One accusation of the Rabbis
against the Karaites is that they created their own “Oral Law”, in competition
with the rabbinic Oral Law. There is a
legendary accusation, quoted in Nemoy’s book, that Anan ben David offered his
followers an entirely new Talmud.
In order to test this hypothesis, one first needs to define what the Oral Law
is. The rabbinic O.L. is no longer oral, if it ever was. We only have access to
the oral law by what is written, ie the Mishnah, Talmud etc. So functionally, the oral law is a set of
rules and principles outside of the Scriptures, which influence how the TNK is
understood and placed into practice. These principles and modes of
interpretation are not always logical, and often contradict the rational
reading of the Scripture. A most obvious
example would be on how to count the Omer.
If the above is a reasonable
description of the Oral Law, we have to search for a Karaite version. Certainly
there are varying opinions and interpretations in Karaite literature. There are
also principles of interpretation, eg Hekesh, which is also used within the
Talmud.
However, there is not a systematic
methodology which is able to supersede Torah law, nor is there a justification
for adding new laws, either as a fence or an upgrade (Takkanah). It can, and is
argued that some Karaite interpretations are erroneous. Indeed, there are some
examples. And, there are also practices not found commanded in the TNK, eg the
extra fasts. There also is no claim amongst Karaites to have an oral tradition
from Sinai. There are logical and
pragmatic methods of interpretation, which might be described as “oral law”,
but any departure from the scripture by these would be accidental.
So at best, it might be argued the
Karaites have a “weak oral law” i.e. some methodology, but this is the case in
any legal system. If, on the other hand, they claim to have a tradition from an
earlier Sage, of interpreting the Torah contrary to its plain meaning, that
would be stronger evidence of some form of oral law. A tradition from the Sadducees might be a
more interesting concept. If the
Sadducees did not have an oral law, but their positions are accepted,
regardless of the logical validity, this might also be some form of shadow oral
law.
On the other hand, it can be
countered that the Sadducees represented the Priesthood, and the Torah commands
us to accept the Priests and their judgements. The same verses, (Deut 17; 8-12)
are used by the Rabbis to justify their own oral law!
This article has no final
conclusion, and would welcome comments fromreaders.
