1 Introduction
Those who are fortunate enough to survive relatively intact into their senior years are at the same time unfortunate enough to witness the departure for climes more eternal of family members, colleagues, and contemporaries. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why interest in biographies and autobiographies appears to become more intense on the part of mature individuals than among those of the younger generation. Concomitant with such an interest is an enthusiasm for becoming acquainted not only with formal assessments of those who are no longer with us but also with personal details, anecdotes and impressions relating to them that are not always includedâand indeed sometimes consciously omittedâfrom the official accounts. Such data are not always available or have to be ferreted out of the personal or institutional undergrowth, but when they do make their appearance, they contribute to more nuanced appreciations of individuals, their characteristics, and their achievements. In her study of the nature of biographical writing, Hermione Lee has stressed how important it is to take into account that the readers of such volumes have an insatiable appetite for stories and anecdotes, as well as personal details and allegiances.1 I was privileged to be in regular contact, both personally and by correspondence, with Professor Shelomo (Fritz) Dov Goitein, a pioneer and ultimately the doyen of research into Genizah2 documents from 1973â¯CE until his death in 1985. A file of our exchanges was maintained in the Genizah Research Unit at Cambridge University Library, and it is on the basis of such a file that I am now able to report on how he related to our work in the Unit and to me as an individual during those dozen years of change and creativity.3
To understand better such a report, it is necessary to devote a few remarks to what is widely known about the man who generally referred to himself simply as âS.D. Goitein, or âSDGâ. Born and educated in an intellectual and observant Jewish family in Bavaria, and later in Frankfurt-am-Main and Berlin, he was in the best sense of the word a true âYekkeâ, a cultured, learned and impeccably behaved German Jew. I never knew him to behave as a âprima donnaâ in the manner that was characteristic of some of his scholarly contemporaries. Indeed, that may have been one of the reasons why he moved from Jerusalem to the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in 1957, and later to the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton in 1971. He wished for nothing more than a quiet and friendly atmosphere in which he could research and write. To see him sorting, identifying, and analysing small fragments of Genizah texts was to witness a scholar who loved his work, enthused about his discoveries, and was anxious to share the results with all who cared to listen or read. It is undoubtedly true that he was almost obsessively industrious in his academic work but at the same time, he always found time for his students and colleagues and enjoyed socializing with them, often in a most charming fashion. He was unfailingly honest and at times even somewhat direct, offering criticism as well as praise when he thought they were warranted.4
Although expertly trained as an assiduous Semitic philologist and perfectly capable of writing accurate and informative footnotes for his studies, he was never of a mind to compile a page that offered two lines of text and the remainder of lengthy and exaggerated documentation. Although he was perfectly capable of producing highly specialised studies, he saw himself, by personality, as well as by profession, as an educator and felt compelled to translate such studies into a form of language and presentation that could be more broadly appreciated. He was never dismissive of attempts to popularise scholarly discoveries; on the contrary he offered praise for such activity when it was accurately done. He assisted his students and other scholars most generously and shared information without hesitation. Especially in his monumental work on the social and economic documents from the Cairo Genizah, he never lost sight of the fact that there were invariably, behind such texts, real people, with worries, ambitions and experiences and they, and not just their writings, deserved the close attention of historians.5 There was no affected humility about him; he had a sound sense of his own abilities and achievements and was not inclined to shroud these in layers of mock modesty. Nor was he averse to referring to his own life experiences if he could thereby clarify the academic point he wished to make. He generally seemed aware when composing letters for typing that he was consigning his comments to the historical record and when he wished to make a confidential point he would do so in an additional handwritten note in Hebrew.
