The Great Karaite Debate Part 2

Welcome back. The debate continues. From part one we have seen that no matter how much time has passed, we as Karaites will always be viewed as the 'Fringe', those that somehow just don't belong. It is nothing new, this label of heretic, outsider, mamzer (bastard). It has been shouted by the Rabbanites for a thousand years. What is sad is that in the 21st century none of this has actually changed. We have not grown as a people; we have not become wiser; Judaism is still fragmented by its own prejudices and vices. Now some might voice their opinion that by continuing this ages long debate I am only exacerbating the division further and stirring the discontent beyond reproach. Actually, I view it differently, almost historically in that regard. A thousand years ago when these debates were common place, Karaites and Rabbanites had never been closer. The discussions were healthy, cleansing, even healing. Rabbinical students would study under Karaite teachers and Karaites would attend classes in Sura and Pumbedita. Because at the time, the debates created an appreciation for the views of the other side, if not acceptance. And discussions bred tolerance as a consequence. It was only after the arrival of Saadiah Gaon, with his virulent hatred of all things Karaite that the schism became irreparable. One small man with a huge ego and a passion for violence. If one man can destroy what we once had, then the opposite is also true. One man can restore it as well.


Rejection of the Talmud
Dan Ross attributes all of the Karaite's 'fringe' beliefs to one fallacy on our part. That being the rejection of the Talmud. He goes on to say that although we believe in the same Bible as other Jews, we interpret it differently, further adding that Orthodox Jews rely on formal interpretations as set forth in the Talmud as well as other Rabbinical scriptures, whereas we Karaites accept no other post-biblical writings other than our own. He makes a mocking comment that we prefer the literal Torah, or at least convince ourselves in theory that is what we believe. This is a very myopic view of the schism and also one that could only be voiced by a Rabbanite. To say that we reject the Talmud would imply that at some point we actually accepted it. The premise of Karaism is and always has been that the Talmud was a misinterpretation of Torah and the result of man's desire to alter the unalterable word of God. But this slight of hand propaganda statement that implies that we rejected something that was essentially good is a clever device to implant the concept in people's minds that somehow we did something wrong long ago. Furthermore, the implication that we are the ones interpreting the Bible differently, even though as Karaites we take the words of the Torah and practice them far more literally would be a statement that we are not the ones doing the interpreting. More clever words when he states that the Orthodox Rabbanites rely on formal interpretations. What is a formal interpretation? An opinion that is somehow better or more sacred than someone else's opinion. No matter how you try to enshroud it with pretty words an opinion is still nothing more than a 'personal' interpretation until such time that it can be enforced upon other people. Once it is elevated to that status it becomes a statute, designed and created by men, with no other purpose than to impose the will of one person over many others, and that does not in any way imply that it was correct in the first place. Smuggly suggesting that we only practice the laws of the Torah in theory is another way of saying that we don't and in his opinion only following the Talmud allows a person to practice Torahitic law. If that was actually true, then it would mean for the fifteen hundred years of Judaism prior to the writing of the Talmud that all those Jewish predecessors were only practicing their faith in 'theory'. I would think our ancestors would object vehemently to that inference.

Historical Inaccuracies
Ross as I mentioned has a quaint way of disguising his condemnation of all things Karaite. In a comment regarding Reform Judaism which is still Rabbanite Judaism no matter how you slice it, he says that they are often referred to as 'modern Karaites.' Considering that more orthodox Rabbanites use that comment as an insult of their reform brothers, then it is Ross's way of passing on the insult as well. He qualifies it further by saying that Karaism suvives from more rigid times, the remnant of a heresy which today would be mere dissent. There's that heresy word again.

He attributes the first dissenter to actually put in place an organised religious base as being an ascetic Iraqi named Anan ben David. Further commenting that he only managed a handful of followers in his lifetime because his interpretations made his teachings even more burdensome than Rabbanite Judaism. But because he laid the groundwork he is still considered the father of Karaism. He taught his followers to distrust all authority, even his own teachings, saying, "Search thoroughly in the Torah and do not rely on my own opinion." And that he says was the downfall of Karaism since everyone had their own opinion and no two were in agreement. Only by adopting the doctrine that no single interpretation was correct could they reconcile on any matters. Okay Dan Ross, enough is enough with distortions of this nature. The history is established. Anan ben David was not just some Iraqi nobody. He was the rightful exilarch, a scion of David, the chosen of God because of his royal descent. How you can manage to dismiss his birthright and position in Jewish society amazes me. As an exilarch, even a deposed one, his followers were quite numerous. All those years in prison, placed there by the Rabbis that deposed him because he would not agree with their teachings does not make him an ascetic. He would have been denied worldly pleasures in prison because he wouldn't have enjoyed the freedoms others had on the outside. And if during that time of incarceration he felt that certain pleasures the Rabbi's ensured they enjoyed were a distraction from following the true path of God, who could deny him those sentiments. After all, the indulgement of those pleasures of power by those self proclaimed rabbinic paragons of virtue was what resulted in his illegal imprisonment in the first place. Yes, his immediate followers known as Ananites practiced what was a more burdensome form of Judaism. But then, his other followers, being the Zadokites and the Boethians had been long established prior to his spiritual awakening and they had less strenuous practices that were still by definition Karaite. And let's not misinterpret his teaching which was accompanied by his other comment, "Read the book and if what you read seems good to you, then it is right." Together they outline what he was trying to teach his followers, that only the word of God is righteous. You have your own mind and your own free will to practice the will of God. And no man should let another dictate how that word is to be interpreted because a righteous man with a good heart would understand exactly what was meant and intended. Acceptance of that principle is agreement in itself and is not a contentious issue but a uniting issue when a man comes to understand the will of God. And I guess you forgot the part where Anan migrated to Jerusalem with his followers and established his own synagogue which was a centralized drawing point to all that followed him. So nice try Dan in trying to erase one of the most major events and personalities of Karaite Judaism. You can fool some of the people some of the time but certainly not all the people all the time. And that is the truth.

The Telugu Jews

The following article was sent to me by a member of the Telugu Jewish community as a plea for help, a plea for survival. They made the mistake of looking to the Rabbanite community for aid, thinking that the bonds in Judaism are strong and no Jew would turn his back on another Jew. They have since learned their first lesson regarding the infighting in Judaism. The same infighting that caused the rift between Karaites and Rabbanites centuries ago. Rabbanites are exclusive; their attitude being that in some way they own God. That His love and mercy was only intended for those that listen to the rabbis whom have declared themselves the official spokespersons for heaven. It's an old argument and one that has led to many persecutions because of the failure of Rabbanites to perform as God had instructed them; To deliver His light to the world. God wished that we would be the example to the world that would unite them and bring them all into His fold. Exclusivity obviously is in defiance to God's instruction. This community has been visited several times by Rabbinical scholars and each time turned down from aid in the form of educational tools and Hebrew language aids because to the Rabbis they weren't Jewish enough. As a Karaite I gauge their Jewishness differently. Have they suffered enough; Yes. Have they experienced the prejudice directed against Jews; Yes. Have they persevered in spite of the pressures of conversion and rejection of their society; Yes. Do they celebrate the words of the Tanach to the exclusivity of all other religions; Yes. Well in that case they are Jewish and more so they are Karaite. Help me, help them. I am not looking at adopting them into Karaism but welcoming them back into the Karaite fold. We have left them out in the cold for too long.
Avrom Aryeh-Zuk Kahana

Meet the Telugu Jews of India

Jason L. Francisco, 1995 http://www.kulanu.org/india/telugu_jews.php
(Editor's note: The author, a documentary photographer, is currently living in Detroit and working on a project covering the American “Rust Belt.”)

