-mentioned Hiyya, in reference to the same tannaitic exposition, that "the Messiah can not appear until the exilarchate at Babylon and the patriarchate at Jerusalem shall have ceased" [Sanhedrin 38a].

Succession of Exilarchs

Huna I, the contemporary of Judah I, is not mentioned in the list of exilarchs in the Seder 'Olam Zuta, according to which Nahum was followed by his brother Johanan; then came Johanan's son Shaphat (these names also are found among the Davidians in I Chron. 3:22, 3:24), who was succeeded by Anan (comp. "Anani," I Chronicles 3:24). From the standpoint of chronology the identification of Anan with the Huna of the Talmud account is not to be doubted; for at the time of his successor, Nathan 'Ukban, occurred the fall of the Arsacids and the founding of the Sassanid dynasty (226 C.E., which is noted as follows in Seder 'Olam Zuta: "In the year 166 after the destruction of the Temple (c. 234 C.E.) the Persians advanced upon the Romans" (on the historical value of this statement see [Lazarus 1890], p. 33).
Nathan 'Ukban, however, who is none other than Mar 'Ukban, the contemporary of Rab and Samuel, also occupied a prominent position among the scholars of Babylon' (see Bacher, "Aggadoth of the Babylonian Amoraim" pp. 34–36) and, according to Sherira Gaon (who quotes Talmud Shabbat 55a), was also exilarch. As 'Ukban's successor is mentioned in the list his son Huna (Huna II), whose chief advisers were Rab (d. 247) and Samuel (d. 254), and in whose time Papa ben Nazor destroyed Nehardea. Huna's son and successor, Nathan, whose chief advisers were Judah ben Ezekiel (d. 299) and Shesheth, was called, like his grandfather, "Mar 'Ukban," and it is he, the second exilarch of this name, whose curious correspondence with Eleazar ben Pedat is referred to in the Talmud [Gittin 7a; see Bacher, l.c. p. 72; idem, "Aggadoth of the Palestinian Amoraim" i. 9]. He was succeeded by his brother (not his son, as stated in Seder 'Olam Zuta); his leading adviser was Shezbi. The "exilarch Nehemiah" is also mentioned in the Talmud [Bava Metzia 91b]; he is the same person as "Rabbanu Nehemiah," and he and his brother "Rabbeinu 'Ukban" (Mar 'Ukban II) are several times mentioned in the Talmud as sons of Rab's daughter (hence Huna II was Rab's son-in-law) and members of the house of the exilarchs [Hullin 92a; Bava Batra 51b].

The Mar 'Ukbans

According to Seder 'Olam Zuta, in Nehemiah's time, the 245th year after the destruction of the Temple (313 C.E.), there took place a great religious persecution by the Persians, of which, however, no details are known. Nehemiah was succeeded by his son Mar 'Ukban III, whose chief advisers were Rabbah ben Nahmani (d. 323) and Adda. He is mentioned as "'Ukban ben Nehemiah, resh galuta," in the Talmud [Shabbat 56b; Bava Batra 55a]. This Mar 'Ukban, the third exilarch of that name, was also called "Nathan," as were the first two, and has been made the hero of a legend under the name of "Nathan di Zzuta" [Shabbat 56b]. The conquest of Armenia (337) by Shapur (Sapor) II is mentioned in the chronicle as a historical event occurring during the time of Mar 'Ukban III.
He was succeeded by his brother Huna Mar (Huna III), whose chief advisers were Abaye (d. 338) and Raba; then followed Mar 'Ukban's son Abba, whose chief advisers were Raba (d. 352) and Rabina. During Abba's time King Sapor conquered Nisibis. The designation of a certain Isaac as resh galuta in the time of Abaye and Raba [Yebamoth 115b] is due to a clerical error [Brüll's Jahrbuch, vii. 115]. Abba was succeeded first by his son Nathan and then by another son, Mar Kahana. The latter's son Huna is then mentioned as successor, being the fourth exilarch of that name; he died in 441, according to a trustworthy source, the "Seder Tannaim wa-Amoraim." Hence he was a contemporary of Rav Ashi, the great master of Sura, who died in 427. In the Talmud, however, Huna ben Nathan is mentioned as Ashi's contemporary, and according to Sherira it was he who was Mar Kahana's successor, a statement which is also confirmed by the Talmud [Zevachim 19a]. The statement of Seder 'Olam Zuta ought perhaps to be emended, since Huna was probably not the son of Mar Kahana, but the son of the latter's elder brother Nathan.

Persecutions under Peroz and Kobad

Huna was succeeded by his brother Mar Zutra, whose chief adviser was Ahai of Diphti, the same who was defeated in 455 by Ashi's son Tabyomi (Mar) at the election for director of the school of Sura. Mar Zutra was succeeded by his son Kahana (Kahana II), whose chief adviser was Rabina, the editor of the Babylonian Talmud (d. 499). Then followed two exilarchs by the same name: another son of Mar Zutra, Huna V, and a grandson of Mar Zutra, Huna VI, the son of Kahana.
Huna V fell a victim to the persecutions under King Peroz (Firuz) of Persia, being executed, according to Sherira, in 470; Huna VI was not installed in office until some time later, the exilarchate being vacant during the persecutions under Peroz; he died in 508 [Sherira]. The Seder 'Olam Zuta connects with the birth of his son Mar Zutra the legend that is elsewhere told in connection with Bostanai's birth.
Mar Zutra, who came into office at the age of fifteen, took advantage of the confusion into which Mazdak's communistic attempts had plunged Persia, to obtain by force of arms for a short time a sort of political independence for the Jews of Babylon. King Kobad, however, punished him by crucifying him on the bridge of Mahuza (c. 520). A son was born to him on the day of his death, who was also named "Mar Zutra." The latter did not attain to the office of exilarch, but went to the land of Israel, where he became head of the Academy of Tiberias, under the title of "Resh Pirka" ('Aρχιφεκίτησ), several generations of his descendants succeeding him in this office.
After Mar Zutra's death the exilarchate of Babylon remained unoccupied for some time. Mar Ahunai lived in the period succeeding Mar Zutra II, but for more than thirty years after the catastrophe he did not dare to appear in public, and it is not known whether even then (c. 550) he really acted as exilarch. At any rate the chain of succession of those who inherited the office was not broken. The names of Kafnai and his son Haninai, who were exilarchs in the second half of the sixth century, have been preserved.
Haninai's posthumous son Bostanai was the first of the exilarchs under Arabic rule. Bostanai was the ancestor of the exilarchs who were in office from the time when the Persian empire was conquered by the Arabs, in 642, down to the eleventh century. Through him the splendor of the office was renewed and its political position made secure. His tomb in Pumbedita was a place of worship as late as the twelfth century, according to Benjamin of Tudela.
Not much is known regarding Bostanai's successors down to the time of Saadia except their names; even the name of Bostanai's son is not known. The list of the exilarchs down to the end of the ninth century is given as follows in an old document [Neubauer, "Mediæval Jewish Chronicles," i. 196]: "Bostanai, Hanina ben Adoi, Hasdai I, Solomon, Isaac Iskawi I, Judah Zakkai (Babawai), Moses, Isaac Iskawi II, David ben Judah, Hasdai II."
Hasdai I was probably Bostanai's grandson. The latter's son Solomon had a deciding voice in the appointments to the gaonate of Sura in the years 733 and 759 [Sherira]. Isaac Iskawi I died very soon after Solomon. In the dispute between David's sons Anan and Hananiah regarding the succession the latter was victor; Anan then proclaimed himself anti-exilarch, was imprisoned, and founded the etc. of the Karaites. (So says the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906; the origin of the Karaites is not uncontroversial.) His descendants were regarded by the Karaites as the true exilarchs. The following list of Karaite exilarchs, father being succeeded always by son, is given in the genealogy of one of these "Karaite princes": Anan, Saul, Josiah, Boaz, Jehoshaphat, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Hasdai, Solomon II [Pinsker, "Likkute Kadmoniyyot," ii. 53]. Anan's brother Hananiah is not mentioned in this list.
Judah Zakkai, who is called "Zakkai ben Ahunai" by Sherira, had as rival candidate Natronai ben Habibai, who, however, was defeated and sent West in banishment; this Natronai was a great scholar, and, according to tradition, while in Spain wrote the Talmud from memory. David ben Judah also had to contend with an anti-exilarch, Daniel by name. The fact that the decision in this dispute rested with the calif Al-Ma'mun (825) indicates a decline in the power of the exilarchate. David ben Judah, who carried off the victory, appointed Isaac ben Hiyya as gaon at Pumbedita in 833. Preceding Hasdai II's name in the list that of his father Natronai must be inserted. Both are designated as exilarchs in a geonic responsum (Harkavy, "Responsen der Geonim," p. 389).

