M'oray Ha'Aish Parshat Acharei Mot: The Inner Sanctum

M'oray Ha'Aish Parshat Acharei Mot: The Inner Sanctum: 'God spoke to Moshe after the death of Aharon's two sons, when they approached before God and they died: And

The Mitzvah of Loving Torah Scholars

For the rabbis of the Talmud, there is a source in the Torah to attach ourselves to Torah scholars  (Talmidei Hachamim).  http://halachipedia.com/index.php?title=Loving_Torah_Scholars_%28Talmidei_Chachamim%29

This is derived from the phrase  וּלְדָבְקָה-בוֹ   in Deut 11:
22 For if ye shall diligently keep all this commandment which I command you, to do it, to love the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways, and to cleave unto Him

 Although this in context refers to God, the rabbis claim it applies to the rabbis as well.  This is because it is they who are our guides in Torah practice.  The Karaites could object to this  a) on the basis of their differing views of the Oral law, and b) because the verse is speaking about God, and unlike Christianity, Judaism does not believe in intermediaries.

If we discount the first objection, since there is still a common area between the Karaites and Rabbanites, whereby the Karaites accept the Neviim and Kohanim as the Torah scholars, so we therefore would rely on the Neviim and Kohanim for our instruction.  Does the 2nd problem still pertain?

Whilst it is certainly correct to adhere to the Prophets and the Priesthood, the verse is still taken out of context.  There may be justification for adhering to the Prophets as spiritual guides, but it is only one of many ways of serving God.  The verse is perhaps more spiritual than personality oriented.

So it is certainly correct to respect Torah scholars,  but we do not see this verse as directly pointing to them.

Evolutionary Judaism

Further to my post http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/winners-and-losers.html
I wish to discuss the concept of Evolutionary theory when applied to Judaism  and religion in general.

The Winners and Losers post was a survival of the fittest type argument, namely that Rabbanism has maintained its force over the millenia, and is thriving now in the Jewish world, while other branches are falling apart, eg Conservative and Reform.   This is an evolutionary type argument. Another evolutionary argument is that a system survives and maintains its strength because certain factors of that (religious) system are able to capture the minds of followers, and replicate, whereas others are not so successful.   Some systems, such as Karaism , and Conservative, had their Golden age, but now are not as dynamic as Orthodox Rabbinic.

However, there are some logical flaws to this argument.  Firstly, there were times when Orthodoxy was in crisis, in the last 2 centuries, and has collapsed from  being perhaps representative of 90% of the Judaic world, to around 10%.  In the USA, Conservative has overall more numbers, but the numbers and synagogue members are in decline. Going back,  Christianity was originally a branch of Judaism. From an evolutionary perspective it was very successful, being able to branch out into a new religion of its own, and still have a significant number of "Messianic" Jewish followers.
Furthermore, in the TanaKh, we have a success of idolatry, in evolutionary terms, and a failure of the Prophetic Judaism of the Bible, in purely numerical terms.  This is to the point where the prophets bemoan the behaviors of the idolaters.
So evolutionary Judaism tells us nothing about the truth of a particular proposition. It does tell us about the the survival of a particular species over its competitors. Karaism can again enjoy a Golden age, but perhaps can evolve and engage with the wider Jewish world, especially the 80% who are not strictly bound to any particular halachic code.

The Talmud - The Greatest Proof of Karaism

The title of this post may sound  absurd and contradictory. After all, how can the central body of Oral Law, which is the basis of Phariseeic Judaism, and contains all the D'Rabbanan additions, in any way  prove the arguments of Karaism?

My answer to this is to look at the circumstances by which the Talmud, and the Mishnah came about as written forms.  The argument given by the Talmud itself is as follows - firstly they say anyone who puts the Oral Law into written form is as if they are burning the Torah.   However, due to the collapse of the Israelite State, and the roman conquest, it became hard to transmit the Oral Law orally, or to remember it. Hence the need arose to write it down.

This pedagogical principle, is in fact a central Karaite  argument - that the large body of information known as the oral law is impossible to transmit from verbal memory alone.  Thus, it would have been impossible to  do this for the 1700 years from the Sinai through to the end of the Temple era.

An additional argument would be to look at the TNK itself.  Even with the written records, there are some inaccuries within the NaCh ,  occasional errors, incomplete sentences here and there.  How could such a body of work have been memorised from mere repetition?  It was not memorised in Hezekiah's time.

So the Talmud's existence is one of the greatest testaments to the Karaite idea, and from the best source to prove it, namely the opponents of Karaism!