When I arrived in the villages of rural Andhra Pradesh, in southeastern India, in the summer of 1994 to begin a year of photographing and researching the lives of working families, most people assumed I was an itinerant Christian priest.
Approximately 70 percent of the untouchable communities in coastal Andhra district is Christian, which is to say 30 percent of the entire population. Although the Bible is widely taught, it took me some time to discover the Telugu word for Jews, yudulu, which was not a commonly used word anyway. Most people, including the Christians I came to know, had never heard of Judaism, and seemed to think it was a Christian sect. I figured I was probably the only Jew in the state.
When a friend informed me after several months that a Jewish family was living nearby, I attributed it to communication difficulties. I was shocked when I was greeted with a hearty “shalom” and found a mezuzah on the door of the family’s house. I was introduced to the world of a tiny Jewish community which makes up in effort and desire what it lacks in certainty about its destiny.
Shmuel Yakobi, currently living in the city of Vijayawada, is one of six children of an “untouchable” family. His father was able to enlist himself in the Indian Army during the Second World War, to acquire an education and after the war to find work as a schoolteacher. For generations his family, like virtually all untouchables, worked as farm laborers, sometimes as bonded laborers.
The family had practiced Christianity for several generations, and when Shmuel Yakobi, the oldest, received an education, he decided to become a Christian preacher, which afforded training in English (the language of the Indian ruling classes), as well as a good salary. As his career progressed, he felt a growing disaffection socially and spiritually with his Christian world. In the early 1980s, while still a preacher, he made a trip to Jerusalem, where he encountered Judaism for the first time. He recognized the Jewish people intuitively as his own, and returned to India intent on leaving Christianity and living as a Jew.
Shmuel Yakobi in time convinced his siblings and approximately 30 families in his home village of Kottareddipalem, near Chebrolu, Guntur District, to join him in living as Jews. His two brothers, Sadok and Aaron, became leaders with him in the community. The brothers studied and taught Torah, and began to teach themselves Hebrew with materials Shmuel Yakobi brought from Israel. In two subsequent trips to Israel, Yakobi acquired a beginning knowledge of Jewish customs and prayer.
For economic reasons Yakobi’s formal break with Christianity was long. His financial connections were critical to the building of the community’s synagogue in Kottareddipalem, The House of the Children of Yakob, which opened in 1992. He also founded an independent open university offering correspondence courses in Torah and Hebraic Studies. Calling the community the Council of Eastern Jewry, Yakobi slowly began to navigate what he calls the lost history of Jews in south India.
He believes that Jews migrated from northern India, perhaps Afghanistan or the North-East Frontier region (Manipur, Mizoram) sometime during the 9th or 10th centuries C.E., and settled around the area of Nandial in what were at that time nascent Telugu-speaking areas. He claims currently to be writing a comparative philological study of Hebrew and Telugu, which argues that Hebrew is the unrecognized source of many words in proto-Telugu, the still-unreconstructed Dravidian language that anteceded Sanskritic influences. Yakobi also claims that Telugu Jews for centuries formed a distinct kulam (birth-marriage-occupation group, or as it is often poorly termed, caste). They maintained, he says, distinct customs, eating habits, occupations, and literacy in Hebrew. In my discussions with him, I must say he was cagey and not forthcoming with evidence for these claims. In fact, he provided me no evidence. He is currently unsuccessfully appealing to the Archeological Survey of India to fund investigation.
To the rest of Hindu society, the Telugu Jews, if they did exist historically, were grouped with outcasts, and associated particularly with the Madiga community of untouchables. Thus the community was assimilated into Christianity when colonial missionaries reached the Telugu areas during the British period. Why the community might have been assimilated precisely then, after so many centuries, remains an important question. One provisional answer might be as follows (according to my own reasoning): Scholars of South Asia have drawn a reasonably clear picture of the intensification of economic pressure on the peasantry during the colonial period, which was often extremely severe and widely produced a feudalization of agrarian relations. Such pressure has in many respects not subsided, and it is clear today that poor rural Indians need material and financial relief wherever they can get it. Well-funded and eager Christian missionary groups happily service desperation across India, building homes and schools in exchange for a pledge of loyalty. It seems possible that sheer economic need broke apart a 19th century Telugu Jewish community, driving many of its members to embrace Christianity, along with millions of other poor Indians. However, this remains to be determined.
Is the community actually the progeny of the Lost Tribe of Ephraim, as Shmuel Yakobi believes? I was shown no Hebrew Torah or distinctively Jewish ritual objects, and am under the impression that these have not survived. Neither was I shown genealogies. Most of the artifactual evidence of the community’s history seems to be in the form of folklore, sometimes scraps of folklore, and perhaps linguistic analysis.
My own opinion is that the importance of the community for world Jewry lies not in its history, which cannot be documented. Rather, its importance lies in the spiritual and ethical practice it has developed, which is, to me, within Jewish tradition. Moreover, by being Jews this community challenges other Jews to honor their own Jewish commitments.
Telugu Jews are unquestionably among the poorest Jews in the world. Like other rural Indian untouchables who depend on farm labor for a living, most of the families survive on less than $300 per year, lack access to the most rudimentary health care, lack housing adequate to the seasons, lack balanced nutrition, are easily driven into debt at interest rates as high as 120 percent, from which they never emerge, and become subject to the harassment of thugs and collectors.
I believe that their spiritual efforts, given these pressures, prove central to their lives. Their Judaism is virtually devoid of Talmudic and rabbinic influences. Rather, it focuses on God's sheer power and commitment to His people, and on the ethical imperatives of the Prophets. The community cherishes the Biblical account of the Exodus, and identifies deeply, I would say ardently, with its promise of liberation. This promise forms the backbone of the community’s spiritual life; in group and individual prayer these Jews plead to God for it, demand their right to it, thank God for it, and struggle to be patient for it. For them, the living God delivers signs and responses to their prayers daily, in small ways. Sadok Yakobi, the resident leader of the community, whom the community supports with weekly donations, spends his days moving from hut to hut leading prayer and giving support. Though neither a preacher nor a healer, he tells many stories of having witnessed miraculous healing, as well as small, inexplicable changes of fortune, which he and the community attribute to God’s direct intervention. Sadok is convinced that the power of the community’s prayer and the faithfulness of the God committed to them are responsible for their survival under otherwise insufferable conditions.
The community distinguishes itself from its Christian neighbors by keeping the Sabbath and major Jewish holidays, and following Jewish dietary laws. (Keeping the Sabbath is no mean feat: landlords and factory owners continuously threaten to fire Jewish workers for not working a seven-day week). The more learned members of the community are engaged in ongoing, intensive discussions with one another and with their neighbors about why Jesus is not the Messiah, about the meaning of redemption, and about direct communication with God. These discussions appear to have been vital to the community’s development. They continue as lively spiritual investigations.
I spent three Sabbaths with the community. I studied Torah with Sadok and a group of men in sessions lasting all day. Our sessions were provocative and beneficial to all. Abraham and Reuben Koshi, elders of the community, are dedicated students of Hebrew. Sadok’s son, Yakob, knows rudimentary Hebrew well.
The Sabbath services are original, beautiful and moving, much of them dedicated to song. The congregation poignantly and powerfully sings the Hebrew of the Psalms to Telugu folk melodies. The synagogue itself is a spare structure of bricks, a large room with a high ceiling and a single table on which stands a perpetually burning flame. It is the only brick building belonging to the community (all families live in mud and thatch huts), and people are exceedingly proud. Next door to the synagogue lives a Hindu family which donates its electrical connection to the synagogue on the Sabbath, providing everyone with the pleasure of electricity once a week (an irony much appreciated when I explained that many Jews will not turn on an electric switch on the Sabbath).
Most of the members of the community in Kottareddipalem, as well as a small number of related families living near Ongole in Prakasham District, are eager to integrate into world Jewry.
The community faces religious intolerance, particularly from the local Christian clergy, which uses the emergence of the Jewish congregation to tighten Christian solidarity through anti-Semitism, something they are remarkably quick to learn despite their admitted ignorance of Judaism.
Slowly the community's existence is being recognized by other Jews. In early 1994 three Israeli rabbis visited the synagogue for a day, and this year a group of Israeli tourists visited. Shmuel Yakobi's son has emigrated to Israel and obtained Israeli citizenship. These positive developments were offset, however, by a series of articles from Israeli sources appearing in Indian newspapers in 1994, claiming that the Council of Eastern Jewry considered all Indian untouchables to be lost Jews, and proposed a mass exodus of millions of untouchables to Israel. Yakobi denies these claims, but such rumors are apparently strong enough in Israel to block even tourist visas to Indians.

I was altogether impressed by this isolated community’s Jewish commitment, sincerity and generosity. My respect and admiration for their effort and initiative increased as I came to know the members personally. Whether they are the Lost Tribe of Ephraim or not, they are a young community of devoted Jews, suffering, surviving, practicing what is perhaps a kind of Jewish liberation theology.

When The Truth is A Lie

The following article has just been published by Reb Gutman Locks on the blog pages at http://mysticalpaths.blogspot.com. Just calling it mystical paths should set up alarm bells right from the onset. Mysticism and Judaism as I have commented regarding the Kabbalah are diametrically opposed. And as to be expected, when a Karaite challenges a Rabbanite, presents facts, presents strict Torah interpretation, the Rabbi has no other recourse but to proclaim that all Karaites are hysterical in our proclamation that Rabbinates are liars. And as hysterics, his implication is that the converse is true and in fact all Rabbanites must be speaking the truth. A very old rabbincal trick practiced by the tannim and one which the Aher exposed long ago. My responses are in CAPITAL LETTERS, and though I doubt any Rabbanites will bother to read this blog, at least those that are open minded, true followers of the correct path (not mystical) will see the fallacy of Reb Gutman's argument.

It's a Lie Wednesday, December 02, 2009
by Reb Gutman Locks at Mystical Paths

“It’s a lie!” he shouted. “How can you say those blessings? G-d didn’t command you to do those mitzvahs, the rabbis did!” THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A YES/NO ANSWER BUT AS EXPECTED, SUCH AN EASY RESPONSE WILL NEVER BE FORTHCOMING FROM A RABBI.

He was referring to the blessing we say when we do one of the seven rabbinic mitzvahs. We say a blessing when we do a mitzvah, even if that mitzvah has been given to us by the rabbis. Beside the 613 commandments that are found in the Torah, there are also seven commandments that come from the rabbis. A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF SAYING 'YES' YOU ARE CORRECT. REB GUTMAN DOES STATE THAT THE MITZVAH HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THEM BY THE RABBIS AND NOT BY GOD.

They are:

To light lights for Shabbos,
To light the Hanukkah lights,
To read the Scroll of Esther on Purim,
To recite the prayers of Hallel on holidays,
To recite a blessing for certain types of enjoyment,
To wash hands in a prescribed manner before eating bread,
To construct an eruv to permit carrying to and within public areas on Shabbos,

He explained that he does not have a problem doing those rabbinical commandments, actually he enjoys them. His has a problem with saying the blessing that we say when we do them. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH RABBANITE JEWS PRACTICING TRADITIONS EITHER. BUT AS THE BLESSING IS RECITED, THE PART THAT GOES 'BLESSED ARE YOU GOD THAT HAS ORDAINED US TO DO....' IS NOT CORRECT. IN FACT RABBI GUTMAN HAS ADMITTED EARLIER THAT IT WAS THE RABBIS THAT ORDAINED IT, NOT GOD. SO IN ESSENCE, ATTRIBUTING SOMETHING TO GOD WHICH IS NOT CORRECT IS USING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN BECAUSE IT IS A FALSEHOOD. AND USING GOD'S NAME IN VAIN IS BREAKING OF ONE OF THE SUPREME COMMANDMENTS.

“I do the commandments, but I refuse to lie and say that G-d has commanded me to do them.” IN THIS INSTANCE, THE STANCE TAKEN BY THE KARAITE IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ONE.

The blessing for these rabbinic mitzvahs is the same blessing that we say when we do one of the Torah’s 613 commandments. “Blessed are You, O L-rd our G-d, King of the universe, Who has commanded us…” And then we mention the particular mitzvah that we are doing. ACTUALLY RABBI GUTMAN, IS ARGUING THAT SOMEHOW BY REPLACING THE LATTER PART OF THE ACTUAL COMMANDMENTS BECAUSE HE CONTINUES TO USE THE FIRST PART BLESSING GOD THAT SOMEHOW THIS NEW SENTENCE BECOMES A SANCTIONED COMMANDMENT BY GOD. THE ARGUMENT THEREFORE WOULD ALSO APPLY BY THIS LOGIC TO SOMETHING AS RIDICULOUS AS,"BLESSED ARE THOU, OUR LORD OUR GOD, KING OF THE UNIVERSE, WHO HAS COMMANDED US TO DRIVE AT RECKLESS SPEEDS THUS ENDANGERING THE HAPLESS PEDESTRIANS." JUST BECAUSE THE FIRST HALF OF THE BLESSING IS USED DOES NOT GIVE ANY CREDIBILITY TO THE LATTER PART. WHAT'S TRUE IN ONE CASE IS TRUE IN ALL CASES AND THEREFORE RABBINICAL BLESSINGS CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO GOD. AS WE ARE ALL AWARE, MAN IS INHERENTLY WRONG IN MANY OF HIS JUDGMENTS. SO AS NOT TO APPEAR WRONG, THE RABBIS HAVE USED GOD'S NAME TO SANCTIFY THEIR OWN EDICTS. THAT IS AN ARROGANCE THAT GOD WILL NOT CONDONE.

“G-d didn’t command me to do those seven things. The rabbis did!” He got louder each time he repeated himself. MOST LIKELY BECAUSE THE RABBIS ARE DEAF TO HIS ARGUMENT.

