Siam Bhayro

The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the

Cairo Genizah: A New Edition and Analysis
1. Introduction
In his catalogue of medical manuscripts from the Cairo Genizah, Haskell Isaacs
identified a rare leaf containing materia medica written in Aramaic.1 When I first
examined this leaf, my eyes fell upon the following phrase:2

.‫ואף השא או חביבן כתבינן סדרא דתלת עשר דאיתיו מים אתותא‬
And also now, O our beloved, we write the thirteenth chapter, which is the letter mem.

1 Isaacs & Baker 1994, 2.

2 CUL T-S K 14.22, v 5–6.

Note: This is a revised and expanded version of Bhayro 2012. See also Bhayro 2014, which gives a
revised edition of the fragment. Thanks are due to the Syndics of Cambridge University Library for
permission to publish Cambridge University Library, T-S K 14.22. I would also like to thank Dr Phil-
omen Probert and Dr Barbara Zipser for their generous help with the Greek terminology, and Profes-
sor Matthew Morgenstern for a fruitful correspondence regarding Aramaic ordinals. Between my
initial edition and my later revision, helpful comments were made by Professor Stephen Kaufman
and Dr Willem Smelik, as well as by Professor Markham Geller who also invited me to submit this
new edition to the present volume.
I am very happy to acknowledge also the work of Professor Theodore Kwasman on this frag-
ment as well as on the wider issue of plant terminology in Aramaic. Following my initial edition,
Professor Kwasman discussed this fragment at the SFB workshop on ‘Late Antique-Early Byzantine
Pharmacology and its Reception in the Talmudic Tradition’ (December 4–6, 2013), announcing sev-
eral important improvements on my initial edition including the identification of Archigenes. I
would also like to acknowledge Professor Gerrit Bos, with whom I have discussed the identification
of Archigenes.
Please note the following abbreviations: Ar. = Arabic; BBah = R. Duval (ed.), Lexicon Syriacum
auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule. II (Paris: e Reipublicæ typographæo, 1901); CPA = Christian Palestini-
an Aramaic; CSD = J. Payne Smith, A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1903); DJBA = M. Sokoloff, A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic
Periods (Ramat-Gan and Baltimore: Bar Ilan University Press and The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2002); DMT = R. J. Durling, A Dictionary of Medical Terms in Galen (Leiden: Brill, 1993); Flo-
ra = I. Löw, Die Flora der Juden (Vienna and Leipzig: R. Löwit Verlag, 1924–1934); Gr. = Greek; ILS =
C. A. Ciancaglini, Iranian Loanwords in Syriac (Wiesbaden: Dr Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2008); JA =
Jewish Aramaic; MP = Middle Persian; NP = New Persian; Pfl = I. Löw, Aramäische Pflanzennamen
(Leipzig: Verlag von Wilhelm Engelmann, 1881); PMM = E. Lev and Z. Amar, Practical Materia Medica
of the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean according to the Cairo Genizah (Leiden: Brill, 2008); SL =
M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and Update of
C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum (Winona Lake and Piscataway: Eisenbrauns and Gorgias Press,
2009); Syr. = Syriac.

https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501502538-013

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
274 Siam Bhayro

The vocative particle ‫ או‬is alien to Jewish Aramaic and is only attested in Syriac
as . Furthermore, the nouns ‫ אתותא‬and ‫ השא‬correspond to Syriac
and , rather than Jewish Aramaic ‫ אתא‬and ‫השתא‬. Finally, the use of the rela-
tive pronoun to indicate that a cardinal number is being used as an ordinal number
is indicative of Syriac and not Jewish Aramaic.3 Upon further reading, I noticed the
repeated use of ‫ <( דין‬Greek δέ) as a postpositive particle that marks the start of a
new sentence – again, something alien to Jewish Aramaic but common in Syriac
as (e.g. r 5).4

2. Syriac Elements in the Text

A thorough analysis of the whole leaf confirmed my initial impressions, yielding
the following list of terms derived from Syriac:5

‫‘ – אדלא‬pepperwort’ (r 9); from Syr. (SL 9).

‫‘ – או‬O’ (v 5); from Syr. (SL 12).
‫‘ – אחרנא‬another’ (v 18, 20, 23); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( אחרינא‬compare CSD 12 with
DJBA 105–106).
‫‘ – אידיעתא‬special’ (r 8); from Syr. (CSD 187; for the form with prosthetic , see
CSD 12).
‫‘ – איך‬like’ (r 8); from Syr. .
‫‘ – איך ד‬as, like’ (r 2; v 15); from Syr. .
‫‘ – איכנא ד‬how’ (v 8); from Syr. (CSD 13).
‫‘ – אית אימת ד‬sometimes’ (r 4); from Syr. (CSD 20).
‫‘ – אסטומכא‬stomach’ (r 3); use reflects Syr. rather than JA ‫( איסטומכא‬compare
SL 68 with DJBA 121–122).
‫‘ – ארדשירגן‬Of Ardašīr’ (v 17); from Syr. (SL 96).
‫‘ – אשתותא‬fevers’ (r 7); from Syr. (SL 108, s. v. ).
‫‘ – אתותא‬letter’ (v 6); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( אתא‬compare SL 109 with DJBA 175).
‫‘ – בדאורד‬white thistle’ (r 7); from Syr. (SL 118).
‫‘ – בשושא‬Cappadocian rue’ (v 19); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( בשש‬compare SL 194–195
with DJBA 251).
‫‘ – גגנא‬balm’ (v 24) from Syr. (SL 203).

3 See Nöldeke 1904, 186 (§ 239). Matthew Morgenstern has informed me that this feature occurs in
late Mandaic texts. Edward Lipiński observes that it also occurs in Neo-Aramaic – see Lipiński 2001,
302 (§ 35.28) – but this does not affect our line of argument. I intend to return to the subject of
Aramaic ordinals in a future article.
4 A similar form also occurs in Christian Palestinian Aramaic as the postpositive particle – see
Müller-Kessler 1991, 148.
5 Some of the botanical terms are Iranian loanwords in Syriac − see the Description and Contents
section below − but this does not relate to the question of the derivation of this text from a Syriac
original.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 275

‫‘ – גלינוס‬Galen’ (v 16); from Syr. .6

‫‘ – גנב‬the side of’ (r 9); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( גבא‬compare CSD 74 with DJBA 254).
‫‘ – גנגדיון‬Daucus Gingidium’ (r 8); from Syr. or .7
‫‘ – דאיתיו‬which is’ (v 4, 6); from Syr. , with loss of final silent , as opposed to JA
‫( דאיתיה‬see below).
‫‘ – דיליתהין‬their individual properties’ (v 1); from Syr. (SL 295).
‫‘ – דין‬and’ (r 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, 21; v 10, 12, 23); from Syr. , the postpositive particle equivalent
to Gr. δέ (SL 297), used postpositively in this text to indicate a new sentence.
‫‘ – דלילאית‬rarely’ (r 14); from Syr. (SL 305).
‫‘ – דמיזאדון‬Blow marjoram’ (v 18); from Syr. (SL 310).
‫‘ – הופטריון‬agrimony’ (r 8); from Syr. (SL 337).
‫‘ – הנא‬this’ (v 18); from Syr. .
‫‘ – השא‬now’ (v 5); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( השתא‬compare SL 356 with DJBA 391–392).
‫‘ – חדראוס‬poppy’ (v 6); from Syr. (BBah 992).
‫‘ – חילתנאית‬powerfully’ (r 4); from Syr. (CSD 141).
‫‘ – חשח‬useful’ (r 5, 7, 19, 21); from Syr. (CSD 161–162).
‫‘ – ירוקות‬yellowish’ (v 11); from Syr. (compare SL 584 and CSD 190).
‫‘ – יתיראית‬to a greater extent’ (v 20); from Syr. (SL 589).
‫‘ – כובא חורא‬white thistle’ (r 6–7); from Syr. (SL 602).
‫‘ – כובני‬thorny’ (r 14); from Syr. (SL 603).
‫‘ – כומוס‬humour’ (r 13); from Syr. (SL 608).
‫‘ – כירוג‬mallow’ (r 10); from Syr. (SL 620).
‫‘ – כלין‬they restrain’ (v 8); use reflects Syr. rather than JA ‫( כלי‬compare SL 624 with DJBA
582).
‫‘ – כרשא‬lovage’ (r 1); from Syr. (SL 657).
‫‘ – לגמר‬utterly’ (r 5); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( לגמרי‬compare CSD 235 with DJBA 293).
‫‘ – לדפו‬scales’ (r 1); metathesised form of Syr. < Gr. λεπίδες (SL 689, s. v. ).
‫‘ – לשן צפרא‬bird’s tongue’ (v 2); from Syr. (SL 698).
‫‘ – מאקון‬poppy’ (v 6); from Syr. < Gr. μήκων.8
‫‘ – מולכיא‬mallow’ (r 10); from Syr. (SL 725).
‫‘ – מחיצא‬heals’ (r 3, 4, 9); from Syr. (SL 429–430, s. v. paʿʿel).
‫‘ – מיליספרלון‬balm’ (v 24); from Syr. * < Gr. μελισσόφυλλον.9
‫‘ – מיקוני‬poppy’ (v 6); from Syr. (SL 754).
‫‘ – מכתיבנותא‬medical treatises’ (v 8); from Syr. (SL 762).
‫‘ – מנדרגרוס‬mandrake’ (v 9); from Syr. * < Gr. μανδραγόρας.10
‫‘ – מנכתנא‬bitter’ (r 13); from Syr. (SL 783–784).
‫‘ – מפושש‬causes secretion’ (r 1, 11, 23; v 13); from Syr. (SL 806).
‫‘ – מקשי‬has sclerosis’ (r 22); from Syr. (compare CSD 522, s. v. , with DJBA 1048–
1049).
‫‘ – מרדיתא‬menstruation’ (r 3); from Syr. (SL 828).
‫‘ – נקשא דרישא‬headache’ (v 14); from Syr. (SL 950).
‫‘ – סדרא‬chapter’ (v 3, 5); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( סידרא‬compare SL 972–973 with DJBA
799–800).

