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.
Shalom!
ReplyDeleteThis is a complicated matter.
I think since we don't have prophecy today, it's hard to know which traditions were "divinely inspired" (so to speak).
The best we can do is to search well in the Tanakh and try to understand with all our heart.
1) I am interested in knowing whether it is true that Karaites always spent Shabbat night in the dark and without heat before the advent of electricity, especially in the colder countries based on the interpretation of the Torah verse on having fire in the dwelling. I was wondering whether it was possible at that time to "sell" one's house for shabbat and thereby allow the fire because it would not be one's dwelling.
ReplyDelete2) In rabbinic Halacha it is explained that Ruth was able to marry Boaz because the Torah law of prohibiting Moabites for 10 generations from marrying native Israelites applied only to males and not to females. How does Karaite halacha view this issue to explain how Boaz was able to marry Ruth a Moabite if according to the Torah text (without the rabbinic tradition) it is forbidden.
It is known from the writings of Karaites that they did believe in an oral system called ha'ataka or sevel hayerusha. This is discussed in the writings of Simha of Lutsk, Moshe Bazyatchi, Tuvia ben Moshe, and others. Karaism was not an anarchistic system where basically every person can decide for himself. They had a transmitted tradition through their scholars. See the interesting book by Prof. Astren, Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to Ruth, the only thing I could figure on my own is that Karaites might have said simply that the prohibition of entering the "kahal" (assembly) of the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:3) did NOT refer to a prohibition of marriage, but some other prohibition. The problem even with that explanation is simply that it endures for 10 generations, which would have included both David and Solomon within some kind of Torah disability as descendants of Ruth the Moabite convert. Any thoughts on this or the other issue?
ReplyDeleteThere are some misunderstandings about traditional Karaism and the oral law. Traditional Karaism accepted the idea of the sevel hayerusha/ha'ataka as transmitted explanations from Sinai of the Torah law. This is shown in the writings of Moshe Bayshatzi, Simha of Lutsk, Aharon ben Yosef, Tuvia ben Moshe and many others, who show a chain of transmission of Torah interpretation and law. This is discussed at length in a book called Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding by Prof. Fred Astren. It contradicts the notion that Karaite Judaism is an anarchical system whereby every individual can decided for himself without reference or reliance to historic experts and scholars. Indeed, it was Aharon ben Yosef in Eshkol Hakofer who said that most of the Talmudic sages were those of the Karaites, which I guess means that Karaism approves of most of the rulings and teachings, not to mention the teachings of history and ethics in the midrashim. This is a far cry from modern descriptions of Karaism that usually portray Karaism as an anarchical religious system. However, I am still keen on knowing the answer to the two previous postings I made......
ReplyDeleteHi Anon,
Deletecan you use a tag name so i know when i am in discussion with you...?
If that is the case, then Karaism isn't Karaism. It is simply an alternative form of rabbanism.
Did my reply get through? I said I'll use the tag Good Yid.
ReplyDeleteSo many of the famous Karaite scholars studied the Talmud and Midrashim, wrote commentaries related to them, accept many of their teachings as authentic ones according to the Karaite tradition, and studied Torah in general under other scholars, not unlike the regular rabbinical tradition. Tuvia ben Moshe, Yeshua ben Yehuda, Simha of Lutsk, Aharon ben Yosef, Moshe Bayshatzi, Eliyahu Bayshatzi, Yaakov ben Reuven, and many more.
ReplyDeleteOne can see very clearly that Karaite scholars relied on those who preceded them, and followed a chain of transmission and methodology called "perush" "ha'ataka" or "sevel hayerusha." Thus it is impossible to say that they did not believe in an unwritten law or interpretations given to Moshe at Sinai.
ReplyDeleteThey had a written methodology, rather than an oral law. And not all these are necessarily transmitted from Moshe @ Sinai. They could be remnants of Sadducee laws, which were written. These were sourced in the decisions of the High Priest. This is the theory at least.
DeleteYes, but rhe chain of transmission goes back to Shimon Hatzaddik, and his successors who were not Sadducees, down to Shammai and beyond transmitted from teacher to student. This methodology is utterly rejected by some today who I would describe as anarchist nro-Karaites, many of whom are apparently gentiles who come from the Protestant background.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what was transmitted or not.
ReplyDeleteYou need to give concrete examples of laws which are not derived from or contained in the TNK.