I gave him the standard answers, but he would not budge. STANDARD ANSWERS? IS THERE A BOOK OF STANDARD ANSWERS THAT RABBIS USE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THEIR OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS? WHAT ABOUT GOD'S ANSWER? SHOULDN'T THAT BE WHAT IS IMPORTANT?

“The Torah specifically tells us to listen to the ‘judges in those days’ (our days) and to do what they tell us to do.[i] It even mentions a grave punishment for anyone who deviates from their instructions.” SINCE THE TORAH PREDATED THE JUDGES IN MOST CASES EXCEPT FOR JOSHUA, THIS ANSWER IS NOT FULLY CORRECT. YES, THE JUDGES ARE PART OF THE TANACH BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT IT SAYS EXACTLY AS I EXPLAIN AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE. THERE WAS AN IMPLICATION OF COMMON SENSE THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT BY THE TORAH. WHEN GIDEON SACRIFICED HIS DAUGHTER, DOES THAT MEAN ALL MEN SHOULD DO LIKEWISE. OR WHEN ABIMELECH SLEW HIS BRETHREN SHOULD WE DO LIKEWISE. BETTER YET, WE SHOULD ALL LIVE A LIFE OF DEBAUCHERY LIKE SAMSON. NO, GOD DID NOT TELL US TO DO EXACTLY AS THE JUDGES ORDAINED. IN FACT THE LORD WANTED US TO REMEMBER THAT EVEN HIS APPOINTED JUDGES WERE PRONE TO FALSE PRIDE, ARROGANCE AND HUMAN ERROR. SO IF RABBI GUTMAN HAS THE AUDACITY TO EVEN THINK OF HIMSELF AS A JUDGE WITH HIS 'OUR DAYS' COMMENT, HOW VAINGLORIOUS OF HIM.

He argued, “That line in the Torah is talking about when the Temple was standing. It even says that ‘you shall go to that place.’ These rabbinical commandments came way after the Temple was destroyed. It is a lie to say that G-d commands them.” ACTUALLY THE TEMPLE WASN'T BUILT IN THE TIME OF THE JUDGES. AND THIS ARGUMENT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE RELATED AT ALL TO RABBI'S COMMENT ON THE JUDGES. ANOTHER LITTLE TRICK THAT RABBIS OFTEN USE, BRINGING IN UNRELATED INFORMATION TO CONFUSE THE ARGUMENT.

I tried to explain, “The Torah tells us more than once to listen to our elders, and our elders told us to say these blessings.” It didn’t help. His mind was made up. THE TORAH TOLD THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL TO HONOUR THE PRIESTS AND THE MEMBERS OF THE BETH DIN. THOSE APPOINTED BY GOD AND THROUGH HIS SERVANT MOSES. RABBIS DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL THE POST TEMPLE DAYS,(JUST TO USE GUTMAN'S PREVIOUS STATEMENT) AND CERTAINLY THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THESE SELF PROCLAIMED TEACHERS AS BEING GOD'S APPOINTED ELDERS.

“You are not using your head,” he insisted. “You are just following blindly without thinking. Those commandments were given by man, not by G-d. You are lying if you say those blessings.” He was getter louder as his frustration with me was getting the best of him. “Nothing you can say will get me to believe that G-d told me to say those blessing.” ONE DOES USUALLY BECOME FRUSTRATED WHEN TALKING TO A WALL. A WALL HAS NO EARS, IT HAS NO THINKING PROCESSESS, AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO PROVIDE A REASONED ANSWER. THAT'S ALL HE WANTED AND HIS FAILING WAS IN NOT WALKING AWAY WHEN HE REALISED THE ABILITY TO REASON WAS NOT THERE.

I knew that he would not listen, but I tried anyway, “The Torah tells us to ask our elders, ‘generation after generation,’ not just while the Temple was standing.[ii] If we were to listen to the elders only while the Temple was standing, why would Moshe have also said ‘generation after generation’? LET'S NOT CONFUSE THE ELDERS OF THE BETH DIN WITH THE RABBIS OF TODAY. HOW MANY OF THEM ARE NOW ON TRIAL IN NEW YORK FOR THEIR SCAMMING OF FUNDS. HOW MANY 'SO-CALLED' ELDERS WERE CAUGHT IN THAT BODY PARTS SCANDAL? THESE ARE NOT ELDERS. THESE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN PEOPLE WITH INFLATED EGOS AND THINKING THEMSELVES ABOVE THE LAW. MOSES WOULD BE ASHAMED OF THEM.

“You would not cut down a food-tree because you know that the Torah forbids it. But the command not to cut down such a tree is referring to the time when we are besieging a city.”[iii] Still, you would not cut one down at any time. AS I MENTIONED, IT IS AN OLD RABBINICAL PLOY TO THROW EVERYTHING INTO AN ARGUMENT EVEN IF IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION. RED HERRINGS AS WE KNOW THEM. A PLOY BY DESPERATE PEOPLE IS HOW I REFER TO THEM. I DISCUSS THIS FURTHER AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE.

“You do many things that come from the rabbis. For instance, the Torah tells us to thank G-d after eating, but the rabbis taught us which words to say when we thank Him. You say those words.” THANKING GOD IS A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MAN AND GOD. ONE DOES NOT REQUIRE FORMAL WORDS TO RECITE. THAT MAN THAT IS MUTE CAN STILL THANK GOD WITHOUT UTTERING A SINGLE WORD. IS RABBI GUTMAN IMPLYING THAT ONLY BY RECITING THE RABBINICAL BLESSINGS CAN A MAN BE HEARD BY GOD? DOES HE NOT REALISE THAT IT IS THE HEART WHICH SPEAKS VOLUMES?

He admitted that he is picking and choosing which things he wants to do. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. RABBI GUTMAN HAS TRIED TO REVERSE THE ARGUMENT AND IMPLY THAT THE QUESTIONER IS SOMEHOW THE ONE REWRITING THE TORAH.

I went on, “But, if you want real proof that G-d agrees with those rabbinical blessings, look at the holiness that we experience when we do those mitzvahs. You do not deny that lighting Shabbos candles and doing these other mitzvahs brings holiness. A TRADITION IS NOT THE SAME AS HOLINESS. WHEN THE RABBIS IN WORLD WAR TWO ADVISED THEIR CONGREGATIONS TO NOT RESIST THE NAZIS, TO DO NOTHING TO SAVE OUR OWN LIVES, BECAUSE GOD WILL SEE OUR PLIGHT AND BY HIS OWN HAND SAVE US, WAS THERE HOLINESS IN OBEYING THOSE RABBINICAL INSTRUCTIONS. WAS THERE A MITZVAH BY NOT RAISING A HAND IN VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANOTHER MAN. LET US NOT MISTAKE THE INSTRUCTIONS OF RABBIS FOR MITZVAHS. A TRADITION OF NON-VIOLENCE LED TO SIX MILLION DEATHS. LIGHTING OF CANDLES AT SABBATH IS NOTHING MORE THAN THE LIGHTING OF CANDLES. YOU DO IT AS A TRADITION, WHETHER RIGHT OR WRONG. DOES IT BRING HOLINESS? ASK THOSE OF ALL THAT LIT THEIR CANDLES AND PERISHED NONETHELESS. THERE IS NO MITZVAH.

“Well, only G-d can ordain holiness. The holiness that we experience when we do those rabbinical mitzvahs is absolute proof that G-d approves of them, and that He approves of the blessings that we say when we do them.” FINALLY AN ACCURATE STATEMENT FROM RABBI GUTMAN. 'ONLY GOD CAN ORDAIN HOLINESS.' THEN HE TRIES TO PULL A FAST ONE SAYING THAT SINCE HE EXPERIENCES HOLINESS FROM DOING RABBINICAL MITZVAHS THEN GOD MUST APPROVE. OF COURSE, THAT'S LIKE A CRIMINAL SAYING HE GET'S GREAT SATISFACTION FROM THE CRIMES HE COMMITS. THEREFORE WHAT HE DOES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LAW. THE FACT IS THAT IT ISN'T. AND THAT'S THE TRUTH!

[i] Deuteronomy 17:8-12 ACTUALLY RABBI GUTMAN, THIS READS TO HEARKEN TO THE PRIEST, THE LEVITE OR THE JUDGE, I DON'T SEE WHERE IT MENTIONS YOU OR YOUR COLLEAGUES. AS KOHEN, I WOULD THEREFORE SUGGEST MY RESPONSES SUPERCEDE YOURS.
[ii] Deuteronomy 32:7 A VERSE THAT APPLIES TO THE DAYS OF OLD. ASK THE ELDERS AND THEY WILL TELL YOU OF THE OLDEN DAYS; OF HOW THINGS WERE BACK THEN. NOT OF HOW THINGS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TODAY. A VERSE THAT IN APPLICATION IS FAR MORE KARAITE THAN RABBANITE. THANK YOU RABBI GUTMAN FOR BRINGING IT TO MY ATTENTION.
[iii] Deuteronomy 20:19 AS I MENTIONED A VERSE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. NEXT TIME I LAY SIEGE TO A CITY I WILL REMIND MY WARRIORS NOT TO CHOP DOWN ANY TREES. BUT FOR NOW, WHEN I LAY SIEGE TO THE FORTRESS OF RABBINICAL WISDOM I WILL REMIND MY FOLLOWERS THEY MUST NOT ABANDON OR CHOP DOWN THE TORAH (THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE) WHEN MAKING OUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THOSE THAT HAVE LONG FORGOTTEN THE TASTE OF THE ORIGINAL FRUIT.

The Great Karaite Debate Part 1

In the old days it was not unusual for a Karaite scholar to sit across from a Rabbanite clergy and debate the essential differences between our two sects. Those days are sadly gone becuase with our dwinding population, there is no longer a concern that as Karaites we will persuade the mass of Jews to switch their theological allegiance to our view. As Yakov Kahana and Judah Loew continue the ancient debate in Shadows of Trinity (http://www.eloquentbooks.com/ShadowsOfTrinity.html) it is obvious that the Rabbanites have dismissed any concerns regarding Karaites. That being the case, the Rabbis are no longer worried that we represent a threat to their coveted authority and therefore they no longer believe there's a need for direct debate. Essentially its a form of contempt but that is nothing knew from those that have always held us in low regard. But that's fine since there are enough recent literary discussions regarding their views of Karaism that I can take my proper place in my third great grandfather's shoes and challenge them through the utilisation of their own media releases. Dan Ross's Acts of Faith which is subtitled "A Journey To the Fringes of Jewish Identity" provides you with the author's attitude before opening the book cover. Already labelled as a fringe of Jewish identity, the implication is already implanted in the reader's mind. What else do we associate with 'the Fringe?' There's lunatic fringe, societal fringe, the paranormal Fringe television series, outsider's fringe, religious fringe, being on the fringe, in fact almost all have negative connotations except for one which is fringe benefits. But even then it is an implication that the benefits are outside the so-called norm.