6 For this form, see Merx 1885, 244.

7 For these forms, see Merx 1885, 255.
8 See Merx 1885, 281.
9 For the form , see Merx 1885, 281.
10 For the form , see Merx 1885, 281.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
276 Siam Bhayro

‫‘ – סטר מן‬besides’ (v 1); from Syr. (SL 998).

‫‘ – סימא‬silver’ (r 2, 6); from Syr. (SL 958).
‫עביתא‬/‫‘ – עביא‬heavy’ (r 12, 13, 16); from Syr. (CSD 395).
‫‘ – עוביני‬swellings’ (r 11); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( עוביאנא‬compare SL 1076 with
DJBA 846).
‫‘ – עקריה‬its root’ (r 20; see also v 2); from Syr. rather than JA ‫( עיקריה‬compare SL 1132
with DJBA 859).
‫‘ – ערטניתא‬lion’s leaf’ (v 2); from Syr. (SL 1138).
‫‘ – פנקיתא‬treatise’ (r 18); from Syr. (SL 1207, s. v. ).
‫‘ – פשר‬digests’ (r 14); use appears to reflect Syr. rather than JA ‫( פשר‬compare SL 1263
with DJBA 945).
‫‘ – פשר אשתין‬black bryony’ (r 23); from Syr. (SL 1264).
‫‘ – פתיא‬broad’ (r 1); from Syr. in the phrase ‘broad lovage’ (SL 1620).
‫‘ – ציטרג‬pepperwort’ (r 9); from Syr. (SL 1285).
‫‘ – רגי‬fresh’ (r 12, 21); from Syr. (CSD 527).
‫‘ – רומא‬catarrh’ (v 8); from Syr. (CSD 535).
‫‘ – רומני דשעלא‬poppy’ (v 7); from Syr. (CSD 535).
‫‘ – רטיבותא‬moisture’ (v 10); from Syr. (CSD 539).
‫‘ – שוחני‬sores’ (r 6); from Syr. (CSD 564).
‫‘ – תורסיתא‬nourishment’ (r 12); from Syr. (SL 1634, s. v. ).
‫‘ – תכסא‬restrains’ (r 3); from Syr. (SL 1645).
‫‘ – תפשורתא‬urine’ (r 20); from Syr. (SL 1659).

3. Judaeo-Syriac
In view of all this, it appears that a Jewish scribe has transcribed a Syriac medical
text into Jewish Aramaic characters. This leaf, therefore, represents the only inde-
pendent fragment of literature in ‘Judaeo-Syriac’ hitherto discovered.11
This phenomenon, however, has long been known through citations of the
Pešiṭta in rabbinic literature, and reflects a context in which Jewish scholars were
engaging with Christian scholarship. Thus, for example, in his commentary on the
Song of Songs, Judah ben Jacob ibn Aknin relates that Hai Gaon (939–1038 CE)
sent Maṣliaḥ ben El-Basaḳ to consult the Nestorian Catholicos on how to interpret
a phrase in Psalm 141:5. Jacob preserves the reading ‫משחא דרשיעי לא עכי רישיה‬,
for which the Pešiṭta has ‘let the oil of the wicked

11 For more on this phenomenon, see Bhayro 2015, 628–631. For some of the ancient inscriptions
from Edessa, which can also be considered to be in Judaeo-Syriac, see Healey 2012, 325–335. A
comparable phenomenon can be observed in Late Antiquity, when similar formulae occur in both
Syriac and Jewish Aramaic incantation bowls from pre-Islamic Mesopotamia – see, e.g., Shaked
2000, 65–70; furthermore, it is possible that the Jewish Aramaic bowl that invokes the name of
Jesus is based upon a Syriac original – see Levene 1999, 283–308. The scope of borrowing in the
present text, however, is on an altogether greater scale.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 277

not anoint my head’.12 Jewish scholarly engagement with Christians most likely
provided the context for the production of Targum Proverbs, which is very much
dependent on the Pešiṭta.13 This engagement continued until at least the thirteenth
century, when Masnut and Nachmanides cited the Pešiṭta hundreds of times. This
prompted Michael Weitzman to suggest that ‘perhaps copies of P in Hebrew trans-
literation were then in circulation’.14
The preserved Judaeo-Syriac citation of Psalm 141:5 has clearly suffered in
transmission, particularly in respect of the verb and the final pronominal suffix.
This is something the rabbinic citations of the Pešiṭta are prone to, perhaps because
they were subsequently copied by scribes who had an imperfect understanding of
Syriac. The Genizah fragment, however, has probably not been subject to such a
process of transmission, and thus represents an ideal opportunity to observe the
phenomenon of Judaeo-Syriac.

4. Features of the Transcription

When transcribing one language into another script, the scribe can either adopt an
historic/orthographic or a phonetic transcription method. We see this, for example,
with Judaeo-Arabic.15 One clear feature in Jacob’s citation of Psalm 141:5 is the
transcription of the masculine plural emphatic ending - as ‫י‬- rather than ‫א‬- in
‫ דרשיעי‬for . This use of ‫י‬- rather than ‫א‬- for - also occurs consistently in
the Genizah fragment, and is clearly phonetic rather than orthographic/historical:

‫גרמי‬ for (r 14)

‫דמי‬ for (r 20)
‫הוי‬ for (r 5)
‫יברוחי‬ for (v 9)
‫כובני‬ for (r 14)
‫כיפי‬ for (v 1)
‫מיקוני‬ for (v 6)
‫מסגי‬ for (r 13)
‫מרפי‬ for (r 11)
‫נוני‬ for (r 15)
‫נישי‬ for (r 3)
‫עבי‬ for (r 16)

12 See Weitzman 1999, 110 and 286; Marx 1921, 57.

13 Weitzman 1999, 109–110.
14 Weitzman 1999, 121–122, 161.
15 See, for example, the discussion in Blau 2002, 20–22.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
278 Siam Bhayro

‫עיני‬ for (r 5)
‫עקריה‬ for (r 20)
‫קני‬ for (r 8, 13)
‫רגי‬ for (r 12)
‫רומני‬ for (v 7)
‫שוחני‬ for (r 6)

Another example of a phonetic transcription is ‫‘ דאיתיו‬which is’ (v 4, 6) for

Syr. , with the final silent - not represented. From the rabbinic citations
of the Pešiṭta and the Genizah fragment, therefore, it would appear that the use of
a phonetic transcription is a consistent feature of Judaeo-Syriac.16
Other interesting features of the transcription include:
– the occasional use of ‫ י‬to indicate /a/:
‫ איתיו‬for (v 4, 6), with loss of final silent
– the occasional use of ‫ י‬to indicate /ǝ/:
‫ מכתיבנותא‬for (v 8)
– the occasional use of ‫ י‬to indicate /e/:
‫ אימת‬for (r 4), with loss of final silent
‫ תרי עשר‬for (v 3)
– the occasional use of ‫ י‬to indicate /i/:
‫ היי‬for (r 4)
‫ כיפא‬for (r 24)
‫ כיפי‬for (v 1)
– the occasional use of ‫ ש‬for :
‫ < עשר‬Syr. , but compare JA ‫( עשרא‬v 3, 5)

On three further occasions, the scribe introduces elements that may also better
reflect Jewish Aramaic:

‫‘ – דהוא‬which is’ (r 10), where we may have expected ‫ דהו‬for Syr. .

‫‘ – טלאי‬children’ (v 22; see DJBA 504); it is possible that it represents Syr. , with ‫ א‬for
/ā/, but it more readily reflects the JA plural.
‫‘ – כסיתא‬coral’ (r 24); note, however, that Syr. has the feminine plural < singular
* (SL 640), which, given the scribe’s use of ‫ י‬to indicate /e/, could be written as ‫כסיתא‬.

