that were often written with a view to obscuring the very process of change that we are trying to illuminate. Abraham al-Raḥbī’s genealogical list is a case in point. On the surface the text projects a view of the family of David as an eternal and unchanging entity; it is a veritable celebration of continuity across the longue durée that links, by means of the Davidic line, the biblical past and the medieval present. And yet, as I am arguing, genealogies such as this are themselves the products of a novel way of perceiving the Davidic family, the result of a new pride in the completeness and the demonstrability of its pedigree, which developed only in the centuries after the Islamic conquests. The determination to chart with precision the biblical roots of the Davidic line thus turns out to be a tell-tale sign of the uniquely medieval conceptualization of the royal family lurking beneath the surface of this seemingly straightforward text. Accordingly, our analysis involves reading a good many of the available sources “against the grain,” probing beyond the narrative of linear continuity which they seek to project.
But if highlighting change in medieval perceptions of the royal family is therefore an endeavor beset with challenges, it is also one that can open up new ways of thinking about a conspicuous yet poorly understood aspect of medieval Jewish society. As I argue, the flood of such claims not only represents a significant departure from earlier forms of attachment to the line of David, it also speaks to broader changes affecting Jewish society in the Islamic period. Before we can contemplate the significance of change, however, we must first establish that it indeed occurred; and so the present chapter lays out the evidence for drawing such a conclusion. In so doing, it will also provide the historical framework that underlies my analysis of the meaning of the Davidic family for medieval Jews in the remainder of the book.
The Rabbinic Legacy
As noted, the vast compilations of rabbinic literature—the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds and the collections of exegetical commentary (midrash)—contain a great store of interpretive traditions and beliefs concerning King David and his family. My intention in what follows is not to provide an exhaustive survey of the various themes contained in that corpus, but rather to draw attention to the way rabbinic sources relate to the post-biblical House of David and how they regard claims to membership in it.3 Shaped as they were within a highly specific cultural milieu, rabbinic materials cannot provide a complete account of Jewish perceptions of the Davidic line in the pre-Islamic period.4 They can, however, help us recognize when medieval sources communicate ideas that are not rooted in the rabbinic literary canon, and, in so doing, can bring us closer to determining whether such divergences are historically meaningful. Once we have delineated the general shape of this earlier stratum of reflection on the Davidic line, we will be in a better position to see where medieval Jews elaborated upon, and departed from earlier traditions as they, in turn, encountered claimants to Davidic ancestry in their own day.
While it may seem self-evident, it is nonetheless worth noting at the outset that rabbinic sources accept in principle that authentic heirs to the Davidic line could be identified in post-biblical Jewish society. They are not, however, always in agreement about the details of their lineage. A telling example involves Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi, the late second- and early third-century patriarch regarded as the redactor of the Mishnah. Though in a number of texts Judah is accepted as an unquestioned descendant of King David, in one rabbinic source he confesses that his claim to a royal pedigree goes through the maternal side and is therefore inferior to that of the Babylonian exilarch.5 The ambivalence toward the Davidic lineage of Judah ha-Nasi in this passage would seem to reflect tensions within rabbinic circles over the legitimacy of the patriarchate, a dynastic institution of leadership whose authority was buttressed by the claim of a royal pedigree.6 As Albert Baumgarten observes: “The conclusion seems clear…. The ‘confession’ of poor Davidic genealogy is the product of some opponent. It is a subtle response to the Patriarchal claims: to deny these claims outright might have been too dangerous; to reinterpret them so as to make them practically worthless would have been safer.”7 And yet while such sources may, in their opposition to the patriarchate, question the ancestry of particular individuals and families, they do not dispute the more fundamental notion that legitimate members of the Davidic family continued to exist in Jewish society. Indeed, as the tradition about Judah ha-Nasi amply demonstrates, challenging the genealogy of one Davidic claimant might go hand in hand with an endorsement of that of another.
The tradition about Judah ha-Nasi’s genealogy highlights a second point as well: when rabbinic sources evince an interest in Davidic ancestry, they almost always do so to the extent that it is a qualification for some particular function—either in a real and immediate form, as represented by the hereditary offices of exilarch and patriarch, or more remotely, as when embodied in the eschatological figure of the messiah. Rabbinic texts, in other words, seem to be either unaware of or largely uninterested in claims to Davidic lineage that are detached from communal functions.8 Judah ha-Nasi’s alleged descent from David was a matter of importance because his descendants in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries used it to justify their patriarchal prerogatives. But the patriarchs also claimed to be the descendants of Hillel, an important first-century sage. And so it comes as little surprise that Hillel’s ancestry, too, was taken up in rabbinic texts, again with a view to providing the patriarchate with firm genealogical credentials. Rabbi Levi, a third-century sage, reports that “they found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem, and in it was written, ‘Hillel is from David.’”9 With such proof of Hillel’s own royal pedigree, the dual ancestral claims of the patriarchate—as descended from both Hillel and King David—could apparently be harmonized.
Much as the status of the patriarchate triggered discussions of Davidic ancestry, so too did questions about the status of the Babylonian exilarchs. Deliberating on the protocol during public readings of the Torah, the Talmud questions the appropriateness of a Babylonian custom to lower the scroll to the exilarch rather than obliging him to go up to it. This, we are told, was an honor previously reserved only for kings and high priests. Justifying the Babylonian practice of extending it to exilarchs as well, Yosi ben Bun argues that they should indeed be treated in the manner described “because the seed of David is infused there.”10 It is important to note, however, that the Davidic pedigree of the exilarchate is brought up in order to explain a puzzling ritual. It is in fact peripheral to the real concern of the passage (determining whether the Babylonian custom is justifiable) and is already assumed to be true when introduced into the discussion.
The most frequently cited allusion to the pedigree of the exilarchate comes in the form of a gloss on the first half of Genesis 49:10 (“The scepter shall not depart from Judah, and the ruler’s staff from between his feet”), a verse that in its most straightforward sense relates to the monarchy founded by Judah’s descendant, King David. “‘The scepter shall not depart from Judah’—this refers to the exilarchs in Babylonia who rule over Israel with scepters; ‘and the ruler’s staff’—this refers to the descendants of Hillel who teach the Torah in public.”11 The rabbinic interpretation extends the allusions to royal authority in the verse to include later claimants to the Davidic pedigree as well, providing scriptural sanction to the exilarchal and patriarchal offices. Like the previous example, however, the tradition simply assumes the existence of a genealogical connection to David without making an effort to demonstrate it or establish its accuracy.
Besides acknowledging that descendants of David could be found in the ranks of contemporary Jewish leaders, rabbinic sources also identified a continuation of the royal line in the person of the anticipated redeemer, often referred to as the “messiah son of David” or simply “the son of David.” Present and future claimants might even be merged. Several statements imply that Judah ha-Nasi, for instance, was regarded as a messianic figure by some of his contemporaries.12 But here again Davidic ancestry is construed largely as a precondition for power. Davidic pedigrees assume importance and merit discussion in rabbinic texts because they qualify their claimants for positions of leadership and authority; divorced from these they seem to possess little or no intrinsic significance.
As the examples cited above illustrate, in rabbinic
