NIVERSITY OF MIC
NIVERSITY OF MICH
• LIBRARI
1811
23:50
MICHIGAN
ARTES
*7!
TES
THE KARAITE HALAKAH
AND ITS RELATION TO SADDUCEAN, SAMARITAN
AND PHILONIAN HALAKAH
PARTI
BY BERNARD REVEL, M. A., Ph. D.
A THESIS SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 27, 1911
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE DROPSIE
COLLEGE FOR HEBREW AND COGNATE LEARNING
0d90
LIETOATE 12
printin Tunz
2
PHILADELPHIA
1913
B.M
175
ik3
R45
܊
PRESS OF
CAHAN PRINTING CO., INC. ,
PHILADELPHIA, PA., U. S. A,
19 13
,
INQUIRY INTO THE SOURCES OF KARAITE
HALAKAH
.
The causes of the Karaite schism and its early history
are veiled in obscurity, as indeed are all the movements
that originated in the Jewish world during the time be-
tween the conclusion of the Talmud Babli and the appear-
ance of Saadia Gaon.
From the meager contemporary sources it would seeni
that from the second third of the eighth century until
the downfall of the Gaonate (1038) the whole intellectual
activity of Babylonian Jewry centered about the two
Academies and their heads, the Geonim. Of the early
Gaonic period the Jewish literature that has reached us
from Babylonia is mainly halakic in character, e. g.
Halakot Gedolot, Sheeltot, and works on liturgy, which
afford us an insight into the religious life of the people.
Ffrom them, however, we glean very little information
about the inner life of the Jews in Babylonia before the
rise of Karaism; hence the difficulty of fully understanding
the causes which brought about the rise of the only Jewish
sect that has had a long existence and has affected the
course of Jewish history by the opposition it has aroused.
The study of sects always has a peculiar interest.
During the thirties of the last century, the Karaites them-
selves made accessible to the scholarly world the works of
I
*
257285
2
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL.
some of their latter-day authorities, and with the publica-
tion of Simḥah Pinsker's epoch-making work "Liķķute
Kadmoniyyot” (1860) the attention of Jewish scholarship
was turned to Karaism and its literature. Pinsker,
blinded by his discovery of an important phase in the de-
velopment of Judaism, invented a pan-Karaite theory, ac-
cording to which the Karaites are to be looked upon as
the source of all intellectual achievement of mediæval
Judaism (Liķkuțe, I, 4, 32). The Masorah is a product
mainly of theirs, and it is among them that we are to look
for the beginnings of Hebrew grammar, lexicography,
poetry, and sound biblical exegesis. The Rabbanites, since
Saadia Gaon, were merely imitators of the Karaites. Pins-
ker believed that every Jewish scholar, prior to the eleventh
century, who busied himself with the study of Bible alone,
was a Karaite, and he transformed, accordingly, more
than one Rabbanite into a Karaite.
The question of the origin of Karaism, its causes and
early development is still awaiting solution. That Karaisni
is not the result of Anan's desire to revenge himself on
Babylonian official Jewry, need not be said. Karaite liter-
ature affords us no data; there is a marked lack of histori-
cal sense among them. They have no tradition as to their
origin, and their opinions are conflicting (comp. Pinsker,
Likķute, II, 98). The belief that Karaism is but an echo
of a a similar movement during this period in the Islamic
world is now generally given up owing to the advance
made in the knowledge of the inner development of Islanı
and, particularly, the nature of the Shiite heterodoxy
(see I. Friedlaender, JQR., 1910, 185 ff.).
This question is bound up with the problem of the
origin of the Karaite halakah which is of vital importance
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
3
for the understanding the history of Tradition; as Geiger
(ZDMG., XVI (1862), 716) says, it was always the dif-
ferences in practice, not in dogma, that caused and sus-
tained divisions in Israel. This is particularly true of the
Karaites who differ in nothing but religious practices from
the rest of Israel.
The solution offered by Geiger that the Karaites are
the descendants of the Sadducees and their halakah Sad-
ducean, is accepted with some modification by many
scholars (comp. Poznański, REJ., XLIV (1902), 169).
On the other hand, the eclectic nature of the Karaite
halakah was recognized by several scholars (comp. S. L.
Rapoport in Kerem Chemed, V (1841), 204 ff., and in
Kaempf's Nichtandalusische Poesie, II, 240; P. Frankl,
Ersch u. Gruber, sec. II, vol. 33, 12; Harkavy, in Grätz' Ge-
schichte, V., 482 ff.; id., Jahrbuch f. jüd. Geschichte u. Lit-
eratur, II (1899), 116 ff., and elsewhere). No attempt was,
however, made to explain the bulk of the Karaitic halakah,
on these lines. I have therefore undertaken the work of
tracing the individual Karaite laws to their respective
sources, which will, at the same time, be the first exposition
of the Karaite laws in general-prefacing it by an examin-
ation of the Sadducean-Karaitic theory. The term "Kar-
aite halakah" is used here as a convenient one, though, as
Ķirķisani has unwillingly shown—and any Karaite code
testifies to it—the laws on which all Karaites agree are
few. The Karaite laws are discussed here not according
to subject matter, but such as have common source are
grouped together. I begin with Philo, as the relation of
Karaite halakah to that of Philo has remained, to my
knowledge, hitherto unnoticed. This relation, if estab-
lished, may prove helpful in the understanding of other
4
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
points in the inner history of Judaism during the first
centuries of Islam.
For the halakah of Philo, I have used the work of
Dr. B. Ritter, "Philo und die Halacha, eine vergleichende
Studie," from which most of the citations from Philo in
this treatise are taken. Other Philonian laws, not treated
by Ritter, are discussed here, but only as they bear on the
Karaite halakah.
Not all the early Karaites claimed antiquity for their
schism. This is evident from the reply of Salman b.
Yeruham to Saadia's mention of their late origin (Pins-
ker, II, 19). Another contemporary of Saadia, Abu Jusuf
Yaķub al-Ķirķisani, the most reliable historian among the
Karaites, gives a date for what he calls the Rabbanite
dissension : Jeroboam, to make permanent the power he had
usurped and to prevent the Israelites owing allegiance to
the house of David, divided the nation by sowing the seed
of dissension, perverted the Law, and changed the calendar
(1 Kings 12, 32). The followers of Jeroboam in later times
are called Rabbanites. Those who remained faithful to
the original laws were the ancestors of the Karaites. This
fanciful explanation found no credence even among the
Karaites.
3
באמרך בעלי מקרא חדשים ורבותי הישנים הם קדושים. אם בעלי התועבות 1
comp
.
also Salman ;האלה וכאלה מקודשים סיסרא והמן וזולתם בגן עדן נפושים
1
: ; .
b. Yeruḥam's commentary on Ps. 96, 1
(Winter u. Wünsche, Jüdische
Literatur, II, 80). See, however, Harkavy in Grätz, Geschichte, V4, 472.
That not all the Karaite contemporaries of Saadia claimed antiquity for their
sect is evident also from Saadia's fourth answer in his polemical work against
Ibn Sāķaweihi. See IQR., XIII, 664; opn, I, 67.
2 Comp. Poznański, REJ., XLIV (1902), 162 ff.
3 It was, however, taken up again by the twelfth century Karaite, Elias
b. Abraham, in his b'x9771 0929977 posn (Pinsker, II, 100 ff.). He
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
5
The Karaites felt keenly the need of some account
of their origin that would silence the reproach of the Rab-
banites and found in the event recorded in the Baraita
(ķiddushin 66a; see Josephus Ant., XIII, 13, 5) a basis for
claim of ancient origin for their sect. As stated in that
narrative, the disagreement between John Hyrcanus and
the teachers of the Law resulted in the extermination of
the latter, excepting Simeon b. Shataḥ. As a consequence,
ignorance of the Law prevailed until Simeon appeared and
reinstated it.
והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה
1
Simeon, say the Karaites, being at that time the sole author-
ity, introduced many innovations upon his return and
changed the true interpretation of the Law. To enforce
these new laws, he invented the fiction that besides the
Written there is also an Oral Law given to Moses on Sinai
and handed down from generation to generation, and that
the laws proclaimed by him went back to this real tradition.
The people followed him blindly. But some of them,
knowing the false basis of these changes, rejected them and
adhered to the ancient Tradition in all its purity; those
were the Karaites."
I
4:
adds that those who remained faithful to the original faith migrated hyn
W 19725 and only few of them, because of their attachment to the
Temple, remained in Jerusalem. Yet, as Pinsker (II, 98) remarks, Elias
himself put littic confidence in this myth. For the origin of this legend,
see A. Epstein Eldad ha-dani (Pressburg 1891), p. L. For later Karaites
repeating this story, see Poznański, l. C., P. 163; comp. ZfhB., III, 92 (end)
and 93, for the view of a tenth century Karaite (comp. ib., 90 and 172 ff.).
a striking instance of the purely mythological character of the
Karaite beliefs about their origin and past, I shall illustrate the three strata
in the development of the last mentioned Karaite theory of their origin.
Sahl b. Maşliaḥ (tenth century) asserts that Karaism goes back to the
time of the second Temple, but connects it with no specific event (Pinsker,
II, 35). This is still the opinion of Aaron b. Elias (fourteenth century)
4. As
6
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
On the other hand, most of the Mediæval Jewish
scholars seem to agree that Karaism was due to a revival
of the Sadducees (Abraham Ibn Daud) or that Sadducean
elements are prominent in it (Saadia, Judah Halevi).
Saadia Gaon (891-942) was the first to meet the Karaites in
open battle and refute their claims for recognition. He
states that Karaism is of recent origin (Pinsker, II, 19) and
that Anan's breaking with Tradition was due entirely to
או שהיה שמעון בן שטח נהרג כשאר חחכמים שנהרגו היינו כלנו לעם אחד
,Wien 183o ,דוד מרדכי quoted in) עשרה מאמרות Kaleb Afendopolo in his
(
.gb f ,דוד מרדכי quoted in) מטה האלהים
in Introduction to his goin nna, 4a. Elias b. Moses Bashyazi a century
later connects the schism with the name of Simeon b. Shataḥ and exclaims:
%
(intr. to join 7778, Goslow 1834, 3a.). He is followed by his disciple
(, 1830
9a). The sixteenth century Karaite prodigy Moses b. Elias Bashyazi (born
1554 and said to have died 1572) amplified this tale by asserting in his
(, ff.)
ff.) that Judah b. Fabbai, who
had also survived the king's wrath, opposed the innovations introduced by
Simeon b. Shataḥ as also his fiction of an oral law. Judah attracted to his
banner all those who remained faithful to ancient traditions. Simeon and
Judah each became the head of a school, thus dividing the Jews into two
factions. Simeon was succeeded by Abtalion, Abtalion by Hillel who sys-
tematized the new laws based on the fiction of the Oral Law. Judah b. Tabbai
was followed by Shemaiah, and Shemaiah by Shammai; those two being the
great Karaite teachers from whom the line of succession was never interrupted.
Already Jepheth b. Said asserted that Shammai was the teacher of the
Karaites (Pinsker, II, 186; comp. ib., I, 6); see also Luzzatto, TN 07),
III (1838), 223; Geiger, ib., IV,
IV, 12; Gottlober, o'x720 noosons nopa,
Wilna 1865, 5 ff. How foreign this idea was to the early Karaites, is seen
from what Salman b. Yeruḥam says of Bet Slammai and Bet Hillel (79m 0
IV, 13):
.
8 We know of two Rabbanites who combated Karaism before Saadia: the
Gaon Naţronai b. Hilai (079 37 770, 38a) and the Gaon Hai b. David
(Harkavy, Studien u. Mittheilungen, V, 108, n. 2; comp. Bornstein, 720
oina 521n, Warsaw 1904, 158, n. 2, who believes this Gaon
to have been Hai b. Nahshon). For anti-Karaite legislation by Jehudai
Gaon see L. Ginzberg, Geonica, I, III,
For Saadia's anti-Karaite
writings, see Poznański, JQR., X, 238 ff., and additions, ib., XX, 232 ff.
.תועבת ה' גם שניהם
סאקאלאוו
n.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
7
personal motives (ib., 103). Yet he adds that the remnants
of Zadok and Boethus joined Anan (l. c.). About two
centuries later, a time which was decisive in the battle be-
tween traditional Judaism and the Karaites,' the three
great lights of Toledo, Judah Halevi, Abraham Ibn Ezra,
and Abraham Ibn Daud, each strove to check the Karaite
propaganda in Spain carried on at that time with great zeal
by Ibn al-Taras, the disciple of Jeshua b. Judah, and they
all assert that Karaism is an offshoot of Sadduceeism.
Judah Halevi declares that the Karaite schism arose in the
time of John Hyrcanus. The Karaites, says he, are
superior to the Sadducees in questions of dogma, but agree
with them in important religious questions. Abraham Ibn
Ezra also identifies them with the Sadducees. In his com-
mentaries on the Bible, which are strongly anti-Karaitic,
he usually styles them 'p179. More emphatic is Ab-
raham Ibn Daud in his Sefer Hakkabalah, where he says
that "after the destruction of the Temple the Sadducees
dwindled to almost nothing until Anan appeared and
strengthened them."1 Likewise, Maimonides, commenting
6 That Saadia is meant by A7 208 ont 1359, see Pinsker, p. 98;
comp. Poznański, JQR., X, 242.
7 Comp. Frankl, MGWI., XXI (1882), 3 ff.
8 Spain was from early Gaonic times infected with Karaism; comp.
Ginzberg, l. C., I, 123, note I; Frankl. MGWI., 1888, 6 ff.; and Poznański,
IQR., XVI, 768-9. Against the view of Hirschfeld (JQR., XIII, 225 ff.)
that some relation existed between the Karaites and the Zahirites in Spain,
see Goldziher, REJ., XLIII (1901), 6-7.
9 Kuzari, III, 65. Judah Halevi's view is shared by Abrabanel,
nias ning, and S. Duran, nias ja on Abot 1, 3, and II, 210; 312.
10 Introduction to his Commentaries on the Bible; Lev. 3, 9; 23, 17, 40.
As to the relation of Ibn Ezra to the Karaites, see J. S. Reggio, q"W 71728,
I (Wien 1834), 42 ff.; see also D. Rosin, MGWI., XLIII, 76-7.
11 Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles, I, 64.
does not affect the meaning of the statement.
מינים The variant
8
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
(Abot 1, 3) on the dissension of Zadok and Boethus, adds :
"In Egypt they are called Karaites, while in the Talmud
they are named Sadducees and Boethusians."'12
Elias b. Moses Bashyazi, a fifteenth century Karaite,
tells us, in the introduction to his 1958 7778 , 3a, that it
is the opinion of all the Rabbanite scholars that the
Karaite schism goes back to Zadok and Boethus.
Much confidence, however, was not placed in this
testimony of the Mediaval Rabbanites, that the Karaites
descended from the Sadducees, as it is evident that the
Rabbanites were often actuated by the desire to stamp
their opponents in the eyes of the people as descendants
of that hated sect which denied divine Providence and re-
surrection. In the middle of the last century Abraham
Budapest) ספר היובל למשה בלאך see
12 See his commentary on Hullin I, 3. On the views of Maim. on
the Karaites,
(
1905), Hungarian
part, 164-170; see also the other authors mentioned by Poznański, REJ., ib.,
170, to which may be added Estori ha-Pharḥi 7701 702, end of ch. 5
(ed. Luncz, p. 61); David Abi Zimra, Responsu, IV, resp. 219; Meiri on
Abot I, 3.
See also Responsum No. 34 in the Gaonic collection on syywy:
.ורוב מן החיצונים תלמידי בייתוס
ודורשיו ,See Weiss
one
13. Comp. David Messer Leon (published by Schechter), REJ., XXIV, ,
126.
,
97 707, IV, 53. Joseph al-Başir is the only
among the Karaites who identifies the Karaites with the Sadducees
(Harkavy, l. C., p. 473). Ķirķisani states that the Sadducees revealed part
of the truth and that there were no Sadducees in his days (ch. 18, p. 317).
Jepheth b. Ali (Poz., ib., 171-2) and Hadassi (Alphabeta 97, 98) speaks of the
Sadducees with contempt. The statement by Jacob b. Reuben (Pinsker, II,
84) that the Karaites are the descendants of the Sadducees was, therefore,
taken by him from Joseph al Başir's 78335DxSx 2xn2 and not from Jepheth
b. Ali, as Harkavy (Grätz, Geschichte, V4, 474) suggests. Nor is Harkavy
(1. c.) right in his assertion that Elias b. Abraham shared this view. See
above note 3. Comp. also Pinsker, I, 11-12. The later Karaites claimed that
the imputation that they were in some way related to the Sadducees was due
to the hatred the Rabbanites bore them. See Kaleb Afendopolo, quoted in
, .
.2b ,דוד מרדכ
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
9
15
Geiger attempted to prove historically the descent of the
Karaites from the Sadducees, and this view constitutes an
essential part of his epoch-making theory concerning the
internal development of post-exilic Judaism and the history
of Jewish sects. His view is accepted by Holdheim,
Fürst,Harkavy," Chwolson, and others. A general sur-
vey of Geiger's theoryło will help us better to understand
the questions involved.
From the earliest times, says Geiger, two distinct, or,
rather, antagonistic currents were at work shaping the his-
tory of Judaism. The dualism revealed itself in olden
times in the divided nationality of Ephraim (or Joseph)
and Judah. Ephraim constituted a worldly kingdom, in
constant contact with the neighboring nations and, there-
fore, in need of a sacrificial and ceremonial religion and a
powerful priesthood to protect it from the surrounding
heathen influences. Judah, on the other hand, constituted
a kingdom politically insignificant, compact and isolated,
and less susceptible to foreign influences, with one national
sanctuary and a less developed priesthood." Judah escaped
the fate of Ephraim and awoke to new life in the sixth
.19 ,4 ,לקורות הכתות בישראל
)
14 Des Judenthurn 14. s. Geschichte, II, 55 ff.; Jüd. Zeitchrift, VIII,
227-233; Nachgelassene Schriften, II, 135 ff.; Urschrift, index, s. v. "Karai.
ten"; and elsewhere.
15 niw'*7 98, Wien 1861, 128 ff.
16 Geschichte d. Karäerthums (Leipzig 1862), I, 8 ff.
17 In Russian periodical “Woschod," 1896, and elsewhere; comp. id.,
, 4, .
18 Das letzte Passaniahl Christi (2 ed., Leipzig 1908), pp. 148, 176 ff.;
id., Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte d. Judenthuns (Leipzig 1910), p.
8 ff.; comp. V. 'Aptowitzer, Die Rechtsbücher d. nestorianischen Patriarchen,
1910, pp. 7-8.
more detailed account see Poznański, Abraham Geiger, Leben
U. Lebenswerk, Berlin 1910, 352-388.
20 Jüd. Zeitschr., VIII (1870), 279 ff., and elsewhere.
19 For a
IO
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
century B. C. With this new life came a struggle, in
which priestly aristocracy and sacerdotal rule were antag-
onized by tendencies towards religious and political democ-
racy that asserted themselves more and more. Since the
establishment of the second commonwealth the priests
ruled the nation. There stood at the head of the state a
high-priest, descendant of the family of Zadok, the chief of
the priesthood in the days of David and Solomon (I Kings,
I, 34; 2, 35; I Chron. 29, 22), members of which had exer-
cised priestly functions lever since the building of Solo-
mon's Temple. This family and those related to it con-
stituted the nobility of the nation and since the Return
controlled the secular as well as the religious life of the
people.
This power, blended with the attribute of holiness,
soon led the priestly ruling class to disregard the needs and
demands of the people. They stood for the ancient laws
and observances, which established and asserted their
rights and prerogatives, admitting no modification which
the times required. They also allied themselves with the
Syrians and cultivated tastes and habits distasteful to the
people. With the victory of the Maccabees the govern-
ment and the high-priesthood passed over to the latter, the
Sadducees, the old nobility, joining them. An opposition
against them arose among the people, the leaders of which
were known as the "Separated” (Perushim), descendants
of those who in the days of Zerubbabel and again in the
21
21 Ib., p. 282 ff.; Jüd. Zeitschr., II, 17 ff.; ZDMG., XIX, 603 ff. An off-
shoot of the Sadducees, and united with them were the Boethusians, a new
aristocratic priestly family called after Simon b. Boethus, high-priest and
father-in-law of Herod I (Urschrift. 102, 134 ff.143 ff.). Herzfeld,
Geschichte, II, 387, accepts the view of Azariah dei Rossi that the Boethu-
sians are the Essenes spoken of by Philo and Josephus. See also REJ., III,
113 ff. and Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, 28, 129.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
II
1
time of Ezra separated themselves from heathen surround-
ings and influences (Ezra 6, 21; 9, 1; Neh. 9, 2). Their
aim was to limit the power of priestly aristocracy and turn
the government over to the people. The Pharisees recog-
nized the sanctity of priesthood, but contested the central-
ization of secular power in the hands of the sacerdotal-
aristrocratic families.
The difference between these two parties, originally
small and of a general nature, widened in time. The spirit
of rivalry in this politico-religious struggle brought about
laws and regulations on the part of the Pharisees intended
to check the authority and diminish the privileges of the
priests. Personal purity and sanctity of all the people were
to take the place of the sanctity of priesthood. The Phari-
sees devised new rules of interpretation which enabled
them to limit and restrict the biblical laws establishing
priestly rights. On the other hand, many laws of purity
and observances concerning food, originally intended for
the priests and the Temple, they made apply to all the
people in and outside of the Temple." So the Pharisees
did not adhere to the letter of the Law, but taught and ex-
panded the Law with regard to its inner spirit and the
needs of the time, whereby they created a new Halakah
differing in content as well as in spirit from the ancient,
Sadducean, tradition. The majority of the people follow-
ed the new Halakah, but the Sadducean teachings found
acceptance outside of Judah proper. The Samaritans, de-
scendants of Northern Israel, were not allowed by the
leaders of the national party in the time of Zerubbabel to
participate in the further development of Judaism (Ezra
22 Jüd. Zeitschr., VI, 265 ff.
23 Urschrift, 156 ff., 176, 434 ff.; Nachgelassene Schriften, II, 121 ff.;
V (Heb.), 112 ff., 142 ff. and elsewhere.
I2
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
4, I ff.). The ancient feud between Ephraim and Judalı
thus revived. The rejected Samaritans who retained the
ancient Israelitish tradition as well as the ancient interpre-
tation of the Law, clung, like the Sadducees, to those tra-
ditions and stood for priestly prerogative, characteristic of
the religion of Northern Israel and the Sadducees. This
accounts for the many practices and interpretations of the
law that are common to the Sadducees and the Samari-
24
tans.
But, even in Judah, only the political antagonism be-
tween the Pharisees and the Sadducees ceased with the
destruction of the Temple. The Sadducees, whose exist-
ence as the priestly aristocracy and ruling class depended
upon the state and the Temple, ceased to control the life
of the people. But the religious differences between these
two parties did not disappear.
The victorious Pharisees, who ruled the day, rejected
all traditions, preserved by the Sadducees, which tended to
affirm the exclusive rights of the priests, and the whole
body of traditional law was now made to conform to their
views. Not all the Pharisaic teachers, however, agreed to
these radical changes, and some of them retained their al-
legiance to the pre-Pharisaic Halakah. Notably among
them are Shammai and his school represented by R.
Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Jose the Galilean.
But official Pharisaism did not heed them. It estab-
lished as a religious norm the interpretations and laws
which emanated from the school of Hillel, the great chan-
24 Nachg. Schriften, III, 258 ff., 284 ff.; IV, 65; V (Heb.), 149 ff.;
ZDMG., XII, 132 ff. and elsewhere.
25 Jüd. Zeitschrift, VIII, 283 ff. and elsewhere; comp. Hoffmann,
Magazin 1884, 19.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
13
pion of Pharisaism, who began the systematization of the
new Halakah. Hillel's work was firmly established by R.
Akiba and brought to completion by Judah Ha-nasi. Two
centuries later the center of Judaism was transferred to
Babylonia, and soon all consciousness of an earlier and
differing Halakah disappeared.”
Zealously as the Pharisees of the school of Hillel
worked to exclude and annul the laws and traditions tainted
with Sadducean views, traces of the latter are still found
in some of the apocryphal books; in the Greek version of
the Scriptures (LXX); in the Aramaic version, Pseudo-
Jonathan;" in the halakic midrashim from the school of
R. Ishmael, himself a priest and with priestly sympathies, 18
and, to a lesser extent, in the later Palestinian halakic
works, Tosefta and Talmud Jerushalmi.29
But not only are we able to reconstruct parts of the
Sadducean Halakah through the traces in these works,
but the Sadducean tradition is still alive, its laws are observ-
eci and its practices carried out by their descendants, the
Karaites; not only are they the followers and spiritual
heirs of the Sadducees, but their physical descendants.
Doctrines and practices adhered to and observed by a na-
tion do not disappear. at the desire of its leaders. Nor
were the Sadducees annulled. The descendants of the
once dominant party continued to live according to the
traditions of their ancestors. The religious unrest prev-
26 Jüd. Zcitschrift, VIII, 284 ff.
27 Urschrift, 165; 451 ff.; Nachg. Schriften, IV, 108 ff.; V (Heb.), 112
ff.; see below.
28 enboon and 1980; Urschrift, 434 ff.; Jüd. Zeitschr. IV, 96 ff.; VIII,
284; IX, 8 ff.; XI, 51 ff., and elsewhere.
29 See Jüd Zeitschrift, VIII, 291 ff. For the Jerushalmi comp. MGWJ.,
1871, 120 ff.
14
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
.בני מקרא or קראים ever
,
soon changed to the appellation
alent in the Islamic world in the eighth century caused theni
also to unite and defy their old enemies, the Pharisees.
Their leader Anan gave them his name, which was, how-
, .
Karaism is, thus, not to be looked upon as a late-day
revolt against the authority of Tradition caused by out-
side influence, but is a survival in a somewhat modified
form (as by belief in resurrection of the pre- and anti-
Pharisaic tradition.
80
30 D. Chwolson in his Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte d. Judenthums
(Leipzig 1910) goes further than Geiger, and asserts that long after the
destruction of the Temple, the Sadducees were predominant (pp. 10-22). He
bases this view on the assumption that during the time of the Second Com.
monwealth the Sadducees constituted not only the priestly and secular
aristocracy, but also the bulk of the people, their disappearance with the
destruction of the State being therefore inconceivable (p. 23 ff.).
Chwolson also believes that it was the people who remained faithful to
the Sadducean tradition who are designated in the talmudic literature by
the name puan Dy. This accounts for the mutual hatred that existed
between the Am-haareş and Pharisaic teachers (p. 9). Chwolson adduces
the talmudic account (b. Berakot 476 and parallel) of the ceremonies the
non-observance of which characterized the Am-haareş, as proof of the latter
being identical with the Sadducees. It is there said that the Am-haares does
not read the Shema'; that he does not put on the phylacteries; that he does
not wear fringes on his garments and that he has no Mezuzah on his door.
Now the Karaites even up to this day observe none of these ceremonies.
Some relationship must exist between the Am-haareş and the Karaites. As
the Karaites are, Chwolson believes, descendants of the Sadducees, a rela-
tionship is established between the Am-haareş and Sadducees.
