Books by Roni Shweka
Yaacov Sussmann, Thesaurus of Talmudic Manuscripts, in collaboration with Yoav Rosenthal and Aharon Shweka, 2012
Thesis by Roni Shweka
Papers by Roni Shweka
Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology, 2023
LISROP (Land of Israel Study and Research Online Platform) is an online, bilingual, English-Hebre... more LISROP (Land of Israel Study and Research Online Platform) is an online, bilingual, English-Hebrew, integrative platform (under construction) aiming to allow scholars and interested non-academics to review a vast amount of archaeological and historical data from the land of Israel, explore it and dissect in various ways, and then analyze it using sophisticated GIS tools, some of which were specifically developed for the platform. The platform can be used for various types of studies and can be expanded thematically and spatially beyond its current limits by incorporating additional databases and applications and providing information on nature, culture, and heritage, furthering study and research into these areas. The paper briefly presents the project's background, history, development, and current aims. It then describes the platform and its components, including the geographical foundations on which the data is studied, the archaeological and historical data it incorporates, and the various GIS components it includes. The paper then outlines the platform's potential, capacity to advance research on several levels, and expected relevance for non-academics. Toward the end, the paper briefly describes some of the major challenges we encountered in our work and potential avenues for expanding the platform.
חידושים בחקר תולדות יהודי גרמניה ומרכז אירופה, 2023
Hebrew and Aramaic in the Middle Ages - Language Studies and Grammatical Thought, edited by Bar-Asher Siegal Elitzur and Doron Ya'akov, 2020
הספר עם ה דבר פתח ט כלליים היבטים ממן אהרן הביניים בימי הלשון חוכמת ... more הספר עם ה דבר פתח ט כלליים היבטים ממן אהרן הביניים בימי הלשון חוכמת ואת העברית את לחקור 3 א' אליצור סיגל בר-אשר הזוהר של הארמית הביניים: בימי יהודיות ספרות לשונות מבחן כמקרה 19 הביניים ימי ספרות בלשון מאפיינים אוירבך ברק יהודה ר' של והמתורגמים המקוריים בכתביו ערביזמים אבן-תיבון 67 אלדר אילן בתקופת העברית הספרות במרכזי המקרא לשון של תחיות הביניים 91 פרנצ'סקה גורגוני ואוצר לאריסטו השיר ספר ביאור לעברית: מערבית הביניים ימי של בעברית לאריסטו הפואטיקה של המילים 103 גרנט יהושע הרשות בפיוטי לארמית עברית בין רשותכון": "אסב הקדומים 121 ורטנברג אילנה השנה לוח על בחיבורים המתמטית בעברית לשון חידושי הביניים בימי העברי 153 יעקב דורון אנליזה העתקותיו: ובלשון הרמב"ם בלשון תורה משנה הביניים מימי חיבור של 163 ְג ְֶרנ ּפ שין-ג'י מאוחרת יהודית בארמית בניינים חילופי 187 ריז'יק מיכאל אחימעץ במגילת הפועל מערכת 220 שוה אריאל מימי מחברים של לשון חידושי בזיהוי הקשיים על כמבחן רש"י הביניים: 238 שויקה אהרן הבבלי התלמוד ללשון הגאונים לשון בין 256 הביניים בימי הלשון חוכמת געש אמיר גאון: סעדיה רבי על לברט בן הלוי דונש תשובות ספר הערבית? מן תרגום או במקורו עברי חיבור 289 ותד עלי אלליין) (אלסאכן הנעלם הנח מושג של מחודשת בחינה מארות' בן אברהם יצחק אבי של המסלול בספר 300 וידרו נדיה שיטת הקראית: הדקדוקית במסורת עבריים פעלים מיון הסימנים 314 חן אלנתן יהודה ר' תורת את ומשכלל כמפתח ג'נאח אבן יונה ר' ליישומם וכלים עקרונות חיוג': 327 כאן ג'פרי המקראי הטקסט של הנכונה הקריאה להבטחת מנהגים הביניים מימי קראיים בתעתיקים המשתקפים 356 כהן א' חיים למדקדקי הביניים ימי מדקדקי בין רדומים": "מקיץ באשכנז התפילה 372 פטרובר ליאורה ג'נאח ואבן חיוג' של תורתם כמנחיל רד"ק 386 קוגל יהודית ומדוע? מי היכן, מתי, -שרשים" ִצור "ק 393 256
על יד יחיאל: קובץ מחקרים ומאמרים מוגש ליחיאל קארה, 2018
Sidra, 2017
