1

Al-Brn on the Jewish calendar: sources and reliability

Sacha Stern, UCL
ERC Project Calendars in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, workshop 7
Al-Brn and his world, UCL, 15 February 2016

1. Al-Biruni on the Jewish 19-year cycle (c.1000 CE)

Chronology of the Ancient Nations, ch. 5, Sachau ed. p. 55-6 (text) and pp.64-6 (translation).

Although they agreed on where the ibbr (i.e., intercalated) years fall in the course
of the mazr (i.e., the 19-year cycle) and on whether or not any given year would include an
intercalary month, they differed regarding where the cycle begins, and this produced a
disagreement regarding the ordering of the intercalation within the cycle. For some take the
current (lit.: broken) year of the era of Adam, of which you want to know whether it is
common or intercalated, and reduce the (number of) years to cycles by dividing them by 19;
then you get complete cycles, and, as a remainder, the elapsed years of the cycle, together
with the current year. And then the order of the intercalation is fixed according to the formula
b-h-z-y-j-w-, that is: the 2nd, 5th, 7th, l0th, 13th, 16th, and 18th years.
Others take the years of this (same) era, subtract one year, and fix the order of the
intercalation in the remaining years of the incomplete cycle according to the formula -d-w-b-h-z, that is: the 1st, 4th, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 17th years. These two cycles are
associated with the people of Syria.
Others again subtract two years from the sum of years and compute the order of
what remains according to the formula j-b--b-j (3-2-9-2-3), that is: the 3rd, then two (after it),
meaning the 5th, then three times three, meaning the 8th, 11th and 14th, then two, meaning
the 16th, then three, meaning the 19th. This mode of arrangement is the most widely spread
among them, and most widely preferred, and sometimes they have associated it with the
people of Babylonia.
But all three go back to one and the same principle, on which there is not any
difference of opinion, as is illustrated by the following circular figure:
[circle diagram]
The first (outer) circle indicates the quality of the year, whether it is common or
intercalated. The second circle indicates the formula b-h-z-y-j-w- in regards to [56] the
cycle; the third circle, the formula -d-w--b-h-z; the inner circle, the formula j-b--b-j.
(translation courtesy of Franois de Blois, with some modifications)

Adam
era
Adam
era -1
Adam
era -2

= 3-2-9-2-3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

3
3

2
2

3
9

2
2

19
3
3

2. Letter of the Babylonians to the Palestinians, 922 CE

Cairo Genizah fragment, Oxford Bodl. Heb. d. 74 fol.28a, first published by A. Guillaume, Further
documents on the Ben-Meir controversy, JQR new series 5 (1914-15), 543-57 (on p. 546).

' ''''
'''' ''' '''' '''

There is no longer disagreement between you and us regarding the intercalation of
years
with Adar and (another) Adar, because everyone holds to their own tradition for the
calculation of 3-2-9-2-3:
1-4-6-9-12-15-17, 2-5-7-10-13-16-18. And regarding the intercalation and calculation
everyone is by now in agreement, and there is no difference between you and us
regarding the intercalation of years.

3. Calendar treatise of Joshua ben Allan (early 10th century)

Vernadsky Library, Kiev, OPI no.286, fols. 15r 18v. First published by A. Harkavy, adashim gam
Yeshanim (Studien und Mittheilungen), Ha-Goren 8, 1903, 75-80.

' " ''''

' ''''''
' ''''''




'''''''

The early sages followed the intercalation of 3-2-9-2-3,
and the middle ones followed 1-4-6-9-12-15-17,
and the sages of this generation followed 2-5-7-10-13-16-18.
For the early ones used to subtract two years from the years of
Creation, and say that one of these was the year of the creation of the world,
and the other the year of the Flood. The middle ones subtracted
one year, and said that this was the year of the Flood. And the sages of this generation
did not subtract anything, and they followed 2-5-7-10-13-16-18. But all of them
come to the same thing.

4. Responsum of R. Hayya Gaon, 994/5 CE

Cairo Genizah manuscript, Strasbourg 4038. First published by J. Mann, Gaonic Studies, in HUCA
Jubilee Volume, 1925, pp. 223-62 (237-48). Also quoted in a different version in Abraham bar ayya,
Sefer haIbbur (3:7), where the year used as paradigm is 991/2 CE.

Fol.2 recto l.10 verso l.8

> < .
' ''''''



'''' '''



' ''''
For each
of the computists adopted a system with which to count,
and set as its epoch that which he saw was more accurate
than any other. Some took the years as they should be, and did not subtract
or add (to them); and they followed the custom of intercalating according to 2-5-7-1013-16-18.
And others said: since this cycle is for the intercalation
of the year, let us bring it closer,1 and subtract from the epoch
two years,2 and start from a intercalated year; and they followed
1-4-6-8-12-15-17. And some of them said: since we need
to demonstrate what must be learnt, (i.e.) how we align the
lunar year to the solar year by adding the remainders,
it is better to set a different reference point which will make the matter understood;
and they followed 3-2-9-2-3.
... ' ''''''... )fol.3v l.5(
... )fol. 4r ll.6-9(
)fol.5r ll.2-4( '''''''
Some of the computists have adopted the sign for intercalation of 3-6-8-11-14-1719 and this has been done as a system for disciples because not everyone knows
why the second year from the creation of the world is counted as intercalated,
according to our reckoning of 2-5-7-10-13-16-18.

I.e. let us bring the intercalation closer to the beginning of the cycle.
The subtraction should be of only one year. See H. Y. Bornstein, Divrei yemei ha-ibbur haaaronim, part 1, Ha-Tequfah 14-15 (1922), 340 n.1, but his explanation does not convince.
2