10.1484/J.VIATOR.1.100113

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’

●

by Alexander Kulik Most of the evidence indicating the existence of Jewish settlements in Eastern Europe1 prior to the mass migration from Ashkenaz2 originates from territories that were an-nexed to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, i.e., from the southwestern principalities of Rus’,3 which since then became an integral part of Lithuania and subsequently of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 4 These territories included the oldest and the most important centers of pre-Mongolian Kievan Rus’, in which a Jewish presence was attested from the tenth century.

With the Mongolian conquest in the first half of the thirteenth century, evidence of the presence of Jews in Rus’ is reduced to the territory of Galicia-Volhynia, which suffered less from the Mongolian invasion due to its western location.5 From the end of the Lithuanian conquest in Rus’ and the partition of Galicia-Volhynia between Po-land and Lithuania, which occurred in the mid-fourteenth century, there are no extant references to a local Jewish population in northeastern Rus’—what would come to be Muscovite Rus’. Sources from Rus’ refer at that time only to Jewish visitors coming to the area from elsewhere,6 as opposed to the relatively plentiful evidence of Jewish presence from Lithuania and Poland from the same period of time.7 References to Ru-sia ( רושיאה/רושייא/רוסיא ) in Jewish sources from Ashkenaz from this period also must refer to “Lithuanian Rus’,” which was still defined as “Rus’” in numerous foreign sources, as well.

1 According to its traditional narrow definition: the territories of the Polish-Lithuanian Confederation in

its prime. 2 A term of medieval Jewish geography applied to Germany, normally to its southern and western lands. 3 Known in Hebrew sources as רושיאה/רושיא/רוסיא , the term equivalent to “Rus’” and referring to the

lands of the Eastern Slavs in the Middle Ages. 4 Only single reports come from the adjacent lands: northeastern Rus’, Polnoe sobranie russkikh le-

topisej (St. Petersburg 1841–1885) [henceforth PSRL] 2.114–115; 5.164–165; and Polish trade routes be-tween Germany and Rus’, B. D. Weinryb, “The Beginnings of East European Jewry in Legend and Histori-ography,” Studies and Essays in Honor of Abraham A. Neuman (Leiden 1962) 445–502; לתולדות , 'שמע-מ תא"י

370–347) 1988\ח"תשמ(ציון נג ', ג"הי-ב"היהודים בפולין במאות הי ; id., 'ב"ידיעות חדשות לתולדות היהודים בפולין במאות הי-208–203) 1989\ט"תשמ(ציון נד ', ג"הי .

5 With an exception of the short notice on a Jewish moneylender visiting Kashin in 1321 (see below; PSRL 15.414). For the Jews in Volhynia see below.

6 See East Slavic Chronicles: 1445–foreign Jewish merchants buy slaves in Novgorod (PSRL 3.240; 4.124; 17.187); 1471–Kievan Jews visit Novgorod in the retinue of the Prince Michailo Olelkovich (PSRL 4.235); 1490–a Jewish physician from Venice at the court of Ivan III. Jews from Lithuania and the Crimea are mentioned also in the diplomatic correspondence of Ivan III; Regesty i nadpisi. Svod materialov dlja istorii evreev v Rossii (80 g.–1800 g.) (St. Petersburg 1899) [henceforth RN] 1.77–84.

7 S. A. Bershadskij, Dokumenty i materialy dlja istorii evreev v Rossii I: Dokumenty i regesty k istorii li-tovskikh evreev (1388–1550) (St. Petersburg 1882); RN 1.68ff; ומחקרים מקורות : חדשים גם ישנים, א הרכבי"א

17–6) צילום-דפוס) (ל"ירושלים תש(בתולדות ישראל וספרותו .

ALEXANDER KULIK 52

Historical evidence of Jewish presence in Rus’ prior to the “Lithuanian period” is scant, but may be found in diverse sources and independent traditions, as well as in various cultures. This is the case for internal sources (all of which are in Hebrew) that shed light on the history of the Jews of Rus’ in the tenth through fourteenth centuries, including diplomatic and commercial correspondence from Khazaria and Byzantium, and halakhic (Jewish legal) texts from Ashkenaz.8 The Slavic sources are richer, and they too relate to diverse genres, including (a) historiography, (b) civil and ecclesiastic legislation, (c) hagiography, (d) excerpts of different types of ecclesiastical literature related to the anti-Judaic polemic,9 (e) translations from Hebrew into Slavic (and possibly other textual relicts of cultural dialogue between Jews and Eastern Slavs, as well).10 Division of the sources into groups and sub-groups became an impediment toward progress in study of the subject, because most scholars were not fully adept in the use of tools for study of the complete body of material. Thus, they failed to notice that the internal (Jewish) and external (non-Jewish) sources at times corroborate one

8 All Ashkenazi halachic collections cited below date in the range between the 11th and the 13th c. Most

Hebrew sources were assembled by F. Kupfer and T. Lewicki, Źródła hebrajskie do dziejów Słowian i niektórych innych ludów środkowej i wschodniej Europy (Wrocław and Warszawa 1956).

9 For attempts to assemble or to summarize Slavic sources see Malyshevskij, Evrei v juzhnoj Rusi i Kieve v X–XII vekakh (Trudy Kievskoj dukhovnoj Akademii VI, IX) (Kiev 1878); RN 54–65; Ju. Gessen, Istorija evrejskogo naroda v Rossii (Petrograd 1916); I. Z. Berlin, Istoricheskie sud'by evrejskogo naroda na territorii russkogo gosudarstva (Petrograd 1919); id., “Evrei v Juzhnoj Rusi do obrazovanija Russkogo gosudarstva,” “Evrei v Juzhnoj Rusi v epokhu Kievskogo i Galitsko-Volynskogo gosudarstva,” Istorija evreev v Rossii II/1 (Istorija evrejskogo naroda XII/1) (Moskva 1921) 1–84, 113–154; Fr. Rawita-Gawron-ski, Zydzi w Historji i Literaturze Ludowej na Rusi (Warsawa, Krakow, Lublin, and Lodz 1923); M. Baratz, Sobranie trudov po voprosu o evrejskom elemente v russkoj pis’mennosti (Paris 1924–1927); Weinryb, “Beginnings” (n. 4 above); יהודים ', קורות היהודים במזרחה של אירופה מימים ראשונים ועד חלוקת פולין, 'היילפרין' י