The Babylonian she’ilta composed during the geonic period consisted of four units: a mitzvah or a... more The Babylonian she’ilta composed during the geonic period consisted of four units: a mitzvah or a halakhic subject related to the weekly Torah portion; a halakhic problem that arose in that context; an aggadic or halakhic homily introduced by a fixed formula; the resolution of the problem, introduced by a fixed formula. Yet the homily is missing in almost all of the she’iltot in She’iltot d’Rav Achai, both in the printed editions and in many manuscripts. The accepted scholarly view is that the original form of these she’iltot was preserved only in Geniza fragments of the book, which generally contain the complete homilies, while various explanations have been proposed to explain the omission of the homilies in the European manuscripts. In “She’iltot d’Rav Achai and the Early Babylonian Homily”, Aaron Shweka re-examines the manuscripts and surveys all of the Geniza fragments, and finds the accepted view to be imprecise. In fact, about a dozen she’iltot in the book include full homilies, in their original place between the problem and its resolution, in all the textual witnesses. On the other hand, the Geniza fragments of the book do not include any additional she’iltot that include the homily in its place. The Geniza homilies that have been published are from two sources: the Antonin fragment with six she’iltot in their proper place, and one thirteenth century fragment with the homilies at the end of each she’ilta. Shweka found that the twelve she’iltot that include the homilies are not original in the book, but rather are a unit that was added at a later stage from a different source similar to the Antonin fragment. In one Geniza fragment these she’iltot are attributed to Rav (Amram b.?) Sheshna Gaon. They were added in original form, with the homilies in their proper place. However, the original edition of She’iltot d’Rav Achai was transmitted by the editor without the homilies. First Shweka presents his textual findings and his analysis of the editing of the book. Then he explains the omission of the homilies by the editor by reconstructing the living implementation of the she’ilta. The homily was not said by the sage who delivered the she’ilta, but rather by his meturgeman. Shweka examines this in detail. He shows that placing a meturgeman next to the sage when he was teaching indicated that the halakhot he was teaching were not merely theoretical, but were to be applied in practice. What the meturgeman said on his own, however, was only theoretical knowledge, and did not carry the weight of authority to make it legitimate practice. Thus the editor left the homilies out of the she’iltot in the original book so as not to lend them practical authority. The few homilies that remained in the book that were not from some other source were aggadic, without practical ramification. Shweka traces changes in the conveyance of practical halakhah and theoretical halakhic discussions over the course of several centuries.
Sefunot, 2017
At the beginning of the 13th century there were two communities in
Jerusalem which were establish... more At the beginning of the 13th century there were two communities in
Jerusalem which were established after the city was conquered by Salah
al-Din in 1191: the Ashkelonite community and the Maghrebi community.
Beginning in 1210, a wave of pilgrims – known as the Emigration of
the Rabbis – arrived from France and England. Relations between the
various communities were very tense, as testified by Yehuda Alharizi,
who visited Jerusalem in 1214.
From letters of R. Yehiel the Frenchman to Fustat, we learn about
a heated debate that took place in Jerusalem at the time. Because the
Jews were not allowed to immerse themselves in the Shiloah spring, a
campaign was held in Egypt to build a new mikveh, and a large sum was
collected and sent to the community in Jerusalem for this purpose. But
R. Yehiel, the leader of the community, objected to the construction of
a new mikveh, preferring that the women of the community immerse
in a private mikveh in his home – according to him, this would enable
his wife to supervise the women’s immersion. R. Yehiel appealed to the
local judge in Fustat, asking permission to change the the donation’s
destination. However, members of the local community were not
satisfied with this arrangement, and tried to build a new mikveh. The ensuing dispute split the community, until R. Yehiel and his group
were forced to leave the synagogue. The two groups did not hesitate to
involve the Muslim ruler in the conflict, which led to the arrest of some
members of the community. The controversy spilled over into an interethnic struggle, with tensions caused by changes based on the French halachic tradition instituted by R. Yehiel.