Deposition of 'Ukba.

'Ukba is mentioned as exilarch immediately following Hasdai II; he was deposed at the instigation of Kohen Zedek, gaon of Pumbedita, but was reinstated in 918 on account of some Arabic verses with which he greeted the calif Al-Muktadir. He was deposed again soon afterward, and fled to Kairwan, where he was treated with great honor.
After a short interregnum 'Ukba's nephew, David ben Zakkai, became exilarch; but he had to contend for nearly two years with Kohen Zedek before he was finally confirmed in his power (921). In consequence of Saadia's call to the gaonate of Sura and his controversy with David, the latter has become one of the best-known personages of Jewish history. Saadia had David's brother Josiah (Al-Hasan) elected anti-exilarch in 930, but the latter was defeated and banished to Chorasan. David ben Zakkai was the last exilarch to play an important part in history. He died a few years before Saadia; his son Judah died seven months afterward.
Judah left a son (whose name is not mentioned) twelve years of age, whom Saadia took into his house and educated. His generous treatment of the grandson of his former adversary was continued until Saadia's death in 942. Only a single entry has been preserved regarding the later fortunes of the exilarchate. When Gaon Hai died in 1038, nearly a century after Saadia's death, the members of his academy could not find a more worthy successor than the exilarch Hezekiah, a descendant, perhaps a great-grandson, of David ben Zakkai, who thereafter filled both offices. But two years later, in 1040, Hezekiah, who was the last exilarch and also the last gaon, fell a victim to calumny. He was imprisoned and tortured to death. Hezekiah, is counted as the last exilarch and also the last gaon. Two of his sons fled to Spain, where they found refuge with Joseph, the son and successor of Samuel ha-Nagid. However, Jewish Quarterly Review mentions that Hezekiah was liberated from prison, and became head of the academy, and is mentioned as such by a contemporary in 1046. [Jewish Quarterly Review, hereafter "J. Q. R.", xv. 80]

Later traces

The title of exilarch is found occasionally even after the Babylonian exilarchate had ceased. Abraham ibn Ezra [commentary to Zech. xii. 7] speaks of the "Davidic house" at Baghdad (before 1140), calling its members the "heads of the Exile." Benjamin of Tudela in 1170 mentions the exilarch Hasdai, among whose pupils was the subsequent pseudo-Messiah David Alroy, and Hasdai's son, the exilarch Daniel. Pethahiah of Regensburg also refers to the latter, but under the name of "Daniel ben Solomon"; hence it must be assumed that Hasdai was also called "Solomon." Yehuda Alharizi (after 1216) met at Mosul a descendant of the house of David, whom he calls "David, the head of the Exile."
A long time previously a descendant of the ancient house of exilarchs had attempted to revive in Egypt the dignity of exilarch which had become extinct in Babylon. This was David ben Daniel; he came to Egypt at the age of twenty, in 1081, and was proclaimed exilarch by the learned Jewish authorities of that country, who wished to divert to Egypt the leadership formerly enjoyed by Babylon. A contemporary document, the Megillah of the gaon Abiathar from the land of Israel, gives an authentic account of this episode of the Egyptian exilarchate, which ended with the downfall of David ben Daniel in 1094 ["J. Q. R." xv. 80 et. seq.].
Descendants of the house of exilarchs were living in various places long after the office became extinct. A descendant of Hezekiah, Hiyya al-Daudi, Gaon of Andalucia, died in 1154 in Castile (according to Abraham ibn Daud). Several families, as late as the fourteenth century, traced their descent back to Josiah, the brother of David ben Zakkai who had been banished to Chorasan (see the genealogies in [Lazarus 1890] pp. 180 et seq.). The descendants of the Karaite exilarchs have been referred to above.

Character of the exilarchate in the first era


Relations with the Academies

In accordance with the character of Talmudic tradition it is the relation of the exilarchs to the heads and members of the schools that is especially referred to in Talmudic literature. The Seder 'Olam Zuta, the chronicle of the exilarchs that is the most important and in many cases the only source of information concerning their succession, has also preserved chiefly the names of those scholars who had certain official relations with the respective exilarchs. The phrase used in this connection ("hakamim debaruhu", "the scholars directed him") is the stereotyped phrase used also in connection with the fictitious exilarchs of the century of the Second Temple; in the latter case, however, it occurs without the specific mention of names — a fact in favor of the historicalness of those names that are given for the succeeding centuries.
The authenticity of the names of the amoraim designated as the scholars "guiding" the several exilarchs, is, in the case of those passages in which the text is beyond dispute, supported by internal chronological evidence also. Some of the Babylonian amoraim were closely related to the house of the exilarchs, as, for example, Rabba ben Abuha, whom Gaon Sherira, claiming Davidian descent, named as his ancestor. Nahman ben Jacob (d. 320) also became closely connected with the house of the exilarchs through his marriage with Rabba ben Abuha's daughter, the proud Yaltha; and he owed to this connection perhaps his office of chief judge of the Babylonian Jews. Huna, the head of the school of Sura, recognized Nahman ben Jacob's superior knowledge of the Law by saying that Nahman was very close to the "gate of the exilarch" ("baba di resh galuta"), where many cases were decided [Bava Batra 65b].
The term "dayyane di baba" ("judges of the gate"), which was applied in the post-Talmudic time to the members of the court of the exilarch, is derived from the phrase just quoted [compare Harkavy, l.c.]. Two details of Nahman ben Jacob's life cast light on his position at the court of the exilarch: he received the two scholars Rav Chisda and Rabba b. Huna, who had come to pay their respects to the exilarch (Sukkah 10b); and when the exilarch was building a new house he asked Nahman to take charge of the placing of the mezuzah according to the Law [Men. 33a].