The facts are, however, not as Chwolson puts them. The Karaitees have
rejected the biblical precept of hiyoy, even if they differ as to
the meaning of mban and some other details; see, for Anan, Harkavy,
pp. 7-10, and Schechter, Jewish Sectaries, II, 25, 1-26, 17;
Hadassi, Alph. 241 and 364 (1366); Mibħar, Num., ad loc., 179 1a, 806 ff.;
nisho wias (Neubauer, Aus d. Petersburger Bibliothek), 49a ff.; comp.
also Ibn Ezra on Num. 15, 38, 39. Nor is it likely that the Karaites have
even denied the duty of reading the Shema'. Abu Isa Isfahani, from whom
Anan borrowed several laws (comp. Poznański, REJ., XLIV (1902), 178),
taught, according to Ķirķisani (comp. Harkavy, sea ninon minps, 9).
never
ספר המצות לענן
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
15
The reliability of the traditional account of the origin
of the Sadducees and Boethusians (Abot de R. Nathan,
ch. 5), rejected by Geiger (Urschrift, 105 ff.) as an
apocryphal legend, was vindicated by Baneth in Magazin,
IX (1882), p. 1-37; 61-95, where is also shown how far
the view of Geiger—that the Sadducees did not reject
Tradition but adhered to a more ancient interpretation of
the Law-contradicts the explicit statements of Josephus
(Ant. XIII, IO, 6; XVII, I, 4) and all the Talmudic ac-
counts about them.31
Before we enter into a discussion of the agreements
between the Sadducees and the Karaites which serve
Geiger as proofs of the relation of the latter to the former,
a few words will not be amiss on the general difficulties
connected with the hypothesis, which were ignored by
the duty of reading the Shema', Its reading is enjoined by the later Karaites;
see Hadassi, Alph. 15 (15d); 17998 71778, 59c; see Weiss, 777, IV, 88; L.
Löw. Ges. Schr., I, 50. Neither can the Am-haareş be identified with the
Sadducees by his non-observance of the law of Tefillin. The Sadducees
accepted the literal interpretation of Deut. 6, 8 (see Weiss, I, 118; Fürst,
Geschichte d. Karäerthums, I, 10; Graetz, III, 3, 395; comp. also Müller,
Masechet Soferim, p. 21, note 66). The name
ספר in Menahot 42b צדוקי
.misled Wreschner
(
Samaritanische Tra תורה תפילין ומזוזות שכתבן צדוקי...
to
ditionen, Berlin 1888, intr., p. VIII) and J. A. Montgomery (The
Samaritans, Philadelphia 1908, 136)
believe that the Sadducees
interpreted Deut. 6, 8 symbolically. picy in Menahot (1. c.) is, as often
in the Amoraic literature, equivalent to ya, or was, as usual, substituted
therefor by the censor. The parallel passage (Gittin 45b) reads instead
of pigy, which is also the reading of Estori ha-Pharḥi, 1701 9ho, end
of ch. 5. Harkavy (pays nison ODD, 142, n. 12) believes that Anan
interpreted Deut. 6, 9 literally but referred onangi to the 19277 nwy
a view which is held also by the Falashas (Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, 174).
81 Comp. also Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer U. die Sadducäer, Greifswald
1877, 73; G. Hölscher, Der Sadduzäismus, Leipzig 1906, pp. 9, 33 ff., 107
ff. The general nature of the Sadducees was recently thoroughly discussed
by I. Halevy in his D'10877 01917, vol. Ic, pp. 358 ff.
16
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
Geiger. Geiger believes that all the differences between the
Fharisees and the Sadducees may be brought under one
unifying principle, viz., the advocacy of priestly interests
by the Sadducees. But if this was the distinctive mark of
the Sadducees, what import could this tendency have had
many centuries after the destruction of the Temple, when
there was no more priestly aristocracy nor prerogative?
And how could this issue sustain and keep alive Sadduce-
ism under the appellative d'87p until to-day? Nor can we
comprehend how Karaism whose basic principle since the
חפשו באורייתא שפיר days of its first exponent Anan was
"Search the Scripture, interpret it according to your
own reason, and act accordingly," ignoring tradition,
how Karaism could have descended from Sadduceism
which, as Geiger himself asserts, was by its very nature
conservative, adhering stringently to ancient tradition.
This Sadducean-Karaite theory of Geiger is closely
connected with his hypothesis concerning the existence of
an ancient Halakah related to the Sadducean and which
was therefore suppressed by the later Pharisees, a view
that has been accepted by many scholars. A brief discus-
sion of this hypothesis in relation to Karaism is given here.
The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on the Pentateuch is,
as Geiger (Urschrift, 162 ff., 451 ff.; N. S., IV, 106 ff.; V
(Heb.), 112 ff.) believes, the main depository of remnants
and traces of this ancient Sadducean-Samaritan-Karaite
Halakah. Ps.-Jon., being a product of Palestine at a time
when the more ancient Sadducean traditions had not alto-
gether died out there—though changed to conform to the
New Halakah, still contains much which goes back to
82 Harkavy sys 1897 700, 132,' 176; so Sahl b. Maşliaḥ (Pinsker,
II, 33-4); comp. Poznański, REJ., XLIV (1902), 180 ff.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
17
those ante-Pharisaic traditions. As proof of this view,
Geiger (Urschrift, 176 ff.) attempted to show that several
Karaite anti-traditional laws are found among the Samari-
tans and in Ps.-Jon. The following are the main points of
agreement which Geiger finds between the Karaite law
and the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and which he therefore
believes to be survivals of the ancient halakah.
According to the traditional interpretation of Lev. 19,
24, the fruit of a tree in its fourth year is, like the “second
tithe," to be consumed by the owner within the walls of
Jerusalem. This is also the view of Josephus, Ant., IV, 8,
19. Pseudo-Jonathan, however, translates 5 Dibobot rooppaa
(. , ';
on Deut. 20, 6.93 The Samaritans and Karaites also
take pisosa wap to mean that it is to be given to the
priest or redeemed by its owner. Geiger (Urschrift, 181-
184) believes this to have been the view of the ancient
Halakah. Since this interpretation agrees with the plain
meaning of bobo boo wop (comp. Ibn Ezra ad loc.), there
is no necessity to assume with Geiger that this interpre-
tation by some Karaites goes back to an ancient tradition.
so also ;קודשי תושבחן קדם ה' מתפרק מן כהנא Lev
.
19
,
24
)
by)
94
ZUT
33 Comp. Epstein, MGWI., XL (1896), 142; Gronemann, Die Jona-
than'sche Pentateuch-Uebersetzung
in
ihren12 Verhältnisse Halacha,
Leipzig 1879, 48. For the view of the Book of Jubilees 7, 35-7, see B.
Beer, Das Buch d. Jubiläen, 43-44.
34 Not all the Karaites, as Geiger (Urschrift, 182) thinks; see 1978
sobe, 700, and on nno, Lev. 540. Geiger refers to Mibhar, ad loc.
Aaron b. Joseph, however, contradicts himself; see Mibhar, Num. 46:
:
comp. however, the
-
on Mibḥar, Deut. 16a, letter 109.
priest is held by Samuel al-Magrabi (M. Lorge, Die Speisegesetze der Karäer
von Samuel el-Magrebi, Berlin 1907, 23, end). Geiger finds this view also in
P. Sotah 8, 5; but see Pineles, in so 7277, 176 ff., and Gronemann, I. c.
For the meaning of that passage see also N. Z. Berlin, in Halevy's 1917
ואיש את קדשיו : כגון מעשר שני ונטע רבעי והשלמים שהם לבעלים כמו
;ממונו ומותו הבעל בהם
טירת כסף Super
-
commentary
belongs to the נטע רבעי The view that
18
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
According to Tradition, two tithes were to be taken
every year (except the sabbatical year). The "first tithe"
(Num. 18, 21 ff.) and the "second tithe” (Deut. 14, 22 ff.)
are to be taken in the first, second, fourth, and fifth years;
the "first tithe" and the tithe for the poor (Deut. 26, 12
ff.) in the third and sixth years of every cycle of seven
years. Geiger (Urschrift, 176 ff.) contends that the
ancient Halakah required the taking of all these three tithes
in the third and sixth years, as the Karaites hold. He
09312877, III, 313-4; comp. also Poznański, ndipos d'72130 DNT Dry
0911827, 16 ff. Hadassi (Alph. 205 (180) and 303 (112d)) also holds that
the fruits of the fourth year belong to the priests. As was pointed out
already by Maimonides (197108 nbaxa 10, 18) the mistaken view of some
Geonim that the fruits of the fourth year are not to be eaten—even when
redeemed during the fourth year was caused by Lev. 19, 25: nwonn 73031
which seems to prohibit the enjoyment of the fruits of the תאכלו את פריו
;ופירות .7
verse
fourth year during that year (Tosafot Rosh ha-shanah roa, S. . ;
sylting to Maaser Sheni 5, I and Asheri, ośmy n, end, quote this view from
Halakot Gedolot. See also She'eltot No. 10, but see Kaminka, op, II, 21).
This accounts also for the interpretation of
24 by Ps.-Jon., many
Karaites, and even Ibn Ezra (ad loc.) to mean that the fruits of the fourth
year are to be given to the priests and that the owner is to enjoy the fruits
of the fifth year (v. 25). For the view of Geiger see also Jüd. Zeitschrift, II,
183; Nachgel Schr., IV, 38, 107.
35 Not all; see onin nn, Deut. 18a:
ויש מבעלי מקרא אומרים שבשנה
;ראשונה ושנית נותן שתי מעשרות ובשלישית מוציא שלש מעשרות תוספת מעשר עני
ובארץ יש מפרשינן [מנהו] ב' ב' מעשר חד מעשר ללוים וחד :of his words
מעשר אכלין ליה מ[רואתיהו] דכ' עשר תעשר וג' ואכלת לפני יי' אלהיך ב' א' 1
לשכן שמו ש[ם והאי] מעשר ישראל אכלין ליה דקא אמא ואכלת לפני ייי
אלהיך והלא מע[שר ללוים] דכ' ולבני לוי אלא על תנין מעשר קאים מישום האכי
אקד[ס עשר תעשר] בתרין לישאני לאפרושי תרין מעשר חד מעשר ללוים וחד מעשר
כתר A similar view is mentioned in . [אכלין] בעלים בבית המקדש כי היכי דאמרן
ויש אומרים שבשנה שלישית מה שיותר מן המעשרות ראשון :184 ,
.on Deut תורה
comp. H. Olitzki, Flavius Josephus und die Halacha, Berlin 1885, 16-19.
See also Mibhar, Deut., 120; 236; and qo2 nye to the last mentioned place,
letters 27-28. According to Anan (Schechter, Jewish Sectaries II, p. 5 11.
10-19) two tithes are to be taken every year. This seems to be the meaning
: []
In []
ins []
[]
[o]
[]. A
., 18a:
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
19
bases this opinion on Tobit 10, 7, 8 (against which see F.
Rosenthal, Vier Apokryphische Bücher, Leipzig 1885, 117,
note), Josephus Ant. IV, 8, 22, Sifre to Deut. 12, 17; 14, 28
(against which see Weiss,179 917 717, I, 126, note); but
mainly on Ps.-Jon. to Deut. 26, 12-13: Nowy's 19vn 0178
ית כל מעשר עללתך בשתא תליתיתא דשמיטיתא ותתנון מעשרא קמאה
לליואי מעשרא תניינא הוא מעשר מסכיניא לגיוריא ליתמיא ולארמלתא
וייכלון בקרווך ויסבעון : ומעשר תליתאי תיסק ותיכול קדם ה' אלהך
ותימר הא אפרשנן קודשיא מן ביתא ולחוד יהבנן מעשרא קמאה לליואי
מעשרא תנינא לגיורי ליתמא ולארמלא הי ככל תפקידתך דפקידתני לא
.עברית חדא מן פקודייך ולא אנשית
. As was already pointed
out by M. Olitzki (Flavius Josephus und die Halacha,
18, note) and Bassfreund (MGWI., XL 1896), 5
ft.), there is nothing in Ps.-Jon. to these two verses
to justify the view of Geiger. What Ps.-Jon. adds
to the translation of the text is entirely in agree-
ment with tradition (Sifre, II, 109 and 302) that in
all the tithes from the last three years must שנת הבעור .the
be removed, the first tithe given to the Levite and the
“second tithe” carried to Jerusalem. (See also on the
whole Pineles, in Sw 177, 173-6, and Gronemann, p.
161 ff.).18
ס' המצות) Harkavy's suggestion .ושני מוציאם בשער הלוי לוקח שלו והעני מן השני
(
gays, 142, note 18) that Ibn Ezra on Deut. 14, 28 meant Anan and the
Karaites is thus proved erroneous; comp. also Book of Jubilees 37, II. For
a full refutation of the view of Geiger, see Bassfreund, MGWI., XL (1896),
5-8.
36 Geiger, on the basis of his theory that R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and
R. Ishmael represent the ancient Halakah related to Sadducean Tradition
(see above), sees also in every agreement of Ps.-Jon. with the interpretation
of R. Eliezer or R. Ishmael ancient laws, which were changed by the school
of R. Akiba (Urschrift, 447; 472 ff.; Nachg. Schriften, IV, 106-7). It was
however shown by Gronemann (119, note 2; see also 103, note; 139-140,
notes; comp. also Epstein, MGWI., XL (1896), 142) that Ps.-Jon. does not
always follow the interpretation of the school of R. Ishmael against that
20
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
עוד אמר ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למלך וגו'
..see ib ;שני נאמר כי אסור על אנשי הדת שלא יקחו מבנות העכ"ומן
An agreement between Pseudo-Jonathan and many
Karaites, not noticed by Geiger, is their interpretation of
Lev. 18, 21 bab ayns on Syia as referring to mar-
riage with a Gentile woman;" see Ķirķisani 11, 23; Hadassi
(Alph. 324): 1 ...
;
Alph. 278, 313 and 364; see also in no, ad loc. (490).
This interpretation, though censured in the Mishnah (Me-
gillah 3, 9; comp. 210 Ornodin ad loc.), is given
in the name of Seyoum 227 x (Megillah 25a; p.
Sanhedrin 9, 7, see also Sifre II, 171) and as Friedmann,
Bet Talmud, I, 336-7 (comp. Ginzburger, MGWJ., 1900.
6 ff.), points out, the Mishnah simply meant that this verse
is not to be interpreted in this way in public as it adds to
the text.
of R. Akiba, his acceptance of the former being mostly conditioned by their
being nearer to the plain meaning of the verse; comp. also the view of D.
Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die halachischen Midraschim, pp. 74-76.
37 This verse, as Frankel (Einfluss, 156) remarks, gave rise to many
divergent interpretations. Anan also interpreted this verse allegorically; see
Harkavy, yy's nina 10, 207, and Schechter, Jewish Sectaries, II, 32.
The interpretation in the Book of Jubilees 30, 7-10 of this verse as referring
to one who effects a union between a Jewish woman and a Gentile and that
such action is punished by death is found also among the Karaites; so
Samuel al-Magrabi (Book of Precepts called tw9pbx, a unique MS. of the
Hebrew translation of the Tombe written in 1722' by Samuel b. Solomon
ha-Kohen (see Pinsker, II, 144-5; Gottlober, dipo niebins mapa, 202,
note) now in the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America),
: 3
ויש אומרים כי הרצון בזה המאמר כי האדם מישראל לא יבעל אחת מן ;2220
הגוים בין בזנות ובין בנשואים ויתן בה בגופה... וכן מי הוציא זרעו לאומות
העולם בבעילתו או בזנותו באשה מהם או בחזוק איש מהם כי יבעל באשה מבני
ישראל העושה המעשה הזה הוא מחלל שם ה' וגזר על העושה זאת ברגימה באבנים
.על ידי עם הארץ
,נחלת יהודה ,S
.
L. Rapoport ; ארס
88 Comp. Rashi, ad loc.; Aruk, s. v. ; , )
Krakau 1868, p. 231 ff.; Geiger, Urschrift, 304; Nachg. Schriften, IV, 106;
Berliner, Onkelos, II, 88 ff. and literature quoted there.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
21
The Karaites agree with Ps.-Jon. to Lev. I, 4 and 3, 2,
(against Sifra to 16, 21; Menahot 93a ; Tosefta ib., 10, 3; so
also Philo, II, 241) that 1277 hand is with the right hand
only. See Mibhar, Lev., 3a: 7100 7787173...307:17' TODI
"
[]. So also Mibhar, Lev.,
27a, and 7990 90 on Lev. I, 4 (3b, end). But see D.
Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in die halachischen Mid-
raschim, Berlin 1887, p. 75, who contends that this
interpretation of Ps.-Jon. (which is also favored by the own;
see Ibn Ezra on Lev. I, 4) goes back to the school of R.
Ishmael.
ואין סמיכה בשתי ידים רק על שעיר המשתלח ואשר אמרו בעלי הקבלה
. [בשתי ידים] הכתוב מתגבר על קבלתם
,גן עדן by many Karaites
.
See חדשה the interpretation of
ובאמרו אשה חדשה רומז בזה שלא נשאת עדיין... אבל אלמנה :I54b
,כתר תורה So also .או גרושה מן הנשואין לא תקרא אשה חדשה
.אשה חדשה are divided on the interpretation of
Ps.-Jon. translates noon nox in Deut. 24, 5, against
Sifre ad. loc. and Sotah 44a, by xnn nsins. This is also
,
:
,
ad loc. (276). See, however, Mibhar ad loc. (206).
Samuel al-Magrabi (MS. 95a) states that the Karaites
. This
deviation of Ps.-Jon. and some of the Karaites from
the talmudic interpretation of ini rests on the plain
meaning of that word. See Ibn Ezra ad loc.; comp. Grone-
inann, l. c., p. 67.
While, as we have seen, the proofs adduced by Geiger
do not establish relationship between the ancient Halakah,
believed by him to be contained in Pseudo-Jonathan, and
the Karaite Halakah, the following consideration, not hith-
erto noted, arises against any attempt at connecting the
Karaite law with the ancient Sadducean Halakah which
is believed to be represented in Ps.Jon.:
22
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
If the deviation of Ps.-Jon. from our Halakah go back
to ancient tradition related to Sadduceism, then we should
expect the Karaites--a later name for Sadduceism, accord-
ing to this view—to be in agreement with such deviations
of Ps.-Jon. The following examination of the main
halakic divergences of Ps.-Jon. from our Halakah and of
the view of the Karaites on these points will show how
untenable this view is.
According to Tradition (Mekiltą, Mishpatim, I, ed.
Fried., 74b; Arakin 186; p. Kiddushin 59a; Maim. Dizay,
4, 4) the seventh year in which the Jewish male or female
89
our
וית ניבלתהון by ואת נבלתם תשקצו 11
תשקצון ומן הנייתהון תתרחקון
89 Ginsburger's edition of Ps.-Jon. (Berlin 1903) is followed here. Most
of the differences between Ps.-Jon., and Halakah are collected by
Gronemann, ib. He includes, however, renderings of some passages not being
aware that Ps.-Jon. followed in their interpretation the Jerushalmi. Comp.
ib., p. 48, in reference to Deut. 17, 5, ganya sx, which is the interpretation
of the 1337 in p. Sanhedrin 6, I. See also Onkelos, ad loc., and Ps.-Jon. on
Deut. 22, 24; comp. MGWI., LII (1908), 217, note I. This also explains
Ps.-Jonathan's rendering of Lev. 11,
which Hoffmann (ZfhB., VII, 1903, 47;
comp. Reifmann, Bet Talmud, I, 314) considers to be anti-traditional. But
p. 7, 1: []
,
,
are not to be made objects for
trade and gain (see b. Pesaḥim 23a). Ps.-Jon. in his lipninn 170'in yn
thus follows the Jerushalmi; comp. also the fragment of a commentary to
p. Shabbat published by Poznański in o7p7, II, 49 and n. 4, and Saadia
Gaon on Lev. 11, II published by Hirschfeld in JQR., XIX, 140, beginning,
in Ps.-Jon. to Deut. 17, 18 (comp. Reifmann, l. C., p.
348) may be a reference to p. Sanhedrin 2, 6 (200; comp. Tosefta ib., 4, 7;
., 3, 1): .
Ps.-Jon, translates also Deut. 21, 7 in accordance with the Palestinian in-
terpretation as referring to the murderer. See p. Sotah 9, 6; comp. b. ib.,
38b and Rashi, ad loc. See also on the Halakah of Ps.-Jon. J. Reifman, Bet
Talmud, I, 215 ff., 347 ff.; A. Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus, Wien
1895, 151 ff.; D. Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung in d. haláchischen Midraschim,
74-76; id., in ZfhB., VII (1903), 46-48.
כתיב טמאים הם [לכם] מה ת"ל וטמאים יהיו לכם אלא אחד :see P. Shebiit 7
,
I
the meaning of which
,
as is evident from איסור אכילה ואחד איסור הנאה
איסורי אכילה what follows there
,
is that
ומן הנייתהון תתרחקון .
ויכתבון ליה סביא
,ומגיהין אותו מספרי עזרה על פי בית דין של ע"א :(1 ,3 מלכים ,.Maim
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
23
slave is to be released (Ex. 21, 2; Deut. 15; 12) refers
not to the Sabbath year (oonwn now ), but to the seventh
year from the commencement of their servitude.40 Ps.-
Jon., however, seems to interpret nyawa “the sabbatical
year” (Ps.-Jon. to Ex. 21, 7; 22, 2; but see Ps.-Jon. to
Ex. 21, 2 and to Deut. 15, 12). The Karaites differing
among themselves on the laws of slavery agree with Tra-
dition that nyava refers to the seventh year of servitude.
, :
[] ;
al-Magrabi (S. Gitelsohn, Die Civil-Gesetze der Karäer
Samuel al-Magrabi, Berlin 1904, 2, line 1);
:
ישראל שנמכר לא יעבוד יותר משש שנים :Id ,משאת בנימין See
Samuel ;שלמים [שני] שש שנים יעבד ובשבעת יצא לחפשי חנם
von
עבד שנמכר בשש :9c אדרת אליהו Afendopolo's appendix to
שנים אם ביניהם שמטה אינו יוצא כי השנים האלו מעת ביאתו על סדר
.לא בשנות השמטה
.
Geiger holds (Urschrift, 190 ff.) that the ancient Hal-
akah did
did not distinguish between paid and gratuitous
guardians, as does Tradition (B. M. 93a) but made the
difference in responsibility depend on the nature of the
goods entrusted. It referred Ex. 22, 6-8 to things light
in which case the guardian is liable only for lack of ordin-
ary care, and verses 8-13 to things heavy for which the
ובשבעת interpret
as
40 So also Josephus (H. Weyl, Die jüdischen Strafgesetze bei Flavius
Josephus, Berlin 1900, 122; Olitzki, Magazin, XVI (1889), 78). On the
view of Philo, see Ritter, 59, and Weyl, l. C., note 19. The Samaritans also
the seventh year of the servitude (Klumel, Misch-
patim, Ein samaritanisch-arabischer Commentar zu Ex. XXI-XXII, 15 von
Ibrahim ibn Jakub, Berlin 1902, p. II). They disagree, however, with
Tradition in referring Ex. 21, 2-7, to a proselyte (1. c.) a view which is
also represented among the Karaites (Jepheth b. Ali quoted in Mibhar, Ex.
40a; 179 1a, 148d; onin ans, Ex. 686; 100% 0778 (Odessa 1870), 189d;
Samuel al-Magrabi (Gitelsohn, P. 1, 5). The Samaritans take osnys 17291
(v. 6) literally (Klumel, p. VII) as do also some Karaites (see 17068 0978,
goa; Samuel al-Magrabi (Gitelsohn, 5)).
24
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
represents according ,דהוה ליה עמיה אגר נטיר paid guardian
guardian is responsible even if they were stolen. Ps.-Jon.
taking vs. 9-11, against the talmudic interpretation (Mekilta,
ad loc.; Baba Mesi'a 946) as referring to a gratutious
guardian 73 ba and v. 11, with the Talmud, to a
,
to Geiger (ib.) an intermediate state in the development of
the law of guardians."
All the later Karaites accept fully the traditional in-
terpretation of Ex. 22, 6-15 as referring to four kinds of
guardians, so Mibhar, ad loc., 446-45a; 1717 770, ad loc.,
-71826-1840; Samuel al-
Magrabi, MS., 136a ff.
Ps.-Jon. interprets Lev. 5, I against Tradition (Sifra
ad loc.) interpret this verse like Tradition, as referring
another person swearing falsely or breaking an oath and
conceals it (comp. Reifmann, l. C., 313, and Hoffman,
Leviticus, I, 199, note)." The Karaites (173 and 7710 973,
ad loc.) interpret this verse like Tradition, as referring
.
Geiger (Urschrift, 477) finds support for his view
that according to the Sadducees all the work connected
,דין ארבעה שומרים ,גן עדן ;75a
-
b
.שבועת העדות to
41 See RaSHDaM on v. 6; comp. Reifmann, Bet Talmud, I, 219. The
view of Gronemann, 77 ff., is improbable, comp. ib., note. For Philo's and
Josephus' interpretation of these verses see Ritter, p. 61 ff., and Weyl, p.
Hadassi (Alph. 370) refers verses 6-10 to jobben and verses 10-13
to oun byn. Benjamin Nehawendi seems also to make this distinction
(7dia nowo, 2b) but contradicts himself. He says (ib., 36): 395 bon
130 ff.
לשלם דמי העבוטות ומשתלם חובו ממנו בעבור כי הוא דומה לשומר וחייב בגנבה
.מטלטלין thus referring verse 11 to ,שנאמר ואם גנוב יגנב מעמו וגו
, .
42 Philo makes such reticence a capital crime (II, 275; Ritter, p. 47;
comp. Werke Philos, II, 114, note 4). This interpretation of Ps.-Jon. seems
to have escaped Ritter (1. C.).
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
25
with the Red Heifer was to be done by priests only* in
Ps.-Jon.' to Num. 19, 9. 18 37 D 221 W22" } (comp.
also Brüll, Bet Talmud, I, 270).
The Karaites, however, agree with Tradition in the in-
terpretation of 7170 NX (so also Philo II, 253); and Mibhar
(ad loc., 186) records the opinion of some Karaites that
even a non (v. 5), which according to Tradition is
7ra bye (see note 43), does not require a priest :
ויש אומרים השורף יתכן להיותו כהן או זולת כהן
Ps.-Jon. adds to inps mno 1987 (Lev. 16, 27) the words
which is against the ...יתפקון באסלין על ידיהון דטליא דכהניא
4.יוציא אל מחוץ למחנה : יוציא ומוציא ולא כהן
44
Halakah, as Büchler (Die Priester und der Cultus, 153)
remarks. The Karaites agree with Tradition. See Mibhar.
ad loc. (28a):
:
Ps.-Jon. differs from Tradition, Yoma 6, 6, in the inter-
pretation of yon ng nben (Lev. 16, 22) in ascribing the
death of the goat to non-human agency. Geiger (N. S.,
V, Heb., 115) believes this to have been the ancient inter-
pretation (failing, however, to indicate the reason that
43 Comp. Brüll, Bet Talmud, I, 273. Geiger (l. c.) quotes also Ps.-
Jon, on verses 3, 5, 7, but in the interpretation of v. 5, Ps.-Jon, is in full
agreement with Tradition, which also requires 190 no7 to be by a priest
(Brüll, l. C., 271, n. 5, notwithstanding). See Parah 4, 4; Tosefta, ib. 4, 6;
Maim., 179178 0770, 3, 2; 4, 17.