39–33) ט"ירושלים תשכ(הדות במזרח אירופה וי תל אביב (היסטוריה של עם ישראל תקופת האופל ', רוסיה הקייבית, 'אטינגר' ש ;189–187) 1973\ג"תשל ; H. Birnbaum, “On some evidence of Jewish Life and Anti-Jewish Sentiments in

Medieval Russia,” Viator 4 (1973) 225–255; O. Pritsak, “The Pre-Ashkenazic Jews of Eastern Europe in Relation to the Khazars, the Rus’ and the Lithuanians,” Ukrainian-Jewish Relations in Historical Perspec-tive (Edmonton 1988) 3–21; L. S. Chekin, “The Role of Jews in Early Russian Civilization in the Light of a New Discovery and New Controversies,” Russian History/Histoire Russe XVII/4 (1990) 379–394; id., “K analizu upominanij o evrejakh v drevnerusskoj literature XI–XII vekov,” Slavjanovedenie 3 (1994) 34–42; A. Pereswetoff-Morath, A Grin Without a Cat: Adversus Judaeos Texts in the Literature of Medieval Russia (988–1504) (Lund 2002); ארץ ישראל ועם ישראל בעולמה הרוחני של רוסיה בימי הביניים : התרומה והתמורה, יואל רבא

)2003\ג"אביב תשס-תל( . 10 See A. A. Alekseev, “Perevody s drevneevrejskikh originalov v drevnej Rusi,” Russian Linguistics 11

(1987) 1–20; id., “Russko-evrejskie literaturnye svjazi do 15 veka,” Jews and Slavs 1 (1993) 44–75; M. Altbauer and M. Taube, “The Slavonic Book of Esther. When, Where, and from what Language was it Translated?” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8 (1984) 304–320; A. Arkhipov, Po tu storonu Sambationa (Oak-land, CA 1995); H. G. Lunt and M. Taube, “Early East Slavic Translations from Hebrew,” Russian Linguis-tics 11 (1988) 147–187; id., “The Slavonic Book of Esther: Translation from Hebrew or Evidence for a Lost Greek Text?,” Harvard Theological Review 87/3 (1994) 347–362; M. Taube, “O genezise odnogo rasskaza v ostave Ellinskogo letopisca vtoroj redakcii (o vzjatii Ierusalima Titom),” ed. Wolf Moskovich et al., Rus-sian Literature and History: In Honour of Professor I. Serman (Jerusalem 1989) 146 –151; id., “On some unidentified and misidentified sources of the Academy Chronograph,” ed. Wolf Moskovich et al., Russian Philology and Literature presented to Prof.Victor D. Levin on his 75th birthday (Jerusalem 1992) 365 –375; id., “On the Slavic Life of Moses and its Hebrew sources,” ed. Wolf Moskovich et al., Jews and Slavs 1 (Jerusalem and St.Petersburg 1993) 84–119; id., “The The Fifteenth-Century Ruthenian Translations from Hebrew and the Heresy of the Judaizers: Is there a connection?” ed. Vyacheslav V. Ivanov and Julia Verkholantsev, Speculum Slaviae Orientalis: Muscovy, Ruthenia and Lithuania in the Late Middle Ages (= UCLA Slavic Studies 4) (Moscow 2005) 185–208; id., “Which Hebrew Text of Algazel’s Intentions Served for the Translation of the Slavic Logika?” ed. Moshe Taube et al., Quadrivium:Festschrift in Honour of Professor Wolf Moskovich (Jerusalem 2006) 47–52; V. N. Toporov, Svjatost’ i svjatye v russkoj dukhovnoj culture I (Moskva 1995).

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’ 53

another independently.11 Clarification of the origin of the Jews of medieval Rus’ constitutes a key problem

in the determination of the sources of Eastern European Jewry as a whole. It may be stated that in the mid-fourteenth century the era of the separate existence of the Jews of Rus’ came to an end, at least politically and possibly also culturally, and a process of their acculturation was initiated among the bearers of the Ashkenazi culture who were arriving in Poland and Lithuania from the west. Thus, long before the divisions of Poland in the eighteenth century and the beginning of the new era in the history of the descendents of the Jews of Rus’, there was in the region a Jewish population with a uniform Ashkenazi culture, with barely any trace of the unique tradition of its ances-tors.12

Was the tradition of the Jews of Kievan Rus’ very different from that of the Jews of Ashkenaz? If so, what is it, and what are the origins of this community? What was its relative size among other components of Polish-Lithuanian Jewry? There are no un-equivocal answers to these fundamental questions, as long as we rely on the extant sources. Due to the paucity of evidence of Jewish population movements during the period and the region in question, we have to rely solely on cultural characteristics, which do not necessarily indicate the origin of the whole group under discussion.

The numerous hypotheses about the origin of the Jews of Rus’ were characterized in detail by Berlin and Weinryb,13 and we will not go into detail on these known facts and sources. Most of the hypotheses only offer possible routes for the arrival of the Jews in territories of Rus’ before or after its political self-determination, without reli-ance on reliable sources. Thus, the “Caucasian theory” is based only on Jewish pres-ence in the region near the territory in question,14 and the “Persian theory” is based on sources from the sixteenth and even the eighteenth century, which purportedly provide evidence about the eighth century.15 The “Khazarian” and “Canaanite” theories, which are based on an assumption of mass conversion of Turkic or Slavic tribes in Khazaria, not only do not offer adequate evidence of the phenomenon, but also fail to explain the origin of those performing the conversions.16 Turkic and Slavic names that appear in the Kievan Letter are not indicative of the ethnic origin of their bearers, especially when some of them attribute themselves to dynasties descended from Levi and

11 See, e.g., A. Kulik, “The Earliest Evidence on the Jewish Presence in Western Rus’,” Harvard

Ukrainian Studies (2007, forthcoming). 12 For the remaining evidence in late sources originating most probably in oral tradition (if not invented

by Levinsohn) see 35) 1828\ח"וילנה תקפ(ב לוינזון תעודה בישראל "י ; A. Ja. Garkavi, Ob jazyke evreev zhivshikh v drevnee vremja na rusi i slavjanskikh slovakh vstrechaemykh u evrejskikh pisatelej (St. Petersburg 1865) 7–9.