Retinue of the exilarch

The scholars who formed part of the retinue of the exilarch were called "scholars of the house of the exilarch" ("rabbanan di-be resh galuta"). A remark of Samuel, the head of the school of Nehardea, shows that they wore certain badges on their garments to indicate their position (Shabbat 58a). Once a woman came to Nahman ben Jacob, complaining that the exilarch and the scholars of his court sat at the festival in a stolen booth [Sukkah 31a], the material for it having been taken from her. There are many anecdotes of the annoyances and indignities the scholars had to suffer at the hands of the exilarchs' servants [Gittin 67b, the case of Amram the Pious; Avodah Zarah 38b, of Hiyya of Parwa; Shabbat 121b, of Abba ben Marta].
The modification of ritual requirements granted to the exilarchs and their households in certain concrete cases is characteristic of their relation to the religious law [Pesahim 76b, Levi ben Sisi; Hullin 59a, Rab; Avodah Zarah 72b, Rabba ben Huna; Eruvin 11b, Nahman versus Sheshet; Eruvin 39b, similarly; Mo'ed Katan 12a, Hanan; Pesahim 40b, Pappai]. Once when certain preparations which the exilarch was making in his park for alleviating the strictness of the Sabbath law were interrupted by Raba and his pupils, he exclaimed, in the words of Jeremiah 4:22, "They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge" [Eruvin 26a].
There are frequent references to questions, partly halakic and exegetical in nature, which the exilarch laid before his scholars (to Huna, Gittin 7a; Yebamoth 61a; Sanhedrin 44a; to Rabba ben Huna, Shabbat 115b; to Hamnuna, Shabbat 119a). Details are sometimes given of lectures that were delivered "at the entrance to the house of the exilarch" ("pitha di-be resh galuta"; see Hullin 84b; Betzah 23a; Shabbat 126a; Mo'ed Katan 24a). These lectures were probably delivered at the time of the assemblies, which brought many representatives of Babylonian Judaism to the court of the exilarch after the autumnal festivals (on Sabbath Lek Leka, as Sherira says; compare Eruvin 59a).

Etiquette of the Resh Galuta's court

The luxurious banquets at the court of the exilarch were well known. An old anecdote was repeated in the land of Israel concerning a splendid feast which the exilarch once gave to the tanna Judah ben Bathyra at Nisibis on the eve of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement [ Lam. R. iii. 16]. Another story told in the land of Israel[Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 74b] relates that an exilarch had music in his house morning and evening, and that Mar 'Ukba, who subsequently became exilarch, sent him as a warning this sentence from Hosea: "Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people."
The exilarch Nehemiah is said to have dressed entirely in silk [Shabath 20b, according to the correct reading; see Rabbinowicz, "Dikdukei Soferim"]. The Talmud says almost nothing in regard to the personal relations of the exilarchs to the royal court. One passage relates merely that Huna ben Nathan appeared before Yazdegerd I, who with his own hands girded him with the belt which was the sign of the exilarch's office. There are also two allusions dating from an earlier time, one by Hiyya, a Babylonian living in the land of Israel [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 5a], and the other by Adda ben Ahaba, one of Rab's earlier pupils [Sheb. 6b; Jerusalem Talmud Sheb. 32d], from which it seems that the exilarch occupied a foremost position among the high dignitaries of the state when he appeared at the court first of the Arsacids, then of the Sassanids.
An Arabic writer of the ninth century records the fact that the exilarch presented a gift of 4,000 dirhems on the Persian feast of Nauruz Revue des Études Juives - hereafter R. E. J. - viii. 122. Regarding the functions of the exilarch as the chief tax-collector for the Jewish population, there is the curious statement, preserved only in the Jerusalem Talmud [Sotah 20b, bottom], that once, in the time of Huna, the head of the school of Sura, the exilarch was commanded to furnish as much grain as would fill a room of 40 square ells.

Juridical functions

The most important function of the exilarch was the appointment of the judge. Both Rab and Samuel said [Sanhedrin 5a] that the judge who did not wish to be held personally responsible in case of an error of judgment, would have to accept his appointment from the house of the exilarch. When Rab went from the land of Israel to Nehardea he was appointed overseer of the market by the exilarch [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 15b, top]. The exilarch had jurisdiction in criminal cases also. Aha b. Jacob, a contemporary of Rab [compare Gittin 31b], was commissioned by the exilarch to take charge of a murder case [Sanhedrin 27a, b]. The story found in Bava Kamma 59a is an interesting example of the police jurisdiction exercised by the followers of the exilarch in the time of Samuel. From the same time dates a curious dispute regarding the etiquette of precedence among the scholars greeting the exilarch [Jerusalem Talmud Ta'an. 68a]. The exilarch had certain privileges regarding real property [Bava Kamma 102b; Bava Batra 36a]. It is a specially noteworthy fact that in certain cases the exilarch judged according to the Persian law [Bava Kamma 58b]; and it was the exilarch 'Ukba b. Nehemiah who communicated to the head of the school of Pumbedita, Rabbah ben Nahmai, three Persian statutes which Samuel recognized as binding [Bava Batra 55a].
A synagogal prerogative of the exilarch was mentioned in the land of Israel as a curiosity [Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 22a]: The Torah roll was carried to the exilarch, while every one else had to go to the Torah to read from it. This prerogative is referred to also in the account of the installation of the exilarch in the Arabic period, and this gives color to the assumption that the ceremonies, as recounted in this document, were based in part on usages taken over from the Persian time. The account of the installation of the exilarch is supplemented by further details in regard to the exilarchate which are of great historical value; see the following section.

Character of the exilarchate in the Arabic era

Upon their conquest of Iraq, the Arabs confirmed the authority of Exilarch Bustanai and the continuation of his governance of the Jewish community. For his services to the caliph during the conquest he received the hand of the daughter of the former Shah as a wife. The Muslims regarded the office of Exilarch with profound respect because they viewed him as a direct descendant of the prophet Dawood. Under the Abbassids, the Exilarch ruled over more than 90% of the Jewish nation. The subsequent fragmentation of the authority of the Abassids resulted in the waning of the authority of the Exilarch beyond Persia. A struggle for leadership between the Geonim and Exilarchs saw the slow relinquishing of power to the Geonim but remained an office of reverence to which Muslims showed respect.[5]