2 Beginnings
Although SDG was, as an expert Semitic philologist, interested in the texts from the Cairo Genizah, and au fait with what had been and was continuing to be published, his intense involvement in Genizah research was motivated by a number of factors and events in the mid-1950s. One of these is especially relevant to his relationship with Cambridge and was reported by him in detail during conferences sponsored by the Association for Jewish Studies in April 1973 and published a year or so later; it therefore warrants citation in this context:6
A year later, on 7 October 1955, which happened to be HoshaÊ¿na Rabba, Mr Creswick, the Librarian, came down to the Anderson room for manuscript reading and said to me: âI see you here every year working assiduously on our Geniza [sic.] collections. I should like to show you something.â With Susan Skilliter, then in charge of the Oriental Department, we went up to the uppermost floor, just under the roof, and there I saw a crate of dimensions I have never seen in my life. In huge letters the address Alexandria-Liverpool was written on it, but also, in another script, of course, the word: Rubbish. Some smaller crates were also around. The Librarian said: âWe have had this material for about sixty years and now must decide what to do about it. Could you tell us whether it has any value?â One of the crates was opened. The very first paper I fished out was a fragment of 55 lines of a letter sent from Aden to India which now bears the mark TS NS J 1, that is, Taylor-Schechter Collection, Documents, no. 1. I showed it to the librarian and said: âThis is a letter exactly like one of those which you keep downstairs under glasses twenty inches long.â
This historical note by SDG is worthy of serious annotation. Firstly, it indicates how significant he thought it was to report in such a personal way, for the record, his involvement with the un-conserved Cambridge Genizah material and with the establishment of the New Series. He also regarded it as important to mention precisely the personalities involved and the date of the event.7 What is more, ever the teacher, he not only cites the classmark later given to the fragment but also explains what is indicated by the numeration. There is also a touch of drama in the manner in which he presents the conversation and his own assessment of the fragment drawn from one of the crates. If ever I needed any justification for undertaking my present task of offering some personal data relating to SDG and Cambridge, it is surely to be found in his own apparent enthusiasm, as a social historian, and not only a critical philologist, for such data.
A few weeks before SDGâs presentation to the Association for Jewish Studies, I had begun my own close relationship with the Cambridge Genizah Collections. I had been interviewed in Cambridge in February 1973 and offered an appointment as the librarian responsible for those medieval literary and documentary treasures. I had explained that my interest and expertise in such manuscripts was primarily in the literary items in general and in the liturgical fragments in particular, and not in the Judaeo-Arabic documents, but that I was obviously enthused by the idea of taking broad care of the needs of such a rich source of Hebrew and Jewish history.8 After the formal appointment, which was to begin in the autumn of 1973, I determined that I should seek advice from those with a close acquaintance with the Cambridge Genizah Collections in those two areas of research. I would consult SDG with regard to the latter and my own teacher, Professor Naphtali Wieder, with regard to the former. I thus found myself, on a sunny Sunday in May of that year, on my way by train from Philadelphia to Princeton to meet the hero of documentary Genizah research and publication. SDG, as always, ensured that I, as his guest, was brought from the station and well looked after. He had entrusted this task to Gershon Weiss, who had completed a doctorate under his supervision,9 and I was able to come to SDGâs office, hear from him how he managed his extensive Genizah research, and discuss with him not only what I had achieved by that point in my career but, more importantly, what plans I had for my work at Cambridge. The two challenges that he regarded as especially critical, among the many that he mentioned, were the sorting and conservation of the many thousands of fragments in the remaining thirty-two crates and the preparation of a bibliography of all published work on the items that had been available until that point. He did not shy away from acknowledging his own personal interest in using such material, as soon as it became available, for his multi-volume work A Mediterranean Society. Talks with Naphtali Wieder were to follow in the summer and he offered similar suggestions. SDG made it clear that he stood ready to assist and advise me whenever that might prove necessary. I found that most reassuring. Not for a moment did he give the impression that he was too important a scholar to concern himself with the efforts of a young scholar attempting to climb a steep mountain with a pack of problems weighing him down.
3 Cambridge Involvement
So began eleven years of correspondence and cooperation. I kept him informed of developments and he unfailingly responded with comments and advice. When I obtained the external funding that made it possible for Cambridge University Library to create, in February 1974, the Genizah Research Unit that I was destined to direct for thirty-two years, I requested the assistance of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Israel Academy in recruiting the necessary specialists to identify material in the various areas of learning represented by the Cambridge Genizah Collections and in meeting a fair proportion of the costs of sending them to Cambridge for that purpose. I also needed to appoint two research assistants to work on aspects of the project that I had planned and outlined. The two senior academics from Jerusalem with whom I was involved were Professors Ephraim Urbach and Haim Beinart.10 SDG was keen to have Weiss appointed to one of those posts and pressed his case with me and with Jerusalem.11 I believe that there must have been some residual tensions between SDG and the Jerusalem academic establishment because they did not agree with his proposal as far as the assistantships were concerned and they had in mind their own appointees for specialised work on the Cambridge fragments.