13 Berlin, Istoricheskie (n. 9 above); id., “Evrei” (n. 9 above); Weinryb, “Beginnings” (n. 4 above). )1867\ז "וילנה תרכ(יהודים ושפת הסלאבים , א הרכבי"א 14 . עמק הבכא, יוסף בן יהושוע הכהן 20–19 15 )1895\ה"קראקוו תרנ) (לטריס. מהדורת מ( ; Berlin, “Evrei” (n. 9 above)

9, 31–32; cf. D. Y. Shapira, “Some Notes on the History of the Crimean Jewry from the Ancient Times until the End of the 19th Century, with Emphasis on the Qrımçaq Jews in the First Half of the 19th Century,” Jews and Slavs 19 (2007).

16 K. F. Neuman, Die Völker der südlichen Russlands in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung (Leipzig 1855); E. Renan, Le Judaisme comme race et comme religion (Paris 1883) 25ff; M. Gumplowicz, Początki religii żydowskiej w Polsce (Warszawa 1903); H. Kuchera, Die Chasaren, eine Historische Studie (Wien 257–255) 1953\ג"תל אביב תש(, תולדות ממלכת יהודים באירופה–כזריה , פולקנ"א (1909 .

ALEXANDER KULIK 54

Aaron.17 The same is true for evidence of the use of or familiarity with the Slavic lan-guage among the Jews. The dating of this evidence and the clarification of the lan-guage reflected in these sources (Czech, apparently, in the majority of them) require additional study.18 However, there are three possibilities for the origin of the Jews of Rus’ that are supported in some manner by credible documentary sources: (a) Ashke-naz, (b) Islamic lands, (c) and Byzantium.

The “Western theory,” which is dominant among scholars, was evidently condi-tioned by the cultural situation at the time the research was being conducted, that is to say, a uniformly Ashkenazi image of Eastern European Jewry in the modern period. This theory comprises two main assumptions: (a) migration from Germany and France during the Crusades, (b) settlement along trade routes or destinations.19 The first hy-pothesis is not documented, nor does it cover the period prior to the Crusades. We have in our possession only evidence of Jewish trade between Rus’ and Ashkenaz (which speaks of הולכי רוסיא “travelers to Rus’’ or הולכי דרכי רוסיא “travelers of the routes to Rus’’ among the other non-Jewish Ruzarii)20 and of visits or migration of the Jews of Rus’ to Western Europe, not only to Ashkenaz but also to England and Spain.21 None of this evidence predates the eleventh through thirteenth centuries, al-though the presence of Jews in the territories of Rus’ was already documented in the tenth century. The only early evidence is the well-known report from the ninth century about the Rhodanites, whose route passed through Khazaria. However, ascribing the origin of the Rhodanites to Western Europe raises many doubts, and it is possible that their roots, in fact, lie in Islamic lands.22

Jewish migration from the Islamic lands to Khazaria in the ninth century was cited on two occasions (“from the lands of Islam” in al-Masudi’s Muruj al-Dahab,23 and “from Baghdad and Horasan” in the Schechter Text),24 and always proximate to the

17 On Turkic and Slavic names see N. Golb and O. Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth

Century (Ithaca and London 1982) 26–29, 35–40; A. L. Torpusman, “Antroponimija i etnicheskiekontakty narodov Vostochnoj Evropy v srednie veka,” Imja–Etnos–Istorija (Moskva 1989) 48–53. The origin of the letter from Kiev can also be questioned; cf. Marcel Erdal, “The Khazar Language,” Peter B. Golden, Haggai Ben-Shammai, Amdras Rona-Tas, eds., The World of the Khazars: New Perspectives: Selected Papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International Khazar Colloquium (Leiden 2007) 75–108.

18 Garkavi, Ob jazyke (n. 12 above); 1973ניו יורק (4–1געשיכטע פון דער יידישר שפראך , וינרייך' מ( ; R. Jakob-son, “Iz razyskanij nad starocheshskimi glossami v srednevekovykh evrejskikh pamjatnikakh,” Slavica Hierosolimitana 7 (1985) 45–46.

19 I. M. Jost, Geschichte der Israeliten IX (Berlin 1826); H. Graetz, Geschichte der Juden von den al-testen Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart (Leipzig 1853–1876) 6.69; I. Schipper, Anfange des Kapitalismus bei den abendlandschen Juden um fruehesten Mittelalter (Wien and Leipzig 1907) 19; J. Brutzkus, “Pershi zvistki pro evreiv u Polshi ta na Rusi,” Istorichna sektsija AN URSR. Naukovyj sbornik na rik 1927 XXVI (Kiev 1927) 3–11; cf. Y. Lebanon, The Jewish Travellers in the Twelfth Century (Lanham, MD 1980) 342–343.

20 A common medieval term for European merchants trading with Rus’; J. Brutzkus “Trade with Eastern Europe, 800–1200,” The Economic History Review 13/1–2 (1943) 31–41, at 35.

21 Brutzkus, “Pershi zvistki” (n. 19 above); id., “Der Handel der westeuropaeischen Juden mit dem Kiev,” Zeitschrift fuer die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland III (1931) 97–110; id. “Trade with Eastern Europe” (n. 20 above); Berlin, “Evrei” (n. 9 above) 149–154.

635–611) 1997\ז"ירושלים תשנ(במלכות ישראל בתקופת הגאונים , גיל' מ 22 . 23 : Ch. Pellat, ed., Muruj alDahab (Beyruth 1966) 212–213. 24 1 verso, line 14. “Shechter Text” or “Cambridge Document” are common titles for a fragment of a He-

brew excursus into Khazarian history dated to the 10th c. found in Cairo Geniza and published by Schechter; S. Schechter, “An Unknown Khazar Document,” Jewish Quarterly Review 3 (1912) 181–219.

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’ 55

mention of migration from Byzantium. The distribution of these Jews in Khazaria is unclear, and it is possible that they were concentrated in eastern parts of the territories of Khazaria, adjacent to Islamic lands, that were not subsequently included in Rus’. The link between the communities of “Babylon” (Mesopotamia) and Rus’ was docu-mented on two occasions: (a) Rabbi Moshe Taku in his book Ktav Tamim, refers to a Karaite book that “came from Babylon to Rus’, and from Rus’ it was brought to Regespurk [Regensburg],”25 (b) and the responsum of R. Meir ben Baruch (Maharam) of Rotenburg, which cites the answer of Samuel ben Ali of Baghdad, directed to R. Moshe of Kiev, who was known to be a student of R. Jacob ben Meir Tam (Rabbeinu Tam).26

As opposed to these hypotheses, the “Byzantine theory” seems to stand alone in terms of its support in the sources, and it is my intent to supplement them.27 Whereas in relation to Ashkenaz as the place of origin of the Jews of Rus’ we can only offer evidence on the communication between scholars or commercial contacts (of the kinds found between diverse communities),28 and in the instance of “Babylon” only Jewish migration to the cities of Khazaria and a single piece of evidence on literary exchange are attested, the presence of Byzantine Jewry in Rus’ is attested in more ways. The sources in our possession refer to (a) an autochthonous Judeo-Greek population in the later territories of Rus’, (b) migration of Byzantine Jews into territories of Rus’ prior to its political formation, (c) contacts between Jews of Rus’ and Byzantium and with Jewish communities there, (d) contacts between Byzantine Jews and Rus’, and (e) Judeo-Greek cultural activity in Rus’.