16 In view of this, the use of ‫‘ גנב‬the side of’ (r 9) for Syriac (with silent nūn) is very interest-
ing. It could represent a historic transcription, with the silent nūn being written, but it could also
suggest that the nūn was still pronounced at this point, perhaps in the West by those unused to
reading Eastern Syriac.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 279

5. Use of Palestinian Vocalisation

Another interesting feature of this fragment is that, on a number of occasions, the
scribe appears to use the supralinear Palestinian vocalisation to clarify a potential-
ly ambiguous reading:17

r5

In this case, the vowel indicates /ā/ between ‫ י‬and final ‫ן‬. It seems that the scribe has wanted
to clarify that we have a feminine plural rather than masculine plural participle, i.e. rāphyān
rather than rāphīn.

r7

In both cases, the /ā/ on the penult clarifies that feminine plural rather than singular forms
are intended, i.e. each word ends in -āthāʾ rather than -tāʾ.

r 18

This is probably for Syriac , with the first vowel attempting to represent /u/ for Syri-
ac , and the second vowel clarifying that a feminine plural is intended (like the previous
example).

r 11

This is probably ‫ ע]ו[ביני‬for Syriac , with the vowel indicating the /ā/ on the penult.

r 21

The broken context precludes further comment, except that it is probably another example of
-āthāʾ over -tāʾ.

The use of Palestinian vocalisation is noteworthy for two reasons. First, this is a
very rare example of it being used outside a Biblical or liturgical context. Second,
it supports the hypothesis of a Syrian origin for this text.

17 For an introductory discussion of the various vocalisation systems, see Blau 1993, 8–9. For a
recent discussion of the Babylonian, Palestinian and Tiberian systems, with reference to Genizah
manuscripts, see Bembry 2009, 182–183.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
280 Siam Bhayro

6. Use of Abbreviations
Finally, the scribe employs the following abbreviations:

‫בט דב‬ ‫בטכסא דב‬ ‘in the second order’ (r 9)

‫בט דג‬ ‫בטכסא דג‬ ‘in the third order’ (r 19, v 10)
‫בקדמ‬ ‫בקדמא‬ ‘in the first’ (r 19)
‫ח‬ ‫חילה‬ ‘its power’ (r 1; v 13)
‫חד‬ ‫חילה דין‬ ‘and its power’ (r 2, 11; v 17)
‫חמ‬ ‫חמים‬ ‘hot’ (r 9, 18; v 13, 17)

7. Text and Translation

T-S K 14.22 recto

◦ ‫פתיא כרשא שכום ח' חמים ומפושש‬ 1 broad (lovage), lovage, (?): Its pow-
‫לדפוניטוס‬ er is hot and it causes secretion.
Scales of nyṭws,
‫קלפתא דנחשא ח ד יביש איך דפרזלא‬ 2 scales of copper: And its power is
‫ודסימא אלא‬ dry like iron and silver, but
‫דפרזלא יתיר תכסא מרדיתא דנישי‬ 3 iron to a greater extent restrains the
‫ומחיצא אסטומכא‬ menstruation of women and heals
the stomach,
‫ואית אימת דהכן חילתנאית מחיצא דלא‬ 4 and sometimes likewise powerfully
‫שבקא דהיי‬ heals without dismissing that which
‫בטנא לגמר הוי דין דנחשא חשחא לעיני‬ 5 she conceives utterly18. And it hap-
‫דרפין ודמען‬ pens that copper is useful for eyes
that are weak and shed tears,
◦ ‫דסימא דין מיבשא שוחני וחככא‬ 6 and that silver dries sores and itch-
‫[ ניקא כובא‬.]‫לוק‬ ing. Whit[e] thistle, (7)white (6)this-
tle,
‫חורא בדאורד חשח דין לאשתותא‬ 7 white thistle: And it is useful for
‫עתיקתא ומריר‬ chronic fevers19, and it is bitter,

18 ‫‘ – דלא שבקא דהיי בטנא לגמר‬without dismissing that which she conceives utterly’; possibly
‘without forbidding that which she conceives to reach maturity’, although the expected infinitive
would be ‫למגמר‬.
19 ‫‘ – אשתותא עתיקתא‬chronic fevers’; alternatively ‘advanced fevers’.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 281

‫ולא קני חמימותא אידיעתא איך גנגדיון‬  8 and it does not possess a special heat
◦ ‫והופטריון‬ like Daucus Gingidium and agrimony.
‫לאתוס אדלא ציטרג חמ בט דב ומחיץ‬  9 Marsh mallow (!), pepperwort, pep-
‫ואמרין גנב‬ perwort: It is hot in the second order
and it heals, and they say: (10)It
grows (9)(at) the side of
‫קברי יעי' ◦ לאתוס מולכיא דהוא‬ 10 graves. Marsh mallow, which is
‫נ]טפ[תא כירוג איסרשך‬ marsh mallow, mallow of sršk (?):
‫ח ד קריר ומפושש ומרפי ומריח‬ 11 And its power is cold and it causes se-
‫ע]ו[ביני ◦ לברקוס‬ cretion, and it weakens and relieves
swellings. Sea bass (?):20
‫נונא כד רגי תורסיתא עביתא יהב‬ 12 a fish − when fresh it gives heavy
‫[מא וכד מליח‬...] nourishment [...]m’, and when salted
‫כומוס עביא ומנכתנא מסגי‬ 13 the humour is heavy and bitter. An[d]
‫[גלתא דקני‬... ‫די]ן‬ it increases [...]glt’ that (14)rarely
(13)
possesses
‫ גרמי כובני דלילאית פשר‬14 thorny bones. It digests [...]’y[...]t’
‫[תא‬...]‫[אי‬...]
[...]‫[ד‬...] ‫ זניא מתפלג גנסא דנוני חד‬15 kinds, the family of fishes is divided:
one [...]d[...]
‫ נו[נא‬...] ‫דאגמי דימא דין עבי‬ 16 And (15)[...] (16) of pools of the swamp
is heavy [... fi]sh
[...] ‫דאגמי דין ממצע אלא על‬ 17 of pools is placed in the middle. But
concerning [...]
‫ בט‬... ‫בפנקיתא דעל מכלתא ◦ ליב]אנון‬ 18 in the treatise which is about foods21.
‫ד[ג חמ‬ Fran[kincense-tree ... in the] third
[order], it is hot
... ‫בט דג ויבישא בקדמ וחשח]א‬ 19 in the third order, and it is dry in the
‫ליבא[ונטוס‬ first, and it is usefu[l ... Fran]kin-
cense,
‫ מזי[ע‬... ]‫]ע[זריג אנזרד עקריה דמי ל‬ 20 fran]kincense (?), frankincense: Its
‫תפשורתא‬ root is like [ ... it sti]rs urine,

20 The reading of ‫ קו‬in ‫ לברקוס‬is not entirely clear, however, and it is possible that it is simply
an imperfectly written ‫ק‬.
21 ‫‘ – מכלתא‬foods’; compare Syriac and Jewish Aramaic ‫ ;מכולתא‬see also the section on
the Use of Palestinian Vocalisation above.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
282 Siam Bhayro

‫ [תא כד‬... ]‫[ דין כד רגין חשחין לד‬...] 21 and [...] when fresh are useful for
d[...]tʾ, when
‫[ מאסין טחלא דמקשי כד ]משתת[ין‬...] 22 [...] they heal a spleen that has sclero-
◦ ‫עם הודרא‬ sis when [imbib]ed with water22.
[‫]לינוזוסט[יס פשר אשתין שסת]בדאן‬ 23 [Black bryo]ny, black bryony, black
‫מחם ומ]פו[שש‬ [bryony:] It heats and it causes secre-
tion
[‫ לי[תוס כסיתא כיפא ציבנ]יתא‬...] 24 [... Co]ral, coral 23, coral: The power
‫חילא ]ד[כולהין‬ of all

