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.

The Fast of the Firstborn – Jewish Custom or Catholic Guilt?

There is a rabbinical fast, called the The Fast of the Firstborn, which occurs on the day before Pesah, Passover, which precedes the Hag Hamatzot – festival of Matzot.

This fast is without basis in the Torah, but in fact goes against the entire spirit of the Torah, if not the Law itself. The purported purpose is to show gratitude for the Firstborn of Israel, who were not slaughtered along with the Egyptians, on the night of the 10^th plague.

A summary is given here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_of_the_Firstborn

First and foremost, there is no existence of such a fast in the Torah. It is entirely of rabbinical imagination, conception, and production. However, the details of the Torah on the actual plague suggest that it is contrary to the entire purpose of the Plagues, especially the 10^th.

In Exodus we see an explanation of the plague and what it symbolizes for israel:

Ex 11:

7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog whet his tongue, against man or beast; that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

And

9 And the LORD said unto Moses: 'Pharaoh will not hearken unto you; that My wonders may be multiplied in the land of Egypt.'

So this explanation is about the wonders carried out for Israel, and do not require a fast or any kind of guilt.

It could be argued that the blood of the Paschal lamb is symbolised by this fast, thus in Ex 12:

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

But this is a practical part of the Paschal lamb, which technically we are still required to fulfill these days as well. It is not about a fast, but a remembrance. The following verse is also pertinent:

14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.

The very day (14^th of the first month) is a Feast for every generation. Furthermore, we are meant to celebrate the wonders that God has bestowed upon us, not to mourn and feel regret for them. Thsi Catholic attitude of guilt is carried through to the Passover seder , where 10 drops of wine are spilt in commemoration and mourning for the 10 plagues. The very miracles for which we celebrate and have festivals ordained for us, are stealthily turned into objects of mourning, guilt and self flagellation. This attitude, whether by rabbinic or Karaites is totally false and part of the destructive nature of man made religion.

Karaites/ Rabbis - Friends or Foes?

Many of the polemics appearing on this blog have been strongly critical of certain Rabbinic concepts and practices, namely the oral law.   Also, historically, Rabbanites were highly critical of the Karaite movement, and brought in measures to ban or convert them.

However, it is worthwhile asking if they can actually be friends or is adversity an unavoidable part of their relationship?

Perhaps the problem lies in the battles fought over the Temple in the time of the last serving Priests, the Sadducees. Here, there was true enmity between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. Later, the Karaite movement faced problems with the Rabbanites, and this resulted in polemics, but also on occasion, some violence.

Today, the Jewish world, as far as the religious practicing sectors, is dominated by the Rabbanites, who may also be Reform or Conservative. The Karaites are more of an endangered species, and do not pose a threat to anyone. There are thousands of yeshivot,  but very few places of Karaite study. Also, the Rabbanites of today consider the Karaites to be religiously practicing but mistaken on one fundamental issue.  The 2 groups are the only 2 Jewish denominations who accept the Divine status of the Torah.  Reform, and Conservative, which are the largest in the USA, have simply  discarded this belief.

SO to address the problem – ideologically, the Karaites are opponents to the unique concept of the oral law of the rabbanites. This, is for the Orthodox, a heretical view, and one that is scary, since it means loss of one’s investment in Olam Haba. So there is fear an enmity between the 2.

On the other hand, there is a potential for some kind of friendship.  In times of adversity, Jews should try to unite. There is much that the Rabbinic world can offer to Karaite oriented Jews, be it community, organisational, educational etc.  And one can get tired of fighting. The Karaites can contribute to Torah scholarship.  Many Rabbinical commentaries are in fact “Karaite” ie they focus on the meaning of the Torah verses.  Of course, many others bring in Talmudic and midrashic interpretations, and these are not always congruent with the Karaite view.

A great Rabbi and his wife, Eitam and Naama Henkin have been murdered by our enemies.  Rabbi Henkin was a great Torah scholar, and lover of Eretz Yisrael.  As Karaites, we mourn the righteous and innocent Jews who are murdered by terrorists, and our sympathy goes out to their families.

The Karaite Oral Law

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.

The Karaite Olam Haba

The Sadducees were reputed to deny an afterlife, and this was in sharp contrast to their Pharisee rivals.  The Karaites have generally followed suit, and dismissed the notion of an afterlife. The Hebrew term Olam Haba refers to the world to come. 