Once the crates began to be emptied and the fragments conserved, three of SDGâs academic protégés, Mordechai Friedman, Mark Cohen, and Gershon Weiss came to work on the newly available material and to report back to the master on their research and discoveries. He was in touch not only with them but also with other, more senior figures: âI hear from both Dr. Fleischer and Professor Mark Cohen how well you received them and I was very happy about this.â12 SDG himself spent two weeks in Cambridge in July 1975 and spent his days working on the Arabic and Judaeo-Arabic material and sorting it into nine boxes in the newly established Additional Series. It was a great pleasure to watch him working on these items and to marvel at the speed and erudition with which he was able to identify and describe item after item. On one occasion he asked me to come into the closed areas known as the Manuscripts Stacks, where I had set up a working corner for him, so that he could share with me an exciting discovery. He pulled out a fragment from what was to become box CUL T-S AS 146 and swiftly and effortlessly translated the contents, explaining that he saw it as a reference to Judah Ha-Leviâs departure from Alexandria in the early summer of 1141 on a voyage to the Holy Land, where he apparently died some two months later. His relevant article appeared in TarbiẠtwo years after the discovery and identification.13
SDG and I were in correspondence when I was searching for suitable research assistants to work on the cataloguing of the biblical and Judaeo-Arabic fragments. He had obviously experienced some poor appointments in some earlier project and wished to share with me the lesson he had learned: âMy general advice would be to proceed with utmost circumspection. An appointment, even a temporary one, of an unsuitable person, can have disastrous results. We already have had such an experience.â He went on to describe the results of that appointment as âworthless or outright faulty.â14 The fragments of the New Series that had begun to undergo conservation a few years before my arrival had been consigned to huge, bulky binders and there was much consternation on the part of numerous scholars about their size and shape. About a year after I took up my post, SDG expressed to me his view in no uncertain terms: âI was sad to learn from Mr. Mark Cohen that the work of demolition of the TS collection is being continued. In August 1970 I warned your predecessor, Mr. Knopf, in the strongest terms that these big cases cannot be used for serious work ⦠it is practically impossible to scrutinise the manuscripts exactly ⦠those who use them will always be forced to lean over them with half their bodies.â15 I was able to assure him that my plans for smaller and more manageable binders were already under way. SDG came again to Cambridge University Library in the summer of 1979 while I was on study leave at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. He again contributed important descriptions to our records of the documentary material, most of it, of course, in Judaeo-Arabic. He had plans for a return visit in 1980 but these never materialised. Even in 1974 he had been apprehensive about travelling to England âin view of the extremely unstable state of western Europe.â16
4 Other Assistance
There were other ways in which SDG consistently assisted our efforts as well as making good use of our presence in the Library to clarify some matter relating to his own work on A Mediterranean Society. The Unit was fortunate to have on its staff, at various times, a number of outstanding Arabists and SDG corresponded with them about mutually interesting matters. Simon Hopkins, followed by Paul Fenton, and later Geoffrey Khan, fulfilled such a role and SDG had high opinions of their abilities.17 It was inevitable that such scholars would ultimately leave to further their careers but their absence, and the discontinuation of their exchanges, obviously disappointed him to a degree, as he specifically stated in connection with Fentonâs departure (âI regret his departure very much.â).18 When Khanâs first paper appeared, he read it âwith much interestâ.19 With regard to the Unitâs plans for a massive bibliography of all published material relating to its Genizah holdings, he was concerned that there should be no unnecessary duplication of effort: âI wonder whether you plan to confine yourself to non-documentary materials or whether you also intend to continue Shaked, which would include correcting his mistakes and filling in his omissions. May I suggest you get in touch with Professor Mordechai Friedman of Tel Aviv University who seems to have similar plans and you both decide about a reasonable division of labor [sic.].â20 Before he arrived at the Library in 1975 he wished to ensure that the best use would be made of his time: âI should like also to sit with you one or two mornings and go with you over your A[dditional] S[eries] of documentary character. We then shall discuss what action should best be undertaken in connection with AS. After all, I, too, am a member of H[ebrew] U[niversity]â.21 This last comment perhaps indicated a little impatience with what he evidently saw as Jerusalemâs tendency to exercise more control over the project than he thought necessary. Once SDG knew that I might be taking on the responsibility for preparing a catalogue of the Libraryâs Hebrew manuscripts, that is, all thousand codices and some Genizah items, he generously offered to check for me the descriptions of those latter items.22 Alas, many other duties and responsibilities occupied me at the Library and I was unable to complete that task until 1997, some twelve years after his death.23