AUTOCHTHONOUS JUDEO-GREEK POPULATION

One of the more certain sources of the origin of the Byzantine Jews from among the principalities of Rus’ is the city and principality of Tmutorokan’, which is identified with Phanagoria and Tamatarcha in Greek sources, “Samkerc” (סמקרץ) in the King Joseph letter from the “Jewish-Khazar correspondence,” סמקריו/סמקריי in the Schechter Text, “Jewish Samkersh” in Ibn al-Faqih, which is located on the coast of the Taman Strait between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. For more than a century Tmutoro-kan’ became one of the most important centers in Kievan Rus’, close in importance to central principalities of Kiev Rus’ and at times even competing with them. The city and the region (we are referring to two coastlines of the Taman Strait that were in the past part of the Bosphor kingdom) are known for their ancient Hellenistic Jewish tra-dition. The continued presence of Jews there was also documented after the Hellenistic era and until the period under discussion. Even without taking into account material from the inscriptions from the Crimea that were recognized by Chwolson as not being counterfeit,29 the Jews of the region are also mentioned by Theophanes in Chronogra-

25 Israeli National Library, MS Paris H711, fol. 28. 26 S. Ettinger, “Moses of Kiev,” Encyclopedia Judaica 12 (Jerusalem 1971–1992) 433. 27 The “Byzantine theory” was introduced by Graetz, Geschichte (n. 19 above) 5.166–167, 188–189; and

S. Krauss, Studien zur Byzantisch-Judischen Geschichte (Leipzig 1914). 28 See, e.g., S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranian Society: The Jewish communities of the Arab World as Por-

trayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (Berkley 1967–1984) 42–59. 29 A. Ja. Garkavi, “Evreiskie nadgrobnye pamjatniki, najdennye na Tamanskom poluostrove,” Evreiskie

Zapiski 5 (1881) 313–318; B. D. Chwolson, Corpus Inscriptionum Hebraicarum (St. Petersburg 1882).

ALEXANDER KULIK 56

phy under the year 817/6170, who speaks of “Phanagoria and the Jews who live there,”30 and by Ibn al-Faqih in Kitab al-Buldan, who calls one of the towns there “Jewish Samkersh.”31 Nor is there any reason to doubt the identification of the Jews of Tmutorokan’ with Byzantine-Greek culture, because regardless of the relatively brief periods when Tmutorokan’ was ruled by Khazars or East Slavic princes, the region was situated within the political and cultural boundaries of Byzantium.32

MIGRATION OF THE JEWS OF BYZANTIUM TO TERRITORIES OF KHAZARIA

It may be assumed that aside from the Byzantine Jews of Tmutorokan’, Rus’ also in-herited the Jewish population that had occupied the western territories of former Khazaria, probably including Kiev itself (especially in the light of the Hebrew “Kievan Letter”).33 In various sources, the origin of the Jews of Khazaria was defined as Byzantine. Al-Masudi attributes the migration of the Jews of Byzantium to Khazaria to the persecutions of Romanos I.34 The Schechter Text also refers to “persecutions in the days of Romanos the Evil”35 separately from the report on the Jewish migration: “And the Jews began to come from Baghdad and from Horasan and from the land of Greece.”36 The location defined as ארמיניא—the initial place of origin of the Jews of Khazaria,37 which is identified by Golb and Pritsak as “Armenia”—may also refer to Byzantium (metathetic רומניא “Romania”).38 The banishing of the Jews of Byzantium to Khazaria “in the days of Haroun al Rashid” is also referred to in al-Di-mashqi in Cosmography.39

The Schechter Text, which is attributed to a Jew from Khazaria, preserves also some signs of Greek ethnographic and geographical traditions.40 And there are those who assume that its original was even written in Greek.41

BYZANTIUM AND RUS’ UNIFIED IN JEWISH SOURCES

Following the christianization of Rus’ in about 988, its political, economic and cul-tural connections with Byzantium grew stronger. The new situation, as well as the links between Jews of the two states, was reflected in Jewish sources from the elev-enth through thirteenth centuries. And it may be assumed that this situation might have secured a certain role to those Jews who subscribed to the Greek culture and who were already in Rus’, or might have created conditions for an additional wave of migration.

The Hebrew term כנען יוון literally “Greek Canaan” meaning “Greek-Slavic lands,”

30 C. de Boor, ed., Theophanis Chronographia (Leipzig 1883–1885) 357. 31 M. J. de Goeje, ed., Ibn alFakih, Kitab albuldan (BGA V) (Leiden 1885) 271. 32 M. I. Artamonov, Istorija khazar (Leningrad 1962) 438–456; O. Pritsak, The Origins of Rus’ (Cam-

brige MA 1981) 68; id., “Pre-Ashkenazic” (n. 9 above) 10. 33 Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian (n. 17 above). 34 Muruj al-Dahab (Pellat 1966) 212–213. 35 2 recto, line 16. 36 1 verso, line 14. 37 1 recto, line 1. 38 Berlin, “Evrei” (n. 9 above) 23–34. Alternatively, the Muslim province of Arminiyya, comprising al-

most the whole of Transcaucasia, might be meant. 39 A. F. Mehren, ed., Cosmographie de Dimischqui (St. Petersburg 1866) 263. 40 P. B. Golden, “A New Discovery: Khazarian Hebrew Documents of the Tenth Century,” Harvard

Ukrainian Studies 8 (1984) 474–486. 41 P. Kokovtsov, Evrejsko-khazarskaja perepiska v X veke (Leningrad 1932) xxvii.