The True Heretics
Ross begins his chapter with the comment that Karaites benefitted in World War II from the Nazi obsession of who was a Jew and who wasn't. The implication is that somehow all Karaites escaped the death camp because the Nazis were confused by our origins. Yes, there were many that survived the persecution because the Nazi Home Office was persuaded that Karaites were all of Tartar origins and therefore did not meet their definition of who was a Jew. But at the same time, many of the death squads never bothered to try and sift through the Jews in the communities they were assigned to cleanse. It was too much of a bureaucratic nightmare and when it became time to round the people up and shift them out it was done with big nets that didn't descriminate. Those in my family taken from their homes in Vienna and sent to die at Thereisenstadt certainly didn't have an identity card that said "we are Karaite." It didn't matter. And when Dr. Rikhail Iosefova Goldenthal refused to leave off her medical administrations to the Jews in Odesssa being abused by the Nazi occupiers, it was far more expedient to kill her than keep sending her warnings to stop. So yes, there were some stories of leniency in Romania, the Ukraine, etc. that meant that even the Final Solution would never have been final since there would have been survival of some Karaites but to suggest that somehow in general we were left completely untouched by the Nazi oppression and death camps is a complete falsehood.

Ross makes it clear that he sees the Karaites as something outside Judaism, not part of it. He says we practice a truncated form of Judaism, rejecting the Talmud and other rabbinical writings. That we all claimed to be from Tartar tribes who adopted a Jewish like religion and we all spoke a Tartar dialect. Yes, the genes for blonde hair and blue eyes run in my family. Three of my four children have blonde hair and blue eyes, but that does not make myself or them any less descendants of Semitic stock than any other Jew. Tartar dialect, no, but Arabic spoken in the family, yes but not since the passing of Jakob Goldenthal in 1867. What would have been more accurate was to suggest that Karaites were probably more likely to adopt the dialect of the land in which they lived and use it more commonly than Yiddush or Hebrew in every day life. And not only did we adopt the local language but often the local dress code as well, appearing more like the general population than the Ashkenazi Jews that surrounded us. Did that make us Tartar? No, that made us in many ways more progressive even though the accusation was that our practices were archaic and that we as a people were trapped in a time warp. To infer that our Judaism was truncated also suggests that in some way it is incomplete. And rejected the Talmud and rabbinical writings implies that somehow we turned away from something that is right or unquestionable. How about expressing it more correctly in that we only follow what was given to us by God and we are unwilling to accept the writings of men that have often twisted or corrupted the original words. What we have been accused of rejecting is nothing more than a commentary and implying that by doing so we have rejected part of the religion is not only false and misleading but displays an arrogance that is the hallmark of Rabbanite Judaism.

Ross qualifies his non-Jew statement by saying that this was the claim made by the Karaites themselves but most non-Karaite scholars knew they were Jews but just happened to be heretics. Once again we are being labelled with the term 'heretic'. How is it that disagreeing with Rabbanite interpretations makes us heretics? Logic would say that those that have insisted there is a need to interpret and twist the words of the Torah to suit their own end would be the heretics. A heretic is one that rejects the original word and sees a need to interpret it in a different way. That being the case, then the Rabbanites are actually the heretics. Rather than having endured this accusation for a thousand years, my Karaite brethren and ancestors failed to reverse the accusation and call a spade a spade. We were the orthodoxy, they were the heretics and we permitted them to brand us incorrectly.

The Census
At the time Ross wrote his Chapter he siad there were about ten thousand Karaites living in Israel. He could not give exact numbers because Karaite Law forbids their being counted in a census. Funny that, I thought that was Tanach Law. That God instructed his prophets to condemn any King in Israel that tried to take a census. That he forbade Jews from doing so as no man was to know the actual count of the Children of Israel. They were to be like the stars in the heavens; innumerable. Thus, an ordination from God is now being accused of being a Karaite Law as if we were in the wrong. Very peculiar.

Ross then states that Karaite status under Israeli law is ambiguous. That they are considered Jews but have their own rabbis, chief rabbinate, national council, kosher slaughterers, mohels, and religious courts. And then makes the statement that they are not legally permitted to marry other Jews. I fail to see the ambiguous part. Having our own religious structures and religious services should not implay in any way that our status as Jews is doubtful. The Rabbanite orthodoxy, conservative and reform movements all have their own councils, teachers and practices and no one is accusing any of them of being of an ambiguous status. And as far as I understand it, the illegality of Karaites marrying a Rabbanite Jew is imposed by the Rabbanite orthodox courts insisting that a Karaite must abandon his/her centuries old faith and become a Rabbanite in order to marry. Ambiguous? Sounds prejudicial and smacking of religious intolerance. There is nothing ambiguous about it. In fact it is all very obvious.

The ground work is now laid for this debate. Over the next few articles I will challenge statements made by Dan Ross in his book. Hopefully it wil invite comments from both sides. The hiatus is over. It is time for Karaites to rechallenge the old accusations and let the world know that we are a presence and we do not intend to fade away.

The Karaite Marriage Ceremony

Probably one of the most traditional and beautiful customs amongst Karaites is the marriage. Long before the actual ceremony, the traditions come to the forefront as future groom and bride prepare for the wedding. Before any announcement, the two families will come together and the dowry will be negotiated. By tradition the dowry could be as large or as small as the two families decided but whatever the endowment it must include the following items; a Persian carpet, copper pots and pans and a heavy copper mortar. Of course the items could vary, stainless steel instead of copper, but essentially these three items met the requirement of a warm home, good food, and the bread of life. When my wife and I married, probably the most cherished item we brought into our household was our Persian carpet. All these years later and I still can't help admiring the handiwork. According to the story, it had actually been ordered by the Shah of Iran. Within the intricate design are ayatollahs hiding behind columns and vases, leering out at all that dare to tred upon the depiction of palacial scenery. I had been told that the Shah wanted a carpet that made a statement, of how he could wipe his feet upon the ayatollah. As history has proven, that was not the case and the carpet was never delivered to him. Instead it ended up in our home where it does provide the warmth and comfort of its traditional values. As for the mortar, it was ceramic and although it's buried in a cupboard in the kitchen, I don't think my wife would even know what to do with it if she had to use it. Grinding grain has definitely become an art of the past and I would not even dare to ask that it be revived. Ground grain comes in a bag now and its my daughter that enjoys baking bread.

The Announcement
Once the negotiations between the two families were completed the invitations were sent out. In traditional Karaite families these were rarely in Hebrew. Most often in either the language of the land or in Arabic. Rather than hold the engagement party in a hall, or synagogue, the affair was usually held at the home of the future bride. The family did all the cooking, not caterers and it was always designed to be a wholesome meal, not a display to make the cover of Cuisine Weekly.

One week before the actual wedding the brides family would hold a trousseau party, where they would put on display all of the future bride's gifts to the new home. Linens, covers, blankets, towels and drapes, all usually hand made and intricately designed, a display of the bride's own handiwork. The meal served usually consisted of fried fish as the food of choice and this was served with a variety of breads. Simplicity was the theme, far different from the one upmanship that seems to be the nature and theme of bridal showers today. At the end of the party, the trousseau would be delivered to the new home or the groom's parent's home. Very often this delivery was accompanied by pomp and ceremony in the form of a parade with gaiety, dancing and music.

The Wedding
The defining moment of any religion is the wedding ceremony. For every sect, culture, or ethnic group the wedding ceremony is distinct and unique. The traditional ceremony amongst Karaites is no different. In eastern Europe and probably most other Karaite Communities there was no wedding hall. Synagogues servicing the communities weren't the large and elaborate structures they are now. They were houses of prayer, not dining halls and certainly not places for dancing and celebration. For the purpose of a wedding community centres, town halls and even a tent had to do. The groom would arrive first, ensure that everything was alright and await his bride who would arrive much later accompanied by her entourage consisting of family, friends, and bridesmaids. Unlike the Rabbanite weddings, the bride was not hidden away but put on public display, often arriving in an open carriage just like a queen, for on this day she was royalty.

The Hacham (leader of the community) would conduct the ceremony beginning with the oath of the Covenant taken on Mount Sinai, the groom would repeat. Then the Laws of Mount Horeb would be recited and once again the groom would repeat these. Then the father or brother of the groom would read out load the Ketubah or marriage document. First in Hebrew then in Arabic. Unlike the Rabbanite weedings the ketubah was not in Aramaic. The bride on the left and the groom to the right would stand up and a single talit (prayer shawl) would be placed over their heads. The talit was a gift from the bride to her future husband, the union beneath it signifiying the household she would provide to her future family. Accepting this union, the groom would place the wedding ring upon his bride's finger and recite "Ani ledodi l'oylum va-ed". "I am my beloved's forever." This would be followed by the seven blessing recited by the Hacham. As he says the blessing over the wine, he then sips it, handing the silver goblet to the groom to sip and then the bride. This is followed by a blessing for the newly wedded couple, followed by lowering the talit to their shoulders so that their heads were bared. Even though this is a happy time, the Hacham would say, "They left, those that escaped from the sword," and then, "Do not let me forget thee Jerusalem." It was a reminder that even at this happy occasion we are still exiles living in a foreign land. Another blessing for the bride and groom and then one for all the guests. As the now wed couple stepped away from the Hacham, the guests would break out into song and shouts of joy. No breaking the glass, this was a time of building, uniting, and strengthening, not destroying.

The following morning after the wedding, women would be sent in to the newlywed's house. They had a specific mission they had to conduct in order for the wedding to written into the Religious Court's registration book. They had to bear witness that the marriage had been consumated. In all there had to be ten witnesses to attest to this fact. Let us remember the times past and celebrate the future. As a people let us take joy in the traditions of our past but more so let us celebrate our future.

Karaite Antiquities

Just to do something a little different this time, rather than explore a philosophical point of difference I thought I would provide an insight into ancient historical differences. Since Karaim are descendants of the Sadducean party and Rabbanites the descendants of the Pharisaic party, then it's only natural that we find the sources of conflict between our two sects deriving from differences that began over two thousand years ago. Some disagreements within a family just never get resolved and this certainly was one of those.

Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews 12:297 wrote, "The Pharisees transmit to the people some rules in line with the fathers which were not written in the laws of Moses. And because of this, the line of the Sadducees reject these things. They say that it is necessary to hold those rules that have been written but it is not necessary to observe what is only from tradition. And as a consequence, controversies and great disagreements have occurred between them." What is clear that even way back then, the Pharisees or Rabbanites were well aware that there was no basis in Torah for these traditions. In fact, there was a distinction between what came from Moses and what was merely a family tradition passed down by fathers to sons. How old the tradition was, how appropropriate, or even how legal was never established by the Pharisees and for that reason the Sadducees rejected them outright. As we are all aware in today's society, traditions can be established within a generation or two merely through exposure and have nothing to do with the actual ordained practices. Take for example a movie night or a games night that families establish. Carry that on through a few generations and the grandchildren will think that their ancestors had been playing Monopoly on a Friday night ever since the dawn of civilization. They would not know any differently and they would come to believe that those that did not do similar on a Friday night were mistaken or misguided. From Josephus's own recordings of two millennia ago we can see how the dispute between Karaites and Rabbanites originated. The great disagreements he refers to could only have arisen when the Pharisees refused to acknowledge that their adopted traditions had no basis in Torah or written law. When they recongnized their arguments were not persuasive the transition from Traditions of My Father, to Traditions from Moses occurred, thereby making claim to a Godly origin to these later day traditions.

Manifest Destiny

Destiny was a peculiar concept way back at the time of the Roman occupation. To those that were God fearing, it would have been hard to understand why pagans were allowed to occupy the land and brutalize its citizenry. To the common people, it was not appreciated by them that the Sadduceans were telling them that it was their own fault. That God had nothing to do with the occupation as he does not get involved in the politics of man. Their suggestion to the people was that if they wanted to change their desitiny, then it was a matter of their own choice. Each man was allowed to act according to his own decisions. If the people wanted to break the yoke of the Roman occupation then they merely had to find the middle ground to preserve their culture and heritage while satisfying the Roman occupiers. As history had demonstrated repeatedly, eventually the occupying powers disintegrate and disappear and the people would survive with their freedom in tact. The Sadduceans also emphasized that suvival during one's lifetime was paramount; that there was no afterlife or permanence to the soul. God's reward to mankind was life itself and to waste it was the greatest sin. To the common man, many of whom were led to believe that to martyr or throw away that life there would be a greater reward in doing so, this statement from the Sadducees did not sit well.

So where did this obsession with martyrdom come from? The Pharisees seized upon this hatred for Rome and willingness to sacrifice their lives as an opportunity to sway the masses to their way of thinking. They told the people that to keep what God wished to counsel was worth fighting for and dying for. They advised that all was determined by destiny and that God counselled the will of men rather than let man have free choice. That meant that God knew that if he counselled them to fight off their oppressers then he had to promise an immortal soul that obtained an existence under the ground where the dead were either rewarded or punished. Those that were unrighteous, (ie. did not fight to defend God's words) were given eternal punishment but the righteous, they were promised a new life following resurrection. Inspired by this promise of eternal life, and reward for fighting against the Romans, the Pharisees led the people into one of the great travesties that ever affected the Jewish people. Not only were we killed in the hundreds of thousands, but thousands of others were sold into the slave markets, dispersed across the face of the Empire until Israel was practically depleted of its Jewish population. Everything that befell us as a people following the dispersion was a result of this Pharisaic delusion of the common people.

Accusations Against the Sadducees

Rather than confess to their own responsibility in causing the tragic events that plagued the Jewish people for two thousand years following the Roman Jewish War, the rabbis cast all the blame upon the then powerless Sadducees. As these rabbis wrote their Talmud, they incorporated the following into the Tosefta, Menahot 13:21;

Abba Saul ben Betnith and Abba Jose ben Johanan of Jerusalem say, "Woe to me from the House of Boethus! Woe to me from their rods! Woe to me from the house of Kantheros! Woe to me from their pens! Woe to me from the House of Ananias! Woe to me from their house of whispers! Woe to me from the House of Elisha! Woe to me from their pens! Woe to me from the House of Ishmael ben Phiabi! For they are high priests and their sons are treasurers and their sons-in-law officers! And their servants come and beat us with staves!"

Of course with the fall of the temple, the demise of the priestly families, the Rabbis could say and write whatever they wished. Laying all the blame for what befell the Jewish people at the feet of the now defunct priesthood was their way of telling the people, "Not our fault." But historically it was their fault. And all the denial in the world isn't going to gain them the forgiveness of the millions that died as a result of their pursuit of power.

But the descendants of the Sadducees still existed and they were well aware of the truth and they were not about to remain silent. Eventually even the people began to reexamine their plight and realize that what had befallen them was not a result of the the Sadducean teachings but the radical teachings of the Pharisees. Had they adhered solely to the Torah, they would have found the path through the Roman Empire and life would have continued fairly normally for the next several hundred years as it had done under the Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Seleukids etc. To counter this doubt developing amongst the people the Rabbis became extremely antagonistic against those holding Sadducean beliefs. Rabbi Eleazar of Modi'im proclaimed, "He who profanes holy things and spurns the set times, he who exposes his collegue in public, he who voids the covenant of our father Abraham, he who discovers parts of the Torah contradicting our Oral Laws, he has no share in the world to come, even if he is an upholder of the Torah and a doer of good deeds." This they incorporated into their Talmud as a new law found in Mishna Abot 3:12. Translated, what it means is that the Sadducees and later Karaites were to be considered heretics and rejected from the Jewish community. Even though we were upholders of the Toran and as he admitted, good people, the fact that we did not accept the calendar and timing of the holy days set by the Rabbis, and would dare to expose their mistakes in public by showing how the Torah contradicted their Oral Laws in so many places, we were degenerates and this meant banishment. It is still with this attitude that the Rabbanites accuse the Karaites of not being Jews. And it is stil with this attitude that the Jewish people are made to suffer because they are under the influence of those whom admittedly want to put a hedge around the Torah thereby isolating the people from the rest of the world (Mishna Abot 1:1). But even though the Rabbis tried to coerce the people not to listen to the voice of Sadducean descendants, they were unable to stop free thought from manifesting itself in at least part of the population. And as the kernel of truth began to grow, Karaism was born and once again we are determined to be a voice that spreads the truth.

The Idolators

Abodah Zarah?” you ask, “Isn’t that from the Talmud?” Yes it is. “But isn’t it about idolators?” you continue. And once again I say, “Yes it is.” But more importantly it is using what the Rabbanites have given us to support our beliefs as Karaites and to understand that all along the Rabbis acknowledged that Karaism was the correct path but they knew to say so would be to write themselves out of a profession that had proven to be very lucrative for themselves. After all, where can you sit around, debate the Torah so that you can write volumes of material on how God didn’t really mean what He said and be paid for it through the community purse so that you never have to really work a day in your life?

Talmudic Truths

So what does it say in Abodah Zarah? Well in it Rabbi Levi says, “He who discontinues [learning] words of the Torah and indulges in idle gossip will be made to eat glowing coals of juniper, as it is said, They pluck salt-wort with wormwood; and the roots of juniper are their food.” That sounds an awful lot like he’s condemning his fellow Rabbis for what they’re doing in regards to their writing the Talmud. Arguing that the words of the Torah are wrong in some cases and therefore have to be discontinued then engaging in years and years of debate which took on the form of idle gossip. So well said Rabbi Levi, you are in agreement with our Karaite point of view.

And let’s not forget what Resh Lakish had to say. “ To him who is engaged in the study of the Torah by night, the Holy One extends a thread of grace by day, as it is said, By day the Lord will command his loving kindness, and in the night his song shall be with me.” No mention of studying the Talmud because it’s only the Torah that the Holy One recognizes. Well put, Resh Lakish.

Now Rabbi Hinena b. Papa pointed to the following contradiction he claimed existed in the Torah. He said, “Scripture says, as to the Almighty, we do not find him [exercising] plenteous power, yet it says, Great is our Lord and of abundant power and also, Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power!” In their self proclaimed wisdom the Rabbis declared that there was no contradiction as the former referred to the time of judgment, while the latter referred to a time of war. This is amazing that this group of men could actually fixate when God was omnipotent and when he wasn’t. Personally I think they would have been far wiser to proclaim that God exercises His glorious power at His own discretion. We are not privileged in knowing the time nor place that will be. But not these Rabbis for they see themselves on a level far above the rest of us and they know these things. Idolatry, as Abodah Zerah refers to, perhaps they were thinking this in respect of worshipping their own greatness.

But this is not the only example of their own arrogance. Rabbi. Hama b. Hanina pointed to another contradiction that he found in the scripture saying, “Fury is not in me, yet it also says, the Lord revengeth and is furious!” Once again his fellow rabbis declared that there was really no contradiction as the former referred only to Israel and the latter to idolaters or in this case the rest of the world. Personally, I thought it was always the opposite. God could be more forgiving of the rest of the world because they did not have the Torah, whereas Israel did and therefore should know better before it transgressed. Did they really believe that Israel could misbehave and God would not respond? Any parent know that you will discipline your own child far more harshly than you would someone else’s child left in your care. Firstly because your own child should know better and secondly you can’t expect someone else’s child to know your rules.

Of course this belief that we will not be punished for our sins like other nations is part of the teaching of Rabbi Alexandri who explained, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, ‘When I judge Israel, I do not judge them as I do the idolaters concerning whom it is said, I will overturn, overturn, overturn it, but I only exact payment from them [little at a time] as the hen does her picking.’” This is confirmed by what R. Abba said, “Though I would redeem them, yet they have spoken lies against Me? I thought I would redeem them by depriving them of monetary possessions in this world, so that they be worthy to merit the world to come.” You would think by now today’s rabbis would admit how wrong these sages of the past were. In fact Israel suffers far more at the hand of God because we are intended to be God’s instrument to show the rest of the world what He expects. When we falter in that purpose we actually are creating a far greater sin than those that do not have the benefit of his guidance.

And let us not forget what benefits these sages of the past expected for their show of holiness. As it is recorded in the Talmud, Rabbi Abbahu commended Rabbi Safra to the Minim as a learned man, and he was thus exempted by them from paying taxes for thirteen years.” That sounds like quite the benefit. Considering all the suffering the prophets endured in order to pass on God’s words, it’s not too shabby a deal these rabbis were expecting. But what is even more interesting is when the men of the Minim encountered Rabbi Safra on the road. The Talmud records, ‘One day, on coming across him, they said to him; ‘It is written: You only have I known [or loved] from all the families of the earth; therefore I will visit upon you all your iniquities; if one is in anger does one vent it on one's friend?’ But he was silent and could give them no answer; so they wound a scarf round his neck and tortured him. When R. Abbahu came and found him [in that state] he said to them, Why do you torture him? Said they, ‘Have you not told us that he is a great man? he cannot explain to us the meaning of this verse!’ Said he, ‘I may have told you [that he was learned] in Tannaitic teaching; did I tell you [he was learned] in Scripture?’ And there you have it! An admission that the sole purpose of the recommendation was to receive a tax break. Rabbi Abbahu concealed the fact that Rabbi Safra didn’t even know or understand the Torah. This shameful behaviour was typical, yet the Jewish populace were led to believe that these men held the future of Judaism in their hands. How can those that don’t even know scripture be placed in a position to lead? As you have come to realize, only Karaite Jews have never abandoned the Torah and preach that the wiseman’s reward for teaching the Torah is God’s love; not tax breaks as was obviously the motivation in this story.

