The Karaite Mourners of Zion and the Qumran Scrolls: On the History of an Alternative to Rabbinic Judaism (Diaspora) (Diaspora, 3) [Multilingual ed.] 9782503543369, 2503543367

Citation preview

THE KARAITE MOURNERS OF ZION AND THE QUMRAN SCROLLS

DIASPORA New Perspectives on Jewish History and Culture 3 Series Editors Prof. Simha Goldin, Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center, Tel Aviv University Prof. Aharon Oppenheimer, Department of Jewish History, Tel Aviv University Prof. Johannes Heil, Hochschule für Jüdische Studien, Heidelberg Prof. Joseph Shatzmiller, Duke University, Durham, NC

The Diaspora Series is dedicated to research into the heritage of the Jewish people and its culture and the varied ways this culture impacted on Europe. Pre-modern Europe bears witness to a diversity of subject areas concerned with the Diaspora. Not only did it see the emergence and continuance of Jewish migration, it also reveals the formation of interrelated communities. Jews throughout Europe were not simply the distant or settled ‘other’; they also formed a vital part of the social, cultural, and intellectual life of the European Middle Ages. The Diaspora Series seeks to explore this diverse and sometimes contradictory phenomenon in all its complexity. The Diaspora series deals with Jewish life during the Middle Ages. This book extends the ‘Jewish Diaspora’ term to include its origin in Zion.

THE KARAITE MOURNERS OF ZION AND THE QUMRAN SCROLLS On the History of an Alternative to Rabbinic Judaism

by

Yoram Erder

H

F

The Diaspora Series is published on behalf of the Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center, Tel Aviv University.

© 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2017/0095/188 ISBN 978-2-503-54336-9 eISBN 978-2-503-56239-1 DOI 10.1484/M.DIASPORA-EB.5.105960 ISSN 2565-9456 eISSN 2565-9464 Printed on acid-free paper.

Table of Contents

Foreword and Acknowledgements

1

Preface Structure and Sources

3

Chapter One Introduction: ʿAnan, ʿAnanites, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Karaites, The Mourners of Zion, Karaism

27

Chapter Two The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

109

Chapter Three Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī – The Doctrine of an Extremist Mourner of Zion

167

Chapter Four The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

309

Chapter Five Conclusion

409

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

421

Bibliography

447

Foreword and Acknowledgements

This book was originally published in Hebrew;1 it is primarily based on Karaite manuscripts from the tenth to eleventh centuries which were written in Judeo-Arabic and printed for the first time in this volume. In the Hebrew edition the original text appears side-by-side with the translation. In this English edition, readers will find only the translation of the original texts. The Karaites used Halachic and theological terms drawn from the Islamic world. These terms have been copied to English using the accepted academic method. For terminologies in Hebrew, it is important to note that the letter Tsadi has been transliterated as ṣ. It is my very pleasant obligation to thank the many kind individuals that have helped in the preparation and publication of this English edition. This book would never have come to fruition without the welcome initiative of Prof. Simha Goldin, Director of the Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center at Tel Aviv University. He not only brought about the book’s translation but also guided me throughout the entire process, and for this I deeply thank him. At his side in providing dependable assistance were the Center’s employees Ora Azta and Sara Appel, who helped to prepare the volume for publication. The completion of this book is also thanks to the help of the Dorit and Meir Shalom Yaniv Fund, which is managed by the Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies at Tel Aviv University. To whom are thanks most due if not to those responsible for the actual work? First and foremost to the translator Yaffah Murciano, to Avelei Zion ha-Qaraʾīm w-Meggīlot Qumran: le-Toldot Ḥalufah la-Yahadut ha-Rabbanīt, Tel Aviv 2004. 1

2

Foreword and Acknowledgements

whom the Arabic language is no stranger, and who was therefore able to remain faithful to the original as she worked on the translation. In the preparation of detailed indexes, Perlina Varon has been of great assistance. It remains to thank those across the sea responsible for the work of publishing this volume, most particularly among them Guy Carney and Loes Diercken of Brepols Publishers. It is my hope that this book will illuminate new paths in understanding the Judaism which so greatly influenced – and was influenced by – the world around it, during both antiquity and the Middle Ages. Understanding these paths may even help to shed light on Rabbinic Judaism throughout the ages.

Preface Structure and Sources

The Karaite movement, which aimed at bringing the people back to the Written Law and liberating it from the shackles of the Oral Law, emerged in the second half of the ninth century in the Babylonian and Persian Diaspora. From that time on, proponents of the Oral Law are termed Rabbanites in our sources. Because of its initially pluralistic nature, the Karaite movement embraced many circles. One of the most, if not the most important, of these circles was ‘The Mourners of Zion’. This book is dedicated mainly to this circle which existed primarily in Palestine until the late eleventh century. In the last quarter of the ninth century, not long after the emergence of the Karaite movement in the Diaspora, the Mourners of Zion began immigrating to Palestine. The new immigrants settled in a new neighbourhood in Jerusalem, calling their community ‘Shoshannīm’ (lilies). This community became the leading Karaite community in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The Mourners left behind a rich and diversified heritage, including commentaries on the Bible, books of precepts, polemical works, studies of the Hebrew language, lexicons, and theological works, that were written under the influence of the Muslim Muʿtazila. Much of this extensive heritage is still in manuscript form. The biblical commentaries of the Jerusalem Mourners of Zion constitute the most important source in this study. Their commentaries on the commandments clarify their halakhic doctrine while their commentaries on the Prophets clarify their messianic doctrine. From these commentaries, we learn that the settlement of the Karaite Mourners of Zion in Jerusalem was by no means fortuitous, but was perceived by them as an essential stage in the messianic process, which would culminate in ‘salvation’ (‫)ישועה‬. Since the stage of repentance preceded the stage of salvation, the

4

Preface

Mourners took it upon themselves to encourage the people to repent. The essence of repentance, as perceived by the mainstream Mourners, was returning to the Scriptures, mourning Zion and returning to the Land of Israel. The Mourners’ doctrine could well be termed the ‘doctrine of the Land of Israel’. For them, the Land of Israel played a central role in both the halakhic and messianic realms. This book focuses on the ‘doctrine of the Land of Israel’. Amongst the many derogatory terms used by the Mourners of Zion to describe the Rabbanites are: ‘people of the Exile’ (‫ )אנשי גלות‬and ‘exilic’ (‫)גלותיים‬. The Rabbanite leaders were termed ‘shepherds of the Exile’ while the Rabbanite doctrine was termed the ‘exilic doctrine’. The above indicates that the Mourners considered their attitude toward the Land of Israel as one of the main factors differentiating them from the Rabbanites. The Mourners accused the Rabbanites of abandoning the Land of Israel. Immigrating to the Land of Israel was not their priority. The Rabbanites glorified their centres in Babylon to the detriment of the centre in Palestine. Instead of mourning Zion, the Rabbanites were interested in putting down economic and cultural roots in the Diaspora. Their doctrine, the Oral Law, originated in the Land of Israel after its political disintegration and the destruction of the Temple, and was pursued in the Diaspora. The Rabbinic Sages were accused of elaborating a halakha designed for exilic conditions, based on the observance of commandments that pertained exclusively to the Land of Israel. This halakha, they claimed, bore no relationship whatsoever to the Scriptures. The Mourners perceived the Rabbanites’ exilic doctrine and leadership as the main obstacles to redemption. In their attempt to present an alternative doctrine to that of the Rabbanites, the Karaite Mourners engaged with them in a relentless battle. This explains the difficult and troubled relationship between the Rabbanites and the Karaite Mourners of Jerusalem. Since the early twentieth century, when Solomon Schechter published two medieval copies of fragments from the Damascus Covenant he found in the Cairo Geniza, scholars have been discussing to what extent the Karaites in general, and the Mourners in particular, were influenced by Qumran literature. Naturally, the early scholars had less data on which to base their hypotheses, since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered only in the middle of the twentieth century. With the discovery of the Scrolls, the publication of which was only recently completed, the question of the influence of the Qumran Scrolls on the Karaites has become even more compelling

Structure and Sources

5

The pioneer in the research on the relationship between the Karaites and Qumran was Naftali Wieder. In his book and a series of articles he published in the 1950s and 1960s, Wieder drew attention to the tremendous debt the Karaites, especially the Mourners, owed to Qumran literature, which helped mould their messianic doctrine and their Scriptural exegesis. Other scholars have played down the importance of Qumran literature in the shaping of the Mourners’ doctrine. In this work, we frequently allude to the issue of the influence of the Qumran Scrolls on the Karaite Mourners. A study of halakhic texts (some of which are studied here for the first time), substantiates the theory that the Qumran Scrolls exerted a considerable influence on the Karaite Mourners of Zion. My study of their halakha shows that the Mourners of Zion were not a homogeneous sect, but comprised both moderates and extremists. The moderates are represented here by the tenth-century Jerusalem Karaite, Yefet ben ʿEli, who rejected many of the Qumran halakhot known to him, as their adoption would have entailed non-observance of the commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel as long as the Temple was in ruins and the people in exile. It appears, therefore, that the moderate faction advocated observance of most of the commandments both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. The fact that it restricted itself to mourning only – namely, refraining from eating ‘desired meat’ (‫[ בשר תאווה‬cattle and sheep meat not dedicated for sacrifice]) and drinking wine – testified to its moderate stance. The extremist faction of the Mourners is represented here by Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī who lived in the Diaspora in the second half of the ninth century. Prior to my research, Mīshawayh and his doctrine were not considered part of the Karaite discourse. In practice, however, he was an extremist Mourner of Zion who, under the influence of Qumran law, advocated non-observance of most of the commandments, since they pertained exclusively to the Land of Israel, and even then, were contingent on the restoration of the Kingdom of Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple. Unlike the moderate Mourners of Zion, al-ʿUkbarī sanctioned the consumption of ‘desired meat’, under the influence, I believe, of Qumran law. A study of the spirited dialogue by Mourner circles over these ancient laws could help elucidate obscure topics in the halakhic debates between the sects of the Second Temple period (for more details, see outline of chapters below). A study on the influence of Qumran literature on the Karaites must address the complex issue of the study of Qumran literature per se. Any issue relating to the Dead Sea Scrolls is, to this day, a subject of profound

6

Preface

controversy. The question of the identity of the sect’s members is still occasionally raised, and some scholars still deny that the scrolls belonged to a specific sect. Even those who accept that the scrolls belonged to a specific sect do not always believe that all the scrolls belonged to this sect. Over the years, different criteria have been proposed for determining which texts belonged to the sect and which did not. Such an assignment is by no means simple since the Scrolls were written in various genres, with numerous contradictions between the various sources.1 Although I have addressed these complex issues in this book, I believe a comparative study between the Qumran Scrolls and Karaite literature could serve to elucidate the principles underlying Qumran halakha, despite its diversification. In the nature of things, of all the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Damascus Covenant exerted the strongest influence on the Mourners. This is hardly surprising, since the discovery of medieval copies of the Damascus Covenant in the Geniza testifies that it was known to the Karaites. In my opinion, the name Karaite itself was inspired by the term Qerīʾei ha-Shem (‫ קריאי השם‬those who call upon God) that occurs in the Covenant. This term, which derived from the messianic worldview of the Covenant’s author, was superimposed on the Karaites’ messianic worldview. The messianic Karaites were doubtlessly members of the Mourners of Zion sect, and not members of the diasporic Karaite sect who rejected the messianic worldview of their counterparts. At a very early stage, the term ‘Karaite’ acquired the secondary meaning of Baʿalei Miqra or Benei Miqra (Scripturalists). The Karaite movement was undoubtedly an important product of the cultural encounter between Judaism and Islam in the Geonic period. The Mourners, like all Karaite factions, owed a tremendous debt to Islam. Most of their works were written in Judaeo-Arabic. Their knowledge of Arabic language and grammar enabled them, as well as their Rabbanite counterparts, to develop the rules of Hebrew grammar and syntax (that closely resemble the Arabic ones). These new linguistic tools opened up fresh vistas for understanding the Scriptures, and led the Karaites to abandon the heritage of the Rabbinic Sages. The Karaites, in general, were influenced by Islamic theology, particularly by the Muʿtazilite current, so much so, that Muʿtazilite theology became one of their distinguishing features. It was on account of Muʿtazilite For a summary of the questions relating to the research on the Dead Sea Scrolls, see Tov, ‘Dead Sea’, pp. 37–67. On changes that were made to the Qumran texts in order to adapt them to changing circumstances, see Nitzan, ‘Developmental Processes’, pp. 232–248. 1

Structure and Sources

7

theology that the Mourners rejected the principle of dualism and determinism on which Qumran theology was based. Since this work does not purport to analyze linguistic or theological issues in any depth, the reader will not find in it a comprehensive discussion about the influence of Islam on Karaism. Nevertheless, my book does discuss Islamic influences in many spheres, including Islamic influences on biblical exegesis and on the exegete’s status. Evidently, in this respect, the Shīʿite sects were a perennial source of influence on the Karaites. The Karaite Mourners developed their own particular brand of biblical exegesis that was an amalgam of Rabbinic, Qumran, and Islamic influences.

The Chapters of the Book Chapter 1: This chapter describes the history of the Karaite movement from its inception to the late eleventh century. It attempts to provide the reader with the historical environment in which the Mourners moved, and their status within the evolving Karaite movement. It presents the basic terms of Karaite historiography that are used in this work. Anyone studying the origins of the Karaite movement will find himself groping in the dark. Early Karaite sources reveal that the movement was founded in the second half of the ninth century, and that the Mourners of Zion were the principal faction within this movement. Many sects preceded and paved the way for the Karaite movement. We shall use the historiographical term ‘Karaism’ to denote the formation of sects – including the Karaite movement – under Islamic rule during the Geonic period. According to our sources, one of the movements that ‘mushroomed’ during this period was that of ʿAnan ben David, a scion of the Exilarch’s family, who functioned in Baghdad during the period of Caliph al-Manṣūr (754–775), the founder of Baghdad and the effective founder of the Abbāsid caliphate. According to ancient sources, ʿAnan did not found the Karaite movement, but rather the ʿAnanite movement, and members of his sect were called ʿAnanites. Some scholars claim that ʿAnan never established any movement at all. Scholars disagree about ʿAnan’s part in shaping the Karaite movement. Although the early Karaites generally admired ʿAnan and saw him as a pioneer in his call for a return to the Scriptures, they were also critical of him. They were even more critical of the Persian Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, who lived in the first half of the ninth century. Works of his that are extant show that he headed a circle called Baʿalei Miqra.

8

Preface

Daniel al-Qūmisī, one of the first Karaite Mourners, dissociated himself from Benjamin al-Nahāwandī. In the following chapters we shall relate to Benjamin’s theological and halakhic doctrine. As stated, the Karaite movement itself emerged in the second half of the ninth century, in the Babylonian and Persian Diaspora. At the beginning, many factions joined the movement. One of the main factions remained in the Diaspora. One of its outstanding personalities was Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī, Saʿadia Gaon’s contemporary, whose doctrine was devoid of activist messianic connotations. The focus of the present work is on the messianic faction of the Karaites, namely the Mourners of Zion. Some Karaite Mourners settled in Palestine, and set up a community in Jerusalem in the last quarter of the ninth century, which became known as the ‘Shoshannīm’ congregation. In this chapter, I shall outline the Jerusalem Mourners’ messianic doctrine, as well as the cultural background in which they operated and that influenced them. We shall examine four influences that left their mark on the Karaite movement in general, namely: the sects that preceded the Karaite movement, Rabbanite halakha (and the extent to which the Karaites deviated from it), the Muslim environment, and the influence of Qumran literature. We shall also examine the cultural background that produced ʿAnan and Benjamin, the precursors of the Karaites. Chapter 2: Of all the influences that helped shape the Karaite Mourners of Zion, we shall focus mainly on Qumran literature. In this chapter we shall examine the Karaites’ knowledge of ancient sects that were active during the Second Temple Period, based on their own testimony. We shall examine the question of whether this knowledge indicates that the Karaites were open to Qumran sources from the start. The discussion focuses on early sects that the Karaites referred to as the ‘Sadducees’ and the ‘Caves Sect’. The Sadducee sect mentioned in the Karaite sources cannot be considered a historical sect, since the Karaites used this term to designate two different sects that existed in ancient times: The ‘Sadducees’ mentioned in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages, and the ‘Qumran sect’ (Zadokites, or Sons of Zadok). Since the Karaites were unable to distinguish between the two, they attributed the halakha of the ‘Zadokites’, namely Qumran halakha, to the Sadducees mentioned in rabbinical literature. Below are some features of Qumran halakha that the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees:

Structure and Sources

9

The Calendar: The principle of the solar calendar, in which festivals occur at fixed times in the month and week, but never on the Sabbath. According to Qirqisānī, the Sadducees did not consider the Sabbath of the intermediate days of Tabernacles or Passover as part of the festival, since, according to them, sacrifices were forbidden on the Sabbath (apart from the Sabbath sacrifice). This halakha is reminiscent of the halakha mentioned in the Damascus Covenant forbidding sacrifices on the Sabbath other than the Sabbath sacrifice itself. According to the Rabbinic Sages, however, the Sabbath did not override the daily sacrifice (‫)עולת התמיד‬ (Numbers 28. 3–4), let alone the festival sacrifices. The Karaite debate concerning the festival of Pentecost testifies to the Karaites’ inability to distinguish between Sadducean and Zadokite (Qumran) halakha. Forbidden relationships: Qirqisānī attributed two laws governing forbidden relationships to the Sadducees: the prohibition on marrying a niece and the prohibition on divorce. The prohibition on marrying a niece is mentioned in the Damascus Covenant. The Sadducees cited by Qirqisānī invoke the same biblical verse in support of this prohibition as does the author of the Damascus Covenant. This, indeed, was one of the factors that led Schechter to argue that Qirqisānī was actually quoting from the Damascus Covenant. The second halakha attributed to the Sadducees by Qirqisānī was the prohibition on divorce. Contrary to Schechter’s claim, it appears that the Damascus Covenant did not contain this prohibition. One cannot, however, rule out the possibility that the Karaites attributed this halakha to the Damascus Covenant, since the prohibition on polygamy in the Damascus Covenant is phrased in such as way as to imply that divorce is also prohibited, as many reputable modern scholars have argued. As well as describing the halakhot the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees, this chapter outlines the exegetical principles that can be inferred from these halakhot. The Karaites focused mainly on the Sadducees’ halakha, not their theology. Yefet attributed the belief in ‘Prince Mastema’ to the Sadducees. This pivotal figure is mentioned in the Book of Jubilees and in Qumran writings, and is an outgrowth of the dualistic world view in these sources. After the discussion on the Sadducees as they appear in Karaite literature, the chapter considers the Karaites’ Sadducean dilemma. The Karaites rejected the theological doctrine the rabbinic sources associated with the Sadducees, just as they rejected Zadokite (Qumran) theology. Nevertheless the Karaites identified with some Qumran halakhot they ascribed to the Sadducees, and found support in these

10

Preface

ancient sources for opposing the Rabbinic Sages. Since the Rabbanites nicknamed the Karaites ‘Sadducees’, and the Karaites themselves were unable to differentiate between the Sadducees and Zadokites, they concealed their affiliation with Qumran writings in the genuine belief that these were the works of the Sadducees referred to in rabbinic literature. While most information about the Sadducees is derived from their halakha, most information about the ‘Caves Sect’ (‫ )כת המערות‬is derived from its theology. The most striking feature of the Caves Sect, according to our sources, is the belief in a secondary deity that created the world. Qirqisānī testifies that the name ‘Caves Sect’ was not the sect’s real name, but was added much later, long after the sect had disappeared from the annals of history, because its writings were discovered in caves. According to Qirqisānī, the ‘Alexandrian’ was one of the members of the sect. Modern scholars suggest that this might be Philo of Alexandria. Inspired by the Caves Sect, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī developed his own doctrine of a secondary deity, as outlined in this chapter. The Karaites, who, under the influence of the Muʿtazila, were monotheistic, dissociated themselves from Benjamin, because of this belief. There is only little information on the Caves Sect’s calendar. We know that the New Year was always celebrated on a Wednesday – the day the sun and moon were created [Genesis 1.14–19]. The fact that the New Year was restricted to a specific day indicates that the Caves Sect adopted the solar calendar. The first day of the month always coincided with the full moon, and the festivals were observed in the Land of Israel only. Their calendar, their antiquity, and the discovery of their writings in caves, have led some scholar to identify the Caves Sect with the Qumran Sect. The fact that the New Year of the Caves Sect always fell on a Wednesday helped decipher the calendar of the Book of Jubilees and of the Qumran Sect. Most scholars researching this sect’s theological doctrine reached the conclusion that it was a Gnostic sect. As stated, our sources point to the influence of the Caves Sect on Benjamin al-Nahāwandī. If the Caves Sect was indeed the Qumran Sect, then Qumran writings fanned the flames of Karaism even before the Karaites settled in Palestine. A study of some of Benjamin’s halakhot in Chapter 3 reveals Qumran influences, supporting the thesis that the Caves Sect was indeed the Qumran Sect. Moreover, my study also reveals that Mīshawayh was a staunch disciple of the Qumran sect. The research thus far offers no clear conclusions concerning the identity of the Caves Sect. One cannot rule out the possibility that the Karaites, when using the term Caves Sect, actually referred to more than

Structure and Sources

11

one sect, just as they did with the term ‘Sadducees’. The above notwithstanding, I believe that the information we have about both the Caves Sect and the Sadducees in Karaite literature suggests that the Karaites had access to Qumran literature. Chapter 3: This chapter focuses on the doctrine of Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī (named after the city of Ukbara, near Baghdad), who lived in the second half of the ninth century. Mīshawayh was also known as Baalbeki, after Baalbek, in the Lebanese Valley, possibly indicating that he moved there at some point in his life. At the end of his life, Mīshawayh converted to Christianity, which explains why the Karaites condemned him so harshly. None of Mīshawayh’s writings have survived, and our knowledge of his doctrine comes from the Karaites who quoted his halakhot or directed polemics against him. An interesting source of information on Mīshawayh is Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch. Evidently, Ibn Ezra adopted some of Mīshawayh’s halakhot – a fact the Karaite sages were quick to emphasize. The title of this chapter is ‘Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī – The Doctrine of an Extremist Mourner of Zion’. The inclusion of Mīshawayh’s doctrine in the discourse on the Karaite Mourners of Zion is something of an innovation. Since he urged non-observance of the festivals, based on biblical verses, he was long viewed by scholars as a heretic who had no place within Karaite discourse. My research, however, shows that he was an extremist Mourner of Zion who claimed that the Land of Israel was the only place for the Jewish people to be. His ruling that the commandments relating to festivals should not be observed in the Diaspora was based on biblical passages describing the Children of Israel’s journey in the desert, which, for him, symbolized exile. According to him, the fact that the Children of Israel did not observe the festivals in the desert meant that the festivals were not meant to be observed in the Diaspora, only in the Land of Israel. According to Mīshawayh, even after entering the Land of Israel, the Children of Israel did not observe most of the commandments until Solomon’s reign, since most of them were contingent not only on the Land of Israel, but also on the Temple in Jerusalem. He, therefore, held that the commandments were not to be observed in the Land of Israel as long as the Temple was in ruins. The Karaite Mourners of Zion who succeeded Mīshawayh saw his conversion to Christianity at an inevitable consequence of his abandonment of the festivals, and were therefore deterred by his extremist position regarding the Land of Israel. They chose to express their mourning by

12

Preface

refraining from eating ‘desired meat’ and drinking wine, but upheld the observance of the festivals both in the Land of Israel and in the Diaspora. In many of his halakhot, Mīshawayh is revealed as a faithful disciple of the Qumran doctrine. Some of these halakhot, therefore, shed light on the doctrine of his Qumran mentors. In this chapter, we shall discuss the Qumran influences on him on issues such as: the calendar, the sanctity of the Sabbath, the dates of the festivals and the commandments regarding ‘desired meat’. Mīshawayh’s ruling that the festivals were to be observed only in the Land of Israel and only if the Temple were rebuilt, was evidently influenced by the Qumran Sect. A similar halakha was ascribed by our sources to the Caves Sect, too, supporting our hypothesis that the Caves Sect was indeed the Qumran Sect. Mīshawayh’s assertion that the Children of Israel did not observe the festivals in the desert was part of his discussion on ‘Passover in the desert’ (‫[ )פסח במדבר‬Numbers 9], which was celebrated in the second year of the Children of Israel’s sojourn in the desert. A discussion of ‘Passover in the desert’ must address the complex issue of the dedication of the Tabernacle that was erected that year. Mīshawayh’s halakhot on these matters testify that he followed Qumran on these issues, too. Moreover, the Karaite Mourners’ of Zion’s discussion on the dedication of the Tabernacle reveals the Rabbinic Sages’ motives in determining the first two festivals in the Megīllat Taʿanit (‫)מגילת תענית‬: The wish to challenge the halakhot of the Qumran School. If we accept this hypothesis, then the Rabbinic Sages perceived Qumran halakha as a threat that deserved public condemnation. Mīshawayh’s doctrine helps us understand the halakha of the Temple Scroll that equates the blood of ‘desired meat’ to that of game meat, in direct contrast to the Scriptures. Mīshawayh permitted the consumption of the fat of ‘desired meat’ by comparing it to the fat of game meat, therefore exposing the principle that guided his Qumran mentors’ equation between the blood of ‘desired meat’ and that of game meat. The latter attempted, as far as possible, to equate the laws of ‘desired meat’ with those of game meat, while the Rabbinic Sages drew a parallel between the laws of ‘desired meat’ and those of sacrificial meat. In the laws governing ‘desired meat’, the positions of Benjamin alNahāwandī and Mīshawayh converge, supporting our contention that Benjamin was close to the Qumran Sect. Benjamin al-Nahāwandī claimed that the altar that Saul erected in Mikhmas [I Samuel 14.32–35] was for the slaughter of ‘desired meat’, not sacrificial meat. A study of this issue reveals the centrality of the Temple in the halakha of Mīshawayh

Structure and Sources

13

and his Qumran mentors. Since it was forbidden to eat whole offerings (‫ )שלמים‬while the Temple was not yet built, the altar erected in Michmas during Saul’s reign could only have had one purpose: the slaughtering of ‘desired meat’. According to Mīshawayh and his mentors, the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ [‫ מנוחה ונחלה‬Deuteronomy 12.9] did not begin with Joshua, as the Rabbinic Sages claimed, but only after the Temple was built. According to them, ‘the place that the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there’ [Deuteronomy, 12.10] referred to the Temple, not the Tabernacle. Benjamin, and seemingly Mīshawayh, too, deduced from the passage on the altar in Michmas that it was necessary to build an altar outside the Temple for slaughtering ‘desired meat’. We cannot rule out the possibility that this was a Qumran halakha. The members of the Qumran Sect, who called themselves the ‘exile of the desert’ (‫ )גולת המדבר‬proscribed the Temple service conducted by their rivals. Since they believed the Temple to be impure, they sanctioned the consumption of ‘desired meat’ that was permitted in the desert and in the Land of Israel prior to the building of the Temple, as Mīshawayh held. Evidently, this meat was slaughtered on a special altar, as we learn from Benjamin al-Nahāwandī. Chapter 4: This chapter focuses on the Mourners of Zion’ messianic doctrine, which is analyzed from a number of perspectives. We already mentioned that the main way the Mourners developed their messianic doctrine was through the interpretation of biblical prophecies that they believed referred especially to their period – the period preceding the End of Days. Wieder pointed out the influence of the Qumran pesher on this exegesis, calling it the ‘Karaite pesher’. Recently, Meira Polliack questioned the definitive influence of the Qumran pesher on the Mourner’s exegesis. In light of the above, we shall relate here to a number of issues concerning the Mourner’s exegetical methods. My study shows conclusively that the Mourners were influenced by the Qumran pesher in formulating their messianic worldview, based on their interpretation of biblical prophecies. The ‘Karaite pesher’ is therefore an appropriate name for this type of exegesis. Nonetheless, the Mourners did not adopt the Qumran pesher, or Qumran halakha, for that matter, indiscriminately. Hence, the importance of Polliack’s distinction between Karaite biblical exegesis and Qumran pesheric exegesis. The Mourners placed a clear dividing line between their pesher and that of their predecessors. While the ancient Qumran Habakkuk Pesher entrusted the interpretation of the secrets of the prophecies to

14

Preface

the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ (Moreh Ṣedeq), the Mourners’ sages, the ‘Enlighteners’ (Maskīlīm) awaited the arrival of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’, whom they identified with the Prophet Elijah. They based their description of this ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ on the Qumran texts available to them. This ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ alone holds the key to the correct interpretation of each verse of the Scriptures, since he is guided by divine inspiration. The Mourners’ Maskīlīm were aware that they did not possess the sole correct interpretation to many verses in the Scriptures, and that they were not infallible. Therefore, they invested considerable effort in understanding the Scriptures through in-depth study and logical analysis in order to arrive at a true interpretation, in the hope that this would entitle them to witness the advent of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’. Under the influence of elaborate Islamic exegesis of the Qurʾān, the Karaite Mourners developed their own exegetical model, that has no equivalent in Qumran literature. The principles of this exegetical model are clearly set out in their introductions to their biblical commentaries. According to them, the prophecies relating to the End of Days called for a symbolic-allegorical interpretation rather than a literal one. In this respect, the ‘Karaite pesher’ resembled the Qumran pesher. At the same time, the Mourners proposed a literal interpretation of these passages, based on their historical-linguistic context. The Mourners developed rules for differentiating between passages that required a literal interpretation and those that required an allegorical one. Under the influence of the Muʿtazila, they maintained that, from a logical perspective, biblical descriptions of God were to be interpreted allegorically, since the anthropomorphization of God was forbidden. The same logic determined that, since the commandments had to be universally accessible, they were meant to be understood literally. There were certain exceptions to this rule: Not every prophecy called for an allegorical explanation, while a few exceptional commandments required a non-literal interpretation. Logic was the means for determining which exegetical method suited which kind of text. According to the Maskīlīm, the choice of exegetical technique was a function of genre. For example, although Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs were both written by King Solomon, each represented a different genre. Ecclesiastes was written in a literal style, as indicated by its title (‘The words of Ecclesiastes, the son of David’), thereby calling for a literal interpretation. The Song of Songs, however, was written in a poetical, esoteric style, calling for an allegorical interpretation.

Structure and Sources

15

As stated, Karaite exegesis was exposed not only to Qumran influences, but also to Islamic ones. Below we shall examine possible Islamic influences. We shall see that the differentiation between the exegesis of plain and esoteric texts was developed mainly by Shīʿite sects. Not only did Qumran literature provide the Karaite Mourners with the exegetical tools for developing their messianic doctrine, it inspired them to invent an ancient history of their own, even though the movement emerged in the Middle Ages. The Qumran worldview was basically dualistic. In the context of this worldview, members of the sect devised positive epithets to describe themselves, and disparaging ones to describe their rivals. Although the monotheistic Mourners categorically repudiated Qumran dualism, they borrowed the appellations of the Qumran Sect for themselves and their rivals (the Rabbanites). These terms were usually biblical in origin. Through them, the Mourners were able to invent a history for themselves that was anchored in the world of the Bible. Thus, they considered themselves the successors of the ‘humble’ (‫)ענווים‬, the ‘destitute’ (‫)אביונים‬, ‘the men that sigh and cry’ (‫)הנאנחים והנאנקים‬, ‘the upright’ (‫)תמימי הדרך‬, and the ‘penitents’ (‫ )שבי פשע‬of Qumran. The Qumran sectarians identified themselves with the ‘tribe of Judah’ and their rivals with ‘the tribe of Ephraim’. The Mourners followed suit, considering Jeroboam ben Nebat their first Jewish Rabbanite rival. The Mourners claimed that their history had been lost in years of Rabbanite oppression when their ancestors had been forced to go into hiding. Only upon the rise of Islam did the Karaites allow themselves to emerge on to the stage of history, and spread their doctrine abroad. This concealment of religion – known as taqiyya – was practiced by the Shīʿites when they were persecuted by the Sunni majority, and was evidently a factor in the Mourners’ allegation that their ancestral traces were lost. One of the terms applied to members of the Qumran sect in the Damascus Covenant was ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ (those who call upon God). This term was a true expression of the Qumran sect’s eschatological worldview. The ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ who operated in the End of Days were the pure remnants that had remained faithful to God throughout the generations. They were also identified with the ‘Beḥīrei Israel’ (‘the Chosen Ones of Israel’) and with the ‘Benei Zadok’ (Sons of Zadok). This latter identification associated them, in turn, with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ (Moreh ha‑Ṣedeq) who was considered the founder of the Qumran sect, and who, according to the Habakkuk Pesher, was the ‘Reader’ (‫ )הקורא‬referred to in Habakkuk 2.2. We already know that the role of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ was to unravel the esoteric

16

Preface

prophecies relevant to, and designed for, the End of Days. According to Qumran sources, the ‘Sons of Zadok’, namely the ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’, were the leaders of the people on the eve of, and during, the End of Days. Their role was to acquaint members of the sect with the esoteric aspects of the Scriptures, namely, the sect’s doctrine. The Maskīlīm of the Karaite Mourners had a similar role. Indeed, a study of the role that the Karaite Mourners assumed shows a remarkable similarity to that of the ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ mentioned in the Damascus Covenant. It would appear, therefore, that the name ‘Qaraʾīm’ (Hebrew for Karaites) was derived from ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’. The Mourners understood the term ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ in the sense of ‘calling upon the name of God’. A study of their biblical commentaries testifies that the Karaites’ objective was to ‘call on the name of God’. Although this concept had various meanings in the Karaite discourse, its basic meaning was to spread the word of God among the Jews and the nations. Basing themselves on a verse in Zephaniah 3.9, they claimed that only those who called on the name of God in the Hebrew language, would survive the End of Days. The derivation of the term ‘Qaraʾīm’ (Karaites) from ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ testifies to the messianic character of the Karaite movement from its inception. It follows that, right from the start, Karaism was moulded by the messianic Mourners of Zion, and not by the Karaites who remained in the Diaspora, such as Qirqisānī, who rejected the Mourners’ messianic spirit. The Geniza documents show us than the singular form of the Hebrew word ‘Qaraʾīm’ (Karaites) is ‘Qara’ (‫ )קרא‬The primary meaning of this word – to inculcate and propagate Jewish law – calls to mind the Muslim dāʿī, the Shīʿite propagandist who was responsible for spreading the true Islamic doctrine among Muslims. Indeed, in his commentaries, Yefet ben ʿEli rants against the proselytizing activities of the Ismāʿīlī Shīʿite propagandists amongst the Jews. No doubt, the Maskīl’s role as disseminator of the Mourners’ doctrine was shaped by these Shīʿite influences. The primary meaning of the term ‘Karaite’ was lost already in the Mourners’ tenth-century writings. In these works, the term ‘Karaites’ had already become synonymous with the terms ‘Baʿalei Miqra’ and ‘Benei Miqra’ (Scripturalists). The movement’s messianic aspect gave way to an emphasis on Scripturalism that was shared by all factions of the movement. Only Daniel al-Qūmisī still vehemently denounced the ‘Baʿalei Miqra’. Members of Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s circle were ‘Baʿalei Miqra’ and consequently Benjamin was not considered a Karaite. In order to understand the Karaites’ dissociation from the primary meaning of their name, we must invoke the Sadducean dilemma

17

Structure and Sources

discussed in Chapter 2. As stated, the Karaites did not distinguish between the Sadducees mentioned in rabbinic literature and the ‘Sons of Zadok’ mentioned in Qumran literature. Therefore, they considered the Qumran works to which they had access as the literature of the ‘Sadducee Sect’. The author of the Damascus Covenant identified the ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ mentioned in the document as the ‘Sons of Zadok’. The Karaites, however, did not identify completely with the Zadokite doctrine, especially as they imputed to it Sadducean principles derived from rabbinic literature, which they also rejected. Given the Rabbanites’ identification of the Karaites with the Sadducees, and the movement’s declining messianic fervour already in the second half of the tenth century, the term Karaite acquired the secondary meaning of ‘Baʿalei Miqra’ (Scripturalists). The messianic connotations of the name ‘Karaites’ disappeared with the destruction of the Karaite Mourners’ centre in Jerusalem.

Sources In this section, I shall focus on the main sources used in this book. Karaite Sources Of the Karaites sources, the most important are the Mourners’ biblical commentaries. As I have already pointed out, these commentaries are the source of both their halakhic and messianic doctrine. Daniel alQūmisī, from the Qūmis district in northern Persia, was one of the first Karaite Mourners to settle in Jerusalem (880) whose works survived. He wrote his biblical commentaries in Hebrew, occasionally adding Arabic and Persian translations of selected words.2 Al-Qūmisī’s biblical commentaries testify to the strong influence of Qumran literature.3 However, he developed exegetical methods that had no Qumran source.4 Only very few of his biblical commentaries have survived,5 among them fragments of his Commentary on the Pentateuch and fragments of his Commentary on the Book of Daniel.6 Daniel al Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 31–36. Paul, Écrits, pp. 134–136. 4 Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 23–31. 5 For a list of his commentaries, see Drory, Reʼshīt, p. 196. 6 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’, pp. 295–307. 2 3

18

Preface

Qūmisī’s commentary on the Minor Prophets, Pitron Sheneim ʿAsar, has been preserved almost in its entirety.7 The commentaries of the Karaites Mourners who succeeded Daniel were written in Judaeo-Arabic. Most of them still exist in manuscript form and, in the nature of things, changed as they were copied over in successive generations.8 The corpus of Karaite manuscripts, including Scriptural commentaries, grew significantly after the manuscripts of the Second Firkovitch Collection, that were banned under the Soviet regime, were once again made available to scholars and researchers. Abraham Firkovitch, himself a Karaite, collected manuscripts in the second half of the nineteenth century, mainly from Karaite libraries in Egypt, and brought them to Russia.9 The main source used in the present work is Yefet ben ʿEli’s Commentary on the Bible. Yefet (Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan Ibn ʿAlī al-Baṣrī) was from Basra in southern Iraq, and was active in Jerusalem the second half of the tenth century. Although he relied on the commentaries of his predecessors, he developed his own exegetical method. Nonetheless, he made a point of citing the various opinions of the Mourners on many issues.10 Although Yefet wrote his commentaries in Judaeo-Arabic, he was not yet exposed to Muʿtazilite thought or to Arabic linguistics to the same extent as the eleventh-century Jerusalemite Karaites.11 The manuscripts of the Firkovitch Collection, as well as manuscripts in Western libraries, contain almost all Yefet’s commentaries on the Scriptures.12 Of his published commentaries, I have focused primarily on his Commentary on the Book of Daniel and his Commentary on the Song of Songs. Another important source are the commentaries of Salmon ben Yerūḥam, a Babylonian who lived in Jerusalem mainly in the first half of Daniel al-Qūmisī, Pitron. On textual changes in Yefet ben ʿEli’s commentaries on the Scriptures, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Editions’, pp. 17–32; Ben-Shammai, ‘Textual Traditions’, pp. 181–206; Wechsler, ‘Arabic Translation’, pp. 393–409. 9 On the Second Firkovitch Collection, see Elkin and Ben-Sasson, ‘Firkovitch’, pp. 59–80. 10 Polliack and Schlossberg, ‘Translation’, p. 61, note 1, are correct in saying that Yefet should not be considered simply a compiler. On his exegetical and translation techniques, see Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 37–56. 11 Polliack and Schlossberg, ‘Translation’, p. 54. 12 On the manuscripts of Yefet’s commentary on the Bible in Western libraries, see Tamani, ‘Tradizione’, pp. 27–76. For a sample catalogue of Yefet’s Commentary on Genesis in the Firkovitch collection, see Yefet, Commentary on Genesis (Butbul edition). 7 8

Structure and Sources

19

the tenth century.13 His commentaries on the Psalms, the Song of Songs, and the Book of Daniel shed light on the Jerusalemite Mourners’ messianic doctrine. Another Karaite commentator, Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah (Abū al-Faraj Furqān Ibn Asad), an eleventh-century Jerusalemite, focused mainly on halakha, and therefore wrote his commentary on the Pentateuch rather than on the entire Bible.14 It is clear, from his commentary, that Yeshuʿah had access to many rabbinical works, and his citations from ancient and obscure rabbinic texts make his work an important tool for studying this literature.15 As well as Scriptural commentaries, the Karaite Mourners compiled many books of precepts, which categorized laws by topic. The precedent for this was set by ʿAnan ben David and Benjamin al-Nahāwandī. Indeed, fragments of a book of precepts, written in Aramaic and ascribed to ʿAnan, have survived. The book, as well as statements attributed to him in Karaite writings, are an important source for studying ʿAnan’s doctrine. In this book, I have used Harkavy’s edition of ʿAnan’s book of precepts.16 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī also wrote his book of precepts, but in Hebrew, for members of his circle, the ‘Baʿalei Miqra’. A law book of his was published under the title Masʾat Binyamin, dealing with financial law and torts.17 Of the books of precepts compiled by the Jerusalem Mourners, I have drawn mainly on that composed by Levi, the son of Yefet ben ʿEli, which he wrote in the eleventh century in Judaeo-Arabic. Most of this work has survived in its Hebrew translation, and was recently published in five volumes by the Karaite, Rabbi Joseph al-Jamil.18 A unique book of precepts is the monumental work by Yaʿqūb alQirqisānī, the Book of Lights and Watchtowers (Kitāb al-Anwār waʾlMarāqib), published by Leon Nemoy.19 Qirqisānī, who was a Babylonian, completed his work in 927.20 Not only was he a Babylonian, he was also See Gil, Palestine, I, §923. On him and his works, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Yeshuʿah’, pp. 3–20. 15 On Yeshuʿah’s commentaries as a source for studying rabbinic halakhic midrashim, see Kahana, ‘Midrashic Treasures’, pp. 41–70 and Tirosh-Becker, ‘Linguistic Study’, pp. 380–407. 16 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition). 17 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Masʾat Binyamin. On Benjamin’s works, see Paul, Écrits, pp. 84–85. 18 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition). On Levi ben Yefet and the history of the work, see Yefet, Book of Precepts, I, pp. 26–38. 19 See Qirqisānī. 20 According to Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle (Margoliouth edition), p. 432, Qirqisānī composed his book in 1278 of the Seleucid era (i.e., 967), which is 315 of the Hijra 13 14

20

Preface

an opponent of the Mourners of Zion and therefore ignored them in his work. Qirqisānī considered his Book of Lights and Watchtowers a book of precepts,21 which is borne out by the fact that the core of this work is devoted to a discussion of the commandments of the Decalogue.22 At the same time, the Book of Lights should not be seen solely as a book of precepts. It contains a summary of the Karaite controversy, the polemic against the Rabbanites, Muslims and Christians, and theological discussions that were influenced by the Muʿtazila.23 In his introduction to this work, Qirqisānī provides a list of Jewish sects, from antiquity to his era.24 Although this introduction was influenced by the conventions of Christian and Arabic Kalām literature, its historical importance is incontrovertible.25 Qirqisānī based his work on the writings of Dāwūd Ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣ (whom he called ‘The Philosopher’) who wrote his works in the last quarter of the ninth century. According to Qirqisānī, Dāwūd (= David) was a Jew who converted to Christianity and then reverted to Judaism.26 His Judaeo-Arabic work, ʿIshrūn Maqālāt (Twenty Chapters), was published in a critical edition.27 The Karaite Mourners who, unlike Qirqisānī, were imbued with a messianic fervour, wrote many tracts urging members of their congregation and Jews in general to return to the Scriptures, mourn the destruction of Zion and immigrate to the Land of Israel. A tract written in Hebrew, first published by Jacob Mann, sheds light on the Mourners’ mindset, and on their perception of the historical reality. Most scholars agree that the author was al-Qūmisī, although Nemoy, who published (i.e. 937). On this contradiction, see Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle (Margoliouth edition), p. 437, note 1. Chiesa, Creazione, pp. 41–42, claims that the book was written in 927. 21 Qirqisānī, p. 495. 22 Qirqisānī wrote a separate commentary on sections of the Pentateuch that have no commandments performed in exile. See Qirqisānī, Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Hirschfeld edition), p. 39. 23 Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, dedicated an entire work to the study of Qirqisānī’s religious thought. In this book, there is also a discussion on Yefet ben ʿEli’s thought, as reflected in his commentaries. 24 This introduction has been translated into English. See Nemoy, ‘Qirqisānī’, pp. 317–397. 25 On Qirqisānī’s method in writing the introduction, see Chiesa, ‘Karaite Historiography’, pp. 56–65; Astren, History, pp. 104–131. 26 Qirqisānī, pp. 41–42. There are different opinions concerning the meaning of the name ‘al-Muqammiṣ’. According to Gil, Jews, I, §208, the name means ‘laundryman’, an epithet applied to his father. See, on the other hand, Stroumsa, Saʿadia Gaon, p. 24, note 56. On his work, see Stroumsa, Saʿadia Gaon, pp. 23–25. On his life and work, see also Stroumsa, Muqammiṣ, pp. 14–24. 27 Stroumsa, Muqammiṣ.

Structure and Sources

21

an amended version of this tract, challenges this consensus.28 Another propagandist tract, written in Judaeo-Arabic, was also ascribed to alQūmisī.29 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ (Abū Surri Sahl ha-Kohen ben Maṣlīʾaḥ) included such a tract in the introduction to his book of precepts.30 Sahl, a contemporary of Yefet’s but younger than him, flourished in Jerusalem in the second half of the tenth century. He was not content with simply publishing tracts, but travelled abroad to spread the Mourners’ creed. The Mourners’ literature was characterized by its vehement antiRabbanite invective, so much so, that this polemical literature developed into a Karaite literary genre of its own. Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, who travelled to Egypt in order to spread the Mourners’ creed, encountered the opposition of Jacob ben Samuel, who may have been a disciple of Saʿadia Gaon, or an exponent of his doctrine. Sahl wrote an epistle entitled Tokhaḥat Megullah (An Open Rebuke), which fiercely attacked the Rabbanites and called for a return to the Scriptures. Only the Hebrew version of this epistle has survived, although Sahl states that he wrote it also in Arabic.31 Salmon ben Yerūḥam’s Sefer Milḥamot Adonai (The Wars of God), is also a polemical work directed against Saʿadia Gaon,32 whom the Karaites considered their archfoe. Since the dawn of Karaism, and even in later generations, Saʿadia Gaon has remained the chief target of Karaite polemics.33 We have already discussed the Mourners’ important contribution to lexicology and the Hebrew language. A notable example of this contribution is the comprehensive dictionary of all biblical words, written in Judaeo-Arabic, compiled by David ben Abraham al-Fāsī, a tenthcentury Jerusalemite, whose introduction is revealing of the way the Karaites perceived language and translation.34 Another Karaite scholar was Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ, who lived in Jerusalem in the second half of the tenth and early eleventh centuries. According to the Karaite chronicler, Ibn al-Hītī,35 Yūsuf founded a yeshiva in Jerusalem (dār al-ʿilm), which catered to seventy students. Some of his students subsequently Daniel al-Qūmisī: ‘Sermon’, (Nemoy edition). Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’. 30 Sahl, ‘Tract’. 31 Sahl, Epistle. 32 Salmon, Milḥamot. 33 Poznanski, ‘Opponents’. 34 David ben Abraham, Dictionary. On his work, see Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 58–64. 35 Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle (Margoliouth edition), p. 433. On Ibn al-Hītī, see below, note 50. 28 29

22

Preface

became leading Karaite scholars in eleventh-century Jerusalem. Yūsuf composed a Hebrew grammar, including a syntactical analysis of words appearing in the Hagiographa, of which a critical edition has recently been published.36 In this book, I refer to post-eleventh-century sources only if they shed light on ancient Karaism. The Karaite centre that evolved in Byzantium developed largely under the influence of the Jerusalem Karaite centre.37 Tobias ben Moses, a native of Byzantium, who spent time in Jerusalem during the eleventh century, returned to his homeland to become a disseminator of the Palestinian Karaite doctrine.38 The books of the Jerusalemite Karaites, which were written mainly in Judaeo-Arabic, were rendered into Hebrew by translators (maʿatiqim) to make them accessible to Byzantine Jews. These translations, accompanied by Greek glosses, were often defective, and was one of the factors leading to the discrepancy between the Karaism that evolved under Islam and other forms of Karaism that evolved in a different cultural environment. A very important work that captures the essence of the messianic spirits of the Jerusalem Mourners of Zion after the community’s destruction, is Judah Hadassi’s book, Eshkol ha-Kofer.39 For censorship reasons, the published edition was purged of messianic connotations, but Ankori restored the expurgated parts from manuscripts.40 Although Eshkol ha-Kofer is essentially a book of precepts focusing on the Decalogue, in practice it is a comprehensive work on contemporary Karaism, including a copy of the list of pre-Karaitic sects provided by Qirqisānī.41 Another Karaite who operated in twelfth-century Byzantium was Elijah ben Abraham, who wrote a book about the discordances between the Karaites and Rabbanites.42 The ‘discordances’ genre in Karaite literature was effectively an offshoot of the Karaitic polemical genre that attempted to demonstrate the error of the Rabbanites’ ways. As part of the anti-Rabbanite polemic, the Karaites also studied the discordances Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ, Hebrew Grammatical Thought (Khan edition). On Ibn Nūḥ and his work, see Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ, Hebrew Grammatical Thought, pp. 5–35. 37 On this centre, see Ankori, Karaites. 38 On him, see Gil, Palestine, I, §939. 39 Hadassi, Eshkol. On Hadassi’s sources, see Scheiber, ‘Hadassi’, pp. 101–129. 40 See Ankori, ‘Judah Hadassi’, pp. 186–208. 41 On the connection between these two lists, see Carmignac, ‘Apparitions’, pp. 495–503. 42 See Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq. The Rabbanite, Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy edition), pp. 107–165, wrote about the discordances between the Karaites and Rabbanites in an attempt to play them down. See Nemoy, ‘Ibn Kammūnah’, pp. 201–208. 36

23

Structure and Sources

between the Babylonian and Palestinian Rabbanites. According to them, these discordances were a proof that the Oral Law was not divinely inspired.43 In the present work, I have also resorted to Aaron ben Joseph’s commentary on the Pentateuch known as Sefer ha-Mivḥar.44 Aaron ben Joseph, who lived in Byzantium in the thirteenth century, also edited the Karaite prayer book. Aaron ben Elijah, the foremost Karaite personality in Byzantium in the fourteenth century, wrote a commentary to the Pentateuch (Keter Torah),45 a book of precepts (Gan Eden), and a theological work (ʿEṣ Ḥayyim.)46 Elijah Bashyaṣi (d. 1490), who symbolized the Karaites’ transition from Byzantine to Turkish rule in Asia Minor, wrote an important book of precepts known as Aderet Eliyahu.47 In this work, I have chosen Samuel al-Maghribī ben Moses, a dayyan in Cairo in the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries, as representative of the Karaite centre in Egypt. As his name testifies, Samuel al-Maghribī was of North African stock. His book of precepts, known as Kitāb al-Murshid (The Guidebook),48 has recently been published in its Hebrew version (Sefer ha-Miṣvot).49 Another Karaite sage who also apparently lived in Egypt was Ibn al-Hītī who, as his name testifies, hailed from the city of Hīt, in Babylon. Al-Hītī’s chronicle of the chain of Karaite sages from the times of ʿAnan (whom he considered the first Karaite) sheds much light on late Karaite historiography, while providing valuable information about the early Karaite Mourners. The fact that his list ends with Samuel al-Maghribī indicates that he compiled his list in the late fourteenth century.50 Rabbinic Sources In the nature of things, most medieval rabbinic sources on the Karaite are directly or indirectly polemical in nature. As we have already seen, Saʿadia Gaon was one of the most prolific anti-Karaite polemicists. 43 On the Karaites’ analysis of rabbinic difference of opinion, see Elkin, ‘Version’, pp. 101–111. 44 Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer ha-Mivḥar. 45 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah. 46 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden. Idem, ʿEṣ Ḥayyim. 47 Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu. On him, see Ankori, ‘Elijah Bashyaṣi’, pp. 44–65, 183–205. 48 Samuel ben Moses, Murshid. Chapters of it have been published in various editions. 49 Samuel ben Moses, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Book of Precepts). 50 See Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle, (Margoliouth edition).

24

Preface

In some of his writings, the Karaites are criticized without even being mentioned.51 Saʿadia Gaon’s anti-Karaitic polemical works are an inexhaustible source of information on Karaism. The Karaites who argued with him frequently cited his arguments against them.52 The anti-Karaite banner was taken up not only by the oriental sages but by western ones, too. In his famous work, The Kuzari, R. Judah ha-Levi devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 3) to the anti-Karaite polemic. One of his letters, preserved in the Geniza, shows that the original version of the book was written in the context of the struggle against Karaism.53 Ibn Ezra’s commentaries also contain vehement diatribes against the Karaites, whom he termed ‘Sadducees’. On the other hand, a study of Ibn Ezra’s commentaries that do not allude to the Karaites shows that he was actually their disciple on many issues54 – as the Karaites were quick to note. The Karaite sage, Elijah Bashyaṣi, wrote in his book of precepts: ‘Know! Concerning the fact that we were told by our fathers that our sage, Rabbi Yefet, was Ibn Ezra’s teacher: You will see that in the literal interpretation of prophecies, he agrees in the main with the opinion of our rabbi, Rabbi Yefet, and our sages’.55 Although Yefet, who lived in the tenth century, could not have taught Ibn Ezra, who lived in the twelfth century, Ibn Ezra did borrow some of his commentaries and those of other Karaite sages. Sometimes Ibn Ezra rejected the ideas of mainstream Karaism, while adopting the halakhot of marginalized Karaite factions – again a fact of which the Karaite sages were aware.56 Alongside medieval rabbinical sources relating directly to the Karaites, I have also related, where necessary, to the opinions of the

51 On indirect attacks on the Karaites in his translations of the Pentateuch, see Weis, ‘Tendency’, pp. 227–244. 52 On Saʿadia’s anti-Karaite works, see Gil, Jews, I, §211. 53 See document 19 in Gil and Fleischer, Yehuda ha-Levi. Likewise, Banet, ‘Autographs’, pp. 297–300. 54 On Ibn Ezra’s commentaries and the Karaites’ influence on him, see Weis, ‘Ibn Ezra’. 55 Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu, p. 3(c). The later Karaites who were aware of their predecessors’ influence on Ibn Ezra, studied his writings assiduously. See Frank, ‘Ibn Ezra’. 56 See below, Chapter 3, note 545. In his commentary to Exodus 16.25, Ibn Ezra writes: ‘Many of those who lack faith were confused by this verse and said that one must observe the Sabbath and the following night’. Mundschein, ‘Ibn Ezra and Rashbam’, p. 29 argues that Ibn Ezra was not referring to the Karaites, since they held the same view as the Rabbanites on this issue. In my opinion, Ibn Ezra was referring to Mīshawayh al- ʿUkbarī and Daniel al-Qūmisī, who deduced from Exodus, Chapter 16, that the day begins at dawn. See below, Chapter 3, note 23.

25

Structure and Sources

Rabbinic Sages on halakhic issues raised in this book, in order to determine how far the Karaites diverged from ancient rabbinic halakha. Qumran Sources As already pointed out, the Damascus Covenant is of paramount importance in this discussion. For the purposes of this book, I have used the Qimron-Broshi edition of the Damascus Covenant scroll found in the Geniza, which contains a photocopy of the source document. Joseph Baumgarten, in volume 18 of the official edition of all Qumran manuscripts (DJD), published fragments of the scroll that were found in Cave Four. Other Qumran sources that I refer to in this work are: the Temple Scroll (Yadin English edition), Miqṣat Maʿasei Torah (MMT, Qimron edition), the Rule of the Congregation and the Rule of the Community, The War Scroll (= ‘The Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness’), the Habakkuk Pesher, fragments of pesharim on the Psalms and Micah, and the Florilegium (4Q), (Steudel edition), which effectively belongs to the pesher genre. Islamic Sources Muslim heresiographical literature contains explicit references to the Karaites. In these works, the Islamic sages specify the many sects in Islam, as well as the sects of other religious denominations, including the Jews. They refer to the Rabbanites, Karaites, ʿAnanites, and other sects that are not even mentioned in the rabbinical sources. In this book, I have referred, inter alia, to al-Bīrūnī’s Athār,57 which is dedicated to the calendars of the various sects, al-Masʿūdī’s Tanbīh,58 and alShahrastānī’s Book of Sects and Creeds.59 Although the Muslim sources that were written from the tenth century on are secondary sources, their importance is invaluable. As Goitein says: ‘Comparing the knowledge of Tacitus and his circle, and their Greek mentors, about the Jews, with the studies of the medieval Muslim sages from al-Masʿūdī to al-Bīrūnī and al-Shahrastānī, is like abandoning a world of barbarians who lack any sense of truth or inquiry […] and entering into an atmosphere of scholarly investigation and a true curiosity about the ideas of other’.60 Bīrūnī, Athār. Masʿūdī, Tanbīh. 59 Shahrastānī, Milal (Book of Sects and Creeds). 60 Goitein, ‘The Angry Religion’, p. 151. For a review of the Karaites in Muslim sources, see Gil, Palestine, I, §918. 57

58

Chapter One Introduction ʿAnan, ʿAnanites, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Karaites, The Mourners of Zion, Karaism

The purpose of this introduction is to introduce the reader to the terminology of Karaite historiography, and to the history of ancient Karaism in general, and of the Mourners of Zion movement, in particular. At the end of the chapter I shall briefly outline the basic doctrine of the Jerusalemite Mourners of Zion, and their complex relationship with the Rabbanites and with Islam as a result of this doctrine. I shall begin with a description of the rabbinic leadership in the Geonic period – the period in which the Karaite movement emerged.

The Rabbinic Leadership in Babylonia and Palestine in the Geonic Period The Karaite movement is a product of the period known in Jewish historiography as the ‘Geonic period’. The Geonīm were the heads of the Academies of Sura and Pumbedita in Babylonia and of the Palestinian Academy, who led the Jewish people under Muslim rule from the start of the Muslim conquest. In Palestine, the Geonic period ended with the conquest of the land by the Crusaders. Although Geniza documents show that the Geonic period in Babylonia ended with the Mongol conquest of Baghdad in 1258, there was a marked decline in the status of the Babylonian leadership after Hayy Gaon’s death in 1038.1

1 On the later Babylonian Geonīm, see Gil, Jews, I, § 261–268. On a Gaon who was active in Babylonia in 1288, see Gil, Jews, I, p. 466. At the end of the Geonic period, only one Academy – the Baghdad Academy – operated in Babylonia.

28

Chapter One

By the time of the Muslim conquest, the academies led by the Geonīm already boasted a lengthy history. On the eve of the Muslim conquest, the Palestinian Academy, which was situated in Tiberias, led the Jews of the Christian Byzantine Empire. The Exilarch, who traced his descent to the House of King David, led the Jews of the Sassanid Persian Kingdom, although the important leadership centres of the Empire were the two Babylonian Academies of Sura and Pumbedita, in which the Babylonian Talmud was redacted. Under Muslim religious law, the Jews living under Islam were entitled to ‘protection’ (dhimma) by the Muslims, in return for paying a ‘poll tax’ known as jizya. This protection granted the Jews extensive autonomy, enabling the Jewish leadership institutions that existed in the Middle East on the eve of the Muslim conquest to continue to lead the Jews under Muslim rule. The heads of the Academies were known as Geonīm, bequeathing their name to the entire period. The Academies had no political borders, and their communities were spread out throughout the Middle East. Babylonians who remained loyal to their heritage set up Babylonian communities in North Africa, Egypt and Palestine, under the aegis of one of the two Babylonian Academies. The two most famous academies in the Geonic period were the Babylonian academies. Over the years, they produced leaders whose prolific literary output had a lasting influence on Jewish culture. The most outstanding of these were: Saʿadia Gaon, head of the Sura Academy (928–942), and Sherira Gaon (968–1006) and his son, Hayy Gaon (1004–1038), who headed the Pumbedita Academy. The history of the Palestinian Academy remained cloaked in obscurity for many generations, and some even doubted its very existence. This was, to a large extent, due to the Babylonian leadership which, imbued with a sense of its own importance, concealed the existence of the Palestinian Academy. An outstanding example of this is Sherira Gaon’s Epistle in which he lists the Babylonian Geonīm of the Geonic period, without even alluding to the existence of the Palestinian Academy. Our knowledge about the Palestinian Academy grew immeasurably after the discovery of the Cairo Geniza. If the Geniza has opened new horizons on the history of the Jews in the Middle East in general, in the case of the Palestinian Academy in the post-Talmudic period: ‘it neither represents a unique contribution or even a complete scholarly revolution; rather, it has created an entirely new discipline ex nihilo’.2 The Friedman, ‘Contribution’, p. 279.

2

Introduction

29

wealth of information on Palestine in the Geniza is partly due to the fact that the synagogue in which the Geniza was discovered, in Fusṭāṭ (old Cairo today), belonged to the Palestinian community of Fusṭāṭ, that was under the aegis of the Palestinian Academy. The heads of the Palestinian community in Fusṭāṭ conducted a steady correspondence with their superiors, the Palestinian Geonīm. Thus, the Cairo Geniza provides us with primary sources on the Palestinian Geonīm, about whom we formerly knew nothing. The most famous were: Solomon ben Judah, who headed the Academy from 1025–1051, and Daniel ben ʿAzaria, a scion of the Exilarch’s family and Solomon’s successor until 1061.3 The Geniza also contains fragments of Palestinian halakha dating to the late Byzantine period, and copies of religious piyyuṭim written by exceptional Palestinian poets of the period. These piyyuṭim testify to the high cultural calibre of the Jewish community in Palestine.4 These, together with the Jerusalem Talmud, which was redacted in Tiberias, Midrashic literature and Bible translations known to us from nonGeniza sources, as well as the many splendid synagogues of the period (that were unearthed over the years in archaeological excavations), indicate that the Jewish centre in Palestine flourished in the Byzantine period, despite severe hardships. The centre, under the leadership of the Academy in Tiberias, produced many works that had an influence on the entire Jewish community of the Byzantine Empire.5 The findings show that Palestine still preserved halakhic autonomy until the start of the Geonic period, but that subsequently this autonomy declined.6 Ben Baboi’s Epistle attests to the halakhic autonomy of Palestine vis-à-vis Babylonia, and to Babylonia’s negative attitude toward the Palestinian centre at the start of the Geonic period. Ben Baboi vehemently attacked emissaries from the Palestinian Academy who tried to bring North African and Spanish communities under their influence. Ben Baboi even claimed, in the name of Rabbi Yehudai, the Gaon of the Sura Academy (757–761), that since the Kingdom of Edom had vowed to apostasize the Palestinian Jews, the doctrine of the Land of Israel was a ‘doctrine of apostasy’. The two diasporic academies, he continued, were in the best position to observe the Torah, since they had For a history of the Geonīm in the Palestinian Academy, see Gil, Palestine, I, §859–896. 4 Fleischer, ‘Cultural Profile’, pp. 1–22. 5 It follows that research into the Talmudic period in Palestine should not be underestimated. See Bar-Kochva, ‘Research’, p. 123. 6 Friedman, ‘Contribution’, pp. 279–282. 3

30

Chapter One

never come under Edomite rule.7 Ben Baboi, in his Epistle, also points out halakhic differences between Palestine and Babylonia, rendering the Epistle a rich source of information on the halakhic autonomy of Palestine in the early Geonic period.8 In one area, Palestine’s supremacy went unchallenged throughout the Geonic period: The determination of the Masoretic Scriptural text and its correct vocalization. Tiberias, the seat of the Palestinian Academy until it moved to Jerusalem, served as the centre of the Masoretes.9 Toward the end of the first quarter of the tenth century, Aaron ben Asher, a scion of a Masoretic family, wrote an authoritative version of the Scriptures, known as Keter Aram Ṣovah (the Aleppo Codex) – which became the authoritative version of the Scriptures for both the Rabbanites and the Karaites. Although the Karaites claim that Ben Asher’s Masoretic text was a Karaite initiative, contemporary scholars believe that Tiberias served as a centre for rabbinical Masoretes who were affiliated with the Academy for many generations. Moreover, there is no evidence whatsoever pointing to the existence of a Karaite community in Tiberias at that time.10 On the eve of the Muslim conquest, the Jewish population in Palestine suffered as Palestine, too, became a battleground for the war of attrition between the Persians and the Byzantines – a war of attrition that, in the final analysis, enabled Islam’s victory. During their military campaign, the Persians, who ruled Palestine from 614–628, inflicted damage on the Christian population and its religious institutions, particularly in Jerusalem, while the reconquest of the land by the Byzantines inflicted serious harm on the Jewish population.11 No wonder, then, that certain Jewish circles saw the Muslim conquest of

Spiegel, ‘Ben Baboi’, pp. 262–266, is of the opinion that the establishment of Baghdad and of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate influenced Ben Baboi to present Babylonia as the Jewish centre. 8 See Ben Baboi (Ginzberg edition), II, pp. 555–573. Friedman, ‘Contribution’, pp. 383–385. For an attempt to determine Ben Baboi’s identity, see Gil, Jews, §183. The document is known as ‘Pirqoi ben Baboi’. According to Gil, the word ‘Pirqoi’ is not part of his name, as some scholars believed. 9 Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 32–36. 10 See Dotan, ‘Ben-Asher’, pp. 280–362. For an attempted explanation of the Karaite contribution to the Masoretic enterprise, see Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 150–152. 11 On a lament ascribed to this period commemorating persecutions against Jewish localities, see Fleischer, ‘Lament’, pp. 209–227. One of the localities affected, according to the lament, was Qiryat Ono, see Fleischer, ‘Lament’,p. 213. A Geniza deed informs us of its reconstruction in the Geonic period. See Friedman, ‘Ono’, pp. 79–81. 7

Introduction

31

Palestine as a gateway to salvation.12 Shortly after the Muslim conquest of Palestine, Jews were allowed to settle in Jerusalem for the first time in many years,13 and set up their own neighbourhood in the city. According to Geniza documents, Tiberian Jews were the first to settle there.14 There is no evidence of an influx of Jews from the Diaspora once Jews were allowed to settle in Jerusalem.15 When the Karaite Mourners of Zion settled in Jerusalem in the last quarter of the ninth century, they found an old Rabbanite community there, although Tiberias was still the seat of the Palestinian Academy. Only in the first-quarter of the tenth century did the Palestinian Academy move to Jerusalem. The Palestinian Academy was officially recognized by the Fātimid Caliphate that ruled over Egypt and Palestine from 969. Scholars agree that the ‘the head of the Palestinian Academy’ was also the leader of the Jews under the Fātimid Caliphate.16 The Palestinian Academy was forced to move to Tyre c. 1078, following the Turkoman Conquest (1071–1098).17 In our discussion of the Rabbanite leadership in the Geonic period, the following two facts should be borne in mind: (a) The heads of the three Academies that led the Rabbanite community under Muslim rule were also the heads of the institutions that produced the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds. Far from declining under Muslim rule, these institutions actually prospered to some extent. Their heads, the Geonīm, disseminated their rulings to their satellite communities through responsa, held periodic conventions, appointed community heads, and enjoyed broad legal autonomy under Muslim protection. It follows, therefore, that the Karaite movement came into being in Islamic lands despite the power and authority the rabbinic establishment enjoyed there.

The expectation of redemption following the Muslim conquest can be found in ‘Nistarot R. Shimon bar Yoḥai’. For a discussion of this document, see Crone and Cook, Hagarism, pp. 3–4, 35–37. 13 On the settlement and its circumstances, see Gil, Palestine, I, §81–87. Ir-Shai’s study, ‘Constantine’, pp. 129–178, shows that Constantine did not prohibit the Jews from entering the city. 14 Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 1. 15 Ben Baboi’s Epistle attests to the presence of Babylonian Jews in Jerusalem. See Ben Baboi (Ginzberg edition), II, p. 556. 16 On the authorities’ recognition of the Palestinian Academy, see Gil, Ereṣ, II, Docs. 36, 51, 311. On the head of the Academy also serving as head of the Jews in the Fātimid Caliphates, see Goitein, Mediterranean, II, pp. 5–31. For another hypothesis, see Sela, ‘Headship’, pp. 256–281. 17 Gil, Palestine, I, §603–609. 12

32

Chapter One

(b) This book focuses on the Jewish centre in Palestine, whose importance, both in the Talmudic and the Geonic periods, has been revealed to us by the Geniza. The spiritual leadership in Palestine produced a unique literature that evolved from the Mishnaic period through the Talmudic period, despite the iron-fist policy adopted by the Roman and Byzantine authorities. Its prolific literary output, and the synagogues that were discovered in archaeological excavations, testify to a dynamic Jewish settlement in Palestine during the Byzantine period. At the start of the Muslim conquest, a Rabbanite Jewish settlement was established in Jerusalem, and many Jewish communities existed throughout Palestine until shortly before the first Crusade.18 Under the protection of the Muslim authorities, the Palestinian Geonīm led the Palestine community, as well as many diasporic communities, as the Geniza documents testify. The same documents teach us that the Babylonian Academies tried, throughout the period, to preserve their hegemony over the Palestinian Academy. Below we shall see that the Karaite Mourners of Zion strove, at the time, to restore Palestine’s centrality.

ʿAnanites, Karaites and Karaism Ancient tenth- and eleventh-century Karaite sources paint a completely different picture to that painted by later Karaite sources, written after the twelfth century, concerning the origins of the Karaite movement, and its ties with ʿAnan ben David. Undoubtedly, these ancient sources are closer to the historical truth, although they, too, fail to provide us with a complete picture of the origins, or early history, of the Karaite movement. According to the later Karaites, the Exilarch ʿAnan ben David was the founder of the Karaite movement in general, and the founder of the Jerusalem Karaite community in particular.19 Although, as we shall see below, ʿAnan was, indeed, a member of the Exilarch’s family, he was neither the founder of the Karaite movement nor even the founder of the Karaite community in Jerusalem since he never settled in Palestine. As to the dating of ʿAnan’s activity, the consensus is that ʿAnan operated during the al-Manṣūr Caliphate (754–775) in the second half of A study of Evyatar’s scroll testifies to this. See Gil, Ereṣ, III, doc. 559. For a summary of later sources, see Poznanski, ‘Beginning’, pp. 83–93. On ʿAnan the Exilarch and the first Karaite sage, according to a Karaite who operated in the late fourteenth century, see Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle (Margoliouth edition), p. 432. 18 19

Introduction

33

the eighth century. Sherira Gaon’s Epistle proves that ʿAnan was active after the tenure of the Gaon of Sura, Yehudai ben Naḥman (757–761).20 R. Abraham ben David, in his Sefer ha-Kabbalah (Book of Tradition), informs us that ʿAnan and his son, Saul, were active in the period of Yehudai Gaon. Some scholars infer, from another reference in this work, that both were pupils of Yehudai Gaon: ‘(They) broke with him and his tradition, without any substantive ground whatever, but only out of the envy that overcame them. Hence, they cannot possibly say: “thus have we received on the testimony of so and so [who received] from the prophets.” Instead they fabricate things out of their own hearts’.21 The ancient sources draw a clear distinction between ʿAnan and the ʿAnanites, his followers, and the Karaite movement that emerged about a century after ʿAnan’s death. As stated, those sources tell us nothing about ʿAnan’s immigration to Palestine. The same sources, together with Muslim heresiographical literature, relate that in the early Geonic period, ferment seized hold of the Jews who found themselves under Muslim rule, particularly in Babylonia and Persia. In this period, many Jewish sects emerged. By the tenth century most of them had disappeared, or survived in small numbers only. Since none of their original works have survived, any discussion of them can only be hypothetical. The names of some of the founders of these movements are: Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī, Yūdghān, Mūshkā, Mūsā al-Zaʿafrānī, and Mīshawayh alʿUkbarī. The sources seem to indicate that ʿAnan was simply a founder of one of the sects that mushroomed at the time, whose members were called ʿAnanites, after their founder.22 The research is divided concerning the origins of the sects mentioned in the Karaite and Muslim sources, and the extent to which they were related to ʿAnan. As to the first issue, Crone claims that, following the Muslim conquest, ancient Jewish-Christian sects found fertile pastures for their activities.23 According to Gil, these ancient sects were not an integral part of Judaism, but had distinctly Manichean and Christian undertones.24 My research reveals that some of the sects were influenced Epistle of Sherira Gaon (Rabinowitz edition), p. 147. Abraham ben David, Sefer ha-Kabbalah (Cohen edition), pp. 91–92 (English translation). See Danzig, Halakhot Pesuqot, p. 29. See also below, nn. 66–67. 22 The most detailed list of sects can be found in the introduction to Qirqisānī’s great work. See Qirqisānī, pp. 3–14, 51–59. Nemoy, ‘Qirqisānī’, pp. 317–397, translated this introduction into English. For a review of the sects, see Gil, Jews, I, §148–159. 23 Crone, ‘Islam’, pp. 74–95. See also Pines, ‘Jewish Christians’, pp. 280–286. 24 Gil, ‘Antiquities’, pp. 92, 94–95. 20 21

34

Chapter One

by Qumran literature.25 A study of Qirqisānī’s inventory of sects indicates that he traces the origins of these sects to the early Middle Ages. According to him, even the Rabbanites rejected the view that these sects were ancient, as evidenced by a Rabbanite-Karaite polemic, cited by Qirqisānī, concerning the ijmāʿ (consensus).26 The Rabbanites held that a consensus was, by definition, ancient, and therefore must have preceded the sects specified by Qirqisānī, including the ʿAnanites and the Benjaminites (the followers of Benjamin al-Nahāwandī).27 A consensus on any halakhic issue was not invalidated by the secession of a new sect from the Jewish nation, as was the case in the ancient period. For example, the consensus regarding the direction of prayer (facing Jerusalem) was not undermined by the Samaritans, who challenged this consensus, just as the Jewish consensus regarding the Unity of God was not undermined by the Christian belief in the Trinity.28 It is clear from the above that the Rabbanites did not consider the sects listed by Qirqisānī in his introduction ancient sects like the Samaritans or Christians. This leads us to the second question: To what extent were the sects that operated in the Geonic period related to ʿAnan? Below, we shall point to a number of fundamental differences between them and ʿAnan: (1) The Karaites refer to ʿAnan as Exilarch. The Karaite Elijah ben Abraham relates, in the name of an anonymous Rabbanite whom many identify as Saʿadia Gaon, that ʿAnan and his brother Ḥananiah both contended for the title of Exilarch.29 When ʿAnan was deposed in favour of his brother, he decided to set up a new movement, which was possible under the autonomy the Muslim authorities granted the Jews.30 Gil’s studies on the history of the Rabbanite leadership in the Geonic period show that ʿAnan’s offspring served in the Rabbanite establishment of that period. Daniel ben Saul, ʿAnan’s grandson served as Exilarch in Babylonia and won the support of various circles in the Academies of Sura and Pumbedita during the controversy over his leadership, in the On Abū ʿĪsā and Qumranic influences on him, see Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 162– 199. On Qumranic influences on Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī, see below, Ch. 3. 26 On the ijmāʿ in Karaite law, see below, nn. 102, 155, 355. 27 On Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, see below, section 5 of this chapter. 28 Qirqisānī, pp. 141–142. For a translation, see Peor, ʿIyyūnīm, p. 86. 29 According to Gil, Jews, I, pp. 102, 116, Ḥananiah was the father of the Exilarch Naṭronai, who was deposed c. 770 in favour of Zakkai ben Ahonai. See Epistle of Sherira Gaon (Rabinowitz edition), p. 143, where Naṭronai’s father is called ‘Ḥavivai’. 30 Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103. On the identification of the anonymous Rabbanite as Saʿadia Gaon, see Zucker, Targum, pp. 144–149. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 255, n. 1. Nemoy, ‘ʿAnan’, pp. 239–248, refuted the historical authenticity of the source, and did not identify the Rabbanite as Saʿadia. 25

Introduction

35

years 820–825. Ṣemaḥ, ʿAnan’s great-grandchild, served as head of the Palestinian Academy c. 862–893. His brother, Jehoshaphat, may have held the same title before him. Both brothers were called ‘Nasi’ (prince) an epithet reserved for members of the Exilarch’s family.31 These findings show conclusively that ʿAnan was a member of the Exilarch dynasty, and was therefore given the title of Exilarch in Karaite sources. His offspring, who were Karaite leaders, bore the title of ‘Nasi’ as behoved their status. If the sects operating in ʿAnan’s times were indeed from the fringes of Judaism, a vast distance separated them from ʿAnan, whose origins can be traced back to the Rabbanite leadership.32 (2) Generally speaking, Karaite works strongly condemn the sects.33 Although Qirqisānī frequently draws parallels between the sects and the Karaites,34 on the whole he disparages the sects and their successor movements that operated in his times outside the framework of the Karaite movement.35 ʿAnan was also criticized by the early Karaites, in varying degrees, although most accepted a connection between ʿAnan and their movement. ʿAnan was a trailblazer in his struggle against Rabbanite halakha, and the Karaites followed in his footsteps.36 The fact that ʿAnan’s offspring led the Karaite movement from the late tenth century no doubt also helped strengthen ʿAnan’s status in Karaite historiography.37

Gil, Jews, I, §79–81; Gil, Palestine, I, §852. Gil, ‘Antiquities’, pp. 84–91. Friedlander, ‘Studies’, (1), pp. 203–215, already noted this fundamental difference between ʿAnan and the sectaries. 33 On the polemic against the Abū ʿĪsā sect, see Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 168–184. On Qirqisānī’s invective against Mīshawayh, see below, Ch. 3, nn. 197–199. 34 For example, p. 53. In speaking of Yūdghān, who called for the abolition of festivals and Sabbaths in his times, he adds that some of the Karaites shared this opinion. For other examples of ties between the sectaries and the Karaites, as Qirqisānī claimed, see Gil, ‘Antiquities’, p. 94. 35 For example, Qirqisānī, p. 14. On page 852, Qirqisānī enumerates sects that were considered Karaite sects: ʿAnan, Benjamin, Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī, Tiflīsī, Malik alRamlī, and al-Qūmisī. Alongside them, he enumerates the innovators, who, according to him, were not associated with any one personality. See Ben‑Shammai, ‘Different’, p. 150. The title of Section 19 of the first chapter of Qirqisānī’s book (p. 59) shows discordances between the Karaites of his times and those of the previous generation – discordances that have nothing to do with any of the sects he listed in his inventory. This title not only informs us of the difference between the Karaites and the sects, but also implies that there were common issues in their discourse. 36 Below, sections 4a, 4b, in this chapter, and n. 51. 37 For a history of the Karaite Nesiim, ʿAnan’s offspring, in Jerusalem, see Gil, Palestine, I, §926–927. Ben‑Shammai, ‘Karaites’, pp. 209–211. 31

32

36

Chapter One

(3) Fragments of ʿAnan’s writings, mainly from the Book of Precepts attributed to him, have survived and are even quoted in Karaite sources,38 unlike the works of other sects that have sunk into oblivion – a fact that may account for the Karaites’ attitude toward these sects. Despite the Karaites’ reservations concerning earlier sects, scholars are inclined to believe that the Karaite movement emerged from these sects.39 Nemoy claims that ʿAnan’s unique contribution was the creation of a systematic framework for all the sects operating in his period.40 Gil, like Nemoy, believes that the Karaites evolved from these sects, although he denies the antiquity of the ʿAnanite movement. According to him, it was only after ʿAnan’s descendants became leaders of the Karaite movement that ʿAnan was associated with a movement he never founded.41 The fact that ʿAnan’s grandson, Daniel ben Saul, and his great-grandchildren, Ṣemaḥ and Jehoshaphat, served in the Rabbanite leadership until the last quarter of the ninth century shows, according to Gil, that the ʿAnanite movement came into existence only in the middle of the ninth century.42 It was ʿAnan II, ʿAnan’s great-grandchild and son of the Exilarch Daniel ben Saul, who, according to Gil, joined the Karaite movement. The only information we have about this ʿAnan is provided by the Muslim scholar al-Bīrūnī, from whom it transpires that ʿAnan II was active c. 890, and was effectively the founder of the ʿAnanite movement.43 In conclusion, the origins of the Karaites are shrouded in mystery. Unlike later Karaite sources, the ancient Karaite sources indicate that ʿAnan ben David was not the founder of the Karaite movement. According to them, ʿAnan founded the ʿAnanite movement during the period of the al-Manṣūr Caliphates (754–775), but certain modern scholars reject this position. The Karaite movement proper arose about a century after ʿAnan’s death, in the second half of the ninth century. Contemporary scholars believe that this movement evolved from sects operating in Babylonia and Persia in the early Geonic period. 38 On the Karaites’ lack of primary sources of ʿAnan’s writings in a certain period, see Ben-Shammai, ‘ʿAnanites’, pp. 19–25. 39 Nemoy, ‘Early Karaism’, pp. 307–315. Chiesa, Creazione, p. 22. Gil, ‘Antiquities’, p. 94. Niazi, ‘Karaites’, pp. 140–141, notes the discrepancy between the research position and Qirqisānī’s statement. 40 Nemoy, ‘Early Karaism’, pp. 310–311. 41 The responsum of the Gaon Naṭronai bar Hilai (853–861) implies that ʿAnan set up a movement. See below, n. 78. 42 See above, n. 31. 43 Bīrūnī, Athār, pp. 58–59. See Gil, Palestine, I, §919. Gil, ‘Antiquities’, pp. 76, 83–85, 100–101.

Introduction

37

Since these sects operated over a period of three centuries and left no original works behind, any conclusion concerning them can be only hypothetical. Bearing in mind this proviso, we noted above the differences between these sects and ʿAnan. For the purposes of this book, we shall use the term ‘Karaism’ to refer to the proliferation of sects, including the Karaite movement, in the Geonic period.

ʿAnan, Benjamin, the Karaites, and the Mourners of Zion In the absence of ancient Karaite chronicles, information about the origins of the Karaite movement may be garnered from commentaries by the Mourners of Zion on the Prophets, and on books from the Hagiography, such as the Psalms, the Song of Songs, and Daniel. The Mourners believed that these books were applicable to their period, and their commentaries to these books are an attempt to interpret current and future events in the light of these books.44 The most famous source on the evolution of Karaism is the JudaeoArabic commentary of the tenth-century Jerusalemite Mourner of Zion, Salmon ben Yerūḥam, to the verse: ‘For the Leader; upon Shoshannīm [Lilies]. [A Psalm] of David’ [Psalms 69.1], a translated version of which is brought below: His words are ‘upon Shoshannīm’, namely, this salvation is in the merit of the righteous who are compared to lilies, as it says: ‘As a lily among thorns’ [Song of Songs 2.2]. He also compared them to flowers, grapes, and figs, and to many plants and fruit. Each of these has its own explanation, as we shall reveal, with God’s help, in the commentary on the Song of Songs. Suffice it to say here that this lily, and the like, flower after the winter has departed, as it says: ‘For lo, the winter is past, The rain is over and gone’ [Song of Songs 2.11]. So, too, shall the righteous appear after the four Empires have disappeared.45 Although the righteous shall appear in various situations, each stratum (of the righteous) that arrives shall be stronger than its predecessor, until the remnant manifests itself.46

44 On the Mourners’ interpretations of prophecies relating to their times, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 130–155. 45 The fourth kingdom is the kingdom of Islam; Salmon was referring to the end of Islamic rule. 46 Sheʾerīt in the source.

38

Chapter One

In the fourth Empire, ʿAnan appeared and softened the hearts of the people and opened their eyes so that they yearned for the Scriptures,47 commensurately with their understanding of it. For the custom of the Rabbanites,48 and their study of the Talmud made them forget the Scriptures and the search for its truth. Afterwards Benjamin appeared,49 and added strength and revealed those things in which ʿAnan, may God have mercy upon him, was drawn after the custom of the Rabbanites. The Karaites appeared after Benjamin and their expertise in the Law and their proficiency in the Scriptures intensified. After that, a group from the east and from the west appeared, and their adherence to the religion intensified, as did their exegesis based on individual reasoning [ijtihād]50 and knowledge, and they set their hearts on dwelling in Jerusalem. They left their property and motherland, and distanced themselves from the pleasures of this world. Today they live in Jerusalem, until the remnant shall be revealed in their wake, as it says, referring to them: ‘The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity [Zephaniah 3.13]. These are the ‘lilies’. And all the righteous who cling to the Scriptural creed belong to them. This psalm is connected to the previous one, which contains important tidings [bishārāt], through the common reference to lilies, in order to teach us that when these lilies appear, they will supplicate the Lord, and through their supplication, bring about the Redemption.51

This commentary describes four stages in the evolution of Karaism, the third of which represents the crystallization of the Karaite movement. Although the above is an extremely cursory outline,52 it nevertheless provides a description of the sequence of events that led to the establishment of the Karaite movement. We shall, following Salmon’s example, now proceed to describe the four stages, with the help of additional sources. Literally, Kitāb Allāh (Book of God), a common epithet for the Qurʾān in Islam. 48 Literally, ‘Benei Beirav’. 49 The reference is to Benjamin al-Nahāwandī. 50 The primary meaning of ijtihād is ‘endeavour’, but in Muslim jurisprudence, this term means studying according to one’s own individual reasoning. See Schacht, ‘Idjtihād’, III, p. 1026. This term is translated as ‘individual reasoning’. See Khadduri, Islamic Jurisprudence, p. 37. As we shall see below, nn. 124–126, there is a great similarity in Islam and Karaism between this term and the terms ‘thought’ (raʾy) and ‘analogy’. Ijtihād is the opposite of taqlīd (blind acceptance of laws). No wonder then that the Karaites termed the Rabbanites, ‘proponents of taqlīd’. 51 Salmon, Commentary on Psalms 69.1 (Marwick edition), pp. 97–98 (my translation). I based my translation on Pinsker’s fragmentary translations, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, I, pp. 21–22. Zucker, Targum, p. 168, n. 659. On ‘bishāra’ in the sense of ‘prophesy’, see below, Ch. 4, n. 128. 52 See Astren, History, pp. 87–89. 47

39

Introduction

ʿAnan ben David Salmon does not refer to sects that operated during ʿAnan’s times. His descriptions barely allude to the influence of the Rabbanite environment on ʿAnan, and to the Mourners’ attitude toward him. Since ʿAnan operated in a Muslim environment, we shall also study the interaction between him and the Muslims. ʿAnan and the Rabbanites Salmon, in his commentary, refers to ʿAnan as a trailblazer. He was the first to return to the Scriptures, which for years had been ignored in favour of the Oral Law. As a pioneer in this area, ʿAnan still followed Rabbanite law on many issues. Indeed, one may wonder to what extent ʿAnan departed from the doctrine of the Rabbinic Sages and the Geonīm of his period, and whether he can, indeed, be considered the first Scripturalist (one who considers the Scriptures as the sole source for halakhic rulings). Unfortunately, the fragmentary nature of his surviving works, and the conflicting testimonies regarding his doctrine, preclude unequivocal answers to these questions. The extent to which ʿAnan and his circles deviated from rabbinic law is debated indirectly within the research community in its discussion on the nature of rabbinic anti-sectarian literature in the pre-Saʿadia period. Some would no doubt argue that the lack of any significant rabbinic anti-Karaite literature in that period indicates that the seeds of Karaism were sown shortly before the actual emergence of the Karaite movement. Others point to the existence of anti-Karaite rabbinic polemics prior to Saʿadia Gaon, indicating that the seeds of Karaism germinated during this period. There is, for example, the question of whom Ben Baboi was addressing when he ardently defended the Oral Law.53 Zucker claims that Ben Baboi’s arguments already contain an anti-Karaite undertone.54 For his praise of the Oral Law, see below, n. 381. Zucker, Targum, pp. 204–205. On other anti-Karaite polemics in the period preceding Saʿadia Gaon, see Zucker, Targum, pp. 203–228. Even before Zucker, Lewin, ‘Geniza Fragments’, pp. 386–389, identified an anti-Karaite polemic in Ben Baboi’s rhetoric. See also Mann, ‘Ben Bâboï’, pp. 120–121, who considers Ben Baboi’s arguments as the earliest polemic against ʿAnan. On page 137, he cautiously suggests that the term ‘apīqorsīn’ Ben Baboi used was an allusion to the Karaites. See also Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 72, n. 1. Wieder, ‘Benediction’, p. 214, nn. 99, 102. Gartner, ‘Why’, pp. 25–27, is of a similar opinion. On an anti-Karaite text in Ben Baboi, according to Gartner, see Ben Baboi (Ginzberg edition), I, pp. 570–572. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 65–67, argues that Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 13 (Enelow edition), pp. 252–252, contains an anti-Karaite polemic. One of the polemical methods the Rabbanites 53

54

40

Chapter One

Spiegel, however, is of the opinion that Ben Baboi’s eulogy of the Oral Law should not be construed as a condemnation of the Karaites.55 Gil, who denies that ʿAnan founded a movement,56 perceives Ben Baboi’s polemic as an attack both against the doctrine of the Land of Israel and against ʿAnan and his faction.57 Evidence of the similarity between ʿAnan’s doctrine and the rabbinic doctrine can be found in a text by the Gaon Hayy ben Naḥshon, head of the Sura Academy (886–896), and his father, as related to us by Qirqisānī.58 The Gaon and his father, who translated ʿAnan’s book from Aramaic into Hebrew, claimed that everything in it had a rabbinical source, except for one halakha, which was subsequently traced to a piyyūṭ by Yannai, a Palestinian payyṭan of the late Byzantine period.59 ʿAnan, as a scion of the Exilarch’s family, was familiar with rabbinic halakha and even wrote his halakhic works in Aramaic, the rabbinic halakhic language.60 Qirqisānī informs us that ʿAnan was proficient (ʿālim) in rabbinic doctrines,61 and even used Tannaitic halakhic methods, such as the gezerah shawah, one of the thirteen rules ascribed to Rabbi Ishmael.62 Both ʿAnan and Benjamin held the view that ‘if the Scripture adds a word (or letter), or repeats itself, it is always to teach

adopted against the Karaites was the introduction of new laws to counteract Karaite laws, such as the recital of Avot on the Sabbath, according to Gartner. See Gartner, ‘Why’, pp. 27–32. Likewise, Wieder, ‘Benediction’, pp. 197–221, who maintains that the recital of ‘ba-meh madlīqīn’ on Sabbath nights in the synagogue was an antiKaraite measure. 55 Spiegel, ‘Ben Baboi’, p. 265, n. 28, points out that this could not have been so, since the Karaites had not yet come into existence. Friedman, too, ‘Ben Baboi’, pp. 250, n. 2, argues that Ben Baboi could not have been referring to the Karaites. 56 Above, n. 42. 57 Gil, ‘Antiquities’, p. 85. Rav Ṣaʿir, ‘Sefer ha-Sheʾiltot’, pp. 538–543, claims that the Sefer ha-Sheʾiltot that is attributed to Rav Aḥai, and that was composed no later than the mid-eighth century, was designed to counteract the Karaites. Assaf, Tequfat ha-Geʾonim, pp. 157–158, rejected this argument. On the Sheʾiltot, see Brody, Ṣohar, pp. 85–90. 58 Qirqisānī, p. 13, refers to him as Hayy, only. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 88, maintains that this was a reference to the Gaon of Pumbedita, Hayy ben David (889–896). See, on the other hand, Gil, ‘Antiquities’, p. 76. 59 On Yannai, see Rabinowitz, Maḥzor, I, pp. 45–54. Qirqisānī terms Yannai’s piyyūṭ ‘Ḥazānat Yannai’. On this term, see Yahalom, Piyyūṭ, p. 40. According to Saʿadia Gaon, the Karaites found evidence in the piyyuṭim (ḥazāna) that the Rabbanites personified the divinity. See Harkavy, ‘Fragments’, pp. 664, 667. See also Yahalom, Piyyūṭ, pp. 232–233. 60 Above, Foreword, n. 16. 61 Qirqisānī, p. 13. 62 Qirqisānī, p. 367. Qirqisānī himself rejected this rule. See Qirqisānī, p. 366.

Introduction

41

us something new that was not said before the addition or repetition’.63 This rule was effectively the same rule devised by Rabbi Akiva, who maintained that nothing was superfluous in the Scriptures, and every single word has a purpose: ‘When a word is repeated it is for the purpose of encompassing yet a second matter’.64 Ben-Shammai notes the resemblance not only of ʿAnan’s halakhic technique but also his homiletic technique to that of the Rabbinic Sages.65 As stated above, one can infer from R. Abraham ben David that ʿAnan was a disciple of Yehudai Gaon.66 Some scholars even point to the influence of Yehudai Gaon’s halakhot on ʿAnan.67 Although the writings of Hayy ben Naḥshon and his father, which have reached us second-hand, trace each of ʿAnan’s halakhot to the Rabbinic Sages, they do not necessarily indicate an equivalence between ʿAnan’s halakhot and those of the Rabbinic Sages. Conversely, a halakha that departs from the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages does not necessarily indicate a departure from the techniques of Talmudic exegesis. A study of the fragments of ʿAnan’s Book of Precepts that have survived shows that while, in many cases, he took issue with the law of the Rabbinic Sages,68 he often remained loyal to their techniques, even using them to overrule the Rabbinic Sages.69 In some cases, ʿAnan adopted the rejected laws of the Rabbinic Sages.70 We have already discussed how the Babylonian Rabbanites considered Palestinian halakha inferior to Babylonian halakha.71 ʿAnan, on the other hand, based one of his halakhot on a piyyūṭ composed by the Palestinian payyṭan Yannai.72 As we 63 Qirqisānī, p. 1117. The Hebrew translation is taken from Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes’, p. 44. Qirqisānī, p. 402, accepted this rule in principle, but claimed that ʿAnan and Benjamin used it incorrectly. 64 JT, Shabbat 19.2, 17a (‫)לשונות ריבויין הן‬. See Epstein, Mevoʾot, p. 521. BT, Menaḥot, 29(b) states: ‘And Akiva ben Yosef […] shall, in the future, derive heaps of rules from the tip of every letter in the Torah’. On other rabbinic rules ʿAnan used for deriving halakha, see ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), pp. xi-xii. 65 Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes’, pp. 46–51. 66 Above, n. 21. 67 Harkavy believes that ʿAnan was influenced by the work Halakhot Gedolot. Danzig, Halakhot Pesuqot, pp. 29–30, n. 72 claims that such an influence was impossible, since the work was written after ʿAnan’s death. According to him, there is no connection between the Halakhot Pesuqot and ʿAnan. On the influence of the Halakhot Pesuqot on Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, see below, n. 245. 68 Weiss, Dor, pp. 53–54. Gil, ‘Antiquities’, p. 76. 69 Poznanski, ‘Review’, p. 279. 70 Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan’, pp. 174–176. Erder, ‘Karaite Halakha’, pp. 175–176. 71 Above, nn. 6–8. 72 Above, n. 59.

42

Chapter One

shall see below, even the Karaites, in ʿAnan’s wake, adopted Palestinian halakhot, despite declaring an absolute schism with Oral Law.73 The fact that ʿAnan based a halakha on a Palestinian piyyūṭ is in itself worthy of note. That the Rabbanite, Ben Baboi, considered Palestinian piyyūṭ simply a by-product of the persecution that had taken place there under the Byzantines was an indication of the Babylonian sages’ disparaging attitude toward it.74 Until the late ninth century, piyyūṭ flourished in Palestine while Babylonia opposed it.75 A study of Palestinian piyyūṭ shows that it constitutes a rich source of information on autonomous halakha in Palestine.76 So far we have learned how a Gaon perceived ʿAnan’s work, as it was preserved second-hand.77 Now we shall turn to another appraisal by a Gaon of ʿAnan’s work, this time first hand, in the form of a responsum by the Gaon of Sura, Naṭronai bar Hilai (853–861), which was preserved in Amram’s Siddur, the first prayer book known to us, and attributed to Amram ben Sheshna, the Gaon of Sura, (861–872). The following quote is from a collection of Naṭronai’s responsa edited by Brody. In the context of a discussion on the texts to be recited at the Passover Seder, which included a vehement attack against heretics who denied the authority of the Rabbinic Sages and derided the Mishnah and Talmud, the Gaon cites ʿAnan who exhorted ‘all those who erred and went astray after him’ as follows: ‘Abandon the words of the Mishnah and Talmud, and I will make a Talmud of my own for you’. And still they cling to their errant ways, and have become a people unto themselves. He established a Talmud of wickedness and evil for himself. And our Rabbi and Teacher, Eleazar Aluf of Spain, saw a book of abominations of his, known as the Book of Precepts, and how many subterfuges it contains. And now they [ʿAnan and his followers] must be excommunicated, and not be allowed to pray with Jews in the synagogue. They must be ostracized until they repent.78

This passage gives an entirely different impression from the one Qirqisānī ascribes to the Gaon Hayy ben Naḥshon and his father. According to Below, nn. 357–364. Ben Baboi (Lewin edition), p. 398. 75 Beeri, ‘Hebrew Poetry’, pp. 23–27. 76 Rabinowitz, Maḥzor, I, pp. 55–60. 77 Above, nn. 58–59. 78 Naṭronai, Responsa, I, pp. 258–259, §138. On the Sefardic sage Eleazar, see Naṭronai, Responsa, I, p. 62. 73 74

Introduction

43

this passage, ʿAnan called on his disciples to abandon the Mishnah and Talmud, namely, he challenged the authority of the Rabbinic Sages. He composed his own Book of Precepts, which Eleazar Aluf came across in Spain and found full of subterfuge. This book, rather than being intimately bound up with the rulings of the Rabbinic Sages, actually represented an alternative Talmud to that of the Rabbinic Sages. Although Salmon, in his commentary to Psalms 69.1, refers to Benjamin and ʿAnan as individuals,79 it is clear from the above passage by Naṭronai Gaon that ʿAnan did, in fact, have a circle of followers.80 Indeed, the rift with them was so great that they had turned into a ‘separate nation’ and had to be excommunicated. The Karaites who were ostracized by the rabbinic authorities maintain that ʿAnan had already been excommunicated and persecuted, and that his life was in danger, but this view is challenged by many scholars.81 Yefet, in his commentary on the term ‘that cast you out’ (Isaiah, 66.5) says: ‘The use of the term “that cast you out” refers to those who excommunicate you, because they call them (the Karaites) heretics, and excommunicate them. This already happened in the past, in the times of ʿAnan, may he rest in peace, until we came here’.82 Salmon’s contention that ʿAnan was the first Scripturalist deserves attention. The Rabbanite sources invoked here say nothing of the sort. Corroboration that ʿAnan was a Scripturalist can be found in Yefet ben ʿEli’s Commentary on Zechariah 5.8, where he ascribes the statement: ‘Search the Scriptures well, and rely not on my opinion’ (‫חפישו באוריתא‬ ‫ )שפיר ואל תשענו על דעתי‬to ʿAnan.83 Scholars agree that only the Aramaic part of this statement was made by ʿAnan, and that the Hebrew part was a later addition that was an expression of Karaite pluralism rather than of ʿAnan’s viewpoint.84 We accept this consensus, and shall therefore Above, n. 51. According to the Rabbanite sage who is identified with Saʿadia (above, nn. 29– 30), the remnants of the cult of Zadok and Boethus joined ʿAnan. See Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103. On the identity of these followers, see below, Ch. 2, n. 158. 81 On ʿAnan’s attempted assassination, see Qirqisānī, pp. 13, 43. 82 Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 66.5, MS RNL Yevr. I, 569, f. 349b. 83 This is the version of MS Leiden 12. See Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 303, n. 13. In MS. BL. Or. 2401, f. 174b, the Aramaic phrase is already translated into Hebrew: ‘‫חפשו‬ ‫בתורה שפיר‬.’ See Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 88–89. For a translation of the entire passage, see Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 303. 84 See Polliack, ‘Emergence’, n. 13. Paul, Écrits, pp. 89–90. Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Controversy’, pp. 15–16, claims that the statement at the end is in keeping with al-Qūmisī’s outlook. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 88–89, argues that ʿAnan delivered the entire statement in Aramaic. Since the Karaites did not know this language, the statement was subjected to partial translations in subsequent generations. 79

80

44

Chapter One

relate to the Aramaic part of this statement only. The Aramaic word ‘Oraita’ means ‘the Scriptures’, and not the Pentateuch only. Polliack maintains that this statement is evidence of ʿAnan’s Scripturalist approach, which placed the Scriptures at the centre of religious study. It is a well-known fact that the Karaites derived halakha from all the books of the Holy Scriptures.85 Ben-Shammai thinks differently. According to him, ʿAnan was not a Scripturalist, and therefore his dictum ‘Search the Scriptures well’ was not to be taken literally. ʿAnan fought against the rabbinic Talmudic tradition, replacing it with his own Talmudic tradition, as Naṭronai Gaon testifies. From an analysis of ʿAnan’s discussion on Leviticus 10.8–10, Ben-Shammai deduces that ʿAnan was, in principle, not opposed to tradition, at least not to priestly tradition.86 I myself lean toward Polliack’s view, which was based on both Salmon and Yefet’s statements, as well as the statements of Hayy Gaon and Naṭronai Gaon. Both ʿAnan, and Benjamin after him, made the Scriptures the focus of religious study, and thus may be viewed as Scripturalists. At the time, they did not reject the principles of halakhic debate that had been honed over generations by the Rabbinic Sages and contemporary Geonīm. Although they followed the exegetical rules of the Rabbinic Sages, they frequently devised laws that were opposed to the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages. Some of these laws were based on variations of Scriptural exegetical techniques, or on ancient anti-Pharisaical traditions.87 It should be noted that the term Scripturalism does not necessarily imply a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Certainly this is true, as we shall see below, of the Muslim Khārijī movement, whose members maintained that the Qurʾān was the sole reliable source of religious law, and rejected the oral tradition. They did not restrict themselves to a literal interpretation of the Qurʾān, but derived religious laws from the Qurʾān based on logic (raʾy) and ‘analogy’ (qiyās).88 ʿAnan and Benjamin’s doctrines also share this feature. The call for a return to the Scriptures went hand in hand with the use of ‘analogy’. According to Saʿadia Gaon, as cited by Qirqisānī, ʿAnan and Benjamin interpreted the verse: ‘If thou seek her as silver, And search for her as for hid treasures’ 85 Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 304, p. 310, n. 37. On the Karaite method of studying halakha from all books of the Bible, see below, Ch. 2, nn. 149–150, 155. 86 Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Controversy’, pp. 11–22. Ben-Shammai, ‘Return’, pp. 327–328. For ʿAnan’s discussion of Leviticus 10.8–10, see ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), pp. 21–22. 87 Polliack, ‘Emergence’, pp. 300–301. 88 See below, Ch. 4, n. 20.

45

Introduction

[Proverbs, 2.4]89 as meaning that the revealed commandments (miṣvot shimʿiyyot) were to be derived by ‘analogy’.90 This verse, which contains the word ‘search’ (‫)חיפוש‬, almost certainly inspired ʿAnan’s statement: ‘Search the Scriptures well’. The Karaites’ Attitude to ʿAnan ʿAnan’s return to the Scriptures, on the one hand, and his adoption of the halakhic techniques of the Rabbinic Sages, on the other, help explain the Karaites’ ambivalence toward him. This ambivalence was already discernible in the attitude of Salmon ben Yerūḥam who, while considering ʿAnan a trailblazer who paved the way for the Karaites after him, accused him of siding with the Rabbanites on many issues.91 This duality was common among the early Karaites. Daniel al-Qūmisī, who is considered the first Karaite, was extremely disparaging toward ʿAnan. According to Qirqisānī, Daniel held ʿAnan in great esteem early in his career, calling him ‘the Head of the Enlighteners’ (Maskīlīm).92 Over time, however, he completely revised his opinion, calling him ‘the Head of the Benighted’ (Kesīlīm, a pun on the word Maskīlīm).93 Daniel alQūmisī’s commentary on the Book of Daniel draws a clear distinction between ʿAnan and the Karaites sages (Maskīlīm): The first Maskīlīm of the exile failed in their observance of the commandments. Therefore, if you say that ʿAnan was one of these Maskīlīm, then he failed, because he was the first. And if you say he was not an enlightener, do not study his lore. And the last enlighteners will discover the truth, as it says: ‘And some of them that are wise shall stumble, to refine among them, and to purify, and to whiten, even to the time of the end; for it is yet for the time appointed’ [Daniel 11. 35], for before the end of time, they shall be purified and made white.94

In describing the radical about-face that took place in Daniel alQūmisī’s attitude toward ʿAnan, Qirqisānī dissociates himself from On how the Karaites understood this verse, see below, n. 147. Likewise, Ch. 4,

89

n. 87.

Qirqisānī, p. 79. The text says: ‘ farāʾīṣ khabriyyah’, which I have translated as ‘revealed commandments’, since Saʿadia Gaon dedicated an entire work to condemning the determination of revealed commandments through analogy. See below, n. 132. On the meaning of the term ‘miṣvot shimʿiyyot’, see below, nn. 132, 344–347. 91 Above, n. 51. 92 On the Karaite maskīl, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 80–120. 93 Qirqisānī, p. 5. 94 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’, p. 305. 90

46

Chapter One

Karaite circles that vilified and expressed their animosity toward ʿAnan.95 Although Qirqisānī opposed ʿAnan on many halakhic issues, and often condemned the ʿAnanites, he attempted to present a more balanced view of ʿAnan.96 He condemned Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī (who lived under the ʿAbbāsid Caliph, al-Muʿtaṣim, 833–842) for disparaging, and even defaming, ʿAnan.97 Qirqisānī not only disproved of Daniel alQūmisī’s harsh attitude toward ʿAnan, but actually presented ʿAnan, in his inventory of sects, as a pioneer in revealing the whole truth about the commandments. It seems that he was referring to ʿAnan’s return to the Scriptures.98 Qirqisānī, who saw ʿAnan as an exemplary religious leader, explains why he took the liberty of criticizing him on many halakhic issues. According to him, ʿAnan was not a prophet, but a seeker who sought truth in the Scriptures and, as such, was fallible.99 Qirqisānī was alluding to the Karaite principle of freedom of thought in Scriptural exegesis, which made it possible to criticize earlier sages. Scholars believe that the Karaites attributed this principle to ʿAnan who allegedly declared: ‘Rely not on my opinion’.100 Yefet cited this principle, in ʿAnan’s name, in order to legitimize a free interpretation of the Scriptures, in which a disciple was permitted to challenge his teacher, and a son to challenge his father.101 That Yefet felt free to criticize his predecessors (ʿAnan and Benjamin) can be inferred from his anti-rabbinic polemic in his interpretation of Deuteronomy 33.4, where he brings many proofs against the view of the Rabbinic Sages that the Oral Law was given at Sinai. According to him, the rulings of the Rabbinic Sages were based on an analytical study of the Scriptures as were the rulings of ʿAnan and Benjamin and all the Rabbanites’ rivals who composed Books of Precepts. Some of those rulings were correct while others proved to be erroneous. Yefet presents ʿAnan and Benjamin’s opinion on the status of the Oral Law as he himself understood it. According to him, the Qirqisānī, p. 5. For a critique of ʿAnan’s laws, see, for example, Qirqisānī, pp. 386, 1116–1119. On page 1252, Qirqisānī terms ʿAnan’s laws fallacies (khurāfa). When Qirqisānī discusses ʿAnan’s solution to Leviticus 18.18, he states that ʿAnan must have reached this conclusion while asleep, or non compos mentis. See below, nn. 151–253. On page 423, he attacks a group of ignoramuses (aghmār) within ʿAnanite circles. 97 Qirqisānī, pp. 13, 56–57. 98 Qirqisānī, p. 13. 99 Qirqisānī, p. 624. 100 Above, nn. 83–84. 101 For the full text, see Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 303. The Karaites, who derived many halakhot through the use of analogy, did not deny that the use of analogy led to controversy. See below, nn. 145–146. 95

96

Introduction

47

Rabbinic Sages were guilty of claiming that their words were divinely revealed at Sinai, while ʿAnan and Benjamin never laid claim to this: All these, may the Lord guide you, shows that these men (i.e., the Rabbinic Sages) investigated and adduced evidence. Each one said what seemed to him true. If this was acceptable to them, they adopted it and acted accordingly; and even if they did not act accordingly, they preserved it in writing. And this custom of theirs is as the custom of ʿAnan and Benjamin and all those who quarrelled with the Rabbanites and composed Books of Precepts. Each one expressed his opinion, and brought proof to substantiate it. His words may, or may not, have corresponded to the truth, since they were not an entire nation but simply a few individuals.102

Although Yefet maintained his right to criticize ʿAnan in the above passage, he considered him as the first of the Righteous, who spread the word of God in public, after leaving his hiding place under Muslim rule.103 The attitude of the early Karaites to ʿAnan can therefore be summarized as follows. The mainstream saw ʿAnan as the first to return to the Scriptures, and respected him for it. As a pioneer, ʿAnan still followed the Rabbanites on many issues. The principle of freedom of thought in Scriptural exegesis granted the Karaites legitimization for criticizing ʿAnan. On the fringes of Karaism, the attitude toward ʿAnan was divided. There were the ʿAnanites, who considered themselves his followers, but whose numbers, according to Qirqisānī, dwindled considerably in his times,104 and those who criticized ʿAnan vehemently, such as Daniel al-Qūmisī.105 The Karaites’ ambivalence toward ʿAnan doubtlessly hampered their disputations with their Rabbanite rivals. The twelfth-century Karaite, Elijah ben Abraham, for example, found it necessary to raise the question of why the Karaites rejected ʿAnan’s teachings, despite holding that ʿAnan, like them, followed the tradition of those ‘that sigh and that 102 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 33.4, MS INA, C, 72, f. 166b. At the end of his statement, Yefet relates to the consensus (ijmāʿ), which the Karaites consider a reliable basis for deriving halakha. See above, n. 26, and below, n. 155. See also below, Ch. 3, n. 114. 103 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 3.2. Below, n. 430. Qirqisānī, p. 42, ascribes the view that ʿAnan was a saintly man, like Zadok and Jesus, to a group of Karaites. 104 Qirqisānī, p. 59. 105 See above, nn. 92–94.

48

Chapter One

cry’ [Ezekiel 9.4].106 Elijah’s argument can serve as a summary of the Karaites’ attitude toward ʿAnan: And behold ʿAnan made many errors in the law and the last of you [the Karaites] did not accept most of what he said. But if they accepted that the words of ʿAnan were the words of those ‘that sigh and that cry’ [Ezekiel 9.4], why did they then not accept all of what he said? To this I answer, they accepted what he said; indeed, all Karaite works are based on his teachings. At the same time, they realized that they were not prophets and had no divine inspiration to prevent them from erring in their tradition. Therefore, they were more stringent than them. They even suggested that ʿAnan and his generation may not have been thorough enough in their commentary, allowing errors to creep in from time to time.107

An interesting testimony on the attitude of the eleventh-century Jerusalemite Karaite Mourners toward ʿAnan is provided by a letter written in 1057 by a Jerusalemite Rabbanite. In referring to a Karaite ruling in matrimonial law that the Rabbanites rejected, he argued that the Karaite sages were unable to give a reason for the law, and that its validity stemmed from the fact that it had been stipulated by ʿAnan ‘their leader (raʾīsuhum) and the first Karaite’.108 The epithet ‘first Karaite’ [qadmon ha-Qaraʾīm] is one of the first indications that the Karaites themselves perceived ʿAnan as their founder. The opinion that ʿAnan was the first Karaite began apparently to evolve in the mid-eleventh century, under the influence of the Nesīʾīm in Jerusalem who were ʿAnan’s descendants. As stated, among the later Karaites, criticism of ʿAnan yielded to the view that he was the founder of their movement.109 ʿAnan and Islam Given that ʿAnan’s activity in Baghdad coincided with the start of ʿAbbāsid rule, a discussion on Islam’s influence on ʿAnan is in order. Since both Jewish and Islamic religions are based on religious law, we shall begin our discussion with an analysis of how Muslim religious law influenced ʿAnan. The established view is that ʿAnan was less influenced The Karaites devised a rich history for themselves, anchored in the Bible. Inter alia, they saw themselves as the heirs of ‘those who sigh and that cry’ (‫)הנאנחים והנאנקים‬. See below, Ch. 4, nn. 376–377. 107 Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 10. 108 Gil, Ereṣ, III, doc. 457, p. 94. 109 Above, n. 19. 106

Introduction

49

by Islam than were the Karaites who succeeded him. Before we cite evidence in support of this opinion, we must first discuss the development of Muslim Law, and the interaction between it and Jewish Law. The current research agrees that Muslim Law, as we know it today, originated in the eighth century, not in Muhammad’s lifetime (d. 632). Muslim law is based on practices, customs and teachings attributed to the prophet Muhammad, that are called ‘sunnat al-nabī’, or in short ‘sunna’. The oral tradition (ḥadīth) was the vehicle whereby the sunna was transmitted. Each ḥadīth begins with a list of the chain of transmission from generation to generation. An authoritative chain of transmission is proof of the authenticity of the tradition, and is therefore called ‘isnād’ (support).110 In time, the compilations of ḥadīth, rather than the Qurʾān, became the main source of Muslim religious law.111 Although the sunna is attributed to the prophet, it evolved in Babylonia rather than in the Arabian Peninsula. The fact that Babylonia was the cradle of Muslim jurisprudence has led many researchers to conclude that, in its formative years, Muslim law was significantly influenced by rabbinic law which originated in the Babylonian Academies of Sura and Pumbedita.112 Muslim law swiftly evolved into a complex juridical law of its own, and it did not take long before the roles were reversed, and Muslim law began influencing Jewish law.113 This reversal of roles began in the late eighth and early ninth centuries.114 According to the aforementioned hypothesis, ʿAnan evidently was active in the period when Judaism influenced Islam. His Aramaic works and his dependency on rabbinic law corroborate the thesis that Islam influenced ʿAnan far less than it did the Karaites. The Karaites lived at a time when Islam was already influencing Judaism, after Judaeo-Arabic became the cultural language of the Jews under Islam. At the same time, one cannot dismiss the influence – both direct and indirect – of the Muslim environment on ʿAnan. In order to understand this influence, 110 According to Crone and Cook, Hagarism, p. 31, ‘the criticism of isnād is the Muslim gemara’. 111 On the development of the ‘sunna’, see Juynboll, ‘Sunna’, pp. 97–118. 112 Crone and Cook, Hagarism, pp. 29–34. Libson, ‘Comparative Law’, pp. 51–53. On the theory that basic concepts in Muslim exegesis of the Qurʾān are derived from Judaism, see Gilliot, Exégèse, pp. 120–121, 124–125. In Goldfeld’s opinion, ‘Qurʾānic Exegesis’, pp. 23–27, one of the early Qurʾānic exegetes, Muqātil ben Sulaymān (767), determined the exegetical rules for the Qurʾān in the light of the 32 rules in Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. 1 (Enelow edition), pp. 10–41. 113 For the causes of this, see Libson, ‘Comparative Law’, pp. 54–57. 114 Libson, ‘Comparative Law’, p. 53.

50

Chapter One

we must first sketch the vibrant Muslim environment in which ʿAnan operated. As stated, Muslim law as we know it is based mainly on Oral Law, not the Qurʾān. This was not always self-evident in the dawn of Islam. The issue of the status of the Oral Law vis-à-vis the Qurʾān was at the top of the Muslim agenda and formed the subject of numerous debates. A study of Muslim sources reveals that the Scripturalists were afraid that the ḥadīth would undermine the absolute status of the Qurʾān – ‘The Book of God’ as the Scripturalists called it.115 At the other end of the spectrum, an increasing number of Muslims held that it was impossible to base Islamic jurisprudence on the Qurʾān alone, since the ḥadīth was the means for understanding the Qurʾān. While the Qurʾān specified laws in a general sense, it was the ḥadīth that specified the details of these laws.116 The conflict ended with the victory of the Orthodox Muslims who supported the Oral Law over those who claimed that Muslim jurisprudence should be based on the Qurʾān alone (khārijiyya circles that evolved in the second half of the seventh century).117 Cook has already suggested that the Scripturalist khārijiyya movement served as a source of inspiration for ʿAnan. Since ʿAnan lived at a time when Judaism influenced Islam, Cook does not rule out the possibility that Jewish Scripturalist sects also influenced Islam in that period.118 BenShammai, who, as already stated, denied that ʿAnan was a Scripturalist, challenged Cook’s view.119 Polliack’s view that ʿAnan’s doctrine contained Scripturalist elements forces us to reconsider Cook’s claim,120 especially since ʿAnan used rationalism and ‘analogy’ – techniques that the Khārijiyya resorted to in determining Qurʾānic law.121 On ‘Kitāb Allāh’ in Islam, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Return’, pp. 333–337. The traditional faction claims that the Sunna of the prophet and the Qurʾān are of equal importance, since both derive from the divine ‘Book of God’. See Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān, I, p. 531: ‘Every sunna of the prophet is from “the Book of God”’. 116 On the supporters and detractors of the ḥadīth, see Kister, ‘Lā taqraʾū’, pp. 124–138. On the sunna that clarifies the Qurʾān, see Juynboll, ‘Sunna’, p. 101, n. 35. On the tradition that maintains that the Qurʾān needs the sunna more than the sunna needs the Qurʾān, see Speight, ‘Ḥadīth’, p. 64, n. 1. On the similarity to the KaraiteRabbanite polemic, see below, nn. 379–391. 117 See Rubin, Bible, pp. 150–154. Above, n. 88. Below, Ch. 4, n. 20. 118 Cook, ‘ʿAnan’, pp. 161–182. Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia’, pp. 155–157, and Weiss, Dor, p. 43, pre-empted Cook. Hawting, ‘Significance’, pp. 453–463, attempted to highlight Qumranic-Karaite influences on the Scripturalist stream in Islam from its inception. 119 Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Controversy’, pp. 1–26. See above, n. 86. 120 On Polliack’s view, see above, nn. 85, 87. 121 Rubin, Bible, pp. 157–159. See above, nn. 88–90. 115

Introduction

51

In conclusion, it is unlikely that ʿAnan, like the Karaites after him, was unaware of the heated controversy over the status of oral law in Islam. Since the opposing Muslim factions used terms that originated in Jewish jurisprudence, it appears that ʿAnan was not a stranger to Muslim discourse. The Orthodox stream, which opposed the Scripturalist movement (Khārijiyya), was by no means united in its attitude toward the oral law. Abū Ḥanīfa (767), the founder of the School of the Ḥanafīs – one of the four canonical schools of Islamic law – condemned circles that attached too much importance to the oral law.122 Although he accepted that the oral law was a source for determining religious law, Abū Ḥanīfa restricted its use. His school was called by his rivals the ‘ahl al-raʾy’ (advocates of personal opinion), and most of the criticism against members of this school was directed at him.123 Abū Ḥanīfa played down the importance of the ḥadīth and advocated a rationalist approach to religious law, based on logic. It was he who advocated the technique of ‘analogy’ as the main tool for determining religious law. In his time, the terms raʾy (sound opinion) and qiyās (analogy) became almost synonymous.124 These later became identified with ijtihād (individual reasoning).125 According to al-Shāfiʿī (822), founder of the Shāfiʿī school of jurisprudence, qiyās and ijtihād were synonymous. ‘Individual reasoning’ (ijtihād) was based on ‘analogy’ (‘qiyās’).126 The opponents of the ‘rationalists’ were the ‘traditionalists’ (‘ahl al-ḥadīth’),127 who viewed oral law as the main authority for religious law. Although al-Shāfiʿī accepted the principle of rationalism and ‘analogy’, for him they were secondary, and he allegedly harshly condemned Abū Ḥanīfa.128 The ‘rationalists’ called their ‘traditionalist’ rivals upholders of the taqlīd – those who accepted tradition unthinkingly and observed the commandments without knowing their reasons. 122 Some circles also claimed that the sunna superseded the Qurʾān. See Juynboll, ‘Sunna’, p. 109. Schacht, Origins, pp. 46–47. Cf. statements by the Rabbinic Sages, below, nn. 382–385. 123 See Schacht, ‘Aṣḥāb al-Raʾy’, p. 692. Goldziher, Ẓāhiris, pp. 3–5, 13–19. 124 Goldziher, Ẓāhiris, pp. 11–13. Schacht, Origins, p. 98. Zucker, ‘Fragments’, p. 321. 125 Schacht, Origins, p. 99. On ‘Ijtihād’, see above, n. 50. Below, Ch. 4, nn. 99–101. Due to the pluralism of opinions caused by ‘ijtihād’, the Gate of ‘ijtihād’ was closed in Islam. See Hallaq, ‘Ijtihād’, pp. 129–141. 126 Shāfiʿī, Risāla, p. 477, paras. 1323–1324, p. 479, para. 1332. Al-Shāfiʿī died in 820. Obviously, he used terms that were coined before his times. 127 On the struggle against the ‘ahl al-raʾy’, see Speight, ‘Ḥadīth’, pp. 66–68. 128 Goldziher, Ẓāhiris, pp. 20–25. Schacht, Origins, pp. 122–123.

52

Chapter One

It is not surprising that for the Karaites, the Oral Law became synonymous with taqlīd.129 The technique of ‘analogy’ deserves some explanation, both because of its importance in Karaite law, and because it is an example of the circuitous paths of cultural symbiosis between Judaism and Islam. The research has established that the Islamic sages borrowed the technique of ‘analogy’ from the Rabbinic Sages.130 Indeed, it was Abū Ḥanīfa himself, who curtailed the authority of oral law in Islam, who adopted the technique of ‘analogy’ as an alternative to oral law.131 Saʿadia Gaon came out strongly against the use of ‘analogy’ in connection with revealed commandments (‫ )מצוות שמעיות‬even devoting a special work to this theme.132 Qirqisānī expressed surprise at Saʿadia Gaon’s position since, according to him, ‘analogy’ was the basis of the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages, as borne out by the thirteen hermeneutical rules ascribed to Rabbi Ishmael.133 Qirqisānī himself adopted six of these rules.134 Qirqisānī, despite his apparent surprise at Saʿadia Gaon’s position, no doubt was aware that Saʿadia Gaon’s extreme aversion to the use of ‘analogy’ (so prevalent in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages) was the fact that it had become a hallmark of Karaite law. Judah ha-Levi, who claimed that the Karaite movement was a by-product of the dispute See below, n. 314. On ‘taqlīd’, the opposite of ‘ijtihād’, see above, n. 50. The Gaon Samuel ben Ḥofni claimed that one of the types of traditions upheld by the Rabbinic Sages was a tradition that was accepted by the entire nation, and therefore it could not be called ‘taqlīd’. See Abramson, ‘Rashbaḥ’, pp. 216–217. 130 Schacht, Origins, p. 99. Crone and Cook, Hagarism, p. 30. 131 On the way analogy was used in Islam, see Zucker, ‘Fragments’, pp. 321–323. 132 Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), pp. 373–401. The title of the work as translated by Zucker, Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), p. 388: ‘Book on the source of the revealed commandments in the Torah’. On revealed commandments, see below, nn. 344–347. Yefet, in his Commentary on Exodus 21.34, defends the use of analogy in revealed commandments. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 88–89. The Gaon Samuel ben Ḥofni presents a more moderate approach toward the use of analogy than does Saʿadia Gaon, evidently under the influence of the Muʿtazilite sage, ʿAbd al-Jabbār. See Sklare, Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon, pp. 218–219, ff. 11–12. 133 Qirqisānī, pp. 105–107. Yefet brings the same argument against Saʿadia. See Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), pp. 374–375. The Karaite Yūsuf al-Baṣīr wrote an entire work defending the use of ‘analogy’, entitled Maqālāt al-Qiyās. See Sklare, ‘Yūsuf al-Baṣīr’, p. 259. On the ‘analogy’ being the basis of some of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules, although not part of them, see entry ‘Heqqesh’, Talmudic Encyclopaedia, V, p. 558. 134 For a discussion of Rabbi Ishmael’s rules, see Qirqisānī, pp. 365–385. On his adoption of six of them, see p. 385. On ʿAnan and the rules, see above, n. 62. On a Rabbanite halakha that was derived purely by analogy, see ‘An Early Karaite’, f. 5b (Assaf edition), p. 197. Source in Arabic, p. 45. 129

Introduction

53

of the Hasmonean king, Alexander Yannai, with the Rabbinic Sages,135 described the technique of ‘analogy’ as a counterpoint to the Oral Law. The Karaite technique of ‘analogy’ developed after Simon ben Sheṭaḥ’s flight and the subsequent disappearance of the Oral Law, and was revoked after his return: He (Alexander Yannai) banished the Rabbinic Sages, including Simon ben Sheṭaḥ, his brother-in-law, and for a while Rabbanism laid low. At some point in time, the other party tried to establish a Law built to their own conception and analogies (al-tasharuʿ bil-qiyās), but failed, until Simon ben Sheṭaḥ returned with his disciples from Alexandria and restored tradition (Oral Law) to its former condition.136

This text shows that the principle of ‘analogy’ was as an alternative to Oral Law. Just as Oral Law was used by the Rabbinic Sages as a means for devising halakha, so the Karaites used ‘analogy’ as a means for expanding halakha. The Rabbinic Sages in the Mishnah spoke of the scarcity of halakhot in the Torah: ‘The release of vows floats in the air and has nothing on which to lean. The laws on the Sabbath, the ḥagiga sacrifices and meʿila are as hills suspended by a hair; for there is very little in the Torah and there are many laws’.137 Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra claims that, right from the start, the Torah never intended to determine the laws in all their details: ‘For you shall not find in the Torah one commandment that is fully explained’.138 The Oral Law, which was revealed at Sinai alongside the Written Law, is the means for explaining the Written Law in all its details: ‘All these commandments are dependent on transmission and tradition’.139 The Karaites denied the authority of the Oral Law, and considered laws derived from it as an infringement of the commandment: ‘thou shalt not add thereto’ [Deuteronomy 32.1]. Although the Karaites blamed the Rabbanites for observing commandments that were not specified in the Torah, they actually faced the same problem as the Rabbanites: The impossibility of observing halakha by relying on the Scriptural text only. They, too, had to find ways of expanding halakha, and thus they resorted to the principle of Below, Ch. 2, nn. 28–29. Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari, III, 65 (Hirschfeld edition), p. 166; (Baneth-BenShammai edition), p. 138. 137 Mishnah, Ḥagiga, 1.8. See version in Tosefta, ʿEruvin 11.23 (Zuckermandel edition), p. 154. 138 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Torah, Introduction, pp. 2–3. 139 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Torah, Introduction, p. 5. 135

136

54

Chapter One

‘analogy’. Saʿadia Gaon himself, according to Qirqisānī, described the Karaites’ use of ‘analogy’ as a means of devising an alternative to the Oral Law.140 No wonder, then, that the Rabbanites, in turn, accused the Karaites of infringing the commandment of ‘thou shalt not add thereto’ [Deuteronomy 13.1]: ‘The Karaites devised for themselves a number of commandments that were not written in the Torah, but which they derived through the use of “analogy”, and determined them according to their own understanding’.141 Qirqisānī presents both the Rabbanite and Karaite side of the argument. According to the Rabbanites, the Karaite prohibition of marrying a niece was a violation of the injunction ‘thou shalt not add thereto’ [Deuteronomy, 13.1], since this law was not stated in the Torah’.142 Qirqisānī, for his part, levelled a similar accusation against the Rabbanites for adding on an extra day to the festivals in the Diaspora, and for inventing matrimonial laws that were not mentioned in the Torah. The Rabbanite reply to this accusation was that the prohibition of ‘adding thereto’ applied to the Written Law, not the Oral one. Qirqisānī retorted that the prohibition of ‘adding thereto’ applied both to the Written Law and its derivatives (laws derived by ‘analogy’), since these were an integral part of the Written Law, too. The principle of analogy was based on logic (ʿaql), and logic was the only means of distinguishing between truth and falsehood.143 As we saw above, the Karaites argued that the rabbinic discordances that are evident in the Oral Law invalidated it.144 The Rabbanites, for their part, claimed that the use of ‘analogy’, which, according to Qirqisānī, was an integral part of Torah, was the cause of much dissension when used to determine halakha. Qirqisānī, while not denying this claim,145 added that ‘anal140 Qirqisānī, p. 79. When discussing matrimonial law, Qirqisānī says, p. 1145, that a permission that is derived by analogy has the same force as a permission that is stated in the Scriptures. 141 Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy edition), p. 127. Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari, III, 40–41 (Baneth-Ben-Shammai edition), pp. 124–125; (Hirschfeld edition) pp. 191–192, puts into the mouth of the King of the Khazars the argument that a tradition of the Rabbinic Sages was a transgression of ‘thou shalt not add thereto’. The friend explains that the sin is the use of ‘analogy’. 142 For a discussion of this Karaite halakha, whose source is in the Damascus Document, see below, Ch. 2, nn. 80–103. 143 Qirqisānī, pp. 107–108. 144 Above, Foreword, n. 43. 145 According to Yefet in his Commentary on Exodus 21.34, insufficient knowledge of how to use the analogy also led to controversy. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 88–89.

Introduction

55

ogy’ was based on logic, and that logic distinguishes man from animal. If halakha is based exclusively on the Scriptures, we may avoid controversy, but we would be no different from parrots that ape their masters.146 Like ʿAnan and Benjamin, Qirqisānī derived the principle of ‘analogy’ from Proverbs 2.4: ‘If thou seek her as silver; and search for her as for hid treasures’.147 The ‘search’, which is interpreted as referring to the use of ‘analogy’, requires much effort, but brings with it greater reward, since the reward is commensurate with the effort involved.148 Yefet alludes to another aspect of the Karaite-Rabbanite polemic concerning the principle of ‘analogy’. The Karaites argued in favour of a literal interpretation of the biblical commandments, since the Torah had, in the nature of things, to be understood by all.149 Since the principle of ‘analogy’ was, by nature, not easily apprehended by most people, the Rabbanites claimed that God could not possibly have intended the commandments to be determined through ‘analogy’. Yefet refuted this argument: ‘We cannot argue that God did not intend the commandments to be derived through ‘analogy’ because it is incomprehensible to many people, since the same holds true of reason (maʿaqūlāt)’.150 The Karaites saw ʿAnan and Benjamin not only as pioneers in deriving halakhot from the Scriptures, but also as pioneers in their use of the principle of ‘analogy’ in doing so. Although both ʿAnan and Benjamin used the principle of ‘analogy’, in many cases ʿAnan’s use of ‘analogy’ differed from Benjamin’s, and neither of their techniques resembled that of the Karaites. Therefore, the Karaites had no qualms about criticizing their predecessors on this issue. One could argue that the difference between ʿAnan and Benjamin’s use of ‘analogy’, on the one hand, and the Karaites’ use of ‘analogy’, on the other, represented one of the fundamental differences between them. Below, we shall examine one of the differences between ʿAnan’s use of ‘analogy’ and Qirqisānī’s, as presented by the latter. According to Qirqisānī, ʿAnan claimed that ‘the Scriptures do not specify things that can be derived through analogy’.151 In other Qirqisānī, pp. 108–109. Above, n. 89. 148 Qirqisānī, p. 109. Qirqisānī bases his argument on the following verses: Proverbs 2.10; 3.14; 8.19; 8.21. 149 Below, Ch. 4, nn. 60–79. 150 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 21.34, in Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, p. 89. 151 Qirqisānī, p. 1117. See Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes’, p. 44. Immediately after the translation of ʿAnan’s statement, Ben-Shammai writes: ‘To study commandments, thus, in ʿAnan’s opinion, is to discover explanations that would be impossible to reach by the rules of logic’. ʿAnan’s statement, however, implies the opposite. 146 147

56

Chapter One

words, commandments that can be derived through ‘analogy’ are not specified in the Scriptures. An ʿAnanite explained his master’s view, as follows: Specification in the Scriptures of a commandment derived through ‘analogy’ would undermine the status of ‘analogy’, by rendering it superfluous. Qirqisānī maintained that this ʿAnanite was quoting ʿAnan’s views, although ʿAnan never explicitly expressed this view. Qirqisānī bases his description of ʿAnan’s use of ‘analogy’ on ʿAnan’s interpretation of the verse: ‘And thou shalt not take a woman to her sister’ (Leviticus, 18.18). Since, by analogy to the verse: ‘Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife’ (Leviticus, 18.16), we already deduced the prohibition of marrying a woman and her sister, the verse in Leviticus 18.18 is, according to ʿAnan, superfluous. Consequently, ʿAnan argues, this verse is a corruption, and should read: ‘A woman and her sister’s daughter’. Qirqisānī disagreed on this issue. According to him, Scriptures could specify laws that could also be derived by ‘analogy’.152 The notion that ‘analogy’ served to derive commandments that were not specified in the Scriptures was prevalent in Islam, and was not ʿAnan’s invention.153 A deeper study of Qirqisānī’s views on the subject suggests that they were not so different from ʿAnan’s, namely, that ‘analogy’ was essentially a tool for deriving commandments that were not specified in the Scriptures.154 Yefet also maintained that commandments that were not specified in the Scriptures must be derived by ‘analogy’. In discussing the concept of consensus (ijmāʿ), he says: ‘If the Jewish people concur in observing a commandment that is not specified in the Torah, we must conclude that this commandment is derived by “analogy”’.155 Given the hypothesis that the Muslims borrowed the principle of ‘analogy’ from the literature of the Rabbinic Sages,156 it would be natural to assume that ʿAnan and the Karaites did so, too. This would seem to be borne out by the fact that the Karaites themselves pointed to the literature of the Rabbinic Sages as the source of ‘analogy’.157 The above Qirqisānī, pp. 401–402. On ʿAnan’s Commentary on Leviticus 18.18, according to Yefet, see below, Ch. 2, n. 86. On Qirqisānī’s harsh criticism of ʿAnan on this issue, see Qirqisānī, p. 1142. 153 See Hallaq, ‘Qiyās’, p. 287. Shāfiʿī, Risāla, p. 476, Section 1321, argues that analogy is used if the commandment is not referred to in any other source, i.e., the Qurʾān, sunna, or consensus (ijmāʿ). See also p. 516, section 1495. 154 Above, nn. 143–148. 155 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 33.4, MS INA, C, 72, f. 168a. 156 Above, n. 130. 157 Above, nn. 133–134. 152

Introduction

57

notwithstanding, we shall see that ʿAnan and the Karaites derived their use of ‘analogy’ from Muslim circles, such as Abū Ḥanīfa’s circle. On this point, M. Zucker says: ‘In our opinion, ʿAnan’s analogies do not appear to be a natural continuation of Talmudic hermeneutics but rather an exegetical technique that deliberately imitates the ‘qiyās’ technique introduced by Abū Ḥanīfa into Muslim jurisprudence’.158 Zucker even held that ʿAnan’s dictum: ‘Search the Scriptures well’ was made under the influence of ijtihād (individual reasoning). We have already seen the correlation between ijtihād and qiyās.159 From the above we see that the use of ‘analogy’ was a hermeneutical technique common to the Khārijiyya, Abū Ḥanīfa, ʿAnan and Karaite movements. For them, ‘analogy’ became a means for expanding religious law, and that it served as an alternative to Oral Law. The way both Jewish and Muslim Scripturalists used this principle indicates that a return to the Scriptures did not necessarily imply a literal interpretation of them. ‘Analogy’, according to ʿAnan, was a tool for deriving commandments that were not specified in the Scriptures. The principle of ‘analogy’ went hand in hand with the principle of pluralism, since, as Qirqisānī claimed, ‘analogy’ necessarily engenders controversy.160 Since the principle of ‘analogy’ became a hallmark of Jewish and Muslim Scripturalist sects, it is not surprising that Saʿadia Gaon vehemently attacked this principle, despite its roots in sources of the Rabbinic Sages. The hypothesis that ʿAnan was influenced by Abū Ḥanīfa is corroborated by the rumour that the two met. The same rabbinic source that informs us of the struggle between ʿAnan and his brother, Ḥananiah, for the title of Exilarch,161 also relates that, following this struggle, ʿAnan was imprisoned, and sentenced to death. Shrewd advice on the part of a Muslim sage saved him and earned his release from prison. A post-fourteenth-century Karaite source relates that this Muslim sage was Abū Ḥanīfa,162 who was imprisoned by Caliph al-Manṣūr, and who died in prison (767).163 The Muslim sources are quiet on this issue, and scholars are divided concerning the reliability of the two sources from Zucker, Targum, p. 149. See also, Klar, ‘Ben-Asher’, (15) pp. 36–41. Zucker, ‘Fragments’, p. p. 325. On the similarity between qiyās and ijtihād, see above, nn. 125–126. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 64–64, claims that the word ‘ḥapīsū’ (search) originates from Qumran. 160 Above, nn. 145–146. 161 Above, nn. 29–30. 162 Mann, Texts, II, p. 108. 163 Schacht, ‘Abū Ḥanīfa’, p. 123. 158 159

58

Chapter One

which this encounter is derived. Be this as it may – and in my opinion, the issue of whether they actually met is of no great significance164 – it is clear that ʿAnan was influenced by Muslim circles, such as the Abū Ḥanīfa school.165 As stated, the academic consensus is that ʿAnan operated in a period in which Islamic religious law was influenced by Judaism.166 Evidently, in that period a shift already began in the opposite direction, as ʿAnan’s hermeneutic technique testifies. The rabbinic source that describes ʿAnan’s imprisonment was antagonistic toward ʿAnan, as the Karaite, Elijah ben Abraham, who cites him, testifies: ‘And your coreligionist, who insulted ʿAnan, the Maskīl of the Diaspora […] why do you believe him? And he wrote his fabrications in a book’.167 The same rabbinic source maintained that ʿAnan adopted two Muslim laws (basing the new month on the sighting of the moon, and intercalating a leap year when the ‘barley ripens’) in order to appease the Muslims: ‘And he said: “The religion of my brother is based upon calendar calculations of the time of the new moon and intercalation of seasons, whereas mine depends upon actual observation of the new moon and intercalations regulated by the ripening of the new grain”. Now this king based his calculations on the sighting the moon and on the ripening of the barley, and so these words were sweet unto him and he was appeased’.168 Although the sighting of the moon as a means of determining the new month is common to both the Karaite and Muslim calendars, intercalation was forbidden by the Qurʾān, while the Karaites intercalated when the barley ripened, based on the verse: ‘for the barley was in the ear’ (Exodus 9.31).169 This error apart, the question still remains of whether ʿAnan adopted Muslim laws. According to 164 Nemoy, ‘ʿAnan’, pp. 243–247, denies that this encounter took place. Likewise, Chiesa, Creazione, p. 23, n. 25, p. 26. Niazi, ‘Karaites’, p. 146, n. 10. Paul, Écrits, pp. 15–24, maintains that the story of ʿAnan’s imprisonment and its repercussions is more in keeping with the period of his grandson, Daniel ben Saul. Vajda, ‘ʿĀnāniyya’, p. 481, points out that the Muslim sources do not mention this encounter, and that ʿAnan’s use of the technique of analogy does not necessarily testify to Abū Ḥanīfa’s influence on him. Zucker, Targum, pp. 146–149, maintains that the encounter did take place. 165 On the similarity between ʿAnan and the Abū Ḥanīfa school in adopting the principle that the exception must be adjacent to the rule in the Scriptures, see Zucker, ‘Controversy’, pp. 183–188. On this rule of ʿAnan’s, see Qirqisānī, pp. 397, 1156. 166 Above, nn. 112–114. 167 Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103. 168 Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103. 169 On the prohibition of intercalation in Islam, see Qurʾān 9.36–37. The intercalated month is termed ‘nasī’ in the Qurʾān. According to the Rabbinic Sages, only the ‘nasī’ had the authority to intercalate. On the term ‘nasī’ in the Qurʾān, see Moberg, ‘Nasī’, p. 977.