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’ 57

Slavia Graeca, is attested in the response given by R. Judah ben Meir ha-Kohen in Sefer ha-Dinim that is quoted in Or Zarua by R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (1, 196). It evidently refers to Rus’, in order to differentiate it from “Canaan”—the western Slavic lands.42 Byzantium and Rus’ are mentioned together in Eben ha-Ezer by R. Eliezer ben Natan: “In Rus’ and in the land of Greece, there are devout individuals on whose gates and on the doors of their homes and in the walls of their homes they put idolatry [signs],” ”…עדילרין [kind of shoes] that are not cross-bred, as they do in the land of Greece and in Kias [= Kiev], I have seen in which they do not have leather on top …” 43

JEWS OF RUS’ IN BYZANTINE COMMUNITIES

The Jews of Rus’ as guests of Byzantine communities are mentioned twice. In the first instance, they appear as merchants: “… and also from the place of Rus’, from elders [of the community], merchants [came] and heard what was written in the letter.” 44 In the second document, the initial object of the visit is not clarified, but it apparently refers to a familial relationship between Jews of Rus’ and Salonica: “… M. Anon. son of Anon., who is from the community of Rus’ and was a visitor among us, the com-munity of Salonica, ‘the young in the flock,’ and found his relative Rabbi Anon. coming from Jerusalem.” However, as mentioned in continuation this visitor “does not know the holy language or the Greek language or Arabic.”45

THE JEWS OF BYZANTIUM AND THE SLAVE TRADE FROM RUS’

Participation of the Byzantine Jews in slave trade from Rus’ was referred to in a Jew-ish source and a Slavic source, both of which relate to the eleventh century.46

JEWS OF BYZANTIUM AND EAST SLAVIC LITERATURE

The combination of the evidence cited above enables us to assume physical presence and economic activity of Jews of Byzantine origin in Rus’. Until now, the missing link has been the expression of their presence in cultural activity.47 We cannot expect ad-vances in research in the field without the addition of new sources, such as occurred

42 On the Hebrew term “Canaan” regularly referring to different Slavic lands in the Middle Ages, see R.

Jakobson and M. Halle, “The term Canaan in Medieval Hebrew,” For Max Weinreich on his Seventieth Birthday (The Hague 1964) 147–172. For alternative interpretations of כנען יוון in this responsum, see J. Starr, The Jews in the Byzantine Empire (691–1204) (Athens 1939) 192–193; Kupfer and Lewicki, Źródła (n. 8 above) 40–49.

43 Kupfer and Lewicki, Źródła (n. 8 above) 129–136. Heb יוון “Greek” is also widely attested to refer to “Greek Orthodox” in later Jewish sources. As for Heb קיאס, it might refer also to Chios.

44 J. Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature (Cincinnati and Philadelphia 1931–1935) 1.50, lines 44–45. Cf. evidence on East Slavic merchants in Byzantium in A. Vasiliev, “Economic Relations between Byzantium and Old Russia,” Journal of Economic and Business History 4 (1931–1932).

45 A. Marmorstein, “Nouveaux renseignements sur Tobiya ben Eliézer,” Revue des études juives 73 (1921) 92–97, at 95; J. Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatimid Caliphs (Oxford 1920–1922) 2.192.

46 Sefer ha-Dinim by R. Judah ben Meir ha-Kohen, quoted in Or Zarua by R. Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (1, 196); D. Abramovič, D. Tscižewskij, eds., Das Paterikon des Kiever Hoehlenklosters, Slavische Pro-pylaeen 2 (Munich 1964) 16, 106–108.

47 For possible remainders of Judeo-Greek legacy in Eastern Yiddish, see געשיכטע פון דער יידישר , וינרייך' מ)1973ניו יורק (4–1שפראך : 86–87; P. Wexler, Explorations in Judeo-Slavic Linguistics (Leiden 1987) 13–58.

ALEXANDER KULIK 58

with the publication of the Schechter Text in 1912, or the Kievan Letter by Norman Golb and Omeljan Pritsak in 1982.48 Nevertheless, there are other sources that are well known in other research areas but which have not found their way into the accepted corpus of historical evidence for our subjects. This derives from the fact that these texts do not include direct evidence; rather, they conceal within them data about their creators which must be drawn out by means of precise interpretation that necessitates data and tools from diverse fields of research. It occurs that focusing the scholarly debate on certain texts that have been available to researchers for many years can in fact lead to upheavals in the field, to the same extent as might archaeological or paleo-graphic discoveries.

It is my intent to present sources that have not yet been brought up for debate on the subject. I refer to certain East Slavic version of the biblical books from the period in question that are characterized by two seemingly contradictory attributes. On the one hand, it could be stated with certainty that they were translated from Greek, but on the other hand, the translations possess a decidedly Jewish character.

As we will see below, there is no doubt that the sources of these translations are Jewish-Greek texts. It is very reasonable to assume that they were directly conveyed to Slavic translators by the Greek-speaking Jews,49 as it is difficult to explain this unique phenomenon through Christian Greek mediation because: (a) these sources were not found among Christian Greek books, (b) they also had a common and accepted sub-stitute in the Christian tradition. Thus, there is very low probability of the existence of all the conditions required for this sort of mediation—from the transfer of texts of Jewish character to Christian Byzantine libraries, to the transfer of the same texts to Rus’.50

Use of Greek in the written culture of the Jews of Byzantium, both in the Hebrew and Greek alphabets, is well known.51 Furthermore, one can cite unique phenomena in the Judeo-Greek tradition that parallel those reflected in our East Slavic texts.

One of the texts that may indicate a connection between the Byzantine Jewish tra-dition and the nascent East Slavic literature—the oldest extant Slavic Book of Esther, which remained the only Slavic version of Esther until the fifteenth century. The book was preserved in East Slavic manuscripts dated from the fourteenth century onwards, but the text on which they are based can be related to an earlier period.52

48 Schechter, “Unknown” (n. 24 above); Golb and Pritsak, Khazarian (n. 17 above). 49 Most probably Jews simply transmitted the manuscripts; it is less probable that the Jews translated the

texts themselves. 50 We have to presume that the Byzantine influence in Rus’ was normally brought by official routs. We

also do not know much about Judeo-Christian groups in Byzantium; see, e.g., S. Pines and Sh. Shaked, “Fragment of a Jewish-Christian Composition from the Cairo Geniza,” ed. Moshe Sharon, Studies of Islamic History and Civilization in Honour of Prof. D. Ayalon (Jerusalem and Leiden 1968) 307–318.

