AN ARAMAIC DISPUTE BETWEEN THE MONTHS BY SAHLAN BEN AVRAHAM

The article offers an overview of the corpus of poetic disputes between the months composed in Aramaic, together with a critical edition of one such poem, אתש יחרי ורבחתיא by Sahlan ben Avraham (Fustat, 11th century). The critical edition is accompanied by translations of the poem into Hebrew and English. Part of the text given in the critical edition is based on a copy found in a Genizah document copied in the 13th century by Yedutun Ha-Levi, now known as א טאטסופ רדס. The history of publication of this document is reviewed, and a description of its remaining fragments (including a new fragment identified as part of the present edition) is given. INTRODUCTION: ARAMAIC DISPUTES BETWEEN THE MONTHS The corpus of Late Antique Jewish Palestinian Aramaic poetry1 may be conveniently divided into three categories on the basis of the Sitz im Leben of the poems: 1) poems that are connected in one way or another to the liturgical reading of the Aramaic Targum (i.e., socalled Targum poetry), 2) poems that are intended for para-liturgical occasions, in particular wedding poems and dirges, and 3) poems that are intended for incorporation into the liturgy proper.2 Cutting across this three-way distinction on the basis of locus (i.e., appearing in all three categories) is a literary type whose position within the corpus is quite prominent: the dialogue poem. In turn, a special sub-category of this type is the dispute poem. Dialogue poems in general and dispute poems in particular are of great interest to those who wish to trace the origins and development of Jewish Aramaic poetry on account of the fact that they are well attested in the roughly contemporaneous Christian Syriac poetic culture. Taken together with additional parallels between the two traditions, this shared feature points in the direction of the existence of a Late Antique Levantine aesthetic, which finds expression in * Lecturer in Hebrew and Aramaic, University of Cambridge. Email: qalir@yahoo.com 1 This corpus has been conveniently collected in M. Sokoloff and J. Yahalom, אברעמ ינב תריש ( Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1999). Several of its aspects are the subject of an extensive and penetrating analysis by M. Kister, "המולע הריש לש המלועב םיטביה – אברעמ ינב תריש", Tarbiz. 76 (2006/07), 105–84. 2 The first two categories reflect the status of Aramaic as the vernacular of Late Antique Palestine. Given the present state of our knowledge of the corpus, the third category is essentially restricted to qinot, i.e., poetic dirges composed for the liturgy of the Ninth of Av. For an analysis of this group of poems, see M. Rand, “Observations on the Relationship between JPA poetry and the Hebrew Piyyut Tradition – The Case of the Kinot,” in Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into Its History and Interactions, eds. A. Gerhards and C. Leonhard (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 127–44. There is no reason to suppose that a relationship of dependence exists between the Aramaic and Hebrew qinot – i.e., that the former are somehow an imitation of the latter, or vice versa. It is quite likely that at some point in Late Antiquity, Aramaic and Hebrew qinot were simply composed alongside one another, with the Hebrew qinot eventually winning out by being incorporated permanently into the liturgy (with the result that the genre was cultivated and developed by successive generations of liturgical poets) while the Aramaic qinot were discarded, to be re-discovered among the literary remains preserved in the Cairo Genizah. 