Photographs of fragments were regularly sent to him and I met his request for copies of the slides I used to illustrate my introductory lecture on the Cairo Genizah. Many times (sometimes in confidence) he shared with me his plans for publications, and in 1978 he wished to know more about the involvement of the American Friends of Cambridge University, and its director, Gordon Williams, in the Unitâs fund-raising operations.24 Unlike some scholars, he was always meticulous about giving credit for any assistance he had received and he specifically checked with me, not only once, how precisely this should be done. With regard to the use of Cambridge Genizah items in his A Mediterranean Society, he wrote: âSince, while ordering them, I noted âfor study and publicationâ, I shall remark, as usual, âwith the permission of the Syndics of the CULâ, but would like to add âand thanks to the Genizah Research Unit for their good servicesâ. Is this the proper form?â.25 In the matter of citing Genizah fragments, there was something of a confusion among scholars until I tried to regularise it soon after my appointment. Obviously, SDG wished to follow the correct procedure but by that time he had published so many items that it was difficult for him to change the systems. He therefore continued to use âTSâ instead of âT-Sâ and to use âf.â before the fragment number when it should simply have been a full-stop followed by a running number.26 When the Unit obtained funds for descriptions of the medical fragments, he made an excellent suggestion as to who might be a suitable appointee: âIt occurred to me that the Iraqi Jewish physician who published Israeliâs ḤummayÄt together with Derek Latham at Manchester might be willing to have a look at the medical fragments, perhaps to do the job himself.â27 He was referring to Dr Haskell Isaacs who did in fact come to Cambridge, spending a number of happy retirement years there and completing the required volume shortly before he died.28
In order to allow the senior researchers who came to the Library to work on the sorting of the fragments, and to access the closed area of the Manuscripts Stacks, the Library appointed them as temporary members of staff. This was part of the more formal and better-administered procedures that had been adopted with the establishment of the Genizah Research Unit and that were intended to bring an end to the careless arrangements of earlier times that had led to all manner of problems.
SDG, who had always been most correct in how he dealt with the Library and its holdings, was a little surprised by this: âEighteen times I have visited and used ULCâs treasures and have also contributed a little bit to their accessibility (Religion etc., pp. 145â146), but I have never heard such formal parlance before.â29 When we applied, on an annual basis, for funding from the British Academy, SDG kindly and regularly provided one of the necessary academic references but, having done so for a number of years, he opted out after 1982 because ârubber-stamped recommendations make a poor impression.â30 When time was pressing for him, he regretted that he could not help, as with my request for data in connection with the Unitâs major bibliographical project.31 When asked in 1983 for a contribution to the Unitâs newsletter Genizah Fragments he expressed a preference for waiting until a future visit when he could write an assessment of all the new developments of the 1970s and early 1980s: âI still hope to do work in Cambridge and then to be able to appreciate the tremendous changes made based on my own experience. During my visit in 1975, I was exclusively occupied with the AS fragments, as you might remember, and had no opportunity to use the newly treated main section of the TS Collection.â32
5 Criticism and Praise