51 See V. Calorni, “L’Uso del greco nella liturgia del Giudaismo ellenistico e la Novella 146 di Giusti-niano” (estratto dagli Annali di Storia del Diritto VIII) (Milan 1964) 29–38; A. Sharf, Byzantine Jewry (from Justinian to the Forth Crusade) (London 1971) 178–181; על יהודים והלשון היוונית,שם ויפת', 'דה לאנג' נ ,'

20–5) 1989\ט"תשמ(ח "פעמים ל ; S. B. Bowman, The Jews of Byzantium (1204–1453) (Alabama 1985) 164–168; N. R. De Lange, “Hebrews, Greeks or Roman? Jewish Culture and Identity in Byzantium,” Strangers to Themselves: The Byzantine Outsider, ed. D. C. Smythe (Aldershot 2000) 105–118; idem, Greek Jewish Texts from Cairo Genizah (Tübingen 1996).

52 For the modern scholarship, see N. A. Mescerskij, “Izdanie teksta drevnerusskogo perevoda Knigi Es-fir’, Dissertationes Slavicae 13, Acta Universitatis Szegediensis de Attila Jozsef Nominatae (Szeged 1978)

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’ 59

The question whether the first Slavic Esther (SE) was translated from a Hebrew or Greek Vorlage has been a subject of scholarly controversy for almost a century. The obvious closeness of the SE to the Massoretic text (MT) rather than to the quite differ-ent text of the Septuagint naturally leads one to conclude that the SE is translated di-rectly from the Hebrew. It requires persuasive argumentation, therefore, to posit that the SE is a translation of a Greek text (as are most Slavic literary documents of that period), for in this case the hypothetical Greek Vorlage has not survived.

Horace Lunt and Moshe Taube have assembled convincing arguments in favor of the latter hypothesis.53 Here I intend to add arguments demonstrating that by hypothe-sizing a lost Greek translation as a mediator between the MT and the SE we can solve some problems in interpreting the Slavic text while also explaining its correspondence to the MT.54 Thus, for example, lectio difficilior in 1.20 could be solved: Hebrew וכל-

נשים יתנו יקר לבעליהםה “all the wives will give honor to their husbands” was translated as i vsĕ ženy vŭzložatŭ sramotu na muži svoi “all the wives will put shame on their husbands.” It is obvious that the correspondence of the Slavic sramota “shame” to the Hebrew יקר “honor” results from a misinterpretation the polysemantic (enantosemic) Greek e)ntroph/ “honor, respect” and also “shame” which, as a rule, is translated as sramota in other Slavic sources.55 Perhaps, a construction like e)ntroph/ a)pone/mein appeared here; cf., e.g., pa~san e)ntroph\n au)tw~ a)pone/mein “to give him all the honor” (Ignatius Antiochenus, Epistola ad Magnesianos 3, 1). It is noteworthy that in the Septuagint and the New Testament this word is used only in the meaning selected by the Slavic translator.56 The correspondence of the MT and the SE in 1.6 is no less enigmatic. The Hebrew חור is translated by the Slavic bobrъ “beaver.” According to the most of ancient and medieval sources, חור, like תכלת and ארגמן that follow it, means the name of a color: according to the Babylonian Talmud white, לבנה (bMegillah 112a). Jerome translates it as “sky blue,” aerii coloris. The late midrash Esther Rabba (12th c.) preserves an evidence on Aquila’s lost translation of the verse: “Aqula trans-lated it as איירינון [Gk ei)rinou~n or ei)rineon “woolen”] … and R. Bibi said: טיינון [= Gk i)a/ntinon “violet-colored”]” (EstherR 1, 7). 57 The solution is in the fact ;יאנטינוןthat the Greek kasto/rion, most widely known as “beaver,” could be also interpreted as ei)/doj ba/fhj a)po\ th/j kogxu/lhj" “the kind of dye [made] from a mollusk.”58 For a rare Hebrew word (used in the MT only twice) the translator chose the very rare Greek

131–64; Altbauer and Taube, “Slavonic” (n. 10 above); Alekseev, “Perevody” (n. 10 above); Lunt, Taube, “Early” (n. 10 above); H. Lunt and M. Taube, The Slavonic Book of Esther: Text, Lexicon, Linguistic Analy-sis, Problems of Translation (Cambridge MA 1998); I. Lysén, Kniga Esfir’: k istorii pervogo slavjanskogo perevoda (Uppsala 2001).

53 The idea was first proposed by A. Sobolevskij, Perevodnaja literatura Moskovskoj Rusi XIV–XVII ve-kov (= Sbornik Otdelenija russkogo jazyka I slovestnosti Imperatorskoj akademii nauk 74) (St. Petersburg 1903).

54 Some of them were published in Russian in my article “O nesokhranivshejsja grecheskoj knige Es-firi,” Slavianovedenie 2 (1995) 76–79.

55 Fr. Miklosich, Lexicon Paleoslavenico-Graeco-Latinum (Wien 1862–1865); I. I. Sreznevskij, Materi-aly dlja slovarja drevne-russkogo jazyka (St. Petersburg 1893–1903).

56 E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Graz 1975); W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the Greek Testament (Edin-burgh 1963).

ביבי אמר טיינון' חור כרפס ותכלת תרגם עקילס איירינון קרפסינון ור 57 . 58 G. Bernardy, ed., Suidae Lexicon (Halle 1834–1853).

ALEXANDER KULIK 60

one. The Slavic Esther preserves evidence not only about linguistic features of the origi-

nal, but also about the cultural circumstances of its creation and functioning. The hy-pothesis about the Judaic character of the Greek translation based on the general cul-tural historical considerations proposed in the works of Moshe Altbauer, Horace G. Lunt and Moshe Taube 59 can be confirmed by the following corroborations.

Cf. MT and SE in 9.16–17:

ושאר היהודים אשר במדינות המלך נקהלו ועמד נפשם ונוח מאיביהם והרוג בשנאיהם חמישה-על

- ביום:ידם-ושבעים אלף ובביזה לא שלחו את שלושה עשר לחדש אדר ונוח בארבעה עשר בו

ועשה אתו יום משתה ושמחה And the other Jews who were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, and stood up for themselves, and had rest from their enemies, and slew seventy-five thousand of their foes, but they did not lay their hands on the plun-der on the thirteenth day of the month Adar; and on the fourteenth day of the same month they rested, and made it a day of feasting and joy.

~ úú

[ ] ~ ~

~ ~ ~~

~ And the other Jews who were in the king’s lands gathered themselves together, and stood up for themselves and slew seventy-five thousand of their foes, but they did not lay their hands on the plunder. On the thirteenth day of the month Adar they fasted [called March],60 and on the four-teenth day they rested and made it a day of feasting and joy.