Introduction

59

the scholar A. S. Yahuda, ʿAnan intended adopting Muslim law from the outset and this explains similarities between certain of ʿAnan’s laws and Islamic laws, such as the sighting of the moon, the removal of shoes before prayer, and the washing of hands and feet before prayer.170 Zucker has drawn up a detailed list of ʿAnan’s commandments which, in his opinion, indicate an Islamic influence.171 Others argue that a similarity between ʿAnan’s laws and Muslim laws does not necessarily indicate a Muslim influence, since ʿAnan’s explanation of his laws were different from the explanations of similar Islamic laws. They also maintain that ʿAnan may have been influenced by non-Islamic sources, too.172 For example, although Zucker claims that ʿAnan’s law prohibiting marriage to a niece is based on Islamic law, it would appear that ʿAnan and his Karaites successors actually derived this law from a sectarian tradition dating back to the Second Temple period, that was adopted by Islam, too.173 If Bar-Ilan’s claim that devotional ablutions were prescribed by an ancient Palestinian rabbinic law that was borrowed by Islam is correct,174 one cannot rule out the possibility that ʿAnan adopted this law directly from a source of the Rabbinic Sages. M. J. Kister and M. Kister pointed out that the washing of hands and feet after relieving oneself was common to Arabian tribes in the city of Medina, the Rabbanites in Palestine, and ʿAnan.175 This, too, would seem to imply that ʿAnan was influenced directly by Palestinian law, rather than Muslim law. As I mentioned above, the fact that ʿAnan’s laws were sometimes identical to Muslim laws did not necessarily imply that they shared the same source. For example, ʿAnan’s law requiring the removal of shoes before prayer, while identical to the equivalent Muslim law, was guided by the wish to equate the synagogue to the Temple.176 Again, although ʿAnan, and his Karaite successors, prohibited the consumption of wine and desired meat, this was a temporary injunction (until the Temple was rebuilt),177 while the Islamic prohibition on the consumption of wine was permanent. Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia’, pp 157–158. Zucker, Targum, pp. 149–158. 172 The Qurʾān itself has a Scripturalist approach, and contains laws that derive from the Bible in an exegetical spirit that runs counter to that of the Rabbinic Sages. See Ben-Shammai, ‘Return’, pp. 336–337. 173 See below, Ch. 2, nn. 101–103. 174 Bar-Ilan, ‘Washing’, pp. 162–169. 175 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 26. Kister, ‘Jews of Arabia’, p. 238. 176 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), pp. 33–37. Qirqisānī, p. 622. Kister, ‘Appendix’, p. 361. 177 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts, p. 4. See below, Ch. 3, n. 333. 170 171

60

Chapter One

In conclusion, despite the similarity between the two laws, the theory that ʿAnan deliberately adopted Muslim laws is debatable. Occasionally, the similarity between the two sets of law was a result of Jewish or sectarian influences on ancient Islam. At other times, the similarity existed despite completely different rationales for the two sets of law. Both the Rabbanites and the Karaites noted that Islam was more favourable toward the Karaites than toward the Rabbanites, because of the similarity between their laws.178 Presumably, in ʿAnan’s time, too, this similarity facilitated the relationship between him and the authorities. ʿAnan’s career coincided with the beginning of the ʿAbbāsid Caliphate. No doubt, the religious-political leadership struggle before and after the ʿAbbāsid revolution influenced him. This leadership struggle was between the Shīʿite movement that had strongholds in Persia and Babylonia, where ʿAnan and the early Karaites lived, and the Caliphate of the Sunni Umayyad dynasty. The Shīʿite movement held that only members of the ʿAlī Ibn Abī Ṭālib dynasty were entitled to govern. The offspring of ʿAlī, the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, were the leaders of many factions that did battle with the Umayyad Caliphates (660–750), and brought about their collapse. Thus, in ʿAnan’s times, the Shīʿites were at the heart of contemporary political activity. Muslim sources, which were deliberately concealed by the Sunni ʿAbbāsid government, show that the Shīʿites wielded such power that the ʿAbbāsid revolution assumed a Shīʿite mantel. This mantel was removed only after the consolidation of ʿAbbāsid rule in Baghdad.179 The various Shīʿite factions that held that only the ʿAlī dynasty had the right to govern the Muslim nation, set about developing a theology that stressed the unique features of this dynasty. They therefore attempted to prove that the ʿAlī dynasty had ruled the world since its creation, since ʿAlī was a direct descendant of the patriarchs. The status of personalities such as Seth, Enoch and Noah, ʿAlī’s forebears, was of paramount importance in Shīʿite theology. It would appear that the Shīʿites consolidated their status by invoking apocryphal literature associated with the Qumran sect, such as the Book of Enoch and the Book of Jubilees, fragments of which were discovered in the Qumran caves.180 The Jewish Below, nn. 317–320. On the connection between the ʿAbbāsid revolution and al-Mukhtār’s Shīʿite rebellion that preceded it, see Sharon, Black Banners, pp. 103–151. 180 See Erder, ‘Encounter’, pp. 62–64. Rubin, ‘Prophets’, pp. 55–59. Enochic literature may possibly have influenced Islam already in the period of the Prophet. See Gil, ‘Creed’, pp. 31–38. Erder, ‘Idrīs’, pp. 339–350. 178

179

Introduction

61

priestly dynasty and the House of David also served as sources of inspiration for the Shīʿites. Indeed, the ʿAlī dynasty was frequently compared to the Jewish priestly dynasty. The prophet Muhammad handed over the leadership of the Muslim nation to ʿAlī and his offspring in perpetuity, just as Moses had handed over the priesthood to his brother Aaron and his offspring in an everlasting covenant. The status of ʿAlī and his sons was compared to that of Aaron and his sons.181 The Jewish people’s loyalty to the Davidic dynasty, even in the Diaspora, as reflected in the reverence accorded to the Exilarch’s family, could not fail to impress the Shīʿites. This explains why the Shīʿite sources refer to the exilarchic dynasty far more than do the Sunni sources.182 Scholars have pointed to Shīʿite influences also on the Jewish sects that preceded ʿAnan and his period. An outstanding example of this is the Abū ʿĪsā sect. Abū ʿĪsā’s followers considered him an apostle (dāʿī), and awaited his return (they claimed he was immortal) just as the Shīʿites awaited the advent of their Messiah (Mahdī)183 There is scholarly disagreement concerning Shīʿite influence on ʿAnan.184 It is my contention that the political-religious leadership struggle in Islam exerted some influence, even if indirectly, on ʿAnan. Although this influence was not as powerful as the Shīʿite influence on Abū ʿĪsā, it is hard to believe that ʿAnan – a scion of the Exilarchic dynasty who exalted the priesthood185 – was not affected by the Shīʿite struggle for hegemony in which identification with the Davidic dynasty, the priesthood and the patriarchs played such an important role. Jewish theological literature in the Geonic period was influenced by the Muʿtazila. ʿAnan, however, could not already have been exposed to Muʿtazilite literature. Indeed, many scholars wonder whether ʿAnan, who was not familiar with the Arabic language, was influenced by Muslim theology at all. On the other hand, some scholars hold that ʿAnan was a pioneer in this field, too (the absorption of Muslim On the comparison of the House of ʿAlī to the Jewish priesthood, see Erder, ‘Encounter’, pp. 63–64. The Shīʿites identified with the Biblical People of Israel. See Bar-Asher, ‘Judaism’, pp. 25–33. 182 Fischel, ‘Resh Galuta’, pp. 183–185. 183 On the influence of Shīʿa on Abū ʿĪsā, see Friedlander, ‘Studies’, (2) pp. 481– 516, (3) pp. 235–254. Wasserstrom, ‘ʿĪsāwiyya’, pp. 71–80. 184 Paul, Écrits, pp. 57–58. On the Shīʿa in ʿAnan’s times, see Paul, Écrits, pp. 37– 38. Cook, ‘ʿAnan’, p. 162, rightly denied the existence of a Scripturalist Shīʿite influence on ʿAnan, as Graetz maintained, since the Shīʿites had their own Oral Law. 185 On the importance of the priesthood in ʿAnan’s doctrine, see ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), pp. 35–36. Ben-Sasson, ‘First’, pp. 48–49. On a priestly tradition in connection with ʿAnan, see above, n. 86. 181

62

Chapter One

theology into Judaism). Qirqisānī maintains that he was told that ʿAnan believed in ‘metempsychosis’, and even wrote a work on that subject. Although he himself never saw it, Qirqisānī knew for sure of the existence of an ʿAnanite faction that believed in the transmigration of souls.186 Although Qirqisānī’s knowledge of ʿAnan’s belief in metempsychosis reached him second-hand, Poznanski never doubted its authenticity.187 Zucker, who followed in his footsteps, raises the possibility that ʿAnan culled his belief in metempsychosis from the Shīʿites, who believed that the special qualities of the ʿAlī dynasty were passed down in a chain of transmission from generation to generation.188 Ben-Shammai questions the reliability of the second-hand information that reached Qirqisānī, and argues that even if an ʿAnanite faction believed in metempsychosis, this did not necessarily reflect their mentor’s beliefs.189 The Muslim anti-Jewish polemic created new challenges for Jewish theologians in the Geonic period, the natural outcome of which was a restructuring of Judaism. These theologians had to contend not only with old questions in a new guise, but also with entirely new questions. According to Qirqisānī, the Muslim polemic forced the ʿAnanites to take a stand regarding the antiquity of the commandments. The question remains of whether ʿAnan himself already addressed this issue. In any case, the answer Qirqisānī attributed to the ʿAnanites on this issue differed from that of the Karaites, indicating a prior stage in the development of the Jewish response to the Muslims, as we shall see below. One of the bones of contention of the Muslim polemic against Judaism was the naskh, namely, abrogating a commandment and replacing it by a new one. The Muslims contended that the Qurʾān abrogated the Mosaic code.190 According to their notion, from Adam’s Creation until the advent of the Qurʾān, many law codes were abrogated. Proof of this could be found in the Old Testament, a study of which shows that the religion observed by Adam was not the same as that observed by Noah which, in turn, was not the same as the religion observed by Abraham. For example, Adam and Noah were not circumcised, while Abraham was. The Muslim polemic maintained that just as the Mosaic code abrogated the religion of Abraham, so did the Qurʾān abrogate the Mosaic code. Qirqisānī, p. 54. See also p. 307. Poznanski, ‘Kitāb al-Anwār’, pp. 437–439. 188 Zucker, Targum, p. 155–156. 189 Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, pp. 71–72. Ben-Shammai, ‘Transmigration’, pp. 125–126. 190 On the significance of the naskh in the Muslim anti-Jewish polemic, see Zucker, ‘Clarification’, pp. 33–34. 186

187

Introduction

63

Qirqisānī relates that the ʿAnanites and a group of Karaites claimed that all the commandments that were handed over to Moses at Sinai had already been given to Adam. Qirqisānī, who did not accept this view, claimed that it was invented as an answer to the Muslim claim of naskh. In other words, it was a mistake to claim that the Torah testified to many abrogations throughout the generations.191 Likewise, Saʿadia Gaon parried the concept of naskh by attempting to demonstrate that the Mosaic code was known to previous generations.192 Qirqisānī relates that Benjamin al-Nahāwandī adopted a different solution to that of the ʿAnanites. While the ʿAnanites claimed that all the commandments were handed over to Adam, Benjamin maintained that only some of the commandments were handed over to Adam prior to the Revelation at Sinai. According to Qirqisānī, Benjamin held that the commandments were delivered gradually over the generations, with each new generation receiving new commandments unknown to its predecessors. According to Benjamin, a total of one hundred and two commandments were given from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,193 divided as follows: fourteen from Noah to Abraham,194 thirty-five from Abraham to Isaac,195 and twenty-nine from Jacob to Moses.196 Since a total of 102 commandments were handed over before the Revelation at Sinai, the shortfall of twenty-four commandments must have been given in the period from Adam to Noah. In a Karaite commentary on Psalms, 42.2, which Mann believes was written in Byzantium, the anonymous commentator followed in Benjamin’s footsteps: ‘As the hart panteth after the water brooks’ (Psalms 42.2) […] The Torah is compared to water in several ways […] just as water slowly descends and turns into brooks and rivers, so the Torah descends bit by bit. Some of it through Adam, and some through Noah, and some through our patriarch Abraham, may he rest in peace – until the times of our lord Moses, may he rest in peace, it descended bit by bit.197

Qirqisānī, p. 440. Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions, 3, 9, (Rosenblatt edition), pp. 167–173. 193 Qirqisānī, p. 453. 194 Qirqisānī, p 455. 195 Qirqisānī, p. 456. 196 Qirqisānī, p. 457. 197 Mann, Texts, II, pp. 113–114. On Benjamin’s solution and its sources, see Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’, pp. 115–117, 120–121. 191

192

64

Chapter One

The Muslim polemicists had no trouble proving that anyone who espoused Benjamin’s view was corroborating naskh in the Old Testa­ ment.198 Qirqisānī’s approach was radically different from that of ʿAnan or Benjamin. He held that although the Muslim claim that some commandments had been handed over to the generations preceding Moses and had been abrogated was true, this did not constitute proof of naskh in the Old Testament, for the simple reasons that the commandments in question were originally given for a certain period of time only. In actual fact, Qirqisānī adopted the Muʿtazilite approach to the problem of naskh – attesting to the influence of Muʿtazilite thought on the Karaites in his period – an influence that was not found in ʿAnan’s time.199

Benjamin al-Nahāwandī Our knowledge of Benjamin is very limited.200 The name al-Nahāwandī indicates that he came from the city of Nahāwand, in the Jibāl region of western Persia. Many Jewish sects in the early Geonic period originated in Babylonia and Persia. In his inventory of sects, Qirqisānī places Benjamin after Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī, who flourished in the period of Caliph al-Muʿtaṣim (833–842). According to Qirqisānī, Benjamin was a contemporary of Ismāʿīl’s, indicating that he was active in the first half of the ninth century.201 The Karaite Mordecai ben Nisan, who died in the early eighteenth century, states that Benjamin was a disciple of Josiah, ʿAnan’s grandson. Josiah, and his brother Daniel, were active in the first half of the ninth century.202 Some say that Benjamin served as dayyan [judge] for many years.203 Like ʿAnan, al-Nahāwandī never set foot in the Holy Land. Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’, pp. 117–118. Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’, pp. 134–134. 200 See Poznanski, ‘Benjamin’, pp. 126–129. 201 Qirqisānī, p. 13. See Paul, Écrits, pp. 83–84. Ben-Sasson, ‘First’, p. 50, claimed that Benjamin was active approximately from 830–850. 202 Mordecai ben Nisan, Dod Mordechai, p. 60: ‘R. Josiah the Exilarch […] was the teacher of Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’. Gil, Jews, I, pp. 261–262 accepts this assertion. On Mordecai ben Nisan, see Algamil, ha-Yahadut ha-Qaraʾīt, II, pp. 108–110. On Daniel, ʿAnan’s grandson, see above, n. 31. 203 Qirqisānī, p. 13. Qirqisānī informs us that Benjamin was a dayyan, after recounting his remarkable familiarity with rabbinic texts. In my article, ‘Encounter’, p. 68, n. 102, I mentioned that Benjamin was a Rabbanite dayyan. Lasker, ‘Islamic Influences’, p. 57, n. 85, rightly pointed out that one cannot determine from Qirqisānī’s statement whether Benjamin was a Rabbanite or Karaite dayyan (judge). The Karaite 198

199

Introduction

65

The debate on Benjamin’s doctrine is based mainly on Karaite sources, since only a tiny portion of his works has survived, apart from fragments of his Sefer Miṣvot [Book of Precepts] and remnants of his biblical commentaries.204 The attitude of the early Karaites to Benjamin is epitomized by Salmon ben Yerūḥam, in his commentary to Psalm 69.1, in which he emphasizes Benjamin’s contribution to the consolidation of Karaism by taking it a step further away from rabbinic law. Below we shall show that this statement is not entirely accurate.205 Although Qirqisānī, when including Benjamin in his list of sects, claims that on many issues he had arrived at the truth,206 his book is replete with invective against Benjamin’s halakhic rulings. Salmon, in his commentary on the Psalms, chose to gloss over Benjamin’s belief in a secondary deity – a belief for which Benjamin was vehemently criticized by the Karaites. Indeed, it would appear that the early Karaites had a more positive view of ʿAnan than of Benjamin. In his book Sefer Milḥamot Adonai [The Wars of God], Salmon refers to ʿAnan as: ‘The light of our eyes and the radiance of our eyelids, our rabbi and mentor Rabbi ʿAnan, may his soul rest in peace’. Benjamin, by contrast, is referred to simply as: ‘Rabbi Benjamin z”l, son of Rabbi Moses’.207 Qirqisānī, too, perceived ʿAnan in a more lenient light. Although ʿAnan had his failings, he nevertheless served as an example for the Karaites.208 As we shall see below, Qirqisānī harshly condemned the ‘Caves Sects’ from which Benjamin absorbed the doctrine of a secondary deity. This harsh criticism was effectively directed at their disciple, Benjamin.209 These divergent attitudes toward ʿAnan and Benjamin became even more polarized among the later Karaites, who held that ʿAnan was the founder of their movement. Ibn al-Hītī, who described ʿAnan as the founder of the Karaite movement

Rabbi Halevi, in his book Toldot Ḥayyim, p. 85, vehemently took issue with my statement, and accused me of deliberately falsifying the truth, like many rabbinical Jews. The implication is that my statement about Benjamin’s belief in a secondary deity is also a fabrication. 204 On his work, see Paul, Écrits, pp. 84–85. On his biblical commentaries, see Drory, Reʼshīt, p. 196. The anonymous Rabbanite homilist, in his book Pitron Torah (Urbach edition), p. 329, brings part of Benjamin’s Commentary on Deuteronomy 33.2, and on Deuteronomy 33.7 (p. 334). 205 See above, n. 51, and nn. 235–245 below. 206 Qirqisānī, p. 13. 207 Salmon, Milḥamot, VIII, p. 77. 208 See above, n. 99. 209 On the ‘Caves Sect’s doctrine and Benjamin’s doctrine, see Ch. 2 of the present work, nn. 168–227.

66

Chapter One

in his chronicle,210 referred cursorily to Benjamin as ʿAnan’s successor.211 Joseph Begi, who drew up a list of Karaite sages in the first half of the sixteenth century, termed ʿAnan: ‘The Exilarch, the Authority and Sage’. ʿAnan’s offspring are ascribed the title of ‘Maskīl’, while Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and Daniel al-Qūmisī are assigned no title whatsoever.212 In my opinion, Salmon ben Yerūḥam was right in considering Benjamin an intermediate stage between ʿAnan and the Karaites who succeeded him. He was neither an ʿAnanite nor a Karaite.213 The Karaite sages point to differences between ʿAnan and Benjamin on many issues. Nor was he the first Karaite, as some scholars contend.214 Salmon ben Yerūḥam, in his commentary on Psalm 69.1, did not qualify either Benjamin or ʿAnan as a ‘Karaite’, but rather stated that the Karaites evolved after Benjamin. In his book Sefer Milḥamot Adonai [The Wars of God], in a discussion on how to determine the first day of the month according to observation of the moon, Salmon refers to Benjamin and his followers as to a distinct group.215 Qirqisānī, who, throughout his lengthy tome, distinguishes between ʿAnanites and Karaites, also refers to the Benjaminites, namely Benjamin’s followers, as a separate group.216 A group of Benjaminites was still active in his lifetime.217 At the end of his book Masʾat Binyamin, Benjamin addresses the Ṣaddīqīm and Baʿalei Miqra [Scripturalists]: ‘Peace to all members of the exile, from me, Benjamin ben Moses z”l, together with all the Ṣaddīqīm […] I have written this book of laws for you, so that you and your fellow Baʿalei Miqra [Scripturalists] may deliberate them’.218 As we know, the Karaites are also called Benei Miqra and Baʿalei Miqra Above, n. 19. Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle (Margoliouth edition), p. 432. 212 Joseph Begi, Qiryah Neʾemanah (Mann edition), pp. 303–304. 213 The difference between Benjamin, on the one hand, and the ʿAnanites and Karaites, on the other, can be inferred from the debate on the antiquity of the commandments, above, nn. 190–199. 214 Baron, History, V, pp. 395–396, n. 18, claims that Benjamin called his fellow sectarians Karaites, whereas in reality he called them Baʿalei Miqra. Ben-Sasson, ‘First’, p. 43, accepts Salmon’s distinction between Benjamin and the Karaites. On page 50, he calls Benjamin: ‘The first of the Karaites’. Zucker, Targum, p. 160, calls Benjamin a Karaite: ‘Regarding the origins of this Karaite’. But see his statement in n. 221, below. 215 Salmon, Milḥamot, VIII, p. 77: ‘The disciples of our rabbi Benjamin […] also speak thus’. See above, n. 207. 216 Qirqisānī, p. 141. 217 Qirqisānī, p. 321. 218 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Masʾat Binyamin, p. 32. See Paul’s discussion, Écrits, pp. 85–86. On the Ṣaddīqīm, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 463–490. 210 211

Introduction

67

(Scripturalists).219 On the face of it, the fact that Benjamin addressed his followers as Baʿalei Miqra suggests that Benjamin was the first Karaite.220 Zucker, however, differentiates between the term Baʿalei Miqra as used by Benjamin, which in his opinion referred to all those who rejected the Oral Law, and the term Karaites, which was coined after Benjamin’s time.221 This distinction is valid, since Baʿalei Miqra came to be synonymous with Karaites only after Benjamin. The name Karaite derives from the term Qerīʾei ha-Shem in the Damascus Covenant, and is anchored in the messianic worldview of the Karaite Mourners of Zion, to which I have devoted a separate discussion.222 Daniel al-Qūmisī, the first known Karaite, who called members of his circle Karaites,223 drew a clear distinction between the Karaites and the Baʿalei Miqra, the name Benjamin gave to his followers, as substantiated by his vehement criticism of the Baʿalei Miqra. After them there arose those who, while calling themselves ‘Baʿalei Miqra yet said, ‘the Passover and Tabernacles may not fall on a Sabbath, nor are we obligated by the Torah to observe the uncleanness of corpses, the leprous, or the heathen. Hence, said they, it is written: ‘And we are all become as one that is unclean, And all our righteousnesses are as a polluted garment’ [Isaiah, 64.5] […] Because there are also some Baʿalei Miqra who say: God’s judgment falls upon the spirit alone, and not upon the body. Moreover, we deduce from our hearts interpretations of much of the Scriptures. It is not an illustration of ‘Conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood’ [Isaiah 59.13]. Furthermore, they do deny the resurrection of the dead […] there are others among the Baʿalei Miqra who do not observe the fresh ears. And still others who permit the consumption of the flesh of cattle and sheep using ‘taʾwīl’,224 but this is an erroneous solution. They also dispatch cargo and letters on the Sabbath, and do similar things that are exceedingly grievous in the sight of God.225 See Ch. 4, nn. 6–31. Paul, Écrits, p. 85. Gil, Jews, I, pp. 261–262. Chiesa, Creazione, pp. 20–21, 25. 221 Zucker, Targum, p. 169, n. 659. 222 See Ch. 4, Section 5. 223 Daniel al-Qūmisī: ‘Sermon’, (Nemoy edition), f. 17a, p. 79: ‘Until the advent of the Kingdom of Ishmael; the latter always aids the Karaites’ (Hebrew Text, p. 100). 224 On the meaning of the term ‘taʾwīl’, see below, n. 256. Below, Ch. 4, nn. 56–58, 67, 75, 153, 167, 192. 225 Daniel al-Qūmisī: ‘Sermon’, (Nemoy edition), f. 15a, pp. 67–68 (Hebrew text, pp. 94–95). Mann, ‘Tract’, pp. 267–271, discusses the Baʿalei Miqra that are mentioned here. On Benjamin’s laws on cattle and sheep meat, see below, Ch. 3, nn. 412–444, 521–534. 219

220

68

Chapter One

Although it is hard to ascertain the identity of the Baʿalei Miqra that al-Qūmisī referred to, they were clearly not Karaites. The law that stated that ‘the Passover and Tabernacles festivals could not fall on the Sabbath’, is reminiscent of the ʿAnanite law that postponed the first day of the Passover and Tabernacles festivals if they fell on the Sabbath eve.226 The Baʿalei Miqra referred to by al-Qūmisī claimed that reward and punishment applied to the spirit only. Benjamin, according to Saʿadia Gaon, claimed that reward and punishment applied only to bones: One of them believing that reward and punishment apply to the soul only, while another thinks they apply solely to the body, and still another imagines that they apply to the bones only – as for example Benjamin […] Benjamin again found such expressions as: ‘whose iniquities are upon their bones’ [Ezekiel 32.27] and also: ‘All my bones shall say: Lord, who is like unto Thee?’ [Psalm 35.10]. He therefore thought that everything depended upon the bones.227

Below, I shall devote a special discussion to Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s doctrine of a secondary deity and its origins.228 But first, I wish to emphasize the basic difference between Benjamin and Daniel al-Qūmisī – one of the first Karaites – on this issue. Al-Qūmisī already developed the theory of the Unity of God in Muʿtazilite terms229 and sharply attacked anyone who believed in a secondary deity who helped create the world: ‘And they acknowledge and believe in the oneness of God. And the beginning of (the knowledge) of the oneness of God is the knowledge that He created this world ex nihilo […] in itself the one sole Creator and not two antagonistic creators […] because there is no second to Him who might countermand his work’.230 Paradoxically, al-Qūmisī, a Mourner of Zion who was ostensibly greatly influenced by Qumran works, utterly rejected the Qumran doctrine of angels, denying their existence. Qirqisānī admitted that he was not familiar with al-Qūmisī’s theory on angels in all its details, but raised the hypothesis that al-Qūmisī See below, Ch. 2, nn. 47–52. Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions, 6, 5 (Rosenblatt edition), pp. 250–251. 228 Below, Ch. 2, nn. 199–227. 229 Zucker, Targum, pp. 168–182. 230 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 13a (Nemoy edition), p. 56 (in Hebrew text, pp. 88–89). Likewise, Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 13b (Nemoy edition), p. 59 (in Hebrew text, p. 90): ‘And know that Heavens and Earth and all the universe He alone maketh, as it says: ‘To Him who alone doeth great wonders’ [Psalms 136.4] […] And no angel who creates anything’. Ben-Shammai, ‘Kalām’, pp. 126–127, noted the Muʿtazilite nature of the pamphlet ascribed to al-Qūmisī. 226 227

Introduction

69

denied their existence to parry Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s doctrine of the angel-Creator. According to Qirqisānī, Daniel adopted stands on other issues, too, in order to emphasize the difference between his doctrine and Benjamin’s.231 Qirqisānī was familiar with two traditions regarding al-Qūmisī’s doctrine on angels. The first claimed that the term ‘angel’ applied to entities that were vehicles for God’s actions, such as fire, clouds, and wind.232 According to the second tradition, angels were the hardships and trials that God sent man from time in order to test him. Evidently, al-Qūmisī based his belief on the verse: ‘He sent forth upon them the fierceness of His anger; wrath, and indignation, and trouble, A sending of Angels of evil’ [Psalms, 78.49]. Angels could also assume the form of a column of cloud, a column of fire, and wind, as borne out by the verses in Exodus 13.21; 14.19, and Psalms 104.4. Angels who appeared to prophets in human form and clothed were created for a specific task.233 Qirqisānī himself believed in the existence of angels, claiming that, without this belief, one would have to believe in the corporeality of God.234 Below, we shall provide a brief outline of some of Benjamin’s positions in the field of halakha and exegesis. According to all testimonies available to us, Salmon was wrong in saying that Benjamin moved further away from the Rabbinic Sages than ʿAnan. First, we should remember that Benjamin, like ʿAnan before him, was an expert in rabbinic law, as Qirqisānī testifies.235 Moreover, at the end of his Masʾat Binyamin, he writes: ‘And other laws that the we discussed and the Rabbinic Sages wrote down, for which I could find no allusion in the Scriptures, these, too, I wrote down so that if you wish you can discuss them’.236 The current research contends that on several halakhic issues, Benjamin was closer to the Rabbanites than to the Karaites.237 Even the Karaites noted the similarity between

231 Qirqisānī, p. 330. On page 328, Qirqisānī admits that he did not know what caused al-Qūmisī to deny the existence of angels. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, p. 284, n. 114. 232 Qirqisānī, p. 58. 233 Qirqisānī, pp. 329–330. In order to avoid personifying the divinity, al-Qūmisī used to interpret some verses in a non-literal manner, causing Qirqisānī, p. 328, to accuse him of inconsistency in his exegetical method. On al-Qūmisī’s doctrine on angels, see Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 284–285. 234 Qirqisānī, pp. 327–328. On Qirqisānī and Yefet’s doctrine on angels, see BenShammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 285–299. 235 Qirqisānī, p. 13. 236 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Masʾat Binyamin, p. 42. 237 For example, Weiss, Dor, IV, pp. 62–63. Zucker, Targum, pp. 165–166.

70

Chapter One

him and the Rabbanites.238 The Rabbanites themselves were aware of this. The author of Pitron Torah brings a commentary of the Rabbinic Sages on Deuteronomy 33.2 and adds: ‘And this is the commentary of the Rabbinic Sages and of al-Nahāwandī’.239 Benjamin borrowed the halakhot of the Rabbinic Sages and Geonīm of his times. We have already seen how he borrowed Rabbi Akiva’s exegetical principle: ‘Nothing is superfluous in the Torah’.240 Evidently Benjamin adopted the Tannaitic method of deriving halakha by invoking Scriptural support for each halakha – a technique that required an in-depth study of the Scriptures – as against the Mishnaic exegetical method that divorced halakha from the Scriptures. He himself testified to his adherence to the first approach that associated each halakha with a Scriptural text: ‘For each and every halakha I have alluded to in the Scriptures’.241 Although he adopted rabbinical exegetical principles for deriving halakhot, he had no qualms about adopting methods that differed from theirs. The principle generally adopted by the Rabbinic Sages was that a positive commandment superseded a negative one.242 Benjamin argued that, on the contrary, a negative commandment superseded a positive one.243 Qirqisānī rejected both principles. According to him, an important commandment took precedence over a less important one.244 As to the influence of the Geonic literature on Benjamin, it transpires that he rendered large tracts of halakha in a free translation from Aramaic to Hebrew, based on the codex known as Halakhot Pesuqot.245 Benjamin’s need to translate halakhot from Aramaic to Hebrew brings us to a discussion of the language in which Benjamin wrote his works. ʿAnan, as stated, wrote in Aramaic. The Karaites, apart from alQūmisī, wrote mostly in Judaeo-Arabic. Benjamin wrote his works in Hebrew, due, so Qirqisānī tells us, to his belief that Jews should speak and write in Hebrew only, as the prophets addressed God in this language only. Benjamin deduced this obligation to speak Hebrew only from For Yefet’s assertion, see Erder, ‘Remnants’, pp. 18–19, n. 77. See also Qirqisānī, pp. 534, 643, 735. 239 Pitron Torah (Urbach edition), p. 329. 240 See above, nn. 63–64. 241 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Masʾat Binyamin, p. 42. 242 BT, Shabbat 132b. This rule has exceptions. 243 Qirqisānī, p. 413. 244 Qirqisānī, pp. 646–647. For a discussion on the Karaite-Rabbanite polemic on the rule: ‘a positive commandment takes precedence over a negative one’, see Zucker, ‘Controversy’, pp. 181–194. The Gaon Samuel ben Ḥofni denounced Qirqisānī’s criterion. See Zucker, ‘Controversy’, pp. 193–194. 245 Danzig, Halakhot Pesuqot, pp. 272–274. 238

Introduction

71

the verse in Nehemiah: ‘And their children spoke half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews’ language’ [Nehemiah, 13.24]. Because they neglected Hebrew, Nehemiah’s contemporaries were punished. Qirqisānī, on the other hand, argued that there was no obligation to speak only Hebrew. According to him, Nehemiah’s contemporaries were punished because they did not marry lawfully, and because they did not teach their children Hebrew and to read the Bible in Hebrew.246 Benjamin’s closeness to rabbinic halakha raises the question of to what extent he should be considered a Scripturalist. His commentaries on the Scriptures may testify to his desire for a return to the Scriptures,247 as may his insistence on tracing every law to a Scriptural source, although, as we have already pointed out, this may simply have been the Tannaitic midrashic-halahkic technique he adopted.248 In our discussion on ʿAnan’s doctrine, we already saw that a return to the Scriptures did not necessarily entail a literal interpretation of the Scriptures. ʿAnan derived laws through the principle of analogy. Recourse to this method implies that not all the halakhot are specified in the Torah. Benjamin, too, adopted the principle of analogy, based on the verse from Proverbs 2.4.249 Benjamin’s use of the technique, which was based on two premises (according to Qirqisānī), differed from ʿAnan’s, and was one of the main differences between them.250 Saʿadia Gaon also distinguished between ʿAnan’s use of analogy and Benjamin’s: ‘The analogies from word to word are mostly ʿAnan’s’. Saʿadia called Benjamin’s analogy ‘an inverted analogy’ (ʿaks al-qiyās).251 According to Qirqisānī, Benjamin frequently abstained from using the principle of analogy in his attempt to derive halakha directly from the Scriptures.252 This statement is extremely important in view of our understanding of the significance of analogy in determining Karaite halakha. Zucker, relying on Qirqisānī and his study of Benjamin’s halakhot, claims that Benjamin’s use of analogy was more scientific, and, unlike ʿAnan, more discriminating. Zucker adds that Benjamin’s frequent recourse to a literal interpretation of the Scriptures explains his affinity to the rabbinic Qirqisānī, pp. 645–646. See Drory, Reʼshīt, pp 44–45, 183. On Benjamin as a Scripturalist, see Paul, Écrits, p. 88. 248 Above, n. 241. 249 Above, nn. 89–90. 250 Qirqisānī, p. 13. He used the same method to prohibit marriage to a niece. See below, Ch. 2, n. 87. 251 Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), p. 402. On Qiyās al-ʿaks, see Hallaq, ‘Qiyās’, pp. 296–299. 252 Qirqisānī, p. 13. 246 247

72

Chapter One

exegetes, who used the same method.253 Benjamin, however, did not always offer a literal explanation of the Scriptures, claiming, for example, that the Book of Ecclesiastes was an allegory, thereby arousing the criticism of Salmon ben Yerūḥam, who held that this work was to be interpreted literally.254 Nor did he always explain the commandments literally. For example, he claimed that the word ‘that liveth’ (‫ )חי‬in Genesis 9.3 meant ‘that is pure’.255 Qirqisānī accuses Benjamin of reaching his conclusion regarding the 102 commandments that were handed down before Moses, through non-literal interpretation (taʾwīl) and ridiculous theories.256 Criticism such as this and available testimony indicate that Benjamin used an assortment of techniques in his biblical exegesis, resembling, in this respect, the Karaites after him, although he used a different method to theirs.257 One of the features of returning to the Scriptures and abandoning the Oral Law was deriving halakha from all books of the Scriptures. Even commandments that were derived from the Pentateuch, were derived from narrative texts, too. This practice, which began already with ʿAnan and the ʿAnanites, became an integral feature of Karaite exegesis.258 Benjamin also adopted this approach, as is evident in his choice of verses to substantiate the obligation to speak in Hebrew.259 Below, we shall see how Benjamin derived the obligation to cover the blood of desired meat from a verse in Ezekiel 24.7. He also understood the meaning of the verse: ‘Ye shall not eat with the blood’ [Leviticus 19.26] from the passage describing Saul’s erection of the altar in Mikhmas [I Samuel 14.32–35].260 Benjamin’s contention that one hundred and two commandments were Zucker, Targum, pp. 162–165. Below, Ch. 4, nn. 156–157. See also below, Ch. 4, n. 148. 255 Qirqisānī, pp. 455–456. See Zucker, Targum, pp. 448–451. See below, Ch. 3, nn. 283–299. 256 See Qirqisānī, p. 453. On the 102 commandments enumerated by Benjamin before the Revelation at Sinai, see above, nn. 192–198. It is interesting to note that according to Shaharastānī, Milal, p. 170, Benjamin claimed that all obscure verses (mutashābihāt) in the Bible should be interpreted in a non-literal manner (kulluha muʾawwala). Shaharastānī’s statement implies that these obscure verses are those that contain descriptions of God. On obscure verses in the Qurʾān, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 203–215. Qirqisānī, p. 42, teaches us that the Caves Sect, from whom Benjamin assimilated his doctrine of a secondary deity, took descriptions of God in the Bible literally, but attributed them to a secondary deity. See below, Ch. 2, nn. 125, 192. 257 On methods used by the Karaites for their commentaries on the Bible, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 47–198. 258 Above, n. 85. Below, Ch. 2, nn. 41–42. 259 Above, n. 246. 260 Below, Ch. 3, nn. 412–439. 253

254

Introduction

73

transmitted prior to the Revelation at Sinai led him to derive laws from verses in Genesis that were not in any way prescriptive. For example, he deduced that the obligation to pray was introduced in Enosh’s times from the verse: ‘And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord’ [Genesis 4.26].261 Similarly, he derived the obligation to marry a woman and stay with her forever from the verse in Genesis: ‘And he shall cleave unto his wife and they shall be one flesh’ [Genesis 3.24].262 Qirqisānī held that the use of ‘analogy’ was inevitably divisive,263 and, indeed, it was one of the main causes of pluralism among Karaites. According to the Karaites, even ʿAnan adopted a pluralistic outlook.264 Was Benjamin, who used analogy in his Commentary on the Bible, also a pluralist? According to Yefet ben ʿEli, he was. In his Commentary on Zechariah 5.8, Yefet incorporates a statement by Benjamin’s evidently taken from the colophon to a book he wrote: ‘I, Benjamin, one of thousands of thousands and myriads of myriads, neither a prophet nor a prophet’s son’.265 Interestingly, Yefet cites this statement, which is based on Amos 7.14,266 after a passage describing ʿAnan’s pluralistic dictum: ‘Search the Scriptures well and rely not on my opinion’. Yefet, therefore, invokes both ʿAnan’s principle and Benjamin’s statement as evidence of the principle of pluralism embraced by the Karaites at the outset. Yefet encapsulates this principle as follows: ‘And so, all the Karaite sages adopted this method, and established what they saw as the truth, and urged inquiry (of the Scriptures), to the extent that a son was permitted to disagree with his father without the father saying “Why are you contradicting me?”, and a disciple was allowed to disagree with his teacher’.267 Clearly, Yefet was describing Benjamin’s pluralism in the context of the contemporary reality. The same questions that were raised in connection with the authenticity of ʿAnan’s statements apply in this context, Qirqisānī, p. 435. On calling upon the name of God and its significance among the Karaite Mourners of Zion, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 514–536. 262 Qirqisānī, p. 454. 263 Above, n. 145. 264 Above, nn. 83–84. 265 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 5.8, MS. BL. Or. 2401, f. 174b. See Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 303. 266 Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 307, attempts to understand Benjamin’s statement in light of the context in which the prophet Amos said this verse, but Benjamin may have used it in another context. 267 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 5.8, MS. BL. Or. 2401, f. 174b. See Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 303. 261

74

Chapter One

too.268 Although Paul found no hint of individualism in Benjamin’s works, he accepts the authenticity of the statement that Yefet attributed to Benjamin, since it was cited in Hebrew. According to Paul, however, Yefet attributed a significance to Benjamin’s words that Benjamin had never intended in the first place. All that Benjamin had meant to impart, according to him, was the importance of being modest and recognizing ones limitations.269 Given the influence of Qumran literature on the Karaite Mourners, to what extent, one wonders, did this literature influence ʿAnan and Benjamin, the precursors of the movement? This question is especially relevant in the case of Benjamin, where there are many indications pointing to just such an influence. For example, Benjamin’s belief in a secondary deity who created the world was anchored in the belief of the Caves Sect, whom some associate with the Qumran Sect.270 Again, Benjamin’s laws concerning the consumption of desired meat (see below) betray a Qumranic influence. In my article on the commandments predating the revelation at Sinai in ancient Karaite thought, I noted the similarities between Benjamin’s view and ancient apocryphal literature that was associated with Qumranic literature.271 Drory, moreover, claims that Benjamin was the first to adopt the Qumran exegetical technique of pesher.272 Below, we shall examine the influence of Qumran literature on Benjamin from various angles. At this juncture, suffice it to say that Benjamin, who symbolizes the intermediate stage between ʿAnan and the Karaites, was an eclectic who developed his own special theological-legal doctrine, and was influenced by rabbinic literature and ancient sectarian literature alike.

The Karaites and the Mourners of Zion Salmon ben Yerūḥam, in his Commentary on Psalms 69.1, refers to ʿAnan and Benjamin as the two personalities in the first two stages of Karaism. In the last two stages he refers to movements rather than personalities. It was in the third stage that the Karaite movement emerged. This movement originated in the Diaspora in the second half Above, n. 84. Paul, Écrits, pp. 87–89. 270 For a detailed discussion, see below, Ch. 2, nn. 168–257. 271 See Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’, pp. 115–127. 272 Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 107–108, 118. 268 269

Introduction

75

of the ninth century (since it was listed after Benjamin al-Nahāwandī). According to Salmon’s testimony, this movement, unlike its precursors, was already Scripturalist. At the time Salmon wrote these words, the Karaite movement was a pluralistic movement comprising different currents that disagreed on basic principles. As Qirqisānī put it, you cannot find two Karaites who agree on any one issue.273 At the end of a passage providing a detailed description of the differences between the Karaites, Qirqisānī adds that these differences were actually multiplying, rather than dwindling.274 One of the distinctions that Qirqisānī drew was that between the old Karaites and the ‘innovative Karaites’, although the differences between them were not so clear-cut.275 A group of old Karaites living in Baṣra, southern Iraq, claimed that the Pentecost festival was supposed to fall always on a Sunday, but did not know which Sunday this was. Some of them abolished the Pentecost festival, and others were in favor of abolishing all festivals at the time.276 On the issue of carrying loads on the festivals, Qirqisānī distinguished between ʿAnan and the old Karaites, and a circle of innovators, such as Daniel al-Qūmisī and a group of Tustarīs.277 This distinction lends substance to our hypothesis that Daniel al-Qūmisī, who was active in the second half of the ninth century, was one of the pioneers of the Karaite movement that emerged at that time.278 There were many reasons for pluralism within the Karaite movement in the period under discussion, some of which we discussed Qirqisānī, p. 14. On disagreements among the Karaites, see Qirqisānī, pp. 59–64. On a rise in the number of arguments, see Qirqisānī, p. 63. 275 See above, n. 35. Qirqisānī distinguishes between old Rabbanites and ‘innovative’ ones. The sages of the Mishnaic period, who determined the new month by the sighting of the moon, were called by him ‘old Rabbanites’. See Qirqisānī, p. 804. The ‘innovative Rabbanites’ were those who determined that the New Year was to last two days. See Qirqisānī, p. 137. Qirqisānī accused the ‘innovative Rabbanites’ of rejecting the method of ‘analogy’ while the ‘old Rabbanites’ used it. See Qirqisānī, p. 105. The ‘innovative Rabbanites’ here are his contemporaries, first and foremost Saʿadia Gaon, who attacked the method of ‘analogy’ because the Karaites turned it into an important tool for expanding their halakha, in place of the Oral Law. See above, nn. 130–160. 276 Qirqisānī, pp. 62, 852. On the date of the Pentecost festival, see below, Ch. 3, nn. 33–46. On the abolition of the festivals, see below, Ch. 3, nn. 154–183. 277 Qirqisānī, p. 937. On Baṣri and Tustarī innovators who meticulously observed the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbath, see Qirqisānī, p. 63. On the Tustarī Karaites as a separate stream in Karaism, see Gil, Tustarīm, pp. 61–63. On p. 1191, Qirqisānī attributes an innovation in connection with melīqa (wringing the neck of a bird) to al-Qūmisī and his circle. 278 Zucker, Targum, p. 168, n. 658, maintains that the ‘innovators’ were a special group within Karaism. 273 274

76

Chapter One

above. From its inception, the Karaite movement embraced members of other sects that preceded it.279 The Karaites’ doctrine revolved around the principle of freedom of thought, a principle they ascribed to ʿAnan and Benjamin.280 ‘Analogy’, one of the Karaites’ main tool for deriving halakha, by nature lent itself to discordance.281 As Abraham Ibn Ezra said: ‘Anyone [of them] can explain a verse at will, as well as the commandments and laws […] How can they rely on their own opinion for the commandments, when they move constantly from one position to another as they see fit?’282 Qirqisānī, who exposed the Karaite controversies,283 legitimized them, while reprehending Rabbanite controversies. If the rabbinic tradition were anchored in prophetic tradition,284 as the Rabbanites claimed, there could be no discrepancies among them. The fact that such discrepancies did exist was sure proof that their halakhot were not derived from the prophetic tradition. The Karaites, on the other hand, derived their laws from a rational analysis of the Scriptures. Since rational analysis by nature lends itself to discrepancies, such discrepancies could not be condemned.285 We see from the above that Qirqisānī justified the discrepancies occasioned by the use of analogy in biblical exegesis.286 Thus, it transpires from the above that both Ibn Ezra and Qirqisānī, from different ends of the spectrum, testified to diversity of opinion among the Karaites. While Qirqisānī justified diversity of opinion among the Karaites, he himself totally disregarded the main Karaite faction of the period, namely the Mourners of Zion.287 Qirqisānī himself can be associated with the diasporic rationalist faction of Karaites who were far removed from the messianic doctrine developed by the Mourners of Zion. At the other end of the scale, Salmon ben Yerūḥam, a Jerusalem Mourner Above, nn. 39–41. See above, nn. 83–84, 100–102. Above, nn. 263–269. 281 Above, nn. 145–146. 282 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Introduction, p. 2. Ibn Ezra may have read Qirqisānī’s description of al-Qūmisī as someone who changed his opinions. See below, Ch. 4, p. 90. 283 See above, nn. 273–274. 284 See Mishnah, Avot, 1.1. Saʿadia Gaon frequently called the tradition of the sages ‘the tradition of the prophets’ (athār al-ʾanbiyāʾ). On the various significances of this term as used by Saʿadia Gaon, see Ben‑Shammai, ‘Saʿadia’s Introduction’, p. 398, n. 41. 285 Qirqisānī, pp. 63–64. 286 Above, n. 146. On the possibility of a legitimate dispute over a certain kind of analogy, see Shāfiʿī, Risāla, p. 479, §1334. 287 See Ben-Shammai, ‘Different’, p. 151. 279

280

Introduction

77

of Zion, also gave us a biased picture in mapping the third stage of his history of Karaism, namely, the emergence of the Karaite movement. Moreover, in describing the fourth stage of the evolution of the Karaite movement in his Commentary on Psalm 69.1, he focuses on the Mourners of Jerusalem, although it is clear from his description that they were simply one of several Karaite circles. Indeed, Salmon provides us with a description of the Mourners’ messianic doctrine in a nutshell. According to this account, the Mourners were a group of diasporic Karaites who immigrated to Jerusalem. According to our sources, this happened in the last quarter of the ninth century. The Mourners, more than any other Karaite faction, were influenced by Qumran literature. It was under its influence that they immigrated to Palestine, where they developed their messianic doctrine and way of life as Mourners of Zion. Anyone reading Salmon ben Yerūḥam could be excused for thinking that the Mourners of Zion were a homogeneous group. In fact, they comprised several factions, as can be deduced from Yefet’s apologia of discordances.288 Like Qirqisānī, the Mourners ascribed their controversies to the rational study of the Scriptures and to the use of analogy.289 In the context of their messianic belief, they held that their study of the Scriptures made them worthy of complete Redemption. On the Eve of the Redemption, the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ (Elijah the prophet) would appear and resolve all differences.290 A letter written by the Palestinian Gaon, Solomon ben Judah, refers to the controversies that existed among the Karaites in Jerusalem: They set themselves up as Maskīlīm (Enlighteners), although there is no agreement among them as to who is a Maskīl. Are they not ashamed? Who consults his rabbi concerning Jewish laws that are not specified in the Torah, we or they? There are plenty of occasions on which they consult their rabbi, but whenever they refer to his method they are ashamed and say: ‘There is no such thing’.291

A study of the Mourners’ works shows that there was a considerable disparity between the early Mourners (as represented by Daniel al-Qūmisī) and the Mourners of the second half of the tenth century, on the one hand, and the Jerusalem Mourners of the eleventh century, on the other. Above, nn. 267–268. Above, nn. 145, 150. Below, Ch. 4, nn. 97–114. 290 Below, nn. 368–372. Below, Ch. 4, nn. 92–96; 102–105. 291 Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 92, p. 172. 288 289

78

Chapter One

In the course of time, the messianic tension and the Qumranic influence waned.292 Below we shall examine the influence of Islam and rabbinic literature on the Karaites in general, and the Mourners of Zion in particular. This will be followed by a brief description of the mainstream Mourners of Zion’s messianic doctrine and their attitude to the Rabbanites and to Islam, based on Salmon’s Commentary on Psalm 69.1 and other sources. Muslim Influences on the Karaites If Islam influenced nascent Karaism, as we saw above, its influence on the fully‑fledged Karaite movement was far greater, as Salmon’s Commentary on Psalm 69.9 testifies. The commentary, written in JudeoArabic, contains terms derived from Muslim theology. For example, the Scriptures are described as ‘The Book of God’ (Kitāb Allāh), a name usually reserved for the Qurʾān,293 and the study of the Scriptures based on individual reasoning is called ijtihād.294 Salmon refers to the Mourners supplications to God as shafāʿa, a term pregnant with eschatological implications in Islam.295 During the Geonic period, Islam influenced both the Rabbanites and the Karaites in many areas. No doubt, one of the main reasons for the Jews’ integration into the ambient Muslim society was their adoption of spoken Arabic as their daily language, and of standard Arabic (alongside Hebrew) as their cultural language. The Arabic used by the Jews, known as Judaeo-Arabic, was a post-classical form of Arabic that characterized the language of the Muslims of that time, with certain deviations. This language, known also as ‘Middle Arabic’,296 enabled Jews to study Muslim works. The Karaites, unlike the Rabbanites, and unlike ʿAnan, totally abandoned Aramaic. Karaite marriage documents found in the Geniza were written in Hebrew only.297

292 On the abatement of messianic tension within the community of Mourners in Jerusalem, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaites’, pp. 216–217. 293 On ‘Kitāb Allāh’, see above, n. 115. 294 Above, nn. 50, 125–126. Below, Ch. 4, nn. 99–101. 295 See Wensinck and Gimaret, ‘Shafāʿa’, pp. 177–179. 296 Blau, ‘Three Languages’, pp. 201–205, 211. On the comparison that Hebrew linguists made between Hebrew and Arabic, see Tene, ‘Comparison’, pp. 237–287. 297 Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents, listed the Karaite ketubbot in the Geniza. On the language of these ketubbot, see Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents, pp. 87–113. For an idea of the attitude of the Rabbinic Sages and Geonīm to Aramaic, see Yahalom, Piyyūṭ, pp. 53–55.

Introduction

79

Daniel al-Qūmisī, who attempted to turn Hebrew into the main, even sole, cultural language of the Jews, wrote his Commentary on the Scriptures in Hebrew. He was forced to concede defeat, however, and to write his works in Judaeo-Arabic, as well as in Hebrew. In his Commentary on the Scriptures, he occasionally translates terms into Arabic and Persian alongside the Hebrew, to clarify their meaning to his readers.298 Salmon ben Yerūḥam, who wrote his books in both Hebrew and Judaeo-Arabic, complained that Jews were paying to study Arabic at the expense of Hebrew: ‘And we are scattered among the nations […] and our aim is to study their language (Arabic) perfectly, and in order to study it, we spend money and neglect the study of the Holy Tongue’.299 No doubt, the supremacy of Arabic in the Jewish street was a thorn in the side of the Karaite Mourners whose aim was to turn all mankind into monotheists who called on God in Hebrew only, in the spirit of the verse in Zephaniah 3.9.300 The educated Karaites and Rabbanites were not only fully conversant with the Arabic language, but also Arabic philology, a discipline in which the Muslims were well-versed. Since Arabic syntax was similar to Hebrew, the study of Arabic philology opened up a whole new discipline for the educated Jews – the study of Hebrew philology. It was thanks to Arabic, their language of adoption, that Hebrew philology developed into a discipline in its own right. Jewish scholars began writing studies on Hebrew philology in Judaeo-Arabic, and compiling dictionaries of biblical terms in Judaeo-Arabic. The Karaite sages were the groundbreakers in this field. The Arab ideal of articulacy soon became the Karaite and Rabbanite ideal, too, as testified by Saʿadia Gaon’s Arabic introduction to the Book of Egron: And just as the Children of Ishmael relate that one of their leading personalities encountered people who could not speak Arabic eloquently, and, troubled by this, composed a treatise for them […] So I saw that many Jews are not familiar with the eloquence of our tongue […] Therefore I felt it incumbent upon me to compose a book in which I would include most words.301

On the Karaite attempt to revive Hebrew, see Erder, ‘Negation’, pp. 135–137. On Arabic and Persian words in al-Qūmisī’s Hebrew Commentary on the Scriptures, see Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 31–36. 299 Salmon, Commentary on Lamentations, 1.8 (Feuerstein edition), p. xxxi. 300 See below, Ch. 4, nn. 533–536. 301 Saʿadia Gaon, Sefer ha-Egron (Aloni edition), pp. 151, 153. 298

80

Chapter One

As we saw in the case of religious law, so too in the field of philology, the influence worked probably in both directions, between Judaism and Islam. Talmon, in his study, does not rule out the possibility that linguistic terms from the Masora infiltrated Arabic philology at the outset.302 However, even if this hypothesis is true, the influence of Hebrew on Arabic philology was insignificant when compared to the influence of halakha on the development of Muslim jurisprudence. While the Masora dealt with the particular and the exceptional, grammar deals with general principles, as yet unformulated in Hebrew.303 Linguistic studies in recent years show that both Karaite and Rabbanite Hebrew grammarians who wrote in Judaeo-Arabic, copied the works of Arabic grammarians verbatim. For example, the works of the Karaite eleventhcentury Jerusalem sage, Abū al-Faraj Harūn, owe much to the works of the Arabic grammarian, Ibn al-Sarāj.304 This plagiarism, however, was not regular plagiarism. Wherever the Arabic grammarians brought an example in Arabic from their holy lore, the Hebrew grammarians brought Hebrew or Aramaic parallels from their holy lore. A work of this kind could not have been written without total mastery of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Arabic. Since the Arab linguists did not possess such mastery, the Hebrew grammarians effectively became the pioneers of comparative linguistics in Semitic languages. The Karaites, rather than seeing the study of Hebrew philology as a discipline in its own right, considered it an important means toward a real understanding of the Scriptures. Clearly, as well as the aforementioned tools of analogy and logic, grammar and syntax became, under Muslim influence, invaluable tools in Karaite Scriptural exegesis. Both Yahuda and Drory concur on this issue.305 According to the Karaites, the Scriptural commentaries of the Rabbinic Sages were often Midrashic commentaries, devoid of any linguistic value. In my opinion, it would not be far-fetched to claim that Ibn Ezra’s exegetical technique, as presented in his introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch, accurately reflects the influence of the Karaite method: ‘And I inquired into the grammar of each word, and afterwards I interpreted it to the best of my ability’. At the end of his introduction, Ibn Ezra stipulates that when linguistic inquiry conflicts with a ruling of the Rabbinic Sages, the latter prevails. The Karaites (whom he calls ‘Sadducees’), on Talmon, ‘Reappraisal’ pp. 27–51. Dotan, ‘Massora’, pp. 13–30. 304 Becker, ‘Abū al-Faraj’, pp. 237–259. Basal, ‘al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil’, pp. 191–209. 305 Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia’, pp. 166–167. Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 89–91. 302 303

Introduction

81

the other hand, overruled the Sages: ‘If we find two explanations for a verse, and one explanation is the words of the copyists (the Rabbinic Sages) […] we rely on their truth […] Far be it from us to mingle with the Sadducees who say that the tradition (of the Rabbinic Sages) runs counter to the Scriptures and its syntax’.306 The Karaites believed that ignorance of the Hebrew language was the ‘mother of all sins’. It was this ignorance, they maintained, that had led the Jews to accept the precepts of the Rabbinic Sages even though they totally contradicted the literal sense of the Scriptural precepts. ‘In antiquity, during the times of the prophets, when the Sages of Israel were fluent and fully conversant in the Holy tongue, the commandment was not hidden from their eyes’.307 A Karaite asserted that the debates of the Rabbinic Sages were not based on Scriptural texts, or on familiarity with the Hebrew language: ‘Did they (the Rabbinic Sages), in their debates, study the correct reading of the Scriptures, its vocabulary, idioms, and philology (ʿilm allugha)’.308 The same Karaite maintained that a study of Hebrew philology led to the inevitable conclusion that the statements of the Rabbinic Sages were nonsense, as borne out by reading Judah ben Quraish’s work. This rabbinic grammarian (d. mid-tenth century) listed numerous disgraceful errors ( faḍāʾīḥ) made by the Rabbinic Sages.309 Having discussed the influence of Arabic philology on the Karaites, we shall now consider the influence of Muslim jurisprudence on them. The discussion above on Islam’s influence on ʿAnan and Benjamin gives us a good headstart. However, while they lived at a time when Jewish law influenced Islam, by the time the Karaites came on the scene, the opposite was true (Islamic law was influencing Jewish law).310 If we add to this the adoption of Judaeo-Arabic as the language of Karaite exegetical works and books of precepts, then clearly the road to a significant Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Introduction, p. 10. In Yesod Moraʾ (Cohen-Simon edition), p. 66, Abraham Ibn Ezra says that studying philology is not enough: ‘And the truth is that the scholar [maskīl] would do well to study this discipline (philology), but he should not devote himself to it all his life’. 307 Sahl, Epistle, p. 34. See below, Ch. 4, n. 68, Nissi ben Noah’s statement that ignorance of Hebrew gets in the way of a literal understanding of the Scriptures. Likewise, David ben Abraham al-Fāsī’s statement in the introduction to his Dictionary, I, pp. 14–15, which Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 62–64, analyzes. 308 ‘An Early Karaite’, f. 3a, (Assaf edition), p. 194. For the Arabic text, see p. 42. 309 ‘An Early Karaite’, f. 1b, (Assaf edition), pp. 204–205. Due to the grammarians’ criticism of the Rabbinic Sages, scholars believed that the first grammarians were all Karaites. Evidently, this was not the case. Ben Quraish himself was apparently a Rabbanite. See Becker, Ben Quraysh, pp. 12–13. 310 Above, n. 114. 306

82

Chapter One

Muslim influence in the field of jurisprudence was already paved. Most of what we said regarding the influence of Muslim law on nascent Karaism applies also to the fully-fledged Karaites (among other influences). The Muslim sages developed a scholarly legal literature, known by the generic term Rules of Jurisprudence (Uṣūl al-Fiqh), which laid down the principles of exegesis and debate. This literature was an inexhaustible resource for the Karaites, who used it to refine the technique of analogy their predecessors had developed. The influence of Uṣūl alFiqh accounts for one of the basic difference between the Karaite method of analogy and ʿAnan and Benjamin’s method.311 The polemic regarding the status of Oral Law in Islam had mutated, albeit not abated. Although the Khārijiyya (Scripturalist) factions had largely weakened,312 the Muʿtazilites aligned themselves with the followers of Abū Ḥanīfa, the advocates of personal opinion, who played down the value of the ḥadīth.313 In his Hebrew pamphlet, al-Qūmisī pointedly refers to Rabbanite halakha as ‘taqlīd’ (blind acceptance of law) and then, in Hebrew, as ‘commandments of men learned by rote’ (Isaiah, 29.13).314 Above, we noted how the political struggle between the Shīʿa and Sunna left its mark on the Karaites.315 Below we shall see that the Shīʿa exegetical method, particularly that of the Ismāʿīlī Shīʿa who held sway over the Mourners of Jerusalem, left its imprint on Karaite exegesis, particularly in its distinction between exoteric and esoteric interpretations of the text.316 Our aforementioned discussion on the influence of Muslim jurisprudence on ʿAnan applies also to the Karaite movement in general, and to the Mourners in particular.317 As we noted then, not every similarity between Karaite and Muslim law necessarily indicated a Muslim influence, or of a deliberate attempt by the Karaites to assimilate Islamic law. On the influence of the Muslim ‘analogy’ on the Karaites, see above, nn. 130– 160. On the different between ʿAnan’s ‘analogy’ and Benjamin’s ‘analogy’, see above, nn. 249–253. On the difference between Qirqisānī’s ‘analogy’ and ʿAnan’s ‘analogy’, see above, nn. 151–154. On the ‘analogy’ in Karaite law, see Peor, ʿIyyūnīm, pp. 86–94. Zucker, ‘Fragments’, pp. 326–327. On the function of ‘analogy’, see Nissi, Commentary on the Decalogue, pp. 11, 13. Cf: Nemoy, ‘Nissi’, p. 341. 312 On the Khārijiyya, see above, nn. 115–121. 313 Below, nn. 350–355. 314 Daniel al-Qūmisī: ‘Sermon’, (Nemoy edition), f. 17a, p. 100. See above, n. 129. On the taqlīd, see above, nn. 50, 129. Maimonides anticipated that his work would be accepted as taqlīd. On opposition to studying halakha by taqlīd among the Rabbanites in Yemen in the times of R. Abraham ben Moses (Maimonides’ son), see Friedman, ‘Dispute’, pp. 160–167. 315 Above, nn. 179–185. 316 Below, Ch. 4, nn. 216–246. 317 See above, nn. 167–177. 311

Introduction

83

Be this as it may, the Mourners evidently had no scruples about deriving political capital out of the similarity between the laws. Al-Qūmisī, who called on his coreligionists to emigrate to Palestine, praised the Kingdom of Ishmael: ‘They always aid the Karaites to observe the Torah of Moses and it is incumbent upon us to bless them (for it). Now you are (living) in the midst of the Kingdom of Ishmael, who are favorable to those who fix the new month by the lunar observation. Why then are you afraid of the Rabbanites? God will help you’.318 Salmon ben Yerūḥam accused the Rabbanites of antagonizing the Muslim authorities in Jerusalem by drinking wine, and thereby endangering the rights of the entire Jewish community in the city.319 The Karaite Mourners of Zion, like the Muslims, also abstained from wine but the similarity ended there. For whereas the Islamic prohibition on drinking wine was final and absolute, the Mourners’ prohibition on drinking wine was finite, ending with the rebuilding of the Temple.320 Very little is known of ʿAnan’s theology, and what we do know is vague.321 As far as Benjamin al-Nahāwandī is concerned, we know that he believed in a secondary deity. Daniel al-Qūmisī, one of the first Karaites, was already a Muʿtazilite and therefore dissociated himself from Benjamin’s doctrine of angels.322 Al-Qūmisī’s Muʿtazilite approach was one of the main differences between him and his predecessors, ʿAnan and Benjamin.323 Alongside his principle of redemption, Daniel established the principle of the unity of God in its Muʿtazilite formulation.324 In his pamphlet, much space is given over to a discussion of Muʿtazilite theology, as well as to the imperative of emigrating to the Land of Israel.325 Al-Qūmisī had already written works of a Muʿtazilite nature, in Judaeo-Arabic, too: ‘And now, you who are weak, gird yourselves with strength and study the disciplines of the unity (of God) and reward and punishment’.326 Although several Karaites had reservations about Daniel al-Qūmisī’s doctrine of redemption, Muʿtazilite theology became the Daniel al-Qūmisī: ‘Sermon’, (Nemoy edition), f. 17a, p. 100. English translation, p. 78. 319 Salmon, Commentary on Psalms, 30.10, MS. RNL Yevr.-Arab I, 1345, 148a-b. See Hirschberg, ‘Mount of Olives’, p. 157. 320 Above, n. 177. 321 See above, nn. 186–189. 322 Above, nn. 229–234. 323 Zucker, Targum, pp. 172–173. 324 Zucker, Targum, pp. 168–169. 325 See above, n. 230. 326 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’, in: Zucker, Targum, p. 179. For the Arabic source see p. 176. 318

84

Chapter One

hallmark of the Karaite movement.327 Qirqisānī’s Kitāb al-Anwār, for example, had a distinctly Muʿtazilite flavor.328 A Muʿtazilite influence can also be found in Yefet’s Commentary on the Bible.329 The Jerusalem Mourners composed special works in the spirit of Muʿtazilite theology, particularly in the eleventh century. I have already mentioned Yūsuf alBaṣīr and Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah.330 The Muslim tenth-century writer, al-Masʿūdī, defines the ʿAnanites (= Karaites) as Jews who believed in ʿadl (justice) and tawḥīd (unity)331 – the two main principle of the Muʿtazila – even dubbing them the ‘proponents of justice and unity’. Although neither the Karaite sages nor the Rabbanite Sages (such as Saʿadia Gaon or Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon) needed the Muʿtazila in order to accept the principle of God’s unity, the Muʿtazila developed unique methods for proving the truth of this principle. The second tenet of the Muʿtazila was the principle of justice (ʿadl), including the belief in free will and reward and punishment in the next world. Since man is free to choose between good and evil, he is held accountable on the Day of Judgment, and is punished for his bad deeds and rewarded for his good ones.332 The emergence of the Muʿtazila in Islam in the first half of the eighth century was a direct consequence of Islam’s encounter with the Hellenistic culture that preceded it and that was considered one of the building blocks of Western culture. Although the Muslims showed no interest in Greek mythology or theater, they were fascinated by Ancient Greek books on philosophy, philology and astronomy, some of which reached them in Syrian translation.333 Once these works were translated into Arabic, science began to thrive in Islamic lands, although they aroused interest in theological circles, too. The encounter with Hellenist philosophy bred a new Islamic theological current known as Kalām (speech), whose adherents, the mutakallimūn (speakers), Ben-Shammai, ‘Kalām’, pp. 134–135, informs us that the Judaeo-Spanish sages originally identified ‘Kalām’ exclusively with Karaism. See Chiesa, Creazione, p. 19. 328 On an ancient Muʿtazilite text that Qirqisānī and the Muslim sage, Ibn ʿAqīl, (1119), copied over, see Makdisi, ‘Dialectic’, pp. 201–206. On Karaite copies of Muʿtazilite works that were discovered in the Geniza, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Note’, pp. 295–304. 329 Much of Ben-Shammai’s doctoral thesis is devoted to a meticulous examination of Muʿtazilite influences on Qirqisānī and Yefet alike. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot. 330 On stages in the development of the Mourners’ attitude to the Muʿtazila, see Sklare, ‘Yūsuf al-Baṣīr’, pp. 249–251. 331 Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, pp. 112–113. 332 Gimaret, ‘Muʿtazila’, pp. 787–791. See below, Ch. 2, nn. 20, 27. 333 On the nature and causes of Hellenistic influence on Islam, see Goitein, ‘Civilization’, pp. 54–70. 327

Introduction

85

attempted to develop a Muslim theology based on rationalism. The first current within the Kalām was the Muʿtazila current. Jewish scholars, too, benefited from these cultural developments. Since their cultural language was Arabic, they, too, had access to works of Greek literature that were translated into Arabic. Moreover, Jewish scholars were fascinated by the way the Muslim mutakallimūn related to this literature. As a result, both Rabbanite and Karaite Sages began writing their own theological literature that referred to Greek philosophical works. This literature had a distinctly Muʿtazilite flavor. Qirqisānī himself extolled the study of philosophy, claiming that it was consistent with the study of the Scriptures, inasmuch as philosophy teaches one to read Scriptures with understanding. Moreover, the writings of the Greek philosophers were not alien to Judaism, since they were taken from the Wisdom of Solomon.334 In the following passage, Maimonides provides a clear description of the influence of Greek philosophy on Jewish scholarship via the Muʿtazila (note, incidentally, his implicit criticism of the Geonīm): As for that scanty bit of argument regarding the notion of the unity of God and regarding what depends on this notion, which you will find in the writings of some Geonīm and in those of the Karaites, it should be noted that the subject matter of this argument was taken over by them from the mutakallimūn of Islam and that this bit is very scanty indeed if compared to what Islam has compiled on this subject Also, it has so happened that Islam first began to take this road owning to a certain sect, namely the Muʿtazila from whom our coreligionists took over certain things walking upon the road the Muʿtazila had taken. After a certain time, another sect arose in Islam, namely, the Ashʿariyya335 among whom other opinions arose. You will not find any of these latter opinions among our coreligionists […] Know also that all the statements that the men of Islam – both the Muʿtazila and the Ashʿariyya – have made concerning these notions are all of them opinions formed upon premises that are taken over from the books of the Greeks and Syrians, who wished to disagree with the opinions of the philosophers and to reject their statements.336 Qirqisānī, Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Hirschfield edition), pp. 40–41. For its French translation, see Qirqisānī, ‘Prologue’, pp. 222–226. Likewise, Qirqisānī, pp. 74–75. In his Commentary on Genesis, Ch. 6, MS RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4529, f. 4a, Qirqisānī informs us that the philosophers were disciples of the prophets (atbāʾ al-ʾanbiyāʾ), and learnt philosophy from them. 335 On this current, see Watt, ‘Ashʿariyya’, p. 696. 336 Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed, 1.71 (Pines edition), pp. 176–177. Cf. statement by the Karaite, Aaron ben Elijah, in his book ʿEṣ Ḥayyim, I, p. 7b: ‘Until the nation 334

86

Chapter One

According to Maimonides, the Muslims absorbed the doctrine of the early Greeks via the polemic literature directed against them by the Christian churches, which preserved the works of the philosophers themselves. Maimonides further teaches us that despite developments in Muslim Kalām, such as the emergence of the Ashʿariyya, the Jews remained loyal to the Muʿtazila. The above is corroborated by a study of both Karaite and Rabbanite works. The Sages of the Karaite Mourners in the tenth century were reluctant to explicitly admit the influence of the Muʿtazila on them.337 They even considered the Muʿtazilite sages, who led the polemic against Judaism, their enemies. Indeed, the Muslim polemic, which was considered one of the perils of the times, contributed to the development of both Karaite and Rabbanite theology. The new questions raised by Islam triggered a similar process among Jewish scholars, who felt a theological restructuring was necessary in order to adapt their religion to the spirit of the times. Special Jewish anti-Islamic polemics began to appear.338 The later Karaites, unlike the earlier ones, were no longer wary of admitting to the influence of the Muʿtazila on them. After all this, when the Jews were exiled to a foreign land among the gentiles, and the eyes of the intellect were seeking truth, when the Jews were divided into two camps, the Karaite and Rabbanites – at that time, the Karaite Sages and some Rabbanite Sages were drawn after Muʿtazilite views, seeing them as being in agreement with the fundaments of the Torah, and that those views originated from the wisdom of Jews, as we have explained.339

The influence of the Muʿtazila on the early Karaites cannot be overemphasized. In the period under discussion, theology and halakha were of Ishmael also came, and they, too, trod this path, for they, too, believed in a false law that their prophet had given to them, and adopted beliefs that fitted in with the Torah, which were copied from the Greeks; and they are a Muʿtazila and Ashʿariyya sect, even though the Ashʿariyya sect separated by adopting alien ideas’. According to Maimonides, some of the Geonīm absorbed the belief in reward and punishment for all living creatures from the Muʿtazila. Maimonides, under the influence of Aristotle, was opposed to this view. See Guide of the Perplexed, 3.17. On the Karaite dispute concerning reward and punishment for animals over the generations, see Frank, ‘Elijah’, pp. 21–50. On the difference between Kalām and philosophy in the light of Maimonides’ views, see Kraemer, ‘Maimonides’, pp. 118–120. 337 On identifying Yefet’s positive attitude toward the Muʿtazila in his commentaries, see below, n. 436. 338 See Sklare, ‘Yūsuf al-Baṣīr’, pp. 257–258. 339 Aaron ben Elijah, ʿEṣ Ḥayyim, ff. 7b-8a.

Introduction

87

interdependent, and therefore the influence of the Muʿtazila was reflected in both the theological and juridical fields.340 In the theological field, as we shall see below, the belief in reward and punishment and in the next world, based on the Muʿtazila, shielded the Karaites from determinism and the belief in two divine authorities, that were part and parcel of Qumran literature. Moreover, since the Karaites attributed Qumran literature to the Sadducees mentioned in Talmudic literature, they felt an aversion to their tenets, such as denial of the next world and of reward and punishment.341 The Muʿtazilite belief in the unity of God led the Karaites to interpret descriptions of God allegorically, in order to avoid anthropomorphizing God. To their way of thinking, logic favored such an allegorical interpretation.342 Their abhorrence of any anthropomorphization of God made the Karaites highly critical of rabbinic Midrashic literature, which personifies God and all the heavenly hosts.343 An instructive example of the correlation between theology and jurisprudence is provided by the Muʿtazilite division between ‘revealed commandments’ and ‘rational commandments’. The former were given by the prophets only, and could not be explained through the intellect. The ‘rational commandments’, however, could be understood without recourse to the prophets, and were therefore binding on all humanity.344 This distinction has a bearing both on the issue of the antiquity of the commandments,345 and on the issue of ‘analogy’. Saʿadia Gaon maintained that ‘analogy’, which was basically an intellectual tool, did not apply to ‘revealed commandments’ that have nothing to do with reason.346 The Karaites, for their part, argued that analogy should be applied to revealed commandments, too.347

On the integration of Muʿtazilite theology in the halakhic works of Yūsuf alBaṣīr, see Sklare, ‘Yūsuf al-Baṣīr’, pp. 249–270. 341 Below, Ch. 2, nn. 15–20, 160. 342 Below, Ch. 4, nn. 160–171. 343 For example, Salmon, Milḥamot, xiv-xvii, pp. 108–132. 344 On the division between revealed and rational commandments, see Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), pp. 388–389. Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’, pp. 108–189. 345 On the antiquity of the commandments, see above, nn. 190–199. According to Samuel ben Ḥofni, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Book of Precepts), Ch. 30, in: Sklare, Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon, f. ix-x, pp. 213–214, all rational commandments, as well as a few revealed ones, were given before the Revelation at Sinai. 346 Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), pp. 387–390. 347 See above, Yefet, n. 132. 340

88

Chapter One

In the context of Muʿtazilite influences on Karaite halakha, clearly rationalism and pluralism in Scriptural exegesis were products of the Muʿtazila, as was the use of philology.348 In the period under discussion, Islam was engaged in a theological debate over the origins of language. Some claimed that language was of divine origin, while the Muʿtazilite sages, under the influence of Greek philosophy, maintained that language was created by man. This approach, which opened the way for scholarly research into the language of the Holy Scriptures, was accepted by Saʿadia Gaon and the Karaites alike.349 The Muʿtazilite sages, who considered the intellect the most important tool for Scriptural exegesis, found themselves at loggerheads with the advocates of the ḥadīth, because they, like Abū Ḥanīfa, played down the authority of the ḥadīth as a basis for religious law.350 Their approach left its mark on the Karaites.351 The Muʿtazilites maintained, inter alia, that a tradition should be accepted only if it was not transmitted by a single chain of transmitters.352 Qirqisānī himself invalidated Muslim oral law because it was based on the ḥadīth method: ‘So-and-so told me from so-and-so’.353 He even questioned the reliability of the kind of ḥadīth known as ḥadīth mutawātir, namely a tradition that was allegedly passed down by a majority, but which, according to Qirqisānī, was actually promoted by a small group.354 According to Qirqisānī, the three reliable sources of halakha were: the Scriptures, analogy, and consensus (ijmāʿ). He maintained that ijmāʿ, also referred to as naql, was a tradition embraced by the entire nation, and was therefore accepted by the Karaites. One cannot dismiss the possibility that this meaning of ijmāʿ may well have originated from the Muʿtazila.355

Above, nn. 305–309. On Saʿadia’s perception of language, see Dotan, ‘Sa‘adia Gaon’, pp. 237–249. On the Karaites’ Muʿtazilite perception of language, see Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Karaite Linguistics’, pp. 87–95. 350 Schacht, Origins, pp. 40–44. Speight, ‘Ḥadīth’, pp. 65–66. 351 Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 95–96, 121–122. Peor, ʿIyyūnīm, pp. 74–80. While Waṣil Ibn ʿAṭā, who is considered the founder of the Muʿtazila, accepted tradition as a source for jurisprudence, it was not a source for jurisprudence for Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ. For a comparison between them, see Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 50–51. 352 Schacht, Origins, p. 51. 353 Qirqisānī, p. 119. 354 Qirqisānī, pp. 300–301. 355 Khan, ‘Qirqisānī’, pp. 70, 78, held this view. According to Niazy, ‘Karaites’, pp. 142–143, Qirqisānī’s perception of the Ijmāʿ was influenced by al-Shāfiʿī’s perception of it. 348 349

89

Introduction

The Karaite Mourners of Zion were a messianic movement. As we shall see below, their messianic doctrine was based mainly on Qumran works which were available to them. It was the encounter of the Karaites – including the Mourners – with the Muʿtazila that helped strengthen the rationalist character of the movement. The above merely touches upon the Muslim influence on Karaism and the Karaites in the fields of language, religious law and theology. The true extent of this influence was far greater. The Karaites and Rabbanite Halakha The Karaites wished to dissociate themselves from Rabbanite halakha, which they considered diametrically opposed to the Scriptures.356 In his polemic against Saʿadia Gaon, Salmon describes the doctrines of the Shammai and Hillel Schools – both of which formed the underpinning of Rabbinic halakha – a conversation of mooing cows: ‘The mooing of the Shammai School against the Hillel School to refute their statements and that of the Hillel School against the Shammai School, to overturn their interpretations’.357 Salmon’s Commentary on Psalms 69.1 shows that the most significant difference between the Karaites and their precursors, ʿAnan and Benjamin, was the extent of their commitment to Oral Law. While ʿAnan and Benjamin still derived halakha from the Oral Law, the Karaites divorced themselves from it entirely.358 A study of ʿAnan and Benjamin’s writings testifies to the influence of Rabbanite literature on them.359 Even their Karaite successors were unable to entirely rid themselves of the influence of Rabbanite literature, despite their unremitting campaign against the Oral Law. Thus, for example, Qirqisānī adopted some of the 32 principles attributed to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yossi ha-Glili.360 The Karaites’ dependence on Rabbanite law can be inferred not only from a study of their laws, but also by their own admission. Qirqisānī, for example, admitted to adopting six of Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen

Below, nn. 379–391. Salmon, Milḥamot, 3, p. 45. Hoenig, ‘Scrolls’, pp. 60–63, maintains that the Karaites followed the Shamaite School. This may have been true of the latter Karaites, but the earlier ones categorically rejected the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages. 358 Above, n. 51. 359 Above, nn. 58–76, 235–245. 360 As transpires from a study of Qirqisānī’s introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch. See Heller, ‘Éléments aggadiqes’, pp. 237–244. On the thirty-two principles, see Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer, Ch. I (Enelow edition), pp. 10–41. 356 357

90

Chapter One

principles, as we saw above.361 As with ʿAnan and Benjamin, Karaite law frequently deviated from Rabbanite law even while adopting Tannaitic hermeneutic principles,. As already stated, ʿAnan’s halakha was dependent on Palestinian rabbinic law. In this respect, the Karaites were ʿAnan’s successors as Revel has argued.362 The Karaite Sahl ben Maṣlīaḥ has already noted the similarity between Palestinian rabbinic law and Karaite law, although according to him this similarity derived from the Karaite influence on the Palestinian sages: And if someone would say that our brethren, the disciples of the Rabbanites on the Holy Mount and Ramlah [Karmela in the original] are far from such actions, you must verily be aware that they are the same ways as those of the students of the Torah and like the actions of the Benei Miqra which they copied and learnt from. The are many of them that will not eat cattle and sheep meat in Jerusalem, and that purify their mouths from forbidden food. The are some who will not eat from the meat of their slaughterers, and will not take from their oil, but use olive oil that is free of worms. And they will not eat of their confections or other foods. They will not touch the dead nor become impure with all manner of impurities. And all this is the result, thanks be to God, of studying with God-fearing people, and hearing their admonitions and warnings. In addition, they will not marry a niece, or a daughter of their father’s wife, and they keep away from all the forbidden relationships that the sages of the Benei Miqra have prohibited, from the mouth of God, at the hand of his servant Moses.363

Although researchers agree with Sahl that in Palestine, Karaite and Rabbanite halakha were similar, many claim that it was Palestinian Rabbanite halakha that influenced the Karaites, rather than the other way round.364 361 Above, n. 134. On the use made by both Yefet and Qirqisānī of one of R. Yishmaʿel’s principles, see Erder, ‘Karaite Halakha’, pp. 171–173. 362 Revel, ‘Differences’, pp. 1–20. Idem, ‘Chapters’, pp. 9–15. On the similarity between Karaite law and the translation attributed to Jonathan ben Uziel, see Itzchaky, ‘Targum’, pp. 127–136. On the similarity between Qirqisānī and the translation attributed to Jonathan ben Uziel on the laws of the ‘ʿeglah ʿarūfah’ (broken-necked heifer) [Deuteronomy 21.1–9] (Rieder edition), p. 283, see Crone, ‘Qasāma’, p. 167, n. 67. 363 Sahl, Epistle, p. 33. See Ch. 2, n. 89. Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Ketubbot’, pp. 127– 144, claims that the Karaites adopted a Babylonian Rabbanite tradition in their marriage documents. Friedman, ‘Relationship’, pp. 145–157, maintains that they adopted a Palestinian Rabbanite tradition. 364 Ankori, Karaites, pp. 252–254. Friedman, Marriage, 1, pp. 42–46. Zucker, ‘Reactions’, p. 380, n. 10 tends to accept Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ’s opinion, even though it is

Introduction

91

In conclusion, Rabbanite halakha influenced the Karaites, as it influenced ʿAnan and Benjamin, in defiance of Salmon ben Yerūḥam’s claim. At the same time, it is obvious that it influenced the precursors of Karaism far more than it influenced the Karaites. The Karaites’ dissociation from Rabbanite halakha is one of the factors that distinguished them from their predecessors, ʿAnan and Benjamin. The dwindling influence of Rabbanite halakha on the Karaites was accompanied by an increasing exposure to Islamic law, and in the case of the Mourners, Qumran law. The focus on philology as a means of interpreting the Scriptures drove a wedge between the Karaites and Rabbinic midrash. The works of the Karaite Mourners, who wished to dissociate themselves from rabbinic halakha, are imbued with an anti-rabbinic polemic spirit.

The Messianic Doctrine of the Jerusalem Mourners of Zion Salmon ben Yerūḥam, in his Commentary to Psalm 69.1, provides an outline of the Jerusalemite Mourners’ messianic doctrine. Below, we shall describe the basic principles of this doctrine, referring to this commentary, and to other sources. Chapter Four, in which we shall discuss the messianic connotations of the name Karaite, explores the messianic doctrine of the Karaite Mourners, and the ways in which it evolved, in greater detail. Although the messianic Mourners of Zion produced no Messiah, the messianic tension in which they lived is discernible in their writings. Salmon’s Commentary on Psalm 69.1 reflects two of the basis components of the Mourners’ messianic doctrine: (1) The imminence of redemption: According to Salmon, the Mourners were destined to live ‘at the end of the four kingdoms’, the last one being the Kingdom of Islam, whose destruction the Mourners eagerly awaited.365 The Mourners are referred to as the ‘remnants’ [‫]שארית‬ who alone merited redemption.366 (2) The Mourners’ role in bringing about the redemption: The redemption would not occur on the divinely ordained date, but would be precipitated by the Mourners’ actions. These actions were closely related somewhat exaggerated. Gartner, ‘Ninth of Ab’, pp. 140–144, agrees with Zucker, and points to the influence of the Karaite Mourning of Zion on the Palestinian Rabbanites. See also Gartner, ‘Naḥem Prayer’, pp. 157–164. 365 On the Karaites’ attitude to Islam, see below, nn. 430–443. 366 On the ‘remnant’ that merits redemption, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 425–438.

92

Chapter One

to the idea of repentance as a step toward redemption, as we shall see below. We see, therefore, from Salmon’s Commentary, that the Mourners assumed responsibility for bringing about the redemption. They were the righteous who had become refined over the generations. Each new generation of the righteous was more refined than the previous one, and the last generation would be so refined that, because of its merits, the redemption would come. Salmon’s Commentary sheds light on the Mourners’ messianic doctrine, and how it developed. In Psalm 69.1, Salmon comments that the word ‘Shoshannīm’ [lilies] refers to the Mourners of Zion who would appear on the threshold of salvation. According to him, the Mourners were also nicknamed ‘vine’ and ‘fig’ in the Bible. He draws our attention to the fact that the meaning of these attributes can be found in his Commentary to the Song of Songs. The Mourners were accustomed to seeking prophetic allusions to their period and to their history in the Book of Psalms and the Song of Songs. Indeed, their entire messianic doctrine was based on an allegorical interpretation of these works. Wieder, noting the influence of the Qumranic pesher on this kind of exegesis, termed it the ‘Karaite pesher’.367 Within the framework of the ‘Karaite pesher’, the Mourners developed a complex messianic doctrine, that described the sequence of events leading to the redemption, beginning with the exile and culminating in the return to the land, national sovereignty, and the rebuilding of the Temple. This sequence of events, as envisioned by Yefet ben ʿEli, accurately mirrored the Mourners’ expectations: The Jewish people would leave the land of exile for ‘the desert of the peoples’ [Ezekiel 20.35–38], led by the Maskīlīm, who would prepare them for repentance.368 The time of the departure to the desert was a ‘time of trouble’ [‫]עת צרה‬.369 Elijah the prophet, whom the Karaites identified with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ [Moreh ha-Ṣedeq], would appear in the ‘desert of the peoples’,370 and resolve all arguments within the nation. Complete 367

c2.

For a detailed discussion of the ‘Karaite pesher’, see below, Ch. 4, sections b and

Yefet, Commentary on Micah 2.12–13, MS Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, f. 137a-b. 369 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 1.8 (Bargès edition), p. 13. 370 On Elijah as Moreh Ṣedeq, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 92–96, 102–104. Judah Hadassi writes: ‘Our Master, Elijah the Prophet, the Holy one of God, shall appear in the desert of nations, as it says: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet, before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord”, [Malachi 3.23–24]’. See Ankori, ‘Yehuda Hadassi’, p. 193. 368

Introduction

93

repentance was possible only through the complete Torah that Elijah would bring. The Karaite Maskīlīm would entrust the leadership of the people to him, ushering in a new stage in the process of redemption. Complete repentance would save the nation from divine retribution on the Day of Reckoning, as Yefet states in his Commentary to Malachi 3.23: Afterwards he informed us when he would send Elijah. And he said: ‘Behold I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord’ [Malachi 3.23]. Some say that the day of the Lord is the ‘Day of Gog’, while others maintain that it is the Day of Reckoning, when God will judge the wicked […] And he informed us that, due to God’s mercy over Israel, he would send Elijah to guide the people to observe the commandments. Then people would return to the true way, and would not be judged or punished on the Day of Reckoning.371

Although the Maskīlīm disagree about the date of the Messiah’s advent, they all concur that he will come only after Elijah has caused the nation to repent. Elijah is the one who would anoint the Messiah who is a shoot of the Davidic House. In his commentary on the verse ‘and he shall bring forth the top stone’ [Zechariah 4.7], Yefet states: ‘“and he shall bring forth” means “and God shall bring forth”, that is to say, God will be the one to reveal the Messiah, since his identity will not become known. Only after God reveals him [the Messiah] through Elijah, peace be upon him, will he [the Messiah] become known’.372 Thus, the first stage in this process of redemption is repentance. Since the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbinic Sages debated the question of whether redemption was contingent on repentance: ‘Rabbi Eliezer says: If Israel repents, they will be redeemed, and if not, they will not be redeemed […] Rabbi Joshua says: Whether they repent or not, they will be redeemed, since when the end comes they are redeemed instantaneously’.373 Saʿadia Gaon, the foremost anti-Karaite polemicist, maintained that redemption was not contingent on repentance.374 According to Yefet, the people in exile had two obligations, the first of which was to repent. Repentance meant abandoning one’s sinful ways Yefet, Commentary on Malachi 3.23, MS. BL. Or. 2401, f. 260a. On the dates of the Day of Reckoning and the Day of Gog and Magog according to al-Qūmisī’s method, see Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Habakkuk, 3.2–3, Pitron, pp. 54–55. 372 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 4.7, MS. BL. Or. 2401, f. 164a. 373 Midrash Tanḥuma, Be-Ḥuqotai 5 (Buber edition), p. 56. 374 Schlossberg, ‘Repentance’, pp. 9–15. 371

94

Chapter One

and observing the commandments.375 Without repentance (knowledge and observance of the commandments) there could be no redemption: ‘And God will not reveal the end until they know the commandments and are God fearing, as it says: “The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him” [Psalms 25.14]’.376 The obligation to repent was incumbent also on the Karaite Maskīlīm, who were themselves the agents of repentance. ‘They repented and caused them to repent’.377 The Maskīlīm were responsible for causing the majority to repent, since the repentance of a minority would not bring about the redemption: ‘Because salvation will not occur due to the righteousness of a few virtuous men, but rather when the majority of Jews repent from their abominations, idolatry and abhorrent ways, and do the will of the Lord’.378 The tremendous significance that the Jerusalemite Mourners of Zion attached to their role as agents of repentance, explains their enthusiasm and missionary fervor. Repentance has three components: a return to the Scriptures, the mourning of Zion and emigration to the Land of Israel. Below we shall give a brief description of each of these components: A Return to the Scriptures Returning to the Scriptures and its corollary, the abandonment of Oral Law, is the hallmark of the Karaite movement in the period under discussion, as we shall see time and again in the course of this book. The Rabbinic Sages warn us that those who claim that ‘the Torah is not from Heaven’ are among those who ‘have no portion in the world to come’.379 These words could easily have been adopted by the Karaites. The argument between them and the Rabbanites revolved around which Law had descended from Heaven. According to the Rabbinic Sages, both the Written and Oral Laws, inextricably intertwined, had descended from Heaven during the Revelation at Mount Sinai, as Maimonides put it: All the commandments that were given to Moses at Sinai were given with their commentaries, as it says: ‘And I will give thee the tables of 375 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 2.5 (Bargès edition) p. 26. The word ‘repentance’ is written in Hebrew. On the second obligation, see below, n. 394. ʿAnan already noted the connection between repentance and redemption. See Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes’, p. 49. Daniel al-Qūmisī, in his Commentary to Zechariah, 11.7, Pitron, p. 73, says: ‘Salvation will not come until we repent’. 376 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 12.5 (Margoliouth edition), p. 141. 377 Sahl, Epistle, p. 36. 378 Sahl, Epistle, p. 33. 379 Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 10a.

Introduction

95

stone, and the law and the commandment’ [Exodus 24.12]. ‘The law’ refers to the Written Law while ‘the commandment’ refers to its commentary. He instructed us to observe the Written Law according to the commandment, namely, the Oral Law.380

Ben Baboi takes this idea further. Not only is the Oral Law a divine law, without it, it would be impossible to observe the commandments of the Written Law: He chose them from seventy nations, and gave them the Written Law and the Oral Law. The Written Law is implicit, while the Oral Law is explicit. The Written Law speaks in generalities, while the Oral Law speaks in specifics. The Written Law is limited, while the Oral Law is unlimited, as it says: ‘The measure thereof is longer than the earth, And broader than the sea’. [Job 11.9].381

It was but a small step from Ben Baboi’s statement to emphasizing the Oral Law at the expense of the written one. Clearly, the Rabbinic Sages tended to give priority to the Oral Law over the written one: ‘Once a person strays from [the study of] halakha to [the study of] Scriptures, he is never again at peace’.382 The eminent status of the Oral Law inevitably enhanced the status of the Rabbinic Sages who, after the destruction of the Temple, fulfilled the role of prophets: ‘From the day the Temple was destroyed, prophecy was taken from the prophets and given to the sages’.383 If the words of a sage contradict those of a prophet, ‘the sage is preferred over the prophet’.384 That the Rabbinic Sages enjoyed such a lofty status is borne out by the following admonition: ‘Be more careful with words of the scribes [‫ ]דברי סופרים‬than with the words of the Torah […] anyone who transgresses the words of the scribes is subject to the death penalty’.385 Maimonides, Introduction to Mishneh Torah. Ben Baboi (Lewin edition), p. 394. See above, n. 137, Mishnah, Ḥagiga, 1.8, and discussion there. 382 BT, Ḥagiga 10a. On the preference of Oral Law over the Written Law, see discussion in JT, Peʾah 2.6, 17a. 383 BT, Baba Batra 12a. On the Karaites’ disinclination to associate the words of the Rabbinic Sages with the prophetic tradition, see above, nn. 102, 283–285. 384 BT, Baba Batra 12a. Qirqisānī, pp. 116–117, takes issue with this statement. See also, Midrash Rabba-Shir ha-Shirim I 18 (Donsky edition), p. 19. 385 BT, ʿEruvin 21b. ‘The virtue of those who study the Talmud is greater than those who focus on the Scriptures (Baʿalei Miqra). Concerning the latter, the verse states: “to see whether the vine budded” while of the former it states: “and the pomegranates were 380 381

96

Chapter One

While the Rabbanites called the Oral Law ‘the living word of God’, the Karaites saw it merely as a ‘commandment of men learned by rote’ [Isaiah 29.13], namely, of human, rather than divine, origin.386 How could anyone, they argued, maintain that the sages’ statements were prophetic, when signs and wonders were not revealed to them? Therefore, not only was the Oral Law not an integral part of the Written Law, it was diametrically opposed to it, as Salmon ben Yerūḥam, speaking about the Mishnah, testified: I sat and saw the six tractates/ and behold they are uttered by the tongues of new people/ and they do not have special signs and wonders / ‘and God spoke to Moses and Aaron’ is missing from them/ I set them aside and said: There is no Torah in them/ because the Torah is interpreted in another away;/ with prophets and wonders so great/ and all this beauty is absent from the Mishnah.387

Since the Mishnah was a mere human invention, Salmon ben Yerūḥam held that halahkot could be derived from the Scriptures only. Ibn Ezra, in recounting a debate with a Karaite on the verse in Exodus 35.3, describes the Karaites’ delight when he (Ibn Ezra) suggested they focus on the Scriptures alone: ‘And I told him that we should abandon the tradition, and focus on the Scriptures only, and he rejoiced’.388 The Oral Law according to the Karaites, distanced people from ‘The Book of God’, namely, the Scriptures. Its monumental breadth, alluded to by Ben Baboi, continued to expand over the generations, so that noone had time to study the Scriptures. One is reminded of the old man in Agnon’s story ‘Covering the Blood’: ‘One interprets the other’s commentary, while a third challenges this interpretation of the commentary, and a fourth challenges this interpretation of the interpretation, and so on and so forth. The number of books that have been written in in flower”’ [Song of Songs 6.11], BT, ʿEruvin 21b. On Islamic circles that preferred the Oral Law to the Qurʾān, see above, n. 122. 386 See above, n. 314. 387 Salmon, Milḥamot, II, p. 40. 388 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Short Commentary on Exodus 35.3. In the course of the discussion on this verse, the question arose of the meaning of the word ‘day’ in the Bible. The Karaite brought proof that it referred to a calendar day (24 hours) while Ibn Ezra brought proof that it referred to daylight only. Given the deadlock between them, Ibn Ezra said: ‘I mentioned these things to show that an intelligent person can understand the Scriptures in many ways. Therefore, in the case of all the commandments, we need transmission and tradition and Oral Law, which I have used in this book’.

97

Introduction

this way is infinite […] You can no longer study Torah because there is too much of it’.389 According to the Mourners the main obstacle to the redemption of the Jewish people – their main goal – was its estrangement from the Scriptures. This was borne out by the fact that after the destruction of the First Temple, the exiles, who were familiar with the Scriptures without any misleading rabbinic intervention, witnessed the Return to Zion and the rebuilding of the Second Temple. The exiles of the second Temple, however, who rely on ‘commandments of men learned by rote’, will not merit redemption until they abandon them: And now, consider, O Jewish brethren, in your hearts why our exile has lasted so long. The exile of our fathers, the Babylonian exile, lasted only seventy years, while our exile is extremely prolonged […] Know that they knew the way of the commandments in the Torah of God, and therefore knew how to return to God. Therefore, when they returned to God, they cried unto the Lord and He delivered them. But today, in the current exile, they worship God like a commandment of men learned by rote, and not as God’s law.390

The obvious conclusion is that repentance, on which redemption depends, begins with a return to the Scriptures. ‘The start of repentance is to study the books of God and act accordingly. When the Jews walk in this path, they will merit salvation’.391 Mourning for Zion The Karaite Mourners maintained that as long as the Temple service was nonexistent, one was obliged to mourn the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. According to Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, the children of Israel would not have been saved from Egypt had they not cried out to the Lord: ‘The three things on account of which our fathers were saved have been fulfilled. They are: for the sake of the Lord, for the sake of the covenant, and for the sake of their cry, as it says: “And now, behold, the cry of the children of Israel is come unto Me” [Exodus 3.9]’. Nor would Nehemiah have returned to Zion had he not mourned the exile: ‘Nehemiah the son of Ḥakhalia wept and prayed to the God of Heaven, and God helped him and he came to Jerusalem’. Therefore, Sahl strongly 389 Agnon, ‘Covering the Blood’) p. 59. The beggar himself is referring to statements of sages after Maimonides. 390 Daniel al-Qūmisī: ‘Sermon’, (Nemoy edition), f. 14b, p. 93. 391 Salmon, Commentary on Song of Songs, MS RNL Yevr.-Arab. I, 3959, f. 5a, translated by Frank, ‘Voice’, p. 5.

98

Chapter One

condemned his diasporic contemporaries who were living in luxury in the exile, forgetful of the destruction of Jerusalem: ‘How can you enjoy yourselves, O exiles, and find pleasure in taverns and good food’.392 Although the obligation to mourn was a discretionary commandment that was a substitute for sacrifices,393 for the exiles, it was an obligation, just like the obligation to repent: Know that the exiles are absolutely obliged to carry out two things: the first is repentance […] and the second, the observance of a discretionary commandment [‫]מצוות רשות‬ […] And he informed them that they must return to God through observing the commandments, including fasting, in order to break their hearts and surrender to the Sovereign of the Universe, instead of the sacrifices, as it says: ‘The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit’ [Psalms 51.19] […] There are many discretionary commandments, as it says: ‘And with fasting, and with weeping, and with lamentation’ [Joel, 2.12].394

The Karaite Mourners of Zion in Jerusalem did not consume meat or wine. Their way of life can be gleaned from their writings: ‘They discarded their beautiful garments and put on sackcloth/ and they groaned and sighed/ and bewailed the calamity of Zion’.395 They arranged prayer shifts in order to expedite the redemption by observing the precept in Isaiah 62.6: ‘So that we become one group to supplicate God always on the mountains of Jerusalem, as it says above: “I have set watchmen upon thy walls, O Jerusalem, They shall never hold their peace day nor night. Ye that are the Lord’s remembrancers, take ye no rest”’.396 The Mourners’ grief found expression in laments and consolations they composed, which were used in mourning rituals.397 The mourning of Zion rituals began shortly after the destruction of the Temple: ‘When the Temple was destroyed for the second time, large numbers of Jews became ascetics, binding themselves neither to

Sahl, ‘Tract’, pp. 200, 204. On mourning as a discretionary commandment, see below, Ch. 4, n. 382. 394 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 2.5 (Bargès edition), p. 26. The Karaite Mourners saw mourning as a discretionary commandment that would cease after the redemption. It stands to reason, therefore, that they found little of interest in Muslim Ṣūfī literature. The Karaites even found criticism of the Ṣūfīs in Muʿtazilite writings. For a different view, see Yinnon, ‘Karaites’, pp. 5–7. 395 Sahl, ‘Epistle’, p. 31. 396 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 17a (Nemoy edition), p. 100. 397 Ben-Shammai, ‘Lamentations’, pp. 191–234. Frank, ‘Shoshanim’, pp. 199–245. 392 393

99

Introduction

eat meat nor to drink wine’.398 Nevertheless, Karaite mourning rituals were based more on Qumranic than on Rabbanite sources, and were part and parcel of their messianic doctrine, as I shall explain in the following chapters. Some scholars claim that Rabbanite Mourners of Zion were active in the Geonic period, and they were the ones that influenced the Karaite Mourners.399 The Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ informs us that Mourners of Zion received donations during the Fātimid period and the period preceding it.400 According to this scroll, Samuel ben Paltiel supported ‘the Mourners of the Temple and the “Maskanīm”, those who lamented and grieved over Zion’.401 Mann maintains that the correct reading of ‘Maskanīm’ is ‘Maskīlīm’, and that this is a reference to the Rabbanite Maskīlīm.402 Zucker agrees that the correct reading is Maskīlīm, but unlike Mann, claims that this is a reference to the Karaite Mourners who received alms from a Rabbanite. According to this interpretation, mourning Zion was a Karaite phenomenon in the period under discussion. Support for this phenomenon in the rabbinic literature suggests there were Rabbanite circles that were influenced by the Karaite Mourners.403 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ also refers to Rabbanites who adopted mourning customs in Palestine under the influence of the Karaites. Scholars, however, disagree with Sahl’s claim.404 Be this as it may, my contention is that the main influence on the Karaite Mourners was Qumran literature. Immigration to Palestine The Maskīlīm, who took it upon themselves to make the nation repent, were based in Jerusalem: ‘For the Leader, upon Shoshannīm’ [Psalm 46.1]. These are the Maskīlīm of the exile that were taken from the tribes of Israel, and brought to Jerusalem in order to intercede with God on behalf of the people, and bring about the salvation of Israel and the Kingdom of the BT, Baba Batra 60b. On an attempt to suppress the mourning of Zion in Babylon, see BT, Baba Qama 59a-b. 399 Poznanski, ‘Beginning’, pp. 90–91. Mann, Jews, I, pp. 47–49. 400 Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ (Klar edition), pp. 14, 35, 37. 401 Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ (Klar edition), p. 37. 402 Mann, Jews, I, p. 49, n. 2. 403 Zucker, ‘Reactions’, pp. 378–385. On the ‘Maskanīm’, see Zucker, ‘Reactions’, p. 385. 404 Above, nn. 363–364. Also Gartner, ‘Ninth of Ab’, pp. 140–144, noted the influence of the Karaite Mourners of Zion on the Palestinian Rabbanites. 398

100

Chapter One

Messiah. These are called ‘the Mourners of Zion’ in the exile, and shall be called ‘terebinths of righteousness [Isaiah 61.3] at the time of the redemption.405

The Karaite Mourners in Palestine believed that their leaders were superior to the diasporic leaders, just as the Jews of Palestine were superior to those in the Diaspora, because they were able to observe the commandments that pertained to the Land of Israel. In his Commentary on the Song of Songs 2.12–13, Yefet says: And he referred to the exiles as ‘vines’, in the plural form, and to their sages as ‘flowers’. Just as the sages of the Land of Israel are superior to the sages of the exile in their Torah, so are the inhabitants of the Land of Israel superior to the exiles in their observance of the law. Do you not see that he stated, referring to the inhabitants of the Land of Israel, ‘putteth forth her green figs’, implying fruit that was beginning to ripen. With reference to the exiles he says: ‘and the vines in blossom’ since they have no edible fruit. The explanation is that the inhabitants of the Land of Israel are on a higher level in their obedience to God, their observance of the Sabbath and festivals and purity of food, and the laws of defilement and purity, while the exiles are inferior to them.406

The Mourners of Zion published pamphlets urging the people to immigrate to Palestine. In one of these pamphlets, al-Qūmisī says: ‘Arise and come to Jerusalem, and we shall return to God’.407 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ also wrote a pamphlet in the tenth century calling for immigration to Palestine: ‘Our Jewish brethren, we beseech you, give a hand to God, and come to His sanctuary which He consecrated forever, because it is incumbent upon you […] Gather yourselves in the heavenly city and gather in your brethren, because hitherto you have been a nation that yearned not for the house of its heavenly Father’.408 One by one, alQūmisī refuted the arguments of those who claimed that the time was not ripe for emigrating to Palestine. He did not, however, expect his call to be answered in full, since according to him, the period he lived in was Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 43.1, MS PBN Héb. 287, f. 26a. Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 2.12–13 (Bargès edition), p. 33. On the impossibility of observing commandments in the Diaspora, see David ben Abraham, Dictionary, I, p. 348. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 119.20. See Marwick, ‘First Fragment’, p. 71. 407 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 17a (Nemoy edition), p. 100. 408 Sahl, ‘Tract’, pp. 197–198. 405

406

Introduction

101

the one ‘preceding the ingathering of exiles’.409 Al-Qūmisī also asked the communities that remained in the Diaspora to financially support the immigrants to Palestine: ‘If you yourselves do not come, because you are busy with your merchandise, then at least send from each city five men with sustenance’.410 An interesting discussion among the Mourners concerning the sin which prompted Haman’s decree is instructive of which obligation – mourning Zion or immigrating to Palestine – they considered more important. According to Judah Hadassi, some claimed it was the refusal to emigrate to Palestine following Cyrus’ decree: ‘Why did God bring Haman against the Jews? […] Because they delayed emigrating during the second Temple period, from the first year of Cyrus until the twelfth year of Ahasuerus, and they tarried fifteen years’.411 Yefet rejects this reason: ‘Some say that the reason (for Haman’s decrees) was their refusal to immigrate to Jerusalem at the time of King Cyrus’ decrees […] This cannot be the case, however, since this sin is still rife’.412 According to Yefet, the reason for the calamity can be deduced from the fact that after the people fasted, mourned and lamented their situation, God revoked the decree. Consequently, the decree must have been to punish the people for abolishing the fasts and mourning rituals commemorating the destruction of the First Temple once the Second Temple was built: But what I believe is correct is what they actually did when the news (of Haman’s decrees) reached them in each and every land. This itself teaches us that the reason for the decrees was that (previously) they did the opposite. The people began mourning and wailing, they put on sackcloth and ashes, and chanted lamentation, and that is all the Scriptures tell us. And God took pity on them because of their deeds. And we say, when the people saw that the sacrifices were reinstated in God’s House and that it was permitted to rebuild it, they stopped mourning for the exile, the destruction of their land the abolition of the sacrifices, and began eating and drinking. This was a wrong interpretation, however, and God brought this punishment upon them. When, however, they inquired into the reason for the calamity and discovered what it was, they mended their ways and returned to the Lord, and then God’s anger against them dissipated. And we have already gone Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 17a (Nemoy edition), p. 99. Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 17a (Nemoy edition), p. 100. 411 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 245, f. 93d. 412 Yefet, Commentary on the Book of Esther 4, MS PBN Héb. 295, f. 147b. 409 410

102

Chapter One

into this at length in the Commentary on Zechariah, peace be upon him, when the people sent to ask: ‘Should I weep in the fifth month?’ [Zechariah 7.3], so here is not the place to expatiate upon it again.413

Thus, Yefet did not attribute Haman’s decrees to the failure to immigrate to Palestine, but rather to the abolition of fasts commemorating the destruction of the Temple. Once the people settled in the land, a new society would arise that would be jointly led by the Messiah from the House of David and the High Priest. The priests would resume the functions assigned to them in the Torah, namely, the performance of Temple rituals and the spiritual leadership of the people. With the restoration of sacrifices, the fasts would cease, and the people would experience economic prosperity. In order to forestall corruption, the economy in Jerusalem would be based on agriculture and commerce would be banned: ‘There will be no merchandise in Jerusalem, because God’s servants will dwell in Jerusalem; therefore their livelihood will come from the grain they shall sow on the eastern and western sides of the city’.414 A society that lives off agriculture can implement all the commandments pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel. The revolutionary nature of the Jerusalem Mourners’ call to emigrate to Palestine and to adopt mourning customs can be evaluated against the opposing attitude of the Rabbanite – particularly the Babylonian – leadership in the Geonic period.415 Since Babylon was the preferred centers of the Rabbanites, there was no call to emigrate to Palestine. This, together with the economic consolidation of the Jews in the Diaspora due to widespread commercial activity throughout the Mediterranean basin, led the Karaite Mourners of Zion to term the Rabbanites ‘exilic’, and their doctrine ‘the doctrine of exile’.416 Although the Karaite Mourners failed in their call to the masses to emigrate to Palestine, when they settled in Palestine they set up their own community in Jerusalem that soon became the most flourishing center of Karaite activity in their period.

413 Yefet, Commentary on the Book of Esther 4, MS PBN Héb. 295, f. 147b-148a. According to Qirqisānī, p. 917, a group of ʿAnanites believed that the building of the Second Temple abolished the fasts commemorating the destruction of the First Temple. 414 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zechariah, 14. 20–22, Pitron, p. 76. 415 Above, nn. 7–8. 416 See Erder, ‘Negation’, pp. 119–126.

Introduction

103

The Relationship between Mourners, Rabbanites and Muslims in Jerusalem The Relationship between the ‘Shoshannīm’ Community and the Rabbanites in the City Naturally, the open campaign that the Mourners of Zion waged against the Rabbanites, and the missionary-messianic nature of the Mourners’ community in Jerusalem helped account for the hostility between the two communities in the city. It seems that the tense relations between the two communities from the outset made the Karaites settle in a separate quarter in Jerusalem.417 The Karaite quarter was in an area identified as the Scriptural ‘Ṣelaʿ Elef’ [Joshua 18.28]. This fact was seized upon by the Rabbanites in the city to dub the Karaites the ‘Sect of Ṣelaʿ’ and ‘Ṣoleʿah’ (she that halteth)418 According to Zucker, the Karaites themselves adopted the appellation ‘Ṣoleʿah’, based on the expression in Zephaniah 3.19 and Micah 4.6–7. However, whereas the Rabbanites saw it as an insult, they saw it as a compliment,419 since the term ‘Ṣoleʿah’ in Micah is identified with the ‘remnant’ that merits redemption, and the Mourners considered themselves the ‘remnant’.420 This idea is taken up by al-Qūmisī, too, in his Commentary on Zephaniah 3.19: ‘Behold I shall destroy all your afflicters and abusers, and shall deliver Israel the lame [ṣoleʿah] who inhabits Zion’.421 An epistle by a Palestinian Gaon on the calendrical dispute sheds light on the feud between the Rabbanite leadership in Palestine and the early Karaite settlers, including ʿAnan’s offspring: ‘R. Mosa, who was killed in the Synagogue by the offspring of ʿAnan and our fathers, R. Meir and R. Moses, whom the enemies sought many times to kill’. This Gaon is describing a situation in which, in his time, too, the Rabbanite leadership was being persecuted ‘by ʿAnan’s [descendants] – the enemies’.422 Another Gaon, Solomon ben Judah, testified that the Mourners of Zion called themselves ‘lilies’, and the Rabbanites

On the location of the Karaite quarter and whether it was intra muros, see BenShammai, ‘New Data’, pp. 305–313. Gil, ‘Karaite Quarter’ p. 1–14. 418 Mann, Texts, pp. 304. See below, n. 428. 419 Zucker, ‘Reactions’, p. 383. 420 Above, nn. 46, 51, 366. On the ‘remnant’ in the Mourners’ writings, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 425–438. 421 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zephaniah, 3.19, Pitron, p. 59. 422 See Guillaume, ‘Documents’, pp. 554–555. On hostile relations between the Rabbanites and Karaites in the ninth century in the light of the Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ, see Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ (Klar edition), pp. 16–17. Yahalom, Piyyūṭ, pp. 44–46. 417

104

Chapter One

‘thorns’.423 The Rabbanites, for their part, held an annual excommunication ceremony against the Karaites on the festival of Tabernacles on the Mount of Olives, as testified by R. Abraham ben David (Raʾavad) in his Sefer ha-Qabbalah: When the Jews celebrated the festival of Tabernacles on the Mount of Olives, they encamped on the mountain […] and the heretics encamped opposite them, like two flocks of goats. The Rabbanites took out the Sefer Torah and excommunicated the heretics before them, by name, while the latter stood there silently like dumb curs’.424

In the 1030s, Solomon ben Judah, the Gaon of the Palestinian community, tried to put a stop to this excommunication ceremony, probably because the Rabbanite Yeshiva was dependent on two Karaite brothers, the Tustarīs Ḥesed and Abraham, habitués of the court of the Fātimid Caliphate.425 The Gaon failed in his attempt when the two sons of the previous Gaon carried out the excommunication ceremony notwithstanding. They were ultimately arrested and, following a lengthy intrigue involving the authorities, released. Following this dispute, the Karaites were recognized by the Caliphate as a separate community and were granted sovereign protection.426 The Karaites’ involvement in the internal disputes of the Rabbanites in Jerusalem is a measure of their influence in Jerusalem and in the Caliph’s court in Cairo. The Karaite patrons of the Cairo court were involved in the dispute over the leadership of the Palestinian Yeshiva between Gaon Solomon ben Judah and his rival, Gaon Nathan ben Abraham (1038–1042). An agreement they signed to settle the dispute, which was preserved in the Geniza, even bore the signature of the Karaite Nasi, Yehezkiyahu ben Solomon.427 The Gaon Abiathar also testifies that Karaites were involved in the dispute between members of his family (the priestly family) and the Gaon Daniel ben Azaryah’s family (the Exilarch’s family) over leadership of

423 Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 92, p. 172. The Rabbanites complained of the Karaites’ hostility toward them, see Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 92, p. 172. 424 Abraham ben David, Sefer ha-Qabbalah, (Cohen edition), p. 68. 425 On the two brothers’ connections with Rabbanite leaders, see Gil, Tustarīm, pp. 44–57. 426 Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaites’, p. 220. On pressures on the Gaon by members of the Rabbanite community in Jerusalem who advocated a complete break with the Karaites, see Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 92. 427 Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 199.

Introduction

105

the Yeshiva, in 1051–1052: ‘And Daniel ben Azaryah from Babylon rose up against them, and was supported by the “Ṣelaʿ” sect’.428 The evidence suggests that in the course of the eleventh century, the hostility between the Rabbanites and Karaites of Jerusalem eased somewhat. Alongside the influence of the Tustarī brothers, researchers cite a decline in messianic fervor among the Karaite Mourners of Zion. Testimony of the ties between the two communities can be found in a colophon of The Aleppo Codex (Keter Aram Ṣova). The two Karaite princes, Hezekiah and Josiah, who were entrusted with the ‘Codex’, promised to make it available year-round to the Rabbanite Sages, as requested.429 The Relationship between the Karaite Mourners and Islam We saw above that the Muslim authorities were involved in disputes between the Rabbanite and Karaite communities in Jerusalem, and in some cases, ruled in favor of the Karaites. The above notwithstanding, the Mourners, true to their messianic doctrine, saw the destruction of Islam as an essential stage in the redemption. One might have thought that the Karaites would feel grateful to Islam for its contribution to the development of Karaism in the Geonic period. Indeed echoes of gratitude can be found in the Mourners’ writings toward the authorities who had allowed Karaism to develop throughout the Middle East, from the time of ʿAnan ben David, despite Rabbanite opposition: ‘When the Kingdom of Ishmael appeared, it abolished the rule [of the Rabbanites] in Israel […] and enabled the emergence [of the righteous], such as ʿAnan, peace be upon him, and others […] after hiding, he could appear openly’.430 The Karaites appreciated the fact that the Muslims, shortly after conquering Jerusalem, allowed Jews to settle in it, after they had been forbidden to dwell there for many years: Because, prior to his arrival [of the King of Ishmael] they could not come to Jerusalem and now, after his arrival, he brought them to Jerusalem and gave them a place there, and many Jews dwelled there. And after that, Jews came from all four corners of the earth to Jerusalem to study and pray.431

Gil, Ereṣ, III, doc. 559, p. 395. On the ‘Ṣelaʿ’ sect, see above, nn. 418–421. Ofer, ‘Aleppo Codex’, pp. 287–289. 430 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 3.2 (Bargès edition), pp. 41–42. 431 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’, p. 305. 428 429

106

Chapter One

Given the antagonism between the Rabbanites and the early Karaites in Jerusalem, the Karaites could never have put down roots there without the support of the Muslim authorities. Mann claims that Aḥmad Ibn Ṭūlūn’s conquest of Palestine in 878 opened up the city to Karaite immigration.432 Daniel al-Qūmisī, one of the first immigrants to Jerusalem, explicitly stated that the Kingdom of Ishmael ‘always helped the Karaites’.433 In the last quarter of the tenth century, the Byzantines tried to reconquer Palestine from the Muslim. In their commentaries to the Scriptures, the Karaites refer to the Byzantines’ attempts to expel the Jews of Jerusalem from the city. Yefet, in his commentary on the verse: ‘For, lo, the wicked bend the bow’ [Psalms 11.2] says: ‘By this he meant that the Byzantines constantly wrote to the Arabs urging them to expel the Jews from Jerusalem, to no avail. Clearly, they have been doing this for many years’.434 This Byzantine maneuver made the Karaites more aware of the contribution of the Muslim authorities to their consolidation there. Yefet, indeed, refers to the Arabs in a positive light, saying that unlike their predecessors, they did not wreak exile and destruction.435 The Karaites preferred Islam over Christianity not only for political reasons, but for theological ones, too. According to them, Christianity was not a purely monotheistic religion, because it anthropormophized God, unlike Islam, especially in its monotheistic Muʿtazila guise, whose theological doctrine the Karaites embraced. It is not, therefore surprising that Yefet ben ʿEli foresaw that in the End of Days, the Christians would be entirely wiped off the face of the earth, while monotheistic circles within the Muslims would survive and accept the Jewish religion.436 And yet, despite this debt of gratitude to Islam, the Mourners of Zion eagerly awaited Islam’s demise. Despite being monotheistic, Islam was a false religion based on the words of a false prophet who borrowed elements from earlier religions:

Mann, Texts, II, p. 7. See, on the other hand, Gil, ‘Additions’, p. 298. Above, n. 318. Some claim that the Karaites were granted political assistance by the authorities because of the similarity between Karaism and Islam. See above, nn. 167–178, 317–320. 434 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 11.2, MS PBN Héb. 286, f. 70b. See Gil, ‘Sixty Years’, p. 11. 435 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 2.43 (Margoliouth edition), p. 30. 436 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 53, MS PBN Héb. 287, f. 72a. See Erder, ‘Attitude’, pp. 43–46. 432 433

Introduction

107

And the book of their disgrace is a fabrication, it has no basis. Their magic and sorcery are man-made. It happened so: Muhammad and his companions combined words they took from other religions, and wrote them in their Book of the Qurʾān, and said that it was divine inspiration that came down through Gabriel to the Madman (a reference to Mohammed).437

The founders of Islam were the sons of Ishmael, uncivilized men of the desert who were compared to wild beasts. The laws of Islam humiliated the Jews and discriminated against them. Under Islam, the status of the Jew was that of a servant in the hands of his Master. In this respect, Islam was no different from other oppressive regimes. Yefet, in the same commentary in which he praised the Arabs for not expelling the Jews, denounced them for humiliating the Jews and their religion.438 The Muslims, complained the Mourners of Zion, had oppressed them not only physically, but even worse, spiritually. By this they meant the Islamic sages’ polemical works against Judaism, the endless ‘rigged’ religious disputations in which they were forced to participate,439 and attempts to force Jews to convert.440 The immigration of the Mourners of Zion was designed to precipitate the rebuilding of the Temple. Yet, when they arrived in Jerusalem, they found, to their chagrin, the Temple Mount in the hands of the Muslims, while they themselves were forbidden to cross its threshold. Salmon ben Yerūḥam expresses his anguish at the situation in his Commentary to Lamentations 5.18: Jerusalem, our Temple and glory, lay desolate. And after the destruction, foxes walked on it, and even worse than foxes, uncircumcised adulterers and impure men and women […] committing transgressions. Coffins of the dead. The eastern gate has become a latrine, with many blasphemers within it. And each day they proclaim five times in the name of an idol and image that is placed in the House of Blows (makkot, in Hebrew, a play on the name Mecca), their house of worship.

Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 47.9–10, in Ben-Shammai, ‘Editions’, p. 23. Above, n. 435. 439 Ibn al-ʿArabī in his book Journey (Drory edition), p. 96, describes a religious polemic between Muslim clerics in Jerusalem, and a Jewish sage called Tustarī. Gil, Palestine, I, p. 820, identifies the Tustarī with the Karaite Jerusalem sage, Yashar b. Ḥesed al-Tustarī. 440 Stern, ‘Fātimid Propaganda’, pp. 84–95. 437

438

108

Chapter One

Salmon was referring to the five daily prayers the Muslims recited on the Temple Mount, facing the kaʿaba in Mecca, which in his eyes was a place of idolatry. The ‘coffins of the dead’ was a reference to the Muslim cemetery on the eastern side of the Temple Mount. Salmon bemoaned the fact that while the Muslims were allowed to worship on the Temple Mount with impunity, a Jew who approached the gates of the Temple Mount did so at his own peril: ‘And the choice sons of Israel and sons of Aaron who serve the Lord, if they approach the gates of the sanctuary, they will smite them and pelt them with stones and with great affliction’. It was also hard for the Karaites to come to terms with Christian services in Jerusalem, which they considered a continuation of Roman pagan rites.441 The Mourners were even more distressed by their conviction that all Christian and Muslim sites throughout the land were built on Jewish sites: ‘In every place […] there are remnants of our holy sites (athārāt) and the people of the land are blessed through us’.442 Thus, despite feeling gratitude toward the Muslim authorities for granting them freedom of action, and despite recognizing the influential role of the Muʿtazila in their doctrine, the Karaite Mourners, under the impact of their messianic doctrine, considered Islam the ‘fourth Kingdom’ of iniquity that was delaying the redemption. Only the destruction of the wicked Kingdom of Ishmael could bring about the Redemption of Israel and the Rebuilding of the Temple.443 In this chapter, we have focused on Rabbanite and Islamic influences on the Karaite Mourners of Zion. I have argued throughout that the Karaites were influenced not only by these currents, but also, and especially, by Qumran literature. This influence found expression in many areas: their name, their exegetical technique, their halakha, their mourning rites and their messianic doctrine. In the following chapters we shall discuss some of these influences. Karaite sources testify to the influence of ancient sectarian literature, in particular the Sadducees and the Caves Sect. In the following chapter, we shall focus on the doctrine and identity of these sects.

For Salmon’s statement, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Lamentations’, p. 203. On the Karaites’ attitude to the Christian cult in Jerusalem, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Lamentations’, pp. 220–224. 442 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 13.9, MS INA B 222, f. 96a. 443 On the Karaites’ attitude to Islam, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Attitude’, pp. 3–40. Erder, ‘Attitude’, pp. 29–49. 441

Chapter Two The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

The Karaites were familiar with ancient sects and even believed that two of these sects – the Sadducees and the Caves Sect – influenced Karaite circles. A study of the doctrine of these sects points to some similarity between them and the Qumran sect. Some scholars have even attempted to prove that they were one and the same sect. Below we shall discuss these two sects and their doctrines in detail. The main source for studying these sects is the introduction to the Book of Lights and Watchtowers (Kitāb al-Anwār waʾl Marāqib) by the tenth-century Karaite sage, Qirqisānī, who based his knowledge on the writings of Dāwūd Ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣ.1 A Hebrew adaptation of this introduction can be found in Eshkol ha-Kofer by the Karaite, Judah Hadassi, who was active in Byzantium in the twelfth century.2 Information about the Sadducees can also be found in various Karaite commentaries of the Bible. Important information about the Caves Sect is also available in Muslim heresiographical literature.

The Sadducees in Early Karaite Literature In the Geonic period, the Jews learnt about the Second Temple sects from the literature of the Rabbinic Sages. This source had little to say about the history of the sects, and even the little it said is historically questionable.3 See above, Preface, nn. 26–27. Above, Preface, nn. 39–41. 3 Sussmann, ‘History’, pp. 44–45, n. 147. Paul, Écrits, pp. 57–68, discusses the lack of information about the Sadducees. 1 2

110

Chapter Two

When the Karaites read ancient literary works with anti-Pharisaic connotations that fell into their hands, they concluded that these were remnants of Sadducean literature since, as far as they knew, the Sadducees were the only known opponents of the Pharisees in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages. In actual fact, however, this literature was not Sadducean literature, but remnants of Qumran literature, or the like, that they attributed to the Sadducees.4 Consequently, the Sadducean sect referred to in Karaite works was not a historical sect but rather a Karaite invention, a hybrid of the laws and beliefs of two different currents – the Sadducees and the Qumran sect. Where the Karaites found contradictions between the sources available to them, they attempted to reconcile them, or simply disregarded them. Below we shall study the Sadducean sect as reflected in Karaite sources, differentiating between Sadducean laws and ideas that originated in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages, and laws and ideas that originated in Qumran or quasi-Qumran apocryphal literature. The Qumran literature is sometimes called here the literature of the ‘Sons of Zadok’, since in several scrolls, members of this sect ascribed their doctrine to the priestly ‘Sons of Zadok’.5 The Period of the Sadducean Sect Qirqisānī, in the introduction to his book which includes an inventory of Jewish sects from the biblical period until his times, places the Sadducees after the Rabbanites and before the Caves Sect and Christianity.6 This constitutes convincing proof that, according to Qirqisānī, the Sadducees emerged before the advent of Christianity. This opinion of his also finds expression in his discussion on the ‘Gourd’ sect (Qarʿīyya), which was thus named, according to him, because its members used vessels that were made entirely from gourds.7 Initially, Qirqisānī believed that the Qarʿīyya sect emerged after the appearance of Christ. From a study of al-Muqammiṣ’s Book of Tenacity (al-Ḍarāʾa), he learnt that both the Qarʿiyya and the Sadducees preceded Christianity,

On how the Karaites gained access to Qumran literature, see below, Ch. 5, nn. 18–27. 5 On the ‘Sons of Zadok’ in Qumran, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 281–286, 439–467. 6 Qirqisānī, p. 11. 7 Qirqisānī, pp. 12, 47. According to Qirqisānī, some believed that the members of the Qarʿīyya sect were the descendants of Yoḥanan ben Qeraḥ who went down to Egypt [Jeremiah 43]. The word Qarʿah in Arabic means both ‘gourd’ and ‘baldness’. Members of the sect lived in Egypt. See Golb, ‘Topography’, pp. 259–260. 4

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

111

and that Christianity even absorbed elements from these two sects.8 In one place, Qirqisānī claims that the Sadducean sect and the Caves Sect became extinct.9 In other words, according to Qirqisānī, these two sects operated in antiquity only. This is borne out by the Karaite debate on the calendar, which sheds light on the antiquity of the Sadducees and their disappearance from the historical arena. According to Yefet ben ʿEli, the nation was divided into two factions over the issue of the calendar: Those who based the calendar on computations, and those who based it on sightings of the new moon. Once the Sadduceans and the members of the ‘badr’ (who determined the new month by the sighting of the full moon) had disappeared, there was no longer anyone left to argue about their calendar.10 Qirqisānī opens his discussion of the calendar with the Sadducean calendar – the calendar of the earliest sect.11 Zadok, the Founder of the Sadducean Sect The Karaites believed that the Sadducees were called after their founder, Zadok. According to Yefet, Zadok deduced from the story of the Flood that the Hebrew calendar was a solar one.12 One of the Karaite factions believed that Christ was a righteous man (ṣāliḥ), like Zadok and ʿAnan.13 Qirqisānī’s view of Zadok was cautiously positive. According to him, Zadok was the first to quarrel with the Rabbanites, but he revealed only part of the truth. Qirqisānī ascribed a book to Zadok that utterly denounced the Rabbanites and their teachings, but criticized him for basing his accusations, with one exception only, on tradition (khabar) rather than on proof (dalīl).14 Qirqisānī, p. 47. Nemoy, ‘Qirqisānī’, p. 377, n. 280, accepted Bacher’s translation of al-Ḍarāʾa as Book of Fierce Attack. Stroumsa, Muqammiṣ, p. 20, translated the title as The Book of Urging on to Attack. Lockwood translated the book’s title as The Book of Earnest Purpose. See Chiesa and Lockwood, Qirqisānī, p. 140. Gil, Jews, I, p. 344, translated the title as The Book of Tenacity. 9 Qirqisānī, p. 59. 10 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.14, MS INA B 51, f. 35b. Cf. Poznanski, ‘AntiKaraite Writings’, pp. 265–266, n. 2. 11 Qirqisānī, p. 794. 12 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.14–15, MS BL or. 2461, f. 22b. 13 Qirqisānī, pp. 42–43. 14 Qirqisānī, p. 11. The halakha that Zadok established through proof was the prohibition on marrying a niece. See below, n. 81. Harkavy, ‘History of Sects’, p. 495, translated khabbar as follows: ‘According to the tradition he possessed’. Lockwood (Chiesa and Lockwood), Qirqisānī, p. 101, translated this term as follows: ‘merely makes statements’. According to Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, p. 76, n. 34, it would appear that Qirqisānī believed that Zadok failed to attain absolute truth, because all his antirabbinic arguments and invective were not based on proof but on traditions. Hadassi, 8

112

Chapter Two

Qirqisānī admits that he drew on Rabbanite sources in order to determine Zadok’s identity. These sources informed him that Zadok and Boethus were the disciples of Antigonus of Sokho.15 Almost certainly he derived this knowledge from the Midrash Avot de-Rabbi Natan or a similar Midrash.16 Qirqisānī omits to explain to his readers the nature of the quarrel between the Pharisees and Sadducees. According to the aforementioned Midrash, the quarrel was based on a misunderstanding by the pupils of Zadok and Boethus of their rabbis’ commentaries to the dictum of their Master, Antigonus of Sokho: ‘Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of a reward, but be rather like those who serve without thought of receiving a reward’.17 As the Midrash Avot deRabbi Natan states: Antigonus of Sokho had two disciples who repeated his doctrine to their disciples and their disciples to their disciples. They rose up and examined the matter, saying: ‘Why did our predecessors say this? Is it right for a laborer to toil all day and not receive his reward in the evening? Had our predecessors known that there was another world and that the dead would be resurrected, surely they would not have said this’. They separated themselves from Torah. Two sects emerged from them: the Sadducees, named for Zadok; and the Boethusians, named for Boethus […] The Sadducees said: ‘It is a tradition among the Pharisees to afflict themselves in this world; yet in the world to come they will have nothing’.18

Eshkol, § 97, f. 41b, formulated his cautiously positive attitude to Zadok as follows: ‘The religion of the Sadducees, which is close to the Torah of God, but denies a few of its tenets’. 15 Qirqisānī, p. 11. The rabbinic sources did not distinguish between the Sadducees and the Boethusians. In many places in the Mishnah where the term Sadducees is used, the Tosefta uses the term Boethusians. See Sussman, ‘History’, pp. 48–49, n. 166. See also Sussman, ‘History’, pp. 42–43, n. 139; pp. 44–45, n. 147; pp. 51–52, n. 171; Paul, Écrits, pp. 68–69. On an attempt to explain why the literature of the Rabbinic Sages used the terms Sadducees and Boethusians interchangeably, see Regev, ha-Halakha haṢedoqīt, pp. 28–41. 16 Le Moyne, Sadducéens, p. 139. 17 Mishnah, Avot 1.3. 18 Avot de-Rabbi Natan (Schechter edition), version A, Ch. 5, p. 26. See also version B, Ch. 10, Avot de-Rabbi Natan (Schechter edition). On the differences between the two versions, see Kister, ʿIyyūnīm, pp. 32–34; 155–156; Kister, ʿIyyūnīm, pp. 269– 270, points out that both versions attribute the founding of the sects to the disciples, while medieval sources attribute the founding of the sects to Zadok and Boethus.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

113

Although the historical value of this anecdote is questionable, it is important to note for our purposes that this theological dispute was perceived as historically accurate in the Middle Ages.19 It is not surprising that Qirqisānī, who learned about Zadok, the founder of the Sadducean sect, from the aforementioned tradition, hid from his readers the theological beliefs that this tradition attributes to Zadok. The reason is clear. Everything that Zadok contested, according to this tradition, was endorsed by the Karaites. The Karaites could not, however, have endorsed the Sadducees’ denial of the world to come. Under the influence of the Muslim Muʿtazila, the Karaites developed an entire doctrine of the world to come, where people are rewarded and punished according to their actions in this world. They believed in the resurrection of the dead which they considered part of the reward awaiting the righteous.20 The basic difference between the Sadducees (as portrayed in the rabbinic literature) and the Karaites concerning man’s fate after death, did not deter the Rabbanites from calling the Karaites ‘Sadducees’.21 This is borne out by Maimonides in his commentary on Antigonus of Sokho’s dictum in the Mishnah. As far as he was concerned, the Karaites who shunned the Oral Law were the same as the Sadducees who denied the world to come and reward and punishment:

19 On denying the historicity of the Sadducees and Boethusians in the Avot deRabbi Natan, see Efron, ‘Bar-Kochva’, pp. 97–98; Ben-Shalom, Sūgyot, pp. 25–26; Sussman, ‘History’, p. 50, n. 168; p. 53, n. 175. See, by contrast, Wacholder, Dawn, pp. 148–155, who raises the possibility that the Zadok referred to in the Avot de-Rabbi Natan was the founder of the Qumran sect. Beckwith, ‘Temple Scroll’, pp. 6–7 n. 10, refutes this. According to Kister, ʿIyyūnīm, pp. 155–157, and his article, ‘Studies’, p. 326, the theological argument brought in the aforementioned midrash is an ancient one. The New Testament, Acts 23.8, states: ‘Because the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection and that there is no such thing as an angel or spirit’. Josephus also knew of the Sadducees’ denial of the immortality of the soul, and reward and punishment. See his books, Wars, II, 8.14; Antiquities, VIII, 1.15. The Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10.1, states that anyone who denies that the resurrection of the dead is included in the Torah has no portion in the world to come. 20 On the influence of the Muʿtazila on the Karaites on these issues, see above, Ch. 1, 322–332. 21 For example, Ibn Ezra in his Introduction to the Torah, f. 1b, states: ‘The second way […] the way of the Sadducees […] such as ʿAnan and Benjamin, and Ben Mashiaḥ and Yeshuʿah and all those who do not believe in the words of the Rabbinic Sages’. The Karaite, Elijah b. Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103, quotes a Rabbanite polemicist who claimed that ‘the remnants of the cult of Zadok and Boethus appointed ʿAnan b. David as exilarch over them’. See above, Ch. 1, nn. 29–30.

114

Chapter Two

This sage had two disciples: the first was Zadok and the second was Boethus, and when they heard him make this statement, they left the room and one said to the other: Behold, the rabbi has already explained in his commentary that there is no reward and punishment there, and there is no hope there at all […] and they joined forces and abandoned the Torah and formed two sects. The Sages called them ‘Sadducees’ and ‘Boethusians’ […] and each of them caused his faction to understand that he believed in the text of the Torah but challenged the tradition (al-naql – the Oral Law), saying it was an inauthentic tradition […] And since then the accursed sects have sprung up, congregations of heretics who are called in this land of Egypt Karaites. The sages call them Sadducees and Boethusians, and they are the ones who began to question Oral Law and to interpret (taʾwīl) the Scriptures each as he sees fit, without listening to the Sages at all.22

No doubt, the identification of the Karaites with the Sadducees was based mainly of the assumption of the Rabbinic Sages in the Middle Ages that the Sadducees who lived in the Second Temple period denied the Oral Law, as Josippon stated: ‘They did not believe in a tradition or interpretation, except the Law of Moses only’.23 Josippon based his statement on Josephus: The Pharisees delivered to the people several laws that were handed down by transmission, and that were not written in the Law of Moses, and therefore the Sadducees rejected them, saying the laws must be derived from the Scriptures only, and those that were handed down by transmission do not have to be observed.24

Before this passage, Josephus describes the quarrel between John Hyrcanus and the Pharisees, who asked him to forego the priesthood. Following this quarrel, Hyrcanus tended to follow the Sadducees.25 The Babylonian Talmud relates the same story, but describes the quarrel as between Alexander Yannai and the Pharisees, and does not refer to the Sadducees at all. Yannai, it appears, was anxious not to insult the Pharisees, since they were the nation’s religious teachers: ‘And the Torah 22 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah Avot 1.3 (Shilat edition), p. 4. Source in Arabic, p. 120. On Maimonides’ attitude to the Karaites, see Bliedstein, ‘Karaites’, pp. 501–510. 23 Josippon, Ch. 30 (Flusser edition), I, p. 121. On the Rabbinic Sages’ attitude to this concept, see BT, Sanhedrin 33b; Horayot 4a. Also Kiddushin 66a and below, n. 26. 24 Josephus, Antiquities, XIII.10, 297. 25 Josephus, Antiquities, XIII.10, 288–296.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

115

– what will become of it?’ The reply of Elazar ben Poʿira, the anti-Pharisaic instigator, was: ‘The Torah lies, bound up in a corner: Whoever desires - let him come and learn it!’26 Only a few Rabbanites distinguished between the Sadducees and the Karaites, on the basis of the differences in the theological methods of the two sects. Ibn Kammūnah was one of them: The Karaites are not Sadducees or Boethusians, although there happens to be agreement (muwāfaqa ittifāqiyya) among them in negating some of the Oral Law (naql); this is because the Karaites believe in the resurrection of the dead, reward and punishment and the world to come.27

Even before Ibn Kammūnah, Rabbi Judah ha-Levi distinguished between the Sadducees and Karaites, although he also traced the emergence of the Karaite movement to the Second Temple period. Naturally, Judah ha-Levi learnt about the Sadducees from the Midrash Avot de-Rabbi Natan, and called them ‘heretics’ (khawārij), but learnt about the Karaites from the argument between Yannai and the Pharisees, as related in tractate Kiddushin, 66a:28 ‘And after him came Judah ben Tabai and Simon ben Sheṭaḥ and their companions; and in their days, the doctrine of the Karaites began, because of what happened to the Sages with King Yannai’. Despite the Pharisees’ victory, ‘the Karaites took root’ from that period. These were the Karaites known to Judah ha-Levi’s contemporaries. Judah ha-Levi again attempts to distinguish between the Karaites and the heretical Sadducees: ‘The tradition returned to its pristine glory, and the BT, Kiddushin, 66a. According to Urbach, Derasha, p. 65, based on a number of texts, this should read: ‘written [‫ ]כתובה‬and lying’ not ‘rolled up [‫ ]כרוכה‬and lying’. There have been attempts to explain the difference between the Sadducean and Boethusian attitude toward the Torah in light of the Scholium for 4 Tammuz in Megīllat Taʿanit (Scroll of Fasts). See Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), pp. 77–79. In one of its versions, the Scholium attributes the Sefer Gezerot to the Sadducees and in another to the Boethusians, and there is even a hybrid version. Herr, ‘Boethusians’, pp. 7–9, claims that the Boethusian held that the laws of the Torah must be observed literally, while the Sadducees had halakhot that were not based on the Torah. See also Rosenthal, ‘Oral Law’, pp. 449–455. According to him, the Boethusians were the Qumran sect. On an attempt to prove a similarity between the approach of the Book of Jubilees and the Boethusian approach in the Scholium, see Werman, ‘Torah’ pp. 488– 490. See also Noam’s discussion, Megīllat Taʿanit, pp. 206–216. 27 Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy Edition), p. 146. Holdheim, Maʾamar ha-ʾĪshūt, pp. 43, 48, who, like Geiger, claimed that Karaite halakha had a Sadducean source, maintained that the Karaites changed their minds concerning the resurrection of the dead. 28 Above, n. 26. 26

116

Chapter Two

Karaites already took root […] as you see them today. But the Sadducees and the Boethusians are the heretics that we refer to in our prayers’.29 In conclusion, the term ‘Sadducees’ that the Rabbanites applied to the Karaites was inappropriate, since according to the rabbinic tradition, the Sadducees denied the world to come, the principle of reward and punishment and the resurrection of the dead. It is clear that Qirqisānī, who admittedly based his knowledge of the Sadducees on rabbinical literature on the one hand, and al-Muqammiṣ’s book on the other, was unable to distinguish between the Sadducees and the Zadokites (‘Sons of Zadok’), otherwise known as the Qumran sect. This explains why Qirqisānī subsequently ascribed the law prohibiting marriage to a niece30 – a quintessentially Qumran Law31 – to Zadok, Antigonus’s pupil. Likewise, Qirqisānī was unable to differentiate between the law that the Rabbinic Sages ascribed to the Boethusians and the Sadducees, and the Qumran law, concerning the date of the Pentecost festival. The fact that both sects celebrated Pentecost on Sunday led him to conclude – erroneously – that this was a law shared by both sects.32 Below we shall study the laws that the Karaites ascribed to Zadok and the Sadducees. With the exception of the Pentecost festival, none of the laws discussed derive from the Sadducees, but rather from the Zadokites (‘Sons of Zadok’). These are the laws dealing with the calendar and the dates of the festivals, as well as the laws on forbidden relationships. Sadducean Halakha The Solar Calendar According to the Karaites, the Sadducean calendar was a solar one. The halakha that the Rabbinic Sages attributed to the Sadducees and Boethusians, namely, that the Waving of the Omer and the Pentecost 29 Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari 3.65 (Hirschfeld edition), pp. 211–213; (Baneth-BenShammai edition), pp. 138–139; see above, Ch. 1, nn. 135–136. The later Karaites, who disputed the identification of the Karaites with the Sadducees, cited Judah ha-Levi. See Poznanski, ‘Introduction’, pp. 32–36; see Poznanski, ‘Introduction’, pp. 9–12, for an analysis of Judah ha-Levi’s views. According to the Scholium on 28 Tevet in Megīllat Taʿanit, the Sadducees were expelled from the Sanhedrin in the period of Simon ben Sheṭaḥ. See Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), pp. 107–109. Josippon, Ch. 30 (Flusser edition), I, pp. 119–120, maintains, like Josephus that the Pharisees opposed John Hyrcanus. Immediately after this controversy, Josippon informs us of the Sadducees’ views. See above, n. 23. On Josippon’s sources, see Sela, ‘History’, pp. 18–19. 30 Qirqisānī, p. 11. 31 Below, nn. 80–103. 32 Below, pp. 64–76.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

117

festival did not fall on a fixed day of the week and month, indicates that the Sadducean calendar referred to in the Talmud was actually a lunar calendar (according to the solar calendar, the festivals always fall on a fixed day of the week and month). Indeed, in the Qumran solar calendar, the Waving of the Omer and the Pentecost festival fell on fixed days of the week and month.33 The solar calendar that was shared by the Qumran sect and the Sadducees referred to in Karaite sources corroborates the hypothesis that identifies Sadducean works mentioned by the Karaites with Qumran ones. The polemic written by the Karaite, Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, against Saʿadia Gaon attests to the Karaites’ inability to distinguish between the Sadducees’ lunar calendar and the Zadokites’ solar one. Saʿadia Gaon maintained that the Rabbanites were forced to determine the new month according to the sighting of the moon because of Zadok and Boethus. Sahl argued, on the contrary, that Sadducean works known to him did not cite Saʿadia Gaon’s arguments. Sahl may have attributed the solar calendar to the Sadducees and Boethusians. Although the ancients used to try and sight the new moon, and alFayūmī claimed that Zadok and Boethus were the cause of this practice, the writings of the Sadducees are known to us and are in our possession, and contain nothing of what this man mentioned.34

What did the Karaites know about the solar calendar that they ascribed to the Sadducees? Qirqisānī informs us that in the Sadducean calendar, the year comprises twelve months, each of which has thirty days.35 Consequently, according to him the Sadducean year consisted of 360

33 See below, p. 70. On the difference between the Sadducees and the Qumran sect regarding the calendar, see Baumgarten, ‘Who?’, pp. 402–405. 34 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, Commentary on Exodus, in Harkavy, ‘History of Sects’, p. 495. For the source, see Chiesa and Lockwood, Qirqisānī, p. 82, n. 29. Likewise Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan’, (44) p. 176. In the source, the words ‘and are in our possession’ do not exist. According to Sahl, Zadok’s writings indicate that he disagreed with the Rabbanites also on the issue of sacrifices. Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, pp. 72–73, n. 21, points out that Sahl does not explicitly state that the Sadducees had a solar calendar. According to Saʿadia Gaon, Oṣar ha-Geonīm, Rosh ha-Shana, p. 35, Antigonus ben Sokho’s court was forced to fix the new moon according to the sighting of the moon instead of by computation, in order to invalidate Zadok and Boethus ‘who used them to challenge the Rabbinic Sages concerning the duration of the month’. See also Oṣar ha-Geonīm, Rosh ha-Shana, p. 85. 35 Qirqisānī, p. 41. On pp. 794–796, Qirqisānī takes issue with the Sadducean calendar.

118

Chapter Two

days.36 Obviously, he was unaware of the extra day that was intercalated every three months, so that the year numbered 364 days (Jubilees 6.23–32).37 The Sadducees, according to the Karaites, determined that the month was thirty days in light of the ‘story of Noah’: ‘They even made all the months complete, comprising thirty days each, all the months of the year, and they say “like the story of Noah” in your Torah’.38 ‘The story of Noah’ relates to the period from the beginning of the Flood ‘In the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month’ [Genesis 7.11] until the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat: ‘in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month’ [Genesis 8.4]. This period of time was 150 days [Genesis 8.3]. Hence, those who observed the solar calendar concluded that each month comprised thirty days. The Book of Jubilees, too, bases the solar year on the story of the Flood, where it explicitly states that the water remained on the land for five months, namely 150 days: ‘And the water prevailed on the Presence of the earth five months – one hundred and fifty days’ [ Jubilees 5.27].39 The Qumran scroll that discusses the story of the Flood notes that the Qirqisānī, p. 796. Jaubert, ‘Calendrier’, p. 253. The Jubilee Calendar evidently served the author of the Damascus Covenant (Damascus Covenant 16.3–4): ‘Behold, it is exactly explained in the Book of the Divisions of the Seasons according to their jubilees and their weeks’. On the year comprising 364 days in the Qumran scrolls, see below, nn. 40, 57; 4QMMT 1.20–21 (Qimron edition), p. 44. 38 Hadassi, Eshkol, §97, 41d. See also Qirqisānī, p. 41. 39 The first day of each quarter of a year was a day of remembrance of the Flood ( Jubilees 6.23–27). On the Jubilee Calendar that was based mainly on the year of the Flood, see Kister, ‘Studies’, pp. 361–363. According to Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah, Commentary on the Pentateuch (Harkavy edition), pp. 176–178, Benjamin determined, according to the story of the Flood, that the months, apart from Tishrei and Nisan, each consisted of thirty days. Tishrei and Nisan were determined by the ‘new moon’ since they were the months of festivals, ‘and the moon was created to determine the festivals, as it states: “Who appointed the moon for seasons.” (Psalms 104.19). All God’s festivals are in Nisan and Tishrei, therefore they are determined according to the new moon’. According to Qirqisānī, p. 55, Benjamin determined the months of Nisan and Tishrei according to the sighting of the moon. The other months were determined by computation (ʿadad). Chiesa and Lockwood, Qirqisānī, p. 148, translated this term as computation. Evidently, this was a reference to the solar calendar, since according to Saʿadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Tamyīz, Benjamin contended, based on Haggai 1.15, and Haggai 2.1, that the computation of the month was based both on the sighting of the moon and on the sun. See Erder, ‘Precedents’, pp. 165–166, n. 68. According to the version of Saʿadia Gaon’s Kitāb al-Tamyīz published by Zucker, Benjamin determined that apart from Nisan and Tishrei, that were determined by the sighting of the moon, the other months ‘were either 29 days or 30 days depending on the sequence beginning from Nisan and Tishrei’. See Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), pp. 440, 446. See also Zucker, Targum, p. 40, n. 80. 36 37

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

119

year comprises 364 days. According to this source, the 150 days ended on Sunday, the seventeenth of the second month.40 According to Yefet, even those who observed the lunar month based on the sighting of the moon, were forced to determine arbitrarily that the months was thirty days long, if the clouds hid the sun on the twenty-ninth day of the month. Like Zadok, they based their calculations on the 150 days mentioned in the story of Noah.41 ʿAnan also adopted Zadok’s method when the sky was overcast and Yefet maintained that this method was acceptable.42 The debate the Karaites devoted to the Sadducean calendar and the calendar they ascribed to the badriyya sect,43 strengthens the hypothesis that the Sadducees determined the new month when the moon was full. Indeed, an anonymous Karaite, who added to Yefet’s Commentary on Genesis 1.14, teaches us that the members of the badriyya sect determined the new month when the moon was full. It transpires from this addition that the Sadducees did likewise.44 The Exclusion of the Sabbath from the Intermediate Days [‫]חול המועד‬ of the Passover and Tabernacles Festivals The halakha we are about to discuss, which has been preserved in Karaites works only, maintained that the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the Passover or Tabernacles festival was not part of the festival. The proof of this is the Tabernacles festival that King Solomon celebrated during the consecration of the Temple. I Kings 8.65–66, states that the people celebrated the Tabernacles festival, and on the eighth day, were sent away: ‘On the eighth day, he sent the people away’. The parallel incident in the Book of Chronicle shows that the people were sent away on 23 Tishrei: ‘And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month, he sent the people away unto their tents [II Chronicles 7.10]. By comparing the two tents, the Sadducees inferred that the eighth day 40 4Q252, Col. II, frags. 1–3; See DJD, 22, p. 198. On the difference between this document and Jubilees regarding the story of the Flood, see VanderKam, ‘Covenant’, pp. 94–95, and idem, Calendars, pp. 27–33. Brooke, ‘4Q252’, pp. 38–41. 41 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.14–15, MS BL. Or. 2461, f. 22b. Cf. Yefet, Commentary on Genesis (Butbul edition), p. 56. 42 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 8.3–4, MS Trinity College, Cambridge F 12.109, f. 28a. On Saʿadia Gaon’s criticism of ʿAnan’s position on this issue, see Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), pp. 340–342; Zucker, ‘Against’ pp. 80–81. 43 See above, n. 10. 44 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.14–15, MS BL. Or. 2461, f. 21a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan’, (44) pp. 171–172.