T-S K 14.22 verso

‫כיפי יביש וקר]י[ץ וקריר סטר מן‬  1 corals is dry and chilling and cold
◦ ‫דיליתהין‬ besides their individual properties.
‫ליטופריון עקרא דערטניתא ◦ לשן‬  2 Lion’s leaf − the root of lion’s leaf.
‫צפרא‬ Bird’s tongue:
‫מוסף זרעא ומנפח ◦ שלם סדרא דתרי‬  3 it increases sperm and makes erect.
‫עשר‬ Finished is the twelfth chapter,
◦ ‫דאיתיו למד‬  4 which is lamed.
‫ואף השא או חביבן כתבינן סדרא דתלת‬  5 And also now, O our beloved, we
‫עשר‬ write the thirteenth chapter,
‫דאיתיו מים אתותא ◦ מאקון מיקוני‬  6 which is the letter mem. Poppy,
‫חדראוס‬ poppy, poppy,
‫ורומני דשעלא ואנרקיוג קרירין‬  7 and poppy, and poppy: They are
‫בחילהון וקנין‬ cold in their power, and (8)the medi-
cal treatises (7)are acquainted with
‫מכתיבנותא איכנא דכלין רומא דנחת‬  8 how they restrain catarrh that de-
◦ ‫לחדיא‬ scends to the chest.
‫[ברוחי סביסג חילא‬.]‫מנדרגרוס י‬  9 Mandrake, m[a]ndrakes, man-
‫קרירא קנין‬ drake: They possess cold power
‫בט דג חזור]יה[ון דין קנין קליל‬ 10 in the third order, and [th]eir fruit
‫רטיבותא ומא‬ possess a little moisture, and when

22 The reading and interpretation of ‫ הודרא‬is uncertain.

23 The ‫ י‬in ‫ כסיתא‬is not clear.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 283

‫דבשלין ומש]ת[חלפין לירוקות גויא‬ 11 they ripen the insides turn yellow-
‫ולחורומתיותא‬ ish24 and poisonous25,
‫קלפתא דין ]דע[קרהון מתיב]ת[א וכליא‬ 12 and the peel [of] their [r]oot causes
◦ ‫דמא‬ vomiting and restrains blood.
‫[ום אידהיג ח חמ‬.. ]‫[ שנתא‬.]‫ומתי‬ 13 And mty[.] moss, [ ..]wm ʾydhyg: Its
‫ומפושש‬ power is hot and it causes secretion,
‫[תא ולנקשא‬... ]‫[ טרי‬.. ‫וחש]ח‬ 14 and it is use[ful ..] smearing[ ...]tʾ and
– ‫דרישא‬ for headache –
‫[ פשיר איך דאמר ארגבניס‬...]‫ד‬ 15 d[...] digested, as Archigenes says
◦ ‫[ דגלינוס דעל כיב רישא‬...]‫ב‬ 16 in [...] of Galen which is about head-
ache.
‫מ]רוא ארבעא גנסא הוין ח[ד‬ 17 Ma[rjoram: There are four kinds.
‫ארדשירגן ח ד חמ‬ O]ne is ‘Of Ardašīr’: And its power is
hot
‫ דמיזאדון הנא‬: ‫[ אחרנא‬... ‫ויבי]שא‬ 18 and dr[y ...] Another is ‘Blow marjo-
ram’: This is
‫[ עבד בדמות בשושא‬...] ‫חמים‬ 19 hot [...] it works like the Cappadocian
rue,
‫ אחרנא‬: ‫[ משתקל‬...] ‫ויתיראית‬ 20 and to a greater extent [...] is em-
[‫ח]ורא‬ ployed. Another is ‘Wh[ite’,]
‫דמתקרי ד]רמק[ הנא קטין מן תריהון‬ 21 which is called ‘Da[rmaq’:] This is
[...] more acute than the two of them [...]
[...] ‫[ה לות טלאי איך דחד‬...] ‫מינקתא‬ 22 a wet-nurse [...]h for children like one
[...]
[...]‫ א]חר[נא דין מרמהוז ומע‬: ‫שנתא‬ 23 sleep. And a[no]ther is ‘Marmahūz’:
And mʿ[...]
[...] ‫וא]מ[יר ע]זא[ ◦ מיליספרלון גגנא‬ 24 and it is called ‘Go[at]’. Balm, balm,
[...]

24 SL 584 defines Syriac as ‘bluish, livid color’, but CSD 190 includes ‘yellowish’ among
its definitions of the Syriac adjective . The given translation is preferred because the fruit of
the mandrake is yellow.
25 ‫‘ – חורומתיותא‬poisonous’; the reading appears to be clear, but the interpretation remains un-
certain. Perhaps it is to be understood in the sense of ‘severe, cruel’, in reference to its famed
poisonous qualities. Compare the range of nouns derived from Syriac (SL 492–493, CSD 158).

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
284 Siam Bhayro

8. Description and Contents

The leaf is made of vellum and measures 15.4 × 12.8 cm. Each side contains twenty-
four lines, but less than half of the lines are completely preserved on each side,
making it difficult to understand much of the text, particularly towards the bottom
of the leaf. The text is written in a well-trained Syrian/Palestinian hand, rather
than Babylonian or Egyptian, and probably dates to a very early part of the second
millennium CE. Its possible Syrian provenance is suggested by its script, the spo-
radic use of Palestinian vocalisation and the fact that it is based on a Syriac text.
Given the use of vellum and its good, scribal hand, this leaf was certainly part of
a larger, carefully prepared book. It contains part of a descriptive list of medicinal
substances arranged alphabetically – the end of the section containing those be-
ginning with lamed and the start of the section containing those beginning with
mem – with the end of each description indicated by a small circle.
Despite consisting of only forty-eight lines, many of which are not fully pre-
served, this fragment still contains a number of very important features, including
references to Phylotimos’s On Foodstuffs and Archigenes on the subject of head-
aches. Also of interest is the form ‫( ארדשירגן‬v 17), a remarkable confirmation of a
hypothesis advanced by Gignoux. This fragment is also important on account of
its use of different languages. The lemma is usually a transliteration of the Greek
term for the plant (according to an already established Syriac form). The order of
the entries is, therefore, more or less the same as in Sergius’s translation of Galen’s
Simples (as preserved in BL Add 14,661) and reflects a culture in which the Greek
terminology is still important – an indicative feature of the sixth-century Syriac
translations that had vanished by the later Abbasid period. The Greek term is then
usually followed by the equivalent Syriac term (a feature of Sergius’s glossaries
that accompany his translation of Galen’s Simples). This is then usually followed
by an equivalent term of Iranian origin, presumably Middle Persian. It is likely,
therefore, that some of the terms that remain undeciphered are Iranian plant
names. In terms of sources, it is clear that the Syriac text on which this fragment
is based represents a combination of a number of sources. Sergius’s translation of
Galen’s Simples is clearly an important source, but there is extra material here as
well, which appears to have also been used by Bar Bahlul.
The fragment contains discussions of the following substances:

Lovage (r 1)
Although the initial lemma is not preserved on this fragment, we can be confident
that it was something like ‫ליגוסטיקון‬, i.e. < Greek λιγυστικόν ‘lov-
age’. Sergius gives the following lemma and gloss:
‘λιγυστικόν which is broad tblʾ’ (BL Add 14,661, 33r), the last word of which

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 285

is the first word on our fragment. According to Bar Bahlul, both

and refer to Arabic ‘lovage’, which explains the lemma ‫( כרשא‬see
BBah 947; Flora III:471–472; Pfl 226). The final word in the lemma, ‫שכום‬, remains
as yet unidentified, but it may be a Persian term for either the plant itself or the
adjective ‘broad’.
The fragment describes lovage as a plant that is hot and stimulates secretions.
This matches how Sergius translates Galen’s description:

‘Concerning
λιγυστικόν which is broad tbl’. The root of this (plant) and its seed is one of those
that heat in such a way that brings forth menstruation and brings urine, and it is
also one of those which do not cause flatulence’ (BL Add 14,661, 49r). It also match-
es what we know about its use from other Genizah fragments (see PMM 440–441).

Copper shavings (r 1–6)

The lemma is ‫לדפוניטוס‬, which is then glossed as ‫‘ קלפתא דנחשא‬scales of copper’.
The first part of this word is probably a metathesised form of ‘scales’ < Greek
λεπίδες (see SL 689, s. v. ). The second part, presumably meaning ‘copper’,
remains unexplained.
Copper is described as possessing hot and dry qualities, similar to iron and
silver, but is less effective than iron in treating certain ailments that afflict women.
Copper is also described as good for treating eye complaints, while silver is good
for sores and itching. This is consistent with the use of these metals as described
by Dioscorides and in other documents from the Cairo Genizah (see PMM 389–390).