Installation ceremonies

The following is a translation of a portion of an account of the Exilarchy in the Arabic period, written by Nathan ha-Babli in the tenth century, and included in Abraham Zacuto's "Yuhasin" and in Neubauer's "Mediæval Jewish Chronicles," ii. 83 et seq.:
The members of the two academies [Sura and Pumbedita], led by the two heads [the geonim] as well as by the leaders of the community, assemble in the house of an especially prominent man before the Sabbath on which the installation of the exilarch is to take place. The first homage is paid on Thursday in the synagogue, the event being announced by trumpets, and every one sends presents to the exilarch according to his means. The leaders of the community and the wealthy send handsome garments, jewelry, and gold and silver vessels. On Thursday and Friday the exilarch gives great banquets. On the morning of the Sabbath the nobles of the community call for him and accompany him to the synagogue. Here a wooden platform covered entirely with costly cloth has been erected, under which a picked choir of sweet-voiced youths well versed in the liturgy has been placed. This choir responds to the leader in prayer, who begins the service with 'Baruk she-amar.' After the morning prayer the exilarch, who until now has been standing in a covered place, appears; the whole congregation rises and remains standing until he has taken his place on the platform, and the two geonim, the one from Sura preceding, have taken seats to his right and left, each making an obeisance.
A costly canopy has been erected over the seat of the exilarch. Then the leader in prayer steps in front of the platform and, in a low voice audible only to those close by, and accompanied by the 'Amen' of the choir, addresses the exilarch with a benediction, prepared long beforehand. Then the exilarch delivers a sermon on the text of the week or commissions the gaon of Sura to do so. After the discourse the leader in prayer recites the kaddish, and when he reaches the words 'during your life and in your days,' he adds the words 'and during the life of our prince, the exilarch.' After the kaddish he blesses the exilarch, the two heads of the schools, and the several provinces that contribute to the support of the academies, as well as the individuals who have been of especial service in this direction. Then the Torah is read. When the 'Kohen' and 'Levi' have finished reading, the leader in prayer carries the Torah roll to the exilarch, the whole congregation rising; the exilarch takes the roll in his hands and reads from it while standing. The two heads of the schools also rise, and the gaon of Sura recites the targum to the passage read by the exilarch. When the reading of the Torah is completed, a blessing is pronounced upon the exilarch. After the 'Musaf' prayer the exilarch leaves the synagogue, and all, singing, accompany him to his house. After that the exilarch rarely goes beyond the gate of his house, where services for the community are held on the Sabbaths and feastdays. When it becomes necessary for him to leave his house, he does so only in a carriage of state, accompanied by a large retinue. If the exilarch desires to pay his respects to the king, he first asks permission to do so. As he enters the palace the king's servants hasten to meet him, among whom he liberally distributes gold coin, for which provision has been made beforehand. When led before the king his seat is assigned to him. The king then asks what he desires. He begins with carefully prepared words of praise and blessing, reminds the king of the customs of his fathers, gains the favor of the king with appropriate words, and receives written consent to his demands; thereupon, rejoiced, he takes leave of the king."

Income and privileges

In regard to Nathan ha-Babli's additional account as to the income and the functions of the exilarch (which refers, however, only to the time of the narrator), it may be noted that he received taxes, amounting altogether to 700 gold denarii a year, chiefly from the provinces Nahrawan, Farsistan, and Holwan.
The Muslim author of the ninth century, Al-Jahiz, who has been referred to above, makes special mention of the shofar, the wind-instrument which was used when the exilarch (ras al-jalut) excommunicated any one. The punishment of excommunication, continues the author, is the only one which in Muslim countries the exilarch of the Jews and the catholicos of the Christians may pronounce, for they are deprived of the right of inflicting punishment by imprisonment or flogging ["R. E. J." viii. 122 et. seq.].
Another Muslim author reports a conversation that took place in the eighth century between a follower of Islam and the exilarch, in which the latter boasted; "Seventy generations have passed between me and King David, yet the Jews still recognize the prerogatives of my royal descent, and regard it as their duty to protect me; but you have slain the grandson [Husain] of your prophet after one single generation" [ibid. p. 125].
The son of a previous exilarch said to another Muslim author: "I formerly never rode by Karbala, the place where Husain was martyred, without spurring on my horse, for an old tradition said that on this spot the descendant of a prophet would be killed; only since Husain has been slain there and the prophecy has thus been fulfilled do I pass leisurely by the place" [ibid. p. 123]. This last story indicates that the resh galuta had by that time become the subject of Muslim legend, other examples also being cited by Goldziher. [Goldziher, 1884]
That the personage of the exilarch was familiar to Muslim circles is also shown by the fact that the Rabbinite Jews were called Jaluti, that is, those belonging to the exilarch, in contradistinction to the Karaites [ibid.]. In the first quarter of the eleventh century, not long before the extinction of the exilarchate, Ibn Hazm, a fanatic polemicist, made the following remark in regard to the dignity: "The ras al-jalut has no power whatever over the Jews or over other persons; he has merely a title, to which is attached neither authority nor prerogatives of any kind" [ibid., p. 125].
Curiously enough the exilarchs are still mentioned in the Sabbath services of the Ashkenazim ritual. The Aramaic prayer "Yekum Purkan," which was used once in Babylon in pronouncing the blessing upon the leaders there, including the "reshe galwata" (the exilarchs), is still recited in most synagogues. The Jews of the Sephardic ritual have not preserved this anachronism, nor was it retained in most of the Reform synagogues, beginning in the nineteenth century. [wiki]

References:


1.  jewishencyclopedia.com/
2.   Ezekiel never mentions by name Jeconiah's successor, Zedekiah, with dates in the book of Ezekiel being given according to the year of captivity of Jeconiah.
3.  Babylon installed his uncle, Zedekiah on the throne, who continued as king of Judah for eleven years.
4.   James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (1969)
5.    Lucien Gubbay, "Sunlight and Shadow: The Jewish Experience of Islam", 2000.

--


--

EXILARCH


EXILARCH (Aram. resh galuta), lay head of the Jewish community in Babylon. (See Chart: Exilarchs of Parthian and Sasanid Periods and Chart: Babylonian Exilarchs.) #

The government of Babylonian Jewry for the first 12 centuries C.E. lay in the hands of the exilarch. Rabbinic traditions incorporated in the *Seder Olam Zuta, trace the origin of the institution to the last years of the exile of Jehoiachin, on the basis of II Kings 25:27. Further data were derived from I Chronicles 3:17ff. Whether such an institution actually existed before Parthian times is not known, and certainty is impossible. Sources on Jewish life in first-century Parthian Babylonia, however, leave little ground to suppose there was an exilarch then. Josephus' account of the Jewish "state" of *Anilaeus and Asinaeus suggests, to the contrary, that no state-sanctioned Jewish government functioned at that time. Whatever the earlier situation, Neusner has put forward the conjecture that the Parthian government under Vologases I (d. 79 C.E.) probably established a feudal regime to govern Jewry as part of its reorganization of the Arsacid administration (see *Babylonia). Jews played an important part in first-century Middle Eastern politics, not only in Palestine, but also in *Armenia, *Adiabene, Charax Spasinu, and Babylonia itself. It was important to organize a loyal administration for Jewry, both for the stability of the empire, and for the purposes of foreign affairs. The Jews, living on both sides of the contested frontier between Rome and Parthia, could prove useful to either party able to enlist their support. Furthermore, the destruction of Jerusalem and, with it, the Temple administration which had formerly issued religious instruction to the Diaspora, necessitated Parthian consideration. The Romans, supporting the new rabbinical authority in Jabneh (see *Johanan b. Zakkai), exerted substantially more control than before.

The Parthians, perhaps earlier contented to allow local Jewry to receive instruction from Jerusalem, certainly took advantage of the change in Palestinian politics and the anti-Roman turn in world Jewish opinion, to establish local control of Jewry under close supervision. The result was highly beneficial. In the next century, Jews were the most loyal supporters of the Parthian cause against *Trajan, Septimius *Severus, and Alexander *Severus. In Palestine, circles of Jewish messianists were prepared to cooperate with the Parthians against Rome.