102 MELILAH MANCHESTER JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES the poetic corpora of the various relevant Aramaic literary cultures – Christian Syriac, Jewish Aramaic and Samaritan – and, by extension, in the traditions of Hebrew piyyut. and Greek Church poetry, which are closely related to the Jewish and Christian corpora, respectively.3 In the case of dispute poems, moreover, the existence of the genre in both Jewish Palestinian Aramaic as well as Syriac is to be attributed to a common ancestry, since such poems are attested in the Mesopotamian, Sumero-Akkadian tradition, which constitutes a substratum of Aramaic literary culture.4 Among the dispute poems, a coherent group is constituted by those which describe a precedence dispute between the months of the year. One such poem is attested in Syriac,5 and the following examples are known in Jewish Aramaic:6 • אתש יחרי ורבחתיא ith.abbaru yarh. e shatta “The months of the year joined together”: This is the only poem in the list by a known author: Sahlan ben Avraham. A discussion and critical edition are provided below. • איחרי לכ ושנכתיא itkannashu kol yarh. ayya “All the months gathered” (2): Published in M. Klein, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1986), 1.186-89. This poem is attested in ms. T-S NS 186.21, photographs of which are given in ibid., 2.163–64. • השמ קלס יבו ... ...u-vi sleq Moshe “... and in me Moses went up” (3): Published in Sokoloff and Yahalom, אברעמ ינב תריש, 238–39 and Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, 1.190–1. This poem is attested in ms. T-S H 10.78, photographs of which are given in ibid., 2.176. • הייחרי לכ הדחכ ןושנכתא itkannashun ka-h. ada kol yarh. ayya “All the months gathered together” (7): Published in Sokoloff and Yahalom, אברעמ ינב תריש, 230–4 and Klein, Genizah Manuscripts, 1.201–5. This poem is attested in ms. T-S H 11.51, photographs of which are given in ibid., 2.165–171. Strictly speaking, it is not a dispute, as only Nisan speaks, 3 See O. Münz-Manor, “Liturgical Poetry in the Late Antique Near East – A Comparative Approach,” Journal of Ancient Judaism 1 (2010), 336–61. 4 For dialogue poems and dispute poems from a comparative perspective, see E.Hacohen, " תינבתב םינויע םירופל םייגולאיד הבחרה יטויפ רואל היתורוקמבו המודקה תילארשי ץראה תונטייפב תיגולאידה " , Jerusalem Studies in Hebrew Literature 20 (2006), 97–171; O. Münz-Manor, " שפנה ןיב סחיה תודוא לע םיירצונו םיידוהי חוכיו יריש :יתיווג יחור םעו ףוגהו " , in Textures – Culture Literature Folklore for Galit Hasan-Rokem ( Jerusalem: The Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, Faculty of Humanities, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; 2013), 1.187–209; R. Murray, “Aramaic and Syriac Dispute-Poems and Their Connections,” in Studia Aramaica: New Sources and New Approaches, eds. J. Greenfield, M. Geller, and M. Weitzman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 157–87. For Syriac dispute poems, see S.P. Brock, “A Dispute of the Months and Some Related Syriac Texts,” JSS 30 (1985), 181–211; idem, “Syriac Dispute Poems: The Various Types,” in Dispute Poems and Dialogues in the Ancient and Mediaeval Near East, eds. H. Vanstiphout and G. Reinink (Louvain: Peeters, 1991), 109–19. For a discussion of the poetic debate in Hebrew piyyut., see E. Hacohen, " ' ץיקהו ףרוחה ןיב םיירבע חוכיו יטויפב םינויע – 'רימז עיגהו םינצינ וצצ יבו / רבע ויתסהו םשגה ףלח ", Masoret Ha-Piyyut. 4 (2008), 61-83. A dispute between Passover and the Sabbath, beginning with וכבוסו וקפד, has recently been added to the corpus of Hebrew dispute piyyut.im: see M. Rand, “Qillirian Compositions for Double Liturgical Occasions: Linguistic and Iconic Aspects (Including an Appendix with Editions of Two New Shivatot for Shabbat and Pesah),” in The Experience of Jewish Liturgy – Studies Dedicated to Menahem Schmelzer, ed. D.R. Blank (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2011), 222–5. 5 This poem is published in Brock, “Dispute of the Months.” 