120

Chapter Two

of Tabernacles fell that year on 23 Tishrei. This led them to conclude that Solomon did not include the Sabbath of the intermediate days in the festival of Tabernacles, since otherwise, Shemini ʿAṣeret would have fallen on 22, not 23, Tishrei. Like the Rabbinic Sages, these Sadducees equated the laws of the intermediate days of the Passover festival with those of the intermediate days of the Tabernacles festival, and, based on the aforementioned passage, determined the law for successive generations, namely, that the Sabbath of the intermediate days was not to be included in the Tabernacles or Passover festivals.45 This interpretation of Solomon’s Tabernacles festival was not accepted by the Karaites. Yefet ben ʿEli adopted a solution suggested by the Rabbinic Sages, namely, that the two scriptural passages were referring to two different dates. The passage in the Book of Chronicles stating that the people were sent away on 23 Tishrei, refers to the day after Shemini ʿAṣeret, when the King sent the people home. The passage in Kings, on the other hand, stating that the people were sent away on the eighth day, was Shemini ʿAṣeret itself, when the King sent the people back to their tents around Jerusalem: The Scriptures says that he send them away on the 23rd day of the month, which is the day after Shemini ʿAṣeret. There were two occasions when he sent them away. The first – on the eighth day, when they were sent to their homes and tents around Jerusalem, since that day was a holy day, and travelling is forbidden on it. And the second sending away was on the next day, when he sent them and they returned to their lands. And what is written here: ‘and they blessed the king, and went unto their tents’ [I Kings 8.66] refers to the day following the eighth day, as we have explained.46 See below, n. 48. Yefet, Commentary on I Kings 8.65–66, MS INA C 36 f. 78b. Cf. BT, Moʿed Qatan 9a; Ḥagiga 17a-b. On ‘to their tents’ (I Kings 8.66), in the sense of their wives, see BT, Moʿed Qatan 9a. Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 16.7, states: ‘Below we find “On the eighth day he sent the people away” (I Kings 8.66), and that is a holy day. And another verse states: “And on the three and twentieth day of the seventh month, he sent the people away unto their tents” (II Chronicles 7.2). Some say that the interpretation of “to their tents” is literal, and that they went to their countries on an ordinary (non-festival) day’. See Brumberg, ‘Halakhic Issues’, pp. 438. For a discussion on the issue of how long the pilgrims remained in Jerusalem, See Safrai, ‘Deeds’, pp. 190–193. Qirqisānī, pp. 136–138, derides the way the Rabbanites deduced a second diasporic festival day [‫ ]יום טוב שני של גלויות‬from the fact that the people were sent away on 23 Tishrei. If Solomon indeed celebrated Shemini ʿAṣeret for two days, why did the inhabitants of the Land of Israel neglect this halakha, and celebrate the festival for one day only? See Qirqisānī, pp. 814–815. According to Qirqisānī, p. 815, the Rabbanites 45

46

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

121

The ʿAnanites, like their predecessors, the Sadducees, used the precedent of King Solomon’s Tabernacles festival in order to determine the law in perpetuity. They adopted the Sadducean argument that Solomon celebrated the festival of Shemini ʿAṣeret on 23, not 22, Tishrei. According to them, this happened because on that particular Tabernacles festival, 15 Tishrei fell on the Sabbath, and Solomon was forced to postpone the first day of the festival to 16 Tishrei. Therefore, the festival of Shemini ʿAṣeret that year fell on 23 Tishrei. Basing themselves on this precedent, the ʿAnanites determined that if the first day of the Tabernacles and Passover festivals fell on a Sabbath, the festival was postponed to the following day.47 The ʿAnanites’ interpretation of King Solomon’s Tabernacles festival shows, beyond a doubt, that they, unlike the Sadducees, included the Sabbath of the intermediate festival days of the Passover and Tabernacles festivals, since otherwise the festival of Shemini ʿAṣeret following the Tabernacles festival that King Solomon celebrated would have fallen on 24 Tishrei. Qirqisānī describes the controversy between the ʿAnanites and Sadducees on this issue as follows: ‘The Sadducees argue the Sabbath is not included in the seven days of Tabernacles, and bring this verse [II Chronicles 7.10] to substantiate their argument, while the ʿAnanites claim that if 15 Tishrei falls on a Sabbath, the festival is postponed to Sunday.48 The difference between ‘Sadducean’ halakha and ʿAnanite halakha on the issue of the intermediate days of the festival, arises from the fact deduced the two days of Aṣeret also from the fast in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah that they fixed on 24 Tishrei (Nehemiah 9.1). According to them, had they celebrated Shemini ʿAṣeret for one day only, they would have fasted on 23 Tishrei. In light of the Sadducean calendar, we can explain the existence of the fast in the period of Nehemiah on 24 Tishrei, since 23 Tishrei was the last day of the Tabernacles Festival. 47 On a common halakha for these two festivals according to ʿAnan, see below, n. 52. 48 Qirqisānī, p. 389. See also: pp. 41, 816. Hadassi, Eshkol, §98, 41d, describes the Sadducees’ position as follows: ‘They would observe the law of the Passover festival on any day other than the Sabbath, and so with the Tabernacles festival, as it states: “On the eighth day he sent the people away” (I Kings 8.10). And it was not the Sabbath day. As written in your book. Rightly did he argue: In one place it states “And on the three and twentieth day” (II Chronicles 7.10) that the eighth day was the twenty-second; and if you exclude the Sabbath day from the computation, the eight day would have been the twenty-third. These computations were recorded by Dāwūd Ibn Marwān alMuqammiṣ in a section of his book about the Sadducees’. Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 15a (Nemoy edition, p. 94), ascribes the halakha to the baʿalei miqra: ‘And they are supported by the self-styled “Baʿalei Miqra”, and they stated that the festival of Passover and Tabernacles cannot be celebrated on the Sabbath’. See discussion in Mann, ‘Tract’, pp. 268–269; above, Ch. 1, nn. 225–226. Ginzberg, Unknown, p. 138, n. 121, did not differentiate between the Sadducean halakha cited in Qirqisānī, and ʿAnanite halakha.

122

Chapter Two

that their calendars were fundamentally different. The ʿAnanite calendar, like the Karaite one, was a lunar calendar, while the Sadducean calendar was a solar one. In the lunar calendar, the festivals do not fall on fixed days of the week, and therefore King Solomon’s Tabernacles festival served as a precedent for the ʿAnanites only when the first day of the Tabernacles or Passover festival fell on a Sabbath. Like the ʿAnanites, ʿAnan was meticulous about observing the sanctity of the Sabbath and all its laws. In the book of precepts imputed to him, ʿAnan ruled that the Paschal lamb sacrifice, which was to be sacrificed on 14 Nisan ‘at dusk’, must be postponed if 14 Nisan fell on a Friday: ‘And if the Passover eve falls on a Friday, it is forbidden to slaughter the Paschal lamb and the festival offering (ḥagīga) that night’.49 According to ʿAnan, the ‘dusk’ referred to in connection with the Passover Sacrifice [Leviticus 23.5], was an intermediate period that belonged both to Friday and the Sabbath.50 Consequently, slaughtering the Passover offering at the prescribed time, in this case, would have led to a profanation of the Sabbath. ʿAnan brought a number of reasons for postponing the first day of Passover if it fell on a Friday, among which was his ruling that the unleavened bread had to be baked ‘at dusk’ on 14 Nisan.51 He also ruled that the Tabernacle booth should be built ‘at dusk’ on the festival eve, and therefore postponed the first day of the Tabernacles festival if it fell on a Friday. As Saʿadia Gaon says: According to him, it was forbidden to slaughter the Paschal lamb and bake the unleavened bread ‘at dusk’ (shafaq) of the Sabbath eve, or to build a booth at such a time. Therefore he postponed them to Sunday eve, so that they would be performed ‘at dusk’ on Sunday eve.52

In the solar calendar that the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees, the festivals fell not only on fixed days of the month, but also on fixed days of the week. According to the Qumran solar calendar, the first day of 49 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 72. As for postponing the Passover sacrifice on a Sabbath, he says: ‘likewise, it is permitted to postpone the Passover sacrifice when it falls on a Sabbath’. See also Qirqisānī, p. 61, 906–907. On postponing circumcision on the Sabbath, see ʿAnan, Book of Precepts, pp. 76–77. 50 On ‘dusk’ according to ʿAnan’s thesis, see Qirqisānī, p. 878; ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 77; see Erder, ‘Precedents’, pp. 155–156. 51 Qirqisānī, p. 894. 52 Saʿadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Tamyīz, TS Misc. 35. 85, f. 2. See Erder, ‘Precedents’, pp. 157–158. Cf. Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), pp. 439, 445. The postponement to dusk on the Sabbath, which according to ʿAnan is also part of the Sabbath, is surprising. See Erder, ‘Precedents’, p. 156, n. 21.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

123

the Passover and Tabernacles festivals always fell on a Wednesday. It therefore appears that the Sadducees referred to by Qirqisānī never had to contend with the problem of a festival that fell on a Sabbath. It was the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the festival that was not considered part of the Tabernacles or Passover festivals. Evidently, they did this in order to avoid offering up the additional sacrifices [‫]קרבן מוסף‬ of the intermediate days on the Sabbath [Numbers 28.16–25; Numbers 29.12–38].53 The author of the Damascus Covenant proscribed all sacrifices on the Sabbath, apart from Sabbath sacrifice. According to him, the Sabbath took precedence over all the sacrifices apart from the Sabbath sacrifice: ‘Let no man offer up on the altar on the Sabbath except the Sabbath sacrifice as it says “beside the Sabbath” (Leviticus 23.38)’.54 This ruling contradicts that of the Rabbinic Sages, who ordained that the daily sacrifice must be brought on the Sabbath alongside the Sabbath sacrifice [Numbers 28.3–4].55 Evidently the author of the Book of Jubilees ruled like the Rabbinic Sages on this matter [ Jubilees 50.10–11].56 One of the Qumran psalms reflects the view that the daily sacrifice was brought on the Sabbath: ‘To sing before the altar over the daily sacrifice, each day, every day of the year, 364 days’.57 Even if the Sadducean attitude we encounter here, that wished to exclude the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the festival, so as to obviate the need of brining the intermediate day sacrifices on the Sabbath, matches the view of the author of the Damascus Covenant only, in practice it is closer to the Qumran solar calendar. According to this calendar, festivals could not fall on the Sabbath. The only problem concerning the festivals was that of bringing the additional sacrifices (‫)קרבן מוסף‬ 53 Qirqisānī, pp. 531–532, maintained that the additional sacrifices [‫ ]מוספים‬had to be sacrificed on the Sabbath of the intermediate days, based on the verse: ‘After this manner ye shall offer daily, for seven days’ (Numbers 28.24). 54 Damascus Covenant 11.17–18. The Masoretic text states: ‘the Sabbaths of the Lord’, (Leviticus 23.38), and not ‘your Sabbaths’. See Schiffman, Halakha, p. 131, n. 317. Fishbane, ‘Use’, p. 369. 55 Below, n. 62. 56 Schiffman, Halakha, p. 132. 57 The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Sanders edition), Col. XXVII, 5-7, p. 86. Talmon and Ben-Dov, ‘4Q326’, p. 172–173, concluded from this psalm, that the consecration offering [‫ ]קרבן מילואים‬was brought on the Sabbath. See below, Ch. 3, n. 134. According to Schiffman on the Temple Scroll, 13.10–16 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 40–42, there is no mention, either, of prohibiting the daily sacrifice on the Sabbath. See Schiffman, pp. 132–133. Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, p. 104, claims that even according to the Damascus Covenant, the daily sacrifice was brought on the Sabbath.

124

Chapter Two

on the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the Tabernacles and Passover festivals. Evidently those who adopted a more stringent approach, such as the author of the Damascus Covenant, forbade additional sacrifices on these Sabbaths.58 The ʿAnanites, who used a lunar calendar and also refrained from bringing sacrifices on the Sabbath, adapted to their needs the ‘Sadducean’ ruling regarding the first day of a festival that fell on a Sabbath. ʿAnan, who was meticulous about observing the principle of the sanctity of the Sabbath, argued like the author of the Damascus Covenant that the daily sacrifice should not be brought on the Sabbath. His proof was the verse: ‘This is the burnt offering of every Sabbath, beside the continual burnt-offering, and the drink-offering thereof ’ [Numbers 28.10]: And how do we know that we do not bring sacrifices on the Sabbath apart from the Sabbath sacrifices? As it says: ‘This is the burnt offering of every Sabbath’ (Numbers 28.10). The verse says ‘of every Sabbath’ to inform you that sacrifices are not brought on the Sabbath apart from the Sabbath sacrifice. Otherwise it would have said: ‘the Sabbath sacrifice in addition to the daily sacrifices. However, the verse specified ‘of every Sabbath’, to teach you that a burnt offerings is not brought on the Sabbath, apart from the Sabbath offering.59

The Rabbanite attitude was radically different on all the issues raised so far. According to the Rabbanite calendar, festivals could fall on the Sabbath. They were not postponed because of the Sabbath, and therefore their sacrifices took precedence over the Sabbath. The first day of the Tabernacles festival could also fall on a Sabbath.60 The sons of Betira approached Hillel with a question concerning the law of the paschal lamb offering that was due to be brought on a Sabbath. He determined that the paschal lamb sacrifice superseded the Sabbath and the Rabbinic Sages determined special slaughtering regulations for this contingency.61 The daily sacrifices were brought on the Sabbath, and the additional sacrifices of the intermediate days of the festival were brought on the Fraade, ‘Looking’, pp. 73–74, claims that according to the Damascus Covenant, the festival sacrifices were not brought on the Sabbath. 59 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 76. 60 See Mishnah, Sukkah 3.13–14. See below, n. 63. 61 On the question addressed to Hillel and on his ruling, see JT, Pesaḥim 6.1, 33a; BT, Pesaḥim 66a. For special slaughtering regulations for Passover that fell on a Sabbath, see Mishnah, Pesaḥim 6.1–2. See discussion in Rosenthal, ‘Traditions’, pp. 33–36. 58

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

125

Sabbath.62 As for the Sadducees referred to in the Talmud, there is no proof that they postponed the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the Tabernacles or Passover festival. From the Boethusians’ opposition to beating the willows (‫ )חיבוט ערבות‬on the Sabbath, Ginzberg inferred that they did not postpone the festival because of the Sabbath.63 The Pentecost Festival The dates of the Jewish festival are specified in the Bible, with the exception of the Pentecost festival. It is not therefore surprising that the dispute concerning the date of this festival divided the Jewish people from time immemorial. The Pharisees, Sadducees and the Qumran sect each celebrated the Pentecost festival on different dates. We are commanded to celebrate the Pentecost festival fifty days after the waving all the Omer [Leviticus 23.15–16]. Therefore, the dispute concerning the date of the Pentecost festival originates in the dispute over the date of the Waving of the Omer. Concerning this date, the verse states: ‘And he shall wave the sheaf […] on the morrow after the Sabbath’ [Leviticus 23.11]. What is in the ‘morrow after the Sabbath’, on which we are commanded to wave the Omer? Since the laws of Waving the Omer are mentioned immediately after the laws of the Passover sacrifice and the seven days of unleavened bread [Leviticus 23.9–14], the Rabbinical Sages determined that the ‘morrow after the Sabbath’ was the morrow of the first day of the Passover festival, that is, 16 Nisan. The Pentecost Hillel ruled: ‘Just as the daily sacrifice, which is a communal sacrifice, always defers the Sabbath, so does the Passover sacrifice, which is a communal sacrifice, defer the Sabbath’. JT, Pesaḥim 6.1, 33a. According to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer ha-ʿAvoda, Hilkhot Tmidim u-Musafin, 1.1, the daily sacrifice is brought ‘every day’. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer ha-ʿAvoda, Hilkhot Tmidim u-Musafin, 10.3–5, on additional sacrifices during the Tabernacles festival. 63 Tosefta, Sukka, 3.1 (Zuckermandel edition), p. 195: ‘Because the Boethusians do not admit that the beating of the willow defers the Sabbath’. See also BT, Sukka, 43b; Ginzberg, Unknown, p. 138. See also Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt, pp. 52–57. The Rabbinic Sages did not postpone the willow ceremony if the seventh day of the festival fell on the Sabbath. Mishnah, Sukka, 4.3: ‘The willow ceremony takes place on seven days. How is this so? If the seventh day of the willow ceremony falls on a Sabbath, the willow ceremony takes place on seven days. If it falls on another day, it takes place on six days’. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Zemanim, Hilkhot Lulav, 7.21 states: ‘If the Sabbath falls within the festival – the willow ceremony does not take place, unless the seventh day of the festival falls on a Sabbath in which case it takes place, in order to publicize the fact that it is a commandment’. As to the lulav, it is not postponed if the first day of the festival falls on a Sabbath; Mishnah, Sukka, 4.2: ‘If the first day of the Sukkot festival falls on a Sabbath, the lulav is taken on seven days. If it falls on any other day, the lulav is taken on six days’. 62

126

Chapter Two

festival, which is the fiftieth day of the counting of the Omer, therefore, always falls on 6 Sivan. According to the principle of deferments, the Rabbinic Sages determined that the Pentecost festival could never fall on a Tuesday, Thursday or Sabbath.64 According to Talmudic sources, the Boethusians and Sadducees maintained that the day of the Waving of the Omer was always on a Sunday, according to the literal interpretation of ‘the morrow of the Sabbath’, [Leviticus 23.15], and not the morrow of the Passover festival. If the date of Waving the Omer always falls on a Sunday, then the Pentecost festival, which was celebrated fifty days later, must also fall on a Sunday. ‘For the Boethusians said: “the Pentecost festival falls after the Sabbath”’.65 The Sunday on which the Sadducees and Boethusians began counting the fifty days was the Sunday that is included in the seven days of unleavened bread.66 This day did not fall on a fixed date, and therefore the Pentecost festival had no fixed date either. The fluctuating date of the Pentecost festival in the Boethusian-Sadducean calendar substantiates our hypothesis that their calendar was a lunar one, unlike the Qumran solar calendar, in which the festivals fell on fixed dates, and on fixed days of the week.67 In order to refute the Sadducean law concerning the fluctuating date of the Pentecost festival, the Rabbinic Sages determined that 6 Sivan, which for them was the fixed date of the Pentecost festival, was the day of the Giving of the Torah.68

64 On deferments, see ʿAqavia, Luaḥ, pp. 12, 17; Abraham bar Ḥiyya, ʿĪbbūr, p. 60. The discussion by the Rabbinic Sages on the issue of harvesting the Omer on a Sabbath testifies that the principle of deferments came later, since according to the principle of deferments, 15 Nisan never fell on a Friday. See Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt, p. 71. On Saʿadia Gaon’s defence of the practise of deferments in light of Essʾa Meshalī, his anti-Karaite polemic work, see Fleischer, ‘Essʾa Meshalī’ pp. 102–110. 65 BT, Menaḥot, 65a. See Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), the Scholium on the Second Date, pp. 59–63. 66 Thus it transpires from the polemic by the Rabbinic Sages against the Boethusians and Sadducees. See BT, Menaḥot 65b-66b; Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt, p. 69. 67 Sussmann, ‘History’, pp. 30–31, n. 81a, raises the possibility that, in contrast to the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages, the Boethusians (Sadducees) celebrated the festival of Pentecost according to the Qumran calendar. The Karaites, in any case, accepted the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages in this matter. On the Sadducees’ lunar calendar, see Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt, pp. 72–78. 68 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, Yitro, 3 (Horovitz-Rabin edition), p. 211; BT, Shabbat 66b. There was even a tradition, which was rejected, that the day of the Giving of the Torah fell on 7 Sivan. See BT, Shabbat 66b. On the Pentecost festival becoming the festival for the Giving of the Torah, see Henshke, ‘Counting of the Omer’, pp. 427–428.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

127

The solar calendar of the Book of Jubilees and the Qumran sect combine both Sadducean and Pharisaic principles concerning the dates of the Pentecost festival, producing a particular brand of halakha. Like the Rabbinic Sages, the Qumran sect claimed that the Pentecost festival fell on a fixed date. On the other hand, they accepted the Sadducean principle that the Pentecost festival always fell on a Sunday, because ‘the morrow of the Sabbath’ – the date of the Waving of the Omer – referred to a Sabbath and not to the Passover festival. According to this calendar, the fixed date of the Pentecost festival was Sunday, 15 Sivan. How was this date arrived at? ‘The morrow of the Sabbath’ – the date of the Waving of the Omer – was the Sunday after the seven days of unleavened bread, and not the Sunday included in it, as the Sadducees claimed. 15 Nisan, the first day of the Passover festival, always fell on a Wednesday and therefore the seven days of unleavened bread ended on Tuesday, 21 Nisan, if the Sabbath of the intermediate days were included, or Wednesday, 22 Nisan, if it were not.69 In any case, the day of the waving of Omer fell on Sunday, 26 Nisan, the first Sunday after the seven days of unleavened bread. If one counts fifty days from this date, bearing in mind that each month comprises 30 days, the Pentecost festival falls on Sunday, 15 Sivan.70 The Karaites adopted en bloc the Sadducean-Boethusian rulings concerning the date of the Pentecost festival. According to them, ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’ [Leviticus 23.15] – the day of the Waving of the Omer – was a Sunday, based on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures.71 They began counting the fifty days from the Sunday included in the seven days of unleavened bread, and the dates of the Waving of the Omer and of the Pentecost festival in their lunar calendar fluctuated. They claimed that had the Torah wished to specify a fixed date for the Pentecost festival, it would have specified a date, as it did See above, n. 48. Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, pp.  85–99; Jaubert, ‘Calendrier’, pp.  250–251; Sussmann, ‘History’, p. 30. If Yadin’s reading is correct, then the Temple Scroll, 18.3, teaches us that the day of the waving of the Omer was a day of holy convocation [‫מקרא‬ ‫]קודש‬. According to Wacholder, ‘Omer’ p. 95, 105, 4Q513, frags. 3–4, testify that the day of the waving of the Omer was a day of holy convocation. 71 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Leviticus 23.11: ‘And the heretics claim that it is to be interpreted literally’. Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari 3.41 (Hirschfeld edition), p. 193, (Baneth and Ben-Shammai edition), p. 125, admits that the simple meaning of ‘the morrow after the Sabbath’ is a Sunday: ‘There is no reason to quarrel with the Karaite claim that it is obvious that “the morrow after the Sabbath” is a Sunday’. But tradition overrides the literal interpretation: ‘They fixed it on the second day of the Passover festival, and this is no contradiction to the Torah’. 69 70

128

Chapter Two

with other festivals: ‘Because the festival of Weeks and the new meal offerings were not determined on a specific day of the month/unlike the other festivals that are relegated to a fixed date’.72 Thus, the Karaites rejected the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages to the effect that the Pentecost festival was also the festival of the Giving of the Torah. According to the Karaites, the day of the Giving of the Torah fell on 3 Sivan: ‘On three Sivan, the Torah was given’.73 Qirqisānī discusses the date of the Pentecost festival according to Boethus, immediately after his discussion of a quintessentially Qumran halakha, which he attributes to Zadok: the prohibition on marrying a niece.74 ‘As to Boethus, he says that the festival of Pentecost can fall only on a Sunday, as the ʿAnanites and Karaites maintain’.75 The fact that both the Qumran sect and the Sadducees in the rabbinic literature maintained that the Pentecost festival must fall on a Sunday, caused Qirqisānī – who in any case was not too well-versed in the workings of the solar calendar – to fail to understand the significant differences between the two halakhot, as we saw above.76 In the final analysis, Qirqisānī attributed a halakha of the Sadducees who followed the lunar calendar (concerning the date of the Pentecost festival) to the Zadokites who followed the solar calendar. Marital Law Qirqisānī attributes two halakhot on marital relationships to the Sadducees. First, the prohibition on marrying a niece,77 and second, the prohibition on divorce, which according to him was shared by the both the Sadducees and the Christians.78 These two ‘Sadducean’ laws, especial Salmon, Milḥamot, 10, p. 86. Likewise, Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), II, p. 204: ‘Because had the day of Pentecost been on a fixed date like all other festivals, the Scriptures would have said: “On the third month, on the sixth of the month” or something to that effect, and it would have set a date like all the other festivals and would not have stated a number, such as a number of weeks or a number of days of impurity and the like’. Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Leviticus 23.11, states: ‘Behold, I shall reveal a secret, that all the festivals depend on a fixed day in the month, but with the Pentecost festival, no date is specified because of the counting [of the Omer]’. 73 Aaron ben Joseph, Commentary on Exodus 18.12; Sefer ha-Mivḥar, f. 28a. 74 See discussion below, nn. 80–103. 75 Qirqisānī, p. 11. 76 See below, Ch. 3, nn. 33–46, on Mīshawayh’s uncertainty concerning the date of the Pentecost festival. 77 Qirqisānī, p. 11. 78 Qirqisānī pp. 43–51, 729. See also Hadassi, Eshkol, §97 41d. 72

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

129

ly the first, led Schechter to conclude that the Damascus Covenant, which was published by him in the Cairo Geniza version, was the work Qirqisānī attributed to Zadok.79 Below, we shall discuss these two halakhot. The Prohibition on Marrying a Niece The controversy concerning the date of the Pentecost festival was anchored in the interpretation of the ‘morrow after the Sabbath’ [Leviticus 23.11]. The controversy concerning the prohibition on marrying a niece was somewhat different in nature. There is no mention in the Scriptures of such a prohibition. According to Qirqisānī, Zadok prohibited it by comparing it to the prohibition of marrying an aunt (paternal or maternal sister) [Leviticus 18, 12–13]. This was the only ‘analogy’ (qiyās) that Qirqisānī found in the book he attributed to Zadok. Since the principle of analogy was so important in Karaite exegesis, one may construe Qirqisānī’s words as being somewhat critical of Zadok:80 Only on one issue, namely the prohibition of marrying a niece, does [Zadok] substantiate his ruling, and moreover, through an analogy (qiyās) to the prohibition of marrying an aunt (paternal or maternal sister) [Leviticus 18.12–13].81

The analogy that Qirqisānī attributes to Zadok is the same analogy invoked by the Damascus Covenant to prohibit marriage to a niece: ‘And every one marries his brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter, although Moses said: “Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they mother’s sister; for she is thy mother’s near kinswoman”.82 The Torah addresses the male of the species, but the same applies to the female. Although the prohibition of incest is written from the male’s point of view, it applies equally to a female. Thus, a daughter may not uncover the nakedness of her father’s brother, for he is the father’s near kinsman’.83 Even the Temple Scroll, which was not available to Schechter, forbade marrying a niece: ‘Let not a man take his father’s sister, or his mother’s sister, for it Damascus Covenant (Schechter edition), pp. xvii-xxii. On the analogy in ancient Karaite halakha, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 130–160. 81 Qirqisānī, p. 11. See above, n. 14. Sussmann, ‘History’, p. 35, n. 113, maintains that this analogy leans toward stringency. See also Rosenthal, ‘Oral Law’, p. 453, n. 15. 82 Leviticus 18.13 states: ‘Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they mother’s sister; for she is they mother’s near kinswoman’. 83 Damascus Covenant 5.7–11. The word ‘his brother’ [‫ ]אחיו‬is written as ‘their brother’ [)‫ ]אחיהו(ם‬This passage has no parallel in the fragments of the Damascus Covenant that were discovered at Qumran. See Fishbane, ‘Use’, p. 369. 79

80

130

Chapter Two

is lechery. Let not a man take the daughter of his brother or sister, for it is an abomination’.84 ʿAnan, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and the Karaites adopted the law forbidding marriage to a niece. According to Saʿadia Gaon, ʿAnan and Benjamin substantiated this law in six ways, the first being through analogy (qiyās).85 In the fragments of ʿAnan’s Book of Precepts we find: ‘And it is forbidden for a woman to marry her father’s brother, who has the same father, whether he is born of a proper or improper woman and she is forbidden to marry her mother’s brother, who has the same father, whether he is born of a proper or improper woman’.86 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī ruled through an analogy that is based on two premises and one corollary. The first premise is ‘The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother shalt thou not uncover’ [Leviticus 18.7]. The second is ‘The nakedness of thy son’s daughter, or of thy daughter’s daughter […] shalt thou not uncover’ [Leviticus 18.10]. The corollary according to Benjamin, of these two premises is the law forbidding marriage to a niece. The second premise teaches us that a grandfather may not marry his granddaughter. The granddaughter, after all, is the daughter of the brother or sister of the grandfather’s son. The first premise teaches us that a son is forbidden to uncover his father’s nakedness. It follows that a brother’s daughter or sister’s daughter is also forbidden.87 Temple Scroll, 66.14–17 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 210–211; see Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, pp. 284–285, on the connection between the Damascus Covenant and the Temple Scroll on this issue. The Book of Jubilees permits marriage to a sororal niece (the daughter of the father’s sister) (4.15; 8.6; 11.7). See Lagrange, ‘Secte juive’, p. 356. According to the Book of Jubilees, many of the commandments are ancient, but there are some commandments that were not known to early generations ( Jubilees 33.15–17). See Anderson, ‘Status’, pp. 19–29. On the antiquity of the commandments in Karaite circles given the influence of the literature of the Enoch Circle, see Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’, pp. 120–127; see also above, Ch. 1, nn. 190–199. 85 Qirqisānī, p. 1171. 86 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 93. On the connection between ʿAnan’s position and the statement in the Damascus Covenant, see Büchler, ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’, pp. 437–442. Poznanski, ‘Jacob ben Ephraim’, pp. 172–176; Paul, Écrits p. 30. According to Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 18.18, MS PBN Héb 282, f. 135a-136a, ʿAnan interpreted ‘her sister’ as ‘the daughter of her sister’ (ibnat ukhtiha). Yefet was surprised that ʿAnan permitted marrying a sororal niece in three circumstances: (a) If the husband’s wife (the aunt) agreed; this is proof that ʿAnan sanctioned polygamy. (b) If the husband divorced the aunt. (c) After the aunt’s death. In this interpretation, Yefet also quotes from ʿAnan’s condensed Book of Precepts, Fadhlaka. Cf. Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan’, (45) pp. 186–189. See also Büchler, ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’, pp. 441–442. 87 Qirqisānī, p. 357. For a French translation, see Vajda, ‘Études’, (108) p. 69. For a Hebrew translation, see Peor, ʿIyyūnīm, p. 93. Saʿadia Gaon took issue with Karaite halakha on this matter. See his composition Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition), pp. 397–398. 84

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

131

Daniel al-Qūmisī, one of the first Karaites, also condemned marrying a niece: ‘And Israel ran after the early laws of the nations, who lay with the daughter of a brother or sister’.88 This halakha became one of the hallmarks of the Karaites, so much so that the Karaite Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ ascribed the fact that there were no marriages between uncles and nieces among the Rabbanites in Palestine to the Karaite influence: And if someone would say that our brethren, the disciples of the Rabbanites on the Holy Mount and Ramla [Karmela in the original] are far from such actions, you must verily be aware that they are the same ways as those of the students of the Torah and like the actions of the Benei Miqra which they copied and learnt from […] because they will not marry a niece.89

Goitein believes that Sahl’s statement is probably accurate given the lack of evidence in the Geniza pointing to marriages of this kind.90 Be this as it may, the literature known as Maʿasīm li-Benei Ereṣ Yisrael (early collections of practical halakhic rulings), an ancient Palestinian source with Babylonian ‘improvements’, explicitly authorizes marriage to a fraternal niece.91 Even Jacob ben Ephraim, who according to Qirqisānī followed Palestinian halakha, permitted marriages of this kind.92 As a rule, the Rabbanites encouraged marriage to a niece, and therefore the debate over this issue became a bone of contention between them and the Karaites. It would appear that when the author of the Halakhot Gedolot referred to heretics who forbade marriage to a niece, he was referring to the early Karaites.93 The author of Halakhot Gedolot brings the example of ʿOthniel, son of Kenaz, Caleb’s brother, who married Caleb’s daughter, as proof that marriage to a fraternal niece was permitted [Judges 1.13; Joshua 15.16–17]: Zucker also translated there Saʿadia Gaon’s views as cited by Qirqisānī, pp. 1172–1173. On Benjamin’s method of analogy, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 249–253. 88 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Hosea 2.9, Pitron, pp. 3–4. See also his Commentary on Malachi 3.5, Pitron, p. 80. Hadassi, Eshkol, §332, 122c: ‘They permitted a fraternal niece and her offspring’. 89 Sahl, Epistle, p. 34. Instead of Ramla, the text says Karmela [‫]כרמלה‬. For an analysis of his views, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 363–364. 90 Goitein, ‘Forefathers’, p. 14. 91 Lewin, ‘Maʿasīm’, p. 92. ‘A man may marry his brother’s daughter’. On collections from the Maʿasīm Literature that had Babylonian influences, see Friedman, ‘Marriage Laws’, pp. 210–211. 92 Qirqisānī, pp. 1174–1175. See Poznanski, ‘Jacob ben Ephraim’, pp. 172–176. 93 On the date of the compilation of Halakhot Gedolot, see Brody, Ṣohar, pp. 115– 121. Danzig, Halakhot Pesuqot, pp. 175–186.

132

Chapter Two

And ʿOthniel was Caleb’s brother by his mother, and he married Caleb’s daughter […] as it says: ‘And ʿOthniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he gave him Akhsah his daughter to wife’ [Judges 1.13]. This was construed by the Rabbinic Sages as proof that it was permitted to marry a niece, and provided an answer to the heretics who forbade marriage to a niece.94

The Karaites refuted this proof. According to them, ʿOthniel was not Caleb’s brother, but ‘Caleb and Kenaz were brothers’,95 and the marriage of ʿOthniel son of Kenaz to Caleb’s daughter was not therefore proof that marriage to a niece was permitted. The halakha of the Rabbinic Sages that permits marriage to a niece is an ancient ruling: ‘A man shall not marry until his sister’s daughter has grown up’.96 This rabbinic precept was apparently prompted by the wish to counteract the Qumran halakha on this issue, as S. Lieberman points out: ‘The Rabbinic Sages frequently turn a discretionary commandment into a mandatory one, in order to counter the heretics’.97 Following Schechter, who emphasized the similarity between Zadok’s ruling on the prohibition of marrying a niece, as cited by Qirqisānī, to Halakhot Gedolot, Portion of Teruma (Hildesheimer edition), p. 609. Ginzberg, Unknown, p. 320, n. 22, identified the heretics with the Karaites. See also the quarrel of Meshulam ben Kalonymus with the Karaites, in Freimann, ‘Meschulam’, pp. 576–577. Similarly, Eshtori ha-Parḥi, Kaftor va-Feraḥ, (Lunz edition), Vol. I, pp. 70–71. For proof of permission to marry a niece in Geonic literature, see Harkavy, Zikhron, I, 4, p. 185, § 366. On such marriages, Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Qedusha, Isurei Biʾah, 2.14, says: ‘It is a commandment of the Rabbinic Sages that a man may marry the daughter of his sister or brother. As it says: “And hide not thyself from thine own flesh” (Isaiah 58.7)’. 95 Aaron ben Joseph, Commentary on Joshua 15.16–17, Sefer ha-Mivḥar, f. 13a. On the opposition of a Karaite exegete to the identification of Sara with Yiskah bat Haran, Abraham’s niece (Genesis 11.29), in order to refute the argument that Abraham married his niece, see Loewenstamm, ‘Karaite Commentary’, pp. 187–188. 96 Tosefta, Kiddushin 1.4 (Zuckermandel edition), pp. 334–335. See also JT, Yevamot 13.13c, on the marriage of Eliezer ben Hyrcanus to his sororal niece. According to the BT, Baba Meṣiʿa 59b, Eliezer was married to Imma Shalom, the sister of Raban Gamliel of Yavneh. Ginzberg, Unknown, p. 24, saw Eliezer’s refusal to marry his niece as testimony of an ancient Pharisaic halakha that forbade marriage of this kind. See his discussion also on pp. 243–245. On the fact that marriage to a niece was sanctioned in the Land of Israel, see Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, pp. 155–156. 97 Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Peshuta, Kiddushin, VIII, p. 915. See Broshi, ‘Polemic’, p. 216. Herr, ‘Continuum’, pp. 52–53, maintains that the custom of marrying a niece was prevalent throughout Israel. The halakha of the Judean Desert sect on this matter was revolutionary and innovative. See also Baer, ‘Rule’, pp. 11–12, n. 28. Schremer, ‘Kinship’, pp. 5–21, claims that the Rabbinic Sages encouraged marrying a sororal niece, because it was customary to marry a fraternal one. 94

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

133

that of the Damascus Covenant, it would appear that Qirqisānī was referring to the Damascus Covenant or another similar Qumran source (this prohibition also exists in the Temple Scroll.)98 Büchler, who also noted the similarity between Zadok’s prohibition, as cited by Qirqisānī, and that of the Damascus Covenant, claimed that Qirqisānī attributed a book to Zadok that could not have been written before the early eighth century. According to him, ʿAnan may have seen this book and adopted the halakha concerning the prohibition on marrying a niece.99 Ginzberg, unlike Büchler, claimed that the document published by Schechter was a Pharisaic document. He did not rule out the possibility that the prohibition on marrying a niece was interpolated by a later editor during the Middle Ages.100 These researchers discussed the issue before the discovery of the Qumran scrolls. Zucker, who studied the Damascus Covenant after the discovery of the Judean Scrolls, states that this halakha was missing from the original Damascus Covenant. It was the Karaite copyist who introduced it into the current version, according to Zucker, under the influence of Muslim law. Indeed, the Qurʾān [4.27] also prohibits marriage to a niece.101 Already in the Middle Ages, this specific Karaite halakha was attributed to the influence of Islam. Eshtori ha-Parḥi, in discussing the Sadducees (= the Karaites), said: ‘Note that they do not prohibit marriage to a niece, but they learnt this from the Kutim (Samaritans), and the Kutim learnt this from the Ishmaelites’.102 In view of the antiquity of the halakha, one cannot rule out the possibility that the early Muslims, like the Karaites after them, adopted an ancient sectarian halakha that forbade marriage to a niece.103 See above, Temple Scroll, n. 84; Brin, ‘Reading’, pp. 267, 270. See also 4Q524, frags. 15–22, 4, (DJD, 25), pp. 103–104. Likewise 4Q251, frag. 17, 2–3, (DJD, 35), p. 45. 99 Büchler, ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’, pp. 438–442. See also his discussion on BT, Yevamot, 15b. Schechter, ‘Reply’, pp. 454–455, maintains that this discussion is not relevant to our topic. 100 Ginzberg, Unknown, p. 158, n. 22. At the same time, he did not rule out the possibility that this was an ancient Pharisaic halakha. See Ginzberg, Unknown, p. 24. See above, n. 96. 101 Zucker, Targum, p. 153, n. 169. Also Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents, pp. 10, 121–122, maintains that this Karaite halakha is rooted in Islam. 102 Eshtori ha-Parḥi, Kaftor va-Feraḥ, Ch. V (Lunz edition), Vol. I, pp. 71–72. Reifman, ‘Barefoot’, p. 78, claims that the Rabbinic Sages’ regulation was designed to oppose the Samaritan halakha. 103 Goitein, Jews and Arabs, p. 50, does not rule out the possibility that Islam adopted this prohibition from a Christian source. On the possibility of a Qumranic or Qumranic-like sectarian halakhic influence on Islam on the issue of midday and on the laws of purity of the pilgrim to Mecca, see Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Halakhic Differences’, pp. 213, 218. 98

134

Chapter Two

The Prohibition on Divorce The second halakha in marital law that the Karaites attributed to the Sadducees was the prohibition on divorce. While the prohibition on marrying a niece, which is not specified in the Torah, was derived through analogy, the halakha concerning the prohibition on divorce, not only is not specified in the Torah, but runs counter to a verse in the Torah permitting divorce: ‘When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house’ [Deuteronomy 24.1]. The Karaites did not follow the Sadducees in this matter, but categorically rejected the prohibition on divorce. Qirqisānī himself queried how a halakha that ran counter to an explicit biblical sanction could have evolved.104 According to the New Testament, divorce was forbidden a priori, based on the verses in Genesis 1.27 and Genesis 2.24. It was only the hard-heartedness of the Jews that led to the sanctioning of divorce at a later stage.105 Schechter believed that the prohibition on divorce, which the Karaites attributed to the Sadducees, also originated from the Damascus Covenant. In his opinion, the author of the Covenant forbade divorce along with polygamy. One of the proofs invoked by the author of the Damascus Covenant, the verse in Genesis 1.27, was cited by the Christians, too: ‘They are caught by two snares: By unchastity, by taking two wives in their lifetime, and the basis of creation, “male and female created He them” (Genesis 1.27), as it says, regarding the Ark, “they went in two and two unto Noah into the ark” (Genesis 7.9)’.106 Many scholars who studied this passage before the discovery Qirqisānī, p. 729. Matthew 19, 1–9; Mark, 10, 2–11. Qirqisānī pointed out several time the common features between the Sadducees and the Christians regarding the prohibition of divorce. See above, n. 78. Holdheim, Maʾamar ha-ʾĪshūt, p. 28, maintains that in the first stage, Christ followed the Shamanic School (Mishnah, Gittin 9.10), that sanctioned divorce only if a woman was immoral. See Matthew 19.9; 5.31. On the Shamanic School of halakha on this issue, see Ben-Shalom, Beit Shammai, pp. 216–219. 106 Damascus Covenant 4.20–5.1. In the Baumgarten edition, 4Q269 frag. 3, 1–2, p. 126, only the beginning of the passage has survived. See Damascus Covenant (Schechter edition), p. xxxvi, n. 3, where Schechter learnt from this passage the prohibition of divorce. On pp. xvii and xix, Schechter suggests that the prohibition referred to here was that of taking a second wife, as long as the first was alive, even if divorced. 104 105

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

135

of the Judean Scrolls maintained that this passage did not refer to divorce.107 Some scholars believed that the Temple Scroll would shed light on the statement in the Damascus Covenant: ‘They are caught up in […] unchastity, by taking two wives in their lifetime’ [‫]בחייהם‬. Yadin interpreted the phrase ‘in their lifetime’ as meaning that while divorce was permitted, a divorced man could not remarry, as long as his first wife was alive. If, however, the copyist made a mistake, and the true reading was ‫בחייהן‬, namely, ‘in the women’s lifetime’, then the Temple Scroll forbade both polygamy and divorce. Yadin inferred from the Temple Scroll that the Damascus Covenant forbade both polygamy and divorce, based on the verse in the Temple Scroll: ‘And he [the king] shall not take another woman in addition to his wife for she shall stay with him throughout her lifetime. And if she dies – he shall marry another woman from his father’s family’.108 Yadin bases this inference on the similarity between the halakha in the Damascus Covenant and that in the Temple Scroll, but others challenge this view.109 For a start, the verse in the Temple Scroll refers exclusively to a king, not to the entire nation.110 Baumgarten maintains that the halakha in the Damascus Covenant differs from that in the Temple Scroll and that the Temple Scroll sanctions polygamy, divorce and remarriage for the nation as a whole, but not for a king.111 Baumgarten interprets the passage in the Damascus Covenant from which Schechter derives the prohibition on divorce and polygamy, as referring to polygamy only. While in the Temple Scroll this Ginzberg, Unknown, pp. 19–20; Büchler, ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’, pp. 431–433; Revel, ‘Inquiry’, (3) pp. 353–354. For a list of those who claimed that the ban was on polygamy only, see Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, p. 148, n. 3. He is of the same opinion, stressing the connection between the Pharisaic halakha that permitted polygamy and the halakha permitting marriage to a fraternal niece, in light of Mishnah Yevamot 1.1–4, Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, pp. 156–157. 108 Temple Scroll, 57.17–19 (Yadin English edition), p. 182; Yadin, ‘L’attitude essénienne’, pp. 98–99. Fitzmyer, ‘Divorce’, pp. 108–110 also noted the common denominators between the Damascus Covenant and the Temple Scroll on the issue of divorce. Some are of the opinion that this was a prohibition on remarrying, even after the demise of the first wife. See Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, p. 149, n. 6. 109 Schiffman, Halakha, p. 133. See summary of Tov, ‘Dead Sea’, p. 59–60. 110 Wacholder, Dawn, pp. 152, 124–125, maintained that Qirqisānī was referring to the Temple Scroll, not the Damascus Covenant. Even though the prohibition on divorce in this scroll was binding on a king only, Qirqisānī asserted that the prohibition he attributed to the Sadducees applied to all Jews. 111 Baumgarten, ‘Restraints’, pp. 14–15. Baumgarten derived the permission on divorce, remarriage and polygamy from the passage in the Temple Scroll, 54.4 (Yadin English edition), II, p. 171: ‘And every vow of a widow or divorcee’, and the beginning of column 64, Yadin, Temple Scroll, 54.4, p. 201, a fragment relating to Deuteronomy 21.15. 107

136

Chapter Two

prohibition was incumbent on the king, only in the Damascus Covenant was it incumbent on the entire nation. The Damascus Covenant does not refer to the prohibition on divorce, but only to the prohibition of remarrying after divorce.112 Some scholars deduced that divorce was permitted by the Damascus Covenant from another fragment in the scroll, which states: ‘And so for one who divorces’.113 Scholars such as Rabin claimed that the scroll was referring explicitly to someone divorcing his wife.114 Others, including Schechter, alleged that this passage was not referring to divorce at all.115 Meanwhile, a similar passage published in the Caves version appears to be referring to divorce – corroborating the theory that the Damascus Covenant permitted divorce: ‘And likewise for anyone who tak[es a wife], let it be with counsel and so shall he guide [one who divorces]’.116 A version of the verse in Malachi 2.16 that was preserved in one of the scrolls, indicates that divorce was permitted in Qumran.117 This tips the scales in favour of those who claim that the Damascus Covenant did not forbid divorce.118 Basing himself on the only version of the Damascus Covenant available to him, Schechter maintained that the halakha in the Damascus Covenant forbidding both divorce and polygamy was deliberately written in an obscure manner, since prohibiting divorce ran counter to the Torah.119 Schechter, who claimed that the book attributed by Qirqisānī to Zadok was the document he published, had to deal with Qirqisānī’s claim that Zadok brought no evidence to corroborate his rulings, apart from one piece of evidence on the prohibition on marrying a niece.120 In the passage in the Damascus Covenant discussed here, however, irrespective of whether it prohibited divorce or only polygamy, the author invokes proof for his assertion.121 According Baumgarten, ‘Restraints’, p. 15. Stegemann, ‘Essenes’, pp. 131, 133, also claims that the Damascus Covenant sanctioned marriage to one woman only, even if he was divorced or widowed. On pp. 126–134, Stegemann maintains that the claim in the literary sources that the Essenes were celibate is groundless. 113 Damascus Covenant 13.17. 114 Damascus Covenant (Rabin edition), p. 66. 115 Damascus Covenant (Schechter edition), p. liii. Fitzmyer, ‘Divorce’, pp. 109–110. 116 Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q266 frag. 9 iii, 4–5, p. 70. For translation, see p. 71. 117 4Q76 XIIa, Col. II, 4–5, DJD, 15, p. 224. See also Fuller, ‘Malachi’, pp. 54–56. 118 Brin, ‘Divorce’, pp. 238–244. Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’, pp. 158–159. 119 Schechter, ‘Reply’, pp. 455–456. 120 See above, n. 81. 121 Above, n. 106. 112

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

137

to Schechter, Qirqisānī disregarded this proof, because the prohibition on divorce ran counter to Karaite halakha.122 To summarize the discussion on marital law, we saw above that the Damascus Covenant, like the book Qirqisānī attributed to Zadok, both prohibit marriage to a niece. Qirqisānī also attributed the prohibition on divorce to Zadok. Today, the prevailing view is that the Damascus Covenant does not refer to the prohibition on divorce. At the same time, Schechter’s arguments might still be valid. One must bear in mind that many of the foremost contemporary scholars believe that the halakha in the Damascus Covenant forbidding polygamy also forbade divorce. If Qirqisānī indeed had access to the Damascus Covenant, he too might have derived the prohibition on divorce from it. Qirqisānī may have glossed over proofs in the Damascus Covenant for halakhot that he deemed unacceptable, holding that Zadok deviated from the truth on many issues.123 Similarly, Qirqisānī disregarded the theological beliefs ascribed to the Sadducees in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages.124 Sadducean Theology: Anthropomorphization of the Deity, Dualism, and a Secondary Deity The difficulty of studying Sadducean halakha is nothing compared to the difficulty in studying the theology the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees. The information is scant and inconsistent. Qirqisānī distinguishes between the Caves Sect and Sadducees concerning the anthropomorphization of the deity. The members of the Caves Sect believed that the biblical verses describing the deity did not refer to the supreme deity, but rather to a secondary, material one, who created the world.125 The Sadducees on the other hand, as Qirqisānī construed from one of al-Muqammiṣ’s books, anthropomorphized the deity, and interpreted descriptions of him literally (ẓāhir). As Hadassi put it: ‘They give a form

122 Schechter, ‘Reply’, pp. 452–453, answered Büchler’s ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’. See Büchler, ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’, pp. 431–432. Revel, ‘Inquiry’, (3), pp. 353–354, argued that there is no connection between the Karaite halakha and the halakha of the Damascus Covenant, since the Karaites permitted polygamy. On ʿAnan’s view of polygamy, see above, n. 86. A minority in the Karaite camp denounced polygamy. See Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 131–132. 123 Zucker, Targum, p. 153, n. 619, raises the hypothesis that Qirqisānī thought that the proofs evinced in the Sadducean scroll regarding divorce were mere midrashic aphorisms rather than true proofs. 124 See above, nn. 15–20. 125 Qirqisānī, p. 42.

138

Chapter Two

to the Creator’.126 The clear distinction that Qirqisānī draws between the sects in this respect disappears in Yefet’s interpretation of the episode of the Golden Calf at the foot of Mount Sinai. Yefet explains that the fashioners of the Golden Calf did not deny belief in the unity of God, but claimed that a secondary deity led the world. It was for this secondary deity that the Calf was intended. According to Yefet, this belief in a secondary deity was a Sadducean belief. The Sadducees believed that this deity was ‘Prince Mastema’: [The Children of Israel] said: ‘This is they god, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt’. [Exodus 32.4]. In all probability, the Children of Israel believed in a single Creator, who created an angel to whom He entrusted the world, to run it, and implant in it wisdom and understanding. This [belief] corresponds to the Sadducean belief in ‘Prince Mastema’. They believed that human beings cannot conceptualize such an angel through the intellect or the senses, since his glory defies imagination. Therefore, he created angels who stand before him, and he sends them out as he sees fit. [They] believed that if they fashioned his likeness and worshipped it, they would be glorifying him. Moreover, they believed that a little of the light of this angel would reside in this likeness, and it was this principle that prompted the Children of Israel to act as they did. This would appear to be the most likely interpretation of this whole episode.127

Milik already hypothesized that Yefet’s reference to Prince Mastema in his commentary was based on the Book of Jubilees.128 In light of this, a brief excursus on the doctrine of angels in this book, and Prince Mastema’s role in particular, is in order. In the dualistic world depicted by the author of the Book of Jubilees, Prince Mastema is the leader of the forces of evil. As such, he is the rival of the forces of good, led by the ‘Angel of the Presence’. Prince Mastema is the figure behind many biblical events. It is he who prompts God to test Abraham’s faith through Qirqisānī, p. 42. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 41d. Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 32, 1–4, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 42, ff. 177b-178a. Cf. INA B 220, f. 61a. The Muslim eleventh-century scholar, Ibn Ḥazm, speaks of belief in a secondary deity by ‘Sadducees’ living in the Yemen. He identifies these Sadducees with Jews, who, according to the Qurʾān, believed that Ezra (ʿUzayer) was a son of God (Qurʾān 9.30). See Ibn Ḥazm, Milal, I, 99; Poznanski, ‘Ibn Ḥazm’, pp. 766–767; Erder, ‘Idrīs’, p. 349, n. 83. For an attempt to identify Ezra with the Teacher of Righteousness, see Jaubert, ‘Pays de Damas’, pp. 238–242. 128 Milik, Enoch, p. 331, n. 1. Milik discovered this commentary of Yefet’s in Harkavy. 126 127

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

139

the binding of Isaac (Jubilees 17.16),129 and who is subsequently mortified when Isaac is saved ( Jubilees 18.12). When the Egyptians pursue the Jews in the desert, Prince Mastema is bound and restrained to prevent him accusing the Children of Israel (Jubilees 48.15). Both in the story of the binding of Isaac and in the story of the exodus from Egypt, the ‘Angel of the Presence’ and his loyal forces confront Prince Mastema and his subordinates (Jubilees 18.9–11; 48.12‑13). Both the Angels of Holiness and the Angels of the Presence that serve the ‘Angel of the Presence’, were created on the first day of the creation (Jubilees 2.2). The author of the Damascus Covenant, who seemingly had access to the Book of Jubilees,130 states that even mere mortals can help overcome Prince Mastema, through returning to the Law of Moses: ‘And on the day on which [the man] pledges himself [to return to the law of] Moses, [the angel] Mastema will turn aside from him, should he keep his wo[rd. This is why Abraham was circumcised on the day of his knowledge.]’131 In the Qumran scrolls, which have clearly dualistic elements, fierce battles are waged between the forces of evil (the Prince of Darkness) and the forces of good (the Prince of Light): ‘In the hand of the Prince of Lights (is) the dominion of all the Sons of Righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. But in the hand of the Angel of Darkness (is) the dominion of the Sons of Deceit’.132 The forces of evil also combine under the patronage of Belial, and are cursed by members of the sect: ‘Then the Levites shall curse all the men of Belial’s lot’.133 God’s words to David: ‘And I will cause thee to rest from all thine enemies’ (II Samuel 7.11) are directed against the ‘Sons of Belial’ who wish to lead the ‘Sons of Light’ astray.134 The War Scroll testifies to a connection between Belial and Prince Mastema. Belial, alias Prince Mastema, confronts the Prince 129 See 4Q225, DJD, 13, pp. 145–149: ‘And aft[er]wards another son was born to [Abraham] and he called his name Iṣḥaq. And Prince Ma[s]tema came [to the Lord and accused Abraham regarding Iṣḥaq. And God said [to Abra]ham: “Take your son Iṣḥaq […] and offer him to Me for a burnt offering” […] The Angels of Holiness stand and weep […] while the angels of Ma[stema] […] rejoice’. See also Vermes, ‘New Light’, pp. 140–145. 130 Above, n. 37. 131 Damascus Covenant 16.4–5. 132 Rule of Community, 3.20–21 (Charlesworth edition), p. 15. The dominion of the Angel of Darkness is the dominion of Mastema. See Rule of Community, 3.23, p. 93. The War Scroll, 13.4 (Charlesworth edition), p. 123, states: ‘Cursed be Belial for the hostile (=Mastema) Plan’. On the doctrine of angels in the Book of Jubilees in light of Qumran writings, see Dimant, ‘Heavenly Sons’, pp. 97–118. 133 Rule of Community, 2.4–5 (Charlesworth edition), p. 9. 134 See 4Q Flor. Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 7–9 (Steudel edition), p. 25.

140

Chapter Two

of Light ‘and all the spirits of truth are under his dominion’:135 ‘You have made Belial corrupt, a hostile angel [Mastema]. In the darkne[ss] is darkne[ss] […] his counsel is aimed towards wickedness and guiltiness’.136 On the face of it, the picture that emerges from the Book of Jubilees is that of a symmetrical, dualistic world, in which there is an ongoing war between the forces of evil led by Prince Mastema and the forces of good led by the ‘Angel of the Presence’. This picture, however, is not all it seems.137 The ‘Angel of the Presence’ is actually a secondary deity, whose role sometimes overlaps that of the Almighty. In the Book of Jubilees, the God who is addressed by humans in the Bible is frequently replaced by the ‘Angel of the Presence’.138 The ‘Angel of the Presence’, for example, speaks to Abraham (Jubilees 12.22, 25) and teaches him Hebrew (Jubilees 12.26–27). Similarly, the ‘Angel of the Presence’ is instructed by God to write the history of the world from the creation to the building of the Temple that will never be destroyed (Jubilees 1.27).139 The angel, for his part, instructs Moses to write things down (Jubilees 2.1).140 The Law that the ‘Angel of the Presence’ teaches Moses is the Law and Testimony [‫]תורה ותעודה‬, as opposed to the Law and commandments that Moses received on Mount Sinai.141 The lofty status of the ‘Angel of the Presence’, God’s messenger in this world, together with Yefet’s commentary imputing belief in a secondary deity to the Sadducees, challenges Qirqisānī clear distinction between the Caves Sect, which believed in a secondary deity, and the Sadducean sect which anthropomorphized the deity.142 As we shall see below, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī who, according to the Karaite and The War Scroll, 13.10 (Charlesworth edition), p. 336. War Scroll, 13.10–11. See War Scroll, 13.10–11, pp. 211–213. Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran, pp. 90–92, 99–100. On ‘Prince Mastema’, in Qumran writings, see Dimant, ‘New Light’, pp. 426–427, 445. 137 See Dimant, ‘Heavenly Sons’, pp. 101–103. 138 On angels as intermediaries between God and man, see Dimant, ‘Heavenly Sons’, pp. 106–107. 139 The Hebrew version of the Book of Jubilees discovered in the Qumran caves, says: ‘[And he told the angel of the] presence to dictate [to Moses from the beginning of the creation unti]l my temple is built’. See 4Q216, DJD, 13, Col. I, 3, p. 11. See also, 4Q216, DJD, 13, Col. IV, 6–7, p. 5, on Moses receiving the ‘Law and Commandments’. 140 On the function of the Angel of the Presence in delivering the Law to Moses, see VanderKam, ‘Putative Author’, pp. 209–217. VanderKam, ‘Angel of the Presence’, pp. 380–382; 390–392. 141 See Jubilees 1.27–29, and parallel text in the Qumran Scroll, above, n. 139, DJD, 13, p. 11: ‘[the first and the] last [and what will come in all the divisions of the periods for the] Law and for the test[imony]’. See Wacholder, ‘Jubilees’, pp. 195–211; Werman, ‘Torah’, pp. 473–491. 142 See above, nn. 125–126. 135

136

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

141

Muslim sources, was considered to have absorbed the Caves Sect’s perception of the deity, was also described as the proponent of a doctrine that resembled the dualistic Manichean religion.143 This chapter focuses on the Sadducees as portrayed in Karaites literature. If the Karaites called the Qumran works they came across ‘the works of Sadducees’, they must conceivably have been aware of the dualistic nature of these works. Indeed it would appear, as we shall see below, that the Karaite Mourners of Zion in Jerusalem were familiar with the dualistic terms in Qumran writings, and even used them in their disputes with their Rabbanite rivals.144 Despite their knowledge of such works, they chose to disregard the Qumran dualistic theology they encountered, since it conflicted directly with their belief in God’s unity. Exposure to this theology would have prevented the Karaite Mourners of Zion from adopting the laws and views they deemed acceptable, which originated in the ancient works in their possession. In conclusion, from the few contradictory sources available to us, it is clear that the Sadducees anthropomorphized the deity. Yefet informs us that they believed in a secondary deity, Prince Mastema – the leader of the evil forces in ancient sources. This is an example of how the Karaites failed to properly understand the ancient material available to them. We cannot rule out the possibility that the Sadducees’ belief in a secondary deity was prompted by a dualistic worldview, given the blurring between dualism and belief in a secondary deity in the Book of Jubilees, the source of the name Prince Mastema. An allusion to the Sadducees’ dualistic world view can be found in the statement of an anonymous Rabbanite, author of the Pitron Torah, a book that was written in the Geonic period. According to him, there were ‘wicked people, dualists, and Sedūqīm’ [‫ ]רשעים ומשנים וסדוקים‬who believed in two authorities. They sacrificed the ʿAzazel (scapegoat) offering to Ahariman, and the divine offering to the good deity, Ahura Mazda. Urbach already pointed out that the Sectaries were called ‘dualists and Sedūqīm’, reflecting their belief in two authorities.145 The name ‘Sedūqīm’ may have been a deliberate corruption of Ṣedoqīm. See below, nn. 225–227. See below, Ch. 4, nn. 329–412. 145 See Pitron Torah (Urbach edition), p. 64. On the meaning of the term ‘Sedūqīm’, [‫ ]סדוקים‬see Urbach, Pitron Torah, p. 29, n. 3. Also, p. 64, n. 34. Urbach, Pitron Torah, p. 64, n. 35, deduced that, according to the doctrine of those Sedūqīm, the two daily offerings had to be sacrificed each day for 365 days of the year. If this interpretation is correct, then the dualists [‫ ]משנים‬and Sedūqīm must have followed the solar calendar. Benjamin al-Nahāwandī is mentioned in this work. See pp. 329, 331, and 334. 143

144

142

Chapter Two

Summary and Conclusions Qumranic Laws that the Karaites Attributed to the Sadducees Below we shall summarize the halakhic laws and perceptions that the Karaites attributed to the Sadducees, but that can be associated with Zadokite or Qumranic circles. Most of the information we have revolves around their calendar, which was a solar one. The story of the Flood proved that the month comprised thirty days. If there was any similarity between the Zadokite sect and the sect the Karaites called Badriyya, it was that the full moon signalled the beginning of the new month.146 The Karaites were not aware that the solar year comprised 364 days. One of the main principles of the solar year is that the festivals fall on fixed days of the month and week. Sadducean law, which excluded the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the Passover and Tabernacles festival, points to this principle, since in the solar calendar the festivals never fall on the Sabbath. The question of the additional sacrifices arose only on the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the festival. No doubt, the adherents of the solar calendar interpreted the fact that the festivals did not fall on a Sabbath as testimony that their calendar was correct. Those who excluded the Sabbath of the intermediate days of the festival did so in deference to the ruling that ‘no sacrifices were brought on the Sabbath apart from the Sabbath sacrifice’. This radical halakha was close in spirit to that of the Damascus Covenant, which also forbade bringing the daily sacrifice on the Sabbath. According to the Rabbinic Sages, sacrifices superseded the Sabbath and even the daily sacrifice was to be brought on the Sabbath. A study of additional Qumranic scrolls shows that bringing the daily sacrifices on the Sabbath was accepted by many circles in Qumran.147 We likewise saw that the Karaites were unable to distinguish, between Qumranic law and the law of the Sadducees referred to in the rabbinic literature regarding the dates of the Waving of the Omer and the Pentecost festival, inter alia, because both these sects always celebrated the Pentecost festival on a Sunday. We then proceeded to discuss the halakhic rulings on marital law that the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees, namely, the prohibition on marrying a niece and the prohibition on divorce. We found support in the Damascus Covenant and other Qumranic scrolls for the first prohibition only. Our sources show that divorce was permitted in Qumran. Above, note 10. Above, nn. 56–57.

146 147

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

143

The Karaites may have derived this prohibition from a source other than Qumran writings. If they derived it from the Damascus Covenant, it would appear that they misunderstood the scroll’s unclear phraseology regarding the prohibition on polygamy, as did several contemporary scholars. Our study of the halakhic rulings the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees reveals the following exegetical principles: a. The absence of an Oral Law. This principle finds expression in the Damascus Covenant: ‘[For this the man will pledge himself] to return [to the Law] of Moses, for in it all is speci[fied]’.148 b. The derivation of halakha from scriptural texts other than the Pentateuch, in contrast to the rabbinic law that Torah laws cannot be derived from the Prophets.149 The halakha concerning the exclusion of the Sabbath from the intermediate days of the festivals, for example, is based on passages from Kings and Chronicles, proving that they derived halakha from scriptural passages other than the Pentateuch.150 c. The derivation of halakha from narrative passages of the Torah, including narratives that occurred before the Revelation at Sinai. The Sadducees, as also the author of the Book of Jubilees and the authors of the Qumran scrolls, based their conviction that the month in the solar calendar was 30 days long from the story of the Flood. Thus, the Sadducees determined halakha in light of their understanding of narrative passages, as they did when deriving halakha from scriptural passages other than the Pentateuch, as we saw above. d. Literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Like the Sadducees in rabbinical literature, the Qumran sect interpreted ‘the morrow of the Sabbath’ [Leviticus 23.11] literally, giving rise to the halakha that the Pentecost festival always falls on a Sunday.151 Damascus Covenant 16.1–2. See Kister, ‘Two Formulae’, pp. 298–300. Fraade, ‘Looking’, p. 60, emphasizes the citation of biblical verses in the legal discussion in the Damascus Covenant. On the legal discussion in this scroll, see Fraade, ‘Looking’, pp. 69–74. Zucker, Targum, p. 179, n. 686, compares this verse to the statement by Daniel al-Qūmisī in his Arabic tract, Zucker, Targum, p. 176: ‘Reply to them with arguments from the Scriptures, because everything is explained there’. 149 BT, Ḥagiga, 10b: ‘No inference may be drawn concerning statements of the Torah from statements of the prophets’. 150 As the Karaites were accustomed to doing. See Lasker, ‘Influence of Karaism’, pp. 155–157. 151 The Rabbanite, Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy edition), p. 128, admits that the literal meaning of the ‘the morrow of the Sabbath’ is Sunday. See above, n. 71. 148

144

Chapter Two

e. Analogy. The prohibition on marrying a niece is not written in the Torah. Qirqisānī argues that Zadok derived this halakha by analogy to the verse in Leviticus 18.12–13, using the same analogy as the author of the Damascus Covenant.152 Qirqisānī’s assertion that he only found one analogy in Zadok’s writings is questionable.153 f. Deviation from explicit scriptural injunctions. The prohibition on divorce that is ascribed to the Sadducees stands in total contradiction to Deuteronomy 24.1. The Karaite Attitude to the Halakhot and Views they Ascribed to the Sadducees A study of Karaite halakha shows us that the Karaites readily adopted halakhot they ascribed to the Sadducees as they understood them. They forbade marriage to a niece, and determined the dates of the Pentecost festival based on Sadducean precedents as they understood them. At the same time, the Karaites rejected Sadducean halakhot they found unacceptable, such as the prohibition on divorce, which ran counter to the biblical text, and the solar calendar. ʿAnan and the ʿAnanites had no qualms about adopting halakhic principles anchored in the solar calendar. When the sky was cloudy and the moon invisible, ʿAnan celebrated the new month after thirty days, based on the story of the Flood. The Sadducean principle of excluding the Sabbath from the intermediate days of the festival was adopted by the ʿAnanites in order to defer the first day of the Passover and Tabernacle festivals, should they fall on a Sabbath. It transpires that even ʿAnan adopted Sadducean rulings, such as the prohibition on marrying a niece, and the prohibition on bringing the daily sacrifice on the Sabbath (evidently also a Sadducean halakha). Both these halakhot originated from the Damascus Covenant.154 The aforementioned six exegetical principles the Karaites ascribed to the Sadducees were absorbed into the Karaite scriptural exegetical doctrine, apart from the sixth (deviation from explicit scriptural texts).155 The adoption of Sadducean halakhot and Sadducean exegetical principles within Karaite halakha was especially conspicuous in view of 152 Qirqisānī, p. 393, contends that the only way the prohibition on marrying a niece could be derived was through analogy. 153 Above, nn. 120–124. 154 The influence of Qumran halakha on ʿAnan and the ʿAnanites raises the issue of when medieval Jewish sects encountered Qumran literature. See below, Ch. 4, nn. 307–328. 155 Above, nn. 148–153.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

145

the Karaites’ discomfiture with Sadducean theology (the anthropomorphization of God or belief in a secondary deity). The Karaites who, under the influence of the Muʿtazila, developed the doctrine of the Unity of God, viewed Sadducean theology as heretical. Qirqisānī attacked the Sadducees for anthropomorphizing God and interpreting scriptural attributes of God literally (ẓāhir).156 His adherence to the Sadducean view that the Pentecost festival could fall only on a Sunday, based on the verse ‘on the morrow of the Sabbath’ [Leviticus 23.11], testifies that he supported the principle of literal interpretation in halakhic exegesis. Indeed, according to Qirqisānī, scriptural attributes of God were to be interpreted allegorically, while verses that discussed the commandments were to be interpreted literally.157 As I pointed out at the beginning of the discussion, the Karaites were unable to distinguish between the Zadokites and Sadducees mentioned in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages. Therefore, they lumped both sects together, under the rubric ‘Sadducees’. The attribution of the writings available to them to the Sadducees only did not make things any easier for the Karaites, who had to defend themselves against the baseless rabbinic claim that they were the Sadducees’ successors.158 According to Josephus, the Sadducees believed in free will, as did the Karaites, who were, however, unaware of this Sadducean belief.159 Qirqisānī assumed that he had writings of Zadok, the pupil of Antigonus of Sokho, whose pupils, according to the rabbinic Midrash, propagated the belief that there was no next world and no reward and punishment. Qirqisānī disregarded the views attributed to Zadok when they conflicted with Karaite beliefs, in the same way as he ignored Qumranic views that did not tally with his views. This explains why he found only one analogy in Zadok’s works, relating to marriage to a niece.160 Below, we shall see that the Karaite Mourners of Zion were aware of dualism in Qumran writings, and used it in their campaign against the Rabbanites.161

Qirqisānī, p. 42. See below, Ch. 4, nn. 74–77, 167. 158 On the lack of a historical connection between the Karaites and Sadducees, see for example, Gotlober, Bīqoret, p. 15; Paul, Écrits, pp. 69–70; Chiesa, Creazione, p. 23. It follows that the Rabbanite who claimed that the remnants of the Sadducees and Boethusians joined ʿAnan was wrong. See above, n. 21. 159 On free choice in Sadducean thought, see Josephus, Wars, II, 8.14. 160 See above, nn. 14, 81. 161 Below, Ch. 4, nn. 329–412. 156 157

146

Chapter Two

The significant contradictions between the Karaites and those the Karaites identified as Sadducees, caused Yefet to come out strongly against the Sadducees. In his commentary on the phrase ‘he that stealeth’ [Zechariah 5.3], he accused them of ‘stealing from the word of God’ by the omission of certain words from the scriptural text: Some say that ‘he that stealeth’ [Zechariah 5.3] is he who stealeth from the words of God. This refers to people who have stolen from the Scriptures and changed its meaning. This, in a number of ways. There were those who omitted words from the editor’s version, such as the Sadducees, and there were those who attempted to interpret to the Scriptures incorrectly and determine laws that were against the Torah, and stole words from the Scriptures in support of their claims.162

No doubt, the Karaite rejection of the Oral Law was what caused the Rabbanites to identify the Karaites with the Sadducees. Judah ha-Levi, as stated, dated the emergence of the Karaite movement to the period of King Yannai, according to the Talmudic tradition that the status of the sages and the oral law was being questioned at that time. Thus, Judah ha-Levi distinguished between the Karaites – who rejected the Oral Law – and the Sadducees, who did not believe in the next world and in reward and punishment, as he concluded from the Midrash Avot de-Rabbi Natan. Upon publication of the Qumran scroll Miqṣat Maʿasei Torah, the theory was proposed that the Qumran sect was effectively a Sadducean offshoot, due to the similarity between Qumran halakhot and Sadducean ones mentioned in the rabbinic literature.163 Other scholars deny any connection between the Sadducees and Qumran.164 162 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 5.4, MS. BL. Or. 2401, f. 169b. Indeed, Yefet refrained from adopting many Qumranic laws he knew of, see below, Ch. 3, nn. 138–141. 163 Schiffman, ‘Halakhic Letter’, pp.  64–73; Schiffman, ‘Temple Scroll’, pp. 245–255; Schiffman, ‘Battle’, pp. 3–23; Sussmann, ‘History’, pp. 11–76. Knohl, ‘Sectarianism’, pp. 601–609, upheld their views. For a summary of this viewpoint, see Stegemann, Essenes, pp. 104–107; Tov, ‘Dead Sea’, pp. 42–43. According to Sussmann, ‘Postscript’, p. 200, the Qumran sect was the Essene sect. In rabbinic sources, Essene halakha is attributed to the Boethusians and Sadducees. The Essenes fought against the Pharisees and Sadducees. 164 Baumgarten, ‘Sadducean Elements’, pp. 27–36, points out the difference between the Qumran sect and the Sadducees. In his article, ‘Controversies’, p. 167, Baumgarten claims that already in the Mishnah there is no distinction between Sadducean law and Zadokite (Qumranic) law. Baumgarten, ‘Disqualification’, pp. 504–505, lists seven examples of similarities between Essene law and Qumran law. See also Kister’s reservation in ‘Studies’, pp. 327–329, about attributing joint laws to

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

147

Some of those who posited close ties between Qumran and Sadducean sects based this on the Karaite view that the two sects were similar.165 However, our discussion shows that this view was erroneous and therefore cannot serve as proof that the two sects resembled each other.166 The later Karaites found ways of resolving the Sadducean dilemma with which the early Karaites contended. They ascribed the ancient sources available to them to the ‘Righteous ones’ [‫ ]צדיקים‬and not the Sadducees [‫ ]צדוקים‬as the ancients had done. They reasoned that, had they been the followers of the Sadducees, Zadok and Boethus would have occupied an important place in their doctrine. At a certain stage they adopted the view of Judah ha-Levi who distinguished between the Sadducees, who denied the next world and the Karaites, who did not. When their power waned, the Karaites claimed that they were part of a proscribed Pharisaic faction.167

The Caves Sect Since the writings of this sect were found in caves, and there are similarities between the calendar of this sect and that of the Qumran sect, a number of scholars concluded that the Caves Sect was the Qumran sect. The sources available to us point to a theological influence of the Caves Sect on Benjamin al-Nahāwandī. If indeed the Caves Sect was the Qumran sect, we have clear proof of the influence of the Qumran doctrine on Karaism in its early stages, before the Karaites immigrated to Palestine. However, it was the very theology of the Caves Sect that led many scholars to conclude that this was not the Qumran sect. Below, we shall describe what we know about the Caves Sect. The sources focus mainly on its belief in a secondary deity (the Creator) and the Qumran sect and the Sadducees. For a rebuttal of the view that the Boethusians were Essenes (= the Qumran sect), see Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt, pp. 24–28. 165 Sussmann, ‘History’, pp. 59–60. 166 See Erder, ‘Dilemma’, pp. 215–220. 167 Erder, ‘Dilemma’, pp. 220–221; Lasker, ‘Scrolls’, p. 283. Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan’ (44), p. 170, n. 7, quotes from Kitāb al-Istibaṣār, Joseph al-Baṣīr’s Book of Precepts, which argues that the Karaites were Sadducees who were active in the Second Temple period. Poznanski did not see the manuscript. This matter requires further investigation. The Karaite Jacob ben Reuven, in his work Sefer ha-ʿOsher, argued, basing himself on Josippon, that in the Second Temple period, the Karaites were known as Sadducees. See JTS. MS. 9513/2, f. 38b. See also Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, p. 84. Ibn Khaldūn, who also based himself on Josippon, identified the Karaites with the Sadducees, too. See below, Ch. 4, n. 25.

148

Chapter Two

its solar calendar. I shall also present Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s doctrine on this secondary deity, which will surely shed light on the doctrine of the Caves Sect on this issue. What We Know about the Caves Sect The Name of the Sect and the Period in which it Operated The sect’s name is mentioned in Karaite and Muslim sources. According to Shahrastānī, the sect’s name was Maqāriba. Bīrūnī and Maqrīzī called it Maghāriba, while Judah Hadassi called it Majādiyya and Jadiyya.168 Qirqisānī’s name Maghāriyya, namely, the Caves Sect, seems the most apposite.169 Qirqisānī testifies that this was not the sect’s original name but was given to it after it became extinct, since its writings were discovered in caves.170 In his inventory of sects, Qirqisānī placed the Caves Sect after the Sadducean sect and before the Christians. Qirqisānī states that the Alexandrian was a member of the sect.171 If he was referring to Philo (d. c. 45 ce), then we have a key to determining the period in which the sect operated. In Shahrastānī’s book, there are two contradictory pieces of information concerning the period in which the sect – which he calls Maqāriba – operated. One piece of information links the Caves Sect to the Yūdghāniyya sect, led by Yūdghān, in the early Geonic period. Therefore, some claim that the Caves Sect also operated in this period.172 The second piece of information, however, indicates that the Caves Sect existed in the ancient period. Shahrastānī teaches us that Arius, the founder of the Aryan current of Christianity, operated four centuries after the appearance of the Caves Sect, and was influenced by it Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 169; Bīrūnī, Athār, p. 284; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 3, p. 375. Maqdisī, Badāʾ, IV, pp. 34–35, informs us that the Maghāriba sect permitted travelling and cooking on the Sabbath. Golb, ‘Maġārīya’, pp. 347–348, n. 2, claims that Maqdisī was not referring to the Caves Sect we are discussing here. See below, nn. 231–232. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 97, 41b. 169 Harkavy, ‘Qirqisānī’, pp. 83–84, n. 36. 170 Qirqisānī, pp. 11–12. On p. 59, Qirqisānī points out that the sect had become extinct. 171 Qirqisānī, p. 12. 172 On the Yūdghāniyya sect, see Qirqisānī, pp. 13, 52–53. Gil, Jews, I, § 151; Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, p. 185; Erder, ‘Centrality’, p. 49. On the link between the Yūdghāniyya sect and the Caves Sect, see Šaharastānī, Milal, p. 168. Shahrastānī states, Milal, p. 170, that Benjamin taught the Caves Sect. Poznanski, ‘Philon’, p. 22, and Wasserstrom, ‘Šaharastānī’, pp. 141–149, link the Caves Sect to the Middle Ages. Harakavy, ‘Qirqisānī’, p. 58, n. 34, links the Caves Sect to antiquity. Shahrastānī, according to him, was confusing the Yūdghāniyya sect with the Caves Sect. 168

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

149

when he fashioned Christ’s personality in his doctrine.173 Since Arius died in 366 ce, the Caves Sect must have been active in the first century bce. This information corroborates Qirqisānī‘s contention that the Caves Sect lived in the ancient period, rather than in the Middle Ages. The Doctrine of the Caves Sect; the Creator as a Secondary Deity The members of this sect believed in the existence of a supreme immaterial deity together with a concrete material Angel, ‘the angel who created the world’.174 This secondary deity, the Creator of the world, was also created, but was superior to other created beings. This was the God of the Scriptures that revealed itself to the prophet.175 The attribution of an image to the Creator triggered harsh criticism on the part of the Karaites: ‘They attribute an image to the Creator and devise odious and irreverent interpretations that do not tally with your Torah’.176 One of the questions that could shed light on the sect’s doctrine and period relates to the identity of the Alexandrian who, according to Qirqisānī, was a member of the sect. Although he strongly criticized the writings of the Caves Sect as sheer nonsense (khurāfāt), Qirqisānī had a more positive attitude toward the Alexandrian’s works. He defined one of his books as the best of all the sect’s writings, and another as a fine work (ḥasan).177 Harkavy was the first to identify the Alexandrian with Philo. In his opinion, the Caves Sect was simply the Essenes and the Therapeutics described in Philo’s writings. The Essenes were known to disapprove of laughter and revelry, and Qirqisānī teaches us that the Caves Sect forbade laughter. According to Harkavy, Philo’s positive attitude to the two sects he describes led the Karaites to conclude that he was a member of the sect.178 Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 169. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 41d. See also Qirqisānī, p. 42. Like in the discussion on the Sadducean sect, Qirqisānī and Hadassi’s main source is Dāwūd Ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣ. 175 Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 169. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 41b, says that the Caves Sect identifies the biblical deity with ‘some angels’. This is a mistranslation of the Arabic: ‘baʿḍ al-malāʾīka’, meaning one of the angels. See Qirqisānī, p. 42. 176 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 97, 41c. 177 Qirqisānī, p. 12. 178 Harkavy, ‘History of Sects’, pp. 497–498. Petit, ‘Esséens’, pp. 154–155, raises the possibility that Philo met the Essenes in Qumran when he made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. On the connection between Philo and the Essenes according to ʿAzaria de Rossi, see Weinberg, ‘Philo’, pp. 166–169. On the prohibition on merriment among the Caves Sect, see Qirqisānī, p. 42. On the Essenes in Philo, see Philo, Quod omnis probus, secs. 75–91. On the Therapeutics, see Philo, De vita contemplativa. For an attempt to 173 174

150

Chapter Two

While Harkavy examined the doctrine of the Caves Sect in light of information on the Therapeutics’ sect found in Philo’s writings, Wolfson compared the doctrine of the Caves Sect to that of Philo, and reached the conclusion that they were not identical. In the doctrine of the Caves Sect, the Creator is identified with the scriptural God, while in Philo’s doctrine, the causative ‘logos’ that mediates between God and mankind is not the scriptural God. According to Philo, the logos did not deliver the Law and commandments, as the Caves Sect claimed.179 Wolfson’s view, which is shared by many, is that the Caves Sect was a gnostic sect.180 This he deduces from the fact that the Alexandrian’s book is described by Qirqisānī as famous and known (mashhūr maʿrūf ).181 Wolfson amended this to ‘the book that is famous for its name, “known”’ (mashhūr bil-maʿarūf ). The word ‘known’ is semantically related to ‘gnosis’ (knowledge). Qirqisānī refers to another, smaller, work of the Caves Sect written in Hebrew, entitled ‘Sefer haYadūʿa’,182 which, according to Wolfson, was the Hebrew version of the former book.183 Wolfson believes that this gnostic sect, which was based in Alexanderia, underwent many transformations. Originally a hybrid of paganism and Judaism, it later became a gnostic sect operating on the fringes of Christianity, as indicated by the fact that Arius was influenced by the sect.184 According to Wolfson, Shahrastānī, like Qirqisānī, found out about the sect from al-Muqammiṣ. Qirqisānī was interested in the history of the sect as long as is operated within a Jewish context. The information that al-Muqammiṣ provided of the sect’s gnostic-Christian phase, which Shahrastānī copied, was of no interest to Qirqisānī.185 It was only because Christianity rejected the sect on account of its gnostic understand the structure of the ancient synagogue in Dammūh, Egypt, in light of the Therapeutics’ customs, see Golb, ‘Topography’, p. 258. Vermes, ‘Essenes’, pp. 427–443, claims that the Essenes were synonymous with the Therapeutics. 179 Wolfson, ‘Angel’, pp. 95–96. 180 See Golb, Maġārīya, pp.  357–359. Fossum, ‘Magharians’, pp.  303–344. Wasserstrom, ‘Šaharastānī’, pp. 146–147, points out the connection between the Caves Sect and the Sefer ha-Bahir. On the problematic nature of the term ‘Gnosticism’, see Williams, Gnosticism, pp. 29–53. The prevailing belief among gnostic sects is that the world was created by a secondary deity. See Williams, Gnosticism, p. 4. 181 Qirqisānī, p. 12. 182 On Qirqisānī’s positive attitude to the writings of the Alexandrian, see above, n. 177. 183 Wolfson, ‘Angel’, p. 100. Harkavy, ‘Qirqisānī’, p. 59, deduced from the name of the book ‘Yaduʿa’, that it was written in Hebrew. He does not rule out the possibility that ‘Yaduʿa’ is the author’s name. Harkavy, ‘Qirqisānī’, p. 60, n. 40. 184 Wolfson, ‘Angel’, p. 92. 185 Wolfson, ‘Angel’, p. 93.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

151

character that it was considered by the Muslim world a Jewish sect.186 It follows, from Wolfson’s hypothesis, that the sect existed for many centuries until the advent of Islam, when its works were translated into Arabic and Hebrew.187 This view fails to take into account Qirqisānī’s statement that the sect was influential in the Middle Ages only because its writings were discovered in caves. I prefer the approach of Harkavy, who studied the Caves Sect in light of available information about the Therapeutics and the Essenes, to that of Wolfson, who examined the sect’s doctrine in light of Philo’s doctrine. There is a wide range of opinions concerning the identity of the Caves Sect and its connection with Philo. Revel, who found evidence of Philo’s influence on Karaite halakha,188 contended, like Harkavy, that the Alexandrian referred to by Qirqisānī was Philo.189 Although Poznanski identified the Alexandrian as Philo, and claimed that Benjamin alNahāwandī was influenced by him, he also maintained that the Caves Sect – of which, according to Qirqisānī, Alexander was a member – operated in the early Geonic period.190 Paul, who identified the Caves Sect with the Qumran sect, did not maintain that the Alexandrian was Philo. According to him, the Alexandrian’s writings and the doctrine of a secondary deity ascribed to the Caves Sect, belonged to a much larger set of manuscripts found in the Middle Ages. Although only a few belonged to the Qumran sect, the sages of that period were unable to distinguish between the various sources available to them.191 According to our sources, belief in a secondary deity is one of the basic characteristics of the Caves Sect. Above, we discussed alMuqammiṣ’s distinction between the Sadducees, who anthropomorphized God based on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and the Caves Sect who ascribed anthropomorphic attributes in the Scriptures to a secondary deity.192 The influence of the Caves Sect’s doctrine on Arius, as noted by Shahrastānī, adds a new dimension to its doctrine of a secondary deity.193 According to the medieval sages, belief in an intermediary between God and man was one of the hallmarks of the Arian Wolfson, ‘Angel’, p. 99. Wolfson, ‘Angel’, p. 99. 188 Revel, ‘Inquiry’, (3) pp. 359–391. For a summary of Revel’s views, see Hoenig, ‘Revel’, pp. 407–411. 189 Revel, ‘Inquiry’, (3) pp. 394–396. 190 Poznanski, ‘Benjamin’, p. 128. Poznanski, ‘Philon’, pp. 27–30. 191 Paul, Écrits, pp. 92, 94–96. 192 Qirqisānī, p. 42. Above, nn. 125–126. 193 See above, n. 173. 186

187

152

Chapter Two

doctrine. Arius, who was active in Alexandria in the fourth century, believed in an eternal God who transcended matter. This same God created the logos, that is, Christ, the reconciling force between the human and the divine. Arius based this view on the verse: ‘The Lord made me as the beginning of His way, The first of His works of old’ [Proverbs 8.22], according to the Septuagint version. Even though Christ the son is the elect of mankind, there is a fundamental difference between his essence and the ineffable essence of God, the Father.194 The Muslim sage Ibn Ḥazm, summarized Arius’ doctrine of divinity as follows: ‘Arius was a monk in Alexandria, who believed in the absolute Unity of God. Christ, peace be upon Him, was a created servant, and was the word of God; through him, the heavens and earth were created’.195 Arius, who cited proof of Christ’s mortal nature from the New Testament,196 was excommunicated and persecuted for this belief.197 Qirqisānī, quoting al-Muqammiṣ, relates how the Emperor Constantine executed Arius for his belief in a mortal Messiah, but this is not substantiated by the sources.198 The Secondary Deity in Benjamin’s Theology Qirqisānī, Hadassi, and Shahrastānī point to a relationship between the Caves Sect’s doctrine and Benjamin’s. In describing the Sect’s doctrine, Hadassi says: ‘The angel who created the world, according to Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s doctrine’.199 Some scholars, however, hold that the similarity between the Caves Sect’s doctrine and Benjamin’s is flimsy and that, therefore, discussing the connection between them is pointless.200 According to Ben-Shammai, Shahrastānī’s confused statements about the relationship between the two doctrines are dubious, while Qirqisānī was referring solely to the literary relationship between them.201 According to this view, Benjamin’s doctrine on the secondary deity stemmed from the Muslim polemic against the personification Le Bachelet, ‘Arianisme’, I, pp. 1779–1788. Ibn Ḥazm, Milal, 48. 196 NT, Matthew 20.20–23; Mark 10.18; Luke 18.19, 22.44. Pines, ‘Jewish Christians’, pp. 248–249, noted the similarity between the Arians and the Jewish Christians in their emphasis on Christ’s mortal essence and their denial of his divine essence. 197 Kannengieser, ‘Athanasius’, pp. 204–215. 198 Qirqisānī, p. 45. 199 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 41d. Also, Qirqisānī, p. 42. 200 Paul, Écrits, p. 92. 201 Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, pp. 81–83. On Shahrastānī’s problematic comments regarding the relationship between the Caves’ Sect and Benjamin, see above, n. 172. 194 195

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

153

of God in Judaism, which impelled Benjamin to seek out new positions on this issue. In the process, he absorbed ideas from Islamic sects that believed in a secondary deity.202 Wolfson pointed out the difference between the Caves Sect’s doctrine and Benjamin’s. According to Qirqisānī, the Caves Sect did not claim that the secondary deity gave the Torah, while according to Shahrastānī, the Caves Sect did not claim that the secondary deity created the world. Yet, both of these claims are attributed to Benjamin.203 In my opinion, the impact of Islamic sectarian theology and the contradictions between Benjamin’s doctrine and that of the Caves Sect do not in themselves prove that the Caves Sect had no influence on Benjamin. The sources should be taken literally. Benjamin was influenced by the Caves Sect but developed his own doctrine while exposed to the Muslim theology of his day. As we have already observed, even in the area of halakha, eclecticism is one of the defining features of Benjamin’s doctrine.204 Among Islamic circles that believed in a secondary deity and that evidently influenced Benjamin, the ancient Ismāʿīlite doctrine deserves pride of place. Indeed, there are numerous threads connecting it with early Karaism.205 According to Mann, Benjamin was influenced more by Ismāʿīlī allegory than by the writings of the Alexandrian allegorists from the period of Philo.206 Having discussed the dilemma in tracing the sources that helped shape Benjamin’s theological doctrine, we shall now present his views on the nature of God, as described in our sources. It will be recalled that Benjamin’s writings on this subject are unavailable, and therefore we shall have to rely on secondary sources. Qirqisānī explicitly states that he learned about Benjamin’s theological doctrine from the writings of Benjamin and his disciples, yet some of the proofs he adduces are neither

Wolfson, ‘Angel’, pp. 100–101; Cook, ‘ʿAnan’, pp. 176–177. See Guttman, Philosophy, pp. 58–59. 203 Wolfson, ‘Angel’, pp. 91–92. 204 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 235–272. 205 On the similarity between the Karaite Mourners of Zion and Ismāʿīlīs, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 229–246. See Gil, Palestine, I, §921. 206 Mann, ‘Polemical Work’, p. 136. Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 170, relying on Benjamin, states that the Qurʾān also has verses that personify God, although the Qurʾān in fact refer to the angel Gabriel. For example, the Qurʾān states in connection with Mary, mother of Jesus: ‘We have breathed into her of Our spirit’. (Qurʾān, 21.91, 66.12). For an English translation of Shahrastānī, see Wasserstrom, ‘Šaharastānī’, p. 154. On the secondary deity in early Ismāʿīlism, see Stern, ‘Cosmological Doctrines’, pp. 3–29. On the penetration of the concept of a secondary deity into early Shīʿism via Gnosticism, see Corbin, Ismaili Gnosis, pp. 166–167. 202

154

Chapter Two

from Benjamin nor his circle. Rather, they are standard proofs that are cited in this kind of theological thought.207 Benjamin believed that God created an angel, and that this angel created the world.208 The angel was the creator of the world, because the Almighty delegated this power to him: ‘The angel created the world, since God gave him the ability to do so’.209 The angel who created the world was created before the Creation ‘Benjamin maintained that the angel was created before all other creatures’.210 Yefet presented this view of Benjamin in his Commentary on Genesis 1.26: ‘And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ [Genesis 1.26].211 In his discussion of that verse, Hadassi informs us of Benjamin’s views regarding what preceded the Creation. ‘And Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, my enlightener, may he rest in peace, said that prior to any creation, God created the glory and His throne and all the glories and angels in our world’.212 The angel who created the world is totally different from other creatures, because of his capacity to create things: ‘Benjamin maintained that the angel was able not only to perform acts the likes of which other creatures were unable to 207 Qirqisānī, p. 321. For a discussion of Benjamin’s doctrine of a secondary deity see Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 279–283. Another fact that Qirqisānī, p. 42, gleaned indirectly was that Benjamin believed that Jesus was one of five Jews who claimed to have the power of prophesy, about whom the Scripture says: ‘And the sons of the rebels of your people attempted to raise a vision but failed’ [Daniel 11.14]. On a positive attitude toward Jesus in Karaite circles, see above, n. 13. 208 Qirqisānī, p. 55. 209 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 19.10–11, MS Trinity College, Cambridge, F 12. 109, f. 122a; INA B 222, f. 190b. Cf. Yefet, Commentary on Genesis (Butbul edition), pp. 24–25, 63. Ashʿarī, Maqālāt, p. 565, attributes the belief that an angel created the world to a Jew named Abū-Yāsīn. Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, p. 81, n. 71, raises the possibility that Abū-Yāsīn may a corruption of the name Benjamin. Ibn Ḥazm, too, knew of Jewish belief in a secondary deity. See Zucker, ‘Clarification’, p. 37, n. 42. The tenthcentury Coptic author, Severus Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, in his treatise ‘Miṣbāḥ al-ʿAql’, p. 16, maintains that the command to create the world was not given to an angel, as the Jews claim, nor to a smaller deity (allāh ṣaghīr), as Benjamin claims, nor to the stars, as Plato claims. See Griffith, ‘Miṣbāḥ al-ʿAql’, pp. 27–28. 210 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.26, BL. Or. 2461, ff. 49b-50a; INA B 51, f. 72b. Yefet attacks this view: ‘How is it possible that this angel was not created at a specific place or time?’ 211 Apparently, Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions, V, 8 (Rosenblatt edition), p. 232, is referring to Benjamin’s doctrine when he says: ‘To this group belong those, for example, who interpret the passage “let us make man in our image” [Genesis 1.26], as implying that some angel had created Adam and likewise also the rest of the world’. 212 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 47, 25c. See Lasker, ‘Philosophy’, p. 488. Hadassi adds there: ‘I am inclined to the view of my enlightener, Benjamin, may he rest in peace, that the angels were created with the upper firmament on the first day […] [which fits in with] our explanation that on the first day of your God’s creation, the glory and its throne and the angels were created together with the upper firmament’.

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

155

perform, but also had the ability to create things’.213 Just as the creating angel is totally different from all other creatures, so is he totally different from the Almighty. The angels had a form, whereas the Almighty had none: ‘In Benjamin’s words, an angel is created and circumscribed, while the Almighty has no form or shape’.214 According to Shahrastānī, since Benjamin maintained that the Almighty was incorporeal, Scriptural references to the anthropomorphization of God must actually be referring to an angel. These Scriptural verses are obscure and are not to be explained ‘literally’.215 Qirqisānī explains these verses according to Benjamin. For example, the verse: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ [Genesis 1.26], should be attributed to the angel in whose image man was created. Indeed, as the following Scriptural verses testify, angels resemble human beings: ‘Three men stood over against him’ [Genesis 18.2]; ‘As for the likeness of their faces, they had the face of a man’; [Ezekiel 1.10]; and ‘The man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision’ [Daniel 9.21].216 Yefet cites Benjamin’s commentary on ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness’ [Genesis 1.26], and three of Benjamin’s proofs in support of his statements: As to the explanation of ‘Let us make man’ [Genesis 1.26], the commentators fall into two camps; there are those, such as Benjamin, who interpret these as the words of the angels discoursing among themselves. He fell into this major error, because according to him the Scriptural words ‘in our image, after our likeness’ cannot refer to the Creator and therefore must be attributed to the angels. He supported his argument with the following proofs: a. The name ‘God’ also refers to angels, as it says: ‘Yet Thou hast made him but little lower than the angels’ [Psalms 8.6].217 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.26, INA B 51, f. 72b. Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.26, INA B 51, f. 72b. 215 Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 170. Shahrastānī calls the obscure verses in the Torah ‘al-ayāt al-mutashābihah’. These verses require interpretation through ‘taʾwīl’. For an English translation of Shahrastānī, see Wasserstrom, ‘Šaharastānī’, pp. 153–154. See above, Ch. 1, n. 256. On obscure verses in the Qurʾān, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 203–215. 216 Qirqisānī, p. 319. On the Karaite discussion on Genesis 1.26, including Benjamin’s view, see Fenton, ‘Image’, pp. 271–290. According to Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Exodus 33.21, it was an angel that addressed Moses in the [burning] bush: ‘For the beginning of his prophetic power came through the angel that appeared to him at the bush. There is says: ‘And God said’ [Exodus 3.7], and likewise ‘And God went before them by day’ (Exodus 13.21), for the messenger speaks in the name of the sender’. 217 For a discussion on the interpretation of this verse by al-Muqammiṣ and Yefet, in the context of Genesis 1.26, see Stroumsa, ‘What is Man’, pp. 283–291. 213 214

156

Chapter Two

b. Angels can perform acts that humans cannot. c. Some of God’s acts are performed through a created being and He ascribes these acts to that creature, as it is written: ‘And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders’ [Exodus 11.10].218 Benjamin stated: ‘If it is feasible that God performed all the signs and wonders through Moses and attributed them to him, then it is also possible that He created the world through an angel and attributed this to an angel’. These are his main arguments.219

Those who believe in a secondary deity claim that in Scriptural comparisons between God and other deities, the God that is being compared is the secondary deity, because one can only compare like with like. Since the Almighty is unlike anything else, the Scriptural comparison cannot refer to Him. For example, when Jethro said: ‘Now I know that the Lord is greater than all gods’ [Exodus 18.11], he meant that it was the creator of the world, that is, the secondary deity, who saved the Israelites from Egypt, and that he was greater than all other gods, i.e., idols. Other similar examples of Scriptural verses are: ‘Who is like unto Thee, O Lord, among the mighty? [Exodus 15.11], and ‘For what god is Zucker, Targum, p. 182, n. 712, maintains that the commentary to the Decalogue published by Mann is Daniel al-Qūmisī’s commentary. The commentary, which has statements similar to those attributed here to Benjamin, contends that God ascribes His own actions to his angels. Mann, ‘Commentaries’, p. 387: ‘And if you should say that the angels [do] the work of God, He has no need for an angel to do His work […] and all deeds ascribed to the angels were in fact performed by Him alone and not by an angel, as it is written: ‘And all these my hand has performed’ [Isaiah 66.2]. It is only ascribed to an ‘angel’ in the same way as the crossing of the Red Sea is referred to as Moses’ act; it was God who split the Red Sea, not Moses, yet it is ascribed to Moses’. In ‘Sermon’, p. 13b (Nemoy edition), p. 90, Daniel al-Qūmisī says: ‘How did Moses split the sea and how did Elisha resuscitate the Shunamite’s son? Did not God perform these acts Himself, for He alone performs every act, and angels are there to mirror Him but not to perform any act’. In his commentary on the passage where Saul consulted a medium (I Samuel 28.8–25), Yefet adopts a different approach, stating that some passages are not to be interpreted literally. True, Scriptures state that the sorcerers’ staffs in Egypt turned into snakes (thaʿābīn), but this event only took place in the imagination of those present. See Yefet, Commentary on I Samuel, MS. BL. Or. 2547, ff. 204b-205a. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, 2, p. 204. 219 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 1.26, MS. BL. Or. 2461, f. 49a-b; INA B 51, ff. 72a-72b. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, 1, p. 283. Further on, Yefet strongly criticizes Benjamin and refutes his statements one by one. Regarding the comparison of the prophet Moses to an angel, Yefet explains that Moses never created anybody. In casting down his staff, Moses performed an act anyone was capable of. It was God who transformed the staff into a snake as it landed upon the ground. Therefore, there were no grounds for claiming that Scriptures attributed an act of God to Moses. See INA B 51, ff. 72b-73a. 218

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

157

there in heaven or on earth, that can do according to Thy works, and according to Thy mighty acts?’ [Deuteronomy 3.24].220 As stated, Benjamin was exposed to the theology of his times. His attempt or that of his disciples to establish his doctrine through reason, rather than merely through Scriptural commentary, may well have been influenced by his Muslim environment. Benjamin and his followers believed that objects divide and separate according to their nature. For example, the bodies of humans were created by separating themselves from the angels. It follows that the creator of the human body was an angel, not the supreme incorporeal entity.221 Note that Shahrastānī pointed out the connection between the Caves Sect and Arius, who also believed in a secondary deity that created the world.222 In the Karaite polemic against Benjamin, his doctrine was compared to that of the Ṣabians and of the Manicheans. This comparison sheds light on the nature of Benjamin’s doctrine. As to the Ṣabians, it appears that Qirqisānī was referring to the religion of the people of Ḥarān, which survived in the Islamic world and was known as the ‘Ṣabian religion’. This religion incorporated Platonic, pagan, and hermetic principles. Since this sect claimed that the celestial bodes were the intermediary between the supreme deity and man, the term ‘Ṣabians’ became synonymous in Islamic literature with those who believed in a secondary deity.223 Qirqisānī asked Benjamin’s followers to whom they prayed. If their reply was ‘to the angel creator’, they were to be considered members of the Ṣabian Sect, who prayed and offered up their sacrifices to the stars – the elements that mediated between human beings and the Almighty. According to Qirqisānī, praying to the stars was preferable to praying to an angel, because there was scientific and concrete evidence that the stars exerted an influence over the world. If Benjamin’s disciples claimed that they prayed to the Almighty, they were contradicting their very own words, since the Scriptures teach us that the prophets prayed to the Creator of the heavens and earth, which Benjamin’s disciples maintained was an angel, not the Almighty.224 The comparison between Benjamin’s doctrine and the Ṣabian doctrine, and the connection between the doctrine of the Caves Sect and Qirqisānī, pp. 320–321. Qirqisānī, p. 321. 222 Above, nn. 193–198. 223 On the Ṣabian sect in Ḥarān, see below, discussion by Stroumsa, ‘Ṣabians’, pp. 277–281. For an attempt to analyze the nature of their religion, see Tradieu, ‘Ṣabiens’, pp. 1–44. Also, Erder, ‘Idrīs’, pp. 346–348. 224 Qirqisānī, p. 326. 220 221

158

Chapter Two

that of the Arians, attest to the prevalence of the belief in a secondary deity, among both the Caves Sect and the Benjaminites. However, Qirqisānī compared Benjamin’s doctrine to the Manichean doctrine. At first glance, such a comparison seems surprising. Manicheism was both a symbol and example of an extremist dualist doctrine that differed significantly from that of a secondary deity. According to Benjamin alNahāwandī, the angel that created the world did so at the authority of the Almighty, while according to Mani, the world was created by evil forces that overstepped their authority.225 Apparently, Qirqisānī drew this comparison between Mani’s view and Benjamin’s because of the total separation in Mani’s doctrine between the pure Godhead and created beings. Qirqisānī polemicised: Were Benjamin’s disciples to say that God refrained from creating the world because it was contaminated, and therefore delegated the task to an unblemished angel, their claim would be similar to that of the Manicheans.226 The sixteenth-century Islamic author, Abū al-Faṣl al-Suʿūdī, also attributes a dualist faith to the Benjamin sect. According to him, its members believed in the Unity of God, but also believed that one of God’s creatures, the embodiment of evil, rose up and challenged this unity. After his discussion of the Benjamin sect, Abū al-Faṣl al-Suʿūdī goes on to describe the Malik Sect from Ramla. According to al-Suʿūdī, this sect believed that the Almighty did not create the world but that an angel created it with God’s acquiescence. The doctrine that al-Suʿūdī ascribes to Malik is similar to Benjamin’s, and therefore we should not rule out the possibility that al-Suʿūdī attributed Benjamin’s doctrine to Malik of Ramla.227 The Sect’s Calendar For the Caves Sect, the beginning of each month was determined by the full moon. In Hadassi’s words: ‘They fix the beginning of the month when the moon is full’.228 The reason for this lay in the view that the en On Mani’s doctrine, see Rudolph, Gnosis, pp. 336–339. On Manicheism in the context of Islamic literature, see Vajda, ‘Manichéens’, pp. 113–122. 226 Qirqisānī, p. 323. Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, 1, pp. 281–282. 227 Abū al-Faṣl al-Suʿūdī, Muntakhab al-jalīl, in Schreiner, ‘Notes’, p. 207. BenShammai, ‘Notes’, p. 82, argues that Benjamin was exposed to Manichean influences. See also, Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, 1, p. 282, n. 108; Gil, Jews, I, p. 261. On Malik of Ramla, see Qirqisānī, pp. 14, 57; Gil, Jews, I, p. 248. 228 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 97, 41b. Qirqisānī, p. 42. The Karaite sources inform us of an ancient sect which they called the Badriyya sect, because it determined the beginning of the month when the moon was full (badr = full moon). See above, nn. 10, 43, 44. 225

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

159

tire world was created in its finished form. Just like Adam and Eve, so the animals and plants were created ready-made, and the luminaries, too. The verses – ‘It shall be established for ever as the moon’ [Psalms 89.38], ‘And God made the two great lights’ [Genesis 1.16] – are proof that the planets were created complete. Since the luminaries were created on a Wednesday, the first day of the first Year also fell on a Wednesday, when the moon was full.229 The Muslim author al-Bīrūnī, who relied on Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq’s Kitāb al-Maqālāt, was conversant with the Caves Sect’s calendar.230 He maintained that this calendar stipulated that the festivals could be observed only if and when a full moon had risen over the Land of Israel on Wednesday eve (Tuesday, after sunset). The New Year was celebrated on Wednesday eve, as was the Passover festivals, the laws of which were incumbent only on those residing in the Land of Israel. The festivals were celebrated on a Wednesday because the luminaries were created on that day. Al-Bīrūnī added that the majority of Jews did not accept the Sect’s interpretation, which contradicted the Pentateuch.231 The fact that the Caves Sect considered the commandments relating to the festivals as pertaining to the Land of Israel only is of great significance, and shall be discussed elsewhere.232 Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq and Qirqisānī’s statements indicate that the Caves Sect adopted a solar calendar – a calendar which the Karaites also attributed to the Sadducees.233 The importance assigned to Wednesday, the day the luminaries were created, and the celebration of festivals on specific days of the week, seem to indicate the use of the solar calendar. The fact that the Caves Sect celebrated the New Year on a Wednesday was helpful in deciphering the Qumran calendar, 229 Qirqisānī, pp. 796–797. According to Philo, De opifico mundi, sec. 42, vegetation was created complete. According to Jubilees 2.8–9, after the creation of the luminaries on the fourth day of Creation, the sun was transformed ‘to be a great sign on the earth for days and for weeks and for months and for festivals, years, sabbaticals and jubilees and for all seasons of the years’. 230 Scholars are divided as to whether Abū ʿĪsā was a Manichean. See recently, Stroumsa, Freethinkers, pp. 40–46. On Jews in the writings of Abū ʿĪsā, see Thomas, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 277–278. 231 Bīrūnī, Athār, p. 284 (English edition, p. 278). On Bīrūnī and his knowledge of the Jews, see Schreiner, ‘Beruni’, pp. 258–266. Golb, ‘Maġārīya’, pp. 349–350, maintains that Abū ʿĪsā’s calendar, referred to by Bīrūnī, was the calendar of the Badriyya, a Karaite sect. 232 See below, Ch. 3, nn. 163–170. It would appear, therefore, that the words of Maqdisī, n. 168 above, refer to the Caves Sect that we are discussing here. Evidently, the abolition of the commandments applied in the Diaspora only. 233 Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, p. 81, is not at all convinced that the calendar of the Caves Sect was a solar calendar.

160

Chapter Two

which is based on the calendar of the Book of Jubilees.234 Some scholars claim that the practice of fixing the new month by the full moon is substantiated by Qumran documents, but this is still a controversial issue.235 The discussion of the Caves Sect’s calendar brings us back to the relationship between Philo and the sect. Saʿadia Gaon, in his Book of Distinction (Kitāb al-Tamyīz) published a fragment of a calendar which he attributes to Judah of Alexandria. This calendar specifies several firstfruit offerings each year: As to Judah of Alexandria, he maintains that just as there are fifty days between the first barley offering and the first wheat offering, so are there also fifty days between the first wheat offering and the first wine offering, which (first wine offering – Yadin) which takes place […] at the end of the month of Tammuz. Likewise, there are fifty days between the first wine offering and the first oil offering, which takes place on the twentieth of Elul.236

Despite the differences in dates, Yadin emphasized the similarity between this calendar and that of the Temple Scroll and even raised the possibility that the ‘known book’ that Qirqisānī attributed to the Alexandrian was simply the Temple Scroll. Likewise, he contended that neither Qirqisānī’s nor Saʿadia Gaon’s Alexandrian should be identified with Philo.237 Wacholder also argued that Judah of Alexandria On decoding the Qumran Sect’s calendar in light of the fact that in the Caves Sect’s calendar the New Year falls on a Wednesday, see Jaubert, ‘Calendrier’, pp. 250– 251. See also, her article, ‘Dernière cène’, p. 172, n. 2. For a discussion of the Qumran calendar in light of the Caves Sect’s calendar, see Beckwith, ‘Essene Calendar’, pp. 457–466. On the history of the research on the Qumran calendar, see VanderKam, Calendars, pp. 52–70. 235 VanderKam, Calendars, pp. 84–86, who researched the calendars of the priestly courses at Qumran, concluded that the Qumran calendar, like the Caves Sect’s calendar, fixed the beginning of the month to coincide with the full moon. According to him, the term ‘dūqa’, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, refers to the day the new moon appeared. Gillet Didier, ‘Calendrier Lunaire’, pp. 171–205, agrees with him. According to Talmon, the new month at Qumran began when the moon was no longer visible, and the term ‘dūqa’ referred to the night following the full moon. See Talmon and Knohl, ‘Calendrical Scroll’, pp. 507–512. Talmon and Ben-Dov, ‘Calendrical Documents’, pp. 33–36. The discussion focuses on scroll 4Q321. See Talmon and BenDov, ‘Calendrical Documents’, pp. 65–79. I am grateful to Jonathan Ben-Dov for helping me understand this issue. 236 Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, p. 97. This fragment of Kitāb al-Tamyīz was discovered in the Geniza (TS 8 Ka. 10, f. 2). It was initially published by Hirschfeld, ‘Arabic Portions’, p. 103. Cf. this calendar with Jubilees 7.36. 237 Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, pp. 97–98. For a critique on his comments, see Urbach, ‘Contribution’, pp. 4–5. 234

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

161

should not be identified as Philo. Rather, he claimed, he was an Egyptian Karaite who possessed sources relating to the Qumran calendar, and who made changes to that calendar.238 Baumgarten, who researched the laws relating to the first fruit offerings in the Qumran calendar argued, like his predecessors, that the calendar attributed to Judah of Alexandria had its origins in Qumran. In his view, Judah was Philo. In Christian sources, Philo is referred to as ‘Philo the Jew’, and this, according to Baumgarten, is how he came to be known as Judah. The dates of the first fruit offerings mentioned in the Temple Scroll and in the calendar attributed to Judah of Alexandria are reminiscent of Philo’s view of the Therapeutics in his On the Contemplative Life.239 Baumgarten’s comment indicates that there is a close connection between the Caves Sect and the Qumran Sect and between the Alexandrian mentioned as a member of the Caves Sect and Philo of Alexandria.240 Summary and Conclusions In light of the paucity of available information and the nature of the sources, any conclusion relating to the Caves Sect must be viewed solely as hypothetical. We do not even know the true name of the sect. The name Caves Sect is simply a term that became attached to the sect in the Middle Ages because its writings were found in caves. The research is even divided over the period when this sect was active. Some believe it was active at the beginning of the Geonic period,241 but others – probably more reliable – claim that the sect was active in ancient times. Qirqisānī taught us that this sect was active prior to the emergence of Christianity and, according to Shahrastānī, about four centuries before Arius, the founder of the Aryan sect, that is, in the first century bce. It is highly probable that the Karaites believed that Philo of Alexandria’s statements concerning the Essenes and Therapeutics referred to the Caves Sect. Given that Philo’s attitude to the sect was positive, they must have regarded him as one of its members. Wolfson believed that the sect survived into the Middle Ages. Qirqisānī’s comments about the discovery of the sect’s writings in caves challenges this view. Nonetheless, Arius’ utilization of the sect’s writings shows that the sect exerted an influence Wacholder, Dawn, pp. 156–158. Philo, De vita contemplativa, sec. 65. 240 Baumgarten, ‘Ḥadash’, pp. 39–41. 241 See above, n. 172. 238 239

162

Chapter Two

in the fourth century. This raises the possibility that the sect’s writings existed outside the caves, too.242 The sources elaborate on the sect’s doctrine on two issues only: God’s essence and the calendar. As far as theology is concerned, clearly this sect believed in a secondary deity that created the world. Unlike the Almighty, this secondary deity had a form. Any Scriptural references to material aspects of God were references to the secondary deity. Qirqisānī’s comments indicate that the sect interpreted descriptions of God literally, but attributed them to a secondary deity, thereby circumventing the problem of ascribing corporeality to God.243 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, active in the first half of the ninth century, grappled with the problem of the material representation of God in Scriptures, no doubt under the influence of his Muslim environment. To remove materiality from the Almighty, he adopted the Caves Sect’s view that Scriptural passages that anthropomorphized God were effectively referring to a secondary deity. It was patently obvious to the medieval sages who studied the sect’s doctrine that belief in a secondary deity was the sect’s distinguishing feature. This is why they compared the sect’s doctrine with that of Arius and that of Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, central to whose teaching was the belief in an intermediary who created the world. The comparison between the doctrine of the Ṣabians of Ḥarān, who believed in a secondary deity, and that of Benjamin, disciple of the Caves Sect, further supports the conclusion that belief in a secondary deity was the hallmark of the Caves Sect. Although Wolfson drew attention to the vast disparity between Philo’s doctrine of the ‘Logos’ and the Caves Sect’s doctrine, evidently Harkavy’s method of studying the sect in light of Philo’s statements regarding the Therapeutics and the Essenes is more accurate. Qirqisānī taught us about the Caves Sect’s prohibition against laughter. Harkavy emphasized the commonality between the sect and the Essenes on this matter.244 The prohibition against laughter is found in the Rule of the Community scroll: ‘And whoever guffaws improperly, and makes his voice heard, shall be punished (for) thirty days’.245 More recently, this prohibition has been found also in versions of the The Enoch literature found in the Qumran caves is known to have influenced Mani in the third century CE See Milik, Enoch, pp. 209–310. 243 Qirqisānī, p. 42, but see Shahrastānī, above, n. 215, who argues that Benjamin, after being influenced by the Caves Sect, interpreted descriptions of God allegorically. 244 Above, n. 178. 245 Rule of Community, 7.15 (Charlesworth edition), p. 33. 242

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

163

Damascus Covenant discovered in one of the caves.246 The fact that this prohibition exists in a scroll that was in the possession of the Karaites strengthen the hypothesis that the Qumran Sect was the Caves Sect. Earlier, I stressed the similarity between the laws that the Karaites attributed to the Sadducees and the laws of the Qumran Sect.247 Yet, Qirqisānī differentiates clearly between the Sadducean Sect and the Caves Sect. While his attitude to Zadok, the putative founder of the Sadducean Sect, is positive, his attitude to the Caves Sect is totally negative. According to him, their writings and exegesis were sheer nonsense (khurāfāt).248 Likewise, Qirqisānī emphasized the essential difference between the way the Sadducean Sect and the Caves Sect perceived God. While the Sadduceans anthropomorphized God, the members of the Caves Sect anthropomorphized the secondary deity. The clear distinction that Qirqisānī drew between the two sects, alongside the fact that a dualistic belief was a distinctive feature of the Qumran Sect’s writings, would seem to lead to the indisputable conclusion that the Caves Sect was not the Qumran Sect. Paul, who argued that the Caves Sect was the Qumran Sect, maintained that Qirqisānī’s distinction was trivial, because the doctrine of a secondary deity was ascribed to the sect erroneously.249 In the discussion on the theology of the Sadducean Sect, I already voiced doubt as to the ability of the medieval sages to clearly differentiate between the doctrine of a secondary deity and the dualist doctrine. We have seen how blurred the distinction between the two concepts is in both the Qumran writings and in the Enoch literature upon which these writings are based.250 The same holds true of the doctrines of the so-called Gnostic Sects.251 Qirqisānī’s comparison between the doctrine of Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, founder par excellence of the belief in a secondary deity, and that of Mani, the most authentic representative of extremist dualism, is evidence of the blurring of these distinctions.252 While the Caves Sect’s doctrine of a secondary deity challenged its identification with the Qumran Sect, many scholars who focused on the Caves Sect’s calendar tended to identify it with the Qumran Sect. The Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q266 frag. 10 ii, 12–13, p. 74, 4Q266 frag. 11 ii, 1–2, p. 135. 247 Above, nn. 146–155. 248 Qirqisānī, pp. 12, 42. 249 Above, n. 191. 250 See above, nn. 125–145. 251 Williams, Gnosticism, pp. 8–11. 252 See above, nn. 225–227. 246

164

Chapter Two

Caves Sect’s calendar is a solar calendar, in which the festivals are observed on fixed days of the week. The fact that the Caves Sect’s New Year was celebrated on a Wednesday, because the luminaries were created on that day, was useful in deciphering the Qumran Sect’s calendar. In the Qumran calendar too, the first day of the New Year is a Wednesday, probably for the same reason. According to the Caves Sect, the whole universe – including the luminaries – was created in its complete form, which is why the new month was fixed by the full moon. This theological proof for the timing of the new month supports the view that the Qumran Sect also fixed the new month by the full moon.253 A fragment of a calendar was discovered among the writings of Saʿadia Gaon that is very similar to the Qumran calendar. Saʿadia Gaon attributed this calendar, which focused on the dates of the various first-fruit offerings, to Judah of Alexandria. Once again, the question arises concerning the identity of this ‘Alexandrian’ who, in Qirqisānī’s opinion, belonged to the Caves Sect. Scholars have highlighted the commonality between the calendar Saʿadia Gaon ascribed to Judah of Alexandria and the Qumran calendar. According to Baumgarten, there is even a connection between Judah of Alexandria’s calendar and the Therapeutics’ calendar. In his view, Judah of Alexandria was Philo.254 At the start of this summary, we emphasized that any conclusion as to the identity of the Caves Sect must be viewed as hypothetical only. The available sources point to a strong connection between Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and the Caves Sect. If the Caves Sect is, indeed, the Qumran Sect, this constitutes proof of the influence of Qumran literature on early Karaism. The picture of the Caves Sect as presented here is sketchy in the extreme. Although the discovery of its writings in caves, its prohibition against laughter, and its calendar would seem to point to a connection between the Qumran Sect and the Caves Sect, its theology, as presented in our sources, does not necessarily imply such a connection. At this stage of the research, we are inclined not to accept Qirqisānī’s sharp distinction between the Sadducean Sect and the Caves Sect. It would appear that, in the final analysis, despite the confusion in our sources, the Caves Sect was synonymous with the Qumran Sect, just as the Sadducean Sect in the Karaite sources was synonymous with the Qumran Sect. My conclusion is not contingent only on an examination of the sources cited in this chapter dealing specifically with 253

Above, n. 235. Above, nn. 239–240.

254

The Sadducees and the Caves Sect as Perceived by the Early Karaites

165

the Caves Sect, but rather stems from a more comprehensive perspective that shall be developed below. Below, we shall outline the key points of this perspective: a. According to our sources, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī was influenced by the Caves Sect’s theology. A study of some of his halakhot and his style of biblical exegesis reveal a similarity with those of the Qumran Sect255 This similarity supports the claim that the Caves Sect was identical to the Qumran Sect. b. The Muslim author al-Bīrūnī informs us that the Caves Sect maintained that the laws of the festivals pertained only to the Land of Israel.256 Below, we shall examine the halakhot of Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī, who was active in the second half of the ninth century. These halakhot show that he was a faithful disciple of the Qumran Sect. Under the Sect’s influence, he interpreted the requirement to observe the festivals as incumbent only upon those who resided in the Land of Israel. c. Benjamin’s halakhot are similar to those of Mīshawayh on the subject of desired meat. We refer to two halakhot in which Benjamin deviated from the norm: (1) the requirement to erect a ‘stone altar’ for the slaughter of desired meat; (2) the requirement to cover the blood of desired meat with earth. The first of these laws appears to shed light on Qumran law, while the second is mentioned explicitly in the Temple Scroll.257 The similarity between the halakhot of Benjamin and Mīshawayh, who was a faithful disciple of the Qumran Sect, and the influence of Qumran laws on Benjamin, support our supposition that the Caves Sect, which according to the sources influenced Benjamin, was indeed the Qumran Sect. In the next chapter, we shall discuss Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī’s doctrine. Within this context, Benjamin’s unique halakhot relating to the issue of desired meat will be raised for discussion.

255 See above, Ch. 1, nn. 270–272. Below, Ch. 3, nn. 521–536. On further similarities between Benjamin’s halakha and Qumran halakha, see Baumgarten, ‘Mei Nidah’, pp. 481–485. 256 Above, n. 231. See, also, Maqdisī’s comments, above, n. 168. 257 Below, Ch. 3, nn. 412–464, 521–536.

Chapter Three Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī – The Doctrine of an Extremist Mourner of Zion

Introduction The previous chapter taught us about the ancient literature available to the Karaites, as they themselves testified. I suggested there that the literature that was ascribed to the ‘Sadducees’ and the ‘Caves Sect’ was in fact Qumran literature. This chapter focuses on the doctrine of Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī, who was active in the second half of the ninth century. His works are not extant, and only a few of his halakhic rulings were preserved in Karaite works. These works are hostile to Mīshawayh and give no clue as to the sources from which he drew his laws. A careful study of these laws reveals a similarity with the laws of the ‘Qumran Sect’, and even sheds light on obscure aspects of these laws. It is worth digressing here in order to say a few words about how remnants of Qumran law can be discerned in Karaite discourse. Revel, who studied early Karaite law, and collected later Karaite works written in Hebrew, concluded that there was no connection whatsoever between their laws and those of the Damascus Covenant that was discovered in the Geniza.1 Since Revel, more Qumran scrolls have come to light, and we are able to deduce the laws of the Karaite Mourners of Zion from their own works, namely, from their commentaries on the Scriptures and books of precepts, that were usually written in Judaeo-Arabic. However, had we had to rely simply on a condensation of Yefet ben ʿEli’s laws based on his works, we would have reached the same conclusion as Revel, namely, that the laws of the Mourners of Zion have little in common with Qumran law. Fortunately, Yefet ben ʿEli’ bequeathed to Revel, ‘Inquiry’ (3), pp. 352–359.

1

168

Chapter Three

us not only his own laws, but also the variegated halakhic discourse of the Mourner circles. Inter alia, he took issue with Mīshawayh’s laws. A study of Mīshawayh’s laws shows that they are rooted in Qumran law. The need of Yefet and others like him to take issue with Mīshawayh’s doctrine, which was based on Qumran law, testifies to the extent to which the Mourners were exposed to this law. While, for reasons that shall be clarified below, the main faction had reservations about adopting most of the Qumran laws with which it was acquainted, marginal circles, such as Mīshawayh’s, adopted many Qumran laws. We know very little about Mīshawayh’s laws, and nothing about his theological doctrine. Nonetheless, a study of his laws reveals a guiding principle that sheds some light on the doctrine that turned many of the Karaite Mourners of Zion into his enemies. Mīshawayh argued that the biblical commandments were commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel, that were not relevant in the Diaspora. He therefore exempted diasporic Jews from observing them. This conclusion was based on a study of the journeys of the Israelites in the desert. Just as the generation of the desert [‫ ]דור המדבר‬was exempt from observing the commandments, since they were not resident in the Land of Israel, so were the diasporic Jews of his times exempted from observing the commandments. Obviously, those adopting this principle did not believe in the possibility of Jewish existence in the Diaspora, but anticipated an imminent messianic redemption, in which the Diaspora would be destroyed and the entire nation would be gathered in its land. When such an expectation of redemption was not fulfilled, and the diasporic Jews refrained from observing the commandments over a long period, assimilation was inevitable. Mīshawayh’s conversion to Christianity toward the end of his life is proof of this process.2 In light of Mīshawayh’s total negation of Jewish existence in the Diaspora, I have called him ‘an extremist Mourner of Zion’, unlike his opponents, whom I termed ‘moderate Mourners of Zion’. The latter, who witnessed the separation of Mīshawites from the Jewish people and law, harshly condemned Mīshawayh. Before going on to analyze Mīshawayh’s doctrine, we shall present the little that is known about him.3 2 Gil, ‘Antiquities’, pp. 94–95, claims that the Jewish sects during the Geonic period were in fact Judeo-Christians and includes Mīshawayh among these sects. But from Tobias ben Moses’s writings, it is clear that Mīshawayh converted to Christianity toward the end of his life. See below, n. 14. 3 See Gil’s summary, Gil, Jews, I, § 154.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

169

We know from Qirqisānī that Mīshawayh was active after Ismāʿīl alʿUkbarī.4 Since the latter was active in the first half of the ninth century, Mīshawayh must have been active in the second half of that century. As far as his name is concerned, some posit a similarity to the Persian name ‘Mīsha’, or ‘Moses’.5 Qirqisānī called him ‘Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī’ after ʿUkbara near Baghdad,6 while Judah Hadassi and Tobias ben Moses called him ‘Baalbeki’, after the city of Baalbek in the upper Bekaa Valley of Lebanon.7 Scholars all agree that these two names refer to the same person,8 and simply testify that at one point Mīshawayh moved from one city to the other. The discussion concerning his first and subsequent places of settlement became an integral part of the discussion regarding the emergence of the sects in the Geonic period. Poznanski maintains that Mīshawayh emigrated to ʿUkbara, since only Babylonia constituted fertile ground for the founding of his sect.9 Ankori, the first to note the influence of Qumran on Mīshawayh, claimed that Mīshawayh elaborated his doctrine in ʿUkbara in Babylonia. However according to him, after the death of the sect’s founder, his disciples emigrated to Baalbek, and that is why Mīshawayh was called ‘Baalbeki’. According to Ankori, the disciples’ emigration should be placed in a broader framework. In the ninth century, the status of the sects in Babylonia began to decline, due to intensified pressure by the heads of the Rabbanite Academies. As a result, many sects were forced to leave Babylonia in search of new pastures. Most left after the death of their founder, bound for Syria Palestine, Egypt and even Armenia. They chose areas that had broken away Qirqisānī, p. 14. Goldziher, ‘Mélanges’, p. 8, n. 1. Maqdisī, Badāʾ, IV, p. 34, mentions Abū Mūsa al-Baghdādī al-ʿUkbarī. He differed from all Jews in his attitude to the Sabbath and his commentary on the Torah. Given that al-ʿUkbarī’s first name in this source is Mūsa, should we attribute these words to Mīshawayh rather than to Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī? On the latter, see Qirqisānī, pp. 56–57. Gil, Jews, I, § 153. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 3, p. 375, does not differentiate between Abū Mūsa al-Baghdādī al-ʿUkbarī and Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī. According to him, both led the ‘ʿUkbarīyya sect’. 6 Qirqisānī, p. 14. Both Aaron ben Elijah and Elijah Bashyaṣi, who were later sources, called him ʿUkbarī, after ʿUkbara, near Baghdād. On ʿUkbara, see Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-Buldān, 3, 705. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica, pp. 452–456. 7 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 42a: ‘History of the religion of Mīshawayh Baalbeki, from the town of Baalbek’. Tobias ben Moses sometimes also calls him ʿUkbarī. 8 For example, Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, I, p. 43. 9 Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, pp. 152–163. Markon, ‘Karäertum’, (14) pp. 26–27, agrees and adds that Mīshawayh became the leader of the Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī sect, after the latter passed away. Note that according to Qirqisānī, p. 14, Mīshawites were still active in ʿUkbara even at the time he wrote his book in the first half of the tenth century. 4 5

170

Chapter Three

from the Abbāsid caliphate, so as to prevent the Rabbanite leadership in Baghdad from turning the authorities against them. Ankori even found a common denominator between Daniel al-Qūmisī’s emigration to Palestine and Mīshawayh’s to Baalbek, and claims, like Mann, that the Karaites’ immigration to Palestine in the second half the ninth century was a consequence of the dominion of the House of Aḥmad Ibn Ṭūlūn over Egypt, Syria and Palestine.10 According to Ankori, immediately after their liberation from the Rabbanite yoke in Babylonia, the Mīshawites abandoned the Rabbanite calendar that had been imposed on them in Babylonia, and used the solar calendar adopted by their founder. However, even in their new place of settlement, they could not entirely liberate themselves from the shackles of their Babylonian heritage, and therefore continued to determine the dates of festivals by the Rabbanite calendar.11 Ben‑Shammai claims, like Ankori, that they migrated to Baalbek, but for entirely different reasons. According to him, Babylonia was not exposed to the influence of Qumran literature, and this literature could only have reached the Mīshawites after they moved westward from Babylonia, when some of the Qumran scrolls were discovered in the Judean desert. Ben‑Shammai questions the influence of Qumran in Baalbek, too. According to him, the solar calendar attributed to Mīshawayh has no bearing on Jewish sectarian history and tells us nothing about the Karaites or the precursors of Karaism.12 The available sources teach us that the sects operating in the Geonic period were influenced by Islam and leaned toward syncretism. An extreme example of this trend was Abū ʿĪsā of Iṣfahān who believed in the prophecies Ankori, Karaites, pp. 381–382, mentions the migration of the ʿĪsāwites to Damascus and the migration of members of the Mūsa al-Zaʿafrānī sect to Tiflīs. He does not specify a date for the migration of the Mīshawites. On Mann’s hypothesis concerning the connection between the immigration of the Karaites to Palestine and the sovereignty of the House of Aḥmad Ibn Ṭūlūn over Palestine, see above, Ch. 1, n. 432. 11 Ankori, Karaites, pp. 383–384, 394–495. He bases himself on the words of Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, Bodl. MS. Opp 26 (01–255), f. 76a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 184: ‘And I did not compare him to Jeroboam because he was a great, wise and valiant person like Jeroboam, but because he sinned deliberately and led others astray, like Jeroboam, who led Israel astray, and to this day, his sins remain among the Jews, such as the computation of the calendar, the leap year, deferments, and the like’. It is well known that the Karaites ascribed the doctrine of the Rabbanites to Jeroboam, and in my opinion, here too Tobias ascribes the Rabbanite calendar to Jeroboam, not to Mīshawayh. On the attribution of the Rabbanite Torah to Jeroboam, see below, Ch. 4, nn. 357–363. According to our sources, Mīshawayh adopted the Rabbanite or Karaite calendar in the Diaspora. On his explanation of why he did so, see below, nn. 45–46. 12 Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’, p. 76. 10

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

171

of Jesus and Mohammed as well as Moses.13 The available sources tell us nothing about Islam’s influence on Mīshawayh. On the other hand, Tobias ben Moses teaches us that Mīshawayh converted to Christianity toward the end of his life: ‘Will this incompetent stand alongside Matthew, John, Paul, and Luke […] because, false prophets that he is, he worshipped three deities in his old age […] and this incompetent sold his honour for three dead entities’.14 Research into Mīshawayh and his doctrine began in earnest with the publication of the first comprehensive monograph by Poznanski in 1897. Although this monograph could not, naturally, relate to the issue of the relationship between Mīshawayh and Qumran literature, it is still standard reading. Poznanski based his monograph mainly on the polemic of the eleventh-century Karaite, Tobias ben Moses, in his book Oṣar Neḥmad.15 After the discovery of the Qumran scrolls, it became imperative to review Mīshawayh’s doctrine in light of this discovery. Ankori was the one who undertook this assignment. In his book Karaites in Byzantium he pointed to the influence of Qumran literature on Mīshawayh’s doctrine, particularly in relation to the calendar.16 At the same time, Ankori noted the essential difference between the Karaites and Mīshawayh. Whereas the Karaites, who were loyal to the Scriptures, tried to resolve the contradictions they encountered in them, Mīshawayh was critical toward them. This critical approach, familiar to us from the school of Ḥīwī al-Balkhī, led him to abolish many commandments.17 In my research, I reached the conclusion that Mīshawayh’s doctrine was rooted in Karaism, which was originally pluralistic. Indeed, Mīshawayh’s claim that his contemporaries in the Diaspora were not obliged to keep many commandments was not prompted by his critical Qirqisānī, p. 52. On the doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā’, see Wasserstrom, ‘ʿĪsāwiyya’, pp. 57–80; Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 162–199. 14 Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, Bodl. MS. Opp 26 (01–255), f. 75b. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 182. Ankori, Karaites, pp. 402–404, 415, maintains, based on the fact that Qirqisānī did not know of Mīshawayh’s conversion to Christianity, that it was not he who converted, but rather his followers in Byzantium. Pines, ‘Jewish Christians’, pp. 280–281, holds that Mīshawayh’s conversion was absolute, and that he did not belong to the Jewish Christians. Pines and Shaked, in a paper they co-authored, ‘Fragment’, pp. 317–318, attempted to show that Mīshawayh was a Jewish Christian, but there is no testimony to this effect. Baron, History, V, pp. 196–197, deduced from the expression ‘he worshipped three deities’ that Mīshawayh believed in the Jewish God, in Jesus, and in Muḥammad. 15 Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, pp. 161–191. 16 Ankori, Karaites, pp. 376, 378–379. 17 Ankori, Karaites, pp. 408–409. On Ḥīwī al-Balkhī’s critique of the Bible in light of Saʿadia Gaon’s polemic against him, see Davidson, Ḥiwi. 13

172

Chapter Three

approach, but rather by his belief that these were commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel. In the final analysis, the abolition of the commandments distanced the Mīshawites from the Karaite movement. For a full understanding of Mīshawayh’s doctrine it is not enough to simply relating to the influence of Qumran literature on him. We must also consider his doctrine in the context of the times in which he operated. Like the Karaites, he deviated somewhat from the Qumran doctrine, either because it did fit in with his doctrine, or because he was not fully conversant with it.

Mīshawayh’s Laws The Solar Calendar As has already been pointed out, one of the proofs of the similarity between Mīshawayh and the ‘Qumran sect’ was the solar calendar.18 Indeed, Mīshawayh’s calendar had certain elements that were characteristic of the solar calendar: (1) The day began at daybreak.19 (2) The festivals fell on a fixed date and on fixed days of the week (but Mīshawayh did not follow this principle with respect to the Pentecost festival).20 (3) According to the solar calendar, the festivals could not fall on the Sabbath, and therefore the additional sacrifices of the festivals were never brought on the Sabbath. As we shall see below, Mīshawayh emphasized the sanctity of the Sabbath, and forbade even the Sabbath offering. The Day Begins in the Morning According Tobias ben Moses, Mīshawayh held that the day began at daybreak: ‘And he said “on the day of his offering” (Leviticus 7.15), from which we learn two things: (1) That it referred to a complete day (24 hours) and that this day begins in the morning and ends at the beginning

See above, n. 16. There is controversy among researchers as to when the day began in the solar calendar of the Qumran sect. On the bibliography on this subject, and on Talmon’s supposition that the day began in the morning, see Talmon, ‘Calendar’, pp. 386–387. 20 Regarding the festivals in the lunar calendar, the author of the Book of Jubilees 6.37, says: ‘and will make a day of testimony something worthless and a profane day a festival. Everyone will join together, both holy and profane, for they will err regarding the months and Sabbaths, the festival and the jubilees’. 18 19

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

173

of the morning’.21 Mīshawayh based his opinion that the day began at daybreak not only on the passage about the sacrifices, but first and foremost on the passage about the creation: ‘And know, our brethren, that there has never arisen in Israel anyone who maintained that days are from morning to morning, both in respect of the days of creation and in respect of the days of the sacrifices, and that Scriptures never refers to days from evening to evening’.22 Mīshawayh adduced further testimony that the day began in the morning from the passage on the Manna: ‘The second claim of this incompetent is that he said: “Tomorrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sabbath unto the Lord” (Exodus 16.23), proving that the days were from morning to morning’.23 The Festivals Fall on Fixed Days of the Month and Week In Mīshawayh’s calendar, the Passover festival falls on a Thursday, to ensure that the Day of Atonement falls on the Sabbath. According to him, the expression “a Sabbath of solemn rest” [‫( ]שבת שבתון‬Leviticus 23.32) teaches us that the Day of Atonement must fall on the Sabbath: He further argued that the Passover must always fall on a Thursday, so that the Day of Atonement falls on the Sabbath, since Scriptures states: “A Sabbath of solemn rest” (Leviticus 23.32) and that is the seventh day of the week. He believed that Scriptures here refers to two days of rest, one of them the Sabbath and the other, the Day of Atonement.24 21 Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, Bodl. MS. Opp 26 (01–255), f. 76a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 138. Tobias himself, like his predecessor Daniel al-Qūmisī, did not deny that the days of the sacrifices began in the morning, but that the festivals began in the evening. See Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, Bodl. MS. Opp 26 (01–255), ff. 77b-78a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 189. 22 See Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, Bodl. MS. Opp 26 (01–255), f. 76a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 184. See Bornstein’s discussion, ‘Calendrical computations’, pp. 304–305. 23 Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, Bodl. MS. Opp 26 (01–255), f. 77b. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 188. Daniel al-Qūmisī also inferred from the passage on the Manna that the days began in the morning. However, as stated, the festivals, in his opinion, began in the evening. See his Commentary to Leviticus 7.15, MS. TS 16.316, f. 2a, in Schechter, Saadyana, p. 146: ‘“shall be eaten on the day of his offering”’ (Leviticus 7.15). The day is from evening to evening concerning the Sabbaths and festivals and months, and days of impurity, and all the days of counting. The days of the sacrifices for the peace offerings, on the other hand, are from morning to morning […] because the day is not counted from the night for the sacrifices and Manna. Therefore, the verse says in connection with the Manna: “and gather a day’s portion every day” (Exodus 16.4), and that was the quantity they needed from morning to morning’. 24 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 42a; Qirqisānī, p. 58. Poznanski, ‘Philon’, p. 18, n. 3, originally argued that the festival of Passover must fall on a Tuesday, but later revoked this.

