Page:Jewish Encyclopedia Volume 2.pdf/329

291 Attar, Ibn

THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

291

which have been published by Judah Koriyyat in "Ma'or we-Shemesh," 1838. Bibliography: Azulai, Shem ha-Oedolim, 1. s.v., ii. s.v. mvp nmc; steinsehneider, Cat. Bndl. No. 5685: the same,

his

Hebr. Bibl.

xvl. 60; Nacbt,

Mekor Haiiyim,

pp. 34-40

M.

K.— G.

15. Judah. b. Jacob II Equally renowned as a Talmudist and secular scholar flourished, probably The at the end of the fourteenth century, in Spain. Greek Joseph Kilti (or Kelti) dedicated to him a philosophical work, " Minhat Yehudah " (Zotenberg, " Cat. des Manuscrits Hebr. de la Bibliotheque Imperiale," No. 707, 2). Carmoly (in Jost's " Annalen," 1839, p. 163) designates him as a Spanish exile, but without reason, for Kilti, in his dedication, speaks of him simply as " the Sephardi " (compare " Litera:



turblatt des Orients," x. 708). Ar16. Mordecai b. Reuben ibn Attar ranged with the printer Proops of Amsterdam to print the " Azharot " of Solomon ibn Gabirol and of

Isaac b. Reuben they were accordingly published in 1721 (Steinschneider, "Jiidische Typographic, He is probably distinct from the Mordecai p. 72).

ibn Attar mentioned in the Responsa, " Mishpatim Yesharim," of Raphael Birdugu, p. 102. 17. Moses b. Hayyim : Talmudist of Miguenez,

Son 'of Hayyim (No. 7) and father of the celebrated Talmudist and cabalist Hayyim (No. His daughter married Samuel b. Moses de Avila. 8). 18. Moses b. Shem-Tob ibn Attar: TalmudMoses, died in Fez 1725 ist and philanthropist a man of great wealth and learning, distinguished himself by his philanthropy in founding schools for poor children, which he maintained. He was the father-in-law of Hayyim b. Moses ibn Attar and the son of Shem-Tob, who was the brother of Hayyim. 19. Obed b. Judah ibn Attar: Flourished in the seventeenth century; son of Judah (No. 14). about 1700.

.



wrote a preface to his father's work, " Shir Miktam," and narrates many details of the latter's life. 20. Samuel ibn Attar Published in 1605 the well-known little book, " Hibbur Ma'asiyot " (CollecHe is erroneously considered the tion of Stories). author of the work " Zarzir Matnayyim " (Steinschneider, "Cat. Bodl." col. 2408). Shem-Tob ibn Attar : Talmudist, men2 Perhaps identical tioned by Ank'ava, I.e. No. 235. with Shem-Tob ibn Attar, the brother of Hayyim ibn Attar, equally renowned as Talmudist and philanthropist. When he died (1700) the community of Fez sent a letter of condolence to his brother Hayyim, which is still existing in the Berlin Library

He



.

(Nacht,

I.e.

p. 8).

Distinguished and learned Tunisian lived at the end of the eighteenth century. He is mentioned in Jacob Fetussi's work, "Berit Ya'akob," Leghorn, 1800 (Cazes, I.e. p. 183). Bibliography Nacbt, Mekor Hayyim, pp. 2, 34; Steinschneider, Introduction to' the Arable IAterature of the Jews, in Jew. Quart. Rev. xi. 341-343. L. G. G.

22. Solomon ibn Attar



ATTESTATION OF DOCUMENTS mah)

The

(Hati-

general rule of evidence is that a fact can be established only by the testimony of two witWith the introduction of writing and the nesses. custom of making written records of the transactions, the strictness of the rule requiring the actual

Attestation

presence of the witnesses to deliver their testimony orally was relaxed, and a written instrument setting forth the fact and subscribed by two witnesses was considered evidence of equal validity. In Jewish law a written instrument by which a person bound himself to do or pay something was usually prepared by the witnesses or under their direction, and not by the person charged thereby; nor did the debtor or obligor, as a rule, sign the instrument. The distinction, therefore, between the attestation of witnesses in Jewish Jaw and in modern law lies in the fact that in the latter the subscribing witnesses attest the genuineness of the signature of the debtor, whereas in Jewish law they attest the fact that the transaction purported in the instrument to have occurred actually did occur. It is the substance of the instrument, and not the signature of the obligor, that is proved by the attestation of the subscribing witThe formula of attestation varies. An apnesses. proved formula is the following

"We [the witnesses] have taken symbolic possession [ u Kinthe son of yan sudar "] from , according to all which is written and expressed above, with an article that may be used for taking symbolic possession, this day of and all is fixed and established. " the son of a witness.

,

"

,

An

the son of

,

a witness."

older formula reads simply:

" We have written and signed our names here on and all is fixed and established." [Names of witnesses.]

this [date]

Inasmuch as the testimony of the subscribing witnesses goes to the substance of the instrument, the formalities required are numerous and great strictness is observed in enforcing them, although such strictness is relaxed in the cases of bills of divorce

and

bills

of manumission of slaves.

The witnesses must read the document word for word before they sign it. It is not sufficient if some else reads it to them, though some authorities are of the opinion that it may be read to them by two If the document is prepared in a lanother persons. guage unknown to one of the witnesses, and has been translated for him, the document is valid (Shul-

one

Mode

of

Attestation,

han 'Aruk, Hoshen Mishpat, 45, 2). The witnesses must know both parties and their names, or have them properly identified by others, for the obvious

reason that in the absence of the signature of the party bound, fraud in the preparation In the of the instrument would be more possible. case of a bill of sale or an instrument of indebtedness, the later law somewhat relaxed the rule, and provided that the witnesses need know only the seller or the debtor, these being the persons to be bound respectively by these instruments (ib. 49, 2).

According to Maimonides, however, the

strict rule

requiring the witnesses to know both parties can not be relaxed (" Yad," Malweh, xxiv. 3). The witnesses must sign their own names and illiterate witnesses, unable to write, are incompetent; thus, even if some one have traced the signature for the witness and the latter have written the letters over the although some authorities are tracing, it is invalid of the opinion that in such cases the witness is considered competent, especially so in cases of bills of



divorce.