6 A similar list is provided in Murray, “Aramaic and Syriac Dispute-Poems,” 166–8. Murray did not have the advantage of being able to refer to Sokoloff and Yahalom, אברעמ ינב תריש (as he himself notes on p. 165, note 37). In any case, the list given here updates that of Murray. Where relevant, the number of the poem in Murray’s list is indicated in parentheses immediately following the incipit in the list given above. Poem 6 on Murray’s list is רחבתא ןיחרי שודיקל הרהז itbeh. er zahra le-qiddush yarh. in “The moon was chosen for the sanctification of the months” (Sokoloff and Yahalom, אברעמ ינב תריש, 222–9) and poem 8 is יחרי ישארב ]יינב[ל י]..[א a[..] li-[vnay] be-rashe yarh. ai “I will ]...[ my sons on my new moons” (ibid., 234–9). Neither poem is a dispute, as noted by Murray himself. AN ARAMAIC DISPUTE BETWEEN THE MONTHS (MICHAEL RAND) 103 addressing each of his opponents in turn and arguing for the inadmissibility of each to be the “Redeemer” month. The poem is therefore the exact opposite of a precedence debate, as each of the months (with the exception of Nisan) is (dis)qualified by reference to some negative feature.7 However, it shares enough features with the other items in this list to justify its inclusion (see below). Where data are available, we see that the poetic disputes, which serve as targumic embellishments of הנשה ישדחל םכל אוה ןושאר םישדח שאר םכל הזה שדחה (Exod. 12:2), are cast in the same basic mold. Each begins with an introduction, in which the gathering of the months is described. The theme of gathering is given expression in the opening lines of the poems, which are essentially stereotypical: ,איחרי לכ ושנכתיא ,אתש יחרי ורבחתיא הייחרי לכ הדחכ ןושנכתא.8 The introduction is followed by a presentation of arguments by each month in turn, beginning with Iyyar (i.e., the month immediately following Nisan). In the case of הייחרי לכ הדחכ ןושנכתא, this feature is paralleled by the fact that Nisan begins his tirade against his opponents with Iyyar. There are several possibilities for the end of the debate. In אתש יחרי ורבחתיא the closing argument is given by Nisan, with the specification that his claim rests on the “authority of the Most High” (l. 60). The victory of Nisan is therefore implied rather than asserted explicitly. In איחרי לכ ושנכתיא Nisan does not present arguments. Rather God, the presiding judge, rules in favor of Nisan immediately following Adar’s arguments. In the case of הייחרי לכ הדחכ ןושנכתא, after Nisan finishes his harangue with Adar, he prono

the poetic corpora of the various relevant Aramaic literary cultures -Christian Syriac, Jewish Aramaic and Samaritan -and, by extension, in the traditions of Hebrew piyyut . and Greek Church poetry, which are closely related to the Jewish and Christian corpora, respectively. 3 In the case of dispute poems, moreover, the existence of the genre in both Jewish Palestinian Aramaic as well as Syriac is to be attributed to a common ancestry, since such poems are attested in the Mesopotamian, Sumero-Akkadian tradition, which constitutes a substratum of Aramaic literary culture. 4 Among the dispute poems, a coherent group is constituted by those which describe a precedence dispute between the months of the year. One such poem is attested in Syriac, 5 and the following examples are known in Jewish Aramaic: 6 ith . abbaru yarh . e shatta "The months of the year joined together": This is the only poem in the list by a known author: Sahlan ben Avraham. A discussion and critical edition are provided below. itkannashun ka-h . ada kol yarh . ayya "All the months gathered together" (7): Published in Sokoloff and Yahalom,,  addressing each of his opponents in turn and arguing for the inadmissibility of each to be the "Redeemer" month. The poem is therefore the exact opposite of a precedence to some negative feature. 7 However, it shares enough features with the other items in this list to justify its inclusion (see below).