174

Chapter Three

According to Hoenig, in the calendar of Jubilees that served the ‘Qumran sect’, the New Year – 1 Nisan – fell on a Thursday. According to him, we would have expected the New Year to fall on a Wednesday, which was the day the sun and moon were created. However, since in the solar calendar the day begins in the morning, the author of Jubilees began counting the days from Thursday, after both the sun and moon had set.25 In the solar calendar, in which 1 Nisan falls on Thursday, 15 Nisan, the first day of the unleavened bread, falls on a Thursday, and 10 Tishrei, the Day of Atonement, always falls on the Sabbath. In effect, Hoenig made an important contribution toward understanding Mīshawayh’s calendar, rather than the Jubilees calendar, whose New Year – 1 Nisan – fell on a Wednesday, and whose Day of Atonement always fell on a Friday.26 At the same time, Hoenig pointed out the great similarity between the solar calendar of the Book of Jubilees and Mīshawayh’s calendar. In both, the festivals fall on fixed days of the week and not only on fixed days of the month, and in both, the new year begins in Nisan, not Tishrei. The Prohibition on Bringing the Sabbath Offering on the Sabbath The sources pointed out that Mīshawayh totally forbade bringing a sacrifice on the Sabbath, including the Sabbath offering. According to him, the expression ‘the burnt offering of every Sabbath’ (Numbers 28.10), meant ‘the Sabbath offering for its Sabbath’. In other words, they had to bring the Sabbath sacrifice ‘before the Sabbath, for the Sabbath’: On the Sabbath they were not obliged to bring offerings of expiation and atonement for sins of the soul and the heart, like the sinner’s offerings, according to the Law of your God, as it says: ‘the burnt offering of every Sabbath’ (Numbers 28.10). He interpreted this as meaning: ‘before the Sabbath, for the Sabbath’.27

We already saw above that one of the characteristics of the solar calendar is that the festivals, which fall on fixed days of the week, never fall on the Sabbath. Thus, the inventor of this calendar never had to deal with issues such as whether the festival sacrifices took precedence over the Sabbath. According to the Damascus Covenant, even the daily sacrifice was not brought on the Sabbath, and Qumran circles excluded the intermediate Sabbath from the Tabernacles and Passover festivals, Hoenig, ‘Jubilees Calendar’, pp. 195–196. Jaubert, ‘Calendrier’, p. 253. 27 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 42a; Qirqisānī, p. 58. 25

26

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

175

so as not to have to bring the offerings of the intermediate days on the Sabbath.28 It follows that Mīshawayh took Qumran law even further, by forbidding the Sabbath offering on the Sabbath.29 Below we shall see that he was consistent in prohibiting sacrifices on the Sabbath, as long as this issue was relevant. The prohibition on bringing the Sabbath offering on the Sabbath may have made it easier for those Mīshawites who made a point of observing the Sabbath in the Diaspora. According to Qirqisānī, abolition of the Sabbath in the Diaspora was an inevitable outcome of the abolition of the festivals in the Diaspora, as prescribed by the laws of the Mīshawite extremists, on the grounds that they pertained to the Land of Israel and the Temple only. Since the Sabbath is dependent on the Sabbath offering, abolition of the Sabbath offering was tantamount to abolishing the Sabbath, as the Yūdghānites had done.30 His distinction between the Yūdghānites and Mīshawites indicates that the Mīshawites observed the Sabbath. According to Qirqisānī, this observance was based on the verse in Exodus 31.16: ‘to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations’.31 One cannot rule out the possibility, however, that Mīshawayh’s directive that the Sabbath offering was to be brought before the Sabbath, made it easier for him and his followers to observe the commandments relating to the Sabbath in the Diaspora.32 Above, Ch. 2, nn. 45–63. Ankori, Karaites, p. 412, n. 154, is of the view that even Mīshawayh’s discussion about the Sabbath offering was an attempt to highlight the contradictions in the Bible. Zucker, ‘Controversy’, pp. 183–188, maintained that Mīshawayh forbade the Sabbath offering on the Sabbath in light of the halakha (which Qirqisānī attributes to an ʿAnanite) stating that if Scriptures wishes to make an exception, the exception must be juxtaposed to the rule. For example, the verse in Exodus 12.16, instructs: ‘no manner of work shall be done in them’. This is immediately followed by the exception: ‘save that which every man must eat, that only may be done by you’. According to Zucker, Mīshawayh believed that bringing a offering on the Sabbath (Numbers 28.10) was an exception to the rule forbidding all work on the Sabbath. Since, however, this exception was not juxtaposed to the rule, it was forbidden to bring the Sabbath offering on the Sabbath. Qirqisānī himself brought the Sabbath offering (Numbers 28.10) as proof that the ʿAnanite’s principle was incorrect. The Sabbath offering, an excerption to the rule forbidding work on the Sabbath, is brought on the Sabbath even though it is not juxtaposed to the rule forbidding work on the Sabbath. See Qirqisānī, pp. 397, 1156–1157. 30 Qirqisānī, p. 876. On Yūdghān, and his abolition of the festivals and the Sabbath in the Diaspora, see Qirqisānī, p. 53. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 97, 40c: ‘They forbid meat and wine, and institute many fasts and prayers and say that the Sabbath and festival are not applicable in these times’. 31 Qirqisānī, p. 876. The Karaites of Baṣra, Mīshawayh’s mentors, were also meticulous about observing the sanctity of the Sabbath. See Qirqisānī, p. 63. 32 The Mīshawites argued that the Sabbath was not conditional on residing in the Land of Israel or on commandments pertaining to the land. See Qirqisānī, p. 876. 28 29

176

Chapter Three

The Date of the Pentecost Festival The Mīshawites were concerned with two issues relating to the Pentecost festival. First, the date of the Pentecost festival, and second, the question of whether the Pentecost festival was to be observed in their times. In this section we shall focus on the first issue.33 At the beginning of the section that Qirqisānī devoted to the laws of the Pentecost festival, he pointed out that the Rabbanites were the only ones to celebrate it on 6 Sivan on any day of the week. Other sects throughout the generations celebrated the festival on a Sunday only.34 As stated, there was no unanimity in the camp that observed the festival on a Sunday only. According to the Qumran method, the day of the Waving of the Omer always fell on Sunday, 26 Nisan, that is, on the Sunday after the seven days of unleavened bread. It follows that the date of the Pentecost festival, which was celebrated fifty days later, was also on a Sunday, this time 15 Sivan, the date of the covenant between God and Abraham, according to the Book of Jubilees (Jubilees 15.1– 22).35 The Karaites, who followed in the footsteps of the Boethusians and Sadducees referred to in the Talmudic literature, claimed that the Pentecost festival had no fixed date. According to them, the day of the Waving of the Omer fell on the Sunday of the feast of unleavened bread, in light of the verse in Leviticus 23.15: ‘from the morrow after the day of rest’. Since this day had no fixed date, it follows that the Pentecost festival, which was celebrated on a Sunday, had no fixed date either, but fell somewhere in the month of Sivan.36 It transpires that the method adopted by Mīshawayh, who on this issue followed the ancient Karaites from Baṣra, differed from the two aforementioned methods. According to Leviticus 23.15, the Omer was to be counted from the day it was brought ‘from the morrow after the day of rest’. We learn of another counting from the verse in Deuteronomy’s 16.9: ‘from the time the sickle is first put to the standing corn’. Leviticus 23.10 states: ‘and shall reap the harvest thereof, then shall ye bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest’. Neither of these On the observance of the Pentecost festival, see below, nn. 154–161. Qirqisānī, p. 852. In this paragraph, Qirqisānī ignores the rule that the Pentecost festival cannot fall on a Tuesday, Thursday, or Saturday. See above, Ch. 2, n. 64. 35 On the dates of the Waving of the Omer and the Pentecost festival in Qumran, see above, Ch. 2, n. 70. According to the Book of Jubilees, Ch. 6, God made a covenant with Noah on 1 Nisan, and Noah was the first to celebrate the Pentecost festival. On this contradiction, see Noack, ‘Day of Pentecost’, pp. 81–84. 36 Above, Ch. 2, nn. 65–68. 33

34

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

177

two verses specifies a date.37 Therefore, Mīshawayh deduced that the date of the bringing of the Omer (which was brought on a Sunday) was contingent on the time of the reaping of the harvest, which itself was contingent on nature. Consequently, the reaping of the harvest could fall before, during, or even after the Passover festival.38 Mīshawayh concluded that the date of the Waving of the Omer was not dependent on the Passover festival at all, but was determined solely by the ripening of the harvest. Qirqisānī’s polemic against the Karaites of Baṣra, Mīshawayh’s mentors, shows that according to their method, the reaping of the harvest began on the same day as the Waving of the Omer (Sunday).39 Unlike the Qumran method, Mīshawayh’s method did not postulate a fixed date for the Pentecost festival.40 Qirqisānī teaches us that, in the final analysis, Mīshawayh followed the Karaite custom on this matter.41 37 On the difference between these two countings and its significance, see Henshke ‘Counting of the Omer’, pp. 434–435. 38 The Karaites deduced from ‘Joshua’s Passover’, that a distinction could be drawn between the day of the reaping of the Omer and the day of the Waving of the Omer. In his Commentary on Joshua 5.11, MS. BL. Or. 2402, f. 40a, Yefet teaches us that they reaped it on Friday 13 Nisan. The Omer was then waved on Sunday 15 Nisan. See Qirqisānī, p. 855. For a calendar of events on ‘Joshua’s Passover’, see Qirqisānī, p. 867. On the Rabbinic Sages’ method of merging the day of reaping the Omer with the day of the Waving of the Omer, see Mishnah, Menaḥot, 10.3. 39 Qirqisānī, pp. 869–870. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts, MS. Oxford, f. 60b, brings a ruling that resembles Mīshawayh’s, but which distinguishes between the day of reaping the Omer and the day of the Waving of the Omer: ‘It may sometimes fall before, sometimes during, and sometimes after (the seven days of unleavened bread), since the date depends on the reaping. Whenever the reaping takes place, the sacrifice is brought the following Sunday’. 40 On the method of Mīshawayh and his mentors from Baṣra, see Qirqisānī, pp. 57–58, 62, 852, 868. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 42a: ‘The Pentecost festival falls on a Sunday, but one never knows which Sunday. This is the ruling also of the Karaites of Baṣra’. Ankori, Karaites, p. 377, n. 56, mistakenly held that Mīshawayh determined the date of the Pentecost festival according to the method of Jubilees. Mann also misunderstood Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī’s method. See Mann, ‘Theological-Polemical Work’, p. 424, n. 33. Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, in Harkavy, Zikhron, I, 8, p. 176, states: ‘If the barley is ready to be reaped in the month of Nisan, so that the Omer sacrifice can be brought during the seven days of unleavened bread, it is a regular year’. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies, II, p. 494, deduced from the above that according to Benjamin’s method, the day of the waving of the Omer could fall before or after the days of unleavened bread. In actual fact, Benjamin was discussing here the intercalation of the calendar. In the solar calendar that Mīshawayh observed, the possibility of intercalation, depending on the situation of the barley harvest, did not exist. 41 Qirqisānī, p. 58, where it states that he followed the ‘ jamāʿa’ (literally: group, community) method. If Mīshawayh did indeed maintain that the Pentecost festival always fell on a Sunday, then he followed the Karaite method. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 164, n. 7, translates ‘ jamāʿa’ as ‘Rabbanites’, as Harkavy did before him, but does

178

Chapter Three

Below are some of the proofs that the Mīshawites and their followers invoked to show that the day of the Waving of the Omer was independent of the Passover festival. a. The Karaites maintained, like the Sadducees referred to in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages, that the ‘morrow after the day of rest’ (Leviticus 23.15) must be included in the Passover festival, because the scriptural passage preceding the passage on the Waving of the Omer discusses the Passover festival. According to the Mīshawites, however, the verse ‘and the Lord spoke unto Moses’ (Leviticus 23.9), with which the passage on the Waving of the Omer begins, effectively separates these two passages. Therefore, there was no need for the Waving of the Omer to take place during the feast of unleavened bread.42 b. Had the commandment of the Waving on the Omer been included in the feast of unleavened bread only, the section dealing with the commandments of the feast of unleavened bread would have stated: ‘beside the waving of the Omer’, since every festival that specifies a special offering in addition to the regular sacrifice, states: ‘beside’. For example, on the New Year, the verse states, in addition to the special sacrifice for this holiday: ‘beside the burnt offering of the new moon, and the meal offering thereof ’ (Numbers 29.6).43 c. The expression ‘the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest’ (Leviticus 23.10), testifies that the counting of the Omer was contingent on nature only.44 We see from the above that there was a world of difference between the fluid date of the Pentecost festival in Mīshawayh’s doctrine and the fixed date of the festival in the Qumran doctrine. The only common denominator between the two sects was that the day of the Waving on the Omer and the day of the Pentecost festival could fall only on a Sunday. One cannot rule out the possibility that proofs a. and b. above, which, according to the Mīshawites, point to a clear separation between the not rule out the possibility that in this particular case, Qirqisānī was referring to the Karaites. As we shall see below, there were Mīshawites who abolished the Pentecost festival in the Diaspora. On the ‘ jamāʿa’, see also below, n. 45. 42 Qirqisānī, p. 869. The Book of Jubilees distinguishes between the Passover festival and the Pentecost festival, except that there, as stated, the Pentecost festival fell on a fixed date. See Noack, ‘Day of Pentecost’, p. 82. 43 Qirqisānī, pp. 873–874. 44 Qirqisānī, p. 870.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

179

passage on the seven days of unleavened bread and the passage on the Waving of the Omer, originated in sectarian circles from the Second Temple period. This separation is evident in the Book of Jubilees which links the Pentecost festival to Noah and Abraham. As stated, the Qumran sect also divorced the day of the Waving of the Omer from the feast of unleavened bread. Despite the fact that we see, from the sources, that Mīshawayh’s doctrine was methodical, he questioned other issues apart from the date of the Pentecost festival. According to Qirqisānī, he also had doubts concerning the way of determining the first day of the month. Despairing of ever reaching the truth, he called on his followers to act according to the communal convention (ijmāʿ) (which may have been the Karaite or Rabbanite convention).45 No method was entirely to his taste. As he himself put it: ‘All the coins are defective (suhūla), therefore hold fast to the dross in your hands’.46 The Abolition of the Festivals in the Diaspora Based on the Consecration of the Tabernacle and ‘Passover in the Desert’ The sources have preserved Mīshawayh’s discussions of the complex issues relating to the consecration of the tabernacle. Among these issues is that of ‘Passover in the desert’ (Numbers 9). Mīshawayh adopted the solar calendar, in which the festivals never fall on the Sabbath, rendering the issue of festival sacrifices on the Sabbath irrelevant. It is, therefore, not surprising that Mīshawayh argued, against the Rabbinic Sages, that the special offerings marking the consecration of the altar in the tabernacle were deferred by the Sabbath. As already stated, Mīshawayh held that many commandments were obsolete in the Diaspora, based on the journeys of the Israelites in the desert. Inter alia, he abolished the seven days of unleavened bread, on the grounds that this commandment was not observed during the ‘Passover of the desert’. Four issues require consideration in connection with the consecration of the tabernacle: (1) When did the days of consecration [‫ימי‬ ‫ ]המילואים‬begin? (2) When was the daily sacrifice [‫ ]עולת התמיד‬first brought? (3) When did the princes [‫ ]נשיאים‬bring their offerings? and According to Ankori, he followed the Rabbanite calendar, but there is no conclusive proof to this effect. Zucker, Targum, p. 159, also held this view. See above, n. 11. 46 Qirqisānī, p. 58. Gil’s translation, Gil, Jews, I, p. 247. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 42a, misunderstand this statement: ‘He also entertained doubts about determining the new months, and did not clearly know which method to follow. He further instructed that it was permitted to inspect gold coins on holy days in order to raise one’s spirits’. 45

180

Chapter Three

(4) ‘Passover of the desert’. We shall discuss Mīshawayh’s method after first presenting the position of the Rabbinic Sages, the Karaites and Abraham Ibn Ezra on these issues. The Rulings of the Rabbinic Sages Beginning and End of the Days of Consecration [‫]ימי המילואים‬ Scriptures teaches us that the tabernacle was erected in the second year following the exodus from Egypt, on the first day of the first month, that is to stay, 1 Nisan (Exodus 40.2; 40.17). The consecration of the tabernacle lasted seven days, known as the days of consecration (Exodus 29.35; Leviticus 8.33). The Rabbinic Sages maintain that during those days, Moses brought the consecration offerings: ‘All during the seven day of consecration, Moses officiated’.47 Only after the seven days of consecration did the regular tabernacle service begin, under the aegis of Aaron the priest (Leviticus 9.1). When did the days of consecration begin and end? According to the literal text, they began on 1 Nisan – the day the tabernacle was erected. But according to the Rabbinic Sages, the days of consecration began on 23 Adar and ended on 29 Adar. During these days the tabernacle was erected daily. Moses brought the consecration offerings, the tabernacle was then dismantled, and the following day erected anew. Since the days of consecration lasted an entire week, the question of whether the consecration offerings deferred the Sabbath is pertinent. According to the Rabbinic Sages, Moses brought the consecration offerings on the Sabbath too. The Sabbath was included therefore in the seven days beginning on 23 Adar and ending on 29 Adar: ‘And it came to pass that on the day Moses had made an end to setting up the tabernacle’ (Numbers 7.1). This verse teaches us that during these seven days of consecration, Moses erected the tabernacle, and each morning anointed it and dismantled it […] We learn from this that the anointment of Aaron and his sons and of the tabernacle and its vessels began on 23 Adar, and that the tabernacle was erected on the first day of the month.48 Sifra, Shemīnī, 1.14 (Schlossberg edition), f. 44b. So, too, the Karaite Jacob ben Reuben, in Sefer ha-ʿOsher, Commentary to Numbers 8.2 (MS Leiden, Warner 8), f. 62a: ‘Know that Moses burnt upon (the altar) on the seven days of consecration, and Aaron and his son could not enter the Tent of Meeting’. 48 Sifre Numbers, Naso, 44 (Horovitz edition), p. 49. Sifre Zuta on Numbers 7.1 (Horovitz edition), p. 250: ‘And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an 47

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

181

Thus, according to the Rabbinic Sages, the day following the seven days of consecration was 1 Nisan. On that day, which was ‘the day Moses had made an end to setting up the tabernacle’ (Numbers 7.1), Nadab and Abihu, who brought strange fire, ‘which He had not commanded them’ (Leviticus 10.1) died. ‘On that selfsame day (1 Nisan, the day following the seven days of consecration), the sons of Aaron brought strange fire […] and they died before the Lord’.49 It was Mishael and Elṣaphan who dragged their bodies outside the camp (Leviticus 10.4–7), thereby defiling themselves for seven days (Numbers 19.11).50 The days of impurity ended, therefore, on 7 Nisan. There is a minority opinion among the Rabbinic Sages that those who were defiled by contact with the dead and were, therefore, unable to celebrate ‘Passover in the desert’ on 14 Nisan (Numbers 9.6–8), were Mishael and Elṣaphan. The majority opinion among the Rabbinic Sages is that they were Joseph’s pallbearers: ‘“But there were certain men, who were unclean by the dead body of a man” (Numbers 9.6) Who were they? They were Joseph’s pallbearers, according to Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva said: They were Mishael and Elṣaphan, who were defiled by Nadab and Abihu’.51 It follows that according to a minority opinion among the Rabbinic Sages, ascribed here to Rabbi Akiva, 1 Nisan was the first day of the consecration. According to this view, Mishael and Elṣaphan were defiled on the day following the consecration, namely, 8 Nisan.52 Therefore they were unable to celebrate the Passover festival, because on 14 Nisan they were still impure. Abraham Ibn Ezra who held this view, too, explains: end to setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed it’ (Numbers 7.1). I do not know if that was the day he began setting up the tabernacle, or the day he completed it. When it says: ‘on the day that Moses had made an end to setting up the tabernacle’ we know that this is not the day he began setting up the tabernacle, but the day he finished it’. Sifra, Shemīnī, 1 (Schlossberg edition), f. 43b, states: ‘And here it says “And it came to pass on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9.1). We do not know if this is the eight day of consecration, or the eighth of the month […] It was the eight day of the consecration, and not the eight day of the month. That day took ten crowns. The first day of the creation’. In other words, the tabernacle was erected on a Sunday. According to the Qumran method, 1 Nisan always falls on a Wednesday. The Targum credited to Jonathan ben Uziel on Leviticus 9.1 (Rieder edition), II, p. 146, states: ‘And it came to pass on the eighth day of the anointment of Aaron and his sons and on the eighth day of consecration, namely 1 Nisan, Moses set up the tabernacle and did not dismantle it, and no longer served on the altar, but called on Aaron and his sons and the elders of the Sanhedrin of Israel’. 49 Sifre Numbers, Naso, 44 (Horovitz edition), p. 49. 50 Mishnah, Ohalot 1.1: ‘A man who touches a corpse – is impure for seven days’. 51 Sifre Numbers, Be-haʿalotkha, 68 (Horovitz edition), p. 63. 52 See Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, p. 78, n. 5.

182

Chapter Three

‘We found in Sifre that Mishael and Elṣaphan were defiled by contact with corpses. Therefore, the eighth day of consecration is the eighth of the month’.53 The First Day of Bringing the Daily Sacrifice [‫]עולת תמיד‬ The bringing of the daily sacrifice signifies the initiation of regular service in the tabernacle. The Rabbinic Sages maintained that 1 Nisan, the day the tabernacle was first erected, was also the day after the seven days of consecration, and it was on this day that regular service in the tabernacle began: ‘The first day of priesthood, the first day of service’,54 that is to say, on that day the daily sacrifice was brought for the first time.55 The Megīllat Taʿanit (Fasting Scroll) notes that during the first eight days of the tabernacle, from 1 to 8 Nisan, the daily sacrifices were brought each day: ‘From 1 to 8 Nisan, the daily sacrifices were brought’.56 According to this view, the daily sacrifice was brought on the Sabbath, too.57 The Offerings of the Princes [‫]נשיאים‬ As part of the consecration of the tabernacle, the twelve princes of the tribes of Israel brought special sacrifices for twelve days (each day a different prince). The list of princes is specified in Numbers, chapter 7, which begins: ‘And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the tabernacle […] that the princes of Israel […] offered’ (Numbers 7.1–2). When did the princes’ offerings begin? The Rabbinic Sages say that it was 1 Nisan, which fell on a Sunday. Thus, the first day of the daily sacrifices coincided with the first day of the princes’ sacrifices ‘“And he that presented his offering the first day”’ (Numbers 7.12). The word “first” means the first day of the year’.58 ‘“And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the tabernacle was reared up” (Exodus 40.17) […] the first day of the creation, the first day of the princes’.59 According to the ruling of

Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 40.2. BT, Shabbat, 87b. 55 Rashi, BT, Shabbat, 87b, text beginning ‘first day of service’: ‘for the service of the daily communal sacrifices, and the other sacrifices financed by the Treasury’. 56 Megīllat Taʿanit, The First Date (Noam edition), p. 43. 57 See above, Ch. 2, n. 62. 58 Sifre Numbers, Naso, 44 (Horovitz edition), p. 49. See above, Sifra, n. 48. 59 BT, Shabbat 87b. Abraham Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Numbers 7.48, says: ‘And the deniers say that the beginning of the consecration was not on a Sunday’. 53

54

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

183

the Rabbinic Sages, the Sabbath defers sacrifices offered by individuals.60 Nevertheless, they maintained that the sacrifice of the seventh prince took precedence over the Sabbath. Therefore, the princes’ offerings ended on 12 Nisan: ‘“This was the offering of Naḥshon” (Numbers 7.17), this deferred the Sabbath and impurity, while no individual sacrifice defers the Sabbath or impurity’.61 At the same time, the Rabbinic Sages stressed that we cannot derive laws from the princes’ sacrifices, since this was not something that was practiced throughout the generations.62 ‘Passover in the Desert’[‫]פסח במדבר‬ According to Numbers, 9, the Israelites celebrated the Passover festival in the year in which the tabernacle was erected, namely, the second year after the Exodus from Egypt: ‘[…] in the first month of the second year after they were come out of the Land of Egypt, saying: “Let the children of Israel keep the Passover in the appointed season […]” (Numbers 9.1–2)’. This Passover became known as the ‘Passover of the desert’. The two questions that arise in connection with this Passover are: (1) How many times was Passover celebrated in the desert? (2) Did the ‘Passover in the desert’ include the seven days of unleavened bread? As far as the first question is concerned, the accepted opinion among the Rabbinic Sages is that the Israelites kept it only once, and were chastised for this, as we see from the verse in Amos 5.25: ‘The verse censures the Israelites for keeping only this one Passover, as it says: “Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the desert forty years?” (Amos 5.25)’.63 Mishnah, Temurah 2.6: ‘The sacrifices of the individual do not take precedence over the Sabbath or impurity’. 61 Sifre Numbers, Naso, 51 (Horovitz edition), p. 53. See also the discussion in BT, Moʿed Qatan, 9a. The scholium of Megīllat Taʿanit (Version P, Noam edition), p. 104, which discusses the festival of Ḥanukah, states: ‘And he that presented his offering the first day, and on the seventh day, the Sabbath, Ephraim’. These words are brought as proof of the seven days of consecration of the tabernacle. In the hybrid version, the verse in Leviticus 8.33 is mentioned. See Noam, Megīllat Taʿanit, pp. 268–270. See also Noam, ‘Miracle’, p. 384. 62 BT, Ḥagiga 6a: ‘Let us learn from the princes – one deduces something that has been practiced for generations from something that has been practiced for generations, and one does not deduce something that has been practiced for generations from something that has not been practiced for generations’. 63 Sifre Numbers, Be-haʿalotkha, 67 (Horovitz edition), p. 62. Another tradition claims that in the desert, the Levites brought sacrifices: ‘R. Simon ben Yoḥai says: The Israelites did not bring sacrifices. So who brought them? The Levites’; see Sifre Numbers, Be-haʿalotkha, 67 (Horovitz edition), p. 62. See Naḥmanides’ discussion in his Commentary on Numbers 9.1. 60

184

Chapter Three

As to the second question – whether ‘Passover in the desert’ included the seven days of unleavened bread – especially as there no specific scriptural reference to this effect, the Rabbinic Sages believed it did. The verse instructs the Israelites to keep the Passover ‘according to all the statutes of it, and according to all the ordinances thereof ’ (Numbers 9.3). The Rabbinic Sages interpreted the statutes as referring to the Passover sacrifice, and the ordinances to the seven days of unleavened bread: ‘“According to all its statutes” (Numbers 9.3), these are the commandments one performs on the body (of the sacrifice): “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year” (Exodus 12.5). “According to all the ordinances thereof” (Numbers 9.3), these are the commandments one performs without relationship to the body, such as the seven days of unleavened bread and the removal of leavened bread’.64 According to the Rabbinic Sages, the princes’ offerings bore no relationship to ‘Passover in the desert’, since we learnt that the princes finished bringing their sacrifices on 12 Nisan. Evidently the second date in the Megīllat Taʿanit (Fasting Scroll) was meant to designate that in ‘Passover in the desert’, the Israelites observed the seven days of unleavened bread: ‘From the eighth thereof until the close of the festival a holiday took place’.65 Karaite Law The Days of Consecration and the Inauguration of the Daily Sacrifices Unlike the Rabbinic Sages, the Karaites used the literal interpretation to unravel the verses relating to the days of consecration. The verse teaches us that the tabernacle was erected on 1 Nisan (Exodus 40.1, 17). Therefore, it was also the first the day of consecration. According to the Karaites, the Sabbath deferred the consecration offering. Therefore, the eighth day of consecration – the day on which the daily sacrifices commenced – fell on 9 Nisan, or 10 Nisan if 1 Nisan fell on a Sabbath, because in this case two days of consecration were deferred by two intervening Sabbaths. One can deduce Yefet ben ʿEli’s approach to the dating of the days of consecration from his discussion of the issue of those ‘unclean by the dead body of a man’, who were unable to observe the Passover at the Sifre Numbers, Be-haʿalotkha, 65 (Horovitz edition), p. 62. Megīllat Taʿanit, The Second Date (Noam edition), p. 59. According to the Scholium, the festival in question was the Pentecost festival. See Megīllat Taʿanit, The Second Date (Noam edition), pp. 174–175. See Erder, ‘First Date’, pp. 277–282. 64 65

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

185

correct time (Numbers 9.6–8). Like Rabbi Akiva, Yefet held that the ‘unclean people’ were Mishael and Elṣaphan, who became impure on the first day of regular tabernacle service. In Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, this day fell on 8 Nisan, the eighth day of consecration.66 Yefet, on the other hand, maintained that this day fell on 9 or 10 Nisan, since the consecration offering was postponed because of the Sabbath: ‘When he said “by the dead body of a man” (Numbers 9.6), these may have been Mishael and Elṣaphan, since they became defiled on the eighth day (of the consecration), which fell on the ninth or tenth of the month’.67 Yefet’s uncertainty as to when the days of consecration ended shows that, unlike the Rabbinic Sages, he did not claim that 1 Nisan at that time must have fallen on a Sunday.68 The Princes’ Sacrifices and ‘Passover in the Desert’ As to the princes’ sacrifices, Yefet introduces two Karaite positions, the first of which was, according to him, a minority opinion, which he supported. According to this position, ‘on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the tabernacle’ (Numbers 7.1) – the first day of the princes’ offerings – fell on 1 Nisan. The Sabbath deferred the princes’ offerings, which therefore ended on 13 or 14 Nisan: Know that this book is not arranged chronologically […] that is to say, the verse ‘and it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the tabernacle’ (Numbers 7.1) is connected to the passage ‘these are the accounts of the tabernacle’ (Exodus 38.21) which end with the erection of the tabernacle. The verse states ‘So Moses finished the work (Exodus 40.33) and then ‘the cloud covered the tent’ (Exodus 40.34), which was 1 Nisan. It was from that day that the princes brought their offering. The first offering was brought by Naḥshon ben ‘Aminadav, as it says: ‘And he that presented his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab’ (Numbers 7.12). And afterwards the verse mentions the names of the other princes, until the consecration of the altar ended, during twelve days. On the first day, the sacrifice took place on the first of the month and the last sacrifice took place on the thirteenth on the month, if one Sabbath was included in this Above, n. 51. Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 9.7, MS. Trinity College, Cambridge, F 12.110, f. 49b. 68 See above, nn. 58–59. The fact that Yefet raised the possibility that 13 Nisan was the last day of the princes’ sacrifices (below, n. 69), testifies that he did not rule out the possibility that 1 Nisan in that year fell on a Sunday. 66 67

186

Chapter Three

time period, or on the fourteenth of the month if two Sabbath were included in this time period.69

Yefet, like the Rabbinic Sages, argued that the princes’ offering began on 1 Nisan. According to the Rabbinic Sages, 1 Nisan was the eighth day of consecration, the day on which the regular service began in the tabernacle, while according to Yefet, the first seven sacrifices of the princes were brought during the days of consecration. Yefet’s view is problematic, since Scriptures implies that the days of consecration were dedicated to the consecration offerings only. At least in this is what the Rabbinic Sages and most of the Karaites held.70 As Daniel al-Qūmisī put it: ‘How could they bring burnt offerings [‫]עולות‬, before the seven days of consecration were completed?’71 Yefet proposes a somewhat contrived solution to this problem, namely that Moses offered up the sacrifices of the first seven princes. Only from Gamaliel son of Pedahzur, the eighth prince, did Aaron bring the princes’ offerings: ‘According to the first method, Moses, peace be upon him, began bringing the princes’ offering from the first of the month to the eighth of the month. And from the eighth of the month, Aaron, peace be upon him, began bringing the offerings, starting with that of Gamaliel son of Pedahzur (Numbers 7.54)’.72 As stated, according to most of the Karaite sages, ‘on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the tabernacle’ (Numbers 7.1) – the first day of the princes’ offerings – fell on the eighth day of consecration, namely 9 or 10 Nisan: ‘And many of the Karaite sages tend to believe that ‘the day that Moses had made an end’ (Numbers 7.1) was the eighth day of consecration’.73 According to this computation, some of the days of the princes’ offerings fell on Passover and the seven days of unleavened bread. The question, therefore, arises as to whether the princes brought their sacrifices on the seven days of unleavened bread. According to Yefet’s method, this issue is irrelevant. Qirqisānī’s testimony implies that Daniel al-Qūmisī’s, who maintained that the only sacrifices that were brought during the days of consecration were the consecration offerings,74 and the Tustarī Karaites believed that the generation of the Exodus never celebrated the seven 69 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 7.1, MS. Trinity College, Cambridge, F 12.110, f. 33a-b. 70 For the attitude of the Rabbinic Sages on this issue, see above, n. 47. 71 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Leviticus, in Shechter, Saadyana, p. 144. 72 Yefet (above, n. 69), f. 33b. 73 Yefet (above, n. 69), f. 33b. 74 Above, n. 71.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

187

days of unleavened bread. This leads us to the conclusion that, according to their method, the princes brought their sacrifices on all the days of unleavened bread, except for the day of the Passover sacrifice only. Their proof that the seven days of unleavened bread were not observed can be summarized as follows: 1. The commandment for the seven days of unleavened bread was a commandment that pertained to the Land of Israel only. 2. Passover is meant for remembrance (Exodus 12.14), and was therefore not binding on the generation that left Egypt. 3. During their journeys in the desert, the Israelites did not have wheat or barley for preparing the unleavened bread. (This argument appears in Qirqisānī’s discussion of the issue).75 It would appear that Daniel even claimed that the ‘Passover in the desert’ was celebrated only once.76 According to Yefet, the princes’ offerings ended on 13 or 14 Nisan. If the sacrifice of the last prince took place on 14 Nisan, he brought it on the morning of that day, that is, before the Passover sacrifice. Throughout the years of their journeying in the desert, the Israelites brought the Passover sacrifice, and celebrated the seven days of unleavened bread, each year. Since they observed the seven days of unleavened bread, it follows that this commandment did not pertain to the Land of Israel only. We learn of Yefet’s position from his commentaries on ‘Seven days shall there be no leaven found in your houses; for whosoever eateth that which is leavened, that soul shall be cut off from the congregation of Israel, whether he be a sojourner, or one that is born in the land’ (Exodus 12.19). The prohibition that was binding on ‘the congregation of Israel’ refers to the generation of the desert, indicating that they were obliged to observe this commandment: ‘The expression “from the congregation of Israel” [‫ ]עדת ישראל‬refers to those who left Egypt and the generation of the desert […] in contrast to those “born in the land” [‫]אזרח הארץ‬. He clarified this to teach us that this commandment must be observed both inside and outside of Israel’.77 Like the Rabbinic Sages, Yefet distinguished between the ‘the Passover statutes’ that referred to the Passover sacrifice only, and the ‘Passover ordinances’ that referred to the laws pertaining to it. Since Scriptures Qirqisānī, pp. 888, 891–892, 938. Qirqisānī, p. 938. 77 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 12.19, PBN Héb 280, f. 88a-b. 75 76

188

Chapter Three

mandated that ‘Passover in the desert’ be kept ‘according to all the statutes of it and all the ordinances thereof ’ (Numbers 9.3) Yefet concluded that Passover in the desert included the seven days of unleavened bread: The Day of Holy Convocation [‫ ]מקרא קודש‬and the consumption of unleavened bread for seven days constitute neither the Passover sacrifice nor the Passover statutes. ‘Passover’ is the name of the sacrifice that was brought, like the name ‘burnt offering’, ‘sin offering’ and ‘peace offering’, as it says: ‘And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering’ (Deuteronomy 16.2). Scriptures explained the statute of the Passover‑offering in the section ‘This is the ordinance of the Passover’ (Exodus 12.43) […] The commandments of eating unleavened bread and the Holy Convocation apply anywhere and are incumbent on both the pure and the impure, and are not contingent on any other factor whatsoever.78

Yefet condemned those who inferred that, since the generation of the desert did not observe the seven days of unleavened bread, this commandment pertained to the Land of Israel only. The only difference between Passover of the generations and Passover in the desert was, according to Yefet, the fact that in the latter case there was no pilgrimage: Some deduced that the eating of the unleavened bread and the Holy Convocation and all related commandments were binding only after entry to the Land of Israel, as it says: ‘And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee’ (Exodus 13.5). This is not the case. The verse states, in connection with the Passover offering: ‘And it shall come to pass when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you’ (Exodus 12.25). Even though we find that they observed Passover in the Sinai desert, the phrase: ‘And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee’ (Exodus 13.5) refers exclusively to the place of the pilgrimage, which they were obliged to observe after they received the Land, at it says: ‘shall all thy males appear’ (Deuteronomy 16.16). As to the eating of unleavened bread, the removal of leavened bread, and the Holy Convocation, there was no difference between the generation of the desert, those who entered the Land or those who live in the Diaspora.79 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 9.11–12, MS Trinity College, Cambridge F 12.110, f. 51a-b. Yefet discusses this interpretation in the section on ‘Pessah Sheni’, see Erder, ‘Hezekiah Paschal’, pp. 452–454. On the distinction between the Passover ordinances and statutes in Yefet’s thinking, see also his Commentary on Exodus 12.11, PBN Héb 280, f. 71b. On this distinction in the writings of the Rabbinic Sages, see above, n. 64. 79 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 13.5, PBN Héb 280, f. 119b. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.8–9, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95, Yefet says: ‘In the desert, they were not 78

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

189

Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Method Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on the Pentateuch sheds much light on the doctrine of the Karaites and of Mīshawayh regarding the dedication of the tabernacle since he ruled like them on all of these issues. Unlike the Rabbinic Sages, Ibn Ezra claimed that 1 Nisan was the first day of the consecration, but accepted their view that the consecration sacrifice overrode the Sabbath. Therefore the verse ‘And it came to pass on the eighth day’ (Leviticus 9.1), refers, according to Ibn Ezra, to 8 Nisan: It would appear that the ‘eighth day’, was 8 Nisan, because the tabernacle was erected on the first of the month. Only the Rabbinic Sages said that it was 1 Nisan and that during the seven days of consecration Moses erected and dismantled the tabernacle each day, in order to become adept at it.80

As to the daily sacrifices, Ibn Ezra maintained that they began during the days of consecration: ‘Logically, it would appear that Moses offered up the daily sacrifice throughout the seven days of consecration’.81 The daily sacrifices were offered up for fifty days, as Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Amos 5.25 indicates The Israelites offered up the daily sacrifice at Mount Sinai for fifty days. They did not journey during this time, since it says that on the first day of the first month, in the second year ‘the tabernacle was reared up’ (Exodus 40.17), and ‘in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month’ (Numbers 10.11) they journeyed from Sinai. This gives you fifty days.82

As to the princes’ sacrifices, Ibn Ezra faithfully adhered to the views of most of the Karaite Sages, namely that: (a) The princes’ sacrifices were brought after the days of consecration (raising the question of whether they were brought during ‘Passover in the desert’, as I shall discuss below); (b) The princes’ sacrifices were not brought on the Sabbath. commanded to make a pilgrimage, because the tabernacle was with them’. 80 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 9.1. Ibn Ezra accepted the minority opinion of the Rabbinic Sages concerning the defilement of Mishael and Elṣafan on the eighth day of consecration, namely 8 Nisan. See his Commentary on Exodus 40.2, above, n. 53. 81 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 40.2. 82 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Amos 5.25 (Simon edition), pp. 225–226. See discussion on this verse below, nn. 227–239. Mīshawayh argued that daily sacrifices ceased once the Israelites left Mount Sinai. Below, nn. 109, 216.

190

Chapter Three

With reference to ‘the seventh day’ – the day on which the seventh prince brought his sacrifice, (Numbers 7.48) – Ibn Ezra, following the Rabbinic Sages who held that 1 Nisan was a Sunday, explains that this was not the Sabbath,83 but rather the seventh day of the dedication of the altar: ‘Some say that they brought the sacrifice on the Sabbath as an exceptional measure, while others say that this was the seventh day of the dedication of the altar […] and in my view the second opinion is correct’.84 Ibn Ezra’s three proofs that the Sabbath took precedence over the princes’ sacrifices were based on Karaite beliefs, as follows: a. During the conquest of Jericho, the Israelites did not surround the walls of Jericho on the Sabbath: ‘The first group holds that they surrounded Jericho for six days […] and skipped over the Sabbath, that is, they surrounded it for seven days [but not consecutively] (Joshua 6.14–15)’.85 b. The princes’ sacrifices were ‘peace offerings’ and the Sabbath always takes precedence over peace offerings.86 c. The third proof sheds light on the ancient sources from which Mīshawayh, the Karaites and Ibn Ezra derived their laws. This proof did not relate to the dedication of the tabernacle but rather to the dedication of the First Temple. According to this school of thought, the same principle operated in both cases: ‘They specified fourteen days, but omitted the Day of Atonement and did not include it in the number’.87 Scriptures teaches us that in Above, n. 59. Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Numbers 7.48. In his Commentary on Exodus 40.2, he says: ‘Some say, they skipped over [the Sabbath] and only reckoned those days on which they consecrated the altar. Others say that the prince’s sacrifice was offered on the Sabbath’. 85 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 40.2. See also his Commentary on Numbers 7.48. In this he opposed the position of the Rabbinic Sages, PT, Shabbat 1.3, f. 4ab; Midrash Bereshit Rabba 47.10 (Theodor-Albeck edition), p. 477. Lewin, ‘Geniza Fragments’, pp. 388–389. Qirqisānī, pp. 534–546, does not accept the opinion of the Rabbinic Sages, or of ʿAnan and Benjamin, that the Israelites surrounded Jericho on the Sabbath. 86 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Numbers 7.48. This and the previous proof are brought in close conjunction by Qirqisānī, p. 535. 87 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 40.2. Ibn Ezra brings this interpretation in the name of the ‘camp’ that claims that the princes skipped over the Sabbath. In the Commentary on Numbers 7.48, Ibn Ezra explicitly adopts the three proofs enumerated here: ‘And the correct view in my opinion is the second interpretation (namely, that the princes skipped over the Sabbath) for the peace offering, and also the seventh day of surrounding Jericho, and also the seven days of the consecration of the Temple, for the Day of Atonement’. 83

84

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

191

the time of Solomon ‘they kept the dedication of the altar seven days, and the feast seven days’ (II Chronicles 7.9),88 that is to say, the dedication of the altar took place seven days prior to the Tabernacles festival. Therefore both the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement were included in this period: ‘The seven days prior to the Tabernacles festival must include the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement’.89 The question arises as to whether the dedication of the altar of the First Temple overrode the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. According to the Rabbinic Sages, just as the consecration offerings overrode the Sabbath during the dedication of the tabernacle, so did the offerings of the dedication of the altar override the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement during the dedication of the First Temple: ‘In that year, the Jews did not observe the Day of Atonement’.90 Ibn Ezra and the ‘group’ he referred to, held the opposite view, namely, that just as the Sabbath and the Paschal sacrifice took precedence over the princes’ offerings, so did the Day of Atonement and the Sabbath cancel out the sacrifices of the dedication of the altar of the First Temple. There is no doubt that according to this group, the Sabbath also took precedence over the consecration sacrifices. The tradition that held that the Day of Atonement was excluded from the dedication of the First Temple brings to mind the law that Qirqisānī ascribes to the Sadducees, (i.e., Qumran circles), namely, that Solomon excluded the Sabbath from the intermediate days of the Tabernacles festival. This interpretation formed the basis of their ruling that the Sabbath was excluded from the seven days of unleavened bread and the Tabernacles festival. The purpose of this ruling was to preclude the necessity of offering up the sacrifices of the intermediate days on the Sabbath. While analyzing this law, I noted that it was derived from circles that followed the solar calendar, in which the festival fall on fixed days of the month and week. In this calendar, the issue of bringing festival sacrifices on the Sabbath never arose. In their resolve not to bring sacrifices on the Sabbath, those who upheld this tradition determined that the sacrifices of the intermediate days were forbidden on the Sabbath. See also I Kings 8.65. Midrash Bereshit Rabba 35.3 (Theodor-Albeck edition), p. 332. 90 BT, Moʿed Qatan, 9a; Shabbat 30a; Midrash Bereshit Rabba, 35.3 (TheodorAlbeck edition), p. 332. 88 89

192

Chapter Three

This mirrors the law of the Damascus Covenant that forbids any sacrifice on the Sabbath apart from the Sabbath sacrifices. ʿAnan ben David and his circle were influenced by this tradition. ʿAnan’s Book of Precepts forbade the bringing of daily sacrifices on the Sabbath, and the ʿAnanites advocated deferring the first day of the Passover and Tabernacles festivals if these fell on the Sabbath, since, according to them, Solomon did not include this Sabbath in the Tabernacles festival.91 According to Qirqisānī, ʿAnanite circles who invoked the precedent of Solomon’s tabernacle festival according to its Sadducean interpretation, held that the Sabbath was reason enough to defer the first day of the Passover festival. They backed up this view by the fact that the princes did not bring offerings on the Sabbath during the dedication of the tabernacle.92 The ʿAnanites linked the princes’ sacrifices to Solomon’s Tabernacles festival, while Ibn Ezra linked to the princes’ sacrifices to the dedication of the First Temple that preceded Solomon’s Tabernacles festival. It would probably not be far-fetched to surmise that the view that the princes’ sacrifices were deferred because of the Sabbath stemmed from a Qumran law that the ʿAnanites, Karaites and Mīshawayh adopted, and which Ibn Ezra derived from Karaite works. Ibn Ezra’s tradition concerning the exclusion of the Day of Atonement from the dedication of the First Temple is simply another facet of the Sadducean-Qumran tradition that proscribed bringing the sacrifices of the intermediate days on the Sabbath, in light of Solomon’s tabernacle festival. One may assume, given this new element and its connection with the princes’ sacrifices, that the Qumran sect drew a parallel between the dedication of the tabernacle and the dedication of the First Temple. Those who adhered to the principle of the sanctity of Sabbath claimed that in both cases, the Sabbath took precedence over the sacrifices of the dedication of the altar.93 As stated above, not only did Ibn Ezra hold that the princes’ sacrifices were deferred on account of the Sabbath, he also claimed that the princes began bringing their sacrifices after the days of consecration. According to him, this was 8 Nisan.94 Therefore, the question of whether the princes’ sacrifices were brought during ‘Passover in the See above, Ch. 2, nn. 45–63. Qirqisānī, p. 912. See Erder, ‘Precedents’, pp. 167–174. 93 The Scholium of Megīllat Taʿanit also connects the seven days of the consecration of the tabernacle to the seven days of the consecration of the First Temple in its discussion on the eight days of Hanukkah. See Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), p. 104. Also, Noam, ‘Miracle’, p. 385. 94 Above, n. 80. 91

92

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

193

desert’ was pertinent. Like Mīshawayh and many Karaites, Ibn Ezra claimed that ‘Passover in the desert’ did not include the seven days of unleavened bread, and therefore the princes could bring their sacrifices on those days. His proofs for excluding the seven days of unleavened bread from ‘Passover in the desert’ were the same proofs invoked by Daniel al-Qūmisī and the Tustarī Karaites, and were evidently copied from Qirqisānī: (1) This commandment pertains to the land. (2) The first generation that experienced the exodus from Egypt did not require days of remembrance. (3) The Jews at that time did not have the wherewithal to observe the commandment of unleavened bread: Do not pay heed to those who ask: when did they bring the festival sacrifices? Because the Jews in the desert celebrated only one night of the Passover festival, and did not observe the seven days of unleavened bread, as it states: ‘And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee’ (Exodus 13.5), ‘Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread’ (Exodus 6). And the phrase ‘And this day shall be unto you for a memorial’ (Exodus 12.14) is an instruction to the succeeding generation to fix the date of the exodus as a Day of Holy Convocation, because on the first day they journeyed from Goshen. And moreover, in the Sinai desert they had no flour to make unleavened bread for seven days, even though they were near habitation.95

Given that the Israelites did not observe the seven days of unleavened bread in ‘Passover in the desert’ and skipped over the Sabbath, the princes’ sacrifices began, according to Ibn Ezra, on 8 Nisan – the eighth day of consecration – and ended after 19 Nisan: It states: ‘And it came to pass on the day that Moses had made an end of setting up the tabernacle, and had anointed it’ (Numbers 7.1), that he sanctified the altar, during the seven days of consecration. It was then that the princes brought sacrifices for the dedication of the altar […] and the dedication of the altar ended after the 19th day of the first month.96 95 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 40.2. See above, n. 75, proofs brought by alQūmisī and the Tustarīs. 96 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 40.2.

194

Chapter Three

In conclusion, Ibn Ezra accepted the view of the Rabbinic Sages that 1 Nisan – the day of the dedication of the tabernacle – was a Sunday.97 According to his calculation, the princes began bringing their sacrifices on Sunday 8 Nisan, since the seven days of consecration ended on Saturday 7 Nisan.98 The princes were unable to bring their sacrifices on 14 Nisan, which was a Sabbath, on 15 Nisan, because of the Passover festival, and on 21 Nisan, which was also a Sabbath. It follows that the last day they brought their sacrifices, according to the Ibn Ezra, was 22 Nisan. Mīshawayh’s Method Although the sources have preserved only the bare outline of Mīshawayh’s views on issues relating to the dedication of the tabernacle and ‘Passover in the desert’, the Karaite discourse and Ibn Ezra’s writings give us more insight into his views. The Karaite, Tobias ben Moses, stated, in Mīshawayh’s name, ‘The princes brought their sacrifices after the seven days of consecration, including the Passover sacrifice, because they were twelve princes. And there were seven days remaining until the Passover festival, because the seven days of consecration had already transpired’.99 Clearly, Mīshawayh believed that according to the literal interpretation of Scriptures, the first day of the consecration was 1 Nisan, the date the tabernacle was erected. We saw that, according to Mīshawayh’s solar calendar, 1 Nisan, which was the new year, always fell on a Thursday.100 We also learned that Mīshawayh adamantly held that no sacrifices were to be brought on the Sabbath, including the Sabbath sacrifice.101 It follows, therefore, that he did not include the Sabbath in the days of consecration. Hence, in his view, the last day of consecration was Thursday 8 Nisan, and the first daily sacrifice was brought on Friday 9 Nisan, which was also the day on which the princes began bringing their sacrifices. Until 14 Nisan, including the morning of that day, only five princes were able to bring sacrifices, because the Sabbath, which fell on 10 Nisan, deferred the sacrifices of the second prince.102 On 15 Nisan, the princes did not bring sacrifices because of ‘Passover in the desert’, Above, n. 59. Above, n. 80. 99 Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, f. 75a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 182. 100 Above, nn. 24–26. 101 Above, n. 27. 102 Tobias, above, n. 99, maintains that according to Mīshawayh, there were seven days from the eighth day of consecration to Passover, but he failed to take into account that Mīshawayh postponed all the sacrifices on account of the Sabbath. 97 98

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

195

as mentioned in Numbers 9. According to Mīshawayh, ‘Passover in the desert’ did not include the seven days of unleavened bread. Therefore the sixth prince could bring his sacrifice already on Friday 16 Nisan, even though the princes’ sacrifices included the leavened cakes of the thanksgiving offering (Leviticus 7.11–13): ‘Mīshawayh, argued that during the Passover festival (namely, the seven days of unleavened bread) the princes brought sacrifices and also the leavened cake of the thanksoffering.103 The last prince brought his sacrifice on Friday 23 Nisan, taking into account the fact that the Sabbath that fell on 17 Nisan deferred the sacrifice of the seventh prince. Despite the strong criticism that the Karaites levelled at Mīshawayh, in actual fact his laws closely resembled Karaite laws. In Karaite law, the days of consecration began on 1 Nisan, and the first daily sacrifice was brought on 9 Nisan, since the Sabbath deferred the consecration sacrifices and any sacrifice relating to the dedication of the tabernacle. The princes’ sacrifices also began on 9 Nisan, and therefore the question arises as to whether they brought their sacrifices during the seven days of unleavened bread, as most Karaite Sages held, according to Yefet ben ʿEli. According to Mīshawayh, the princes’ sacrifices contained leavened bread, but nevertheless were brought on the seven days of unleavened bread, because ‘Passover in the desert’ did not include the seven days of unleavened bread, as Daniel al-Qūmisī and the Tustarīs argued.104 Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī also held that the ‘Hezekiah’s Passover’ (II Chronicles 30) did not include the seven days of unleavened bread: ‘And he and his clerics also erred concerning King Hezekiah, peace be upon him, by saying that Hezekiah brought thank-offerings on the Passover festival’.105 II Chronicles 29.17 states that the purification of the Temple ended on 16 Nisan: ‘and on the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end’. II Chronicles 29.31 sates that Hezekiah ordered sacrifices and thank-offerings, namely leavened bread. According to Mīshawayh, this was on 16 Nisan, thereby proving that they did not observe the seven days of unleavened bread: ‘Until he invoked the story of Hezekiah “and on the sixteenth day of the first month they made an end” (II Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Numbers 7.17. As Tobias put it in Oṣar Neḥmad, f. 75a: ‘Because they offered up the thanks-offering on the days of Passover, because he holds that the princes’ sacrifices included thanks-offerings’. Qirqisānī, pp. 891–892, holds that the verse in Numbers 9.11 mandates the eating of unleavened bread with the Passover sacrifice, just as there is no thanks-offering without leavened bread (Leviticus 7.13). 104 Above, n. 75. 105 Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, f. 75b. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, p. 183. 103

196

Chapter Three

Chronicles 29.17), where it states that they brought thank-offerings on that day and it was one of the days of the Passover festival, and there was leavened bread’.106 Aaron ben Elijah, who informs us of Mīshawayh’s view, categorically denounces it: ‘His words are empty; our Sages, peace be upon them, broke his teeth’.107 A study of Karaite writings shows that Mīshawayh’s view on this issue was accepted in Karaite circles, which used the same line of reasoning.108 The question thus arises as to what caused the Karaites to attack Mīshawayh, given the similarity of their views on the dedication of the tabernacle? The answer to this question can be found in Yefet’s polemic against Mīshawayh, interspersed in his commentaries on the Scriptures. Mīshawayh held that ‘Passover in the desert’ was celebrated only once in the desert, without the seven days of unleavened bread. This led him to the conclusion that the entire festival, with its statutes and ordinances, pertained to the Land of Israel only, and that the Passover sacrifice and the seven days of unleavened bread were not to be observed in his times in the Diaspora: And one of the sages (i.e., Mīshawayh) is of another opinion, and it is far-fetched. According to him, in light of God’s words to the Israelites: ‘And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this service’ (Exodus 12.25), they were not enjoined to observe the commandments of the Passover sacrifice in the desert. When God wanted them to observe Passover in the desert, he resorted to another, specific, directive. According to this view, from the time the Israelites journeyed from Mount Sinai until they entered the Land, they never brought a single sacrifice, be it the Passover sacrifice, the daily sacrifice or the additional sacrifice. He bases this view on the verse: ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6) and the words of Amos: ‘Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the desert forty years, O house of Israel?’ (Amos 5.25). Were we to set about disproving this theory and its implications, namely, that most of the commandments are not binding on us when we are exiled from our land, there would be much to say and this is not the place.109 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Numbers 7.17. Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Numbers 7.17. 108 See Erder, ‘Hezekiah Paschal’, pp. 451–452. 109 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 9.1–3, MS Trinity College, Cambridge F 12.109, f. 48a. See above, n. 79, on Yefet’s answer to those who maintained that unleavened bread was not eaten in the desert. 106 107

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

197

We may infer from the above that Mīshawayh deduced that the Passover sacrifice was a commandment pertaining to the Land of Israel in light of the verse: ‘And it shall come to pass, when ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you, according as He hath promised, that ye shall keep this service’ (Exodus 12.25). The conclusion that ‘Passover in the desert’ was celebrated only once is part of a larger context in which Mīshawayh claims that sacrifices in general were not brought in the desert, with a few exceptions. The verse ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice, which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6), testifies to this.110 His other proof is the verse: ‘Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the desert forty years, O house of Israel?’ (Amos 5.25). As stated, the Rabbinic Sages deduced from this verse that the Israelites celebrated ‘Passover in the desert’ only once, and that Scriptures condemned them for this.111 Yefet’s interpretation of the verse: ‘Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders’ (Exodus 13.7), sheds light on Mīshawayh’s belief that the seven days of unleavened bread were not observed in the desert, and were not to be observed in the Diaspora: The verse ‘Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders’ (Exodus 13.7) can be interpreted in three ways: (1) The border of the Land of Israel, in which case there is no prohibition on leaving leavened bread within a non-Jewish border. (2) The border is an asset that reached its owner through inheritance, sale or gift. Hence, there is no prohibition on leaving leavened bread in a rented or leased accommodation. (3) The border includes everything: the Land of Israel and also a property that is held, rented or leased from a gentile.112

Undoubtedly, Mīshawayh’s method was based on the first premise, namely that the border refers to the boundary of the Land of Israel only. It follows that the seven days of unleavened bread were not to be celebrated in the Diaspora, just as they had not been celebrated in the desert. Yefet opposed this view, since the consensus (ijmāʿ) among the people was that leavened bread was prohibited in gentile lands, too: ‘If See below, nn. 211, 216. Above, n. 63. 112 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 13.7, BL. Or. 2467, f. 120b-121a. 110 111

198

Chapter Three

one believes that the reference is to the Land of Israel only, we are unanimous in the opinion (that the removal of leavened bread) is binding in the lands of the gentile, just as it is binding in the Land of Israel’.113 Another verse that discusses the seven days of unleavened bread, states: ‘Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your dwellings shall ye eat unleavened bread’ (Exodus 12. 20). Yefet compared the expression ‘in all thy borders’ (Exodus 13.7) to ‘in all your dwellings’, since the word ‘dwellings’ in his opinion refers to any place where Jews dwell.114 Clearly in Mīshawayh’s opinion, the word ‘dwellings’ refers to dwellings in the Land of Israel only. It follows that according to Mīshawayh’s method, any commandment stating: ‘And it shall come to pass when ye be come to the land’ (Exodus 12.25),115 or ‘in all thy borders’ (Exodus 13.7),116 and ‘in all your dwellings’ (Exodus 12.20),117 was not observed in the desert and therefore is not binding in the Diaspora. Summary We shall now summarize the four methods of interpreting the issues relating to the dedication of the tabernacle and ‘Passover in the desert’, in an attempt to clarify the principles guiding each method. The Rabbinic Sages: 1. According to the Rabbinic Sages the special sacrifices that were offered at the dedication of the tabernacle, namely, the consecration sacrifices and the princes’ sacrifices, took precedence over the Sabbath.118 The sacrifices of the dedication of the first Temple took precedence over the Sabbath and the Day of the Atonement.119 This tradition goes hand in hand with those who held that the festival sacrifices took precedence over the Sabbath. Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 13.7, BL. Or. 2467, f. 121a. Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 13.7, BL. Or. 2467, f. 122a. On Yefet’s Commentary on Exodus 13.7, see also below, n. 563. On Yefet’s conclusion concerning the word ‘dwellings’, see also below, n. 215. 115 Above, n. 109. See also above, n. 79, below, n. 156. 116 Above, nn. 112–113. 117 Above, n. 114. Below, nn. 158–160, 211, 213. 118 Above, n. 48. The tradition of the Rabbinic Sages linked the dedication of the tabernacle not only to the dedication of the First Temple, but also to the dedication of the Second Temple: ‘They offered consecration sacrifices in the days of Ezra, just as they had in the days of Moses’. See BT, Menaḥot, 45a. 119 Above, nn. 89–90. 113 114

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

199

2. The purpose of the Rabbinic Sages was to draw a clear line between the issue of the princes’ sacrifices and the issue of ‘Passover in the desert’. To this end, they interpreted Scriptures in a non-literal fashion. They turned 1 Nisan, which according to Scriptures was the day on which the tabernacle was first erected, into the eighth day of consecration, and the day on which the first daily sacrifice was brought. They reached this conclusion by arguing that the tabernacle was effectively erected on 23 Adar. Therefore, the princes finished bringing their sacrifices on 12 Nisan.120   According to the Rabbinic Sages, ‘Passover in the desert’ included the seven days of unleavened bread, although these days are not specified in Scriptures.121 The Rabbinic Sages interpreted the verse in Amos 5.25 as a condemnation of the Israelites for not bringing the Passover sacrifice each year in the desert.122 In effect, this verse must be construed in the context of the prophets’ frequent harangues against the iniquity of bringing sacrifices in the absence of the fear of God or social justice. 3. Another principle comes to light in the Rabbinic Sages’ commentary on the dedication of the tabernacle, namely, that a rule that applies to generations cannot be derived from a rule that applies to one generation only. Therefore, the seventh prince’s sacrifice, according to the Rabbinic Sages, overruled the Sabbath, despite the ruling that the sacrifice of an individual does not overrule the Sabbath.123 The methods of the Karaites and Mīshawayh, and to a large extent that of Ibn Ezra, were based on an ancient law that emerged from the sources we collected here. Its principles were: a. The precedence of the Sabbath over all sacrifices, apart from the Sabbath sacrifice. We already learnt above that according to this method, the daily sacrifice was not to be brought on the Sabbath. The festival sacrifices were never brought on the Sabbath, because the festivals never fell on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was not included in the intermediate days of the festival of unleavened bread and the Tabernacles festival, in order to obviate the 122 123 120 121

Above, nn. 48, 54–56, 61. Above, n. 64. Above, n. 63. Above, nn. 60–62.

200

Chapter Three

necessity of bringing festival sacrifices on the Sabbath.124 Ibn Ezra taught us that even a peace-offering was not brought on the Sabbath.125 It is not surprising that, according to this method, the Sabbath took precedence over the consecration sacrifices and the princes’ sacrifices during the dedication of the tabernacle, or that the Day of Atonement took precedence over the sacrifices of the dedication of the First Temple.126 b. A literal interpretation of the narrative of the dedication of the tabernacle. 1 Nisan, the day the tabernacle was erected according to Scriptures, was the first day of consecration. 9 Nisan (because of the exclusion of the Sabbath from the seven days of consecration), was the first day of the daily sacrifice, and also the first day of the princes’ sacrifices.127 According to this method, the issues of the princes’ sacrifices and ‘Passover in the desert’ were connected. According to the literal explanation, ‘Passover in the desert’ did not include the seven days of unleavened bread but the day of the Passover sacrifice only. Therefore, the princes were able to bring sacrifices, which according to Mīshawayh also included leavened bread, throughout the days of unleavened bread.128   The way Megīllat Taʿanit First Date contends with the view that the first daily sacrifice was brought on 9 Nisan,129 and with the view that ‘Passover in the desert’ did not include the seven days of unleavened bread,130 testifies not only to the antiquity of the alternative (non-rabbinic) halakha but also to the apprehension it provoked among the Rabbinic Sages – so much so, that they felt impelled to set two alternative dates. The Scholium on the first date in the scroll states that the date was determined during the dispute with the Sadducees, or, according to another version, the Boethusians, both of whom claimed that the daily sacrifice was an individual sacrifice, as against the Pharisees who claimed it was a communal one.131 This interpretation sheds no light whatsoever on how the Above, Ch. 2, n. 48. Above, n. 86. 126 Above, nn. 67, 69, 87. 127 Above, nn. 67, 73. 128 Above, nn. 75, 96, 99, 103. 129 Above, n. 56. 130 Above, n. 65. 131 Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), pp. 57–59. E. and H. Eshel state that the Qumran sect ensured that the daily sacrifice would be a public sacrifice. See Eshel, ‘4Q471’, pp. 611–620. 124 125

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

201

date in question was arrived at.132 The calendar dates in the Temple Scroll testify to the fact that the Rabbinic Sages, by determining the first date in Megīllat Taʿanit, challenged these dates, as Yadin already noted. According to the scroll, 1 Nisan fell on a Wednesday.133 The consecration sacrifices were deferred by one day (the Sabbath), and the eighth day of consecration – which was also the first day of the daily sacrifices – therefore fell on Thursday, 9 Nisan.134 In the Temple Scroll, the consecration sacrifices became a commandment that applied to generations. Some claim that the daily sacrifices were not brought at that time.135 Therefore the Rabbinic Sages felt threatened by the law propounded by Qumran circles. c. All sacrifices and festivals are commandments pertaining to the land, as testified by their absence from the narrative of the journeying of the Israelites in the desert. The verses in Numbers 28.5 and Amos 5.25 confirm to the fact that the Israelites did not offer up sacrifices in the desert once they left Mount Sinai. Passover in the desert was celebrated only once, without the seven days of unleavened bread, which was also a commandment pertaining to the land. Any commandment which the verse ordains to be kept ‘in your dwellings’, ‘in all thy borders’ or ‘when you be come to the land’ pertained to the Land of Israel only. For a different approach, see Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), pp. 165–173. Regev, ‘Hannukka’, pp. 240–241, does not accept the explanation of the Scholium on the First Date, but maintains that the date was fixed to counter the Sadducees mentioned in the Talmud. In his opinion, they held, like the author of the Temple Scroll, that the days of consecration were celebrated each year, during the first eight days of Nisan. See below, n. 135. 133 See above, Ch. 2, n. 234. 134 Talmon and Ben-Dov, ‘4Q326’, p. 169, claim that the first line of document 4Q326 reads: ‘In the first (month), on the four[th (day) in the Sabbath, on the eighth in it, the time of consecration]’, namely, the consecration sacrifice was brought on the Sabbath, so that the eighth day of consecration (Leviticus 9.1) fell on Wednesday, 8 Nisan. They tend to believe that the author of the Temple Scroll, unlike the author of the Damascus Covenant, permitted the sacrifices on the Sabbath. On this issue, he concurred with the author of the Psalms Scroll. See Talmon and Ben-Dov, ‘4Q326’, pp. 171– 173. On the bringing of daily sacrifices in the Psalms Scroll, see above, Ch. 2, nn. 54–57. 135 Temple Scroll, 15.3–8, 14 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 46–48. On the eighth day of consecration, see Yadin, Temple Scroll, 17.1–4, II, p. 54. On the approach of the Temple Scroll, see Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, pp. 75–78, 96. According to Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, p. 110, the authors of the scroll claimed that the daily sacrifices were not brought on the days of consecration. Knohl and Naeh, ‘Milluim’, pp. 22–24, concur. On the consecration sacrifices in the Temple Scroll, see also Schiffman, ‘Milluim’, pp. 255–272. Delcor, ‘Refléxions’, pp. 155–164. 132

202

Chapter Three

d. The Rabbinic Sages’ injunction not to draw a parallel between a law not applying to generations and a law applying to generations was not accepted by the alternative approach. The princes did not offer their sacrifices on the Sabbath because of the prohibition of bringing a peace-offering on the Sabbath.136 The ʿAnanites discussed the laws of Passover and Tabernacles in light of the princes’ sacrifices.137 The Karaite Mourners of Zion and Mīshawayh adopted, in principle, the alternative approach on the passage relating to the dedication of the tabernacle. They agreed that the Sabbath overruled the sacrifices of the dedication of the tabernacle, and that 1 Nisan – the date of the erection of the tabernacle – was the first day of consecration. At the same time, Karaite circles had no qualms about tailoring the ancient tradition to their needs. Yefet deviated from the ancient tradition on three issues: 1. He divorced the issue of ‘Passover in the desert’ from the issue of the princes’ sacrifices, by claiming that the princes began bringing their sacrifices on the first day of consecration.138 2. In his opinion, ‘Passover in the desert’ included the seven days of unleavened bread.139 3. ‘Passover in the desert’ was celebrated each year in the desert according to its statutes and ordinances, apart from the commandment of pilgrimage. Therefore, according to him, the commandment of the seven days of unleavened bread was not a commandment pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel.140 Yefet’s departure from the ancient tradition can easily be understood. He feared that this tradition would lead diasporic Jews to cease celebrating the seven days of unleavened bread, or the festivals in general, as was the case among Mīshawite circles.141 Daniel al-Qūmisī’s circle and the Tustarī Karaites were more loyal than Yefet to this ancient tradition. Their proofs for excluding the seven days of unleavened bread from ‘Passover in the desert’ may well have 138 139 140 141 136 137

Above, n. 86. Above, n. 92. Above, nn. 69, 72. Above, n. 78. Above, nn. 77–79. Above, n. 109.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

203

been derived from this tradition,142 just as the proofs invoked by the Karaites and Ibn Ezra that the princes did not bring sacrifices on the Sabbath were drawn from the same tradition.143 Mīshawayh was the one who most closely adhered to the ancient tradition. Judging by Yefet’s testimony, his opinion was a minority opinion in Karaite circles on the issue of when the princes brought their sacrifices. The opinion of the Karaite majority referred to by Yefet, was actually Mīshawayh’s opinion.144 Mīshawayh also remained faithful to the Karaite discourse on the issue of ‘Hezekiah’s Passover’.145 Unlike al-Qūmisī, Mīshawayh did not hesitate to draw concrete conclusions from the exclusion of the seven days of unleavened bread from ‘Passover in the desert’, namely, the abolition of these days in the Diaspora. This was one of the reasons why the Karaites looked askance at him, since Mīshawayh held that not only the seven days of unleavened bread but also the festivals and sacrifices were binding only in the Land of Israel. Ibn Ezra combined the Karaite method with that of the Rabbinic Sages. Like the Karaites and Mīshawayh, he claimed that the first day of consecration was 1 Nisan – the day they tabernacle was erected.146 The princes’ sacrifices were brought after the days of consecration, and skipped over the intervening Sabbath.147 He taught us that the alternative (non-rabbinical) tradition drew a parallel between the dedication of the tabernacle and the dedication of the First Temple. One of Ibn Ezra’s proofs that the princes did not bring sacrifices on the Sabbath sheds light on an element in the ancient ‘Sadducean’ tradition. In Ibn Ezra footsteps, one could say that this tradition did not relate only to the Tabernacles festival that Solomon celebrated, but also to the dedication of the Temple that preceded it. On both these occasions, no sacrifices other than the Sabbath sacrifices were brought on the Sabbath.148 Since Ibn Ezra claimed that the first prince brought his sacrifice on 8 Nisan, he was obliged to link the princes’ sacrifices to ‘Passover in the desert’. According to him, Passover in the desert was celebrated without the seven days of unleavened bread, and therefore there was no obstacle to the princes bringing their sacrifices at that time.149 144 145 146 147 148 149 142 143

Above, n. 75. Above, nn. 85–87. Above, nn. 69, 73, 99. Above, nn. 105–108. Above, n. 80. Above, n. 84. Above, nn. 87–93. Above, nn. 95–96.

204

Chapter Three

Ibn Ezra concurred with the Rabbinic Sages that 1 Nisan fell at that time on a Sunday,150 and that the consecration sacrifices overruled the Sabbath.151 Like the Rabbinic Sages, he claimed to that the first daily sacrifice was brought on 1 Nisan. But unlike the Rabbinic Sages, he held that the first daily sacrifice was part of the seven days of consecration.152 Evidently, he did not wish to challenge the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages in Megīllat Taʿanit which states that the daily sacrifices began on 1 Nisan.153 The Karaite Discourse Concerning the Celebration of the Festivals in the Diaspora We saw above that the Mīshawites’ discussion on ‘Passover in the desert’ was part of a much broader opinion that all commandments relating to the festivals and the sacrifices were not observed in the desert, since they were commandments pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel.154 This conclusion led extremist Mīshawite circles to the conclusion that in their times, too, the festivals were not to be observed in the Diaspora, only remembered. Others, who were daunted by this sweeping conclusion, abolished the Pentecost festival only.155 A study of the evidence for the abolition of the Pentecost festival shows a similarity with the proofs invoked in the discussion on ‘Passover in the desert’. Below are some of the main points: a. The Pentecost festival was dependent on the waving of the Omer, which was a commandment pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel, as it says: ‘When you are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest’ (Leviticus 23.10). Failure to wave the Omer, therefore, entails the abolition of the Pentecost festival, which is contingent on it.156 As stated, the verse “when ye be come to the land” (Exodus 12.25) served as proof that the Passover was a commandment pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel.157 b. We already saw above that according to Mīshawayh, any commandment that had to be observed ‘in all your dwellings’ pertained 152 153 154 155 156 157 150 151

Above, nn. 59, 83. Above, n. 80. Above, n. 81. Above, n. 56. Above, nn. 109–117. Qirqisānī, pp. 62, 852, 874–876. Qirqisānī, p. 874. Above, n. 109.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

205

exclusively to the Land of Israel.158 In the case of the prohibition of eating the new produce [‫ ]חדש‬until a sacrifice was brought on the day of the waving of the Omer, Scriptures refers to Israel’s dwellings: ‘until ye have brought the offering of your God; it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings’ (Leviticus 23.14). Similarly, in connection with the Pentecost festival, the verse states: ‘there shall be a holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no manner of servile work; it is a statute for ever in all your dwellings through your generations’ (Leviticus 21). Testimony of Mīshawayh’s interpretation of ‘your dwellings’ in Leviticus 23.14 can be found also in Ibn Ezra’s discussion on the fat of desired meat. On this issue, Ibn Ezra faithfully followed Mīshawayh, as Aaron ben Elijah testifies: ‘Ibn Ezra pursued them with the fat of profane meat in the Torah’.159 Ibn Ezra argued with a Karaite who claimed that the verse ‘in all your dwellings […] ye shall eat neither fat nor blood’ (Leviticus 3.17) referred to any place where Jews lived, and therefore referred to desired meat, not sacrificial meat which was brought in the Temple, only. In refutation of this view, Ibn Ezra invoked Leviticus 23.14. Had the words ‘in all your dwellings’ in this verse referred to any place where Jews lived, Jews would not have been allowed to eat bread in the Diaspora. Since, however, in his opinion ‘in all your dwellings’ refers to the Land of Israel only, it is permitted to eat bread in the Diaspora: The expression ‘it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings’ is not irrefutable proof because it says ‘And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day, until ye have brought the offering of your God’ (Leviticus 23.14), and only then it says ‘it is a statute for ever’. If this is the case, then we may not eat bread in the Diaspora because we have not brought the Omer-offering.160 Above, n. 117. Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Leviticus 3.9. On Mīshawayh’s position on desired meat and its fat, and the influence of his doctrine on Ibn Ezra, see below, nn. 197, 209, 228–239. 160 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. The Karaite’s argument is related by Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, below, n. 569. For the Karaite’s line of reasoning, see below, n. 557. Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Leviticus 3.9, interprets Ibn Ezra’s statement as follows: ‘And Ben Ezra says that this refers to the fat of the sacrifices, and he brought a similar proof from Scriptures: “And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor fresh ears, until this selfsame day” (Leviticus 23.14), which is followed by the statement: “it is a statute for ever throughout your generations” (Leviticus, 23.14), and they pertain to the land. For otherwise, we would not eat bread in the Diaspora, because we have not brought the Omer-offering’. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 234, 89 a-b, argues that there is no connection between these two prohibitions: ‘for the prohibition on bread or corn cannot be compared to that of meat in the exile’. In his Commentary on 158 159

206

Chapter Three

c. Some claimed that just as the fact that the Israelites did not celebrate the seven days of unleavened bread in the desert shows that this commandment pertained exclusively to the Land of Israel, so, too, the Pentecost festival should be abolished in the Diaspora since it was not celebrated in the desert.161 Clearly, Mīshawayh and his circle, who were evidently loyal adherents of Qumran Law regarding the calendar and the dedication of the tabernacle, developed an entire doctrine that held that the festivals pertained exclusively to the Land of Israel. This principle brings us back to our discussion about the Caves Sect, about whose identity there is much controversy. According to al-Bīrūnī, the Caves Sect, which adopted a solar calendar, celebrated the festivals in the Land of Israel only.162 The principle resembles that of Mīshawayh, who was a faithful disciple of the Qumran sect, thereby corroborating the assumption that the Caves Sect was the Qumran sect. This being so, we cannot dismiss the possibility that Mīshawayh’s proofs that the festivals pertained exclusively to the Land of Israel were derived from an ancient tradition which the Rabbinic Sages opposed. The special circumstances in which the Qumran sect operated were totally different from the historical circumstances surrounding the Mīshawite sect. The Qumran sect operated during the Temple’s existence, although members of the sect refused to participate in the Temple service. Their refusal to participate did not stem from opposition to the sacrifices, but rather from a belief that their rivals had defiled the sanctuary: But all who were brought into the covenant (are) not to enter the temple to light his altar in vain (but rather are) to be closers of the doors as God says: ‘Whoever amongst you will close its doors so that you do not kindle my altar in vain’. (Malakhi 1.10) […] Unless they are careful to act within the exact requirements of the Torah for the age of wickedness: to separate themselves from the sons of the pit; to abstain from wicked wealth which defiles; either by promise or by vow, and from the wealth of the temple.163 Leviticus 23.3, which focuses on the Sabbath, Ibn Ezra explain ‘in all your dwellings’ as follows: ‘in your land and outside your land, at home and on the way’. 161 Qirqisānī, p. 877. The Rabbinic Sages were greatly divided as to whether the Omer and new produce were observed in the desert. Likewise, there is a controversy among them surrounding the terms ‘your dwellings’ and ‘when ye be come to the land’. See Mishnah, Menaḥot 4.3; 8.1; BT, Menaḥot 45b, 83b-84a. 162 Above, Ch. 2, n. 231. 163 Damascus Covenant 6.11–16, (Charlesworth edition), p. 23. Cf. Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q267 2, 17–22 and 4Q266 frag. 3 ii, 17–22, p. 41.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

207

The Qumran sect called itself ‘the exile of the desert’.164 When they went into exile in the ‘land of Damascus’, in order to set up a new covenant,165 they ceased bringing sacrifices. They may not have celebrated the festivals, either, given our knowledge of the Caves Sect and Mīshawayh’s doctrine. We cannot rule out the possibility that the ‘exile of the desert’ forbade the celebration of the festivals based on the fact that the Israelites did not celebrate the festivals during their sojourn in the desert. One of the significant proofs invoked by Mīshawayh and his circle to demonstrate that sacrifices were not brought in the desert is the verse in Amos 5.25.166 If this proof was derived from Qumran writings, it may shed light on the interpretation by the author of the Damascus Covenant of the subsequent verse: ‘So shall ye take up Siccuth your king and Khiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves’ (Amos 5.26). After the author informs us that the members of the new covenant boycotted the Temple,167 he goes on to say that when members of his sect fled to the ‘land of the north’, they took with them ‘Siccuth your king and Khiun your images’ (Amos 5.26) which, according to the author of the Damascus Covenant, referred to the ‘Books of the Torah’ and the ‘Books of the Prophets’, respectively. The Books of the Torah and the Books of the Prophets were simply substitutes for sacrifices during the exile in the ‘land of the north’: The same source, 11.18–21 states: ‘Let no man send to the altar a burnt offering, a meal offering, frankincense or wood through a man who is defiled with one of the impurities, thereby giving him license to defile the altar, for it is written: “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination” (Proverbs 21.27), and the prayer of the righteous is like an agreeable meal offering’, (Charlesworth edition), pp. 49–51. Cf. Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), pp. 180–181. On the Qumran sect’s attitude to service in the Temple, see Baumgarten, ‘Sacrifice’, pp. 141–157. 164 War Scroll, 1.2 (Charlesworth edition), p. 97. Charlesworth, War Scroll, 1.3, p. 97, states: ‘when the exiles, the sons of light, return from the desert of the peoples to encamp in the desert of Jerusalem’. 165 Damascus Covenant 6.10: ‘those who entered the new covenant in the land of Damascus’. 166 Above, nn. 109–111. On the different approach of the Rabbinic Sages to this verse, see above, n. 63. Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Amos (Simon edition), pp. 223– 225, like Mīshawayh, explained the verse according to its literal interpretation: ‘“The sacrifices” (Amos 5.25). According to the literal explanation, it would appear that the definite article before the word “sacrifices” in actual fact denotes a query. This is why: Because they did not bring any. And our predecessors, of blessed memory, said that the Levites brought sacrifices. If this is a tradition, we accept it, although according to the literal interpretation, they did not bring sacrifices’. Ibn Ezra relates to R. Akiva’s statement in BT, Ḥagiga 6b. See below, n. 224. 167 Damascus Covenant 6.11–12. See above, n. 163.

208

Chapter Three

But those who remained steadfast escaped to the land of the north. As he said: ‘I will deport the Sikkut of your king and the Kiyyum of your images away from my tent to Damascus’. The books of the Torah the king’s booth [‫]סוכת המלך‬ […] and the ‘Kiyyum of your images’ are the books of the prophets whose words Israel despised.168

As stated, Mīshawayh claimed that the seven days of unleavened bread were not celebrated in the desert. He also maintained that they were not celebrated either during ‘Hezekiah’s Passover’, due to the desecration of the Temple.169 This may have been further proof from the Qumran School that service in the Temple was to be suspended when it was defiled. Mīshawayh’s circle may have concluded from this proof that the commandments pertaining to the seven days of unleavened bread or all festivals in general were not applicable in the Diaspora, or even in the Land of Israel in their period, because of the destruction of the Temple and of the land. The question of the continuance or suspension of the festivals affected the entire Karaite camp, and the pluralism that was so evident in Karaite discourse found expression here, too. Mīshawayh and his circle, and his mentors, the Baṣra Karaites, were not the only ones in the Karaite camp to call for the abolition of most of the commandment in the Diaspora. Qirqisānī informs us that the question of observing commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel in the Diaspora was one of the bones of contention that divided the Karaite camp. The Karaites and ʿAnanites who called for curtailing the commandments in the Diaspora were numerous, unlike Qirqisānī himself, who allied himself with the other camp.170 One group of Karaites maintained, like Yūdghān, that the festivals should not be celebrated in the Diaspora at all.171 168 Damascus Covenant 7.13–18. Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q266 frag. 3 iii, 18–19, p. 44. Shiffman, Halakha, p. 53, maintains that the author of the scroll interpreted “and I exiled” in the sense of ‘revelation’. The ‘star’ mentioned in Amos 5.26 is identified in the Damascus Covenant 7.18 with the ‘Interpreter of the law’: ‘And the star is the Interpreter of the law’. Wieder, ‘Law Interpreter’, pp. 166–167, argues that the author of the scroll was referring to the ‘star of the sun’, namely, the planet Mercury. In my article, ‘Īdrīs’, pp. 339–346, I compared the ‘Interpreter of the law’ to Īdrīs in the Qurʾān (10.55–56). The interpreters of the Qurʾān identify Īdrīs with Enoch, Mercury and Hermes. Tanḥum ben Joseph, the Jerusalemite, in his Commentary on the Minor Prophets, Amos 5.26 (Shai edition), pp. 89–91, brings a tradition that he found in the writings of the Rishonīm that the ‘star’ in this verse is the planet Mercury. Tanḥum rejects this tradition. 169 Above, nn. 105–108. 170 Qirqisānī, pp. 418–424. 171 Qirqisānī, p. 53. On Yudghān, see above, n. 30.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

209

Qirqisānī, in refuting the call for the abolition of the Pentecost festival, argued that if the Mīshawites were loyal to their guiding principle, they would not celebrate any festival in the Diaspora. If they abolished the Pentecost festival on the grounds that it was contingent on the waving of the Omer, what about the Passover festival, which was contingent on the barley [‫ ]אביב‬and on the Passover sacrifice? Moreover, the verse in Exodus 13.5 explicitly states that the days of unleavened bread, including the Day of Convocation included in them, were themselves commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel. The same logic that called for the abolition of the festival of unleavened bread in the Diaspora also called for the abolition of the Tabernacles festival, since it was contingent on the harvest in the Holy Land (Exodus 23.16).172 In the final analysis, moderate Mīshawite circles rejected the sweeping conclusion that all festivals were to be abolished in the Diaspora, and abolished the Pentecost festival only.173 Daniel al-Qūmisī, who was very close to Mīshawayh, maintained, like him, that ‘Passover in the desert’ was celebrated once only, and without the seven days of unleavened bread, and substantiated this claim.174 According to him, the Israelites did not celebrate any of the three foot festivals in the desert.175 As a rule, al-Qūmisī was opposed to the observance of surrogate commandments in the Diaspora. According to him, these commandments detracted from the commemoration of the Temple and the centrality of the Land of Israel. Inter alia, he opposed the observance of the commandment of the palm branch [‫]לולב‬ in the synagogue, and opposed the placing of the Holy Ark in the synagogue and the rituals surrounding it, since they were substitutes for the Temple. In his Commentary on Micah 5.12, al-Qūmisī says: ‘And I will cut off thy graven images’ for all your service that is not from the Torah is like idolatry, and likewise, anything barānī (extraneous). ‘And thy pillars’: Where today are there pillars among the Jews, other than the Holy Arks that are in all synagogues in the Diaspora, before which they prostrate themselves, and which they call ‘ark’. And also during the Tabernacles festival, they take a palm branch and walk around it.176 Qirqisānī, pp. 874–875. Above, n. 155. 174 Above, nn. 74–76. 175 Qirqisānī, pp. 938–939. They observed the Day of Atonement; see Qirqisānī, pp. 938–939. 176 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Micah 8.12, Pitron, p. 46. Also, in ‘Sermon’, f. 14a-b (Nemoy edition), pp. 92–93, al-Qūmisī emphasizes that commandments 172 173

210

Chapter Three

Qirqisānī, who understood the similarity between Mīshawayh and al-Qūmisī on this issue, maintained that al-Qūmisī’s view that the Israelites did not celebrate the three foot festivals in the desert inevitably led to the abolition of the festivals in the Diaspora, as was the case with the Baṣra Karaites.177 Had he conducted a thorough study of alQūmisī’s Commentary on Amos 5.25, he would have realized the difference between them. According to Mīshawayh, this verse teaches us that no sacrifices whatsoever were brought in the desert, after the Israelites left Mount Sinai.178 Al-Qūmisī, on the other hand, concluded from this verse that in the desert they brought neither votive or free-will offerings, nor peace or meal offerings. On the other hand, mandatory burnt offerings were brought: ‘Did you offer up in the desert your vows and freewill offerings? For in the desert they only offered up sacrifices they were ordered to bring and not peace offerings or meal offerings. And that is why it states: “sacrifices and meal offerings” (Amos 5.25) and not: “burnt offerings and meal offerings.”’179 Unlike Mīshawayh, al-Qūmisī did not abolish the festivals in the Diaspora. In discussing the four fasts enumerated by the prophet Zechariah (Zechariah 8.19), al-Qūmisī orders them to be observed in the Diaspora, just like the festivals: ‘the commemoration of the exodus from Egypt yearly […] and the festival of unleavened bread […] the new month of Tishrei until the Day of Atonement […] and the festival of Tabernacles’.180 Qirqisānī, who was diametrically opposed to the Mourners of Zion, was not the only one to reject Mīshawayh’s doctrine regarding the festivals. Yefet ben ʿEli, whose opposition to Mīshawayh’s doctrine has earned him the title of ‘moderate Mourner of Zion’ in this book, also opposed Mīshawayh, as we see from his commentaries. His deviation from the alternative anti-rabbinical tradition, which he followed regarding the dedication of the tabernacle and ‘Passover in the desert’, stemmed from his opposition to the abolition of the festivals in the Diaspora.181

pertaining to the land and the temple were not to be observed in the Diaspora. On the synagogue versus the temple in al-Qūmisī’s doctrine, see Reiner, ‘Destruction’, pp. 47–64. 177 Qirqisānī, pp. 941–942. 178 Above, n. 109. 179 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Amos 5.25, Pitron, p. 36. 180 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zechariah 7.1–9, Pitron, p. 69. 181 Above, nn. 138–141.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

211

Mīshawayh’s conversion to Christianity alerted him and most Karaite Mourners of Zion to the dangers inherent in this method.182 Mīshawayh’s failure acted as a deterrent for the mainstream Mourners of Zion. They understood full well that if the Messiah failed to appear, the nation could cease to observe commandments in the Diaspora for generations. This path inevitably led to apostasy. Evidently Levi ben Yefet, Yefet’s son who lived in the eleventh century, was referring to Mīshawayh and his ilk when describing the apostasy that was an inevitable outcome of the failure to observe the commandments in the Diaspora: And so the question arises, What do you do with the verse: ‘Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith’ (Deuteronomy 16.3) […] If he is willing to incur the penalty, he will abolish the festival of unleavened bread. And likewise the Tabernacles festival, since it states: ‘When ye have gathered in the fruits of the land’ (Leviticus 23.39), and likewise, the Day of Atonement, because of the sin offering on the Day of Atonement, and likewise, the laws of impurity, because of the destruction of the Temple. And if you say that this person no longer belongs to the Jewish nation, then know that people have already been lost to Israel and breached the law of Israel.183 The only option left to the mainstream Mourners of Zion was to express their mourning more moderately, namely, to refrain from consuming desired meat and drinking wine. They chose to observe the commandments relating to the festivals. Desired Meat and the Fat of Desired Meat We learnt above that Mīshawite circles forbade celebrating the festivals to a greater or lesser extent. The mainstream Mourners of Zion rejected this position, and celebrated the festivals both in the Diaspora and in the Land of Israel. The way they expressed their mourning was by refraining from eating desired meat and drinking wine.184 A precedent had already On Mīshawayh’s conversion to Christianity, see above, n. 14. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), II, pp. 419–420. 184 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 4, forbade drinking wine by comparing it to desired meat: ‘And wine and spirits are forbidden to us now as it says: “And thou shalt bestow the money for whatsoever they soul desireth, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul asketh of thee; and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and thy household. And the Levite that is within thy gates” (Deuteronomy 14.26–27). He compared wine and spirits to cattle and sheep. Just as cattle and sheep are permitted in your gates 182 183

212

Chapter Three

been set by ʿAnan, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī, all of whom forbade desired meat.185 Pluralism among the Mourners of Zion found expression on this issue of the prohibition of desired meat, too. Some forbade desired meat in Jerusalem only.186 Our sources testify that Mīshawayh, on the other hand, permitted desired meat. Thus, his followers patently violated one of the hallmarks of mourning of the Mourners of Zion. Not only did they permit desired meat, they also permitted the fat of desired meat, which were totally proscribed by the Karaites.187 Below I shall present the main points of the controversy between the moderate Mourners of Zion and Mīshawayh, both on the issue of the permissibility of desired meat, and the issue of the permissibility of the fat of desired meat. I shall attempt to analyze the reasons for the controversy and its ancient sources. Before we begin discussing the issue of desired meat, I shall present the Karaite terminology of slaughtered meat, based on Yefet ben ʿEli’s commentaries. In his Commentary on Leviticus 19, Yefet divided slaughtered meat into three types: holy meat [‫]קודשים‬, profane meat [‫ ]חולין‬and game beasts and fowl [‫]ציד חיה ועוף‬.188 a. Holy meat, i.e. the sacrifices, were divided into eight kinds: burnt offering, sin offering, guilt offering, consecration offering, Passover offering, the first-born male of an animal, peace offering and meal offering.189 The burnt, sin, guilt and meal offerings were considered holy of holies, while the Passover, first-born and peace offerings were considered holy. The consecration offerings were somewhere in between these two categories (bayn almanzilatayn).190 There is a clear distinction between the burnt, sin and guilt offerings, which have the status of holy of holies, only, so are wine and spirits permitted to us only in your gates. And the verse specifies this by writing: “and thou shalt eat there,” indicating that it is permitted to eat cattle and sheep there, but when not “there,” it is forbidden’. On the prohibition of drinking wine in ʿAnan’s thinking, see also ʿAnan, p. 21. Likewise, Harkavy’s note, pp. 193–194. Zucker, Targum, p. 151, n. 608. See also below, n. 256. 185 Qirqisānī, pp. 1141–1142. 186 Sahl, Epistle, p. 33, argued that the Rabbinic Sages in Palestine learnt from the Karaites not to eat cattle and sheep in Jerusalem. See above, Ch. 1, n. 363. On Karaite slaughtering of desired meat in Jerusalem, see Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 90, p. 167, 187 Cf. Qurʾān 6.147, cattle and sheep’s fat is forbidden to Jews because of their waywardness. 188 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17, PBN Héb 282, f. 99a. On ff. 99a-100a, Yefet discusses the similarities and differences between these three types of slaughtering. 189 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 7.36–38, MS BL. Or. 2472, f. 30a. In his interpretation of these verses, he brings a detailed discussion of the sacrificial laws. 190 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 7.36–38, MS BL. Or. 2472, ff.30a-b.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

213

and the other sacrifices. The former were slaughtered in the inner courtyard of the Temple, while the latter were slaughtered in the outer courtyard.191 b. Profane meat. Although Yefet called desired meat profane meat,192 I use the term ‘desired meat’ throughout this book. By ‘desired meat’ Yefet meant cattle and sheep that met the requirements for sacrifice, but which could be slaughtered for consumption by those living far from the ‘chosen place’, after the Land of Israel had been apportioned (Deuteronomy 12.20–21). Eating this meat was permitted but not mandatory.193 It should be noted that the Karaites and Mīshawayh both held that the weekly Torah portion ‘Reʾeh’ discussed desired meat twice – in Deuteronomy 12.15–16, and Deuteronomy 12.20–23. The Rabbinic Sages, on the other hand, claimed that only the passage in Deuteronomy 12.20–23 referred to desired meat.194 c. Game beasts and fowl. Here, we shall discuss game beasts only, such as the gazelle and the hart [‫]צבי ואיל‬. This meat was meant for consumption, and not for sacrificial purposes.195 Yefet states that the Torah permitted the consumption of desired meat in the Land of Israel only, while game could be consumed anywhere: ‘God permitted the consumption of many animals and birds throughout the world, including game of animals and fowl, but cattle may be consumed in the Land of Israel only’.196

Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 7.36–38, MS BL. Or. 2472, f. 31a. Sometimes, Yefet calls this meat also ‘desired meat’. See below, n. 265. Israel ben Daniel, Book of Precepts, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1769, f. 67a, informs us that desired meat is profane meat (‘desired meat, namely profane meat’). On Israel ben Daniel, see Sklare, ‘Karaite Works’, pp. 127–131. 193 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95, f. 46a: ‘Its consumption is permitted but not obligatory’. 194 According to the Rabbinic Sages, the text in Deuteronomy 12.15 refers to ‘animals that are disqualified for sacrifices’. Sifre Deuteronomy, 71, states: ‘“thou mayest kill and eat flesh after all the desire of thy soul” (Deuteronomy 12.15). What is the verse referring to? If desired meat, it was already been mentioned, and if sacrificial meat, it was already mentioned. Thus, it must be referring to animals that are disqualified for sacrifices’. 195 Scriptures in Deuteronomy 14.4–5 specifies ten types of animal that are fit for consumption. Israel ben Daniel, Book of Precepts, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1769, f. 3a, informs us that of these, only sheep and goats may be brought as sacrifices. 196 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 7.26, MS BL. Or. 2472, f. 26a. On game meat that Daniel ate in exile, see below, n. 268. 191

192

214

Chapter Three

The Permission to Eat Desired Meat and the Fat of Desired Meat in Mīshawite Halakha The Karaite sources teach us that Mīshawayh permitted desired meat and the fat of desired meat. The fat ‘of cattle that are not sacrificed; known as “profane meat,” is permitted’.197 Although Qirqisānī believed that Mīshawayh invented this law, one of the elders of ʿUkbara informed him that Mīshawayh was taught this law by one of the residents of Jibāl – northern Persia.198 Qirqisānī accepted this assertion, since the inhabitants of Jibāl were known for their unsubstantiated innovations. At the same time, he blamed Mīshawayh for disseminating their false doctrine, and for even attempting to substantiate it.199 Evidently, it was convenient for the Karaites to emphasize this halakha propounded by Mīshawayh, since they totally proscribed the fat of both sacrificial and desired meat: ‘The Karaite sages totally proscribed the fat of profane meat: five from cattle and goats, and six from sheep’.200 Anyone eating the fat of desired meat incurred the death penalty [‫]כרת‬.201 According to Poznanski, the Karaites washed their hands off Mīshawayh over this halakhic issue because Saʿadia Gaon ascribed it to the Karaites. Tobias ben Moses, in response to Saʿadia Gaon, retorted that the Rabbinic Sages were closer to Mīshawayh on this issue than were the Karaites, since they permitted some fat: Then the ‘pitomi’ (derogatory term for Saʿadia Gaon) said […] “We heard that certain people of our nation permitted fat in our 197 Tobias, Oṣar Neḥmad, f. 87a. Cf. Ankori, Karaites, p. 389, n. 91. Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, ‘On Ritual Slaughtering’, Ch. XIX, f. 94b: ‘Some of them say that Scriptures forbade the fat of sacrificial meat only, not that of profane meat, and this is the belief of Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī and his followers’. 198 Qirqisānī, p. 57. On Jibāl, see Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-buldān, II, p. 15–16. 199 Qirqisānī, pp. 57, 1203. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 42b: ‘Because he permitted the fat of profane meat to be eaten without bringing it as a sacrifice. And he took this doctrine from the people of the mountains who replaced your Torah’. Hadassi wrongly translated the word Jibāl as “mountains’. 200 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter ha-Torah, Commentary on Leviticus 3.9. See Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, ha-Maʾakhalot, XIV, p. 14. Qirqisānī, pp. 371–372, 282. Sahl, Epistle, p. 30. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), p. 592, describes three approaches concerning the fat of desired meat: ‘Some (i.e., Mīshawayh] permit the fat of profane meat and forbid the fat of sacrificial meat. Others [i.e., the Rabbinic Sages] permit some fat of profane meat, and forbid others. Yet others [i.e., most of the Karaites] forbid it completely’. On the identity of the three groups, see Aaron ben Elijah, Keter ha-Torah, Commentary on Leviticus 3.9. 201 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, ‘On Ritual Slaughtering’, Ch. XIX, f. 94c: ‘Because the fat of profane meat is forbidden, and he who eats it is punishable by death’.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

215

generation […] and I did not know that there was a difference between those replacing us and them” […] Know, my brethren, that this cynical ‘pitumi’ mentioned the words of Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī and his followers permitting the fat of profane meat. Because he and his sages and clerics, who went astray and led others astray, resemble Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī, who permitted fat. They are closer to him than anyone else, because they permitted some forbidden fats. As to the Baʿalei Miqra [Karaites] – who totally proscribe the fat of profane meat, based on the verse: ‘You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat’ (Leviticus 7.23) – how can they be compared to Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī, who permitted fat?202

According to Tobias, Saʿadia Gaon was referring to Mīshawayh when he said ‘certain people of our nation permitted fat in our generation’. This testifies to the fact that Mīshawayh allowed his contemporaries to consume desired meat. Indeed, according to Hadassi, Mīshawayh permitted desired meat and its fat in the Diaspora: ‘According to Mīshawayh’s doctrine, we may eat fat in our exile’.203 The permission to eat the fat of desired meat was not specific to the period of exile and destruction. According to Mīshawayh, even during the Temple period, this fat was permitted. The prohibition on fat related exclusively to sacrificial meat: ‘When the Temple existed, the fat of sacrifices were forbidden, but the fat of animals that were not sacrificed were permitted’.204 Mīshawayh permitted desired meat and its fat, because he compared this meat to game meat which was unanimously permitted, together with its fat: ‘He who interpreted “as of the gazelle, and of the hart” (Deuteronomy 12.15) to mean that they were permitted with their fat, without separation or holiness, which is Mīshawayh’s doctrine – was entirely mistaken’.205

Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, ff.101b-102a. Cf. Ankori, Karaites, p. 390, nn. 94, 96; p. 391, n. 98. On permitted and forbidden fat in the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages, see BT, Ḥulin 74b; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedusha, ‘Laws on Forbidden Foods’, Ch. VII, Halakhot 1, 3, and 7; entry ‘Ḥelev’ in the Talmudic Encyclopaedia, XV, pp. 112–114. Also Salmon ben Yerūḥam, Milḥamot, IX, p. 82, accused the Rabbinic Sages of eating forbidden fat: ‘They are not afraid to eat fat, or enter into forbidden relationships, and seek reward like Joshua and Caleb’. See also Salmon, Milḥamot, XII, p. 99. 203 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 233, 88d. 204 Tobias ben Moses, Oṣar Neḥmad, f. 101b, and ff., f. 102b, states: ‘But Mīshawayh and his followers argue that the forbidden fat is that of cattle and sheep that is brought as a sacrifice, not the fat of profane meat’. See Poznanski, ‘Meswi’, pp. 163–164; Ankori, Karaites, p. 389.163–164. 205 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 231, 88b. 202

216

Chapter Three

Mīshawayh was not the only one who permitted desired meat and its fat. Other sects that were familiar with Qumran literature also permitted it, as testified by the doctrine of Abū ʿImrān al-Tiflīsī.206 Abū ʿImrān condemned marriage to a niece, which was prohibited in the Damascus Covenant.207 He determined the date of the Pentecost festival according to the Karaite custom and, like the Karaites, prohibited the fat tail [‫]אליה‬. He also approved consumption of meat in the Diaspora208 and, according to Hadassi, fat, too: ‘He even permitted meat and its fat in this exile’.209 Now that we have presented Mīshawayh’s halakhic viewpoint, we shall analyze the Karaite discourse on the permissibility or otherwise of eating desired meat and its fat. I shall begin with the permissibility of eating desired meat. The Karaite Discourse on the Permissibility and Prohibition of Desired Meat Were Sacrifices Brought in the Desert? Given that Mīshawayh’s call for the abolition of the festivals in the Diaspora was based on the precedent of non-celebration of the festivals in the desert, it should not surprise us that his ruling regarding desired meat was likewise based on the Israelites’ conduct in the desert. In the discussion regarding the celebration of festivals in the desert, we saw that the Mīshawites held that sacrifices were not brought in the desert, apart from on special occasions. At the same time, they argued that the Israelites ate meat, and that this meat was desired meat. According to the principle of parallelism between the desert and the Diaspora, the Mīshawites permitted desired meat in the Diaspora. The moderate Mourners of Zion, on the other hand, argued that the meat consumed by the Israelites in the desert was sacrificial meat, not desired meat, which was forbidden. We shall now focus on the Karaite discourse regarding sacrifices in the desert. We already raised the issue of sacrifices in the desert as part of the discussion on ‘Passover in the desert’. The Mīshawites attempted to prove that there were no sacrifices in the desert after the Israelites left Mount

206 On the Tifilīsīs, see Ankori, Karaites, pp. 369–372. According to Qirqisānī, p. 57, Abū ʿImrān al-Tiflīsī took issue with Ḥīwī al-Balkhī. 207 Above, Ch. 2, n. 83. 208 Qirqisānī, p. 57. 209 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 98, 41d.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

217

Sinai from the verse in Amos 5.25, and the verse in Numbers 28.6.210 Yefet’s Commentary on Amos 5.25 indicates that the verse in Numbers 15.2–3 was also invoked as proof that no sacrifices were brought in the desert. This verse concerning bringing sacrifices in the desert was interpreted in two ways by the sages. One argued that no sacrifices were brought from the time the Israelites left Mount Sinai until they entered the land. He based this view on the verse: ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice, which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6) as well as on the verse: ‘When ye are come into the land of your dwellings, which I give unto you, and will make an offering by fire unto the Lord, a burnt offering, or a sacrifice’ (Numbers 15.2–3). Those who held this view interpreted the ‘sacrifices and offerings’ [‫ ]הזבחים ומנחה‬in Amos 5.25 as follows: ‘Have you offered up sacrifices when I wanted you to obey me?! – By bringing sacrifices, you discarded the yoke and this is not my wish’. According to the second interpretation, mandatory sacrifices were brought in the desert, namely: the daily sacrifices, the additional sacrifices, the sacrifices of those with a discharge, a mother who has just delivered, a leper, and all other mandatory sacrifices. In the desert they did not bring: sacrifices of first-born animals, votive sacrifices, or freewill sacrifices. The interpretation of the verse according to this method is thus: ‘Did you offer up sacrifices, meal offerings, votive offerings, free-will offerings, gift offerings and first-born animal offerings in the desert?!’211

Clearly, the sage who believed that the Israelites never brought sacrifices in the desert was Mīshawayh. The second view referred to by Yefet was evidently that propounded by Daniel al-Qūmisī.212 The fact that the verse in Numbers 15.2 was invoked to corroborate the claim that sacrifices were not brought in the desert is not surprising since, according to Mīshawayh, any commandment that is qualified Above, nn. 110–112. Also, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.8–9, INA C 41, f. 9b, Yefet states that anyone who claimed that sacrifices were not brought after they left Mount Sinai, based his view on Amos 5.25, and on Numbers 28.6. 211 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 5.25, Trinity College, Cambridge F12.118., pp. 79b-80a. 212 Above, n. 179. Yefet, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.8–9, INA C 41, f. 9b, states that anyone claiming that the Israelites offered up daily and additional sacrifices after they left Mount Sinai, also claimed that they did not offer up votive and free-will offerings. According to R. Simon (Mishnah, Menaḥot 4.3): ‘Whatever is mentioned in the book of Numbers was offered up in the desert, but whatever is mentioned in the book of Leviticus was not offered up in the desert. After they entered the land, both were offered’. 210

218

Chapter Three

by ‘in your dwellings’, is a commandment pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel.213 As stated, Yefet believed that the expression ‘in your dwellings’ referred to any place inhabited by Jews.214 He admitted that the verse in Numbers 15.2 referred to commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel, but did not deduce this from the words ‘in your dwellings’, but rather from the expression ‘which I give unto you’: The verse: ‘When ye are come into the land of your dwellings’ (Numbers 15.2) refers to the land of Canaan, to teach us that this commandment pertains to the Land of Israel. Had the verse simply said ‘the land of your dwellings’, this would not constitute sufficient proof that it is referring to the Land of Israel. But since it says: ‘which I give unto you’, it informs us that it is referring to the Land of Israel.215

Yefet’s Commentary on Numbers 28.6 shows us how the Mīshawites interpreted this verse: When he (who claims that no sacrifices were brought in the desert) was asked: What is the purpose of stating: ‘which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6)? he answered: It informs us that from the time the tabernacle was erected until they entered the land, only the daily sacrifice was brought […] and even that was not brought after they left Mount Sinai. Therefore it says: ‘which was offered in Mount Sinai’.216

Some claimed that the daily sacrifice was not brought even at Mount Sinai, since the words ‘offered’ [literally ‫ ]עשויה‬means ‘commanded’.217 Those who maintained that sacrifices were not brought in the desert were required to explain passages such an Exodus 3.12; 3.18; or 10.25–26, which indicate that the Israelites were sent into the desert in order to bring sacrifices. They did so by claiming that when Moses asked Pharaoh See above, nn. 114, 117. below, n. 570. Above, n. 114. 215 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 15.2–3, PBN Héb 283, f. 32b. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.8–9, INA C 41, f. 9b, Yefet informs us of other commandments pertaining exclusively to the land: ‘They were not obliged to take tithes, because they had not entered the land. Tithes are binding only on those who have entered the land. Likewise, they were not obliged to observe the commandments of the priestly tithes [‫ ]תרומה‬or the first-born of cattle or sheep’. 216 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 28.6, BL. Or. 2475, f. 56a. 217 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 28.6, BL. Or. 2475, f. 56a. This was the position of R. Eliezer, see below, n. 224. 213 214

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

219

let them go out into the desert in order to bring sacrifices, he did so only to win Pharaoh round. In practice, the ‘service of God’ referred to in the verse (Exodus 3.12) was not referring to sacrifices but rather to the erection of the tabernacle, whose purpose was to accommodate the two tablets of stone. In their writings, they invoked the verses in Jeremiah 7.22–23, which closely resemble Amos 5.25: Some say ‘ye shall serve God’ (Exodus 3.12) is an allusion to the tabernacle, and the tabernacle was built to house the two tablets of stone. Others say that it refers to the sacrifices, but the verse states: ‘For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them […] concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices’ (Jeremiah 7.22). And if Moses said: ‘and now let us go, we pray thee, three days’ journey into the desert, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God’ (Exodus 3.18) […] it was in order to cajole him with words.218

The moderate Mourners of Zion claimed that the ‘service of God’ mentioned in Exodus 3.12 was bringing sacrifices in the tabernacle, as Yefet ben ʿEli teaches us: When it says ‘they encamped in the desert’ (Exodus 19.2) it teaches us that they encamped there. And the verse specifies where the ‘there’ where they encamped was: ‘and there Israel encamped before the mount’ (Exodus 19.2). The words ‘before the mount’ teach us that they encamped opposite the mount in the desert. Had the verse not said ‘there’, we might have thought that they encamped in the desert, and only later opposite the mount, since the desert is a huge expanse. But they encamped there since it was a tradition transmitted by God to Moses: ‘when thou hast brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this mountain’ (Exodus 3.12). And they did so, and encamped there until they erected the tabernacle and brought sacrifices, thereby fulfilling the verse: ‘ye shall serve God’ (Exodus 3.12).219

Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah likewise opined that the ‘service of God’ at Mount Sinai (Exodus 3.12) was through sacrifices, but that it was only 218 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Exodus 3.12. Qirqisānī, p. 214, maintains that the verse in Jeremiah 7.22, and similar verses, refer only to the prohibition of free-will offerings. For a discussion on Jeremiah 7.21–23, see Weinfeld, ‘Jeremiah’, pp. 274–278. 219 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 19.2, BL. Or. 2466, ff. 32b-33a. On other commandments included in the term ‘service of God’ at Mount Sinai, see Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 1.6, BL. Or. 2478, ff. 5a-5b. Cf. Erder, ‘Altar’, p. 327, n. 37.

220

Chapter Three

after the Giving of the Law at Sinai that the Israelites know what sacrifices to bring. He based this view on the verse in Exodus 10.26: They did not sacrifice the animals in their possession before they were commanded: ‘ye shall serve God’ (Exodus 3.12), as it says: ‘and we know not with what we must serve the Lord, until we come thither’ (Exodus 10.26). These are the sacrifices that were brought after the Giving of the Law, over which the covenant was made.220

Daniel al-Qūmisī, who deduced from the verse in Amos 5.25 that obligatory offerings were brought in the desert,221 did not accept the Mīshawites’ explanation for the verse in Jeremiah 7.22. In his opinion, this verse did not constitute proof that sacrifices were not brought in the desert, as the Mīshawites believed.222 He interprets the verse in Jeremiah as a diatribe against those who brought sacrifices while neglecting other commandments: ‘You know that He commanded the Israelites regarding burnt offerings or sacrifices, and yet Scriptures states: ‘For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them […] concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices’ (Jeremiah 7.22). The answer is: He commanded burnt offerings together with the observance of the commandments’.223 We saw that the camp that maintained that sacrifices were not brought in the desert rested their case on the following verses: Numbers 15.2–3; 28.6; Jeremiah 7.22 and Amos 5.25. The literature of the Rabbinic Sages also contains a discussion about sacrifices in the desert in light of the verse in Numbers 28.6 and Amos 5.25. Rabbi Eliezer went even further than the Mīshawites by claiming that the verse in Numbers 28.6 did not testify that daily sacrifices were brought at Mount Sinai: ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6) – Rabbi Eliezer said: ‘Its laws were given at Sinai but the offerings itself were not brought’. Rabbi Akiva came to the opposite conclusion: ‘(the daily sacrifice) was brought and never ceased since’. As to the contradiction between this interpretation and the verse: ‘Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices and offerings in the desert forty years, O house of Israel?’ Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah, Commentary on Exodus 18.12, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1369, ff. 147b-148a. Yeshuʿah discusses here the date of the sacrifices brought by Jethro (Exodus 18.12). See Erder, ‘Altar’, pp. 348–349. 221 Above, pp. 179, 211–212. 222 Above, p. 218. 223 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zechariah 7.5, Pitron, p. 69. 220

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

221

(Amos 5.25), his answer is that it was the tribe of Levi ‘that did not worship idols’ that brought the sacrifices’.224 A debate among the Rabbinic Sages over whether the daily sacrifices were brought already before the establishment of the tabernacle can be found in their commentaries to the verses in Exodus 24.5–6. There it states that an altar was erected at the foot of Mount Sinai, which was also known as ‘the altar of the covenant’, on which ‘burnt offerings’ and ‘peace offerings’ were brought. According to the Hillelian school, these peace offerings were festival peace offerings, while the burnt offerings were the daily sacrifices. Rabbi Akiva is of a similar opinion.225 Those who maintain that the daily sacrifices were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’, linked the verse in Exodus 24.6 to that in Numbers 28.6: ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6). A Midrash Halakha on this verse states: ‘How do you know that the burnt offerings at Mount Sinai required a receptacle? As it states: ‘And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins’ (Exodus 24.6). This Midrash continues: ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6) – once it was offered at Mount Sinai it never ceased’.226 In this discussion by the Rabbinic Sages, a similarity can be discerned between the controversy over the kind of burnt offering that was brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ and the controversy as to whether sacrifices were brought in the desert. Those who maintained that the daily sacrifices were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ also argued that daily sacrifices never ceased (Rabbi Akiva’s view). It is obvious from Rabbi Eliezer’s viewpoint that daily sacrifices were not brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ because he deduced from the verse in Numbers 28.6 that daily sacrifices were never brought on Sinai. He also invoked Amos 5.25 as proof that no sacrifices were ever brought in the desert.227 Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Amos 5.25 is a kind of summary of the Mīshawites’ view that, based on this verse, sacrifices were not brought in the desert. Like them, he too invoked the verses in Jeremiah 7.22–23,228 BT, Ḥagiga 6b. See above, n. 217. BT, Ḥagiga, 6a. A Geniza fragment of the Mekhilta to the Torah portion of ‘Reʾeh’, states in connection with Exodus 24.8: ‘“It shall be a continual daily sacrifice throughout your generations”, (Exodus 29.42) and it states “It is a continual daily sacrifice, which was offered in Mount Sinai” (Numbers 28.6), thereby drawing a parallel between the burnt offering of Mount Sinai and the burnt offering of the generations’. See Epstein, ‘Mekhilta’, p. 66. On the Rabbinic Sages’ portrayal of the ‘altar of the covenant’, see below, nn. 467–475. 226 Sifre Zuta to Numbers 28.6 (Horovitz edition), p. 324. 227 Above, n. 224. 228 Above, n. 218. 224 225

222

Chapter Three

adding an additional proof from Hosea 6.6. As to the daily sacrifices, Ibn Ezra claimed, like Mīshawayh, that the verse in Numbers 28.6 testified that the Israelites brought the daily sacrifice at Mount Sinai only. He rejected the view of the Rabbinic Sages that the Levites brought the daily sacrifices throughout their sojourn in the desert.229 Likewise he rejected the explanation that the financial burden on the Israelites from the daily sacrifices (which, as public sacrifices, they had to finance) was so paltry that one could say that they never really brought sacrifices in the desert. Since he claimed, unlike Mīshawayh, that the daily sacrifices were brought on the first day the tabernacle was erected, namely 1 Nisan,230 they must have finished bringing the daily sacrifices some fifty days later, since they left Mount Sinai: ‘in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month’ (Numbers 10.11).231 In reckoning the 50 daily sacrifices from 1 Nisan, the day the tabernacle was erected, Ibn Ezra deliberately defied the Hillelian School, which claimed that the daily sacrifices were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’.232 Judging by all available evidence, this was Mīshawayh’s approach. We saw that those who held that the burnt offerings brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ were daily sacrifice, also claimed that they never ceased.233 On the other hand, Mīshawayh claimed that the daily sacrifices were brought at Mount Sinai only, in light of the verse ‘It is a continual daily sacrifice which was offered in Mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6).234 The daily sacrifices were brought only after the erection of the tabernacle.235 The first daily sacrifice was brought after the days of consecration that did not include the Sabbath, namely 9 Nisan, eight days after the erection on the tabernacle.236 Below is Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Amos 5.25: ‘The sacrifices’ (Amos 5.25). According to the literal explanation, it would appear that the definite article before the word ‘sacrifices’ in actual fact denotes a query. This is why: Because they did not bring any. And our predecessors, peace be upon them, said that the Levites brought sacrifices. If this is a tradition, we accept it, although according Above, n. 224. Above, nn. 81–82. 231 This calculation is erroneous, since they stayed at Mount Sinai for almost a year, as he testifies in his Commentary on Exodus 18.1: ‘We know that the Israelites stayed in the Sinai desert for about a year’. 232 Above, n. 224. 233 Above, nn. 225–227. 234 Above, n. 109. 235 Above, n. 216. 236 Above, nn. 99–102. 229

230

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

223

to the literal interpretation, they did not bring sacrifices.237 And those who maintain that bringing one sheep in the morning and one in the evening hardly made a dent in the individual’s pocket, is wrong, because God did not order more sacrifices. The daily sacrifice was brought at Mount Sinai for fifty days, when Israel was encamped there.238 Because on 1 Nisan in the second year ‘the tabernacle was reared up’ (Exodus 40.17), and ‘in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month’ (Numbers 10.11), they journeyed from Sinai – that is fifty days […] And this is the reason why: When I led you for many years, you did not bring offerings, I commanded you simply to do justice. Likewise: ‘For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice’ (Hosea 6.6), and also Jeremiah says: ‘For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them […] concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices’ (Jeremiah 7.22).239

To sum up the discussion on sacrifices in the desert, Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra both held the view that hardly any sacrifices were brought in the desert. Many verses (Numbers 15.2–3, Jeremiah 7.22–23; Hosea 6.6; Amos 5.25) testify that sacrifices were not brought in the desert. There are exceptions to this rule, too: The Passover sacrifice in the desert, that was brought once only, and without the seven days of unleavened bread;240 the daily sacrifices, which were brought at Mount Sinai only, according to the verse in Numbers 28.6,241 but in the tabernacle and not on the ‘altar of the covenant’.242 When they left Mount Sinai, the sacrifices in the desert ceased. The verses that testify to the Israelites’ desire to bring sacrifices in the Sinai desert (Exodus 3.12; 3.18; 10.25–26), thus refer to the daily sacrifices that were brought for a short period only at Mount Sinai, and that were designed to cajole Pharaoh. The true ‘service of God’ at Mount Sinai was the erection of the tabernacle, which was designed to house the two tablets of stone.243

237 In his Commentary on Numbers 28.6, Ibn Ezra states: ‘This, too, is a sign that they did not bring burnt offerings after they left Sinai’. 238 On the claim that the daily sacrifice was brought for fifty days only, see also Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Exodus 29.42. 239 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Amos 5.25 (Simon edition), pp. 224–229. For Simon’s commentary on Ibn Ezra, see Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Amos 5.25 (Simon edition), pp. 224–229. 240 Above, nn. 95, 109. 241 Above, nn. 109, 216, 239. 242 Above, nn. 234–235. 243 Above, n. 218. See the discussion in BT, Ḥagiga 10b, as to whether the phrase: ‘Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto Me in the desert’, (Exodus 5.1) referred to sacrifices or to the festival.

224

Chapter Three

The discussion of the Rabbinic Sages over sacrifices in the desert testifies that Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra based their view on an ancient tradition that served as an alternative to that of the Rabbinic Sages. This tradition finds expression also in the minority opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that even the daily sacrifices mentioned in Numbers 28.6 were never actually brought, and that the verse in Amos 5.25 testifies to the fact that sacrifices were never brought in the desert.244 Rabbi Akiva and the Hillelian school opined that the daily sacrifices were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’, even before the tabernacle was erected, and never ceased since. Despite the literal interpretation of Amos 5.25, they believed that the Israelites brought sacrifices in the desert via the Levites.245 The tradition that claims that sacrifices were not brought in the desert relies largely on the verse in Amos 5.25. Nor is it fortuitous that the Rabbinic Sages used this verse as the basis for their dictum: ‘No references may be drawn concerning statements of the Torah from statements of the prophets’.246 The moderate Mourners of Zion refrained from adopting Mīsha­ wayh’s approach to the issue of sacrifices in the desert, just as they avoided adopting his view concerning the celebration of festivals in the desert. ‘The service of God’ at Mount Sinai, according to Yefet and Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah, referred to sacrifices.247 Daniel al-Qūmisī, who claimed that only mandatory sacrifices were brought in the desert,248 rejected Mīshawayh’s interpretation of Jeremiah 7.22. This verse, according to him, merely warns us not to see the sacrifices as the be all and end all, and does not serve as a proof that the Israelites never brought sacrifices in the desert, or that God did not want them to bring sacrifices.249 Did the Israelites Eat Desired Meat in the Desert? The Permissibility or Otherwise of Desired Meat in Light of the Meaning of the Word ‘Gates’ According to the moderate Mourners of Zion, the Israelites did not eat desired meat in the desert. One of their proofs is the meaning of the word ‘gates’ [‫ ]שעריך‬in the Torah portion of ‘Reʾeh’ (Numbers 12.15, 21). The word ‘gates’ means cities, but here it refers to the cities of the Land 246 247 248 249 244 245

Above, n. 224. Above, nn. 224–226. BT, Ḥagiga, 10b. Above, nn. 219–220. Above, nn. 179, 212. Above, n. 223.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

225

of Israel only. Hence, the consumption of desired meat was forbidden in the desert, just as it should be forbidden in the period of exile. According to the Mīshawites, the word ‘gates’ referred to any place inhabited by Jews, and they therefore permitted the consumption of desired meat. We shall examine the significance of the words ‘gates’ in the Karaite discourse through Yefet’s commentaries on the Pentateuch. Yefet teaches us that this word has a number of meanings, and invokes the qarīna method, taken from the world of Muslim exegesis, as a tool for elucidating the true meaning of the word. According to the qarīna method, the meaning of a word can be determined by the adjacent word or the context of the verse.250 For example, when the Israelites left Egypt, the verse states: ‘but every woman shall ask [‫ ]שאלה‬of her neighbour and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold’ (Exodus 3.22). He who claims that the word ‘ask’ here means ‘borrow’ (ʿayrūra) is wrong, because a borrowed object must be returned. Since the Israelites did not return the possessions they took from the Egyptians, we cannot assume that God ordered them to do an iniquity. It follows, therefore, that the meaning of the word ‘ask’ in this verse must be ‘asking for gifts’ (istīhāb), since gifts are not returned.251 As to the meaning of ‘gates’, Zechariah 8.60 states: ‘Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates’. Yefet, in his commentary on this verse, says that the word ‘gate’ has three meanings, which can be determined through the technique of qarīna: (1) When the words ‘gate’ is connected to the words ‘justice’ as in the verse in question, then the meaning of ‘gate’ is a law court.252 Yefet, in his Commentary to Deuteronomy 12.15, explains all the meanings of the word ‘gate’.253 One interpretation – a law court – we have already discussed. The other interpretations are: (2) An actual ‘gates’ (bāb), like the ‘gates of the city’ (for example, Jeremiah 17.24) and the ‘gates of the house’ (Jeremiah 22.4). (3) ‘Gate’ in the sense of city, including the adjacent area outside the wall ( fināʾ).254 Yefet, loyal to the exegetical principle of context (qarīna) reached the conclusion that the ‘gate’ mentioned in Deuteronomy 12.4 referred to the city and the fināʾ: On ‘qarīna’ in Islamic exegesis, see Hallaq, ‘Qarīna’, pp. 475–480. On the way Yefet used ‘qarīna’, see Erder, ‘Moral Issues’, pp. 313–334. 251 See Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 3.22, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 51, ff. 17b-18a, in Erder, ‘Moral Issues’, p. 324, n. 59. 252 Above, n. 194. 253 Above, n. 194. 254 This neighbourhood is also known in Arabic as ‘rabaḍ’. The Karaites saw the ‘fināʾ’ as part of the city. See Gil, ‘Karaite Quarter’, p. 12, n. 9. 250

226

Chapter Three

When it states in Deuteronomy 12.15 ‘within all thy gates’, only the following interpretations are possible: ‘gate’, ‘law-court’, or ‘city’ and possibly also the neighbourhood adjoining it outside the wall. We can exclude the possibility that what is meant here is the gates of the city and houses. Have you seen profane meat being eaten within the gate itself? Likewise, it cannot refer to ‘law-court’ since the consumption of desired meat has nothing to do with law-courts. It follows that the only possible interpretation is that it is permitted to eat [desired meat] in the city and its adjoining quarter, outside the wall.255

If the ‘gates’ in which desired meat may be eaten are the ‘cities’, is it permitted to eat desired meat in the cities of the Diaspora, too? The answer, according to Yefet, is an unequivocal no. The issue of desired meat is included in the statutes and ordinances pertaining exclusively to the Land of Israel. Hence, desired meat may be eaten in the Land of Israel only: The verse: ‘These are the statutes and the ordinances, which ye shall observe to do in the land which the Lord, the God of they fathers, hath given thee to possess it’ (Deuteronomy 12.1) means, in this context, that these statutes and ordinances are binding in the land, but are not binding when we are exiled from the land.256

In the Torah portion of ‘Reʾeh’, the commandment governing the sacrifices is restricted to ‘the chosen place’. Since the slaughtering of desired meat was included in the topic of sacrifices, it follows that it could not be performed in any place, but only ‘within the gates’, that is, within the cities of the Land of Israel: 255 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, ff. 18b-19a. On ‘gate’ in the sense of ‘city’, see Yefet’s Commentary on Exodus 21.13–14, INA B 367. In his commentary on verse 13, f. 25a, Yefet says: ‘If anyone commits manslaughter in a city, he must flee to the altar which is in the ‘gate’, as we shall explain in the commentary to the verse: “thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die” (verse 14). In his commentary to verse 14, we see that the ‘gate’ that Yefet referred to in the previous verse has the meaning of city: ‘The expression “from Mine altar” refers to an altar that was built in each and every city, where someone who is guilty of manslaughter can find refuge’. 256 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.1, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 6a. According to ʿAnan’s Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 4, ʿAnan claimed that desired meat was forbidden in his times, because it was permitted only in ‘the gates’, namely, the cities of the Land of Israel. Since he derived a parallel between desired meat and wine from the verse in Deuteronomy 12.26, he also forbade wine. See above, n. 184. According to Qirqisānī, p. 423, the more ignorant ʿAnanites maintained that when a verse described certain commandments as pertaining to the land (Deuteronomy 12.1; 4.14; 5.25), the verse was referring to the Land and abroad. In verses that specified ‘gate’ or ‘house’, the commandments were to be observed in these places only.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

227

And if you ask: What is your proof that ‘within all thy gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.15) is singled out? The answer is: Because the verse states at the beginning of the section: ‘These are the statutes and the ordinances, which ye shall observe to do in the land which the Lord thy God’ (Deuteronomy 12.1). And this section specifies the laws of the sacrifices and informs us of the places where they may be slaughtered and eaten. The topic of desired meat is included in the topic of the sacrifices. Just as the sacrifices may be slaughtered only in the ‘chosen place’, as it states: ‘Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose’, (Deuteronomy 12.11), so desired meat may not be slaughtered outside the gates.257

In the above proof, Yefet drew a parallel between the sacrifices and desired meat. Just as the sacrifices had to be slaughtered in a special place, so did desired meat have to be slaughtered in a special place, namely, the ‘gates’. Some opposed this parallel, claiming that one could not draw a parallel between a mandatory commandment (the bringing of sacrifices) and a discretionary one (desired meat). Yefet maintained that in respect of the designation of a special place for slaughtering, a parallel could be drawn between a mandatory commandment and a discretionary one: If one would say: If indeed according to your words ‘within all thy gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.15) refers to cities in the Land of Israel, where do you derive the prohibition of desired meat in other places, when you maintain that its consumption ‘in thy gates’ is not mandatory but discretionary? To him we shall answer: Indeed its consumption is discretionary not mandatory. This is based on the statutes that we shall refer to below when we discuss the verse: ‘When the Lord thy God shall enlarge [thy border]’ (Deuteronomy 12.20). But there is no difference between a mandatory commandment pertaining to a specific place, and a discretionary commandment pertaining to a specific place, when in both cases a place is designated. The difference between them is that a mandatory commandment has to be observed, while a discretionary one does not. But concerning the designation of place, there is no difference between them.258

If indeed desired meat is restricted to the cities of Israel only, why did the verse fail to explicitly prohibit the slaughtering of desired meat outside the ‘gates’, as it explicitly forbade the slaughtering of sacrificial meat 257

Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 20a. Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95, f. 46a.

258

228

Chapter Three

outside the chosen place?259 Yefet brings three reasons for this: (a) Since the entire Land of Israel was holy, and the tabernacle moved around in it from place to place, Scriptures had to limit sacrificial meat to one place only. On the other hand, there was no need to restrict desired meat, which was permitted throughout the Land of Israel.260 (b) Since the Israelites dwelled in their land, there was no need to explicitly prohibit desired meat outside the land. (c) Sacrificial meat was brought at Sinai, that is, outside the Land of Israel. Had Scriptures failed to specify the place of the sacrifices, we might have concluded that sacrifices were permitted outside the Land of Israel, too. On the other hand, there was no precedent for eating desired meat outside the Land of Israel. This last proof corroborates that Yefet maintained that desired meat was not eaten in the desert: If one says: It is not forbidden to eat desired meat outside the ‘gates’, just as we are forbidden to eat sacrificial meat, at it says: ‘Thou mayest not eat within thy gates […] but in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.17), and it states: ‘Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings in every place that thou seest; but in the place which the Lord shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.13–14), we shall reply: Scriptures says: ‘Take heed to thyself’ and ‘Thou mayest not eat within thy gates’ because the whole Land of Israel is holy, and you know that the tabernacle was set up in different places. Any place outside the Land of Israel is called ‘impure land’, as Phineas and the princes said to the sons of Gad and Reuben: ‘However, if the land of your possession be unclean’ (Joshua 22.19). Since the whole Land of Israel is holy, the beginning of the passage states: ‘which ye shall observe to do in the land’ (Deuteronomy 12.1). And Scriptures says regarding sacrificial meat, ‘Thou mayest not eat within thy gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.17). Since the entire Land of Israel is holy, and desired meat may be slaughtered 259 The same question can be found in Hadassi, Eshkol, § 230, 88a: ‘It further states: “but thou shalt eat them before the Lord” (Deuteronomy 12.18). He did not warn them against profane meat, but rather compared it to the gazelle and the hart, as it says: “the unclean and the clean together may eat thereof, as of the gazelle, and as of the hart” (Deuteronomy 12.15). Together, without law or ordinance. Had there been a reason to forbid its consumption outside the borders of the Land of Israel, as an ordinance, the verse would have said: “Beware of consuming profane meat anywhere but in your gates.”’ Those who permit desired meat outside the Land of Israel derive further proof from the permission granted the tribes of Gad, Reuben and half of the tribe of Manasseh on the eastern bank of the Jordan. See Hadassi, Eshkol, § 230, 88a. 260 According to Yefet, when the tabernacle was erected in the Land of Israel, it was forbidden to consume desired meat in its vicinity, and when the temple existed, desired meat was forbidden in Jerusalem and its environs only. See below, n. 271.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

229

throughout the Land of Israel, no single place was designated for this. And since the Israelites dwelt in the Land of Israel, the verse had no need to say: ‘Thou mayest not eat in gentile lands desired meat’ […] Another point concerning: ‘Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burntofferings’ (Deuteronomy 12.13) after the verse ‘the place which the Lord your God shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.11). Since the burnt offering and peace offering were brought at Mount Sinai, which is outside the Land of Israel, the verse here is meant to thwart the argument that if sacrifices were permitted outside the Land of Israel, then a fortiori they were permitted throughout the Land of Israel in every place where the tabernacle was erected, or an altar built and sacrifices brought. Desired meat was not eaten outside the Land of Israel.261

Yefet informs us that the commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel in the portion of ‘Reʾeh’ were binding immediately after the subjugation of the seven nations. His proof is the verse: ‘And the Lord gave them rest round about […] and there stood not a man of all their enemies against them’ (Joshua 21.44). Some claimed that these commandments began in the period of David and Solomon: The phrase: ‘gave them rest’ (Deuteronomy 12.10), does not refer to the period of David and Solomon, as it says: ‘Is not the Lord your God with you? And hath He not given you rest on every side?’ (I Chronicles 22.18), but rather to the period in which they conquered the land and settled there after the war against the seven nations […] And if you ask: what is your proof that the phrase: ‘from all your enemies’ (Deuteronomy 12.10), refers to the seven nations? We reply: Our proof is the verse: ‘And the Lord shall give them rest round about, according to all that He swore unto their fathers’ (Joshua 21.44).262

Yefet claims that the consumption of desired meat was forbidden to the Israelites not only in the desert but even before that, in Egypt, because desired meat was forbidden outside the Land of Israel. As to the Land of Israel, we saw above that they began observing the commandments pertaining to the land after they subjugated the seven Canaanite nations. The following explanation teaches us that it took them eight years to subjugate them: Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, ff.20a-21a. Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.10, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 14b. In his Commentary to Deuteronomy 12.1, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 6b, we learn that the laws and ordinances became binding after they conquered the land, as it says previously: ‘And ye shall possess it, and dwell therein’ (Deuteronomy 11.31). 261

262

230

Chapter Three

It would appear that they did not eat desired meat for forty-eight years – forty years in the desert and eight years in the land. Perhaps they ate it in Egypt? But there is no proof of this in Scriptures. Moreover, it is more probable that they did not eat it in Egypt, since there is no difference between Egypt and the desert of Sin: Both are outside the Land of Israel.263

The fact that Yefet claimed that the Israelites refrained from eating desired meat for the first eight years after their entry into the Land of Israel until they conquered it from the Canaanite nations, explains why many Mourners of Zion refrained from eating desired meat even after they immigrated to the Holy Land. According to them, only after the rebuilding of the Temple, the reinstatement of sacrifices and the renewal of full Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel, would the conditions be ripe for the consumption of desired meat in the Land of Israel. Yefet teaches us that a Karaite claimed that desired meat was permitted only after the establishment of the Jewish kingdom in the Land of Israel, which was known as ‘the era of blessing’. The period of exile and destruction, on the other hand, is a cursed era, during which desired meat is not eaten: ‘Desired meat is permitted when a kingdom exists in the land, because it is a time of blessing, while the exile is a time of curse, as we learn from the verse: “according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He hath given thee” (Deuteronomy 16.17)’.264 Some attempted to permit desired meat in the Land of Israel, since it was eaten in the time of the Second Temple under Persian rule. Yefet argued that the status of the Jewish nation in its land was different from it status in his period, and therefore one could not draw a parallel between the two periods: If someone says that we are permitted to eat desired meat in this time in the Land of Israel, we shall reply: It is impossible, just as it is impossible 263 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb 282, f. 96b. In the same commentary, f. 95a, Yefet says that the expression: ‘when we sat by the flesh-pots’ (Exodus 16.3) does not testify that they ate desired meat in Egypt. See Erder, ‘Observance’, p. 194, n. 71. On the view that desired meat was not consumed in the desert, see above, n. 261. 264 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 18a. On the conditions that must prevail in order for the consumption of desired meat to be permitted in the Land of Israel, Sahl, based on an anonymous Karaite commentary, Līqqūṭei, II, p. 74, states: ‘Furthermore know that the consumption of desired meat was permitted only after the land was cleansed of idols, etc. Moreover, the consumption of desired meat was permitted only after they were settled in their land, and the priests were performing sacrifices, etc. Furthermore, it was permitted only on condition that there would be a covenant obliging them to give the shoulder and cheeks, etc’.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

231

to bring sacrifices […] And if he says: Behold in the time of the Second Temple the Israelites who were under the yoke of the King of Persia and ate meat, as it says in Nehemiah: ‘Now that which was prepared for one day’ (Nehemiah 5.18) […] and it says: ‘Behold, we are servants this day’ (Nehemiah 9.36). Our answer is: We deny that when the nation said: ‘we are servants’ they meant that they had paid land tax. They dwelt in their inheritances and the Temple was in their hands, and no-one could stop them bringing sacrifices and eating desired meat. But we, because the land is not in our hands and the Temple Mount is ruled by foreigners, are not required to bring sacrifices until the Land reverts to our sovereignty, and then we shall be permitted to eat desired meat.265

Some try to derive the permission to eat desired meat in the Diaspora from the fact that it was permitted in the Persian period. This view was based on the verses in Daniel 10.1–3. In the third year of Cyrus, Daniel mourned: ‘three whole weeks’. He ‘ate no pleasant bread’, and neither ‘flesh nor wine’ came into his mouth. This indicates that apart from these three weeks, Daniel was permitted to eat desired meat.266 Yefet did not accept this argument for two reasons: (1) The parallel between Daniel’s period and the Middle Ages was unsound, because, in Daniel’s period, there was an altar in Jerusalem on which sacrifices were brought. Hadassi, who based his view on Yefet, added that alongside the altar, the ruins were also rebuilt: ‘Because it was then the third year of King Cyrus’s reign, and the altar was built, and the ruins were being slowly rebuilt, and perhaps this was permitted’.267 (2) Even in Daniel’s period, desired meat was forbidden in the Diaspora. The meat that Daniel refrained from eating for three weeks was not desired meat but game meat and fowl.268 According to Ibn Ezra, the meat that Daniel refrained from eating for three weeks was indeed desired meat, and hence it was permitted in Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, ff. 21a-b. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 228, 87d: ‘This Karaite admitted that he ate it [desired meat] prior to this, and that afterwards it was forbidden for him, as it says: “till three whole weeks were fulfilled” (Daniel 10.3)’. 267 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 229, 87d. 268 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 10.2–3 (Margoliouth edition), p. 105. Yefet, Ibid., adds that Daniel might have been referring to fish, since fish are a kind of meat. Schlossberg, ‘Metamorphosis’, p. 79, notes that Yefet here was criticizing Saʿadia Gaon. According to Hadassi, Eshkol, § 228, 87d, ‘to say that this is a reference to gazelle or hart meat, or fowl or fish is questionable, erroneous, and far-fetched’. In § 229, Hadassi says in connection with the meat that Elijah received from the ravens (I Kings 17.4–7): ‘Here, too, it may have been the profane meat of cattle or sheep, or the meat of gazelles and harts, or fowl and fish, that are called meat in the Torah’. 265

266

232

Chapter Three

the Diaspora. He attacked those who claimed that the meat mentioned in Daniel 10.3 was not desired meat: ‘And many say that meat is forbidden in the Diaspora, and they interpret “neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth” (Daniel 10.3) as referring to fish meat, but they are wrong’.269 Since on the issue of desired meat Ibn Ezra followed Mīshawayh, we cannot rule out the possibility that this is one of the proofs advanced by the Mīshawites to demonstrate the permissibility of desired meat in the Diaspora. We shall now summarize Yefet’s position concerning the ‘gates’ in which desired meat was permitted. The meaning of the word ‘gates’ in the laws of desired meat was ‘cities’. These cities were the cities of the Land of Israel only. In these cities, desired meat was permitted when sacrifices were brought in the Temple, and when the Israelite nation was dwelling in its land and had sovereignty over it.270 Jerusalem and its environs were not included in these ‘cities’ for the purposes of desired meat, since only those residing in the cities of the Land of Israel that were far from Jerusalem were allowed desired meat (Deuteronomy 12.21).271 Since the discretionary commandment of desired meat was permitted in the Land of Israel only, it follows that the Israelites did not eat desired meat in Egypt or in the desert. Sacrificial meat was permitted in the desert. The prohibition of desired meat continued in the Land of Israel for eight years, the time it took to complete the conquest of its cities. Since the laws of desired meat and sacrificial meat were intertwined, sacrifices began in the land also eight years after its conquest. It follows that, according to Yefet, ‘the place which the Lord thy God shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.21) referred not only to the Temple but also to the tabernacle.272 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 17.20. See above, nn. 255, 264–265. Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Deuteronomy 28.7, teaches us that the injunction: ‘then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate’ [Deuteronomy 25.7] was ‘a positive commandment that applied when the Israelites were in their land’. 271 On the perimeter of Jerusalem beyond which the consumption of desired meat was permitted, see below, n. 317. In one of Yefet’s commentaries on Daniel 10.2–3 (Margoliouth edition), p. 105, it is clear that he does not rule out the possibility that the Jews in the Diaspora ate desired meat at the time that there was an altar in the Land of Israel and sacrifices were brought. See above, n. 268. The verse in Deuteronomy 16.18 instructs that judges and officers should be appointed ‘in all thy gates’. In this case, Yefet clarifies that the reference is to the metropolises of the Land of Israel (ummahāt al-ḍiyāʿ), including Jerusalem. Some interpreted the word ‘tribe’ in this verse as excluding Jerusalem. See Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 16.18, INA C 41, f. 102b. 272 Above, nn. 257, 261–263. Below, n. 386. 269 270

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

233

This interpretation of the word ‘gates’ on the issue of desired meat allowed the moderate Mourners of Zion to express their mourning by refraining from eating desired meat, which was a discretionary commandment.273 They observed the commandments of the festivals to the letter, since they were mandatory commandments, because they believed that all commandments where Scriptures stated: ‘in your borders’, ‘in your dwellings’ or ‘when ye be come into the land’ were commandments that did not pertain exclusively to the Land of Israel.274 As stated, Mīshawayh abolished the festivals in the Diaspora by interpreting the expressions ‘in all your borders’, ‘when ye be come into the land’ and ‘in thy dwellings’275 as referring exclusively to the Land of Israel. Since the commandments of the festivals and sacrifices pertained to the Land of Israel, they were not observed in the desert.276 In his polemic against those who maintained that ‘gates’ referred to any city in the world inhabited by Israelites, Yefet was evidently giving voice to the Mīshawite view on the meaning of ‘gates’. One of their proofs was the word ‘gates’ mentioned in Zechariah 8.16. According to them, the Israelites were not forbidden to eat desired meat in the desert, just as they were not forbidden to eat it in the Diaspora during the period of destruction. The verses in Deuteronomy 12.20–21 were indeed part of the commandments pertaining to the Land,277 but anyone claiming that the verse meant to permit something that was forbidden was wrong. On the contrary, the conquest of the land and the establishment of the Temple circumscribed the permissibility of desired meat by prohibiting it near the Temple. With the destruction of the Temple and the land, the pretext for this restriction disappeared and the permission for eating desired meat anywhere was reinstated: ‘He who permits (desired meat), claims that desired meat may be consumed in any place owned by Jews and all believers, since the aforementioned pretext: “when the Lord thy God shall enlarge”, etc. “and if the place […] be too far from thee” (Deuteronomy 12.20–21) is no longer applicable’.278

Above, n. 258. Above, n. 114. 275 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 228, f. 87c, teaches us that sometimes the term ‘your dwellings’ [‫ ]מושבותיכם‬refers to the Land of Israel only, as in the verse in Numbers 35.29, which speaks of cities of refuge, and sometimes to the whole world, as in the verse in Leviticus 23.3, that speaks of observance of the Sabbath. 276 Above, nn. 115–117. 277 Above, n. 256. 278 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb 282, f. 98a. 273 274

234

Chapter Three

Yefet opposed this conclusion. Cities inhabited by Jews in the Diaspora did not turn them into Jewish cities, just as cities in the Land of Israel did not become ‘proselyte cities’ because proselytes lived there. The verse in Zechariah 8.16 referring to ‘gates’ was irrelevant since, according to Yefet, there ‘gates’ meant ‘law courts’: Have we seen ‘gentile cities’ called Jewish cities because Jews live there? And how will they be called ‘Jewish cities’ if the Jews who live there have the status of proselytes and residents? Even when proselytes dwell in our land, the city they dwell in is not called ‘a proselyte city’ […] Similarly, when we live in a gentile city, it does not become a Jewish city. This refutes the argument that the gentile cities inhabited by the Israelites were called Israelite cities, based on the verse: ‘Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates’ (Zechariah 8.16). We have already clarified that ‘in your gates’ means ‘in your law courts’. And ‘within all thy gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.15) cannot possibly mean ‘within all thy law courts’.279

The Permissibility/Prohibition of Desired Meat in Light of Patriarchal Practice The controversy between the Mīshawites and the moderate Mourners of Zion did not revolve around the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat in the desert only, but also in the period of the patriarchs. Below, we shall present the positions of the various parties, thereby clarifying the connection between the two periods in Karaite discourse. Yefet maintained that the meat the patriarchs ate was sacrificial meat, not desired meat: ‘We have learned from the tradition of the ancients that they brought sacrifices, since Scriptures mentions the sacrifices of Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, and Job. This proves that they brought sacrifices’.280 Given that the patriarchs brought sacrifices in every generation, the sons of Qoraḥ and his congregation concluded, according to Yefet, that any Israelite was entitled to bring sacrifices. They therefore said to Moses: ‘seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them’ (Numbers 16.3). Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 19a-b. On Yefet’s discussion of Zechariah 8.16, see above, nn. 252–255. For further proofs from Mīshawayh’s school for permitting desired meat anywhere, see above, nn. 261, 269. 280 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb., 282, f. 96a. In his commentary on the verse ‘I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices; and thy burnt offerings are continually before Me’, (Psalms 50.8), PBN Héb., 287, ff. 52a-b, Yefet says: ‘The patriarchs started with these commandments, and afterwards He instructed them regarding gift offerings […] When He said: “for thy sacrifices,” he meant peace offerings’. 279

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

235

And the verse ‘all the congregation are holy, every one of them’ (Numbers 16.3): They meant to say that the whole Israelite nation is fit in the eyes of God and qualified to bring sacrifices, as were a number of individuals in earlier generations, such as Adam in his time, Noah, Shem, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Job. Each of them was acceptable before God in his time, acting as the priest of his period and taking upon himself the role of bringing the sacrifices.281

Some claimed that the patriarchs were permitted to eat both desired meat and sacrificial meat. The proof they brought to demonstrate that the patriarchs ate desired meat was Isaac’s request that Jacob prepare him tasty food from two goats (Genesis 27.9). Yefet did not accept this proof: ‘Some say that the meat of cattle and sheep was permitted to the patriarchs. If they chose to eat it as a peace offering, they offered it in a holy place; and if they chose to eat it as desired meat, they ate it anywhere […] But this should not be deduced from the story of Isaac who ate goat’s flesh’.282 The discussion on the patriarchs’ practices served as an important proof for al-Qūmisī that desired meat was prohibited in his times.283 His approach, which was more complex than Yefet’s, can be inferred from his commentary, or from paraphrases by Judah Hadassi, who did not specify him by name. From the times of Adam to the times of Noah, there was no altar, and consequently no sacrifices. In the absence of sacrifices on an altar, desired meat was also prohibited. Genesis 1.29 points out that Adam ate only from the fruits of the earth. Once Noah built an altar (Genesis 8.20), a few God-fearing individuals brought sacrifices and desired meat was permitted, as pointed out in Genesis 9.3. This permission ceased with the construction of the tabernacle in the desert, when only sacrificial meat was permitted, as stated in Leviticus 17.1–5.284 In the absence of an altar and sacrifices following the destruction of the Temple, the status reverted to the pre-Noahide period, and even desired Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 16.3, MS Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.110, f. 119a. 282 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 95a. 283 In his ‘Sermon’, f. 15a (Nemoy edition), p. 95, al-Qūmisī expresses vehement opposition to desired meat: ‘And nowadays, among the Baʿalei Miqra, there are also some who permit the consumption of cattle and sheep’. See also p. 96. See above, Ch. 1, n. 225. 284 We already noted that according to al-Qūmisī only mandatory sacrifices were brought in the desert. See above, nn. 179, 212. Apparently, in contrast to Mīshawayh, al-Qūmisī believed that Scriptures in Deuteronomy 12.20–21 permitted desired meat, which was prohibited in the desert. On Mīshawayh’s view on this matter, see above, n. 278. For a discussion of Leviticus 17.1–5, see below, nn. 315–329. 281

236

Chapter Three

meat was prohibited. In al-Qūmisī’s opinion, Scriptures in Hosea 9.3–4, Isaiah 22.12–13, and Isaiah 66.3 denigrate the people of the Diaspora for eating desired meat.285 In his commentary on Hosea 9.3–4, al-Qūmisī emphasized the connection between Adam’s times and the period of the destruction of the Temple: ‘For meat without an altar was not permitted from the days of Adam, until Noah brought a sacrifice, after which it is written: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you”(Genesis 9.3). Therefore, eating meat in the Diaspora is prohibited’.286 Below, we shall quote Hadassi’s citation of al-Qūmisī: He, of blessed memory, said: ‘And the Lord said: Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed’. etc. (Genesis 1.29), and further, it is written: ‘And every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed – to you it shall be for food’ (Genesis 1.29.) and for your descendents. This was their practice until the time of Noah, peace be upon him. And when he built an altar to God and then sacrificed upon it, he and his descendents were permitted to slaughter all living creatures in accordance with God’s commandment. As it is says: ‘Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you’ (Genesis 9.3) […] We see that when Noah built the altar, as it is states: ‘And Noah builded an altar unto God; and took of every clean beast […] then God smelled the sweet savour’, etc. (Genesis 8.20– 21), animals were permitted. From then on, a few God-fearing individuals offered meat sacrifices and ate them until the time of Moses, peace be upon him, when the Israelites left Egypt with joy and light. And when the tabernacle was built, it was again forbidden to bring sacrifices anywhere but on the altar. From this, sentient individuals will understand that when Noah and his God-fearing and pious friends brought offerings it was permitted for them, and that prior to their sacrifices it was prohibited. And when the altar of Moses, peace be upon him, was built, the conditions became stricter than those of the patriarchs, became even holier. The parts of the sacrifice, the sprinkling of its blood, the burning of its fat, and the priestly portions, all became stricter regarding the altar, as it says: ‘To the end that the Israelites may bring their sacrifices’, etc. (Leviticus 17.5). So, today, sacrificial and profane meat are forbidden until the reinstatement of sacrifices in all their conditions in the holy Temple and of the priestly portions of profane meat, as was their due, as Qirqisānī, pp. 1242–1243. Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Hosea 9.3–4, Pitron, p. 15. Qirqisānī, pp. 455–456, teaches us that, according to Benjamin, God gave fourteen commandments from Noah to Abraham. One of them was a pure sacrifice to God based on Genesis 8.20. Benjamin did not rule out the possibility that the distinction between a clean and unclean animal was already known to Adam. The word ‘living’, in Genesis 9.3, was understood by Benjamin to mean ‘clean’. 285

286

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

237

it says: ‘And this shall be the priests’ due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep, that they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw’ (Deuteronomy 18.3), according to the commandment of your God.287

In his Commentary on Genesis 9.3, Yefet challenges Daniel’s view that until the Noahide period, the consumption of any meat was forbidden: The people were divided in their interpretation of this verse. Some claimed it was forbidden to eat any living creature until that time, and therefore He said to him: ‘as the green herb’ (Genesis 9.3); that is, just as I permitted Adam to eat green herbs, so do I permit you to eat living creatures […] Others say Adam was also allowed [living creatures], but that Scriptures did not specify it there, only here, as it states: ‘These are the beasts which ye may eat’ (Deuteronomy 14.4). This was revealed to Moses but [Scriptures] refrained from writing what was permitted and prohibited for Adam and Noah; and this is the most correct explanation.288

Evidently, al-Qūmisī deduced the prohibition of desired meat in the absence of an altar also from the portion of Reʾeh. According to Qirqisānī, Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī learned from the verse: ‘And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord thy God’ (Deuteronomy 12.27), that the meat was permitted only if the blood was poured out against the altar. Qirqisānī teaches us that al-Qūmisī’s comments revolved around this proof.289 Yefet upheld al-Qūmisī’s opposition to eating desired meat in his generation in the absence of an altar, based on Hosea 9.4: Some say this verse refers to Jews in the Diaspora who ceased sacrificing, as it says: ‘They shall not pour out wine offerings to the Lord’ (Hosea 9.4). They slaughtered their sacrifices as desired meat, and they ate it when they sinned, because they did not have Temple sacrifices. And they were permitted desired meat only after sacrifices were introduced into the Temple.290 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 233, 89a. Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 9.3, INA B 222, ff. 41a-b. 289 Qirqisānī, p. 1242. 290 Yefet, Commentary on Hosea 9.4 (Birnbaum edition), p. 136. A Karaite ketubbah states: ‘And further, he took upon himself […] to not eat cattle or sheep meat in Jerusalem until an altar to God was erected’. See Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents, document 39. See also the discussion on pp. 251–252. In Hadassi’s opinion, Eshkol, § 228, 87c, Ezekiel 33.25 also confirms the prohibition against eating desired meat in the absence of an altar: ‘We find that they ate profane meat without an altar 287 288

238

Chapter Three

Qirqisānī’s viewpoint was diametrically opposed to that of al-Qūmisī. He refuted the proof from Reʾeh (Deuteronomy 12.27) that desired meat was prohibited in the absence of an altar, by stating that the verse referred to peace offerings.291 Scriptures in Hosea 9.3–4, and Isaiah 22.12–13 and 66.3, which al-Qūmisī invoked to reprimand the diasporic Jews for eating desired meat, did not refer to diasporic Jews, but rather to the people in the Land of Israel in the Temple period.292 Qirqisānī explained that, according to al-Qūmisī, the prohibition against eating desired meat was ‘axiomatic’ (aṣl), while the permission was ‘conditional’ (sharṭ), in this case, conditional on the presence of an altar. The abolition of the altar restored the prohibition against eating desired meat to its original state. Qirqisānī, on the other hand, held that the permissibility of desired meat was axiomatic, and its prohibition conditional. He based this view on Genesis 9.3, which allows the slaughtering of all animals and birds. Indeed, we learn that all the patriarchs slaughtered animals and birds, Abraham from Genesis 18.7, Isaac and Jacob from Genesis 27.9, and Joseph from Genesis 43.16. Qirqisānī, therefore, deduced that slaughtering desired meat only in the ‘gates’ [‫]שערים‬, as stated in Reʾeh, restricted the general permission to consume desired meat. With the destruction of the ‘gates’, the permission was restored to its original state, as in the times of the patriarchs.293 It will be recalled that the Mīshawites also believed that the permissibility of desired meat was axiomatic.294 Mīshawayh’s view that sacrifices were not brought in the time of the patriarchs can be deduced from a tradition of the Rabbinic Sages which appears to be symmetrically opposed to Mīshawayh’s position. We may therefore assume that on this matter, too, Mīshawayh followed an ancient tradition to which the Rabbinic Sages were opposed. One Baraitha states: ‘Before the tabernacle was set up, bamot were permitted and the service was performed by the first-born, and all were eligible to be offered […] and everyone offered burnt offerings’.295 The verse ‘And Noah builded an altar unto God […] and offered burnt offerings on the altar’ (Genesis 8.20) is proof that everyone was qualified to bring after the city of the House of the Lord, the faithful town, was destroyed and God was angry with them. Ezekiel, peace be upon him, rebukes them, and says: “Ye eat with the blood” etc. (Ezekiel 33.25). And he rebuked them for six abominations’. 291 Qirqisānī, p. 1245. 292 Qirqisānī, p. 1245. Qirqisānī termed al-Qūmisī’s commentary on Hosea 9.3–4: ‘an interpretation that departs from the literal meaning’. 293 Qirqisānī, pp. 1247–1248. 294 Above, n. 278. 295 BT, Zevaḥim 115b.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

239

sacrifices before the Torah was given.296 Since the verse only refers to burnt offerings, the question arises as to whether peace offerings were brought prior to the Giving of the Torah.297 Those who maintained they were, invoked the following proofs: a. The peace offerings that were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ (Exodus 24.5). According to the Rabbinic Sages these sacrifices were brought on this altar prior to the Giving of the Torah.298 b. The verse ‘Thou must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt offerings’ (Exodus 10.25). This shows us that the Rabbinic Sages interpreted the word ‘sacrifices’ as peace offerings. c. The sacrifices that Jethro brought (Exodus 18.12) were peace offerings that were brought before the Giving of the Torah. Controversy arose regarding the validity of this proof, since some Rabbinic Sages maintained that Jethro brought his sacrifices after the Giving of the Torah. Whoever argued that Jethro brought sacrifices before the Giving of the Torah, also believed that peace offerings were brought then: ‘He who maintains that Jethro came before the Giving of the Torah, also holds that the children of Noah brought peace offerings’.299 The significance of this rabbinic tradition is that it links the patriarchal period with the desert period. Since, in the patriarchal period, burnt offerings and peace offerings were brought, the inference is that they were brought in the desert, too, even before the Giving of the Torah. This tradition is symmetrically opposed to Mīshawayh’s view that the patriarchs were prohibited from eating sacrificial meat and therefore ate desired meat. Thus, it would appear that the tradition that Isaac ate desired meat was Mīshawayh’s tradition.300 The Israelites observed this rule in the desert, too. After the Giving of the Torah, sacrifices were brought only in exceptional cases.301 The proofs advanced by the Rabbinic Sages that peace offerings and burnt offerings were permitted BT, Zevaḥim 115b. BT, Zevaḥim 116a. 298 On the altar of the covenant, see above, nn. 225–226. Below, nn. 390, 396–407, 465–478. On the time for bringing sacrifices on the altar of the covenant according to the Rabbinic Sages, see Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, Yitro, Ch. 3 (Horovitz-Rabin edition), p. 211. Also, Erder, ‘Altar’, p. 317, n. 7, pp. 322–323, nn. 19–25. 299 BT, Zevaḥim 116a. 300 Above, n. 282. 301 On the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb in the desert according to Mīshawayh, see above, nn. 103, 109. On burnt offerings at Mount Sinai, see above, n. 109. 296

297

240

Chapter Three

prior to the Giving of the Torah could not have been acceptable to Mīshawayh. Unlike the Rabbinic Sages, the Karaites believed that the sacrifices on the ‘altar of the covenant’ and the sacrifices that Jethro brought were offered up after the Giving of the Torah.302 Almost certainly Mīshawayh did not deviate from the accepted Karaite position on this matter, especially as, according to him, the only sacrifices that were brought in the desert were those at Mount Sinai, and even these were not offered on the ‘altar of the covenant’ but in the tabernacle.303 The rabbinic tradition interpreted the Israelites’ request to Pharaoh to go into the desert to bring sacrifices (Exodus 10.25) literally. According to Mīshawayh, however, Jeremiah 7.22–23 testified that their request was a mere formality, and that ‘serving God in the desert’ meant the construction of the tabernacle.304 The Rabbinic Sages maintained that peace offerings, which were called ‘sacrifices’ [‫( ]זבחים‬Exodus 10.25; 18.12), were brought before the Giving of the Torah. The Karaites, on the other hand, held that peace offerings were not brought before the Giving of the Torah. The fact that peace offerings were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ (Exodus 24.5), led them to deduce that the ‘altar of the covenant’ was erected after the Giving of the Torah.305 It would appear that Mīshawayh himself did not always identify the ‘sacrifices’ [‫ ]זבחים‬with peace offerings. The Karaite sources that discuss his law permitting the fat of desired meat, tell us that he permitted the fat of ‘profane sacrifices’.306 Abraham Ibn Ezra, who was Mīshawayh’s disciple on the issue of desired meat, condemned a heretic who claimed that wherever the term ‘sacrifices’ [‫]זבחים‬ appeared, it referred to ‘peace offerings’.307 As stated, the significance of the rabbinical tradition discussed here is the parallel it drew between the patriarchal period and the desert period regarding sacrificial meat. Mīshawayh, too, created a link between the patriarchs and the desert generation, but an inverse one. According to him, as a rule, in both periods, only desired meat was consumed. On the time for bringing sacrifices on the ‘altar of the covenant’ according to the Karaites, see Erder, ‘Altar’, p. 317, n. 8. On the time Jethro brought his sacrifices, see Erder, ‘Altar’, pp. 334–339. 303 Above, nn. 109, 216. 304 Above, n. 218. 305 Erder, ‘Altar’, nn. 18, 100, 103, 165. 306 Above, n. 197, Qirqisānī, p. 57. 307 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 20.21. Ibn Ezra refuted the heretic’s claim with the verse: ‘And shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings’ (Exodus 20.21). 302

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

241

Yefet’s view, in the context of the discussion on the rabbinical tradition,308 was that the patriarchs brought sacrifices and ate the meat of these sacrifices.309 The Israelites upheld this practice in Egypt, eating only sacrificial meat and refraining from eating desired meat.310 In the desert, the Israelites continued bringing sacrifices. The rabbinical tradition maintained that peace offerings were brought before the Giving of the Torah. According to Yefet, however, the patriarchs did not bring peace offerings, but did bring burnt offerings and meal offerings. Genesis 8.20 points out clearly that Noah brought burnt offerings and not peace offerings.311 Only after the Giving of the Torah and the erection of the tabernacle were peace offerings also permitted: ‘We have never seen mention of peace offerings prior to Sinai, only burnt offerings and meal offerings’.312 Desired meat was permitted only in the Land of Israel and only after its conquest from the seven Canaanite nations.313 Yefet prohibited desired meat in his time due to the destruction of the Land and the absence of sacrifices.314 The Permissibility/Prohibition of Desired Meat in Temple Times in Light of the Laws of the Tabernacle Tabernacle and Temple We learnt above that Karaite circles determined halakha in the Diaspora in light of the Israelites’ sojourns in the desert. In the desert, as opposed to the Diaspora, the tabernacle resided in the midst of the Israelites. Therefore, some Karaites derived the halakha regarding the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat in Temple times when the people lived in the Land of Israel, in light of the laws of the tabernacle in the desert. Others were opposed to this analogy. Leviticus 17.3–4 discusses the laws of slaughtering when the tabernacle was standing in the desert: ‘What man soever there be of the house of Israel that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting, to present it as an offering unto God before the On al-Qūmisī’s position, see above, nn. 283–290. Above, n. 280. 310 Above, n. 263. 311 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 8.20, INA B 222, f. 37a. 312 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 24.5, BL. Or. 2468, f. 95b. On the permissibility of peace offerings after the erection of the tabernacle, see below, nn. 321–322. 313 Above, n. 262. 314 Above, n. 270. 308 309

242

Chapter Three

tabernacle of God, blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people’. These verses show that, with the establishment of the tabernacle, a prohibition on eating desired meat inside or outside the camp came into effect. This prohibition did not apply to sacrificial meat (peace offerings). Karaite circles who were not Mourners claimed that even when the tabernacle was erected, the Israelites were permitted to eat desired meat in the desert. This was because the camp and the area outside it in which only sacrificial meat was permitted, were zones with clear boundaries beyond which desired meat was permitted to be eaten. Among the Mourners of Zion, the view spread that the area in the above verse termed ‘outside the camp’ was not an area with a defined boundary, and consequently, the establishment of the tabernacle resulted in a total prohibition of desired meat. Yefet ben ʿEli, presented both views. First he brought the Mourners’ view, and then the view of those who claimed that desired meat could be consumed outside the area defined as ‘outside the camp’. He himself had difficulty in defining what constituted ‘outside the camp’ but, as we shall see below, he maintained that desired meat was totally prohibited once the tabernacle was erected: According to the first interpretation, the world is divided into three parts: The tent of meeting, the camp, and the area outside the camp. According to the second interpretation, the world is divided into four parts, the fourth part being beyond the area defined as ‘outside the camp’ […] As to the term ‘outside the camp’, it is hard to define.315

Qirqisānī, who hypothesized that ‘outside the camp’ was a defined area, compared the tabernacle to the Temple. Just as the camp surrounded the tabernacle, so did Jerusalem surround the Temple.316 And just as there was an area defined as ‘outside the camp’ in the desert, so was there an area defined as ‘outside Jerusalem’ in the Land of Israel. The Karaites were divided as to the borders of this zone. Invoking Joshua 3.4, some believed it to be a radius of two thousand cubits surrounding Jerusalem. Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, ff. 93b-94a; Aloni, ‘Place of Worship’, pp. 34–35, teaches us that the meaning of the term ‘outside the camp’ in the Bible is a place that is beyond X but near it, and not any place outside X, irrespective of its distance from it. Thus, in his opinion, Leviticus 17.3 does not prohibit slaughtering anywhere in the Land, but only at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 316 According to Qirqisānī, p. 9, anyone bringing a sacrifice outside the camp is not bringing it to God, as pointed out in Leviticus 17.7. In his Commentary on Ezekiel 42.2, INA, B 135, Yefet interprets the ‘camp’ in Numbers 31.12 as a city (madīnah). 315

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

243

Others, basing themselves on the halakha that it is forbidden to leave a thanksgiving offering for more than one day (Leviticus 7.17), defined this boundary as a day’s journey (on foot) from Jerusalem. Still others, relying on the prohibition against leaving votive and free-will offerings for more than two days (Leviticus 7.17), argued that it was a two-day journey. Be that as it may, within this zone, which included Jerusalem and its environs as well as the Temple, only peace offerings could be consumed. Deuteronomy 12.21 permitted desired meat only in remote cities in the Land of Israel (‘If the place […] be too far from thee’). In the desert, this area was outside that defined as ‘outside the camp’.317 Qirqisānī, it will be recalled, argued that the permissibility of desired meat was axiomatic, not its prohibition.318 The establishment of the tabernacle and the Temple relegated the consumption of desired meat to specific zones, while not prohibiting it entirely. The destruction of the Temple abolished these restrictions, so that it became permissible to eat desired meat anywhere.319 While, according to Qirqisānī, the verse in Leviticus 17 permitted desired meat in any area other than ‘outside the camp’. Yefet interpreted this verse as categorically forbidding all desired meat in the desert. In his commentary in situ he says: ‘Desired meat has no place in this passage’.320 In the same commentary, Yefet refers us to the verse: ‘If flocks and herds be slain for them’ (Numbers 11.22) which, in his opinion, confirms that only sacrificial meat was permitted: ‘Similarly, after the establishment of the tabernacle they were not permitted to eat desired meat, as it says: “If flocks and herds be slain for them” (Numbers 11.22)’.321 From his commentary in situ, we learn that the Israelites were permitted to eat peace offerings in place of desired meat: ‘Have you seen that we were told: “sacrifice sheep and cattle, and eat them now?” This is impossible, since we were allowed only peace offerings, and even then, only if we were pure’.322 It will be recalled that according to Yefet, desired meat was forbidden prior to the erection of the tabernacle, too.323 What then was the difference between the pre-tabernacle period and the post-tabernacle 317 Qirqisānī, pp. 1243–1244. Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, ha-Maʾakhalot, XVI, p. 18, explains why the permission for desired meat was set at a radius of over two thousand cubits. Numbers 35.5 teaches that two thousand cubits are called ‘outside of the city’. From Joshua 3.4, we learn that ‘far’ means a distance of two thousand cubits. 318 Above, n. 293. 319 Qirqisānī, p. 1247. 320 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 94a-b. 321 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, ff. 94b-95a. 322 Yefet, Commentary on Numbers 11.22, MS Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.110, f. 70a. 323 Above, nn. 309–310.