When copies of our publications were sent to SDG, he always replied with comments, some of them critical and some adulatory. With regard to the booklet A Guide to the Taylor-Schechter Genizah Collection, he welcomed it as my first accomplishment and noted that scholars and students would be grateful. At the same time, he drew attention to the importance of his own publications that should have been mentioned in the brief bibliography and thought the comments about the New Series âhazyâ.33 Even the little pamphlet that we produced in the context of our fund-raising campaign, and that was intended for popular dissemination and not for specialist scholars, attracted his favourable comment: â⦠let me congratulate you on the grant from the British Academy and, even more, on Priceless Collection, which is a masterpiece of conciseness.â34 He described Simon Hopkinsâs Miscellany35 as âbeautiful and most usefulâ, a publication for which âeveryone in Geniza [sic.] research will be gratefulâ but also pointed out that the attribution on p. 46 to Abraham b. Nathan was incorrect since the scribe was actually Abraham b. YijÅ«.36 Although he was glad to see Malcolm Davisâs Hebrew Bible Manuscripts37 (âthis new fruit of your initiative and resourcefulnessâ) he was disappointed with what he regarded as errors in transcription and sent a long, hand-written list of suggested corrections.38 I thanked him for all of these and explained or challenged only a few of them. In August 1975, he made some unfavourable remarks about a few photostats that he had received from the Library but a month later was gracious enough to regret that he had used âtoo harsh languageâ in this connection.39 He obviously perused everything I sent him with a scholarâs eagle eye. Of a review of mine he remarked that he was impressed and that it was âwell balanced and competentâ.40 When he read a piece I had written for the Cambridge Review, he remarked that I âshould have mentioned Creswick who initiated the NS Seriesâ. I responded that the topic was the conservation process and not the history of the various sections of the Collections.41
I was twenty-nine years old when I took charge of the Cambridge Genizah Collections, with only five years of academic experience behind me. It was therefore of great importance to me to have the support and encouragement of such a major figure as SDG in the plans I was making for rectifying the Libraryâs failure over a number of decades to meet the extensive needs of those many thousands of precious Genizah items.42 Like another distinguished scholar, Raphael Loewe, who saw the swift achievements of the Genizah Research Unit as an indication âthat the scalesâ had âat last fallen from the universityâs eyesâ,43 SDG was much pleased by the developments within the Unit and was not averse to expressing his approval in many of his letters. He was anxious for good Arabists to remain in the Unit and for me to be promoted. In that latter connection, he added handwritten notes in Hebrew inquiring about the progress being made44 and when it occurred, he wrote: âI congratulate you and all the users of the ULC Collection on your important promotion. Please convey our good wishes also to Mrs. Reif.â45 He knew that the University Librarian, Eric Ceadel, had been instrumental in approving and supporting the Unitâs plans and was much saddened by his untimely death: âI was shocked to learn ⦠that Mr. Ceadel has died. Such a nice, and comparatively young man!â46
Towards the end of 1974, I invited the Genizah master to deliver a lecture on the Genizahâs contribution to Jewish learning at a seminar being planned and sponsored by the British Academy and the Jewish Historical Society of England for the autumn of 1975. He replied that he could not commit himself to speaking in London at that time but generously added the following comment: âIt is, however, my considered opinion that there is no better candidate for delivering a paper on the contribution of Geniza [sic.] research to general human knowledge than Dr. Stefan. C. Reif. You are now in the midst of things and it is my experience that a man like you, who is both outside and inside, is best fit to provide a general survey of the state of the subject. A scholar, who like myself, specialises in one compartment of the subject, is always inclined to be one-sided. You will be able to give just appreciation of the entire work done.â47 Gratified as I was by his remarks, I nevertheless felt that a more senior scholar than I should undertake the task and prevailed upon Professor Shelomo Morag, then on sabbatical at St Johnâs College, Cambridge, to give the required paper. What I did not appreciate when I wrote a piece for the Festschrift prepared for him and published in 1981,48 was that SDG had completed a dissertation on the subject of Prayer in the Qurʾan almost sixty years earlier. Unsurprisingly, therefore, he could relate closely to the liturgical topic with which I had chosen to offer in his honour. He thanked me for what he kindly described as an âintriguing and deep searching contributionâ and made an important point about fragments in this field: â⦠it is surprising how many variants are provided by the Geniza [sic.] even for the most common prayers. One finds occasionally copies of prayers on the reverse side of letters and mostly somewhat different from the âofficialâ text (if there exists such a thing).â49
6 Personal Remarks