The first clear evidence of the existence of the exilarch comes in the middle of the second century C.E. Some Jewish authority certainly existed about 145 C.E. when *Hananiah the nephew of Joshua b. Hananiah intercalated the calendar in Babylonia (Eccles. R. 7, 8, no. 4, 7:26, for his exile to Babylonia; Ber. 63a; TJ, Sanh. 1:2, 19a; TJ, Ned. 6:13, 40a, for the intercalation). The accounts of the intercalation contain the name of a local official, given variously as Ahijah and Neḥunyon. At about the same time, moreover, Rabban *Simeon b. Gamaliel II rebuked R. Nathan, of Babylonia, for his part in a conspiracy against the former's rule, saying "Granted that the sash of office (kamara) of your father has indeed helped you to become av bet din, shall we therefore make you also nasi?" (Hor. 13b). Since the kamara, mentioned in various Iranian inscriptions, was one of the significations of office in Iran, it stands to reason that R. Nathan was the son of the Jewish ruler of Babylonia. The first talmudic mention of the title of reshgaluta, however, occurs with reference to Huna the exilarch (TJ, Ket. 12:3, 35a; TJ, Kil. 9:3, 32b; Gen. R. 33:3). *Judah ha-Nasi stated that if Huna were to come to Palestine he would give precedence to him, for Huna was descended from the male line of the Davidic household, while the patriarch, from the female line. Ḥiyya and his nephew *Rav may have been related to the exilarch, for both Babylonians claimed Davidic ancestry. Ḥiyya came from the same town as the exilarch, and called his nephew Rav bar Paḥti. The title paḥat was used in the Parthian documents from Nisa for satrap, and if Rav was son of a Jewish paḥat, then his father must have held high rank within the Parthian feudal structure. Other Jewish authorities, earlier in the same period, were reported by Palestinian rabbinic messengers to have Parthian names, wear Parthian dress, enjoy the perquisites of a retinue, and execute capital punishment, and yet to be knowledgeable in the law (Git. 14a–b; TJ, Kid. 3:4, 64a; TJ, Git. 1:5, 43c–d). So it is reasonable to suppose that a Jewish government did exist through the last century and a half of Parthian rule in Babylonia.

The advent of the Sassanids, in 226 C.E., necessitated the provision of a new political foundation for Jewish self-government. At first, the Jewish administrators continued as before, hoping to hoodwink the Sassanids and forcibly to keep the Jews in line. R. Shila, for example, administered lashes to a man who had intercourse with a gentile woman; the man informed against him, whereupon a government agent (parastak) investigated the case. Shila persuaded the agent that he was loyal, and then murdered the informant (Ber. 58a). But in a similar situation, R. *Kahana had to flee to Palestine (BK 117a), for, Rav told him, "Until now the Greeks [Parthians] were here, who did not punish bloodshed, but now the Persians are here, and they will certainly cry, 'Rebellion, rebellion!'" For their part, the Sassanids under Ardashir I (226–42), who were closely associated with the cult of Ormuzd and Ānahīta, thought they could forcibly convert the various peoples of Babylonia and Mesopotamia to their religion. So for the first two decades of Sassanian rule, no modus vivendi could be reached. *Shapur I (242–272) chose a different, more tolerant policy, encouraging Mani to preach a syncretistic religion of Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus (but not Moses!) to appeal to the several major groups of the empire, and seeking to conciliate the Jewish community as well. The Jewish government was given a legitimate role in administering Jewish affairs, when it promised to abide by state law in matters of concern to the state, specifically rules of land tenure and payment of taxes. The agreement of *Samuel and Shapur I, summarized by Samuel's teaching that "the law of the government is law," was closely adhered to by the Jewish regime, which enjoyed a secure position, with few, brief interruptions, for the next four centuries. It is not known what role, if any, the exilarch played in the negotiations preceding this agreement. If there was one Jewish government in Babylonia, as seems plausible, then Samuel must have been acting in its behalf. But rabbinic traditions, which are the only ones to survive, do not mention the participation of the contemporary exilarch, Mar *Ukba I, in the matter.

Rabbinic opinion on the third-century exilarchate was divided. In the early part of the century, it is clear that the leading rabbis were subordinate to the exilarch. Rav was forced by him to administer market prices, which Rav held was not a proper function of the agoranomos, or market supervisor. Samuel deferred to the exilarch Mar Ukba. It was, after all, the exilarch who had earlier employed rabbinically trained functionaries in the courts and bureaus of Babylonia in late Arsacid times. He had done so probably to circumvent the local Jewish strongmen, typified by Anilaeus and Asinaeus in the first century, and the Parthianized Jewish nobility referred to above, in the second century. The rabbis appealed to the people on the basis of their knowledge of Mosaic revelation, which, they held, was unique to their schools, and they moreover affirmed the exilarch's claim to Davidic origin. At the outset, therefore, the rabbinate and the exilarchate were closely allied against the centripetal forces of feudal autonomy represented by local Jewish upper-class landholders. By the last third of the third century, however, tension developed between the exilarchate and certain rabbinical circles. The exilarch justified his rule over Jewry as an heir of the Davidic household, just as did the Maccabeans, the Herodians, Jesus, and others who claimed the right to govern "Israel." That claim did not depend upon study in the rabbinical academies or conformity to rabbinical rules. Whether or not the exilarch was a "good Jew" by rabbinic standards is ultimately irrelevant to the issue. The rabbis saw themselves as the sole bearers of Mosaic revelation in its complete, dual form. They alone possessed the Oral Law, which completed the written one and determined its interpretation. About 275, Geniva, a disciple of Rav, caused so much trouble for the exilarch that the latter sought the advice of the Palestinian *Eleazar b. Pedat. He was counseled to forebear. Geniva was shortly thereafter executed by the state. It is not known what Geniva did to irritate the exilarch. The only clue to his doctrine is his teaching that rabbis should be called kings, the proof-text for which was Proverbs 8:15, "By me kings reign." The eighth chapter of Proverbs was consistently interpreted by the rabbis as the message of the Torah personified. If by "me," meaning "Torah," kings rule, then those not qualified by "Torah" should subordinate themselves to those who are, namely the rabbis. If Geniva made such an assertion of rabbinical superiority, the exilarch would wisely have handed him over to the Sassanids, for subversion of the exilarch was subversion, likewise, of the Sassanid system of millet-government. At the end of the century, Judah b. Ezekiel founded the school at Pumbedita and, for the next 50 years, the heads of the school kept a fund for its support, thus attempting to remain independent of the exilarchic treasury. At the same time, leading rabbis asserted that rabbis should not have to pay the karga, or head tax, imposed by the Sassanid regime on minority communities. They held that Scriptures, tradition, and even Artaxerxes of Achemenid times, had all freed them of that obligation. Since taxes were apportioned by communities, the exilarch would have had to collect funds from other Jews in order to exempt the rabbis. This he did not attempt, and a further irritant in the relations of the two groups was the consequence. By the middle of the fourth century, the academy at Pumbedita, now headed by Rava, was subject to close exilarchic supervision, and moved to the exilarchic capital at *Maḥoza.

When, under Pērōz (459–84), Jews and Christians were persecuted, the exilarch Huna V was executed, according to the letter of R. Sherira, in the year 470. The office of exilarch remained vacant for some time. The virtual chaos of the reigns before Khusro I (531–79) combined with the anti-Jewish activities of the Mazdakites supported by the throne in the time of Kavadh (488–531), and the economic depression of the period, produced a lapse in orderly government for Jewry as well. For a time (c. 510–20) the exilarch Mar *Zutra II threw off fealty to the throne, probably provoked by Kavadh's support of Mazdak. From Khusro onward, the situation was restored to its former favorable condition.