244

Chapter Three

period? The difference did not relate to desired meat but rather to sacrifices, namely: (a) Before the establishment of the tabernacle, peace offerings were forbidden.324 (b) Before the establishment of the tabernacle, sacrifices could be brought inside the camp, too, as testified by the sacrifices that were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’ (Exodus 24.4–6): If you ask: What is the point of mentioning [the prohibition of slaughtering] inside and outside the camp (Leviticus 17.3), since Scriptures could have said: ‘Whosoever slaughters outside the tent of meeting shall be put to death?’ the answer is that before the [tabernacle] period, the people brought sacrifices both inside and outside the camp, as it says: ‘And he builded an altar under the mount’ (Exodus 24.4) […] and that was before the erection of the tabernacle. Therefore, it says that whoever sacrifices inside or outside the camp – in accordance with the custom that existed before the tent of meeting – ‘that man shall be cut off’ (Leviticus 17.4).325

Yefet’s position that, from the establishment of the tabernacle, the consumption of desired meat in the desert was forbidden can be deduced from his discussion of Jethro’s sacrifices in the desert: ‘And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law took a burnt offering and sacrifices’ (Exodus 18.12). Contrary to the majority of the Rabbinic Sages who maintained that Jethro brought his sacrifices before the Giving of the Torah, the Karaites believed that he brought them in the tabernacle after the Giving of the Torah.326 The ‘sacrifices’ that Jethro brought were peace offerings,327 because like all the Israelites, he refrained from eating desired meat: [Jethro] wanted to prepare a feast for the dignitaries of Israel. Since he could not slaughter desired meat, he had to slaughter a peace offering. A burnt offering for the altar and a peace offering for the feast of the elders […] And when he said ‘to eat bread’ (Exodus 18.12), he meant the peace offering with bread. When he said ‘before God’ (Exodus 18.12), he meant before the Tent of Meeting, while according to others he meant before Mount Sinai, on the altar that Moses built under the mountain.328 Above, n. 312. Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.3, PBN Héb. 282, f. 94a. 326 See above, nn. 299, 302. 327 According to Yefet, ‘sacrifices’ [‫ ]זבחים‬can be interpreted as ‘peace offerings’ only if brought after the erection of the tabernacle, since before then peace offerings were not brought. See above, nn. 305, 312. Also, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Exodus 18.12 interprets Jethro’s sacrifices as peace offerings. See also Erder, ‘Altar’, p. 351, n. 151. 328 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 18.12, BL. Or. 2466, f. 13a-b. 324 325

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

245

The controversy relating to the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat following the establishment of the tabernacle arose already in the times of the Rabbinic Sages. Below, we shall present this controversy, which was certainly known to the early Karaites, in order to ascertain the similarities and differences in their positions. Rabbi Yishmaʿel, in light of Leviticus 17.1–6, maintained that once the tabernacle was established, the Israelites ate peace offerings alone, and only when they entered the Land of Israel to expand its borders were they permitted to eat cattle and sheep meat, namely, ‘desired meat’. Rabbi Akiva, on the other hand, claimed that in the desert desired meat was gouged [‫ ]ננחר‬and its consumption permitted. Consequently, it follows that the passage in Reʾeh (Deuteronomy 12.20–21) limited the pre-existing permission to eat desired meat to ritually-slaughtered meat only: Rabbi Yishmaʿel said: ‘Behold, this is a permission derived from a prohibition. Because the Israelites were forbidden to eat desired meat in the desert, Scriptures allowed them to eat it, provided it was properly slaughtered’. Rabbi Akiva said: ‘Behold, this is a prohibition derived from a permission. Because the Israelites ate gouged meat in the desert, Scriptures prohibited desired meat only if ritually slaughtered.329

In Karaite Mourner circles, Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s opinion, based on Leviticus 17, that in the tabernacle period the Israelites ate only peace offerings, gained currency. Like Rabbi Yishmaʿel, they believed that the prohibition of desired meat was axiomatic (aṣl). From this they derived that its permissibility depended on the ‘proviso’ (sharṭ) of the existence of ‘the gate’ and the Temple, and of the enlargement of the borders. They believed that with the destruction of ‘the gate’ and the Temple, and their subsequent exile, the prohibition reverted to its original state.330 This approach is well explained in a Karaite commentary on Exodus 11: 329 Midrash va-Yiqra Rabba 22.7 (Margoliouth edition), pp. 515–516. See also Sifre Deuteronomy, 75 (Finkelstein edition), p. 139. According to Rabbi Yishmaʿel, ‘flocks and herds shall be slain for them’ (Numbers 11.22) should be interpreted literally. According to Rabbi Akiva, ‘shall be slain’ has the sense of ‘shall be gouged’. See BT, Ḥulin 17a. For a discussion of this verse, see above, nn. 321–322. On the controversy between Rabbi Yishmaʿel and Rabbi Akiva, see Schwartz, Torat ha-Kedūsha, pp. 66–67. Schwartz argues that Rabbi Yishmaʿel adopted the ‘literal approach’. Rabbi Yishmaʿel argued in light of Numbers 15.1 that libations were not brought in the desert. Rabbi Akiva argued just the reverse. See BT, Zevaḥim 111a. 330 Qirqisānī, p. 1247. This was al-Qūmisī’s position, above, nn. 286–287, which was opposed to that of Qirqisānī (above, n. 293) and Mīshawayh (above, n. 278).

246

Chapter Three

Slaughtering cattle and sheep was prohibited with the exception of slaughtering for peace offerings, as is says: ‘And sacrifice them for sacrifices of peace offerings’ (Leviticus 17.5). The verse forbade to slaughter desired meat until they [the Israelites] entered the Land of Israel. Then it became permissible on condition that it was eaten in the gate and within the border. And with the abolition of the border and gate, which they were instructed to build free of idols, the permission to consume desired meat was revoked and the original restriction was reinstated.331

It is self-evident from Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s viewpoint that the abolition of the gate and border reinstated the prohibition against desired meat. However, this view was opposed by the Babylonian Amora, Rabbah (third generation) who invoked the Mishnah: ‘One may slaughter at any time’ (Ḥulin 1.2) to prove that one cannot deduce from Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s viewpoint that: ‘now that they are in exile, they will revert to the original prohibition:’ This verse, says Rabbi Yishmaʿel, is stated specially in order to permit them desired meat, for in the beginning desired meat was forbidden. Once they entered the Land of Israel, desired meat was permitted. But now that they are exiled, it might be said that they should revert to the former restriction. Therefore, we learn: ‘One may slaughter at any time’.332

ʿAnan and Benjamin, like many Mourners and Rabbi Yishmaʿel before them, argued that the prohibition of desired meat was axiomatic, and that the proviso for permitting it was entering the Land of Israel and erecting ‘gates’ (cities) far from the Chosen Place (the Temple). Contrary to Rabbi Yishmaʿel, ʿAnan argued that the destruction of the ‘gates’ Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 11, BL. Or. 2518, f. 10a. BT, Ḥulin 16b. Finkelstein, Sifre Deuteronomy, pp. 139–140, already surmised that there was a connection between Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s statement regarding the prohibition of desired meat in the desert and his statement in the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 60b: ‘From the day of the destruction of the Temple, it is proper that we refrain from eating meat’. See BT, Baba Batra 60b, Rabbi Joshua’s opposition to the Pharisees who did not eat meat or drink wine after the destruction of the Temple, and alternative ways in which the Israelites expressed their mourning for the destruction of the Temple. According to Rabbi Akiva, we should have deduced that after the exile and the destruction of the ‘gates’, gouging was again permitted. It will, however, be recalled that the Rabbinic Sages eschewed comparisons between the period of the desert and the period of exile. In connection with the singing of the Hallel, however, this comparison was allowed: ‘After they had entered the Land of Israel, other countries were not counted as proper for the chanting of a hymn of praise. After they were exiled, the other countries became proper, as at first’. See BT, Megīlla 14a. 331

332

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

247

in the Land of Israel turned the wheel back, and that the prohibition against desired meat and even against drinking wine was reinstated: Wine and strong drink are compared to cattle and sheep. Just as we may only eat cattle and sheep ‘in your gates’, so too we may only drink wine and strong drink ‘in your gates’. And the verse specified: ‘And thou shalt eat there’ (Deuteronomy 14.26), to teach us that ‘there’ you may eat cattle and sheep, but when not ‘there’ – you may not.333

Benjamin al-Nahāwandī agreed with ʿAnan. He believed that desired meat was permitted only after the expansion of the borders (Deuteronomy 12.20). Once the land was destroyed, the proviso allowing the consumption of desired meat was annulled. As proof, he brought the commandment to establish ‘six cities of refuge’. Three of them were to be established only after the expansion of the borders (Deuteronomy 19.8–9).334 In conclusion, only Qirqisānī held that the laws governing desired meat in the tabernacle period and Temple period were identical. In both these periods, desired meat was prohibited only within defined zones. In the desert, Leviticus 17.3–4 demonstrates that desired meat was permitted outside the area defined as ‘outside the camp’. The destruction of the Temple resulted in the reinstatement of the permission to eat desired meat anywhere. Mīshawayh permitted desired meat in his times. He, like Qirqisānī, believed that the permissibility of desired meat was axiomatic, and that the destruction of the Temple abolished the restriction.335 Unlike Qirqisānī, however, he drew no comparison between the tabernacle in the desert and the Temple, since in the desert the Israelites ate only desired meat. At the same time, it is possible, even in Mīshawayh’s view, that at certain stages of their journeys in the desert, the Israelites may have been forbidden to eat desired meat. As stated, Mīshawayh maintained that the daily sacrifices were brought at Mount Sinai. Yefet argued that those who claimed that the Israelites ate desired ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition), p. 4. See above, n. 184. Qirqisānī, p. 1242. Evidently, the following citation brought by Hadassi mirrors the views of ʿAnan and Benjamin: ‘For we are allowed to eat profane meat on two conditions only. One, if the Chosen Place, or the Place of Glory, is far away, and the border is wide and the cities stand firm in the Land. If this condition prevails, then we are permitted to eat meat in the gates of our inheritance, as it is written: “and thou shalt eat within thy gates after all the desire of thy soul” (Deuteronomy 12.21). Today, we have neither a Chosen Place, nor a wide border, nor a city, nor a firstborn, therefore we are forbidden (to eat profane meat)’. See Hadassi, Eshkol, § 230–231, 88b. 335 Above, nn. 278, 293. 333

334

248

Chapter Three

meat both before and after the erection of the tabernacle had to concede that on the eve of the Israelites’ entry into their Land, they did not eat desired meat: ‘Had we discovered that they ate desired meat before and after the erection of the tabernacle, according to him, such meat would have been forbidden, since before their entry into the Land they did not eat desired meat’.336 It should be noted that Qirqisānī did not rule out the possibility that the Israelites in fact refrained from eating desired meat in the desert while the tabernacle stood, although they were permitted to do so. This was because the Israelites in the camp lived in the vicinity of the tabernacle and were therefore required to eat the meat of peace offerings.337 As Samuel al-Maghribi put it: Throughout their stay in the desert, while the tabernacle was with them the people did not slaughter desired meat, because of their proximity to the tabernacle […] Once it became clear that their border would be extended and that they would be far from the Chosen Place, they were allowed to slaughter desired meat.338

In Yefet’s view, desired meat was prohibited in the desert also after the erection of the tabernacle, as Leviticus 17.3–4 testifies, because ‘outside the camp’ was not a defined area.339 Only the erection of the distant ‘gates’, the tabernacle, and subsequently the Temple, led to the sanctioning of desired meat in remote settlements in the Land of Israel, as Scriptures asserts in Deuteronomy 12.21. The destruction of the Temple renewed the prohibition against eating desired meat, which in principle was forbidden. Both ʿAnan and Benjamin upheld this view. Their doctrine resembled that of Rabbi Yishmaʿel. Desired meat was forbidden in the desert once the tabernacle was erected, in accordance with Leviticus 17.3–4, and permitted in the Land of Israel in accordance with Deuteronomy 12.21. It would follow from Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s view that desired meat was forbidden after the destruction of the Temple. However, the Rabbinic Sages proscribed any comparison between the desert period and the Diaspora period in connection with desired meat, Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 95b. On daily sacrifices at Mount Sinai, see above, n. 234. 337 Qirqisānī, pp. 1248–1249. We saw above, n. 79, that according to Yefet, the Israelites in the desert were not obliged to observe the commandments relating to pilgrimage, since the tabernacle was among them. 338 Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, ha-Maʾakhalot, XVI, p. 18. 339 Al-Qūmisī also believed that the verse in Leviticus 17 confirms that desired meat was forbidden after the erection of the tabernacle. Above, n. 287. 336

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

249

in view of the Mishnaic statement: ‘One may slaughter at any time’.340 According to Rabbi Akiva, too, there was no parity between the tabernacle period in the desert and the Temple period, because he held that in the desert desired meat was gouged. Tabernacle and Temple in the Temple Scroll and the Miqṣat Maʿasei Torah (MMT) We saw above that Qirqisānī held that there was parity between the tabernacle in the desert and the Temple in respects of the laws of desired meat.341 An examination of Qirqisānī’s doctrine reveals its similarity to the Temple Scroll and MMT, and its difference from the doctrine of the Rabbinic Sages. We shall begin our examination with the Temple Scroll. Although the Temple Scroll bases its view on Leviticus 17,342 it does not refer specifically to this verse but rather to the verse: ‘If the place be too far from thee […] and thou shalt eat within thy gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.21). The Temple Scroll permits the consumption in Jerusalem only of cattle meat that was slaughtered in the Temple, which means that the consumption of desired meat in the city was explicitly forbidden: ‘Within my city, which I consecrate to put my name there – which is not to enter my Temple; and they shall slaughter (it) there and throw its blood on the base of this altar of burnt offerings; and its fat they shall burn’.343 Jerusalem, therefore, was not included in the ‘gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.21) within which desired meat was permitted.344 As far as desired meat was concerned, Jerusalem was the equivalent of the ‘camp’ in the desert (Leviticus 17.3). With respect to the laws of ‘nocturnal emissions’, the Temple Scroll likens the ‘camp’ in the desert to ‘the entire Temple’. Scriptures states: ‘And he shall go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within the camp’ (Deuteronomy 23.11), while the Temple Scroll states: ‘And if a man has a nocturnal emission he shall not enter into any part of the temple’.345 This is followed by: ‘And if a man lies with his wife and has an emission of semen, he shall not come into any part Above, n. 332. Above, nn. 316–317. 342 Kister, ‘Studies’, p. 337, n. 87. 343 Temple Scroll, 52.19–21 (Yadin English edition), II, p. 236. 344 On the clear distinction between the cities of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem in the Temple Scroll, 47.3–18 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 142–144. See Shemesh, ‘Holiness’, pp. 379–380. 345 Temple Scroll, 45.7–8 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 191–192. See below, n. 364, on the Rabbinic Sages’ discussion of Deuteronomy 23.11. 340 341

250

Chapter Three

of my city of the temple where I will settle my name’.346 Since these two commandments are connected in the scroll with the conjunctive ‘and’, Schiffman conjectures that the terms ‘Temple city’ [‫ ]עיר המקדש‬and ‘the entire Temple’ [‫ ]כל המקדש‬are synonymous and that they refer to the Temple mount precinct.347 Shemesh maintains that the term ‘Temple city’ refers to the whole of Jerusalem, whereas ‘the entire Temple’ refers solely to the Temple precinct.348 In the Temple Scroll, the prohibition against desired meat does not apply solely to Jerusalem but to all the cities [‫ ]שערים‬that are within three days’ journey of the Temple [‫]קרוב למקדשי‬: ‘And you shall not slaughter a clean ox or sheep or goat in all your towns, near to my temple (within) a distance of a three days’ journey; nay, but inside my temple you shall slaughter it, making it a burnt-offering or a peace offering’.349 It follows from the above that the author of the Temple Scroll believed that the term ‘outside the camp’ – an area where desired meat was prohibited based on Leviticus 17.3 – referred to a specific zone that was three days’ journey from the tabernacle. Beyond this zone, the consumption of desired meat was permitted.350 In the Land of Israel, those who lived 346 Temple Scroll, 45.11–12 (Yadin English edition) II, p. 193. According to Schiffman, ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash’, p. 99, this text is based on Leviticus 15.18; 19.20. There is a parallel to this law in Damascus Covenant 12.1–2: ‘A man shall not lie with a woman in the city of the Temple to defile the city of the Temple with their impurity’. 347 Schiffman, ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash’, p. 100. Based on the Temple Scroll 47.11–14, Schiffman distinguishes between ‘Temple city’ which is the entire precinct of the Temple Mount (temenos), and ‘Temple’ – the edifice itself. See Schiffman, ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash’, p. 102. 348 Shemesh, ‘Holiness’, p. 377. Milgrom, ‘Sabbath’, pp. 26–27, was of the same opinion. For a summary of the research on the issue of ‘Temple city’, see Crawford, ‘ʿIr Miqdash’, pp. 242–254. He himself believed that the ‘Temple city’ was Jerusalem, a city intended only for pilgrims and not for permanent inhabitants. See Crawford, ‘ʿIr Miqdash’, pp. 242–254. 349 Temple Scroll 52.13–15 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 234–235. This law applied also to the redemption of the second tithe. Yadin, Temple Scroll 43.12 (Yadin English edition), II, p. 183: ‘And those who dwell at a distance of a three days journey from the Temple’. These words refer to Deuteronomy 14.24. A clean animal with a blemish may not be eaten within thirty stadia [ras] of the Temple. Yadin, Temple Scroll 52.16–19, II, pp. 235–256: ‘And every clean animal which has a blemish, you shall eat it within your towns, far from my temple thirty stadia [‫ ]רס‬around it; you shall not slaughter near my temple, for it is foul flesh’. On this zone, see Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, pp. 317-318. Schiffman, ‘Some Laws’, pp. 175–178. 350 Schiffman, ‘Laws of Slaughter’, pp. 277–278, maintains that the author of the Temple Scroll derived the three days’ distance from Exodus 8.23–24. Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, p. 317, believes that Exodus 3.18 is the source of this law. Shemesh, ‘Three Days’, pp. 126–138, maintains in light of the rabbinic halakha, that the Temple Scroll’s reference to three days’ journey meant the whole of the Land of Israel. According to

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

251

near to Jerusalem were forbidden to eat desired meat, because they were not far enough from the city, as it says: ‘If the place be too far from thee’ (Deuteronomy 12.21). The Temple Scroll permits the consumption of ‘a burnt offering or a peace offering’ in Jerusalem. Apparently, this refers to Deuteronomy 12.6: ‘Thy burnt offerings and thy sacrifices’. The author of the Temple Scroll emphasized that these sacrifices were peace offerings.351 Regarding the permissibility of eating desired meat in cities that were more than three days’ journey from the Temple, (the equivalent of being outside the area defined as ‘outside the camp’ in the desert), the author of the Temple Scroll explicitly states: When I enlarge your territory as I have promised you, and if the place which I shall choose to put my name there is too far, and you say: ‘I will eat flesh’, because you crave to eat flesh, you may eat flesh as much as you desire and you may kill any of your flock and herd with which I have blessed you. And you shall eat (it) within your towns.352

While the Temple Scroll does not explicitly compare the tabernacle to the Temple in matters relating to desired meat, the MMT does so in discussing the laws of sacrifices in Leviticus 17. The passage is virtually indecipherable, adding to the controversy among researchers: [And concerning] that it is written [if a person slaughters inside the camp or slaughters] outside the camp cattle, or a sheep, or goat: for […] [in] the northern part of the camp.] And we are of the opinion that the Temple is the [tent of meeting and Je]rusale[m] is the camp; and outside the camp [is outside Jerusalem]; that is, the encampment of their cities beyond the ca[mp].353 him, the intention of the Temple Scroll 52.13–15 was to permit sacrifices to be brought on altars outside the Land of Israel, while in the Land of Israel they could be brought in the Temple only. 351 Schiffman, ‘Laws of Slaughter’, p. 278. On ‘sacrifices’ in the sense of ‘peace offerings’ in Karaite law based on the Commentary of Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra, see above, n. 307. For Yefet’s approach to the issue of ‘sacrifices’, [‫ ]זבחים‬see above, nn. 326–328. 352 Temple Scroll, 53.1–4 (Yadin English edition), II, pp. 237–238. According to Yadin, Temple Scroll, 53.1–4, II, p. 167, the blessing is based on Deuteronomy 12.15: ‘And eat flesh according to the blessing of the Lord thy God’. See also Schiffman, ‘Laws of Slaughter’, p. 280. On Yefet’s view that desired meat could be slaughtered only at times of blessing, see above, n. 264. 353 MMT 2.27–31 (Qimron edition), pp. 49–51. See Kister, ‘Studies’, p. 335, which omits the word ‘north’, For Schiffman’s reading and translation, see ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash’, p. 104.

252

Chapter Three

This passage draws a clear parallel between the tabernacle in the desert and the Temple in Jerusalem, in which Jerusalem represents the camp. In Qimron and Kister’s view, ‘outside the camp’ according to the MMT scroll is the equivalent of ‘outside Jerusalem’ as well as ‘the encampment of their cities’.354 Kister believes that there is a connection between the Temple Scroll and the MMT,355 but his own interpretation of the MMT text belies this. The Temple Scroll taught us not only that desired meat was forbidden in the Temple and Jerusalem – the equivalent of the camp referred to in Leviticus 17.3 – but that it was also forbidden in the area constituting a three days’ journey from the Temple, an area corresponding to ‘outside the camp’ in Leviticus 17.3. Beyond it, desired meat could be eaten, as specified in the Temple Scroll.356 The MMT, on the other hand, states that if ‘outside the camp’ corresponds to ‘outside Jerusalem’ as well as to ‘the encampment of their cities’, then the term ‘outside the camp’ is not a defined zone, and in such a case an absolute prohibition applies to desired meat.357 As already stated, the edited text is hard to decipher.358 Perhaps the intention of the MMT’s author was different and the above passage should be read as follows: 1. ‘And we think that the Temple is the place of the Tent of Meeting; 2. And Jerusalem is the camp; 3. And “outside the camp” is outside Jerusalem; 4. The encampment of their cities is beyond their camp’. According to this interpretation, the MMT divides the world into four parts, as both the author of the Temple Scroll and Qirqisānī believed: (1) Temple = tabernacle; (2) Jerusalem = camp;359 (3) Outside Jerusalem = outside the camp. This is a defined area in which desired meat is forbidden, and parallels the area termed ‘outside the camp’ in Leviticus 17.3; (4) ‘The encampment of their cities’ = ‘beyond the camp’, 354 Kister, ‘Studies’, p. 338. MMT (Qimron edition), p. 51. For a halakhic discussion, see MMT (Qimron edition), pp. 143–145. Likewise, Schiffman, ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash’, p. 104. 355 Kister, ‘Studies’, p. 337. 356 See above, nn. 343, 349, 352. 357 Kister, ‘Studies’, p. 339, suggests the following solution: ‘The term “outside the camp” has one meaning, and so, therefore, does the term “camp”; however, it has two facets: “the holy camp” – for that which is holy (the sacrifices), namely, Jerusalem. In all other commandments, the term “camp” means any of the cities of Israel’. 358 Qimron, MMT (Qimron edition), p. 144, is uncertain about the words ‘their cities’. 359 In MMT (Qimron edition) 2.60–62, p. 53, Jerusalem is called ‘the camp of holiness’, and ‘the capital of the camps of Israel’: ‘Jerusalem is the camp of holiness and is the place which He has chosen from among all the tribes of Israel. For Jerusalem is the capital of the camps of Israel’.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

253

which means here the undefined zone beyond the area defined as ‘outside the camp’ (Leviticus 17.3), wherein it is permitted to eat desired meat. I suggest this interpretation, even if in the current reading, areas 3 and 4 are called ‘outside the camp’ [‫ ]חוצה למחנה‬and ‘beyond the camp’ [‫ ]חוץ למחנה‬respectively.360 According to this interpretation, the word ‘is’ between the words ‘outside the camp’ and ‘outside Jerusalem’ is superfluous and should be deleted, based on the preceding sentences.361 A biblical fragment from Qumran based on Leviticus 17 indeed mitigates the absolute prohibition against desired meat by restricting it only to sacrifices that were not brought in the tabernacle: What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that slaughters an ox, or sheep, or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, and has not brought it to the entrance of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a burnt offering or a peace offering on your behalf […] [Leviticus 17.2] and slaughters it outside and has not brought it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting.362

The Halakha of the Rabbinic Sages The halakha of the Rabbinic Sages is fundamentally different from that of the Qumran scrolls we have studied so far. They divided the ‘camp’ in the desert into three camps: ‘The three camps are: the camp of the Israelites, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of the Shekhina [Divine Presence]’.363 Thus, whenever the Rabbinic Sages interpreted biblical laws relating to the ‘camp’, they had to specify which camp they were referring to. For example, the verse ‘If there shall be among you any man, that is not clean by reason of that which chanceth him by night, then shall he go abroad out of the camp, he shall not come within 360 Henshke, ‘Sanctity of Jerusalem’, pp. 24–26. Henshke, ‘Reconsideration’, pp. 145–150, concluded from the law of burning the sin offering that is mentioned in MMT 2.31–33 (Qimron edition), p. 50, immediately following the passage discussed here, and in accordance with the law of the Rabbinic Sages, that ‘outside the camp’ – the defined zone within which the consumption of desired meat was forbidden – was to the north of Jerusalem, namely, a far more restricted zone than the Temple Scroll’s radius of three days’ journey. Outside of it, the MMT permits desired meat. 361 This word is translated as ‘that is’. The MMT (Qimron edition), p. 51: ‘Outside the camp is outside Jerusalem, that is, the encampment of their cities’. Professor Qimron accedes that my interpretation may be correct. I am grateful to him for devoting his time to discussing this matter with me. 362 4Q26 LEVd, DJD, 12, pp. 194–195. See Kister, ‘Studies’, p. 336. Eshel, ‘4QLEVd ’, p. 8, argues that this evidence actually supports Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s view that desired meat was not eaten in the desert. 363 Sifre Numbers, Naso, 1 (Horovitz edition), p. 4.

254

Chapter Three

the camp’ (Deuteronomy 23.11) is explained in the following manner: ‘Rabbi Simon says: “then shall he go abroad out of the camp” – this is the Levite camp. “He shall not come within the camp” – this is the camp of the Shekhina’.364 With regard to the laws of desired meat in the desert, the division into camps is irrelevant, at least according to Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s view that desired meat was totally forbidden in the desert.365 In the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages, comparisons between the holy zones of the Temple and Jerusalem and the three camps in the desert are also evident: The Israelite camp is compared to the area from the entrance to Jerusalem to the Temple Mount, the Levite camp is compared to the area from the entrance to the Temple Mount to the Temple court, and the camp of the Shekhina is compared to the area from the entrance to the Temple court to, and within, the Temple itself.366 This division was radically different from that of the MMT, where the whole of Jerusalem is called ‘camp’.367 When the Rabbinic Sages were required to define the zone in the Land of Israel within which the consumption of desired meat was forbidden, when the Temple existed, there was no need to discuss the meaning of the word ‘camp’ in Leviticus 17.3 at all. According to them, there was no connection between the desert and the Land of Israel on this issue.368 Therefore, their discussion on the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat focused on the term ‘the place’, since it is written in Deuteronomy 12.21: ‘If the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God […] then thou shalt kill of thy herd […] and thou shalt eat within thy gates’.369 364 Sifre Deuteronomy, 255 (Finkelstein edition), p. 281. For a discussion on the types of camps referred to in Numbers 5.2–4 and Leviticus 13.46, see BT, Zevaḥim, 116b-117a. 365 Above, n. 329. 366 Sifre Numbers, Naso, 1 (Horovitz edition), p. 4. BT, Zevaḥim 116b: ‘Just as there were camps in the desert, so were there camps in Jerusalem. From [the walls of] Jerusalem to the Temple Mount was the camp of the Israelites; from the Temple Mount to the Gate of Nicanor was the camp of the Levites; beyond that was the camp of the Shekhina, corresponding to [the place behind] the curtains in the desert’. 367 Above, n. 353. 368 Henshke, ‘Apocryphal Halakha’, p. 227, states: ‘Rabbinic law, which maintains that desired meat was forbidden only in the desert, finds no basis for prohibiting it from the time of entry into the land, or in the Diaspora, or even after the destruction of the Temple’. 369 With respect to the laws of manslaughter, the Rabbinic Sages compared ‘the place’ (Exodus 21.13) to the camp in the desert, which in this case was the camp of the Levites. See BT, Zevaḥim 117a.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

255

An examination of the Rabbinic Sages’ definition of ‘the place’ and distance from it reveals a certain flexibility, depending on the circumstance. An example of this can be found in the discussion of the Scriptural passage: ‘If the place be too far from thee’ (Deuteronomy 14.24) that refers to the second tithe [‫]מעשר שני‬. The Rabbinic Sages compared ‘the second tithe’ to the ‘fruit of the fourth year’ (Leviticus 19.23–24), which must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there. The Rabbinic Sages determined that: ‘[The fruit of] a fourth-year vineyard was brought up to Jerusalem [if] within a radius of one day’s journey on foot […] and when there was a large quantity of fruit, they ruled that it should be redeemed close to the wall’.370 This discussion proves that ‘the place’ was Jerusalem. Initially, the Rabbinic Sages determined that this zone encompassed a radius of one day’s journey from Jerusalem, but later changed this to a radius of even one step from the wall.371 According to the Temple Scroll, the distance from the Temple for the purposes of the second tithe was the same as that for desired meat, namely, a radius of three days’ journey.372 This flexibility in the definition of the term ‘the place’ and the distance from it also finds expression in the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages concerning desired meat: ‘“If the place be too far from thee […] then thou shalt kill” (Deuteronomy 12.21) – you sacrifice when far from the place, and not when near to the place, apart from profane meat which was slaughtered in the Temple court [‫’]עזרה‬.373 According to this view, the ‘Temple court’ was ‘the place’, and outside it desired meat could be eaten. Consequently, not only was desired meat permitted in Jerusalem, it was also permitted within the Temple precinct.374 Below are the main differences between the approach of the Rabbinic Sages and that of the Qumran MMT and Temple Scroll: Mishnah, Maʿaser Sheni 5.2. See Bar-Ilan, ‘Myth’, pp. 47–48. 372 See above, n. 349. 373 Sifre Deuteronomy, 75 (Finkelstein edition), p. 140. See also Mishnah, Orla 2.17; Tosefta, Maʿaser Sheni 1.9 (Zuckermandel edition), pp. 86–87. Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Kedusha, Laws of Ritual Slaughtering 2.1: ‘It is permissible to slaughter anywhere other than in the Temple court. In the Temple court one may slaughter only sacrifices on the altar. Profane meat may not be slaughtered in the Temple court […] Therefore it says with regard to desired meat “If the place which the Lord shall choose be too far from thee then thou shalt kill of thy herd and of thy flock and thou shalt eat within thy gates” (Deuteronomy 12.21), from which one may deduce that desired meat is slaughtered only outside God’s Chosen Place’. 374 See Bar-Ilan, ‘Myth’, 53. See below, n. 595: ‘Just as sacrifices were brought in their place, so was profane meat slaughtered in its place’. 370 371

256

Chapter Three

1. The MMT and the Temple Scroll drew an explicit parallel between the tabernacle period in the desert and the Temple period regarding the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat. The Rabbinic Sages, on the other hand, drew no connection between the two periods on this issue.375 2. According to the Temple Scroll, Jerusalem was excluded from the ‘gates’ specified in Deuteronomy 12.21376 in which it was permissible to eat desired meat. The Rabbinic Sages, however, included Jerusalem in the category of ‘gates’, since desired meat was forbidden only outside the Temple court.377 3. The Temple Scroll, defined ‘the place’, in the context of the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat (Deuteronomy 12.21) and laws relating to the second tithe (Deuteronomy 14.24), as the Temple only.378 The MMT defined it as Jerusalem.379 The Rabbinic Sages defined ‘the place’ in matters relating to the permissibility/prohibition of desired meat as the Temple court. As we shall see below, in the halakha of the Rabbinic Sages, ‘the place’ referred both the tabernacle and the Temple.380 4. Leviticus 17.3 does not prohibit desired meat in the camp alone but also outside the camp. According to the Temple Scroll, in the Land of Israel, this zone (‘outside the camp’) corresponded to a radius of three days’ journey from the Temple. Consequently, not Abraham Ibn Ezra’s view resembles that of the Qumran scrolls. In his Commentary on Leviticus 17.2 he says: ‘Had it said in the camp, slaughtering would have been permitted outside the camp, and this commandment is also performed in the Temple, and applies only to places close to Jerusalem. Regarding this closeness, we know of it through tradition’. His closing words pay lip service to the law of the Rabbinic Sages. For an interpretation of his comments, see Henshke, ‘Apocryphal Halakha’, p. 228. 376 Above, nn. 343–344. In the MMT, Jerusalem is the camp, and therefore desired meat may not be consumed there. Above, n. 353. 377 See Werman, ‘Consumption’, p. 180. Evidently, the Rabbinic Sages distinguished on other issues, too, between Jerusalem and other cities. In Tosefta, Negaʿim 6.2 (Zuckermandel edition), p. 625, Rabbi Nathan holds that the ‘gate of his place’ (Deuteronomy 21.19), in the case of a stubborn and rebellious son, does not refer to Jerusalem. The law of the idolatrous town (town that is led astray), ‘If thou shalt hear tell concerning one of thy cities’ (Deuteronomy 13.13), does not refer to Jerusalem, either. See Sifre Deuteronomy, 92 (Finkelstein edition), pp. 153–154; see also Finkelstein, ‘Halakhot’, pp. 351–369. 378 Above, nn. 349, 352. 379 Above, n. 359. 380 Above, nn. 373–374. The prevailing view of the Rabbinic Sages was that Shiloh was the period of ‘rest’ (Deuteronomy 12.9) (below, n. 491). Consequently, ‘the place’ included the tabernacle. 375

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

257

only Jerusalem but also other cities within a three days’ radius from it were included in the ‘gates’ within which it was prohibited to eat desired meat. According to the MMT, too, there were cities other than Jerusalem within which eating desired meat was prohibited.381 Since the Rabbinic Sages permitted desired meat inside the Temple and in Jerusalem, it follows that desired meat was permitted throughout the Land of Israel as well as in the Diaspora. The Permissibility/Prohibition of Desired Meat in the Tabernacle Period in the Land of Israel The comparison by certain Karaite circles between the tabernacle in the desert and the Temple in Jerusalem fuelled the above discussion on the laws of desired meat at the time the Temple stood in Jerusalem. Now, we must consider the slaughtering laws during the lengthy period preceding the building of the Temple, when the worship of God still revolved around the tabernacle. The interpretation of Deuteronomy 12.8–11 is central to this discussion: Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes; for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth thee. But when ye go over the Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God causeth you to inherit, and He giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye dwell in safety; then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, thither shall ye bring all that I command you: your burntofferings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which ye vow unto the Lord.

This passage begins by stating that once the Israelites entered the Land of Israel, they would abandon the customs of their desert existence and begin a new life in which they would merit ‘rest and inheritance’ and peace from all their enemies. Several questions arise: When would the period of rest and inheritance begin? Who were the enemies to which Scriptures was referring? Did ‘the place that God shall choose’ refer only to the Temple, or also to the tabernacle in its various locations in the Land of Israel? Above, nn. 349, 353. See Schiffman, ‘Laws of Slaughter’, p. 282, on the places where, according to the Temple Scroll, desired meat was permitted or prohibited. 381

258

Chapter Three

We already noted some of Yefet’s answers to issues relating to desired meat above. The erection of the tabernacle in the desert resulted in a total ban on desired meat.382 In the Land of Israel, desired meat was forbidden as long as the land was not under Jewish sovereignty and sacrifices were.383 In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.10, Yefet teaches us that the enemies referred to in the above verse were the seven Canaanite nations, because Joshua 21.42 testifies that victory over them was ‘the rest’ referred to in the verse: ‘And God gave them rest round about’.384 The ‘rest and inheritance’, namely, the people’s sovereignty over their land, began eight years after the Israelites’ entry into their land.385 From that time on, sacrifices began and with them, the slaughtering of desired meat. Therefore, according to Yefet, ‘the place’ does not signify only the Temple, but also the tabernacle, as his commentary on Deuteronomy 12.11 testifies: After Scriptures says: ‘For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance’ (Deuteronomy 12.9) they were informed that they would cross the Jordan and settle the land, and that after they find rest and inheritance from their war against the seven Canaanite nations, they would be duty bound to make pilgrimage and offer sacrifices, as it says thereafter: ‘Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there’ (Deuteronomy 12.11).386

As was his wont, Yefet, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.10, presented a contrary position to this one, that traced the beginning of the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ to the reign of David and Solomon, Above, nn. 261, 320, 327–328. Above, n. 258. 384 Above, n. 262. 385 Above, nn. 263, 272. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 26.1, INA C 72, f. 1a, Yefet argues that the verse: ‘And you shall inherit it and settle it’ refers to the seven nations of Canaan. From his Commentary on Deuteronomy 25.19, INA C 41, f. 264a, we learn that the verse: ‘Therefore it shall be when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies’ refers to the time of King Saul. On the difference between the two verses, Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Deuteronomy 26.1, says: ‘“And it shall be when thou art come” (Deuteronomy 26.1) because he ended: “Therefore it shall be when He hath given thee rest” (Deuteronomy 25.19), this was after a king ruled over the Israelites. This was after the reign of Saul, as it says: “Remember what Amalek did to thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt” (Deuteronomy 25.17). And through the king who will rule, the Temple shall be built, and this took place in the days of Solomon. Scriptures wishes to explain that the bringing of the firstborn that became obligatory after they entered the Land [was] after the conquest and division [of the land]’. 386 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.10, INA C 41, f. 10b. See also below, n. 425. 382 383

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

259

based on I Chronicles 22.18. According to this position (although Yefet does not specify whose position it was, I believe it was Mīshawayh’s), ‘the place’ in Deuteronomy 12.11 referred exclusively to the Temple and not the tabernacle. It will be recalled that the author of the Temple Scroll believed that ‘the place’ in Deuteronomy referred only to the Temple.387 This being so, then in his view, the Israelites ate desired meat in their land for hundreds of years until the building of the Temple.388 Only after the building of ‘the place’, namely, the Temple, did people begin to eat sacrificial meat in the Land of Israel, at which point the consumption of desired meat was restricted to the distant ‘gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.21). Mīshawayh’s view that the Israelites ate only desired meat in the Land of Israel while the tabernacle existed, is substantiated in the Karaite discourse concerning the altar that Saul erected at Mikhmas (I Samuel 14.32–35). In this discourse, it is clear that this altar was intended for desired meat, since no sacrificial meat was eaten in the Land of Israel until the Temple was built. This teaches us that a special altar had to be built to slaughter desired meat. Indeed, Benjamin al-Nahāwandī argued that desired meat had to be slaughtered on a special altar, based on the story of the altar at Mikhmas, but he rejected the view that sacrificial meat was eaten in the land only after the Temple was built. In his commentaries, Yefet discusses Benjamin’s view that desired meat had to be slaughtered on a special altar. Altars for Desired Meat Based on the Altar Erected by Saul at Mikhmas (I Samuel 14.32–35) At dusk on the day the war at Mikhmas ended, the Israelites slaughtered sheep and cattle, transgressing a prohibition against eating with the blood: ‘And they slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with the blood’ (I Samuel 14.32). When Saul realized what had happened, he said: ‘Ye have dealt treacherously’ and requested of the people: ‘Roll a great stone unto me this day […] and slay them here’ (I Samuel 14.33–34). On this stone, Saul built an altar to the Lord: ‘And 387 On the period of rest and inheritance from Solomon’s era, see above, n. 262. On ‘the place’ in the Temple Scroll, see above, n. 378. Wise, Critical Study, pp. 157– 166, 209, maintains that the author of the Temple Scroll restricted the commandments in Deuteronomy 12.26 to the Land of Israel alone, especially to the Temple which, in his opinion, was ‘the place’ mentioned in Deuteronomy 12. See also below, nn. 445–463. 388 According to Yefet, this period lasted for 447 years. See his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95, f. 45b.

260

Chapter Three

Saul built an altar unto the Lord; the same was the first altar that he built unto the Lord’ (I Samuel 14.35). We shall begin with Yefet’s interpretation of the issues relating to the altar at Mikhmas. What was the sin of eating with the blood mentioned in the Pentateuch (Leviticus 19.26)? According to Yefet’s explanation of this verse, eating with the blood means slaughtering sacrificial meat without an altar, as becomes apparent from the Mikhmas episode: The first [prohibition] was eating meat that could only be slaughtered at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. Whoever slaughters (outside this place) deserves the death penalty, as it says: ‘Blood shall be imputed to that man, he hath shed blood’. (Leviticus 17.4). This is the only interpretation of the story of Saul. There is no other. Given that the nation slaughtered in the camp and ate the meat in the absence of an altar, Scriptures says of them that they ate with the blood, as it says: ‘And they took sheep and oxen and calves and slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with blood’. (I Samuel 14.32) ‘And they slew them on the ground’ (I Samuel 14.32) is equivalent to: ‘which they sacrifice in the open field’ (Leviticus 17.5). This is because whoever slaughters without an altar slaughters on the ground. Do you not see that he said: ‘Roll unto me this day […] and slay’ (I Samuel 14.33–34), and this informs us that he built an altar from this stone, as it says: ‘And Saul built an altar unto the Lord; the same was the first altar that he built unto the Lord’. (I Samuel 14.35). This proves our contention that whoever ate this meat, ate with the blood. The term ‘with the blood’ (I Samuel 14.33) refers to ‘blood shall be imputed’ (Leviticus 17.4). Moreover, had there been an altar, the blood would have been poured on it; but as it was slaughtered in the field, the blood was spilt on the ground. The term ‘with the blood’ thus means that the slaughtered animal and the blood are in one place. This interpretation is closest to the truth in relation to this verse.389

The altar that Saul built at Mikhmas for the purpose of eating sacrificial meat was a stone altar [‫ ]מזבח אבנים‬as mentioned in Exodus 20.22: ‘And if thou make Me an altar of stone’: Saul said: ‘Roll a great stone unto me this day’ (I Samuel 14.33) and it says: ‘And Saul built an altar’ (I Samuel 14.35). We learnt that he wanted Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 19.26, PBN Héb. 282, f. 201a. Yefet also drew our attention to the parallel between ‘and they slew them on the ground’ (I Samuel 14.32) and those who ‘sacrifice in the open field’ (Leviticus 17.5), in his Commentary on Leviticus 17.5. See Erder, ‘Remnants’, pp. 14–15, n. 58. 389

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

261

the stone brought in order to fashion it into an altar, based on the verse in the Torah: ‘And if thou make Me an altar of stone’ (Exodus 20.22). Thus we learn that it is forbidden to slaughter on the ground without an altar, as it says in the Torah: ‘To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices’, etc. (Leviticus 17.5).390

Yefet brings the following proofs that stone altars existed outside the Chosen Place and were meant for bringing sacrifices: a. Altars are built from only three materials: wood, stone, and earth. In the Chosen Place there are no stone altars, only wooden ones overlaid with copper or gold. Some maintain that Solomon built an altar of solid copper in the Temple (II Chronicles 4.1), but this altar may have been overlaid with copper, just as it says that the incense altar was made of wood, but was overlaid with gold (I Kings 6.20).391 b. There is an opinion that the stone altar referred to the ‘tables’ in the Temple (Ezekiel 40.42). They were compared to the basins used for slaughtering and collecting the blood, which was then transferred in bowls to the altar. Yefet rejected this interpretation for the following reasons: (1) A stone altar must not be built of hewn stone (Exodus 20.22), that is, it must not be hewn (muhandama).392 In contrast, the ‘tables’ were of ‘hewn stones’ (Ezekiel 40.42). (2) A stone altar was intended for slaughtering and sacrificing outside the Temple, while the ‘tables’ were located inside the Temple.393 (3) While burnt offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings, namely, holy sacrifices which are offered up only upon God’s altar,394 were slaughtered on the ‘tables’ which were basins (Ezekiel 40.39), burnt offerings and peace offerings that could also be offered up outside the Chosen Place were sacrificed on a stone altar (Exodus 20.21).395 c. God’s altar is located only in the Chosen Place, where God puts His name (Deuteronomy 12.5), or causes His name to dwell there Yefet, Commentary on I Samuel 14, INA A 156, f. 85a-b. Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.20–23, BL. Or. 2467, ff. 18b-19a. Cf. INA A 43, f. 65b. 392 For the translation of the verse, see Commentary on Exodus, BL. Or. 2467, f. 218b. 393 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.20–23, INA A 43, ff. 65b-66a. Cf. BL. Or. 2466, f. 118a. Also, INA A 51, f. 131b. 394 See above, n. 190. 395 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.20–3, BL. Or. 2466, f. 118b-119a. On burnt offerings and peace offerings outside ‘the Chosen Place’, see below, nn. 399–402. 390 391

262

Chapter Three

(Deuteronomy 12.11), while a stone altar is built in a place where God merely causes his name to be mentioned (Exodus 20.21).396 While Exodus 20.22 refers to a stone altar, the verse preceding it refers to an earthen altar [‫]מזבח אדמה‬: ‘An altar of earth thou shalt make Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen; in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee’ (Exodus 20.21). As we can see from the above, Yefet ben ʿEli did not distinguish between the two types of altar, since he claimed that the burnt offerings and peace offerings appearing in the verse referring to an earthen altar were offered up on a stone altar:397 ‘“And if thou make Me an altar of stone” (Exodus 20.22), and it did not say there what it said in the first verse: “And shalt sacrifice thereon” (Exodus 20.21). There is no doubt that whatever was customary on a “stone altar” was customary on an “earthen altar.”’398 When Scriptures fails to specify which kind of altar it means, either type is possible: Some altars were erected from time to time for specific events, such as the altar at Mount Ebal, the altar that Moses erected at Mount Sinai, or the ones erected by Gideon, Samuel, Saul, David, or Elijah on Mount Carmel. And it is to these altars that Scripture refers to when it says earthen altar. But the duty [to build] was in relation to a stone altar and not to an earthen altar. Thus, a stone altar was built at Mount Ebal, as stated: ‘Thou shalt build of unhewn stones’ (Deuteronomy 27.6). In those instances where Scriptures relates that an altar was built without specifying whether it was an earthen altar or a stone altar, either is possible.399

Given that Yefet did not differentiate between the two types of altar, he determined that burnt offerings and peace offerings – i.e., voluntary sacrifices – were sacrificed on a stone altar, since such an altar was located outside the tabernacle and Temple: It says: ‘Roll a great stone unto me this day’ (I Samuel 14.33), and that is why it says: ‘Thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings’ (Exodus 20.21). It follows that Scriptures does not refer here to obligatory or Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.20–23, BL. Or. 2466, f. 18a. Above, n. 395. 398 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.22, BL. Or. 2466, f. 120a. 399 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.21–22, INA A 51, ff. 131b-132a. 396

397

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

263

fixed sacrifices; neither to individual or communal sacrifices, which are brought only in God’s Temple’.400

Saul could have offered up both burnt offerings and peace offerings on the altar that he erected, but he sacrificed only peace offerings. Sometimes, only burnt offerings were offered up, such as in the sacrifices of Gideon (Judges 6.26), Samuel (I Samuel 7.9),401 and Elijah on Mount Carmel (I Kings 18.31–32).402 As stated, one of the requirements for slaughtering desired meat was a blessed condition, namely, the existence of a sovereign kingdom.403 The verse ‘I will come unto thee and bless thee’ (Exodus 20.21) testifies to this prerequisite also in the case of voluntary sacrifices. Since this blessed condition existed during the reign of Samuel and Saul, the Israelites could have brought peace offerings: ‘The verse “I will come unto thee and bless thee” (Exodus 20.21) means that I shall come to you with support, assistance, and repose, just as in the times of Samuel and Saul’.404 We saw how, according to Yefet, it was permissible to erect a stone altar only in a place where God’s name was mentioned (Exodus 20.21).405 This condition is met under any of the following circumstances: (a) a command from God (as in the case of Joshua and Gideon; (b) the presence of Divine Glory or an angel; (c) in the presence of the Ark of God,406 or a vessel from the house of God: Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.20–23, BL. Or. 2466, f. 119a-b. In his Commentary on I Samuel 7.9–14, INA A 156, ff. 135a-b, Yefet says that the burnt offerings that Samuel brought at Miṣpeh were not the type of sacrifices that were brought in God’s Temple. Noah and Abraham, too, may have offered the same kind of burnt offerings as Samuel. 402 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.20–23, BL. Or. 2466, f. 119a. Cf. INA A 51, f. 132a-b. Also, in his Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 98b, Yefet recounts the same events. In his Commentary on I Kings 18.31–32, INA C 36, f. 158a, Yefet teaches us that Elijah officiated as a priest although we have no proof that he was a priest. Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Exodus 30.33, explains that these individuals sacrificed burnt offerings in exceptional circumstances [‫]הוראת שעה‬. See Brumberg, ‘Halakhic Issues’, p. 435. On the three sins perpetrated by Samuel and the seven sins perpetrated by Gideon when they offered their sacrifices, see JT, Megīlla 1.14, 72c. 403 Above, n. 264. 404 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.21, BL. Or. 2466, f. 120a. In his Commentary on I Samuel 13.1, Yefet explains that Saul was upright and found favour in God’s eyes only in the two years referred to in this verse. 405 See above, n. 396. 406 In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 27.7, BL. Or. 2471, f. 12b, Yefet raises the possibility that the altar on Mount Ebal was erected when God’s ark was there. In his Commentary on I Samuel 14, n. 422 below, Yefet explains that the Ark of God was not present on Mount Ebal. 400 401

264

Chapter Three

Afterwards it says: ‘In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned’ (Exodus 20.21). This is to inform us that just as mandatory and fixed sacrifices are brought only in God’s Temple, so altars (of stone) are built and used for burnt offerings or peace offerings only in the place where ‘I cause My name to be mentioned’. This [can be] in three situations: (a) by command alone, like [the altar] Joshua built on Mount Ebal and Gideon [built] at the top of the fortress, or (b) in the presence of the Divine Glory or an angel, or (c) in the presence of the Ark of God or a vessel from His house. Therefore, it says: ‘I cause to be mentioned’ (Exodus 20.21). As to the Temple of God, it is written: ‘In the place which the Lord shall choose’.407

Of the three aforementioned conditions for building a stone altar, the third (the presence of the Ark of God) was the reason for the erection of the stone altar at Mikhmas (I Samuel 14.18). Aaron ben Joseph claimed that the presence of the Ark mandated peace offerings: ‘“And the people did eat them with the blood” (I Samuel 14.32), because the Ark was in their midst, and they should rightfully have eaten their sacrifices like peace offerings and pour off the blood, but instead they slaughtered them on the ground as if they were consuming the blood’.408 Yefet’s Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9 informs us that sacrifices could be brought outside the tabernacle only at times when the Holy Ark was absent. As to the verse that they sacrificed on private altars [‫ ]במות‬in the time of the kings and the pious, and God reprimanded them, saying: ‘Howbeit Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.21, BL. Or. 2466, ff.119b-120a. Cf. INA A 51, f. 132b. 408 Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer ha-Mivḥar, Commentary on Samuel, 5d-6a. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 229, 87d: ‘For at that time they were forbidden to eat meat without an altar there, because the Ark was with them, as it is written: “For the Ark of God was there at that time”, (I Samuel 14.18) there in the camp. Therefore they were required to offer sacrifices in purity and holiness. And in accordance with the statute and the law, they built an altar as obligated’. Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, p. 87a, says: ‘Of them it is said that they sinned because the Ark was present, and it was not appropriate to slaughter profane meat’. Also, according to Ibn Ezra in his Commentary on Leviticus 19.26, the presence of God’s Ark at Mikhmas rendered sacrifices imperative: ‘All pure meat shall not be eaten until its blood is sprinkled on the altar of God, if near the Holy Place. And the true proof of this is Saul’s words that the Ark was with him, as it states: “Behold they eat with the blood” (I Samuel 14.33) as if they were sacrificing to demons’. Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, ha-Maʾakhalot, XVI, p. 20, who believed that Saul erected an altar for desired meat, refutes the claim that the altar was established for peace offerings, given the presence of the Ark of God in the camp. According to him, the Ark was isolated and far from the people. 407

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

265

the high places were not taken away; the people still sacrificed’, etc. (II Kings 12.4; 14.4; 15.4, 35). Since the Ark left the tabernacle, this practice was not condemned. But once Solomon, peace be upon him, built the Temple, it was condemned. Scriptural proof of this can be found in the story of Solomon: ‘Only the people sacrificed in the high places, because there was no house built’, etc. (I Kings 3.2–3). From here it follows that this practice was forbidden prior to the building of the Temple. Once the Temple was built and the Ark and altar were in one place, the Lord condemned it [this practice].409

A commentary of Hadassi’s shows that the emphasis in Leviticus 17.3 is on the prohibition against eating desired meat near the Ark, rather than near the tabernacle: ‘Who were condemned to death, as it says: “What man soever there be that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp” (Leviticus 17.3). They violated a negative commandment because they were warned in the Torah not to eat profane meat in front of the Ark, but sacrificial meat alone’.410 Desired meat was thus forbidden in Mikhmas, because the Ark was in their midst.411 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s Approach Benjamin maintained that Saul and his warriors ate desired meat, unlike Yefet who claimed they ate peace offerings. According to Benjamin, desired meat had to be slaughtered on an altar, that is, a stone altar (Exodus 20.22), referred to in Karaite sources as an ‘altar of gates’ [‫מזבח‬ ‫]שערים‬.412 The sin of eating with the blood (I Samuel 14.32) is therefore the consumption of desired meat that was not slaughtered on the requisite altar: ‘We shall not enumerate the proofs on which Benjamin, may God have mercy on him, based his contention that desired meat had to be slaughtered on an altar. He based this contention on the story of Saul which is reasonable, although somewhat dubious’.413 409 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 99a. On the permissibility of the peace offerings at Mikhmas because of the presence of the Ark of God, see below, n. 422, although it is written there, too, that peace offerings could be sacrificed in any place chosen by God in the Land of Israel, whether or not the Ark was present. 410 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 229, 87d. 411 Above, n. 408. 412 Modern research is also divided on the nature of the altar erected by Saul. In Milgrom’s opinion, ‘Profane Slaughter’, pp. 2, 15–17, the Mikhmas episode instructs us regarding the prohibition of slaughtering desired meat. According to Grintz, ‘Ye Shall Not’, pp. 1–17, Saul erected an altar for desired meat. 413 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 97b.

266

Chapter Three

Those who considered the stone altar as being designed for desired meat, distinguished between a stone altar and an earthen altar, which, according to Exodus 20.21, was designed for peace and burnt offerings. Judah Hadassi, who followed Benjamin on this issue, points this out in connection with the requirement for an ‘altar of gates’ for desired meat: ‘This is the one about which it says “An earthen altar thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings”, etc. (Exodus 20.21). They said: This is an altar for sacrifices. And when it says: “And if thou make Me an altar of stone”, etc. (Exodus 20.22), that is an altar for profane meat’.414 According to those who believed that a stone altar was intended for desired meat, the term ‘Mine altar’ (Exodus 20.23) refers also to this type of altar. Indeed, one of the proofs that stone altars were not intended to be used for sacrifices is based on the following verse: ‘Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon (Exodus 20.23)’. Scriptures commands the officiating priests to wear breeches to cover their nakedness (Exodus 28.42). The fact that the verse in Exodus 20.23 mentions the possibility of exposing the nakedness of those ascending the altar proves that this refers to the lay Israelites, not the priests. Therefore, the stone altar was not intended for priestly sacrifices, but rather for profane meat: And they will further say: Behold it says: ‘Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar, that thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon’ (Exodus 20.23) – on the altar. For the sons of Aaron wore breeches, as it states: ‘And thou shalt make them linen breeches’, etc. (Exodus 28.42). So how could they have been commanded on this matter?! It follows, therefore, that this commandment was addressed to the Israelites, not the priests.415 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 229, 87b. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 229, 87b. According to Weis, ‘Tendency’, p. 233, Saʿadia Gaon’s translation of Exodus 28.42 is intended to refute the Karaite interpretation of Exodus 20.23, as cited here by Hadassi. See Saʿadia Gaon, Translation of the Torah (Derenbourg edition), pp. 122–123. Rabbi Yishmaʿel already clarified the need for the reference to breeches for covering nakedness in Exodus 20.23, in light of Exodus 28.42: ‘Rabbi Yishmaʿel says it is not necessary, for did it not already say: “And thou shalt make them linen breeches, to cover the flesh of their nakedness”, etc. (Exodus 28.42). His response was: ‘“That thy nakedness be not uncovered thereon”. (Exodus 20.23), so that he not take an indecent step upon it’. See Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, Yitro, 11 (Horovitz-Rabin edition), pp. 244–245. Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, in his Commentary on Exodus 20.23, rejects the notion that the altar referred to in Exodus 20.23 was intended for profane meat because it says there ‘Mine altar’: ‘And there is no sense in the argument that this referred to Saul’s altar, which was an altar of gates upon 414 415

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

267

Yefet explains that stairs and steps were forbidden on altars. The ‘steps’ in our verse refer to steps attached to the altar, upon which the nakedness of the priests could be revealed.416 Yefet presents the three arguments advanced by those claiming that desired meat must be slaughtered on an ‘altar of gates’ based on the story of Mikhmas. These three arguments set out to prove that Scriptures was not referring here to sacrificial meat, but rather to desired meat. One of these arguments is specifically ascribed to Benjamin: Did they slaughter a holy sacrifice or desired meat […] Some, claiming it was desired meat, brought two proofs: (a) The slaughtering took place at night (I Samuel 14.32), and no sacrifice is slaughtered at night except for the Paschal lamb which is slaughtered in the evening.417 (b) The slaughtering took place outside the sanctuary, i.e., outside the Chosen Place, and sacrifices may only be brought in the Chosen Place or in a place where He caused his name to be mentioned, as it says: ‘In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned’ (Exodus 20.21). Therefore, Scriptures must be referring here to the slaughtering of desired meat. It was deduced from this episode that desired meat requires an altar, and whoever slaughters it on the ground without an altar is [guilty of] eating with the blood. This is the meaning of the verse: ‘Ye shall not eat with the blood’ (Leviticus 19.26), i.e., you shall not slaughter desired meat in an open field (Leviticus 17.5). Benjamin al-Nahāwandī brought a further argument in addition to the above two. The people were defiled due to contact with the dead, as it says: ‘And they smote of the Philistines that day from Mikhmas to Aijalon’ (I Samuel 14.31) and whoever is defiled due to contact with the dead may not eat sacrificial meat.418

which the people slaughtered their cattle, possibly without wearing breeches, and that therefore it says they should not go up by steps lest their nakedness be revealed. This is a far-fetched notion because of the meaning of “unto Mine altar” (Exodus 20.23)’. 416 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 20.23, INA A 51, f. 133b. In his Commentary on Leviticus 8.7–9, BL. Or. 2472, ff. 35b-36a, Yefet explains that this verse, which refers to Aaron’s garments, did not mention the linen breeches because the priests were required to wear them only for Temple service, as stated in Exodus 28.43. 417 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Avodah, Hilkhot Maʿaseh ha-Qorbanot, Ch.4, 1: ‘All sacrifices must be offered up in day time, as it says: “In the day that he commanded the Children of Israel to present their offerings” (Leviticus 7.38) – in the day and not the night. Therefore, sacrifices are slaughtered only during the day’. 418 Yefet, Commentary on I Samuel 14, INA A 156, f. 86a. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Gesetzeauslegung’, p. 257. These proofs can be found in Hadassi, Eshkol, § 226–227, 87a-b.

268

Chapter Three

Those who followed Benjamin’s approach claimed that the laws regarding sacrificial meat (which refer to a Chosen Place or ‘every place where I cause My name to be mentioned’ [Exodus 20.21] were not consistent with the story of Mikhmas. For them, the fact that the slaughtering took place at night and that some of the slaughterers were defiled indicated that desired meat, not sacrificial meat, was slaughtered at Mikhmas. Although Yefet agreed that the slaughtering at Mikhmas contravened the laws of slaughtering in a Chosen Place, he did not agree with the conclusion that they must have slaughtered desired meat there. In his opinion, the story of Mikhmas was simply one of many Scriptural narratives that teach us about the slaughtering of voluntary sacrifices outside the Chosen Place.419 The presence of the Ark of the Covenant in the camp proves that the story of Mikhmas was linked to the ‘place where I cause My name to be mentioned’ [Exodus 20.21].420 Under such circumstances, peace offerings could be slaughtered at night, and not only by priests. As to the fact that defiled people were forbidden to slaughter peace offerings under any circumstances, Yefet argued that the slaughtering at Mikhmas was performed by those who were ritually pure: Some interpreted it as a peace offering that was not subject to the laws governing the bringing of peace offerings in a Chosen Place: (a). We are permitted to slaughter [peace offerings] in any place in the Land of Israel, once God has chosen it for slaughtering, whether or not the Ark of God is present. This is how the altar on Mount Ebal was built, although there was no Ark of God on Mount Ebal. In contrast, peace offerings were slaughtered when the Ark was stationed at BethShemesh (I Samuel 6.11–16), and in the story of Gibeah (Judges 20.26– 27), and when the Ark was carried from the house of Obed-Edom (II Samuel 6.12–13). And Scriptures states that [in Mikhmas] the Ark of God was with them, as it says: ‘For the Ark of God was there at that time with the children of Israel’ (I Samuel 14.18). (b). Slaughtering peace offerings was forbidden in the Chosen Place [at night] because the evening daily sacrifice precluded other sacrifices, as it says: ‘This is [the law of] the burnt offering; it is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning’ (Leviticus

Above, nn. 399–402, and below, n. 422. Above, nn. 396, 407.

419

420

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

269

6.2).421 Likewise, peace offerings that were slaughtered outside [did not require a priest; and if there were ritually pure individuals among them, they could bring a sacrifice]. Nor was there any need to sprinkle the blood on the altar. (c). Even if most of the soldiers were defiled, some were not. The clean ate the sacrifice, and the defiled did not. This in a nutshell answers the question as to whether this was a sacrifice of desired meat or a holy sacrifice.422

Those who argued that desired meat could be eaten in the Land of Israel prior to the building of the Temple found proof of the existence of ‘altars of gates’ intended for desired meat also at the beginning of the Solomonic era and even after the establishment of the Temple. The private altars that were not removed in the period of the kings were, in their opinion, ‘altars of gates’. Joab, son of Zeruiah, and Adonijah, son of David, fled to these altars when they realized that their lives were in danger, since they were forbidden to approach God’s altar, in accordance with the verse: ‘And the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death’ (Numbers 18.7) and ‘Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar’ (Exodus 20.23). There is a fourth answer, as it says: ‘Howbeit the high places were not taken away; only to the Lord your God’, etc. (II Kings 12.4). People said: These were altars for profane meat, and they made the fat smoke on the altars [bamot] of your land, like the altars to which Joab and Adonijah the son of Haggith fled, as it says: ‘And he caught hold on the horns of the altar’ (I Kings 1.50; I Kings. 2.28), and also: ‘beside every altar’ (Amos 2.8). And these are altars for profane meat, since regarding other altars it states: ‘And the common man that draweth nigh shall 421 In his Commentary on Leviticus 6.2, BL. Or. 2472, f. 9a, Yefet says: ‘The evening sacrifice is unique on the altar, there is no further sacrifice after it. As to the morning sacrifice, it took precedence over any other sacrifice offered in the daytime’. Further on, f. 11a, Yefet explains that on the Passover eve the fat of the Paschal lamb was offered up after the evening sacrifice. This was an exception that occurred once a year for the whole nation, and on the eve of ‘Pessach Sheni’ for those who were defiled due to contact with the dead and those who were on a distant journey on Passover. Therefore, Scriptures did not bother to point this out. 422 Yefet, Commentary on I Samuel 14. See Poznanski, ‘Gesetzeauslegung’, pp. 257–258. The section in brackets is found in INA A 156, f. 86b. Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, ha-Maʾakhalot, XVI, p. 20, says that peace offerings could not possibly have been consumed at Mikhmas because the warriors were defiled due to contact with the dead. Yefet’s arguments can be found in Hadassi, Eshkol, § 229, 87d-88a.

270

Chapter Three

be put to death’ (Numbers 18.7) and also: ‘Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto Mine altar’ (Exodus 20.23) – a warning to the Israelites in their Land.423

We can now summarize the disagreement between Benjamin and Yefet regarding the laws of slaughtering desired meat and the interpretation of the story of Mikhmas. According to Yefet, the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ (Deuteronomy 12.9) began eight years after the Land was settled.424 This marked the beginning of sacrifices in the tabernacle, and the permission to consume peace offerings that were offered up there. Those who were far from the tabernacle ate desired meat. Despite the integral relationship between ‘Chosen Place’ and sacrifices, Scriptures teaches us that burnt offerings and peace offerings were sometimes sacrificed outside it: First, we find that sacrifices are linked to a Chosen Place as it says: ‘Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt offerings in every place’, etc., ‘but in the place which God shall choose in one of thy tribes’ (Deuteronomy 12.13–14). Yet we have found in our history that they were sacrificed outside the tabernacle and not on the altar within it.425

Although the burnt offerings and peace offerings brought outside the Chosen Place were voluntary sacrifices they, too, were sacrificed on an altar. Anyone who slaughtered outside an altar violated the injunction ‘Ye shall not eat with the blood’ (Leviticus 19.26) as well as the prohibition against sacrificing in an open field (Leviticus 17.5).426 The altar upon which voluntary sacrifices were offered outside the tabernacle was a stone altar (Exodus 20.22). That burnt offerings and peace offerings were offered on this altar we learn from Exodus 20.21 which refers to the earthen altar. Yefet saw no difference between the two types of altar. The bringing of voluntary burnt offerings and peace offerings on a stone altar was contingent on the existence of a blessed condition, as stated in Exodus 20.21 concerning the earthen altar.427 ‘Mine altar’

423 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 227, 87b. From this proof, we learn that ‘Mine altar’ (Exodus 20.23) refers to the altar of God and not a stone altar which is intended for desired meat. See above, n. 415. 424 Above, nn. 385–386. 425 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.1–9, PBN Héb. 282, f. 98b. 426 Above, nn. 389. On the voluntary nature of these sacrifices, see above, n. 400. 427 Above, nn. 390, 395, 397–398.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

271

(Exodus 20.23), according to Yefet, referred to the altar in the ‘Chosen Place’.428 Many stone altars were erected over the generations, including the ‘Altar of the Covenant’ which Moses erected at the foot of Mount Sinai (Exodus 24.4–5).429 According to the Hillelian school, the peace offerings that were brought on this altar were festive peace offerings and the burnt offerings were daily sacrifices (Exodus 24.5).430 Clearly, such an interpretation was unacceptable to Yefet, since he held that only voluntary burnt offerings and peace offerings were permissible on a stone altar.431 Indeed, as we saw above, Yefet claimed that the daily sacrifices that were brought at Mount Sinai were offered up in the tabernacle, not on the ‘altar of the covenant’.432 The fact that voluntary peace offerings were sacrificed on the ‘altar of the covenant’ prove that the altar was erected after the Giving of the Law, since peace offerings were not brought before then.433 The story of the altar at Mikhmas describes the erection of a stone altar for the purpose of sacrificing voluntary peace offerings outside the tabernacle. The fact that the Ark of the covenant was located outside the tabernacle in the midst of the camp served as the pretext for the erection of this altar.434 The Israelites, who initially refrained from building this altar, teach us the meaning of the sin: ‘Ye shall not eat with the blood’ (Leviticus 19.26). Qirqisānī claims that the story of Mikhmas is an example of a biblical non-Pentateuchal narrative (khabar) that sheds light on the obscure Pentateuchal commandment ‘Ye shall not eat with the blood’.435

Above, n. 416. Above, n. 399. 430 Above, n. 225. 431 Above, n. 400. According to the Rabbinic Sages, the ‘altar of the covenant’ was not a stone altar. See below, nn. 467–479. 432 According to Yefet, n. 398, there is no difference between an earthen altar and a stone altar. On both, only voluntary sacrifices were offered (n. 400). The ‘altar of the covenant’ was a stone altar (n. 399), and therefore the daily sacrifices could not have been offered on it. 433 Above, n. 312. 434 Above, nn. 390, 407–409. 435 Qirqisānī, pp. 147, 1249. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod Moraʾ (Cohen-Simon edition), p. 72, adopts the Karaite view, and says: ‘It is good to know the Scriptures (= Prophets and Writings), too, because we can learn about many commandments from the Scriptures, such as the commandment “Thou shalt not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19.26) from the words of Saul’. Cohen, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod Moraʾ (Cohen-Simon edition), p. 72, points out: ‘The Rabbinic Sages explained this verse 428 429

272

Chapter Three

In Benjamin’s view, the sin of eating with the blood (Leviticus 19.26) was the sin of eating desired meat without slaughtering it on a stone altar. The story of the altar at Mikhmas elucidates the significance of the commandment.436 Exodus 20.22 commands us to build a stone altar. The expression ‘Mine altar’ in Exodus 20.23 may, according to this opinion, refer to a stone altar, too.437 The stone altar and the earthen altar mentioned in the preceding verse have nothing in common. According to Scriptures, an earthen altar is intended for burnt offerings and peace offerings.438 One may assume that Benjamin, like the Karaites after him, believed that the ‘altar of the covenant’ was an earthen altar upon which voluntary burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed.439 As stated, Benjamin believed that desired meat was forbidden to the Israelites in the desert and that the destruction of the Land of Israel and the Temple reinstated the prohibition.440 His commentary on ‘the altar at Mikhmas episode’ confirms that he believed that desired meat was allowed in Saul’s time when the ‘gates’ – the cities of the Land of Israel – and the tabernacle existed. The following statement by Hadassi evidently expresses Benjamin’s position: ‘For the eating of meat is worse in our exile than both the matter of Saul at Mikhmas and the statement “when the Lord thy God shall enlarge thy border” (Deuteronomy 12.20); and these verses prove that it is forbidden to eat meat while in exile’.441 In other words, desired meat was permissible only when there were ‘altars of gates’, or ‘stone altars’, in the cities of a sovereign Land of Israel, when the Temple was standing. Aaron ben Elijah evidently attacked Benjamin’s opinion by stating: ‘Therefore, profane meat does not require an altar that requires a “gate” only, and therefore there is no prohibition of eating it outside the ‘gate’ or in exile’.442

[Leviticus 19.26] in many ways, but not one of them resembles Ibn Ezra’s interpretation’. See above, n. 408, Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Leviticus 19.26. 436 Above, nn. 414, 418. 437 Above, n. 415, but see also n. 423. 438 Above, n. 414. 439 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Exodus 20.21, maintained that the ‘altar of the covenant’ was an earthen altar: ‘“Thy burnt offerings and thy peace offerings” (Exodus 20.21) […] as it says: “And they offered up burnt offerings and they sacrificed peace offerings to God, oxen” (Exodus 24.5)’. See, also, his Commentary on Exodus 24.4. According to Yefet, there was no difference between a stone altar and an earthen altar. See above, n. 398. 440 Above, n. 334. 441 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 238, 90d. 442 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, p. 87b.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

273

According to Benjamin, was the consumption of peace offerings permitted in Saul’s days?443 From the proof brought by Yefet in Benjamin’s name, whereby Saul’s warriors were forbidden to eat sacrificial meat because they were defiled due to contact with the dead, it would appear that he did not believe that there was a total ban on eating peace offerings in Saul’s day.444 A tradition preserved by Judah Hadassi claims that in Saul’s time peace offerings were totally forbidden and only desired meat was permitted: The third answer is correct. For they did not have permission to sacrifice and eat peace offerings as the Torah states: ‘God made me as the beginning’(Proverbs 8.22) as the prophet of the Lord admonished us. It was specified in the desert: ‘Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day; […] for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God’, etc. (Deuteronomy 12.8–9), and ‘then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.11) and ‘and thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices’, etc. (Deuteronomy 12.6) and ‘and there ye shall eat before the Lord your God’ (Deuteronomy 12.7). This informs us that they were not permitted to sacrifice burnt offerings or peace offerings anywhere other than in the Chosen Place where the Glory dwells, as Scriptures states: ‘unto His habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come’ (Deuteronomy 12.5), in your land. This text teaches us that they did not eat peace offerings in Saul’s time.445

According to this view, ‘the place’ (Deuteronomy 12.4, 11) where God will put His name (Deuteronomy 12.5) does not refer to the tabernacle, but only to the Temple. Based on I Chronicles 22.18, the ‘rest and inheritance’ began in the times of David and Solomon. This tradition, which I have already attributed to Mīshawayh, evidently originated in the Qumran scrolls.446 Within the context of this tradition, it was doubtlessly argued that in the desert, too, the purpose of the tabernacle was to preserve the tablets of stone, not to bring sacrifices, except under special circumstances.447 Assuming that Mīshawayh, like Benjamin, believed that a stone altar According to Yefet, Commentary on I Samuel 13.1, INA A 156, f. 69a, Benjamin, like the Rabbanites, believed that Saul’s reign lasted only two years. 444 Above, n. 418. 445 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 227, 87b. 446 Above, nn. 262, 387–388. 447 Above, n. 218. 443

274

Chapter Three

was required for desired meat,448 then, like Benjamin, he distinguished between a stone altar and an earthen altar that was intended, according to Scriptures, for burnt offerings and peace offerings. Therefore, the state of ‘blessing’ referred to in Exodus 20.21 in connection with the earthen altar was not a prerequisite for the slaughtering of desired meat. Hence, Mīshawayh permitted the slaughtering of desired meat in times of exile and destruction, too.449 Mīshawayh almost certainly agreed with Benjamin that the ‘altar of the covenant’ was an earthen altar. Abraham Ibn Ezra concurred. Evidently Mīshawayh also rejected Hillel’s view that the daily sacrifices were brought on the ‘altar of the covenant’, as we learn from Ibn Ezra, who upheld Mīshawayh’s views on these issues.450 Mīshawayh’s view that peace offerings were eaten solely when the Temple was standing may have been inspired by Qumran writings. The tradition we attributed to Mīshawayh maintains that ‘the place which the Lord shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.11) refers only the Temple,451 and that the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ began in the times of David and Solomon.452 Similarly, the MMT and Temple Scroll also identify ‘the place’ with the Temple only.453 The identification of ‘the place’ (II Samuel 7.10) with the Temple that was promised to David after he rested from all his enemies (II Samuel 7.11) can be derived from a messianic Qumran pesher: ‘And as for what he said to David: “and I shall obtain for you rest from all your enemies”(verse 11), that he will obtain for them rest from all the sons of Belial, those who make them fall […] and God declares to you: “that he [God] will build you a house” (I Chronicles 17.10)’.454 Further Qumran texts testify that Jerusalem was considered God’s resting place: ‘Your dwelling [ ] rests in Jerusalem, the city you have chosen in all the land’.455 Below, n. 544. According to the Temple Scroll, the state of blessing was required also when slaughtering desired meat. Above, n. 352. 450 Above, nn. 232–239. On the ‘altar of the covenant’ being an earthen altar in Ibn Ezra’s view, see below, n. 478. 451 Above, nn. 445–446. 452 Above, n. 262. 453 Above, nn. 353, 377–379. 454 4Q Flor. Col. III, frag.1, 21.2, 7–10 (Steudel edition), p. 25. On the identification of ‘the place’ with the Temple in this document, see Schniedewind, ‘Davidic Dynasty’, pp. 86–87. 455 4Q504, Col. IV, 1–2, DJD, 7, p. 143. Schniedewind, ‘Davidic Dynasty’, pp. 88–89, reads ‘your lying place’ [‫ ]משכבכה‬instead of ‘your dwelling’ [‫]משכנכה‬. On the exodus to Damascus in the Damascus Covenant in light of the verse: ‘Damascus 448 449

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

275

Evidently the reference at the beginning of the Temple Scroll to ‘all your enemies of the [vicinity]’,456 refers to Deuteronomy 12.10–11 and to similar verses, such as: II Samuel 7.1–5; I Chronicles 17.10; and I Chronicles 22.9, which discuss the building of the Temple after the Israelites were granted rest from their enemies.457 According to the author of the Damascus Covenant, the period of David was one of transition. Until ‘Zadok arose’, David committed a variety of transgressions, including multiplying wives. All his sins, except for the murder of Uriah, were forgiven him ['‫]'ויעלו מעשי דוד‬. And about the prince it is written: ‘He should not multiply wives to himself ’ (Deuteronomy 17.17). However, David did not read the sealed book of the Torah which was in the Ark, for it had not been opened in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar, and Joshua and the elders who worshipped Ashtaroth, and that which had been revealed was hidden, until Zadok arose, so David’s deeds were forgiven with the exception of Uriah’s blood, and God forgave him for them.458

That the author of the MMT viewed David positively can be derived from his emphasis on the importance of understanding David’s Psalms: ‘[…] and we have [written] to you, so that you may study [carefully] the book of Moses [and the words of the] prophets and [the writings] of David’.459 David was a pious man who deserved God’s indulgence: ‘[…] Think of David who was a man of righteous deeds, and who was

shall be His resting place’ (Zechariah 9.1) see Vermes, ‘Lion’, pp. 44–49. Vermes produces sources connecting ‘rest’ with sacrifices and the Temple. According to Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Amos 6.8, Pitron, pp. 36–37, the term ‘pride of Jacob’ refers to the Temple, God’s resting place, based on Psalm 132.14. 456 Temple Scroll 3.3 (Yadin English edition), II, p. 5. Evidently, ‘your enemies’ should be followed by ‘of the vicinity’. 457 See Yadin, Temple Scroll 3.3, and Schiffman’s commentary, ‘Theology’, p. 114. 458 Damascus Covenant 5.1–6. According to Schiffman, the Zadok mentioned here is Ḥilqiyah of the house of Zadok who discovered the Torah scroll in the days of Josiah (II Kings 22.8). Evidently, he is referring to the Zadok who served as a priest in the period of David and Solomon. See VanderKam, ‘Zadok’, pp. 564–570. Beckwith, ‘Temple Scroll’, pp. 6–7. Le Moyne, Sadducéens, pp. 87–88. Wacholder, ‘Sealed Torah’, pp. 352, 365, suggests that Zadok was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ who founded the ‘Yaḥad’ sect. With regard to the expression: ‘‫ ’ויעלו מעשי דוד‬Wacholder’s comment, ‘Sealed Torah’, p. 365, that the scroll’s author was rebuking David is unacceptable. Rabin maintained that the author of the scroll believed this referred to unintentional sins. See his translation in the Damascus Covenant (Rabin edition), p. 18. On the term ‘‫ ’ויעלו‬in the sense of ‘removal’, see Kister, ‘Plucking’, p. 354, n. 17. 459 MMT 3.9–10 (Qimron edition), p. 59.

276

Chapter Three

[therefore] delivered from many troubles and was forgiven’.460 Moreover, although Solomon outdid David in multiplying wives, the author of the MMT still designated his reign as a ‘period of blessing’: ‘The blessings which have [already] befallen in the days of Solomon the son of David’.461 The author of the MMT may have believed that only in the period of Solomon – a ‘period of blessing’ during which the Temple (‘the place’) was erected462 – were peace offerings permissible.463 Yefet opposed this tradition, which Mīshawayh upheld, stressing that the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ began in Joshua’s times, and that ‘the blessing’ prevailed during Saul’s reign.464 The Approach of the Rabbinic Sages As we saw above, the sacrifice at Mikhmas gives rise to a number of questions regarding the type and purpose of the altar that was erected, and the consumption of peace offerings in the Land of Israel prior to the erection of the Temple. On all these issues, a wide gap exists between the Karaites and Mīshawayh on the one hand, and the Rabbinic Sages, on the other. The ‘Altar of the Covenant’ – a Private Altar [‫]במה קטנה‬ Yefet maintained that the altar erected at Mikhmas was similar to the ‘altar of the Covenant’ erected by Moses at the foot of Mount Sinai.465 The Rabbinic Sages concurred, except that they believed, as we shall see below, that this altar was only a ‘small private altar’ [‫]במה קטנה‬. The ‘altar of the Covenant’ takes us back to the pre-tabernacle desert era and even, according to the Rabbinic Sages, to the period prior to the Giving of the Torah.466 According to the Rabbinic Sages, the ‘altar of the Covenant’ was a private altar [‫]במה‬: ‘Until the erection of the tabernacle, private altars were permitted’.467 Adam did not eat meat (Genesis 1.29–30). Noah and his MMT 3.25–26 (Qimron edition), p. 63. MMT 3.18 (Qimron edition), p. 61. 462 Above, nn. 353, 357. 463 The Temple Scroll, above, n. 352, says of desired meat: ‘According to my blessing which I shall give you and you shall eat in your gates’. If the scroll means thereby that desired meat is to be eaten at a time of blessing, it refers to the period of the establishment of the Temple. 464 Above, nn. 262–263, 386, 404. 465 Above, n. 399. 466 Above, n. 310. 467 Mishnah, Zevaḥim 14.4; BT, Zevaḥim, 115b. Maimonides, in his Book of Commandments, Positive Commandments, 20, p. 69, says regarding earthen altars: ‘At times when private altars were permitted, we were permitted to build earthen altars and sacrifice anywhere’. 460 461

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

277

sons were the first to be permitted to eat meat (Genesis 9.3–4).468 Genesis 8.20 teaches us that Noah built an altar,469 which was merely a ‘small private altar’.470 Thus, the ‘altar of the Covenant’ was simply one of the small private altars that were erected ever since the Noahide period. Given that the small altar was a private altar, communal sacrifices could not be offered on it: ‘An individual may bring a sacrifice on a private altar but the community may not bring a sacrifice on a private altar.471 An individual could bring only a burnt offering or peace offering on a private altar: ‘An individual may only sacrifice a burnt offering or a peace offering on a private altar on his roof’.472 This does not refer to fixed sacrifices but to voluntary ones: ‘Whoever made a votive offerings or free-will offering, offered it on a bama’.473 We saw that the Hillelites believed that, beside festive peace offerings, daily sacrifices, which were communal sacrifices, were brought on the ‘altar of the Covenant’.474 The Shammaites, on the other hand, believed that the burnt offerings on the ‘altar of the Covenant’ were pilgrims’ offerings [‫]עולות ראיה‬, i.e., individual burnt offerings.475 As stated, the Karaites believed that the ‘altar of the Covenant’ was an earthen altar.476 Yefet did not differentiate between an earthen altar and a stone altar.477 Ibn Ezra, too, believed that the ‘altar of the Covenant’ was an earthen altar: There, it states: ‘And he built an altar beneath the mountain’ (Exodus 24.4) and here it states: ‘And you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings’ (Exodus 20.21) and there it states: 468 BT, Sanhedrin, 59b. A commentary on Genesis 9.3–4 states in Rabbi Yoḥanan’s name: ‘Adam, who was not allowed desired meat, was not warned about the law of removing a limb from a living creature. But the Noahides, who were allowed desired meat, were warned about it’. See Midrash Bereshit Rabba 34.3 (Theodor Albeck edition), p. 324. 469 Above, n. 296. 470 BT, Zevaḥim, 108b. 471 Sifre Deuteronomy, 65 (Finkelstein edition), p. 131. 472 Tosefta, Zevaḥim 13.15 (Zuckermandel edition), p. 499. On the discussion among the Rabbinic Sages as to whether Noah sacrificed peace offerings, see above, nn. 295–299. 473 Mishnah, Megīlla 1.10. Sifre Deuteronomy, 65 (Finkelstein edition), p. 131: ‘And what is not vowed or donated may not be offered up on a private altar’. On the laws regulating sacrifices on private altars, see entry ‘Bama’, Talmudic Encyclopaedia III, pp. 343–345. 474 Above, n. 225. 475 BT, Ḥagiga, 6a-b. 476 Above, n. 439. 477 Above, nn. 397–398.

278

Chapter Three

‘And they offered up burnt offerings and they sacrificed peace offerings’ (Exodus 24.5), and there is no doubt that this refers to an earthen altar.478

The Rabbinic Sages held that the ‘altar of the Covenant’ was simply a small private altar, and that the earthen altar was the ‘copper altar’ [‫ ]מזבח נחושת‬of the tabernacle. They maintained that the ‘copper altar’ was called an earthen altar because its hollow centre was filled with earth: ‘Rabbi Nathan says: Make me a hollow altar filled with earth, as it says: “Hollow with planks shalt thou make it” (Exodus 27.8)’.479 Rabbi Yishmaʿel explains that the expression ‘an earthen altar’ was not to be taken literally, but meant rather an altar attached to the ground, not one built on vaults or pillars.480 The verse discussing an earthen altar states that the altar should be erected ‘in every place where I cause My name to be mentioned’ (Exodus 20.21). According to the Rabbinic Sages, this refers to the Temple (the Chosen House) only.481 In Ibn Ezra’s view, the verse refers to any place where the Ark of God is present: ‘“In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned” (Exodus 20.21) means in every place where I shall put a memorial to My name, where My Glory dwells, like Shiloh and Nob, where the Ark stood’.482 Naḥmanides, in his Commentary on Exodus 20.21, describes the difference between Ibn Ezra and the Rabbinic Sages regarding the earthen altar: Rabbi Abraham [Ibn Ezra] explained […] ‘In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned, I will come unto thee’, I myself. ‘And I shall bless thee’, you do not need any intermediary. And in the opinion of our sages, the commandment to build earthen or stone altars is mentioned in connection with altars in the tabernacle and Temple.483

As to the verse: ‘And if thou make Me an altar of stone’ (Exodus 20.22), according to Rabbi Yishmaʿel, the word ‘if ’ here denotes a mandatory Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 20.21. In Yesod Moraʾ 2.8, (Cohen-Simon edition), p. 97, Ibn Ezra says: ‘And some commandments were incumbent on Moses alone, such as “An altar of earth thou shalt make Me” (Exodus 20.21), when he entered into a covenant with the Israelites’. 479 Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, Yitro, 11 (Horovitz-Rabin edition) p. 242. 480 Horovitz-Rabin, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, Yitro, 11, p. 242. 481 Horovitz-Rabin, Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, Yitro, 11, p. 243. In contrast, see n. 396. 482 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 20.21. 483 Naḥmanides, Commentary on Exodus 20.21. 478

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

279

commandment.484 According to Rabbi Abraham ben Jacob, a stone altar was erected at Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon, and in the Temple.485 The Laws of Slaughtering in the Land of Israel during the Period of the Tabernacle In the desert, ‘from the time when the tabernacle was erected, “private altars” [‫ ]במות‬were prohibited’.486 The Rabbinic Sages derived this from the verse in Leviticus 17.4. This prohibition did not immediately become a prohibition binding on all generations. The tabernacle in the Land of Israel was first situated in Gilgal. In the Gilgal period, small private altars were once again permitted: ‘They came to Gilgal, the private altars [‫ ]במות‬were permitted […] the minor sacrifices [could be eaten] anywhere’.487 The private altars were permitted not only in the Gilgal period, but also in the period when the tabernacle was located in Gibeon and Nob: ‘They came to Nob and Gibeon, the altars [‫ ]במות‬were permitted […] the minor sacrifices [could be eaten] in all the cities of Israel’.488 Small private altars were permitted in Gilgal, Nob and Gibeon, since the Ark of the Covenant was absent from the tabernacle at that time. The ‘copper altar’, which the Rabbinic Sages called the ‘large altar’, [‫במה‬ ‫ ]גדולה‬was in the tabernacle at the time: ‘What is a large altar? When a bama was permitted, the tent of meeting was erected in its usual fashion, and the Ark was not there. What is a small altar [‫ ?]במה קטנה‬At the Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel, 11 (Horovitz-Rabin edition) p. 243. Naḥmanides, in his commentary on this verse, says: ‘And the meaning of “if ” is a mandatory commandment, meaning when the time comes that you inherit the land and build Me an altar of stones in the Temple’. For a summary of the Mekhilta’s view, see Maimonides, Book of Commandments, Positive Commandments, 20 (Qafiḥ edition), p. 69. 485 BT, Zevaḥim, 61b. Rashi, BT, Zevaḥim, 61b, ‘Nob and Gibeon’: ‘You will answer him that both were private altars and not [for] sacrifices’. According to Rabbi Nathan, BT, Zevaḥim, 61b: ‘The altar at Shiloh was a copper altar, hollow and filled with stones’. From Rashi’s Commentary on Exodus 20.22, it would appear that this verse refers to the altar on Mount Ebal, about which it says: ‘Thou shalt build […] unhewn stones’ (Deuteronomy 27.6). According to Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Exodus 20.22, ‘God commanded them to build a stone altar in Transjordan before they inherited the land […] and there they sacrificed peace offerings […] and the meaning of “And if [thou make Me] an altar of stone” (Exodus 20.22), is that now you should make an altar of earth and once you enter the land, then build an altar of stone’. Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Exodus 20.21, teaches us that the altar on Mount Ebal was a stone altar: ‘And we cannot say that the altar was not a stone altar because it is clear that such [an altar] was erected on Mount Ebal’. 486 Mishnah, Zevaḥim 14.4, BT, Zevaḥim, 118b; ‘The rabbis learnt: The days of the Tent of Meeting in the desert were forty years minus one’. 487 Mishnah, Zevaḥim 14.5. 488 Mishnah, Zevaḥim 147. 484

280

Chapter Three

time when the bama was permitted, people erected private altars at the entrances to their courtyards’.489 According to the Rabbinic Sages, the Gilgal period lasted fourteen years: ‘Seven years they conquered, and seven years they divided [the land]. The tent of meeting in Nob stood for 57 years. This left 370 years minus one for Shilo’.490 During the Shilo period, private altars were forbidden. According to the vast majority of the Rabbinic Sages, the Shilo period was the period of ‘rest’ (Deuteronomy 12.9): ‘They came to Shilo, the altars [‫ ]במות‬were forbidden […] this was the [period of] “rest” (Deuteronomy 12.9). The holiest sacrifices were eaten behind the curtain. The minor sacrifices and the second tithe were eaten anywhere within sight’.491 The minor sacrifices [‫ ]קדשים קלים‬that were brought on private altars in the Gilgal, Nob and Gibeon periods, were brought ‘in any place within sight’ in the Shilo period. According to one version, this meant in any place within sight of Shilo, and according to another, in any place within sight of the tabernacle.492 If the Shilo period was the period of ‘rest’ (Deuteronomy 12.9), then the beginning of the period of ‘inheritance’ began with the building of the Temple in Jerusalem: ‘They came to Jerusalem, the altars [‫ ]במות‬were forbidden and were no longer allowed, and this was the period of “inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12.9)’.493 The Mishnah describes the similarities and differences between the Shilo period and the Jerusalem period, following the building of the Temple, as follows: There is no difference between Shilo and Jerusalem except that in Shilo, minor sacrifices and the second tithes were eaten anywhere within sight, whereas in Jerusalem they were eaten inside the wall. In both Tosefta, Zevaḥim 13.19 (Zuckermandel edition), p. 500. BT, Zevaḥim, 118b. 491 Mishnah, Zevaḥim 14.6. 492 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah (Qafiḥ edition), 5, p. 93: ‘“Any place within sight” meant any place from which, even from afar, one could see part of the tabernacle. Such a person was allowed to eat in that place sacrifices of a minor degree of sanctity [‫’]קדשים קלים‬. Rashi, in Zevaḥim, 112b, interprets ‘any place within sight’ as: ‘a place within sight of Shilo’. 493 Mishnah, Zevaḥim 14.8. On the controversy among the Rabbinic Sages concerning the periods of ‘rest and inheritance’, see BT, Zevaḥim, 119a-b. Sifre Deuteronomy, 1 (Finkelstein edition), p. 7 states: ‘“And in Damascus shall be his resting place”, (Zechariah 9.1) and His resting place is only Jerusalem, as it says: “This is My resting-place for ever” (Psalms 132.14)’. Sifre Deuteronomy, 2, p. 9: ‘“to seek out a resting place for them” (Numbers 10.33), and this can only be the Land of Israel, as it says: “for ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance”, (Deuteronomy 12.9). See also Sifre Deuteronomy, 66, p. 132. On the reasons for the controversy and on other versions, see Finkelstein, ‘Halakhot’, p. 163. 489 490

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

281

cases, the holiest sacrifices were eaten inside the curtains. The sanctity of Shilo is followed by a permission, while the sanctity of Jerusalem is not followed by a permission.494

We shall re-evaluate the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ in the Karaite discourse. The method we attributed to Mīshawayh claims that in light on the verse in Deuteronomy 12. 4–11, ‘the place He shall choose’, referred to the Temple only,495 and that the reign of David and Solomon ushered in the period of ‘rest and inheritance’.496 In light of this, and as long as the tabernacle stood, peace offerings were not eaten in the Land of Israel. It, therefore, follows that desired meat was slaughtered in Mikhmas on a stone altar (Exodus 20.22) – an altar specially designed for the slaughtering of desired meat.497 Since, according to Mīshawayh, the Israelites anyway refrained from eating sacrificial meat in the desert after leaving Mount Sinai,498 their entry into the Land of Israel did not bring about any change in this respect. The turning point occurred upon the establishment of the Temple. According to Yefet, anyone (i.e., Mīshawayh) who claimed that sacrifices were not brought in the desert after the Israelites left Mount Sinai, based on Deuteronomy 28.6, and Amos 5.25,499 also believed that the Israelites were not obliged to keep most of the commandments in the desert, based on Deuteronomy 12.8–9. They were required to keep them after inheriting the land and arriving at the ‘Chosen Place’, namely, Jerusalem: For he who says that sacrifices were not brought after they journeyed from Mount Sinai until they entered the land, based on the verse ‘It is a continual burnt-offering, which was offered in mount Sinai’ (Numbers 28.6), and the verse: ‘Did ye bring unto Me sacrifices?’ (Amos 5.25), and Mishnah, Megīlla 1.11. Above, n. 387. 496 Above, n. 262. 497 Above, nn. 445–446. The question arises as to how Mīshawayh and Benjamin related to the issue of the stone altar that was erected on Mount Ebal, which according to Scriptures, was designed for peace-offerings (Joshua 8.30–32). (See above, Ibn Ezra, n. 485; Yefet, above, n. 407). The Qumran sect may have had a text that differed from the Masoretic text, from which they learnt about the ‘stone altar’ for desired meat. Fragments of a Qumran scroll of the Book of Joshua shows that Joshua built the altar immediately upon entering the Land, and not on Mount Ebal. See Ulreich, ‘Joshua’, pp. 89–104. For a discussion on the altar on Mount Ebal, see also Inbar, Joshua, pp. 145–143. Also, Erder, ‘Altar’, p. 340, n. 110, pp. 342–343. 498 Above, n. 109. 499 Above, n. 109. 494 495

282

Chapter Three

that they were exempted from both mandatory and discretionary commandments, the words of Moses, peace be upon Him: ‘Ye shall not do’, in the Land of Israel ‘all that we do here this day’ (Deuteronomy 12.8) means, if we wish we shall sacrifice, and if we do not wish, we shall not sacrifice, as it says: ‘every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes’ (Deuteronomy 12.8). And you have not yet entered the Land of Israel and the ‘Chosen Place’. And when you cross the Jordan and reach the ‘Chosen Place’ and inherit the land, you must make a pilgrimage and take with you tithes and priestly tithes and the first-born of cattle and sheep and votive offerings you have vowed, as is explained after this verse.500

As for Benjamin, we already hypothesized that although he claimed that desired meat should be brought on a stone altar, he did not hold, like Mīshawayh, that sacrificial meat was forbidden in the Land of Israel as long as the tabernacle stood. One of his proofs that the altar in Mikhmas was meant for desired meat testifies to this.501 Yefet disagreed with Mīshawayh regarding the Israelites’ behaviour in the desert, claiming that the Israelites consumed sacrifices and celebrated festivals in the desert.502 At the same time, Yefet claimed, like Mīshawayh, that the verse: ‘Ye shall not do all that we do here this day’ (Deuteronomy 12.8) testifies to many commandments that were not observed in the desert, because they pertained to the Land of Israel only: This verse ‘Ye shall not do’ (Deuteronomy 12.8) was a source of much controversy among the Sages. I shall mention just two opinions, which are close to the truth. According to the first, the people were not obliged to make a pilgrimage since the tabernacle was with them,503 and they were not obliged to give tithes since they had not entered the land. The tithes were binding on those who entered the land. Likewise they were not obliged to give priestly tithes or the first-born of cattle and sheep, but they just offered votive offerings and free-will offerings which are not obligatory; if they wanted to, they brought these offerings, but if not, they did not. This according to the opinion of those who maintain that they brought daily offerings and additional offerings after they left Mount Sinai.504 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.8–9, INA C 41, f 9b. Above, n. 418. See also above, nn. 334, 443–444. 502 Above, nn. 79, 261. 503 Above, n. 79. 504 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.8–9, INA 41 C, 9 a-b. Immediately afterwards, Yefet describes the method I have ascribed to Mīshawayh, see n. 500. 500 501

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

283

The Israelites began observing the commandments pertaining to the land during the period of ‘rest and inheritance’, which according to Yefet began eight years after they inherited the land.505 ‘The place He shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.11), according to this interpretation, was not only the Temple but also the tabernacle.506 The Rabbinic Sages held that ‘the place He shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.11) referred both to the tabernacle and the Temple,507 but that the tabernacle period was divided into the Shilo period and the Jerusalem period. The long Shilo period was the period of ‘rest’, in which small private altars were forbidden. The Jerusalem period was the period of ‘inheritance’. It follows that the periods in which the tabernacle was located in Gilgal, Nob and Gibeon, were not included in the category of ‘rest and inheritance’. In these periods the Ark was absent from the tabernacle, and small private altars were erected throughout the land on which individual burnt offerings and free-will offerings were brought.508 In the desert, on the other hand, according to Rabbi Yishmaʿel, once the tabernacle was erected, small private altars were forbidden,509 just as desired meat was forbidden.510 The permission for small private altars in Gilgal – shortly after the Israelites’ entry into the promised land – was deduced from the verse: ‘Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes’ (Deuteronomy 12.8). Mīshawayh and Yefet deduced from this verse that the commandments pertaining to the land were permanently binding on the Israelites once they settled the land, because they were not observed in the desert.511 The Rabbinic Sages, on the other hand, interpreted this verse as meaning that private altars were permitted as soon as they entered the Land of Israel, in the Gilgal period, because of the absence of the Ark of the Covenant from the Above, n. 262. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.9, INA C 41, f. 10ab, Yefet proposes a number of interpretations for ‘rest and inheritance’. (1) ‘Rest’ is Jerusalem, based on the text in I Chronicles 23.25; I Chronicles 17.9; Psalms 132 5.14. ‘Inheritance’ is the entire Land of Israel. (2). ‘Rest’ is the Land of Israel, and ‘inheritance’ is Jerusalem. (3) This text does not refer to Jerusalem at all, and the expression ‘rest and inheritance’ refer to the Land of Israel only. See Ben-Shammai, ‘Jerusalem’, p. 455, n. 70. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.10, above, n. 262, Yefet opposes the view that Scriptures was referring to the period of David and Solomon. 506 Above, n. 386. 507 Above, n. 380. 508 Above, nn. 486, 494. 509 Above, n. 486. 510 Above, n. 329. 511 Above, nn. 500, 504. 505

284

Chapter Three

tabernacle: ‘Reish Laqish said: It is written in Scriptures: “You shall not do after all that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes” (Deuteronomy 12.8). Moses said to Israel: “When you go up to the land, you shall sacrifice free-will offerings, but you shall not sacrifice mandatory offerings”’.512 The small private altars that were forbidden in the desert from the time the tabernacle was erected were permitted in Gilgal. Thus, one of the sages explains the verse in Deuteronomy 12.8: ‘Today, we are forbidden to erect private altars. When we come into the land, private altars shall no longer be forbidden’.513 As to the slaughtering in Mikhmas, we saw above that the Karaite discourse on this issue was designed to clarify the verse: ‘Ye shall not eat with the blood’ (Leviticus 19.26).514 Among the Rabbinic Sages, commentaries on this verse, which were not restricted to its literal context, multiplied over the generations. The ‘negation’ in this verse was ‘a general negation’, namely ‘a negation’ that can be applied to many topics.515 Rashi, in his commentary on this verse, says: ‘This verse is interpreted in many ways in Sanhedrin’.516 Qirqisānī ridiculed the rabbinical tradition that interpreted this verse in a context that had nothing to do with slaughtering: This commandment revealed the disgrace of those Rabbanites who uphold tradition and consensus (al-naql waʾl-ijmāʿ). This verse is explained in the story of Saul, as we have stated, but they did not accept this interpretation, and interpreted it not according to its literal interpretation but in a completely different context, as meaning that on a day on which a person is to be executed, people are forbidden to eat.517

Among the interpretations of the verse in Leviticus 19.26 proffered by the Rabbinic Sages, we shall relate to two that refer to slaughtering per se. The first claimed that ‘eating with the blood’ referred to one who ate an animal before it was properly dead. The other claimed that ‘eating with the blood’ referred to the prohibition of eating meat before the blood was poured on the altar: ‘You shall not eat meat while there is still blood in the sprinkling bowl’.518 BT, Zevaḥim, 114a. Sifre Deuteronomy, 65 (Finkelstein edition), p. 131. 514 Above, nn. 389, 435. 515 BT, Sanhedrin, 63a. 516 Rashi, Commentary on Leviticus 19.26. See BT, Sanhedrin, 63a. 517 Qirqisānī, p. 1250. BT, Sanhedrin, 63a: ‘R. Akiva says: Where do we learn that when a Sanhedrin executes someone, it is forbidden to eat all day? From the expression: “Ye shall not eat with the blood” (Leviticus 19.26)’. 518 BT, Sanhedrin, 63a. 512 513

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

285

The Rabbinic Sages discussed the kind of altar erected by Saul at Mikhmas in the context of their debate as to whether it was permissible to slaughter by night on a small private altar. Rav held that it was permissible, based on the verse: ‘And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there’. (I Samuel 14.34). According to Rav, the verse: ‘Roll a great stone unto me this day’ (verse 33), which implies while it is still day, refers to sacrifices that were brought on a ‘large private altar’, which, even though sacrificed on a small private altar, had to be sacrificed by day. According to Rav, therefore, the Mikhmas episode revolved around sacrificial meat, not desired meat. Samuel claimed that animals that were brought on a ‘small private altar’ had to be slaughtered by day, based on the verse: ‘Roll a great stone unto me this day’ (verse 33), while desired meat was slaughtered by night (verse 34).519 The Rabbinic Sages held that ‘small private altars’ were permitted if the Ark of the Covenant was absent from the tabernacle.520 The verse in I Samuel 14.18 indicates that this was the situation in Mikhmas. The Permissibility of the Fat of Desired Meat in Mīshawayh’s Doctrine Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s Halakhot on the Fat and Blood of Desired Meat We saw above that the Karaites criticized Mīshawayh for permitting the fat of desired meat.521 Karaite sources are silent on the issue of the blood of desired meat in Mīshawayh’s doctrine. The sources available to us specify a unique halakha regarding the blood of desired meat, which they ascribe to Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, and that is the obligation to cover the blood of desired meat in earth, while the Torah instructs that the blood of game beast or fowl only be covered in earth (Leviticus 17.13).522 Below, I shall discuss this halakha. By analyzing the principle that led Benjamin to this conclusion, we may better understand how Mīshawayh came to permit the fat of desired meat. The covering of the blood of desired meat is specified as an explicit commandment in the Temple Scroll. It seems that the Temple Scroll permitted even the fat of desired meat, which Benjamin forbade but

See BT, Zevaḥim, 102a. Entry ‘Bama’, Talmudic Encyclopaedia, III, p. 344. Above, n. 489. 521 See above, nn. 197–209. 522 On game beasts and fowl, see above, nn. 195–196. 519

520

286

Chapter Three

Mīshawayh permitted. On both these issues – the blood and fat of desired meat – the Karaite discourse sheds some light on Qumran law. Before we discuss the laws regarding the fat and blood of desired meat, two important issues must be clarified. (a) Unlike the Rabbanites, the Karaites claimed that not only Deuteronomy 12.20–21 but also Deuteronomy 12.15–16, referred to desired meat. Therefore, the Karaites referred to the laws of desired meat in their commentaries on Deuteronomy 12.16.523 (b) The Karaites distinguished between ‘slaughtered blood’ [‫דם‬ ‫ ]שחיטה‬and ‘cleansing blood’ [‫]דם שטיפה‬. The Karaite, Israel al-Maghribī, teaches us that the word ‘sacrifice’ [‫ ]זביחה‬in Hebrew means ‘slaughter’. ‘Slaughtering’ requires severing the neck, including the trachea and oesophagus, and the two large arteries of the neck.524 The blood issuing forth from the neck is called ‘slaughtered blood’. The animal’s carcass, however, still contains a substantial quantity of blood that emerges slowly once the meat is chopped up and salted. Part of the ritual cleansing process involves washing the meat thoroughly, until the water is clear of blood. The blood that collects in the water during this process is called the ‘cleansing blood’.525 The Burning of ‘Slaughtered Blood’ and the Fat of Desired Meat on the Stone Altar and the Covering of the ‘Cleansing Blood’ in Earth in Benjamin’s Halakha I shall begin with Yefet’s position on the issue of the blood of desired meat. According to him, the verse: ‘Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water’ (Deuteronomy 12.16), does not distinguish between ‘slaughtered blood’ and ‘cleansing blood’ and the expression ‘you shall not eat’ was meant to include all the blood in the animal’s carcass. The purpose of the verse in Deuteronomy 12.16 is to differentiate between the blood of desired meat, the blood of sacrificial meat, and the blood of game beast and fowl. The blood of desired meat is poured on the earth, as the said verse instructs, the blood of sacrificial meat is sprinkled and poured on to the altar, while the blood of game beasts and fowl is covered: Above, n. 194. See Israel al-Maghribī, ‘Ritual Slaughtering’, (Nemoy edition), pp. 211–2121. See also Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, f. 87d; Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, haMaʾakhalot, XI, p. 12; Fogelman, ‘Karaite Slaughterer’, p. 233. 525 On cleansing blood, see Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.23, RNL Yevr.Arab. I 95, f. 52a-b, in Erder, ‘Remnants’, pp. 24–25, n. 105. According to Qirqisānī, p. 1198, the text ‘thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water’ (Deuteronomy 12.16) testifies that only the blood that is poured after slaughtering is forbidden, while the blood that is mingled with meat is permitted. 523

524

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

287

We say that desired meat does not require an altar, and that slaughtered blood and cleansing blood are both included in the verse: ‘Only ye shall not eat the blood’ (Deuteronomy 12.16). And if someone asks: ‘Why does it not say “ye shall not drink” rather than “ye shall not eat”, which implies that the reference is to blood mixed with meat? We reply: Scriptures would not have said ‘ye shall not drink’, because then the slaughtered blood and blood that is separated from the meat would be forbidden, and blood mixed with meat would not be included in this expression. But since Scriptures wished to forbid all blood, it says: ‘ye shall not eat’, because anyone drinking blood is likened to eating blood, but not everyone who eats blood is likened to drinking blood. And the expression: ‘thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water’ (Deuteronomy 12.16) teaches us that in the case of desired meat, we are not obliged to sprinkle the blood and pour it on the altar as we are with the blood of sacrificial meat, nor to cover the blood as we are commanded with game beasts and fowl.526

Yefet, thus, distinguishes between three types of blood: the blood of a sacrifice, the blood of desired meat and the blood of game beasts and fowl: ‘A sacrifice – its blood is on the altar, the blood of desired meat is poured on the ground, and the blood of game beasts and fowl is covered in earth’.527 Benjamin, unlike Yefet, distinguishes between ‘cleansing blood’ and ‘slaughtered blood’ in connection with the laws of desired meat. The verse: ‘Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water’ (Deuteronomy 12.16) teaches us, according to those who maintain that an ‘altar in the gates’ [‫ ]מזבח שערים‬was obligatory, about the role of this altar regarding blood and fat. Yefet attributes this view, to an anonymous sage: ‘And one of the sages, peace be upon him, said’.528 In the opinion of that sage, the verse that instructs the blood to be poured on the ground (Deuteronomy 12.16) is not referring to the ‘slaughtered blood’, but to the ‘cleansing blood’, of desired meat, hence the need to erect ‘altars in the gates’ on which both the ‘slaughtered blood’ and fat were burnt. Yefet pointed out that this sage based his opinion on the story of Mikhmas, when Saul, according to him, ordered an altar to be erected for desired meat. Yefet even ascribes two of the proofs that peace offerings were not brought in Mikhmas to the same sage. Elsewhere, he ascribes the first proof to Benjamin, which strongly suggests that the Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95, f. 48b. Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.10–12, PBN Héb. 282, f. 103. 528 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 63b. 526 527

288

Chapter Three

anonymous sage was Benjamin. The proofs are: (a) Those who were defiled from the war could not have brought peace offerings. (b) slaughtering by night contravenes the verse in Leviticus 6.2:529 One of the sages, peace be upon him, already said that: ‘Only ye shall not eat the blood’ (Deuteronomy 12.16) referred to cleansing blood, while slaughtered blood was poured on the altar. That is to say, desired meat must be slaughtered on the altar erected in the gates. According to him, the fat and blood of desired meat are burnt on the altar.530 He based this view on the story of Saul, who built an altar and called on each of his men to bring an ox and sheep and slaughter them in the presence of an altar. According to him, this referred to the slaughtering of desired meat, and anyone who slaughtered desired meat not in the presence of an altar was likened to eating blood.531

Qirqisānī informs us of Benjamin’s view that the blood of desired meat must be covered in earth, based on the verse in Ezekiel 24.7: ‘For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the bare rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with earth’. According to Qirqisānī, this verse did not refer to desired meat. Although the obligation to pour and cover blood could be derived from this verse, it was impossible to prove that the blood referred to here was the blood of cattle and sheep.532 529 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, f. 64a. On these proofs, see above, n. 418. 530 According to Yefet, Commentary on I Samuel 14, in Poznanski, ‘Gesetzeauslegung’, p. 258, had he followed Benjamin’s approach, he would have argued that the fat of desired meat must be burnt on the altar: ‘As for the blood and fat, we know that Scriptures states concerning desired meat: “thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water” (Deuteronomy 12.24), but Scriptures does not specify what is to be done with the fat. Had we argued [that the Mikhmas episode] referred to desired meat, as Benjamin and his followers held, then its blood would have been poured upon the earth and its fat burnt on the altar’. On the burning of the fat of desired meat on the altar, see below, n. 544. 531 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95, f. 48a. Cf. RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, ff. 63b-64a. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), p. 647, states: ‘And some people say that it referred here to “cleansing blood”, so that people would see that profane meat had an altar […] and also because he found it hard to accept that the blood of profane meat should be poured on the earth’. Opposition to Benjamin’s approach on the issue of the blood of desired meat can be found in Hadassi, Eshkol, § 230, f. 88a: ‘For we have no proof that the gates had altars for profane meat, as those who forbid it claim. But Scriptures states: “Only ye shall not eat the blood; thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water” (Deuteronomy 12.16). His interpretation that this was cleansing blood is wrong, since Scriptures does not refer to cleansing blood but only to sacrificial blood, and proof is required to substantiate his claim that Scriptures refers to cleansing blood’. 532 Qirqisānī, p. 1250.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

289

As we know, the Torah commands us to cover the blood of game beast and fowl: ‘And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any game beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with earth’. (Leviticus 17.13). In connection with the blood of desired meat, Scriptures states: ‘Thou shalt pour it out upon the earth as water’ (Deuteronomy 12.24). The same instruction is given in Deuteronomy 12.16. Qirqisānī, like Yefet, claimed that each of the two kinds of meat had its own law. According to him, if Scriptures had intended the blood of all slaughtered meat to be covered in earth, it would not have specified the meat of game beasts and fowl only.533 By combining Yefet and Qirqisānī’s testimonies, we may infer that Benjamin believed that the ‘slaughtered blood’ of desired meat was to be burnt on the ‘altar of the gates’, while the ‘cleansing blood’ of desired meat was to be poured out as water and covered in earth, based on Ezekiel 24.7.534 Benjamin’s opinion on the kind of blood of game beasts that had to be covered in earth, based on the verse in Leviticus 17.13, is unknown. Two versions exist of the Karaite discourse on this issue. Yefet maintains that while Scriptures refers to ‘slaughtered blood’ in connection with sacrificial meat, Scriptures refers to ‘cleansing blood’ in connection with game meat: Does the verse ‘he shall pour out the blood thereof ’ (Leviticus 17.13) refer to slaughtered blood or other blood? And the answer – that it does not refer to slaughtered (blood) […] And everyone agrees that whenever Scriptures refers to what should be done with blood, it refers to ‘slaughtered blood’, namely the blood of sacrifices and the like. Scriptures states, concerning the burnt offering: ‘and the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar’ (Leviticus 1.15) and concerning the sin offering: ‘And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sinoffering’ (Leviticus 5.9), and likewise: ‘in the blood of the bird that was killed’ (Leviticus 14.6, 51). All this refers to ‘slaughtered blood’ only.535

A fragment of a Book of Precepts, possibly written by Levi ben Yefet, states that the blood of game meat that is covered is ‘slaughtered blood’: ‘As to the meat of game beasts and fowl whose blood must be covered, Qirqisānī, p. 1193. On Yefet’s position, see above, nn. 526–527. Above, nn. 531–532. 535 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 17.13, PBN Héb. 282, f. 106a. In his Commentary on Psalms 16.4, PBN Héb. 286, f. 85a, Yefet says that the ‘libation’ in this verse precedes the blood, since all of it was poured out upon the altar, while only part of the blood was poured on the altar. Hence, Scriptures states: ‘of blood’. 533

534

290

Chapter Three

this blood is “slaughtered blood” as we saw above. As to “cleansing blood”, there is no obligation concerning this whatsoever. Beasts may drink it, and God only knows’.536 The Permissibility of the Fat of Desired Meat in Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra’s Halakha The above discussion about covering the blood of desired meat in Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s doctrine emphasizes the huge gulf between Mīshawayh and Benjamin regarding the issue of the consumption of fat. Benjamin maintained that the fat of desired meat, just like ‘slaughtered blood’, should be burnt on a stone altar.537 Mīshawayh, on the other hand, according to the available sources, sanctioned the consumption of the fat of desired meat.538 Interestingly, Benjamin’s ruling regarding the ‘cleansing blood’ of desired meat sheds light on Mīshawayh ‘s ruling regarding the fat of desired meat. Benjamin held that the law governing the blood of game meat applied equally to the blood of desired meat. Mīshawayh extended the principle of parity between game meat and desired meat to the issue of fat, too, claiming that the law permitting the fat of game meat also permitted the fat of desired meat.539 In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, Yefet refers to those who argued that the fat of desired meat must be burnt on a stone altar.540 According to him, it was logical that those who, like Benjamin, claimed that desired meat was to be slaughtered on a stone altar, would claim that the fat of desired meat was to be burnt on a stone altar, too.541 Indeed, Benjamin did assert that the fat of desired meat was to be burnt on a stone altar. Another view that Yefet brought in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, one that he vigorously denounced, was that the fat of desired meat was permitted, since it was not prohibited in Scriptures. Another proof that the fat of desired meat was permitted was the verse in Leviticus 17.25, which prohibited the fat of sacrificial meat only: According to one opinion, the fat of desired meat was permitted, since the verse did not specify it here. He found corroboration for this view 536 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 509. Cf. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), p. 647. 537 Above, n. 531. See also above, n. 423. 538 Above, nn. 197–209. Hadassi, Eshkol, § 231–232, 88b-c, disagreed. 539 Below, n. 556. 540 Above, n. 531. 541 Above, n. 530.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

291

in Scriptures: ‘For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire unto the Lord, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people’ (Leviticus 7.25). This is a marginal view. Mainstream Jews forbid the fat of desired meat.542

Qirqisānī ascribes this marginal view to Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī.543 Levi ben Yefet, on the other hand, stated that those who held that an ‘altar of gates’ was obligatory for desired meat, disagreed regarding the function of this altar. Some (Benjamin) argued that the altar served both for the burning of fat and the sprinkling of blood (‘slaughtered blood’, as Benjamin held). The second view, which is mentioned by Levi first, alleges that the altar was designed exclusively for slaughtering purposes (‘near the altar or on it’). One cannot rule out the possibility that Levi was referring here to Mīshawayh’s view that the fat of desired meat was permitted: ‘Some maintain that they slaughtered near the altar or on it, while others maintain that they burned fat and poured blood on it’.544 Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra’s Proofs for Permitting the Fat of Desired Meat Ibn Ezra, albeit a member of the rabbinic camp, upheld Mīshawayh’s views on the issue of the fat of desired meat. The Karaites, who prohibited the fat of desired meat, noted the similarity between Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra on this issue: ‘Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī and his faction permitted all the fat of profane meat, and Ibn Ezra followed in their footsteps by stating that the Torah permitted the fat of profane meat’.545 Below are some of Mīshawayh’s proofs that the fat of desired meat was permitted, based on Karaite sources and on Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Leviticus 7.20, in which he lists reasons for permitting the fat of desired meat in the Diaspora, as part of a polemic with a Karaite. (a) We already saw above that Qirqisānī, and probably also Yefet, imputed Mīshawayh with the view that the verse in Leviticus 7.25 referred Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.16, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113, 65a. Qirqisānī, pp. 1203–1204. 544 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), p. 557. 545 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah, Commentary on Leviticus 3.17; also Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer ha-Mivḥar, Commentary on Leviticus 3.17; Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, XX, f. 95b-d. On Ibn Ezra’s position concerning the permissibility of the fat of desired meat, Naḥmanides says in his Commentary on Leviticus 3.9: ‘R. Abraham made a big mistake […] but the Gaon’s commentary is incorrect’. In his interpretation of ‘and milk of sheep’ (Deuteronomy 32.14), Ibn Ezra states: ‘Were it not for tradition, this verse would have corroborated what I wrote elsewhere concerning the fat’. Yefet, in his explanation on ‘With fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan’ (Deuteronomy 32.14), INA C 72, f. 133a, says: ‘And if it means “fat”, it does not mean fat that is forbidden’. 542 543

292

Chapter Three

to the prohibition of the fat of sacrificial meat only.546 In Ibn Ezra’s words: ‘Because this verse (Leviticus 7.23) refers to the peace-offerings and the proof is: “For whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire” (Leviticus 7.25), thereby excluding the fat of meat that is not brought as a peace offering, such as profane meat’.547 The Karaites claimed that the verse in Leviticus 17.22–25 referred also to desired meat and not only to sacrificial meat,548 based on the following proofs: (1) Although the passage dealing with the sacrifices begins by addressing Aaron and his sons, this section addresses the Israelites as a whole (Leviticus 7.22), thereby testifying that it is not referring to sacrificial meat. (2) Leviticus 7.25 refers to the kinds of animal whose fat may not be eaten, and not only to animals brought as sacrifices. As Yefet put it: And Scriptures begins: ‘And the Lord spoke’ (Leviticus 7.22), because the previous section began: ‘Speak unto Aaron and to his sons’ (Leviticus 6.17). That was addressed to Aaron and his sons, while this section is addressed to the Israelites. It is impossible that the verse: ‘Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat’ (Leviticus 7.23) refers to sacrificial meat, as someone maintains. He based his words on the verse: ‘of the beast, of which men present an offering made by fire unto the Lord’ (Leviticus 7.25); but the verse does not mean to prohibit fat that must be brought on the altar. Rather, this verse is similar to another one: ‘And if it be a beast, whereof men bring an offering unto the Lord’ (Leviticus 27.9), where the verse refers not to the specific animal that is sacrificed, but rather to the kind of animal that is sacrificed.549 Above, nn. 542–543. See also Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, f. 95a. Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. Naḥmanides, in his Commentary on Leviticus 7.25, says: ‘This cannot possibly refer to sacrificial meat to the exclusion of profane meat, because Scriptures already prohibited all fat in Leviticus (Leviticus 3.17)’. As to the argument that the fat of desired meat was permitted based on Leviticus 7.25, as the author of Seder Eliyahu Rabba I, 16 (Ish-Shalom edition), p. 73, testifies, the rabbi answered that Leviticus 3.17 proves that all animal fat is forbidden: ‘He said to me: Rabbi, the fat of an animal that is brought as a sacrifice to the Lord is forbidden, while the fat of an animal that is not brought as a sacrifice is permitted […] He said to me: Scriptures says “For whosoever eateth the fat”, etc. (Leviticus 7.25). I said to him […] So that no-one says that the fat of an animal that is sacrificed is forbidden, and that of an animal that is not sacrificed is permitted, Scriptures repeats and explains elsewhere. ‘“It shall be a perpetual statute” (Leviticus 3.17), from now until the end of the world. “Throughout your generations” (Leviticus 3.17) – that this should apply for all generations. “In all your dwellings” (Leviticus 3.17) – in the land and outside it. “All fat and all blood” (Leviticus 3.17) – just as the consumption of blood is forbidden, so is the consumption of fat forbidden’. 548 See Tobias ben Moses, above, n. 202. 549 Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 7.22, BL. Or. 2472, f. 25a-b: Cf. Qirqisānī, pp. 1204–1205. 546 547

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

293

Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ also rejected the view that the verse in Leviticus 7.23 refers to sacrifices only: It is not logical to say that the verse: ‘Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat’ (Leviticus 7.23) refers to the fat of sacrificial meat and not to the fat of profane meat; because the fat of sacrificial meat is all for the Lord, and therefore there is no need to state ‘ye shall not eat’ because they are in the hands of the priests that burn the fat and sprinkle the blood, as it says: ‘And the priest shall make the fat smoke upon the altar’ (Leviticus 7.31), and also: ‘And the priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord […] and make the fat smoke’ (Leviticus 17.6), and also: ‘all the fat is the Lord’s’ (Leviticus 3.16). This being so, there is no need to say: ‘ye shall not eat’. Therefore, the meaning here must be that the fat of an ox or sheep or goat applies to profane meat only.550

(b) The verse in Leviticus 7.24 prohibits the consumption of the fat of a carcass [‫ ]נבלה‬or of an animal torn of beasts [‫]טרפה‬. Since the fat of sacrificial meat is forbidden in Leviticus 7.25, and Scriptures nevertheless finds it necessary to prohibit the fat of a carcass and of an animal torn of beasts, it stands to reason that the fat of desired meat is permitted: This passage states: ‘And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts, may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it’. (Leviticus 7.24). We know that the meat of a carcass and animal torn of beasts is forbidden, but only the meat. Since the fat is not offered up on the altar, one might think it is permitted. Therefore, Scriptures warns us: ‘ye shall in no wise eat of it’.551

(c) The portion of Reʾeh (Deuteronomy 12.20–23), which permits desired meat, does not mention the prohibition of fat, but only the prohibition of blood (Deuteronomy 12.16–23). On the other hand, the verse in Leviticus 3.17, which discusses sacrificial meat only, refers to both prohibitions as one. Qirqisānī, and evidently also Yefet, ascribed the

Sahl, Epistle, p. 30. Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. On the question of why Scriptures mentions the prohibition of the fat of a carcass or animal torn of beasts, see Qirqisānī, p. 405. Mīshawayh’s view is brought by Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, XX, f. 95b: ‘Mīshawayh had another dubious statement, namely that Scriptures states: “And the fat of that which dieth of itself, and the fat of that which is torn of beasts” etc. (Leviticus 7.24), which would mean that the fat of any other meat, namely any meat other than a carcass or an animal that is torn of beasts, is permitted’. 550 551

294

Chapter Three

beginning of this proof to Mīshawayh.552 And in the words of Ibn Ezra: ‘In these three places where blood is forbidden, the reference is only to blood, and there is no mention of fat at all’.553 Aaron ben Elijah explains why fat is not mentioned in Reʾeh: The portion of Reʾeh mentions the prohibition of blood only, because the Israelites in the desert refrained from eating profane meat, and ate only peace-offerings, so that the blood would not be spilled outside, but only on the altar. But when the Israelites entered the Land of Israel and were permitted to eat profane meat, Scriptures had to remind them that the blood must be poured upon the earth. And since it was essential to mention this, and to specify that an altar was not needed, it was also essential to mention that it was prohibited. That is why Scriptures mentions the prohibition of blood only […] Therefore, there was no need to specify the prohibition of fat, since it is already prohibited in Va-Yiqra and Ṣav.554

(d) The prohibition of fat was given prior to the sanctioning of desired meat in Reʾeh. Therefore, the prohibition must relate to sacrificial meat only and not to desired meat: ‘And one of them said: How could Scriptures mention the prohibition of fat since until that point, profane meat was not permitted. Especially as they were warned against, and refrained from, eating the profane meat of cattle and sheep’.555 (e) Scriptures in Deuteronomy 12.15, 22 compared desired meat that is fit to be slaughtered to the meat of the gazelle and hart. Since the fat of the latter is permitted, so, too is the fat of cattle and sheep. ‘What he said Above, nn. 542–543. Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. Qirqisānī ascribes these three proofs to Mīshawayh. See Qirqisānī, p. 1204. Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, f. 95b: ‘Mīshawayh had another dubious statement, because when Scriptures permitted desired meat, it mentioned the prohibition of blood only, and did not mention the fat of desired meat. Had the fat been prohibited, he would have mentioned it’. On the Karaites’ critique of these proofs, see for example, Qirqisānī, pp. 1204–1207; Hadassi, Eshkol, § 231–232, f. 88b-c. 554 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, XX, f. 95b. 555 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), pp. 592–593. This proof is surprising, since according to Mīshawayh, desired meat was permitted long before the Israelites entered the Land. But see above, n. 336. Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu, Shekhita, XVIII, f. 111b, lists this proof as one of five proofs invoked by Mīshawayh and his faction for permitting the fat of desired meat. See Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu, Shekhita, XVIII, f. 110d-113c. In Ch. XX, f. 113a, Elijah attacks the arguments brought by Ibn Ezra, who followed Mīshawayh on this issue. 552 553

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

295

regarding “as of the gazelle and as of the hart” (Deuteronomy 12.15) was that Scriptures compares profane meat to the meat of the gazelle and hart only in order to demonstrate that just as the fat of the gazelle and hart is permitted, so, too, is the fat of profane meat permitted’.556 (f) The Karaite who argued with Ibn Ezra claimed that the verse in Leviticus 3.17 forbids the fat of desired meat since it says: ‘It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings’. ‘Then [the Karaite] answered: Is not all fat forbidden by the Torah, as it says: “ye shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3.17) and at the beginning of the verse it says: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations” (Leviticus 3.17)?’557 It follows from the Karaite’s reasoning that since the verse states: ‘in all your dwellings’, it must refer to the fat of desired meat, since the fat of sacrificial meat was relegated to the ‘Chosen Place’.558 The words: ‘throughout your generations’ testifies that the prohibition applies in the Diaspora, too.559 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, f. 95c. Ibn Ezra, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.15, says: ‘“As of the gazelle and as of the hart” that are not brought on the altar, and the fat of the gazelle and hart is permitted. This corroborates my thesis, except that we rely on the tradition of our fathers’. Naḥmanides, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy 12.22, says: ‘The meaning of “as of the gazelle and as of the hart” is not that one may eat the fat of profane meat just as one may eat the fat of the gazelle and hart, but rather it comes to draw a qualitative parallel: Just as you may eat the gazelle and hart, so may you eat meat that you sacrifice in any place. Scriptures does not state that you may eat of the sacrifice just as you may eat of the gazelle and the hart […] Nor does it state in any place that it may be eaten as the gazelle and hart only, in order that the fat not be included’. 557 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. According to Qirqisānī, p. 358, Scriptures in Leviticus 3.17 forbids all fat. 558 Qirqisānī, pp. 1248–1249. See below, Sahl, n. 569. Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, XIX, f. 94b: ‘Afterwards it states: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood” (Leviticus 3.17), and this does not include the fat of sacrificial meat, only the fat of profane meat, since the fat of sacrificial meat is covered by the injunction: “all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3.16). However, the injunction “neither fat nor blood” applies to the prohibition of the fat of profane meat’. Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, XIX, f. 95d, Aaron ben Elijah, in the name of the Karaite, answers Ibn Ezra as follows: ‘He should have realized that the term “in all your dwellings” is ample proof that Scriptures refers here to the fat of profane meat only, not the fat of sacrificial meat, since the fat of sacrificial meat does not exist “in all your dwellings”, only the fat of profane meat exists “in all your dwellings.”’ Naḥmanides, in his Commentary on Leviticus 7.25, states: ‘The term “in all your dwellings” does not appear in any passage on the sacrifices’. 559 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, f. 95cod, explains the words of the Karaite who took issue with Ibn Ezra as follows: ‘And his opinion on this is that since it states “a perpetual statute throughout your generations” that one would expect it to be forbidden in the Diaspora’. Naḥmanides, in his Commentary on Numbers 35.29, states: ‘I have 556

296

Chapter Three

Some Karaites derived from the fact that the fat of desired meat was forbidden in all dwellings (Leviticus 3.17) that desired meat was permitted in the Diaspora. Had desired meat been forbidden in the Diaspora, they argued, Scriptures would not have forbidden the fat of desired meat only in their ‘dwellings’ ‘throughout the generations’.560 Yefet did not accept this interpretation, nor the view of the Karaite cited by Ibn Ezra, because in his opinion desired meat was permitted in ‘the gates’ only, namely, in the cities of the Land of Israel.561 True to his distinction between ‘gates’, which were the cities of the Land of Israel, and ‘dwellings’, which were places inhabited by Jews,562 Yefet interpreted Leviticus 3.17 by comparing it to Leviticus 7.23. In the former verse, all fat and blood were forbidden ‘in all your dwellings’, i.e., everywhere, even though desired meat was permitted only in the ‘gates’, namely, the cities of the Land of Israel. The reason for this was the prohibition against blood. Just as the meat of game beasts and fowl was permitted everywhere, so was its blood forbidden everywhere. On the other hand, Leviticus 7.23 forbids fat without adding ‘your dwellings’, since desired meat was permitted only in the ‘gates’: When the verse includes the fat and blood in one prohibition, it states: ‘It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings; that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood’ (Leviticus 3.17). In another section it states: ‘Ye shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat’ (Leviticus 7.23), and omits ‘in all your dwellings’. Concerning the blood it states: ‘in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood’ (Leviticus 3.17), in order to teach us the difference between fat and blood, since desired meat is eaten only in the ‘gates’ of the Land of Israel. Concerning the blood it says: ‘in all your dwellings’, in order to teach us that blood is forbidden everywhere, since the meat of game beasts and fowl is permitted everywhere.563

not found the phrase “a perpetual statute throughout your generations” used in connection with any commandment that is contingent on the Temple’s existence. For this includes even the period of Diaspora outside the Land, as it says in connection with the cessation of work on the Pentecost festival (Leviticus 23.21) and the prohibition of the new produce (Leviticus 23.14), to teach that they apply outside the Land in these times, that it is not dependent of the Omer and the new meal offering. Likewise the fat is not dependent on the sacrifices’. 560 Qirqisānī, pp. 1206–1207. 561 Above, n. 270. 562 Above, n. 114. 563 Yefet, Commentary on Exodus 13.7, PBN Héb. 280, ff. 121b-122a. See also Yefet, Commentary on Leviticus 7.26, BL. Or. 2472, f. 26a, in Erder, ‘Centrality’, p. 55, n. 104.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

297

Ibn Ezra gave two answers to his Karaite sparring partner: (1) Leviticus 3.17 ‘refers to peace offerings’.564 (2) Leviticus 23.14 forbids the consumption of ‘new produce’ until a sacrifice is brought: ‘It is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings’. The consumption of bread in the Diaspora testified that this commandment was pertinent to the Land of Israel only, since ‘your dwellings’ refers to the Land of Israel only,565 as Mīshawayh argued.566 The polemic conducted by Ibn Ezra – who here represents Mīshawayh’s view – against the Karaite is reminiscent of Qirqisānī’s polemic against the Mīshawites. In castigating them for abolishing the Pentecost festival, Qirqisānī argued that the Pentecost and Passover festivals were perpetual, just as the prohibition of the fat of desired meat was perpetual, since these commandments were to be observed throughout the dwellings of Israel throughout the generations (Exodus 12.20; Leviticus 23.12; Leviticus 3.17). Anyone who refused to accept 564 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. Likewise, his Commentary on Leviticus 3.16: ‘“All the fat is the Lord’s’. This is the rule, and since the fat and blood are for the Most High, they are forbidden to you’. According to Qirqisānī, pp. 371–372, Leviticus 3.17 evidently teaches us an overall prohibition of fat and blood, but Leviticus 7.23 teaches us that the prohibition of fat applies only to cattle and sheep, and not to game meat. As to blood, Leviticus 7.26 testifies that the prohibition of blood does not apply to fish blood, but to the blood of poultry and animals only. On these issues, Qirqisānī adopted, so he claims, one of the rules propounded by R. Yishmaʿel, namely, ‘from a generalization and particularization’. According to him, some Karaites rejected this rule. Therefore, although agreeing that Leviticus 3.17 prohibited all fat, they did not deduce from Leviticus 7.23 that the prohibition related only to the fat of the animals specified, and not to the fat of game meat. Specific verses, such as Genesis 45.18, or Psalms 147.14 testify, according to them, that some fats were permitted. Qirqisānī criticizes those who rejected the rule of ‘from a generalization and particularization’, since according to him, there is no explicit verse permitting the fat of game meat or fish blood, and the entire nation agrees that fish blood is permitted. 565 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Leviticus 7.20. See above, nn. 158–160. Naḥmanides, in his Commentary on Leviticus 7.25, attacks Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on Leviticus 23.14. It would appear that according to Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s method, the Mikhmas story testifies that Leviticus 3.17 refers to the Land of Israel only. This can be deduced from the words of Hadassi, Eshkol, § 228, f. 87c: ‘From the obvious story of Saul, we learn the obscure, the vague and the ambiguous. For they were named eating with the blood. This obliges us to interpret the verse: “It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings” (Leviticus 3.17) as pertaining to the land. For at the time when the Temple existed, sacrifices in Jerusalem were brought in the Temple, and profane meat on the altars of the gates. And he further contends that after the Temple was destroyed, sacrificial meat and profane meat were abolished and we returned to the original situation’. 566 Above, nn. 211, 213. According to Ibn Ezra, the commandments relating to forbidden relationships also pertained to the Land of Israel only, due to its sanctity. See his Commentary on Leviticus 18.26; Exodus 2.1; 25.40.