Karaites Who Add

It is usually the accusation of Karaites against their Rabbanite cousins that they are violating the Torah which says "Do not Add."

Leviticus 19 forbids  shaatnez -
יט  אֶת-חֻקֹּתַי, תִּשְׁמֹרוּ--בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא-תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם, שָׂדְךָ לֹא-תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם; וּבֶגֶד כִּלְאַיִם שַׁעַטְנֵז, לֹא יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ. 19 Ye shall keep My statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with two kinds of seed; neither shall there come upon thee a garment of two kinds of stuff mingled together.

However, shaatnez is defined in Deut 22: 11 as   wool + linen

ייא  לֹא תִלְבַּשׁ שַׁעַטְנֵז, צֶמֶר וּפִשְׁתִּים יַחְדָּו.   11 Thou shalt not wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together.

 Some Karaites have traditionally forbade all mixtures, eg silk and cotton, etc.  the same critique applied to Rabbinic additionas to the Law apply equally to this type of Karaite adding.

Thus the TNK emet view is that adding is forbidden for everyone, regardless of what label you wear (no pun intended) . 

Zionism

Zionism is the most controversial ideology of the past few hundred years.  It has faced opposition not only by radical Islam and secular Arabs, but also the left and right wing in the western politics. Above all, it was opposed by Ultra-Orthodoxy, to the point where Jews who were Zionists were banned and shamed by Ultra Orthodox. Even during the Holocaust, many Jews refused to cooperate with the Zionists, at their own peril.  The secular Zionist idea was modernized by Theodore Herzl, whilst the religious concept was championed by Rabbi Kook.

Today, the State of Israel is again the centre of the Jewish world. Although some still dissociate from it, there is no denying that this is where jewish life is growing and getting stronger.  But that is nto the whole story.   The Karaites were the early zionists.  They made the move to Israel and were at times friends with the Arabs, especially when the Land was invaded by the Crusaders.  When the great Rabbi  Nachmanides fled Spain and moved to Israel, many of the Jews he found there were Karaites. Indeed, it is possible that his commentary on the Torah was influenced by Karaites, since his understanding of the Torah is often closer to the plain meaning, and contradicts the views of Rashi.

Although the Karaites were not able to withstand the onslaught of the Crusades, the basis of Zionism is an essentially Karaite concept.  It couild be said that David ben Gurion was a secular Karaite, in that he accepted the TNK, but not the Midrashim.

Death and Rebirth

There are many Torah laws for which the violation is punished by death or by Kareth - cutting off. Kareth is not clearly defined, but many consider it to be death by Heavenly decree.
See for example: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0320.htm

I have a theory - which is unproven - about what happens in this world.   Many people do apparently transgress these laws, but they live relatively long and prosperous lives.  This led the Rabbis to argue that the reward and punishment is in the World to Come. But what if it is in this world?

I suggest that certain punishments take place in this world are actual death sentences - a person can die spiritually, but still be physically alive.  What does this mean?  Perhaps it is an opportunity for the person to be reborn trhough teshuva, and continue their life as a new soul in their same body!

This is just a theory, with no hard evidence or textual support. I am also not sure if it has any parallel in the Kabbalah!

Wisdom of the Talmud

This should seem an unusual title for a Karaite post. And it is. Although many arguments brought here are somewhat critical of Talmud and its legislations, that is a polemic and Sadducean perspective. However, there is much praise for the Talmud and its commentaries.

The Talmud is the embodiment of the the Mishna and its later commentators, the Amoraim, from the the 'Amora or Gemara is named. The Gemara contains the Mishna, the Amoraim, and Aggadot. These are dialectical arguments and traditions that fill the halls of learning for hundreds of years in Jewish life. They discuss many topics, which go beyond the Mishnah.  these include, science, philosophy, politics, psychology, etc.  Although they don't always agree with modern science, that is not the point.  The talmud is the basis of Orthodox Jewish life, and its mastery is accomplished by dedication and hard work.  There is much to learn from the Talmudic insights, and these should not be rejected by Karaites.  They can be debated.  I see the Karaites as having their own opinions and methods of interpretation, which sometimes can be similar to, or in opposition to the Talmud.  But Karaite views have not been formalised into one body of knowledge.   There is also secular knowledge and insight of great minds that is contained within the Talmud.

It is also wrong to make an assault on the Talmud, since this is the backbone of Jewish life. If a prophet arises and has criticisms, that would need to be accepted (although not by the Talmudists).