[Jacob Neusner]

 

During the Arab Period


The first exilarch of the Arab period was *Bustanai, who founded a new dynasty of exilarchs from the descendants of his Jewish wife and his other wife, the daughter of the king of *Persia who was given to him, according to the sources, by *Omar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb. Some opinions doubt the authenticity of the latter detail, because Omar did not visit *Iraq, but the texts possibly refer to one of his generals. This fact expresses the recognition granted by the Arab rule to the scion of the House of David who stood at the head of the Jewish community. The children of his Jewish wife disqualified the children of the Persian wife from acting as exilarchs with the argument that since the mother had not been converted, her children had the status of non-Jews. The polemics and the halakhic discussion have been preserved in a series of sources. The ḥakhamim of the academies decided in favor of the Persian branch. In spite of the protests, which were also voiced after this decision, the descendants of the Persian wife were appointed as exilarchs.

Relations with the Rashei Yeshivot


The exilarchs maintained close ties with the heads of the Sura and Pumbedita academies. They also concerned themselves with the incomes of these academies which were raised throughout the Diaspora. One of the exilarchs, *Solomon b. Ḥisdai, the great-grandson of Bustanai from the Jewish branch (reigned 733–59), was himself a scholar and distinguished himself with his concern for the academy of Sura and its aggrandizement. He took Mar Samuel out of the Pumbedita academy and appointed him head of the Sura academy (Iggeret R. Sherira Ga'on, ed. by B.M. Lewin (1921), 106). Twenty-six years later he appointed Rav *Yehudai, who was also a disciple of the Pumbedita academy, to the same position. Although the position of exilarch was hereditary, it was not always the firstborn who was chosen, but rather the member of the family who was most suitable and accepted by the academy heads and the important merchants who wielded influence in the court of the caliph. The exilarchs and the heads of the Sura and Pumbedita academies were dependent on each other, because the election of each of them required the confirmation of the other party. Against this background, there were examples of self-assertion. *Anan b. David, the nephew of Solomon b. Ḥisdai, was worthy of being elected as exilarch because of his erudition, but the ḥakhamim found a "disqualifying blemish" in him because of his negation of the Oral Law. His younger brother Hananiah was elected in his place. The leaders of the Karaite community, who were known as nesi'im, were descended from Anan.

The split between the *Rabbanites and the *Karaites appears to have been the cause of the decline in the status of the exilarchs and the limitation of their authority. Caliph al-Maʾmūn (ruled 813–33) granted the request of the Karaites that their leader be recognized as the nasi of their community. In 825 he issued an order according to which any ten men – Jews, Christians, or Zoroastrians – were authorized to organize themselves into an independent community and were at liberty to elect a leader. After the death of the exilarch Iskoy II, there were two rivals to his position, *David b. Judah and Daniel. The dispute was brought before the caliph for arbitration by the supporters of both parties. It is possible that the above-mentioned order was also a result of this situation and R. *Sherira hints that the decline in the status of the exilarchs was due to this contention. From then onward they were compelled to share the spheres of their influence and their incomes with the academy heads. Another change which occurred was that the gatherings of the ḥakhamim which took place on fast days and on the Sabbaths of the weekly portion of Lekh Lekha, which were known as Shabbeta de-Rigla and which had until then been held in the home of the exilarch, were from then on held in the academies. The penalization powers of the exilarch were also restricted.

A dispute over the incomes of the exilarch and the academy head resulted in a crisis in which the latter gained the upper hand. The exilarch *Ukba attempted to appropriate the incomes of Khurāsān from which the Pumbedita academy had until then benefited. According to Seder Olam Zuta (Neubauer, Chronicles, 2 (1895), 78), *Kohen Ẓedek, the gaon of Pumbedita, was supported by the bankers and merchants *Joseph b. Phinehas, *Aaron b. Amram, and *Netira, and in 913 Ukba was expelled by the caliph al-Muqtadir (908–32), at first to Kermanshah and later to Kairouan, where he was received with much respect and the Sefer Torah was lowered before him (see below). The office of exilarch was vacant for three to four years until, under public pressure, *David b. Zakkai, the nephew of Ukba, was elected. David b. Zakkai (918–40) was a powerful personality and he insisted upon his right of appointing the academy head according to his own discretion. His candidate for the position of gaon of Pumbedita was Kohen Ẓedek, while that of his rivals was *Kubashshir b. Kimoi. The latter refused to confirm the appointment of David as exilarch and he ostracized him until they reconciled themselves in 922. David endeavored to raise the status of the Sura academy, and in 928 he appointed R. *Saadiah Gaon as its head, having recognized his vast Torah erudition. When he appointed him, he adjured R. Saadiah Gaon "not to appoint any other exilarch beside himself, not to associate himself with those who plotted against him, and not to deviate from his words in any direction." It appears that R. Saadiah Gaon desired to be independent of the exilarch and also to intervene in secular affairs. The crisis finally erupted between them when R. Saadiah Gaon refused to ratify a legal decision of the exilarch after it had already been ratified by the gaon of Pumbedita. David b. Zakkai issued a ḥerem ("ban") against R. Saadiah Gaon and appointed *Joseph b. Jacob ibn Satia in his place. R. Saadiah Gaon, in turn, issued a ḥerem against David b. Zakkai and appointed Josiah (Hasan), the brother of David b. Zakkai, as exilarch. Masʿūdī relates that the dispute was brought before the vizier ʿAlī ibn ʿIsā. On Purim of 937, an agreement was concluded between the opponents. David b. Zakkai attained a respected position in the court of the Abbasid caliph al-Muqtadir, who supported him against those communities which refused to pay their taxes to him; the caliph also assisted him in his feud with R. Saadiah Gaon.

In general, the separation between the various functions of the exilarchs and the geonim was maintained: *Hezekiah (II) b. David, a descendant of David b. Zakkai, was an exception; he combined the exilarchate with the position of academy head. He was exilarch for over 40 years, and from 1038 he succeeded *Hai as head of the Pumbedita academy until his death in 1058. As a result of the conflict between the exilarch *Daniel b. Ḥasdai (1150–74) and the gaon *Samuel b. Ali, the exilarch opened an academy in Baghdad which was independent of that of the gaon. When he died childless, two candidates of the Josiah b. Zakkai branch, David and Samuel, sought his position. The latter, who benefited from the support of the gaon Samuel b. Ali, was compelled to yield several of his powers to the gaon. From then onward most of the powers of the exilarchs were transferred to the heads of the academies.

The Induction Ceremony


The appointment of the exilarch was the occasion for a glorious ceremony, the description of which has come down to us from *Nathan b. Isaac ha-Bavli (Neubauer, Chronicles, 2 (1895), 83–85). It was accompanied by a popular festivity, the climax of which was the gathering in the synagogue on the Sabbath, when hymns were recited in honor of the exilarch and he was blessed with special blessings and piyyutim. His name was mentioned in the Kaddish and he delivered a sermon or authorized the head of the academy to do so. The ḥazzan lowered the Sefer Torah before him while the congregation stood on its feet. The people sent him presents. The festivities were extended over seven days, during which he was host to the people in his home. The Arab chroniclers who mention this office point out that descent from the House of David was an indispensable condition to election. The aristocratic origin and the heredity of the exilarchate made a strong impression on the Shi'ites already during the early history of Islam, to the point that they compared it to the imamate and their theory on the subject of the legitimate caliphate. In their writings they describe meetings between exilarchs and caliphs and imams as equals, with the former reproving the Muslims. Bīrūnī (d. 1048) and others in his wake regarded the exilarch as the lord of all the world's Jews, who were subordinated to him.