If so, then what is the Karaite Olam Haba?  It can only be based on what the TNK  states about a future life or existence. There are cryptic references to possible future states of being, and this post will look at one them.

In the book of Isaiah, we see reference to something very unusual.  In Ch. 25 we see:

8 He will swallow up death for ever; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the reproach of His people will He take away from off all the earth; for the LORD hath spoken it.

This verse refers to a change of human nature. It is talking of a time when death itself will be abolished. How, where and when this will be is not clear. It is also not clear for whom this applies. Will we all have an opportunity to benefit from this?

The answers to these questions may or may not be available in the TNK, but this is a matter for further research.  However, a look at the following chapter in Isaiah gives us more detail of an after life. 

26:19 Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise--awake and sing, ye that dwell in the dust--for Thy dew is as the dew of light, and the earth shall bring to life the shades

If the dead will live again, then there is further possibility that they may even gain eternal life.   The location, this planet, or perhaps a more permanent version (with different laws of physics perhaps?) is a matter of fine detail.

Since the Karaites accept the Neviim, and Isaiah  discusses a future life, then a Karaite Olam Haba exists. This may not be the same as the Rabbinic version, but it is also different from the Sadducee version.

Chemistry and Halacha - Rambam’s Karaite Catalyst

In the previous article, http://tanakhemet.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-tao-of-karadoxy.html   we saw that there is a common space where Rabbinic Law and Karaite approaches to halacha  overlap.   There are indeed further  examples of this phenomenon.

Maimonides – The Rambam – makes a rhetorical claim about the power of the Pharisee Sanhedrin, and the irreversibility of some of their decrees. However, this is followed up by a lesser known statement, which virtually contradicts all of rabbanism.

Before I explore this, I am reminded of my chemistry classes back in school.  We were taught that whilst some chemical reactions are irreversible (as the Rambam claims for rabbinical law),  many others are reversible.   To reverse some reactions, we may need to change the conditions , eg temperature , pressure, or even use a catalyst, which will favour the reversal of the reaction which has taken place.  Hence, Rambam provides such a catalyst in the 2^nd chapter of Mamrim.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1181853/jewish/Mamrim-Chapter-2.htm

Halacha 5

When a court sees it necessary to issue a decree, institute an edict, or establish a custom, they must first contemplate the matter and see whether or not the majority of the community can uphold the practice. We never issue a decree on the community unless the majority of the community can uphold the practice.

Halacha 6

If a court issued a decree, thinking that the majority of the community could uphold it and after the decree was issued, the majority of the community raised contentions and the practice did not spread throughout the majority of the community, the decree is nullified. The court cannot compel the people to accept it.

Halacha 7

Sages issued a decree and thought that it spread among the entire Jewish people and the situation remained unchanged for many years. After a long duration of time, another court arose and checked throughout the Jewish community and saw that the observance of this decree had not spread throughout the Jewish community, it has the authority to negate the decree even if it is of lesser stature than the original court in wisdom and in number of adherents.

The rabbinic halachot above are really quite astounding, considering the seriousness with which the rabbis generally impose on their own rules.

#5 is  saying that the majority of the community has to accept a rabbinic addition, in order for it to be acceptable.    This raises 2 points: first what if a community , such as the Karaites, or others simply  reject the rabbis and their decrees?  Second, even if the majority of an orthodox or otherwise community accept the addition, what logical bearing does this have on the minority? An individual  has no religious obligation to follow the majority, and if a particular law can be practiced by some, that doesn’t mean the minority are also able to follow it.   Maimonides does in fact address the first point I raise (He does this in the following halachot), but not the second.

#6  Is very interesting, since it states that the court cannot impose its law on an unwilling population.   Again, this is predicated on the idea of a majority, but this is a self serving argument. Which community and which majority?  And of course, so what if the majority in Bnei Brak accepts an addition? Why should I limit my freedom for others?

#7 This adds an additional element of reversibility to the equation.  If after a long time a new court carries out  a survey, and finds that a law is not practiced  as once though, the law can be reversed, regardless of the status of the court!  This may be very rare in terms of actual practice, for a Rabbinic Bet Din to reverse a Talmudic addition. However, in principle, it means anyone can reverse a law, once the practice is not accepted by the current majority of Jews.  Since today there is no longer an orthodox majority, then rabbinic law is not valid, or at least can be reversed, using this catalyst of the Rambam.

Of course, no rabbi would accept this in practice, but it does show that rabbinic law is not written in stone, and can be reversed if it is no longer deemed relevant by the population.