298

Chapter Three

this, argued Qirqisānī, had to abolish the Sabbath also, since Exodus 31.16 states: ‘throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant’. The Mīshawites themselves accepted this verse and observed the Sabbath in the Diaspora.567 Qirqisānī’s argument against the Mīshawites was, however, groundless, from this point of view. It was convenient for them to rely on Exodus 31.16 for observing the Sabbath in the Diaspora, since this verse did not restrict the Sabbath to ‘dwellings’, namely the Land of Israel.568 The Mīshawites, who argued that the verse in Leviticus 3.17 referred to the prohibition of the fat of sacrifices, had to explain why the verse prohibited this fat ‘in your dwellings’, and not in ‘the Chosen Place’, as one would have expected: Indeed when it states: ‘It shall be a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings, that ye shall eat neither fat nor blood’ (Leviticus 3.17), it informs us that this verse refers to the fat of profane meat, because in the Israelites’ dwellings there were no sacrifices, because sacrifices were only in the Chosen Place and slaughtered there, as it says: ‘Only thy holy things which thou hast, and thy vows, thou shalt take, and go unto the place which the Lord shall choose’ (Deuteronomy 12.26).569

The Mīshawites answered that the ‘dwellings’ in this verse were simply the places where the tabernacle was set up within the borders of the Land of Israel: ‘Those who permitted [the fat of desired meat] said that when [Scriptures] says “in all your dwellings”, sacrifices had already been brought in many places in the Land of Israel, as we know from Scriptures that the tabernacle was taken from place to place, at it says: “but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle” (II Samuel 7.6)’.570 567 Qirqisānī, p. 876. On the Sabbath in Mīshawayh’s doctrine, see above, nn. 27– 32. Qirqisānī, p. 941, also attacked Daniel al-Qūmisī, who on the one hand, held that the Day of Atonement was observed in the desert based on the expression ‘a perpetual statute’ (Leviticus 16.34), and on the other hand claimed that the Pentecost festival was not celebrated in the desert, despite the expression ‘a perpetual statute’ (Leviticus 23.12). 568 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 228, f. 87c, points out that sometimes the term ‘your dwellings’ refers to the whole world, such as Leviticus 23.3, that speaks of the observance of the Sabbath. Sometimes ‘your dwellings’ relates to the Land of Israel only, such as in Numbers 35.29, that speaks of the cities of refuge, or Ezekiel 6.6. According to him, some maintained that Leviticus 3.17 referred to the Land of Israel only. See above, n. 565. 569 Sahl, Epistle, p. 10. 570 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts, (Leiden, Warner 22), f. 118a. Cf. Algamil edition, pp. 594–595.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

299

If the Mīshawites were the authors of this reasoning, it would seem that although they held that the consumption of peace offerings was forbidden in the Land of Israel in the tabernacle period and only the consumption of desired meat was permitted,571 they did not assert that sacrifices were never brought in the tabernacle. An example of such sacrifices were the daily sacrifices, which were not consumed.572 Mīshawayh was probably the author of this view, since, according to him, only Jerusalem and the Temple were the ‘Chosen Place’.573 The ‘dwellings’ were the cities of the Land of Israel only, in this case, the cities where the tabernacle was erected.574 The Blood and Fat of Desired Meat in the Qumran Scrolls We shall now relate to two exceptional laws relating to desired meat. The first is Benjamin’s law that the ‘cleansing blood’ must be covered in earth, although the Torah instructs that only the blood of game meat must be covered in earth.575 The second law relates to Mīshawayh’s permission to consume the fat of desired meat, based on his proofs collected in Karaite sources and Ibn Ezra’s commentaries.576 Below we shall demonstrate that these two laws existed already in the Temple Scroll, and shall attempt to determine the principle behind them.577 The Covering of the Blood of Desired Meat in the Temple Scroll The Rabbinic Sages held that the commandment to cover the blood with earth applied to the blood of game beasts and fowl only: ‘The covering of blood applies in the Land and outside the Land, during the existence of the Temple or in the absence of the Temple, to profane meat but not to sacrificial meat, and it applies both to beasts and fowl, whether they Above, nn. 495–497. According to Mīshawayh, sacrifices were not brought in the desert, except in exceptional circumstances, such as the “daily sacrifices” on Mount Sinai (above, n. 234), and the Passover sacrifice that was brought only once (above n. 169). Sacrifices may also have been brought in the Land of Israel under exceptional circumstances. Mīshawayh may have held, like al-Qūmisī, that burnt offerings only were brought in the tabernacle in the Land of Israel, just as al-Qūmisī claimed that only burnt offerings, not peace offerings, were brought in the desert. See above, nn. 179, 211. 573 Above, n. 446. Thus we learnt also from the Qumran scrolls. See above, nn. 343, 353, 359, 453. 574 On Mīshawayh’s definition of “dwellings”, see above, n. 117. 575 Above, n. 534. 576 Above, nn. 545–574. 577 On the difference between the laws of fat and the laws of blood in the rulings of the Rabbinic Sages, see Mishnah, Ḥulin 8.6. 571

572

300

Chapter Three

are at one’s disposal or not’.578 The blood of ‘disqualified sacrifices’, mentioned in Deuteronomy 12.16, must be poured like water, according to the literal interpretation, and one may benefit from it: ‘Thou shalt pour it out upon the earth like water’ (Deuteronomy 12.16). It says ‘like water’ (Deuteronomy 12.16) not into water itself. ‘Like water’ – just as one may profit from water, so may one profit from the blood; just as water renders seeds capable of becoming impure, so does blood; and just as there is no need to cover water, so there is no need to cover blood’.579

Similarly, it was argued that just as there was no need to cover water, there was no need to cover the blood of desired meat referred to in Deuteronomy 12.24.580 Despite the Rabbinic Sages’ staunch position concerning the need to cover the blood of game meat only, Benjamin was not the only one who argued that the blood of desired meat had to be covered, too. According to the author of Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, which is known for its affinity to the Book of Jubilees, the blood of all animals fashioned from earth must be covered: ‘And those that were created from the earth – their blood must be covered in earth’.581 Indeed the Book of Jubilees instructs that the blood of all slaughtered meat be covered in earth.582 The Babylonian Talmud relates the story of Jacob, a heretic, who argued that the law ordering the blood of game meat to be covered applied to the blood of cattle, too.583 This extension of the obligation to cover the blood to cattle points to greater stringency in the laws relating to blood than the Rabbinic Sages exhibited, and is typical of the Qumran scrolls.584 Mishnah, Ḥulin 6.1. Sifre Deuteronomy, 71 (Finkelstein edition), p. 136. 580 BT, Ḥulin, 84a. 581 Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer, IX, 21b. Ginzberg, Unknown, maintained that the text in ‘Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer’ was corrupted, since this contradicts the halakha. On the resemblance of Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer to the Book of Jubilees, see Albeck, in Zunz, pp. 135–140. For allusions to those who maintained that the blood of all animals had to be covered, see Qirqisānī, pp. 1193–1194. Qirqisānī brings there an anonymous version that states that the blood of a sacrifice that must be covered was the blood that was poured on the earth, and not the blood that was poured on the altar. 582 Jubilees 7.30–31; 21.17. See Rosenthal, ‘Oral Law’, p. 454, n. 19. Werman, ‘Consumption’, pp. 173–174. 583 BT, Ḥulin, 84a: ‘A wild beast includes cattle in respect of the law of covering the blood’. On Jacob the Heretic, see Ir-Shai, ‘Jacob’, pp. 153–168. 584 Werman, ‘Consumption’, pp. 174–183. The generation of the desert died because of the sin of eating with the blood, according to Damascus Covenant 3.6–7: ‘and they ate blood, and their males were cut off in the desert’. 578

579

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

301

Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and his followers were hard put to arguing, based on the Masoretic text of Scriptures, that the covering of the blood of game meat applied also to desired meat. Although the author of the Temple Scroll also held that the blood of desired meat must be covered, he had a simpler task proving it. He simply inserted the verse regarding the covering of the blood of game meat (Leviticus 17.13) into the context of the commandments governing desired meat in the portion of Reʾeh: When I shall enlarge your border, as I have promised you, and if the place which I shall choose to put My name there be too far from you, and you say: ‘I will eat flesh’, because you crave to eat flesh; you may eat as much flesh as you desire, and you may kill any of your flock and herd, with which I have blessed you. And you shall eat it in your towns, the clean and the unclean among you alike (may eat), as though it were a gazelle or a hart. Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; you shall pour it out upon the earth like water and cover it with dust. For the blood is the life and you shall not eat the life with the flesh.585

The author of the Temple Scroll determined that even the blood of firstborn animals that are blemished and are eaten ‘in the gates’ must be covered in earth, while Scriptures in the Masoretic text instructs that the blood be poured like water (Deuteronomy 15.21–23): ‘But if it has any blemish, if it is lame, or blind, or has any serious blemish whatsoever, you shall not sacrifice it unto Me. Thou shall eat it within thy gates; the unclean and the clean among you alike may eat it, as though it were a gazelle or a hart. Only you shall not eat its blood; thou shall pour it upon the earth like water’.586 The Fat of Desired Meat in the Temple Scroll As in the Karaite discourse, the author of the Temple Scroll based the laws of desired meat on Deuteronomy 12.15–16.587 The law governing desired meat, therefore, was like the law governing game meat (‘as of the gazelle and of the hart’ [Deuteronomy 12.15]). It follows that whoever held that the law regarding the blood of desired meat was the same as the law regarding the blood of game meat had also to argue that the Temple Scroll, 53.1–6 (Yadin English edition), II pp. 237–238. See Schiffman, ‘Laws of Slaughter’, pp. 279–281; Schiffman, ‘Paraphrase’, pp. 558–561; Schiffman, ‘Some Laws’, pp. 167–178; Tov, ‘Deut. 12’, pp. 169–173. 586 Temple Scroll, 52.9–12 (Yadin English edition), II, p. 234. See Goldberg, ‘Midrash’, p. 97. Yadin, Temple Scroll, I, pp. 314-315. 587 Above, n. 585. 585

302

Chapter Three

law governing the fat of desired meat was the same as that governing the fat of game meat, and that, therefore, it was permitted. One cannot totally rule out the possibility that some of Mīshawayh’s proofs for permitting fat were derived from the Qumran school, since he maintained that the fat of desired meat was permitted even when the Temple existed.588 Mīshawayh permitted the fat of desired meat, based on the expression: ‘as of the gazelle and of the hart’ (Deuteronomy 12.15).589 The Temple Scroll does not relate to the prohibition of the fat of desired meat but only to the prohibition of the fat of peace offerings.590 As stated, one of Mīshawayh’s proofs that the fat of desired meat was permitted was Scriptures’ failure to prohibit it.591 Since he equated the laws of desired meat with those of game meat, the destruction or existence of the Temple was irrelevant. In this chapter, I studied the laws governing the blood and fat of desired meat. We learnt that Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and evidently also Mīshawayh held that the ‘cleansing blood’ of desired meat was to be covered in earth, just and the blood of game meat was to be covered in earth, as stated in Leviticus 17.13. The insertion of this verse into Reʾeh by the author of the Temple Scroll sheds light on the source of Benjamin and Mīshawayh’s law on this issue. Karaite sources discussed at length Mīshawayh’s law and proofs of the permissibility of the fat of desired meat. Clearly, this Karaite discussion of Mīshawayh’s law teaches us why the author of the Temple Scroll permitted fat. The principle that guided Mīshawayh and also the author of the Temple Scroll was to equate as far as possible the rules of desired meat with those of game meat, giving rise to a common law governing the blood and fat of both kinds of meat. Aaron ben Elijah’s criticism of Ibn Ezra, Mīshawayh’s disciple, clarify the principle guiding the author of the Temple Scroll and Mīshawayh. He refuted Ibn Ezra’s argument that the phrase ‘as of the gazelle and of the hart’ (Deuteronomy 12.15) meant that the fat of desired meat was permitted just as the fat of game meat was permitted,592 with the counterargument that the blood of game meat was covered in earth, while the blood of desired meat was poured on the ground: Above, n. 204. Above, n. 205. 590 Temple Scroll, 52.21 (Yadin English edition), II, p. 236: ‘they shall pour out its blood over the base of the altar of burnt offerings and they shall burn its fat’. On the omission of any reference to the fat of desired meat, see above, n. 585. 591 Above, nn. 552–553. 592 Above, n. 556. 588 589

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

303

What he [Ibn Ezra] maintained concerning ‘as of the gazelle and the hart’ (Deuteronomy 12.15) was that the verse compared profane meat to ‘the gazelle and hart’ in order to teach us that just as the fat of the gazelle and hart is permitted, so, too, is the fat of profane meat. He should, however, have understood that the verse compared it [profane meat] to the gazelle and hart in order to teach us ‘the unclean and the clean may eat it alike’. For in the desert, they were not allowed to eat profane meat, but only peace offerings, which the unclean were not allowed to consume. Now that desired meat was permitted, Scriptures had to explain that the unclean and the clean could eat it alike, i.e., that the unclean could eat it, just as the unclean could eat the meat of the gazelle and hart. However, they are not alike in all respects – the blood of [the gazelle and hart] is covered in earth, while the blood [of profane meat] is poured on the ground.593

This criticism of Ibn Ezra could equally have been directed at the author of the Temple Scroll and Mīshawayh, who argued that not only was there one law governing the fat of desired meat and game meat, but also one law governing the blood of these two kinds of meat. Aaron ben Elijah rested his arguments on the assumption that the Israelites ate only the meat of peace offerings in the desert, while Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra maintained the opposite.594 While the author of the Temple Scroll and Mīshawayh equated the laws governing desired meat with those governing game meat, the Rabbinic Sages adopted the opposite approach. They attempted to equate as far as possible the laws of desired meat with those of sacrificial meat. Since they claimed that Deuteronomy 12.15–16 did not refer to desired meat, their work was cut out for them: ‘Thou shat kill of they herd and of they flock’ (Deuteronomy 12.21) […] Just as sacrificial meat is slaughtered, so is profane meat slaughtered; just as sacrificial meat is relegated to a place, so is profane meat relegated to a place […] just as sacrificial meat is subject to time, so is profane meat subject to time […] just as sacrificial meat is eaten behind a partition, so is profane meat eaten behind a partition […] just as sacrificial meat is restricted to daytime, so is profane meat restricted to daytime […] just as sacrificial meat is eaten in a state of cleanliness, so is profane meat eaten in a state of cleanliness.595 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Shekhita, XX, f. 95c Above, nn. 228–243. 595 Sifre Deuteronomy, 75 (Finkelstein edition), p. 140. 593

594

304

Chapter Three

The Qumran sect called itself the ‘exile of the desert’, [‫]גולת המדבר‬596 and forbade worship in the Temple.597 A discussion of Benjamin alNahāwandī and Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī’s laws on desired meat shows how members of the Qumran sect managed to profit from cattle and sheep meat, even though they banned Temple worship. Like Mīshawayh, they maintained that in the Diaspora (the desert Diaspora), desired meat could be consumed, just as it was by the Israelites in the desert, when sacrificial meat was forbidden. Members of the sect permitted desired meat and fat. Benjamin al-Nahāwandī upheld the sect’s law mandating the covering of the blood of desired meat, as specified in the Temple Scroll. Evidently Benjamin upheld another of the sect’s laws, namely, the erection of an altar for desired meat. Benjamin’s interpretation of the story of the altar in Mikhmas shows how the Qumran sect derived this law. While Golb attempted to prove that the Qumran writings actually originated in Jerusalem,598 our discussion here proves conclusively that the scrolls were written by a desert sect outside Jerusalem. The ‘members of the community’ [‫ ]אנשי היחד‬were summoned to separate themselves from the errant Israelites by going out to the desert where the Enlighteners would show them the true path.599 Summary and Conclusions It would appear that Mīshawayh’s doctrine, as preserved in the Karaite polemic against him and in Ibn Ezra’s references to his ideas, sheds much light on many law from the Qumran school. Here we shall enumerate only a few. The contention that the consecration sacrifices and the Princes’ sacrifices were not brought on the Sabbath highlights the importance of the principle of the sanctity of the Sabbath in the Qumran tradition, so much so that the festival sacrifices were not brought on the Sabbath.600 Note that the Rabbinic Sages did not interpret the passage of the tabernacle literally, while the Qumran-Mīshawayh tradition did. Mīshawayh and Ibn Ezra provided proofs that the days of unleavened bread were not contingent on the day of the waving of the Omer. Indeed, the Qumran sectarians began counting the days of the Omer 596 War Scroll, 1.2 (Charlesworth edition), p. 97. Likewise, it states there, 1.3, p. 97: ‘when the exiled sons of light return from the desert of the peoples to camp in the desert of Jerusalem’. 597 Above, n. 163. 598 Golb, Who Wrote, pp. 143–150. 599 See Rule of Community, 8.13–15; 9.18–21 (Charlesworth edition), p. 37, 41. 600 Above, nn. 93, 124–126.

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

305

on the Sunday after the days of unleavened bread.601 Likewise, we discerned the Qumran principle of the equivalence of the laws of desired meat and the laws of game meat, as opposed to rabbinic law that posited an equivalence between the laws of desired meat and the laws of sacrificial meat.602 In this summary I wish to emphasize a halakhic principle in the Qumran-Mīshawite tradition, that found expression both in the discussion on the abolition of the festivals in the Diaspora and in the discussion on the permissibility of eating desired meat and fat. I refer here to the centrality of the Land of Israel and the special place awarded to Jerusalem and the Temple in this tradition. (a) The premise that the festival laws always pertained exclusively to the Land of Israel conferred an eminent status on the Land of Israel in the laws discussed here. One of the proofs that the festival laws pertained exclusively to the Land was the fact that the seven days of unleavened bread were not celebrated in ‘Passover in the desert’. The ‘Passover in the desert’ was sacrificed only once throughout the years of the Israelites’ sojourns in the desert. The diasporic Jews, according to their way of thinking, were obliged to act in the same way as the Israelites in the desert, i.e., not to celebrate the festivals. Another proof that the festivals were not celebrated in the desert was the interpretation of the terms ‘in you dwellings’, ‘in your borders’, and ‘when ye be come unto the land’, which referred exclusively to the Land of Israel. Among the Rabbinic Sages, an opposite trend emerged. They attempted to turn most of the commandments pertaining to the Land of Israel into commandments that applied elsewhere, too. They maintained that many commandments which, according to Scriptures, were to be observed upon arrival in the Land, were to be observed also in the Diaspora: What is the meaning of ‘pertains’ [to the Land of Israel] and ‘does not pertain’? Shall we say: ‘pertain’ refers to those [precepts] where ‘coming’ is written and ‘not pertain’ to those where ‘coming’ is not stated. However the commandments of phylacteries and the [redemption of] the first born of the ass are observed both inside the Land of Israel and outside it, although ‘coming’ is written in connection with them. Rabbi Judah said: Any commandment that is binding on the body applies both inside the Land of Israel and outside it. Any commandment that in binding on the land applies to the Land of Israel.603 Above, Ch. 2, nn. 69–70. Above, nn. 585–595. 603 BT, Kiddushin 37a. 601

602

306

Chapter Three

The following verse obliges one to observe the commandments in the Land of Israel: ‘These are the statutes and the ordinances, which ye shall observe to do in the land which the Lord, the God of thy fathers, hath given thee to possess it, all the days that ye live upon the earth. Ye shall surely destroy all the places, wherein the nations that ye are to dispossess served their gods’ (Deuteronomy 12.1–2). A Midrash of the Rabbinic Sages severed the symbiotic link between the commandments in this passage and the Land of Israel, as follows: Is it possible that all the commandments apply exclusively to the Land of Israel? It means: ‘all the days that ye live upon the earth’ (Deuteronomy 12.1). First Scriptures included, then it excluded. We learn these [commandments] from what is stated on this issue. What is stated on this issue? ‘Ye shall surely destroy all the places’ (Deuteronomy 12.2). Just as idolatry, which is special inasmuch as it is a commandment of the body that does not pertain to the earth, applies both inside the Land and outside it, so all commandments of the body that do not pertain to the earth apply inside the land and outside it. But [commandments] that pertain to the earth apply exclusively to the Land of Israel, apart from the produce of three years [‫ ]ערלה‬and mingled seeds [‫]כלאיים‬. Rabbi Eliezer said: the new produce [‫ ]חדש‬also.604

The term ‘your dwellings’ which Rabbi Yishmaʿel’s school understood as referring to the Land of Israel only, became for the Rabbinic Sages a term designating any place in the world inhabited by Jews.605 The derivation of the laws of desired meat from the Israelites’ sojourns in the desert was rejected by the rabbinical tradition.606 It would appear that Rabbi Akiva’s school was responsible for the turning point whereby many commandments were redeemed from their exclusive dependency on the Land of Israel. In this way, the halakhot of the Rabbinic Sages drew far apart from those of Qumran, in which the Land of Israel played a seminal role.607

The Karaite Mourners were deterred by Qumran halakha, with which they were familiar. They argued that the festival commandments had to

Sifre Deuteronomy, 69 (Finkelstein edition), p. 125. Aminaḥ, ‘History’, pp. 43–45. 606 Above, n. 332. 607 See Shemesh, ‘Term’, pp. 151–177. 604 605

MĪSHAWAYH AL-ʿUKBARĪ – THE DOCTRINE OF AN EXTREMIST MOURNER OF ZION

307

be observed in their times, and expressed their mourning by refraining from desired meat, which was only an elective commandment. (b) In the Qumran-Mīshawite tradition, ‘the place He shall choose’ referred exclusively to the Temple. Therefore, peace offerings were consumed in the Land of Israel only after the Temple was built. The period of ‘rest and inheritance’ (Deuteronomy 12.9) began with the reign of David and Solomon, not after Joshua’s conquest. With the establishment of the Temple, Jerusalem’s status was equivalent to that of the camp in the desert. Therefore, desired meat was prohibited in it and its environs. According to the Rabbinic Sages, the ‘place He shall choose’ referred not only to the Temple but also to the tabernacle in the Land of Israel in all its different forms.608 The prevailing opinion is that the period of the tabernacle in Shilo corresponded to the period of ‘rest’.609 Desired meat was permitted in Jerusalem and in any place in the world, and it could even be slaughtered within the Temple.610 The moderate stance of the mainstream Mourners led them to maintain that the ‘place He shall choose’ referred also to the tabernacle, and that the period of ‘rest and inheritance’ began immediately after Joshua’s conquest of the Land. Therefore, peace offerings were consumed throughout the period of the tabernacle in the Land of Israel. When the Ark of the Covenant was missing from the tabernacle, freewill offerings were consumed, as the passage on the altar of Mikhmas testifies. The word ‘gates’ (Deuteronomy 12.21) restricted the commandments to the Land of Israel only, and therefore desired meat was forbidden in the Diaspora. While the Temple stood, Jerusalem and its environs were not included in the term ‘gates’, within which desired meat was permitted.

Above, n. 507. Above, n. 491. 610 Above, n. 373. 608 609

Chapter Four The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

It is reasonable to assume that the founders of any movement, be it political, religious, or social in character, assign it a name that expresses its essence and objectives. In the case of a secessionist movement, the name is even more important because its purpose is also to encourage others to join the new movement. Most people use a derogatory term to describe secessionists, and the more entrenched this term becomes, the greater its effect. Within the context of this discussion, I shall attempt to investigate the origin of the name ‘Karaites’, beginning with the dawn of the Karaite movement in the mid-ninth century. Through this discussion, we shall become familiar with the sources that influenced the Karaite movement and shaped its messianic character at its inception, and the functions it assumed. It is well known that the Rabbanites called the Karaites ‘Sadducees’. We saw above that the Karaites attributed Qumran laws available to them to the Sadducees, when really these laws were devised by the ‘Zadokites’ (Benei Zadok) – the Qumran sect. In Karaite literature, the term ‘Sadducean Laws’ embraces both laws that originated in Qumran literature and Sadducean laws, which the Karaites gleaned from early and late Talmudic literature. The Karaites found it hard to contend with this hybrid ‘Sadducean’ tradition. They had reservations about the Sadducees referred to in Talmudic literature, because Rabbanite sources claimed that they did not believe in reward and punishment and the world to come. They also rejected basic halakhic principles in Zadokite (Qumran) teaching, such as the solar calendar.1 The Karaites’ dilemma concerning the attitude to Qumran literature and to the term On the solar calendar, see above, Ch. 2, nn. 33–44.

1

310

Chapter Four

‘Sadducees’, as they understood it, will become clear as our conclusion concerning the derivation of the name ‘Karaites’ unfolds. It is my contention that the term Qerīʾei ha-Shem or Qerīʾei Shem [‫ ]קריאי שם‬mentioned in the Damascus Covenant, a later copy of which was found in the Geniza, was the inspiration for the name ‘Karaites’.2 In the Damascus Covenant, the Qerīʾei ha-Shem have a messianic function and are identified with the ‘Sons of Zadok’ [‫]בני צדוק‬. Other Qumran scrolls reveal that the ‘Sons of Zadok’ were among the leaders of the sect. As members of the chosen group that remained loyal to the God of Israel through the generations, their role was to disseminate the true law among the people on the eve of the redemption in order to bring them back to the path of truth. The nation’s repentance was an essential stage preceding the redemption. What is here termed the Karaites’ ‘Sadducean dilemma’ now becomes clear. On the one hand, the early Karaites identified completely with the Qerīʾei ha-Shem, namely, the ‘Sons of Zadok’ of Qumran literature, and took upon themselves the messianic role their predecessors had assumed, namely, to call upon the people of their generation to return to God’s true law and to call upon the name of God. On the other hand, they had reservations regarding certain parts of the halakhic and theological tradition that they ascribed to the ‘Sons of Zadok’. Unable to distinguish between the ‘Sons of Zadok’ and the ‘Sadducees’, the Karaites were further confused by the derogatory term ‘Sadducees’ that the Rabbanites applied to them. How did the Mourners of Zion extricate themselves from this impossible situation? While developing a messianic tradition based on available Qumran writings, they concealed the origin of this tradition which they naively attributed to the Sadducees. The term ‘Karaites’ acquired the meaning of ‘people who study the Scriptures [Miqra]’, hence the related terms Baʿalei Miqra and Benei Miqra (Scripturalists). These names, like the name ‘Qara’ [‫ ]קרא‬itself, are derived from Talmudic literature and their meaning is ‘people whose sole occupation is studying Scriptures [Miqra]’. At the dawn of Karaism, groups that broke away from the Rabbanite community were labelled Baʿalei Miqra (Scripturalists). This, for example, is how Benjamin al-Nahāwandī called his followers.3 Daniel al-Qūmisī, one of the first Karaites, drew a clear distinction between the Baʿalei Miqra who preceded him and 2 4Q266 says ‘Qerīʾīm’ [‫]קריאים‬. See Damascus Covenant 2.11 (Baumgarten edition), 4Q270 1 i, 11, p. 37. 3 See above, Ch. 1, n. 218.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

311

the ‘Karaites’ to whom he belonged.4 In the tenth-century writings of Salmon ben Yerūḥam, the distinction between ‘Karaites’ and Baʿalei Miqra is already blurred: ‘The Karaite Baʿalei Miqra observe by sighting the moon’.5 If the origin of the name ‘Karaites’ is indeed from Qerīʾei ha-Shem mentioned in the Damascus Covenant with its messianic connotation, then it follows that at the dawn of the Karaite movement, the messianic faction of the Mourners of Zion was its leading faction. Given that the discussion of the derivation of the term ‘Karaites’ relates to the way the Mourners understood it, the terms ‘Karaites’ and ‘Mourners of Zion’ are used here interchangeably. First, I will present the prevalent opinions in the research regarding the origin of the name ‘Karaites’. As stated, I believe the term ‘Karaites’ testifies to the movement’s initial messianic character. The Mourners’ messianic outlook cannot be understood without a study of the Scriptural exegetical methods adopted by their Enlighteners, as well as the status of their commentators. This will be discussed in section B. Section C will clarify the influence of Islamic and Qumran exegesis on Karaite exegesis. In section D, I will provide an outline of ancient history as viewed by the Karaites, beginning with biblical times, as well as the future messianic history that the Mourners formulated under the influence of Qumran literature. Section E shall discuss the Karaites’ affiliation with the Qerīʾei ha-Shem, also known as ‘Benei Zadok’, whose mission to redeem the world they emulated.

A. Opinions in the Research on the Origin of the Term ‘Karaites’ Like their Rabbanite opponents, the Karaites did not write chronicles that shed light on the history of their movement, even though this genre was very prevalent in the Islamic world in which they lived. Given that we have no ancient source on the derivation of the name ‘Karaites’, we can only conjecture as to the origins of the name. The starting-point for this discussion is that the name has a positive connotation and was determined by the Karaites rather than by their opponents. The Karaite Elijah ben Abraham held the opposite view: ‘The Benei Miqra See above, Ch. 1, nn. 223–234. Salmon, Milḥamot, 8, p. 77. Salmon uses the term ‘Baʿalei Miqra’, Milḥamot, 8, pp. 106, 113, and the term ‘Karaites’, Milḥamot, 8, p. 56. On the many versions of this work, see Salmon, Milḥamot, 8, pp. 7–9. 4 5

312

Chapter Four

said that the term Karaites was applied to them by others, because they did not believe in the new Law called the Oral Law’.6 This is a unique, evidently unsubstantiated, position.7 Some attempted to decipher the meaning of the name in light of its etymology. The accepted opinion in the research is that the name ‘Qaraʾī’ [‫ ]קראי‬referring to a member of the group, was not the original term. Some held that the name derived from ‘Qera’ [‫]קרא‬, meaning ‘that which is written’, namely, Scriptures. In light of this, the original name of the sect member was ‘Qeraʾī’ [‫]קראי‬, meaning one who devoted himself to Scriptures. Hence, the synonym for ‘Karaites’ was Benei Miqra or Baʿalei Miqra. With the passage of time, the name ‘Qeraʾī’ became ‘Qaraʾī’, possibly influenced by the name ‘Rabbani’ on the one hand and the term ‘Qarraʾā’ the expert reader of the Qurʾān, on the other.8 M. A. Friedman, relying on eleventh-century Geniza documents, argues that the original name of the sect’s members was ‘Qara’ [‫]קרא‬. With regard to the derivation of the term ‘Qara’, Friedman says: ‘I have nothing to add to what has already been written and hypothesized by researchers of the Benei Miqra’.9 The problem is that the researchers themselves are divided both as to the semantic meaning of the word and the source from which the Karaites derived their name. Some sought the origins of the name in Talmudic literature,10 where experts in Scriptures are known as ‘Qarayei’ [‫]קריי‬11 or ‘Baʿalei Miqra’.12 In Talmudic literature, the term ‘Qara’ [‫ ]קרא‬is synonymous with ‘Baʿalei Miqra’.13 Aloni, for his part, published an ancient catalogue of terms from the world of the Masorah. The introduction to the list calls those who study these terms ‘disciples of the Baʿalei Miqra’.14 Aloni held that this document was an ancient Karaite document, dating back to the Elijah b. Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 100. See Nemoy, ‘Elijah’, p. 69, n. 4. 8 Loewenstamm, ‘Derivation’, pp. 181–182. The expert reader of the Qurʾān is generally called ‘Qārī’. Goitein, Mediterranean, V, p. 360, argues that the original name was ‘Benei Miqra’, whose shortened form was ‘Qaraʾīm’ (Karaites). On the Muslim ‘Qarraʾā’, see below, n. 18. 9 Friedman, ‘Qaraʾīm’, pp. 296–297. The end of Sahl’s poem, ‘Līqqūṭei’, pp. 26– 27, has an acrostic that reads: ‘Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ the Karaite priest’ [‫]הכהן הקרא‬. 10 Revel, ‘Karaites’, Oṣar Yisrael, IX, p. 209. Paul, Ecrits, pp. 81–82. 11 Midrash va-Yiqra Rabba 30.1 (Margoliouth edition), p. 690. Gil, Jews, I, § 162 in the note, Anshei ha-Qeraʾ in Aramaic, meaning people of the Scriptures. See also Khan, Ibn Nūḥ, p. 3. 12 Midrash Bereshit Rabba 41.1 (Theodor-Albeck edition), p. 388. BT, Ḥagiga 14a; ʿEruvin 21b. 13 BT, Berakhot 30b. See Khan, p. 25, n. 111. 14 Aloni, ‘Catalog of Terms’, p. 345. 6 7

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

313

eighth century.15 The scholar Geoffrey Khan argued that this ancient document, written while Karaism was in its infancy, was not necessarily Karaite and could serve as proof of the influence of the Masorah on the first Karaite grammarians. The Masoretes themselves were also called ‘Baʿalei Miqra’.16 Ilan Eldar, who discussed this evidence even before Geoffrey Khan, maintained that while the catalogue of Masoretic terms was indeed ancient, it was not a Karaite document. The only part of the catalogue that was Karaite was its introduction, which was adopted by one of the Karaites around the tenth century.17 Consequently, one cannot deduce the antiquity of the term ‘Baʿalei Miqra’ in the Karaite lexicon from this document. Nor can it be assumed that the Karaites derived the term from the Rabbanite Masoretic model. Some scholars maintain that the origin of the Karaites’ name should be sought in Islam, to which Karaism owes a significant debt. In Islam, experts in the correct reading of the Qurʾān are termed ‘Qurrāʾ’ or ‘Qarraʾūn’. Hence the assumption that the Karaites, who devoted themselves to the study of Scriptures, adopted this name for themselves.18 A faction of the Khārijites, who defected from ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib’s camp because he agreed to arbitration in the battle of Ṣifīn, were called ‘Qurrāʾ’, namely students of the Qurʾān.19 Khārijite factions indeed bore the flag of Scripturalism in Islam. They rejected the Sunna of the prophet Mohammed which is based on Oral Law, and adopted laws based on the study of the Qurʾān alone, through the use of analogy (al-raʾy waʾl-qiyās). Their opponents accused them of ‘taʾwīl’, namely, exegesis that departs from the plain meaning of the text.20 In the initial encounter of Islam with Babylonian Jewry, one should not presuppose Islamic influence on Judaism, but rather the reverse.21 Cook, who studied the connection between the Khārijiyya and Karaism, discussed Aloni, ‘Catalog of Terms’, pp. 330, 337–338. Khan, Ibn Nūḥ, pp. 19–20. 17 Eldar, ‘Treatise’, pp. 136–138. 18 Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia’, p. 159. On the connection between reading the Qurʾān and seclusion, see Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia’, p. 160. Nemoy, ‘Elijah’, p. 67, n. 014 raises the possibility that the controversy surrounding the canonization of the Qurʾān influenced the Karaites. See also Loewenstamm, ‘Derivation’, p. 182. On the early editions of the Qurʾān, see Burton, Collection, pp. 117–159. On the functions of the Qurrāʾ, see Juynboll, ‘Position’, pp. 240–247. 19 On the battle of Ṣiffīn and the secession of the Khārijiyya, see Hinds, ‘Ṣiffīn’, pp. 93–129. 20 Rubin, Bible, pp. 150–159. For a discussion of the possible influence of the Khārijiyya on early Karaism, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 88, 117–121. 21 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 111–114. 15

16

314

Chapter Four

the question of the direction of the influence.22 Nemoy, in one of his suggestions for translations of the word ‘Karaites’, translated it as ‘literalists’, namely, those who interpret the Scriptures literally.23 Evidence supporting this interpretation of the name is found in Ibn Khaldūn, whose history of the Jews was inspired by Josippon.24 Ibn Khaldūn deduced from Josippon that there were three Jewish sects in the Second Temple period. One was the Sadducean sect, which he refers to in Islamic terms as the ‘Ẓāhiriyya’, namely, those who interpret the Holy Scriptures literally. Ibn Khaldūn identified the Sadducees with the Karaites.25 Indeed, the principle of literalism is one of the cornerstones of Karaite exegesis, as the reader of this book will by now be well aware. The above notwithstanding, to say that the Karaites were the Jewish equivalent of the Islamic Ẓāhiriyya would be far-fetched.26 The Karaite exegetical tools were more diverse than those of the Ẓāhiriyya and some of them were totally rejected by the Ẓāhiriyya. ʿAnan and Benjamin and their Karaite followers used the ‘analogy’ developed in Islam by Abū Ḥanīfa among others.27 The Ẓāhirites rejected his approach,28 which is why Goldziher opposed comparing the Karaites to the Ẓāhirites.29 The Karaites interpreted parts of the Scriptures allegorically, largely due to the influence of Islamic circles whose approach ran counter to the Ẓāhiriyya, as we shall see below.30 The starting point for the above scholars was the fact that the word ‘Karaites’ is derived from the Hebrew root Q-R-A [‫]קרא‬, meaning reading from a text, and in this particular instance, reading from the Scriptures. This is why the word ‘Karaites’ is translated as ‘champions of Scriptures’ or ‘Scripturaries’.31 But Pinsker already hypothesized that the 22 See Cook, ‘ʿAnan’, pp. 165, 179–181. Above, Ch. 1, n. 118. On the possibility of Qumran influence on the term Qurrāʾ, see Wansbrough, Sectarian Milieu, p. 69. Calder, ‘Qurrāʾ’, p. 305, argues that the Qurrāʾ were recruited for a military operation for a limited period. He points out the similarity to the War Scroll, 2.6–8 (Charlesworth edition), p. 99. 23 Nemoy, ‘Elijah’, p. 67, n. 014. 24 Fischel, ‘Ibn Khaldūn’, pp. 587–598. 25 Ibn Khaldūn, Taʾrīkh, II, p. 122. See Schreiner, ‘Beruni’, pp. 261–262. On the sects in Josippon’s works, see Josippon (Flusser edition), I, pp. 120–121. 26 Hirschfeld, ‘Criticism’, pp. 224–225, maintained that there were similarities between the Ẓāhiriyya and the Karaites. 27 On the ‘analogy’ in Islam and Karaism, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 122–166. 28 On the Ẓāhiriyya’s opposition to Abū Ḥanīfa’s doctrine, see Goldziher, Ẓāhiris, pp. 3–9. 29 Goldziher, ‘Caraïtes’, pp. 6–7. 30 See below, nn. 204–246. 31 Nemoy, Anthology, p. 17, Nemoy, ‘Karaites’, VIII, pp. 254–259.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

315

name ‘Karaites’ stems from another meaning of the root Q-R-A, namely, ‘to preach, proclaim, disseminate’. That being the case, the Karaites were merely propagandist missionaries. Pinsker found support for this in Shahrastānī’s comments regarding Abū ʿĪsā, founder of one of the sects at the beginning of the Geonic period.32 According to this source, Abū ‘Īsā assigned great significance to the role of the dāʿī (Muslim preacher), so much so that he compared his status to that of the Messiah.33 At the beginning of the Geonic period, when the sects which spawned the Karaite movement emerged, the role of the dāʿī among Shīʿite sects was of prime importance. In the second and third centuries of Islam, the Shīʿite ‘duʿāh’ were active in disseminating Shīʿism among the Muslims. The Shīʿite rebellion in Kūfah between 685 and 687 was led by the dāʿī al-Mukhtār, not Muḥammad Ibn al-Ḥanafiyya, the son of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, on whose behalf the rebels were fighting. The ‘duʿāh’ were also instrumental in organizing the ʿAbbāsid revolution, which was almost certainly Shīʿite at the outset.34 One cannot rule out the possibility that the ʿĪsāwites adopted the role of the dāʿī from early Shīʿism although, as I have shown elsewhere, the term dāʿī, whether in the doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā or of Shīʿism, may have originated in the ‘qore’ referred to in the Qumran scrolls, that was brought to the East by the Manicheans.35 Pinsker argues that the Karaites were ʿAnanite missionaries.36 This hypothesis is unsubstantiated, since the Karaite movement emerged only in the second half of the ninth century.37 The Karaite missionaries were called ‘Enlighteners’ – a term originating from Qumran literature, not from the world of Islam.38 Gil advanced the hypothesis that the Karaites borrowed their name from the dāʿī of the Ismāʿīlī branch of Shīʿism, which was active when the Karaite movement coalesced.39 Indeed, the See above, Ch. 1, n. 183. See Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 184–192. Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 168. 34 On the Shīʿite background to the ʿAbbāsid revolution and its connection to the al-Mukhtār revolt, see Sharon, Black Banners, pp. 82–93. On Muʿtazila propaganda, see Stroumsa, ‘Muʿtazila’, pp. 287–288. 35 On the dāʿī according to the Shīʿites and Abū ʿĪsā, see Friedlander, ‘Studies’, (3), pp. 261–265. On Abū ʿĪsā and early Shīʿism, see Wasserstrom, ‘ʿĪsāwiyya’, pp. 57– 80. On my view of the relationship between Abū ʿĪsā and Qumran literature, see Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 184–192. On the ‘qore’ in Qumran, see below, n. 262. 36 Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, I, pp. 16–17. 37 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 44–52. 38 See below, nn. 297–328. 39 Gil, Palestine, I, §921. In his book Jews, Gil proposes another solution to the origin of the name. See above, n. 11. See also, Gil, ‘Antiquities’, p. 97, where he says: ‘Although the name Karaites was determined by the word Miqra, it might parallel the dāʿī, namely, the propagandist who calls for the acceptance of the Ismāʿīlī doctrine’. 32 33

316

Chapter Four

dāʿī played an important role within Ismāʿīlite Shīʿism, as disseminator of the religion. The Karaites themselves suffered from the propaganda of the Ismāʿīlī missionaries, who spread Ismāʿīlism in their own way among the Jews. Beginning in 970, the strength of these missionaries grew. Egypt saw the rise of the Ismāʿīlī Fātimid state, which governed the Land of Israel, too.40 In his Commentary on the Song of Songs 2.15, Yefet evidently refers to the Qarmatī missionaries, another Ismāʿīlī branch that was also active among the Jews: Now there has arisen from among ‘Qeren Zeʿira’ (namely, Islam) a state of missionaries (duʿāh) that beckon the people to their faith, placing before them stumbling-blocks, and many Jews have slipped. And of them the angel said: ‘And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall be corrupt by blandishments’ (Daniel 11.32).41

Some scholars rejected the possibility of any kind of interplay between Shīʿism and Karaism in general, and between the dāʿī and ‘Qara’ in particular.42 I believe that these connections should not be dismissed peremptorily. In a period of cultural symbiosis between Islam and Judaism, even if the Shīʿites absorbed the dāʿī from an external source,43 and even if the name ‘Qara’ does not originate from the Shīʿite dāʿī, it is reasonable to assume that at some point the Shīʿite dāʿī influenced the Karaite sects.44 Despite Islam’s considerable influence on Karaism, it is unlikely that a movement whose main purpose was to restore the people to the path of the Scriptures would adopt a name from the world of Islam. In order to understand the meaning of the word ‘Karaite’ and the movement’s historical orientation, we must study the works in which the sages of the Karaite Mourners of Zion, that is the ‘Enlighteners’, defined their role and mission in history. These Enlighteners did not write historical chronicles containing a sequential description of their history. A measure of their history and aspirations can be gleaned from a study of their commentaries on the Books of Prophets, and their exegesis of Scriptural works they viewed as books of prophesy, such as: the Psalms, the Song On Ismāʿīlī propaganda, which Yefet condemned, see Stern, ‘Fātimid Propaganda’, pp. 84–95. 41 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 2.15 (Bargès edition), p. 36. See Gil, Palestine, I, §920, note. 42 Nemoy, Anthology, p. xvii, Paul, Écrits, pp. 57–58. On the possible influence of Shīʿism on Karaism, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 179–185. 43 Above, n. 35. 44 On the influence of Ismāʿīlī exegesis on Karaism, see below, nn. 229–246. 40

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

317

of Songs, and the Book of Daniel. The Mourners of Zion believed that their future and destiny was concealed in these books. In interpreting these prophecies, they clarified their status and their role in history on the eve of the Salvation.45 We shall call this type of exegesis the ‘Karaite pesher’, based on the term ‘Qumran pesher’.46 The messianic content of the Scriptural exegesis of the Mourners of Zion cannot be understood without a brief survey of their exegetical approach and their perception of the role and status of the exegete.

B. Scriptural Exegesis and the Status of the Exegete as Perceived by the Karaite Mourners of Zion This section will begin with a study of Daniel al-Qūmisī, the first Karaite exegete, a few of whose writings have survived. Speaking of the Karaite Enlightener and his role as Scriptural exegete, al-Qūmisī states: ‘The Enlighteners of knowledge are prophets of knowledge. For they know the Scriptures in all its aspects, why something is written thus and not thus. That is why God gave them the law, in which some things are revealed and known and others are concealed and unknown’.47 Thus, the status of the Karaite Enlighteners was similar to that of the prophet. In Daniel’s Commentary on Zechariah 11.12, he says that the expression ‘thirty pieces of silver’ refers to the prophets and righteous who taught the Israelites in exile during the Second Temple period. This task was assigned to the Enlighteners of his generation: I believe that this phrase ‘thirty pieces of silver’ refers to the prophets and righteous ones, the teachers of Israel in those days, like Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Hosea, Zerubavel, and Ezra and Nehemiah and their associates, the Enlighteners of Israel and builders of Jerusalem. These are the Enlighteners of the people who will arise in the exile.48

45 The Enlighteners had many roles in the Messianic process envisioned by the Mourners of Zion. Here, we shall focus on their exegetical method, which according to them itself led to salvation. 46 Wieder coined this term. On the difference between the two types of pesher, see below, nn. 253–328. 47 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 60. On page 85, Wieder notes the difference between al-Qūmisī’s statement and that of al-Nahāwandī, who claimed that he was not a prophet. See above, Ch. 1, nn. 265–269. 48 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zechariah 11.12, Pitron, p. 74.

318

Chapter Four

Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, too, compared the Enlighteners to the prophets, by saying that the secret that was revealed to the Enlighteners, the nation’s guides, had formerly been revealed to the prophets: And when it says: ‘But His counsel is with the upright’ (Proverbs 3.32) it means that He will reveal His secret to the righteous, just as it is revealed to the prophets, as it is written: ‘For the Lord God will do nothing, but He revealeth His counsel unto his servants the prophets’ (Amos 3.7). Likewise, the End of Days will be revealed to the Enlighteners, the sages of the exile, as it says: ‘And they that are enlighteners among the people shall cause the many to understand’ (Daniel 11.33), ‘and none of the wicked shall understand’ (Daniel 12.10).49

Daniel al-Qūmisī differentiates between the first Enlighteners who ‘failed’ and the last Enlighteners who ‘will find the truth’, as prophesied in Daniel 11.35.50 David ben Abraham al-Fāsī compared the first Enlighteners, who based their biblical exegesis on inquiry and ‘analogy’ (baḥth wa-istikhrāj) to ‘clusters of grapes’ (Song of Songs 7.8), and the last Enlighteners, whose biblical exegesis will be based on divine inspiration (waḥy) to ‘clusters of the vine’ (Song of Songs 7.9).51 Al-Qūmisī goes on to say that Scriptures speaks in both a literal mode and a concealed mode.52 He himself occasionally interprets a single Scriptural passage in both these modes.53 These two modes of Scriptural expression require two separate kinds of exegesis, as Meira Polliack points out: In his commentaries, al-Qūmisī introduced a functional distinction between a linguistic-contextual-historical discussion and an actualsymbolic discussion. This distinction encouraged the parallel development of two essentially different tools in his biblical commentary: the first are homiletic tools that divorce Scriptures from its context and allow the introduction of actual and messianic dimensions that concern the exegete and his community into the exegetical discussion; 49 Sahl (identified by Frank), Commentary on Genesis, introduction to weekly portion ‘Miqeṣ’, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4633, f. 100b. 50 Above, Ch. 1, n. 94. 51 David ben Abraham, Dictionary, under ‘‫’סן‬, II, p. 335. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 85 draws attention to the fact that the comparison of the later Enlighteners to ‘clusters of grapes’ is not fortuitous, since according to David, ‘wine’ is a synonym for prophecy. See his dictionary under ‘‫’יי‬, II, p. 52. 52 Above, n. 47. 53 Polliack, Karaite Tradition, p. 27, n. 17.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

319

the second are linguistic tools, whose purpose is to establish the literary forms of expression of Scriptures, and to recognize it as a literary system all of whose elements are interdependent and are reciprocal.54 When referring to the linguistic mode in his Scriptural commentary, al-Qūmisī generally uses the terms ‘solution’ [‫ פתרון‬,‫]פתר‬.55

While al-Qūmisī often employed both modes of exegesis in prophetic texts, in order to clarify both the exoteric and esoteric parts of the text, he ruled that Scriptural commandments were to be interpreted literally. He accused the ‘Baʿalei Miqra’, whose laws he opposed, of ‘taʾwīl’, namely, allegorical interpretation:56 ‘They permit the consumption of cattle and sheep nowadays, based on taʾwīl’.57 In his commentary on ‘But have had respect of persons in the law’ (Malachi 2.9) he accused the Rabbanites similarly: ‘You have extolled non-literal commentaries on Scriptures,58 saying there are forty nine ways to explain the Torah’.59 If we accept Judah Hadassi’s assertion, Daniel al-Qūmisī ruled categorically that the commandments were literal in essence: ‘For the commandments of God He did not command in allegorical mode, lest My people go astray and not find Him and not know Him clearly, as statements of God the Creator’.60 Al-Qūmisī’s adherence to the literal meaning of the commandments is demonstrated in his argument against the Rabbinic Sages’ method of calculating the calendar, as presented by Qirqisānī. The calculation is concealed (khafī) and cannot be perceived by the senses [ẓāhir lil-ḥis]. Furthermore, that which is hidden cannot be a commandment in light of the verse ‘For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee’ (Deuteronomy 30.11). When it says ‘it is not too hard for thee’ it means that it is not concealed (khafīyya). Since that which is not concealed must be exoteric, the month must be fixed by sighting the moon, which is unhidden, and

Polliack, ‘Emergence’, p. 305. For a discussion of al-Qūmisī’s exegesis, see also Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 21–36. See also, Polliack and Schlossberg, ‘Translation’, p. 63. 55 Polliack, ‘Pesher’, pp. 285–286. 56 See Zucker, Targum, pp. 229–236, on the ‘taʾwīl’ in the sense of an ‘interpretation that departs from the literal meaning’. 57 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’ (Nemoy edition), p. 95. On ‘Baʿalei Miqra’ according to al-Qūmisī, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 223–234. 58 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Malachi 2.9, Pitron, p. 78. 59 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Malachi 2.9, Pitron, p. 78. 60 Hadassi, Eshkol, § 240, f. 91d. Daniel al-Qūmisī is referring here to: ‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk’ (Exodus 23.19). 54

320

Chapter Four

not by calculation, which is concealed.61 A commentary Zucker attributes to al-Qūmisī states that some commandments can be interpreted both literally and allegorically. For example, al-Qūmisī admits the possibility of an allegorical interpretation of the verse: ‘No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge’ (Deuteronomy 24.6): ‘Even if this is interpreted as something other than a millstone it is still forbidden to pledge millstones’.62 This shows that al-Qūmisī did not rule out the possibility that this verse had an allegorical interpretation as well as a literal one. According to Qirqisānī, the ʿAnanites removed the expression ‘take to pledge’ [‫ ]יחבול‬from its literal context, interpreting it as ‘destroy’ [‫]ישחית‬, an allusion to the prohibition of cohabiting with a pregnant woman.63 Qirqisānī apparently followed al-Qūmisī, arguing that Deuteronomy 24.6 should be understood both literally and allegorically (bāṭin). In his opinion, the verse ‘Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother’s milk’ (Exodus 34.26) was also to be understood both literally and allegorically.64 Yefet presents both the literal and homiletic commentary to Deuteronomy 24.6: The Sages were divided with respect to the verse ‘he shall not take to pledge’ (Deuteronomy 24.6). Some maintained that the verse introduced a new topic and should therefore be understood literally, namely that God forbade the pledging of millstones because they are essential to people, and when they are pledged people are harmed, as it says: ‘for he taketh a man’s life to pledge’ (Deuteronomy 24.6). They instituted this principle for any tool that is used for food, since millstones are used for preparing food. Others said ‘mill’ refers to a wife and ‘upper millstone’ refers to a husband. This is because the mill connects with the upper millstone through the hand and then the flour is ground, just as when a man unites with his wife, with God’s will, their offspring is born, and this matter is parallel to the mill and upper millstone. And as

61 Qirqisānī, p. 813. On al-Qūmisī’s interpretation of Deuteronomy 30.11, see below, n. 88. 62 For the commentaries that Zucker attributed to al-Qūmisī, see Zucker, Targum, pp. 182–20. The commentary on Deuteronomy 24.6 is on page 196. For Zucker’s appraisal of al-Qūmisī’s commentary, see p. 203. 63 Qirqisānī, p. 739. 64 Qirqisānī, pp. 387–388; 738–739. On the meaning of ‘peshat’ and ‘peshuto shel miqra’ according to the Rabbinic Sages, see Henschke, ‘Midrash’, pp. 417–420; 434–436.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

321

proof that the wife is called the ‘mill’ they cited the words of Job: ‘Then let my wife grind unto another’ (Job 31.10).65

According to Yefet and Qirqisānī, Deuteronomy 24.6 can be interpreted in a non-literal manner if it is connected to the verse that precedes it. In the words of Ibn Ezra: ‘invoking the principle of juxtaposition is homiletics’. Ibn Ezra opposed invoking the principle of the juxtaposition of passages in relation to this verse, claiming that it was to be interpreted literally. ‘He shall not take to pledge’. The heretics said that this matter is connected to ‘and shall cheer his wife’ (Deuteronomy 24.5), because it alludes to cohabitation, for it is forbidden to avoid cohabitation, and this is pure nonsense. And they brought as proof: ‘Then let my wife grind unto another’ (Job 31.10). But I have already explained that this is to be understood literally. Reliance on the juxtaposition of these passages is no argument because each commandment stands alone, and invoking juxtaposition is resorting to homiletics.66

The Karaites who succeeded al-Qūmisī were unanimous in the view that the commandments were literal in essence. In this context, David ben Abraham al-Fāsī, who lived in tenth-century Jerusalem, says: ‘The commandments are not to be understood allegorically (taʾwīl), for otherwise, it would be impossible to understand the commandments through intellect’.67 Nissi ben Noah teaches us that understanding the literal meaning of the text requires familiarity with the Hebrew language: And I noted that I observe the commandments and statutes not as written in the Torah / absolutely not / While you explained in a clear tongue / in a pure language in the words of the Hebrews / and not in the language of the Assyrians / and Arameans which is a shameful language for the people of the Diaspora, on account of which the Jews forgot their language / And based their wisdom and logic on it / a 65 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 24.6, INA C 41, ff. 236a-b. Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Algamil edition), pp. 1196–1200, discusses Deuteronomy 24.6, within the context of marital laws. 66 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Deuteronomy 24.6. On Ibn Ezra’s views on the juxtaposition of passages in general, and in this case in particular, see Gottlieb, ‘Adjacent’, pp. 205–219. 67 David ben Abraham, Dictionary, under ‫גד‬, I, p. 302. See Maman’s discussion, ‘Peshat’, pp. 350–352. Salmon ben Yerūḥam also believed that the commandments were to be understood literally. See Frank, ‘Voice’, p. 7.

322

Chapter Four

language of stammerers / and they err in Scriptures / and they are fleeting in their interpretations / and they depart from the literal meaning of the text.68

In his commentary on ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of the law’ (Deuteronomy 29.28), Yefet brings two possible interpretations. The first teaches us that all the commandments are exoteric and have no element of concealment.69 In line with the attribute of justice (ʿadl),70 God would never impose on his creatures a commandment that is concealed from them, or that they are incapable of observing.71 The second explanation states that the ‘the secret things’, that are known only to God, have nothing to do with the commandments, which are the ‘words of the law’ and are binding forever: If your children question you, when you are cast into exile, and say to you: ‘How long will we be cast into exile?’ You shall reply to them: ‘These are ‘secret things’ that are known only to the Master of the Universe. But this exile, namely ‘the words of this law’ (Deuteronomy 29.28) are binding on us and on all future generations. If we act accordingly, we shall merit deliverance from exile. Then God will gather us from among the nations and return us to our land to a life of plenty, as it states further on’.72

From the verse ‘For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not too hard for thee, neither is it far off’ (Deuteronomy 30.11) Yefet deduces that ‘Any part of the Torah dealing with commandments is neither concealed nor far from you’.73 Qirqisānī contends that the literal interpretation of the text is the rule throughout Scriptures except where such an interpretation defies logic.74 The commandments definitely required a literal interpretation, because esoteric texts (bāṭin) necessitate an allegorical interpretation Nissi ben Noah, Bītan ha-Maskīlīm, p. 38. See Nemoy’s translation, ‘Nissi’, pp. 314–315. 69 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 29.28, INA C 72, f. 89b. 70 On the Muʿ‘tazilite attribute of ‘ʿadl’ (justice) see above, Ch. 1, n. 332. 71 Yefet, above, (n. 69), f. 89a-b. 72 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 29.28, INA C 72, f. 89b. 73 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 30.11; Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 29.28, INA C 72, f. 79a. On the significance of Deuteronomy 30.11 in Karaite liturgy, see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 58, n. 3. 74 Qirqisānī, p. 386. 68

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

323

(taʾwīl), which contains multiple meanings.75 Only in special cases where the literal meaning make no sense can a commandment be interpreted in a non-literal manner.76 Some commandments, of necessity, have both a literal and esoteric meaning.77 The principle that the commandments required a literal interpretation did not prevent controversy among the Karaites, such as in the case of ‘a new wife’ (Deuteronomy 24.5).78 According to al-Qūmisī, this term did not necessarily mean a virgin but any married woman. He based his argument on Deuteronomy 22.8, which states that a parapet must be built around a new house. According to al-Qūmisī, just as a ‘new house’ meant ‘new to its owners’ so did the term ‘new wife’, mean ‘new to her husband’ and did not, therefore, necessarily refer to a virgin. According to Qirqisānī, the term ‘new wife’ refers to a virgin, since the word ‘new’ refers to something that has never been used.79 It will be recalled that, according to al-Qūmisī, the ‘Enlighteners of knowledge’ had the status of prophets.80 In striving to arrive at the 75 Qirqisānī, p. 386. See Chiesa, Storica, p. 172, n. 158. According to Qirqisānī, the commandments were meant to be understood literally (ḥaqīqa), not allegorically (istiʿāra, majāz). Accordingly, ‘When a man dieth in a tent’ (Numbers 19.14) refers to a tent, not a house. 76 Qirqisānī, p. 385. See also pp. 390–392. According to Saʿadia Gaon, too, Beliefs and Opinions, VII, (Rosenblatt edition), p. 265, Scriptures was to be understood literally, unless such an interpretation (1) defied logic or sense; (2) contradicted another text that had a literal interpretation; (3) contradicted the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages. See also Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), pp. 18, 191. Qirqisānī quotes Saʿadia Gaon’s claim that the ‘rational commandments’ [‫ ]מצוות שכליות‬may have been given over in an obscure manner (mutashābiha), since it was possible to derive them through the intellect. In contrast, the ‘revealed commandments’ [‫]מצוות שמעיות‬ had to be given over literally, as evidenced by Deuteronomy 30.11 and Proverbs 8.9. On the difference between rational and revealed commandments, see Ch. 1, nn. 344–347. On clear and obscure verses in the Qurʾān, see below, nn. 203–215. 77 Qirqisānī, pp. 387–388. See above, p. 58. In translating the Scriptures into Arabic, the translator relied on consensus (al-naql val-ijmāʿ). It was the translator’s duty to subject controversial words to a rational and philological study. See Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 69–71. 78 Given that seeking a literal interpretation does not necessarily eliminate controversy, Abraham Ibn Ezra proposed acceptance of the Oral Law. See above, Ch. 1, n. 388. 79 See Qirqisānī, pp. 736–737. Ibn Ezra, in situ, states: ‘“A new wife.” Some say a virgin. But according to many, it means new to him, because he could remarry a wife whom he had divorced provided she had not been defiled, and she would therefore be new’. The Targum credited to Jonathan ben Uziel (Rieder edition), II, p. 288, interprets it as ‘virgin’. Sifre Deuteronomy, 221 (Finkelstein edition), pp. 291–292, interprets it as ‘someone new to him’. See Izchaky, ‘Targum’, pp. 133–134. 80 Above, nn. 47–48.

324

Chapter Four

one true interpretation, as revealed to the prophets, al-Qūmisī attacked the ‘ijtihād’ method of relying on one’s own judgment, a method that engendered multiple interpretations for each verse: ‘And therefore he shall reach a single interpretation, and that is the command of God, and not ijtihād’.81 Ijtihād is characteristic of Karaite exegesis, and despite his opposition to it, Daniel al-Qūmisī also had recourse to it. Since he was not among the prophets, who were privy to the one and only truth, al-Qūmisī’s search for knowledge of the truth had to be channelled through ‘ijtihād’ and rationalism. Qirqisānī devoted a whole chapter to his polemic with al-Qūmisī regarding his opposition to the study of Scriptures based on rationalism.82 Qirqisānī, on the other hand, could not have failed to detect that his predecessor, al-Qūmisī, was a man of reflection (naṭar), who arrived at solutions through inquiry (baḥth) based on evidence (ḥujjah).83 Al-Qūmisī instructed his followers to bring proofs against the Rabbanites ‘from things that follow on logically from contemplation of the Scriptures’.84 Qirqisānī was impressed by al-Qūmisī’s linguistic expertise, as evidenced by the strong philological components of his commentaries.85 In the sermon attributed to him, al-Qūmisī complains of the lack of an in-depth study of Scriptures, its grammar, and language.86 Al-Qūmisī’s commentary on Leviticus, in which he compares the status of the Enlighteners to that of the prophets, also confirms the vast gap between him and the prophets and his similarity to the Karaite Enlighteners who succeeded him, who had recourse to inquiry and analysis in their attempt to reach the correct interpretation: And the upright of heart will find wisdom, ‘If thou seek her as silver, And search for her as for hid treasures; Then shalt thou understand the fear of God, And find the knowledge of God’ (Proverbs 2.4–5).87 This is why we inserted the following in our prayers: ‘Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of Thy law’ (Psalms 119.18). ‘Wondrous things out of Thy Law’ means the wonders of the Commentary on Exodus, attributed to al-Qūmisī, in Zucker, Targum, p. 187. On ‘ijtihād’ in Karaite law, see above, Ch. 1, n. 125; below, n. 99. 82 Qirqisānī, pp. 327–328. 83 Qirqisānī, p. 4. 84 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’, in Zucker, Targum, p. 179. In Arabic, p. 176: ‘wa-iḥtajū bi-ma‘qūl al-miqraʾ’. 85 Qirqisānī, p. 5. 86 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’, in Zucker, Targum, p. 179. In Arabic, p. 176. 87 On ʿAnan and Benjamin’s use of Proverbs 2.4, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 89–90. 81

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

325

Torah […] However, for our sake it says: ‘Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold’. And he who seeks with fear and reason will find it, as it says: ‘It is not too hard for Thee’ (Deuteronomy 30.11). Therefore we are required to inquire thoroughly in order to discover the truth.88

The way al-Qūmisī expresses himself indicates his reservations. He resorts to expressions such as ‘to the best of my knowledge’, ‘in my humble opinion’, and ‘this would appear to be incorrect’.89 Qirqisānī’s testimony sheds further light on al-Qūmisī’s reservations. Al-Qūmisī instructed his disciples, who copied over his works, to amend them according to changes in his outlook.90 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ also teaches us that although God gave special wisdom to the latter Enlighteners, they were far from possessing the ultimate truth. Therefore, Sahl advised his listeners to analyze the Enlighteners’ rulings, and to adopt them only if they were reasonable: And through His kindness, may His name be blessed, God has now brought light to the eyes of the last [Enlighteners], and enabled their eyes to see the wonders of the Torah. And they are happy and rejoice when one commandment is revealed to them, as if they have found much booty, and every day they continue to attain knowledge in order to establish His word: ‘many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased’ (Daniel 12.4).

Regarding the caution with which the pronouncements of the Enlighteners should be greeted, Sahl says: One should listen to the words of the investigators and explicators of the commandments and that which is meaningful to one and what seems to be true and correct, one should do […] One should not follow the majority. It is also not good to rely on only on one of them because one has the duty to study in order to know the truth […] Therefore, one has the duty to listen to the words of the Enlighteners and the Sages, and one should do what one considers to be right in one’s eyes. One

88 See Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 60. On the meaning of Psalms 119.18, see also Qirqisānī, p. 222. Nissi ben Noah, Commentary on the Decalogue, p. 11, distinguishes between two types of preachers and teachers. (1) ‘He who sees and prophesies, explaining all that is hidden’ and (2) ‘he who is wise, inventing from his heart all that is hidden’. See Nemoy, ‘Nissi’, pp. 336–337. 89 See above, nn. 48, 84. 90 Qirqisānī, pp. 4–5.

326

Chapter Four

should observe those things that are meaningful to one and then study them.91

Al-Qūmisī’s hope of finding the one and only true interpretation of Scriptures never left him, although such an interpretation was contingent on the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness on the stage of history. Pending his arrival, controversy would reign among the Karaite Enlighteners: ‘Know that for everything in Scriptures, there is only one interpretation, not two. For they do not know the Scriptures perfectly. One will explain one way and the other will explain another way, until the Teacher of Righteousness arrives’.92 In the Diaspora, the spiritual leadership is not graced with divine inspiration: ‘And we have neither prophet, nor priest, nor teacher of truth’.93 The result is observance of ‘commandments of men learned by rote’ instead of the commandments of God: ‘And I, in my dispersion, bereft of those who would teach me righteousness, am to be likened unto “a calf untrained” (Jeremiah 31.18) to bear the yoke, by reason that the shepherds of the Dispersion did not teach me to bear the yoke of the precepts as set forth in the Torah of Moshe; rather did they lead me astray after “a man-made precept learnt by commandment of men learned by rote” (Isaiah 29.13)’.94 While the kingdom existed, the prophet filled the role of the Teacher of Righteousness. Therefore, Hosea 10.12 refers to the period of exile: ‘Till the Teacher of Righteousness come and cause righteousness to reign upon you. And in the days of our fathers, there was no need to await the Teacher of Righteousness, since prophets were sent’. 95 The Teacher of Righteousness whom al-Qūmisī yearned for was the prophet Sahl, Epistle, p. 35. See above, n. 49. On the freedom of intellectual study of Scriptures among the Karaites, see Polliack, ‘Emergence’, pp. 303–304. According to the Rabbinic Sages, the majority take precedence over the individual. Mishnah, ʿEduyot 1.5, states: ‘Why is the individual’s opinion mentioned among that of the majority, given that halakha is always based on the majority opinion’. See Tosefta, ʿEduyot 1.4 (Zuckermandel edition), p. 455. 92 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Psalms 74, Adler manuscript 2778, in Marmorstein, ‘Remnants’, p. 336. 93 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Haggai 2.17, Pitron, p. 61. On the equivalence of ‘truth’ and ‘righteousness’ in Qumran works, see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 149–150. 94 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 16b (Nemoy edition), p. 74. 95 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Hosea 10.12, Pitron, p. 18. In the Sermon in Arabic, attributed to Daniel al-Qūmisī, in Zucker, Targum, p. 177, the prophets are called ‘prophets of righteousness, teachers of the truth. Zucker, Targum, p. 180, translated this as ‘teachers of righteousness’. See above, n. 93. 91

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

327

Elijah himself, who was to appear only after the end of the birth-pangs of redemption, as borne out by al-Qūmisī’s Commentary on Joel 2.23: ‘For He has given you the Moreh li-Zedaqa’. In my opinion this refers to the Teacher of Righteousness, Elijah, who will teach the Jews laws, as it says: ‘Till He come and cause righteousness to reign upon you’ (Hosea 10.12), and: ‘And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children’ (Malachi 3.24). And this will occur before Gog, as it is written: ‘Before the great and terrible day of the Lord come’ (Joel 3.4).96

The same doubts that characterize al-Qūmisī’s commentaries are found in Yefet ben ʿEli’s commentaries, too, but unlike al-Qūmisī, Yefet stresses at the outset the essential difference between the prophet and the Enlightener, who is unsure of himself and gropes in the dark.97 Yefet informs us of this difference in his commentary on Proverbs 29.18: ‘Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint; But he that keepeth the law, happy is he’. According to him, the expression ‘the people cast off restraint’ refers to a period of controversy regarding observance of the commandments, i.e., the period of exile. During the time of the kingdom, there was a prophet who resolved controversies. He who observes the Torah in exile cannot resolve controversies, nor can he follow tradition (taqlīd) blindly as the Rabbanites did.98 He can merely reach some approximation of the truth through individual judgment (ijtihād): ‘Where there is no vision, the people cast off restraint; But he that keepeth the law, happy is he’. This verse speaks specifically of the period of exile, since the prophets were not absent in the period of the Kingdom. It is said: ‘the people cast off restraint’ refers to the profanation of religion, since arguments will increase, and arguments are only resolved by the prophets. It is said: ‘But he that keepeth the law, happy is he’, since if he knows many commandments, he keeps them punctiliously. But when there is a controversial matter, and verses that can be interpreted in different ways, he must make an effort to investigate. What he clarifies is binding on him, and what is hidden from him he is exempt from observing (maʿdhūr). But he who relies on his Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Joel 2.23, Pitron, p. 29. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 81–85, did not properly distinguish between alQūmisī’s view of the exegete’s status and that of his successors. He calls the Mourners’ exegesis as a whole: ‘illuminational exegesis’. 98 On the taqlīd, see above, Ch. 1, n. 129. 96

97

328

Chapter Four

fellowman and follows him on matters of religion […] abolishes the commandments.99

Yefet contrasts members of the taqlīd with their blind faith, led by Saʿadia Gaon, with the Karaite Enlighteners, who attained knowledge of the commandments through investigation, study and inquiry (baḥth, naẓar, taftīsh). Once they have acquired knowledge on the commandments, the time of the End will be revealed. In his commentary on the verse ‘many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased’ (Daniel 12.4), Yefet says: ‘Shall run to and fro’ is wandering through the Book of God, as somebody seeking treasures, and then the knowledge increases. This knowledge is on two matters: First, knowledge of the commandments, and second, knowledge of the End. God will reveal the End only after they know the commandments, and are God fearing, as it says: ‘The counsel of the Lord is with them that fear Him; And his covenant, to make them know it’ (Psalms 25.14). And this is only through investigation, study and inquiry of the words of God, as it says: ‘Teach me, O Lord, the way of Thy statutes’ (Psalms 119.33) and ‘Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold Wondrous things out of Thy law’ (Psalms 119.18).100

Yefet admits that the Enlightener who studies the Scriptures through personal judgment and consideration (ijtihād), is not infallible is in the period of exile, that is compared to the Ofel.101 The period free of controversy or ignorance surrounding the observance of the commandments, namely, the period of prophets, had not disappeared for good. Like Daniel al-Qūmisī, Yefet awaited the Teacher of Righteousness, the resolver of controversies: ‘Hasten the arrival of the Yefet, Commentary on Proverbs 29.18, in Ben-Shammai, ‘Editions’, p. 25. In his Introduction to Genesis, Yefet says that in his translation he relied on the sages and commentators who preceded him, and on ‘what seemed right to him’. See Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 43, 293. 100 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 12.4 (Margoliouth edition), p. 141. ‘Inquiry’ is the tool whereby the Karaites rebutted the sham Rabbanite tradition. In refuting the Rabbanite method of deferral in determining the festivals, Salmon, Milḥamot, p. 53, states: ‘I knew well in inquiry/that in that specific year/that the first day of the month of Nisan did not fall on a Tuesday/in the time of Ezra the Scribe’. 101 Yefet, Introduction to Commentary on Exodus, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 40, ff. 2b-3a. Yefet also apologized for his mistakes in his Introduction to Genesis. See Butbul edition, pp. 86, 145. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 29.28, INA C 72, f. 89a, Yefet proposes, in the name of the sages, ‘two interpretations that are logically acceptable’. See above, nn. 69–72. 99

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

329

Teacher of Righteousness, as God promised, as it says: ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet’ (Malachi 3.23) […] and as it says: ‘And thine ears shall hear a word’ (Isaiah 30.21). And as it says: ‘Till He come and cause righteousness to rain upon you’ (Hosea 10.12)’.102 For Yefet, as for al-Qūmisī, the Teacher of Righteousness was Elijah,103 and therefore in the next commentary in which Elijah is mentioned, his functions are equated with those of the Teacher of Righteousness: ‘Elijah, peace be upon him, will remove doubt and controversy among the nation, that is Israel, on matters of purity and impurity, and all issues Israel is divided on’.104 We learn about the Mourners’ role in studying Scriptures prior to the advent of Elijah, from Yefet’s commentary on the verse: ‘Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet’ (Malachi 3.23): The remnants of Israel, and the innocent, who abandoned blind zealotry to the fathers and teachers and began studying the Book of God. And they believed in what became clear to them through investigation, and abandoned anything that was manifestly incorrect. And they acted according to what they found out to be true, at it says: ‘Before I was afflicted, I did err’ (Psalms 119.67). And when faced with an obstacle, they asked God to open their eyes in the way of truth, and not to hide from them any knowledge of the commandments, as it says: ‘I am a sojourner in the earth; Hide not Thy commandments from me’ (Psalms 119.19).105

Yefet’s Commentary on Amos 8.11–12 sheds light on the similarities and differences between the Teacher of Righteousness and the Enlighteners. After the destruction, the people were distressed, because there was no prophet or Enlightener to teach them the path of truth: ‘Likewise, at a time when God kept back prophets and Enlighteners whose role was to lead to the Jews on the path of truth’.106 Yefet, Introduction to Commentary on Deuteronomy, INA B 369, f. 16a. Above, n. 96. 104 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 43.3, PBN Héb 287, f. 8b. On Elijah’s role in resolving controversies, see also Yefet, Commentary on Malachi 3.23, BL. Or. 2401, f. 260a. Likewise, see above, Ch. 1, n. 371. R. Shimon opined that Elijah would come ‘to resolve controversies’. The sages said: ‘to bring peace to the world’, in light of Malachi 3.23–24. See Mishnah, ʿEduyot 8.7. On Elijah as resolving apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, see for example, BT, Menaḥot 45a: ‘Elijah will explain this passage’. On Elijah’s limitations in determining halakha according to the sages, see Elijah, Talmudic Encyclopedia, II, pp. 7–8. 105 Yefet, Commentary on Malachi 3.23, BL. Or. 2401, f. 259a-b. On the identification of ‘the remnants of Israel’ with ‘they that are upright in the way’, see below, n. 346. 106 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11–12, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, ff.98a-99b. The Tosefta, ʿEduyot 1.1 (Zukermandel edition), p. 454, states: ‘When the 102 103

330

Chapter Four

In the absence of prophets, so Yefet claimed, controversy increased, and the Rabbanites invented fraudulent halakhot: ‘In the absence of prophets, arguments increased among Israel, and then people arose and invented fraudulent laws that God had not commanded’.107 The role of the Enlightener or the Teacher of Righteousness was to speaks the words of God to those who sought to hear them: ‘And it is said: “But of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8.11), his intention was to abide honestly by the true halakha as taught by the Enlightener or the Teacher of Righteousness’.108 In the absence of the Teacher of Righteousness, it was necessary to inquire into and investigate the words of the sages, which meant seeking out the sages or their works: ‘There is a need to investigate the words of the sages we know of. This may be by travelling to them in order to meet them and hear their words. Or it may be through sending over an emissary to bring their works’.109 Despite this great enterprise, the distress of the seekers [= the Penitent, ‫]שבי הפשע ביעקב‬ intensified,110 as searching for the truth became the basis of knowledge, rather than truth itself: ‘After that there will be hunger and thirst, since the more knowledgeable the penitents [‫ ]שבי פשע‬are, the more crooked their souls.111 This is because knowledge is based on little investigation, and if the knowledge is hard to come by, they must make a great effort, and it is hard to attain perfect knowledge.112 Elijah represented the solution to the problem of controversy and approximate truth. However, confusion reigned, since Elijah, the Teacher of Righteousness, had not arrived. In the final analysis, Elijah would sages gathered in Kerem be-Yavneh, they said: a time will come when a person shall seek out something in the Scriptures and not find it; from the writings of the Scribes, and will not find it, as it says: “Behold, the days come, said the Lord God, That I will send a famine in the land, Not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, But of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8.11) […] They said, let us begin with Hillel and Shammai’. See also BT, Shabbat, 138b. 107 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11–12, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, ff.98a-99b. 108 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11–12, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, ff.98a-99b. 109 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11–12, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, ff.98a-99b. 110 On this term, see below, nn. 350–356. 111 Yefet translated ‫‘( יעטוף‬when he fainteth’) (Psalms 102.1) as ‘yataḍawwar’. In his Commentary, in situ, he says: ‘‫ יעטוף‬is “stoop”, as the hungry and thirsty person stoops for bread and water’. See Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 102.1, PBN Héb 288, f. 187b, in Erder, ‘Moral Issues’, p. 327, n. 74. On the importance of Psalm 102 for the Mourners of Zion, see below, n. 140. 112 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11–12.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

331

appear at the right time, in the merit of those seeking to know the words of God through investigation: The expression ‘And they shall wander from sea to sea’ (Amos 8.12) means that they are in great perplexity, and that is why they went out and wandered after Elijah, peace be upon Him, from the four corners of the earth, and they will find him only after a period of time, because God knows that those who seek Him are worthy of Elijah.113

Sahl ben Maṣliaḥ testifies to the difference between the Enlightener and the Teacher of Righteousness. The Enlightener’s interpretation of Scriptures depends on his wisdom and knowledge, and is therefore open to controversy, while the role of the Teacher of Righteousness is to put an end to all controversy: For the Benei Miqra did not say that they are leaders. And they did not change a rule to lead the people as they wished. Rather, they inquire and interpret the Law of Moses, peace be upon him, and also the Books of the Prophets, peace be upon them, and also study the words of the early sages. Therefore, they say to their brothers the Sons of Jacob: ‘Study, and inquire, and seek, and investigate, and do that which is backed by sturdy proof and acceptable logic’. And do not ask how this is possible, since this is what our Rock wanted and wished from us, and it is incumbent upon us to observe the commandments that are rooted in logic, proof and testimony, rather than follow our fancy. And if we disagree in God’s name, then when the Teacher of Righteousness comes, he shall reconcile the differences. And if someone should say: How can the commandments be contingent on the wisdom of the heart? Our answer is: How could it be otherwise? Surely it is through the heart’s wisdom and logic that we know that the world was created and that One being created it.114

Despite the limitations of the Enlightener, who frequently groped in the dark in his search for absolute truth, it was he who guided the people in light of his understanding of the Scriptures, pending the arrival of the prophet Elijah, the Teacher of Righteousness. The very appearance of the Enlighteners on the scene represented a preliminary but essential stage in the process of Redemption. The prophets themselves predicted the advent of the Enlighteners at the end of the exile, and specified their Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11–12. Sahl, Epistle, p. 34.

113 114

332

Chapter Four

roles. Yefet interprets the verse ‘Strengthen ye the weak hands, And make firm the tottering knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart: “Be strong, fear not; Behold, your God” (Isaiah 35.3–4), as referring ‘to the Enlighteners who shall appear at the end of the exile during the Time of Trouble’.115 Yefet specifies the Enlighteners’ roles during the exile in his commentary on the verse: ‘Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, Saith your God. Bid Jerusalem take heart, and proclaim unto her, That her time of service is accomplished, That her guilt is paid off’ (Isaiah 40.1–2): ‘It is incumbent upon the Enlighteners of the exile to teach the nation and to guide it in the path of truth, so that they are aware of their situation. It is their duty to strengthen the hearts of simpletons and hotheads […] Likewise, it is their duty to comfort them in their calamities’.116 The advent of the Enlighteners was a special act of divine kindness to the Jews, since, by guiding the nation on the path of truth, it was spared the punishment that would otherwise have been its lot. The gentiles did not merit such an act of kindness: ‘For there is no Enlightener among them (the gentiles), namely, someone to lead the people on the path of truth, so that they seek faith in God’.117 In fulfilling the roles that Divine Providence placed upon him, the Enlightener becomes a tool whereby Providence brought about the Redemption. This explains the tremendous responsibility placed upon the Enlightener. In his Commentary on Isaiah 61.3, which refers to the Mourners of Zion, Yefet says: ‘This is the House of the “terebinths of Righteousness” of whom the nation will be proud, saying: These are the Enlighteners through whom the salvation and redemption of Israel shall come about.’118 Based on Daniel al-Qūmisī’s contention that Scriptures has both a revealed and concealed aspect,119 al-Fāsī determined that the Enlightener must be able to discern between a literal statement (kalām ḥaqīqī) and an allegorical one (kalām al-majāz).120 We saw above that the Karaites commonly interpreted passages on the commandments Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 35.3–4, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 284, f. 7a. Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 40.1–2, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 71a. 117 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 14.2, PBN Héb 286, f. 78b. 118 Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 61.3, BL. Or. 2502, f. 207b. 119 Above, n. 47. 120 David ben Abraham, Dictionary, I, p. 14. See Polliack, Karaite Tradition, p. 62. In his Commentary on Psalms 84.4, David states, Dictionary, II, p. 524, that the word ‘bird’ must be understood literally, not allegorically, as others claimed. See Marwick, ‘First Fragment’, p. 71. 115

116

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

333

literally.121 As we shall see below, the Mourners held that most, although not all, of the prophecies relating to the period of the final exile were not to be interpreted literally. These prophecies were given over by Moses, the foremost prophet. According to Yefet, the passage in Deuteronomy 30.1 discusses the length of the final exile and the Enlighteners’ role in bringing about the nation’s repentance.122 In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 30.15, Yefet says: ‘Up to this point, he referred to the exile and the generation of the Salvation, but then he once again addressed those present’.123 In a number of places, Yefet refers to the prophetic nature of the Song of Haʾazīnū (Deuteronomy 32).124 According to him, from verse 35 (‘Vengeance is Mine, and recompense’) until the end of the Song refers to the future125 of the nation posed on the threshold of salvation after it has repented.126 For Yefet, the Song of Haʾazīnū was one of the Scriptural songs that were meant to be taken literally.127 Although most passages about the final exile are in the Book of Prophets, not all the prophecies there relate to the End of Days. Yefet, in his Commentary on Zechariah 8.9 (‘Ye that hear in these days these words’) claims that this prophecy was addressed to the prophet’s contemporaries, unlike the previous prophecy that was addressed to the See above, nn. 60–79. Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 30.1, BL. Or. 2479, ff. 59b-60a. In his commentary on verses 11–14, INA C 72, f. 97a, Yefet says that these verses are connected to the passage that speaks of the people’s return to God in the End of Days. 123 Yefet, Commentary on Deuteronomy 30.1, BL. Or. 2479, f. 65a. 124 Sokolov edited and translated some of Yefet’s commentary on the Song of Haʾazīnū. See Sokolov, ‘Exegesis’, pp. 399–413. Yefet, Song of Haʾazīnū, p. 407, says, inter alia, in his commentary: ‘Know that these witnesses that I have gathered in this place are of two types: some testify in the time of the kingdom only, while the other testify in the time of the kingdom and the Diaspora alike. Those that testify in the time of the kingdom only are: The Torah, the stone, and the prophets themselves. And the remainder, including the books of the prophets, that testify for all times, are: The Song of Haʾazīnū, and the Heavens and Earth that are mentioned here’. 125 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 18.1, PBN Héb 286, f. 93b. The Song of Haʾazīnū is one of the four songs that end with references to the future. The others are: The Song of Deborah (Judges 5), the Song of David (II Samuel 21), and ‘Then Sang Moses’, (Exodus 15). Yefet adds that the song ‘Spring up, O well’, (Numbers 21) does not belong to this category. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 18.1, PBN Héb 286, f. 93a. 126 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 12.9–10 (Margoliouth edition), p. 147. 127 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 1.1 (Bargès edition), p. 4. Other songs that were to be interpreted literally were: The Song of Deborah (Judges 5), and ‘Then Sang Moses’ (Exodus 15). According to Yefet, the editor of the Book of Hosea did not write down all Hosea’s prophecies – only those relating to the period of exile. Hosea’s prophecies to his contemporaries were omitted. See Yefet, Commentary on Hosea 1.1 (Birenbaum edition),, p. 7. BT, Sabbath 63a states: ‘All the prophets prophesied about the Messianic era’. 121

122

334

Chapter Four

generation of the Salvation: ‘He stated that this prophesy was addressed to the prophet’s contemporaries. We have no reason to believe that these words refer to the generation of the Salvation, since the previous prophecy was addressed to it’.128 One of the prophecies referring to the period of Salvation, also known as the ‘Time of the End’, is the prophecy in Habakkuk 2.3: ‘For the vision is yet for the appointed time’: His intention was: ‘I told you: Write this down, since much time will elapse until this prophecy is fulfilled. And that is the appointed time that God has determined. And then, when this time arrives, the kingdoms will be abolished and salvation shall come to Israel. This time is called the ‘Time of the End’ [‫]מועד קץ‬.129

The Mourners of Zion interpreted contemporary history in light of the Prophets. In his Commentary on Amos 8.11, Yefet says: ‘After recounting the abolition of the kingdom and the joys and sorrows that shall befall the people in the End of Days, he recounted the people’s fate in the End of Days’.130 Any prophecy that was not obviously symbolic was to be understood literally, unless this was inconsistent with logic. An example of a prophecy of this kind was Ezekiel’s Vision of the Dry Bones, which spoke of the resurrection of the dead. Since the resurrection of the dead was a logical concept, this prophecy was to be understood literally: He who interpreted this story allegorically rather than literally erred and harmed his soul. In principle, all Scriptures is to be understood literally with two exceptions. One, when the literal interpretation defies logic, so that it becomes something that is logically untenable. Two, when the verse itself is an allegory, as in the passage describing ‘the great eagle’ (Ezekiel 17.3) and the passage: ‘I will kindle a fire in thee’ (Ezekiel 21. 3), and all similar passages that allude to or draw attention to symbols, such as the Song of Songs and the like. As to this narrative, the resurrection of the dead does not defy logic, and the joining of the severed limbs is not logically unacceptable, since bodies do not cease existing in this world, and the Creator can gather them and join them and return their spirit to them.131 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 8.9, BL. Or. 2401, f. 188a-b. Yefet, Commentary on Habakkuk 2.3, BL. Or. 2401, f. 85a. 130 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 8.11, Trinity College, Cambridge F12.118, f. 98a. For other fragments of this commentary, see above, nn. 106–113. 131 Yefet, Commentary on Ezekiel 37.14, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3496, ff. 79b-80a. Cf. INA B 135, f. 287a. According to Saʿadia Gaon, too, Beliefs and Opinions, VII, 128 129

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

335

According to the Karaites, the prophecies in the Book of Daniel referred to the End of Days, and some of them were meant to be taken literally. In his introduction to Deuteronomy, Yefet equates the word ‘truth’ with the word ‘literal’, namely, without a hidden meaning.132 He brings an example from the Book of Daniel: This word [‘truth’] in the sense of ‘literal’ is found in Daniel: ‘And now will I declare unto thee the truth’ (Daniel 11.2). This means: ‘And now I will relay the words to you literally’. This is because Daniel received prophecies that did not have literal meanings, such as the verse: ‘the ram […] which I saw standing’ (Daniel 8.6), or the four beasts he saw. But at this time, he saw nothing of hidden meaning, nor heard anything that could be construed other than literally.133

The Karaite Enlighteners claimed that the Book of Psalms, the Song of Songs and the Book of Daniel all contained prophecies relating to the generation of the Salvation. Since most of these works were allegorical, these prophecies could not be interpreted literally. As for the Psalms, Salmon ben Yerūḥam translated the word ‘maskīl’ [‫ ]משכיל‬as ‘prophecy’.134 Although Yefet, in his commentaries on the Psalms, translated it as ‘reason’ (rushd), he noted that many of the psalms were, indeed, prophecies. In his Commentary on Psalm 2.1, Yefet says: ‘First, we must note how many prophets are mentioned in the Book of Psalms’.135 Among these were the sons of Qoraḥ who, according to Yefet, prophesied throughout the generations.136 The psalmists, such as David, Solomon, the sons of Qoraḥ, Asaph, Heman and Jeduthun, (Rosenblatt edition), pp. 264–265, belief in the resurrection of the dead is logical. Therefore, the majority interpreted texts on the resurrection of the dead during the era of salvation literally (ʿala ẓāhirihi). Only a few interpreted them metaphorically as referring to the resurrection of the kingdom and nation. In his Commentary on Numbers 23.7, BL. Or. 2475, f. 17a, Yefet states that not every parable is esoteric (bāṭin), requiring an allegorical interpretation (taʾwīl). Some parables, including Balaam’s, were to be understood literally. 132 Yefet, Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy, INA B 369, f. 11b. 133 Yefet, Introduction to the Book of Deuteronomy, INA B 369, ff.11b-12a. 134 In his Commentary on Psalms 14, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1345, f. 76a-b, Salmon states that the term ‘maskīl’ has three meanings: ‘Maskīl le-David’ in the Psalms alludes to prophecy; in Daniel 11.33, a guide (murshid); and in I Samuel 18.14, ‘a successful person’. He adds that this term was never applied to a gentile. On the term ‘maskīl’ applying solely to a Jew, see above, n. 117. See above, Ch. 1, n. 51, Salmon’s Commentary on Psalms 69.1. 135 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 1.20, PBN Héb 286, f. 7a. On Yefet and Salmon’s commentaries on Psalms, see Simon, Four Approaches, pp. 55–95. 136 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 42.1, PBN Héb 287, f. 1a.

336

Chapter Four

were endowed with ‘divine inspiration’ which, according to Yefet, was the second highest degree of prophecy.137 Many psalms referred to the days of Salvation at the end of the final exile, and ‘the righteous’ specified in Psalm 1.6 referred to the group of righteous that shall appear at the time of Salvation.138 In Yefet’s Commentary on Psalm 5.1: ‘For the Leader; upon the Neḥiloth’ Yefet enumerates the psalms referring to the ‘remnant of Israel’ [‫ ]שארית ישראל‬and to ‘the penitents of Jacob’ [‫]שבי פשע ביעקב‬, namely, the Karaite Mourners of Zion: Know that the title of the psalms refers to the ‘remnant of Israel’ and ‘the penitents of Jacob’ in order to inform us that David and the other Psalmists were not speaking about themselves, such as the Psalm: ‘Answer me when I call’ (Psalm 4), but that these psalms were written under divine inspiration, that found expression through them. There are five such psalms and this is the first (Psalms 5). The second is ‘Upon Aijeleth ha-Shahar’ (Psalm 22), and the third is: ‘Upon Shoshannīm; [a Psalm] of the sons of Korah’. (Psalm 45). The fourth is: ‘Save me, O God’. (Psalm 69), and the fifth is: ‘O Shepherd of Israel’ (Psalm 80).139

Psalms 5 entitled ‘Upon the Neḥiloth’ refers to the Mourners of Zion: The expression ‘Upon the Neḥiloth’ (Psalms 5.1) refers to the Mourners of Zion who instilled sorrow into their hearts over the destruction of the house of God, the desolation of Jerusalem and Zion, the abolition of sacrifices and the service of God, the desecration of His name and the tragedy of Israel’s exile. They refrained from rejoicing, wore coarse garments, undertook regular fasts and refrained from eating the tasty food they were used to eating. Therefore their bodies wasted away and became sick and their hearts became dry. They complained of this in many psalms, particularly: ‘A Prayer of the afflicted’ (Psalm 102). It is to them that the verse refers when it says: ‘Upon the Neḥiloth’ (Psalms 5.1).140 137 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 1.7–8, BL. Or. 2401, f. 146 a-b. See also BenShammai, ‘Polemical Element’, pp. 137–138. On the Song of Songs that was dictated to Solomon via divine inspiration, see Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.1 (Bargès edition), p. 4. 138 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 1.6, PBN Héb 286, f. 13a. Yefet attributed some verses in the Psalms to the period of salvation, and therefore revealed their esoteric meaning (bāṭin). He also interpreted them literally. See Goldstein, ‘Beginnings’, pp. 41–64, discussion on Yefet’s Commentary on Psalms 44.24. 139 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 5.1, PBN Héb 286, ff. 29b-30a. On Karaite exegesis of the Book of Psalms, see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 199–209. 140 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 5.1, PBN Héb 286, f. 30a.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

337

The Mourners found references to contemporary events in the Book of Psalms,141 as Yefet points out in his Commentary on Psalm 91.4: It would appear that the expression ‘He will cover thee’ means that you shall take refuge from two enemies: The first is the King of the South [Byzantium], and the second is the King of Ishmael, as we already explained elsewhere. At the time of the end, three kings shall arise in the world who shall crown him, at it says: ‘The king of the south shall push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him’ (Daniel 11.40). And he mentions them in this psalm and informs us that God shall protect the righteous at that time.142

In the first chapter of this book, we learnt about the origins of the Karaite movement from Salmon’s Commentary on Psalm 69.1.143 Salmon’s Commentary on Psalm 56.1 serves as an example of the Karaite interpretation of the Psalms. According to Salmon, when David uttered this prophecy, when the Philistines imprisoned him in Gath, he knew it had a hidden meaning. He began by referring to: ‘Jonathelem-reḥoqim’, since he knew that the hidden meaning (bāṭin) of this prophecy referred to Israel, who would be imprisoned by their enemies, ‘bound in affliction and iron’ (Psalm 107.10). It would be a mistake to interpret this verse as referring to David who fled from his house like a dove fleeing for its life. The word ‘reḥoqim’ (in the plural form) shows that the verse cannot be referring to David, since he was alone when the Philistines captured him. Salmon therefore interprets ‘jonath-elemrehokim’ (a distant dove) as referring to the people of Israel, who were far from the Temple. Salmon based this interpretation on the word ‘elem’ [‫ ]אלם‬which he associated with ‘ulam’ [‫]אולם‬, namely, the Temple porch. The verse uses the word ‘porch’ rather than the heichal or dvir, or other areas in the Temple, because the porch was the universal place of prayer and supplication, at it says: ‘Let the priests […] weep between the porch and the altar’ (Joel 2.17). Salmon also proposed an alternative meaning for the word ‘elem’, related to the word ‘dumb’: A silent dove among the kings, that has nothing to say, at it says: ‘But I am as a deaf man, I hear not; And I am as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth’ (Psalm 38.4).144 See Erder, ‘Attitude’, pp. 29–49. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 91.4, PBN Héb 288, f. 145a-b. 143 Above, Ch. 1, n. 51. 144 Salmon, Commentary on Psalms 56.1 (Marwick edition),pp. 51–52. Salmon interprets verse 7, p. 53, both literally and allegorically. 141

142

338

Chapter Four

The Mourners’ attitude to the Song of Songs can be summarized by Yefet’s commentary on the first verse of this book, which states that each of the three books ascribed to Solomon – the Song of Songs, Proverbs and Ecclesiastes – had a specific function, and consequently, was written in a different genre. The expression: ‘The words of Koheleth’ (Ecclesiastes 1.1) testifies that this book was written literally. The Book of Proverbs, on the other hand, was an allegorical work. The Song of Songs, which focuses on the description of Israel’s repentance on the eve of the Salvation, was written in poetic style.145 The poetic genre in Scriptures is divided into subgenres. Some poems are literal, such as the song of ‘Haʾazīnū’.146 ‘The Song of the Vineyard’ (Isaiah 5) is a fable with an attached moral, while the Song of Songs is esoteric from beginning to end.147 Its language, far from being plain (ẓāhir), is condensed and nuanced, and cannot be understood without the help of the Books of Prophets.148 The Song of Songs was written under divine inspiration, which, as stated above, is a degree of prophecy.149 The Karaites interpreted it as referring to their period, and considered themselves, ‘the perfect of way’, and therefore qualified to decipher its hidden nuances.150 Running through the Song of Songs, they believed, was a veiled discourse between the Enlighteners and God: Know that this Song [includes] four genres [of discourse]: First, the words of the community of Enlighteners before God, in which they relate His good deeds and acts of kindness to their fathers and to themselves, and ask Him to keep His promises […] And the fourth genre is God’s answer to the Enlighteners concerning their questions and requests. It also describes their goodness and beauty when they serve God, and their [spiritual] level, as we shall explain in each section. And these are the sole purposes of this book.151 145 In his Introduction to the Song of Songs, Salmon teaches us that this book is entirely metaphorical. See RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1406, f. 5a-b, in Frank, ‘Voice’, p. 8. 146 Above, n. 127. 147 Salmon, too, in his introduction to the Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.1, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1406, f. 1a, claims that all the poems in the Song of Songs were esoteric (al-bāṭin al-maḥḍ). 148 Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.1 (Bargès edition), p. 4. Frank’s translation, ‘Voice’, p. 12. 149 See above, n. 137. 150 Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1.1 (Bargès edition), pp. 3–5. On the Song of Songs in Yefet and Salmon’s commentaries, see Frank, ‘Voice’, pp. 3–21. 151 Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 2.6 (Bargès edition), p. 27. See Frank, ‘Voice’, pp. 14–15.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

339

Pending the arrival of the Teacher of Righteousness, the Mourners proposed a variety of interpretations of esoteric texts.152 After Yefet’s literal interpretation of Song of Songs 2.6, he adds: ‘According to the allegorical interpretation (taʾwīl), it can be interpreted in a number of ways’.153 Salmon also describes the difficulties the Enlighteners encountered in their attempts to interpret the Song of Songs: Know, my brother, that the meanings on the Song of Songs are esoteric in the extreme, and not everyone is able to interpret them. Even I admit to the poverty of my knowledge. However, I shall interpret it according to its most rational [interpretation] which has reached me from the words of the sages, and according to what I know is logical. And if there are mistakes in what I say, may the Lord of Hosts in His great mercy forgive me.154

The Song of Songs serves as a good example of the Enlightener’s role of exploring Scriptures in order to arrive at the truth and of the consequent struggle with the Rabbanites: ‘Saw ye him whom my soul loveth?’ (Song of Songs 3.3) means: You do not know what commandments God included in his Torah and what He prohibited and permitted. And how shall we not inquire into it or fail to do what it prescribes? And when [the Rabbanites] heard their words, they knew that they [the Karaites] were excluding themselves from their jurisdiction. Immediately [the Rabbanites] attacked them, lest they rise up against them and lead the people away from them. And it is well known that in each of the countries of exile where the Karaites lived, the same thing happened. This is why it says: ‘They smote me, they wounded me’ (Song of Songs 5.7).155

Clearly Scriptures is written in various genres, some of which are literal and others allegorical. The commandments, for example, are generally interpreted literally. Some parables, poems and prophecies are also to be understood literally, while others are not. The Karaite Mourners On the multiplicity of interpretations for biblical verses pending the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness, see above, nn. 80–114. 153 Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 2.6 (Bargès edition), p. 27. Translated by Frank, ‘Voice’, pp. 14–15. 154 Salmon, Commentary on the Song of Songs, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3959, f. 5a. Translated by Frank, ‘Voice’, p. 5. 155 Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 5.7 (Bargès edition), p. 73. Translated by See Frank, ‘Voice’, pp. 18–19. 152

340

Chapter Four

argued that every genre had its own particular interpretation that befitted it. Salmon ben Yerūḥam criticized those who interpreted the Book of Ecclesiastes allegorically. According to him, the book was written literally,156 and anyone who attempted to impose a symbolic meaning on the text, such as Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, was wrong: Students should know that the meanings of the Book of Ecclesiastes are literal. They are not parables, because Solomon the Wise, peace be upon him, collected parables in the Book of Proverbs […] I have written the above because I have seen people who interpreted the book incorrectly, saying that the verse: ‘The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down’ (Ecclesiastes 1.5) referred to the rise and fall of the Kingdom of Israel, as it says: ‘Her sun is gone down while it was yet day, She is ashamed and confounded’ (Jeremiah 15.9) […] The first to interpret it in this manner was Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, peace be upon him, but the meaning of the Book of Ecclesiastes is not as Benjamin and the likes allege.157

It was by no means easy to determine which texts were to be interpreted literally, and which allegorically, as the following example illustrates. According to Qirqisānī, those who denied the resurrection of the dead based this view on a literal interpretation of verses such as Psalms 78.39; 103; 16; and Job 14.14. They interpreted verses referring to the resurrection of the dead (such as Isaiah 26.19 and Daniel 12.2) allegorically (taʾwīl) as referring to the resurrection of the nation after its return from exile. Qirqisānī, who believed in the resurrection of the dead, represented the opposite view. According to him, verses referring to the resurrection of the dead should be interpreted literally, and those seemingly denying the resurrection of the dead allegorically. Biblical narratives describing resurrection, such as the story of the son of the Shunammite woman (II Kings 4.35), and of the man who touched the bones of Elisha (II Kings 13.21), were, according to Qirqisānī, to be understood literally and clearly pointed to the phenomenon of the resurrection of the dead. In short, the verses describing the resurrection of the dead were to be interpreted literally.158 Yefet, Commentary on the Song of Songs 1. 1 (Bargès edition), pp. 3–4. Salmon, Commentary on Ecclesiastes, in Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 107–108. Drory, Reʼshīt, p. 118, concluded from Salmon’s writings that Benjamin was the first to be exposed to the influence of the Qumran pesher. See below, nn. 320–322. 158 Qirqisānī, pp. 243–244. According to Qirqisānī, pp. 222–223, verses that dealt with ‘reward and punishment’ were, generally speaking, written in an esoteric fashion. 156 157

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

341

The Enlighteners used logic to distinguish between the various genres, enabling them to decide which exegetical mode best suited a specific genre. The same logic that led Yefet to conclude that Ezekiel’s prophecy on the resurrection of the dead was to be understood literally,159 led the Karaites to conclude that divine attributes in the Scriptures were not to be interpreted literally, since the anthropomorphization of God defied logic.160 The Karaites rejected Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s solution to the problem of the anthropomorphization of God, namely, the ascription of material attributes of God to a secondary angel that created the world.161 According to Shahrastānī, Benjamin claimed that all verses describing God were obscure verses (al-ayāt al-mutashābiha) that were not to be interpreted literally.162 Qirqisānī believed that Benjamin’s doctrine was influenced by the Caves Sect which interpreted the attributes of God literally, but ascribed them to an angel.163 In discussing al-Qūmisī’s ambivalent attitude toward logic in biblical exegesis,164 Qirqisānī cites the divine attributes as a patent example of how logic determines exegesis (in this case, an allegorical interpretation).165 In the same vein, alQūmisī also evidently gave an allegorical interpretation to verses that anthropomorphized God, such as the verse: ‘Incline Thine ear, O Lord, and hear; open Thine eyes, O Lord and see’ (II Kings 19.16).166 Thus, Qirqisānī held that the logical principle determined the exegesis of the divine attributes (allegorical interpretation). Qirqisānī found passages in the Books of Prophets that denied anthropomorphization (tashbīh), and others that condoned it. According to Qirqisānī, only logic could resolve this apparent contradiction. It was logic that determined that the passages that denied the materialization of God were to Above, n. 131. The Muʿtazila influenced the Karaites on this issue. See above, Ch. 1, nn. 342– 343. Below, nn. 200–202. 161 Above, Ch.1, nn. 229–231. 162 Shahrastānī, Milal, p. 170. See above, Ch. 2. n. 215. 163 Qirqisānī, p. 42. On the same page, Qirqisānī teaches us that the Caves Sect had interpretations that were allegorical (taʾwīlāt), which, according to Qirqisānī, were nonsense. As stated, researchers were divided as to whether the Alexandrian of the Caves Sect was Philo (above, Ch. 2, nn. 177–191). Philo brought allegorical interpretations in order to prevent the anthropomorphization of God. See ‘On the Posteritate Caini’, sec. 6–7, (Loeb edition), II, p. 331. On Benjamin and the Caves Sect’s doctrine of secondary angels, see above, Ch. 2, nn. 174–227. 164 Above, nn. 80–90. 165 Qirqisānī, pp. 327–328. 166 Qirqisānī, p. 328. 159

160

342

Chapter Four

be understood literally, while those that condoned the materialization of God were to be interpreted allegorically.167 Salmon, in his Commentary on the Song of Songs 5.10, demonstrates how logic determines an allegorical interpretation of the divine attributes: Logic cannot accept that God is called ‘father’ except in the sense of leader and Creator; nor that He is called ‘mighty’ as it says: ‘The Lord is a man of war’ (Exodus 15.3). And if this is permitted, it is because all that our book [the Song of Songs] describes in the form of material expressions refers to God’s deeds, because logic tells us that the Creator has no [true] attributes. Scriptures testifies to this when it says: ‘To whom then will ye liken God?’(Isaiah 40.18). And all these attributes are used simply because they can be understood by our reason.168

According to Yefet, logic demands that passages describing the descent and ascent of God are to be interpreted allegorically. Were such passages interpreted literally, we would be forced to conclude that God is an object ( jawhar) just like other creatures, that moves from place to place. In light of the above, verses which state that God ‘descended’ or ‘ascended’ or ‘went’ must be referring to angels, not to God. Thus, it was logic that led Yefet to the conclusion that angels exist.169 Similarly, Yefet held that passages describing God’s actions were also to be interpreted allegorically (taʾwīl).170 Both the Mourners and Qirqisānī accepted that logic demanded an allegorical interpretation of the divine attributes.171 Saʿadia Gaon also Qirqisānī, p. 166. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, p. 20. Doubtlessly, Qirqisānī, p. 42, had reservations about the Sadducees who, according to al-Muqammiṣ, interpreted the attributes of God literally. See above, Ch. 2, nn. 126, 156. 168 Salmon, Commentary on the Song of Songs 5.11, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1406, f. 5a-b. See Frank, ‘Voice’, pp. 8–9. 169 Qirqisānī also stated that were it not for belief in angels, we would have to accept the anthropomorphization of God. See above, Ch. 1, n. 234. 170 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 11.1 (Margoliouth edition), pp. 111–112. In this commentary, Yefet discusses the angels at length. See Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, p. 21. Below, n. 240. On the Karaites’ method of translating verses that contained a hint of the anthropomorphization of God, see Polliack, Karaite Tradition, pp. 230–232; p. 233, p. 46. 171 The non-literal interpretation of God’s attributes was such a salient feature of Karaite exegesis, that the Rabbanite Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy edition), p. 143, exploited this feature in his polemic against them. The Karaites, he claimed, had no grounds for condemning the Rabbinic Sages for interpreting texts non-literally, when they themselves asserted that many texts in the Pentateuch and Book of Prophets were not to be interpreted literally. He invoked Exodus 24.10 and I Kings 22.19, as 167

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

343

subscribed to this view. According to him, Scriptural passages could not be interpreted literally if such an interpretation defied logic. He cites Deuteronomy 4.24, which, if interpreted literally, would imply the materialization of God. Therefore, this verse could only be interpreted allegorically.172 Evidently Ibn Ezra’s view that logic determined whether a Scriptural text was plain or concealed was coloured by Karaite works, or at the least, reflected the Karaite viewpoint. On the other hand, he strongly criticized those who interpreted Scriptures allegorically: ‘Through darkness and gloom they invent secret explanations from their hearts. It is their belief that the laws and ordinances are mysteries’.173 This criticism notwithstanding, he supported those who used logic to distinguish between esoteric and exoteric texts: In one matter they got it right, that any commandment whether large or small / be weighed in the scale of the heart / because the heart has understanding / that was implanted in it by He who exists from the beginning of time / And if the explanation defies logic / or contradicts what feels right / only then may one seek an esoteric interpretation / because due deliberation is the key to understanding/ since the Torah was not given to a people without logic /and the angel mediating between man and God is the mind / and anything that does not defy logic must be understood in its literal sense / and shall be interpreted in the requisite manner […] And why should we turn the simple sense into something esoteric? / And if there are places where they are truly linked / then both are true.174

examples of verses which, if interpreted literally, would imply the antrhopomorphization of God. 172 Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions, VII, (Rosenblatt edition), p. 265–266. See also introduction to his Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), pp. 18, 191. According to Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 23–24, Yefet was influenced by Saʿadia Gaon’s commentary in defining the rules for not interpreting a text literally, based mainly on the criterion of logic. He was, however, unable to accept Saʿadia Gaon’s statement that the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages overrode logic. 173 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Introduction, p. 6. 174 Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch, Introduction, p. 6. Aaron ben Elijah, too, in his introduction to Keter ha-Torah, f. 2a, opposed interpreting all biblical texts literally. Logic dictates that some verses cannot be interpreted literally: ‘Some understand the entire text literally, and this is a great mistake and enormous treason for the mighty of the people. And others pursued the literal interpretation if it conformed to logic, but if there was evidence that contradicted the literal interpretation, they adopted another approach’. See Frank’s discussion, ‘Ibn Ezra’, pp. 3–4.

344

Chapter Four

Conclusion The status and role of the Karaite Enlightener can be summarized as follows: (1) The Enlightener, through his interpretations, was responsible for guiding the people in the observance of the commandments. Once this was achieved, the secrets of the End (the stage leading up to the Salvation) would be revealed to him.175 Therefore, the Enlightener’s interpretations served as a catalyst for the Redemption.176 (2) The Enlightener assumed the exegetical role of the prophets pending the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness.177 Both al-Qūmisī and Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ expressed the hope that the one and only true interpretation of Scriptures by the prophets and Teacher of Righteousness would be revealed to the Enlightener.178 Although al-Qūmisī rejected the role of the intellect and logic in Scriptural exegesis,179 in practice, he, like his followers, used in-depth analysis and intellectual and linguistic criteria in his commentaries on Scriptures. Indeed, Yefet ben ʿEli openly declared that ijtihād and analysis were tools that he used in his biblical commentaries. Since such methods were prone to error, the Enlightener suggested a number of possible solutions, without clarifying which was the correct one.180 This being so, the Enlightener’s disciples were clearly forced to fall back on their intellect and judgment in order to decide whether their teacher’s solutions were acceptable.181 As stated above, both ʿAnan and Benjamin were purported to have urged their disciples not to accept their teachings in rote fashion, but to subject them to a thorough investigation.182 (3) Although the fragmentary nature of the Enlightener’s ‘truth’ occasionally led to disappointment and frustration,183 the Enlightener did not lose courage, knowing that the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness (the prophet Elijah) was contingent on the enlightenment of the nation.184 The prophet Elijah, like his predecessors, held the

177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 175 176

Above, n. 100. Above, n. 118. Above, n. 48. Above, nn. 47, 49. Above, n. 81. Above, n. 153. Above, n. 91. Above, Ch. 1, nn. 83–84; 265–268. Above, n. 112. Above, n. 113.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

345

key to the resolution of all controversies.185 He would lead the nation to true salvation.186 The Enlightener used the following four rules in his Scriptural exegesis: (1) The genre dictates the interpretation.187 Scriptural books written by King Solomon were to be interpreted in different ways, depending on the genre in which they written. The Book of Proverbs, for example, bore no resemblance to the Book of Ecclesiastes, and neither resembled the Song of Songs. This explains why Salmon ben Yerūḥam reprimanded Benjamin al-Nahāwandī for interpreting the Book of Ecclesiastes allegorically.188 Salmon admitted that some Scriptural works invited an allegorical interpretation, where appropriate.189 According to him, Saʿadia Gaon’s foolish disciples ‘did not know that there are clever people / who understand parables and allegories, and reveal hidden treasures’.190 (2) Commandments were written literally and were to be interpreted literally (ẓāhir).191 The secrets of the End of Days, on the other hand, which were entwined in the Book of Prophets and the Hagiography (for example, the Book of Psalms, the Song of Songs, and the Book of Daniel), were written allegorically, and called for a metaphorical interpretation (taʾwīl).192 (3) Some prophecies required both literal and allegorical interpretations,193 while others required a literal interpretation only.194 There were even commandments that were to be interpreted allegorically, while others had both a literal and metaphorical meaning.195 An allegorical interpretation was called for, according to Qirqisānī, when a literal interpretation led to a conclusion that contravened religious precepts or defied logic.196

Above, nn. 92, 104. Above, n. 96. 187 See Polliack, Karaite Tradition, p. 39, end of n. 8. 188 Above, n. 157. 189 Above, nn. 147, 154. 190 Salmon, Milḥamot, IX, p. 81. 191 Above, nn. 60, 67. 192 David ben Abraham’s Dictionary also discusses an allegorical interpretation of the Song of Songs. See above, n. 51. See Maman, ‘Peshat’, p. 357. 193 Above, n. 53. 194 Above, n. 131. 195 Above, nn. 60–66. Brody, Geonīm, p. 91, n. 34, teaches us that Karaite halakha is not always based on the literal interpretation of the text, as is generally thought. 196 Qirqisānī, p. 328. 185

186

346

Chapter Four

(4) Logic was a necessary tool for deciding which kind of interpretation to give a text. Since resurrection of the dead was consistent with logic, Yefet interpreted Ezekiel’s Vision of the Dry Bones literally.197 It was logic, too, that led the Karaites in interpret the divine attributes allegorically, in order to avoid anthropomorphizing the deity.198

C. External Influences The Status of the Exegete and Exegetical Methods in Islam This book focuses on the Karaites who lived in the tenth century, at a time when Islam influenced Judaism, but not vice versa, although some Muslim exegetical terms had Jewish roots.199 The issue of the influence of Muslim Qurʾānic exegesis on Karaite exegesis is a complex one, and an exhaustive discussion of this subject is beyond the scope of this work. Muslim exegetical terms have a variety of meanings that themselves underwent transformations over time and in a variety of theological and legal frameworks. These terms were further modified during their adaptation to Karaite discourse. Below, we shall note features common to both Muslim and Karaite exegesis on issues discussed above. The influence of the Muʿtazila: Muslim sages who were vehemently opposed to the anthropomorphization of God were concerned with the problem of divine attributes in the Qurʾān. The Muʿtazilites held that logic dictated the need to interpret divine attributes allegorically. Al-Ashʿarī, the founder of the Ashʿariyya movement (935), interpreted divine attributes literally, despite asserting that God had no material aspect. According to him, mere mortals were incapable of resolving the contradiction between God’s immaterial essence and material attributes. His solution to this problem was to accept the text unquestioningly (bi-lā kayf ). Ashʿarite sages in a later period adopted the allegorical approach to Scriptural exegesis that typified the Muʿtazila.200 Clearly, the Karaite discussion regarding the divine attributes was essentially a Muʿtazilite discussion, since it was logic that dictated an allegorical Above, n. 131. Above, nn. 164–172. 199 See Ch. 1, nn. 113–114. 200 For a summary of the position of the Muʿtazila and Ashʿariyya on this issue, see Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism, pp. 1–19. 197 198

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

347

interpretation of these attributes.201 The link between the Muʿtazila and Karaism is not surprising given the powerful theological influence of the Muʿtazila on the Karaites, and their adoption of Muʿtazilite discourse.202 Muḥkamāt (Exoteric Verses) and Mutashābihāt (Esoteric Verses) in the Qurʾān As stated, Karaite exegesis was governed by the rule that the genre of the text dictated its exegetical method. The Islamic sages pointed to a number of genres in the Qurʾān, each of which demanded its own exegetical model.203 One of the main discussions on this issue revolved around Qurʾān 3.7, that distinguishes between two types of verses in the Qurʾān: exoteric verses (ayāt muḥkamāt) and esoteric ones (mutashābihāt). According to this verse, exoteric verses are deemed more important since they form the basis of the Qurʾān (um al-kitāb). After this distinction, the verse continues: ‘But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah’.204 From the dawn of Muslim Qurʾānic exegesis, commentators of all schools grappled with the meaning of the terms muḥkamāt (exoteric verses) and mutashābihāt (esoteric verses).205 One of the early Islamic exegetes whose works have survived, Muqātil ben Sulaymān (767), determined that the muḥkamāt could be interpreted by mortals, while the mutasābihāt could be interpreted by Allāh alone.206 In distinguishing between these two terms, the Islamic exegetes argued that 201 Above, nn. 164–172. See Polliack, Karaite Tradition, p. 39, n. 9. On the justification of analytical study as an imperative in the doctrines of Yefet and Qirqisānī, see Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot, I, pp. 8–35. 202 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 322–355. 203 Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 117–118, argues that the tendency toward classification and categorization among the Karaites was influences by the Arab model. 204 Qurʾān 3.7 (Abdullah Yūsuf Ali’s translation). This verse in the Qurʾān is reminiscent of Deuteronomy 29.28: ‘The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever’. For Yefet’s commentary on this verse, see above, nn. 69–72. See also Qirqisānī, pp. 417, 813. 205 On the way Tabarī differentiates between these two terms in their translation into Hebrew, see Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), p. 38, n. 11. On the various ways these two terms were translated in the research, see Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism, p. 25, np. 30. The Khawārij in Islam were accused of misusing the term mutashābihāt. See Rubin, Bible, pp. 147–150. 206 Muqātil, Tafsīr, I, p. 87. Kingberg, Muḥkamāt, pp. 155–163, cites the arguments of those who claimed that the mutashābihāt were not to be interpreted, and the opposite view. For other classifications of verses in the Qurʾān according to Muqātil, see Gilliot, Exégèse, pp. 122–123.

348

Chapter Four

the muḥkamāt were to be understood literally, while the mutasābihāt demanded in-depth analysis. They drew the further distinction that while the subject matter of the muḥkamāt were precepts, the subject matter of the mutashābihāt was theology, and therefore the study of the latter was elective.207 Others claimed that both the muḥkamāt and the mutashābihāt revolved around precepts, but that while the muḥkamāt referred to immutable precepts, the mutashābihāt referred to precepts that could be modified by divine revelation over the generations.208 Another distinction was that the mutashābihāt referred to precepts that superseded (nāṣikhāt) others, while the mutashābihāt referred to precepts that had been superseded by others (manṣukhāt).209 These views can be summarized by a tradition ascribed to Ibn ʿAbbās that the muḥkamāt were verses that superseded others. The permissible and the proscribed, as well as the commandments, in these verses were binding. The mutashābihāt, on the other hand, were verses that had been superseded by others. They were chronological, allegorical and theological, and were not binding.210 Zucker states that Saʿadia Gaon and the Gaon Shmuel ben Ḥofni defined muḥkamāt as verses that had a single meaning and were to be understood literally, and mutashābihāt as esoteric verses, that had several interpretations.211 Verse 3.7 of the Qurʾān draws a close parallel between the mutashābihāt and taʾwīl,212 an allegorical interpretation that departs from the literal meaning of the text.213 Tafsīr, by contrast, is a literal interpretation of the text, as applied to the muḥkamāt.214 This distinction was accepted by Karaites and Rabbanites alike. According to

207 Wansbrough, Studies, pp. 149–150. For further distinctions, see Wansbrough, Studies, pp. 149–153. 208 Kingberg, Muḥkamāt, p. 153. According to Muqātil, Tafsīr, I, pp. 87, 264, the muḥkamāt existed in all books of revelation, and were binding on all nations. 209 Kingberg, Muḥkamāt, p. 149. The Muʿtazilites identified verses containing an element of anthropomorphization, and that therefore required taʾwīl, as mutashābihāt verses. See Abrahamov, Anthropomorphization, p. 7. See also, pp. 25–27. 210 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, I, pp. 353–353, Commentary on the Qurʾān 3.7. 211 See Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), pp. 38–43, pp. 17, 191. Likewise Ben-Shammai, ‘Rabbinic Literature’, pp. 35–37. 212 See above, n. 204. 213 Kinberg, Muḥkamāt, p. 154, n. 54. 214 Wansbrough, Studies, p. 156. Goldfeld, ‘Qurʾānic Exegesis’, pp. 13–14. Since the muḥkamāt verses are to be understood literally, some argue that there is no need to interpret them at all. See Kinberg, Muḥkamāt, p. 154, n. 53.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

349

the Gaon Shmuel ben Ḥofnī, the muḥkam was not to be interpreted allegorically.215 The Plain (Ẓāhir) and the Concealed (Bāṭin) The metaphorical interpretation of the Qurʾān was not restricted to mutashābihāt. Another genre that required a metaphorical interpretation (taʾwīl) was the parable. According to Qurʾān 29.42, only scholars knew how to interpret parables. Qurʾān 25.35, intimates that the parable is the opposite of the true and literal interpretation (tafsīr).216 Another distinction is drawn between the plain meaning of the text (ẓāhir) that requires a literal interpretation and the hidden meaning of the text, that requires an allegorical interpretation (taʾwīl). This distinction is found in the Qurʾān in a number of contexts,217 and became a theological principle in various Islamic schools. Sahl al-Tustarī (896) claimed that each verse of the Qurʾān had both a plain and concealed meaning. According to Wansbrough, this was an attempt to reconcile the differences between the muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt.218 A study of the commentaries of Muqātil ben Sulaymān (767) shows that indeed, at the dawn of Qurʾānic exegesis, there were no clear boundaries between literal and non-literal interpretations, and Qurʾānic verses were interpreted in both ways. The growing sophistication of exegetical rules and sectarian development in Islam, led to the formulation of clear boundaries between these two types of exegesis.219 The Shīʿa movement in general, and the Fātimid Ismāʿiliyya movement in particular, were diametrically opposed the ẓāhiriyya,220 the movements advocating an exclusively literal interpretation of the Qurʾān. The Ismāʿiliyya movement was also called the bāṭiniyya, because of its emphasis on the esoteric.221 Since taʾwīl was the tool used by the Ismāʿilites to decipher the

In Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition), p. 38. Note that neither the term ‘taʾwīl’ nor the term ‘tafsīr’, has only one meaning. See Wansbrough, Studies, p. 235. Rippin draws our attention to the fact that Saʿadia Gaon called his translation of Scriptures tafsīr, under the influence of the contemporary Muslim literature. See Rippin, ‘Saʿadia Gaon’, pp. 34–36. See Polliack’s discussion, Karaite Tradition, pp. 78–84. 216 See Wansbrough, Studies, p. 240. 217 Qurʾān 6.152; 57.3. 218 Wansbrough, Studies, p. 243. 219 Gilliot, Exégèse, pp. 118–119. 220 See above, nn. 25–30. 221 See Daptary, ‘Ismāʿīlīs’, p. 87. 215

350

Chapter Four

esoteric (bāṭin), taʾwīl became a disparaging term in circles advocating a literal interpretation of the Qurʾān.222 Taʾwīl and bāṭin also played a prominent role in the Scriptural exegesis of ancient Imāmī Shīʿism, the largest Shīʿite movement.223 While the Karaites held that only the prophets knew the true interpretation of Scriptures, a function that would subsequently be assumed by the Teacher of Righteousness, the Imāmī Shīʿites claimed that ʿAlī and his offspring knew the true interpretation of the Qurʾān. One of the many traditions on this issue held that ʿAlī’s version of the Qurʾān contained both revelation (tanzīl) and the only true interpretation of the Qurʾān, namely, the concealed, or esoteric interpretation of the Qurʾān (taʾwīl).224 A group of Imāmī Shīʿite sages considered the taʾwīl that was delivered to ‘Alī an integral part of the Qurʾān.225 With the occultation of the twelfth Imām, Muḥammad al-Mahdī, in 940, the Imāmī Shīʿite sages began expounding the Qurʾān through their personal judgment (ijtihād).226 Naturally, this gave rise to much controversy. Like the Mourners of Zion who awaited the Teacher of Righteousness, the Shīʿites, too, awaited the manifestation of the hidden imām to resolve all their problems.227 The Imāmī Shīʿite sages, just like the Karaite Mourners, shaped their history and destiny through the allegorical interpretation of esoteric passages of the Qurʾān. For a start, the Shīʿite sages had to answer their rivals’ taunt that Shīʿism was not mentioned in the Qurʾān. They did so by claiming that the history of Shīʿism was alluded to in esoteric passages of the Qurʾān.228 As stated, the Fātimid Ismāʿīlī propagandists were the ones that interpreted the Qurʾān esoterically. According to the Ismāʿīlī, Kirmānī (1021), the function of the prophet, whom he termed ‘the speaker’ (nātiq), was to transmit revelation (tanzīl). This revelation was interpreted through the asās (foundation).229 His allegorical Wansbrough, Studies, p. 244. On Imāmī Shīʿism and on the occultation of the twelfth imām, see Nasr, ‘Ithnā ʿAshariyya’, pp. 277–279. 224 Kohlberg, ‘Notes’, p. 211. 225 Kohlberg, ‘Notes’, pp. 215–216. 226 Kohlberg, ‘Notes’, p. 215. 227 For an attempt to associate Mahdī, the Shīʿite messiah, with the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness, see Rabin, ‘Islam’, p. 120. 228 For examples of actual interpretations of Shīʿite history in light of the nonliteral interpretation of esoteric passages in the Qurʾān among the imāmī Shīʿite sages, see Bar-Asher, Imami Shiism, pp. 81–92; 111–113. Wansbrough, Studies, pp. 245–46. 229 The ‘asās’ was also called ‘waṣī’. See Poonawala, ‘Taʾwīl’, p. 199, n. 2. 222 223

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

351

explanations (taʾwīl) were based on the science of the esoteric (ʿilm al-bāṭin), which was divinely inspired.230 The imām had knowledge of the esoteric, and it was this knowledge that equipped him to lead the community. The ḥujja, a title that Kirmānī himself held, was the chief propagandist231 whose role was to disseminate the correct interpretation of the Qurʾān. Since the beginning of creation, there had always been imāms in the world, the first being Adam, followed by his offspring. The imām enjoyed an extremely exalted status, being the embodiment of God on earth (nāsūt), as opposed to the God in heaven (lāhūt).232 The Ismāʿīlites went to great lengths to distinguish between the exoteric and esoteric. Mandatory commandments were considered exoteric, while the mysteries of the Qurʾān were considered esoteric. Moreover, while the exoteric varied from prophecy to prophecy, the esoteric was eternal. Prophetic revelation that was literal was considered inferior to the allegorical exegesis (taʾwīl) of the esoteric (bāṭin) by the imām. The Ismāʿīlī propagandist, Sijistānī, who lived in the second half of the tenth century, compared revelation to raw material that had to be processed.233 Without the imām’s interpretations, the Qurʾān was a silent Qurʾān (Qurʾān al-Ṣāmit), but with his interpretations (taʾwīl), the imām made the Qurʾān come alive, turning it into a speaking Qurʾān (Qurʾān al-Nātiq).234 The Qurʾān itself alludes to its esoteric passages (mutashābihāt) and the need for allegorical interpretations of these passages (taʾwīl). In view of the above, it is not surprising that the Ismāʿīlites relied upon the division between muḥkamāt (exoteric verses) and mutashābihāt (esoteric verses). Sijistānī claimed that from a rational perspective, the mutashābihāt were not to be understood literally. Verses testifying to the esoteric aspect of the Qurʾān are 6.20 and 31.19. The Qurʾānic metaphor also requires an esoteric interpretation.235 Despite the superiority of the esoteric over the exoteric, the moderate Shīʿites, including the moderate Ismāʿīlites, gave due respect to the exoteric passages of the Poonawala, ‘Taʾwīl’, p. 206. Kirmānī bore the title of the ḥujja of the Iraqis. See Kraus, ‘Zitate’, pp. 253– 254. On Kirmānī’s opposition to the deification of the Caliph al-Ḥākim, see Daftary, ‘Ismāʿīlīs’, pp. 192–193. 232 On the Ismāʿīlī leadership and its roles as perceived by Kirmānī, see Makarem, ‘Philosophical Significance’, pp. 47–51. 233 Poonawala, ‘Taʾwīl’, p. 206. On Sijistānī, see Daftary, ‘Ismāʿīlīs’, pp. 168–169. 234 Daftary, ‘Ismāʿīlīs’, p. 200. 235 Daftary, ‘Ismāʿīlīs’, pp. 208–211. 230 231

352

Chapter Four

Qurʾān. The literal interpretation was the tool for learning how to observe the commandments. Only the Shīʿite extremists totally rejected the literal interpretation of the Qurʾān.236 Like the Imāmī Shīʿites, the Ismāʿīlites derived their knowledge of their contemporary and future history on esoteric aspects of the Qurʾān. Kirmānī went even further, by interpreting biblical Scriptural prophecies as referring to contemporary events. A corrupt version of Zechariah 9.9 to which he had access referred to: ‘the shepherds of the daughter of Zion’. According to Kirmānī, the shepherds were the propagandists (duʿāh), ‘the daughters of Jerusalem’ were the believers, and ‘Zion’ was the imām. Kirmānī rejected the contention that the person ‘riding upon an ass’ was Jesus, but cited Isaiah 11.4 to prove that it referred to the imām (al-khalīfa al-Ḥākim). According to a calculation based on Daniel 12.12, he predicted that the end would occur in the year 1023, ten years after he completed his commentaries.237 In discussing Muslim Qurʾānic exegesis above, we noted how the Qurʾān was divided into different genres, each of which was to be interpreted in its own way. The division of Scriptures into literary genres was likewise a topic of great interest to the Karaite Enlighteners. The division of Qurʾānic verses into muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt permeated the Rabbanite discourse,238 and became an integral feature of Karaite discourse, too.239 Yefet, for example, devoted his Commentary on Daniel 11.1 to the subject of angels. Some of the verses on this topic, he claimed, were not to be understood literally, since otherwise they defied logic or contradicted exoteric verses (naṣ muḥkam). These verses, therefore, had to be understood metaphorically (majāz).240 Qirqisānī, too, claimed that while some passages in Scriptures were exoteric (muḥkamāt), others were esoteric (mutashābihāt), and there was controversy surrounding their correct interpretation.241 In the Introduction to his Commentary on the Pentateuch, Qirqisānī claimed that this book of Bar-Asher, Imami Shiism, pp. 122–124. See Kraus, ‘Zitate’, pp. 252–257. Kirmānī believed that the source of the verse in Zechariah 9.9 was Isaiah. For other interpretations of Scriptures by Kirmānī, see Kraus, ‘Zitate’, pp. 245–252; 257–263. 238 Above, n. 211. According to Qirqisānī, p. 124, Saʿadia Gaon maintained that, logically speaking, the commandments could not be esoteric texts (mutashābiha). 239 See above, n. 162, for a description by Shahrastānī of al-Nahāwandī’s interpretation of verses describing the deity. 240 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 11.1 (Margoliouth edition), p. 111. See also above, n. 170. 241 Qirqisānī, p. 108. 236 237

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

353

his was devoted to the esoteric passages of the Pentateuch (al-kalām al-mutashābiha).242 A comparison of the exegetical methods of the Mourners of Zion and the commentaries of the Shīʿites, particularly the Ismāʿīlites, shows that the Mourners adopted the exegetical terms of their Muslim counterparts. The adoption of these terms, however, did not imply the adoption of the Ismāʿīlī bāṭiniyya doctrine. On the contrary, the Mourners claimed that the commandments had a literal interpretation only. An Ismāʿīlite influence on the Mourners is evident in their exegesis of what they considered esoteric Scriptural passages, such as the Song of Songs. These esoteric passages were seen by the Mourners as reflecting their history, their destiny, and their seminal role in the messianic process. In this respect, they were no doubt influenced by the Imāmī and Ismāʿīlī Shīʿites alike. When criticizing the Ismāʿīlī propagandists’ attempt to convert members of his community, Yefet ben ʿEli informs us that the Jerusalemite Mourners were well acquainted with Ismāʿīlī propaganda literature.243 A study of the Enlighteners’ writings shows that they were influenced not only by Ismāʿīlī exegesis but also by their teachings, which they assimilated into their doctrine In his Commentary on Proverbs 1.20, Yefet wrote that until the appearance of Moses, there had been a continuous line of ḥujjas244 – which was Kirmānī’s title, as we saw above.245 The transmission of esoteric knowledge from generation to generation since Adam is one of the tenets of Shīʿism, in general, and Ismāʿīlite Shīʿism, in particular. In his introduction to Job, Yefet, following this view, stated that the world had never been without a propagandist (dāʿī), or muḥtasib, who was responsible for sound business practice. He invoked the verse: ‘then began men to call upon the name of the Lord’ (Genesis 4.26) as proof of this contention.246 242

p. 39.