Where data are available, we see that the poetic disputes, which serve as targumic embellishments of (Exod. 12:2), are cast in the same basic mold. Each begins with an introduction, in which the gathering of the months is described. The theme of gathering is given expression in the opening lines of the poems, which are essentially stereotypical: . 8 The introduction is followed by a presentation of arguments by each month in turn, beginning with Iyyar (i.e., the month immediately following Nisan). In the case of , this feature is paralleled by the fact that Nisan begins his tirade against his opponents with Iyyar. There are several possibilities for the end of the debate. In that his claim rests on the "authority of the Most High" (l. 60). The victory of Nisan is therefore implied rather than asserted explicitly. In Nisan does not present arguments. Rather God, the presiding judge, rules in favor of Nisan immediately following Adar's arguments. In the case of with Adar, he pronounces himself the victor, again on God's authority: "The Mighty One made me a redeemer for his people" (l. 44; translation mine).
In addition to the poems listed above, the following two items should also be noted: va-hava kevan de-itgele YY "And when the Lord was revealed" (1, 5): This dispute between the months is not cast in a poetic form, but rather in that of a prose targum expansion (tosefta) to Exod. 12:2. The literary structure of this expansion, however, entirely corresponds to that of the poetic disputes. It is attested in two versions, which are The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980), 1.72-3. A translation is given in ibid., 2.37-39. An alternative translation, including suggested emendations to the Aramaic text, is provided by Brock, "Dispute of the Months," 209-211. The second recension, beginning with va-hava kad itgele qiris "And when the Lord was revealed", is published in Klein,Genizah Manuscripts,. It is attested in ms. Ox. Heb. e.73, photographs of which are given in ibid., 2.173-74.
• itreme polemos [transcription following the vocalization in the manuscript] "A dispute arose" (4): This short targumic poem to Exod. 12:2, which at present consists of four stanzas, has been published on several occasions, the two latest being: Kister, " ", 115 A. Berberian, " ", Leshonenu 75 (2012), 112. It is attested in ms. Ox. Heb. e.73 (see previous item). In its present form, it appears and their resolve to cast lots so as to determine which of them will be the month of 7 with their respective zodiac signs. 8 The latter two incipits are simply textual variants. In the case of the third incipit the word is crossed out in the manuscript.
Israel's redemption, while in the third and fourth stanzas Nisan summarily dismisses his opponents, claiming the prize for himself.

SAHLAN'S POEM
The poem ith . abbaru yarh . e shatta "The months of the year joined together" was composed by Sahlan ben Avraham, whose acrostic signature appears in the last stanza: . 9 Sahlan was a prominent member of the Babylonian community in Fustat, and was active in the beginning of the 11th century. 10 His poem therefore postdates the other, Late Antique, poetic disputes listed above by some 500 years. However, its inclusion within the poems. In terms of overall structure, we have already seen that all of the poems begin with of verbal parallels to the poems itkannashu kol yarh . ayya "All the months gathered" (see the commentary to ll. 8, 27, 53) and u-vi sleq Moshe "... and in me Moses went up" (see the commentary to ll. 13-14, 19, 28, 29, 32, 35, 38, 48). In fact, and correctly judged the latter to have served as a model for the former. 11 Finally, as with the Late Antique poems, Sahlan's poem also seems to have been originally intended as a targumic embellishment of Ex. 12:2, as indicated by the fact that the targum to this verse is referred to in its last line (see the commentary, ad loc.). As a faithful imitation, therefore, Sahlan's poem may be considered an additional witness to the essentially Late Antique genre under discussion here. 12 Sahlan's poem is distinct from the Late Antique debate poems in the matter of dialect. Whereas the latter were intended for use with the Palestinian Targum and (for the most part) employed with Targum Onqelos (see note 14), and is composed in an Aramaic that imitates that of this Targum, with occasional slips into Babylonian Aramaic: "before" (l. 12), "the Lord" (l. 37), "He taught" (l. 41), and "authority, permission" (l. 60; see the commentary, ad loc.  Bareket, " ", Tarbiz . 52 (1982), 17-40. 11 See E. Fleischer, " ' '", Sidra 7 (1991), 56-57, note 18. 12 Sahlan composed a second Aramaic poem in honor of Nisan: elaha addira shemeh "His name is Mighty God" -published in E. Fleischer, " ", Tarbiz . 37 (1968), 269-70. This poem, however, does not belong to the dispute genre. 13 The poem also contains two morphological Hebraisms: "all of them" (l. 51), "He expounded" (l. 53) together with two apparent lexical Hebraisms: "wearing" (l. 27), "He spoke" (l. 58). Incidentally, the latter usage seems to also be attested in ...: (l. 21). In their commentary, the editors opine that the meaning of is unclear in the present context. It seems likely, however, that the correct translation is "Marh . of every strophe of this poem contains some verb of speech, and line 21 is the opening line of the strophe dedicated to H . eshvan. ... ...