Ben Mikra, the concept of the chain of transmission is brought down by Moshe Bayshatzi, Calev Afendopolo and Simcha of Lutsk. These are all described in Prof. Astren's book, Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding. A fascinating book with many footnotes.
DeleteCould someone give me some input on how Karaites traditionally viewed the authority of the sages of the Great Assembly to determine which books of prophecy to include in the canon, and on what authority they accepted prophecies that were not from the Torah?? This authority is part of a system of reliance on the Sages of the Oral Law. Perhaps the notion that Karaites did not believe in this transmission of authority is a modern myth!
ReplyDeleteYour questions makes some assumptions -
ReplyDeletethat there was a Great assembly (as distinct from the sanhedrin),
that it was this body which canonised the TNK
That there were no other authoritative groups in the 2nd Temple era
In fact, there were several Priestly groups, who were mainly non rabbinic. This includes the Hashmonaim, and the Tsadokim. Since these groups accepted the TNK, and they make no mention of a great assembly, there is a basis for Karaites to accept the canon.
Thanks for your reply. Well, the canon of books had to be authorized by some authority who was able to distinguish authentic prophecy and who had the authority to establish a canon of books besides the Torah itself. Major Karaite scholars accepted the transmission of the Assembly. These include Moshe Bashyatzi, Simha of Lutsk, Tuvia Ben Moshe,, Aharon ben Yosef and Calev Afendopolo.,
ReplyDeleteIndeed it seems that Aharon, Yaaqov Qirqisani, Simha and Eliyahu Bashyatzi accepted much of the Talmud as representing authentic Karaite teachings. Aderet Eliyahu says on page 85 that indeed Yeshua Ben Yehuda had the tradition of having fire on shabbat unlike early Ananites. Karaites such as these considered Shammai part of the chain of transmission, back to Yehuda Ben Tabbai and beyond that in history.
Therefore, we can see that some kind of oral system was the basis for authenticating the prophetic books even according to classical Karaism.
And of course without reliance on the sages, how would anyone know whether King David was legitimate in choosing Jerusalem?!
That posting was from me....
ReplyDeleteGood Yid- You have made some great points and I really appreciate them. Unbeknownst to most neo-Karaites is that the Karaites of the past studies Torah Shebaal Peh although they did not accept it as being min hashamayim. Simch Lutzk and many other Karaite Sages studied Kabbalah and Simcha even wrote a treatise on Lurianic Kabbalah which he promoted among the Karaites. Anan ben David was a proponent of reincarnation and there were many debates between him and his opponents on this issue. Karaism today is a dead tradition with no significant scholarship happening and a false mentality of protestantism which you correctly pointed out has become more of an import from Christianity.
ReplyDeleteStudy of oral law and acceptance are 2 different things. Remember, the Sadducees also had continual discussion and debated with the Pharisees, but did not agree on everything.
ReplyDeleteKaraism today, well the idea is about TNK, and the rest is just discussion.
Hello, Jason. I would make a slight correction. Since the Karaites did have a list of chain of transmission of sages, and since many accepted many things from the Talmud, it stands to reason that they did not oppose the idea of orally transmitted interpretations and rulings that corresponded to explicitly verses in the Torah, and that this is what they called "ha'ataka" or "sevel hayerusha." On the other hand they accepted the ruling of the sages about incorporating certain books into a scriptural canon of books after the giving of the Torah, so they must have accepted the idea that those sages of the Great Assembly and the prophets were QUALIFIED AND PROPERLY TRAINED in a specific tradition to be able to determine what was a true prophecy AND that such prophecy was to be contained in the canon of scripture. This is undoubtedly emunat chachamim, reliance on the sages. Without a fixed mesora/tradition, why are any of those books binding as part of Jewish scriptures for Karaites?! And certainly Simha of Lutsk did not imagine that the kabbalah just emerged out of nowhere, out of someone's imagination. I do wonder about the approach of Salmon ben Yeruham, because his cantos/poems against R. Saadiah Hagaon do not even do justice to the Karaite claims about things like tefillin, Chanukah, etc. It is so general and superficial, I have my doubts that the book Milhamat Hashem was actually written by him, especially since he is also included on the lists of the chain of transmission of sages.
ReplyDeleteAs to the Saduccees, I think this term is a catch-all for all sects who rejected the rabbinical sages, and would include some groups who accepted some oral law along with others who accepted none.