Until now, we knew of this story from two pages published almost a
century ago. With the discovery of five additional pages, we now have a
full description of this episode from the history of Jerusalem in the early
13th century.
Sidra, 2015
In “Was the Torah Given ‘One Scroll at a Time’ or ‘Sealed’?”, Aaron Shweka argues that this dispu... more In “Was the Torah Given ‘One Scroll at a Time’ or ‘Sealed’?”, Aaron Shweka argues that this dispute, in its Land of Israel origin, was, indeed, specifically about the giving of the Torah at Sinai, and not about its writing down by Moses. Resh Lakish held that the Torah was already given in its totality to Moses at Mount Sinai, but it was given to him as a “sealed” Torah, that is, closed and hidden. This sealed Torah was then explained to Moses in the Tent of Meeting over the course of forty years. This understanding of Resh Lakish’s statement is supported by other statements of his, and is expressed explicitly in an early Land of Israel piyyut. By way of contrast, R. Yochanan held that the Torah was given as an open Torah, not sealed. It also follows from this that the Torah was not given completely at Sinai, but only one scroll at a time, that is, each section as it occurred. Another dispute of these amoraim can be explained in light of this one, namely, was the Torah scroll that Moses wrote at the end of the fortieth year placed at the side of the Ark of the Covenant or inside it (Yerushalmi Shekalim 49d). The positions of Resh Lakish on these two disputes point to a single perception of the Torah as having been given in two copies, one sealed and one open, similar to the paired contracts that it was the practice to write in the ancient Near East. This unique perception concerning the revelation at Mount Sinai has additional implications and significances, inter alia: a) the relationship between Resh Lakish’s sealed Torah and the perception of the ancient Torah as it appears in rabbinic literature, and b) the clearly mystical dimension of Resh Lakish’s statements about the giving of the Torah, which had a deep influence on the medieval esoteric perception of the Torah.
Tarbiz, 2013
This article deals with the derasha of R. Simeon b. Lakish in tractate Berakhot (5a) on the verse... more This article deals with the derasha of R. Simeon b. Lakish in tractate Berakhot (5a) on the verse: ‘And I will give thee the tablets of stone, and the law and the commandment, which I have written that thou mayest teach them’ (Ex. 24:12). Resh Lakish reads the verse as incorporating in it the whole Written Bible, including Prophets and Hagiographa, as well as the Oral Torah, i.e. Mishna and Talmud – everything was given to Moses on Sinai. In variant readings of the derasha, the basis of the Mishna is either ‘the commandment’ as in the printed editions, or ‘the law’ as in the manuscripts. I argue that the variant found in the printed editions was created as a result of the Rabbinic–Karaite polemic during the geonic period. This variant integrates another ancient derasha preserved in the Scholia of Megillat Taʿanit, which identifies the word ‘Mitzva’ with the Oral Torah. I trace other instances of this derasha from the Tanaitic and the geonic periods, until it was fixed in the opening sentence of Maimonides’ introduction to Mishne Torah. His version became the dominant one from the thirteenth century until it was canonized in the printed editions of the Talmud. The last section of the article deals with the variant ‘“Tablets of stone”: these are the Ten Commandments’ as presented in the printed edition, versus the reading ‘this is the Pentateuch’ found in the manuscripts. Identification of the tablets with the whole Torah corresponds with other sayings of Resh Lakish, which convey his original theory on the Torah given on Sinai.
Revue des Études Juives, 2013
A previously unknown small collection of twelve fragments of medieval Hebrew manuscripts has rece... more A previously unknown small collection of twelve fragments of medieval Hebrew manuscripts has recently come to light in the Bibliotheque Nationale de France. These fragments originate from the Cairo Genizah. Two of them contain an early version of the Talmud Yerushalmi. BNF Hebr. 1489 (1) contains one folio from the tractate Mo‘ed Qa†an and BNF Hebr. 1489 (9), one folio from the tractate So†ah. Both manuscripts are palimpsests written on recycled non Jewish manuscripts in Christian Palestinian Aramaic. In both cases, the folios belong to codices whose other parts have been discovered among other Cairo Genizah collections, respectively in the Bodleian Library in Oxford and the Cambridge University Library. The palaeographical analysis of the fragments suggests that they are among the earliest known witnesses to the Talmud Yerushalmi text. The edition proposed in this paper shows some early reading variants.