THE FIRST ORDER OF FUSTAT
At present, Sahlan's poem is attested within the context of a qiddush ceremony in honor of the New Moon of Nisan that was celebrated on the eve of the New Moon in the "Palestinian" synagogue of Fustat in the beginning of the 13th century. 14 This ceremony is primarily attested in a document of central importance for the study of (the last phase of) the Palestinian liturgical ritual, the bulk of which is preserved in ms. T-S H 12.11. 15 The document is currently known as , "The First Order of Fustat." In the course of preparing an edition of Sahlan's poem, it became evident that more fragments of this document have been preserved than has hitherto been recognized. In order to underscore In an article entitled " " (1968), Fleischer called attention to ms. T-S H 12.11, a liturgical document consisting of three bi-folia, which he divided into two groups of three and the last three folia): 1) Purim, Parshat Parah, Parshat Ha-H . odesh, Rosh H . odesh Nisan; 2) Simh . at Torah, Shabbat Ve-Zot ha-Berakha, Shabbat and Rosh H . odesh, Shabbat Parshat Yitro, H . anukkah. 16 Fleischer later published a facsimile of this manuscript, in which the order of the two groups is reversed, so that the material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan now three folia). 17 As we will see presently, the latter is the correct order. In the same article, Fleischer announced the discovery of an additional bi-folium belonging to the same document, only the bottom halves of whose leaves are preserved: T-S 13 H 3.11. One leaf of this bi-folium contains material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan, while the other leaf contains the remains of text in the upper portion of the recto, the rest of the recto and the verso being left empty. The material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan follows the material for the same occasion contained in T-S H 12.11.
In his publication, Fleischer ignored the fact that T-S 13 H 3.11 is a bi-folium (here and in subsequent publications, he consistently refers to the manuscript as a , "folio"), whereas 14 Though the present context of the poem is liturgical, we must distinguish between the core, statutory liturgy and various liturgical occasions bearing a semi-popular character, of which the present case is one. A similar view is taken by Fleischer, " ", 63, who refers to "the explicitly popular character" of the qiddush ceremony, calling it "a sort of spring festival" (transl. mine). The poem's basic function as a targumic embellishment is clearly indicated by its referring to the targum in its last line (see above), together with the fact that in the manuscript (T-S 13 H 3.11) it is immediately followed by material from Targum Onqelos: Ex. 12:3 (followed by a short Aramaic litany), Ex. 12:1-3 (for the text, see Fleischer," ",. The view expressed here is pace Fleischer, " ", festive qiddush ceremony. Firstly, Fleischer admits a logical inconsistency in referring to this ceremony as being both in this ceremony is highly eclectic, as noted already in ibid., 57. Sahlan's targumic embellishment is therefore simply just another genre thrown into this eclectic mixture, and there is no particular reason to believe that it was written ab initio for the occasion. The fact that it is composed in Aramaic in no way singles it out, as other Aramaic elements not belonging to the dispute genre are also employed in the same ceremony (see for instance note 12).