(.-.
verses 3, 7) is represented also in Yoma 420. As to the slaughtering of
sacrifices in general if it need be by a priest, see Ritter, pp. 110-11; see
also Büchler, Die Priester und der Cultus, 138 ff., and p. 101, n. 2, and p.
155, n. 2. See Yoma 27a and Zebaḥim 320; see also Lev. Rabba 22, 4:
Ps
.
-
Jon
.
on) שחיטה בכהן The view that
והכהן שוחט
תני דבי ישמעאל לפי שהיו ישראל אסורים בבשר תאוה במדבר
.ומקבל
44 See also Geiger, Urschrift, 173 (and Büchler, 1. C., 154) as to Ps.-Jon.
Ex. 29, 37; 30, 29; against which see the just remarks of Gronemann, 48,
note.
26
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
.comp , ומשליכו משם... (276)
.Talimud
.
See Mibhar
,
cud loc
.ad loc , כתר תורה also
-16 ,7
.Lev) שלמי נדר ונדבה According to Tradition
might have caused the change in the interpretation of this
verse). The Karaite interpretation agrees with that of the
() , .
, .
(. ,
18) are eaten only two days and the night between (Sifra
., ,
, ). (. )
.-.
days
nights (comp. Ps.-Jon. to Lev. 19, 6). The Karaites are
divided on this question. See Mibhar, ad loc. (116):
,מעשה הקרבנות ,
.ad loc
.;
Zebahim 5
,
7
;
Pesahim 30
;
Maimon
יאכל v
.
16
)
so that) וממחרת והנותר It construes .(6 ,10
.ממחרת refers to
to the night after יאכל Ps
.
-
Jon
.
refers
are eaten two clays and two שלמים the second day so that
ממחרת . שנאכלים לשני ימים ולילה אחד והנותר מבשר הזבח ביום
.השלישי באש ישרף : ביום השלישי דבק עם באש ישרף לא עם והנותר...
והנה שלמי נדר ונדבה : (186)
.ad loc , כתר תורה
נאכלים לשני ימים ושתי לילות לא שני ימים ולילה אחת... הוא הדין
המחרת תופש גם הלילה של אחריו
In a .גם בשלמי נדר שיום המחרת תופש
But see
ני
fragment of a
a commentary on Lev. which Schechter
published in his Saadyana, 144 ff., the author of which
Schechter believes to be the famous ninth century Karaite
, (., . ) :
45
...כן **: (Daniel al Kumsi
,
the saine view is held
(
ib
.
,
p
.
I46
.נדר ונדבה יאכל ממחרת וליל שלישי...
.fol
.
39c , גן עדן See
Philo
,
as is .והשלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחת
45 Aaron b. Elias, however, contradicts himself.
, .
1. 7 from bottom:
evident from the third reason given by him for the law of Lev. 19, 6 (II,
245), agrees with Ps.-Jon. See also Geiger, Nachg. Schr., IV, 38; Reifmann,
Bet Talmud, I, 314. Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, 35, believes this
to have been the Sadducean view; comp. ib., 32, 34. The interpretation of Ps..
Jon. seems to have escaped Chwolson. Another Karaite view is found in the
.
1297 (Lev. 1, 2) excluded Gentiles from bringing any sacrifices to be offered for
them in the Temple. Other Karaites hold the same view (Mibḥar, Lev. 39a,
, ., ;
אדם כי יקריב מכס fragment mentioned in the text
.
Daniel says that the words
12
) ) קרבן
by the Karaite תטיב דעת but see ;620 כתר תורה ,
.ad loc , טירת כסף and
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
27
which is against the talmudie ( לא יסגון ליה על תרין סוסוון
Ps.-Jon, interprets d'D10 15 127 x (Deut. 17, 16) to
mean that he should not have more than two horses (7105
*$)
interpretation that the King is not to keep more horses
than he actually needs (Sifre, ad loc., 105b; Sanhedrin 21a,
comp. Brüll, Bet Talmud, II, 25-26). The Karaites agree
with the talmudic interpetạtion. See Mibhar, ad loc.
(): .
Tradition interprets 4478 **2317 hp (Deut. 18, 19) as
death by strangulation (Sanhedrin 10, I; Sifre, ad loc.,
108a). Ps.-Jon, translates death by sword." The Kar-
aites agree with Tradition. See 771 7na, ad loc. (22a):
:
.ולא ירבה לו סוסים : אלא כדי מרכבתו : (146)
אך הנביא אשר יזיד : זהו נביא שקר וגם יכלול מי שהוא מן מגנבי דברי
47. השם והמתנבא בשם עבודה זרה והנה שלשתם בחנק
47
requires the presence יכתוב לה ספר תירוכין קרם בי דינא
.but comp ; אטו כל דמגרש בבי דינא קא מגרש
As was already remarked by Jonathan Eibeschütz
(o'pini D'798, 9, 2) Ps.-Jon. in his translation of Deut, 24, I
7 9 '
of a court for the execution of a bill of divorce. - The
Karaites agree with Tradition (see Baba Batra 1740;
Arakin 23a: Dua Xp XI'7 ")
3 ; .
Dom 1979, ad loc.; see the literature in L. Löw, Ges.
Schr., III, 235-244) against Ps.-Jon. Anan requires the
presence of ten, which constitutes a court according to the
early Karaites (see REJ., XLV, 67; 69 note) in case of
marriage ( yyb "nd. ed. Harkavy, p. 113) but not for a
divorce (1. C., p. 119). See also Benjamin Nahawendi,
t
Y
M. Sultanski, Goslow 1858, 118). The later Samaritans shared this view
(Wreschner, 61-2). This Karaite law is based on no tradition; see Schürer,
Division II, Vol. I (Engl. transl.), 299 ff.
46 Ps.-Jon. interprets nor in Deut. 13, 6 also by XD"Da sepny, which
is against the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10, 1.
47 Aaron b. Joseph (Mibhar, Deut. 15a) believes that death here is 1992
o'9w, basing his view on Jerem. 28, 16.
28
KARAITE HALAKAHREVEL
ולכן התקינו בתי דינים שינתן :states (אדרת אליהו ,ע נשים ,פ' י"ב)
{הגט] בב"ד כדי שיהיה הדבר מפורסם
בית
qo'sa , 6c, 11. 9-12, and 179 17; 155b. Elias Bashjatzi
(', ) :
[]
It is, however, most probable that in many instances a
writ of divorce would be given in the presence of a
you to insure legality and publicity, to which custom Ps.-
Jonathan's 8797 "2 D7p may be due. In a recently discov-
ered Assuan papyrus a divorce is said to be announced
. See Jahrbuch d. jüdisch-literarischen Gesellschaft,
VII, Frankfurt a-M. 1910, p. 378.
Ps.-Jon. (so also Fragment Targum) intérprets 1821
DAN D'O' y un 1797 5x (Deut. 26, 3) against Tradition
(Bikkurim 3, 12; Sifre, ad loc.; so also Josephus, IV, 8,
(
27 na 290). The Karaites agree with Tradition. See
Mibhar, ad loc., 23a. So also on 770," ad loc. 296).
.בעדה
ובאת
תעלון לות כהנא די יהוי ) as referring to the high priest (22
.ממני רב
X Х
48 The Karaites, relying on Nehem. 10, 36, contend that the firstlings
(089122) are to be offered from all kinds of earth and tree fruits (Mibhar
and on 72, l. c.). According to Tradition (Bikkurim, I, 3) they are
offered only from the "seven kinds" enumerated in Deut. 8, 8. Philo, II,
298 states that they are brought from the fruits of trees (see Werkes Philos,
II, 168, n. 2; but see Philo, II, 391); comp. also Book of Jubilees 21, 10 and
Josephus Ant. IV, 8, 22.
.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
29
I will now turn to the differences known or supposed
to have existed between the Sadducees and the Pharisees
and examine Karaite halakah on these disputed points.
49
The interpretation of Lev. 16, 12-14 constituted one
of the earliest differences between the Pharisees and the
Sadducees. The Sadducean view and practice was
( l'osefta Yoma 1, 7) that the kindling of incense in the
vessel (v. 13) was to take place before the high-priest
entered the Holy of Holies, maintaining that otherwise the
high-priest when entering it would see the Ark,—which
3 (v. 2).
ruling and practice was that the incense is to be put on
the coals in the Holy of Holies itself (T. K. Ahare Mot,
3; Tosefta Yoma 1, 7; Yoma 196; 53a; p. ib., 1, 5 (39a)).
The Karaites agree with the Pharisaic interpretation of
these verses. See Mibhar, ad loc. (27a): 978: 100 nx 1729
, . ():
.
v
.
2
)
.40 The Pharisaic) כי בענן אראה .על חכפרת contiravenes
: (ad loc
.
(
42b ,כתר תורה so also ; הכנסו מיד שלא יראה הכפרת
.כנראה שקטורת מכניסה על ידי כלי אחר ובהכנסו נותנה על המחרה
The authenticity of Megillat Taanit (ed. Neubauer,
ch. 4), according to which the interpretation of np7"
*Continued from New Series, vol. II, 517 ff.
49 See on no, Lev. 416, for the anti-Sudducean interpretation of this
verse: miupa 1990 pr 7878 sw oyun 1981. Comp. Geiger, Jüd. Zeitschrift,
II, 29 ff., and Oppenheim, Bet Talmud IV, 269 ff.
30
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
(Deut. 25, 9) constituted a difference between the
Pharisees and the Sadducees, is admitted by Geiger
(Jüdische Zeitschrift, II, 28; comp. ib., 95). The latter in
their adherence to the letter of the Law required the no'
to spit in his face (woo) while the Pharisees in case of
halişah caused her to spit before him (Yebamot 106b). The
Karaites agree with the Pharisees in the interpretation of
1952 177). See Mibhar, ad loc. (220) 778 93 7779
. , .
The responsibility of a master for damage caused to
others by his servants constituted, as already recorded in
Mishnah (Yadaim 4, 7), an issue between the Pharisees
and Sadducees. The latter applied the law of Ex. 21, 35
also to damage done by one's servants. The Karaites agree
with the Pharisees and reason like them.
()
בפניו
.ad loc ,טירת כסף .Comp .כנגד היבם וי"ל בפני הנעל
גן עדן See
נזקי עבד ואשת איש אשר הזיקום אחרים משלמין אבל הם : ( 18oc)
פטורים .... אבל במה שיש תשלומין אינו דין שיפרע הבעל או הארון
ואין להקיש נזקי העבד בנזקי השור כי העבד יש לו דעת ואפשר שירע לבבו
.comp ;מאדוניו ויפסיד ממון אחריס וימצא משלם
; . G. Hölscher,
Der Sadduzäismus (Leipzig 1906), 30 ff.; Geiger, Ur-
schrift, 143 ff.
The Pharisees and the Sadducees differed on the law
of inheritance. According to Num. 27, 8 when there are
sons and daughters, the sons are the heirs. But if the
son died before his father, the son leaving a daughter, the
Sadducees held that the daughter shares with her brother's
daughter the inheritance. The Pharisees held that the son
and all his descendants, male or female, should precede
the daughter in the right of inheritance (Meg. Taanit 5,
2.
בפניו
60 See Rapoport, non orsay 1927 (Prag. 1861), 11 ff.; Weiss, I, 117,
note
Josephus (Ant. IV, 8, 23) translates with the Sadducees
literally. See, however, Anan (Harkavy, 116): 'DX) Xp9'. Comp. also
Testament of Twelve Patriarchs, Zebulun, 3, 4, ff.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
31
(Neubauer, II, 10); Tosefta Yadaim 2, 20; Baba Batra
1156-116a; p. ib., 8, 1).51
The Karaite law of inheritance, as they themselves
confess (77y 14, 1656), is confused, and difference of opin-
ion exists among them on essential points. The prominent
ninth century Karaite, Daniel al Ķumși, held that the
daughter when sons are left receives a third of the inherit-
ance (Pinsker, II, 85; comp. 1779587778, 101a). Joseph b.
Abraham ha-Kohen was of the opinion that the daughter's
right to inheritance is equal to the son's (ib., 101C; 174 93
16:1); this, he reports in the name of David b. Boaz, was
also the view of many others. These views disagree with
51 See V. Aptowitzer, Die syrischen Rechtsbücher und das Mosaisch-
Talmudische Recht, Wien 1909, 82. His assertion that the law of Timotheos
quoted there is Sadducean is mistaken. The equal rights of a daughter's
son and another daughter's daughter never constituted an issue between
the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
, משאת בנימין ,Benjamin Nahawendi) קרוב וגואל הוא לכהן הגדול המשרת המקדש
52 Wreschner, 41, suggests that it was taken by some of the Karaites from
the Samaritans, who follow the Mohammedan law and give the daughter, when
there is a son, a third of the inheritance. The Karaite law: 5 7980 So 7100
(, ,
2d; so also Hadassi, Alph. 369) might have also been borrowed from the
Samaritans (see Wreschner, 42). For a similar view, see Schechter, Jewish
Sectaries, I, p. 9, lines 14-15. Tradition makes no provision for the case
of a man dying without heirs and considers it impossible (Sifre to Num.
5, 8; Baba kamma 109a). According to Philo (II, 291) the tribe inherits his
property.
63 An opinion identical with that of Joseph b. Abraham is quoted in
p. Baba batra 8, I in the name of oild in. Aaron b. Elias (1 79 14, 166a)
states that by “many others" David b. Boaz meant the Sadducees and reads
כל האומר תירש בת עם הבן אפילו נשיא בישראל אין שומעין לו in Baba Batra 115b
see also the reading in Neubauer's ;כל האומר תירש בת עם בת הבן instead of
;
edition of Megillat Taanit (l. c.); comp. Hoffmann, ZfhB., IX (1905), 135.
For the view of Anan on han nw979, see Hadassi, Alph. 256 (986); comp.
Grätz, Geschichte, V4, 187; D. H. Müller, Syrisch-römische Rechtbsücher 16,
Hamurabi, 31.
The opinion of Wreschner, 39, that isa san refers to the Samaritans
32
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
.to Num כתר תורה and מבחר 166u
,
and , גן עדן ;256 ,252
the Sadducean as well as with the Pharisaic practice.
Those Karaites who do accept the traditional view that
daughters do not share with sons in inheritance,--and this
is the view of nearly all later Karaites (Hadassi, Alph.
, ; , ,
27, 8)-agree also with the Pharisees against the Sad-
ducees, that the son's children, female as well as male, are
the sole heirs even when the deceased has left daughters.
See Hadassi, Alph. 252 and 256:08 onaynı 15 X 21 1989
3 :
; : ;
, . 41b: ,
נחלתו לבתו בתורתך :"פתרונו בן קודם לבת וכל יוצאי ירכו של בן קודמיס
;... ולפי זה בת הבן קודמת מן הבת :102d אדרת אליהו so also ;לבת
... ופרחי הבן, בין זכר ובין נקבה :Num
,
4rb ,כתר תורה so also
.קודמין מן הבת
Hadassi (Alph. 97) informs us that the Sadducees
"absolutely forbade divorce.” Geiger (Zeitschrift, 1836,
p. 99) doubted the authenticity of this report. Ķirķisani
reports it in the name of David b. Merwan Almukames (ed.
Harkavy, 304, 1. 3; 305, 1. 12). S. Holdheim in his non
n1"87 (Berlin 1861, p. 43 ff.) finds support for this asser-
tion in the fact that the Karaites, who, as he believes with
Geiger, descend from Sadducees, also prohibit divorce
except in case of suspicion of adultery in the wife, and
quotes (p. 53, note) 1958 7778. Holdheim, however, mis-
stated the facts. The author of 1758 1778 (960) as well
as all the other later Karaites (Hadassi, Alph. 366 (1410);
nao and 71n and on Deut. 24, I; Gan Eden 154d and
miabro mas (A. Neubauer, Aus d. Petersburger Bibliothek,
54)), does not like the School of Shammai (Gittin goa) take
737 niny (Deut. 24, I) to mean sexual immorality, but an
see ,אפילו נשיא בישראל For the expression
נשיא בישראל ;78 ,VIII ,החלוץ
is forced. He and Aptowitzer (JQR., XIX, 609) overlooked Shabbat 1166.
,
, , ;
may also refer to R. Gamaliel II who was the supposed litigant (Shabbat
1166).
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
33
"intolerable thing" as, for instance, the wife's becoming
(after the marriage) deaf or blind or contracting an in-
curable disease; anything of such a nature is legitimate
cause for divorce. But even this view was rather an inno-
vation of later Karaites. As we now know, according to
Anan, marriage may be dissolved at the wish of either of
, (
-Hark) ספר המצות the parties
,
by a writ of divorce
.
See his
וקא אמא והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה ערות : (avy
,
I19
דבר דאי לא שפרא בעיניה דאשכח בה מילי סניתא ולא ניחא ליה בגוה
54.מגריש לה בין דלא צבי בה הוא ובין דלא צביא ביה היא
5b
)
,
considered ,משאת בנימין) Benjamin Nahawendi
54
(, ,
the right of divorce to be vested in the husband alone.
Samuel al Magrebi tells us of the following three opinions
among the Karaites as to the husband's right of divorce.
:
כי מצא בה ערות דבר : דע כי התחלפו : (976
.He says
(
MS
חחכמים בזה הדבר מהם מי אמר כי ישוב להדת וענינו לא תמצא ח
בעיניו לאשר מצא בה כי היא מקלה במצות .... ומהם אמר כי זה
המאמר יכלול כל אשר ימצא האיש באשתו מאשר ימנע האיש כי תמצא
האשה חן בעיניו ואין הבדל אם יהיה המום מפני דרכי הדת אם מפני
דרכי העולם מפני היצירה או הצורה ומהם מי לא ישים זה המאמר תנאי
בגרוש כי בדעתם מאז יאמר אני שנאתי [את אשתי] יאָמֵר לו תן לה
המוהר המאוחר שלה ותגרשנה וגם ראיתי את אנשי זמני דורכים בזה
.הנתיב
64 See Harkavy in Grätz, Geschichte, V4, 487. This view of Anan seems
to have escaped Poznański, ZfhB., XI (1907), 72. It is possible that Anan
in this law raised to the dignity of a biblical law the n7710 napn enacted
about a century before Anan. See Sherira Gaon, Epistle, ed. Neubauer,
,Resp
.
140
;
comp
.
Gratz
,
V4
,
129-130
;
Weiss
,
Dor ,חמדה גנוזה ,
.II
;
id
.1 ,35
IV, 5, 9, 37; A. Schwarz, Moses b. Maimon, Leipzig 1908, 342-345. Hadassi
(. )
ent cause for divorce.
, .
MGWI., LIV (1910), 433; Philo and Josephus agree with the view of Beth
Hillel (Ritter, 70, n. 1).
-is not suffici מום לאחר קדושין Alph
.
335
)
stands alone in his opinion that)
.comp ערות דבר For the Samaritan interpretation of
34
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
The practice of the Karaites of his day thus coincided
with the opinion of R. Akiba" (Gittin goa): 0068 x 108
.נאה הימנה
The preparation of the Red Heifer was, according to
Num. 19, 9, to be done by one ceremonially clean: W89089
constituted one of the איש טהור The interpretation of .טהור
essential differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees.
The Pharisees considered the unclean man who has bathed
in the day time, and awaits sunset, in accordance with
Lev. 22, 7, to be 7970 and eligible to prepare the ashes
of the Red Heifer. The Sadducees considered him unclean
58 Still more erroneous is the assertion of Holdheim (l. C., 57 ff.), that
the Karaites considering the marital bond similar to that of God and Israel
allow the husband to forgive and take back an adulterous wife, while
Tradition demands the dissolution of the marriage by a writ of divorce. The
reverse is true. According to the Karaite law, even the 7018 is considered
defiled and forbidden to her husband whereas the talmudic law requires
divorce only in case the husband be a priest (Ketubbot 516; the reason of
the opinion of bx1907 7138 (1. c.) is 11372 7010 XDw; for Ps.-Jon. on Deut.
, : , , , 9; .
, , ). See Benjamin Nahawendi (fps3 hawn 5a):
; 7
; . :
obya by 77108 nhios pa; comp. also Alph. 364 (135b); 179 18 1526; 155a;
17358 0978, 93b; niabo wias, 47. Jepheth b. Ali held that in
of defilement writ of divorce is
necessary;
for the marriage is
ipso facto dissolved (178 14, 155a); but see 5
Hadassi, Alph. 5. lett. P.
Holdheim (1. C., 112) contends that the Sadducees did not consider a captive
) . Yet the Karaites hold that even an
. See Hadassi, Alph. 365
(141d). Josephus (Contra Apionem I, 7) agrees with Tradition (Ketubbot 279).
Holdheim (1. C., 53, note) states that while the Karaitesconsider man and
woman equal in their spiritual duties, the Mishnah (Berakot 3, 2) confines the
duty of prayer to man. The very Mishnah which he quotes states that women
are included in the obligation of prayer.
.comp ;9 ,אמרי בינה ,see Chayes ,אלא גברא יפטירינה מיניה בגיטא :26 ,22
.(4 ,4 ,IV ,שערי צדק also
ואם אשת איש היא ואנוסה דינה כמו של מאורשה אבל על בעלה אסורה; שני
משכילי נ"ע אמרו בין אנוסה :329
.so also Hadassi
,
Alph ;אחרי אשר הוטמאה
case
no
.defiled אשת כהן even when (שבויה)
.is forbidden to her husband אשת ישראל שבויה
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
35
and barred him from assisting in the preparation of it."
והיה לפנות This issue could have arisen only if we interpret
in Deut
.
23
,
I2 to mean from the time that ערב ירחץ במים
. , "
the sun begins to decline" allowing the unclean to take the
ablution after midday," a period thus intervening between
the purification bath and sunset, during which he was con-
sidered by the Pharisees clean and suitable to prepare the
.אפר פרה
to mean לפנות ערב Most of the Karaites
,
however
,
take
, ,
the last part of the day and i ign the ablution to the hour
which immediately precedes s i,
ספר המצות ,t
,
see IIarkavy
והיה לפנות : (270) .ad loc ,כתר תורה I43
,
n
.
9
;
see also ,לענן
ערב : סמוך לערב וכן לפנות בקר לא כדעת בעלי הקבלה שהטעם מעת
.See ib
.
,
Lev .שיפנה הערב יהיה ראוי לרחוץ כל היום וזה טבול יום
:71d ,אדרת אליהו 39b
;
Hadassi
,
Alph
.
295
(
IIoc
)
.
So also
ובטהרת המים אמרו החכמים כי צריך להיות סמוך לערב כאשר כתוב
וביארו החכמים שפנות ערב
בבעל קרי והיה לפנות ערב ירחץ במים
סמוך לערב ... לכן פסקו שטהרת הטמאים כולם במים צריך להיות סמוך
ועת :(.So also Samuel al Magrabi
(
MS
.
,
19rb ff .לערב
ואמר זול תם כי הוא בקרוב הערב
פנות ערב התחלפו החכמים בו
והוא בשיעור שיתרחץ הטמא ויצא וישאר מעט מהשמש על ראשי ההרים
Comp
.
also .כמאמר הכתוב וטמא עד הערב אחר מאמרו ורחץ במים
the anti-Karaite ordinance of Maimonides (ed. Friedlaender,
ומנהם מן תתואכי בהדא אלסבב אן יכון : (476 ,1909 ,
.M GWJ
,IIob
,
c גן עדן see also ;בין השמשות בחסב אעתקאד אלמינים
d;
II5 C, d; comp. also Sahi b. Masliah, Pinsker, II,
28. According to them, such state of uncleanness as
86 Parah 3, 7; Tosefta, ib., 3, 8; Yoma 2a and parallels; comp. Grätz,
III4, 447
G. Hölscher, Der Sadduzäismus, Leipzig 1906, 20-21 wholly
misunderstood this controversy.
6.
ראב"ד and ,6 ,! ,ה' מקואות ,
.Comp
.
Geiger
,
ZDMG
.
,
Xx
,
567
;
Maim
51
.ad loc כ"מ andl
36
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
DP 5120--one who has bathed (for purification) in the day
time-does not exist at all; the Karaites thus differ in the
question of or by20 as much from the Sadducees as they
do from the Pharisees.
The law of false witnesses constituted one of the
earliest differences between the Pharisees and the Sad-
ducees. The latter restricted the application of Deut. 19,
19 to the case when the accused has already been executed
in consequence of their false testimony. The Pharisaic
view and practice were that false witnesses are liable to
equal punishment after the judgment had been passed but
not carried out (Sifre, ad loc., ed. Friedmann, 1o9b; Mak-
kot, 1, 6; Tosefta Sanhedrin 6. 6; p. ib., 6, 3 and parallels).
Geiger (Urschrift, 140) and Weiss (I, 138) consider
apocryphal the report of the Baraita Makkot 5b that the
Pharisees did not apply the law of false witnesses in case
the wrongly accused was already executed. The issue be-
tween the Pharisees and Sadducees was, according to them,
the case where the testimony was found to be false before
the execution of the alleged offender.
Most of the Karaite exegetes and codifiers agree with
the Pharisees in this disputed point; see Mibhar, ad loc.
(:; ; . ,
58
,טירת כסף .comp ;ואימתי יעשה לו כאשר זמם ; אחר שיגמר הדין: (156)
99.
I.
68 Comp. also Pineles, inin boy 1977, 172; Friedmann, Beth Talmud, V,
233 ff.; Herzfeld, Geschichte, III, 387; Graetz, 1113, The Book of
Susannah was according to Brüll, Jahrbücher, III (1877), 63 ff. (comp. also
Hoffmann, Magazin, IV (1877), 157 ff.) written as a protest against this
Sadducean practice. For the view of Philo see Ritter, 26, n. Josephus
accepts the Pharisaic view (Weyl, 85). For the Samaritans see Wreschner,
Intro., p. VIII, note 5.
( Geiger, Urschrift, 140, note), which is also the view of
the Karaite Aaron b. Joseph (Mibhar, Deut. 16a) see Magazin, XX
(1893), 88 ff.; Rapoport, nosi oiboy 1927, p. 7. L. Löw, Ges. Sch., I, 284,
is to be corrected accordingly.
הרגו אין For attempts to explain the talmudic view
see) נהרגים
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
37
ואף על פי שבעדות הזוממים לא נהרג המועד : (95
.ad loc
.
(
let
וכן אמרו :194d ,גן עדן .comp ;יקבלו הענש מיד ב"ד כאשר זממו לעשות
בעלי הגמרא אין העדים הזוממין נהרגין אלא אחר שנגמר הדין :
לא הרג נהרגין הרגו אין נהרגין וחכמי הקראין אומרים לא כל שכן והם אומרים
comp
.
also Hadassi
,
Alph
.
357
,
and ; אין דנין לבא מן הדין ...
:Deut
.
26a
,
1. I ,כתר תורה
;וצריך שאם היה אמת יהרג הוא ..