The question I have previously discussed is whether Judaism needs a Talmud?  I have been told that Karaites traditionally studied the Talmud. On the other hand, the Sadducees were in debate with the Pharisees about various Temple rites. Some of these are recorded within the Talmud, although the accuracy of those debates is not proven.  There are decisions in the Talmud one would disagree with, but often we can find in another volume a different viewpoint.

My position is that the Kohanim had the closest understanding of the Biblical laws, and this was disputed by the Mishnaic Pharisees. But there is nmuch to gain by having a knowledge of the Talmud.

The Enigma of Yochanan ben Zakkai

Raban Yochanan ben Zakkai was one of the greatest Pharisee leaders, and is revered by the Talmud. At the same time was the most bitter opponent of the Priesthood of the house of Tzadok, and was not revered by them.

It is therefore problematic to deal with the historical figure, since it can cause great offense to mainstream Judaism.

The Talmud tells a most iconic story of ben Zakkai, which can be seen as both genius and the opposite, and these views are expressed by the Rabbis themselves:

The Gemara (Gittin 56a-b) recounts:

 

The biryonim (a group of Zealots) were then in the city. The Rabbis said to them: “Let us go out and make peace with them [the Romans].” They would not let them, but on the contrary said, “Let us go out and fight them.” The Rabbis said: “You will not succeed.” They [i.e., the biryonim] then rose up and burnt the stores of wheat and barley so that a famine ensued [and the Jews would be forced to fight]...

Abba Sikra, the leader of the biryonim of Jerusalem, was the nephew of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. [Rabban Yochanan] sent to him, saying, “Come privately to me.” When he came, [Rabban Yochanan] said to him: “How long will you continue this say and kill everyone with starvation?”

He [Abba Sikra] said to him, “What can I do? If I say anything to them [i.e., to the other biryonim], they will kill me!”

He said to him, “Devise some way for me to escape [the besieged city of Jerusalem]; perhaps I shall be able to save a small portion.” [Rabban Yochanan then escaped and met with the Roman general Vespasian.] …

[Vespasian] said to [Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai]: “I am going now and someone else will come in my place. But you may make a request of me, and I shall grant it.”

He said, “Give me Yavneh and its scholars, and the dynasty of Rabban Gamliel, and doctors to heal Rabbi Tzadok.”

 

 

The Gemara goes on to give voice to criticism of Rabban Yochanan:

 

Rabbi Yosef – some say Rabbi Akiva – applied to him [Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai] the verse: “[God] turns wise men backwards and makes their knowledge foolish” (Yeshayahu 44:25). For he should have said to [Vespasian], “Let [the Jews] off this time.” But [Rabban Yochanan] thought that so much would not be granted him, such that [if he were to make such a request] even a little would not be saved.

http://etzion.org.il/vbm/english/3weeks/tisha71ral.htm

This story is also attributed to Josephus, however that is a different discussion. 

In this specific tragedy, we see R' Yosef/ Akiva saying that B. Zakkai had lost his wisdom in this event (they would not however, agree that to be the case in his actions agasint the Priesthood).

Nevertheless, perhaps we can try to understand the kind of pressure he was under, before attributing to him treachery (as was done by his own cousins, the Pharisee Zealots).

He saw the city  under siege and under attack. People were starving, and being slaughtered,  partly from the actions of the Zealots (rather than the Sadducees he was fighting).  His own life was under threat from both the Romans and the sectarian Zealots, who were related to him.  He has to escape in a coffin, and meet with an enemy General.   

The deal he negotiated was a bad one. It did serve the interests of the Pharisee sect, however he was under extreme duress, fear and terror. It is not clear what was his state of mind when he made this deal.  However, the verse that his wisdom was turned backwards still applies.  One should be very careful to judge  figures of history, with the benefit of hindsight, when one was not in the same situation. This does not mean we cannot  put our case forward.

 

Origins - Tzadok and Boethus

"Antignus of Socho, who received the Torah from Shimon Hatzadik and served as the teacher of his generation, delivered a lecture in which he said, “Be not like slaves who serve their master for the sake of receiving a reward; rather be like slaves who serve their master not for the sake of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you” (Avot 1:3).
Avot D’Rabbi Nathan (2:5) relates: “Antignus had two disciples who misinterpreted his saying, and taught to their disciples and their disciples to their disciples, saying, ‘Why did our rabbis see fit to say a thing like this? It is possible, then, that a workman upon completing his day’s work will not receive his wages in the evening? If our rabbis would be convinced that there is a future world and that there will be resurrection of the dead, they would not have said this.’ ” From these two disciples, Tzadok and Boethus, there arose two heretical sects, the Tzedokim — Sadducees — and the Baitusim. They were called “Tzedokin” after their founder Tzadok, and “Boethusians” after their founder Boethus."