Why Karaism, you might ask once again. Because as I will continue to show you, everything in the Talmud supports that it is truly God’s direction to believe so.

Moses's Beautiful Black Wife

The Rabbis say that we Karaites don't have the oral traditions to sustain ourselves through the changes of society and civilization. I've always had difficulty accepting that comment considering that we are still here almost 1300 years after our establishment as a distinct entity. True, we never bothered to incorporate what Rabbinical Judaism called the "oral" or unwritten laws into our faith, primarily because when God told Moses to assemble 70 judges to write the laws down, he presented them as complete and immutable, so anything referred to as the "oral laws" were not from God but the interpretations of men. Men who would bend the laws to suit their own purpose. So the accusation that we are lacking the oral laws is most definitely true but I can assure you that we are certainly not lacking our oral traditions, legends and history. This we have meticulously preserved for countless centuries. The story I'm about to present is one of these. It is an ancient tale, that even though Rabbinical Judaism is aware of it, they have strived to make it vanish because in many ways it is contrary to what they wish their followers to believe. It is about a very beautiful princess that followed her husband along the Exodus from Egypt to the land of Canaan. For the most part she has been obliterated from the Five Books of Moses except for the rare reference but there were other books and these existed outside the control of the Rabbis and they have survied. And together they tell a story that is well worth reading.

The Background

Over the years I have had the pleasure of rabbinical detractors saying to me, "Where's your proof?" Their implication being that the stories and tales that I either blog about or write in my series of novels known as the Kahana Chronicles are the fabrication of a very fertile mind. Even though you will notice that many of the hubs that I produce on this site have pictures of the books and pages that I cite my material from, they still find it difficult to accept that the world is not as they have grown up to believe but that history is filled with many paradoxes and editors that have been quite brutal in removing what they did not find suitable to their own tastes. Probably the greatest of the editors was Ezra the Scribe because he was arrogant enough to edit the Torah to suit a political agenda. Now that's a comment that might even offend my Karaite brethren because as you know, we built our entire faith on the Tanakh and to now have its authenticity questioned is paramount to being blasphemous. Let me qualify my statement by saying that he only dared to make minute changes to suit his agenda and that these changes suited more the Pharasaic movement that developed two centuries later than it did the Saddukim upon which we base much of our belief structure. Returning from exile in Persia, Ezra and the aristocrats that accompanied him wished to exert control over a population that for roughly two generations had continued in their absence to live and thrive in Israel and Judea. And as we know from our own past couple of centuries the best way to control a population is at first to divide it so that various factions are set one against the other. The unification that follows is stronger because the dominant faction has removed the dissenters and those politically opposed to the new order. It was no different back then. The population that had never been exiled to Babylon, the poor and lower class Judeans, the Samaritans, the native Canaanites, Edomites and other mixed races would never fully be unified with a re-emergent Judean state. It would take years, perhaps generations before they would be fully integrated and in the process Ezra feared they would dilute the Judaism that he wished to reinstitute; A Judaism that had been "purified" by the rivers of Babylon and coincidentally where he had asserted himself as the Kohen Gadol or the Chief High Priest.

And herein lies the great division of Rabbinates and Karaites. In order to remove the element of society that he feared in his mind would be the greatest proponent of moral and religious decay he forbade anyone that had taken a foreign bride to belong to the Jewish community. Inheritance of faith had become maternal to the exclusion of paternal lineage by the reading of a single edict. But who's edict was it? God's? Certainly not. It was Ezra's and the Pharasiac party that followed and the Rabbinical parties that followed that. As strange as it seems Ezra as a Kohen, a distant relative of my own blood actually passed an edict that ultimately fragmented Judaism centuries later and turned it away from its primary goal, to be a light unto the world encouraging others to seek that light and convert them to what was the only monotheistic religion at that time. And his decision most certainly had a political overtone that outweighed its religious motivation. There already was a ruling class left behind in Judea and Samaria. They were the House of Sanballet and the Tobiads. Families that had a historic right to claim leadership of the land. And there was a priesthood as well; the descendants of Mehsullam who were also legitimate Kohenim from the 24 families chosen by King David. But there was one element this pre-existant leadership all had in common; according to Ezra Chapter 9 they had all taken wives from the various people that inhabited the land who were not Jewish. Coincidentally it was the princes that had returned to Jerusalem with Ezra that lodged the initial complaint. What better way to eliminate the ruling class that had remained behind. As we know from Ezra Chapter 7:26, Ezra had been given ultimate power by the King of Persia. He had been given the authority to put any man that wouldn't follow his edicts to death or banishment or the confiscation of his property or imprisonment. A lot of power that could be abused. And as we see in Chapter 10 he sent out a message through the land that everyone had three days to gather in Jerusalem which would be the 20th day of the 9th month and whomever didn't show up was no longer part of the Jewish community and all his substance was forfeited. Imagine losing your home, your possessions, your business because you didn't come when summoned by a group of men that haven't been around for 70 years and now say that they're in charge. And to those that showed up in Jerusalem they were told that they had to divorce themselves from their foreign wives and any children of those wives if they wished to keep their status and property. It would appear that many did so, as harsh and as cruel as this edict was.

And so was born the law of inheritance that separates Karaites from Rabbinical Jews. But was the edict by Ezra a true rendering of the laws from the Torah? Was this God's ruling or as I have mentioned a political device utilized by a returning elite to gain dominance over the land and the people? Certainly not according to Numbers 12:1 a single line that has sent Rabbis and many Christian leaders scrambling in their attempts to try and explain in a hundred other ways than accept it as a clear statement that the foreigness of a wife or the colour of her skin is not the determinant of one's being Jewish but it is the faith of the father that does so.

Numbers 12:1

How much clearer can God be about the paternal inheritance of Judaism? From the Torah, this particular sentence expresses the challenge made by Aaron and Miriam to not only usurp Moses's authority but to force him, exactly as Ezra did, to divorce his wife and send her away or face being banished from the Jewish congregation. Well, God wasn't going to have a bar of it and made it perfectly clear that women were not the determining factor when he punished Miriam for raising the challenge against Moses but spared Aaron the embarassment of being punished as well.

Now I have watched and read over the years how many rabbinical authorities and Christian authorities have attempted to explain this line in Numbers as not being literal. That the wife referred to was Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro the Midianite and all that Aaron and Miriam were saying was that she was not one of the escaping slaves and therefore her thinking was as if she was "foreign" to them. Why that should even be an issue is beyond anyone with a modicum of intelligence. Then these same scholars attempt to explain another possibility by saying it was an issue of jealousy. That they wanted Moses to send her away because she had a greater influence on him than they did. The one that had the influence was her father Jethro, a priest, a chieftain and who Moses placed above all others. It wouldn't be a case of sending Zipporah away but several thousand Midianites and that wasn't going to happen. And just to set the record straight, the Midianites were Semites as we learn from Genesis, so any argument of foreigness is entirely fabricated since the Hebrew slaves were nothing but a large number of Semites from various tribal backgrounds and Zipporah was no different from any of them.

Once you've gone through all these arguments with a rabbinical student, they're willing to take the argument to the next level. A battle of semantics. The wife in Numbers 12:1 is described as a Cushite. Cush is the Semitic name for Ethiopia. But you will find this student is willing to argue that a Cushite is actually someone from Cushan. And Cushan was another name for the land where the Midianites came from in the Sinai peninsula. And they will smile and think they have you until you remind the that everywhere else in the Torah a person from Midian is referred to as a Midianite. Why would there be an exception for this one sentence.? And then you will say, but even if it was so, wouldn't someone from Cushan be a Cushanite, not a Cushite? And I always love this answer because it's one of desperation. You will hear about how one of the scribal editors that was copying the Torah made an error and wrote Cushite by accident and the mistake was carried on from every copying afterwards until the original versions wer lost through time. That would imply that there never was more than one copy being made througout all the land or that if there were multiple copies being made, then this one scribe was responsible for making all of them so that the same error appeared in all of them. We know that's not the case, that there were schools of scribes copying the Torah and all of them would have made the same error which never got picked up by any of the proofreaders throughout an entire country. I think not!

But to finish the argument the fact is that Cushan has a vuv as its second letter in the Hebrew spelling. Cush doesn't. And in the sentence of Numbers 12:1 there is no vuv as the second letter in Cushite. This woman was Ethiopian and she was very important to Moses. We don't know a lot about her from the Torah, but then again, his wife Zipporah didn't receive much press either after her marriage to Moses. We here about her joining Moses with his two sons in the desert once the exodus began and that's it. As a nation of oral traditionalists, it would be very unusual that there weren't stories about this Ethiopian wife, that wasn't Semitic, and whom God went out of his way to protect by warning both Aaron and Miriam that they were not to ever attempt to banish her from the community.


Moses's Beautiful Black Wife


Of course there are historical writing that allude to this Ethiopian Princess. And as a Karaite, it is vitally important that I can point to her existence as evidence of the correctness of paternal inheritance. If the most illustrious of our prophets, our law giver, our father of the nation can take a wife from foreign lands and in no way this diminishes his stature as a member of the congregation then it essentially confirms this basic tenant of Karaism. That is not to say that there aren't restrictions on marriage. There are and most of these apply to the Kohenim, the high priesthood, as in to which offspring would be eligible for holding the position based on the mother's background but it is not a case of whether the offspring would be Jewish or not.

The first of these historical treatises was by Artapanus in the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C. Of course depending on the age of the original versions of Yasher Shemot and Yalkut, the legend may have already been written down when Artapunus decided to release his own version. And it was Artapanus's version that played a major source for Flavius Josephus's version released in Antiquities of the Jews (Ant. II.x.2) around 91 A.D. But Josephus had other sources he used as well which would only indicate than in spite of Ezra's reformation, several hundred years later the people were still saying that it wasn't the case in Moses's day.