... ואם לא נהרג אינם חייבים ואפילו :177c גן עדן ,see
,
however
.שנפסק דינו ועדיין לא נהרג
being pubic (עולת תמיד) The two daily burnt offerings
;of the half
-
shekel tax
(
Shekalim 4
,
I תרומת הלשכה from the
()
offerings, had to be provided at the expense of the public,
-(4, I;
Sifre I, I42).89 The Sadducees claimed (basing it on the
. , 4)
daily burnt offerings may be offered by individuals. .
Menaḥot 65a and Megillat Taanit, II (Neubauer, Mediaeval
in Num
.
28
,
4
)
that the את הכבש אחד תעשה singular form
שהיו צדוקים אומרים מביאים תמידים : (3 ,Jewish Chronicles
,
II
;משל יחיד זה מביא שבת אחד וזה מביא שתי שבתות וזה מביא שלשים יום
comp. Geiger, Urschrift, 136.
The Karaites, in agreement with the Pharisees, con-
sider the perpetual offering a public sacrifice to be offered at
the expense of the people, though they hold that, in all
duties incumbent on the people at large, if an individual
anticipates it, the duty is discharged. See Mibhar, to Ex.
.(239 ,a public sacrifice
(
II קרבן תמיד considers the
69 So also Josephus, Ant. III, 10, I and Contra Ap., II, 6. Philo also
(, ). Comp. M. Zipser,
Flavius Josephus' “Ueber das hohe Alter des Jüdischen Volkes gegen
Apion," Wien 1871, 113.
The fact that King Hezekiah defrayed the expense
of the 700 (II Chron. 31, 3; comp. Schürer, II, I, 284, Engl. transl.) is
not against this view, as even according to Tradition an individual is allowed
, (7a);
;(if he first turns it over to the people
(
Rosh hashanah aa ,תמיד to bring the
אף כל קרבנות הציבור שהתנדב אותן יחיד משלו :7 ,8 ,כלי המקדש ,
.see Maim
.3 ,2
to Parah ר"ש ad loc
.
and ,משנה למלך .comp ,כשרים ובלבד שימסרם לציבור
.502 ,1904
in honor of N. Sokolow
,
Warsaw ספר היובל ,This escaped Ratner
38
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
וזו המצוה אם קדם אחד לעשותה נפטרו כל ישראל : (57a) 20 ,27
Similarly .וכן התמידים והמלח ועצי העולה והנסכים ומצות רבות כך
to Num. 19, 2; comp. 903 170, ad loc.: 170 D by 998
מתחייבת להעשות מממון של צבור יספיק בהבאתה על ידי איש אחד
.Ex ,כתר תורה see also ;ויהיו פטורים כל ישראל כי יצאו ידי חובתם
; , .
95b, and 177058 0778, 1016.
The view of Geiger (Jüdische Zeitschrift, I, 24; Nach-
gelassene Schr., V, Heb., 161; ZDMG., XX, 560 and else-
where; comp. Poznański, REJ., XLV, 63) that the Sam-
aritan interpretation of Deut. 25, 5 ff., which was also held
by some early Karaites, goes back to the Sadducees, cannot
be accepted. The Samaritans took 73977 (v. 5) to be an
adjective, referring to non hox translating it “the outer
wife," i. e. the betrothed who had not as yet entered her
husband's house, and restricted the law of levirate marriage
to the betrothed woman whose husband died without living
issue (Kiddushin 756-76a; p. Yebamot 1, 6 and Gittin I,
4; comp. Frankel, Vorstudien, 197, note b). If the Sad-
ducees, like the Samaritans, would have applied the law
of yibbum only to the betrothed, but not to the widowed
wife, marriage would have been prohibited with them, as
the cause of the exclusion of the Samaritans from the
Jewish community and of marriage being prohibited with
them, was that they referred the law of levirate marriage to
the betrothed only. See Ķiddushin 756.
An agreement of great importance, as Geiger thinks,
between the Sadducees and the Karaites is their rejection
of the device known as 'erub, by which restraint on walk-
?
60
60 Against this view of Geiger see also L. Löw, Gesammelte Schriften,
III, 162; Geiger's opinion (Urschrift, 148) that many of the Pharisees were
against intermarriage with Sadducees is not proved; see, to the contrary,
N. Krochmal, join '9123 7713, Warsaw 1894, 65; L. Löw, l. C., 160. n39sp
nyang ampua ed. Poznanski I, 87, n. 3, end and 84, n. 1.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
39
.חבורות desire to imitate the priestly sacerdotal meals eaten in
and in connection with them על טהרת הקדש were eaten ,חולין
ing and carrying on the sabbath is lightened. Geiger
sees in the institution of 'erub a result of the Pharisaic
.
The sacrificial meals constituted a religious act. To afford
the priests an opportunity to assemble for such repasts,
which were usually held on holidays and sabbath, the regu-
lations concerning walking distances and carrying food
from one precinct to another (neos neno) were disre-
garded. The Pharisees also instituted common repasts
(originally of companies of ten peoople, as in the eating of
the Paschal Lamb). These meals, though of profane food,
,
were practised rites and observances usually associated with
sacerdotal meals. To facilitate such gatherings, i. e. par-
ticipation by those who lived outside the city limits in such
consecrated meals (usually held on holy days), they devised
the fiction of 'erub, through which members could come
from distances and food be carried from one precinct to
another on sabbath. The Sadducees opposed this device
(Erubin 6, 2; ib., 686). The rejection of this "evasion law"
by the Samaritans (Erubin 316) and the Karaites (Hadassi,
Alphabeta 182, 183, 242, see also authors quoted below) thus
goes back to their common source—the Sadducees. This
hypothesis of Geiger is due to misunderstanding the above
quoted Mishnah. As has been shown by I. Halevy in his
Dorot Ha Rishonim (10, pp. 436 ff.; so also Weiss, Dor,
I, 119)," the Sadducees are mentioned there as 1710 1'80 p
61 Jüd. Zeitschr., II, 24, Nachg. Schriften, III, 290; V, Heb., 145 ff. and
elsewhere. Against the view of Geiger concerning 617137 of ten people to
which he ascribes much importance (see references above and Urschrift, 121
ff.; Nachg. Schr., IV, 107), see A. Büchler, Der Galiläische Amhaareș, 208,
n. 2; comp. also, for Ps.-Jon. on Exod. 12, 4, Frankel, MGWJ., 1846, 114.
) []
(x". Weiss overlooked, however, Horayot 4a; comp. also Geiger himself,
לא היו מודים [הצדוקים] בעירוב והכחישו איסור הוצאה בשבת (עירובין פ"ו 62
40
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
2974ya, which means "one who does not believe in the device
of 'erub," i. e. one who ignores as invalid the rabbinic
-on sab הוצאה בחצר and יציאה חוץ לתחום injunctions against
bath. Thus, while the Sadducees did not consider 1898 and
78997 forbidden, the Karaites prohibit them and reject the
"evasion law" of 'erub (Hadassi, l. C., and authors quoted
below). The early Karaites Anan, Benjamin Nahawendi
(179 ja, 31a ff.) and Sahl b. Maşliaḥ (l. c. and 1,7058 7778,
29c) interpreting Ex. 16, 29b non wx 130 literally, for-
bade leaving the house on sabbath save for physical needs
n.
102.
Urschrift, 147-8; Nachg. Schr., V, Heb., 147, 11. 5 ff. This is also the
meaning of 3179y2 771 138 in Erubin 316 (concerning the Samari-
tans). See Niddah 57a and Rashi, ad loc., s. v. 1985; see also Wreschner,
15; comp. S. Hanover, Das Festgesetz d. Samaritaner nach Ibrahim ibn
Jakūb, Berlin 1904, 21. For the Sadducees, comp. also Schürer, Div. II,
vol. II (Engl. transl.), 37,
63 See 179 18, 316; 17958 0978, 29c; comp. also Harkavy, y3y5 27"0,
I29, n. 1, 139, n. 3.
This is also the view of Hadassi; see Alph. 144 (540)
and 247 (940). Some Karaites forbade, like the later Samaritans (Wresch-
ner, 15), leaving the house on sabbath even for physicaļ need or a religious
object; see Hadassi, Alph. 144. See also Reifmann, Beth Talmud, I, 385;
Harkavy, Magazin, VI (1879), 121.
64 The later Karaites, including Levi b. Jepheth ha-Levi, Joshua b.
Judah, Samuel al-Magrabi, and Aaron b. Elias, accepted the rabbinic (see
Mekilta to Exod. 16, 29; Alfasi and Asheri to Erubin 1, end; Tosafot ib.,
176, s. v. 189; Maim., navy, 27, I) restriction of the sabbath way to two
thousand yards outside the city limits, nav dinn, making thereof a biblical
ordinance. See also Joseph al Başer, Pinsker, II, 87.
It may also be pointed out here that only R. Akiba, the champion of
the New Halakah according to Geiger (Urschrift, 153 ff. and elsewhere),
is of the opinion that the restriction of nox DIDX is biblical (Sotah 5, 3)!
See also Schechter, Jewish Sectaries, I, p. 10, 1. 21; p. II, 1. 6.
It
was
also R. Akiba, the antagonist of the Sadducean-Samaritan
halakah according to Geiger, who held the Samaritans to be genuine .con-
verts, nox ina (ķiddushin 75b; comp. Frankel, Einfluss, 245), while R.
Eliezer and R. Ishmael who, according to this view, partly adhered to the
Sadducean-Samaritan halakah, held the Samaritans to be only lion-converts,
0178998; see Kiddushin, l. C.; Shebiit 8, 10; p. ib., and own 'JD ad loc.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
41
05
or some religious object."
Geiger (Jüd. Zeitschr., II (1863), 43 ff.) holds that
the Sadducees prohibited the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb
(1DD 1277) on sabbath. Derenbourg (Orientalia, I, 184
ff.), Holdheim (79871980, 160 ff.), Chwolson (Das letzte
Passamahl Christi, Leipzig 1908, 28 ff., 140, 161; comp.
Bacher, JQR., VI, 680 ff. and REJ., XLV, 176 ff.) claim
that the similar view held by Anan and some other early
Karaites goes back to the Sadducees. See against this
view A. Schwarz, Die Controversen der Schammaiten und
Hilleliten, I, Wien 1893, p. 17, note. It may also be pointed
out that it is hardly probable that the Sadducees dis-
tinguished, as Geiger (l. c.) and Chwolson (1. C., 21; 29,
n. 2; 43, 140) claim, between the “perpetual offering"
() a (),
ndə as a private offering (7091277), since, according to the
Sadducees themselves, the 79 ap was also to be offered
by an individual. See Menaḥot 65a; comp. Geiger, Ur-
schrift 136, and above. Moreover, many early Karaite
authorities agree with Tradition that the nos 127p takes
precedence over the sabbath. So Benjamin Nahawendi
(7205 "7D, 153; comp. also the views of Daniel al Ķumși
and Jepheth b. Ali, Harkavy, l. c.). So also Aaron b.
Joseph (Mibhar, Exod. 16b); Samuel al Magrabi (ed.
קרבן and the ,(קרבן צבור) as a public offering (קרבן תמיד)
66 The Karaites differ among themselves also on
אסור the source of
.on sabbath הוצאה
and מלאכה 29d_f
.
)
follow Tradition and consider it to be a ,אדרת אליהו)
.
Jepheth b. Ali (Pinsker, II, 21) and Joseph al Başir
(, ff.) a
therefore forbidden. Ķirķisani thinks that carrying is not nass and
its prohibition is traditional and attested by Jerem. 17, 22 (179 18, 26b;
como. also the views of Joshua b. Judah and of Aaron b. Elias, 179 18,
1. c.). Levi b. Jepheth stands alone in his opinion that the carrying of
light things is not forbidden (1036x0778, 29c).
42
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
.(8
.ch ,עי פסח ,אדרת אליהו) Elias Bashyazi
,בשר נבלה like ,עור נבלה holds that the Karaite view that
Junowicz, Fast-und Festgesetze d. Karäer, Berlin 1904, 6);
(, y, . ).
Geiger (Nachgel. Schriften, III, 315; V, Heb., 149 ff.;
ŻDMG., XVI, 717 ff.; comp. Cohn, ZDMG., XLVII, 678)
, , ,
communicates uncleanness goes back to Sadducean Tradi-
tion. It escaped Geiger that the earliest Karaites, the
Ananites, were of the opinion that no separate part of the
carcass is capable of communicating uncleanness. See
, 'y,
אמנם החכמים נחלקו על שיעור הנבלה :.beg ,ע' טומאה ,אדרת אליהו
מהם אמרו והם הענניים שנבלה בכלל תאמר על כלל הגוף המת אמנם
והנה לפי דעתם אם יכרת אבר אחד
חלקי המת לא יקרא נבלה
99b
,
end
;
comp
.
also ,גן עדן So also .מהבהמה לא תקרא נבלה
'
5
. , , ; .
JQR., XIX, 151, 1. 11; for Anan's opinion see also Jacob !.
Reuben (Pinsker, II, 84); Harkavy, yuy's "70 59; 153,
n. 12; Schechter, Jewish Sectarics, II, 23; comp. also REJ.,
XLV, 56, n. 4. See also Geiger, Urschrift, 135, that the
on
to be written oil ספרים תפילין ומזוזות Boethusians allowed
-which proves their agreement with Tradi עור בהמה טמאה
Geiger's interpretation of .מטמא is not עור נבלה tion that
.33 ,IV ,החלוץ ,also Schorr
,
Shabbat 108a (N. S., V, Heb., 151) is forced; comp.
, , ,
The view of Geiger (Jüd. Zeitschr, I, 51; II, 27; N. S.,
III, 316; V, Heb., 138 ff.; 163 ff.) that the Samaritan and
Karaite interpretation of Lev. 12, 4, 5 (17770 '9") goes back
to the Sadducees is not proved. See Wreschner, l. C., 38,
in favor of whose view it may be pointed out that the
Book of Jubilees (3, 13) seems to agree with Tradition that
a
and Dinop obuur; see also Schwarz, l. C., 94 ff.
The only view common to the Boethusians (a latter-
day Sadduceeism) and the Karaites is the interpretation of
ביאת מקדש is excluded only from ימי טהרה a woman during
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
43
nawn minor and the time of the Feast of Weeks. The
Feast of Weeks is, according to Lev. 23, 15-16, to be
observed on the fiftieth day after the waving of the sheaf.
The "wave-sheaf," pwy, is to be offered “on the morrow
after the sabbath” 307317 932'' navn ninpe. Tradition inter-
prets navn nnor "from the day after the holy convocation,"
i. e. from Nisan the sixteenth. The Boethusians interpreted
to mean the day after the weekly sabbath that ממחרת השבת
67
,ממחרת השבת interpretation of
occurs during the feast of the unleavened bread, so that
Pentecost is celebrated always on the first day of the week
(Menahot 65a; Megillat Taanit 1, 2; Sifra on Lev. 23, 15
and parallels). This is also the Samaritan" and Karaite ?
.
But to adduce this Karaite view as evidence of the
Karaite descent from the Sadducees is hardly justifiable.
As Geiger himself (Urschrift, 138-139); Wellhausen (Die
Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, 59 ff.); Schürer (II, 334);
Poznański (Abraham Geiger, Leben u Lebenswerk, 365)
pointed out, this Boethusian interpretation of navn minna
does not go back to Sadducean tradition but originated in
the animosity of the Boethusian priests-aristocrats against
the Pharisees after having been deprived by them of their
88 See Wreschner, Intr., XXIII; S. Hanover, Das
S. Hanover, Das Festgesetz der
Samaritaner nach Ibrahim ibn Ja'kūb, Berlin 1904, text, p. VII; comp. ib.,
62-63; Geiger, Nachg. Schr., III, 294-296. The Samaritans and the Karaites
differ, however, in the following essential question, namely, when to count
if the fifteenth of Nisan occurs on Sunday. The Karaites begin on it to
count the seven weeks. The Samaritans would begin counting on the first
of the next week and thus offer the Diy post festuin.
See Geiger, l. C.,
296; Hoffmann, Leviticus, II, 164. For the Falashas, see A. Epstein, Eldad
ha-Dani, 154 ff.; id., REJ., XXII (1891), 13 ff.
F.
67 See on it lastly Poznański, Gedenkb. zur Erin. an D. Kaufmann, 173
Some Karaites trace their interpretation of nown nang to R. Phinehas
b. Jair. See Pinsker, II, 16-7; comp. Frankl, MGWI., 1876, 115 ff.:
Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, 158, note.
44
KARAITE HALAKAH--REVEL
לא בחוצה : האומרים במצות נסוך המים הוסיפו על- מאמרו הוא הדבר
prerogative to regulate the calendar and was never carried
out in practice.
The only agreement between the Sadducees and the
Karaites known to us is their rejection of "water libation,"
D'DA 7103, on the Feast of the Tabernacles. See Jefeth b.
Ali (Pinsker, II, 23) : D'MS 0:21737 2V1 718 S D'ON 7103
:
... 727 5 7 Ux; see also Mibħar, Num. 28b, and 703 170,
ad loc.
Thus, as we have seen, in all the differences between
the Sadducees and Pharisees recorded in Talmud and
Megillat Taanit the Karaite halakah (as far as Karaite
opinion is known to us), with the exception of navn nonno
and O'Nn 710), either agrees with the Pharisees against the
Sadducees, or is in itself undetermined by reason of di-
vergent views among the Karaites themselves.
The mention by the Karaites Ķirkisani and Hassan b.
Mashiaḥ of a work (or works) composed by Zadok the
founder of the Sadducean party, is considered by many
scholarsproof of some relation existing between Sad-
duceeism and Karaism.
Schechter has established close relation of "Fragments
of a Zadokite work" discovered and published by him (Jew-
ish Sectaries, Cambridge 1910, vol. I.) with the axna
88 Sukkah 485; Yoma 266; comp. Maim. Commentary on Sukkah 4, 9.
See on it lastly Feuchtwang, MGWJ., 1911, 49 ff.
68 See also Grätz, V4, 495. This examination of the relation of the
Karaite halakah to the Sadducean views known to us discloses how un-
founded the assertions of Weiss (Dor, IV, 85); Neubauer (Aus der
Petersburger Bibliothek, 2); Fürst (Geschichte d. Karäerthunis, I, 13 ff.);
Harkavy (Grätz, Geschichte V4, 477 and elsewhere); Poznański (REJ., XLIV
(1902), 173) and others who follow Geiger, that the Karaites agree with
the Sadducees in the differences between the latter and the Pharisees.
70 See Harkavy, l. C., 776; Poznański, REJ., l. C., 176-7; V. Aptowitzer,
Die Rechtsbücher der nestorianischen Patriarchen u. ihre Quellen, 8.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
45
4121785% mentioned by the above-named tenth century
Karaites. As Schechter himself says: "The term Zakokites
naturally suggests the Sadducees; but the present state of
knowledge of the latter's doctrines and practices does not
offer enough points of resemblance to justify the identifica-
tion of them with our sect" (Intr., XXI). However, if
these fragments do contain Sadducean traditions and prac-
tices," they afford no support of the Sadducean-Karaite
theory, but rather disclose further proof that in seeking
for the origin of Karaism and its halakah we must cut adrift
from any theory that would link it with Sadduceeism.
One of the two main and specfic accusations of this
Sect against their antagonists is polygamy (p. 4, 11. 20 ff.)
which nearly all Karaites allow if it does not interfere with
the husband's duties to his first wife and is not 7785.72 See
71 See Israel Lévi, REJ., 1911, 162 ff.; K. Kohler, American Journal of
Theology. 1911, 432; comp., however, G. F. Moore, Harvard Theological Re-
view, 1911, 358, 270, and Poznański, Jewish Review, September 1911.
The suggestion of Bacher (ZfhB., 1911, 19) that these Zadokites rep-
resent a group of Sadducean priests who, not long before the destruction
of the Temple, in consequence of the victory of the Pharisees, left Pales.
tine, is based on the theory of Büchler-Chwolson that not until a decade
before the national catastrophe did the Pharisees control the national life
of the people—a theory which is still to be proved; comp. A. Epstein,
MGWJ., XL (1896), 139-140. Kohler (1. C., 431) states that “The Fragments
of a Zadokite Work" discovered by Schechter "strongly confirms the theory
of Abraham Geiger as to the relationship of Samaritanism and Karaism to
Sadduceeism” and that "Professor Schechter has made it highly probable,
if not certain, that the Document brought to light by him formed the very
source of Anan's system, which, as Ķirķisani relates, was founded upon the
books of Zadok" and: “We thus possess in this Document the connecting
link between the ancient Sadducean and Samaritan lore and the doctrines
of the Karaites in a far more direct form than Geiger and Harkavy could
expect” (1. C., 432-3). . The following examination of the halakah contained
in this Document will show how erroneous these assertions are.
72 Comp. Lekaḥ ļob to Deut. 21, 15 referred to by Schechter, XVII, n.
16. Gittelsohn, Civil-Gesetze der Karäer, Berlin 1904, 11, n.
n. q, is to be
corrected accordingly.
46
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
Harkavy, ayb yub, 105, 115, 109, 127; Hadassi (Alph. 324
(119d); comp. also Alph. 321-2, 365 (1356)); Aaron b.
Joseph (Mibhar, Lev. 336); Samuel al Magrabi (MS.,
214b); Aaron b. Elias (179 12, 146, 154b; 17710 9na, Lev.
49a); Elias Bashyazi (177958 7778, o'wa, ch. 5); Mordecai l).
Nisan (nábo viab, 46). A present day Karaite, Samuel b.
Shemariah Pigit, Hazzan in Ekaterinoslav, writes: 1583
,
חכמינו ע"ה אסרו לקחת שתי נשים, הם לא אמרו זאת מעולם כי אין
אצלנו חרם רבנו גרשון רק הם חייבו על פי הכתובים למלאות איש חובתו
St. Petersburg ,אגרת נדחי שמואל) כנגד נשיו והיא שאר כסות ועונה
(,
1894, I, 176); comp. also Schechter, l. C., p. XIX, n. 22.
According to this Sect "Fish may be eaten only if while
still alive they have been split open and drained of their
blood” (p. 12, 11. 13-14; comp. p. LI, n. 23), not requiring
that the fish be caught by an Israelite. Anan (JQR., XIX,
143; comp. ib., 138) and many other early Karaites"
(Hadassi, Alph. 235 (890); Jacob b. Reuben quoted in
903 70 to Mibhar; Num. Iob, lett. 55) held, in agreement
with the Samaritans (Wreschner, 51), that only fish caught
see
Schechter (pp. XVII, XIX, XXXVI, n. 3) believes that this Sect pro.
hibited divorce and regarded a second marriage during the life-time of
the first husband or wife, even after divorce, as fornication (comp. IQR.,
1911, 138). This view is as foreign to the Karaite halakah as to Tradition;
above. This Sect decries also the Pharisaic regulation of the
calendar. If the calendar of this Sect was a solar one (comp. Schechter,
XVI, XX and Kohler, l. C., 429), the Karaites differ in this important point
from this Sect as much as the Rabbanites.
78 It may be pointed out that a similar view is quoted in Midrash
(Gen. r., 7, 2 and parallels) in the name of Jacob of 899123 782 who seems
to have been suspected of some hidin (comp. Eccl. r. 7, 47; 79200, vol XIV,
245). The later Karaites rejected this view. See 7710 72, Num. 156:
: !
[=];
so also 179 18, toth; comp. also Samuel al-Magrabi, l. C. The requirement
that the blood be drained from the fish before it is eaten suggests, as
Schechter p. LI, n. 23, points out, that this Sect prohibited the eating of
אם את כל דגי הים יאסף : נאמרה אסיפה בדגים כפי רוב המנהג לא שהאסיפה
;[ב]מקום השחיטה שאם כן צריך להיות אסיפת ישראל מכשרת ולא אסיפת גוי
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
47
by an Israelite may be eaten. Moreover, "splitting open the
fish while still alive," which is required by this Sect, is
expressly forbidden by most of the Karaites. See Samuel
al Magrabi, ed. M. Lorge, Die Speisegesetze der Karäer von
Samuel el Margrebi, Berlin 1907, 21; Hadassi, Alph. 234
(890); comp. also JQR., XIX, 143, beg. 1958 7778, U'NUN Y,
ch. 23 ; ;1999X, 25.
Schechter (pp. XVIII, XLIX, notes 16, 24, LX) point-
ed out several agreements between the Karaite halakah and
that of this Sect in the details of sabbath-observance.
Extreme sabbatarianism is, however, a general sectarian
propensity. Moreover, the Karaites differ from this Sect
in the following laws of the sabbath.
According to this Sect (p. 11, 11. 16-17) "if any person
falls into a gathering of water or unto a place of .... he
shall not bring him up by a ladder or a cord or any instru-
.24
.ch ,ע' שחיטה ,אדרת אליהו
the blood of fish. This is also the view of Daniel al-Kumşi (Ķirķisani, ed.
Harkavy, 316). So also Hadassi, Alph. 234, end and Aaron b. Elias (17918,
930; 171h ynd, Lev. 19a). Comp. Bacher, MGWI., 1874, 272. Many Ka-
raites, however, oppose this view. See Mibḥar, Lev. 12a, and Add n714, ad
loc., lett. 65; Samuel al Magrabi, l. C., 16. Kohler's contention (1. C., 427)
that the Book of Jubilees agrees on this point with Tradition against this
Sect is not proved; see Book of Jubilees, 6, 10; 7, 28.
Many Karaite authorities agree with the law of this Sect (p. 12, 11. 14-15)
that locusts are to be killed in water. See Hadassi, Alph. 235 (890); Jacob
b. Reuben (ZfthB., IV, 73); Samuel al-Magrabi, l. C., 9, 21; 179 14, 101C;
, ', . Schechter (XXIV, LI, n. 20) believes that
this Sect considered honey to be 'no 11 738and therefore prohibited it.
It is, however, more probable that 0999277 sayr (p. 12, 1. 12) refers, as
Schechter himself (1. C.) suggests, to the particles of the bees which are
with the honey and is, perhaps, to read 01171279 28279. See
, , :
12 727179. Anan (Harkavy, 3) and the later Karaites allowed the use of
honey (177 14, 920, 93a). It is, however, doubtful whether this was also the
view of the earlier Karaites many of whom prohibited even eggs as 'n0 70x;
see Hadassi, Alph. 232 (890) and Alph. 308 (1140). The view of Lesynsky
(Die Sadducäer, Berlin 1912, 40) that the Sadducees prohibited honey.is
untenable; he overlooked Judg, 14, 8-9.
mixed up
תימה היאך אנו אוכלין הדבש והלא רגלי הזבוב :Asheri
,
on Aboda Zarah
,
68b
48
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
ment.” (See Schechter, XLIX, n. 39; I. Levi, REJ., l. c.
198, n. 14; Moore, l. C., 365; Kohler, l. C., 425). This law
is against the Karaite halakah as well as against Tradition.
The Karaites agree with Tradition (Shabbat 18, 3; Yoma
846 ff.; Mekilta on Exod. 31, 14 and parallels) that for
the saving of a human life the sabbath is to be desecrated.
See Hadassi, Alph. 148; 179; Mibhar, Exod. 38a; 179 18,
34a; 10x 778, nQ 9, ch. 21; }"Đx, P. 9.
This Sect, like the Book of Jubilees (50, 12, comp. v.