15 This is the shelf-mark as it appears on the casing of the manuscript. In the publications that will be reviewed below, Fleischer refers to it mostly as T-S H 12.11a. 16 Fleischer," ", The facsimile appears at the end of E. Fleisher, ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1988). A facsimile of the verso of the leaf containing the material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan is also given in Klein,Genizah Manuscripts,2.172. The image is labeled "folio 6v," indicating that Klein also positions the leaf last in the preserved quire. this fact actually solves the problem of the order of the two groups in the three bi-folia of T-S H 12.11. As noted above, the second leaf of T-S 13 H 3.11 is blank in the bottom of the recto and in the entire verso. The most likely assumption, therefore, is that this leaf constitutes the end of the original codex. This being the case, the only possible juxtaposition between the two manuscripts is one in which the material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan contained in T-S 13 H 3.11 follows the material for the same occasion contained in T-S H 12.11, while at the same time the second, partially blank, leaf of T-S 13 H 3.11 is positioned last among of T-S H 12.11 are grouped together in one quire with the material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan last, while the bi-folium T-S 13 H 3.11 is positioned as the outer bi-folium of the following quire, with the leaf containing material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan coming . In his article, Fleischer published the material for Rosh H . odesh Nisan contained in the remains of the tail end of a poem containing a dispute between the months, surmising that it might belong to the poem . 18 At the beginning of the corresponding verso, qiddush itself. 19 As we will see presently, the end of the poem actually belongs to Sahlan's . In a follow-up article, "' ' " (1981), Fleischer published ms. 20 The number of known manuscripts belonging to the First Order of Fustat thus rose to three.
In a third article on the subject, '" ' " ms. T-S NS 236.5, which does not belong to The First Order of Fustat, but also contains (poetic) material pertaining to Rosh H . odesh Nisan. 21 The parallel to the First Order of Fustat was established on the basis of a poem appearing in both documents: elaha addira shemeh "His name is Mighty God" (see note 12). After this poem, T-S NS 236.5 contains the beginning of , which Fleischer published. 22 He then published the continuation of on the basis of ms. T-S NS 125.96, and its direct continuation, ms. T-S NS 325.69. 23 However, it escaped Fleischer's notice that T-S NS tail end of the dispute poem appearing at the top of the recto of T-S 13 H 3.11 belongs to this copy of . 24 Accordingly, the number of known manuscripts containing fragments of the First Order 18 Fleischer, , 272, 277. 19 Fleischer, , 274, 277. 20 E. Fleischer, ", in Studies in Aggadah, Targum and Jewish Liturgy in Memory of Joseph Heinemann, eds. J.J. Petuchowski and E. Fleischer ( Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981), 111-32 [Hebrew section]. 21 Fleischer,,[49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65],52. 23 Fleischer,, Fleischer came tantalizingly close to recognizing that the two manuscripts represent the same source. In his discussion of he cites as a typological parallel the tail end of the dispute poem in T-S 13 H 3.11, again opining (this time without any hesitation) that it belongs to -see Fleischer, " ", 56, note 17. Furthermore, he recognized that the actual qiddush ceremony described on the verso of T-S NS 325.69 is parallel to the qiddush ceremony described in the verso of the relevant leaf of T-S 13 H 3.11, without realizing that these are two halves of one and the same text -see ibid., 56 (in the notes to the transcription).  [ …] to gather the harvest.

20
Refrain: In bandying about "Blessed am I," said Av, "among all the months." And he esteemed himself above them, giving himself praise. "In me the praised nation will rejoice For in me mourners will be consoled and in me the Messiah will be born."

25
Refrain When Elul heard these words, He wearing the crown, [ He said,] "In me the heart of stone will pass from the congregation And the precious city will be rebuilt to perfection." 30 "Who is like unto me amongst you all," said Tishrei, For it is in me that my Lord and Master takes pleasure. His people are radiant in me, at the going out of […] And they multiply feasts in me, and my splendor waxes."

Refrain 35
Marh . eshvan multiplied a plethora of words. He said to them, "I am he who made garments. The Lord performed miracles in me And the sons of H . ashmonay were victorious over the kings of Greece."