The beginning of the verse 9.17—in the original a continuation of the previous verse—was modified by the translator or later editor (see the placing of the gloss re-komago Marta), and it was added that the Jews fasted on the thirteenth of Adar. The fast of the thirteenth of Adar, the “Fast of Esther,” was first mentioned in the eighth century in the homiletic collection Sheiltot by R. Ahai Gaon, and the date of the fast there is linked to the same verses 9.16–17:

Everybody fasts on the thirteenth of Adar, as Rav Shemuel son of Rav Yitshak said: The thirteenth is a time of gathering for all, because it is said: “And the other Jews who were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together, and stood up for themselves ... on the thirteenth day of the month Adar” [Esther 9.16–17]. What does “gathering” mean here? The day of the fast.61

For terminus a quo of the lost Greek text it is important to note that until the second century the thirteenth of Adar was celebrated as the Day of Nicanor and fasting was prohibited (see 2 Macc. 15.36; Josephus, Ant. 12.402–405; Megillat Taanit 346;

59 Altbauer and Taube, “Slavonic” (n. 10 above); Lunt and Taube, “Early” (n. 10 above); id., Slavonic

(n. 52 above). 60 The gloss was misplaced. 222) 1964\ד"ירושלים תשכ(, ג, שאילתות דרב אחאי גאון, )עורך(מירסקי ' שלמה ק 61 .

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’ 61

bTaanit 18b; Massekhet Sofrim 17, 3). Compare Hebrew and Slavic texts also in 9.21:

לקים עליהם להיות עושים את יום ארבעה עשר לחדש חחמישה עשר בו בכל שנה ושנהאדר ואת יום

to enjoin upon them that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar and the fifteenth day of the same month year by year

~

~ to enjoin upon them that they should keep the fourteenth days year by year

In the legislative section of the book, the Mordechai letter, which establishes the Pu-rim celebration on the fourteenth and 15th of Adar, the fifteenth is omitted. The over-whelming majority of Jewish communities celebrate Purim only on the fourteenth. Only “in the cities which have been walled since the days of Joshua son of Nun [the Scroll of Esther] is read on the fifteenth” (mMegillah 11, 1).

Thus, in both cases there is a well-observed tendency to introduce legislative mate-rial into the text of the translation that probably had a liturgical function, and was in-tended to acquaint the congregation with the holiday’s laws. Such interpolations of traditional commentary in the texts of Targums were typical for Jewish translation practice (cf., e. g., TargOnq for Gen 9.6; Ex 12.46; 23.7; 23.19; 34.26; Deut. 14.21).

Since the Jewish character of the translation can be determined convincingly, bas-ing on this, one more argument in favor of its Greek origin can be offered. See bMe-gillah 17a–18a:

Mishna: ... if one reads it [The Scroll of Esther; this refers to the obligation of liturgical reading in Purim] in a translation in any language, he has not performed his obligation. It may, however, be read to those who do not understand Hebrew in a language other than He-brew <...> Gemarra: ... If one reads it in a translation he has not performed his obligation. How are we to understand this? Are we to suppose that it is written in Hebrew and he reads it a translation? This is the same as reading by heart. But it is required for the case when it is written in a translation and he reads it in a translation. It may, however, be read to those who do not speak Hebrew in a language other than Hebrew. But you have just said, if one reads it in any language he has not performed his obligation? Rav and Shemuel both answered that what it referred to here is Greek vernacular.62

The use of non-Greek translations of Esther for liturgical purposes became the subject of discussion in Talmud and post-Talmudic literature. One cannot, therefore, contend that a Judeo-Slavic Targum of Esther would be impossible or liturgically useless (all the more so since we are acquainted with such a translation in later period as a part of the Codex Vilensis).63 On the other hand, the special status of the Greek language in Jewish liturgical law must be taken into account. A Judeo-Greek Targum is more probable and legally less problematic. At least two Greek biblical translations written in the Greek writing system were made by Jews: that of Aquila (2nd c.) and Graecus

62 The translation is from The Babylonian Talmud, ed. Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein (London 1938). 63 See M. Altbauer, The Five Biblical Scrolls in a Sixteenth Century Jewish Translation into Belorussian

(Vilnius Codex 262) (Jerusalem 1992). Perhaps, however, this late translation was made for Christians and therefore was not used liturgically by Jews.

ALEXANDER KULIK 62

Venetus (14th c.).64 The supposed Greek source of the Slavic Esther is not included in any of these only partly surviving collections (although Aquila’s Esther is cited in Esther Rabba 1, 6; see above). However, the use of Greek Targums of Esther for Pu-rim liturgical readings is attested in the sixteenth century in the book of responsa by R. Eliyahu ben Hayim Mizrahi (Mayim Amuqim 79), who objects to this custom:65

I was asked about the custom accepted in a few communities in the days of Purim… on the 15th [of Adar] they do not read the Scroll [of Esther] in the holy language, but in their [prayer] circles [they do it] in Greek … They read this [Greek] Scroll including questions and explanations for the holiday… Those who established this custom probably read it in two languages, the holy language and Greek. [They did it] also in order to make the miracle [of Purim] and all the story of its magnitude known to all, great and humble, men, women, and children. And after a long period of time they began to think that the reading in Greek is more important, and did not care for the reading in the holy language … They were used to read in two languages, and their successors thought that not [the reading] in the holy lan-guage is obligatory, but [the reading] in Greek … I was told that they searched for their old prayer books, and they found written about this Scroll [of Esther] in Greek, that when the second day [of Purim] falls on Saturday, they read this Scroll, and some read it even [when the second day of Purim falls] on weekdays.