SDG very much enjoyed Cambridge, which he once praised to me as âso civilisedâ a place, and which he often described as the Mecca of Genizah scholarship. He liked to take walks in and around the city. I accompanied him on one of these and asked him what his plans were for future scholarly work. He gave me a list of these that was bound to take many years to complete and this was a remarkable statement on the part of a man who was already in his seventies. His knowledge not only of ancient languages but also of modern ones was deeply impressive, although I must confess to an inner amusement when he assured me, in the delightful cadences of a true âYekkeâ, that he spoke them all without an accent. He would also often complete his oral comments on a fragment he was examining with the German phrase âund so weiterâ (= âand so onâ). My late wife, Shulie, and I entertained him to dinner at home and also arranged there a sherry party at which he could meet a number of Cambridge scholars. He thoughtfully thanked us afterwards for âthe enjoyable hours I spent in your hospitable homeâ50 and did not fail to âextend greetingsâ to all those who had been present.51 What is more, he had met our children Tanya and Aryeh, and made a point of sending regards to them and to Shulie in subsequent correspondence. He not only pleased us by referring to them as âlovely childrenâ52 but also made use of learned sources to describe them. In one letter they were the â®
When he heard that I was coming to New York in 1977, he expressed the hope that we could meet again personally but it turned out that my time there was limited and too full of other lecturing and fund-raising commitments to make that possible.55 When his book Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders was published,56 he told me which publications had been furnished with review copies and suggested that I write one of the reviews.57 His concern for individuals was also manifest in some of his letters. Concerning Alexander Scheiber in Budapest, he informed me: âI wrote him repeatedly and received no answer, and I am disquietedâ58 and he wrote of A.L. Motzkin: âHe rarely answers letters, even mine; so do not despair if you remain without answer.â59 He also inquired whether I had âheard anything from Dr Lebedev of the Saltykov-Shchedrin Library in Leningrad.â60 SDG often shared with me his plans and his progress. In 1982 he wrote: âThese days I am working day and night to ready vol. IV of A Medit. Soc. (900 pp.) for the U Cal. P. Vol V (and definitely the last!) is well progressed.â61 He poignantly stated a few months later: âMy state of health forces me to concentrate on my work and to cut back with my correspondence.â62 A few weeks before he passed away, he wrote: âYesterday I sent the MS of the fifth and last volume of A Mediterranean Society to my publisher and am now free to turn to my study of the Jewish India trade of the Middle Ages.â63 Alas, that planned study was not destined to reach fruition.
7 Conclusion
What emerges from this brief examination of what probably represents only a tiny part of his extensive sets of correspondence with friends and colleagues worldwide is that SDG was not only an outstanding and innovative scholar but also, to use the Yiddish expression, a true mensch, and one who cared about people. He generously shared his time, his expertise, and his experience with colleagues, as well as supporting and encouraging younger scholars to make progress with their plans and projects. He criticised constructively and praised magnanimously. His suggestions about the future of Genizah research and the directions to be taken by the Genizah Research Unit were of inestimable value. There is no doubt that he deserves considerable credit for standing with the Unit from the very outset, while others either took their time in offering support or were sceptical and even at times less than helpful. In this celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Unitâs establishment, we should recall with gratitude the important part he played in ensuring its success.
Lee 2005, 1â3.
Cambridge University Library, from the time of the arrival and presentation of the Genizah materials in 1897â1898, used the Hebrew transliteration of âGenizahâ rather than the Arabic one âgenizaâ. SDG used the latter and I have left his spelling, as he preferred it, when citing his letters and publications.
I am grateful to the Genizah Research Unit, headed by Dr Ben Outhwaite, for making this file available to me once again after my retirement, and to Sarah Sykes (Unit Research Support & Admin) for facilitating this.
For biographical details I am indebted to Udovitch 1987; Lassner 1999; and Wasserstrom 2007.
Goitein 1967â1988.
Goitein 1974, 145â146.
For the fuller background, see Reif 2000, 245â246.
Further details are in Reif 2021, 161â165.
Gershon Weiss, who taught at Temple University, sadly died in 1981 at the early age of 46; see Goitein 1976â1988, vol. 4 (1983), xvii.
Reif 2021, 200.
SDG to SCR, 28.06.74: âI do not see that the Hebrew University has anyone comparable to Weiss.â There is also in the file a copy of his letter of 29.07.74 to Professor Urbach.
SDG to SCR, 29.07.74.
Goitein 1975.
SDG to SCR, 12.03.74.
SDG to SCR, 20.08.74.
SDG to SCR, 20.11.74.
Reif 2021, 201â203.
SDG to SCR, 28.09.82.
SDG to SCR, 21.12.84.
SDG to SCR, 26.04.74.
SDG to SCR, 06.05.75.
SDG to SCR, 22.08.73.
Reif 1997, 32.