9), prohibited" fasting on sabbath. Most of the Karaites,
however, allow and even commend fasting on the sab-
bath. See Hadassi, Alph. 150 (560); comp. Alph. 244
and 264. So also Samuel al Magrabi, ed. Weisz, Traktat
über den Sabbat bei den Karäern, Pressburg 1907, 14;
, ;
17958 7778, naw 'y, ch. II, but see 'ODN, p. 8. It may also
be pointed out that the two most important Karaite devia-
and in אגרת הצום 36a
;
Elias Bashyazi in his ,גן עדן comp
.
also
.132 ,ספר המצות לענן ,Harkavy
.דוחה שבת that some Karaites hold that it is not ספק פקוח נפש case of
74 Grätz (Geschichte, V+, 186) states that Anan prohibited medical treat-
ment on the sabbath. I do not know his authority for this statement. See
Hadassi, Alph. 301, letters 3, P (1126) and Levi b. Jepheth quoted by
, , . Anan relying on Exod. 15, 26 prohibited
altogether the use of medicine and of physicians (Ķirķisani, quoted by
Harkavy in Grätz, V4, 487; comp. Hadassi, Alph. 207 (82a)). It is only in
a .
See Hadassi, Alpn. 179 and Alph. 364 (135a) and Joseph b. Abraham
quoted in yny 14, 34, and in 17068 0778, nav 'y, ch. 2; see, however, Maim.,
ngen , 2, 3.
Aaron b. Joseph (Mibhar, Exod. 38a) quotes I Sam. 21, 7 as proof that
nas nn17 tos nipo. This verse is adduced also in Matthew 12, 4 and in
Yelamdenu (Yalķuț, II, 30) in this connection.
(,
11. 4-5; comp. p. XLIX, n. 19; I. Levi, REJ., l. C., 197; Bacher, ZfhB.,
XV, 21, n. 5; Kohler, l. C., 424.) reading ayon' for 37; comp., however,
Moore, Harvard Theological Review, 1911, 246. The Falashas postpone even
the Day of Atonement when it occurs on sabbath.
,11
.p) אל יתערב איש מרצונו בשבת This seems to be the meaning of
75
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
tions from Tradition in the laws of the sabbath, namely, the
prohibition to have fire in the house on the sabbath and the
prohibition of cohabitation on the sabbath-day, which
Geiger (Nachgel. Schriften, III, 288 ff.) and Harkavy
(Grätz, Geschichte, V*, 478) believe, go back to Sadducean
Tradition, are not shared by this Sect.
The law of this Sect that water in a rock not sufficient
for immersion is contaminated, like water in a vessel, when
touched by an unclean person (p. 10, 11. 13-14) is against
the Karaite principle that water does not contract unclean-
ness. See Ķirķisani (quoted by Harkavy, Grätz, Ge-
schichte, V“, 488) who states that this was the view of
Anan. So also Hadassi, Alph. 235, 286, 295; Mibħar, Lev.
28d; j7y 12, 98d and 105c; 1717 no, Lev. 28a; 1795 1778
72,"
we
76 See also Fürst, Geschichte d. Karäerthums, I, II. While the opinion
that the Sadducees also prohibited cohabitation on sabbath may be justified
on the hypothesis of Geiger that any divergence from traditional halakah
which is common to the early Samaritans and the Karaites goes back to a
pre-Pharisaic (Sadducean) tradition, since find the early Samaritans
holding this view (Frankel, Einfluss, 253, stands alone in his opinion that
this prohibition was adopted by the Samaritans from the Karaites; comp.
Wreschner, 18-19), there is no reason to assume that already the early
Samaritans prohibited having light in the house on sabbath. The arguments
adduced by the Samaritans Manugga (Wreschner, 16, 17) and Ibrahim b.
Ja'kūb (who knew the Karaite view; comp. Geiger, N. S., III 289) for this
prohibition which are borrowed from the Karaites (Wreschner, 18) tend to
show that this prohibition was accepted by the later Samaritans from the
Karaites. Nor is it probable that this prohibition resulted from the ancient
interpretation of the concept nasba (Geiger, l. C.; comp. Poznański, Res.,
XLIV 174 ff. in connection with which see the claim of the tenth century
Karaite Ibn Saquie, who, like Geiger, believed in the existence of a more
ancient Halakah (JQR., XIII, 664; OPA, I, 1908, 125), as to the reading
in Tosefta Shabbat 1, 23; osas on rpnia 78; comp. JQR., l. C., 662;
o7p77, l. C., 120).
77 See, however, the view of Joseph b. Abraham (quoted in Mibþar, I. c.)
contract uncleanness. The view of this Sect agrees
מים תלושין that
50
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
According to this Sect (p: 10, 11. 11-12) no man
ritually unclean shall cleanse himself in the water of a
vessel. As Schechter (XLVIII, n. 3) remarks, this law is
directed against D'ON D'O. The Karaites, however, not
only allow D'INY D' (comp. MGWI., 1909, 469) but, as
Ķirķisani informs us (quoted by Harkavy, l. c.), it was
the view of Anan that one who does not bathe in a vessel
remains unclean."
The two laws contained in p. 12, 11. 15-19 are, as
Schechter (p. LI, n. 27) remarks, against the Tradi-
tional view that only 5 and unbn are capable of contracting
and communicating Levitical uncleanness." The Käraitės
agree with Tradition against this Sect. See Anan: np.p7
78
וכתב אשר יעשה מלאכה בהם לאודעך דכל מאנא דלא גמר מאניה
to'p 5x972'y nya nayeb (pb "no ed. Harkavy, p. 51;
.מחובר even when בכונה contract uncleanness if (מ' סאה than
.25 ,כרמי שומרון ,comp
.
Kirchheim ;מקבל טומאה Sect
,
that water is
partially with Miķwaot I, i ff. (according to the interpretation of Maim.
in his commentary ad loc. and Y5218 nxov, 15, 1) that water less than
OXD d'yan8 (Boyon ng 13 798 798, p. 10, 11. 12-13 may also mean less
) ) .
Ps.-Jon's rendering of Lev. 11, 36: /'yas y nww3372 2121 is against
our halakah. It may also be pointed out that the Dositheans held, like this
, ; . , , .
78 The Samaritans, according to P.
Abodah Zarah 5, 4,
4, agree with
Tradition on 013184 09; comp., however, welling to Miķwaot, 8, 1.
willing .
79 It must, however, be pointed out that the law of this Sect (p. 12,
):
nwyn in 178 (r. napius) agrees with the view of Hadassi, Alph. 290, 292,
that in the
of Num.
19, ()
contracted
and communicated even when Wins. This view is not shared by the other
Karaites. See Mibhar, Num. iob; 7910 9, Num. 29b; 179 18, 1220; 0978
y, . .
(. 11, ;
see Rashi and Naḥm. ad loc., Shabbat 125a; Maim., Diba, 15, 6 and com-
mentary to oba 5, 1) it is the opinion of most of the Karaites that it is not
. See noin no, ad loc. (28a); 178 14, 106a; but
see Hadassi, Alph. 292 and Mibħar, Lev. 18a. Ps.-Jon and Yalķut on Num. 19, 18.
וכל כלי מסמר או יתד בכותל אשר יהיו עם המת בבית מטמא בטומאת : (17-18
.11
case
is טומאה (טומאת מת ) 18
.20
.ch ,ע' טומאה וטהרה ,אליהו
;35 ,Lev
.
II) תנור וכירים Even in case of
,מחובר when מקבל טומאה
KARAITE HALAKAH--REVEL
5I
comp. ib., p. 58 and 133; Hadassi, Alph. 286; Mibhar,
;
.Io3b
,
f ,גן עדן ;Lev
.
26b
,
28b ,כתר תורה ;Lev
.
174
,
20d
.(p
.
2I ,אפריון ;7rb ,אדרת אליהו
THE INFLUENCE OF THE WORKS OF PHILO UPON THE
KARAITE HALAKAH
PENAL LAWS
I. In the laws of homicide the Karaites widely deviate
from Tradition. According to Tradition, murder is pun-
ishable only when felonious intent to kill has been proved
(Sanhedrin 78b f.).89 Beside intent, antecedent warning
immediately before the commission of the crime and its
(
(Mekilta on Ex. 21, 12; Sifre on Num. 15, 33 and Deut.
22, 24; Sanhedrin 80b; Makkot 6b and parallels). The
Karaites do not require forewarning in any crime and
consider murder punishable even in the absence of intent.
are required (התראה) acknowledgment by the offender
:20 , משאת בנימין See
המכה אדם ומת מן אותה המכה יומת
-So also Samuel_al .ואפילו אין מתכוין להרגו שנא' מכה איש ומת
Magrabi (Gitelsohn, 22). Intent to kill is required by the
Karaites only when the missile by which the killing has
. , :
:I76d ,גן עדן been effected was not likely to cause death
.
See
והרוצחים חלקם הכתוב לשלש מעלות יש רוצח שרצח את הנפש
אך הכתוב הפליג בענין זה הרוצח שאם כון להכותו לבד והכהו בדבר אשר
לא יתכן למות בו והוא מת זה יקרא רוצח בשגגה - אך אם הכהו בדבר
רשימות בו ומת זה נמנה בחזקת רוצח מזיד שטעם מזיד שלא בדק אם
to
80 According R. Simeon (Sanhedrin 79a) and Rabbi (Mekilta,
Mishpaţim, 8) murder is not punishable even in case of miscarried felonious
intent, i. e. when a man irtending to kill a person killed another instead.
וכן אמרו אינו חייב עד שיתרה בו וכן כל חייבי לאוין :420
.Mibhar
,
Exod
81
.177c ,גן עדן so also ;והיש התראה יתירה מן לאו שבתורה
This seems also the
opinion of Philo; see Werke Philos, II (Breslau 1910), 263, n. 2.
52
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
11
Or
nima deb 18 13 nip'. (Comp. also Mibhar, Exod. 326 and 703
7710, Numb. 49b and Samuel al Magrabi (Gitelsohn,
14) in which case the offender would, according to
Tradition, not be punishable at all (Mekilta to Ex. 21, 18;
Sifre to Num. 35, 17 (ed. Friedmann 616); Sanhedrin 79a;
Maimonides, 1817, 3, 1-3.). Tradition punishes mur-
der only when the murderer has laid his hand on
the victim and the death has resulted
resulted from such
direct assault; handing another poison, unless actu-
ally forcing it in his mouth, or leading him to
place where in a short while a force of nature
a beast will kill him, is thus not punished by death (Sifre
to Num. 35, 17; Sanhedrin 766 ff.; Maim., 1817, 2, 2 ff.).
The Karaites do not require the death to be the direct re-
sult of the action of the murderer. The Karaites accept
the view of R. Judah b. Bathyra (Sanhedrin 78a) in case
of murder committed by several people simultaneously. See
, : .
See also Hadassi, Alph. 152 and Alph. 166; 178 14, 1770;
and Samuel al Magrabi, MS., 840: WapSan DN WIDN 741
;
opinion of Beth Shammai (Kiddushin 43a)
cerning murder committed through an agent. See 179 id,
1776: 99 eage by 18 yosya 0787 1707" ON 7789; comp. Hadassi,
.והנהרג ע"י אלף אנשים ויותר כלם חייבים מיתה :20 ,משאת בנימין
הכל מחויבים בהריגה
and the ;אם הוא אחד או רבים בחיוב זה
con-
משאת בנימין
so also Hadassi ; ולפני בית דין הוראת פיו כשני עדים נאמנים :1c
see also ;תודת חוטא אשר יודה הוא על עוונו הוא כשני עדים : (ת357
.Alph)
82 Nor do the Karaites, in case of the defendant's confession of any
crime, require witnesses to establish guilt. See Benjamin Nahawendi,
: ;
(. );
Alph. 370; so also Samuel al-Magrabi (MS., 1056): gegn sya 9779 Ox in yo
;
comp. also Mibħar, Num. 59; 79 ja, 194d; 17958 7778, 98a. The talmudic
,
can incriminate himself,
confessing of guilt not being admitted as evidence (Sanhedrin gb and parallels;
Maimonides, 1997730, 18, 6; but comp. Weiss, I, 22-3).
;על נפשו ויאמר אני עשיתי כן וכן לא יצטרך לעדים וזה בהפך מדעת המחליפים
, אין אדם משים עצמו רשע principle is
no
man
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
53
Alph. 269 ff.; comp. also Weiss, I, 150. They also con-
sider accessories, accomplices, and counselors to murder
punishable equally with the principal. See Hadassi, Alph.
וכן המלשין לחברו בין בסתר בין בגלוי להרגו ונהרג הוא הוא :274
.הרוצח וכלם רשעים הם ויהרגו בדרישה בבית דינך.
כתר See
וכבר בארנו בספר מצות אופני הדרכים :Exod
.
64b
-
65a , תורה
שמצדם יקרא האדם רוצח ויתחיב בין שיהרגנו בעצמו בין על ידי זולתו
;בין ע"י סם המות בין בעדות שקר בין שיסבב מיתתו או שירצה בהריגתו ...
.177b
.
See also Samuel al Magrabi
(
MS , גן עדן so also
ההריגה תפול על אופנים ממנו הכאה ביד .... ומהם כי ידחה האדם : (84b
ומהם כי ישקה
את רעהו ויפול ממקום גבה או לשלג או למים או לאש
האחד את חברו סם או יהיה בו חולי וירפאהו בזולת העקרים הראויים
לאותו החולי בצדיה ... ומהם כי ירגל האדם ברעהו ויהיה סבה להריגתו...
ואין הפרש בכל אשר דברנוהו אם האדם יעשה אותו בנפשו או אומר
.לזולתו לעשות כי האומר והעושה לא ביניהם הפרש במשפטי התורה .
So also Mibhar, Exod. 38a.
These Karaite laws approach the view of Philo accord-
ing to whom intent to kill even when not carried out is
punished by death (I, 314, Mangey, comp. B. Ritter, Philo
und die Halacha, Leipzig 1879, 23 ff. and Werke Philos,
II, 209, note 3).8
88 Josephus (Ant. XII, 9, 1) agrees with Tradition that only action is
punishable. Philo states in this connection (II, 315) that those who with
murderous intent prepare poison or any other deadening substance are to
be killed instantly (Josephus, Ant. IV, 8, 34, considers even the keeping of
poison punishable by death in which, as Weyl, P. 66 ff., has shown, he
followed the Roman law (Lex Cornelia de sicariis)). As suggested by
Ritter (p. 28), Philo based this law on Exod. 22, 17. The Septuagint
translates now by Papuakovs which has also the meaning of "poisoners."
Ritter fails, however, to indicate the source of Philo's assertion that the
Law commands that the poisoner is to be executed immediately. The
(
Naḥm., ad loc.) must have been taken by Philo to mean “do not suffer him
to live
moment."
."
found among the Karaites.
, Samuel al-Magrabi (MS., 1416) says that
and רשב"ם .comp) מות תמות instead of the usual לא תחיה peculiar expression
even
a
is also לא תחיה This interpretation of
54
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
2. Ransom for cleath caused by the unguarded prop-
erty of a man or through his instrumentality is required,
according to Tradition, only in the case of the goring ox
(Exod. 21, 29-31), the provision not applying to death
caused by any other property or by any cause of danger
created by him (Baba ķamma 5, 6; b. ib., 53b; Maimonides,
The Karaites interpret the law of ransoni .(16 ,12 ,נזקי ממון
(v. 30) to apply to all cases where a person meets death
through the negligence of the owner of the property or
the creator of the cause of death. Thus, whether it be a
pit (Ex. 21, 33-35), or a fire kindled on one's premises
that spread beyond (ib., 22, 5), or failure of the owner of
a house to build a battlement for his roof (Deut. 22, 8- —
and a person was killed as a result of such negligence
in all these cases the Karaites hold that the owner of the
property or the maker of the fire or pit is to pay ransom,
. , :
תורת השוגג :according to Exod
.
21
,
30. As Hadassi says
ששגג ולא שמר שורו : אשר הועד ולא כסה לבורו ואשר לא עשה מעקה
.(274 ,.Alph) 84לגגו ותולד מהם מיתה יחד יכשר לתת כפר בתורתך
:2c ,משאת בנימין See ib
.
,
Alph
.
270 and 370. See also
המטמין פח ומצודה וחבל הנחנק בהם א' מן בני אדם ויענש בדמין
.וכה"א כי נמצאו בעמי רשעים וגו' . ואם מבקשים כופר נותן ככר וינצל
ואולם הנזק הבא מצד הגרמותיו בין בנפש :I8od ,גן עדן See also
though the Law reprieves the condemned pregnant woman, in case of novan
:
ואמר לא : לא תחיה the execution is not to be postponed since the Law says
תחיה ולא אמר מות תמות הודיענו בזה המאמר כי לא יכשר לנו לאחר מיתתה
.מעת לעת ואם היא הרה מעוברת כי היא כמו החרם
והמת יהיה לו Philo
(
II
,
324
)
,
against Mekilta ad loc
.
,
in the interpretation of
Philo
(
323
)
and Hadassi
,
Alph
.
273
,
interpret ;מזיק v
.
34
)
as referring to the)
in v
.
36 as והמת יהיה לו also
משאת ,So also Benjamin Nahawendi .למזיק
Lev
.
740
;
comp
.
also כתר תורה ;
.2c
,
1.
!
,
but see Mibhar
,
ad loc ,בנימין
.181b , גן עדן
84 Comp., however, Mibhar., Exod. 43b. The Karaites agree also with
(, ), .,
(v. ; () , . ,
v.
. ,
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
55
בין במומים כן יעשה לו ואם לאו יתן כופר שעל רציחתו הזכיר
הכתוב ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח ולא על רציחת הגרמותיו - והנה
על רציחת שורו אמר השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת
פדיון נפשו ככל אשר יושת עליו . והתורה הזכירה
יושת עליו ונתן
.ארבע אבות נזיקין והוא הדין לכלם שאם נהרג נפש באחד מהם יתן כופר
ואמר אם כופר
Comp. ib., 1780, 1810, 182b and Samuel al Magrabi, Gitel-
sohn, 39-40. Further fol. 133a (not published) he says:
ואם היו שם אנשים או נפשות והשיגה אותם האש ונשרפו ומתו יתחיב
.בכופר נפשם
A view similar to this Karaite anti-traditional law--
that also other cases of criminal negligence are punishable
-is held by Philo.
.
Expounding the law of Ex. 21, 33 (II, 324), Philo
says that if a man fall into the pit and die the court shall
decide what punishment the digger is to suffer or what
fine he is to pay (oT! Xpm Tzeev n (LTOTidal). IIe also says
about the law of Deut. 22, 8, that those who fail to make
a battlement to their roof commit a crime equal to that of
one who digs a pit, and declares: kohaseobwoav yovv EV LOW TOLS
€ a
:
52 ,karalelTovot
;
comp
.
Ritter עzxcvm Ta Groua Tov opuYuTO
: ן .
and notes. .
Tradition interprets it to mean that ,וגם בעליו יומת of v
.
29b
Philo and the Karaitęs agree also in the interpretation
.
the owner, if he does not redeem himself, shall suffer death
(, , ;
;Mekilta
,
Mishpatim
,
X) מיתה בידי שמים **at the hand of God
2
85 Frankel (Einfluss,, '93) believes that the translation of the Septuagint
indicates the traditional interpretation, against which see Ritter, 48, n.
and 124 ff. and H. Weyl, Die Jüdischen Strafgesetze bei Flavius Josephus,
Berlin 1900, 153 ff.
The view of Geiger (Urschrift, 448 ff.) that the
as
וגם בעליו יומת_ancient halakah interpreted
was already מיתה בידי אדם
and Wey1_
(
t
.
c
.
,
144-153
)
to be (193-6 ,דרכה של תורה ) shown by Pineles
unfounded; comp. also Poznański, Abraham Geiger, Leben u. Lebenswerk,
378, n.
I.
56
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
(בידי אדם .i.
e) וגם בעליו יומת uphold the literal interpretation of
Sanhedrin 15b; comp. Ps.-Jon. to v. 29). The Karaites
(. )
and take by nur 3 DN (v. 30a) to mean that the nearest
kinsmen (077 5811) of the killed are to decide whether to
execute him or to take ransom. See Benjamin Nahawendi,
, : ) []
'
ואם הוא נודע [השור] ובעליו מועד וממית אדם הוא :2c ,משאת בנימין
יסקל ויומת גם בעליו וכה"א השור יסקל וגם בעליו יומת - ואם גואלי
הדם רוצים ליקח ממנו כפר יתן וינצל בעבור כי הריגה זו על ידי הבהמה
לפיכך הרשות בידם אם רוצים הורגים ואם רוצים לוקחים כפר : שכה"א
. אם כפר יושת עליו
2 . See also Hadassi (Alph. 270, 370);
179 13, 177d, and 7710 ina, ad loc. (736); Samuel al Mag-
rabi (Gitelsohn, 35-36).
Philo holds the same view, and in his exposition of
this law (II, 323) says that the owner of the goring ox is
guilty of the man's death. He shall be put to death or
pay ransom. The court shall decide his punishment. The
Karaites thus agree with Philo and differ only as to the
question with whom rests the option of death or ransom;
while according to Philo (so also Mekilta, ad loc.) the
court is to decide, the Karaites hold that it rests with the
גואלי הדם
.
3. Tradition interprets the law of Ex. 21, 24-26 and
Lev. 24, 19-21 to mean money indemnity (Mekilta ad loc.,
(Mishpatim 8); Sifra on Emor, 24, 19; Baba ķamma 8, 1;
Ketubbot 35a and parallels; comp. Maimonides, pipoo Sayo
I, I ff.).
Philo takes these verses literally and in several places
vigorously advocates the practice of lex talionis. See Rit-
ter, Philo und die Halacha, p. 18 ff. The lex talionis is ac-
cepted in all its severity also by nearly all the Karaites. Ben-
jamin Nahawendi interprets 1'y nan l'y literally. See Ben-
,
העשה כל מכה ומום בחבירו ;2d ,משאת בנימין ,jamin Nahawendi
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
57
.נפרע שנאמר כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו
. So also Ben Zuta, a Kar-
aite contemporary of Saadia Gaon (Ibn Ezra on Exod. 21,
24); Jepheth b. Ali (MGWI., XLI, 1897, 205); Hadassi
(Alph. 275 (1040); 370 (1466); 373 (1490); comp. also
Alph. 170); Aaron b. Joseph (Mibhar, Exod. 42a); Aaron
b. Elias (17974, 1792 ff.; 1717 713, Exod. 716 ff.); Samuel
al Magrabi (Gitelsohn, l. C., 28-9); Abraham b. Josiah
(IPX 1312, 246); Solomon Troki (
7x, 39)."
86
עין תחת עין The Samaritans also interpret
to
86 See also Rapoport, Dinyo '9102, 1831, p. 34. L. Löw, Gesammelte
Schriften, I, 287 is to be corrected accordingly. Harkavy, yy's an"., 198,
believes that Anan also upheld lex talionis; comp. also Schechter, Jewish
Sectaries, II, 7,
11.
5-7.
literally (Klumel, Mischpatim, ein samaritanisch-arabischer Commentar, XX;
JQR., 1911, 210 is to be corrected accordingly). Some Karaites restrict the
application of lex talionis to intentional permanent injury; still others leave
it to the discretion of the court to pronounce sentence of equal punishment
or indemnity; comp. Mibhar, Exod. 53a; 1717 nna, Exod. 716 ff. According
the Scholion of Megillat Ta'anit ch. 4 (Neubauer, Mediaeval Jewish
Chronicles, II, 8; comp. Grätz, III, 693) the Boethusians extended their
literalism to lex talionis. Geiger at one time (Urschrift, 148, but see id.,
Sadducäer 4. Pharisäer, 22; Nachg. Schriften, V, Heb., 162), Rapoport
(hoxi orson 1927, 15), and Ritter (1334) deny this report any historical
basis (comp. Jost, Geschichte d. Judenthums, I, Leipzig 1885, 221; L. Löw,
I. C., 286; Büchler, MGWI., L (1906), 679, n. and the literature adduced by
Ritter, l. C.). Such an important difference would not have been left
unnoticed in the talmudic literature. It is also improbable that Josephus, who
was an avowed Pharisee (Vita, II, end) and who in all the differences be-
tween the Sadduccees and the Pharisees, as far as his opinion is known
to us, sides with the Pharisees (except in the interpretation of gown w*)
in Lev. 21, 9; see Olitzki, Flavius Josephus und die Halacha, Berlin 1885,
42, 44, 54 and Ritter, 26), would have accepted the literal interpretation of
J'y nan 1929 (Ant. IV, 8, 35) if it were anti-Pharisaic.
Geiger (Nachg. Schriften, V, Heb. 162) claims that the ancient halakah also
interpreted 'y sinn 'y literally, as R. Eliezer held this view (Baba ķamma
842; see the version of R. Eliezer's opinion in Mibhar, Exod. 42a, which
he seems to have taken from Mekilta, Mishpaţim, 8, reading R. Eliezer for
prys 'm; comp. Geiger, l. C., and L. Löw, l. C., 287, n. 2). See I. Halevy,
01310877 01717, vol. Ic, 425 ff. for elucidation of the traditional view and
that of R. Eliezer; comp. S. Munk, Guide des égarés, 371, n. 1. Philo (II,
58
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
Philo (II, 323, end) states that the owner of an animal
that killed a slave is to pay the full value of the slave.
Ritter (49) considers this view of Philo to be against Exod.
21, 32: 993785 ini Dispo d'usw. Many Karaite authorities
agree with Philo and hold that v. 32 establishes the mini-
mum fine and that if the value of the slave be more than
Spus diwbw, the owner is to be paid the full value of the
slave. Other Karaites hold that by Spw ciwbw the law indi-
cates the value of the average slave and that in all cases
the owner of the animal is to pay the full value of the
. :
ואם
המית עבד דן הכתוב לתת :181a ,גן עדן slave
.
See
שלשים שקלים לבעל העבד. ובעלי הקבלה אמרו שעליו יש להקל
ולהחמיר אחר עבד שבפחותים ואחד עבד שבחשובים ערך אחד
גדולים וקטנים עבד ושפחה אע"פ שיש מחכמי הקראים חולקים בזה :
יש מהם אומרים שזה ערך הפחות אבל יש להוסיף עליו. ומהם אומרים
.Exod
.
73b ,כתר תורה So also .עיה נון בינוני ויש להוסיף ולגרוע
, .
The Karaites agree with Philo also in the interpreca-
tion of Exod. 21, 19 nyup by yna Banni dip' Dx. Tra-
dition (Mekila ad loc. (Mishpatim, 6); Onkelos and p.
Ketubbot 4, 4 (28c; but see Ps.-Jon. and Nahm. ad loc.), tak-
ing inayup by figuratively, interprets it to mean that the
offender is not liable for death consequent on a blow, if in
the interval the injured party has so far recovered that
he is able to walk about "on his own strength," i. e. without
others' assistance. Philo (II, 317; Ritter, 32, note 3) takes
nzywo by literally, namely, that even when the injured party
required the support of a staff or of a man the offender is
313; Ritter, 22) holds (against Mishnah Sanhedrin 9, I; Mekilta on Exod.