Artapanus provides us with a wonderful story of how Moses, as a young prince of Egypt was sent by his step father (who was not the Pharaoh but his master of the horse) Chenephres with an army to invade Ethiopia. It was designed as a suicide mission since his stepfather was jealous of his stepson's popularity. But apparently Moses had some unanticipated military talents and after battling for years he was able to conquer Ethiopia. Moses returned to Egypt where he was welcomed by Chenephres but still being jealous of him, Chenephres removed Moses's army and sent them back to Ethiopia under the governorship of Nacheros, thereby stripping Moses of his authority and protection. He then ordered Chanethothes to assassinate Moses who tried to flee but was foiled when Chanenthothes learned of his attempted escape. The two men fought and Moses killed his enemy which then leads to the story in the Torah of how he had to flee into the desert where he encountered Zipporah and her sisters. Artapanus doesn't mention an Ethiopian Princess but he does suggest that Moses spent up to nine years in Ethiopia and the Queen of Sheba when she visits Solomon provides an indication that she was a descendant of Moses. A lot can happen in nine years.

The story by Flavius Josephus definitely has similarities to that by Artapanus but in Josephus's version, he is sent by his adopted mother Thermutis to Pharoah to recieve the honour of generalship over the army being sent against Ethiopia. He apparently catches the Ethiopians by surprise as they were thinking he would attack by floating down the Nile but instead Moses took an overland route. Moses took city after city, chasing the Ethiopians back into their capital city Saba (Sheba). Saba was surrounded by the Nile and other rivers and had a great wall around it. The battle raged outside the walls but Moses could not press the advantage. The daughter of the Ethiopian king would watch the battle from the walls and overtime fell in love with Moses as she watched him do battle. It was then that Tharbis thought of a way to end the battle, save the city and stop the slaughter. She sent out her servant with a message to Moses. If he would agree to marry her then the city would surrender and pay tribute to the Egyptians. Moses accepted and consummated his marriage to Tharbis before returning with his bride and army to Egypt. Upon his return Pharaoh feared the success and popularity that Moses enjoyed and began worrying that he would become a threat to his throne. Moses became aware of Pharaoh's plot to have him killed and he flees into the desert.

There is a very similar story to that of Josephus written by Lucius Cornelius Alexander Polyhistor who was given his freedom by Sulla which therefore places him in the early 1st century B.C. The fact that a slave in Rome would be writing of this story makes you appreciate just how popular and well circulated it was, even though there are no old rabbinic sources that either mention Moses conducting wars against the Ethiopians nor his marriage to the Ethiopian princess. One can only assume that this oversight by rabbinical authors was intentional. Either they did not want it well known that Moses had taken a foreign wife, and this was acceptable to God which undermines the entire rabbinical premise of inheritance of faith through maternal lines only, or else they were embarassed by the fact she was black and therefore contrary to the concept of the children of Ham, she was neither cursed nor considered unworthy.

On the other hand, as a Karaite I look at it from the perspective of how wonderful that God has sent a clear message regarding the law of inheritance and who can be a Jew. It is not restricted by sex or colour or even point of origin. It only requires faith and adherence to the original scriptures

The Rabbi And The Emperor

Although I probably could have written this article under the 'Why Karaism' banner I decided that it warranted to be placed separately under some other category that had as little association with Karaism as possible because it represents everything that is abhorred amongst Karaites. You see, the story I'm about to relate comes directly from the Talmud and commits so many sins that it actually casts Judaism in a bad light in its entirity. Of course as Karaite we would say, "what would you expect, after all it is the product of Rabbanites," but even Rabbanites have a 'modus decorum' by which they must operate and this is dictated by the Torah which still governs how Jews must behave. The fact that this story concerns Rabbi Judah ha Nasi should not be that great a surprise to Karaites. The presumption of his title, 'The Prince' considering he had no government or population to actually rule over I do not hold against him. As a descendant of Hillel, I have to believe his claim to be from the House of King David in the same way that I believe the lineage in my own family to be accurate as being from the House of Phiabi. These claims were passed down from father to son and were intended to be preserved, so I do not doubt his claim to be a Prince of Israel. What I do take exception to is possibly his warranting of the title based on the story to follow. A Prince must act with honour; a Prince must preserve the truth; a Prince must not commit murder; and a Prince must not be boastful when his own people are made to suffer. These would all appear to be lessons that Judah ha Nasi failed to learn, yet he is extolled above all other by the Rabbis through the Talmud. So perhaps the banner for this article rather than 'Why Karaism' would more correctly be 'Why not Rabbinic Judaism'.

From The Abodah Zerah
The Following Story is taken from the Talmud; Abodah Zerah. I have placed my comments and explanations in brackets so I do not alter the original verse.
[Emperor] Antoninus [Pius] once said to Rabbi [Judah ha Nasi], "It is my desire that my [adopted] son Asverus [Marcus Verus] should reign instead of me and that Tiberias should be declared a Colony [Self governing Sartrapy]. Were I to ask one of these things [from the Senate] it would be granted while both would not be granted. Rabbi thereupon brought a man, and having made him ride on the shoulders of another, handed him a dove bidding the one who carried him to order the one on his shoulders to liberate it. The Emperor perceived this to mean that he was advised to ask [of the Senate] to appoint his son Asverus to reign in his stead, and that subsequently he might get Asverus to make Tiberias a free Colony.

[On another occasion] Antoninus mentioned to him that some prominent Romans were annoying him. Rabbi thereupon took him into the garden and, in his presence, picked some radishes, one at a time. Said [the Emperor to himself] his advice to me is: Do away with them one at a time, but do not attack all of them at once. But why did he not speak explicitly? — He thought his words might reach the ears of those prominent Romans who would persecute him. Why then did he not say it in a whisper? — Because it is written: For a bird of the air shall carry the voice.

The Emperor had a daughter named Gilla [Anna Galina] who committed a sin, so he sent to Rabbi a rocket-herb, and Rabbi in return sent him coriander. The Emperor then sent some leeks and he sent lettuce in return.

Many a time Antoninus sent Rabbi gold-dust in a leather bag filled with wheat at the top, saying [to his servants]: 'Carry the wheat to Rabbi!' Rabbi sent word to say. 'I need it not, I have quite enough of my own', and Antoninus answered: 'Leave it then to those who will come after thee that they might give it to those who will come after me, for thy descendants and those who will follow them will hand it over to them.'

Antoninus had a cave which led from his house to the house of Rabbi. Every time [he visited Rabbi] he brought two slaves, one of whom he slew at the door of Rabbi's house and the other [who had been left behind] was killed at the door of his own house. Said Antoninus to Rabbi: When I call let none be found with thee. One day he found R. Haninah b. Hama sitting there, so he said: 'Did I not tell thee no man should be found with thee at the time when I call?' And Rabbi replied. 'This is not an [ordinary] human being.' 'Then', said Antoninus, 'let him tell that servant who is sleeping outside the door to rise and come in.' R. Haninah b. Hama thereupon went out but found that the man had been slain. Thought he, 'How shall I act now? Shall I call and say that the man is dead? — but one should not bring a sad report; shall I leave him and walk away? — that would be slighting the king.' So he prayed for mercy for the man and he was restored to life. He then sent him in. Said Antoninus: 'I am well aware that the least one among you can bring the dead to life, still when I call let no one be found with thee.' Every time [he called] he used to attend on Rabbi and wait on him with food or drink. When Rabbi wanted to get on his bed Antoninus crouched in front of it saying. 'Get on to your bed by stepping on me.' Rabbi, however, said, 'It is not the proper thing to treat a king so slightingly.' Whereupon Antoninus said: 'Would that I served as a mattress unto thee in the world to come!' Once he asked him: 'Shall I enter the world to come?' 'Yes!' said Rabbi. 'But,' said Antoninus, 'is it not written, There will be no remnant to the house of Esau?' 'That,' he replied. 'applies only to those whose evil deeds are like to those of Esau.' We have learnt likewise: There will be no remnant to the House of Esau, might have been taken to apply to all, therefore Scripture says distinctly — To the house of Esau, so as to make it apply only to those who act as Esau did. 'But', said Antonius, is it not also written: There [in the nether world] is Edom, her kings, and all her princes.' 'There, too,' Rabbi explained, '[it says:] 'her kings', it does not say all her kings; 'all her princes', but not all her officers!

True History
From the Talmudic tale we would be led to believe that there was a very close and personal relationship between the Emperor of Rome and the self-titled, Prince of the Jews. Furthermore, the Emperor would seek Judah ha Nasi's wise counsel repeatedly to the point that it even extended into how he should run his affairs and control the Senate. But what do we really know of the relationship between these two men? The answer is that they simply didn't have a relationship. In fact, Antoninus Pius, though not as intolerant as his predecessor Hadrian towards the Jews still had an axe to grind. It is stated that during Antoninus' reign that the Jews were deprived of the right to have their own courts, which prerogative was by the Pharisees considered essential to religion (Yer. Sanh. vii. § 2, 24b). This certainly doesn't sound like the Empror would come to the Nasi seeking legal advice. Furthermore, those that dared to criticize the measures of the emperor were banished or put to death (Shab. 33b). What we also know is that as a result of his harsh treatment of the Jews, the Jews attempted once again to overthrow the Roman domination ("Scriptores Historiæ Augustæ, Antoninus Pius," ch. v.) but there was so little fight left in them after the Bar Kochba revolt against Hadrian that this rebellion was put down quickly and barely rated a mention. The strained relations existing between the Parthians and the Romans may have led the Jews to believe as well as encouraged them to revolt with the expectation of assistance from the Parthians but such assistance was never realized. Whereas the biography of Antoninus Pius in Historia Augusta speaks of this revolt the Jewish sources in the Talmud do not even allude to it and instead provide this fairy tale relationship between the Rabbinic leader and the Emperor of Rome.

But it wasn't all bad news as Antoninus did repeal some of the edicts of Hadrian —such as the prohibition of circumcision which prevented the Jews from exercising their religion—on the condition that they should not receive proselytes (Meg. Ta'anit, xii.; "Digesta" of Modestinus, xlviii. 8, 11). Moreover, they were forbidden, on penalty of death, to enter Jerusalem which hardly sounds like the edict of a man whom according to the Rabbis had approached Judah ha Nasi on how he would be able to best grant the city of Tiberias independent status. Those Jews who had fled to foreign countries in order to escape the persecutions of Hadrian gradually returned to their homes but by then most of the land and homes had become the possessions of non-Jewish populations.

The actual edict of Antoninus Piusread as follows: ‘By a rescript of the divine Antoninus the Jews are allowed to circumcise only their own sons. If anyone performs the operation on a national of another race, he is liable to the same penalty as for castration’. The penalty being referred to was death so this is hardly the words of an Emperor that would let himself be a stepping stool for the Rabbi. Antoninus was still determined to restrict and control the spread of Judaism and thus would have no interest in God's preservation of a place in the world to come for him. In fact he would have had no interest in the Jewish God at all for it was well documented that he was faithful to the traditonal Roman pantheon of gods and no others.