Official Status, Powers, and Functions


The status of the exilarch became one of the subjects in the discussion held between the Muslim researcher of religions Ibn Ḥazm (994–1064) and *Samuel ibn Nagrela ha-Nagid in Spain. The latter pointed out the honor and the powers of the exilarch of the House of David and considered this to be the fulfillment of the verse: "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his feet" (Gen 49:10). Ibn Ḥazm rejected his words and claimed that the exilarch did not wield any influence, neither over the Jews nor over any others, that he lacked authority, and that his title was merely an honorary one and devoid of any actual meaning. A similar discussion was held in Jerusalem between a Jewish ḥakham and a Christian clergyman named Abraham di Tibériade. G. *Vajda, whose writings on this subject are based on a manuscript of 1689, assumes that this event occurred during the tenth century and possibly even later. The Jew points to the existence of the exilarchate as a proof that the sovereignty of the House of David has not been interrupted and that the Messiah has not yet come. He also refers to the above verse of Genesis. The clergyman mocks and denigrates that status of the exilarch who is not endowed with the title of king, lives in an outlying town of Iraq and not in the Promised Land, and lacks any punitive powers.

The Muslim rule granted the exilarch the same recognition as the Katholikos, the head of the Nestorian community. A letter of appointment of the exilarch is not available, but there is reason to assume that his powers and functions were of a similar character. In the letter of appointment which was granted to the Nestorian Katholikos in Baghdad during the 12th century it is said that he is authorized to intervene and mediate in the disputes between the various sects of his community and to dispense justice and that he is also responsible for the supervision of their charitable funds. Anyone disobeying him or interfering in his affairs will be liable to punishment. He shall organize the collection of the poll tax and its transfer to the government which, in exchange, will guarantee the lives of the people of his community and protect its property. The receipt of this letter of appointment was accompanied by a ceremony in which a delegate of the government participated. In addition to the duty of the exilarch to transfer the poll tax of his community to the authorities, he was also responsible for the execution of the Covenant of *Omar, the discriminatory laws which affected protected subjects. The Arab author Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) relates that in 1031 the Katholikos and the Jewish exilarch were requested to assure that the members of their communities wear the special garb of protected subjects.

Benjamin of Tudela, the traveler who visited Baghdad in about 1168, writes of the exilarch Daniel b. Ḥisdai that his function had the confirmation of the caliph, who had ordered both Jews and Muslims to stand in the exilarch's presence. The caliph received him in his palace every Thursday, and on his way his carriage was preceded by horsemen who called for the clearing of the way before the son of David. "He has been invested with authority over all the congregations of Israel at the hands of the Amīr al-Muʾminīn, the Lord of Islam. For thus Muhammad commanded concerning him and his descendants" (Masot Binyamin, ed. by M.N. Adler (1902), 39–40, Eng. part). From the end of the 12th century the Baghdad academy heads assumed most of the powers of the exilarchs; from then onward they were the delegates of the community before the government. The letters of appointment which were granted to the academy heads in 1209, 1247, and 1250 by the Abbasid government, and which have been preserved, shed light on the functions of the exilarchs and their powers during this period when their leadership was a real one. These letters state that the members of their communities were to obey the exilarch's instructions and were to pay him the accepted taxes; the exilarch was to judge them and it was his duty to enforce the protection conditions and heed the orders of the caliph.

There is a divergence of opinions among scholars as to the appointment of judges (dayyanim) by the exilarch and its dependence on the academy heads. It appears that this matter varied with the authority exerted by the exilarchs. It can be divided into five periods: (a) until the reign of al-Maʾmūn appointments were made by the exilarch; (b) until after David b. Zakkai, when authority was divided between the exilarchs and the academy heads, the appointment by each party was restricted to its own domain; (c) during the days of Hai Gaon appointments were made by the supreme bet din of the academy heads; (d) in the 11th and 12th centuries appointments were made by the exilarchs; and (e) after 1175 (the year of the death of the exilarch Daniel) it was only the academy heads who appointed the dayyanim. Also, when the exilarchs appointed the dayyanim, the pitka de-dinuta ("judicial authorization") was granted by the academy heads, while the exilarch merely gave formal permission. The exilarch disposed of a tribunal known as bet dina de-nasi ("bet din of the nasi") or bava de-maruta ("gate of the master"). If the exilarch was a ḥakham, he headed the bet din himself. On most occasions, however, it was a distinguished ḥakham, the dayyana de-bava ("judge of the gate"), who headed the tribunal. R. Ẓemaḥ b. Solomon is mentioned as head of the tribunal of the exilarch Ḥisdai b. Natronai during the middle of the ninth century.

The exilarch had the following means of penalization at his disposal: bans, fines, imprisonment, and flogging. During the reign of the caliph al-Maʾmūn his penal authority was restricted so that the only remaining instrument was the ban. During a later period his powers were, however, once more extended and R. *Pethahiah of Regensburg, who visited Mosul during the 1170s, relates that the exilarch was authorized to sentence offenders, even if the second party was a Muslim, and that he had a prison in which he detained offenders.

The exilarch participated in the institution of halakhic takkanot, such as the one in connection with the collection of debts and the ketubbah from movable property instead of from real estate, a takkanah which was circulated throughout the Diaspora with the signature of the exilarch in collaboration with his dayyanim, the academy heads, and their battei din. A letter has been found from the exilarch, dated from 835, concerning the fixation of the intercalation – the exclusive right of the Palestinian academy. His incomes were derived from the taxes which were paid by the communities under his jurisdiction and which received government protection. According to the report of Nathan ha-Bavli (Neubauer, Chronicles, 2 (1895), 85) every Jew aged 20 years or older paid an annual tax of two zuzim. Butchers paid ¼ dinar as a fixed annual sum. The exilarch also derived incomes from ketubbot, gittin ("divorce bills"), bills, and gifts. These details are also confirmed by an Arab source which adds that the Jews paid him one-fifth of their income, as well as redemption fees for male children and animals. At the close of the 12th century the exilarch of Mosul owned fields and vineyards, in addition to half of the poll tax which he collected from his community for the authorities. The exilarchs bestowed honorary titles upon personalities who supported them. These included: "Friend of the Nesi'ut (Exilarchate)," "Favorable to the Nesi'ut," and "Supporter of the Nesi'ut."

The Exilarchate Outside Baghdad


From the 11th century, the period of the decline of the Abbasida caliphate when independent governments were formed in Mosul, Damascus, and Aleppo, descendants of the Babylonian exilarch's family also arrived in these places. As a result of their descent from the House of David the communities appointed them as nesi'im over themselves, while they also obtained their recognition by the authorities as the delegates of the Jewish community. They appointed officials and dayyanim, judged the people, collected the poll tax, and received tithes.