21, 12) that the murderer is to be killed in the same manner in which he
committed the crime (so also Book of Jubilees 4, 32). This is also the
view of many Karaites. See S. Gitelsohn, Civil-Gesetze der Karäer von
Samuel al-Magrebi, 14, 11. 13-15; see, however, 979 1a, 1770. The opinion of
Büchler (MGWJ., L (1906), 679 n., 692, 706) that this was also the view
of the Sadducees is not supported by any proof.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
59
ובעלי הקבלה :710 ,.Exod ,כתר תורה literally
;
see
על משענתו
,גן עדן ;
.So also Mibhar
,
ad loc .אמרו במשענת עצמו ואינו נכון
>
to be acquitted. The Karaites interpret inayop sy, like Philo,
; , ., :
,
180b; Samuel al Magrabi (Gitelsohn, 23).
The Karaites interpret also Deut. 25, 12 13 De nispy
against Tradition (Sifre ad loc.; comp. Midrash Tannaim.
ed. Hoffmann, 168 ff.) literally; see Mibhar ad loc. (22b);
7710 9na ad loc.; Samuel Al Magrabi, (Gitelsohn, 29). So
also Philo (II, 328): Εστω δε η δικη χειρος αποκοπη της αψαμενης
ών ού θεμις.
.
4. Philo deviates in his exposition of Exod. 21, 22 ff.
from Tradition which refers 90% in verses 22-23 to the
woman and holds the man guilty of murder if he killed
the mother, but not punishable for the deadly effect of the
blow on the unborn child, regarding the foetus only as part
or limb of the mother (pars viscerum matris) and without
an independent existence (Mekilta ad loc.; Baba ķamma
48b ff.; see also Ohalot 7, 6 and Ps.-Jon, to v. 22). Philo
(II, 317 comp. 319, beg.) takes this law to refer to the
embryo and interprets these verses: If the foetus miscar-
ried by the blow was not formed at the time of the blow
the offender is not liable for murder (verse 22), but if the
embryo has assumed a distinct shape and is completed the
offender shall die for the death of the child (verse 23)."
Philo, though considering the unborn child to be a part of
the mother (II, 319), holds that the law of Lev. 22, 28
87 Philo follows the Septuagint in the interpretation of these verses;
see Ritter, 35. Josephus (Ant., IV, 8, 33) agrees with Tradition and refers
110% to the mother only; comp. Geiger, Urschrift, 436-7. Yet he holds, like
the Karaites (Hadassi, Alph. 270 (1036)), causing abortion to be murder.
See C. Ap., II, 24; comp. M. Zipser, Des Flavius Josephus Werk... gegen
Apion, 164. Some Karaites follow Tradition in the interpretation of 1108.
See Benjamin Nahawendi, ya's news, 2d; 7710 993, Exod. 716, below.
60
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
includes the prohibition of sacrificing a pregnant animal, a
law unknown to Tradition (II, 398; comp. Frankel, Ueber
palästinische u. alexandrinische Schriftforschung, 32, n. 6;
Ritter, 109 and notes). Philo (l. c.; comp. Ritter, l. C., n.
3) seems also to believe, against Tradition (Arakin 7a;
comp. Ps.-Jan. to Deut. 22, 22), that the law reprieves a
pregnant woman
condemned to death. These anti-
traditional views of Philo are found also among the
Karaites. The Karaites, like Philo, consider the killing of
an embryo murder punishable by death (Hadassi, Alph.
238, 270, 275'; see also references given below) and
interpret ;Dx in verses 22, 23 to refer to the embryo or to
the mother and the embryo. See Ķirķisani (ed. Poznański)
in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann,
Breslau 1900, 186; Hadassi, Alph. 238; 270; Mibhar,
Exod. 42b; 7710 973, Exod. 716 ff.; 79 11,177d; 179c-d;
Samuel al Magrabi, ed. Gitelsohn, 27 ff. They also con-
sider the killing of a pregnant animal violation of Lev. 22,
28 and go even further than Philo in prohibiting the sube
a foetus found in a killed animal, for food. See Ķirķisani, ,
ed. Harkavy, 291; and ed. Poznański, l. C., 184 ff.; Sahl b.
Mașliah (Pinsker, II, 28; comp. ib., 30, 83); Salmon b.
Jeruham (Poz., l. c. 186-7); Hadassi, Alph. 238-240; 308 ;
360 ; 364 (1340); Mibħar, Lev. 156; 39a; 700 na, Lev.
240; 626; 79, 83d. ff.; Samuel al Magrabi, ed. Lorge
10-11; 1,758 7778, 646 ff.; 1DX, 23; niaba wab, 47; comp.
also Ibn Ezra, Mibhar, and 7710 nna on Gen. 25, 22 and
Leķah Țob on Lev. II, 13 and 12, 8. Many Karaites
88 See also Frankel, MGWI., VIII, 400. The Samaritans also apply the
law of Lev. 22, 28 to be boy; see Geiger, Nachg. Schriften, III, 263-4; 302,
V, Heb., 114; Wreschner, Intr., XXVII. Geiger's view (Nachg. Schr., V,
Heb., 112 ff.; comp. also Büchler, MGWI., I. (1906), 674, note) that this
Samaritan-Karaite opinion is based upon the principle of : 799 185
198. a view which, as Geiger (l. c.) believes, was held also by the ancient
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
61
prohibit also the execution of a pregnant woman. See
Mibhar on Deut. 22, 22 and 903 970 ad loc.Sº Samuel al
Magrabi (MS. 86a) states: 77210 897 OR 01 798 DX7
,
היכשר כי תהרג והיא מעוברת, יאמר לו לא יכשר כי ההרג והיא מעוברת
אבל יאחרוה לאחר שתלד ואחר לידרה תהרג ואם לא כן נהיה הורגים
.שתי נפשות והמשפט אל נפש אחת בהריגה
, .
5. Tradition interprets: nor' nin DV 3P (Lev. 24,
16) to mean the cursing of the Divine Name (Sanhedrin
7, 5; Sifra ad loc.; comp. Ps-Jon, ad loc.: woop7 073
97791);"" so also the Septuagint (comp. Frankel, Einfluss,
132) and Josephus (Ant. IV, 8, 6). Philo (Vita Mosis, II,
§ 206 ff.) refers this law to any disrespectful mention of
the name of God at an inappropriate occasion or place. To
this untraditional interpretation of 3p by Philo, goes
back the view of Philo (Tischendorf, Philonea, 79; comp.
Frankel, Eideslcistung d. Juden, Dresden 1840, 21; Ritter,
45-7) that the law punishes a false oath with death. As
Philo (I. C., 80) argues, a false oath involves the dishonor
of the Divine Name therein employed (comp. Lev. 19, 12)
is applied in the עובר ירך אמו The question of
halakah, is erroneous.
Talmud to animals and slaves but not to free persons. See also against
this contention of Geiger Pineles, in Sw7777, 190 ff.; L. Löw, Ges. Schr.
III, 401; Gronemann, 122, note. It must also be pointed out that most
of the Karaites mentioned above do not distinguish in the interpretation of
3108 between a finished and an unfinished embryo.
80 Ķirķisani agrees with Tradition that the execution is not to be
postponed (ed. Poznański, Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an D. Kaufmann,
185). Samuel al-Magrabi (ed. Gitelsohn, 38) states that the Law reprieves
even a pregnant animal condemned to death! See above, note 83.
80 For Onkelos ad loc.: w Was '71
Geiger, Urschrift, 274.
Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, 119, overlooked the view of R.
Meir (Sanhedrin 56a) that 1993 SSpa is also punished with death. (M.
Duschack, Josephus Flavius u. d. Tradition, 23 is to be corrected accordingly.)
See, however, the opinion of R. Levi X372 377 shp'oe ed. Friedmann, 1840:
see
.
.כל מי שהוא מפרש שמו של הקב"ה חייב מיתה שנא' ונוקב שם
62
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
and he applies to it the law of Lev. 24, 16, according to his
interpretation of this verse. Most of early Karaites agree
7 (. ).
v
.
16
)
.
See) ונקב שם הי with Philo in the interpretation of
... ואקדים ליה כי יקלל לאדעך דעל מאן ; (13 ,Anan
(
ed
.
Harkavy
-The Ka
1. דאדכר שמיה דרחמנא בקלילותא קאים דמחייב קטלא
The
raites, like Philo, also set the punishment of death for false
oath." See Hadassi, Alph. 346 , 347 ; Mibhar, Exod.
92
Exod
.
62b
;
comp
.
ib
.
,
Deut
.
24b
;
Samuel_al ,כתר תורה ;374
ch
.
6. They follow , שבועות ,אדרת אליהו ; (Magrabi
(
MS
.
,
67a
also the reason given by Philo. As a false oath involves
the dishonor of the name of God the penalty therefor is
death in accordance with Lev. 24, 16.
93
91 Harkavy's note to it (ib., 198, S.
The
.is unintelligible (דברי
.comp
.
Mibhar
,
Lev ; ונקב later Karaites abandoned this interpretation of
a
false
,וישב ,תנחומא ,comp
.
,
however ; מלקות oath is
;
2
; .
44b.
For the Samaritan interpretation of spai see Grünbaum, ZDMG.,
XVI (1862), 401 f.
92 According to Tradition. (Tosefta Makkot 4, 5; b. Shabuot 20a) the
penalty of
. ,
and Nahm, on Lev. 27, 29.
See Schechter, Jewish Sectaries, I, p. 16,
1. 8 and notes, that according to the sect which Schechter designates as
Zadokite (see above) “one is to keep a vow pledging him to a particular
commandment even at the risk of death." The view of Kohler (American
Journal of Theology, 1911, 417), that according to that sect the penalty of
any false oath is death is not proved. The Zadokite sect (l. C., p. 15, 11. 1-3)
agrees also with Philo (1. C.; comp. Frankel, Eidesleistung, 19-20) that oaths
are not to be taken by God's name,
, See Schechter, I. C., LIV, as to the
Samaritan manner of oath, against which see Kohler, l. 6.; but see L. Löw,
Ges. Schr., I, 193 ff.; comp. also Grünbaum, l. C., 404.
, , :
ורוב :Odessa 1870
,
209cd ,אדרת אליהו See Afendopolo's appendix to
93
החכמים וגדוליהם פסקו ודנו מיתה למי שעבר על שבועתו או שקר בה וחללה
ואמר ועם זה כי הראיה
ואמר הרב רבנו לוי ע"ה כי המפר השבועה חייב מות .
יוציא המשפט כי מי יחלל קדש משפטו הוא המות שנאמר ואוכליו עונו ישא כי
את קדש ה' חלל ונכרתה ומקל וחומר מי חלל שם ה' וכן דעת הרב רבנו יהודה
האבל ע"ה וחכמים אחרים גדולים עמהם כרבנו ישועה ויפת הלוי ע"ה והחכם
רבנו אהרן הראשון • עמהם
In Lev
.
19
,
8 quoted by Levi .האלהי הרב
b. Jepheth and Samuel al-Magrabi (1. c.) as proof that the penalty of the
dishonor of the name of God is death only 072 punishment is mentioned. The
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
63
Based on
this Philonian-Karaite interpretation of
Lev. 24, 16 is the view of the early Karaites that every
antinomian utterance or action is punished by death. See
comp. also Alph. 372, 373, so also Samuel al Magrabi
)
ומאן דאמא מימר מצות לאו מידי אינון או : ( .c
.2 ,ס"המ) Anan
מיחייב קטלא ורגמין ליה כל
אוריתא לאו מידי היא או דאמא מי
טיב המגדף הוא המפר מצות : 267
.so also Hadassi
,
Alph ;ישראל
הפיר מצותו ודנו בו רגימה בנקמתו
;עשה מעשותו : ביד רמה בזדון הפיר
ח, ה.
ודע כי נחלפו החכמים במצות אשר לא נזכר להם : (MS
.
,
Io8b)
משפט בנקימה : מהם מי אמר כי כולם להם משפט מות וכי האדם אם
ימרה אשר האמירו ית' בהם בצדיה יחויב מיתה והביא ראיה על זה
ממאמרו כי דבר ה' בזה ואת מצותן הפר ואמר אחר כי זה המאמר
בראיה המביאים אותה כי היא נאמרה על מי אשר כחש במצות התורה
או מי יאמר כי המצוה הזאת איננה חוב או יאמר מנין יחויב זה המאמר
That this Karaite
4:על דרך הבזיון כי אמר עליו את ה' הוא מגדף
94
,מיתה בידי אדם ,to mean death by court כרת early Karaites
,
however
,
took
כות against the traditional interpretation of the concept
, , , ,
as heavenly visita.
tion (comp. Sifra on Lev. 23, 29; Sifre on Num. 19, 13; Moed kațan 28a; p.
•
Ibn Ezra on Gen. 17
,
14
;
Nahm
.
on ;1 ,8 ,תשובה ,
.Bikkurim 2
,
1
;
Maim
כי :266
.Lev
,
18
,
29 and Abrabanel on Num
.
15
,
30
)
.
See Hadassi
,
Alph
במשפט ה' אשר צוה בתורתך: מסורים ביד
כל בעלי כרת בין שופטיהם חייבים
Death in .כהניהם מלכיהם שופטיהם ושוטריהם: ידי עדיהם תהיה בם בראשונה
.punishinent is by stoning
(
ib
.
,
Alph
.
267
)
.
See also Ibn Ezra on Lev כרת
.to Mibhar
,
Lev טירת כסף n
.
14
,
and ,141 ,ספר המצות לענן ,and Harkavy
20 ,20
, , , , n. ,
372, letters 63, 69. S. Munk, Palestine (German ed. by M. Levy, II,438) is to
be corrected accordingly. The latter Karaites agree with Tradition; see
.7 ,אפריון ;125d , גן עדן ;Gen
.
47b
;
Lev
.
56b ,כתר תורה ;Mibhar
,
Lev
.
34b
94 Every antinomian action or utterance involves the dishonor of God's
name which is, according to the Karaites, punished by death. See Hadassi,
ואם חלול שם ה' ותורתו על האיש ההוא מיתה ככתוב : (Alph
.
373
(
149c
.כי את דבר ה' בזה ואת מצותו הפר וגו
See also Book of Jubilees 30, 8-7.
According to some Karaites failure to
pray is also punished by death (in
accordance with II Chron. 15, 13).
So Samuel al-Magrabi (MS., 57a):
והעוזב את התפילה ולא יעשנה מהבוגדים ויעשה בצדיה וזדון ועל דרך הבזיון הוא
.חייב מיתה, ויש מהחכמים ז"ל שאמר כי העוזב אותה על כל פנים חייב מיתה
64
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
view is not due to their fondness for exaggeration
but is based on the above-mentioned Philonian in-
terpretation of Lev. 24, 16 and Num. 15, 30 (for Num.
15, 30, see Philo, II, 252 and 404) is evident from the
fact that a similar view is held by Maimonides who, in dis-
agreement with the talmudic interpretation (Sifre, ad loc.;
Horayot 8a; Keritot 7b; comp. Rashi, Rashbam, and
Nahm., ad loc.; comp. also Mibhar, Num. 15a; in na
Num. 22b), refers Num. 15, 30 to all antinomian actions.
See D2133 1710, III, 41 (Eng. translation by M. Friedlander,
London, 1904, 348-9): “If a person sins presumptuously
so that in sinning he shows impudence and seeks publicity;
if he does what is prohibited by the Law, not only because
of his evil inclination but in order to oppose and resist the
Law, he 'reproacheth the Lord' (Num. 15, 30) and must
undoubtedly be put to death. ... Even if an Israelite
eats meat (boiled) in milk or wears garments of
wool and linen, or rounds off the corners of his head,
in spite against the Law, in order to show clearly that he
does not believe in its truth, I apply to him the words 'lie
reproacheth the Lord' and (I am of the opinion) that he
nust suffer death as an unbeliever. According to my
opinion, all the members of an Israelitish community which
has insolently and presumptously transgressed any of the
Divine precepts must be put to death."
6. According to Tradition, cursing parents is punished
by death (Ex. 21, 17; Lev. 20, 9) only when the Divine
996
The Karaites, relying on Lev. 4, 2: 1189 539..., hold (against Tradition;
see Sifra ad loc.) that a sin-offering is to be brought for the involuntary
transgression of any law. See Pinsker II, 73 (the meaning of this passage
escaped Poznański, Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadia Gaon, 66); Mibhar,
Lev., 6b; 0711 ind, Lev. 9a; 179 18, 1760, end. See also Philo, II, 246.
95 See also Maim., 1817, 4, 10; Z. Chajes, O'X' ngin, Zolkiew 1836,
186 ff.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
63
name is used (Sanhedrin 7, 12; Mekilta ad loc.). Striking
parents is punished by death (Ex. 21, 15) only when the
blow is a 129 na ww non (Sanhedrin 10, 1; Mekilta, ad
loc.). Death for the latter offense is by strangulation (1.
c.). Philo (Tischendorf, Philonea, 77) makes death the
penalty for every manner of insult to parents, and death by
stoning the penalty for striking parents (l. c. and Frag.,
II, 629). The Karaitese agree with Philo and refer Ex.
21, 15 to any physical violence against parents; see Mibhar,
., : :
; , ., 70b
al Magrabi, ed. Gitelsohn, 17. Nor do the Karaites
in Exod. 21, 17 condition the use of the Divine Name. See
Hadassi, Alph. 2729 (103d); Mibħar, Exod. 420;
42ana
nyin, Exod. 70b, and Samuel al Magrabi, 1. C., 19. They
agree also with Philo in making death by stoning the
penalty for violence to parents. See Hadassi, Alph. 2677
(102c) and
700, Exod. 70b; comp. Samuel ai
Magrabi, ed. Gitelsohn, 19, Büchler, MGWI., L (1906), 683.
ומכה אביו ואמו : בכל מיני מכה בין שיש בה חבורה :Exod
.
,
4rb
Exod
.
,
7ob and Samuel ,כתר תורה so also ; ובין שאין בה חבורה
כתר
תורה
Philo (II, 330; but see Quaest. in Ex. II, § 6) states
that distinction is to be made in punishment between insult
to a public officer and a private person. Tradition makes
96 For the Samaritan view comp. ZDMG., XLVII (1893), 681. Mark
7, 10 ff. and Matthew 15, 5 ff. (comp. commentaries) perhaps refer to this
older' interpretation of Exod. 21, 17: that every manner of insult to parents
is punished by death. Comp. Wünsche, Nene Beitiäge, 181-6.
הורו כך במכה אביו ואמו מות יומת :says
:אינו חייב אלא עד שיכה את שניהם בבת אחת ובן בקללה עד שיקללם בבת אחת
The Karaites decry what they falsely ascribe to the Rabbanites: the
opinion that punishment is inflicted only when the curse no blow affected
both parents; Hadassi, Alph., 249,
:
so also Alph. 2500; see also Salmon b. Jeroham quoted by Neubauer, Aus
d. Petersburger Bibliothek, 111. See Sanhedrin, 856; Mekilta on Exod. 21,
17; Sifra on Lev. 20, 9.
66
KARAITE. HALAKAH-REVEL
no such distinction. This view, however, is found among
the Karaites. Jepheth b. Ali (quoted in Mibhar, Exod.
426) punishes cursing 7h3 or pwy with death. Hadassi
(Alph. 3430) states that cursing a righteous Judge is a
capital crime; so also Samuel al Magrabi (ed. Gitelsohn,
21) who also states (MS., 147b) that even the cursing of
the patriarch of a tribe or family is punished by death.
MARRIAGE LAWS
לא יבא ממזר בקהל :and the law enjoins concerning him (ממזר)
7. The issue of a prohibited alliances is a bastard
() : **
1 (Deut. 23, 3). Tradition (Yebamot 8, 3) refers it to
marriage. Philo, as was pointed out by Ritter (91, n. 5),
believes this to have been the Sadducean ,כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול
97 Weiss, Dor, I, 126, note, relying on Kiddushin 66a: 599 07977
,
view (the nipso there was not, as Weiss I. c., states, in accordance with Deut.
22, 18, but because Judah (or Eleazar; see Josephus, Ant. XIII, 10, 5) was a
single witness; see Pesaḥim 113b: 712075 779722 ...); See also Josephus, C.
Ap., II, 23 that disobedience to the high-priest is punished like impiety toward
God (comp. Ant. IV, 8, 14). It is, however, possible that Josephus had in
mind the law of Deut. 17, 12; see Grätz, 1113, 110, note I; comp. Maim.,
., , , , 5: (]
ולכן חייבתו תורה [לזקן ממרא] מיתה לכבוד :5 ,10 ,Sanhedrin ,פ"המש ,.Maim
,בית דין ומעלתה כמו שחייב המקלל אביו ואמו מיתה לכבוד אביו ואמו
n.
98 Against Geiger's anti-traditional interpretation of an (Urschrift,
54 ff.; 350) see Rapoport, 7717) Abris, 78 ff. For the Septuagint see
Frankel, Einfluss, 204, and for Philo see Ritter, 91, 5. Most of the
later Karaites agree with the accepted talmudic interpretation of hip (Sifre,
II, 248; Yebamot 4, 13; Kiddushin 3, 12; see p. Kiddushin 3, 2; Tosafot
Yebamot 49a, s. v. rynw; Maim., 783 710'X, 15, 1; Frankel, Grundlinien
d. mosaisch-talmudischen Eherechts, 5, n. 21 is to be corrected accordingly);
see Mibhar, Deut. 196; so also y7y 18, 1490: 991098 75930 890 MT81
nining 2979 iny; but see Hadassi, Alph. 2789 (1050) and Samuel al-
Magrabi, ed. Gitelsohn, 11, 1. 14. For a peculiar interpretation of the concept
78 by some early Karaites as referring to the Chazars see Harkavy, Senitic
Studies in memory of Dr. Kohut, Berlin 1897, 246-7.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
67
-is not to mingle with the com ממזר to mean that the (393
interprets this verse, verses 2, 4 (II, 261), and v. 9 (II
)
munity of Israel and does not refer to marriage. In his
exposition of v. 9, (II, 393) he says: "... kal.stp et exk2oyotav
και μεταδιδοναι θειων λογων, ους θεμις τους αυτοχθονας και ευπατριδας
ιεροφαντεισθαι
.* This view, as Samuel al Magrabi informs us,
(., ) )
ודע כי אשר דברנוהו (was held by many Karaites
(
MS
.
,
9rb
הוא על דעת רוב החכמים ז"ל וגם התיר קצתם זאת הבעילה על תנאי
כי יהיה זרעם פחות והוא כי ששן נתן בתו לירחע עבדו והיה מצרי ...
ובדעתם כל הנאמר בו לא יבוא לא ירצה בו הבעילה אבל רצונו בזה
בעתות הקרבנות והשמחות בחופות חתנים ומילות ובקהלות האומה והביא
ראיה ממאמרו אשר ציויתי לא יבואו בקהל לך אחר אמרו כי ראתה גוים
.באו מקדשה
This is the view of many early Karaites.
See
"דוק המשפט של ילד הנולד מן ערוות : (Hadlassi
,
Alph
.
36
;
(
14ob
ומן אשת איש ומן גויה ומכל דרך אסור בזמן זו גלות נדודי : להוציא
הילודים ואמותם מיחס זרע הקדש ... ואם יש חפץ לאחד מישראל להתחתן
עמהם יכתב בכתובתם כעורם וקלקול ייחוסם לדורות להחרידי כאשר
; כתוב ולשישן עבד מצרי
.(148d) י373
.so also Alph
SO
.
Aaron b. Joseph (Mibhar, Deut. 19b) states that Sahl b.
Masliah (second half of the tenth century) held that
ולא ידעתי טעם לדברי :is not forbidden ממזר marriage with a
,Sahi_b
.
Masliah ,רבנו סהל שאם יחפוץ ישראל יקחנו [את הממזר]
,as did Philo ,לא יבא ממזר בקהל evidently
,
also interpreted
, ' , ,
Hadassi, and the Karaites mentioned by Samuel al Magrabi,
to mean that the an is not allowed to mingle in the com-
munity.
100
לא יבא בקהל הי :בכל דבר :
.See also Mibhar
,
2. c
.ad loc ,טירת כסף .comp ; והנכון בנשואין לבד
99 See Michaelis, Mos. Recht, II, § 139; Ewald, Alterth. des Volkes
.46 , נחלת יהודה ,Israel
,
247
;
comp
.
also Rapoport
IV
,
21-2
)
to this ,אוצר נחמד) The interpretation given by Geiger
100
(, , )
view of Sahl is forced and unnecessary. Geiger's reference (1. C., 22) to
Sahi's opinion quoted in Mibhar, Deut. 6b, has no bearing on his view
63
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
8. In the exposition of the law of Deut. 21, 10-15 con-
cerning marriage with a female captive of war, Tradition
makes no distinction between a married woman and the
unmarried (Sifre, ad loc.; Ķiddushin 216: SONY — nux
w now). So also Josephus, Ant. IV, 8, 23. The Karaites
hold that this law refers only to the case when the captive
אשת
here.
Sahl's interpretation there of one oirnn Onn (Deut. 7, 2; comp.
ga ng to Mibhar, Deut. 66, letter 115) is held by many Rabbanites; see
e. g. Nahm. on Deut. 20, 10. The Karaitę anti-traditional view (see Ķid-
dushin 3, 13; Yebamot II, 5 and parallels) that children born to a Jew from a
Gentile woman are considered to be Jews which caused the early Karaites
to interpret 10% in Ezra 10, 3 as referring to the mothers only (Pinsker,
II, 23, n. 12; Geiger. I. C.; see also Benjamin Nahawendi, 23 nown, 66:
אבל מנגות עכו"מז ואמהות בני בלי שם לא נקראים אלא על שם אביהם שני
DAN 751301 d'oa Sa pisins; similarly Hadassi, Alph. 366' (141d): nwar
הילודים שנולדו מן הערוות ואשת איש ואשה נכרית ושפחה הוא זר ונקרא על שם
ושפחות כתוב להוציא כל נשים
ועל בני נכריות
.is erroneous עמוני ולא עמונית :4 ,23
773197 ; yet he adds:
3
DAN 761301, so also Alph. 3657 (1400)) goes back to talmudic times and
was held by Jacob of 187123 2 (p. Yebamot 2, 6; p. Kiddushin 3, end; G.
rab., 7, 3 and parallels) who seems to have been suspected of some hig' (see
above, note 73). See also the early Bible critic (ed. by Schechter), JOR.,
XIII, 362, lines 22-25, and note on p. 371.
The assertion of M. Friedmann (Beth Talmud, I, 106) that the Karaites.
like Tradition (Yebamot 8, 4, b. ib., 766 ff. and parallels), interpret Deut.
, : . All Karaites' attack this traditional
view. See Elias b. Abraham (Pinsker, II, 105); Mibhar and 7710 na
ad loc.; 179 ja, 146b; 149d ff.; 17958 7778, 93c; 01779 1718, 176; A.
(. Goslow 1835), 510;
comp., however, Hadassi, Alph. 323' (1196). The legitimacy of David (de-
scendant of Ruth the Moabitess) they save by asserting that Deut. 23, 4 refers
only to those who do not embrace Judaism.
Schorr (pisnn, IV, 43) claims that Maimonides is inconsistent in con-
(, , ; , 9)
, 8, 4;
noin us and Tosafot, ib., 776, s. v. naba. Schorr apparently overlooked the
fact that 1975 oxi and Tosafot by him quoted refer to the question of
.