White thistle (r 6–8)

The lemma is not entirely clear, reading ‫[ ניקא‬.]‫לוק‬, but the glosses are clear. The
first reads ‫כובא חורא‬, which is Syriac ‘white thistle’ (see BBah 870;
Flora I:367; Pfl 194–199). The second reads ‫בדאורד‬, i.e. Syriac (SL 118),
which is probably derived from Middle Persian *bād-āwurd ‘white thistle’ (see ILS
121). The lemma, therefore, is probably derived from Greek λευκάκανθα ‘tuberous
thistle, Cnicus tuberosus’ (DMT 220), which is known for being a bitter plant. This
presents a certain difficulty, however, as the expected form would be something
like ‫( לוקנתון‬compare in BL Add 14,661, 33r), or ‫( לוקנתאמון‬com-
pare in BL Add 14,661, 48v), or ‫( לוקאקאניוס‬compare
in BBah 957), or ‫( להוקאקאיתון‬compare in BBah 945). It seems,
therefore, that we have something more resembling a calque than a transliteration
on this occasion, with Greek λευκή ‘white’ = [.]‫לוק‬, and the following Greek ἄκανθα

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
286 Siam Bhayro

‘plant’ being represented by ‫ = ניקא‬Syriac , perhaps an equally generic term

for ‘plant’ or ‘tree’ (compare SL 916).
Our fragment describes this plant as bitter and good for treating fevers, which
accords with how Sergius translates Galen’s description of this plant:
‘and its
root is exceedingly bitter and on this account it cuts off and dries in the third order
and it heats in the first order’ (BL Add 14,661, 48v). Our fragment thus also states
that the plant does not possess the famed or special heat of two other plants: The
first is ‫גנגדיון‬, for which our only previous witness is BL Add. 14,661, folio 4r, which
has as a transliteration of Greek γιγγίδιον ‘Daucus Gingidium’ (see
DMT 103), and for which Sergius gives the gloss (see the following sub-
stance); the second is ‫הופטריון‬, i.e. as a transliteration of Greek
εὐπατόριον ‘agrimony’ (see DMT 170).

Pepperwort (r 9–10)
The lemma is ‫ = לאתוס‬Greek ἀλθαία ‘marsh mallow’ (see the following entry). This
is glossed, however, with two terms for a different plant: ‫אדלא‬, which is Syri-
ac (see BBah 37; Pfl 37–39), and ‫ציטרג‬, i.e. Syriac (SL 1285), which
is a Middle Persian term possibly derived from *šētarag (see ILS 259–260). Both of
these glosses refer to ‘pepperwort, Lepidium latifolium’, which is Greek λεπίδιον
(DMT 219; PMM 365–366). For the lemma, therefore, we would expect something
like ‫( לאפידיון‬compare in BL Add 14,661, 33r), or ‫( להפידיון‬com-
pare in BBah 946), or ‫( ליפידיון‬compare [!] in BBah 968). The
scribe has clearly made an error, confusing this lemma with the following one.
The pepperwort is described as possessing healing properties and being hot in
the second order − compare Sergius’s translation of Galen’s description:
‘from
the fourth order of those that heat, and it is like cress in its smell and in its taste and
in its power’ (BL Add 14,661, 48r). The description of the pepperwort ends with an
anonymous quotation: ‘and they say: It grows (at) the side of graves’. This accords
with Bar Bahlul, who informs us that:
‘According to Bar Serapion and according to Sergius, it is a
medicine that grows upon graves’ (see BBah 37–38).

Marsh Mallow (r 10–11)

The lemma is ‫לאתוס מולכיא‬, for which Bar Bahlul gives
(BBah 936). This allows us to restore the first gloss as ‫נ]טפ[תא‬, i.e. Syri-
ac ‘marsh mallow’ (see Flora II:227–234; Pfl 359–361; SL 913). The second

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 287

gloss consists of two elements, the first of which is ‫כירוג‬, i.e. Syriac
(SL 620), which is probably the Middle Persian term for ‘mallow’ (see ILS 195).
The second element, ‫איסרשך‬, probably modifies the first in some way, with -‫אי‬
representing Middle Persian ī- ‘of’ (or as a relative pronoun), and the following
‫ סרשך‬either being a botanical term (compare = , both being Iranian;
see ILS 178 and SL 401, 1051) or perhaps Middle Persian srešk ‘drop, teardrop’ (a
possible reference to the flower’s shape).
The Genizah fragment’s description of the plant states that it is cold, causes
secretion and is good for weakening (i.e. reducing) and relieving swellings. The
initial lemma is not the Greek term for this plant. The Greek term is ἀλθαία ‘marsh
mallow, Althaea officinalis’, which Galen states is the same as Greek ἐβίσκος (see
DMT 32–33, 139). Sergius translates Galen’s discussion of marsh mallow thus:

‘Concerning
ἐβίσκος, or ἀλθαία, or wild μολόκη. And this medicinal plant is the one that is
called . This one causes secretion and weakens and relieves swellings’ (BL
Add 14,661, 25r). This accords perfectly with the Genizah fragment, using identical
terminology, and allows us to restore ‫ע]ו[ביני‬. In terms of its cold properties, Ibn
Sīnā refers to its use for treating hot coughs (PMM 214).

Sea bass? (r 11–18?)

The lemma is ‫לברקוס‬, possibly for Syriac * < Greek λάβραξ ‘sea bass’.26
The discussion that follows is very fragmentary. It appears to digress into a discus-
sion of the classification of fish, including according to whether they live in pools
of standing water such as swamps. If this section does indeed continue into line
r 18, then it ends with a reference to ‫‘ פנקיתא דעל מכלתא‬the treatise which is
about foods’ (i.e. Syriac ; see the above discussion of the
Use of Palestinian Vocalisation).
There is a section on λάβραξ ‘sea bass’ in Galen’s treatise On the Properties of
Foodstuffs (De Alimentorum Facultatibus). Following this, Galen continues with a
discussion of other fish that includes remarks about habitats such as the sea, flow-
ing fresh water and stagnant pools. In this context, Galen quotes from the treatise
of Phylotimos called On Foodstuffs.27 It would appear, therefore, that our Genizah
fragment preserves an epitome of Galen’s discussion of fish, and that the final
reference to ‫‘ פנקיתא דעל מכלתא‬the treatise which is about foods’ refers to the
work of Phylotimos as quoted by Galen.

26 See Thompson 1947, 140–142.

27 See Powell 2003, 137–144.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
288 Siam Bhayro

Frankincense-tree and frankincense? (r 18–20)

There seems to be a discussion of two terms in this section, although neither lem-
ma is preserved in full. The first lemma begins with [...]‫ ליב‬and is described as
possessing hot and dry properties. In view of what follows, it would appear that
this is a reference to [‫ליב]אנון‬, which would be Syriac (see SL 687), itself
derived from Greek λίβανος ‘frankincense-tree, Boswellia carterii Birdwood’
(DMT 221; see also Pfl 235), which famously possesses hot and dry qualities
(PMM 168–171).
At first sight, it appears that, having introduced the tree, the text moves on to
discuss its derivative resin, reverting to the usual pattern of giving two accompany-
ing glosses. The second lemma, therefore, ends with ‫[ונטוס‬...], which should proba-
bly be restored as ‫]ליבא[ונטוס‬, i.e. Syriac – see BL Add 14,661,
48v: ‘Concerning , which is frank-
incense’ (cf. also Pfl 235; SL 667). Syriac is derived from Greek
λιβανωτός ‘(the best kind of) frankincense’ (DMT 222). The first gloss should proba-
bly be restored as ‫]ע[זריג‬, for which compare Syriac , which is another term
for ‘resin’ − see BBah 1427, who gives the gloss (compare the second gloss
below; cf. SL 1091, where this term is defined as ‘Persian gum’). For the shift of
Middle Persian final -g to a final vowel, see ILS 72–77. It is possible that the Genizah
fragment preserves a more conservative form of this term − a loanword that ap-
peared sufficiently early in Syriac so as to count as the Syriac gloss in this text.
The second, presumably Middle Persian gloss is ‫אנזרד‬. This is probably a form of
Syriac / , another Iranian loanword meaning ‘resin’ (see ILS 227;
SL 60, 1116).
The following description of frankincense is problematic, however, and it ap-
pears that the copyist has omitted a section of text and proceeded straight to a
discussion of ‘white bryony’ (see the next entry).

White bryony (r 20–23)

Sergius translates part of Galen’s discussion of white bryony thus:

‘and therefore it also stirs urine moderately ... and because of this it also softens,
when imbibed, a spleen that has sclerosis’ (BL Add 14,661, 16r). This fits in with
the Genizah fragment’s ‫‘ מזיע תפשורתא‬it stirs urine’ (r 20) and ‫מאסין טחלא דמקשי‬
‫‘ כד משתתין עם הודרא‬they heal a spleen that has sclerosis when imbibed with
water’ (r 22). This would suggest that the plant being described in r 20–22 is white
bryony rather than frankincense. This is confirmed by what follows, which is a
treatment of black bryony − it is customary to discuss the varieties of bryony
together, moving from white bryony to black bryony. Compare, for example, BL

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 289

Add 14,661 3r and 16r, which follow ‘white bryony’ with

‘black bryony’.