Tarbiz, 1998
The Marriage Statute (Taqqanat ha-Nissu’in) of Toledo is one of several similar Takkanot in effec... more The Marriage Statute (Taqqanat ha-Nissu’in) of Toledo is one of several similar Takkanot in effect in Spain in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries that were meant to regulate the inheritance rights of a married couple at the death of the husband or of his wife. In one of its sections the statute deals with the case of a childless couple when the wife dies during her husband’s life time. In that case the statute stipulates that the inheritance should be split between the husband and his wife’s heirs, thus contradicting the Talmudic law according to which the husband has sole rights of inheritance of his wife’s estate.
Around 1320, a polemical controversy arose in Toledo between Rabbenu Asher (HaRosh) and R. Israel, a local scholar, as to the correct interpretation of that section of the statute. The issue at hand was whether the wife can indeed will her half of the inheritance to whomsoever she wishes, including to her husband. The Rosh’s opinion was that the statute gives the wife no such rights of will, while R. Israel argued forcefully that it did. In his arguments R. Israel mentioned the prevalent local custom in Toledo as well as previous interpretations of the statute by the Rabbis of Toledo. He also relied on the language of the original Arabic version of the statute and did not abstain from using philosophical arguments as well.
The paper explores the unfolding of this entire controversy and retraces the chronology of its events. The Rosh’s ruling that began it all has reached us in two different and contradictory versions. The paper argues in favor of one of them, which is documented in some manuscripts, over the one commonly found in print, and this preference leads to a new understanding of the objective of the assembly of the community council (ţove ha-ir) that was initiated by HaRosh following the large public interest that was caused by his ruling. The paper also analyses the five letters that were exchanged between HaRosh and R. Israel during that episode. The fourth chapter of the paper deals with an ancient interpretation of the statute which has been preserved in a recently published manuscript. The reconstruction of the original manuscript text reveals that the question debated in 1320 was in fact under discussion in Toledo already as early as the beginning of the second half of the thirteenth century, shortly after the statute had been enacted, and that it was indeed decided then in the same manner as it was later decided by HaRosh. It is clear therefore that, contrary to what one may have assumed, R. Israel does not represent in this dispute the original position of the Toledo Rabbis, but only the local custom as it had prevailed in Toledo since the end of the thirteenth century. The fact that the original interpretation of this statute by the Toledo Rabbis was unknown to HaRosh himself and did not surface either at the time of this debate or before it, is indicative of the poor state of the Toledo Rabbinical courts in the second half of the thirteenth century.
The appendix (co-authored together with S. Hopkins) presents the document that contains the statute in its original Arabic version and its ancient interpretation (as reconstructed in its original order), as well as its Hebrew translation, with annotations to the various Hebrew versions that have reached us, both in print and in manuscript.
Digital Humanities by Roni Shweka
Jerusalem Journal of Archaeology, 2023
LISROP (Land of Israel Study and Research Online Platform) is an online, bilingual, English-Hebre... more LISROP (Land of Israel Study and Research Online Platform) is an online, bilingual, English-Hebrew, integrative platform (under construction) aiming to allow scholars and interested non-academics to review a vast amount of archaeological and historical data from the land of Israel, explore it and dissect in various ways, and then analyze it using sophisticated GIS tools, some of which were specifically developed for the platform. The platform can be used for various types of studies and can be expanded thematically and spatially beyond its current limits by incorporating additional databases and applications and providing information on nature, culture, and heritage, furthering study and research into these areas. The paper briefly presents the project's background, history, development, and current aims. It then describes the platform and its components, including the geographical foundations on which the data is studied, the archaeological and historical data it incorporates, and the various GIS components it includes. The paper then outlines the platform's potential, capacity to advance research on several levels, and expected relevance for non-academics. Toward the end, the paper briefly describes some of the major challenges we encountered in our work and potential avenues for expanding the platform.