Qirqisānī, Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Hirschfield edition),

Stern, ‘Fātimid Propaganda’, pp. 84–95. Yefet, Commentary on Proverbs 1.20 (Günzig edition), pp. xii-xiii. In his Commentary on Deuteronomy 30.11, INA B 369, f. 97b, Yefet asserts that the divine law has always existed, and shall always exist among the Jews, because it is God’s sign (ḥujja) in the world. 245 Above, n. 231. 246 Yefet, Commentary on Job, BL. Or. 2510, f. 2b.On the role of the muḥtasib as a person of supreme moral fibre who supervised the markets and commerce, see Cahen and Talbi, ‘Ḥisba’, pp. 485–489. See also Yefet’s Commentary on Genesis 4.26 in Erder, ‘Dilemma’, p. 214, n. 119. 243

244

354

Chapter Four

The Status of the Exegete and Exegetical Methods in the Qumran Scrolls The discussion above on the influence of Muslim exegesis on Karaite exegesis leads us to the conclusion that Qumran exegesis was but one of many influences on the Karaite Mourners of Zion. We may assume that, following exposure to a multitude of influences, the Mourner Enlighteners were in a position to reject the Qumran exegetical methods they disliked, or invest them with new meaning. Rabbinic exegesis also exerted an influence on the Karaites, to the extent that some maintained that even the Mourners’ allegorical messianic interpretation of the Prophets, the Song of Songs, and the Book of Psalms, originated in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages.247 As to the Karaites’ rejection of Qumran exegetical methods, we already saw above that the Karaite discussion of divine attributes in Scriptures has a distinctly Muʿtazilite flavour.248 This explains the Karaites’ censure of Benjamin al-Nahāwandī’s doctrine of a secondary deity, based as it was on the writings of the ancient Caves Sect. As stated, the Karaites rejected the Zadokites’ literal interpretation of divine attributes on the grounds that this entailed the anthropomorphization of God.249 What was the connection between the Mourners’ historical selfperception and their Scriptural exegetical methods? The answer to this becomes clear when we consider that the ‘Karaite pesher’ was the tool whereby the Mourners expressed their historical outlook. Wieder, who studied the ‘Karaite pesher’, reached the conclusion that it (or rather, the Mourners’ pesher) was based on the Qumran pesher.250 According to him, both sects claimed that it was their loyalty to the Law of Moses that had brought them to the threshold of the redemption of the End of Days. The prophets predicted the events of this period but the secrets of their prophecies were hidden throughout the generations, and revealed only to the faithful of God on the threshold of salvation, via the pesher. It follows that this exegesis had both a prognostic and messianic-eschatological character.251 Wieder even pointed out the similarity between 247 Polliack, ‘Pesher’, pp. 283–284. See also Polliack, ‘Karaism’, pp. 305–312. On the difference between pesharim and the homiletic texts of the Rabbinic Sages, see Nitzan, Habakkuk Pesher, pp. 78–79. Vermes, ‘Commentaires’, pp. 96–102. On rabbinical influences on Karaite exegesis, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 58–90; 235–248; 356–364. 248 Above, nn. 164–172; 200–202. 249 Above, Ch. 2, n. 126. 250 See also Golb, ‘Damascus Covenant’, pp. 367–370, where he notes the similarity between the Damascus Covenant and Sahl’s Epistle regarding the use of allegory. 251 Wieder, ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’, p. 75.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

355

the positive appellations the Qumran sectarians and Mourners applied to themselves, and the disparaging terms they applied to their enemies.252 Polliack, who examined the Qumran pesher in light of Nitzan’s study, noted the vast difference between the Qumran and Karaite pesharim.253 According to her, given the substantial differences between them, Karaite exegesis can hardly be termed pesher, especially since the term pesher does not exist in the glossary of exegetical terms compiled by the Mourner Enlighteners. Polliack drew up a list of the characteristics of the Karaite exegesis that are absent from the Qumran pesher. In the Qumran pesher, the literal interpretation is conspicuously absent, there is no concern for the internal unity of the text,254 nor is there any reference to the historical context of the prophets’ time. The voice of the exegete – so prominent in Karaite exegesis under Islamic influence – finds no expression in the Qumran pesher. Even at the symbolic-contemporary-historical level of exegesis, where we would have expected a similarity between the Mourner Enlighteners and the Qumran exegetes, Polliack finds a considerable disparity between the two. Karaites exegesis brings redemption closer, while the Qumran pesher provides a key to contemporary events, spreading before us the political map of the period. While the Qumran pesher has a prognostic character, the ‘Karaite pesher’, according to Polliack, has a prescriptive character.255 Polliack does not deny that some appellations are common to both types of pesher, as Wieder noted.256 But since these appellations are anchored in the world of Scriptures, and since both movements tended to adopt Scriptural paradigms, the Karaites could, according to Polliack, have adopted this list of appellations without being influenced by the Qumran corpus.257 Although Polliack’s view on the influence of the Qumran model on the ‘Karaite pesher’ model is more balanced than Wieder’s, I cannot endorse her sweeping conclusion that there is no connection whatsoever Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 129–160. For Nitzan’s analysis of the pesher methods, see Nitzan, Habakkuk Pesher, pp. 39–79. 254 In the Qumran pesher, the interpretation is based on atomization. For a pesher not based on atomization in the War Scroll, see Fishbane, ‘Use’, pp. 346–347. 255 Polliack, ‘Pesher’, pp. 280–287. 256 Above, n. 252. For a list of terms common to al-Qūmisī and the Qumran pesher, see Paul, Écrits, p. 135. 257 Polliack, ‘Pesher’, p. 284. According to Polliack, ‘Karaism’, p. 302, even a similarity between Karaite and Qumran halakha does not necessarily indicate a Qumran influence on the Karaites. She attributes this similarity to the tendency of both sects to adopt a literal approach. 252 253

356

Chapter Four

between these two models.258 This is not the first time I have discussed here the ties between Qumran literature and the Mourners’ literature. The starting point in previous discussions was that even where a Qumran influence was discernible, there were essential differences between the two sects. A study of the Mourners’ laws shows that, unlike Mīshawayh, who was a marginal figure in the Mourners’ camp, the mainstream Mourners adopted Qumran Law, rejecting whatever did not suit them. Evidently, this was also the case regarding the influence of Qumran on the Mourners’ exegetical methods, as discussed above. Polliack’s conclusion concerning the randomness of the list of appellations common to both Karaite and Qumran works seems to me questionable,259 as the name ‘Karaites’ was, in my opinion, inspired by the name ‘Qerīʾei haShem’ in the Damascus Covenant, to which the Karaites had access. What is more, the connection between the Karaites and the ‘Qerīʾei haShem’ is, in my opinion, the key to understanding the way in which the Mourners reinvented their past, as we shall see. Below, we shall consider the common features of the Qumran and ‘Karaite pesher’, and the differences between them, as noted by Polliack, as well as the causes of these differences. The Teacher of Righteousness Above, we discussed the kind of exegesis that the Enlightener provided to the community of his disciples. In the absence of the Teacher of Righteousness or the prophets, the Enlightener was unable to expound the absolute truth on many exegetical issues – a truth that would be revealed only upon the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness. While the commentaries of the Karaite Enlighteners were based on inquiry and rational study of Scriptures, the exegesis of the Teacher of Righteousness was divinely inspired.260 A study of the Qumran scrolls shows that the persona of the Teacher of Righteousness whom the Mourners awaited was largely inspired by these scrolls. The clear boundaries that the Enlighteners placed between them and the awaited Teacher of Righteousness explains the difference between their exegetical model and that of the Qumran pesher. In the Habakkuk Pesher, the Teacher of Righteousness had already made his appearance, while in the Mourner In her joint article with Schlossberg, ‘Translation’, pp. 62–63, the language is more restrained concerning the difference between the two pesher models. 259 Above, nn. 256–257. 260 Above, nn. 80–118. 258

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

357

model, the Teacher of Righteousness had yet to appear, hopefully in their times if they were worthy (through seeking Scriptural truth).261 The Teacher of Righteousness’ role as an exegete in Qumran can be deduced from a pesher on the phrase: ‘So that he can run who reads it’ (Habakkuk 2.2). According to the pesher: ‘Its interpretation [‫]פשרו‬ concerns the Teacher of Righteousness to whom God made known all the mysteries of the words of his servants, the prophets’.262 The Teacher of Righteousness appears in the End of Days: ‘Until the rise of one who will teach righteousness in the End of Days’.263 Habakkuk’s prophecy was addressed to the final generation, but its interpretation was not in his hands: ‘And God told Habakkuk to write down the things that are going to come upon the last generation but the fulfilment of the period he did not make known to him’.264 Hence, the Teacher of Righteousness was the recipient of God interpretations of prophecies relating to the final generation.265 The Mourners, for their part, identified the Teacher of Righteousness with the Prophet Elijah,266 who in ancient tradition is identified with Phineas the priest.267 In Qumran, the Teacher of Righteousness was also a priest, as evidenced by the pesher on the verse ‘For the Lord upholdeth his hand’ (Psalms 37.24): ‘Its interpretation concerns the priest, the Teacher of Righteousness, whom God chose as the pillar, for he established him to build for him the congregation [of his chosen ones]’.268 Habakkuk Pesher 1.5 ascribes the role of the Teacher of Righteousness to the priest, as we saw above in Habakkuk Pesher 2.2.269 The following passage sheds light on the Teacher of Righteousness’ enemies:

Above, n. 113. On the boundaries that the Karaite Enlighteners placed between themselves and the Teacher of Righteousness, see Polliack, ‘Pesher’, p. 282, n. 18; p. 286, n. 30. 262 Habakkuk Pesher 7.3–5 (Charlesworth edition), p. 173. 263 Damascus Covenant 6.10–11 (Charlesworth edition), p. 23. 264 Habakkuk Pesher 7.1–2 (Charlesworth edition), p. 173. See above n. 129, Yefet’s ‘pesher’ on Habakkuk 2.3. 265 On the Teacher of Righteousness as exegete, see Fishbane, ‘Use’, pp. 361–362. 266 Above, nn. 96–104. 267 See Hayward, ‘Phinehas’, pp. 22–34; Margoliouth, Elijah, pp. 12–19; Feldman, ‘Phinehas’, pp. 333–335. Yefet questioned whether Elijah was a priest. See above, Ch. 3, n. 402. 268 4Q171, Psalms Pesher 37, DJD, 5, p. 44. Wacholder identified the ʿAnanni referred to in 4Q513, fragments 3–4 as the sect’s founder. See Wacholder, ‘Omer’, pp. 95–98. 269 Above, n. 262. 261

358

Chapter Four

The interpretation of the passage concerns the traitors in the last days. They are the ruthless ones of the covenant, who will not believe when they hear all that is going to come upon the last generation from the mouth of the Priest to whom God gave into his heart discernment to interpret all the words of His servants the prophets, whom, by their hand, God enumerated all that is going to come upon His people.270

The role of the Teacher of Righteousness is not restricted to revealing the secrets of the prophecies. The pesher on Psalm 37.24 points to the Teacher of Righteousness’ contribution to consolidating the community of Qumran.271 The pesher on the verse ‘The wicked watcheth the righteous, And seeketh to slay him’ (Psalms 37.32) shows that the persecuted Teacher of Righteousness, who, too, was termed a righteous person [‫]צדיק‬, was also a teacher of halakha: ‘The wicked watcheth the righteous And seeketh to slay him. Its interpretation concerns the wicked Priest, who spied on the Teacher of Righteousness and tried to put him to death […] and the law which the latter had sent to the former’.272 In Qumran works, the Teacher of Righteousness is a priest, while the Mourners identified him with the Prophet Elijah. However, the preliminary findings concerning the Teacher of Righteousness’ exegetical role in Qumran suggests a similarity between him and the Teacher of Righteousness yearned for by the Mourners of Zion. In both sects, his appearance coincided with the onset of the End of Days and his interpretations, which were divinely inspired, revealed secrets to the final generation. Among the secrets revealed was the Teacher of Righteousness’ role in the process of redemption and in the history of his community. An important source of this history are the pesharim to the Book of Psalms. Wieder already pointed to the prognostic nature of the pesharim on the Psalms, in both the Mourner and Qumran sects.273 Like the Mourners, the Qumran sect claimed that some passages in the Pentateuch referred to the End of Days: ‘And we know that some of the blessings and curses have already been fulfilled as it is written in the book of Moses. And this is at the End of Days when they will return to Israel forever’.274 Habakkuk Pesher 1.5–10 (Charlesworth edition), p. 162. Above, n. 268. 272 See DJD, 10, p. 120. This version is different from that published in DJD, 5, p. 45. In Habakkuk Pesher 1.13 (Charlesworth edition), p. 150, the wicked man who struggles with the Teacher of Righteousness is also a priest. 273 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 199. 274 MMT 3.20–22 (Qimron edition), p. 60. See above, nn. 122–123. Some claim that the true name of the Damascus Covenant was ‘Midrash ha-Torah ha-Aḥaron’. For a discussion of this, see Baumgarten, ‘Corrigenda’, pp. 219–223. 270 271

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

359

The Plain and the Concealed and the Study of the Torah [‫]מדרש התורה‬ As we saw above, the Enlighteners used the principle of the plain (ẓāhir) and concealed (bāṭin) in interpreting prophecies and passages which, in their opinion, referred to the final generation.275 According to them, the commandments were given literally.276 In the Qumran scrolls, however, both the terms revealed [‫ ]נגלה‬and concealed [‫ ]נסתר‬are used in discussions on the commandments. In this, they resembled the extremist Ismāʿīlites, who claimed that all verses of the Qurʾān had an esoteric dimension.277 For the Qumran sectarians, ‘the revealed’ were the commandments of Moses’ Law (which was also defined as ‘revealed’) while ‘the concealed’ were interpreted as those commandments that were known to members of the sect only. For them, ‘the concealed’ changed from time to time, and in the End of Days would assume an entirely different form. Some claimed that the Temple Scroll was the new Torah destined for the End of Days.278 The author of the Damascus Covenant describes the revelation of the ‘concealed’ to the sectarians as follows: ‘But out of those who held fast to God’s precepts, who remained of them, God established his covenant with Israel forever, revealing to them hidden things in which all Israel had strayed’.279 Over the generations, the ‘concealed’ gradually became revealed through the prophets: ‘This is the study of the Torah which he commanded through Moses, to do according to everything which has been revealed from time to time, and according to what the prophets have revealed by his holy spirit’.280 Members of the sect – that is, members of the community [‫אנשי‬ ‫ – ]היחד‬returned to the Law of Moses as revealed to the Zadokite priests: ‘To return to the Torah of Moses according to all which he has commanded with all heart and with all soul, according to everything which Above, nn. 134–154. Above, nn. 60–79. 277 Above, nn. 229–237. According to Fraade, ‘Looking’, pp. 77–78, the paucity of Midrash Halakha in the Qumran scrolls sprang form the sectarians’ view that despite Torah study, their halakha was more in the nature of revelation than interpretation. 278 See Shiffman, Halakha, p. 53. Fishbane, ‘Use’, pp. 364–366. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 54, contended that ‘the revealed’ in Qumran works were the exoteric commandments, while ‘the concealed’ were the esoteric ones. This division is reminiscent of the division between the muḥkamāt and the mutashābihāt in Islam. 279 Damascus Covenant 3.12–14 (Charlesworth edition), p. 17. 280 Rule of Community, 8.15–16 (Charlesworth edition), p. 37. In 4Q375 frag. 1 i, 1–4, DJD, 19, p. 113, the sectarians are commanded to obey all commandments given over by the prophets. 275 276

360

Chapter Four

has been revealed from it to the Sons of Zadok the priests who keep the covenant’.281 Information about the role of the Zadokites as defenders of the covenant and teachers of the people can be gleaned from the blessings that were addressed to them on a ceremonial occasion: ‘Words of blessing. Of the Enlightener. To bless the Sons of Zadok the priests whom God chose to restore his Covenant […] in the midst of his people, to instruct them as he commanded. And they rose up in truth […] and with righteousness watched over all his statutes and walked according as he chose’.282 King David violated the prohibition of multiplying wives, because ‘he had not read the sealed book of the law, which was in the ark, for it had not been opened in Israel since the day of the death of Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, until Zadok’s entry into office’.283 In my opinion, this Zadok to whom the sealed book was disclosed, was King David’s priest,284 not the Teacher of Righteousness, as Wacholder claimed.285 There would, therefore, seem to have been a priestly chain of revelation of the ‘concealed’ over the generations, from Eleazar the priest, who was an forebear of Zadok (I Chronicles 5.29–34), to Zadok the priest and subsequently the Sons of Zadok, and finally to the Teacher of Righteousness and the Interpreter of the Law, who guided members of the Qumran sect.286 The Qumran sources we examined indicate that the ‘concealed’ was revealed to the prophets, to members of the sect and to the Teacher of Righteousness, were transmitted through divine inspiration. The Enlighteners, for their part, used intellectual inquiry to reach the true interpretation, pending the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness, 281 Rule of Community, 5. 8–9 (Charlesworth edition), p. 131. On the omission of the ‘Sons of Zadok’ from the Rule of Community 5.1–4 in two fragmentary copies of the scroll, see Rule of Community (Charlesworth edition), pp. 60–63; 71–73. The fragments are: 4Q MS D fr.1 and 4Q MS B fr. 5, col. 1. See also Vermes, ‘Remarks’, p. 251. 282 Blessings, 3.22–25 (Charlesworth edition), p. 127. See Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran, pp. 101–103. 283 Damascus Covenant 5.1–5 (Charlesworth edition), p. 20. 284 Above, Ch. 3, n. 458. 285 Wacholder, ‘Sealed Torah’, pp. 351–367, claims that both the ‘sealed’ Torah and the ‘revealed’ one (Damascus Covenant 5.5) are the Torah of the future. Beckwith, ‘Temple Scroll’, pp. 6–7, claims that the sealed book is the book of Deuteronomy. Shiffman, Halakha, p. 52, postulates that ‘the revealed’ here is the Torah. See also Knohl, ‘Revealed and Hidden’, pp. 105–107. 286 On the Interpreter of the Law, see below, nn. 293–296. On the interpretation of ‘the concealed’ by the High Priest, see 4Q375, frag. 1 II, 7–8, DJD, 19, p. 115. See Brin, ‘Laws of the Prophets’, pp. 40–43. The Book of Jubilees accords much importance to Levi, while ignoring Aaron. See VanderKam, ‘Levi’, pp. 359–373, esp. p. 360, n. 2.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

361

who would resolve all ambiguities. The emphasis on intellectual inquiry may actually have been inspired by Qumran works which encouraged intellectual inquiry rather the blind acceptance of interpretations based on the divine inspiration their spiritual leaders enjoyed. A passage in Qumran calls for inquiry, rather than blind faith (‘like one who believes before inquiring’), the ideal being to ‘pursue knowledge’.287 The Damascus Covenant teaches us that the Teacher of Righteousness revealed himself to the Remnant of Israel (namely, the Qumran sect) only after its members mended their ways: ‘And they discerned iniquity and knew that they were guilty people, and they were as blind as those who grope for a way for twenty years. But God discerned their works, (namely) that they sought him wholeheartedly and he raised up for them (the) Teacher of Righteousness to guide them in the way of his heart’.288 This ties in with Yefet’s statement that only by returning to the Scriptures would the Enlighteners deserve the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness.289 One of the more serious transgressions of the sect’s enemies, who failed to observe even ‘the revealed’ properly, was neglecting to inquire into ‘the concealed’: ‘For they cannot be accounted in his covenant since they have neither sought nor enquired after him through his statutes in order to know the hidden (ways) in which they erred, incurring guilt, nor the revealed (ways) in which they treated with an arrogant hand’.290 It follows from the above that the Torah requires us ‘to learn the hidden matters’. This is corroborated by the following: ‘And every thing from Israel which has been concealed and is found by somebody who studied – he shall not conceal it from them’.291 All members of the sect were obliged to observe this requirement of studying the Torah: ‘And where there are Ten members there must not be lacking a man who studies the law day and night, continually, each man relieving another. The Many shall spend the third part of every night of the year in unity reading the book, studying judgment, and saying benedictions in unity’.292 See 4Q424, frag. 3, 1, DJD, 36, p. 342. For Brin’s reading and interpretation, see Brin, ‘Studies’, pp. 274–277. 288 Damascus Covenant 1.8–11 (Charlesworth edition), p. 13. 289 Above, n. 113. 290 Rule of Community 5.11–12 (Charlesworth edition), p. 23. 291 Rule of Community, 8.11–12 (Charlesworth edition), p. 35. On studying the law in the sense of revealing the hidden, see Shiffman, Halakha, p. 74. See also above, n. 280. 292 Rule of Community 6.6–8 (Charlesworth edition), p. 27. On the sectarians’ need to combine divine inspiration with intellectual inquiry, see Shemesh and Werman, ‘Hidden’, pp. 471–482. Fraade, ‘Interpretive Authority’, pp. 46–69. Baumgarten, ‘Disqualifications’, p. 143. 287

362

Chapter Four

The Damascus Covenant refers to sectarians who ‘interpreted the law’ as well as the ‘Interpreter of the Law’ [‫ ]דורש התורה‬and discusses their common features. The author of the Damascus Covenant interprets the verse: ‘The well, which the princes digged. Which the nobles of the people delved. With the sceptre, and with their staves’ (Numbers 21.18) as follows: ‘The “well” is the Torah, and those who dig it are the penitents of Israel […] whom God called them as princes for they sought him […] and the “sceptre” is the Interpreter of the Torah’.293 All the penitents of Israel are required to dig into the well of Torah, but it is the Interpreter of the Law (the sceptre) in their midst whose interpretations are divinely inspired. This is borne out by another passage in the Damascus Covenant: ‘And the star (Amos 5.26) is the Interpreter of the Law who came to Damascus, as it is written: “A star stepped forth out of Jacob and a staff arose out of Israel” (Numbers 24.17)’.294 The Interpreter of the Law – the star of Jacob – is juxtaposed with ‘the prince of the whole congregation’ [‫ – ]נשיא כל העדה‬the sceptre referred to in Numbers 24.17: “‘And a staff arose out of Israel”. The staff is the prince of all the congregation’.295 This prince was evidently a member of the Davidic House. This explains why in another Qumran document, the Interpreter of the Law, who was almost certainly a priest, is juxtaposed with the ‘branch of David’ [‫ ]צמח דוד‬in the End of Days: ‘The branch of David who will arise with the Interpreter of the Law who will rise up in Zion in the End of Days’.296 The Enlightener [‫ ]משכיל‬in Qumran The Mourner Enlighteners’ two functions – to uncover and disseminate Scriptural truth – were the same as those of the Qumran Enlightener, as Wieder already noted.297 293 Damascus Covenant 6.4–6, (Charlesworth edition), p. 23. See Wieder’s discussion, Judean Scrolls, pp. 62–67, on the significance of digging a well in the sect’s scrolls (Charlesworth edition), p. 27. 294 Damascus Covenant 7.18–20, (Charlesworth edition), p. 27. For a discussion of Amos 5.25 in Mīshawayh’s doctrine, given the Damascus Covenant’s use of Amos 5.26, see above, Ch. 3, nn. 166–169. 295 Damascus Covenant 7.19–20, (Charlesworth edition), p. 27. 296 4Q Flor. Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 11–12 (Steudel edition), p. 25. On the Interpreter of the Law being a priest, see VanderKam, ‘Messianism’, pp. 227–228. For a discussion of the persona of the Interpreter of the Law, see Erder, ‘Īdrīs’, pp. 342–344. On the ‘branch of David’, see VanderKam, ‘Messianism’, pp. 216–218. On the prince of the congregation, see VanderKam, ‘Messianism’, pp. 218–219. 297 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 104–112.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

363

The author of the Rule of the Community devotes a special chapter to specifying the Enlightener’s tasks: ‘These are the statutes by which the Enlightener shall walk with every living being according to the norm of every time and the weight of every man’.298 The Enlightener had to study all that was revealed in his period and implement it after due deliberation, a task not all ‘Sons of Zadok’ were equipped for: ‘He shall do God’s will according to everything which has been revealed from time to time. He should learn all the understanding which has been found according to the time, and the statute of the End of Times. He shall separate and weight the Sons of Zadok according to their spirits’.299 Unlike their antagonists,300 the Qumran Enlighteners put their revelations into practice, after first submitting them to a process of analysis and inquiry. A study of a number of halakhot shows that, in many cases, the Enlighteners’ ‘revelations’ concerning the commandments were simply literal interpretations of the commandments. This principle (that the commandments were to be interpreted literally) was adopted by the Mourner Enlighteners, too. Schiffman contrasts the Qumran pesher, which revolved around the secrets of prophecy, with the Qumran interpretation [‫ ]פירוש‬which focused on halakha in its literal sense.301 The Enlightener taught not only ‘the revealed’ but also the ‘secrets of wonder’ [‫ ]רזי הפלא‬to members of their sect only, concealing them from ‘the men of sin’ [‫]אנשי העוול‬: ‘So that the counsel of the law might be concealed in the midst of the men of deceit, one must argue with true knowledge and righteous judgment only with the chosen of the way […] He shall guide them with knowledge and instruct them in the mysteries of wonder and truth in the midst of the men of the community’.302 In conclusion, the exegetical role of the Teacher of Righteousness (= Elijah) in the writings of the Mourner Enlighteners was inspired Rule of Community, 9.12 (Charlesworth edition), p. 41. Rule of Community, 9.13–14 (Charlesworth edition), p. 41. The scroll says: ‘the Sons of ha-Zadok’. Evidently this refers to the Sons of Zadok, whose revelations guided the sect’s behaviour. Charlesworth, Rule of Community, 9.13–14, p. 41, translated this as ‘the Sons of Righteousness’. This translation is plausible, since in the scrolls the terms ṣedeq (righteousness), ṣadīq (a righteous person) and Zadok are related. See below, nn. 447–471. 300 Above, n. 290. 301 Shiffman, Halakha, pp. 60–61. See also Fishbane, ‘Use’, p. 346. 302 Rule of Community, 9.17–19 (Charlesworth edition), p. 41. On their role as Enlighteners and teachers, see Rule of Community, 3.13, p. 15: ‘For the wise man, that he may inform and teach all the sons of light about the history of all the sons of man’. On the Enlightener’s function within his congregation – the congregation of ‘the Sons of Dawn’ [‫ – ]בני שחר‬see Pfann, ‘Maskîl’, pp. 203–235. 298

299

364

Chapter Four

by the figure of the Teacher of Righteousness (the righteous priest) in Qumran scrolls. The fact that the Karaite Mourners lacked a Teacher of Righteousness, while the Qumran sectarians did not, accounts for the differences between the Qumran and ‘Karaite pesher’. In Qumran, the Teacher of Righteousness was supported by a select leadership of the ‘Sons of Zadok’, to whom some of the ‘concealed’ was revealed. The Karaite Enlighteners were influenced by the ‘Sons of Zadok’, referred to as the ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ in the Damascus Covenant.303 The Karaite Enlighteners were inspired also by the Qumran Enlighteners, who disseminated ‘the revealed’ and the ‘secrets of wonder’ among his fellow sectarians. The Karaite Enlightener, unlike the Qumran Enlightener, was not concerned with hiding the truth from the ‘men of sin’ of his period, namely the Rabbanites. We see, from the above, that the distinction between ‘revealed’ [‫]נגלה‬ and ‘concealed’ [‫ ]נסתר‬was an important principle in Qumran exegesis, since without such a distinction, the status of the sect’s leadership, in particular the Teacher of Righteousness, would have plunged. There can be no doubt that in this respect the Mourners were influenced as much by the Qumran exegetes as by the Ismāʿīlite ones. The Mourners, however, rejected an esoteric interpretation of the commandments, and would never have thought of rewriting the Torah on the lines of the Temple Scroll. At the same time, the Mourners may well have based their doctrine regarding the literal interpretation of the commandments on Qumran scrolls, as testified by the similarity of their laws on several issues.304 Qumran sectarians learned about their contemporary history and their role in the End of Days through interpretations of the Prophets and select psalms which, according to them, referred to the End of Days. Although the Mourner Enlighteners set clear boundaries between themselves and the Teacher of Righteousness, they focused on the same passages, investing them with a prognostic significance305 in the hope that their interpretations would hasten the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness and the redemption. The principle that the correct interpretation of Scriptures leads to redemption was a cornerstone of Qumran exegesis.306 Below, section 5. On Midrash Halakha in the Damascus Covenant based on the meaning of the verse, see Rosenthal, ‘Oral Law’, p. 454, n. 16. 305 We saw that al-Qūmisī awarded the Enlighteners a quasi-prophetic status. See above, n. 47. See also nn. 49, 51. 306 Fishbane, ‘Use’, p. 340. Shemesh and Werman, ‘Hidden’, pp. 478–480. 303

304

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

365

While discussing the influence of Qumran exegesis on Mourner exegesis, it is worth considering whether Qumran literature also influenced early Karaism. Ben-Shammai claims that the return to Scriptures inspired by Qumran literature affected only the Mourners of Zion. He found no Qumran influence on the Karaites before the second half of the ninth century, the period in which Daniel al-Qūmisī operated. By the middle of the tenth century, the Karaites were already adopting exegetical rules that showed a breakaway from the influence of Qumran literature.307 For Ben-Shammai, who maintained that ʿAnan was not a Scripturalist, the question of the influence of Qumran literature on ʿAnan’s Scripturalism is irrelevant. This question is relevant, however, if we accept Polliack and Cook’s hypothesis that ʿAnan was the pioneer of Scripturalism.308 Wieder believed that ʿAnan was influenced by Qumran Scripturalism and exegesis, both in determining law and in his allegorical interpretations. From the testimony of Saʿadia Gaon as preserved by Qirqisānī, ʿAnan relied on the expression ‘and search for her as for hid treasures’ (Proverbs 2.4) as proof of the need for analogy when studying revealed commandments [‫ ]מצוות שמעיות‬in Scriptures.309 Wieder argues that ʿAnan was inspired here by the Damascus Covenant which compared the study of Scriptures to digging a well.310 According to Wieder, even the statement imputed to ʿAnan ‘Search the Scriptures well’,311 was inspired by the Qumran sect’s call for interpreting the law.312 Wieder opens his discussion of the ‘Karaite pesher’ with ʿAnan’s use of Psalm 74 for the Rosh Ḥodesh (first day of the month) and festival prayers (excluding the Pentecost prayer). A reading of Qirqisānī shows that ʿAnan chose this psalm because, according to him, it referred to the Ben-Shammai, ‘Return’, pp. 328–329. Golb, ‘Qumran’, pp. 38–50 posited a Qumran influence on early Karaism in Babylon and Persia in the seventh and eighth centuries. The question of the ties between Qumran and early Karaism has been discussed several times in this book; see Ch. 2, n. 154; Ch. 1, nn. 270–272. 308 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 85–86. Cook pointed to the ties between Islamic Scripturalism and ʿAnan’s Scripturalism. See above, Ch. 1, nn. 118–121. 309 Qirqisānī, p. 79. See above, Ch. 1, nn. 89–90. On the use al-Qūmisī made of the verse in Proverbs 2.4–5, see above, n. 88. 310 Damascus Covenant 6.3–11, (Charlesworth edition), p. 23. See above, n. 293. 311 Above, Ch. 1, n. 83. 312 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 58. According to Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 85, Qirqisānī’s statement, p. 624, that ʿAnan was not a prophet but a Scriptural scholar who was not infallible, testifies to the campaign against those imputing a prophetic status to ʿAnan. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 85, argues that Benjamin’s assertion that he was neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet (see Ch. 1, n. 265) likewise testifies to a campaign against those who claimed that their interpretations were prophetic. 307

366

Chapter Four

Rabbanites who tampered with the calendar and festivals.313 Qirqisānī also provides evidence of ʿAnan’s allegorical interpretation of the prophets. For example, ʿAnan interpreted the verse ‘and he stood among the myrtle-trees that were in the bottom’ (Zechariah 1.8) as referring to Babylon, based on the verse: ‘By the rivers of Babylon […] Upon the willows in the midst thereof ’ (Psalm 137.1–2). This interpretation was based on ʿAnan’s assumption that the ‘myrtle-trees’ were synonymous with ‘willows’.314 This evidence in itself cannot point to the influence of the Qumran pesher on ʿAnan, especially as ʿAnan’s works contain homiletics similar to those of the Rabbanites.315 As to Midrash Halakha, we saw above that some of the halakhot attributed to ʿAnan were similar to Qumran halakhot. Qirqisānī attributed a number of ʿAnanite halakhot to the influence of Zadokite works.316 However, to deduce from this that ʿAnan was influenced by Qumran halakha is far-fetched. Wieder believes that ʿAnan’s method of determining halakha from the entire Scriptures, rather than from the Pentateuch only, was inspired by Qumran works.317 In conclusion, although we cannot totally dismiss Wieder’s contention, the paucity of sources on ʿAnan’s doctrine, and the testimony on the influence of Rabbanite literature on him,318 renders it hard to find a satisfactory answer concerning Qumran influences on ʿAnan.319 The same problem exists regarding the influence of Qumran literature on Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and his exegetical methods: the paucity of surviving works of his, their eclectic nature, and evidence of the influence of Rabbanite sources on him.320 Drory believes that Benjamin was the first to adopt the Qumran pesher paradigm, basing this assertion on Salmon ben Yerūḥam’s criticism of Benjamin’s allegorical interpretation of the Book of Ecclesiastes.321 By asserting that he was far from being a Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 199. Qirqisānī, p. 631. Qirqisānī, p. 928. 315 Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes’, pp. 46–50. 316 Above, Ch. 2, n. 154. 317 On this ʿAnanite principle, see Klar, ‘Ben Asher’, (15), pp. 37–39. See Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 79. See above, Ch. 2, nn. 149–150. 318 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 58–76. 319 The Karaites saw themselves as the successors of ‘those that sigh and that cry’ (Ezekiel 9.14), evidently under the influence of Qumran literature. See below, nn. 376– 377. It transpires from Elijah ben Abraham that the Karaites believed that ʿAnan, too, was a successor of ‘those that sigh’. This explains why the Karaites’ rivals were surprised that the Karaites took issue with ʿAnan. See above, Ch. 1, n. 107. 320 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 200–272. 321 Drory, Reʼshīt, pp. 106–108. See above, n. 157. 313 314

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

367

prophet, Benjamin implied that his exegetical status was inferior to that of the Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran.322 However, just as Salmon’s criticism of Benjamin does not necessarily prove a Qumran influence on Benjamin, neither does Benjamin’s statement disprove it. Benjamin may simply have set clear boundaries between him and the Teacher of Righteousness, as the Mourners of Zion did after him. A study of Benjamin’s theological and legalistic doctrine, and the fact that he was a disciple of the Caves Sect, suggest that he was influenced by Qumran. Although this indirectly substantiates Drory’s opinion that Benjamin was the first to adopt the Qumran pesher paradigm, further proof is required. In our discussion on influences on the ‘Karaite pesher’, we pointed to the influence of Qumran works and to the influence of Islam. The influence of the Shīʿa was noticeable, especially that of the Ismāʿīlī current of the Shīʿite sect. Gil, for one, does not rule out the possibility of the influence of the Ismāʿīlī commentary, with its ‘exoteric’ and ‘esoteric’ layers, on the ‘Karaite pesher’.323 Scholars who have studied the allegorical interpretations of the various Shīʿite factions, point to common features between the Shīʿite and Qumran paradigms,324 although they stop short of positing a historical connection between the two movements. In my opinion, any discussion on the influence of ancient sects on early medieval sects in the Middle East should take into account the possible influence of Qumran works not only on early Karaism, but also on Shīʿism. This is by no means easy, because of the lack of direct evidence. Manichaean literature, which exerted a distinct influence on ancient Shīʿism (seventh and eighth centuries) and on Abū ʿĪsā, may have introduced the literature of the Enoch Circle, which was also found in the Judean desert caves, into the Shīʿite movement.325 Above, we discussed issues that were common to both the Karaites and the ancient Shīʿites.326 Ismāʿīlī Shīʿism began after the death of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq, the sixth Shīʿite Imām, in 765. There is no information as to how the movement developed until the middle of the ninth century, rendering the study of mutual influences with other movements virtually impossible.327 We cannot rule out the possibility that mutual influences existed between the Mourner Enlighteners and the Ismāʿīlī propagandists, rooted in the common source available For a discussion of this statement, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 263–269. Gil, Palestine, I, § 921. 324 Wansbrough, Studies, pp. 245–246. Bar-Asher, Imami Shiism, p. 122. 325 See Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 184–192. See also above, nn. 31–35. 326 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 185–197. 327 Madelung, ‘Ismāʿīliyya’, p. 198. 322 323

368

Chapter Four

to both of them, namely Qumran literature. Of particular interest is Ismāʿīlī interpretations of biblical Scriptural prophecies.328

D. Appellations Common to the Qumran Sectarians and the Karaite Mourners of Zion and Common Disparaging Terms they Attached to their Enemies Not only was the Qumran pesher the means whereby the Mourner Enlighteners interpreted their contemporary situation and their future destiny, Qumran literature was the means whereby they invented their ancient history. The Mourner of Zion movement, albeit a product of the Middle Ages, saw itself as an ancient movement. Salmon ben Yerūḥam attacked Saʿadia Gaon for denying the ancient roots of the Karaite movement: ‘When you say new Baʿalei Miqra / and our old sages are holy’.329 The Mourners anchored their ancient roots in the world of Scriptures, positing a secret historical continuum to match the Rabbanites’ historical continuum. The Rabbanite oppression, so they claimed, forced it to go underground. A study of the variety of appellations which the Karaites applied to themselves and ‘their adopted ancestors’, and a study of the disparaging terms they attached to their adversaries, teaches us that most of them were derived from Scriptures, and had meanings that approximated those that existed in the Qumran scrolls. Above, we discussed the term Enlightener [‫ ]משכיל‬in the Qumran scrolls and how it helped shape the image of the Mourner Enlightener.330 Study of the law was the focal point of the Qumran sectarians’ activities, as embodied in the ‘Interpreter of the Law’ who operated in their midst.331 The Karaite Mourners of Zion likewise called themselves ‘Interpreters of the law [‫’]דורשי התורה‬.332 Under the influence of Qumran they dubbed the Rabbanites ‘seekers after smooth interpretations” [‫]דורשי חלקות‬, referring to their tendency toward leniency in their laws.333 Other disparaging terms which they attached to their adversaries were: Above, n. 237. Salmon, Milḥamot, 14, p. 113. 330 Above, nn. 297–306. 331 Above, nn. 276–296. 332 Below, n. 401. 333 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 135–137. On the use that the Nahum Pesher and the Karaite exegetes made of this term, see Hoenig, ‘Dorshé Halakot’, pp. 119–138. On further interpretations of this term, see Bronznick, ‘Dorshei Ḥalaqot’, pp. 653–657. 328 329

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

369

‘strayers from the path’ [‫]סרי דרך‬,334 ‘movers of boundaries’ [‫]מסיגי גבול‬,335 and ‘violators of the Covenant’ [‫]מרשיעי ברית‬.336 In fashioning their past and future history, the Karaite Mourners were inspired by Qumran literature, despite the essential difference between the two sects in their historical perception of themselves and of their ambient surroundings. The Qumran sect embraced an extremist dualistic-deterministic outlook, in which the world was a battlefield between the forces of good and evil. Members of the sect were the ‘sons of light’ while their adversaries were the ‘sons of darkness’. Members of the sect were enjoined ‘to love all the sons of light […] and hate all the sons of darkness’.337 The writings of Qumran are replete with expressions that reflect this Manichaean worldview.338 Fröhlich catalogued the appellations that the Qumran sectarians attached to themselves, and the disparaging terms they attached to their adversaries. While they were ‘those who entered into the new Covenant’,339 their adversaries were the ‘ruthless ones of the Covenant’ [‫]עריצי הברית‬,340 ‘congregation of the men of sin’, ‘wicked congregation’ and ‘congregation of deceit’ [‫]עדת אנשי הלצון‬. Members of the sect who repented were called ‘penitents’ [‫]שבי פשע‬. By choosing the true path, they became a ‘people of truth’, while their enemies were ‘men of lies’ [‫]מליצי כזב‬. Offsetting the ‘Interpreter of knowledge’ [‫ ]מטיף דעת‬was the ‘Interpreter of lies’ [‫]מטיף כזב‬. The teachers of halakha in the sect were called ‘prophets of honesty’ [‫]חוזי נכוחות‬, ‘prophets of truth’, ‘holy Messiahs’ [‫ ]משיחי קודש‬and ‘true prophets’, while the leadership of their adversaries included ‘prophets of deceit’ [‫ ]חוזי רמיה‬and ‘false prophets’ [‫]חוזי תעות‬.341 This dualistic-deterministic worldview was foreign to the Karaites – the Muʿtazilites of the Jews. Indeed, under the influence of the Muʿtazila, the unity of God and free will became focal points of Karaite thought.342 While thoroughly rejecting a dualistic outlook, the Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 129–130. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 140–141. 336 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 136–137. 337 Rule of Community, 1.9–10 (Charlesworth edition), p. 7. 338 See above, Ch. 2, nn. 132–136. On the struggle of the sect with its enemies according to the individual song genre in Qumran literature, see Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran, pp. 243–246. On the dualistic world reflected in the blessings and curses, see Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran, pp. 87–103. See also pp. 158–159. 339 Damascus Covenant 6.19 (Charlesworth edition), p. 25. See also Damascus Covenant 8.21, p. 28. 340 Habakkuk Pesher 2.6 (Charlesworth edition), p. 163. See above, n. 336, ‘ruthless ones of the Covenant’. 341 Fröhlich, ‘Qumran Names’, pp. 296–298. 342 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 321–343. 334 335

370

Chapter Four

Mourners did not hesitate to adopt the Qumran roster of Scriptural appellations and terms for their own purposes. They appropriated the positive appellations, while applying the disparaging terms to their adversaries, the Rabbanites. As stated above, Wieder’s research on the appellations the Mourners of Zion adopted from Qumran works is very significant.343 Below, we shall present some of these appellations, with the Karaite sources Wieder failed to bring. According to the author of the Rule of the Community, once wickedness has been conquered, ‘the perfect of way’ [‫ ]תמימי דרך‬shall come into their own: ‘And the wisdom of the sons of heaven and the perfect in the way may receive understanding. For those God has chosen for an eternal covenant and for the glory of Adam shall be theirs without deceit’.344 The Rule of the Congregation also testifies that the perfect of way would be included in the counsel of the ‘congregation’ in the future: ‘All the sages of the congregation, the discerning ones and the knowledgeable ones, who are perfect of way’.345 Yefet identifies the ‘remnant of Israel’ [‫ ]שארית ישראל‬mentioned in Zephaniah 3.13 with ‘“the perfect of way” who will appear in the Land of Israel toward the end of time’.346 We learned that ‘the perfect of way’ were the Chosen of Israel from Yefet’s commentary on ‘Thy beloved’ (Psalms 60.7): ‘This refers to the Chosen of Israel, the perfect of way, the beloved of God’.347 In his Commentary on Daniel 12.12, Yefet identifies those who await salvation with ‘the perfect of way’, that is, the Chosen.348 From the start, ‘the perfect of way’ devoted themselves to studying Scriptures day and night. Not content with merely studying the Torah, they chose to live in the Land of Israel. In his Commentary on the Song of Songs 2.12, ‘the perfect of way’ are identified with the ‘turtle dove’, while the flowers [‫ ]נצנים‬are the Mourner Enlighteners who remained in the Diaspora: ‘The perfect of way’ who devoted themselves to studying (Scriptures) […] It is they who embody the verse: ‘I have remembered […] in the night’ (Psalms 119.55), ‘At midnight’ (Psalms 119.62) […] And it says that the sages of the Diaspora are ‘the shoots’, since they sprout wherever they Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 129–160. See above, nn. 252, 256–257. Rule of Community, 4.22–23 (Charlesworth edition), p. 19. 345 Rule of Congregation, 1.27–28 (Charlesworth edition), p. 15. See Schiffman, Halakha, p. 285. 346 Yefet, Commentary on Zephaniah 3.13, BL. Or. 2401, f. 124b. 347 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 60.7, PBN Héb 287, f. 116a. 348 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel 12.12 (Margoliouth edition), p. 150. According to Yefet, Psalm 91.1 also refers to this issue. 343

344

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

371

are. Indeed, concerning ‘the perfect of way’ it says: ‘the voice of the turtledove’ (Song of Songs 2.12) because they come from the corners of the earth to the Land of Israel, like the turtle dove which migrates to green regions when summer approaches.349

Yefet, in his Commentary on Psalms 17, relates this psalm to the perfect of way, namely ‘the penitents of Jacob’, and discusses their ordeals and aspirations. Like David who yearned for Jerusalem when he fled from Saul, so did the perfect of way yearn for Jerusalem from their place of exile. They prayed to God to deliver them from their enemies, wreak vengeance on their enemies, and destroy them. The prayer of the perfect of way was ‘from lips without deceit’ as stated in the first verse of this psalm, while that of the enemies was ‘from lips of deceit’. The Psalm was written about the perfect of way, and the editor compared their situation to that of David. Just as David was persecuted by Saul and banished from his birthplace, yearned to see the place that was sacred to God, and was finally brought by God to His holy place, so did ‘the penitents of Jacob’ yearn similarly. Therefore, the editor added the voice of the perfect of way to that of David, and turned the title of this Psalm into a prayer that reflected their situation. In this prayer, they lamented their situation and asked God to save them from their enemies and wreak vengeance upon them, and to bring them back to His holy place […] And the supplicant said: You know that everything I ask for is ‘from lips without deceit’ unlike my enemies, whose lips are with deceit. As it says: ‘His mouth is full of cursing and deceit and oppression; Under his tongue is mischief and iniquity’ (Psalms 10.7).350

In his Commentary on Psalms, Yefet identifies the perfect of way with ‘the penitents of Jacob’, mentioned in Isaiah 59.20. Above we discussed the appearance of the penitents of Jacob in the End of Days, their realization of the error of their ways, and their dedication to the study and exegesis of Torah that would bring about the advent of Elijah the Prophet.351 The Damascus Covenant states when a preacher of righteousness was lacking, ‘the penitents among Jacob kept the covenant of God’.352 Al-Qūmisī teaches us that only the penitents among Jacob will arise in Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 2.12 (Bargès edition), pp. 32–33; Polliack, ‘Pesher’, pp. 282–282; Frank, ‘Voice’, p. 20. 350 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 17.1, PBN Héb 286, ff. 87a-88b. 351 On ‘the penitents of Jacob’, see above, pp. 106–113. 352 Damascus Covenant 20.17 (Charlesworth edition), p. 35. See also Damascus Covenant 3.3–5. 349

372

Chapter Four

the End of Days, as it says: ‘And a redeemer shall come to Zion, And unto the penitents of Jacob’ (Isaiah 59.20).353 Yefet divides the Book of Psalms into twelve sections of which the sixth is: ‘The Contrition of the Penitents, and their Request for Forgiveness and Absolution’.354 The ‘penitents’, i.e., remnant of Israel, not only hasten the advent of Elijah, they also will bring about the salvation: ‘After announcing the appearance of the remnant of Israel, namely, the penitents of Jacob, he announces to the remnant of Israel who follows in their footsteps, that the salvation will take place in their times’.355 In Yefet’s Commentary on Micah 2.13, the Mourners of Zion are compared to ‘lilies’, ‘enlighteners’, ‘penitents’, and ‘remnant of Jacob’. In the End of Days, they will deliver the nation from exile, which is compared to a prison, and lead them to salvation: When the End of Days comes, ‘lilies’, ‘enlighteners’, ‘penitents’, the ‘remnant of Jacob’, shall blossom forth from the nation, and shall breach this prison so that Israel can leave it. In other words, they will bring about salvation through their fear of Heaven and their prayers to the Master of the Universe […] And they shall be the first to breach the prison, followed by the nation.356

The Karaites, who traced their roots to the biblical period, ascribed the beginning of the controversy between them and the Rabbanites to this early period. In their opinion, the spiritual father of the Rabbanites was Jeroboam ben Nebat, who turned his back on Jerusalem, established an alternative place of worship in Bet-El, and celebrated the festivals on incorrect dates (I Kings 12.25–33), thereby tampering with the Law of Moses.357 According to Yefet, the phrase: ‘For it is precept by precept, precept by precept’ (Isaiah 28.10) referred, inter alia, to replacing true commandments with false ones, as Jeroboam did by modifying many Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Amos 5.2, Pitron, p. 35. Yefet, Introduction to Psalms, PBN Héb 286, f 2b. See also above, n. 139. 355 Yefet, Commentary on Zephaniah 3.14, BL. Or. 2401, ff. 124b-125a. In his Commentary on Malachi 3.20, BL. Or. 2400, f. 256b, Yefet informs us that the people of the Diaspora awaiting salvation are ‘the Mourners of Zion, the penitents of Jacob’. 356 Yefet, Commentary on Micah 2.12–13, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118. 357 See Qirqisānī, pp. 6–11, 15. Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, pp. 100–101. In his Commentary on Zechariah 5.6–9, BL. Or. 2401, f. 174a, Yefet compares Jeroboam, who led Israel astray, to the Rabbanites who led Israel astray. See also Salmon ben Yerūḥam, Commentary on Lamentations 2.14, BL. Or. 2515, ff. 102b-103a. Cf. Wieder, Judean Scrolls, p. 142, n. 5; Hadassi, Eshkol, § 125, 46b. See also Poznanski, ʿAnan’, (44), pp. 161–163; Astren, History, 120–12. 353

354

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

373

commandments, including the direction of worship (qiblah).358 The Karaites saw themselves as bearing the true heritage of the tribe of Judah, and the Rabbanites as continuing the errant way of the tribe of Ephraim. Al-Qūmisī’s Commentary on Hosea 12.2 ‘Ephraim striveth after wind’, states: ‘They [the Rabbanites] in their exile performed “the commandments of men learned by rote” (Isaiah 29.13), whose festivals and laws are like a passing wind’.359 Because Ephraim sinned, his kingdom will never be resurrected, unlike the Kingdom of the House of David, which shall be revived. The verse ‘The virgin of Israel is fallen, She shall no more rise’ (Amos 5.2) refers, therefore, to the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes and not to the Kingdom of Judah: The expression ‘is fallen’ refers to the fall from honour and the loss of the Kingdom of the ten tribes. And the expression ‘she shall no more rise’ (Amos 5.2) refers to the fall of the Kingdom of the ten tribes, that is irrevocable, as it says: ‘And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel has committed adultery, I had put her away’ etc. (Jeremiah 3.8). The Kingdom of the House of David, however, shall continue and will never be abolished, as it says: ‘And his throne as the sun before Me’ (Psalms 189.37).360

The use of the word ‘chosen’ in connection with the tribe of Judah attests to the permanence of its leadership. Scriptures, however, does not use the term ‘chosen’ with the tribe of Ephraim, and therefore Ephraim did not enjoy permanent leadership. In his commentary on the verse: ‘But chose the tribe of Judah, The mount Zion which He loved’ (Psalms 78.68) Yefet says: This teaches us that he did not choose the tribe of Ephraim, but rather another tribe. He chose the tribe of Judah instead of the tribe of Ephraim, and chose Mount Zion instead of the tent of Joseph. Note that the word ‘chosen’ is used in connection with the tribe of Judah Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 28.10, BL. Or. 2501, ff. 10-b. On the alternative commandments of the ten tribes, Sahl says in Epistle, pp. 34–35: ‘We know that the ten tribes were more numerous than the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and changed doctrines and laws, and violated the everlasting covenant, except for a few God-fearing ones, who kept God’s commandments in secret. But their kings and judges and sages changed the service and dates of the festivals, and the house of workshop, and most of the commandments’. 359 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Hosea 12.2, Pitron, p. 20. On ‘the commandments of men learned by rote’ in Karaite thought, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 314, 386. 360 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 5.20, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, f. 69b. 358

374

Chapter Four

and Mount Zion, while this the word is not used in connection with Ephraim. This is because when the word ‘chosen’ is applied to a person or thing, that person or thing will never be replaced by another. It says of the entire nation: ‘For the Lord has chosen Jacob unto Himself ’ (Psalms 135.4) and He will not replace him with another. Likewise Mount Zion will not be replaced by another. It says about Judah ‘He hath chosen’, and therefore, he, too, will not be replaced by another, at says: ‘for He hath chosen Judah to be prince’ (I Chronicles 28.4).361

In his Commentary on Psalms 80.2–3, Yefet had to explain away a verse in which Ephraim is mentioned in a positive light: ‘The phrase: “Thou that leadest Joseph like a flock” (verse 2) singled out Joseph, because in ancient times God favoured Joseph, until King David arose. And the verse already says: “And chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78.67)’.362 The House of Ephraim was punished for attacking the House of David, and in the future will accept the yoke of the Messiah of the House of David. In his Commentary on Psalms 60.8–9, Yefet says: Of all lands it mentions Shechem, which is in the inheritance of Ephraim […] And it mentions Shechem because it was here that Israel sinned against the House of David, as it says: ‘And Rehoboam went to Shechem’ (II Chronicles 10.1), namely, the land of the Ephraim, which fought with all its might against the House of David, and from its came Jeroboam ben Nebat […] It later says: ‘Ephraim also is the defence of my head’ (Psalms 60.9), namely, it shall become a stronghold and gatekeeper, namely, a keeper of my soul, while in the past they were enemies of our ancestors, the Kings of Judah, and wished to kill them […] In the future, Israel and Judah shall be subject to the authority of the Messiah.363

Even before the Karaites, the Qumran sect compared the struggle between it and its adversaries as a continuation of the struggle between Judah and the wayward Ephraim. On the phrase: ‘Woe to the bloody city!’ (Nahum 3.1), the pesher identifies Ephraim with ‘the seekers after smooth interpretations’: ‘Its interpretation: it is the city of Ephraim, the seekers after smooth interpretations, at the End of Days, who walk about Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 78, 68, PBN Héb 288, f. 60a-b. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 80.2–3, PBN Héb 288, f. 68a-b. Regarding the tribes of Ephraim, Benjamin and Menasseh mentioned in verse 3, Yefet suggests that at the end of the exile, God will reveal His might through these tribes. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 80.2–3, PBN Héb 288, f. 68a-b. 363 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 60.8–0, PBN Héb 287, ff. 115b-117a. 361

362

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

375

in deceit and falsehood’.364 On the verse: ‘Because of the multitude of the harlotries of the well-favoured harlot, The mistress of witchcrafts’ (Nahum 3.4) the pesher says: ‘Its interpretation concerns those who lead Ephraim astray with their false teaching’.365 The pesher on Psalms 37.14– 15: ‘The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow; To cast down the poor and needy, To slay such as are upright in their way. Their sword shall enter into their own heart, And their bows shall be broken’, states: ‘Its interpretation concerns the wicked ones of Ephraim and Menasseh who will seek to put forth a hand against the Priest and the men of his council’.366 The first line of the War Scroll reads: ‘For the Enlightener, the Rule of the War. The first attack of the sons of light will be launched against the lot of the sons of darkness, against the army of Belial […] and these being helped by those who violate the covenant. The sons of Levi, the sons of Judah, and the sons of Benjamin, the exiled of the desert’.367 According to Yadin, the members of the sect who fought against the forces of evil Nahum Pesher 2.2, (Charlesworth edition), p. 151. On the Nahum Pesher and the attempt to identify Judah, Ephraim and Menasseh, see Flusser, ‘Pharisees’, pp. 133– 168. Hoenig, ‘Dorshé Halakot’, pp. 121–123, maintained that this was a Karaite document, and therefore identified Ephraim with the Rabbanites. On ‘Dorshei Ḥalaqot’, see above, n. 333. 365 Nahum Pesher 2.8, (Charlesworth edition), p. 151. On the meaning of this statement, see Hoenig, ‘Be-Talmud’, pp. 274–276; Wacholder, ‘Omer’, p. 102. The Testament of Naphtali (Gaster’s Hebrew edition), III, p. 2.3 has a particularly negative attitude to the House of Joseph (see vol. I, pp. 69–85): ‘You shall not go in the laws of the nations of the countries, and shall not participate with the sons of Joseph, except for the sons of Levi and the sons of Judah. They said to him: ‘What did you see to command us thus?’ He said to them: ‘Because I know that the sons of Joseph will stray from the Lord, the God of their fathers, and lead Israel astray, and exile them from the good land’. On this document and its relationship to the Testament of Naphtali in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, see Korteweg, ‘Naphtali’s Visions’, pp. 261–280. On the status of Ephraim in the writings of Qumran, see Korteweg, ‘Naphtali’s Visions’, pp. 288–290. The author of the Book of Jubilees omitted the blessing to Ephraim and Menasseh in Genesis 48.1–20. See Wintermute, ‘Jubilees’, p. 35. 366 4Q171, Psalms Pesher 2.17–18, DJD, 5, p. 46. The pesher on the verse: ‘The wicked plotteth against the righteous, And gnasheth at him with his teeth, The Lord doth laugh at him; For he seeth that his day is coming’ (Psalms 37.11–12) teaches us that there are sinners also in the House of Judah: ‘Its interpretation concerns the ruthless ones of the covenant in the House of Judah, who will plot to obliterate those in the council of the community who carry out the law’. In the Micha Pesher, 1Q14 frags. 1-5, 4-7, DJD, 1, p. 78, the author contrasts Samaria (Micah 1.6) – ‘the Spreader of Lies since he has misdirected simpletons’ – with Jerusalem (Micah 1.5): ‘The interpretation of this concerns the Teacher of Righteousness who teaches the law to his council and to all those volunteering to join the chosen of God’. For an analysis of this pesher, see Flusser, ‘Pharisees’, pp. 148–149. 367 War Scroll, 1.1–2 (Charlesworth edition), p. 97. 364

376

Chapter Four

and darkness were from the tribes of Levi, Judah and Benjamin.368 Pines, by contrast, claims that these three tribes were included in the forces of darkness against whom the exiles of the desert fought.369 Evidently, Yadin was right, because the sect identified itself with the tribe of Judah, and its enemies with the tribes of Menasseh and Ephraim. The Karaites’ aversion to Jeroboam ben Nebat, whom they saw as the Rabbanites’ spiritual father, also finds expression in the scroll Miqṣat Maʿasei ha-Torah where the author contrasts the blessings that came in Solomon’s time370 to ‘the curses that had already befallen them from the days of Jeroboam son of Nebat’.371 The disparagement of Ephraim in both Qumran and Karaite works explains why Messiah ben Ephraim or Messiah ben Joseph had no place in the messianic process of these two sects. In the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages, these two Messiahs heralded the advent of Messiah ben David.372 In Qumran works, a priestly Messiah is the one who stands with the Messiah of the Davidic House [‫]משיח בן דוד‬.373 The Messiah of the Davidic House is heralded by the Teacher of Righteousness. Saʿadia Gaon, following in the footsteps of the Rabbinic Sages, raised the possibility of Messiah ben Joseph appearing before Messiah ben David,374 evidently in an attempt to propose a messianic process that was an alternative to that presented by the Karaite Mourners of Zion. A life of mourning and poverty on the threshold of salvation, a central tenet of the messianic doctrine of the Qumran sect,375 was also assimilated into the messianic doctrine of the Mourners of Zion, evidently under the influence of Qumran writings. According to Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, the Karaites were the successors of the ‘men that sigh and that cry’ (Ezekiel 9.4) – the remnant of the Jewish settlement after the destruction of the First Temple: Yadin, War Scroll, p. 255. Pines, ‘Notes’, pp. 151–152. Jaubert, ‘Pays de Damas’, pp. 227–228, claims a positive attitude to Ephraim in the Damascus Covenant 7.13, by mistranslating the phrase ‘Ephraim departed over Judah’ [‫ ]שר אפרים מעל יהודה‬as ‘Ephraïm eut la priorité sur Juda’. 370 See above, Ch. 3, n. 461. 371 MMT 3.18–19 (Qimron edition), p. 61. 372 Heinemann, ‘Messiah ben Ephraim’, pp. 450–461. On the status of Messiah ben Yosef in the piyyūṭ attributed to Eleazer Qilir, see Fleischer, ‘Qiliri Riddle’, pp. 383–427. On Elijah as the herald of the messiah in a Tannaitic source, see Milikowsky, ‘Elijah’, pp. 491–496. 373 See VanderKam, ‘Messianism’, pp. 211–234. 374 Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions, 8.5–6 (Rosenblatt edition), pp. 301–312. 375 On poverty in Qumran works, see Flusser, ‘Sect’, pp. 92–97. 368 369

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

377

Judah and Benjamin also went astray in the end and changed the commandments. A few people, however, went into hiding from the eyes of the congregation, in order to observe the commandments of God. As it says: ‘Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem’, etc. (Jeremiah 5.1). And it also says: ‘and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry’ (Ezekiel 9.4) to let us know that there were only a few truthful and God-fearing men.376

Qumran sectarians also identified themselves with ‘the men that sigh and that cry’, the remnant of the First Temple period. Unlike the wicked, those who merited redemption would be saved from the Messiah’s sword, just as ‘the men that sigh and that cry’ were saved in their times: ‘But those who remain will be handed over to the sword when the Messiah of Aaron and Israel comes. (And this will be) as it happened at the first time of visitation, as it is said through Ezekiel: “To mark with a tau the foreheads of those who sigh and moan” (Ezekiel 9.4). But those who remained were turned over to the avenging sword of the covenant’s vengeance’.377 Basing himself on Isaiah 61, which refers explicitly to the Mourners of Zion, the author of the Thanksgiving Scroll says: ‘To proclaim good news to the poor according to the abundance of your mercy, and to satisfy from the foundation of knowledge all contrite in spirit and those mourn that they may have eternal joy’.378 One cannot rule out the possibility that even the name Mourners of Zion was taken from Qumran scrolls. If Brin’s hypothesis is correct, then the verse ‘How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of the messenger of good tidings’ (Isaiah 52.7) in the Scroll of Melchizedek mentions the Mourners of Zion: ‘The word mountains refers to the words of the prophets who prophesied to all [the Mourners of Zion]’.379 Sahl, Epistle, p. 35. Likewise Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103: ‘Because we are sons of those that sigh and that cry and we are more ancient than your brethren’. Page 101 says: ‘and we precede them (the Rabbanites)’. On pages 101–102, Elijah was forced to explain why his Karaite contemporaries rejected most of ʿAnan’s ideas, even though the Karaites maintained ‘that the words of ʿAnan are of the words of those that sigh and that cry’. See above, Ch. 1, n. 107. See also Hadassi, Eshkol, 10b. In a Karaite commentary on the story of Abraham’s attempt to save Sodom and Gomorrah on the merit of a few righteous people there (Genesis 18), the commentator points out that at the time of exile, there may have been a minority in Jerusalem like ‘those that sigh and that cry’. See Loewenstamm, ‘Karaite Commentary’, p. 180, n. 40. 377 Damascus Covenant 19.10–13 (Charlesworth edition), p. 31. See Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 157–160; Golb, ‘Damascus Covenant’, p. 361. 378 Thanksgiving Scroll, 1Q, Hodayota 23.15–16 DJD, 40, p. 281. 379 11Q13 Melchizedek 1.17. DJD, 23, Col. II, frags. 1, 2i, 3i, 4, 15–17, p. 225, reads differently, and the editor did not end with ‘Mourners of Zion’. For Brin’s reading, see ‘Perception’, p. 151. 376

378

Chapter Four

As we have seen, the Qumran sect banned sacrifices in Jerusalem, although they awaited their reinstatement at some future date.380 In the absence of sacrifices, they called for people to return to God with tears and fasting: ‘And concerning Israel it is written: “I will get me to the end of the heavens and will not smell the savour of your sweet odours”. And elsewhere it is written: “To return to God with weeping and fasting”’381 The Karaite Mourners defined the commandment of mourning as a discretionary commandment. Like their predecessors, they maintained that the commandment to mourn was in lieu of bringing sacrifices, and that it would be abolished with the renewal of sacrifices in the Temple: ‘And He informed them that they had to return to God through performance of the commandments, including fasting, in order that they subdue their hearts, and surrender to the Master of the Universe. This was instead of the sacrifices, as it says: “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit” (Psalms 51.19)’. Likewise: ‘There are many discretionary commandments, such as: “and with fasting, and with weeping, and with lamentation” (Joel 2.12)’.382 The principle of a life of poverty was so central to the Qumran ethos that its members called themselves ‘the humble’ [‫ ]ענווים‬and ‘the destitute’ [‫]אביונים‬.383 According to the pesher on Habakkuk 2.17, it transpires that the wicked priest who is at war with the Teacher of Righteousness,384 is also at war with members of his congregation, namely ‘the destitute’: ‘The wicked priest – to pay his due inasmuch as he dealt wickedly with the destitute  […] because he plotted to destroy completely the destitute’.385 The Sons of Righteousness are ‘the destitute’ who are deserving of charity: ‘A man of mercy shall be charitable to the destitute […] takes care of all the impoverished sons of Righteousness’.386 In the pesher on Psalm 37.11 we learn that the humble, namely ‘the destitute’, will be saved from the forces of evil: ‘“But the humble shall inherit the land, And delight themselves in the abundance of peace” (Psalms 37.11) Its interpretation concerns the congregation of the Above, Ch. 3, n. 163. Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q266 frag. 11, 3–5, pp. 76–77. See Baumgarten, ‘Scriptural Citation’, pp. 95–98. 382 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 2.5 (Bargès edition), p. 26. The Karaite Mourners hoped for better times and condemned extreme mourning. See Erder, ‘Negation’, pp. 126–128. 383 On the terms ‘humble’ and ‘destitute’ which the sectarians used to describe themselves, see Licht, Hodayot, pp. 46–48, § 58. See above, n. 378. 384 About the wicked priest, see above, n. 272. 385 Habakkuk Pesher 12.2–6 (Charlesworth edition), p. 183. 386 4Q424, frag. 3, 9–10, DJD, 36, p. 342. Cf. Brin, ‘Studies’, p. 272. 380 381

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

379

destitutes who will accept the season of error and will be delivered from all the snares of Belial and afterwards all the […] of the earth will delight’.387 As long as the wicked ruled, the destitute were exposed to danger. The prince who would arise in the End of Days would be responsible for ‘reproving with fairness the humble of the land’.388 We saw above how the Mourners felt a connection with ‘the men that sigh and that cry’, namely, those who survived the destruction of the First Temple.389 In his Commentary on Zechariah 11.11–14, Yefet teaches us the history of the faithful in Israel in the Second Temple period, namely ‘the poor of the flock’ [‫]עניי הצאן‬: When He said: ‘that I might break My covenant’ (Zechariah 11.10), He informed us that when they violated the covenant of God, prophets ceased in their midst. And the righteous of the nation who kept the law of God believed in the words of the prophets, that the words of God that the prophets had predicted had come to pass […] And ‘the poor of the flock’ were the group of righteous in the times of Malachi, peace be upon him, who was the last of the prophets’.390

The thirty pieces of silver (referred to in Zechariah 11.12) were the righteous who returned from the first exile after that the destruction of the First Temple in two waves, the first with Zerubabel, and the second, with Ezra: The ‘thirty pieces of silver’ were the group of righteous who came up from the exile with the nations in two stages, some with Zerubabel in the first year of Cyrus, and some with Ezra in the seventh year of Artarxerxes, King of Persia […] Thirty leaders who went up from the exile at the head of the nation. It is to them the verse refers when it says: ‘So they weighed for my hire thirty pieces of silver’ (Zechariah 11.12).391 387 4Q1711, Psalms Pesher 37, DJD, 5, p. 46. Hoenig, ‘Pesher’, pp. 71–73, based his argument on the assumption that the text said ‘a fast day’ [‫ ]מועד תענית‬instead of ‘season of error’ [‫]מועד התעות‬. For an attempt to understand the historical background to the Psalms Pesher 37, see Knohl, ‘Friend’, pp. 247–250. 388 Blessings 5.22 (Charlesworth edition), p. 129. 4Q424, frag. 3, 6 (DJD, 36), p. 343, states: ‘A man of unreceptive mind [‫ ]איש שמן לב‬do not send to devise plots, for the wisdom of his mind is hidden away’. 389 Above, n. 376. 390 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 11.11, BL. Or. 2401, f. 212b. Daniel al-Qūmisī, in his Commentary on Zechariah 11.11, Pitron, p. 73, identifies the poor of the flock with ‘the guardians of the commandments, namely, pietists such as Daniel’. 391 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 11.12, BL. Or. 2401, f. 213a. See above, n. 48, al-Qūmisī’s commentary on ‘thirty pieces of silver’.

380

Chapter Four

The power of the righteous, the poor of the flock, whom Yefet called ‘the remnant’, was not sufficient to enable them to resist the leadership of the wicked that led the nation in the absence of the prophets. Therefore, truth was hidden from the eyes of the majority: ‘And the remnant, namely, the poor of the flock, were unable to fight against them. And God wanted the truth to be revealed. At a time when the truth was concealed, and men of wickedness prevailed, he could say: ‘that I might break my covenant’ (Zechariah 11.10).392 The poverty of the Karaite Mourners was not only a consequence of their worldview, but also a consequence of the oppression and banditry they suffered at the hands of their adversaries. Yefet’s commentary on the verse: ‘Their gross heart they have shut tight’ (Psalms 17.10) testifies to this: ‘The verse describes the enemies in two ways: the first, how fat and gross he is. They frequently rob the righteous and dispossess them, consume their property and the toil of their hands, and then their body grows thick. And this is the explanation of the verse: ‘Their gross heart they have shut tight’.393 Al-Qūmisī distinguishes between ‘the shepherds who lead others astray’ and the humble who observe the law. Who are ‘Thy proudly exulting ones’ (Zephaniah 3.11)?: ‘These are the shepherds who lead others astray, and all that help them, especially the rich who follow in their path. Therefore it says of the humble that are in exile who observe the law: “A poor and impoverished people who put their faith in God”, namely, the humble Mourners of Zion’.394 The lack of historical chronicles – an integral feature of the Islamic world – in the Karaite corpus does not imply that the Mourners of Zion lacked a historical consciousness.395 The ‘Karaite pesher’ was the tool whereby the Mourners of Zion fashioned their past and future alike.396 Although their movement began in the Middle Ages, they anchored Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah, BL. Or. 2401, f. 214a. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 17.10, PBN Héb 286 f. 90b. The Mourners argued that the Rabbanite leaders grew rich in the Diaspora through oppressing them when serving the authorities. See Erder, ‘Negation’, pp. 120–122. 394 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zephaniah 3.11–12, Pitron, p. 59. 395 The history books of the Muslims are based on the model of the ḥadīth, namely, the tradition of a few individuals. On the ḥadīth, Qirqisānī, p. 119, says: ‘The Muslims rely on a weak premise, namely: I heard this from so-and-so who heard it from so-and-so’. 396 Astren, ‘Karaite Approaches’, pp. 322–332, argues that until the thirteenth century, the past did not occupy an important place in Karaite literature. According to him, their rejection of the chain of transmission necessarily diminished interest in the past, while the ‘pesher’ enhanced their focus on the present and future. 392 393

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

381

their past in the biblical period. They attributed the secret nature of their past as a consequence of Rabbanite persecutions since the time of Jeroboam ben Nebat. Even before the exile, in the Second Temple period, the faithful of the God of Israel operated in a hostile environment, because the nation violated its covenant with God. Yefet refers to this violation of trust in his commentary on the expression ‘every one that sweareth’ (Zechariah 5.3): The expression ‘every one that sweareth’ (Zechariah 5.3) refers to the people of the Second Temple who swore to go in the way of God’s law, as God had instructed, as it says: ‘they cleaved to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law’ (Nehemiah 10.30). They later changed their minds and violated the covenant and repudiated their faith.397

In this hostile environment, God’s faithful had no chance,398 and their tribulations increased during the period of exile. In our discussion on the Mourner pesher, we cited both Qumran and Shīʿite works as possible sources of influence. The same sources of influence were at work in the history of Karaite persecution, when they were allegedly forced underground. The Shīʿites, who were ruthlessly persecuted by the Sunni majority, adopted the principle of taqiyya, namely, continued loyalty in the face of a persecution that forced them to go underground and hide their identity from their enemy.399 As well as this Shīʿite model, Qumran works supplied the Mourners with the main tool for fashioning their past. The writings of this ancient sect reflected the clandestine but long history of a Jewish movement that remained loyal to the Scriptures and was oppressed by the Rabbanites. The Mourners saw themselves as the direct heirs of this ancient movement, and therefore adopted the same designations as the Qumran sect. Below, we shall cite some of the Mourners’ descriptions of their clandestine history. Daniel al-Qūmisī linked the Karaites to the ancient generations by identifying them as ‘Interpreters of the law’.400 As long as the Romans, Persians and Byzantines ruled in the Middle East, the ‘Interpreters of Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 5.3, BL. Or. 2401, f. 169b. Above, nn. 389–392. 399 On taqiyya and all its various meanings in Imāmī Shīʿism, see Kohlberg, ‘Taqiyya’, pp. 395–402. Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Queen Esther’, pp. 121–122, suggests, like Bernard Lewis, that the crypto-Judaism that was taking place in Islamic countries or in countries formerly ruled by Islam was influenced by the Shīʿite taqiyya. 400 On the Interpreters of the Law in the Qumran scrolls, see above, nn. 290–296. 397 398

382

Chapter Four

the law’ were forced to go into hiding, because under the auspices of the ruling authorities, the Rabbanites oppressed anyone who did not obey them. The advent of Islam freed the ‘Interpreters of the law’ from the Rabbanite yoke. After generations of operating in secret, they began emerging on to the platform of history, this time with the blessings of Islam, and responding to the name of ‘Karaites’: For since the beginning of the Dispersion, and during the days of the Kingdom of Greece, the Kingdom of the Romans and of the Persians, the Rabbanites acted as princes and judges, and those who sought the Torah could not open their mouths on behalf of God’s precepts, out of fear of the Rabbanites […] until the advent of the Kingdom of Ishmael. The latter always aided the Karaites.401

Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ called these underground practicants the ‘pursuers of justice’ [‫]רודפי צדק‬: ‘The pursuers of justice were hidden from congregations […] they keep the commandments in secret […] every man hath his sword upon his thigh, because of dread in the night’.402 Sahl describes the hardship that led ‘those who obeyed the words of the prophet’ to go underground after the period of prophecy: After the period of vision and prophecy were over, the hand of the leaders hardened and controversy prevailed between the Shamaites and Hillelites, and they killed each other until they led the nation as they wished, according to how they saw fit. And the disciples of the law who acted according to the prophets were unable to withstand them, and kept the commandments in hiding. But the Holy One blessed be He helped hide them, as he hid Jeremiah prophet, peace be upon him, and Baruch ben Neriya, peace be upon him.403

Above we saw how, according to Yefet, those who returned from the exile in the Second Temple period, namely, ‘the poor of the flock’, were forced to hide the truth.404 In his Commentary on Zechariah 5.6, Yefet terms those who went into hiding ‘the people of truth’: ‘The people of truth were mocked, and went into hiding, until the appearance of the small Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 17a (Nemoy edition), p. 78. In his commentary on the verse: ‘Yet I will rejoice in the Lord’ (Habakkuk 3.18), Pitron, p. 56, al-Qūmisī says: ‘These are the Interpreters of the Law’. 402 Sahl, Piyyūṭ, p. 27. See above, n. 376. 403 Sahl, Epistle, p. 35. 404 Above, n. 392. 401

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

383

horn (= Islam)’.405 In his Commentary on Song of Songs 1.5, Yefet teaches us that before the rise of Islam (the fourth Kingdom), the followers after righteousness, the seekers of the Lord (Isaiah 51.1) did not appear openly (ẓāhirān makshufān).406 Yefet’s Commentary on ‘a time to keep silence’ (Ecclesiastes 3.7) states that the people of truth (ahl al-ḥaq) are silent when they are oppressed, as it says: ‘I was dumb with silence’ (Psalms 39.3). Only when the oppression is removed, can the true religion be disseminated.407 According to Yefet, the expression ‘he that hath not yet been’ (Ecclesiastes 4.3) refers to the generation that merited living at a time when righteousness and religion could be practiced openly.408 The Karaites’ ancestors are called ‘men of truth’ or ‘men of righteousness’ and ‘followers after righteousness’.409 These terms were evidently also taken from the inventory of Qumran appellations. In Qumran, too, there is an equivalence between the terms ‘truth’ and ‘righteousness’. Members of the sect called themselves: ‘knowers of righteousness’, ‘sons of righteousness’, and ‘sons of truth’.410 Yefet, in his Commentary on Amos 5.13, ‘Therefore the Enlightener keeps silence in such a time’, interprets this verse as follows: ‘The Enlightener, who chastises and speaks innocently, is silent and does not chastise in the gates, because you are persecutors of the righteous, and the Enlightener fears for his life lest he be executed’.411 According to Yefet, ʿAnan ben David was the hidden Ṣadiq who began operating in the open only after many years during which the righteous were in hiding: ‘And in their times, the Ṣadiq disappeared from their midst, because he could not come out into the open for fear of them […] until the Kingdom of Ishmael arose […] then the righteous appeared, just as ʿAnan and others like him appeared’.412

Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 5.6, BL. Or. 2401, f. 174b. Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 1.5 (Bargès edition), p. 10. 407 Yefet, Commentary on Ecclesiastes 3.7 (Bland edition), pp. 52–53. 408 Yefet., Commentary on Ecclesiastes 4.3 (Bland edition), p. 73. 409 Above, nn. 376, 402, 405. 410 Damascus Covenant 1.1, (Charlesworth edition), p. 13. Rule of Community 3.20 (Charlesworth edition), p. 15; Rule of Community 4.5, p. 16. On the equivalence between ‘truth’ and ‘righteousness’ in Qumran, see Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 149–150. 411 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 5.13, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, ff. 74b-75a. 412 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 3.2 (Bargès edition), pp. 41–42. On an attempt on ʿAnan’s life according to the Karaites, see above, Ch. 1, nn. 81–82. 405

406

384

Chapter Four

‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ and ‘Karaites’ We saw above how the Mourners of Zion invented a lengthy clandestine history originating in biblical times. Utilizing Qumran documents, they established a link between their movement and the biblical world. The inventory of appellations in these documents enabled them to recognize themselves and their adversaries in both the past and the future. We shall see that even the origin of their name is anchored in the Damascus Covenant, which twice refers to Qerīʾei ha-Shem. In the first passage, the term used is Qerīʾei Shem: ‘But during all these (years God) raised for himself those called by name [Qerīʾei Shem],413 so as to leave a remnant for the land and fill the face of the world with their seed. And he informed them through those anointed414 in his holy spirit who view his truth,415 of the details (of His name)416 and of their names’.417 Although the term Qerīʾei Shem is not found in Scriptures, its source is biblical. According to Numbers 1.16–17, at the head of the leadership of the tribes of Israel stood ‘the chosen [Qerīʾei] of the congregation, the princes of the tribes of their fathers […] that are pointed out by name’. Although written as Qerīʾei, the word is read as Qerūʾei.418 Some maintain that the source for Qerīʾei ha-Shem is to be found in ‘princes of the congregation, the chosen men [Qerīʾei] of the assembly, men of renown’ (Numbers 16.2).419 In the Rule of the Congregation we find an alternative reading: ‘men of the name [‫]אנשי השם‬, those invited for the appointed time [‫’ ]קוראי מועד‬.420 4Q266, Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q270 1 i, 11, p. 37, says ‘Qerīʾīm’ [‫]קריאים‬. 414 The text says ‘His anointed one’ [‫]משיחו‬. but the accepted reading in the research is ‘My anointed one’ [‫]משיחי‬. 415 Schechter read it as: ‘‫ ’והוא אמת‬instead of ‘‫’וחוזי אמת‬. 416 The Qumran version (above, n. 370) says: ‘‫’בפירוש שמותיהם‬. 417 Damascus Covenant 2.11–13 (Charlesworth edition), p. 15 (with changes). For a discussion of this passage and its various translations, see Teicher, ‘Puzzling Passages’, pp. 139–143. 418 By contrast, Numbers 26.9 has ‘Qerūʾei ha-Edah’, to be read as ‘Qerīʾei’. The singular form of the latter is ‘Qarīʾ’ [‫]קריא‬. Both forms are past participles of the qal verb form, meaning: ‘He who is called’ or ‘He who has been called’. See Bar-Asher, ‘Hebrew’, p. 213. 419 See Damascus Covenant, (Schechter edition), p. xxiii, n. 18; Damascus Covenant (Rabin edition), p. 8. Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ, Grammar (Khan edition), p. 263, informs us that the singular of ‘Qerīʾei’ in this verse is ‘Qarīʾ’, and in the feminine, ‘Qerīʾah’. 420 Rule of Congregation, 2.2, (Charlesworth edition), p. 114. See also Qimron’s reading, ‘Distinction’, p. 110, n. 38. For a discussion of their status, see Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran, p. 316, n. 43. The War Scroll, 2.6–7 (Charlesworth edition), p. 98, says: ‘Anshei ha-Shem Qerūʾei Moʿed’. 413

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

385

The author of the Damascus Covenant describes ‘persons turning aside from the path and abominating the precept’ before mentioning the Qerīʾei Shem. God did not choose them, for He knew in advance of their evil deeds and the short span of time allotted them. There will be no remnant or survivor of these evildoers: ‘those who wilfully depart from the way and despise the statute, leaving them neither remnant nor survivor. For God did not choose them primordially, before they were established he knew their works, and he despised the generations (in which) they stood, and hid his face from the land’.421 Unlike the abominators of the law, of which there will be no remainder or survivor, the Qerīʾei Shem will endure and the land will be filled with their offspring. This remnant of Qerīʾei Shem will merit hearing the words of ‘those anointed with the spirit’ directly. The ensuing passage in the Damascus Covenant shows that this clearly refers to the End of Days.422 The fact that the Qerīʾei ha-Shem were a remnant points to their significance, since the scroll opens with the fate of the remnant: ‘But recalling the covenant with the first ones, he left a remnant for Israel and did not give them up to destruction’.423 We already saw that the concealed would be revealed to those ‘who held fast to God’s precepts, who remained of them’.424 The Karaite Mourners of Zion identified themselves with the remnant that would merit salvation in the End of Days. We saw above how they saw themselves as the continuation of the remnant, the righteous poor of the flock, who were forced to contend with the wicked in the days when Ezra and Nehemiah returned to the Land of Israel.425 It will be recalled that the Mourners were called ‘Ṣoleʿah’ (she that halteth),426 as the prophet Micah said: ‘And I will make her that halted a remnant’, (Micah 4.7). Yefet’s commentary on this verse shows us what will happen to the remnant that will emerge from the ‘Ṣoleʿah’: Damascus Covenant 2.6–8 (Charlesworth edition), p. 15. The word ‘‫ ’מדם‬is in all likelihood a copyist error. Compare with the Qumran version (Baumgarten edition), 4Q270 1 i, 6–8, pp. 36–37. 422 Below, n. 440. In the Rule of Congregation, 2.11; 2.13–14 (Charlesworth edition), p. 116, those who sit before the Messiah and the priest are ‘Anshei ha-Shem [Qorei] Moʿed’, ‘[Qorei] Moʿed Anoshei ha-Shem’. 423 Damascus Covenant 1.4–5 (Charlesworth edition), p. 13. 424 Damascus Covenant 3.12–14 (Charlesworth edition), p. 17. Above, n. 279. 425 Above, nn. 391–392. In his Commentary on Ezekiel 20.44, INA B 135, Yefet teaches us that God established the remnant among the people. These people returned to Him and then God withdrew His anger and returned them to their land. 426 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 418–421. 421

386

Chapter Four

He informed us that when He will gather them in from the Diaspora He will transform them into a remnant and a mighty nation; since the Lord promised them first and foremost that He would not annihilate them in exile, as it says: ‘And yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them, neither will I abhor them, to destroy them utterly’ (Leviticus 26.44). Furthermore, God will retain a group of them that are the root, like the forefathers who went down to Egypt and became a mighty nation. And He informed them that this remnant would become a mighty nation. And when it calls them ‘remnant’ and those who came out of Egypt ‘a mighty nation’, its meaning is that the Ṣoleʿah (she that halteth) will be transformed to a remnant, and from the remnant there will come forth a mighty nation, just as she that is ‘driven away’ [‫( ]נדחה‬Micah 4.6) will be transformed into a remnant and a mighty nation.427

According to Salmon ben Yerūḥam, each generation of the righteous takes precedence over the preceding one. The last generation of righteous that will merit salvation will be the purest. This generation is the remnant to which the prophet referred when he said: ‘The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity’ (Zephaniah 3.13). The ‘Shoshannīm’, the community of Mourners in Jerusalem, is the group of righteous preceding the appearance of the ‘remnant’ meriting redemption.428 In his aforementioned commentary, Salmon refers to ‘the remnant of Israel’ mentioned in Zephaniah 3.13. According to Yefet, this remnant are ‘the perfect of way’ that will emerge shortly before the End of Days.429 ‘The penitents of Jacob who will merit redemption are also identified with the remnant.430 According to Yefet, the subject of Isaiah 49 is ‘the remnant of Israel, namely, the Enlighteners of the people, the perfect of way, who will emerge close to the time of salvation’.431 The remnant has important functions in the process of redemption. As long as Elijah, the Teacher of Righteousness, has not appeared, the people of the remnant must inquire into Scriptures,432 and pray to God, knowing that the End is nigh: ‘Those prayers were of the pure remnant that knew that the end was nigh, as it says: “for the appointed time is come”, “for it is time to be gracious unto her”(Psalms 102.14). This is Yefet, Commentary on Micah 4.7, Trinity College, Cambridge, f. 145b. Salmon, Commentary on Psalms 69.1. See above, Ch. 1, n. 51. 429 Above, n. 346. 430 Above, n. 354. Above, n. 139 teaches us about Psalms that refer, according to Yefet, to the remnant of Israel and the penitents. 431 Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 49.1, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 185a. 432 Yefet, above, n. 105. 427

428

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

387

clear proof that God set a date for the salvation, as it says: “I will hasten it in its time” (Isaiah 60.22)’.433 The remnant is not occupied solely with prayer, its purpose being to lead the nation out of exile and into the land of Israel.434 Those who will go up to the Land of Israel are the people of the remnant. In his Commentary on Psalm 22.32, Yefet says: ‘“They shall come”, refers to the remnant (baqāya) of Israel in exile who will come (to the Land of Israel) in the End of Days’.435 Yefet discusses the relationship between the remnant in Jerusalem and those fleeing Gog and Magog in one of his commentaries on the verse ‘As we have heard, so have we seen in the city of the Lord of hosts, in the city of our God’ (Psalms 48.9): ‘As we have heard’ (Psalms 48.9) may be referring to the words of the remnant of Israel to which those fleeing Gog will answer, after they discover that Jerusalem has been rebuilt. And when they come with turtles, mules, and wagons, they shall see Jerusalem, as described to them by the story-tellers, and then they shall say: ‘As we have heard, so have we seen’ (Psalms 48.9).436

Like Salmon, Yefet maintains that the ‘Shoshannīm’ were the remnant. Prior to the salvation, the remnant would undergo extreme suffering at the hands of the wicked, causing them to turn to God: The words about the ‘Shoshannīm’ […] they refer to the remnant of Israel […] and he began by describing their prayer to God, since they underwent great suffering, as it says: ‘for the waters are come in even unto the soul’ (Psalms 69.2). This implies that their lives were in danger, just as the drowning man’s life is in danger.437

Having been persecuted, the remnant will take revenge on their enemies. We learn of this from al-Qūmisī in his commentary on ‘God, the Lord, is my strength, and He maketh my feet like hinds' feet, and Salmon, Commentary on Psalms 102.14, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 556, f. 46b. Cf. Poznanski, ‘Miscellen’, p. 520. Since the date was preordained, the End could be calculated. 434 Above, n. 356. 435 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 22.32, PBN Héb 286, f. 133b. Yefet’s commentary on ‘a people that shall be born’ in this verse is interesting: ‘It means whoever will be born in the period of salvation and never experience exile’. In translating this verse, Yefet added the words ‘from the Diaspora’ to ‘they shall come’. 436 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 48.9, PBN Héb 287, ff. 36b-37a. 437 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 69.1–2, PBN Héb 287, f. 179b. 433

388

Chapter Four

He maketh me to walk upon my high places. For the Leader. With my string-music’ (Habakkuk 3.19): ‘God, the Lord of Hosts’ (Habakkuk 3.19) refers to the remnant whose legs will become like those of hinds, as it is written: ‘Who maketh my feet like hinds’ (Psalms 18.34) […] ‘who traineth my hands for war’ (Psalms 144.1), these are the hands of the remnant with ‘a two-edged sword in their hand; To execute vengeance upon the nations’ (Psalms 149.6–7), and following the salvation, they will sing ‘For the Leader. With my string-music’.438

Having discussed features common to the Qerīʾei Shem and the Karaite Mourners, especially their being the pure remnant that will be active in the End of Days, we shall proceed to study the second passage in the Damascus Covenant referring to the Qerīʾei Shem, or rather, Qerīʾei haShem. The passage is, in fact, a pesher to Ezekiel 44.15: And built them a sure house in Israel, such as never stood from the earliest times until now. Those who hold fast to it are to have eternal life, and all (human) glory is theirs. As God swore to them through the hand of Ezekiel the prophet, saying: ‘the priests and the Levites and the Sons of Zadok who kept the watch of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall present to me fat and blood’ (Ezekiel 44.15).439 ‘The priests’ are the penitents of Israel who departed from the land of Judah; ‘the Levites’ are those who accompanied them; and ‘the Sons of Zadok’ are the chosen ones of Israel, those called by name [Qerīʾei ha-Shem], who stand in the End of Days. Here are the details of their names in their generations and the time(s) of their standing and the number(s) of their troubles and the years of their residence, and detail(s) of their works.440

As mentioned above, Qerīʾei Shem are those ‘who remain in the End of Days’.441 As a ‘remnant’, they are identified with ‘Zadokites’ and ‘the Chosen of Israel’ [‫]בחירי ישראל‬. We shall focus here on their identification with the Zadokites. In another pesher, on Ezekiel 37.23, we learn of the importance of the Zadokites in the sect. This verse states, regarding the Children of Israel, that ‘neither shall they defile themselves any more 440 441 438 439

Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Habakkuk 3.19, Pitron, p. 56. Cf. Masoretic text. Damascus Covenant 3.19–4.6 (Charlesworth edition), p. 19. Above, n. 422.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

389

with their idols, nor with their detestable things’ The Pesher explains: ‘They are the Sons of Zadok’.442 No wonder, then, that the Qumran sectarians used the book of Ezekiel to enhance the status of the priests of the House of Zadok. The Book of Ezekiel, which was instrumental in helping shape the sect’s eschatological and halakhic doctrine, assigns an important place to the priests of the House of Zadok in the temple that was to be built in the future.443 We have already discussed the Zadokites lofty status as leaders of the people. They were the leaders of the sect, who preserved an eternal covenant with God. Matters of halakha, sectarian exegesis and instruction of the people were entrusted to them.444 Even if at a certain stage their power waned, as evidenced by the deletion of their name from one of the copies of the Rule of the Community, their lofty status figures prominently in many of the writings of the Qumran sect.445 According to the Rule of the Congregation, the Zadokites retain their exalted status even in the End of Days: And this is the rule for all (in) the congregation of Israel in the End of Days, when they gather as a community to walk continuously according to the judgment of the Sons of Zadok, the priests, and the men of the covenant who have turned away from walking in the way of the people. These are the men of God’s counsel who have kept the covenant amidst evil to atone for the land. When they come, they shall assemble all those who enter, including children along with women, and they shall read in their hearing all the statutes of the covenant.446

One can deduce the importance of the priestly Zadokites in the Damascus Covenant from the status of Zadok, the priest and founder of the priestly 4Q Flor. Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 17 (Steudel edition), p. 25. On the significance of the Book of Ezekiel in the sect’s doctrine and, consequently, the significance of the House of Zadok within the sect, see Dimant, ‘Interpretation’, pp. 31–51. Wacholder, ‘Ezekiel’, pp. 187–196. On the reasons for the importance of the passages on commandments in Ezekiel in Qumran law, see Knohl’s hypothesis, ‘Sectarianism’, pp. 608–609. 444 Above, nn. 281–286; Schiffman, Halakha, pp. 84–86. See also Rule of Community, 5.8–9 (Charlesworth edition), pp. 21–23. 445 On the deletion of their name, see above, n. 281. For an attempt to assess the vicissitudes of their leadership, see Schiffman, Halakha, p. 286. Baumgarten, ‘Zadokite Priests’, pp. 137–156, attempted to assess their status in light of the deletion of their name from copies of the Rule of Community. The Qumran scrolls themselves relate to the Zadokites differently. For example, they are not mentioned at all in the Temple Scroll. See Olyan, ‘Ben Sira’, pp. 276–278. 446 Rule of Congregation, 1.1–5 (Charlesworth edition), p. 111. See also Rule of Congregation, 1.23–25, p. 9; 2.2–3, pp. 9. 442 443

390

Chapter Four

house. According to the Damascus Covenant, David did not read from the sealed Torah scroll, ‘until the emergence of Zadok’.447 Scholars pondered over the identity of this Zadok. I have already expressed my opinion that this refers to David’s priest, Zadok.448 Yefet ben ʿEli also wondered at the identity of Zadok in his commentary on the term ‘Sons of Zadok’ in a verse explained by the author of the Damascus Covenant (Ezekiel 44.15). He concluded that this probably referred to Zadok, David’s priest: ‘The same Zadok, whether it refers to Zadok who lived in the time of David, or Jehozadak, father of Joshua (Haggai 1.1), since he had two names, Jehozadak and Zadok. The former name appears to be more likely’.449 Proof of the importance of Zadok in Qumran literature may be found in the prophesy based on verses in the Book of Joshua. The author of the prophesy predicts the sovereignty of David over Zion, the building of the Temple, and the appointment of Zadok as the first of the Temple priests: ‘For, behold, a son is born to Jesse, son of Peretz, son of Judah, who will capture the rock of Zion […] his son, the younger, will build it and Zadok, the first, will officiate there’.450 Given the exalted status of the Zadokites as leaders of the sect, it is not fortuitous that the sect chose to describe themselves with appellations containing the word ‘Ṣedeq’ (righteousness) Above, we discussed the terms ‘sons of righteousness’ and ‘knowers of righteousness’.451 In the War Scroll, the ‘Sons of Light’ are identified with the ‘sons of righteousness’: ‘And the sons of righteousness shall shine unto all the uttermost ends of the world, going on to shine till the completion of all the appointed times of darkness’.452 Perhaps the similarity between Ṣedeq and Zadok induced the scribe of the Rule of the Community to write ‘Benei ha-Zadok’ (Sons of Zadok) instead of ‘Benei ha-Ṣedeq’ (Sons of Righteousness).453 We can find a further error by a copyist relating to the word ‘Ṣedeq’ in another Qumran document, in which the word 447 Above, nn. 283–284. Above, Ch. 3, n. 458. In the Testament of Levi 8.11–15, in the Testament of the Tribes, the three branches of the tribe of Levi are mentioned. Regarding the third branch, it says: ‘He shall be called by a new name for a king shall arise from Judah and a new priesthood will be initiated’. According to Grintz, ‘People of the Yaḥad’, pp. 31–32, the reference here is to the priest Zadok who stood beside David. 448 Above, Ch. 3, n. 458. 449 Yefet, Commentary on Ezekiel 44.15, BL. Or. 5062, f. 194a. 450 See 4Q522 in Qimron’s ‘Korot Yehoshua’, p. 504. Cf., DJD, 25, frag. 9 ii, 3–7, p. 55. 451 Above, nn. 386, 410. 452 War Scroll, 1.8 (Charlesworth edition), p. 97. 453 Above, n. 299.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

391

‘Ṣedeq’ appears frequently: ‘And they shall be refined by the elect of righteousness [Ṣedeq];454 ‘For the period of wickedness is complete […] the time of righteousness [Ṣedeq] is coming’; ‘The period of peace is coming, and the true laws, and the righteous [Ṣedeq] testimony to instruct’. In line 10 of this fragment, the copyist wrote: ‘For the dominion of righteousness [Ṣedeq] is coming’. He [then] erased the word ‘Ṣedeq’, replacing it with ‘Tov’, ‘For the dominion of goodness [Tov] is coming’.455 Considering the significance of the Zadokites in Qumran literature, the identification of Qerīʾei ha-Shem with the Zadokites in the Damascus Covenant confirms the importance its author assigned the Qerīʾīm in leading the sect in his time, as well as at the End of Days. The Qerīʾei ha-Shem were identified not only with the Zadokites, but also with the ‘chosen [Beḥīrei] of Israel’. This name, too, is strongly associated with the word ‘Ṣedeq’. In the pseudo-epigraphical literature, ‘the chosen’ [Beḥīrīm] is a synonym for the righteous [Ṣaddīqīm].456 A further piece of evidence from Qumran sheds light on the relationship between the Zadokites and the chosen [Beḥīrei Yisrael]. After mentioning the Zadokites, the author of the document refers to ‘the chosen of Israel in the End of Days’.457 We have already discussed the term ‘chosen of righteousness’ [‫ ]בחירי צדק‬above.458 The author of the Thanksgiving Scroll, whom many maintained was the Teacher of Righteousness, claimed that as a leader he served as a ‘flag for the chosen of righteousness [Beḥīrei Ṣedeq]’.459 ‘The chosen’ is one of the terms by which the Qumran sect was known.460 Alongside ‘the chosen of righteousness’, we find the terms: ‘the chosen of God’,461 ‘the chosen by (divine) pleasure, and ‘the chosen of the End time’.462 The term ‘chosen’, which is closely connected with the term ‘righteous’ [Ṣaddīqīm], and other terms derived from the word ‘Ṣedeq’, 4Q215a, frag. 1 ii, 3, DJD, 36, p. 180. 4Q215a, frag. 1 ii, 3, DJD, 36, p. 180. 456 For example, Ethiopian Enoch, 1.1; 93.1–2. On the use of the word ‘Ṣaddīqīm’ in Qumran, see Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran, in index. 457 4Q Flor. Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 19 (Steudel edition), p. 25. See above, n. 442. On the chosen of Israel, see also Jubilees 1. 29; Jaubert, Notion d’alliance, p. 94. 458 Above, n. 454. 459 Thanksgiving Scroll 10.15, DJD, 40, p. 132. See Licht, Hodayot, p. 46. 460 War Scroll, 12.1 (Charlesworth edition), p. 121. In the Habakkuk Pesher 5.4 (Charlesworth edition), pp. 168–169, ‘His Elect one’ is written in the singular form [‫]בחירו‬, but the plural ‘His Elect Ones’ [‫ ]בחיריו‬is meant. 461 Habakkuk Pesher 10.13 (Charlesworth edition), p. 176. 462 Rule of Community 8.6 (Charlesworth edition), p. 35; Rule of Community, 9.14, p. 41. 454 455

392

Chapter Four

inform us of the intimate connection between these terms and the sect’s leader, the Teacher of Righteousness. The Qerīʾei ha-Shem were connected to the Teacher of Righteousness not only in their capacity as ‘sons of Zadok’, but also because the Teacher of Righteousness was called the ‘Qore’, as we ascertained from the Habakkuk Pesher.463 Below, we shall discuss the commonality between Qerīʾei ha-Shem, namely, the ‘Sons of Zadok’, and the Qore, namely, the Teacher of Righteousness. The Teacher of Righteousness, founder of the congregation, was to play a prominent role in the End of Days. Similarly, the Qerīʾei ha-Shem were also assigned a prominent role in the End of Days.464 The role of the Teacher of Righteousness on the threshold of redemption was to interpret the concealed prophecies of the prophets that preceded him. In this role, he was identified with the Qore, based on Habakkuk 2.2.465 The Teacher of Righteousness also taught law and served as a guide for members of his congregation.466 This was also the role of the Qerīʾei haShem, as the Sons of Zadok, at the threshold of the End of Days – to reveal that which was hidden.467 The Teacher of Righteousness was a priest and righteous person [Ṣadiq].468 The Qerīʾei ha-Shem, identified as Sons of Zadok, were also priests. No one can question the strong link between Zadok, the founder of the priestly House, with whom the Qerīʾei ha-Shem are identified, and the Teacher of Righteousness.469 The Qerīʾei ha-Shem, as the chosen of Israel, were also righteous people.470 The Teacher of Righteousness also bears the title ‘chosen’ alongside ‘Ṣadiq’. The author of the Habakkuk Pesher, in his commentary on Habakkuk 2.8, teaches us that God delivered the evil priest into the hands of his enemy for having harmed the Teacher of Righteousness, who here merits the name ‘his chosen’: ‘for having acted wickedly [the wicked priest] against his chosen ones’.471 Having studied the close relationship between the Teacher of Righteousness (the Qore) and the ‘Sons of Zadok’ (the Qerīʾei Shem), Above, n. 262. On the establishment of the community, see above, n. 268. On its activity in the End of Days, see above, n. 263. 465 Above, n. 262. See also, above, n. 270. 466 Above, nn. 272, 287. 467 Above, nn. 282–282, 446. 468 Above, nn. 268, 270, 272. On the Teacher of Righteousness being a ‘Ṣadiq’, see also Habakkuk Pesher 1.12–13 (Charlesworth edition), p. 160. 469 Above, n. 286. 470 On the relationship between ‘Baḥir’ and ‘Ṣadiq’, see above, nn. 456–459. 471 Habakkuk Pesher 9.9–12 (Charlesworth edition), p. 177. 463

464

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

393

I shall now present the commonality between the Shoshannīm community, namely, the Karaite Mourners of Zion, and the Qerīʾei ha-Shem of the Damascus Covenant. In his Commentary on Psalms 69.1, Salmon ben Yerūḥam describes the messianic role destined for his community. This community was poised on the threshold of the End of Days, ‘at the end of the four Empires’ as he put it.472 The Qerīʾei ha-Shem of the Damascus Covenant were also active in the End of Days, and were identified as the remnant whose offspring would fill the earth.473 According to Salmon, this refined remnant would merit redemption. I have already discussed the meaning of the term ‘remnant’ in the Mourners’ literature.474 The Qerīʾei ha-Shem, being also ‘the Chosen’, (Beḥīrīm), were righteous (Ṣaddīqīm). Salmon also identifies the remnant with the righteous (Ṣāliḥīn).475 Throughout their literature, the Mourners emphasized the fact that they were the righteous and the successors of the righteous upon earth.476 ʿAnan is described as the first of the righteous who was able to appear openly before his people.477 Already, Benjamin alNahāwandī called his community of Baʿalei Miqra by the name ‘the righteous ones’, possibly under the influence of the literature of Enoch.478 Daniel al-Qūmisī connected the history of the Karaites to the righteous, as his ‘Sermon’ testifies: ‘And God has waxed wrath with His people and cast them away from His face […] For there is no man on earth to demand an account of the oppressor for the oppressed. The righteous are caught in the hand of the wicked and there is none to deliver them’.479 Likewise, Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ describes those coming from the Diaspora to Jerusalem as the righteous and pious.480 Yefet ben ʿEli identified ‘they that tremble’ in Isaiah 66.5 with the righteous referred to in Isaiah 66.2. Since, however, these are referred Above, Ch. 1, n. 45. Above, n. 417. 474 Above, Ch. 1, n. 46. Likewise, above, nn. 425–438. 475 On the translation of ‘Ṣaddīqīm’ to ‘Ṣāliḥīn’, see Salmon, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick edition), 52.8, p. 43 and 55.23, p. 51. In his commentary to 55.6, p. 48, Salmon expresses the hope that the Karaites known as ‘Ṣāliḥīn’, will be saved from the Rabbinic Sages who were known as ‘the wicked of the nation’ (ashrār al-umma). 476 Above, nn. 138, 390–391, 393. 477 Above, n. 412. On the Enlightener as Ṣadīq, see above, n. 411. 478 Above, Ch. 1, n. 218. 479 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 15b-16a (Nemoy edition), pp. 70–71. In his commentary on the verse: ‘For though the fig-tree shall not blossom’ (Habakkuk 3.17), Pitron, p. 56, Daniel says: ‘the pious and the Ṣadiq are lost in the Diaspora’. 480 Sahl, Epistle, p. 30. 472 473

394

Chapter Four

to as the ‘poor and of a contrite spirit’, he believed that the verse was referring to the Mourners: ‘He again turned to the righteous whom he mentioned earlier and said: “but on this man will I look, even on him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at My word” (Isaiah 66.2)’.481 Yefet interprets ‘For My name’s sake let the Lord be glorified (Isaiah 66.5)’, as a Rabbanite statement to the Karaites, who are termed here ‘the righteous’: ‘And it says “for My name’s sake”, since [the Rabbanites] say that the words of the sages are the words of the exalted God, and for their sake “Let the Lord be glorified”. These are the words of the Rabbanites to the righteous’.482 In his commentary on the phrase ‘how mighty are your sins’ (Amos 5.12), Yefet lists a number of sins, such as adultery, transgression of the Sabbath, and eating insects and defiled food. Yet heading the list of sins was ‘oppression of the righteous’ (Amos 5.12).483 Yefet’s Commentary on Zechariah 3.9 teaches us that in the messianic era (‘the stone’ in this verse is the Messiah) sinners will be destroyed and only the righteous will remain in the land: After this, he informs us of the benefit Israel reaped by accepting the yoke of heavenly sovereignty at that time, as it says: ‘Thy people also shall be all righteous’, etc. (Isaiah 60.21). And where it says ‘in that day’ (Zechariah 3.9), its meaning is that I shall purify Israel from their sins on that day, and only the righteous will remain, as it says: ‘and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book’ (Daniel 12.1).484

It will be recalled that Salmon ben Yerūḥam identified the ‘remnant’ with the refined righteous. Other Karaite commentators also identify the ‘remnant’ with the righteous. In one of his commentaries on Zechariah 1.12, al-Qūmisī interprets: ‘How long wilt Thou not have compassion’ (Zechariah 1.12) as ‘the supplication of the righteous who will be among the remnant of the exile, and who are considered angelic’.485 As to the identification of the righteous with the ‘remnant’ in the time of Salvation, Yefet states in his Commentary on Zephaniah 3.6–8: Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 66.5, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 349a. Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 66.5, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 349b. 483 Yefet, Commentary on Amos 5.12, Trinity College, Cambridge, F12.118, f. 74b. 484 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 3.9, BL. Or. 2401, f. 160b. 485 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zechariah 1.10–12, Pitron, p. 62. AlQūmisī proposes another interpretation of the verse: ‘And some also said that this is the supplication of prophets who prayed for the seventy years’. 481

482

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

395

You must wait patiently until such time as I will purify this land from disgraceful acts and leave in it only the group of the righteous: ‘And I will leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people’ (Zephaniah 3.12). And it says, ‘wait ye for Me’ (Zephaniah 3.8), because this will happen only after a lengthy period of time. And the phrase ‘until the day that I rise up forever’ (Zephaniah 3.8) means the time of Salvation, when God will remember His people forever, and no sinner shall remain therein.486

We have seen above that the Mourners were known not only by the name ‘righteous’ (‫ )צדיקים‬but also by many other names containing the word Ṣedeq, for example, ‘Rodfei Ṣedaqa’ [‫]רודפי צדקה‬, ‘Rodfei Ṣedeq’ [‫ ]רודפי צדק‬and ‘Anshei Ṣedeq’ [‫]אנשי צדק‬. The name ‘Anshei Emet’ [‫אנשי‬ ‫ ]אמת‬is equivalent to ‘Anshei Ṣedeq’ [‫]אנשי צדק‬.487 Daniel 12.3 refers to ‘Maskīlīm’ and ‘Maṣdiqei ha-Rabim’.488 Yefet, in his Commentary on Song of Songs 1.2, teaches that the words ‘let him kiss me’ refer to the words of the ‘Enlighteners of the people, those who make the many righteous [‫]מצדיקי הרבים‬, the lords of righteousness [‫’]אילי הצדק‬. ‘It is through them that the Salvation of Israel and the kingdom of Ṣemaḥ will emerge’.489 Yefet emphasizes that the role of the Enlighteners (those who make the many righteous) was not relegated to a particular house, in the manner of the priestly dynasty. Thus it says, ‘Ye that fear the Lord’ (Psalms 115.11), and not ‘The house of Ye that fear the Lord’: ‘It says that they are the Enlighteners, who make the many righteous, and it does not say concerning them “The house of Ye that fear the Lord”, since they are from diverse families’.490 Yefet, Commentary on Zephaniah 3.6–8, BL. Or. 2401, f. 121b. Above, n. 410. See also, above, nn. 376, 402, 405–406, 409. 488 Saʿadia Gaon translated ‘Maṣdiqei ha-Rabim’ as ‘mustaṣliḥīn’. On the meaning of the terms ‘istiṣlāḥ’ and ‘mustaṣliḥīn’ according to Saʿadia Gaon, see Ben-Shammai, ‘Saʿadia’s Introduction’, pp. 371–375. 489 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 1.2 (Bargès edition), p. 5. On the Enlighteners as ‘lords of righteousness’, see also above, n. 118. We find an interesting link between ‘Ṣaddīqīm’, ‘Maṣdiqei ha-Rabim’, ‘Maskīlīm’ [Enlighteners] and ‘Shoshannīm’ in the Midrash on ‘[in Thy presence is] fullness [‫ ]שובע‬of joy’ (Psalms 16.11). The Midrashist reads the verse as ‘seven [‫ ]שבע‬joys’, which represent seven classes of Ṣaddīqīm who, in the future, will welcome the Shekhinah. Their faces resemble, among other things, the firmament, as it says: ‘And the Enlighteners shall shine as the brightness of the firmament’ (Daniel 12.3); like the stars, as it says: ‘and they that turn the many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever’ (Daniel 12.3); like the Shoshannīm, as it says: ‘For the Leader; upon Shoshannīm’ (Psalms 45.1). See Midrash va-Yiqra Rabba 30.2 (Margoliouth edition), pp. 692–693. 490 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 115.11, PBN Héb 289, f. 37b. According to Jaubert, ‘Pays de Damas’, p. 238, there is a connection between Moreh ha-Ṣedeq and 486

487

396

Chapter Four

As stated, the Qerīʾei ha-Shem were called ‘the Chosen’ (Beḥīrīm) and not ‘the righteous’ (Ṣaddīqīm). The Mourners of Zion also called themselves ‘the Chosen’. There are numerous examples of this. For instance, according to Yefet, the phrase ‘is gone down into his garden’ (Song of Songs 6.2) refers to the time when ‘the Chosen’ (al-aḥyār) will be gathered in Jerusalem and they will know that the Salvation is at hand.491 The Karaites also called themselves ‘the Chosen ones of Israel’, [‫]בחירי ישראל‬ the name the Damascus Covenant attached to the Qerīʾei ha-Shem.492 Since the Qerīʾei ha-Shem were the sons of Zadok, their role was to reveal the esoteric aspect of Scriptures and to instruct the people.493 This role was assumed by the Karaite Enlighteners, as we saw above.494 A study of the Karaite Mourners’ commentaries reveals the enormous significance they ascribed to the Zadokite priests, based on the Book of Ezekiel.495 Quite possibly, in the many instances where the Karaites identified themselves with the righteous [Ṣaddīqīm], they in fact meant the Zadokites.496 In his commentary on the verse ‘it shall be said unto them: “Ye are the children of the living God”’(Hosea 2.1), Daniel alQūmisī says: ‘Ye shall be named the priests of the Lord’ (Isaiah 61.6). Further on, he informs us that ‘The righteous who will remain from exile’ will be called ‘the priests of the Lord’.497 We already saw above that the Mourners identified with the righteous remnant.498 Since, in this commentary, the righteous are priests, it is possible that this commentary was influenced by the connection between Ṣaddīqīm and Zadokites.499 Maṣdiqei ha-Rabim (Daniel 12.3) and the verse in I Enoch 12.4; 15.1; there, Enoch is a righteous man and a righteous scribe. 491 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs 6.2 (Bargès edition), p. 84. 492 Above, n. 347. 493 The Karaites may well have realized the importance of the Zadokites from additional ancient texts available to them, as evidenced by a further minor passage from the Geniza which refers to ‘ʿAdat Benei Zadok’. See Lévi, ‘Fils de Sadoc’, pp. 24–31. 494 Above, nn. 100–118. 495 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 123–124. Yefet, in his Commentary on Exodus 6.23–25, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 41, f. 90b, emphasizes the pedigree of the wife of Eleazar the priest, mother of Phinehas, and ancestor of Zadok (I Chronicles 5.29–34): ‘And Eleazar took him one of the daughters of Putiel to wife, and there can be no doubt that Putiel was a distinguished man’. Yefet adds that the others did not marry women of prestige but rather the daughters of gentiles. 496 On the reason for this, see above, Ch. 2, nn. 154–167. 497 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Hosea 2.1, Pitron, p. 2. 498 Above, n. 486. 499 See Qirqisānī, pp. 42–43, on a group of Karaites who associated Jesus the Righteous with Zadok and ʿAnan.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

397

The leader of the sons of Zadok in Qumran was the Teacher of Righteousness, who is identified with the ‘Qore’. The Karaite Enlighteners, for their part, delved into the Scriptures in order to hasten the arrival of the Teacher of Righteousness (Moreh Ṣedeq), whom they identified with Elijah.500 The community of Mourners in Jerusalem was labelled ‘Shoshannīm’. The close connection between the Shoshannīm and the Teacher of Righteousness in Qumran can be deduced from a Pesher to Psalm 45, entitled: ‘For the Leader; upon Shoshannīm’. Extant fragments of the Pesher explain the word ‘Shoshannīm’ as follows: ‘They are seven divisions of the penitents of Israel’. In the commentary on verse 2, the phrase ‘a speedy scribe’ is interpreted as referring to the Teacher of Righteousness.501 The above points to a striking similarity between the Qerīʾei haShem and the Karaite Mourners of Zion, in terms of terminology, role and status, and the time of their appearance. In view of the above and of the many names shared by the Qumran sectarians and the Karaite Mourners, one can assume that even the word ‘Qara’, (plural ‘Qaraʾīm’) is derived from the term Qerīʾei ha-Shem in the Damascus Covenant, which they evidently possessed. Above, we have ascertained that the singular form of ‘Qaraʾīm’ is ‘Qara’.502 Yusūf Ibn Nūḥ’s commentary informs us that the singular form of ‘Qerīʾīm’ is ‘Qarīʾ’.503 In one version of the Damascus Covenant in the Qumran caves, the term Qerīʾei ha-Shem was replaced by ‘Qerīʾīm’.504 An elegy in memory of Ṣemaḥ ben Asa, the prince [‫ ]נשיא‬of the Karaites in the eleventh century, calls him the ‘Head of the Qerūʾīm’ [‫]ראש לקרואים‬.505 Evidently, the synonymity of the terms sons of Zadok, Benei ha-Ṣedeq, Ṣaddīqīm and the like helps us understand the synonymity of the terms Qore (Teacher of Righteousness), Qerīʾīm, Qerūʾīm, and Qaraʾīm.506 The term ‘Qerīʾīm’ is mentioned in Scriptures solely in the plural construct state in three versions. One lacks the letter ‘yod’ and in the other two versions, the ‘yod’ is replaced with a ‘waw’.507 Clear distinctions between these letters is absent from the Qumran scrolls. Thus in the War Scroll Above, nn. 113–114. 4Q171, Psalms Pesher 45, DJD, 5, p. 45. 502 Above, n. 9. 503 Above, n. 419. 504 Above, n. 413. 505 Beeri, ‘Dirges’, p. 144. 506 The version in Daniel al-Qūmisī’s ‘Sermon’ (above, Ch. 1, nn. 318, 410) is ‘Qarāʾīn’, obviously influenced by the Arabic. 507 See above, nn. 418–419. See also, Numbers 26.9. 500 501

398

Chapter Four

we find: ‘Qerūʾei ha-Moʿed’ (2.7); ‘Qerūʾei El’ (3.2), and even ‘Qerīʾei El’ (4.10–11). There are other theories as to how these terms are to be read.508 We have already discussed the controversy as to how the term ‘Qerīʾei Moʿed’ was to be read in the Rule of the Congregation, 2.2.509 A study of the literature of the Karaite Mourners reveals their belief that the ‘remnant’ that will be left after the salvation are those who call upon the name of God. This supports the view for a close connection between the name ‘Karaites’ and ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’, whom the Damascus Covenant identifies with the ‘remnant’. Evidently, the Karaites understood the term ‘Qerīʾei Shem’ or ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’ in the sense of ‘Qerīʾei Elohim’. The term ‘Shem’ in the sense of God, was widespread already in earlier texts.510 The scribes of the Habakkuk Pesher used an ancient Hebrew script to transcribe the Tetragrammaton as specified in the Scriptures. In the pesharim themselves, the Tetragrammaton was not written out.511 This is the source of the terms: ‘Qerīʾei El’ or ‘Qerūʾei El’ which are found in the War Scroll.512 Some scholars have attempted to identify the writings of the sectarians within the corpus of Qumran scrolls on the basis of whether or not they wrote out the Tetragrammaton.513 Below, we shall discuss the importance of the concept of ‘calling on the name of God’ and its significance in the literature of the Mourners of Zion. Al-Qūmisī’s commentary on the verse ‘Seek ye the Lord, all ye humble of the earth’ (Zephaniah 2.3) indicates that those who wish to be saved on the Day of Judgment must ‘call upon the name of God’ (as well as observe the mourning rituals, return to the commandments, and refrain from eating meat and drinking wine): ‘Seek God with humility and justice and return to His commandments and mourn for Zion and 508 War Scroll (Charlesworth edition), pp. 98, 100, 104–106. On the reading of these terms, see Qimron, ‘Distinction’, pp. 109–110. On the lack of differentiation between ‘waw’ and ‘yod’, see also Di Lella, ‘Qumran’, pp. 259–263. 509 Above, n. 420. 510 Mishnah Yoma 3.8; 4.2. For a discussion of the names of God, see Urbach, Sages, pp. 106–110. On substitutes for the Tetragramaton, see Lauterbach, ‘Substitutes’, pp. 39–67. 511 Nitzan, Habakkuk Pesher, pp. 4–5. 512 Above, n. 508. 513 Tov, ‘Dead Sea’, p. 45, nn. 53–54. On the writing of God’s names in Qumran, see Siegel, ‘Employment’, pp. 159–172. See also Lieberman’s discussion, ‘Light’, pp. 400–403. According to Ismāʿīl al-ʿUkbarī, the Tetragramaton should be pronounced. Those of like opinion interpret the verse ‘And there is none that calleth upon Thy name’ (Isaiah 64.6), as predicting that the people of the Diaspora will not call God by His true name. See Qirqisānī, pp. 161–162.

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

399

abandon meat and wine and fast and mourn and call unto God, perhaps you will find shelter in the Time of Trouble’.514 Al-Qūmisī suggests that God will not answer the call, unless it is preceded by repentance. Yefet, too, in his Commentary on Psalms 145.18 says that the call of those who have not repented will not be answered in the Time of Trouble: ‘Regarding the call of the wicked in Time of Trouble without repentance, it shall not be accepted, as it says: “Will God hear his cry?” (Job 27.9), “Then will they call me, but I will not answer” (Proverbs 1.28)’.515 According to Yefet, the verse ‘I call upon Thee, for Thou wilt answer me’ (Psalms 17.6) expresses the hope of the perfect way that God will answer his call and save him from his enemies, because he accepted the yoke of the heavenly kingdom: After mentioning acceptance of the yoke of the commandments, it is fitting that he would ask God to accept his prayer and save him from his enemies. As it says: ‘I call upon Thee’, this being his call to God to save him. In saying: ‘incline Thine ear unto me’ (Psalms 17.6), he is asking for a speedy answer and vengeance upon his enemies, as it says: ‘hear my speech’ (Psalms 17.6).516

So far, we have studied the importance of calling on the name of God in the sense of supplication and prayer in times of trouble and distress. Al-Qūmisī, in his ‘Sermon’ has a different interpretation of ‘calling on the name of God’, namely, inquiring into the word of God: We have hardened our necks and emboldened our face and we have not turned back to search in God’s Torah, as it is written: ‘Let us search and try our ways’ (Lamentations 3.40), so that we may know and understand what is the way of truth. Hence it is written concerning us: ‘Yet have we not entreated the favour of the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and have discernment in Thy truth’ (Daniel 9.13). Not one of us awakens his heart to grieve over this matter and stand up for God, as it is written: ‘And there is none that calleth upon Thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of Thee’ (Isaiah 64.6).517 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Zephaniah 2.3, Pitron, p. 57. Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 145.18, PBN Héb 289, f. 186a. In his commentary on the verse ‘be ready [‫ ]קרוב‬to hearken’ (Ecclesiastes 4.17) (Bland edition), p. 90, Yefet maintains that God’s readiness means His readiness to respond to the call of those who call upon Him, as it says in Psalms 145.18: ‘the Lord is nigh [‫ ]קרוב‬unto all them that call upon Him’. 516 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 17.6, PBN Héb 286, f. 89b. 517 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 15b (Nemoy edition), p. 69. 514 515

400

Chapter Four

Two further interpretations of ‘calling on the name of God’ are found in Yefet’s commentary on the verse ‘And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh; then began men to call upon the name of the Lord’ (Genesis 4.26): This informs us that Seth, too, had a son who accepted the yoke of the commandments, for in his time service of God and religion burgeoned in the world, as it says: ‘to call upon the name of the Lord’ (Genesis 4.26). And calling upon the name of the Lord is obedience to Him and service of God, as it says: ‘from the rising of the sun one that calleth upon My name’ (Isaiah 41.25), and ‘it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord’ (Joel 3.5). Another commentator maintained that the verse ‘then began men to call upon the name of the Lord’, means the prophets in the time of Enosh began to preach to the people and to encourage them to repent. It would appear that Noah in the same period encouraged the people to repent […] and it seems that Adam or Enoch and those who accepted the yoke of the heavenly kingdom called on the name of the Master of the Universe, so as to bring the people to repent their sins, as did Abraham, of blessed memory, when he entered the Land of Israel and called on the name of the Master of the Universe in every place that he sojourned in order to bring them under the wings of the true faith, as it says: ‘and Abram called there on the name of the Lord’ (Genesis 13.4).518

The above indicates that the first meaning of ‘calling upon the name of God’ is acceptance of the yoke of the heavenly kingdom and serving God.519 The second is to preach the word of God and cause people to repent. We saw above that Yefet interpreted this verse elsewhere as referring to the propagandists (‘duʿāh’) who were active since the times of Adam.520 Abraham’s calling on the name of God (Genesis 13.4) deserves special note. In referring to this verse in his commentary on ‘Who hath raised up righteousness [‫ ]צדק‬from the east’ (Isaiah 41.2), Yefet teaches that the early sages (al-Qudamāʾa) maintained that ‘righteousness’ here referred to Abraham. He earned this title because he chose the true Yefet, Commentary on Genesis 4.26, BL. Or. 2462, f. 110a. Some viewed Genesis 4.26 as a directive to observe the commandment of prayer. Qirqisānī, p. 455, questioned this. 519 In his commentary on ‘And there is none that calleth upon Thy name’ (Isaiah 64.6), Qirqisānī, p. 165, says that this refers to the failure to observe the commandments, to the point where no one turns to God, on the lines of Malachi 1.11–12, which describes how the other nations recognize God and turn to Him. 520 Above, n. 246. 518

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

401

faith and disseminated it among the multitudes: ‘The early sages and their followers said that this verse refers to our patriarch Abraham, of blessed memory […] and he is called “righteousness”, since he chose to observe the faith and spread it, as it says: “and Abra(ha)m called there on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 13.4)’.521 More on Abraham’s role in spreading the faith can be gleaned from Yefet’s Commentary on Isaiah 41.25: ‘The interpretation of “one that calleth upon My name” is bequeathing faith to the world, as in: “and Abra(ha)m called there on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 13.4)’.522 In his Commentary on Genesis 4.26, Yefet refers to Joel 3.5. Undoubtedly, this verse, as well as Zephaniah 3.9, were critical to the Enlighteners’ understanding of their task at the threshold of the End of Days, namely, exhorting the people to call on the name of God.523 Joel 3.5 states: ‘And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered; for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape, as the Lord hath said, and among the remnant those whom the Lord shall call’. Al-Qūmisī’s Commentary on Joel 3.5 indicates that the remnant that calls on God refers to those who came up to Jerusalem before the Time of Trouble, with the aim of repenting and observing the commandments. In his ‘Sermon’ to the Karaites of the Diaspora, Daniel al-Qūmisī called upon the members of his congregation to go up to the Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 41.2, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 92a. Most Karaite scholars, including Yefet, maintained that the word ‘ṣedeq’ [in Isaiah 41.2] refers to the Messiah, Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 41.2, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 92a. According to ʿAnan, Genesis 13.4, and the verse ‘And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord’ (Genesis 26.25), teach us about building altars for the purpose of prayer. See Qirqisānī, p. 620. On ‘Qerīʾah’ [calling] in the sense of ‘Tefillah’ [prayer], see Qirqisānī, pp. 604–605. On Qirqisānī’s Commentary on Genesis 12.6–7, see Chiesa and Lockwood, ‘Genesis 12’, p. 164. On ‘daʿa’ in the sense of ‘to pray’ in Karaite Scriptures from the Geniza, see Gil, Ereṣ, II, Document 297, f. 1, line 7; f. 2, line 1; Document 298, f. 1, line 8. 522 Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 41.25, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 103b. Abraham Ibn Ezra explains the meaning of Abraham’s calling on the name of God in Genesis 12.8 as follows: ‘A prayer or calling on people to serve God’. In his Commentary on Exodus 33.18, he says, on the same verse in Genesis: ‘And people are the ones called to serve God, which is why the term “on the name” [be-Shem] is attached to the Exalted Name [the Tetragrammaton]’. In the same Commentary on Exodus, Ibn Ezra teaches us that in Scriptures the expression ‘and [He] proclaimed the name of the Lord’ (Exodus 34.5) and also Exodus 33.19 mean: ‘God is the one who is calling’. 523 In a sermon attributed by Marmorstein to al-Qūmisī, the two verses are mentioned in the same passage. See Marmorstein, ‘Sermons’, p. 39. Wieder, ‘Two Messiahs’, p. 19, n. 17, maintains that these sermons are Karaite texts and should not be attributed to al-Qūmisī. 521

402

Chapter Four

Land of Israel, ‘before the evil and the discomfiture of distress befalls all the lands’.524 There can be no doubt that in his commentary on Joel 3.5, al-Qūmisī is referring to the Karaite Mourners of Zion who went up to Jerusalem. The remnant whom God called upon were the ‘Interpreters of the law’ [‫ ]דורשי התורה‬who remained in the Diaspora: ‘And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered’ (Joel 3.5), as He said to Daniel: ‘and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book’ (Daniel 12.1). ‘For in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape’ (Joel 3.5), namely, they come from other countries to Jerusalem to repent and observe the commandments before the Time of Trouble, as it is written: ‘For, O people that dwellest in Zion at Jerusalem’, etc. (Isaiah 30.19), ‘As birds hovering’ (Isaiah 31.5), ‘so will the Lord of Hosts come down to fight upon mount Zion, and upon the hill thereof ’ (Isaiah 31.4); as birds ‘so will the Lord of Hosts protect Jerusalem’ (Isaiah 31.5) in the Time of Trouble. Thus it says: ‘for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those that escape’ (Joel 3.5). ‘As the Lord hath said’ (Joel 3.5), by other prophets. ‘And among the remnant’, they too, are the Interpreters of God’s law who will remain in their enemies’ lands. ‘Those whom the Lord shall call’, in the lands of their enemies to gather them in.525

It is interesting to compare al-Qūmisī’s Commentary on Joel 3.5 to Yefet’s commentary on the same verse: After mentioning the day of the Lord (Joel 3.4), namely, the day of judgment, we are told that the righteous will escape from the punishment of the Master of the Universe on that day, as it says: ‘And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered’ (Joel 3.5). There are two explanations of this verse: first, whosoever accepts the yoke of the commandments, since the verse’s intention in saying ‘he shall call on the name of the Lord’ is mankind’s duty to call on the name of the Master of the Universe and serve him. Some say that this refers to converts to Judaism, that is, whoever accepts the faith of Israel and has not committed intentional sins, or whoever has sinned but repents, he too shall be saved. And the verse ‘for in Mount Zion’ (Joel 3.5), teaches us who are those that will be spared. And it teaches us that these are the Israelites who will gather Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 17a (Nemoy edition), p. 76. Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Joel 3.5, Pitron, p. 30. On the term ‘Dorshei Torah’ in al-Qūmisī, see above, n. 401. 524 525

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

403

in this land. And the verse ‘and among the remnant those whom the Lord shall call’ (Joel 3.5), refers to whoever of the Israelites remains the Diaspora, and is not in Zion and Jerusalem at that time, he too shall be spared. And the verse ‘whom the Lord shall call’ (Joel 3.5), means that God will call unto them and bring them to the land of Israel, and He will leave none of them behind, as it says: ‘that I am the Lord their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them unto their own land; and I will leave none of them any more there’ (Ezekiel 39.28) […] And the angel delivered a similar prophesy to Daniel: ‘And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a Time of Trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time; and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book’ (Daniel 12.1–2).526

The above represents the essence of the Mourners’ doctrine. On the day of the Lord, that is, the Day of Judgment, only the remainder and remnant [‫]ופלטה שריד‬, whom Yefet identifies with the righteous [Ṣaddīqīm], will be saved.527 The remnant are those who call on the name of God in Jerusalem. Those who answer the call of God to go up to the land of Israel will also be saved, and thus the exile will be abolished. Here too, Yefet suggests several explanations for ‘calling on the name of God’, namely: service of God, repentance, and the conversion of gentiles to Judaism. Indeed, according to Yefet, in the end of days, only Jews who call on the name of God, that is, those who properly declare the Unity of God, will remain throughout the world. This is based on the verse in Zephaniah 3.9: ‘And in the future, none will remain on earth other than those who declare the Unity of God, as it says: “that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent” (Zephaniah 3.9)’.528 As Salvation approaches, the remnant of Israel will say to the na Yefet, Commentary on Joel 3.5, BL. Or. 2400, f. 74a. On the remnant who are righteous, see above, nn. 425–431. On the remnant of Israel who call on the name of God, see Yefet’s Commentary on Zechariah 13.9, BL. Or. 2401, f. 225a: ‘When it says “they shall call on My name” (Zechariah 13.9), it means the remnant of Israel, which Zephaniah of blessed memory described, as it says: “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity” (Zephaniah 3.13). And the phrase “they shall call on My name” (Zechariah 13.9) means that he will call to Me in troubled times and I will respond, as it says: “He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble” (Psalms 91.15). And when it says: “I will say: ‘It is My people’” (Zechariah 13.9), its meaning is, I will take care of them’. 528 Yefet, Commentary on Psalms 139.18, PBN Héb 289, f. 158a. On the abolition of all other faiths, including those considered monotheistic, see Erder, ‘Attitude’, p. 47, n. 100. 526 527

404

Chapter Four

tions of the world: ‘“the Lord hath called me from the womb” (Isaiah 49.1), meaning that the people of Israel are the Chosen people from time immemorial, since the exodus from Egypt, as it says: “He hath called me from the womb”. The meaning of “He hath called me” is “and Israel My called” (Isaiah 48.12)’.529 ‘Israel My called’ (Isaiah 48.12), means that from among all the nations, God called the people of Israel.530 As stated, the Mourners based the requirement to call on the name of God on Zephaniah 3.9, too. From the end of the verse, they determined that in the End of Days mankind will consist only of Jews who declare the Unity of God, namely, those who call on the name of God.531 From the beginning of the verse, ‘For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language’ (Zephaniah 3.9), the Mourners deduced that God’s name must be called upon only in Hebrew. They further deduced from this verse that all mankind must turn toward Jerusalem when calling on the name of God: It informs us that when He judges the inhabitants of the world, they will return to His faith. The verse ‘will I turn to the peoples’ (Zephaniah 3.9) can be understood in two ways. It may be that God will treat them as he treated the generation of the Tower of Babel when He made them forget the holy language and taught them other languages, leaving Hebrew to Noah, Shem, and Eber. Thus he will make them forget all languages and teach them Hebrew, so that they will return to their original language, as it says: ‘And the whole earth was of one language’ (Genesis 11.1). He called this language ‘pure’, [‫ ]ברורה‬since it is a pure language that will unite seven kings, and also, since God chose to speak to the prophets in it. He will turn the language of the nations into Hebrew which they will learn from the Israelites […] as it says: ‘That they may all call upon the name of the Lord’ (Zephaniah 3.9), meaning, everyone will know Hebrew, they will call on the name of God, and they will serve Him with one consent, namely, they will turn in one direction for prayer (qibla),532 and they will not know the name of the Master of the Universe in any language other than Hebrew, and they will not acknowledge any direction for prayer other than Jerusalem.533 Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 49.1, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 185b. Yefet, Commentary on Isaiah 48.12, RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569, f. 181a. 531 Above, n. 528. 532 In his commentary on ‘and he called there on the name of the Lord’ (Genesis 21.33), PBN Héb 278, f. 317a, Yefet says that this refers to the building of a ‘qibla’ to which they would turn in prayer, and upon which they would bring sacrifices. See Shtober, ‘Qibla’, p. 239. 533 Yefet, Commentary on Zephaniah 3.9, BL. Or. 2401, f. 122a-b. According to Salmon ben Yerūḥam, in his Commentary on Psalms 66.1 (Marwick edition), p. 87, the 529

530

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

405

As well as the importance of Hebrew as a tool for understanding Scriptures,534 as we saw above, the above commentary reveals the importance of the Hebrew language in the End of Days, when it will become the only language in the world, and the language in which all of mankind will call on the name of God. Yefet’s Commentary on Zechariah 14.9 shows that only with the disappearance of all other languages will belief in the one and only God be possible: ‘And it says “and His name shall be one” (Zechariah 14.9), confirming the disappearance of all languages with the exception of Hebrew, and then they shall know only the name of God, as it says: “For then will I turn to the peoples a pure language”, etc. (Zephaniah 3.9)’.535 The earliest occurrence of the term ‘Holy Language’ [‫ ]לשון הקודש‬can be found in fragments of a Qumran document, which quote Zephaniah 3.9. Editors of this document postulate that its author anticipated that in the end of days everyone would serve God in the Hebrew language.536 In conclusion, the derivation of the name ‘Karaite’ is related to the concept of calling on the name of God. We discussed above the various meanings of this concept in the commentaries of the Karaite Mourners of Zion. One meaning of calling on the name of God is praying in times of distress. In such cases, God will answer only those who repent. Those who repent on the threshold of the End of Days are those who will go up to the Land of Israel. While calling on the name of God denotes serving God, it can also mean disseminating and bequeathing the faith to all the inhabitants of the world. This role was assumed by the disseminators of religion (ha-Qōrʾīm) since the beginning of mankind. One of the most important disseminators of religion was the patriarch Abraham. The Mourners of Zion, who felt the stirrings of redemption, anticipated that in the end of days the whole world would call upon the name of God. In other words, all worthy human beings would convert to Judaism, pray facing Jerusalem, and call upon the name of God in Hebrew only. The Qerīʾei ha-Shem in the Damascus Covenant live to see the End of Days and fill the world with their offspring. As the sons of Zadok, they impart the Torah to those who are worthy of it. They bring the Redemption closer by revealing the hidden, just as their leader, the meaning of ‘that they may all call upon the name of the Lord’ (Zephaniah 3.9) is praying in the name of God and believing in His Oneness. 534 Above, Ch. 1, nn. 305–309. 535 Yefet, Commentary on Zechariah 14.9, BL. Or. 2401, f. 229b. 536 Eshel and Stone, ‘Holy Language’, pp. 169–177. See 4Q464, DJD, 19, frag. 3 i, 8–9, p. 218.

406

Chapter Four

Teacher of Righteousness [the qore], brings the Redemption closer by revealing the secrets of prophecy. The Karaite Mourners regarded themselves as successors to the Qerīʾei ha-Shem. They interpreted their appearance on the stage of history as part of the messianic process, and saw themselves as instrumental in hastening the Salvation. One of the Mourners’ important roles was the study and interpretation of Scriptures, and the attempt to interpret the prophetic secrets. The study of Scriptures was not altogether altruistic – it was designed to hasten the advent of the Teacher of Righteousness, a further stage in the process of Redemption in the End of Days. Thus it emerges that the primary meaning of the word Qara is rooted in the messianic conception of the Mourners, the founders of the Karaite movement, and that the meaning of Qara in the sense of Scripturalist is secondary. The Qara is the one who imparts Torah to the people of Israel and who shall, in the future, impart it to the whole of mankind, so that everyone will call on the name of God. In this sense, the Qara resembles the Shīʿite propagandist of his period, the dāʿī, the caller, who disseminated Shīʿite teachings. We have already discussed the influence of early Shīʿism and Ismāʿīlī Shīʿism on the Karaite Mourners of Zion.537 The distinction between the Karaites and the Benei Miqra or Baʿalei Miqra at the outset, substantiates the hypothesis that Benjamin alNahāwandī was not yet a Karaite. In addition to the distinction that Salmon ben Yerūḥam drew between the Karaites and ʿAnan and Benjamin who preceded them, is the fact the Benjamin called his circle Baʿalei Miqra.538 The distinction between the Karaites or Qarāʾīn and Baʿalei Miqra can also be found in the writings of the Karaite Daniel al-Qūmisī, who was strongly influenced by Qumran literature.539 This distinction between Karaites and Benei Miqra is no longer found in Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ who uses the term Benei Miqra.540 Similarly, Salmon ben Yerūḥam does not distinguish between Baʿalei Miqra and Karaites.541 Evidently, several factors conspired to bring about the obfuscation of the original meaning of the name Karaite, which was derived from Qumran literature. The Qumran influence on the Karaites did not Above, nn. 216–246. It is interesting to note that the first verse that was handed down to Muhammad (Sura 96.1) was ‘call in the name of your God’. On the meanings that were ascribed to this verse in Islamic exegesis, see Rubin, ‘Iqraʾ’, pp. 213–230. 538 Above, Ch. 1, n. 218. 539 On his blunt words against the Baʿalei Miqra, see above, Ch. 1, n. 225. 540 See above, n. 114. See also Ch. 1, n. 363. 541 Salmon, Milḥamot, 8, p. 77: ‘Baʿalei Miqra, the Karaites, observe according to the sighting of the moon’. 537

The Messianism of the Karaite Mourners of Zion

407

endure, and at the beginning of the second half of the tenth century began to wane.542 This disengagement from Qumran literature is reflected in all spheres, from messianic tension to methods of biblical exegesis. In the halakhic discussions in this book, we mentioned the Mourners’ disengagement from Qumran halakha, due to its messianic implications. Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī was more faithful to Qumran halakha than Daniel al-Qūmisī, and even Yefet ben ʿEli, who was active in the second half of the tenth century, rejected the lion’s share of Qumran halakha with which he was familiar. One might surmise that from their first acquaintance with Qumran literature, the Mourners of Zion developed an ambivalent attitude toward it. Peremptorily rejecting the determinism, dualism, and solar calendar which characterize Qumran works, they were unable to identify definitively with the literature of their predecessors. The main reason, in my view, that led the Karaites to obfuscate the derivation of their real name, was the identification of the Qerīʾei haShem in the Damascus Covenant with the sons of Zadok. Above we saw how the Karaites were unable to distinguish between Zadokite halakha, namely Qumran halakha, and the Sadducean halakha referenced in the sources of the Rabbinic Sages.543 The Karaites rejected the theological principles which the Rabbinic Sages attributed to the Sadducees, just as they rejected the theological principles that were central to Qumran literature. On the other hand, the Rabbanites, who saw the Karaites as the successors of the Sadducees, intensified their attacks. The Karaite Mourners had no choice but to sever any ties between themselves and the Sadducees. One way of doing so was to sever the ties between the Karaites and the Qerīʾei ha-Shem (sons of Zadok). By obfuscating the derivation of their original name, the Mourners did not altogether sever their ties with the Qumran literature in their possession. On the contrary, it was under the inspiration of this literature that they developed their halakhic and messianic doctrines. Thus, a study of the literature of the Mourners sheds light not only on their own doctrine, but also on that of their Qumran predecessors.

Ben-Shammai, ‘Return’, p. 330. Above, Ch. 2, nn. 3–167.

542 543

Chapter Five Conclusion

Judaism under Islam crystallized between the seventh and eleventh centuries – the period of time spanned by this book. Islam left its mark on Judaism in every sphere: language, way of life, religious jurisprudence, theology and the like. One of the consequences of the cultural encounter between Islam and Judaism was the emergence of the Karaite movement. The Karaites, indeed, owed much to Islamic culture. Arabic was their main language of expression. The Jews of Islam developed the study of the Hebrew language virtually from scratch, based on their knowledge of Arabic Grammar and composition. The Karaite sages played a major role in the development of Hebrew grammar. For the Karaite exegetes, knowledge of the Hebrew language was the main tool for understanding Scriptures. This explains their disparagement of homiletic interpretations of Scriptures that they found in the literature of the Rabbinic Sages. Arabic was also the vehicle whereby Greek philosophy penetrated Islamic Jewry, since the Jews in Muslim countries read the works of the ancient Greeks and their disciples in Arabic. They were likewise exposed to the exegesis of the Muslim theologists (al-mutakallimūn), in particular, the Muʿtazilite theologians. In this respect, the Karaites resembled Saʿadia Gaon, their archenemy. The Karaites participated in the Muʿtazilite discourse of their period, as testified by their prolific theological output. Although both the Karaites and Saʿadia Gaon, under the influence of the Muʿtazila, held that logic was the means for understanding and interpreting Scriptures. Saʿadia Gaon maintained that the tradition of the Rabbinic Sages superseded logic, and superseded even the literal interpretation of the verse. The Karaites, for their part, claimed that logic

410

Chapter Five

superseded any tradition, including the tradition of their own sages. The above notwithstanding, we should not assume that the literal interpretation of Scriptures was the sole hallmark of Karaite exegesis. The Karaites used logic to develop criteria for determining which passages were to be interpreted literally and which not.1 For example, based on their study of the Muʿtazila, the Karaites determined that the attributes of God were not to be interpreted literally, since such an interpretation implied belief in the materialization of God. Under the influence of the Muslim, especially Shīʿite, exegetes of the Qurʾān, the Karaites developed criteria for determining the literary genres of Scriptures. Esoteric passages (al-bāṭin) required an allegorical interpretation (taʾwīl). Salmon ben Yerūḥam attacked Benjamin al-Nahāwandī for interpreting Ecclesiastes allegorically, although he himself claimed that the Book of Proverbs mandated such an interpretation. According to Yefet ben ʿEli, the Song of Songs defied a literal interpretation. By the same token, the Karaites maintained that Scriptural commandments were to be interpreted literally, since surely God expected human beings to understand what was required of them. The above notwithstanding, many commandments in Karaite law have strayed far from their literal meaning. Logic also led the Karaites to base their determination of laws on analogy (qiyās). The Karaites, aware of the Muslim use of analogy as an exegetical tool, used analogy to add commandments that were not specified in Scriptures. No wonder, then, that the Rabbinic Sages accused the Karaites of transgressing the law of ‘thou shalt not add thereto’ (Deuteronomy 13.1). Although, initially, Muslim jurisprudence was heavily influenced by rabbinic oral law, it was not long before the tables were turned, and it began exerting its influence on Jewish law. The Karaites, who rejected the oral law, could not help but be influenced by the polemic over the status of Muslim oral law (ḥadīth) that took place at the time. Khārijite circles totally rejected the ḥadīth, viewing the Qurʾān as the sole source of law. They, too, relied heavily on the use of analogy. The Shīʿite sects, for their part, claimed that only the descendants of the House of ʿAlī were authorized to interpret the Qurʾān correctly. Nor was Orthodox Islam free of the controversy over the status of the ḥadīth. Abū Ḥanīfa, who, 1 In a question to Maimonides, the Karaites are presented as not believing in the Oral Law, but as ‘clinging to the exoteric meaning of Scriptures (ẓāhir) with their interpretations (taʾwīl)’. However, in the question, their commentaries are referred to as taʾwīl, which usually designates a non-literal interpretation. See Maimonides’ Responsa (Blau edition), II, § 265, p. 502.

Conclusion

411

according to a Karaite source, met ʿAnan in prison, attacked those circles who placed the study of tradition (‘commandments of men learned by rote’ – taqlīd) over personal judgment (ijtihād), logic (raʾy) and analogy (qiyās). The Karaites lost no time in adopting the terminology of Muslim circles that downplayed the role of tradition in determining law. This book focuses mainly on the messianic Karaite faction known as the Mourners of Zion. This faction emerged in Persia and Babylonia in the middle of the ninth century. From the last quarter of that century, its members began moving to Jerusalem, where they set up the Shoshannīm community. Soon, Jerusalem became the unquestioned centre of Karaite activity and creativity, a role it fulfilled until the end of the eleventh century. It was not by chance that Jerusalem became the centre of Karaite activity. As part of their messianic doctrine, the Mourners attempted not only to bring the people back to Scriptural sources and abandon the Oral Law, but also to emigrate to Palestine, as their various manifestos testify. The Karaite Mourners, who disparagingly called the Rabbanites ‘exilic’ and their leaders ‘teachers of exile’,2 believed that the Rabbanites sought to become entrenched in the Diaspora, and that the Oral Law (‘the law of exile’) was the means for achieving this ambition. It follows that for the Mourners, a return to Scriptures necessarily entailed a return to the Jewish homeland. We saw in the course of this book that the Karaites were unable to win over the Jewish masses, but remained a minority group. A study of a dissident minority group, apart from its intrinsic worth, is also valuable in the information it offers us on mainstream factions. In this context, it is appropriate to provide a brief discursion on the Rabbanites’ attitude to Palestine from the destruction of the Temple to the late Geonic period, as against the Karaite Mourners’ attitude. Contemporary Zionist theory claims that the Jews returned to their land after 2000 years of exile. This claim is belied, however, by the prolific literary output in Palestine over the generations. This output includes: the Mishna, the Tosefta, the Jerusalem Talmud, the Aramaic translation of Scriptures, legal and aggadic Midrashim and Masoretic works. This is corroborated by archaeological discoveries of many Jewish synagogues. 1897, the year the first Zionist Congress convened, was also the year in which the lengthy process of deciphering the Cairo Geniza began. The Geniza sheds much light on the history of the Jewish settlement in Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 14a (Nemoy edition), p. 92.

2

412

Chapter Five

Palestine in the Muslim period until the Crusader conquests, otherwise known as the Geonic period. Not only was there a thriving Jewish community in Palestine at the time, but it and its leaders became the Jewish centre for the Diaspora, too, alongside the Babylonian Geonīm of the academies of Sura and Pumbedita. At the start of the Geonic period, the Jews in the Land of Israel had their own laws, and throughout the period, wrote piyyūṭ and Midrashic works and played a leading role in the field of Masoretics. Since the Geniza documents, which shed light on the history of the Jewish settlement in Palestine, failed to penetrate the historical consciousness, the idea that the Jewish people returned to its land after 2000 years of exile remained unchallenged. This idea is valid only in the sense that the Jews regained sovereignty over the land after two millennia or, more precisely, after the suppression of the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 CE. The history of the Karaite settlement in Palestine in that period constitutes merely one chapter in the vast panorama of the Jewish settlement in Palestine in the Geonic period in general. When the first Mourners of Zion arrived in Jerusalem in the second half of the ninth century, they found a Rabbanite community already there. The Geniza documents show that the Rabbanite leadership tried to prevent the Karaites from settling in the city. The Rabbanite settlement in Jerusalem dated back to the city’s conquest by ʿUmar Ibn-al-Khaṭāb (634–644). The Geniza sources describe the renewal of Jewish settlement in Jerusalem in that period, and how the first settlers arrived in Jerusalem from Tiberias and its environs.3 The opening of the city’s gates to Jewish settlers, however, did not trigger a wave of migration to the city. On the contrary, the Palestine Academy remained in Tiberias until the first quarter of the tenth century. Even then, its transition to Jerusalem had more to do with internal dissension (following its struggle with the Babylonian academies in 922 over the right to determine the calendar)4 than with the desire to strengthen Jerusalem. This struggle, which was but one of many waged by the Babylonian leadership against the Palestinian academy in an attempt to curb its power and influence in the Diaspora, ended with the victory of the Babylonian academies. The fact that the establishment of the immigrant community of Mourners in Jerusalem, and its swift transformation into a powerhouse of Karaite activity was not paralleled by a similar Gil, Ereṣ, II, doc. 1. Gil, Palestine, p. 535.

3 4

Conclusion

413

development among the Rabbanites points to Rabbanite opposition to organized emigration to Palestine. This opposition was due not only to external factors, such as the authorities’ opposition to settlement in the Land, but to issues of doctrine, too. In the Rabbanite perception, the transition of the Jewish centre from Palestine to the Diaspora did not begin with the Geonic period, but can be traced back to the literature of the Rabbinic Sages. With the destruction of the Temple and Jewish loss of sovereignty over Palestine, a gradual process was set in motion whereby, in the eternal triangle formed by the Torah of Israel, the people Israel and the Land of Israel, the side representing the Land of Israel was destabilized. To understand how the status of Palestine declined in the doctrine of the Rabbinic Sages, it must be borne in mind that the most important form of Jewish self-expression in the ancient and medieval period was Halakha. This was true both for the Rabbanites and the Karaites. Immediately after the destruction of the Temple, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakai began introducing halakhot to fill the void created by the destruction of the Temple. For example, he awarded the synagogue the status of a miniature Temple, a kind of substitute for the actual Temple. This phenomenon was condemned by the Karaite Mourners.5 Moreover, the Rabbinic Sages stated that most commandments that pertained to the Land of Israel were to be observed in any place.6 According to them, all the commandments that the Torah enjoins us to observe after entering the Land apply in the Diaspora, too, apart from commandments pertaining to the land itself.7 They interpreted the phrase ‘in your settlements’ in a broad sense, and not as applying exclusively to Palestine.8 Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī opposed this view. According to him, it was unthinkable that the Jews should live anywhere but in the Land of Israel. He claimed that a literal interpretation of Scriptures shows that 5 On the difference between the attitude of the Rabbanites and that of the Karaites to the synagogue, see Ta-Shema, ‘Synagogal Sanctity’, pp. 351–364. Ta-Shema rightly points out that ʿAnan did much to preserve the sanctity of the synagogue. 6 According to Naḥmanides, the commandments apply only in the Land of Israel, and we observe them in the Diaspora only to prevent them falling into oblivion. On this view and its roots among the Rabbinic Sages, see Ravitzky, ‘Waymarks’, pp. 34–47. 7 BT, Kiddushin 37a. Sifre Deuteronomy, 59 (Finkelstein edition), p. 125. 8 The discussion on the verse: ‘Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the sabbath day’ (Exodus 35.3) in BT, Sanhedrin 35b, states that the sabbath is ‘a personal duty [‫]חובת הגוף‬, and personal duty is obligatory both within the Land of Israel and without the Land’. The word ‘in your habitations’ is adduced as proof that this was not a commandment that pertained to the Land of Israel alone.