Black bryony (r 23–24)

The lemma is missing, but the first gloss is preserved as ‫פשר אשתין‬, which is
Syriac ‘black bryony’ (see CSD 469; Pfl 91; SL 1264). Bar Bahlul includes
the gloss for this plant (BBah 1645), hence the restoration of [‫שסת]בדאן‬
for the second gloss.
This leaves the problem of what the lemma would have been. We know that it
comes between ‫ ליבאונטוס‬and ‫ליתוס‬, and, judging by the gap, is probably a long
word. The most likely candidate, therefore, is ‫לינוזוסטיס‬, i.e. Syriac ,
which is itself derived from Greek λινόζωστις. Durling glosses λινόζωστις as ‘mer-
cury, Mercurialis annua’ (DMT 223–224), but Sergius gives the following
gloss: ‘λινόζωστις which is ’ (BL Add
14,661, 33r), with Syriac referring to a type of vine or creeping plant (see
SL 408), which is certainly a suitable term for any type of bryony.
The description is fragmentary and brief, but clearly reads ‫‘ מחם ומפושש‬it
heats and it causes secretion’ (r 23) − this fits in with Sergius’ translation of Galen’s
discussion of this plant, part of which states: ‘its power
which sufficiently causes secretion’ (BL Add 14,661, 49v).

Coral (r 24–v 1)
The lemma should be restored as ‫ליתוס‬, i.e. Syriac , which is Greek λίθος
‘stone, mineral’. It is clear from what follows, however, that the meaning ‘coral’ is
intended. Dioscorides describes coral as being like a stony tree on account of it
resembling both a mineral and a plant (PMM 153). Hence the following entry in Bar
Bahlul’s lexicon, which corresponds exactly to the lemma and glosses in the Geni-
zah fragment: (BBah 969; Bar Bahlul adds the
Ar. gloss ‘stony wood’, i.e. ‘coral’). The lemma and glosses are followed
by a brief general description that states that all corals possess cold and dry proper-
ties in addition to their individual properties (see PMM 153–155).

Lion’s leaf (v 2)
The lemma reads ‫ליטופריון‬, which is then glossed as ‫ערטניתא‬, i.e. Syriac
‘lion’s leaf’ (see Pfl 304; SL 1138). Sergius gives the following lemma and
gloss: (BL Add 14,661, 33r), thus using the
same gloss as the Genizah fragment for Greek λεοντοπέταλον ‘lion’s leaf, Leontice

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
290 Siam Bhayro

leontopetalum’ (DMT 219). It seems clear, therefore, that the lemma ‫ ליטופריון‬is
corrupt. There is no description in this entry, which simply gives the lemma fol-
lowed by an equivalent term: ‫‘ עקרא דערטניתא‬the root of lion’s leaf’ (alternatively
‘the medicinal plant that is lion’s leaf’).

Bird’s tongue (v 2–3)

The lemma is ‫לשן צפרא‬, i.e. Syriac (see SL 698). According to Bar Bah-
lul, this refers to Arabic (BBah 982), which is probably some kind of
ash tree (see CSD 245), perhaps equivalent to Greek μελία ‘manna ash, Fraxinus
Ornus’ (DMT 233).28 In any event, the fruit and seeds of this tree are said, in other
medieval sources, to aid erections and sexual potency (PMM 340–341), which
agrees with our fragment.
V 3–6 contains the epilogue to the twelfth part, which concerns substances
beginning with lamed, and the introduction to the thirteenth part, which is about
substances beginning with mem.

Poppy (v 6–8)
The lemma is ‫מאקון‬, i.e. Syriac , which is Sergius’s transliteration of Greek
μήκων ‘poppy’: ‘μήκων which is poppy’ (BL Add
14,661, 33v). In the Genizah fragment, the lemma is followed by a series of four
glosses, the first three of which correspond exactly to Bar Bahlul’s entry for the
same lemma: (BBah 992). Bar Bahlul
then gives the Arabic gloss ‘poppy’ (see also Pfl 202–204). The fourth
gloss, ‫אנרקיוג‬, is probably the equivalent Middle Persian term for ‘opium, poppy’
(compare in Pfl 204).
Greek μήκων often refers to the ‘opium poppy, Papaver somniferum’, but it can
also be a general term for all varieties of poppy. The classical sources discuss a
number of varieties, including μήκων Ἡρακλεία ‘frothy poppy’ and μήκων κερα-
τῖτις ‘horned poppy, Glaucium flavum’, both of which are listed in Sergius’s glossa-
ry as and respec-
tively (see DMT 235; BL Add 14,661, 33v and 52r − the manuscript has
for ). The Genizah fragment appears to be listing a variety of poppies or poppy
derivatives, but is treating them together as a group, giving a general description
of their common properties − hence the use of the plural ‫( קרירין‬v 7) and ‫( כלין‬v 8).

28 It could also be some type of elm tree − see my discussion of this term in Bhayro 2009, 455–
456.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 291

Poppies are said to possess a cold power and to be useful for treating catarrh,
which is consistent with other medieval oriental sources.29

Mandrake (v 9–12)
The lemma is ‫מנדרגרוס‬, which is a transliteration of Greek μανδραγόρας ‘man-
drake’ (DMT 229–230; see also Pfl 188–189). This is followed by two glosses. The
first gloss is meant to be the native term which is common to both Syriac ( ;
SL 561) and Jewish Aramaic (‫ ;יברוחא‬DJBA 522). The reading of the initial part of
this gloss is not clear, however, and it seems like the scribe has erroneously insert-
ed an extra letter − the expected reading would be ‫יברוחי‬. It is possible that the
scribe initially began to write the second gloss, beginning -‫סב‬, and then corrected
himself to write ‫יברוחי‬. Sergius gives the following lemma and gloss:
‘μανδραγόρας which is mandrakes’ (BL Add
14,661, 33r). Note that the Syriac gloss is in the plural in both Sergius’s list and the
Genizah fragment. The second gloss is the equivalent Middle Persian term ‫סביסג‬,
for which compare New Persian sābizak (ILS 219) − compare also Syriac
and Jewish Aramaic ‫( סביסק‬SL 961 and DJBA 791). The lemma and glosses in the
Genizah fragment correspond to Bar Bahlul’s entry:
(BBah 1104), which again has the Syriac gloss in the plural.
Sergius translates Galen’s discussion of the mandrake thus:

‘There is much cold power in it like it is

from the third order of those that cool. But there is also a little heat in it, and there
is also moisture in its fruit, and therefore they also possess a hypnotic power. And
the peel of its root is very powerful and it does not only cool but it also dries. And
the root which is within the peel strengthens’ (BL Add 14,661, 50r–v). The content
and terminology of Sergius’s translation accords well with the Genizah fragment −
compare:
– ‫‘ חילא קרירא קנין בט דג‬they possess cold power in the third order’
with
– ‫‘ חזוריהון דין קנין קליל רטיבותא‬and their fruit possess a little moisture’
with
– ‫‘ קלפתא דין ]דע[קרהון‬and the peel of their fruit’
with

29 See Tibi 2006, for example, p. 47 for a recipe for ‘plain poppy syrup’ useful for treating catarrh,
and p. 157 for a list of authorities who considered it to be a cold substance.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
292 Siam Bhayro

The Genizah fragment gives more information, however, so it is clear that another
source is also being used.

Moss (v 13–16)
The lemma is not fully preserved, but the first gloss appears to read ‫שנתא‬, i.e.
Syriac ‘moss’ (SL 1581), for which Bar Bahlul gives the Arabic gloss
‘moss’, and adds: ‘and our master (i.e. Ḥu-
nayn) says that Sergius called it ’ (BBah 1995). This could possibly help us
identify the partially preserved lemma in the Genizah fragment. Sergius uses the
term to gloss the lemma (BL Add 14,661, 4r), i.e. Greek βρύον, a
term which refers to several types of moss (see DMT 98) and which elsewhere is
associated with Greek μάδος (see DMT 228). It is possible that Greek μάδος has
been adopted for a specific type of moss as Syriac , and that the lemma in
the Genizah fragment reads ‫מתיס‬. This is very conjectural, however, so has not
been incorporated into the above edition of the fragment. The following ‫[ום‬..]
‫ אידהיג‬is probably the Middle Persian equivalent, with ‫ אי‬perhaps representing the
relative pronoun ī.
The following description is fragmentary and the restored text and translation
remain uncertain. Moss is described as hot, able to stimulate secretions, and, per-
haps, useful when smeared.
There is a reference, in v 15–16, to a Galenic citation of Archigenes on the sub-
ject of headaches. Galen quotes the physician Archigenes of Apameia on many
occasions, and on headaches in particular in On Affected Parts (De locis affectis)
and On the Composition of Drugs according to Places (Comp.Med.Loc.). Unfortu-
nately, the Genizah text is too fragmentary to identify which text is being referred
to here.30

Marjoram (v 17–24)
In these eight lines, we have a discussion of four types of marjoram that is interest-
ing on account of its terminology and also because of how it relates to two other
sources. In terms of terminology, the main lemma and the names of the four subse-
quent types of marjoram are probably all Iranian. This break from the expected
pattern (i.e. a transliteration of the Greek term for the lemma that is followed by
Syriac and Middle Persian glosses) could lead us to the conclusion that this pas-
sage is not related to any underlying Greek source and represents a distinct oriental
tradition. In this respect, the Genizah fragment’s accordance with a passage from

30 For an introduction and suggestions for further reading, see Touwaide 2008, 160–161.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 293

Bar Bahlul’s lexicon could suggest that Bar Bahlul is preserving a truncated form
of this same tradition. Against this, however, are some curious coincidences be-
tween the Genizah fragment and Sergius’s translation of Galen’s discussion of
Greek ὀρίγανος, which also describes several varieties (BL Add 14,661, 58v). This
leads us to conclude that the Genizah fragment preserves a combination of Greek
and Iranian traditions, but has chosen to use Iranian terminology. Be that as it
may, it is clear that both the Bar Bahlul entry and Sergius’s translation of Galen’s
discussion of ὀρίγανος provide crucial aids in reconstructing the fragmentary text.
Bar Bahlul’s entry reads:

‘Marjoram ... There are four kinds. One is . And another is .