Frontiers in Digital Humanities , 2016
We present a tool for re-ranking the results of a specific query by considering the matrix of pai... more We present a tool for re-ranking the results of a specific query by considering the matrix of pairwise similarities among the elements of the set of retrieved results and the query itself. The re-ranking, thus, makes use of the similarities between the various results and does not employ additional sources of information. The tool is based on graphical Bayesian models, which reinforce retrieved items strongly linked to other retrievals, and on repeated clustering to measure the stability of the obtained associations. To this, we add an active relevance-based re-ranking process in order to leverage true matches, which have very low similarity to the query. The utility of the tool is demonstrated within the context of a visual search of documents from the Cairo Genizah. It is also demonstrated in a completely different domain or retrieving, given an input image of a painting, other related paintings.
IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2014
We present a tool for re-ranking the results of a specific query by considering the (n+1)×(n+1) m... more We present a tool for re-ranking the results of a specific query by considering the (n+1)×(n+1) matrix of pairwise similarities among the elements of the set of n retrieved results and the query itself. The re-ranking thus makes use of the similarities between the various results and does not employ additional sources of information. The tool is based on graphical Bayesian models, which reinforce retrieved items strongly linked to other retrievals, and on repeated clustering to measure the stability of the obtained associations. The utility of the tool is demonstrated within the context of visual search of documents from the Cairo Genizah and for retrieval of paintings by the same artist and in the same style.
Uploads
Books by Roni Shweka
Thesis by Roni Shweka
Papers by Roni Shweka
Jerusalem which were established after the city was conquered by Salah
al-Din in 1191: the Ashkelonite community and the Maghrebi community.
Beginning in 1210, a wave of pilgrims – known as the Emigration of
the Rabbis – arrived from France and England. Relations between the
various communities were very tense, as testified by Yehuda Alharizi,
who visited Jerusalem in 1214.
From letters of R. Yehiel the Frenchman to Fustat, we learn about
a heated debate that took place in Jerusalem at the time. Because the
Jews were not allowed to immerse themselves in the Shiloah spring, a
campaign was held in Egypt to build a new mikveh, and a large sum was
collected and sent to the community in Jerusalem for this purpose. But
R. Yehiel, the leader of the community, objected to the construction of
a new mikveh, preferring that the women of the community immerse
in a private mikveh in his home – according to him, this would enable
his wife to supervise the women’s immersion. R. Yehiel appealed to the
local judge in Fustat, asking permission to change the the donation’s
destination. However, members of the local community were not
satisfied with this arrangement, and tried to build a new mikveh. The ensuing dispute split the community, until R. Yehiel and his group
were forced to leave the synagogue. The two groups did not hesitate to
involve the Muslim ruler in the conflict, which led to the arrest of some
members of the community. The controversy spilled over into an interethnic struggle, with tensions caused by changes based on the French halachic tradition instituted by R. Yehiel.
Until now, we knew of this story from two pages published almost a
century ago. With the discovery of five additional pages, we now have a
full description of this episode from the history of Jerusalem in the early
13th century.
Around 1320, a polemical controversy arose in Toledo between Rabbenu Asher (HaRosh) and R. Israel, a local scholar, as to the correct interpretation of that section of the statute. The issue at hand was whether the wife can indeed will her half of the inheritance to whomsoever she wishes, including to her husband. The Rosh’s opinion was that the statute gives the wife no such rights of will, while R. Israel argued forcefully that it did. In his arguments R. Israel mentioned the prevalent local custom in Toledo as well as previous interpretations of the statute by the Rabbis of Toledo. He also relied on the language of the original Arabic version of the statute and did not abstain from using philosophical arguments as well.
The paper explores the unfolding of this entire controversy and retraces the chronology of its events. The Rosh’s ruling that began it all has reached us in two different and contradictory versions. The paper argues in favor of one of them, which is documented in some manuscripts, over the one commonly found in print, and this preference leads to a new understanding of the objective of the assembly of the community council (ţove ha-ir) that was initiated by HaRosh following the large public interest that was caused by his ruling. The paper also analyses the five letters that were exchanged between HaRosh and R. Israel during that episode. The fourth chapter of the paper deals with an ancient interpretation of the statute which has been preserved in a recently published manuscript. The reconstruction of the original manuscript text reveals that the question debated in 1320 was in fact under discussion in Toledo already as early as the beginning of the second half of the thirteenth century, shortly after the statute had been enacted, and that it was indeed decided then in the same manner as it was later decided by HaRosh. It is clear therefore that, contrary to what one may have assumed, R. Israel does not represent in this dispute the original position of the Toledo Rabbis, but only the local custom as it had prevailed in Toledo since the end of the thirteenth century. The fact that the original interpretation of this statute by the Toledo Rabbis was unknown to HaRosh himself and did not surface either at the time of this debate or before it, is indicative of the poor state of the Toledo Rabbinical courts in the second half of the thirteenth century.