.מבחר ישרים appendix to the) חותם תכנית ,Firkowitsch
as עמוני ולא עמונית not 12
,
9
)
the law of ;18 ,12 ,איסורי ביאה ) sidering
ואם לדון ;4 ,8
as this law is disputed
,
and quotes Yebamot הלכה למשה מסיני
.עמוני ולא עמונית and_have nothing to do with the law of מצרית ואדומית
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
69
was unmarried or a widow. See Hadassi, Alph. 281 ; Mib-
, . 34a, . , ,
. (
,כתר תורה ;
.ad loc ,טירת כסף har
,
Lev
.
340
,
and Deut
.
17a and
: 92b , אדרת אליהו I47d
)
.
So also ,גן עדן Deut
.
24a
(
but see
ולכן אמרו חכמינו בשבויה שהיא אלמנה .... לא לפי דעת בעלי הקבלה
so also Abraham b
.
Josiah Jerushalmi ;שאמרו שאין אישות לגוי
Goslow 1846
)
,
240. Samuel al Magrabi) אמונה אמן in his
דע כי זה מאמרו בעשרת הדברים לא תנאף יגוש :MS
.
2220-5
)
states)
אסור כל אשה בעלת איש אם הוא מאנשי הדת או מזולתם מהאומות....
ומי יתלה את עניניו, ונפשו באשת יפת תאר ובספור הכתוב עליה ואמר
אולי יהי אישה עודנו בחיים יאמר לו זאת התליה אין בה טענה חזקה
וגם כי בודאי יהי חקירה על זה
,הענין קודם התחברו עם האשה הנזכרה למען יעשה כפי חפץ הכתוב
כי אנשי זו העיר אולי נהרגו
That this is also the view of Philo was shown by Ritter, 75.
9 ,קדושים according to Tradition
(
Sanhedrin 10
,
I
;
Sifra
9. The penalty of adultery with a married woman is
(, I; , 9
(ed. Weiss, 92a) strangulation. Many Karaites, however,
hold that the law of Deut. 22, 24 applies not only to the
betrothed, but also to a married woman; the punishment
being stoning in both cases. So Samuel al-Magrabi speak-
ing of adultery and its punishment says (MS., 6a): 081
ואם : ((
.
,
יאמר אומר איך הריגהם יאמר לו הריגתם באבנים כי ידענו זה ממאמרו
על המאורשה והוצאתם את שניהם אל שער העיר ההוא וסקלתם אותם
באבנים ומתו כי לא הפריש בין הבעולה והמאורשה במשפט כי המאורשה
see also L. Cohn
,
Des Samuel al
-
Magrebi ;נקראת אשת איש
; , -
Abhandlung über die Pflichten d. Priester u. Richter, Berlin
,טירת כסף and Mibhar on Lev
.
18
,
20
(
340
)
,
and ,10 ,1907
... וגם בבת ישראל אשת איש הנואפת בין בעולה : רלב ad loc
.
,
letter
.comp ;בין מאורשה ענשן אחד שהרי גם המאורשה נקראת אשת איש
.194d , גן עדן Lev
.
58b and ,כתר תורה also
, . , . That this
is also the view of Philo is evident from the fact that he
70
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
sets death by stoning even for the unmarried harlot;101 see
II, 308, where he says: Tahev topun kata Tov lepov hoyov oú tapa-
δεχεται η πολιτεια ... Ως λυμη ουν και ζημια και κοινον μιασμα καταλυεσθω. 102
woman
101 See Ritter's comment on this law of Philo (p. 92); but see Book
of Jubilees 20, 4 which also seems to punish unchastity of an unmarried
with death (by burning, in accordance with Gen. 38, 24). The
early Karaites also considered unchastity of a
;
mon b. Jeroḥam quoted by Pinsker, II, 62: 71 grupy nux : Axan ms Spor
79312997 7777; comp. also the opinion of Saul b. Anan quoted there (the
authenticity of the xa7p is, however, disputed; comp. also Poznański, 7818
58799, VI, 88a). See also the Samaritan reading of Deut. 23, 18: nonnus
:
4,
כשהיו בני אלכסנדריא מקדשין נשים אחד (אחר or) בא וחוטפה מן השוק :8
בני אלכסנדריא which seems to indicate that the
1727 (comp. Klumel, Mischpatim, p. VI). See also Brüll, Jahrbücher, III
(1877), 39, n. 104. It is, however, possible that the Karaites, in fixing
stoning as the penalty for adultery, were influenced, as in many other
instances (Steinschneider, Beschneidung d. Araber U. Mohainiedaner, 26-7;
id., Poleinische Literatur d. Juden, 398, n. I; Wreschner, 41, 44), by the
Mohammedan law which also punishes adultery with stoning; comp. ZDMG.,
LIII (1899), 161.
102 Noteworthy in this connection is the agreement between the view
held by the earliest Karaite authorities (Anan and Benjamin Nahawendi)
and the practice in vogue among the Alexandrian Jews in the first century
B. C. I refer to Tosefta Ketubbot 4, 9; Baba meşi'a 1040; p. Ketubbot
8: ()
considered betrothal not
so binding as 78102 (A. Brüll, Fremdsprachliche
Redensarten in den
Talmuden U. Midraschim, Leipzig 1869, 32, note, wrongly translates this
passage: "Wenn die Alexandriner sich Frauen angelobten, nahmen sie sie
gerade von der Strasse weg.”) Büchler (Festschrift zu
Israel Lewy's
siebzigstem Geburtstag, Breslau 1911, 123, n. 3) justly remarks: “Vielleicht
hierin hellenistischer Einfluss wirksam" (Büchler, l. c., thinks that
()
to make the 70178 unbinding. But, then, what was the purpose of the
?).
states (II, 311) that there
many who do consider unchastity with betrothed
woman to be
adultery, though he himself agrees with Tradition (comp. Frankel, Grund-
linien d. mos.-tal. Eherechts, XXIV ff.) that bethrothal is as binding as
marriage (ib., and II, 229). See also
Iso P. Hagigah 2, 2: Diborone ya
: :
where 10178 (p. Sanhedrin 6, 6 reads: 1525, but see Halevy, O1910x77 01717,
war
b. C.,
שטר כתובה were inserted in the לכשתכנסי לחופה (לביתי the words
(
or
Philo also .(? כתובה and of the ארוסין
are
not
a
כותבין : מירושלים הגדולה לאלכסנדריא הקטנה : עד מתי ארוסי יושב אצלכם
Ic, 478, note) is perhaps an
allusion to
בני אלכסנדריא the view of the
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
70
103
10. Philo (II, 310) states that violation of a widow
or divorced woman is a crime approaching adultery and
the court shall decide upon the punishment whether it be
physical chastisement or pecuniary fine. Tradition, as
Ritter (90-91) observes, makes no distinction between a
divorced woman or widow and a woman who has never
been married. A view similar to that of Philo is held by
the Karaites, some of them even making carnal intercourse
with a widow or divorced woman a capital crime while most
can
So
קא אמא : כי יקח איש אשה ובעלה אלמא אי לא בעלה לא צריך (118 ,Harkavy
;ספר כריתות ובעדים סגיא ליה למפטרה
משאת ,also Benjamin Nahawendi
שלוח מאורשות דין בעדים שלא פרש בהן בגט המקרא שני כי יקח :5b , בנימין
;איש אשה ובעלה והיא לא בעולה
concerning 70178 as not being binding. This
This view of the Alexandrian
Jews was held also by the earliest Karaites who maintained that the betrothed
sever their connections without a writ of divorce and that, in general,
betrothal does not have the force of marriage. See Anan ( 27"o, ed.
, ) :
;
,
: o
; so also Hadassi, Alph. 365 (1412); comp.
also 174 14, 154C.
Geiger, relying on the view of Beth Shammai: 110178 xby389.9
(Yebamot 13, 1), claims that the older halakah distinguished in a similar
manner between 10178 and 748103 (Jüd. Zeitschr., II, 97; Nachg. Schr., V,
Heb., 162). As the marriage of a minor by her mother or brothers is
only a Rabbinic institution, the view of Beth Shammai concerning 11899
does not prove much, Hadassi, Alph. 2503 (966) and 334-5 (123ab) falsely
states that according to the Rabbanites a minor given to marriage by her
father (Deut. 22, 16) is free to annul her marriage through 1189 and
reads in Yebamot 108a:
אי אפשי בקידושין שקדשוני אבי
אי זהו מיאון
!. 981 (Holdheim, niwan non, 53, note, erroneously ascribes this view
to Elias Bashyazi; see to the contrary, his 1796 1778, O'Ne 'y, ch. 2).
For another misrepresentation of a traditional law by Hadassi see above,
note 96; see also Bacher, MGWI., XL (1896), 21, n. 5.
103 Büchler's suggestion (MGWI., L (1906), 674, note) that this law
of Philo goes back to the more ancient view (represented by Beth Shammai)
allowing divorce only in case of the wife's adultery and considering the
divorced woman to be still to some extent an wis nux, is not plausible as
it does not account for Philo's view concerning asosx. Moreover, Philo
and the Karaites do not share the view of Beth Shammai and allow divorce
for any cause. See, for Philo, Ritter, 70, note i and, for the Karaites, above.
72
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
of them are, like Philo, satisfied that a special penalty be
imposed on the offender, such as the court may deem best.
:
... וזנות חלק הג' הוא הזונה עם האלמנה :278
.See Hadassi
,
Alph
ויותר מחמירים עליו משפט מות
או עם הגרושה גדול עוונו ומעלו
כי הן נשי איש תקראנה שנ' אשת נבל הכרמלי תאמר תורתך : יען כי הלא
נבל מימים רבים מת ועוד היתה אשת נבל : וכן שאמר אשר ינאף את אשת
איש וגו' בין שהוא חי בין שהוא מת כי בא עליה בלי צווי ותנאי אלהיך
כן זאת אלמנה גרושה הן נשי פלוני נשי איש וגרש או מת אסורות
והבתולה :158c ,גן עדן so also ;וחמורות הן בלי תנאי ואירושי איש
שהיא גרושה או אלמנה אף על פי שאינה שכובה מרבית החכמים דנו
so also ;אותן הבא עליהן כדין הבא באשת איש שהוא מחויב מות...
וגם אמר קצת מהחכמים ז"ל כי : (Samuel al Magrabi
(
MS
.
86b
האלמנה והגרושה נכנסים גם הם בזאת האזהרה [לא תנאף] אם יתעלל
.בהם בלא קידושין ובדעתו כי השוכב מנאף ויחויב מיתה
II. Tradition (Sotah I, I; Sifre on Num. 5, I3)
makes warning by husband and subsequent 17:00 of wife
with the man against whom she has been warned condition
precedent to subjection of the woman to ordeal of Num.,
5, 15 ff. Philo, speaking of this law (II, 308), says
that in case the husband suspects his wife of adultery they
are to bring the matter before the court in the Holy City
(comp. Sotah 1, 4) and if the court is undecided the woman
is to submit to the ordeal; Philo, evidently, not considering
a , ()
This is also the view of the Karaites. See
and (קנוי) necessary suspicion of a particular man
,
warning
106, סתירה
כתר :50
.Hadassi
,
Alph
.
328
,
end and 239
;
Mibhar
,
Num
ואין הטעם כדעת בעלי :157b , גן עדן Num
.
70
;
so also , תורה
The accepted
104 One of these must be before witnesses (Sotah I, 1).
., ,
.I,
1-2
)
requires witnesses for both ,סוטה ,
.norm
(
MIaim
105 Ritter (pp. 81-85) discusses this law as given by Philo; he fails,
however, to notice this essential deviation of Philo from Tradition.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
73
הקבלה שאמרו שנסתרה כשיעור ביאה ואומרים שצריכה עדי קנוי ועדי
.סתירה ואז ראוי להשקות
אם אמת היה הדבר :20 ,22
.Tradition takes Deut
.12
108
to mean that in case adultery during betrothal has been
established by the testimony of witnesses, penalty is death
(v. 21) in accordance with Deut. 22, 24 (Sifre, ad loc.;
Ketubbot 46a; comp. Frankel, Der gerichtliche Beweis, 49).
Philo, in his exposition of this law (II, 313), says that if
the husband's charge be found true, the parents of the
woman are guilty of having deceived the husband at the
time of the betrothal. Philo, evidently, held that the accu-
sation of the husband, whose substantiation involves death,
was unchastity before betrothal. This is also the view of
most of the Karaites. See Hadassi, Alph. 366 (1416-c)
that the mere absence of the bina is sufficient to convict
"חייבים אב ואם שלה להכין על היצוע שמלה .... "טענתו עוד אם :her
לא יכינו האם והאב או הנמצאים בעת ההיא את השמלה על המטה
כיון
והוא צועק ומגיד בבעילה ראשונה כי לא מצאתי בתולים לנערה
שמבקשים את השמלה ולא היא נמצאת בסקילה חייבת היא הנערה :
see ; טעמו שאמר : לא נמצאו בתולים לנערה : והוציאו את הנערה
"דרוש ידרשו הדיינים ואם יש שמלה ופרשו : (also Alph
.
365
(
14oc
ואם אמת היה הדבר לא נמצאו לה בתולים
השמלה וגו' והאמת יגידו
ואם אין
אם מוכת עץ היא או מכל מכה או מחולי ועדים על זה יעידו
:
:
106 In case the suspected woman refuses to submit to this ordeal she
is, according to Tradition (Sotah 1, 3), to be divorced_and_forfeits her
dowry. . Some Karaites consider such refusal prima facie evidence of her
; :
:980 , אדרת אליהו guilt and say she is to be put to death as an adulteress
;
see
comp
.
ib
.
,
98b
.
All Karaites ;אמנם אם באה לנקות עצמה ומאנה בשתיה נהרגת
agree that in case the woman confesses her guilt, it is sufficient to convict
her; see Mibhar, Num. 5a:
ויוצאת
כתובתה
ואם הודית [שזינתה] שוברת
כתר comp
.
also ; ולדעת חכמי הקראים נהרגת והוא הנכון כי פיה כמאה עדים
.82
98b and above
,
note ,אדרת אליהו ;156d ,גן עדן ;bן .Num ,תורה
107 See Werke Philos, II, 207, n. 3. Ritter (p. 77) overlooked this
deviation of Philo from Tradition, For the view of Joscphus, see Weyl, 87,
105.
74
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL.
.See also Mibhar
,
Lev .זה ולא זה מחויבת היא סקילה כדין תורה
.. שהרי מצינו גם בבת ישראל דין :
.ad loc ,טירת כסף
.38b
;
comp
כזה המוציא שם רע על בתולת ישראל ואם באמת לא נמצאו בתולים
לנערה חייב לה הכתוב סקילה בפתח בית אביה בלי הסגיל תנאי אם
; זינתה קודם הארושין או אחר הארושין
so also ib. to Mibhar,
Deut. 19a, letter 77. So also Samuel al Magrabi (Ms., 97a):
ואמר קצתם כי לא תהרג אלא בשני עדים עליה בזנות וזה רחוק ממאמר
The later Karaites agree with .הכתוב כי הכתוב יגוש זולת זה
Tradition that negatio virginitatis is not prima facie
ואם תביא עדות :96ab ,אדרת אליהו evidence of her guilt
.
See
שזינתה או נאנסה קודם הארושין אין לה מות . אמנם אם לא תביא
נחלקו החכמים . מהם אמרו והם הרוב שאין לה משפט מות אם לא
וקצהם אמרו שכל זמן שלא תביא
יעידו שזינתה אחר הארושין
ראיה שזינתה קודם הארושין היא בחזקת שזינתה אחר הארושין וחייבת
20 is
108 Related to this Philonian-Karaite interpretation of Deut. 22,
the Karaite interpretation of Lev. 2I, 9. Tradition refers this law to a
betrothed or married daughter of a priest (Sifra, ad loc.; Sanhedrin 50b ff.;
.-., .).
in a priest's daughter---refers also to the unmarried. See Hadassi, Alpli.
for unchastity שרפה-Ps
.
-
Jon
.
,
ad loc
.
)
.
The Karaites maintain that this law
..; so
ובדעת הקראים בפנויה הכתוב מדבר :121d
)
;
Mibhar
,
Lev
.
38b) 330
.Lev
.
58b ,כתר תורה also
טירת כסף a woman married or unmarried
;
comp
,
also Mibhar
,
Gen. 6od and
, . Samuel al-Magrabi (L. Cohn, Des Samuel al-
Magrebi Abhandlung über die Pflichten d. Priester u. Richter, 9) even
asserts that this law applies also to 1072 12 guilty of unchaste conduct with
a ; .
ad loc. and to Mibhar, Lev. 34a, letter 232. This is also the view of Philo
(? Hoffmann, Leviticus, II, 90) and Josephus (Ant., IV, 8, 23; comp.
Ritter, 81; P. Grünbaum, Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius Josephus, Halle
1887, 18, n. 2; Weyl, 106). Comp. also B. Beer, Das Buch d. Jubiläen u.
sein Verhältniss den Midraschim, Leipzig 1856, 58. The view of
Büchler (MGWJ., L (1896), 681, n. 2) that this was also the view of R.
Eliezer (Sanhedrin 51a) is very improbable; comp. also Weiss, Dor, I, 151.
(; . ,
9) which, according to Rab Joseph (Sanhedrin 52b), was taken by the
Sadducees (so also Josephus, Ant., IV, 8, 23) literally (comp. Brüll, hos
ff)
Karaites disagree among themselves; see Samuel al-Magrabi, l. C.; comp.
.
24
,21
.Lev ; באש תשרף) בת כהן For the mode employed in the execution of
· בית ,(
,
.
,
8
,
)
(
,
f
.;
Weiss
,
Dor
,
I
,
151
;
Buchler
,
2. c
.
,
549 ft
.
,
557 f
.
)
the ל ,IV , תלמוד
.ק 324
.also Hadassi
,
Alph
KARAITE HALAKAH--REVEL
75
Tip "DUD; the later Karaites thus disagreeing among them-
selves only as to the mode of proof of the woman's guilt or
innocence after betrothal.19
13. Num. 36, 6-10 provides that when a man dies
without male issue and his daughter inherits his property,
the heiress is to marry only within her tribe so that the
allotment of one tribe might not pass over to another. Ac-
cording to talmudic interpretation (Baba batra 120a ff.;
comp. Pseudo-Jonathan on verse 6: S 97*227 XDD rt
and לדריא דעתידין למיקום בתר פילוג ארעא אלהן לבנת צלפחד
עצה טובה השיאם הכתוב
Geiger, Urschrift, 447) this rule applied only to the “genera-
tion of the conquest,” while according to Samuel (B. b. 120a)
even in the case of the daughters of Zelophehad it was not
a command, but merely counsel :
(but comp. Ritter, 97, n. 1, and Ibn Ezra, ad loc., v. 8).
Philo^º states that in case a daughter inherits she is to
marry one of her relatives (based perhaps on Num. 36.
II), in the absence of which she must at least not marry
out of her tribe, thus applying the law of Num. 36, 6-10
to all generations.
; (14 ,דברי שלום ואמת) Rapoport .(ממש) literally ופרשו השמלה interpreted
100 According to the scholion of Megillat Taanit (ch. 4) the Boethusians
(). (, );
Geiger (Urschrift, 148) and Ritter (133 ff.; comp. Büchler, l. C., 680, note;
comp. Weiss, Dor., I, 117) consider this report unauthentic as this view is
held also by R. Eliezer b. Jacob (Sifre, II, 237; Ketubbot 46a); see,
however, Halevy, 09310877 1917, Ic, 415-18.
no See Treitel, MGWI., XLVII (1903), 409. Philo explains also the
law of yibbum (Deut. 25, 5-11) as a means that the allotment of one might
not pass over to another (II, 443; Ritter, 69, n. 3 errs in asserting that
Philo mentions nowhere the law of 012') which is also the prevailing view
among the later Karaites (comp. Poznański, REJ., XLV (1902), 62). Josephus
also considers the law of Num. 36, 7 as applying to all times (Ant., IV, 7,
5;. comp. Ritter, 96-7). This view is shared also by the author of Tobit 6,
12-13; comp. M. Rosemann, Studien zu11 Buche Tobit, Berlin 1894, 3 ff. and
F. Rosenthal, Vier apokryphische Bücher, Leipzig 1885, 116, note.
76
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
The Karaites, like Philo, apply the law of Numb. 36,
6-10 to all times; see Hadassi, Alph. 260 (99a); Mibhar,
. (), , ., :
עד
וכל בת יורשת נחלה : Num
.
,
50b ,כתר תורה ad loc
.
(
334
)
,
and
בא להתמיד הדבר לדורות על כן לא יתכן מאמר בעלי הקבלה
,גן עדן comp also ; שאמרו שהמצוה לשעתה אלא אח"כ תסוב הנחלה
ודע כי הבת :(17rb
;
so also Samuel al Magrabi
(
MS
.
,
263a
וזולתה מהנקבות אם יתהוה להן ירושה מנחלת ארץ לא יכשר להן כי
יהיו לנשים מזולת השבט שלהן למען לא יתהוה להן זרע מזולת השבט
.וירש אותן אחר מותן ותצא הנחלה הנזכרה לזולת השבט
14. The law of Lev. 21, 2-3 enjoining the priests not
to defile themselves by approaching a dead body says, “But
(. ,
כי אם לשארו ,(for his kin that is near to him
....
"
(
v
.
2a
.הקרוב אליו
כי אם The talmudic interpretation fnds in the words
-support for the tradition tliat a priest is to defle him לשארו
self by approaching the body of his wife111 (Sifra, ad loc.:
Yebamot 22b
)
.
The ; אין שארו אלא אשתו שני שאר אביך הוא
, שארו ,
Karaites, rejecting this interpretation of 1780,112 forbid the
.comp ; ואינו מטמא לה אלא מדברי סופרים :7 ,2 ,אבל ,
.See Maim
111
.ib
.
,
2
,
I ,לחם משנה commentaries and
וטמאוהו בעל כרחו
.was not universally accepted טומאת כהן לאשתו as proof that the law of
died יוסף הכהן of
c
.
)
and deflement would have barred him from participation .!) בערב הפסח
;רשות is
,
according to many
,
only טומאת כהן לאשתו whereas ,קרבן פסח in the
.
, ; ,
c
,
.
Weiss (Dor, I, 46, note) quotes:
(Zebahim 1000; Sifra, Emor, I; Semahot, ch. 4)
.
Weiss apparently overlooked the fact that the wife
(l. c.)
, , , ;
see Zebaķim, l. C.; and Tosafot Soțah 3a, s. v. ob; comp. Büchler, Der
Galiläische Am-ha-Areş, 205 and n. 2.
לשארו Most of the Karaites reject also the talmudic interpretation of
112
,נחלות ,
.in Num
.
27
,
II
(
Baba batra 8
,
1
;
Sifre
,
ad loc
.;
Maim
and hold that (מדברי סופרים is only ירושת הבעל the view
(
Ketubbot 84d
)
that
,גן עדן ;the husband does not inherit his wife
;
see Mibhar
,
Num
.
,
37a
.50 ,לבוש מלכות ;28 ,אפריון ;420
.Num ,כתר תורה ;
.17od f
ואמרו כי מאמר וירש אותה היא מצוה :c
.
)
states
.2 ,לבוש מלכות ) Nisan
.5
והם החליפו הכתוב מעיקרו
בפני עצמה והרצון שהבעל יורש את אשתו ......
I, 8 accepts
() )
; , ., ;
50.
Mordecai
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
77
defilement of a priest in case of wife's death; see Mibhar
ad loc. (38a) (comp. 903 970, ad loc.: :21787 17805 DX ">
אליו : לא יתכן להיות אשתו ומנגד לבעלי הקבלה שאמרו אין שארו אלא
,comp
.
also Hadassi ; ובעלי מקרא אמרו שאסור ליטמאות באשתו
inwxa spub 1.705 70majinux); so also i717 7ns, ad loc. (58a):
. ,
Alph. 2069 and 17:58 1778, 171a; Philo (II, 230) speaking
of the law of Lev. 21, 2-3 mentions the six blood-relations,
enunierated in these verses, as those for whom the priest
is to defile himself, evidently excluding like the Karaites
the wife:
15. Philo and the Karaites also agree in the inter-
pretation of Lev. 21, 14. Philo (II, 229) interprets this
law to mean that the high-priest must choose his wife
from priestly lineage.
113 That this is also the interpretation
(?) ;
agrees with Tradition (yay's 2010, ed. Harkavy, 179). Hadassi (Alph. 3657
(1402); 3677 (1420) holds that the husband inherits his wife if they have
children; Samuel al-Magrabi (MS., 269)
:
Benjamin Nahawendi ;ואפילו חכמיהם האחרונים אינם מסכימים לפירוש זה (?)
ותדע כי החכמים נחלפו :states
בענין : מי שם ירושתה לאישה אם היא תחת ממשלתו ורשותו והם בני משנה
,comp
.
Weiss
,
Dor ;וקצת מחכמינו ז"ל ומהם והם הרבים מחכמינו ז"ל לא ראו בכן
; . ,
I, 46, note.
113 See Ritter, 73, n. 2 and Hoffmann, Magazin, VIII (1881), 56. It
is, however, possible that Philo recorded here a custom which he believed
to be a law. Büchler (Die Priester u. d. Cultus, 88-9; comp. also Berakot
440; Pesaḥim 49a; Rashi, Yebamot 846, s. v. 189) has collected instances
which tend to show that also ordinary priests married only daughters of
priests (comp. also Grätz, MGWI., 1879, 499 and Krauss, JQR., VIII, 671).
The custom to marry within the family was considered praiseworthy even
for non-priests and is commended by the Rabbis; see Tosefta Kiddushin
1, 2; Yebamot 626; p. Kiddushin 4, 4; Gen. rabba 18, 5; see also Book of Jubi-
lees 4, 15-33; 8, 5-6, 9, 7; but see Kohler, JQR., V (1893), 406, note); comp.
also Tobit, 6, 12-3 and MGWI., 1879, 507, 510 ff. For the view of Josephus see
M. Zipser, Des Flavius Josephus Werk: Gegen Apion, Wien 1871, 30; Ritter,
73 and P. Grünbaum, Die Priestergesetze bei Flavius Josephus, 29-30.
To the Karaite authorities mentioned by Geiger (l. c.) that the high-
priest is to marry the daughter of a priest may be added Jacob B. Reuben, 100
wyn, on Ez. 44, 22 and Saniuel al-Magrabi (ed. Cohn, 12, 1. 24 ff.; Cohn, ib.,
note ili remarks: “Diese Ansicht ist nur karäisch vielleicht nur des Authors”!).
78
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
of most Karaites was already observed by Azariah de Rossi
(Disy 7189, ed. Wien, 68a) (comp. Geiger, ZDMG., XX
(1866), 561. ff.; Nachgelassene Schriften III, 311-14 V,
Heb., 133 ff.; Jüd Zeitschr., VI, 265).
CEREMONIAL LAWS
16. Philo, speaking of the First of the seventh month
(II, 295), says that it is called Day of Trumpets, as trum-
pets are blown that day at the offering of the sacrifices.
Their sounding is a commemoration of the giving of the
Law. The trumpet being an instrument of war, symbolizes
the war between the different forces of nature and human-
ity, for the pacification of which man must be greatful to God.