And another is white, which is called . And another is ’ (BBah 1153–
1154). The Genizah fragment can be safely restored as following the same sequence
and using the same terminology, albeit with more detail.
The lemma is almost entirely lost, save for the initial ‫מ‬. After a substantial gap,
the next visible letter is ‫ד‬, which ends the word before ‫ארדשירגן‬. This allows us
to restore ‫ מ]רוא ארבעא גנסא הוין ח[ד ארדשירגן‬in accordance with Bar Bahlul’s
entry. The restored lemma would then be ‫מרוא‬, i.e. Syriac ‘marjoram’ (Flora
II:101; Pfl 251–252; SL 829), itself derived from Middle Persian marw (ILS 206). The
first specific type is ‫ארדשירגן‬, which is an Iranian term that appears in Syriac
as (see ILS 100–101; SL 96). Ciancaglini recounts the suggestion of Gi-
gnoux that it is derived from Middle Persian *ardašīragān ‘(plant) of Ardašīr’, with
metathesis -rd- > -dr-. It is interesting, therefore, that the Genizah fragment clearly
reads ‫ארדשירגן‬, i.e. without the metathesis, evidently preserving a more conserva-
tive form and thus confirming the suggestion advanced by Gignoux. This type is
then described as being hot and dry.
The second type is ‫דמיזאדון‬, i.e. Syriac (SL 310), itself perhaps de-
rived from the Middle Persian verb ‘to blow, breathe’ (ILS 152), hence our (admitted-
ly conjectural) translation. This type is also said to be hot, and it is said to have
the same effect as another plant, ‫בשושא‬, i.e. Syriac (see SL 195, s. v. ).
According to Sergius’s glossary, ‘μῶλυ which is ’ (BL
Add 14,661, 33v). Greek μῶλυ refers to a kind of wild rue that is native to Cappado-
cia (DMT 242).
The definition of the third type is restored as [‫אחרנא ח]ורא[ דמתקרי ד]רמק‬
on account of the entry in Bar Bahlul. Again, ‫דרמק‬, i.e. Syriac (SL 324), is a
loan from Middle Persian (ILS 158). The description of the third type begins with
the phrase ‫הנא קטין מן תריהון‬, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the de-
scription of the third type in Sergius’s translation of Galen on ὀρίγανος:
‘And ὀρίγανον ἄγριον is more
powerful than the two of them’ (BL Add 14,661, 58v), hence our translation of ‫קטין‬.
The rest of the description is fragmentary but seems to refer to its use as a sedative,
which accords with what we know from other sources (PMM 317–318).

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
294 Siam Bhayro

The fourth type is ‫מרמהוז‬, i.e. Syriac (see SL 835, s. v. ),

which is again probably a loan from Middle Persian (ILS 210). The restoration at
the start of v 24 is uncertain, but is based on the final type discussed by Galen,
which is τραγορίγανος ‘goat’s marjoram, Thymus Teucrioides’ (DMT 312), for which
Sergius gives (BL Add 14,661, 58v).
By comparing the Genizah fragment and Bar Bahlul with Sergius’s translation
of Galen, we can perhaps establish connections between the following Greek terms
and Syriac terms of Iranian origin:
– ὀρίγανος and
– ὀρίγανος ἡ Ἡρακλεωτική and
– ὀνῖτις and
– ὀρίγανος ἄγριος and
– τραγορίγανος and

Balm (v 24–?)
The lemma is ‫מיליספרלון‬, apparently for Greek μελισσόφυλλον ‘balm, Melissa offi-
cinalis’ (DMT 233). Bar Bahlul gives the lemma (BBah 1022), so
it is possible that the form in the Genizah fragment demonstrates a dissimilation
of -ll- to -rl-. Sergius’s glossary states: ‘μελι-
σσόφυλλον which is ’ (BL Add 14,661, 33v), which accords with the gloss
in the Genizah fragment: = ‫( גגנא‬see Pfl 83–84; SL 203).

9. Wider Significance
The preceding detailed analysis demonstrates the value of the data that can be
obtained from even a small fragment. We saw, for example, that we are given a
glimpse into how Syriac may have been pronounced in the west (see footnote 16),
and also a remarkable confirmation of an idea first suggested by Gignoux (see the
discussion of ‫ ארדשירגן‬in v 17). The continuing importance of the Greek, Syriac
and Middle Persian terminology, as well as both the Classical and Iranian heritage,
into the second millennium of the Common Era is clearly demonstrated.
It is interesting that the text appears to be not arranged with practice in mind.
Practical texts tend to arrange such data in anatomical order (reflecting the area
to be treated), beginning with the head and working downwards (e.g. the texts
referred to in footnote 39). This text, on the other hand, very much appears to be
a more scholarly piece of literature. The substances are arranged, where possible,
in alphabetical order by the Greek lemma in its long-established Syriac translitera-
tion, followed by the Syriac term and then its Middle Persian term. The following

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 295

discussions reflect a scholarly context, with allusions to or quotations from earlier

scientific literature and references to ancient authorities.
According to the current scholarly consensus, Syriac scientific literature was
very much the poor relation of its Arabic counterpart. In short, the commonly-
accepted narrative is that pre-Islamic Syriac medical texts, typified by the efforts
of Sergius in the sixth century, were limited in scope, poor in quality and supersed-
ed by the Arabic scientific literature of the Abbasid period. Furthermore, the Syriac
texts that were produced in the Abbasid period were not an end in themselves, but
were mere stepping stones on the way to the Arabic versions of the same texts,
that is, part of a larger ‘Graeco-Arabic’ project.31
The agenda of belittling the Syriac sciences in comparison with the Arabic sci-
ences already existed in the Abbasid period. The most obvious proponent of this
agenda was Ḥunayn, who famously criticised the earlier translations while praising
his own. For example, regarding an earlier Syriac translation of Galen’s Simples, Ḥu-
nayn wrote
‘And Yūsuf the priest translated the first section, which is five
treatises, into Syriac − a repulsive, vile translation’.32 Later Abbasid writers were
only too pleased to perpetuate this agenda,33 which, in turn, prompted similar sen-
timents to be expressed by many of the great early orientalists. For example, when
introducing his readers to Syriac literature, William Wright, Professor of Arabic at
the University of Cambridge, wrote ‘We must own – and it is well to make the
confession at the outset – that the literature of Syria is, on the whole, not an at-
tractive one. As Renan said long ago, the characteristic of the Syrians is a certain
mediocrity. They shone neither in war, nor in the arts, nor in science’.34 Such dis-
missive attitudes towards the Syriac sources persist even in very recent works.35
In the light of recent research, however, it has become clear that most such
assumptions should be rejected.36 The earliest stage of Abbasid medical historiog-
raphy should certainly be labelled a hostile witness to the accomplishments of the
sixth-century Syriac medical works,37 while the view that the later Syriac transla-
tions were merely stepping stones on the way to Arabic translations has been
proved false. Indeed, Max Meyerhof remarked, almost a century ago, that the lan-
guage of the translation was determined by the creed of the client rather than its
stage in the translation process, with Arabic translations being made for Islamic

31 Typical of this approach is Gutas 1998, 21–22.

32 For the Arabic text and German translation, see Bergsträsser 1925, pp. and 24.
33 A useful selection of examples is provided in Rosenthal 1946, 253–254.
34 Wright 1894, 1–2. Adding insult to injury, Wright continues by stating that, because Syriac litera-
ture transmitted Greek ideas to the Arabs, it merits study.
35 I address a recent example of this in Bhayro 2013, 133–137.
36 See, e.g., Bhayro & Brock 2013, 41–42.
37 Thus Bhayro 2005, 152–156.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
296 Siam Bhayro

clients, and Syriac translations being made for Christian clients.38 Furthermore,
the persistence of Syriac medical texts into the twentieth century demonstrates
that, among the Christian communities for whom they were composed, there was
probably very little diminishing in their status.39
The current fragment pushes things further, however, as it shows that, at some
point in the classical Genizah period,40 despite the availability of a myriad of Ara-
bic texts that discussed medicinal substances,41 a Syriac text was deemed impor-
tant enough to be put into Judaeo-Syriac. This not only testifies to the continuing
importance of Syriac medical literature,42 beyond the point where it was supposed-
ly superseded by its Arabic counterpart, but it also demonstrates how barriers be-
tween different creeds and their respective languages break down in the process
of the transmission of technical literature. In this case, it is Christianity and Juda-
ism, each with their own distinctive dialect of Aramaic. Or, on a more personal
note, our fragment suggests that, in a medieval Islamic context, a Jew and a Chris-
tian shared a meaningful level of scientific and intellectual fellowship.43

Bibliography
Bembry, J. 2009. “Cairo Genizah Document T-S A 39.3; Textual Issues and Multiple Vocalizations”.
In: Maarav 16: 181–189.
Bergsträsser, G. 1925. Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen.
Leipzig.