The appendix (co-authored together with S. Hopkins) presents the document that contains the statute in its original Arabic version and its ancient interpretation (as reconstructed in its original order), as well as its Hebrew translation, with annotations to the various Hebrew versions that have reached us, both in print and in manuscript.
Digital Humanities by Roni Shweka
Jerusalem which were established after the city was conquered by Salah
al-Din in 1191: the Ashkelonite community and the Maghrebi community.
Beginning in 1210, a wave of pilgrims – known as the Emigration of
the Rabbis – arrived from France and England. Relations between the
various communities were very tense, as testified by Yehuda Alharizi,
who visited Jerusalem in 1214.
From letters of R. Yehiel the Frenchman to Fustat, we learn about
a heated debate that took place in Jerusalem at the time. Because the
Jews were not allowed to immerse themselves in the Shiloah spring, a
campaign was held in Egypt to build a new mikveh, and a large sum was
collected and sent to the community in Jerusalem for this purpose. But
R. Yehiel, the leader of the community, objected to the construction of
a new mikveh, preferring that the women of the community immerse
in a private mikveh in his home – according to him, this would enable
his wife to supervise the women’s immersion. R. Yehiel appealed to the
local judge in Fustat, asking permission to change the the donation’s
destination. However, members of the local community were not
satisfied with this arrangement, and tried to build a new mikveh. The ensuing dispute split the community, until R. Yehiel and his group
were forced to leave the synagogue. The two groups did not hesitate to
involve the Muslim ruler in the conflict, which led to the arrest of some
members of the community. The controversy spilled over into an interethnic struggle, with tensions caused by changes based on the French halachic tradition instituted by R. Yehiel.
Until now, we knew of this story from two pages published almost a
century ago. With the discovery of five additional pages, we now have a
full description of this episode from the history of Jerusalem in the early
13th century.
Around 1320, a polemical controversy arose in Toledo between Rabbenu Asher (HaRosh) and R. Israel, a local scholar, as to the correct interpretation of that section of the statute. The issue at hand was whether the wife can indeed will her half of the inheritance to whomsoever she wishes, including to her husband. The Rosh’s opinion was that the statute gives the wife no such rights of will, while R. Israel argued forcefully that it did. In his arguments R. Israel mentioned the prevalent local custom in Toledo as well as previous interpretations of the statute by the Rabbis of Toledo. He also relied on the language of the original Arabic version of the statute and did not abstain from using philosophical arguments as well.
The paper explores the unfolding of this entire controversy and retraces the chronology of its events. The Rosh’s ruling that began it all has reached us in two different and contradictory versions. The paper argues in favor of one of them, which is documented in some manuscripts, over the one commonly found in print, and this preference leads to a new understanding of the objective of the assembly of the community council (ţove ha-ir) that was initiated by HaRosh following the large public interest that was caused by his ruling. The paper also analyses the five letters that were exchanged between HaRosh and R. Israel during that episode. The fourth chapter of the paper deals with an ancient interpretation of the statute which has been preserved in a recently published manuscript. The reconstruction of the original manuscript text reveals that the question debated in 1320 was in fact under discussion in Toledo already as early as the beginning of the second half of the thirteenth century, shortly after the statute had been enacted, and that it was indeed decided then in the same manner as it was later decided by HaRosh. It is clear therefore that, contrary to what one may have assumed, R. Israel does not represent in this dispute the original position of the Toledo Rabbis, but only the local custom as it had prevailed in Toledo since the end of the thirteenth century. The fact that the original interpretation of this statute by the Toledo Rabbis was unknown to HaRosh himself and did not surface either at the time of this debate or before it, is indicative of the poor state of the Toledo Rabbinical courts in the second half of the thirteenth century.
The appendix (co-authored together with S. Hopkins) presents the document that contains the statute in its original Arabic version and its ancient interpretation (as reconstructed in its original order), as well as its Hebrew translation, with annotations to the various Hebrew versions that have reached us, both in print and in manuscript.