History also records that Hadrian before Antoninus Pius visited Judea and Septimus Severus after Antoninus Pius visited Judea but Antoninus Pius himself did not visit the Roman province. That being the case then there was no house with an undergound passage that led to Rabbi Judah's house that the Emperor ever used. The story is a fabrication with no other purpose to portray the Emperor as a man with a compulsion to murder his slaves, an act which the Nasi obviously tolerated and to portray Rabbi Hanina ben Hama as having the ability to raise the dead even if he was inferior to Rabbi Judah ha Nasi. In their efforts to record themselves as being far greater than they really were, these sages of Rabbinic Judaism were obviously not adverse to lying.

So Why Lie?
I asked myself that question repeatedly. What was to be gained? What were the Rabbis seeking with this story? I could understand why Rabbi Judah was mute for much of the story, performing actions that the Emperor had to interpret rather than speaking to him directly. It provided the Rabbis with the ability to say that their Prince never actually spoke to the Emperor if they were ever challenged. Plausible denial I think we call it now.

Even when the story of his picking radishes would be challenged as his advising and approving that the Emperor eliminate his enemies which in that day and age meant killing them off one by one, an act which according to the Torah made Rabbi Judah as guilty of murder as the man that perpetrated it, the Rabbis could deny such a thing was ever suggest by saying, "he was only picking radishes. Why would you ever think he was condoning murder?"

The entire story is to express the superiority the rabbis held for themselves above their Roman masters. The fact that one of their own, Rabbi Akiba not only anointed a false messiah in Simon Bar Kochba, but spurred him on to fight a second war against Rome in which close to half a million Jews died should have taught them modesty, restraint and recognition that their beliefs were faulty. But they could not see the truth in that regard. Rome was still beneath them. A foot stool for their Prince to step upon when climbing into bed. A story of how Rome could kill them but they held the power to resurrect the dead so they had no fear of Rome's threats. Sadly the half million that died following their instruction they could not resurrect but they survived and that would appear to be all they cared about. After all, just as Judah ha Nasi replied when given the gift of gold by the Emperor, he had no need of it, he had plenty of his own. Only the Emperor was wise enought to suggest he hold on to it, not for his sake but for those less fortunate that might need it after he passed on. Perhaps the rabbis should have been thinking of the people all along!

Karaism and Resurrection

Even amongst Karaites this concept of life after death as well as the return to life is hotly contested. There have always been those that have taken the Tanach literally, derived from passages in Isaiah and Ezekiel in particular, and others that have assumed the works were metaphorical. The debate was so embittered that it threatened to break apart Karaism almost as soon as it was formed. But Anan ben David was quite astute when he was acquiring his Karaite followers and he knew that differing opinions existed within the community and he found a way to cleverly deal with the issue and thus ensure the integrity of the Karaite community during his time. Those of his followers that were descendants of Boethians and Zadokites would not even consider the possibility of an afterlife nor the resurrection whereas those that were Jews dissatisfied with the Talmudic philosophies of their Rabbinical leaders had been ingrained into the Rabbanite belief system from an early age were not prepared to give up their hopes for an afterlife. Because Anan had built Karaism around the principle of however you read and interpreted the Torah was correct for that individual, then he found it acceptable to have both beliefs within Karaism and ensured that it would not sprout into persistent conflicts by finding the common ground. Though it was never recorded, he most likely did it through a simple teaching that would have reflected his philosophy. He would have said something to the effect, “Whatever we do in this life we must do with the understanding that there is no return from death promised to any of us. Therefore it is beholding to us that we live a good life, a charitable life and follow God’s commandments because we may not have an opportunity to correct our errors or be forgiven for our sins if no afterlife exists. But should we die and find that there is a resurrection, how glorious that we can live it without any regrets of passed deeds.”
Personally as a Zadokite, there is no promise of an afterlife or resurrection in my future but I’m still in total harmony with the wisdom of Karaism which accepts this as a definite possibilty. Furthermore, should I find that I’m wrong; I will not be disappointed for I would have lived my life to the fullest, done the good deed and followed God’s commandments. Therefore it would be nothing more than a bonus to a life that had already provided me with happiness and contentment. Karaism accepts these two possible outcomes and rather than try to persuade those of one set of beliefs to adopt those of the other, it readily admits, we don’t actually know the ways of God. We don’t understand everything that he told us because we are like children trying to comprehend the workings of the universe. Or as is often asked, “Mee Camochah YHWH” (Who is like you God)? Definitely not us and we certainly don’t pretend to have some secret skills that permit us to interpret God’s words with the stamp of authority in the manner that our Rabbanite brothers have done. To do so would bear the hallmarks of egotism and false pride of which they have abundance. But alas, they consider it their divine prerogative to define and interpret God’s words.

The Rabbanite Resurrection

In the Rabbinic world there are no ifs, ands, or buts. The great Rabbis have decided that they are fully cognizant of God’s meanings in the prophetic references to resurrection. They claim to know it for a fact and therefore failure to accept their interpretations is a fundamental sin against their Judaism. So positive are they that 1 Samuel 2:6 refers to the resurrection when it says, “The Lord killeth and maketh alive; He bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up,” that they fail to see that the expressions are figurative, speaking of man sinking into the depths of despair, only to be raised up by God in his mercy. In my youth I had to learn the hard way that the Rabbanites will not brook any dissension in regard to their resurrection beliefs. As some of you have read in my earlier articles, I attended a Rabbinical Hebrew School since there weren’t exactly a lot of Karaite families in my vicinity. But like the Karaites of old, many that sat at the feet of Rabbinical teachers in order to learn Torah, I did not consider it too great a sacrifice. Sure, one suffered a few indignities, a number of snide comments, and a concerted effort to break my Karaite spirit, but it could not be done. There was one rabbi in particular that had an amazing ability to make contact with a yardstick no matter how far physically you may have been from him. All these years later I still remember his name; Wurtzberger. He was lethal with that piece of wood. Like so many rabbis he loved his parables and apocrypha. He told the class of the final days of King David. Apparently David didn’t want to die, so having known the hour of his death, he ensured that he would always study the Torah at that time since the Angel of Death was powerless to take anyone if they were reading the Torah at the time of his visitation. This went on for weeks until one day the Angel of Death shook the tree outside David’s window. As soon as David looked up to see why the tree was shaking the Angel snatched his soul away. Wurtzberger then asked me what I learned from the story hoping to make a point. With sincerity I answered, “It would appear that King David had similar beliefs to my own. Firstly, that only the Torah was the word of God and nothing else mattered and secondly that he knew there was no afterlife, no heaven or hell, so he tried desperately to hang on to his existence like a true Zadokite.” I had to take one strike of the stick over my outstretched fingers for that but it was well worth it.
So certain are the Rabbis that resurrection is a promised tenet of Judaism that they insist that after God banished Adam and Eve from the garden of Eden and removed man’s initial immortality he made a promise that should Adam lead a pious life then he would be given the fruit from the Tree of Life on the day of resurrection and then once again he would live forever. But how this exactly relates to the subsequent Rabbinic belief that all the pious that have ever existed will all be seated on thrones which are reserved for them after the resurrection, I cannot figure. . Of course there’s some confusion as to the seating arrangements since the Midrash states that the greatest of all these thrones is Abraham’s whereas in the Zohar I:97, that distinction is given to Jacob. Already we can see that in the Rabbinic resurrection there is already conflict brewing. Though we might not be able to witness this fight over the prime seats because according to the kabbalah which sources its statement from Midrash Tannaim 58, Mishle 17, Ketubot 111a, as well as a entire host of other rabbinic literature, it claims that the resurrection of those that lived in Israel will take place forty years prior to the rest of the world. Considering that these same learned Rabbis also claim that the reign of the Messiah will only last forty years according to Sanhedrin 99a and Tehillim 90: 393, which once again they authored, I guess the rest of us are going to miss out on everything, so why even bother worrying about thrones to sit on. Our resurrection is just too late! That is if we believe in such a thing.

In The Talmud There is No Doubt

But as the Rabbis will tell you, there should be no doubt in the resurrection as the phoenix is living proof of it. Taken from the Hebrew word spelled chet, vav and lamed, they find its reference in Job 29:18 and Ben Sira 27a, and therefore assure their followers that resurrection is a certainty as much as the phoenix is a reality. Mythical birds I’m afraid don’t inspire me with confidence in their belief. I will counter it simply by saying I believe in it as much as I believe in the phoenix. When Yakov Kahana confronts Rabbi Judah Loew in Shadows of Trinity with the episode of Saadiah Gaon causing the slaughter of thousands of Karaites, an episode now hotly denied but common knowledge even just a few generations ago, it was with the knowledge that none of those killed would ever return. Neither man, not even Rabbi Loew believed they would. There was no phoenix that would erase the tremendous loss of life in the years 940 to 942 AD.
It would appear that much of the rabbinic belief in resurrection also comes from the belief in Isaiah 26:19 that God will cause a celestial dew to fall upon the earth that will act like an elixir of immortality, causing the dead to rise from their graves and sing his praises. How strange that for everything else from the Old Testament the rabbis will insist there are covert meanings that require their interpretation but in this case they espouse a belief that this verse is to be taken literally. How is it that they have forgotten the saying that God’s words are like dew upon the lips, refreshing those that thirsted? Like manna from heaven it will sustain those that partake of it. Why is it they suddenly cannot see the poetry of Isaiah’s words, the vision of God’s teaching finally uniting the people of this world and all those that had died in his name, making it worthwhile to all those that had suffered at the hands of a world that refused to accept them. The essence of those that died will live spiritually in this new generation of followers and their death’s would not have been in vain. Examine the rest of Isaiah and it becomes quite plausible if not credible that this is the resurrection he was speaking of. Not of the physical bodies of those that died, but of the spirit, strength and heart that led them to sacrifice themselves in the name of God. A virtual resurrection of the way things were intended to be had the world not turned their back on the words of God.
So Karaism, as I have explained has provided me with a choice. As Anan indicated, it was not necessary that we all agreed on the concept of an afterlife as long as we all agreed that we must make every effort to make this life we are given substantial; that we live with a purpose and strive to make this a better world. Unlike the Rabbinical Judaism which would and does brand me as a heretic for even challenging the concept of the resurrection, I can express my Zadokite heritage to my Karaite brethren without hesitation. It is not necessary that they agree with me should they be believers in the resurrection nor for their sake do I hope I’m proven right. In the end I only hope that we find that both of our beliefs have been proven correct just as Anan would have expressed his desire for it to be so. And that simply put, the freedom of expression, the tolerance to differences, the acceptance of what unites us, not divides us, is WHY KARAISM.