Notice that halachic interpolations are mentioned also in this responsum. Apparently, the Book of Esther was not the only text that made its way into the

East Slavic book collections from the Byzantine Jews. The East Slavic Pentateuch probably shared the same fate. As in the instance of the Book of Esther, here, too, we deal with the textual form that is unique to the Jewish tradition, as well as with fea-tures that indicate use of the text by Jews.66

The textual form of the Pentateuch (the manuscript that includes only the five books of the Torah) is unique to the East Slavic tradition among all of the Christian traditions of Europe (and in the east, it is found only in Syriac manuscripts). The phe-nomenon is unknown in the Greek, or in the southern Slavic tradition, for in these tra-ditions books of the Torah were included, without exception, in the broader form of eight historic books (Octateuch). Another unique phenomenon that characterizes the East Slavic Pentateuch is the division into chapters that are identical to the single-year (“Babylonian” and accepted in all Jewish communities since the Middle Ages) reading cycle sections found in the Jewish Pentateuch (parshiyot).67 Since this division has been discovered in the majority of the manuscripts that have been preserved, it cannot

64 O. Gebhard, Graecus Venetus (Leipzig 1875). 65 Mentioned in A. Galante, Les Juifs de Constantinopol sous Byzance (Istanbul 1940) 39; Lunt and

Taube, Slavonic (n. 52 above) 4. 66 The textual history of the Slavic Pentateuch is underinvestigated, especially in comparison to the

Slavic Esther (with its four commented critical editions). Thus, any hypothesis concerning the Slavic Pen-tateuch would be preliminary by definition. However, we cannot ignore its striking and obvious distinctions from any known Christian tradition.

67 Thus, e.g., seventeen of twenty manuscripts of the East Slavic Book of Genesis known to Michailov are divided to parshiyot. The division is even preserved in the first Slavic complete Bible of Gennadi of 1499. See A. V. Mikhajlov, Opyt izuchenija teksta knigi Bytija proroka Moiseja v drevneslavjanskom pe-revode (Varshava 1912) xxi–lxxxvii; R. Mathiesen, “The Typology of Cyrillic Manuscrips (East Slavic vs. South Slavic Old Testament Manuscripts),” American Contributions to the Ninth International Congress of Slavists I (Colombus, OH 1983) 193–202; A. Alexeev, Tekstologija slavjanskoj Biblii, Bausteine zur sla-vischen Philologie und Kulturgeschichte: Slavistische Forschungen XXIV (St. Petersburg 1999) 182–183.

JUDEO-GREEK LEGACY IN MEDIEVAL RUS’ 63

be explained by a later elaboration.68 Nevertheless, the language of translation without a doubt indicates that the East Slavic Pentateuch was translated from Greek. However, unlike the Book of Esther, the text of the Pentateuch is compatible with the text of the Septuagint and not with any later extant or hypothetical Judeo-Greek translation.

“It was checked, and it was found that the Scripture cannot be translated properly [into any language] except into Greek,” and a preference is rendered by the Rabbis for the Aquila’s translation (jMegillah 1, 71, 3). In the Middle Ages, the Jews composed new Greek translations and apparently preferred them over the Septuagint, for various reasons: due to its being used by the Church, its differences from the Massoretic text, and its antiquated language. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that the continued use of the Septuagint by the Jews did not entirely cease during the Middle Ages. Evidence of this may be found in Byzantine legislation that relates to Jews. Intervening in a dispute among the Jews, Justinian ordered and offered the support of his throne in favor of the custom of conducting a liturgical reading of the Greek translation (Novella 146: PERI EBRAIWN). He also recommended using the Septuagint, although he did not forbid Aquila’s translation:

Learning that they disagree among themselves, we have not permitted this disagreement to continue without a ruling on our part. From their own complaints which have been brought to us, we have understood that some only speak Hebrew, and wish to use it for the sacred books, and others think that a Greek translation should be added, and that they have been disputing about this for a long time. Being apprised of the matter at issue, we give judgment in favor of those who wish to use Greek also for the reading of the sacred scriptures, or any other tongue which in any district allows the hearers better to understand the text. We there-fore sanction that, wherever there is a Hebrew congregation, those who wish it may, in their synagogues, read the sacred books to those who are present in Greek, or even Latin, or any other tongue … We make this proviso that those who use Greek shall use the text of the Septuagint … This therefore they shall primarily use, but that we may not seem to be forbid-ding all other texts we allow the use of that of Aquila, though he was not of their people, and his translation differs not slightly from that of the Septuagint.69

In the late ninth century, this legislation was renewed in Basilica; whether it was ap-plied or not, this act may provide an indication of the existence of the phenomenon.70

CONCLUSIONS

It is now difficult to reconstruct the exact circumstances that led to the transmission of the Judeo-Greek Vorlagen of biblical texts to Slavic scribes. It may be assumed that contact with the Jews—the local representatives of Byzantine culture—and access to their book collections, was at a certain stage more readily available than was contact with distant Constantinople. This assumption would enable us to raise the question about the existence of a “Jewish channel” in the cultural interference in the framework of the Byzantine Kulturbereich, and specifically of Byzantine influence in Rus’ in the earliest stage of its cultural development. It should also be considered that traces of

68 Cf. F. J. Thomson, “The Slavonic Translation of the Old Testament,” Interpretation of the Bible (Ljubljana and Sheffield 1998) 607–881, at 653.

69 R. Schoel and W. Kroll, eds., Iustiniani Novellae, Corpus Iuris Civilis III (Berlin 1904) 714–717; cf. Starr, Jews (n. 42 above) 145; Calorni, “L’Uso” (n. 51 above).

70 See Starr, Jews (n. 42 above) 145.

ALEXANDER KULIK 64

evidence of cooperation of this sort along the margins of the Byzantine cultural realm, can, in certain contexts, also shed light on the reality that is at its center.

Similar instances of Jewish-Christian cultural partnership, as reflected also in translation activity (from Hebrew), have been documented in Rus’ from at least the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.71 It is now clear that some of these instances were carried out by proponents of the movement of Judaizers in the State of Moscow, who apparently maintained ideological and cultural contacts with the Jews of Lithuanian Rus’.72 The question of whether the material introduced above may be linked to the scant evidence on Jewish-Christian groups in Byzantium, on the one hand, and/or with Jewish-Christian contacts in Rus’ at a later period, on the other hand, requires addi-tional study.

Russian and Slavic Studies The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 91905 Mount Scopus Jerusalem, Israel

71 Alekseev, “Perevody” (n. 10 above); Lunt and Taube, “Early” (n. 10 above); Taube, “O genezise” (n.

10 above); id., “On some” (n. 10 above); id., “On the Slavic” (n. 10 above); id., “The Fifteenth-Century” (n. 10 above); id., “Which Hebrew” (n. 10 above).

72 See Taube, “The Fifteenth-Century” (n. 10 above). Some might also have Byzantine connections, most probably through the Crimean communities; see S. Cinberg, “Avraam Krymskii i Moisei Kievskii,” Evreiskaia starina 11 (1924) 93–109; Taube, “Which Hebrew” (n. 10 above) 48–50.