Legal document: Yevr.-Arab. I 1701

Description

Legal report in a Qaraite court register. Written in Judaeo-Arabic. Location: Cairo. Dating: Unknown. Catalogued as 1101 CE, but this date does not appear on the microfilm images. Perhaps the missing digits were legible in the past or remain legible on the physical document. The date in the microfilm reads "Sunday night, 7 Tevet, 14[..] Seleucid." The digits את appear at the beginning of the year, but this gives only an earliest possible date of 1089 CE and a latest possible date of 1688 CE. Based solely on the script, a date in the 13th century seems more likely. The scribe has the unusual name Neḥam'el b. Mevorakh b. Yehuda b. Aharon. The document is a fascinating report on the Qaraite court of Cairo's investigation into the years-long rumors about the relationship between Abū Naṣr b. Qayūma and an unnamed woman who is alternately referred to as "the daughter of Abū l-Maʿālī b. Tāmār," "the wife of Abū Saʿd b. Ṣadaqa al-Labbān," and "the woman." It appears that the woman had a petition (ruqʿa) written on her behalf to the communal authorities, which came into the possession of the scribe, who subsequently brought it to the attention of the Qaraite authority, ha-Nasi ha-Gadol, who called for an inquiry. The council first summoned the woman and her husband (called her "waliyy" or "guardian"). (1) She reported that Abū Naṣr had been stalking her for years, visiting her house three or four times a day. She was frightened of him and told her husband's paternal aunt that if she ever saw Abū Naṣr visit when this woman was alone, she should come down and join them. She had gone several times to the court to complain about him, but nothing came of that. When asked whether she knew who wrote the petition (ruqʿa), she admitted that in fact she was the one responsible for it, but the person who wrote it for her added some things she had not said and left out other things she had said. (2) As for the husband, he responded that he didn't know anything about this. All he knew was that his wife hated to have Abū Naṣr in their house, but he never knew why. (3) Abū Nāsr was then summoned. He denied everything. But then he admitted that he had previously been summoned to court and been issued a restraining order not to enter her house for a period of a year and a half. They questioned him repeatedly, but he wouldn't admit anything else. (4) The woman was then questioned in Abū Naṣr's presence what she had said in his absence, and she was unwilling to repeat what she said before. Rather, "she changed her story. . . and said, 'I hated. . .'" (5) Abū l-Faraj al-Ṭaḥḥān reported to the court and attested that whenever he visited the house of his brother-in-law Abū Saʿd b. Ṣadaqa al-Labbān and Abū Naṣr b. Qayūma was also present, he witnessed Abū Naṣr's vulgar speech and behavior toward the woman, but he had no knowledge of whether anything else passed between them. (6) A number of other women were then questioned. They confirmed that the woman under investigation had complained to them numerous times about Abū Naṣr's harassment (taʿarruḍ) of her. However, the scribe writes, because their testimony entirely derived from what the woman herself told them, there is no need to record it in this document. But he notes that these women confirmed her "agitation" (imtiʿāḍ) whenever she talked about Abū Naṣr's behavior to them. At this point the court determined that they needed to gather more testimony. Thus they agreed that the next day a ban of excommunication would be declared against anyone who had knowledge of the affair and did not come forward to testify about it. The scribe records the date and his name, and several witnesses sign: Netan'el ha-Kohen b. ʿAmram; Yefet ha-Melammed b. Ḥalfon(?), Avraham b. Yefet, and probably others that are now faded. He adds an addendum the following day stating that he attended "al-majliṣ al-marsūm" (Goitein interprets this as 'the next prayer service') of the Qaraites in Cairo and declared the agreed-upon ban of excommunication, effective for a period of one week. This addendum was witnessed by Avraham b. Yefet and Yefet ha-Melammed b. Ḥalfon(?). This document is mentioned several times in Zinger's dissertation and in Goitein, Med Soc V, 314 and 592. ASE.