SDG to SCR, 09.10.78.
SDG to SCR, 21.12.84.
See his explanation in SDG to SCRÂ 11.08.78.
SDG to SCR, 28.09.82.
Isaacs 1994.
SDG to SCR, 19.03.75.
SDG to SCR, 15.03.82.
SDG to SCR, 19.02.81: âTo convert my card indexes into [bibliographical] lists would require much time and money, which I do not have.â
SDG to SCR, 02.06.83.
SDG to SCR, 11.02.74.
SDG to SCR, 27.06.78.
Hopkins 1978.
SDG to SCR, 09.10.78.
Davis 1978.
SDG to SCR, 16.11.78.
SDG to SCR, 19.08.75 and 22.09.75.
SDG to SCR, 22.08.73.
SDG to SCR, 15.03.82; SCR to SDG, 31.03.82.
For details, see Reif 2021, 171â187.
Loewe 1979.
SDG to SCR, 01.12.75 and 09.06.76.
SDG to SCR, 22.06.76.
SDG to SCR, 10.10.80.
SDG to SCR, 12.10.74.
Reif 1981.
SDG to SCR, 25.03.81.
SDG to SCR, 28.07.75.
SDG to SCR, 19.08.75.
SDG to SCR, 21.03.79.
SDG to SCR, 01.05.76.
SDG to SCR, 27.11.77.
SDG to SCR, 25.02.77.
Goitein 1973.
SDG to SCR, 26.03.74.
SDG to SCR, 29.07.74.
SDG to SCR, 04.09.74.
SDG to SCR, 29.10.82.
SDG to SCR, 07.02.82.
SDG to SCR, 28.09.82.
SDG to SCR, 21.12.84.
References
Davis, M.C. 1978. Hebrew Bible Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. Volume 1. Taylor-Schechter Old Series and other Genizah Collections in Cambridge University Library. Incorporating material compiled by H. Knopf. Cambridge: Cambridge University Library.
Goitein, Shelomo Dov 1967â1988. A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. Five volumes; Berkeley: University of California.
Goitein, Shelomo Dov 1973. Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders. Translated from the Arabic with Introductions and Notes. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Goitein, Shelomo Dov 1974. âInvolvement in Geniza Research,â Religion in a Religious Age: Proceedings of Regional Conferences Held at the University of California, Los Angeles and Brandeis University in April , 1973. Cambridge, Mass.: Association for Jewish Studies, 139â146.
Goitein, Shelomo Dov 1975. âDid Yehuda Halevi Arrive in the Holy Land?â, TarbiẠ46, 245â250.
Hopkins, Simon 1978. A Miscellany of Literary Pieces from the Cambridge Genizah Collections: A Catalogue and Selection of Texts in the Taylor-Schechter Collection, Old Series, Box A45. Cambridge: Cambridge University Library.
Isaacs, Haskell D. 1994. Medical and Para-Medical Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections. With the assistance of Colin F. Baker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lassner, Jacob 1999. A Mediterranean Society. An Abridgement in One Volume. Berkeley: University of California Press, xiâxvii.
Lee, Hermione 2005. Body Parts: Essays in Life Writing. London: Chatto & Windus.
Loewe, Raphael 1979. âGenizah at Cambridge,â Jewish Historical Society of England, Transactions XXVI, 125.
Reif, Stefan C. 1981. âLiturgical Difficulties and Genizah Manuscripts,â Studies in Judaism and Islam presented to Shelomo Dov Goitein, edited by Shelomo Morag, Issachar Ben-Ami and Norman A. Stillman. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 99â122.
Reif, Stefan C. 1997. Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library. A Description and Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reif, Stefan C. 2000. A Jewish Archive from Old Cairo. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon Press.
Reif, Stefan C. 2021. Bouncing Backâand Forward: From Immigrant Household to Cambridge Fellowship. Elstree and Chicago: Vallentine Mitchell.
Udovitch, Abraham L. 1988. âForewordâ to S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, vol. V. Berkeley: University of California Press, ixâxviii.
Wasserstrom, Steven M. 2007. âApology for S.D. Goitein: An Essayâ, A Faithful Sea. The Religious Cultures of the Mediterranean 1200â1700, edited by Adnan A. Husain and Katherine Fleming. Oxford: Oneworld, 173â198.