This is the Rabbinic narrative of the origins of the Sadducean sect,  and  hence the Karaite ideology.

However, the Sadduceans and their followers make different claims - that they are in fact of the Priestly house of the Biblical Zadok -

Ezekiel Chapter 43 יְחֶזְקֵאל

19 Thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that are of the seed of Zadok, who are near unto Me, to minister unto Me, saith the Lord GOD, a young bullock for a sin-offering.


For the Rabbis, there was always an Oral Law, and its detractors arrived late on the scene, whereas for the Karaites it is the other way around.

The arguments I have brought on this blog  attempt to work from the TNK as the main source and point out contradictions  by later claimants.

Conflict and Resolution

Sadly,  Jewish national history came to an end 2000 years ago, in the backdrop of various civil wars, which had a religious and sectarian basis.  These are recorded in the works of Josephus. One of the    central conflicts, it seems, was that between the priestly lineages, including the Hashmonaim and sadducees , versus the Pharisees (who also had their own internecine conflicts, eg with the Sicari and Biryonim).

The issues on this blog have been based on the Sadducee/Pharisee conflict.  This was of both religious and political nature, and drew in King Janneus for example, who got into a brutal civil war with the Pharisees.

The exact cause and effect of these conflicts and the destruction of the Temple is not clear, although both sides agree that we would have been better off without the civil wars.

So, my question is whether the continuing debate  should be reframed and attempted to be done civilly, rather than as open warfare?  It is difficult not to have strong emotions when it comes to religious conflicts. A number of posts on here have addressed the variouis conflicts between the Sadducees and the Perushim.

Today there is no Temple, and the practical differences are also fewer between the Karaites and Rabbanites.  This leads to the question of how would a Temple be built and run, if there is still an ideological divide?

Winners and Losers

In the more than 2000 year old debate between the Sadducees and Pharisees, there seem to be some outright winners, and outright losers.

The Rabbis have won, they have formed Judaism of the masses, and most Jewish learning and practice is now based on Talmudical Judaism.  On the other hand, the Sadducees have lost, they have disappeared from history, and their spiritual heirs, the Karaites remain a small group, that have very little force or presence.

What then does this mean for Karaites, and and those who are interested in Karaism?

There is no simple answer. They could resign themselves and remain the small group. Or proselytize and bring new people to the faith. Or maybe just give up.  On the other hand, orthodoxy is making a great revival, in Israel and elsewhere. 

Do numbers matter?  In a practical way they do. In a spiritual way, they might not. The prophets and their followers were small in number and no longer exist.

If one is secure in the community, then perhaps it is viable to be Karaite, whereas being alone might not be viable.  Perhaps one can integrate in some ways with the wider community.

Also, it is not at all clear what form Judaism will take in its next phase, when a Temple is built and prophecy returns.  Will these issues then be resolved? We may live to see that , or maybe not. Life is short so stick to what you think is true.

The Karaite – Orthodox Nexus

The Karaite – Orthodox Nexus

Other than the Torah, its interpretations are not necessarily written in stone. There is a possibility for a Karaite understanding to change and become more rabbinic, and vice versa.  This is simple logic. However, in rabbinic halacha, this idea has also been presented by Maimonides. Although he doesn’t specify Karaism, he does make the following statement:

Mamrim - Chapter 1

Halacha 1

When, using one of the principles of exegesis, the Supreme Sanhedrin derived a law through their perception of the matter and adjudicated a case accordingly, and afterwards, another court arose and they perceived another rationale on which basis, they would revoke the previous ruling, they may revoke it and rule according to their perception. This is reflected by Deuteronomy 17:9: "To the judge who will be in that age." This indicates that a person is obligated to follow only the court in his own generation.

Thus something that may appear irrational to a non Rabbinical student,  may be accepted by the Rabbis, because it was ruled so by the Sanhedrin.  However, with the passing of time, a later Sanhedrin, or other rabbinic body may disagree with the first one. In principle, therefore, they might take a position which is what the Sadducees or Karaites originally held.  This is what I call the Karaite – Orthodox nexus.  By the same token, we should also accept that, in principle, a classical Karaite position might be deemed irrational at some point, and may be changed to one which is more in line with the Rabbinical understanding.  This specific point is not proof of one concept or other, only that in the future, there may be a more unified Judaism.