The Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete extant manuscript of the Hebrew Bible, produced in 1008 or 1009 CE by professional scribes in Cairo; in the 19th-century, it made its way to Russia’s then-capital. Based on letters found in the Cairo Genizah from Mevorakh ben Joseph ibn Yazdad—the Egyptian Jew who commissioned the manuscript—Ben Outhwaite finds some hints about its origins. In particular, the evidence suggests that Mevorakh was a member of the Karaite sect, who dismissed talmudic (or “Rabbanite”) interpretations of the Torah in favor of their own, more literalist, interpretive standards:

Mevorakh’s family name is of Persian origin—Yazdad means “God has given” [in Persian]—and an Ibn Yazdad, probably Mevorakh’s father, appears in commercial correspondence from the Genizah early in the 11th century, whence it seems he is based in Egypt and plays a role in Mediterranean trade. Mevorakh himself clearly possessed significant social status, and probably also personal wealth, as we find that he was appointed around 1019 CE to oversee the two supervisors of an inheritance. . . .

[There is] strong circumstantial evidence that the Ibn Yazdad family were themselves Persian Karaites, [evidence supported by the codex’s primary scribe] Samuel ben Jacob’s use of a distinctively Karaite system of dating, alongside all the others, in the main colophon.

Mevorakh was not the only Karaite to own the codex. The last few lines of [its] colophon were added over a hundred years after its manufacture and reveal that in 1135 CE the book was sold to the leading Rabbanite Matsliaḥ ha-Kohen, [head] of the Palestinian yeshiva, an ownership fact asserted in attractive medieval Hebrew legalese and witnessed by Ḥalfon ha-Levi ben Manasseh, one of the most prolific court scribes of the Genizah, [who is] widely attested in 12th-century documents. . . .

So, the Leningrad Codex was produced for, most likely, a Persian Karaite, and was subsequently acquired by a Persian Karaite, who sold it to Matsliaḥ ha-Kohen ben Solomon, the head of the Jerusalem yeshiva. Matsliaḥ was the highest intellectual authority [not just in the land of Israel, but for Jews throughout Africa and Europe who followed “Palestinian” rather Babylonian halakhah and customs] and “head of the Jews” (raʾīs al-Yahūd) in the Fatimid empire. That such a powerful and senior figure should acquire the Bible attests strongly to the value ascribed to it in its day. In addition, evidently its Karaite provenance did not devalue it in Matsliaḥ’s eyes and deter him from purchasing it. . . .

[W]as Samuel ben Jacob a Karaite too, given that Karaism is so intimately connected with the creation of the manuscript? I don’t think so. From other findings in the documentary record, I believe he was a Maghrebi from a Rabbanite family of some status, though he had fallen on hard times.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.