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!
Monday, 29 February 2016
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 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.
Saturday, 27 February 2016
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:
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.
Wednesday, 24 February 2016
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 -
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.
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.
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
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?
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?
Sunday, 21 February 2016
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 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.
Thursday, 18 February 2016
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:
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)