Philo makes no mention of the traditional interpretation of
nynon Dr (Num. 29, I), i. e. that the "Shofar" (Sifra on
Lev. 25, 9; see Hoffmann, Leviticus, II, 247) is to be
sounded everywhere (except on sabbath; R. ha-shanah
29b) in Israel on that day and seems to have identified
. , I ,
trumpets every holiday at the offering of sacrifices (Num.
10, 10).124 The Karaites also reject the traditional inter-
pretation of n9nn and explain it as loud praises to God
(Hadassi, Alph. 225; 364 (136a) ;;7911, 58a ff.;,7710 and
Lev. 67a; 17958 7778, 48a; 9908, 13; 1135o vrab, 48-9) or
the blowing of ,ותקעתם בחצצרת in Num
.
29
,
I with יום תרועה
114 Nor does Josephus (Ant. III, 10, 2) mention the law of myopo
D16; comp. also Book of Jubilees, ch. 6. The Samaritans, like the Karaites,
reject the traditional interpretation of nylon 01, differing among themselves
as to its meaning; see Geiger, ZDMG., XX, 570; Hanover, Das Festgesets
der Samaritaner nach Ibrahim ibn Jakub, text, pp. X-XI and ib., 28, 68.
Some Karaites take nyinn Oil to mean the blowing of any instrument on
that day (Mibhar, Lev., 426; 179 18, I. c.). Samuel al-Magrabi (MS. 410)
states that ena is the sounding of ḥaşoșrot by priests and, in absence of
authenticated priests and ḥașoșrot. not to be observed now.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
79
as the sounding of 77891 on every holiday (comp. 777 12,
58d; Hadassi, 136a).
The Karaites also reject the traditional interpreta-
tion of W012 od onopby. (Lev. 23, 40) (see Josephus,
Ant. III, 10, 4) and claim that the "four species"
are
for the construction of the “booths" mentioned
in verse 42, deriving support for this view fron
Nehem. 8, 14 ff. See 11, 56ab (where the views of
Anan, Benjamin Nahawendi, and Daniel, al Ķumși are
quoted); Hadassi, Alph. 168 (646); 225-6; 364 (136a);
Mibħar, Lev. 43a; in zno, Lev. 676; 17958 1778, 476
(where the opinion of Jepheth b. Ali is quoted); Pinsker
II, 96; 79Dx, 14; niaba 013b, 34, 49.146 Philo, speaking of
the Feast of Tabernacles (II, 297), makes no mention of
the law of “four species.” Philo, as Treitel (MGWI.,
IGO3, 512) suggests, must have understood verse 40 not as
a separate commandment but," like the Karaites, as pre-
scribing material for the booths.
17. Tradition (Zebahim 5, 8; Maim., 11713 7,6,4)
interprets Lev. 27, 32 to mean that the animal-tithe, 1913 Wyp
,והצדוקים אמרו כי מאלה תעשו סוכות והביאו ראיה מנחמיה :40 ,23
.Ezra on Lev
115 Some Karaites agree with Tradition in the interpretation of onnpa
Dob; see 179 18, 556 and the opinion of Joseph ha-Kohen (I. C., 55d; nha
niin, Lev. 67b; 1705 1778, I. c.).
The Samaritans agree with the Karaites; see Geiger, ZDMG., XX, 544;
Hanover, l. C., 16 and 62 (Hanover, 31, n. 2, relying on the words of Ibn
, : ,
believes that the Sadducees shared this view, unaware that by 'p17871
Ibn Ezra refers, as usual, to the Karaites (see above, note 10); see, how-
M. Duschack, Josephus Flavius u. d. Tradition, 27 and Grätz, III, note 10).
Josephus agrees with Tradition (Ant., III, 10, 5); so also the Falashas
(Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, 162). See also Book of Jubilees 16, 4 and B. Beer,
Buch d. Jubiläen, 47.
116 It must, however, be pointed out that Philo (1. c.), in contradistinc-
tion to Josephus (comp. M. Olitzki, Flavius Josephus und die Halacha, p.
25; n. 31 and p. 50), does not seem to require the construction of special
booths for the Feast of Tabernacles.
80
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
..
ואמרו בעלי הקבלה אין המומין פוסלין בעוף .... והנכון ,har
,
Lev
.
3b
.50 ,
.Lev ,כתר תורה see also ; שאלו הפרשיות למרות זו מזו
like the “second tithe,” is to be eaten by the owner within
the walls of Jerusalem. Philo (II, 234, 391; comp. Ritter,
123; Driver, Deuteronomy, 170, note is to be corrected
accordingly) states that the animal-tithe is to be given
to the priests.11 The Karaites agree with Philo. See Mib-
har, Lev. 510; 7710 773, Lev. 76b.
18. Tradition applies the law of Lev. 22, 19 (D'on) to
animal sacrifices only (Sifra to Lev. I, 14; Menahot ba and
parallels). Philo, as is evident from the reason given by him
for the law of D'An (II, 238) holds that d'on refers also to
1731331 Dinin. The Karaites agree with Philo. See Mib-
, . , )
; , ., 5a.
19. Philo (II, 256; comp. Werke Philos, II, 93, n. I)
states that all the lights of the sacred candle-stick (177138)
were extinguished in the morning. According to Tradition
(Tamid 6, 1; Sifre on Num. 8, 2; Tosefta, Sotah 13, 7;
Yoma, 39aand parallels; comp. also Nahm. on Ex. 27,
20 and Toca fot Menahot 866 s. v. 07391; comp. M. Duschak.
Josephus Flavius u. d. Tradition, Wien 1864, p. 4, which
is to be corrected accordingly) one light was left burning
the whole day (27yon 70). Josephus (C. Ap., I, 22) also
states that the lights were never extinguished (see Ant..
III, 8, 3 that three lights burned in the Temple during
117 So also Book of Jubilees 32, 15 and Tobit I, 6. Ritter, 123 over-
looked that Philo (II, 234) disagrees with Tradition (Bekorot 9, 1) also
in requiring and we to be given from all domestic animals. See also
Schechter, Jewish Sectaries, II, 4, 11. 13-15; comp., however, Hadassi, Alph.
2115
והיה נר מערבי דולק [כל הלילה] מכאן ואילך פעמים דולק
שמעון הצדיק
118 See Tosefta Sotah 13, 7; Yoma 39a; p. ib., 6, 3: Woww 1739 Diz378
[]
7) O'Syd; but see Weiss, Dor, I, 82, note 1, that this refers to pi787 iyon
who lived about forty C. F.: see Maim., C'ECOSYzor, 3, 12 and had loc.;
comp. man in, ed. Wien, No. 309.
.
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
81
daytime!) The Karaites hold, like Philo, that no lights
burned in the Temple during the day. See Mibhar, Exod.
57a and 79177na, Lev. 856.
20. The Karaites reject the ancient traditional law119
that vows made and oaths taken without due consideration
of the circumstances involved may be annulled by a court
as those of a daughter by her father (Num. 30, 5-6) and
that of a wife by her husband (l. C., v. 7 ff.). See Hadassi,
Alph. 139-141, 364 (135a); Mibhar, Num. 29a; mabo wias,
51; comp. also Maim. commentary on Nedarim, ch. 10, end;
יום לפי
שזה אצלינו בערי המערב ר"ל היתר השבועות מעשים בכל
,משנה תורה ,
.and id ;שבמקומינו אין נובעין בהן מים הרעים ר"ל המינות
; , ,
niyin 1507, 12, 12. This seems to be also the view of
Philo who seems to express his objection to the law of
annulment of vows by the statement (II, 273; comp. Werke
Philos, II, 112, n. 2) that "no man is competent to hcal
VOWS. 99120
cannot
119 Weiss (Dor, I, 81) believes that the law of. 01773 onna was inaug-
urated in the time of Simon the Just. This opinion of Weiss is based on
his view (l. C., 80; so alsó Geiger, Urschrift, 31-2) that p1797 11you did not
favor the making of yows; see, however, Rapoport, 7717' mbra, 23 ff. We
do not know whether the law of 1973 na was even contested by the
Sadducees; comp. P. Berakot 7, 2; Gen. rabba 91, 3. Schechter (Jewish
Sectaries, I, XVIII; comp. ib., p. 16, 11. 7-8 and notes) believes that the
sect which he designates “Zadokite" (see above) held that vows
be annulled; comp. also K, Kohler, American Journal of Theology, 1911, 425-6.
120 The later Karaites accepted, with slight modifications, the law of
09972 nnn; see Kaleb Afendopolo's appendix to 17058 0778, Odessa 1873,
It is, however, possible that in rejecting 01773 n907 the early
Karaites, as in several other instances, turned into a law the general
sentiment among the Babylonian Jews during the Gaonic period against the
annulment of vows. Jehudai Gaon (quoted by Nahshon Gaon) states: 7387
;
nipida, ed. Müller, No.
comp. ib., Nos.
117, ; : ,
Nos. 6, 44, 75; hawn ymyw, Nos. 38, 137, 143, 145-6; D1WXT song ingin,
227a ff.
הלכות see ;לא גרסינן נדרים ולא ידעינן לאסר ולהתיר בה לא נדר ולא שבועה
,חמרה גנוזה - ;120
I 22;
82
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
21. The Karaites agree with Philo also in the inter-
pretation of 108 abna Svans (Exod. 23, 19; 34, 26;
Deut. 14, 21) as prohibiting the seething of a kid orby
analogy--of any other animal in the milk of its mother.
See Philo II, 399; comp. Ritter, 128.121 See Hadassi, Alph.
240 (91cd); 3600 (132d); Mibhar, Exod. 47b; on nna,
Exod. 79ab.122 nigbo wab, 41.
22. The law of Ex. 13, 13; Num. 18,15 enjoins the
redemption of the firstling of an ass with a lamb, and that,
if the owner fails to redeem, the firstling is to be kille:1 by
having its neck broken. According to Tradition this law
refers only to an ass but not to the firstling of any other
unclean animal (Mekilta, ad loc.; Sifre on Num. 18. 15;
Bekorot 5b). Philo makes this law apply to all domestic
כך ראינו שאין
: 141
.No שערי תשובה) ,נדורות הללו מי שיכול להתיר נדרים וכ"של שבועות
ed. Horowitz, I, Nos. 12, 14; so also Sar Shalom Gaon:
, (:
09318871 nigion, ed. Lyck, No. 37; see however, ib., No. 11 end; nown'nyw,
No. 48 and 49 998, ad loc.).
12 See Hullin 8, I ff.; Mekilta on Exod. 23, 19; Sifre on Deut. 14, 21.
The Samaritans agree with Tradition; see Geiger, Nachg. Schr., III, 303-4;
Wreschner, Intr.; XXVI. For the view of the ancient Samaritans see
Geiger, 1. C., 305-6 and Nachg. Schr., IV, 66, 126. For the LXX see Frankel,
Vorstudien, 183. The practice of the Falashas agrees with the view of
Philo and the Karaites (Epstein, Eldad ha-Dani, 130, 173; Epstein, l. C.,
129-131 believes that this was also the view of Eldad ha-Dani; but see No.
35 of Eldad's Halakah, ed. Epstein, 121). Against the view of Rapoport
poboa gny, 101a (comp. Ritter. 128) that the law of abna 702 was not uni-
versally known in Babylonia even long after the destruction of the Second
Temple see Halevy, 09312477 1717, IC, 128.
122 For Anan's interpretation of irx abna za Swanses see Harkavy,
gays pa“d, 152, n. 1. For other interpretations of this verse by some early
Karaites see Hadassi, Alph. 240 (91cd); Jacob b. Reuben (Harkavy, l. C.,
155) and Ibn Ezra on Exod. 23, 19. Most of the later Karaites accept the
traditional interpretation of Swan go's; see Geiger, Nachg. Schr., III, 303;
comp. also in 72, Exod. 799; Samuel al-Magrabi, ed. Lorge, 20-22;
.24 , אפריון
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
93
animals (II, 233; Ritter, 119 ff.). This is also the view
of the Karaites. See Anan (ed. Schechter, p. 7, 11. 8-15):
הטמאה (Num
.
15
,
18b) טפי בה הי מ[שום דכתיב ופטר] חמור
תפדה בשה טפי האכא הי לאדעך דעל כל ב[המה קאי] והאיי דפרט
התם בחמור מישום דכל בהמה טמאה [בכלל חמור] דכת' שורך וחמרך
וכל בהמתך אמא מבהמה טהורה שור ומבהמה] טמאה חמר ואמא
בתריה וכל בהמתך באלה [כללה ?] לבהמ[ה טהורה בהדי] שור ולבהמה
טמיאה בהדי חמור ומישום הכיכת' וכל ב[המתך] לאדעך דעל כל פטר רחם
,comp
.
ib
.
,
p
.
8
,
1. I5 H. So also Hadassi ;דבהמה טמאה קאים
ופטר חמר : כי נראה שלא :350
.Exod ,כתר תורה ;204
.Alph
הקדיש מבהמות הטמאות כי אם פטרי חמור לבד וכן דעת בעלי הקבלה
.ובני מקרא אומרים זה הקש לכל בהמה טמאה
renove
,Exod
.
13
,
13
;
comp
.
Ritter) וערפתו Philo omits the law of
123 So also Josephus, Amt., IV, 4, 4. As Olitzki suggests (Flavius
Josephus und die Halacha, 29) this anti-traditional view of Josephus may
be due to his desire to
any suspicion that the ass occupied a
favorable position in Jewish law. This may also account for the view
of Philo. .
(; . ,
120; Olitzki, Magazin, XVI, 178.). Nor do all the Karaites accept the literal
; the opinion of Sahl b. Maşliaḥ quoted in
Mibhar, Exod. 196 (comp. Ibn Ezra, ad loc.). Aaron b. Joseph (Mibhar,
1. and Num. 176) agrees with Tradition that only the ass is to be
redeemed. Comp. also Weiss, Dor, I, SI.
The contradiction between Exod. 13,
see ;וערפתו interpretation of
C.
פטר כל רחם בבני ישראל באדם) 2
and between (לפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו) 19-20 ,15
.and Deut (ובבהמה לי הוא
,27
.Lev
ipso facto
)
and קדוש the firstling is ;... לא יקדיש איש אותו) 26
(by the owner קדוש is to be declared בכור tlie ;... הזכר תקדיש)
.Deut
.
,
2. c
of clean animals בכור עדר led many Karaites to refer Deut
.
15
,
19-20 to
is to be declared בכור פטר רחם which
,
as they believe
,
in contradistinction to
,
, קרוש
. (; ")
. ,
, ,
*177 by the owner and, like the "second tithe," to be consumed by him
within the walls of Jerusalem or redeemed; see Hadassi, Alph. 204-5;
, ; . (. ,
; , 0, , . ,
accordingly). Anan tried to reconcile the above mentioned contradictions
by claiming that the firstling whose conception and birth were while its mother
belonged to an Israelite is w17p ipso facto and to be given to the priests
(. , . , .
by an Israelite only at the time of its birth is to be made *17p by the
Deut
.
19a
(
Ibn Ezra on Deut
.
12
,
17 refers ,כתר תורה ;Mihhar
,
Deut
.
12b
n
.
16
,
is to be corrected ,142 , ס"המ. לענן ,to this Karaite view
;
Harkavy
who was owned בכור Exod
.
13
,
2
;
Lev
.
27
,
26
,
Num
.
18
,
15
)
,
whereas the)
84
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
The Philonian halakah, in general, is a problem still to
be solved. Philo lived in Egypt where as we now know
from the papyri recently discovered in Assuan and Elephan-
tine (Sayce-Cowley, Aramaic Papyri discovered in Assuan.
London 1906; Sachau, Drei aramäische Papyrusurkunder
aus Elephantine, 1908), the Jews were permanently set-
tled in the sixth century B. C. (comp. Schürer. Geschichte
des Jüdischen Volkes, III *, 24 ff.).
Alexander the Great transplanted many Jews into
Egypt in 332 B. C. (Josephus, Bell. Jud. II, 18, 7; Contra
124
See Anan's Book of C011-
וקא [א]מא לי, הוא ואף על גב :(18-ן .11 ,6
.mianduments
(
ed
.
Schechter
,
p
דלא מקדש [יתי]ה וכתב כל הבכור [אשר יולד בבקרך ובצאנך] הז' ת' לייי
אלהיך קא אמא אשר יולד לאדעך דעל בכור [דא]ת[י] לודי ביני יש' קאים ולאו
דמזדרע אזדרועי וקא אמא [תקדיש לה'] אלהיך דצריכת לאקדושיה וקא אמא
בתריה לפני ה' אלהיך [לאודע] לך (?) והאיי בכור דאתילורי הוא דאתיליד ביני
ישי ולאו [דמזד]רע ביני יש' מרואתיה נאכלוה בבית המקדש ... וכת' אך בכור
אשר [יבכו קא א]מא אשר יבנו לי בבהמ' לאדעך דעל בכור דמן כד אזדרע
[בקדוש]תא קאים והינו בכור דמזדרע אזדרועי ביני יש' וקא אמא[לא יקדיש אי]ש
אתו דלא צריך אקדושיה וכי כל פטר רחם לכל בשר [וק] א אמא באדם ובבהמה
; יהיה לך קא אמא לך דבכד מזדרע [אזדרועי ביני] יש! לכהן יהבינן ליה
comp. also ib., p. 8, 11. 15-26 and p. 9, 11. 9-10, 21 ff. Ķirķisani alludes to
this view of Anan (ed. Harkavy, 248) and states that the authority for
this law of Anan was found in of Jannai's liturgical compositions.
,
Harkavy, Studien
Mittheilungen, V, I07,
note,
is to
be corrected
accordingly.
one
1!.
,1oob f
.;
Ritter , ערך מלין ,.id ;128-9 ,נחלת יהודה ,See also Rapoport
124
6, 8-9. Herzfeld, Geschichte, III, 463; Frankel, Vorstudien, 10, and notes;
id., MGWJ., 1852, 40.
On the Egyptian Jews and their relation to Palestine see the literature
quoted by Schürer, l. C., 147 ff., and in Sweet's Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek, Cambridge 1902, 3 ff. In the third and fourth centuries
C. E. there were still some Amoraim in Alexandria; see p. Erubin 3, 9;
p. Kiddushin 3, 14; comp. Frankel,
It may also
be : pointed out that Judah b. Țabbai, to whom the later Karaites (see
above, note 4) ascribe the beginning of Karaism, lived in Alexandria; see
p. Hagigah 2, 2; p.
. 1, , , ff.
, מבוא הירושלמי ,comp
.
Frankel
.774
;34-5 ,דרכי המשנה ,Sanhedrin 6
,
6
;
comp
.
Frankel
.# 474 ,Ic ,דורות הראשונים ,Weiss
,
Dor
,
128
,
n
.
1
;
Halevy
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
85
2U
Ap., II, 4; comp. Schürer, l. C., 35 ff.; 40). The city of
Alexandria early became a great center of Jewish activity,
second only to Jerusalem. The existence of the Temple
of Onias did not affect the loyalty of the Jews in Egypt to
the Sanctuary in Jerusalem (Frankel, Einfluss, 157;
Schürer, 1. C., 147-8). Palestinian scholars often visited
Alexandria (Rapoport, ; p 77, 101b). The Palestinian
interpretation of the Law and the practices in vogue there
were not unknown to them (Frankel, Vorstudien zu der
Septuaginta, 185-186; comp. Halevy, DU077 01717, IC,
127, note; 129, note) and the influence of Palestinian ex-
egesis is patent in that great monument of the Jews of
Egypt, the Septuagint (Frankel, Vorstudien der
Septuaginta; Ueber den Einfluss d. paläst. Exegese auf d.
alex. Hermeneutik; Ueber paläst. und alex. Schriftfor-
schung; but see Herzfeld, Geschichte, III, 548 ff.). Philo,
the great representative of Egyptian Jewry, knew of the
existence of an oral tradition and considered it as binding
as the Written Law (see the references by Ritter, 14-5;
comp. Neumark, Geschichte d. Jüdischen Philosophie des
Mittelalters, II, Berlin 1910, 418, note; see, however, Werke
Philos, II, 289, note).12 He also visited Palestine and there
saw the people living according to that Tradition (Grätz,
MGWI., 1877, 436 ff.). How are we then to account for
the interpretations and decisions in which Philo deviates
from traditional halakah? Are such deviations subjective
opinions of Philo ?128 Do they reflect the actual practices
128 See also Ritter, 16-7. For Philo's eruditio hebraica see the refer-
ences by Ritter, 10, n. 2 and by Schürer, 1. C., 699; comp. aiso L. Löw, Ges.
Schr., I, 7, 303.
126 See Treitel, MGWJ., 1903, 415; but see Ritter, 15-16.
1
85
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
in vogue among Egyptian Jewry or do they go back to a
peculiar tradition ?128
But be this as it may, the fact, which I have attempted
to demonstrate, that in most of Philo's deviations from
Tradition the Karaites hold the same view, points to some
kind of dependence of the latter on Philo, or to common
descent from a particular tradition. The foriner view gains
in probability from the following:
The Hellenic or Alexandrian method of interpretation
of the Scriptures did not remain unknown to the Palestin-
ian teachers of the law and the works and views of Philo
found their way to the Palestinian schools. Moreover,
the general belief that Philo and his works were lost to
the Jews of the Middle Ages until Azariah dei Rossi, about
127 So Ritter 16-17; comp. ib., 28, 63 ff., 90, 93; but see Werke Philos,
II, 48, n. 2; 202, n. 3; 258, n. 1. Frankel (Ober palästinische u. alexandri-
nische Schriftforschung, 32, nu. 6; Einyuss, 157 see ib., 33, n. 9 and pp.
190-201) believes that Philo's exposition of the sacrificial ritual goes back
to the practice of the Temple of Onias; comp. also Grätz, MGWI., 1877,
436; but see Ritter, 109, n. 2; 112.
128 See L. Cohn, Werke Philos I, 14. The view of Büchler (MGWJ.,
L (1906), 706; see also Lauterbach, Jewish Encyclopedia, X, S. v. Philo,
166) that Philo's deviations from traditional halakah represent an
an earlier
halakah (that of Beth Shammai) is still to be proved. Geiger who scanned
Jewish literature and that of its sects for traces of ancient halakah took no
account, as already remarked by Poznański (Abraham Geiger, Leben u.
Lebenswerk, 372, n. 1), of Philo. Philo's deviations from Tradition cannot
be brought into relation with Sadduceeism and the supposed ancient halakah
related to it; comp. Rapoport, photny, 1010.
like the Pharisees (Frankel, Einfluss, 137). He considers (II, 230) like
the Pharisess (Menaḥot 65a) the gian 1977 a public offering; allows divorce
without 737 nigy (Ritter, 70, n. 1) and seems to agree with the Pharisees
also in the law of O'Don Qity (Ritter, 26, n. 1).
129 See Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien, 1, 68 ff.; C. Siegfried,
Philo von Alexandria als Ausleger des Alten Testanient, Jena 1875, 278 ff.;
Weinstein, Zur Genesis der Agada, II, 29 ff.; D. Neumark, Geschichte
der Jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters, II, 70 ff., 84 ff.
ממחרת השבת Philo interprets
KARAITE HALAKAH-REVEL
87
the end of the sixteenth century, reintroduced him in Jewish
literature, is now proved to be unfounded. The tenth
century Karaite, Abu Yusuf al-Ķirķisani, in his work Kitāb
al-anzār wal-marākib (written 937), speaks of a Jewish
Sect named “the Magarites” (neaps). This sect, says
Ķirķisani, sprang up before the rise of Christianity. The ad-
herents of the sect make the biblical passages that speak
of attributes of God refer to an angel who, according to
them, created the world (ed. Harkavy, 304). Among them
are the works of the "Alexandrine" ("87735085N) which
are the best of the "Books of the Cave". (ib., 283). The
same author, speaking of Benjamin Nahawendi whom he
considers the second founder of Karaism, says that Ben-
jamin's belief that an angel created the world is similar to
the view held by the Alexandrine (ib., 314). Harkavy
ingeniously suggested that these “Magarites" are the
Egyptian Essenes, known as the Therapeutae. The “Alex-
andrine" whose works they so highly estimated is no other
than Philo (ib., 256 ff.) and Nahawendi's "Angel" goes
back to Philo's "Logos" (comp. Poznański, REJ., L, 1905,
“Philon dans l'ancienne littérature judéo-arabe," where all
the material is collected and discussed). The view that
some of the works of Philo were known to the Jews in the
eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries—the period of religious
unrest among the Jews and the birth of Jewish religious
philosophy—is shared by many scholars. See Bacher,
JQR., VII, 701; Hirschfeld, ib., XVII (1905), 65 ff.;
Poznański, l. c. (see id., Bergen 9818, III, 128a); Eppen-
stein, MGWI., LIV (1910), 200; D. Neumark, Geschichte
der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters, I, Berlin 1907,
128, 133, 560, 568; II, 372 and 466 ff. Among Philo's
(the "Alexandrine's) works—which, as Ķirķisani informs
88
KARAITE HALAKAH- REVEL
us, were eagerly studied,-might have been those that con-
tain Philo's expositions of biblical laws; Philo thus influ-
encing, not only the theological views of the first Karaite
philosophers (Benjamin Nahawendi and his followers),
but also their interpretation of biblical laws and their
practices.
130
180 The allegorical method of interpretation, characteristic of Philo, was
popular also among the Karaites; see Weiss, Dor, IV, 86 and Poznański,
MGWJ., 1897, 208, n. 1; comp. also H. Hirschfeld, Jefeth b. Ali's Arabic
Conmentary to Nahum, London 1911, 8 and 10 ff. The Karaites' share also
the view of Philo that the Decalogue is the text on which the whole Law
is but a commentary (this view is found also in the later Midrashim; see
the references by L. Löw, Ges. Schr., I, 42. A similar view is found in
p. Sheķalim 6, 1. Reifmann, zielony, I, 350 and Weiss, Dor, IV, 141
are to be corrected accordingly). Saadia Gaon proved to them by it the
possibility of an oral law (comp. Weiss, Dor, IV, 141) and the Karaites
Nissi b. Noah (eleventh century; see lastly Harkavy, yays "o, intr., VII)
and Judah Hadassi (twelfth century) arranged their works, like Philo,
according to this view. Comp. also Müller in Oeuvres complétes, XI, intr.,
XIX; Bacher, Jewish Encyclopedia, X, 583b.
The Karaite Zerah b. Nathan (end of sixteenth century)
much
interested in the works of Philo (Neubauer, Aus der Petersburger Bibliothek,
75, 125). The famous nineteenth century Karaite Abraham Firkowitsch in-
deed asserts that Philo was a Karaite (preface to our mana, 2a), but,
according to him, Jesus was a Karaite likewise (non ohin, appendix to
D'ye yön, 540, 560; Ķirķisani, ed. Harkavy, 305, 9 and Hadassi, JQR.,
VIII (1896), 436 state that Jesus was a Sadducee); comp. I. B. Levinsohn,
79101 nyn, Odessa 1863, 18-9.
was
UNIV, OF MICHIQAN,
SEP 17 1912
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
WELCOME
3 9015 00333 3880
DO NOT REMOVE
OR
MUTILATE CARD
:)