38 Meyerhof 1926, 711. It is remarkable how subsequent scholarship has almost completely ignored
Meyerhof’s astute observations.
39 Consider, for example, the manuscripts edited in Budge 1913 and Gottheil 1899.
40 For the reckoning of the ‘first centuries of the second Christian millennium’ as being the ‘hey-
day of the Geniza’, see Blau 1999, 242.
41 For a brief introduction to the Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic medical texts in the Cairo Genizah and
a further bibliography, see the short article by Fenton 1980. For more details, consult Isaacs & Baker
1994. A useful introduction recently appeared in Lev & Chipman 2012, 7–20.
42 Another testimony to the continued importance of Syriac medical literature is the Judaeo-Arabic
translation of Sergius’s introduction to his Syriac translation of Galen’s Commentary on Hippocrates’
On Nutriment; see Bos & Langermann 2009.
43 This also raises another important point: We should not allow the Cairo Genizah to skew our
perception of medieval medicine under Islam. Important as this archive is, we should not assume
that its contents are indicative of medical practice in regions further east in the Islamic world. The
present leaf probably originates in Syria, and suggests that, in order to practice medicine, a Jewish
physician was compelled to understand the Syriac sources of his local contemporaries. This may
shed some light on the situation in Syria and Mesopotamia, where Syriac probably retained more
importance and Nestorian Christians held positions of prestige under Abbasid patronage. Further-
more, this may be a practical example of the repercussions of the ‘Syriac renaissance’, which proba-
bly began around the turn of the millennium – see Teule 2010, 3–5.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 297

Bhayro, S. 2005. “Syriac Medical Terminology: Sergius and Galen’s Pharmacopia”. In: Aramaic
Studies 3. 147–165.
Bhayro, S. 2009. Review of Lev and Amar, Practical Materia Medica of the Medieval Eastern
Mediterranean according to the Cairo Genizah. In: Medical History 53. 455–456
Bhayro, S. 2012. “A Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah”. In: Aramaic Studies
10. 153–172.
Bhayro, S. 2013. “The Reception of Galen’s Art of Medicine in the Syriac Book of Medicines”.
In: B. Zipser (ed.), Medical Books in the Byzantine World. Bologna, 123–144.
Bhayro, S. 2014. “Remarks on the Genizah Judaeo-Syriac Fragment”. In: Aramaic Studies 12.
143–153.
Bhayro, S. 2015. “Judeo-Syriac”. In: L. Kahn and A. D. Rubin (eds.), Handbook of Jewish
Languages. Leiden, 628–631.
Bhayro S. and S. Brock, 2013. “The Syriac Galen Palimpsest and the Role of Syriac in the
Transmission of Greek Medicine in the Orient”. In: Bulletin of the John Rylands University
Library of Manchester 89 (supplement: R. David (ed.), Ancient Medical and Healing Systems
in the Near East, Greece and Rome): 25–43.
Blau, J. 1993. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew (Second amended edition). Wiesbaden.
Blau, J. 1999. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A Study on the Origins
of Neo-Arabic and Middle Arabic (Third revised edition). Jerusalem.
Blau, J. 2002. A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic. Jerusalem.
Bos G. and Y. T. Langermann, 2009. “The Introduction of Sergius of Rēshʿainā to Galen’s
Commentary of Hippocrates’ On Nutriment”. In: Journal of Semitic Studies 54. 179–204.
Budge, E. A. W. 1913. The Syriac Book of Medicines: Syrian Anatomy, Pathology and Therapeutics
in the Early Middle Ages. 2 vols. London.
Ciancaglini, C. A. 2008. Iranian Loanwords in Syriac. Wiesbaden.
Durling, R. J. 1993. A Dictionary of Medical Terms in Galen. Leiden.
Duval, R. 1901. Lexicon Syriacum auctore Hassano Bar Bahlule. II. Paris.
Fenton, P. 1980. “The Importance of the Cairo Genizah for the History of Medicine”. In: Medical
History 24. 347–348.
Gottheil, R. J. H. 1899. “Contributions to Syriac Folk-Medicine”. In: Journal of the American
Oriental Society 20. 186–205.
Gutas, D. 1998. Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in
Baghdad in Early ʿAbbāsid Society (2nd–4th/8th–10 th centuries). New York.
Healey, J. F. 2012. “Targum Proverbs and the Peshitta: Reflections on the Linguistic Environment”.
In: G. Khan and D. Lipton (eds.), Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in
Honour of Robert Gordon. Leiden, 325–335.
Isaacs, H. D. and C. F. Baker, 1994. Medical and Para-Medical Manuscripts in the Cambridge
Genizah Collections. Cambridge.
Lev, E. and Z. Amar, 2008. Practical Materia Medica of the Medieval Eastern Mediterranean
according to the Cairo Genizah. Leiden.
Lev, E. and L. Chipman, 2012. Medical Prescriptions in the Cambridge Genizah Collections:
Practical Medicine and Pharmacology in Medieval Egypt. Leiden.
Levene, D. 1999. ““... and by the name of Jesus ...”: An Unpublished Magic Bowl in Jewish
Aramaic”. In: Jewish Studies Quarterly 6. 283–308.
Lipiński, E. 2001. Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (Second edition).
Leuven.
Löw, I. 1881. Aramäische Pflanzennamen. Leipzig.
Löw, I. 1924–1934. Die Flora der Juden. Vienna and Leipzig.
Marx, A. 1921. “An Aramaic Fragment of the Wisdom of Solomon”. In: Journal of Biblical Literature
40. 57–69.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
298 Siam Bhayro

Merx, A. 1885. “Proben der syrischen Uebersetzung von Galenus’ Schrift über die einfachen
Heilmittel”. In: Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 39. 237–305.
Meyerhof, M. 1926. “New Light on Ḥunain Ibn Isḥâq and his Period”. In: Isis 8. 685–724.
Müller-Kessler, C. 1991. Grammatik des Christlich-Palästinisch-Aramäischen. Teil 1: Schriftlehre,
Lautlehre, Formenlehre. Hildesheim.
Nöldeke, T. 1904. Compendious Syriac Grammar (transl. J. A. Crichton). London.
Payne Smith, J. 1903. A Compendious Syriac Dictionary. Oxford.
Powell, O. 2003. Galen: On the Properties of Foodstuffs. Cambridge.
Rosenthal, F. 1946. Review of R. Walzer (ed.), Galen: On Medical Experience. In: Isis 36. 251–255.
Shaked, S. 2000. “Manichaean Incantation Bowls in Syriac”. In: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and
Islam 24. 58–92.
Sokoloff, M. 2002. A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic of the Talmudic and Geonic Periods.
Ramat-Gan and Baltimore.
Sokoloff, M. 2009. A Syriac Lexicon: A Translation from the Latin, Correction, Expansion, and
Update of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Winona Lake and Piscataway.
Teule, H. 2010. “The Syriac Renaissance”. In: H. Teule and C. F. Tauwinkl (eds.), The Syriac
Renaissance. Leuven, 1–30.
Thompson, D. W. 1947. A Glossary of Greek Fishes. London.
Tibi, S. 2006. The Medicinal Use of Opium in Ninth-Century Baghdad. Leiden.
Touwaide, A. 2008. “Arkhigenēs of Apameia (95–115 CE)”. In: P. Keyser and G. L. Irby-Massie
(eds.), The Encyclopedia of Ancient Natural Scientists: The Greek Tradition and its Many
Heirs. London, 160–161.
Weitzman, M. P. 1999. The Syriac Version of the Old Testament: An Introduction. Cambridge.
Wright, W. 1894. A Short History of Syriac Literature. London.

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
 The Judaeo-Syriac Medical Fragment from the Cairo Genizah 299

T-S K 14.22 recto

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM
300 Siam Bhayro

T-S K 14.22 verso

Brought to you by | De Gruyter / TCS

Authenticated
Download Date | 11/9/17 1:20 PM