YEMEN. During the 12th century the Jews of Yemen were placed under the formal "authority" of the exilarch of Babylonia and the Palestinian rosh yeshivah of Egypt. This was expressed by the fact that the above personalities were mentioned by the ḥakham before his sermon, the interpreter before the reading of the Torah, and the person who recited the blessing at meals. In a document of 1134 concerning Maḍmūn b. Japheth Hasan Bendar of Aden (d. 1151) there is the expression: nagid of the Jews of Yemen "appointed by the exilarch and the academy heads." It, is however, possible that this refers to members of the Babylonian exilarch's household who came to Yemen. During the 1130s the cousin of the Babylonian exilarch, who had come from Persia, was in Yemen. "He promoted himself to [a leading] position and the local people gave him permission to make decisions in religious law in the synagogues of all Israel" (S.D. Goitein, in Sinai, 33 (1953), 232). The latter struck the minister who mentioned the "authority" of *Maẓli'ah, the Palestinian gaon of Egypt, in his prayer. Benjamin of Tudela relates that in his time the Yemenite community was led by Shalmon ha-Nasi and his brother Hanan, descendants of David, who "divided up" the country between themselves. They corresponded with their relative, the Babylonian exilarch, and addressed their religious questions to him. It should be noted that during subsequent periods the nesi'im of Yemen were referred to as resh galuta, although they had no connections with the Babylonian exilarch or the House of David.

PALESTINE AND EGYPT. The members of the family of the Babylonian exilarch who came to Palestine and Egypt were received with deference, but their status was merely a formal one without any practical basis in administration. As a result of the abortive rebellion of the exilarch Zutra against the Persian king Kavadh I (488–531) and the hanging of the rebel at the beginning of the sixth century, his wife fled to Palestine. When his son Zutra II, who was born after the death of his father, reached the age of 18, he was appointed rosh pirka or head of the Sanhedrin in Tiberias (520 C.E.). Eight or ten generations of his descendants succeeded him in this position. At the close of the tenth and during the 11th centuries members of the Babylonian exilarch's household appeared in Palestine and Egypt. The only one of these who rose to power in Palestine and combined the functions of nasi and gaon during the years from 1051 to 1062 was *Daniel b. Azariah of the family of Josiah b. Zakkai. He left Babylonia because his family had been deposed by the exilarch *Hezekiah II. Daniel succeeded the gaon *Solomon b. Judah and supplanted Joseph b. Solomon ha-Kohen, who was av bet din and to whom the position of gaon was due. From his seat in Ramleh and Jerusalem he ruled over the whole of Palestine and Syria, where he was the judge; he also appointed dayyanim. Even the communities of Egypt were subordinated to him. After his death the position of gaon reverted to *Elijah b. Solomon ha-Kohen.

David, the son of Daniel, would not reconcile himself to the loss of the sovereignty of the House of David over Palestine and Egypt. He attempted to undermine the Palestinian academy which had been exiled to Tyre because of the invasion of the Seljuks in 1071. In 1081 he went to Egypt, where he was received with respect and his needs were provided for. However, when he desired to dominate the Egyptian communities and the coastal towns of Palestine, he clashed with Mevorakh ha-Nagid. He imposed taxes and ruled with tyranny. The Fatimid caliph al-Mustanṣir bi-Allah (1036–1094), who claimed descent from the "Prophet" and favored the descendants of David, supported him. David was finally deposed in 1094. The Jews of Egypt accepted the formal authority of the Babylonian exilarch. In 1162 Daniel b. Ḥisdai ordained *Nethanel b. Moses ha-Levi in Baghdad as gaon and appointed him to the "bet din ha-gadol in all the provinces of Egypt." Even several years later, the name of the exilarch appeared in legal documents which were traditionally written with the "authorization" of the nasi. During Maimonides' time a nasi named Judah b. Josiah lived in Egypt; he ratified the legal decisions of Maimonides. There were nesi'im who demanded judicial powers for themselves, but the community and its leaders rejected these requests.

During the first half of the 13th century the nasi Solomon b. Jesse and his brother Hodayah, who had come from Damascus, lived in Egypt. The latter came into conflict with a dayyan from France named Joseph b. Gershom, who lived in Alexandria in the days of *Abraham b. David Maimuni (1205–1237), over a question of authority. The nasi issued a ban against the dayyan and anyone who would materially assist the Frenchman. In the reply of the nagid to the appeal of the dayyan, which was also ratified by other ḥakhamim, the tendency to restrict the authority of the nasi and to reduce it to a merely formal ratification is evident. Even though the exilarchs considered themselves as the appointees over the Jews of the lands of dispersion and even though they signed themselves "the head of all Israel's exiles," their intervention was not viewed favorably in all places and practical powers were not entrusted to them. This opposition was particularly outspoken in Palestine, which was not part of the Diaspora, and in those places in the Orient where the Jewish communities were led by negidim.

Hulagu, the Mongolian khan who liquidated the Abbasid caliphate with the conquest of Baghdad in 1258, did not harm the Jewish community and its exilarch Samuel b. David. The exilarchs maintained their positions during subsequent years and some opinions assume that their status was improved. There is no information available on their activities and only the names of some of them are known. The exilarchate was brought to an end by Tamerlane in 1401. Until the beginning of the 18th century it was the practice of the governors of the important towns of Iraq to appoint a wealthy Jew as ṣarrāf bāshī ("chief banker"); he also acted as nasi of the local Jews. His powers were almost identical to those of the Babylonian exilarch during the Middle Ages. The nasi of Baghdad was the "nasi of the state" and his authority also extended to distant communities. This office was the patrimony of the descendants of the House of David and was passed down from father to son. From the 18th century until 1849 the nesi'im who were appointed were not from the House of David. From then onward the functions of nesi'im were transferred to the *ḥakhām bāshī.

[Eliezer Bashan (Sternberg)]

BIBLIOGRAPHY:


UNTIL THE ARAB CONQUEST: F. Lazarus, in: Bruell, Jahrbuecher, 10 (1890), 1–181; A.D. Goode, in: JQR, 31 (1940/41), 149–69; J. Liver, Toledot Beit David (1959), 37–46; M. Beer, in: Zion, 28 (1963), 3–33; idem, in: PAAJR, 35 (1967), 43–74; Neusner, Babylonia, 1 (1965), 50–58, 97–112; 2 (1966), 92–125; 3 (1968), 41–94; 4 (1968), 73–124; J. Gafni, in: Niv ha-Midrashiyyah (1968/69), 221–3; M. Beer, Rashut ha-Golah be-Bavel bi-Ymei ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud (1970). FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST ON: Neubauer, Chronicles, 1 (1887), 63–67; 2 (1895), 78–87; Ibn Daud, Tradition, index; H. Tykocinski, in: Devir, 1 (1923), 145–79; J. Mann, in: Sefer Zikkaron… S. Poznański (1927), 18–32; Mann, Texts, index; idem, in: Tarbiz, 5 (1934), 148–61; I. Goldziher, in: Jeschurun (ed. by J. Kobak), 8 (1871), 76–78; idem, in: REJ, 8 (1884), 121–5; S. Pines, ibid., 100 (1936), 71–73; F. Lazarus, in: MGWJ, 78 (1934), 279–88; W. Fischel, ibid., 79 (1935), 302–22; idem, in: Sefer Magnes (1938), 181–7; A.D. Goode, in: JQR, 31 (1940/41), 149–69; S. Assaf, Geonim, 24–41; S.D. Goitein, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… M.M. Kaplan (1953), 51–53; idem, in: Bo'i Teiman, ed. by Y. Ratzaby (1967), 15–25; Abramson, Merkazim, 9–24; G. Vajda, in: Bulletin de l'Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, 15 (1967/68), 137–50.

--


Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)