414

Chapter Five

the Jewish festivals were to be observed only in Palestine, when the land was under Jewish sovereignty and the Temple extant. The Jews’ sojourns in the desert were proof that the Jewish festival were not to be observed outside the Land. Mīshawayh equated the desert with the Diaspora – both of them places where the Jewish people could not survive. This view opposed that of the Rabbanite Ben Baboi, of the early Geonic period, who, far from equating the Diaspora with the desert, actually maintained that the Diaspora was Zion: ‘There is no Zion other than an academy of those excelling in Torah’.9 He was referring to the two Babylonian academies. Although Daniel al-Qūmisī did not go as far as Mīshawayh in abolishing the commandments, he held, like him, that they were to be observed in the Land of Israel only, and criticized the Rabbanites for exaggerating observance of the commandments in the Diaspora: By this pronouncement, Scripture tells us that whosoever worships God outside the God’s Torah, by observing a man-made precept learned by rote, or by offering holy offerings and all gifts to pries and Levites in the Dispersion is the same as an idol-worshipper, and profanes God’s name. After ‘your gifts’ (Ezekiel 20.39) Scriptures goes on to say (for in My holy mountain…) there will I accept them and not in any other place and there will I require your heave offerings (verse 40) (at that time) will He require them, and not in the present day. Following this it is written: ‘With your sweet savour will I accept you’ (verse 41), God will not accept all these until the day when He will have restored the priests to Mount Moriah in Jerusalem with the building of His sanctuary. And it is forbidden to offer incense and set up the lights and say this is in accordance with God’s command, as the Rabbanites. For is it not written: ‘It is an incense of abomination unto Me’ (Isaiah 1.13)?10

The moderate Karaite Mourners, wary of following Mīshawayh’s doctrine wholesale, limited themselves to prohibiting the consumption of desired meat and wine until the rebuilding of the Temple and the 9 Ben Baboi (Lewin edition), p. 396. The Babylonian Talmud frequently emphasizes the spiritual weakness of the Land of Israel, which was made up for by the Babylonians. For example, see BT, Sukka 20a: ‘Reish Lakish said […] For in ancient times, when Torah was forgotten from Israel, Ezra came up from Babylon and established it. [Some of] it was again forgotten and Hillel the Babylonian came and established it. Yet again was [some of] it forgotten and Rabbi Ḥiyya and his sons came and established it’. 10 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’, f. 14a-b (Nemoy edition), p. 63. On al-Qūmisī’s opposition to the over-sanctification of the synagogue and its rituals, see Daniel alQūmisī, Commentary on Micah 5.12, Pitron, p. 46.

Conclusion

415

reinstatement of the nation’s sovereignty in its Land. In the Diaspora, they observed the festival commandments meticulously, thereby following in the footsteps of the Rabbinic Sages. Observance of the festivals in the Diaspora as well as awarding the synagogue the status of a miniature Temple, preserved the distinctive national-religious character of the Jewish people in the Diaspora, and prevented them from fully integrating into the ambient society. In this way, the exilic consciousness was preserved. This consciousness was beautifully expressed by the author Shmuel Y. Agnon in a speech he delivered upon receiving the Nobel Prize for literature, part of which is printed on each 50 shekel bill: ‘As a result of the historic catastrophe in which Titus of Rome destroyed Jerusalem and Israel was exiled from its land, I was born in one of the cities of the Exile. But always I regarded myself as one who was born in Jerusalem’. The deliberately-forged exilic consciousness would not have been preserved without observance of the commandments in the Diaspora. The fact that Mīshawayh, who abolished commandments in the Diaspora, later converted to Christianity, testifies to this. The Karaite Mourners, learning their lesson from Mīshawayh, rejected his views on this issue, and indeed, openly condemned them.11 I first became aware of the force and intensity of the Jewish exilic consciousness after studying the works of the French author and philosopher Albert Camus who, in speaking of the human condition, writes: ‘Man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land’.12 The Jewish exile, however, is diametrically opposed to Camus’ exile. The Jewish exile identifies the place he lives in as exile, and does so by choice. In exile, he is a stranger, but he has the memories of a glorious past in his land, and the hope of a glorious future in the same cherished land. In a word, he awaits redemption. Waiting for redemption has always been a basic theme of those fanning the flames of messianism among the Jews. The Mourners of Zion – who comprised only one chapter in the history of Jewish messianism – were no exception. For the Mourners, redemption was contingent on repentance, a return to the Scriptures, mourning, and immigration to Palestine. Failure to observe these duties would result in God’s refusal to bring about salvation. The expectation of divine redemption on the part of the Karaite Mourners marks the basic difference between them 11

See above, Ch. 3, nn. 109, 183. Camus, Sisyphe, p. 18.

12

416

Chapter Five

and the contemporary secular Zionist movement, despite the former’s ‘Zionist endeavour’. Agnon, in his novel A Guest for the Night, recounts how the preachers disparaged Zionism, saying: ‘the Zionists were trying to anticipate the coming of the Messiah instead of waiting for salvation’.13 This is the essential difference between the secular Zionists who do not await divine redemption, and the Karaite Mourners whose entire lives revolved around the anticipation of such a redemption. The Karaite Mourners’ call for immigration, their attempt to place Palestine at the centre of Jewish consciousness, their success in swiftly establishing the most important Karaite centre of their times in Jerusalem, and their unwavering anticipation of salvation, substantiate the words of author A. B. Yehoshua, in his collection of essays ‘For Normality’. In this collection, Yehoshua describes the nation’s wish to return to its land: ‘the [people] never once lost its wish to return to its land, to establish its independence, and find there national and spiritual redemption’14 and its failure to make ‘a serious or significant attempt to return to Palestine, simply in order to settle there, let alone re-establish its political statehood’.15 The Karaite Mourners, in word and deed, epitomized Yehoshua’s statement. The mainstream Rabbanites developed a doctrine of redemption that relegated it to a distant, messianic era. The people were abjured by God ‘not to go up from exile’, that is, not to emigrate to the Land of Israel en masse, and ‘not to rebel against the other nations’.16 Some Rabbinic Sages even opposed the immigration of individuals. Rabbi Zeʿīra, wishing to emigrate to Palestine, was afraid of encountering Rabbi Judah, the founder of the Academy of Pumbedita, who opined that ‘anyone emigrating from Babylon to Palestine was transgressing a positive commandment, as it says: “They shall be carried to Babylon, and there shall they be, until the day that I remember them, saith the Lord, and bring them up, and restore them to this place” (Jeremiah 27.22)’.17 Agnon, Guest, p. 138. Yehoshua, ‘Exile’, p. 29. 15 Yehoshua, ‘Exile’, p. 36. In Yehoshua’s book, as in many other books, there is almost no reference to Jewish history in the Land of Israel from the destruction of the Temple. 16 BT, Ketubbot, 111a. 17 BT, Ketubbot, 111a. On the development of the doctrine of the superiority of Pumbedita over Palestine in light of an analysis of BT, Baba Meṣiʿa, 83a-87a, see Ben Aharon, ‘Pumbedita’. See also his caustic comments in the afterword, Ben-Aharon, ‘Pumbedita’, pp. 105–106. 13 14

Conclusion

417

Although we began this chapter with a review of the Islamic influence on the Karaite movement, we have seen throughout this book that on many issues the Karaite Mourners followed the ancient tradition of Qumran. A study of the Mourners’ exegetical methods, their messianic beliefs, their halakhic doctrine, the history they invented for themselves and the epithets they applied to themselves, all clearly reveal a Qumran influence.18 Indeed, the similarity between the Mourners’ literature and Qumran literature led a group of scholars researching the Dead Sea Scrolls to maintain that the scrolls were the product of medieval Karaite circles.19 In actual fact, in many respects the Karaite doctrine differed essentially from that of the Qumran sectarians. For a start, the Karaites possessed only a fragmentary knowledge of the Qumran doctrine, and even then, rejected large sections that ran counter to their own views. Loyal to the principle of not accepting any tradition indiscriminately – a principle that explains the pluralism of Karaism in the period under discussion – the Karaites differed in their attitude toward the Qumran doctrine. Some accepted only parts of it, while others, such as Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī, accepted more. Abraham Ibn Ezra also indirectly followed the Qumran interpretation of several halakhot, through reading Karaite literature and adopting the views of Mīshawayh, who followed Qumran on many issues. The Karaites in general, and the Mourners in particular, who owed a large debt to Qumran literature, were ambivalent in their attitude toward the ancient Qumran sources. For a start, they did not entirely agree with the sect’s doctrine. Moreover, they ascribed Qumran – or rather, Zadokite – literature, to the Sadducees referred to in the Talmud, much of whose doctrine they rejected. No wonder the Karaites found it difficult to tolerate the disparaging term ‘Sadducees’ that the Rabbanites attached to them. This, no doubt, goes some way toward explaining the obfuscation of the origins of their name, ‘Qerīʾei ha-Shem’, which was taken from the Damascus Covenant, since in this document the Qerīʾei ha-Shem were the sons of Zadok. The testimony of Rabbi Moses Taku, a thirteenth-century Rabbanite, indicates that Rabbanite circles questioned the authenticity of the ‘ancient books’ in the Karaites’ possession: ‘We already heard 18 Albeck, ‘External Halakha’, pp. 93–104, suggests that if a connection exists between Karaite Halakha and rejected or external halakha, this does not mean that the Karaites were influenced by ancient works, but rather that, like their predecessors, they interpreted the texts literally. 19 Rosenthal, ‘Riddle’, pp. 55–58.

418

Chapter Five

from our Rabbis that the heretic ʿAnan and his associates wrote heretical and mendacious words and buried them in the ground, and afterwards dug them up saying: “Thus we found in ancient works”’.20 The light that Karaite works shed on the sectarian polemics of the Second Temple Period regarding the sanctity of the Sabbath of the intermediate festival days, the dedication of the Tabernacle that explain the first two dates of Megīllat Taʿanit, the laws of desired meat, and the like, refutes the Rabbanite aspersions regarding the authenticity of the ancient works in the Karaites’ possession, as related by Rabbi Moses Taku. It is worth noting that on almost all halakhic issues discussed in this book, the Qumran school applied the literal interpretation of Scriptures, while the Rabbinic Sages applied the non-literal interpretation. A case in point is the dedication of the Tabernacle with all its attendant issues. The Rabbinic Sages favoured a non-literal interpretation of Scriptures in order, inter alia, to remove the dependency of the festival commandments on Palestine, as we saw above. Yefet ben ʿEli, who represented the mainstream Mourners of Zion in his period, chose on several occasion to adopt the non-literal interpretations of the Rabbinic Sages over the literal interpretations of the Qumran school, simply because he feared the halakhic repercussions of the literal interpretations on the daily life of members of his community. This is particularly evident in his interpretations of Passover in the Desert, as we saw above. To be fair, it should be noted that the Qumran school did not devise halakhot based on a literal interpretation only. The law prohibiting marrying a niece is a clear example of a law based on analogy – a typical exegetical tool used by the Karaites. The Karaite not only accepted this law totally, they even substantiated it through further analogies. The marked influence of Qumran literature on the fledgling Karaite movement raises the question as to when and how the Karaites stumbled upon this literature. The Rabbanite source cited by the Karaite Elijah ben Abraham claimed that those who joined ʿAnan were ‘the remnants of the doctrine of Zadok and Boethus’.21 Inspired by this source and in light of the connections he found between ʿAnan and Qumran literature, Wieder concluded that the Karaite movement was formed, inter alia, by the descendants of the Qumran sect.22 However, Taku, Ketav Tamīm, p. 62. On Taku, see Dan, ‘Taku’, pp. 737–738. Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq, p. 103. 22 Wieder, Judean Scrolls, pp. 253–257. Rabin, ‘Islam’, pp. 128–129, claims that descendants of the Qumran sectarians survived in the Arabian Peninsula. See also Gil, Jews, I, pp. 253–254. 20 21

Conclusion

419

Wieder himself confesses that this hypothesis is based on mere conjecture, and has no factual basis. Evidently, the existence of the Caves Sect (so-called because its writings were found in caves) and of a copy of the Damascus Covenant in the Geniza, and the influence of Qumran literature on the Karaite Mourners in Jerusalem, indicates that some of the Qumran scrolls were discovered in the Qumran Caves during the early days of the Karaite movement.23 This opinion is further substantiated by the testimony of Timotheus, catholicus of Baghdad and head of the Nestorian Christian community in the Abassid caliphate. In an epistle written c. 815, he refers to a disclosure by Jews who were about to convert to Christianity that scrolls were discovered by Bedouins near Jericho at the beginning of the century and were handed over to the Jews of Jerusalem.24 In my opinion, the influence of Qumran literature was not limited to the Mourners of Zion who were active in Palestine from the last quarter of the ninth century. It would appear that Qumran literature influenced, directly or indirectly, early Diasporas in earlier periods. This is borne out by the Qumran influence on ʿAnan and on Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī who preceded him, the influence of the Caves Sect on Benjamin al-Nahāwandī and of Qumran halakha on him, the impact of the Qumran doctrine on Mīshawayh al-ʿUkbarī,25 and the information on ancient sects brought by Qirqisānī in the name of the ninthcentury Dāwūd Ibn Marwān al-Muqammiṣ. Scholars who claim that Qumran literature influenced Karaite sects in the Diaspora argue that gnostic sects much as the Elkesaites or Manichaeans disseminated the Qumran doctrine eastward to Palestine.26 Some, such as Wieder, even maintain that descendants of the Qumran sect survived till the Middle Ages when they joined the Karaite movement.27 Clearly, therefore, the Karaite Mourners did not blindly follow the Qumran sectarians. They did not live in the desert, nor segregate 23 Di Lella, ‘Qumran’, pp. 245–267, maintains that the medieval versions of Sefer Ben Sira that were discovered in the Cairo Geniza, were also copied from the library of the Qumran sect. 24 Braun, ‘Brief ’, pp. 299–313. Di Lella, ‘Qumran’, pp. 246–254, like many others, sees a connection between information about the Caves Sect and information given over by the catholicus. 25 On Mīshawayh’s teachers in Jibāl, northern Persia, see Qirqisānī, pp. 57, 1203. 26 See Golb, ‘Qumran’, pp. 45–47. Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’, pp. 190–191. On the remnants and influence of ancient literature in the Middle Ages, see Reeves, ‘Exploring’, pp. 148–177. 27 Above, n. 22.

420

Chapter Five

themselves from the nation as advocated by the author of the MMT: ‘And you know that we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people’.28 The Karaite Mourners acted within the nation with the aim of expediting the redemption, while presenting a halakha that was an alternative to Rabbanite halakha.29 Although working from within the camp testified to a sense of belonging, it also fanned tension between the Karaite and Rabbanite communities, especially in Jerusalem.

MMT 3.7 (Qimron edition), p. 59. On the Karaite movement as part of Jewish History, see Chiesa, Creazione, pp. 27–33. See also Ben-Shammai, ‘Orient’, pp. 15–16. Issues 89–90 of the journal Peʿamim are devoted to research of the ‘Karaite Jews’. The fact that there were ‘mixed’ marriages between Karaites and Rabbanites shows, according to Olszowy-Shlanger, that the Karaite movement in the period under discussion was not a sect. See her book, Karaite Marriage, p. 7. At the same time, it would appear that she based her general conclusions concerning the relationship between the Rabbanites and Karaites exclusively on Karaite sources dealing with marriage. On the Halakha’s attitude toward the Karaites over the generations, see Shapira, ‘Attitude’, pp. 285–361. 28 29

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

ASTI

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BEK

Bulletin des études karaites

BGS

Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft

BSOAS

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies

BT

Babylonian Talmud

CBQ

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DJD

Discoveries in the Judean Desert

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

EI

The Encyclopaedia of Islam

EJ

Encyclopaedia Judaica

HTR

The Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

IOS

Israel Oriental Studies

IS

Islamic Studies

JA

Journal asiatique

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

422

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JR

Journal of Religion

JSAI JSP

Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JT

Jerusalem Talmud

PAAJR

Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research

RB

Revue biblique

REJ

Revue des études juives

RHPR

Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses

RHR

Revue de I’histoire des religions

RQ

Revue de Qumran

SBB

Studies in Bibliography and Booklore

SI

Studia Islamica

VT

Vetus Testamentum

JSJ

423

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Index of Holy Scriptures The Hebrew Bible Genesis 1.14 1.14–16 1.16 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.29–30 2.24 4.26 5.24 7.9 7.11 8.3 8.3–4 8.4 8.20 8.21 9.3 9.3–4 11.1 11.29 12.6–7 12.8 13.4 13.9 18.2 18.7 19.10–11 21.33 27.9 43.15 45.18 48.1–20 Exodus 2.1 3.7 3.9 3.12 3.18

3.22 5.2 6.23–25 8.23–24 9.31 10.25 10.25–26 10.26 11.10 12.5 12.11 12.13 12.14 12.17 12.19 12.20 12.25 12.43 13.5 13.7 13.21 14.19 15.3 15.11 16.3 16.4 16.23 16.25 18.1 18.11 18.12 18.13 19.2 20.20 20.21 20.21–22 20.22 20.23 20.20–23 21.13 21.13–14

424

21.34 23.19 24.4 24.4–5 24.4–6 24.5 24.5–6 24.6 24.8 24.10 24.12 25.40 27.8 28.42 28.43 29.35 29.42 30.33 31.17 32.1–4 32.4 33.19 33.21 34.5 34.26 35.3 38.21 40.1 40.2 40.17 40.33 40.34 Leviticus 1.15 3.9 3.16 3.17 5.9 6.2 6.17 7.11–13 7.13 7.15 7.16

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

7.20 7.22 7.23 7.24 7.25 7.26 7.31 7.36–38 7.38 8.7–9 8.33 9.1 10;1 10.4–7 10.8–10 12.24 13.46 14.6 14.51 15.18 16.34 17.1–5 17.1–6 17.1–9 17.2 17.3 17.3–4 17.4 17.5 17.7 17.13 17.10–12 17.22–25 18.7 18.10 18.12–13 18.13 18.16 18.18 18.26 19.20 19.23–24 19.26 23.3

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

23.5 23.9 23.9–14 23.10 23.11 23.12 23.15 23.15–16 23.21 23.32 23.38 23.39 26.44 27.9 Numbers 1.16–17 5.2–4 7.1–2 7.2 7.12 7.17 7.48 7.54 8.2 9.1 9.1–2 9.1–3 9.3 9.6 9.6–8 9.7 9.11 9.11–12 10.11 10.22 11.22 15.1 15.2 15.2–3 16.2 16.3 18.7 19.11 19.14

21.18 23.7 24.17 26.9 28.3–4 28.6 28.10 28.16–25 28.24 29.6 29.12–38 31.12 35.29 Deuteronomy 1.6 3.24 4.14 5.25 11.31 12.1 12.1–2 12.2 12.4 12.4–11 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.8–9 12.9 12.10 12.10–11 12.11 12.12 12.13 12.13–14 12.15 12.15–16 12.16 12.16–23 12.17 12.18 12.20 12.21

425

426

12.22 12.23 12.24 12.26 12.27 12.20–21 12.20–23 12.26 13.1 13.13 14.4 14.4–5 24.24 14.26 15.21–23 16.2 16.3 16.7 16.9 16.16 16.17 16.18 17.17 18.3 19.8–9 21.1–9 21.15 21.19 22.8 23.11 24.1 24.5 24.6 25.7 25.17 26.1 27.6 27.7 29.28 30.1 30.11 30.11–14 30.15 32

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

32.14 31.35 33.2 33.4 33.7 Joshua 3.4 5.11 6.14–15 8.30–32 15.16–17 18.28 21.42 22.19 Judges 1.13 5 6.26 6.20–24 20.26–27 I Samuel 6.11–16 7.9 7.9–14 13.1 14 14.18 14.32 14.32–35 14.33 14.33–34 14.34 14.35 15.14 28.8–25 II Samuel 6.12–13 7.1–5 7.6 7.10 7.11 I Kings 1.50 2.28

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

3.2–3 5.20 8.10 8.23 8.65 8.85–86 8.86 12.25–33 17.4–7 18.31–32 22.19 II Kings 4.35 12.4 13.21 14.4 15.4 15.35 19.16 22.8 Isaiah 1.13 5 11.4 22.12–13 26.19 28.10 29.13 30.19 30.21 31.4 31.5 35.2–4 40.1–2 40.18 41.2 41.25 47.9–10 48.12 49.1 51.1 52.7 58.7 59.13

59.20 60.21 60.22 61.3 64.5 64.6 66.2 66.3 66.5 Jeremiah 3.8 5.1 7.21–23 7.22 7.22–3 14.9 17.24 22.4 23.22 Ezekiel 1.10 6.6 9.4 9.14 17.3 20.35–38 20.39 20.40 20.41 20.44 21.3 24.7 32.27 33.25 37.14 37.23 39.28 40.39 40.42 42.2 44.15 Hosea 1.1 2.1

427

428

2.9 6.6 9.3–4 9.4 10.12 12.2 Joel 2.12 2.17 2.23 3.4 3.5 Amos 2.8 3.7 5.2 5.12 5.13 5.25 5.26 6.8 7.14 8.11 8.11–12 8.12 Micha 1.6 2.12–13 2.13 4.6 4.6–7 4.7 5.12 Nahum 2.2 2.8 3.1 3.4 Habakkuk 1.5 1.8–10 1.13 2.2 2.3

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

2.8 2.9 2.17 3.2–3 3.17 3.18 3.19 Zephaniah 2.3 3.6–8 3.8 3.9 3.11 3.11–12 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.19 Haggai 1.1 1.15 2.1 2.17 Zechariah 1.7–8 1.8 1.10–12 1.12 3.9 4.7 5.3 5.4 5.6 5.6–9 7.3 7.5 8.9 8.16 8.19 8.1 9.9 10.7 11.10 11.11

429

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

11.11–14 11.12 13.9 14.9 14.20–22 Malachi 1.10 1.11–12 2.9 2.16 3.5 3.20 3.22 3.22–24 3.24 Psalms 1.2 1.6 2.17–18 5.1 8.6 10.7 11.2 14.2 16.4 16.11 17.1 17.6 17.10 18.1 18.34 22.32 25.14 30.10 35.10 37.11 37.11–12 37.14–15 37.24 37.32 38.14 39.3 42.1 42.2

43.2 44.24 45.1 45.2 46.1 48.9 50.8 51.19 52.8 55.6 55.23 56.1 60.7 60.8–9 60.9 66.1 69 69.1 69.1–2 69.2 74.39 78.49 78.67 78.68 80.2 80.2–3 80.3 84.4 89.37 89.38 91.1 91.4 91.15 102.1 102.14 102.16 104.4 104.19 107.10 115.11 119.18 119.19 119.20 119.32

430

119.55 119.62 119.67 132.5 132.14 135.4 136.4 137.1–2 139.18 144.1 145.18 147.14 149.6–7 Proverbs 1.20 1.28 2.4 2.4–5 2.10 3.14 3.32 8.9 8.19 8.21 8.22 21.27 29.18 Job 11.9 14.14 27.9 31.10 Song of Songs 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.11 2.12 2.12–13 2.13

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

2.15 3.2 3.3 3.8 5.7 5.10 5.11 6.2 6.11 7.8 7.9 Lamentations 1.8 2.14 3.40 5.18 Ecclesiastes 1.1 1.5 3.7 4.3 4.17 Esther 4 Daniel 2.42 8.6 9.13 9.21 10.1–3 10.2–3 10.3 11.1 11.2 11.!4 11.32 11.33 11.35 11.40 12.1 12.1–2 12.2 12.3 12;4

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

12.5 12.9–10 12.10 12.12 Nehemiah 5.18 9.1 9.31 10.30 13.24 I Chronicles 5.29–34 17.9 17.10 22.9 22.18 23.25 28.4 II Chronicles 4.1 7.9 7.10 10.1 29.17 The New Testament Matthew 5.31

19.1–9 19.9 20.20–23 Mark 10.2–11 10.18 Luke 18.19 22.44 Acts 23.8 Qurʾān 3.7 6.20 6.147 6.152 9.30 9.36–37 10.55–56 21.91 29.42 31.19 57.3 66.12

Rabbinic Texts Mishnah Maʿaser sheni 5.2 Orla 2.17 Pesaḥim 6.1–2 Yoma 3.8 4.2

Sukka 3.13–14 4.2 4.3 Megīlla 1.10 1.11 Ḥagiga 1.8 1.9

431

432

Yevamot 1.1–4 Gittin 9.10 Sanhedrin 1.10 ʿEduyot 1.5 8.7 Avot 1.1 1.3 Zevaḥim 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 Menaḥot 4.3 8.1 10.3 Ḥulin 1.2 6.1 8.1 Temurah 2.6 Ohalot 1.1 Tosephta (Zuckermandel edition) Maʿaser sheni 1.9 ʿEruvin 11.23 Sukka 3.1 Kiddushin 1.4 ʿEduyot 1.1 1.4

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Zevaḥim 13.15 13.19 Negaʻim 6.2 Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), Jerusalem 2003 Nisan p. 57 pp. 57–59 p. 59 Tammuz pp. 77–79 Kislev p. 104 Tevet pp. 107–109 Avot de-Rabbi Natan (Schechter edition), Vienna 1887 Version A, Chapter 5 Version B, Chapter 10 Midrash Halakha Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel (Horovitz-Rabin edition), Frankfurt 1891 Yitro

Chapter 3 Chapter 11

Sifra (Schlossberg edition), Vienna 1862

43b 44b

Sifre Numbers (Horovitz edition), Leipzig 1877 Naso 1

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

44 51 Be-haʿalothkhah 65 67 68 Sifre Deuteronomy (Finkelstein edition), New York– Jerusalem 1993 Chapter 1 Chapter 59 Chapter 65 Chapter 66 Chapter 71 Chapter 75 Chapter 92 Chapter 255 Chapter 271 Sifre Zuta (Horovitz edition) in Sifre Numbers Numbers 7.1 Numbers 28.6 JT = Jerusalem Talmud (Venice edition) Peʾah 2.6, 17a Shabbat 1.3, 4a-b 19.2, 17a Pesaḥim 6.1, 33a Megīlla 1.14, 72c Yevamot 13.2, 13c The Targum Credited to Jonathan ben Uziel (Rieder edition), Jerusalem 1974 Leviticus 9.1

Deuteronomy 21.1–9 24.5 BT = Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 30b Shabbat 30a 63a 86b 87b 133a 138b ʿEruvin 21b Pesaḥim 66a Sukka 20a 43b Megīlla 14a Moʿed Qatan 9a Ḥagiga 6a 6a-b 6b 10a 10b 14a 17a-b Yevamot 15b Ketuvot 111b Kiddushin 37a 66a Baba Qama 59a-b Baba Meṣiʿa 59b 83a-87a

433

434

Baba Batra 12a 60b Sanhedrin 33b 35b 59b 63a Horayot 4a Zevaḥim 61b 108b 111a 112b 114a 115b 116a 116b 116b-117a 117a 118b 119a-b 120a Menaḥot 29b 45a 45b 65a 65b-66a 83b-84a Ḥulim 16b 17a 74b 84a Midrash Aggadah Midrash Bereshit Rabba (Theodor-Albeck edition), Berlin 1903–1924 Chapter 34.3

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Chapter 35.3 Chapter 41.1 Chapter 47.10 Midrash va-Yiqra Rabba (Margoliouth edition), Jerusalem 1953–1958 Chapter 22.7 Chapter 30.1 Chapter 30.2 Midrash Tanḥuma (Buber edition), photocopy, Jerusalem 1964 Be-Ḥuqotai 5 Midrash Rabba – Shir ha-Shirim (Donsky edition), Jerusalem 1980 Chapter I 18 Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (Enelow edition), New York 1934 Chapter 1 Chapter 13 Seder Eliyahu Rabba (IshShalom edition), Vienna 1904 Chapter 16 Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer (photocopy), Jerusalem 1990 Chapter 9, f.21b Pitron Torah (A. A. Urbach edition), Jerusalem 1978 p. 29 p. 64 p. 329 p. 331 p. 334

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

435

Second Temple Period Literature Pseudo-Epigraphia and Qumran Scrolls Book of Jubilees (Kahana edition) 1.27 1.27–29 1.29 2.1 2.2 2.8–9 4.15 5.27 6.23–27 6.23–32 6.37 7.30–31 7.36 8.6 11.7 12.22 12.25 12.26–27 15.1–22 17.16 18.9–11 18.12 21.17 33.15–17 48.12–13 48.15 50.10–11 The Testament of Naphtali = M. Gaster, “The Hebrew Text of one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, Studies and Texts, London 1925–1928, I, pp. 69–85; III, pp. 22–30 III, p. 23

Qumran Scrolls Damascus Covenant = The Damascus Document Reconsidered (eds. E. Qimron and M. Brochi), Jerusalem 1992 1.1 1.4–5 1.8–11 2.3–5 2.11 2.11–13 3.6–7 3.12–14 3.19–4.6 4.20–5.1 5.1–5 5.1–6 5.5 5.7–11 6.3–11 6.10 6.10–11 6.11–12 6.11–16 6.19 7.13 7.13–18 7.18 7.18–20 7.19–20 8.21 11.17–18 11.18–21 12.1–2 13.16–17 16.1–2 16.3–4 16.4–6 19.10–13 20.17

436

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition) = The Damascus Document, (4Q122–273), DJD, 18, Oxford 1996 4Q266 frag. 9 iii, 4–5, p. 70 4Q269 frag. 3, 1–2, p. 126 4Q266 frag. 10, ii, 12–13, p. 74 4Q269 frag. 11 ii, 1–2, p. 135 4Q267 2, 17–22, p. 41 4Q266 frag. 3 ii, 17–22, p. 41 4Q266 frag. 3 iii, 18–19, p. 44 4Q270 1 i, 11, p. 37 4Q266 frag. 11, 3–5, p. 76 4Q270 1 i, 6–8, pp. 36–37 Damascus Covenant (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995, pp. 1–70 1.4–5 1.8–11 2.6–8 2.11–13 3.3–5 3.12–14 3.19–4.6 5.1–5 6.3–11 6.4–6 6.10–11 6.19 7.18–20 7.19–20 8.21 19.10–13 20.17 Damascus Covenant (Rabin edition) = C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, Oxford 1954 p. 8 p. 18

p. 66 Damascus Covenant (Schechter edition) = S. Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Cambridge 1910 p. xvii pp. xviii-xxi p. xix p. xxiii p. xxxvi p. liii Psalms Scroll (Sanders edition) = J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, Ithaca, New York 1967 Col. XXVII, 5–7 War Scroll (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995, II, pp. 80–141 1.1–2 1.2 1.3 1.8 2.6–7 2.6–8 2.7 3.2 4.10–11 13.4 13.10 Temple Scroll (Yadin English edition), Jerusalem 1983 3.3 13.10–16 15.3–5.14 17.1–4 18.3 43.12 45.7–8

437

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

45.11–12 47.3–18 47.11–14 52.9–12 52.13–15 52.15–19 52.19–21 52.21 53.1–4 53.1–6 54.4 57.17–19 66.14–17 Blessings (Charlesworth edition) = Blessings 1QSb, The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 3.22–25 5.22 Rule of Community (Charlesworth edition) = Rule of Community, The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 1.1–11 2.5 3.13 3.20 3.20–22 3.23 4.5 4.22–23 5.1–4 5.8–9 5.11–12 7.15 8.6 8.11–12 8.13–15 8.15–16

9.12 9.13–14 9.15 9.17–19 9.18–21 Rule of Congregation (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 1.1–5 1.23–25 1.27–28 2.2 2.2–3 2.11 2.13–14 Habakkuk Pesher (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 1.5–10 1.13 2.9 5.4 7.1–2 7.3–5 9.9–12 10.13 12.2–6 MMT (Qimron edition) = Miqṣat Maʿasei ha-Torah, DJD, 10, Oxford 1994 1.20–21 2.27–31 2.31–33 2.60–62 3.7 3.9–10 3.18

438

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

3.18–19 3.20–22 3.25–26 Nahum Pesher (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995, pp. 54–59 2.2 2.8 Thanksgiving Scroll = Thanksgiving Scroll, 1Q Hodayota, DJD, 40, Oxford 2009, pp. 332–355 23.15–16 Micha Pesher = 1Q14, DJD, 1, Oxford 1955, pp. 77–80 1Q14 frags. 8–10, 4–7 4Q171 Psalms Pesher (a) = 4Q171(a), DJD, 5, Oxford 1968, pp. 42–51 1, 3–4, Col. III, 15–17, p. 43 1–2, Col. II, 13–14, pp. 43–44 1–2, Col. II, 8–9, p. 44 3–10, Col. IV, 22–23, p. 45 4Q Flor. (Steudel edition) = Der Midrash zur Eschatologie und der Qumrangemeinde (4Q Midr Eschat a, b) (ed. A. Steudel), Leiden 1994 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 7–9 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 7-10 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 11-12 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 17 Col. III. frag. 1, 21.2, 19 4Q76 XIIa = 4Q76 XIIa, DJD, 15, Oxford 1997, pp. 221–233 Col. II, 4–5

4Q215a = 4Q215a Time of Consciousness, DJD, 36, Oxford 2000, pp. 172–184 Frag. 1 ii, 3, p. 179 4Q216 = 4Q216, DJD, 13, Oxford 1994, pp. 1–22 p. 11 4Q225 = 4Q225, DJD, 13, Oxford 1994, pp. 141–155 pp. 145–149 4Q251 = 4Q251, DJD, 35, Oxford 1999, pp. 25–51 Frag. 17, 2–3, p. 45 4Q252 = 4Q252, DJD, 22, Oxford 1996, pp. 185–207 p. 198 4Q375 = 4Q375 apocr Moses (a), DJD, 19, Oxford 1995, pp. 111–119 Frag. 1 i, 1–4, p. 113 Frag. 1 ii, 7–8, p. 115 4Q424 = 4Q424, DJD, 36, Oxford 2000, pp. 333–346 Frag. 3, 1, p. 342 Frag. 3, 9–10, p. 342 Frag. 3, 6, p. 343 4Q464 = 4Q464, Exposition of the Patriarchs, DJD, 19, Oxford 1995, pp. 215–236 Frag. 3 i, 8–9, p. 218 4Q504 = 4Q504, DJD, 7, Oxford 1982, pp. 137–168 Col. IV, 1–2, p. 143

439

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

4Q522 = 4Q522, Prophecy of Joshua, DJD, 25, Oxford 1998, pp. 39–74 Frag. 9 ii, 3–7, p. 55

Josephus

4Q524 = 4Q524, DJD, 25, Oxford 1998, pp. 85–114 Frags. 15–22, 4, pp. 103–104

Philo

4Q26 Levd = 4Q26 Levd, DJD, 12, Oxford 1994, pp. 193–195 Frag. 4, 1–5, pp. 194–195 11Q13 Melchizedek = 11Q13, Melch, DJD, 23, Oxford 1998, pp. 221–241 Col. II, frags. 1, 2i, 3i, 4, 15–17, p. 225

Antiquities, VIII 1.5 War, II 8.14

De opifico mundi (Loeb edition), sec. 42 De vita contemplativa (Loeb edition), sec. 65 Quod omnis probus, liber sit (Loeb edition), secs. 75-91 Posteritate Caini (Loeb edition), secs. 6-7

Karaite Literature Karaite Manuscripts ABBREVIATIONS BL = British Library, London Bodl.  = Oxford Bodleian Library INA  = Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg JTS  = Jewish Theological Seminary, New York PBN = Bibliotheque nationale, Paris RNL  = Russian National Library, St. Petersburg Israel ben Daniel Book of Precepts = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1769

Jacob ben Reuben Sefer ha-ʿOsher = JTS, MS 9513/2 Leiden, Warner 8 Levi ben Yefet Book of Precepts = Leiden, Warner 22 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 509 MS Oxford reggio 5 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ Commentary on Genesis = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4633 Salmon ben Yerūḥam Commentary on Psalms = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 556 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1345

440

Commentary on Song of Songs = BL Or. 2515 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1406 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3959 Tobias ben Moses Oṣar Neḥmad = Bodl. MS Opp. 26 (01.555) Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī Commentary on Genesis = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4529 Yefet ben ʿEli Commentary on Genesis MS Trinity College, Cambridge F 12, 109 BL Or. 2461 BL Or. 2462 INA B 51 INA B 222 PBN Héb. 278 Commentary on Exodus BL Or. 2466 BL Or. 2467 BL Or. 2468 BL Or. 2471 BL Or. 2518 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 40 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 41 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 42 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 43 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 51 INA B 220 INA B 367 PBN Héb 280 Commentary on Leviticus BL. Or. 2472 PBN Héb. 282

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Commentary on Numbers MS Trinity College, F 12.110 PBN Héb. 283 Commentary on Deuteronomy BL. Or. 2478 BL. Or. 2479 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113 INA B 369 INA C 41 INA C 72 Commentary on First Prophets Joshua = BL. Or.2404 I Samuel = BL. Or. 2547 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 156 I Kings = INA C 36 Commentary on Isaiah BL Or. 2501 BL Or. 2502 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 284 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569 Commentary on Ezekiel BL Or. 5062 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3496 INA B 135 Commentary on Minor Prophets Joel = BL Or. 2400 Amos = Trinity College, Cambridge F12.118 Micha = Trinity College, Cambridge F12.118 Habakkuk = BL Or. 2401 Zephaniah = BL Or. 2401 Zechariah = BL Or. 2401 Malachi = BL Or. 2400 Malachi = BL Or. 2401 Commentary on Hagiographa Esther = PBN Héb. 295

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Psalms = PBN Héb. 286–289

441

Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah Commentary on Exodus = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1369

Karaite Books in Print Aaron ben Elijah, ʿEṣ Ḥayyim­ = Aaron ben Elijah, Sefer ʿEṣ Ḥayyim­, Gözlöw 1847 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden = Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Gözlöw 1864 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah = Aaron ben Elijah, Sefer Keter Torah, Gözlöw 1867 Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer haMivḥar = Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer ha-Mivḥar, Gözlöw 1835 ‘An Early Karaite’ (Assaf edition) = S. Assaf, Polemic of an Early Karaite Against the Rabbanites (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 4 (1933), pp. 34–53, 193–206 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition) = ʿAnan, Sefer haMiṣvot, Zikhron la-Rishonīm, VIII, ed. A. A. Harkavy, St. Petersburg 1903 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Masʾat Binyamin = Benjamin alNahāwandī, Sefer Dinim – Masʾat Binyamin, Ramla 1979 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Leviticus = Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Leviticus, TS 16.316, in Schechter, Saadyana Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Psalms 74, Adler MS 2778 in Marmorstein, Remnants Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’

(in Hebrew), Shalem, 3 (1981), pp. 295–307 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Pitron = Daniel al-Qūmisī, Pitron Sheneim ʿAsar, ed. I. D. Markon, Jerusalem 1957 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’ (Nemoy edition) = L. Nemoy, ‘The Pseudo-Qūmisīan Sermon to the Karaites’, PAAJR 43 (1976), pp. 49–105 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’ = Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’, in Zucker, Targum, pp. 175–182 David ben Abraham, Dictionary = David ben Abraham al-Fāsī, Kitāb Jāmi ʿal-Alfāẓ, ed. S. L. Skoss, Yale University Press 1936–1945 Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu = Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu, Gözlöw 1835 Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq = Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq ha-Qaraʾīm ve-ha-Rabbanīm, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 99–106 Hadassi, Eshkol = Judah Hadassi, Eshkol ha-Kofer, Gözlöw 1836 Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle = G. Margoliouth, ‘Ibn al-Hītī’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors’, JQR, 9 (1987), pp. 429–443 Israel al-Maghribī, ‘Ritual Slaughtering’ (Nemoy edition) = L. Nemoy,

442

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

‘Israel al-Maghribī’s Tract on Ritual Slaughtering’, Henoch, 13 (1991), pp. 195–218 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Y. Algamil edition) = Levi ben Yefet, Sefer ha-Miṣvot, Ashdod 2002 Mordechai ben Nisan, Dod Mordechai = Mordechai ben Nisan, Dod Mordechai, Vienna 1830 Nissi ben Noah, Bītan haMaskīlīm = Nissi ben Noah, Bītan ha-Maskīlīm, in Pinsker Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, pp. 37–41 Nissi ben Noah, Commentary on the Decalogue = Nissi ben Noah, ʿAseret haDevarīm, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 2–13 Qirqisānī, Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Hirschfeld edition) = H. Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies (Jews’ College, Publications no. 6), London 1918 Qirqisānī = Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-Anwār waʾl-Marāqib, M. L. Nemoy, New York 1939–1943 Qirqisānī, ‘Prologue’ = G. Vajda, ‘Du prologue de Qirqisānī a son commentaire sur la Genise’, Memoriam P. Kahle (eds. M. Black and G. Fohrer), Berlin 1968, pp. 222–231 Sahl, Epistle = Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, Tokhaḥat Megūllah, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 24–43

Sahl, Piyyūṭ = Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, Piyyūṭ, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 26–27 Sahl, ‘Tract’ = A. A. Harkavy, ‘On the Situation in Jerusalem in the Tenth Century’ (in Hebrew), Meʾasef Nidaḥīm, Vienna 1870, pp. 197–204 Salmon, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein edition) = E. Feuerstein, Der Commentar des Karäers Salmon Ben Jerucham zu den Klageleidern, Krakow 1898 Salmon, Milḥamot = Salmon ben Yerūḥam, Sefer Milḥamot Adonai, ed. I. Davidson, New York 1934 Salmon, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick edition) = L. Marwick, The Arabic Commentary of Salmon ben Yeroḥam the Karaite on the Book of Psalms Ch. 42–72, Philadelphia 1956 Samuel ben Moses, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Book of Precepts) = Samuel ben Moses, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Y. Algamil edition), Ashdod 2002 Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, haMaʾakhalot = M. Lorge, Die speisegesetze der Karäer von Samuel el-Maġreb, Berlin 1907 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel (Margoliouth edition) = D. S. Margoliouth, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Yefet ben Ali the Karaite, Oxford 1889 Yefet, Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Bland edition) = R. M. Bland, The Arabic Commentary of

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Jephet ben ʿAli on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1–6, University of California, Berkeley 1996 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis (Butbul edition) = See BenShammai, Textual Tradition, Jerusalem (in Hebrew) Yefet, Commentary on Hosea (Birenbaum edition) = P. Birenbaum, The Arabic Commentary of Yefet Ben Ali the Karaite on the Book of Hosea, Philadelphia 1942 Yefet, Commentary on Proverbs (Günzig edition) = I. Günzig, Der Commentar des Karäers Jephet ben ʿAli Halevi zu den Proverbien, I-III, Krakow 1898

443

Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs (Bargès edition) = J. J. L. Bargès, Rabbi Yaphet Abou Aly in Canticum Commentarium Arabicum, Paris 1984 Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah, Commentary on the Pentateuch (Harkavy edition) = A. A. Harkavy, Zikhron laRishonīm VIII, St. Petersburg 1903, pp. 176–184 Joseph Begi, Qiryah Neʾemanah (Mann edition) = Joseph Begi, Iggeret Qiryah Neʾemanah, in Mann, Text, II, pp. 302–315 Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ, Grammar = G. Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought, Leiden 2000

Rabbinic Geonic Literature Ben Baboi (Ginzberg edition) = see Ginzberg, Genizah Studies Ben Baboi (Lewin edition) = see Lewin, Geniza Fragments Epistle of Sherira Gaon (Rabinowitz edition) = Iggeret sherira gaon, ed. N. D. Rabinowitz, Jerusalem 1991 Halakhot Gedolot (Hildersheimer edition) = A. Hildersheimer, Halakhot Gedolot, Berlin 1892 Naṭronai, Responsa = Teshuvot R. Naṭronai ben Hilai Gaon (Y. Brodly edition), Jerusalem 1994

Oṣar ha-Geonīm = B. M. Lewin, Oṣar ha-Geonīm, Jerusalem 1933 Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions (Rosenblatt edition) = Saʿadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (S. Rosenblatt edition), Yale 1948 Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition) = M. Zucker, Prushei Rav Saʿadia Gaon le-Bereshīt, New York 1984 Saʿadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Tamyīz = Saʿadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Tamyīz, T-S Misc. 35.85 f. 2

444

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Saʿadia Gaon, Kitab al-Tamyīz = in Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition) Saʿadia Gaon, Sefer ha-Egron (Aloni edition) = Saʿadia Gaon, Sefer ha-Egron (N. Aloni edition), Jerusalem 1966 Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition) = M. Zucker, ‘Fragments

of Kitāb Taḥṣīl al-Sharāʾīʿ alSamʿyyah, Written by Saʿadia Gaon’, Tarbiz, 41 (1972), pp. 373–410 (in Hebrew) Saʿadia Gaon, Translation of the Torah (Derenbourg edition) = Version arabe du Pentateuque de R. Saadia ben Iosef alFayyoûmî, ed. J. Derenbourg, Paris 1893

General Rabbinic Literature Abraham bar Ḥiyya, ʿĪbbūr = Avraham bar Ḥiyya, Sefer haʿĪbbūr, (S. Polipofski edition), London 1851 Abraham ben David, Sefer haKabbalah (Cohen edition), Abraham ben David, Sefer ha-Kabbalah (G. D. Cohen edition), Philadelphia 1967 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Amos (Simon edition) = U. Simon, Shnei Perushei R. Abraham Ibn Ezra le-Treiʿasar, I, Bar-Ilan University 1989 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch = Abraham Ibn Ezra, Perushei ha-Torah (A. Weizer edition), Jerusalem 1976 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod Moraʾ (Cohen-Simon edition) = Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod Moraʾ ve-Sod Torah (Y. Cohen and U. Simon edition), RamatGan 2002 Eshtori ha-Parḥi, Kaftor vaFeraḥ = Eshtori ha-Parḥi,

Kaftor va-Feraḥ (A. M. Lunz edition), Jerusalem 1897 Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy edition) = L. Nemoy, ‘Ibn Kammūnah’s Treatise on the Differences between the Rabbanites and the Karaites’, PAAJR, 36 (1968), pp. 107–165 Josippon (Flusser edition) = Sefer Josippon (D. Flusser edition), Jerusalem 1979 Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari (Baneth and Ben-Shammai edition) = Judah ha-Levi, Sefer ha-Kuzari (D. H. Baneth and H. BenShammai edition), Jerusalem 1977 Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari (Hirschfeld edition) = Judah ha-Levi, Sefer ha-Kuzari (H. Hirschfeld edition), Leipzig 1886 Maimonides, Book of Commandments (Qafiḥ edition) = Rambam, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Y. Qafiḥ edition), Jerusalem 1971 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah (Y. Qafiḥ edition) =

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Rambam, Perush ha-Mishnah, Jerusalem 1967 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah Avot (Shilat edition) = Rambam, Perush leMishnah Avot (Shilat edition), Jerusalem 1994 Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed (Pines edition) = Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed (S. Pines edition), Chicago 1979 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah = Rambam, Mishneh Torah Maimonides, Responsa (Blau edition) = Rambam, Teshuvot ha-Rambam (Y. Blau edition), Jerusalem 1986

445

Ramban, Commentary on the Pentateuch = Ramban, Perush ha-Torah (H. D. Sheval edition), Jerusalem 1959 Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ = Megīllat Aḥīmaʿaṣ (B. Klar edition), Jerusalem 1979 Taku, Ketav Tamīm = M. Taku, Ketav Tamīm, in Oṣar Neḥmad (ed. Y. Blumenfeld), Vienna 1860, pp. 54–99 Tanḥum ben Joseph, Commentary on the Minor Prophets = Tanḥum ben Joseph, Tanḥum ben Joseph le-trei-ʿasar (H. Shai edition), Jerusalem 1991

Arabic Sources Abū al-Faṣl al-Suʿūdī, Muntakhab al-Jalīl = in Schreiner, Notes Ashʿarī, Maqālāt = al-Ashʿarī, Kitāb Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, ed. H. Ritter, Istanbul 1929–1930 Bīrūnī, Athār = al-Bīrūnī Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, alAthār al-Bāqiya, ed. E. Sachau, Leipzig 1927 (English edition, London 1897) Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān = Ibn al-‘Arabī, Aḥkām alQurʾān, Beirut Ibn al-ʿArabī, Journey = Y. Drory, Ibn al-ʿArabī me-Sivilia. Masaʿ be-Ereṣ Israel 1905–1992, BarIlan 1993 (in Hebrew) Ibn Ḥazm, Milal = Ibn Ḥazm ʿAli b. Aḥmad, al-Fiṣal fi al-Milal, Beirut

Ibn Khaldūn, Taʾrīkh = Ibn Khaldūn, Taʾrīkh Ibn Khaldūn, Beirut 1958 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr = Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, Cairo 1988 Maqdisī, Badāʾ = al-Maqdisī Muṭahhar b. Tāhin, al-Badāʾ waʾl-Tarikh, ed. C. Huart, Paris 1889 Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ = al-Maqrīzī Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad, Kitāb al-Khiṭat, Būllāq 1853 Masʿūdī, Tanbīh = al-Masʿūdī ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn, al-Tanbīh waʾlIshrāf, Leiden 1984 Muqātil, Tafsīr = Muqātil ben Sulaymān, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, Cairo 1979 Severus Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, Miṣbāḥ al-ʿAql = Severus Ibn alMuqaffaʿ, The Lamp of the

446

Intellect (ed. R. Y. Ehied et. al.) (CSCO 365), Louvain 1975 Shāfiʿī, Risāla = al-Shāfiʿī, Kitāb al-risāla, Cairo 1940 Shahrastānī, Milal = alshahrastānī, Abū ʾl-Fatḥ, Kitāb al-milal waʾl-niḥal, ed. N. Cureton, Leipzig 1923

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Sijistānī, Iftikhār = Sijistānī Abū Sulaymān, Kitab al-Iftikhār, Beirut 1984 Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-Buldān = Yāqūt b. ʿAbdallah, Muʿjam al-buldān, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Leipzig 1866

Bibliography

Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism = B. Abrahamov, Anthropomorphism and interpretation of the Qurʾān in the Theology of al-Qāsim Ibn Ibrāhim Kitāb al-Mustarshid (Leiden: 1996). Abramson, ‘Rashbaḥ’ = S. Abramson, ‘From the Fifth Chapter of R. Shmuel ben Hofni’s “Introduction to the Talmud”’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 88 (1981), pp. 193–218. Agnon, ‘Covering the Blood’ = S. Y. Agnon, ‘Covering the Blood’, Within the Wall (Jerusalem – Tel Aviv: 1975), pp. 51–104. Agnon, Guest = S. Y. Agnon, A Guest for the Night, trans. by M. Louvish (New York: 1968). Albeck, ‘External Halakha’ = H. Albeck, ‘External Halakha in Palestinian Translations and Aggada’ (in Hebrew), Jubilee Volume in Honor of B. M. Lewin, ed. by I. L. Fischman (Jerusalem: 1940), pp. 93–104. Albeck in Zunz = H. Albeck in Y. T. Zunz, ha-Derashot be-Israel veHishtalshelutan ha-Historīt, revised and completed by H. Albeck (Jerusalem: 1947). Algamil, ha-Yahadut ha-Qaraʾīt = Y. Algamil, Toldot ha-Yahadut haQaraʾīt, (Ramla: 1981). Aloni, ‘Place of Worship’ = J. Aloni, ‘The Place of Worship and the Place of Slaughter According to Leviticus 12:3–9’ (in Hebrew), Annual of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, VII-VIII (1983–1984), pp. 21–49. Aloni, ‘Catalog of Terms’ = N. Aloni, ‘A Karaite Catalog of Terms from the Eighth Century’ (in Hebrew), A Memorial Volume in Honor of Y. P. Korngrin, ed. by A. Weiser and B. Z. Loria (Tel Aviv: 1964), pp. 324–363.

448

Bibliography

Aloni, ‘Karaite Opinion’ = N. Aloni, ‘Karaite Opinion in Menaḥem’s Maḥberet and the Single Words under the Entry “GLB”’ (in Hebrew), in Meḥqerei Lashon ve-Sifrut, III (Jerusalem: 1989), pp. 25–53. ʿAminaḥ, ‘History’ = N. ʿAminaḥ, ‘The History of the Decision Regarding Commandments Pertaining to the Land’ (in Hebrew), Or-ha-Mizraḥ, 29 (1981), pp. 42–51. Anderson, ‘Status’ = G. A. Anderson, ‘The Status of the Torah before Sinai’, DSD, 1 (1994), pp. 1–29. Ankori, ‘Elijah Bashyaṣi’ = Z. Ankori, ‘Elijah Bashyaṣi: An Inquiry into his Traditions Concerning the Beginnings of Karaism in Byzantium’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 25 (1956), pp. 44–65, 183–201. Ankori, ‘Judah Hadassi’ = Z. Ankori, ‘Studies in the Messianic Doctrine of Judah Hadassi’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 30 (1961), pp. 186–208. Ankori, Karaites = Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (New York: 1959). ʿAqavia, Luaḥ = A. A. ʿAqavia, ha-Luaḥ ve-Shīmūshū ba-Khronologia (Jerusalem: 1953). Assaf, Tequfat ha-Geonīm = S. Assaf, Tequfat ha-Geonīm ve-Sifrutah (Jerusalem: 1955). Astren, ‘Karaite Approaches’ = F. Astren, ‘Karaite Approaches to the Past in Medieval Islam’, Judaism and Islam Boundaries, Communication and Interaction – Essays in Honor of W. M. Brinner, ed. by B. H. Harry and others (Leiden: 2000), pp. 321–334. Astren, ‘Scrolls’ = F. Astren, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and Medieval Jewish Studies: Methods and Problems’, DSD, 8 (2001), pp. 105–123. Astren, History = F. Astren, History, Historicization, and Historical Claims in Karaite Jewish Literature, Ph.D. Dissertation (University of California, Berkeley: 1993). Baer, ‘Rule’ = Y. Baer, ‘“The Rule of the Community”, a JewishChristian Document’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 29 (1964), pp. 1–60. ‘Bama’, Talmudic Encyclopedia = ‘Bama’, Talmudic Encyclopedia, III, pp. 339–346 (in Hebrew). Baneth, ‘Autographs’  = D.  H.  Baneth, ‘Some Remarks on the Autographs of Judah ha-Levi and the Genesis of the Kuzari’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 26 (1957), pp. 297–303. Bar-Asher, Imami Shiism = M. Bar-Asher, Scripture and Exegesis in Early Imami Shiism (Leiden: 1999). Bar-Asher, ‘Hebrew’ = M. Bar-Asher, ‘The New Hebrew and the Legacy of Generations’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 18 (2002), pp. 203–215.

Bibliography

449

Bar-Asher, ‘Judaism’ = M. Bar-Asher, ‘On Judaism and the Jews in Early Shīʿī Religious Literature’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 61 (1994), pp. 16–36. Bar-Ilan, ‘Myth’ = M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Myth and Ritual in Jerusalem Halakhot’ (in Hebrew), Eshel Beʾer Sheva, 4 (1996), pp. 45–57. Bar-Ilan, ‘Washing’ = M. Bar-Ilan, ‘Washing the Feet before Prayer’ (in Hebrew), Maḥanaim, 1 (1991), pp. 162–169. Bar-Kochva, ‘Research’  = B.  Bar-Kochva, ‘Second Temple-period Research: Training, Means, Methods, and Aims’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 100 (2001), pp. 122–164. Baron, History = S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, V (Philadelpha: 1957). Basal, al-Kitāb al-Mushtamil = N. Basal, ‘Part One of al-Kitāb alMushtamil, by Abū al-Faraj Harūn and its Dependency on Ibn alSarrāj’s Kitāb al-ʾUṣūl al-Naḥw’ (in Hebrew), Leshonenu, 61 (1998), pp. 191–209. Baumgarten, ‘Who?’ = A. I. Baumgarten, ‘Who Were the Zadokites in Jerusalem and Qumran?’ The Jews in the Hellenistic and Roman World – Studies in Memory of Menachem Stern, ed. by I. M. Gafni and others (Jerusalem: 1996), pp. 393–411. Baumgarten, ‘Zadokite Priests’ = A. I. Baumgarten, ‘The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration’, DSD, 4 (1997), pp. 137–156. Baumgarten, ‘Controversies’  = J.  M.  Baumgarten, ‘The PharisaicSadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts’, JJS, 31 (1980), pp. 157–170. Baumgarten, ‘Corrigenda’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘Corrigenda to the 4Q MSS of the Damascus Document’, RQ, 19 (1999), pp. 217–223. Baumgarten, ‘Disqualifications’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘The Disqualifications of Priests in 4Q Fragments of the “Damascus Document”, a Specimen of the Recovery of pre-Rabbinic Halakha’, The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. by J. T. Barrera and others (Leiden: 1992), II, pp. 503–513. Baumgarten, ‘Ḥadash’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘4Q Halakaha 5, the Law of Ḥadash and the Pentecontad Calendar’, JJS, 27 (1976), pp. 36–46. Baumgarten, ‘Mei Nidah’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘The Use of ‫ מי נידה‬for General Purification’, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. by L. H. Schiffman and others (Jerusalem: 2000), pp. 481–485. Baumgarten, ‘Restraints’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘The Qumran-Essene Restraints on Marriage’, Archaeology and History in the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by L. H. Schiffman (Sheffield: 1990), pp. 13–24.

450

Bibliography

Baumgarten, ‘Sacrifice’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘Sacrifice and Worship among the Jewish Sectarians of the Dead Sea (Qumrân) Scrolls’, HTR, 46 (1953), pp. 141–157. Baumgarten, ‘Sadducean Elements’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘Sadducean Elements in Qumran Law’, The Community of Renewed Covenant, ed. by E. Ulrich and others (Indiana: 1994), pp. 27–36. Baumgarten, ‘Scriptural Citation’ = J. M. Baumgarten, ‘A “Scriptural” Citation in 4Q Fragments of the Damascus Document’, JJS, 43 (1992), pp. 95–98. Becker, ‘Abū al-Faraj’ = D. Becker, ‘A Unique Semantic Clarification on the Hebrew Verb Taken by the Qaraite Abū al-Faraj Harūn from the Arab Grammarian Ibn al-Sarrāj’, JSAI, 20 (1996), pp. 237–259. Becker, Ben Quraysh = D. Becker, ha-Risāla shel Yehudah ben Quraysh (Tel Aviv: 1984) (in Hebrew). Beckwith, ‘Essene Calendar’ = R. T. Beckwith, ‘The Essene Calendar and the Moon: A Reconsideration’, RQ, 15 (1992), pp. 457–466. Beckwith, ‘Qumran Calendar’  = R.  T.  Beckwith, ‘The Qumran Calendar and the Sacrifices of the Essenes’, RQ, 7 (1969–71), pp. 587–591. Beckwith, ‘Temple Scroll’ = R. T. Beckwith, ‘The Temple Scroll and its Calendar: Their Character and Purpose’, RQ, 18 (1997), pp. 3–19. Beeri, ‘Dirges’ = T. Beeri, ‘Two Historical Dirges on the Assassination of Abū Sa‘d al-Tustari’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 69 (2000), pp. 127–144. Beeri, ‘Hebrew Poetry’ = T. Beeri, ‘Hebrew Poetry in Babylonia in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries in Light of Geniza Discoveries’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 15 (1999), pp. 23–36. Ben-Aharon, ‘Pumbedita’ = Y. Ben-Aharon, ‘Agadat Pumbedita – Shiʿur be-Talmud’ (in Hebrew), Maḥberet Shdemot, 12, Midreshet Oranim (Kibbutz Dalia: 2000). Ben-Sasson, ‘First’ = H. H. Ben-Sasson, ‘The First of the Karaites – The Trend of Their Social Conception’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 15 (1950), pp. 42–55. Ben-Sasson, ‘Shoshannīm Congregation’ = H. H. Ben-Sasson, ‘The Image of the Karaite “Shoshannīm” Congregation in Jerusalem’ (in Hebrew), Shalem, 2 (1976), pp. 1–18. Ben-Shalom, ‘Beit Shammai’  = Y.  Ben-Shalom, Beit Shammai w-Mʾavaq ha-Qanʾaīm Neged Roma (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1993). Ben-Shalom, Sūgyot = Y. Ben-Shalom, Sūgyot Historiyyot be-Masekhet de-Rabbi Natan, Dissertation, (Tel Aviv University: undated).

Bibliography

451

Ben-Shammai, ‘ʿAnanites’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Between ʿAnanites and Karaites: Observations on Early Medieval Jewish Sectarianism’, Studies in Muslim-Jewish Relations, ed. by R. L. Nettler, (Oxford: 1993), pp. 19–29. Ben-Shammai, ‘Attitude’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘The Attitude of Some Early Karaites towards Islam’, Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. by I. Twersky, (Harvard University Press: 1984), pp. 17–32. Ben-Shammai, ‘Different’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘A Different TheologicalPolitical View: The Karaite Mourners of Zion’ (in Hebrew), Haṣiyonut ve-ha-Ḥazara la-Historia – ha-ʿArakha me-Ḥadash, ed. by S. N. Eisenstadt and M. Lissak, (Jerusalem: 1999), pp. 138–148. Ben-Shammai, ‘Editions’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Editions and Versions of Yefet b. ʿEli’s Bible Commentary’ (in Hebrew), Alei Sefer, 2 (1976), pp. 17–32. Ben-Shammai, ‘Jerusalem’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Jerusalem in Early Medieval Jewish Bible Exegesis’, Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity and Islam, ed. by I. Levine, (New York: 1999), pp. 447–464. Ben-Shammai, ‘Kalām’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Kalām in Medieval Jewish Philosophy’, History of Jewish Philosophy, ed. by D. H Frank and O. Leaman, (London: 1977), pp. 115–148. Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Controversy’  = H.  Ben-Shammai, ‘The Karaite Controversy: Scriptures and Tradition in Early Karaism, Religionsgesprache im Mittelalter, ed. by B. Lewis and F. Niewohner (Wiesbaden: 1992), pp. 1–26. Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaite Exegetes and Their Rabbanite Environment’ (in Hebrew), Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies – Bible Studies and the Ancient Near-east, (Jerusalem: 1985), pp. 43–58). Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaites’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘The Karaites’, The History of Jerusalem – The Early Muslim Period 638–1099, ed. by J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai, (Jerusalem: 1996), pp. 201–224. Ben-Shammai, ‘Lamentations’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Poetic Works and Lamentations of the Karaite Mourners of Zion – Structure and Contents’ (in Hebrew), Knesset Ezra: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, ed. by S. Elitzur and others, (Jerusalem: 1995), pp. 234–291. Ben-Shammai, ‘Note’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘A Note on Some Karaite Copies of Muʿtazilite Writings’, BOAS, 37 (1974), pp. 295–304.

452

Bibliography

Ben-Shammai, ‘Notes’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Methodological Research Notes on the Relationship between the Karaites and Ancient Jewish Sects’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 42 (1987), pp. 69–84. Ben-Shammai, ‘Oneness of God’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Qirqisānī on the Oneness of God’, JQR NS, 73 (1982), pp. 105–111. Ben-Shammai, ‘Orient’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Karaites and the Orient – Trends in the Study of Karaites and Karaism’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 89 (2001), pp. 5–18. Ben-Shammai, ‘Polemical Element’  = H.  Ben-Shammai, ‘On a Polemical Element in Saʿadia’s Theory of Prophecy’ (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 7 (1988), pp. 127–146. Ben-Shammai, ‘Rabbinic Literature’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Rabbinic Literature in Saʿadia’s Exegesis: Between Tradition and Innovation’ (in Hebrew), Masoret ve-Shīnūy ba-Tarbut ha-ʿAravīt ha-Yehūdīt shel Yemei ha-Benaim, ed. by J. Blau and D. Doron, (Bar-Ilan University Press: 2006), pp. 33–69. Ben-Shammai, ‘Return’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Return to the Scriptures in Ancient and Medieval Jewish Sectarianism and in Early Islam’, Les retours aux écritures – fondamentalismes présents et passés, ed. by E. Patlagean and others, (Louvain-Paris: 1998), pp. 319–339. Ben-Shammai, ‘Saʿadia’s Introduction’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Saʿadia’s Introduction to Isaiah as a Prologue to the Book of Prophets’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 60 (1990–1991), pp. 371–404. Ben-Shammai, Shīṭot Datīt = H. Ben-Shammai, Shitoṭ ha-Maḥshavah ha-Datit shel Qirqisānī ve-shel Yefet Ben ʿEli (in Hebrew), doctoral thesis (Jerusalem: 1978). Ben-Shammai, ‘Textual Tradition’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘A Study of Textual Tradition in Yefet ben ʿEli’s Bible Translations’ (in Hebrew), in: Yefet, Commentary on Genesis (Butbul edition), pp. 181–206. Ben-Shammai, ‘Transmigration’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Transmigration of Souls in Tenth-century Jewish Thought in the Orient’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 20 (1991), pp. 117–136. Ben-Shammai, ‘Yeshuʿah’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Yeshuʿah Ben Yehudah – A Characterization of the Karaite Scholar of Jerusalem in the Eleventh Century’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 32 (1987), pp. 3–20. Bildstein, ‘Karaites’ = G. Bildstein, ‘The Karaites in Maimonidean Law’, Techumin, 8 (1987), pp. 501–510. Blau, ‘Three Languages’ = J. Blau, ‘The Three Languages of the Society of the Geniza’ (in Hebrew), Divrei ha-Aqademia ha-Leumīt leMaddaʿīm, 8 (1999), pp. 201–212.

Bibliography

453

Borenstein, ‘Calendrical Computations’ = H. Y. Borenstein, ‘Calendrical Computations and their Development in Israel’ (in Hebrew), ha-Tequfa, 6 (1930), pp. 247–313. Braun, ‘Ein Brief ’ = O. Braun, ‘Ein Brief des Katholikos Thimotheos I über biblische Studien des 9 Jahrhunderts’, Oriens Cristianus, 1 (1901), pp. 299–313. Brin, ‘Divorce’ = G. Brin, ‘Divorce at Qumran’, Legal Texts and Legal Issues, Published in Honor of J. M. Baumgarten, ed. by M. Bernstein and others, (Leiden: 1997) pp. 231–244. Brin, ‘Laws of the Prophets’ = G. Brin, ‘The Laws of the Prophets in the Sect of the Judaean Desert: Studies in 4Q375’, JSP, 10 (1992), pp. 19–51. Brin, ‘Perception’ = G. Brin, ‘The Perception of Biblical Prophecy in the Scrolls’ (in Hebrew), Sūgyot ba-Miqra uva-Megīllot, (Tel Aviv: 1994), pp. 146–161. Brin, ‘Reading’ = G. Brin, ‘Reading in 4Q524 Frs. 15–22 - DJD XXV’, RQ, 19 (1999), pp. 265–271. Brin, ‘Studies’ = G. Brin, ‘Studies in 4Q424, Fragment 3’, VT, 46 (1996), pp. 271–295. Brin, ‘Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees’ = G. Brin, ‘Regarding the Connection between the Temple Scroll and the Book of Jubilees’, JBL, 112 (1993), pp. 108–109. Brody, Geonīm = R. Brody, The Geonīm of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, (Yale University Press: 1998). Brody, Ṣohar = Y. Brody, Ṣohar le-Sifrut ha-Geonīm, (Tel Aviv: 1998). Bronznick, ‘Dorshei Ḥalaqot’ = G. M. Bronznick, ‘The Meaning of “Dorshei Ḥalaqot”’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 60 (1941), pp. 613–617. Brooke, ‘4Q252’ = G . J. Brooke, ‘The Thematic Content of 4Q252’, JQR NS, 85 (1994), pp. 33–59. Broshi, ‘Polemic’ = M. Broshi, ‘Anti-Qumran Polemic in the Talmud’ (in Hebrew), Or le-Yaʿaqov: Studies in the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht, (Jerusalem: 1997), pp. 211–219. Broshi and Eshel, ‘Messiah in Qumran?’ = M. Broshi and H. Eshel, ‘Was There a Messiah in Qumran?’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 70 (2001), p. 133–138. Brumberg ‘Halakhic Issues’ = A. Y. Brumberg, ‘Halakhic Issues in the Exegesis of Ben Ezra’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 50 (1962), pp. 431–440. Büchler, ‘Schechter’s Jewish Sectaries’ = A. Büchler, ‘Schechter’s “Jewish Sectaries”’, JQR NS, 3 (1912–13), pp. 429–485. Burton, Collection = J. Burton, The Collection of the Qurʾān, (Cambridge: 1977).

454

Bibliography

Cahen and Talbi, ‘Ḥisba’ = Cl. Cahen and M. Talbi, ‘Ḥisba’, EI2, III, pp. 485–489. Calder, ‘Qurrāʾ’  = N.  Calder, ‘The Qurrāʾ and the Arabic Lexicographical Tradition’, JJS, 36 (1991), pp. 297–307. Camus, Sisyphe = A. Camus, Le mythe de Sisyphe, (Paris: 1942). Carmignac, ‘Apparitions’ = J. Carmignac, ‘Les apparitions de Jésus ressuscité et le calendrier biblico-qumranien’, RQ, 7 (1971), pp. 483–504. Chazon and Stone, ‘4Q215a’ = E. G. Chazon and M. E. Stone, ‘4Q Time of Righteousness’, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by D. W. Parry and others, (Leiden: 1999), pp. 124–125. Chiesa, Creazione = B. Chiesa, Creazione e caduta dell’uomo nell’essegesi, giudeo-araba medievale, (Brescia: 1989). Chiesa, ‘Karaite Historiography’ = B. Chiesa, ‘A Note on Early Karaite Historiography’, Essays in Jewish Historiography, ed. by A. RapoportAlbert, (Atlanta: 1991–1997), pp. 56–65. Chiesa, Storica = B. Chiesa, Filologia storica della Bibbia Ebraica, (Brescia: 2000). Chiesa and Lockwood, ‘Genesis 12’ = B. Chiesa and W. Lockwood, ‘AlQirqisānī’s Newly-Found Commentary on the Pentateuch – The Commentary on Gen. 12’, Henoch, 14 (1992), pp. 153–180. Chiesa and Lockwood, Qirqisānī = B. Chiesa and W. Lockwood, Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish sects and Christianity, (Frankfurt a. M: 1984). Cook, ‘ʿAnan’ = M. Cook, ‘ʿAnan and Islam: Origins of Karaite Scripturalism’, JSAI, 9 (1987), pp. 161–182. Corbin, Ismaili Gnosis = H. Corbin, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis, (London: 1983). Crawford, ‘ʿIr Miqdash’ = S. W. Crawford, ‘The Meaning of the Phrase ‫ עיר המקדש‬in the Temple Scroll’, DSD, 8 (2001), pp. 242–254. Crone, ‘Islam’ = P. Crone, ‘Islam Judeo-Christianity and Byzantine Iconoclasm’, JSAI, 2 (1980), pp. 59–95. Crone, ‘Qasāma’ = P. Crone, ‘Jāhīlī and Jewish Law: The Qasāma’, JSAI, 4 (1984), pp. 153–201. Crone and Cook, Hagarism = P. Crone and M. Cook, Hagarism, (Cambridge: 1977). Daftary, Ismāʿīlīs = F. Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs – Their History and Doctrines, (Cambridge: 1990). Dan, ‘Taku’ = Y. Dan, ‘Taku Moses ben Hisdai’, EJ, XV, pp. 737–738.

Bibliography

455

Danzig, Halakhot Pesuqot = N. Danzig, Introduction to Halakhot Pesuqot: Including Supplement to Halakhot Pesuqot, (New York: 1993). Davidson, Ḥiwi = I. Davidson, Saadia’s Polemic against Ḥiwi al-Balkhi (New York: 1915). Davies, ‘Ideology’ = P. R. Davies, ‘The Ideology of the Temple in the Damascus Document’, JJS, 33 (1982), pp. 287–301. Delcor, ‘Réflexions’ = M. Delcor, ‘Réflexions sur l’investiture sacerdotale sans onction à la fête du nouvel an d’après le Rouleau du Temple de Qumran’, Hellenica et Judaica: hommage à V. Nikiprowetzky, ed. by A. Caquot and others, (Paris: 1986), pp. 155–164. Di Lella, ‘Qumran’ = A. A. Di Lella, ‘Qumran and the Geniza Fragments of Sirach’, CBQ, 24 (1962), pp. 245–267. Dimant, ‘Heavenly Sons’ = D. Dimant, ‘The Heavenly Sons – The Angels Doctrine in Jubilees in the Light of the Qumran Scrolls’ (in Hebrew), Studies in Jewish Philosophy and Kabbala, presented to Sara O. Heller-Wilensky, ed. by. M. Idel and others, (Jerusalem: 1994), pp. 97–118. Dimant, ‘Interpretation’ = D. Dimant, ‘The Apocalyptic Interpretation of Ezekiel at Qumran’, Messiah and Christos, ed. by I. Gruenwald and others (Tübingen: 1992) pp. 31–51. Dimant, ‘New Light’ = D. Dimant, ‘New Light from Qumran on the Jewish Pseudepigrapha – 4Q390’, The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. by J. T. Barrera and others, (Leiden: 1992), II, pp. 405–448. Dotan, ‘Ben-Asher’ = A. Dotan, ‘Was Ben-Asher a Karaite?’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 41 (1957), pp. 280–312; 350–362. Dotan, ‘Massora’ = A. Dotan, ‘De la Massora à la grammaire – les débuts de la pensée grammaticale dans l’Hébreu’, JA, 278 (1990), pp. 13–30. Dotan, ‘Saʿadia Gaon’ = A. Dotan, ‘Saʿadia Gaon on the Origins of Language’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 65 (1995–1996), pp. 237–249. Drory, Reʼshīt = R. Drory, Reʼshīt ha-magʿaīm shel ha-Sifrut ha-yehūdīt ʿim ha-Sifrut ha-ʿAravīt ba-Meʾah ha-ʿAsīrīt (in Hebrew), (Tel Aviv: 1988). Efron, ‘Bar-Kochva’ = J. Efron, ‘Bar-Kochva in Light of the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmudic Traditions’ (in Hebrew), Mered BarKochva – Meḥqarīm Ḥadashīm, ed. by A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport, (Jerusalem: 1984), pp.47–105. Eldar, ‘Treatise’ = I. Eldar, ‘The Treatise on the Shewa and “Seder haSimannim” – Two parts of a Whole’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 6 (1988), pp. 127–138.

456

Bibliography

‘Elijah’, Talmudic Encyclopedia = ‘Elijah’, Talmudic Encyclopedia, II, pp. 6–8. Elkin, ‘Version’ = Z. Elkin, ‘The Karaite Version of “Sefer haḤīllūqīm bein Benei Ereẓ-Yisrael le-Benei Bavel”’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 66 (1997), pp. 101–111. Elkin and Ben-Sasson, ‘Firkovitch’ = Z. Elkin and M. Ben-Sasson, ‘Abraham Firkovitch and the Cairo Genizas in the Light of his Personal Archive’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 90, (2002), pp. 51–95. Epstein, ‘Mekhilta’ = N. Epstein, ‘From the Mekhilta to Parashat Reʾeh’, Abhandlungen zur Erinnerung an Hirsch Perez Chajes, (Vienna: 1935), pp. 60–75. Epstein, Mevoʾot = J. N. Epstein, Mevoʾot le-Sifrut ha-Tanaim (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1974). Erder, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Doctrine of Abū ʿĪsā al-Iṣfahānī and its Sources’, JSAI, 20 (1996), p. 162–199. Erder, ‘Altar’ = Y. Erder, ‘“The Altar of the Covenant” at Mount Sinai (Ex. 24: 4–5) in the Early Karaite Commentaries’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 15–16, (2001), pp. 315–357. Erder, ‘Attitude’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet ben ʿEli to Islam in Light of his Interpretation of Psalms 14 and 53’ (in Hebrew), Michael, 14 (1997), pp. 29–49. Erder, ‘Centrality’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Centrality of the Land of Israel in Early Karaite Circles as Reflected in the Halakha of Mīshawayh alʿUkbarī’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 60, (1991), pp. 37–67. Erder, ‘Dilemma’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Karaites’ Sadducee Dilemma’, IOS, 14 (1994), pp. 195–226. Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions’= Y. Erder, ‘Early Karaite Conceptions about Commandments Given before the Revelation of the Torah’, PAAJR, 60 (1994), pp.101–140. Erder, ‘Encounter’ = Y. Erder, ‘When did the Karaites First Encounter Apocryphal Literature Akin to the Dead Sea Scrolls?’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 42, (1987), pp. 54–68. Erder, ‘First Date’ = Y. Erder, ‘The First Date in Megīllat Taʿanit in Light of the Karaite Commentary on the Tabernacle Dedication’, JQR, NS, 82 (1992), pp.263–283. Erder, ‘Hezekiah Paschal’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Date of the Paschal Sacrifice in the Light of the “Hezekiah Paschal” in the Early Karaite Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 59 (1990), pp. 443–456.

Bibliography

457

Erder, ‘Idrīs’ = ‘The Origin of the Name Idrīs in the Qurʾān: A Study of the Influence of Qumran Literature on Early Islam’, JNES, 49 (1990), pp. 339–350. Erder, ‘Karaite Halakha’ = Y. Erder, ‘Early Karaite Halakha and Rabbinic Halakha in Light of the Controversies over the time of the Paschal Sacrifice’ (in Hebrew), Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C. Vol. 1, (Jerusalem 1990), pp. 170–176. Erder, ‘Moral Issues’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Attitude of the Karaite Yefet ben ʿElī to Moral Issues in Light of his Interpretation of Exodus 3:21–22’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 22 (1999), pp. 313–334. Erder, ‘Negation’ = Y. Erder, ‘The Negation of the Exile in the Messianic Doctrine of the Karaite Mourners of Zion’, HUCA, 68 (1997), PP. 109–140. Erder, ‘Observance’ = Y. Erder, ‘Observance of the Commandments in the Diaspora on the Eve of the Redemption in the Doctrine of the Karaite Mourners of Zion’, Henoch, 19 (1997), pp. 175–202. Erder, ‘Precedents’ = Y. Erder, ‘Precedents Cited by ʿAnan for the Postponement of Passover that Falls on the Sabbath’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 52 (1987), pp. 153–175. Erder, ‘Remnants’ = Y. Erder, ‘Remnants of Qumranic Law in the Laws of the Karaite Benjamin al-Nahāwandī Concerning Desired Meat’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 63, (1998), pp. 5–38. Eshel, ‘4QLEVd ’ = E. Eshel, ‘4QLEVd: A Possible Source for the Temple Scroll and the Miqṣat Maʿaśe ha-Torah’, DSD 2 (1995), pp. 1–13. Eshel, ‘4Q471’ = E. and H. Eshel, ‘4Q471 Fragment 1 and Maʿamadot in the War Scroll’, The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. by J. T. Barrera, et al. (Widen: 1992), II, pp. 611–620. Eshel and Safrai, ‘Treasures’ = H. Eshel and Z. Safrai, ‘Which Treasures Were Listed in the Copper Scroll?’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 103 (2002), pp. 7–20. Eshel and Stone, ‘Holy Language’ = E. Eshel and M. Stone, ‘The Holy Language at the End of Days in Light of a New Fragment Found at Qumran’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 62, (1993), pp. 169–177. Feldman, ‘Phinehas’ = L. H. Feldman, ‘The Portrayal of Phinehas by Philo, Pseudo Philo and Josephus’, JQR NS, 152 (2002), pp. 315–345. Fenton, ‘Image’ = P. B Fenton, ‘“A l’image de Dieu”. L’interprétation de Genèse I, 26 selon quelques exégètes qaraïtes du Moyen Age’, Henoch, 15 (1993), pp. 271–290.

458

Bibliography

Finkelstein, ‘Halakhot’ = A. A. Finkelstein, ‘The Halakhot That Were Said in Jerusalem’ (in Hebrew), Jubilee Volume in Honor of Alexander Marx (Hebrew Section), (New York: 1980), pp. 351–369. Fischel, ‘Ibn Khaldun’ = W. J. Fischel, ‘Ibn Khaldun and Josippon’, Homenaje a Millas Vallicrosa, (Barcelona: 1954), I, pp. 587–598. Fischel, ‘Resh Galuta’ = W. J. Fischel, ‘The “Resh Galuta” in Arabic Literature’, Magnes Anniversary Volume, ed. by F. I. Baer and others, (Jerusalem: 1938), pp. 181–187. Fishbane, ‘Use’ = M. Fishbane, ‘Use of Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran’, Mikra Text, Translation etc. (Compendium Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum, Section 2, 1), ed. by M. Jan Mulder, (Philadelphia: 1988), pp. 339–377. Fitzmyer, ‘Divorce’ = J. A. Fitzmyer, ‘Divorce Among First-Century Palestinian Jews’, Ereṣ Israel, 14 (1978), pp. 103–110 Fleischer, ‘Cultural Profile’ = E. Fleischer, ‘The Cultural Profile of Eastern Jewry in the Early Middle Ages as Reflected by the Payyetanic Texts of the Geniza’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 15, (1999), pp. 1–22. Fleischer, ‘Essʾa Meshalī’ = E. Fleischer, ‘A New Fragment from Rav Saʿadia Gaon’s Essʾa Meshalī’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 49 (1980), pp. 102–110. Fleischer, ‘Lament’ = E. Fleischer, ‘A Lament for the Jews Killed in the Land of Israel in the Days of Heraclius Caesar’ (in Hebrew), Shalem, 5, (1987), pp. 209–227. Fleischer, ‘Qiliri Riddle’ = E. Fleischer, ‘Solving the Qiliri Riddle’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 54 (1985), pp. 383–427. Flusser, ‘Pharisees’ = D. Flusser, ‘Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in Pesher Nahum’ (in Hebrew), Essays in Jewish History and Philology in Memory of Gedaliahu Alon, ed. by M. Dorman and others, (Tel Aviv: 1970), pp. 133–168. Flusser, ‘Sect’ = D. Flusser, ‘The Judean Desert Sect and Its Perspectives’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 19 (1954), pp. 89–103. Fogelman, ‘Karaite Slaughterer’ = M. Fogelman, ‘A Test of a Karaite Slaughterer’ (in Hebrew), ha-Zofe le-Ḥokhmat Yisrael, 10, (1926), pp. 231–237. Fossum, ‘Magharians’ = J. Fossum, ‘The Magharians: A Pre-Christian Jewish Sect and Its Significance for the Study of Gnosticism and Christianity’, Henoch, 9 (1987), pp. 303–344. Fraade, ‘Interpretive Authority’ = S. D. Fraade, ‘Interpretive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran’, JJS, 44 (1993), pp. 46–69.

Bibliography

459

Fraade, ‘Looking’ = S. D. Fraade, ‘Looking for Legal Midrash at Qumran’, Biblical Perspectives, ed. by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon, (Leiden 1998), pp. 59–79. Fraade, ‘To Whom It May Concern’ = S. D. Fraade, ‘To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addressee(s)’, RQ, 19 (2000), pp. 507–526. Frank, ‘Elijah’ = D. Frank, ‘Elijah b. Baruch Yerushalmi and the Karaite Controversy Concerning Ritual Slaughter in the Seventeenth Century’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 90 (2002), pp. 21–50. Frank, ‘Ibn Ezra’ = D. Frank, ‘Ibn Ezra and the Karaite Exegetes Aaron Ben Joseph and Aaron Ben Elijah’, Abraham Ibn Ezra and His Age, ed. by F. Diaz Esteban (Madrid: 1990), pp. 97–107. Frank, ‘Shoshanim’ = D. Frank, ‘The Shoshanim of Tenth-Century Jerusalem: Karaite Exegesis, Prayer, and Communal Identity’, The Jews of Medieval Islam – Community, Society and Identity, ed. by D. Frank, (Leiden: 1995), pp. 199–245. Frank, ‘Voice’ = D. Frank, ‘The Voice of the Turtledove is Heard in Our Land: The Commentaries of the Karaites Salmon ben Yerūḥam and Yefet ben ʿEli on the Song of Songs’ (in Hebrew), International Rennert Guest Lectures Series 7 (Bar-Ilan University: 2001), pp. 3–29. Freimann, ‘Meschulam’ = A. Freimann, ‘Meschulam b. Kalonymos Polemik gegen die Karäer’, Festschrift zu Hermann Cohen, ed. by I. Elbogen and others, (Berlin: 1912), pp. 569–578. Friedlander, ‘Studies’ = I. Friedlander, ‘Jewish-Arabic Studies’, JQR NS, 1 (1910–11), pp. 183–215; 2 (1911–12), pp.481–510; 3 (1912–13), pp. 235–300. Friedman, ‘Ben Baboi’ = M. A. Friedman, ‘On the Claim of Pirqoi ben Baboi in the Matter of the Discovery of Hidden Books of the Jerusalem Talmud’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 83, (1968), pp. 250–251. Friedman, ‘Contribution’ = M. A. Friedman, ‘On the Contribution of the Geniza to the Study of Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Maddʿei haYahadut, 38 (1998), pp. 277–298. Friedman, ‘Dispute’  = M.  A.  Friedman, ‘A Dispute between a Yemenite Divine and R. Abraham Maimuni Concerning the Marriage Payment and the Authority of Tradition’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 14 (1998), pp. 139–192. Friedman, Marriage = M. A. Friedman, Jewish Marriage in Palestine – A Cairo Geniza Study, (New York–Tel Aviv: 1980–1981). Friedman, ‘Marriage Laws’ = M. A. Friedman, ‘Marriage Laws Based on “Maʿasīm Livne Ereẓ Yisraʾel”’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 50, (1981), pp. 209–242.

460

Bibliography

Friedman, ‘Ono’ = M. A. Friedman, ‘Ono – New Information from the Cairo Geniza’, Bein Yarqon ve-Ayalon – Meḥqarīm ʿal Gush Dan veEmeq Lud (in Hebrew), ed. by D. Grossman, (Bar-Ilan University: 1983), pp. 73–85. Friedman, ‘Qaraʾīm’ = M. A. Friedman, ‘Qaraʾīm, Benei Mikra, Baʿalei Mikra’ (in Hebrew), Leshonenu, 40 (1976), pp. 296–297. Friedman, ‘Relationship’ = M. A. Friedman, ‘On the Relationship between the Karaite Marriage Contract and the Palestinian Rabbanite Marriage Contracts from the Geniza’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 15 (1999), pp. 145–157. Fröhlich, ‘Qumran Names’ = I. Fröhlich, ‘Qumran Names’, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by D. W.Parry and E. Ulrich, (Leiden: 1999), pp. 294–305. Fuller, ‘Malachi’ = R. Fuller, ‘Text-Critical Problems in Malachi 2:10– 16’, JBL, 110 (1991), pp. 47–57. Gartner, ‘Naḥem Prayer’ = Y. Gartner, ‘The “Naḥem” Prayer, a Time of Comfort and the Karaites’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 89, (1981), pp. 157–164. Gartner, ‘Ninth of Ab’ = Y. Gartner, ‘The Influence of the Mourners of Zion on Ninth of Ab Customs in the Geonic Period’ (in Hebrew), Bar-Ilan University Yearbook, 20–21, (Bar-Ilan University: 1983), pp. 128–144. Gartner, ‘Why’ = Y. Gartner, ‘Why did the Geonīm Institute the Custom of Saying “Avoth” on the Sabbath’ (in Hebrew), Sidra, 4, (1988), pp. 17–32. Gil, ‘Additions’ = M. Gil, ‘Palestine during the First Muslim Period (634–1099) – Additions, Notes, and Corrections’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 7, (1991), pp. 281–345. Gil, ‘Antiquities’ = M. Gil, ‘Karaite Antiquities’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 15, (1999), pp. 71–107. Gil, ‘Creed’ = M. Gil, ‘The Creed of Abū ʿĀmir’, IOS, 12 (1992), pp. 9–57. Gil, Ereṣ = M. Gil, Ereṣ Israel ba-Tequfah ha-Mūslemīt ha-Rishona (634–1099), (Tel Aviv: 1983). Gil, Jews = M. Gil, Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages, (Leiden: 2002). Gil, ‘Karaite Quarter’ = M. Gil, ‘The Karaite Quarter in Jerusalem in Light of Their Commentary on the Sabbath Limits (Teḥum Shabbat)’ (in Hebrew), Shalem, 7, (2001), pp. 1–14. Gil, Palestine = M. Gil, A History of Palestine (634–1099), (Cambridge: 1992).

Bibliography

461

Gil, ‘Sixty Years’ = M. Gil, ‘The Sixty Years’ War (969–1029 CE)’ (in Hebrew), Shalem, 3, (1981), pp. 1–55. Gil, Tustarīm = M. Gil, ha-Tustarīm – ha-Mishpaḥa ve-ha-Kat, (Tel Aviv: 1981). Gil and Fleischer, Yehuda ha-Levi = M. Gil and E. Fleischer, Yehuda haLevi w-Benei Ḥugu, (Jerusalem: 2001). Gillet-Didier, ‘Calendrier lunaire’ = V. Gillet-Didier, ‘Calendrier lunaire, calendrier solaire et gardes sacerdotales: recherches sur 4Q321’, RQ, 20 (2001), pp. 171–205. Gilliot, Exegèse = C. Gilliot, Exegèse, langue, et théologie en Islam, (Paris: 1990). Gimaret, ‘Muʿtazila’ = D. Gimaret, ‘Muʿtazila’, EI 2, VII, pp. 783–793. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies = L. Ginzberg, Genizah Studies in Memory of Solomon Schechter, II, (New York: 1929). Ginzberg, Unknown = L. Ginzberg, An Unknown Jewish Sect (New York: 1976). Goitein, ‘Civilization’ = S. D. Goitein, ‘The Intermediate Civilization’, Studies in Islamic History and Institutions, (Leiden: 1966) pp. 54–70. Goitein, ‘Forefathers’ = S. D. Goitein, ‘The Life of Our Forefathers as Reflected in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 1, (1980), pp. 7–19. Goitein, Jews and Arabs = S. D. Goitein, Jews and Arabs, (New York: 1955). Goitein, ‘The Angry Religion’ = S. D. Goitein, ‘The Angry Religion’ (in Hebrew), Sefer Dinaburg, ed. by Y. Baer and others (Jerusalem: 1949) pp. 151–164. Goitein, Mediterranean = S. D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, (University of California Press: 1967–1993). Golb, ‘Damascus Covenant’ = N. Golb, ‘Literary and Doctrinal Aspects of the Damascus Covenant in the Light of Karaite Literature’, JQR NS, 47 (1956–1957), pp. 354–374. Golb, ‘Maġārīya’ = N. Golb, ‘Who Were the Maġārīya?’, JAOS, 80 (1960), pp. 347–359. Golb, ‘Qumran’ = N. Golb, ‘The Qumran Covenanters and the Later Jewish Sects’, JR, 41 (1961), pp. 38–50. Golb, ‘Topography’ = N. Golb, ‘The Topography of the Jews of Medieval Egypt’, JNES, 24 (1965), pp. 251–270. Golb, Who Wrote = N. Golb, Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, (New York: 1995).

462

Bibliography

Goldberg, ‘Midrash’ = A. Goldberg, ‘The Early and Late Midrash’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 50, (1981), pp. 94–106. Goldfeld, ‘Qurʾānic Exegesis’ = Y. Goldfeld, ‘The Development of Theory on Qurʾānic Exegesis in Islamic Scholarship’, SI, 67 (1988), pp. 5–27. Goldstein, ‘Beginnings’ = M. Goldstein, ‘The Beginnings of the Translation from Derash to Peshat as Exemplified in Yefet Ben ʿEli’s Comment on PSA, 44:24’, Exegesis and Grammar in Medieval Karaite Texts, ed. by G. Khan, (Oxford: 2001), pp. 41–64. Goldziher, ‘Caraïtes’ = I. Goldziher, ‘Caraïtes et Zahirites’, REJ, 43 (1901), pp. 6–7. Goldziher, ‘Mélanges’ = I. Goldziher, ‘Mélanges Judéo-arabes’, REJ, 45 (1902), p. 8. Goldziher, Ẓāhiris = I. Goldziher, The Ẓāhiris, (Leiden: 1971). Gottlieb, ‘Adjacent’ = I. B. Gottlieb, ‘Adjacent Chapters in Ibn Ezra’ (in Hebrew), ʿIyyūnei Miqra w-parshanut, 5 (2000), pp. 205–219. Gottlober, Bīqoret = A. B. Gottlober, Bīqoret le-Toldot ha-Karaīm, (Vilna: 1865). Griffith, ‘Miṣbāḥ al-ʿAql’ = S. Griffith, ‘The Kitāb Miṣbāḥ al-ʿAql of Severus Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ: A Profile of a Christian Creed in Arabic in Tenth Century Egypt’, Medieval Encounters, 2 (1996), pp. 15–42. Grintz, ‘People of the Yaḥad’ = J. M. Grintz, ‘The People of the Yaḥad, Essenes, Beit (A)sin’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 32 (1953), pp. 11–43. Grintz, ‘Ye Shall Not’ = J. M. Grintz, ‘Ye Shall Not Eat on the Blood’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 31 (1966), pp. 1–17. Guillaume, ‘Documents’ = A. Guillaume, ‘Further Documents on the Ben-Meir Controversy’, JQR NS, 5 (1914–1915), pp. 543–557. Guttmann, Philosophy = J. Guttmann, The Philosophy of Judaism, (London: 1988).  Halevi, Toledot Ḥayyim = Ḥayyim ben Yiṣhak Halevi, Toledot Ḥayyim, (Ashdod: 1994) (in Hebrew). Halivni, Midrash = D. W. Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah and Gemara, (Harvard University Press: 1986). Hallaq, ‘Ijtihād’ = W. B. Hallaq, ‘On the Origins of the Controversy about the Existence of Mujtahids and the Gate of Ijtihād’, SI, 63 (1986), pp. 129–141. Hallaq, ‘Qarīna’ = W. B. Hallaq. ‘Notes on the Term Qarīna in Islamic Legal Discourse’, JAOS 108 (1988), pp. 475–480.

Bibliography

463

Hallaq, ‘Qiyās’ = W. B. Hallaq, ‘Non-Analogical Arguments in Sunni Juridical Qiyās’, Arabica, 36 (1989), pp. 286–306. Harkavy, ‘Fragments’  = A.  Harkavy, ‘Fragments of Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah in the Imperial Public Library at St. Petersburg’, JQR, 13 (1901), pp. 655–668. Harkavy, ‘History of Sects’ = A. A. Harkavy, ‘A History of Sects in Israel’ (in Hebrew), in H. Graetz, Divrei Yemei Israel (Warsaw: 1894), III, pp. 493–511. Harkavy, ‘Qirqisānī’ = A. A. Harkavy, ‘Abū Yūsuf Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī on Jewish Sects’, translated from the Russian, in Chiesa and Lockwood, Qirqisānī, pp. 49–80. Harkavy, Zikhron = A. A. Harkavy, Zikhron la-Rishonīm ve-gam laAḥronīm, I, 4, 8, (Berlin: 1887). Hawting, ‘Significance’ = G. R. Hawting, ‘The Significance of the Slogan Lā Ḥukma Illā Lillāh and the References to the Ḥudūd in the Traditions about the Fitna and the Murder of ʿUthmān’, BSOAS, 41 (1978), pp. 453–463. Hayward, ‘Phinehas’ = R. Hayward, ‘Phinehas – The Same is Elijah: The Origins of a Rabbinic Tradition’, JJS, 29 (1978), pp. 22–34. Heinemann, ‘Messiah ben Ephraim’ = I. Heinemann, ‘Messiah ben Ephraim and the Untimely Exodus from Egypt of the Sons of Ephraim’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 40 (1971), pp. 450–461. ‘Ḥelev’, Talmudic Encyclopaedia = ‘Ḥelev’, Talmudic Encyclopedia, XV, pp. 98–154 (in Hebrew). Heller, ‘Eléménts aggadiques’= B. Heller, ‘Eléménts aggadiques dans les règles herméneutiques du Caraïte Qirqisâni’, REJ, 89 (1930), pp. 237–244. Henshke, ‘Apocryphal Halakha’ = D. Henshke, ‘The acceptance of apocryphal Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 65 (1996), pp. 225–229. Henshke, ‘Counting of the Omer’ = D. Henshke, ‘The History of the Counting of the Omer’ (in Hebrew), Rabbi Mordechai Breuer Festschrift, ed. by M. Bar-Asher, (Jerusalem: 1992), II, pp. 417–448. Henshke, ‘Midrash’ = D. Henshke, ‘Two Subjects Typifying the Tannaitic Halakhic Midrash’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 65 (1996), pp. 417–438. Henshke, ‘Reconsideration’ = D. Henshke, ‘The Sanctity of Jerusalem in MMT: A Reconsideration’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 69 (1999), pp. 145–150.

464

Bibliography

Henshke, ‘Sanctity of Jerusalem’  = D.  Henshke, ‘The Sanctity of Jerusalem: The Sages and Sectarian Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 67 (1977), pp. 5–28. ‘Heqqesh’, Talmudic Encyclopaedia = ‘Heqqesh’, Talmudic Encyclopaedia, V, pp. 558-575 (in Hebrew). Herr, ‘Boethusians’ = M. D. Herr, ‘Who Were the Boethusians?’, Proceedings of the 7th World Congress of Jewish Studies: Studies in the Talmud, Halakha and Midrash, (Jerusalem: 1981), pp. 1–20. Herr, ‘Continuum’ = M. D. Herr, ‘Continuum in the Chain of Torah Transmission’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 44 (1980), pp. 43–56. Hinds, ‘Ṣiffīn’ = M. Hinds, ‘The Ṣiffīn Arbitration Agreement’, JSS, 17 (1972), pp. 93–129. Hirschberg, ‘Mount of Olives’ = H. Z. Hirschberg, ‘Mount of Olives in the Geonite Period’ (in Hebrew), Yedīʽot ha-Ḥevrah le-Ḥaqirat Ereṣ Israel ve-ʽAtīqoteha, 13 (1947), pp. 156–164. Hirschfeld, ‘Arabic Portions’ = H. Hirschfeld, ‘The Arabic Portions of the Cairo Geniza at Cambridge’, JQR, 16 (1904), pp. 98–112. Hirschfeld, ‘Criticism’ = H. Hirschfeld, ‘Mohammedan Criticism on the Bible’, JQR, 13 (1901), pp. 222–240. Hoenig, ‘Be-Talmud’ = S. B. Hoenig, ‘What is the Explanation for the Term “Be-Talmud” in the Scrolls?’, JQR NS, 53 (1962–63), pp. 274–276. Hoenig, ‘Dorshé Halakot’ = S. B. Hoenig, ‘Dorshé Halakot in the Pesher Nahum Scrolls’, JBL, 83 (1964), pp. 119–138. Hoenig, ‘Jubilees Calendar’ = S. B. Hoenig, ‘The Jubilees Calendar and the “Days of Assembly”’, Essays on the Occasion of the Seventieth Anniversary of the Dropsie University, ed. by A. I. Katsh and others, (Philadelphia: 1979), pp. 189–207. Hoenig, ‘Pesher’ = S. B. Hoenig, ‘Qumran Pesher on “Taanit”’, JQR NS, 57 (1966–1967), pp. 71–73. Hoenig, ‘Revel’  = S.  B.  Hoenig, ‘Rabbinics and Research: The Scholarship of Dr. Bernard Revel’, Studies in Judaica in Honor of Dr. Samuel Belkin, ed. by L. D. Stitskin, (New York: 1964), pp. 403–459. Hoenig, ‘Scrolls’ = S. B. Hoenig, ‘The Sectarian Scrolls and the Rabbinic Research’, JQR NS, 59 (1968–69), pp. 24–70. Holdheim, Maʾamar ha-ʾĪshūt = S. Holdheim, Maʾamar ha-ʾĪshūt– ʿal Tekhunot ha-Rabbanīm ve-ha-Qaraʾīm, (Berlin: 1861).

Bibliography

465

Inbar, Joshua = M. Inbar, Yehoshuʿa w-Berīt Shkhem (Jerusalem – Tel Aviv: 1999). Ir-Shai, ‘Constantine’ = O. Ir-Shai, ‘Constantine and the Jews: The Prohibition against Entering Jerusalem – History and Hagiography’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 60 (1995), pp. 129–178. Ir-Shai, ‘Jacob’ = O. Ir-shai, ‘Jacob of Kefar Niburaia – A Sage Turned Apostate’ (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 2 (1982– 1983), pp. 153–168. Itzchaky, ‘Targum’ = E. Itzchaky, ‘Targum Yerushalmi and Karaite Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Halikhot, 3 (1996), pp. 127–138. Jaubert, ‘Calendrier’ = A. Jaubert, ‘Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la Secte de Qumran’, VT, 3 (1953), pp. 250–264. Jaubert, ‘Dernière cène’ = A. Jaubert, ‘La date de la dernière cène’, RHR, 146 (1954), pp. 140–173. Jaubert, ‘Pays de Damas’ = A. Jaubert, ‘Le pays de Damas’, RB, 65 (1958), pp. 214–248. Jaubert, Notion d’alliance = A. Jaubert, La notion d’alliance dans le Judaisme, (Paris: 1963). Juynboll, ‘Position’ = G. H. A. Juynboll, ‘The Position of Qurʾān Recitation in Early Islam’, JSS, 19 (1974), pp. 240–251. Juynboll, ‘Sunna’ = G. H. A. Juynboll, ‘Some New Ideas on the Development of Sunna as a Technical Term in Early Islam’, JSAI, 10 (1987), pp. 97–118. Kahana, ‘Midrashic Treasures’ = M. Kahana, ‘Midrashic Treasures in the Leningrad and Moscow Libraries’ (in Hebrew), Asufot, 6 (1992), pp. 41–70. Kannengieser, ‘Athanasius’  = C.  Kannengieser, ‘Athanasius of Alexandria vs. Arius: The Alexandrian Crisis’, The Roots of Egyptian Christianity, ed. by B. A. Pearson and J. E. Goehring, (Philadelphia: 1986), pp. 204–215. Khadduri, Islamic Jurisprudence = M. Khadduri, Islamic Jurisprudence – Shāfiʿīs Risāla, (Baltimore: 1961). Khan, Ibn Nūḥ = G. Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought – Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ on the Hagiographa, (Leiden: 2000). Khan, ‘Qirqisānī’ = G. Khan, ‘The Opinions of Qirqisānī concerning the Text of the Bible and Parallel Muslim Attitudes towards the Text of the Qurʾān’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 14 (1998), pp. 69–80.

466

Bibliography

Kinberg, Muḥkamāt = L. Kinberg, ‘Muḥkamāt and Mutashābihāt (Koran 3/7): Implication of a Koranic Pair of Terms in Medieval Exegesis’, Arabica, 35 (1988), pp. 143–172. Kister, ‘Appendix’ = M. Kister, ‘Appendix to M. J. Kister, “Do not assimilate yourselves… Lā tashabbahū”’, JSAI, 12, (1989), pp. 354–371. Kister, ʿIyyūnīm = M. Kister, Avot de-Rabbi Natan: ʿIyyūnīm be-Nūsaḥ ʽArīkha w-parshanūt, (Jerusalem: 1998). Kister, ‘Plucking’ = M. Kister, ‘Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath and the Jewish-Christian Debate’ (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 3, (1983–1984), pp. 349–366. Kister, ‘Studies’ = M. Kister, ‘Studies in 4Q Miqṣat Maʿasei ha-Torah and Related Texts: Law, Theology, Language, and Calendar’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 68, (1999), pp. 317–371. Kister, ‘Two Formulae’ = M. Kister, ‘Two Formulae in the Book of Jubilees’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 70, (2001), pp. 289–300. Kister, ‘Lā taqraʾū’ = M. J. Kister, ‘Lā taqraʾū l-qurʾāna ʿala l-muṣḥafiyyīn wa-lā taḥmilū l-ʿilma ʿani l-ṣaḥafīyyīn… – Some Notes on the Transmission of ḥadīth’, JSAI, 22 (1998), pp. 127–162. Kister, ‘Jews of Arabia’ = M. J. Kister and M. Kister, ‘On the Jews of Arabia – Some Notes’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 48, (1979), pp. 231–247. Klar, ‘Ben-Asher’ = B. Klar, ‘Ben-Asher’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 14, (1943), pp. 156–173; 15, (1944), pp. 36–49. Knohl, ‘Friend’ = I. Knohl, ‘“The King’s Friend”: The Messiah of the Qumran Sect’ (in Hebrew), Kabbalah, 3, (1998), pp. 243–258. Knohl, ‘Revealed and Hidden’ = I. Knohl, ‘The Revealed and Hidden Torah’, JQR NS, 85 (1994), pp. 103–108. Knohl, ‘Sectarianism’ = I. Knohl, ‘Post-Biblical Sectarianism and the Priestly Schools of the Pentateuch: The Issue of Popular Participation in the Temple Cult on Festivals’, The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. by J. T. Barrera and others, (Leiden: 1992), II, pp. 601–609. Knohl and Naeh, ‘Milluim’ = I. Knohl and S. Naeh, ‘Milluim ve-Kippurim’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 62, (1992), pp. 17–44. Kohlberg, ‘Notes’ = E. Kohlberg, ‘Some Notes on the Imamite Attitude to the Qurʾān’, Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition, ed. by S. M. Stern and others (Oxford: 1972), pp. 209–224. Kohlberg, ‘Taqiyya’ = E. Kohlberg, ‘Some Imāmī-shīʿī Views on Taqiyya’, JAOS, 95 (1975), pp. 395–402. Korteweg, ‘Naphtali’s Visions’ = Th. Korteweg, ‘The Meaning of Naphtali’s Visions’, Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ed. by M. de Jonge, (Leiden: 1975), pp. 261–290.

Bibliography

467

Kraus, ‘Zitate’  = P.  Kraus, ‘Hebräische und Syrische Zitate in ismāʿīlitischen Schriften’, Der Islam, 19 (1931), pp. 241–263. Lagrange, ‘Secte juive’ = M. J. Lagrange, ‘La secte juive de la nouvelle alliance’, RB, 9 (1912), pp. 321–360. Lasker, ‘Influence of Karaism’ = D. J. Lasker, ‘The Influence of Karaism on Maimonides’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 20 (1991), pp. 145–161. Lasker, ‘Islamic Influences’ = D. J. Lasker, ‘Islamic Influences on Karaite Origins’, Studies in Islamic Judaic Traditions, II, ed. by W. M. Brinner and S. D. Ricks, (Atlanta: 1989), pp. 23–47. Lasker, ‘Jerusalem’ = D. J. Lasker, ‘Jerusalem in Later Karaite Thought’ (in Hebrew), Meʾah Sheʽarīm – Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky, ed. by E. Fleischer and others, (Jerusalem: 2001), pp. 341–348. Lasker, ‘Philosophy’ = D. J. Lasker, ‘The Philosophy of Judah Hadassi the Karaite’ (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 7 (1988), pp. 477–492. Lasker, ‘Scrolls’  = D.  J. Lasker, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Historiography and Self-Image of Contemporary Karaites’, DSD, 9 (2002), pp. 281–294. Lauterbach, ‘Substitutes’  = J.  Z. Lauterbach, ‘Substitutes for the Tetragrammaton’, PAAJR, 2 (1930–31), pp. 39–67. Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Halakhic Differences’  = H. Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Some Halakhic Differences between Judaism and Islam’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 51 (1984), pp. 207–225. Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Queen Esther’ = H. Lazarus-Yafeh, ‘Queen Esther – One of the Marranos?’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 57 (1988), pp. 121–122. Le Bachelet, ‘Arianisme’ = X. Le Bachelet, ‘Arianisme, Dictionnaire de théologie chatholique’, ed. by A. Vacant and E. Mangenot, (1909), I, pp. 1779–1863. Le Moyne, Sadducéens = J. Le Moyne, Les Sadducéens, (Paris: 1972). Levi, ‘Fils de Sadoc’ = I. Levi, ‘Document relatif à la “Communauté des Fils de Sadoc”’, REJ, 65 (1913), pp. 24–31. Lewin, ‘Geniza Fragments’ = B. M. Lewin, ‘Geniza Fragments’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 2 (1931), pp. 383–410. Lewin, ‘Maʿasīm = B. M. Lewin, ‘Maʿasīm li-benei Ereṣ Israel’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 1 (1930), pp. 79–101. Libson, ‘Comparative Law’ = G. Libson, ‘Jewish-Muslim Comparative Law – A History of Its Study and Problematics’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 62 (1995), pp. 42–81.

468

Bibliography

Licht, Hodayot = Y. Licht, Megīllat ha-Hodayot – mi-Megīllot Midbar Yehudah (Jerusalem: 1957). Lieberman, ‘Light’ = S. Lieberman, ‘Light on the Cave Scrolls from Rabbinic Sources’, PAAJR, 20 (1951), pp. 395–404. Lieberman, Tosefta = S. Lieberman, Tosefta ki-Feshuṭah, (New YorkJerusalem: 1992). Loewenstamm, ‘Derivation’  = A. Loewenstamm, ‘On the Derivation and Vocalization of the Name “Karaite”’ (in Hebrew), Leshonenu, 38 (1973–1974), pp. 181–182. Loewenstamm, ‘Karaite Commentary’ = A. Loewenstamm, ‘A Karaite Commentary on Genesis in Samaritan Pseudomorphosis’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 8 (1964), pp. 167–204. Madelung, ‘Ismāʿīliyya’ = W. Madelung, ‘Ismāʿīliyya’, EI2, IV, pp. 198–206. Makarem, ‘Philosophical Significance’  = S.  M.  Makarem, ‘The Philosophical Significance of the Imām in Ismāʿīlism’, SI, 27 (1967), pp. 41–53. Makdisi, ‘Dialectic’ = G. Makdisi, ‘Dialectic and Disputation: The Relation between the Texts of Qirqisānī and Ibn ʿAqīl’, Mélanges d’Islamologie à la mémoire de A. Abel, ed. by P. Salmon, (Leiden: 1974), pp. 201–206. Maman, ‘Peshat’ = A. Maman, ‘Peshat and Derash in Medieval Hebrew Lexicons’, IOS, 19 (1999), pp. 343–357. Mann, ‘Ben Bâboï’ = J. Mann, ‘Les “Chapitres” de Ben Bâboï et les relations de R. Yehoudaï Gaon avec la Palestine’, REJ, 70 (1920), pp. 113–148. Mann, ‘Commentaries’ = J. Mann, ‘Early Karaite Bible Commentaries’, JQR NS, 15 (1924–1925), pp. 361–388. Mann, Jews = J. Mann, The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fātimid Caliphs2, (New York: 1970). Mann, ‘Polemical Work’ = J. Mann, ‘A Polemical Work against Ḳaraite and Other Sectaries’, JQR NS, 12 (1921–1922), pp. 123–150. Mann, Texts = J. Mann, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, (Cincinnati: 1931). Mann, ‘Theological-Polemical Work’ = J. Mann, ‘An Early TheologicalPolemical Work’, HUCA, 12–13 (1937–1938), pp. 411–459. Mann, ‘Tract’ = J. Mann, ‘A Tract by an Early Ḳaraite Settler in Jerusalem’, JQR NS, 12 (1921–1922), pp. 257–298. Margolioth, Elijah = A. Margoliouth, Eliyahu ha-Navīʼ be-Sifrut Yisrael, (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1960).

Bibliography

469

Markon, ‘Karäertum’ = I. Markon, ‘Das Karäertum’, Jeschurun, 13 (1926), pp. 310–603, 14 (1927), pp. 25–32, 139–143. Marmorstein, ‘Remnants’ = A. Marmorstein, ‘Remnants from Daniel al-Qūmisī’s Commentaries’ (in Hebrew), Ha-Zofe le-Ḥokhmat Israel, 8 (1924), pp. 44–60; 321–337. Marmorstein, ‘Sermons’  = A.  Marmorstein, ‘Daniel al-Qūmisī’s Sermons’ (in Hebrew), Zion Meʾasef, 3 (1929), pp. 26–42. Marwick, ‘First Fragment’ = L. Marwick, ‘A First Fragment from David B. Abraham al-Fāsī’s Commentary on Psalms’, SSB, 6 (1962–64), pp. 53–72. Milgrom, ‘Profane Slaughter’ = J. Milgrom, ‘Profane Slaughter and a Formulaic Key to the Composition of Deuteronomy’, HUCA, 47 (1976), pp. 1–17. Milgrom, ‘Sabbath’ = J. Milgrom, ‘“Sabbath” and “Temple City” in the Temple Scroll’, BASOR, 232 (1978), pp. 25–27. Milik, Enoch = J. T. Milik, The Book of Enoch, (Oxford: 1976). Milikowsky, ‘Elijah’ = Ch. Milikowsky, ‘Elijah and the Messiah’ (in Hebrew), Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, II (4), 1982–1983, pp. 491–496. Moberg, ‘Nasī’ = A. Moberg, ‘Nasī’, EI 2, VII, pp. 977–978. Mondschein, ‘Ibn Ezra and Rashbam’ = A. Mondschein, ‘Concerning the Inter-Relationship of the Commentaries of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra and R. Samuel ben Meir on the Pentateuch: A New Appraisal’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 16–17 (2001), pp. 15–45. Nasr, ‘Ithnā ʿAshariyya’ = S. H. Nasr, ‘Ithnā ʿAshariyya’, EI2, IV, pp. 277–279. Nemoy, ‘ʿAnan’ = L. Nemoy, ‘ʿAnan ben David’, Semitic Studies in Memory of Immanuel Löw, ed. by A. Scheiber, (Budapest: 1947), pp. 307–315. Nemoy, ‘Early Karaism’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Early Karaism’, JQR NS, 40 (1949–1950), pp. 307–315. Nemoy, ‘Elijah’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Elijah Ben Abraham and His Tract against the Rabbanites’, HUCA, 51 (1980), pp. 63–87. Nemoy, ‘Ibn Kammūnah’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Ibn Kammūnah and His Tract on the Discordances between Rabbanites and Karaites’ (in Hebrew), Jubilee Volume in Honor of Y. Elfenbein, ed. by Y. L. Maimon (Jerusalem: 1967), pp. 201–208. Nemoy, ‘Israel al-Maghribī’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Israel al-Maghribī’s Tract on Ritual Slaughtering’, Henoch, 13 (1991), pp. 195–218

470

Bibliography

Nemoy, Karaite Anthology = L. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, (Yale University Press: 1952). Nemoy, ‘Karaites’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Karaites’, The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. by M. Eliade, VIII, pp. 254–259. Nemoy, ‘Nissi’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Nissi ben Noah’s Quasi-Commentary on the Decalogue’, JQR NS, 73 (1983), pp. 307–348. Nemoy, ‘Qirqisānī’ = L. Nemoy, ‘Al-Qirqisānī’s Account of the Jewish Sects’, HUCA, 7 (1930), pp. 317–397. Niazi, ‘Karaites’ = I. A. Niazi, ‘The Karaites: Influence of Islamic Law on Jewish Law’, IS, 32 (1993), pp. 137–147. Nitzan, ‘Developmental Processes’  = B. Nitzan, ‘Developmental Processes of Sectarian Texts in Qumran’ (in Hebrew), Bet Miqra, 40 (1995), pp. 232–248. Nitzan, Habakkuk Pesher = B. Nitzan, Megīllat Pesher Habakkuk, (Jerusalem: 1986). Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran = B. Nitzan, Tefīlat Qumran ve-Shīratah (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1996). Noack, ‘Day of Pentecost’ = B. Noack, ‘The Day of Pentecost in Jubilees, Qumran and Acta’, ASTI, 1 (1962), pp. 73–95. Noam, ‘Miracle’ = V. Noam, ‘The Miracle of the Cruse of Oil; Questioning Its Use as a Source for Assessing the Sages’ Attitude towards the Hasmoneans’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 67 (2002), pp. 381–400. Ofer, ‘Aleppo Codex’ = J. Ofer, ‘M. Cassuto’s Notes on the Aleppo Codex’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 19 (1989), pp. 277–344. Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Karaite Linguistics’  = J.  Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Karaite Linguistics’, BGS, 7 (1997), pp. 88–100. Olszowy-Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents = J. OlszowySchlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents (Leiden: 1998). Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Ketubbot’  = J.  Olszowy-Schlanger, ‘Karaite Ketubbot from the Cairo Geniza and the Origins of the Karaite Legal Formulae Tradition’ (in Hebrew), Teʿuda, 15 (1999), pp. 127–144. Olyan, ‘Ben Sira’ = S. M. Olyan, ‘Ben Sira’s Relationship to the Priesthood’, HTR, 80 (1987), pp. 261–286. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica = A. Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Wiesbaden: 1983). Paul, Ecrits = A. Paul, Ecrits de Qumran et sectes juives aux premiers siècles de l’Islam, (Paris: 1969). Peor, ʿIyyūnīm = Y. Peor ha-Levi, ʿIyyūnīm be-Mishneh Torah le-haRambam – Sefer ha-Maddaʿ, (Jerusalem: 1978).

Bibliography

471

Petit, ‘Esséens’ = M. Petit, ‘Les Esséens Philon d’Alexandrie et les Essénsiens’, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research, ed. by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, (Leiden: 1992), pp. 139–156. Pfann, ‘Maskîl’ = S. Pfann, ‘4Q298: The Maskîl’s Address to All Sons of Dawn’, JQR, 85 (1994), pp. 203–235. Pines, ‘Jewish Christians’ = S. Pines, ‘The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source’, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2 (1968), pp. 237–289. Pines, ‘Notes’ = S. Pines, ‘Notes on the Twelve Tribes in Qumran, Early Christianity and Jewish Tradition’, Messiah and Christos, ed. by I. Gruenwald and others, (Tübingen 1992), pp. 151–154. Pines and Shaked, ‘Fragment’ = S. Pines and S. Shaked, ‘Fragment of a Jewish-Christian Composition from the Cairo Geniza’, Studies in Islamic History and Civilization in Honour of Prof. David Ayalon, (Jerusalem–Leiden: 1986), pp. 307–318. Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot = S. Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, (Vienna: 1860). Polliack, ‘Emergence’ = M. Polliack, ‘The Emergence of Karaite Bible Exegesis’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 22 (1999) pp. 299–311. Polliack, ‘Karaism’ = M. Polliack, ‘Medieval Karaism’, The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. by M. Goodman, (Oxford: 2002), pp. 295–326. Polliack, Karaite Tradition = M. Polliack, The Karaite Tradition of Arabic Bible Translation, (Leiden: 1997) Polliack, ‘Pesher’ = M. Polliack, ‘On the Question of the Qumran Pesher’s Influence on Karaite Exegesis’ (in Hebrew), Fifty Years of Dead Sea Scrolls Research: Studies in Memory of Jacob Licht, ed. by G. Brin and B. Nitzan, (Jerusalem: 2001), pp. 275–294. Polliack and Schlossberg, ‘Translation’  = M.  Polliack and E.  Schlossberg, ‘Yefet ben ʿEli’s Translation of the Book of Obadiah’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 89, (2001), pp. 61–82. Poonawala, ‘Taʾwīl’ = I. K. Poonawala, ‘Ismāʿ īlī taʾwīl of the Qurʾān’, Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurʾān, ed. by A. Rippin, (Oxford: 1988), pp. 199–222. Poznanski, ‘Gesetzeauslegung’  = S.  Poznanski, ‘Allegorische Gesetzeauslegung bei den älteren Karäern’, Studies in Jewish Literature Issued in Honor of K. Kohler, ed. by D. Philipson and others, (Berlin: 1913), pp. 237–259. Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan’ = S. Poznanski, ‘ʿAnan et ses écrits’, REJ, 44 (1902), pp. 161–187; 45 (1902), pp. 50–69, 176–203.

472

Bibliography

Poznanski, ‘Anti-Karaite Writings’ = S. Poznanski, ‘The Anti-Karaite Writings of Saadiah Gaon’, JQR, 10 (1898), pp. 238–276. Poznanski, ‘Beginning’ = S. Poznanski, ‘The Beginning of the Karaite Settlement in Jerusalem’ (in Hebrew), Yerushalayim, ed. by A. M. Lunz, 10 (1914), pp. 83–116. Poznanski, ‘Benjamin’  = S.  Poznanski, ‘Benjamin b. Moses alNahāwandī’ (in Hebrew), Oṣar Yisrael, ed. by J. D. Eisenstein, (New York: 1951), III, pp. 126–129. Poznanski, ‘Ibn Ḥazm’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Ibn Ḥazm über jüdische Secten’, JQR, 16 (1904), pp. 765–771. Poznanski, Introduction = S. Poznanski, Mavo le-Sefer Zekher Ṣaddīqīm she-ḥiber Mordekhai Sultanski, (Warsaw: 1920), pp. 5–69. Poznanski, ‘Jacob ben Ephraim’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Jacob ben Ephraim’, Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufman, ed. by M. Brann and F. Rosenthal, (Breslau: 1900), pp. 169–187. Poznanski, ‘Opponents’  = S.  Poznanski, ‘The Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon’, JQR, 18 (1906), pp. 209–250; 19 (1907), pp. 59–83; 20 (1908), pp. 74–85. Poznanski, ‘Karaites’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Karaites’, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. by J. Hastings, VII, pp. 662–672. Poznanski, ‘Kitāb al-ʾnwār’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Aus Qirqisānī’s “Kitāb alʾnwār waʾl-marāqib”’, Semitic Studies in Memory of Dr. A. Kohut, ed. by G. A. Kohut, (Berlin: 1897), pp. 435–456. Poznanski, ‘Meswi’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Meswi al-Okbari’, REJ, 34 (1897), pp. 161–191. Poznanski, ‘Miscellen’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Miscellen über Saadja’, MGWJ, 44 (1900), pp. 508–520. Poznanski, ‘Philon’ = S. Poznanski, ‘Philon dans l’ancienne littérature Judéo-Arabe’, REJ, 50 (1905), pp. 10–31. Poznanski, ‘Review’  = S.  Poznanski, ‘Review of S.  Schechter’s Documents of Jewish Sectaries’, The Jewish Review, 2 (1911), pp. 273–281. Puech, ‘Apocalypse’ = E. Puech, ‘Une Apocalypse messianique (4Q521)’, RQ, 15 (1992), pp. 475–519. Qimron, ‘Distinction’, = E. Qimron, ‘The Distinction between “Waw” and “Yod” in the Qumran Scrolls’ (in Hebrew), Bet Miqra, 52 (1972), pp. 102–112. Qimron, ‘Concerning Joshua’ = E. Qimron, ‘Concerning Joshua Cycles from Qumran’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 63, (1994), pp. 503–508.

Bibliography

473

Rabin, ‘Islam’ = H. Rabin, ‘Islam and the Qumran Sect’, Qumran Studies, (Oxford: 1957), pp. 112–130. Rabinowitz, Maḥzor = Z. M. Rabinowitz, Maḥzor Piyyūṭei Rabbi Yannai la-Tora ve la-Moʿadim, (in Hebrew), I, (Jerusalem: 1985). Rav Ṣair, ‘Sefer ha-Sheʾīltot’ = Rav Ṣair, ‘On the Composition of Sefer ha-Sheʾīltot’ (in Hebrew), ha-Shiloah, 25, (1911–1912), pp. 538–543. Ravitzky, ‘Waymarks’ = A. Ravitzky, ‘Waymarks to Zion: The History of an Idea’, ʿAl Daʿat ha-Maqom, (Jerusalem: 1991), pp. 34–73. Reeves, ‘Exploring’ = J. C. Reeves, ‘Exploring the Afterlife of Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Medieval Near Eastern Religious Traditions: Some Initial Soundings’, JSJ, 30 (1999), pp.148–177. Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt = E. Regev, ha-Halakha ha-Ṣedoqīt veHashpaʿat ha-Ṣedoqīm ʿal Ḥayye ha-Ḥevrah be-Ereṣ Yisrael bi-Yemei Bait Shenī, Doctoral Dissertation, (Bar Ilan University: 1999). Regev, ‘Hannukka’ = E. Regev, ‘Hannukka, Succot, and the Days of the Milluim in II Maccabees’ (in Hebrew), Bet Mikra, 46 (2001), pp. 227–243. Reifman, ‘Barefoot’ = Y. Reifman ‘Walking Barefoot’ (in Hebrew), Bet Talmud, 1 (1881), pp. 78–80. Reiner, ‘Destruction’ = E. Reiner, ‘Destruction, Temple, and Sacred Place: On a Medieval Concept of Time and Place’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 97 (2000), pp. 47–64. Revel, ‘Chapters’ = B. Revel, ‘Chapters on Differences in Customs’ (in Hebrew), Horeb, 6 (1942), pp. 9–26. Revel, ‘Differences’ = B. Revel, ‘Differences between Babylonia and the Land of Israel and the Sources of Karaite Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Horeb, 1 (1934), pp. 1–20. Revel, ‘Inquiry’ = B. Revel, ‘Inquiry into the Sources of Karaite Halakah’, JQR NS, 2 (1912), pp. 517–544; 3 (1913), pp. 337–396. Revel, ‘Karaites’  = B.  Revel, ‘Karaites’, Oṣar Yisrael, ed. by J. D. Eisenstein, (NewYork: 1951), IX, pp. 209–215. Rippin, ‘Saʿadia Gaon’ = A. Rippin, ‘Saʿadia Gaon and Genesis 22: Aspects of Jewish Muslim Interaction and Polemic’, Studies in Islamic and Judaic Traditions, ed. by W. M. Brinner and S. D. Ricks, (Atlanta), pp. 33–46. Rosenthal, ‘Oral Law’ = A. Rosenthal, ‘Oral Law and Torah from Sinai – The Practical Application of Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Meḥqerei Talmud, 2 (1993), pp. 448–487.

474

Bibliography

Rosenthal, ‘Traditions’  = D.  Rosenthal, ‘The Transformation of the Traditions of the Land of Israel in Babylonia’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 92 (1999), pp. 7–48. Rosenthal, ‘Riddle’ = J. M. Rosenthal, ‘The Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Meḥqarīm w-Meqorot, (Jerusalem: 1967), pp. 33–61. Rubin, Bible = U. Rubin, Between Bible and Qurʾān, (Princeton: 1999). Rubin, ‘Iqraʾ’ = U. Rubin, ‘Iqraʾ bi-smi rabbika…!’, IOS, 13 (1993), pp. 213–230. Rubin, ‘Prophets’ = U. Rubin, ‘Prophets and Progenitors in the Early Shīʿa Tradition’, IOS, 1 (1979), pp. 41–65. Rudolph, Gnosis = K. Rudolph, Gnosis: The Nature and History of Gnosticism, (San Francisco: 1987. Safrai, ‘Deeds’ = S. Safrai, ‘The Deeds of the Jerusalem Pilgrims in Second Temple Times’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 46, (1960), pp. 189–200. Schacht, ‘Abū Ḥanīfa’ = J. Schacht, ‘Abū Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān’, EI2, I, pp. 123–124. Schacht, ‘Aṣḥāb al-Raʾy’ = J. Schacht, ‘Aṣḥāb al-Raʾy’, EI2, I, p. 692. Schacht, ‘Dāwūd’ = J. Schacht, ‘Dāwūd B. Khalaf ’, EI2, II, pp. 182–183. Schacht, ‘Idjtihād’ = J. Schacht, ‘Idjtihād’, EI 2, III, pp. 1026–7. Schacht, Origins = J. Schacht, The Origins of Muḥammadan Jurisprudence, (Oxford: 1950). Schechter, ‘Reply’ = S. Schechter, ‘Reply to Dr. Büchler’s Review of Schechter’s “Jewish Sectaries”’, JQR NS, 4 (1913–1914), pp. 449–474. Schechter, Saadyana = S. Schechter, Saadyana (Cambridge: 1903). Scheiber, ‘Hadassi’ = A. Scheiber, ‘Judah Hadassi: Manuscripts of His Work’ (in Hebrew), Jubilee Volume in Honor of Prof. Bernhard Heller, ed. by A. Scheiber (Budapest: 1941), pp. 101–129. Scheiber, ‘Qiliri Liturgical Poem’ = A. Scheiber, ‘A Qiliri Liturgical Poem Brought by Qirqisānī’ (in Hebrew), Ginzei Kaufmann, 1, (Budapest: 1949), pp. 3–35. Schiffman, ‘Battle’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘The Battle of the Scrolls’ (in Hebrew), Cathedra, 61, (1991), pp. 3–23. Schiffman, Halakha = L. H. Schiffman, Halakha – Halīkha w-Meshī­ ḥīūt be-Kat Midbar Yehuda, (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1993). Schiffman, ‘Halakhic Letter’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘The New Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) and the Origins of the Dead Sea Sect’, BA, 53 (1990), pp. 64–73. Schiffman, ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘ʿIr ha-Miqdash and Its Meaning in the Temple Scroll and Other Qumran Texts’, Sanctity of

Bibliography

475

Time and Space in Tradition and Modernity, ed. by A. Houtman and others, (Leiden: 1998), pp. 95–109. Schiffman, ‘Laws of Slaughter’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘The Laws of Slaughter according to the Temple Scroll’ (in Hebrew), Or leYaʿaqov: Studies in the Bible and Dead Sea Scrolls in Memory of Jacob Shalom Licht, ed. by Y. Hoffman and P. Pollack, (Jerusalem: 1997), pp. 272–282. Schiffman, ‘Milluim’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘The Milluim Ceremony in the Temple Scrolls’, New Qumran Texts and Studies , ed. by G. J. Brooke and others, (Leiden: 1994), pp. 225–272. Schiffman, ‘Paraphrase’  = L.  H.  Schiffman, ‘The Deuteronomic Paraphrase of the Temple Scroll’, RQ, 15 (1991–1992), pp. 543–567. Schiffman, ‘Some Laws’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘Some Laws Pertaining to Animals in Temple Scroll Column 52’, Legal Texts and Legal Issues, ed. by M. Berenstein and others, (Leiden: 1997), pp. 167–178. Schiffman, ‘Temple Scroll’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘The Temple Scroll and the Systems of Jewish Law of the Second Temple Period’, Temple Scroll Studies, ed. by G. J. Brooke, (Sheffield: 1989), pp. 239–263. Schiffman, ‘Theology’ = L. H. Schiffman, ‘The Theology of the Temple Scroll’, JQR NS, 85 (1994–1995), pp. 109–123. Schlossberg, ‘Basic Principles’ = E. Schlossberg, ‘Basic Principles in the Study of R. Saʿadia Gaon’s Use of Arabic and Arabic Literature’ (in Hebrew), Ben ʿEver le-ʿArav, 1, (1999), pp. 75–93. Schlossberg, ‘Metamorphosis’  = E.  Schlossberg, ‘Metamorphosis of R. Saʿadia Gaon’s Commentary on Daniel 10:3’ (in Hebrew), Studies in Hebrew Literature and Yemenite Culture: Jubilee Volume Presented to Yehuda Ratzaby, ed. by Y. Dishon and A. Hazan, (BarIlan University Press: 1991), pp. 77–87. Schlossberg, ‘Repentance’ = E. Schlossberg, ‘The Connection between Repentance and Redemption according to R. Saʿadia Gaon’ (in Hebrew), Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C, Vol. II, (Jerusalem: 1994), pp. 9–15. Schniedewind, ‘Davidic Dynasty’  = W.  M.  Schniedewind, ‘The Davidic Dynasty and Biblical Interpretation in Qumran Literature’, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. by L. H. Schiffman and others, (Jerusalem: 2000), pp. 82–91. Schniedewind, Society = W. M. Schniedewind, Society and the Promise to David – The Reception History of 2 Samuel 7:1–17, (Oxford: 1999). Schreiner, ‘Beruni’ = M. Schreiner, ‘Les Juifs dans al-Beruni’, REJ, 12 (1886), pp. 258–266.

476

Bibliography

Schreiner, ‘Notes’= M. Schreiner, ‘Notes sur les Juifs dans l’Islam’, REJ, 29 (1894), pp. 206–211. Schremer, ‘Kinship’  = A.  Schremer, ‘Kinship Terminology and Endogamous Marriage in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods’ (in Hebrew), Zion, 60 (1955), pp. 5–35. Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic’  = A.  Schremer, ‘Qumran Polemic on Marital Law: CD 4:20–5:11 and Its Social Background’, The Damascus Document – A Centennial of Discovery, ed. by J. A. Baumgarten and others, (Leiden: 2000), pp. 147–160. Schwartz, Torat ha-Kedūsha = B. J. Schwartz, Torat ha-Kedūsha: ʿIyyūnīm ba-Ḥuqa ha-Kohanit she-ba-Torah, (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1999). Sela, ‘Headship’ = S. Sela, ‘The Headship of the Jews in the Fātimid Empire in Karaite Hands’ (in Hebrew), Masʾat Moshe: Studies in Jewish and Islamic Culture Presented to Moshe Gil, ed. by E. Fleischer and others, (Jerusalem–Tel Aviv: 1998), pp.256–281. Sela, ‘History’ = S. Sela, ‘The History of the Hasmonean Period in the Judaeo-Arabic Literature of the Middle Ages’ (in Hebrew), Michael, 14, (1997), pp. 9–28. Shapira, ‘Attitude’ = Y. Shapira, ‘The Attitude of Halakha to the Karaites: Halakhic Policy and Tradition’ (in Hebrew), Meḥqerei Mishpat, 19, (2002), pp. 285–341. Sharon, Black Banners = M. Sharon, Black Banners from the East, (Jerusalem‑Leiden: 1983). Shemesh, ‘Holiness’ = A. Shemesh, ‘Holiness according to the Temple Scroll’, RQ, 19 (2000), pp. 369–382. Shemesh, ‘Term’ = A. Shemesh, ‘The Term “Miṣvah ha-Teluya baAretz” Reexamined’ (in Hebrew), Sidra, 16 (2000), pp. 151–177. Shemesh, ‘Three Days’ = A. Shemesh, ‘“Three Days’ Journey from the Temple”: The Use of This Expression in the Temple Scroll’, DSD, 6 (1999), pp. 126–138. Shemesh and Werman, ‘Hidden’ = A. Shemesh and C. Werman, ‘The Hidden Things and Their Revelations’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 66, (1997), pp. 471–482. Shoḥat, ‘Views’ = A. Shoḥat, ‘The Views of Daniel al-Qūmisī on Prophesy, the Oral Law, Exile and Redemption’ (in Hebrew), Yitzhak F. Baer Jubilee Volume, ed. by S. Ettinger and others, (Jerusalem: 1961), pp. 125–133. Shtuber, ‘Qibla’ = S. Shtuber, ‘The “Qibla” in Islam and Judaism: From Polemics to Neutralization and Assimilation’ (in Hebrew), Heritage

Bibliography

477

and Innovation in Medieval Judaeo-Arabic Culture, ed. by J. Blau and D. Doron, (Bar-Ilan University: 2000), pp. 227–242. Shunary, ‘Salmon’ = J. Shunary, ‘Salmon ben Yeruham’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms’, JQR NS, 73 (1982), pp. 155–175. Siegel, ‘Employment’ = J. P. Siegel, ‘The Employment of Palaeo-Hebrew Characters for the Divine Names at Qumran in the Light of Tannaitic Sources’, HUCA, 42 (1971), pp. 159–172. Simon, Four Approaches = U. Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms from Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn Ezra, (New York: 1991). Sklare, ‘Karaite Works’ = D. E. Sklare, ‘Unknown Karaite Works in the Firkovitch Collection’ (in Hebrew), Judaeo-Arabic Manuscripts in the Firkovitch Collection – The Works of Yusuf al-Baṣīr, ed. by D. E. Sklare, (Jerusalem: 1997), pp. 127–139. Sklare, Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon = D. E. Sklare, Samuel ben Ḥofni Gaon and his Cultural World, (Leiden: 1996). Sklare, ‘Yūsuf al-Baṣīr’ = D. E. Sklare, ‘Yūsuf al-Baṣīr: Theological Aspects of his Halakhic Works’, The Jews of Medieval Islam – Community, Society and Identity, ed. by D. Frank (Leiden: 1995), pp. 249–270. Sokolow, ‘Exegesis’ = M. Sokolow, ‘Exegesis on Haʾazīnū in the Geonic Period’ (in Hebrew), Hebrew and Arabic Studies in Honour of Joshua Blau, ed. by H. Ben-Shammai, (Tel Aviv-Jerusalem: 1993), pp. 397–414. Speight, ‘ḥadīth’ = M. Speight, ‘The Function of ḥadīth as Commentary on the Qurʾān, as Seen in the Six Authoritative Collections’, Approaches to the History of the Interpretation of the Qurʾān, ed. by A. Rippin, (Oxford: 1988), pp. 63–81. Spiegel, ‘Ben Baboi’ = S. Spiegel, ‘The Polemic of Pirqoi ben Baboi’ (in Hebrew), Jubilee Volume in Honor of Z. Wolfson, ed. by S. Lieberman and others, (Jerusalem: 1965), pp. 243–273. Stegemann, ‘Essenes’ = H. Stegemann, ‘The Qumran Essenes: Local Members of the Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times’, The Madrid Qumran Congress, ed. by J. T. Barrera and others , (Leiden: 1992), I, pp. 83–166. Stern, ‘Cosmological Doctrines’  = S. M.  Stern, ‘The Earliest Cosmological Doctrines of Ismāʿīlism’, Studies in Early Ismāʿīlism, (Jerusalem-Leiden: 1983), pp. 3–29. Stern, ‘Fātimid Propaganda’ = S. M. Stern, ‘Fātimid Propaganda among Jews according to the Testimony of Yefet b. ʿAli the Karaite’, Studies in Early Ismāʿīlism, (Jerusalem-Leiden: 1983), pp. 84–95.

478

Bibliography

Stroumsa, Freethinkers = S. Stroumsa, Freethinkers of Medieval Islam, (Leiden: 1999). Stroumsa, Muqammiṣ = S. Stroumsa, Dāwūd Ibn Marwān alMuqammiṣ’s Twenty Chapters, (Leiden: 1989). Stroumsa, ‘Muʿtazila’ = S. Stroumsa, ‘The Beginnings of the Muʿtazila Reconsidered’, JSAI, 13 (1990), pp. 265–293. Stroumsa, Saʿadia Gaon = S. Stroumsa, Saʿadia Gaon: Hoge Yehudī be-Ḥevra Yam tikhonīt, (in Hebrew), ed. by M. A. Friedmann, (Tel Aviv University: 2001). Stroumsa, ‘Ṣabians’ = S. Stroumsa, ‘The Ṣabians of Ḥarrān and the Ṣabians of Maimonides: On Maimonides’ Theory of the History of Religions’ (in Hebrew), Sefunot, 22 (1999), pp. 277–295. Stroumsa, ‘What is Man’ = S. Stroumsa, ‘“What is Man”: Psalm 8:4–5 in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Exegesis in Arabic’, Henoch, 14 (1992), pp. 283–291. Sussmann, ‘History’ = Y. Sussmann, ‘The History of Halakha and the Dead Sea Scrolls – Preliminiary Observations on Miqṣat Maʿasei haTorah (MMT)’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 59 (1990), pp. 11–76. Sussmann, ‘Postscript’ = Y. Sussmann, ‘Postscript (August 1993)’, DJD, 10, (Oxford: 1994), p. 200. Talmon, ‘Reappraisal’ = R. Talmon, ‘Reappraisal of the “List of Ancient Hebrew Terms” and the Affiliation between Hebrew and Arabic’ (in Hebrew), Ben ʿEver le-ʿArav, 1 (1998), pp. 27–51. Talmon, ‘Calendar’ = S. Talmon, ‘Calendar Controversy in Ancient Judaism: The Case of the “Community of the Renewed Covenant”’, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by D. W. Parry and others, (Leiden: 1999), pp. 379–395. Talmon and Ben-Dov, ‘4Q326’ = S. Talmon and J. Ben-Dov, ‘4Q326 – A Calendrical Scroll from Qumran’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 68 (1999), pp. 167–176. Talmon and Ben-Dov, ‘Calendrical Documents’ = S. Talmon and J. Ben-Dov, ‘Calendrical Documents and Mishmarot’, DJD, 21, (Oxford: 2001), pp. 1–36. Talmon and Knohl, ‘Calendrical Scroll’ = S. Talmon and I. Knohl, ‘A Calendrical Scroll from Qumran Cave IV-Miš Ba (4Q321)’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 60 (1991), pp. 505–521. Tamani, ‘Tradizione’ = G. Tamani, ‘La tradizione delle opere di Yefet b. Ali’, BEK, 1 (1983), pp. 27–76.

Bibliography

479

Ta-Shema, ‘Synagogal Sanctity’ = I. M. Ta-Shema, ‘Synagogal Sanctity – Symbolism and Reality’ (in Hebrew), Knesset Ezra: Studies Presented to Ezra Fleischer, ed. by S. Elizur and others, (Jerusalem: 1994), pp. 351–364. Teicher, ‘Puzzling Passages’ = J. L. Teicher, ‘Puzzling Passages in the Damascus Fragments’, JJS, 5 (1954), pp. 139–147. Tene, ‘Comparison’ = D. Tene, ‘Language Comparison and Language Knowledge in the Arabic-Speaking Region in the 10th and 11th Centuries’ (in Hebrew), Hebrew Language Studies Presented to Professor Zeʾev Ben-Ḥayyim, ed. by M. Bar-Asher and others, (Jerusalem: 1983), pp. 237–287. Thomas, ‘Abū ʿĪsā’ = D. Thomas, ‘Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq and the History of Religions’, JSS, 41 (1996), pp. 275–290. Tirosh-Becker, ‘Linguistic Study’ = O. Tirosh-Becker, ‘Linguistic Study of a Rabbinic Quotation Embedded in a Karaite Commentary on Exodus’, Scripta Hierosolymitana, 37 (1998), pp. 380–407. Tov, ‘Dead Sea’ = E. Tov, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls in Light of New Research’ (in Hebrew), Jewish Studies, 34, (1994), pp. 37–67. Tov, ‘Deut. 12’ = E. Tov, ‘Deut. 12 and 11QTemple LII-LIII : A Contrastive Analysis’, RQ, 15 (1991–1992), pp. 169–173. Tradieu, ‘Ṣabiens’ = M. Tradieu, ‘Ṣābiens coraniques et “Ṣābiens” de Ḥarrān’, JA, 274 (1986), pp. 1–44. Ulrich, ‘Joshua’ = E. Ulrich, ‘4Q Joshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land’, New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. by G. J. Brooke and F. G. Martinez (Leiden: 1994), pp. 89–104. Urbach, ‘Contribution’ = E. E. Urbach, ‘Yigael Yadin’s Contribution to Judaic Studies’ (in Hebrew), Eretz-Israel, 20 (1989), pp. 1–7. Urbach, ‘Derasha’ = E. E. Urbach, ‘The Derasha as a Basis of Halakha and the Problem of the Soferim’ (in Hebrew), in E. E. Urbach, meʽOlamam shel Ḥakhamīm, (Jerusalem: 2002), pp. 50–66. Urbach, Sages = E. E. Urbach, Ḥazal: Pirqei Emunot ve-Deʿot, (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem: 1976). Vajda ‘ʿĀnāniyya’ = G. Vajda, ‘ʿĀnāniyya’, EI 2, I, p. 481. Vajda, ‘Destruction of the World’ = G. Vajda, ‘The View of the Karaite Yefet b. ʿEli on the Destruction of the World at the End of Days’, PAAJR, 46–47 (1979–1980), pp. 85–95. Vajda, ‘Études’ = G. Vajda, ‘Études sur Qirqisānī’, REJ, 108 (1948), pp. 63–91.

480

Bibliography

Vajda, ‘Manichéens’ = G. Vajda, ‘Le témoignage d’al-Māturīdī sur la doctrine des Manichéens, des Dayṣānites et des Marcionites’, Arabica, 13 (1966), pp. 1–38; 113–128. VanderKam, ‘Angel of the Presence’ = J. C. VanderKam, ‘The Angel of the Presence in the Book of Jubilees’, DSD, 7 (2000), pp. 378–393. VanderKam, Calendars = J. C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls, (London - New York: 1998). VanderKam, ‘Covenant’ = J. C. VanderKam, ‘Covenant and Biblical Interpretation in Jubilees 6’, The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery, ed. by L. H. Schiffman and others, (Jerusalem: 2000), pp. 92–104. VanderKam, ‘Levi’ = J. C.VanderKam, ‘Jubilees’ Exegetical Creation of Levi the Priest’, RQ, 17 (1996), pp. 359–373. VanderKam, ‘Messianism’ = J. VanderKam, ‘Messianism in the Scrolls’, The Commmunity of the Renewed Covenant, ed. by E. Ulrich and J. VanderKam, (University of Notre Dame – Indiana: 1994), pp. 211–234. VanderKam, ‘Putative Author’ = J. C. VanderKam, ‘The Putative Author of the Book of Jubilees’, JSS, 26 (1981), pp. 209–217. VanderKam, ‘Zadok’  = J.  C.  VanderKam, ‘Zadok and the SPR HTWRH HḤTUM in Dam. Doc. V, 2–5’, RQ, 11 (1982), pp. 561–570. Vermes, ‘Commentaires’ = G. Vermes, ‘A propos des commentaires bibliques découverts à Qumran’, RHPR, 35 (1955), pp. 95–102. Vermes, ‘Essenes’ = G. Vermes, ‘The Etymology of “Essenes”’, RQ, 2 (1960), pp. 427–443. Vermes, ‘Lion’ = G. Vermes, ‘Lion – Damascus – Meḥokek – Man: Symbolic Tradition in the Dead Sea Scrolls’, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism, (Leiden: 1973), pp. 40–66. Vermes, ‘New Light’ = G. Vermes, ‘New Light on the Sacrifice of Isaac from 4Q225’, JJS, 47 (1996), pp. 140–145. Vermes, ‘Remarks’ = G. Vermes, ‘Preliminary Remarks on Unpublished Fragments of the Community Rule from Qumran Cave 4’, JJS, 42 (1991), pp. 250–255. Wacholder, Dawn = B. Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and the Teacher of Righteousness, (Cincinnati: 1983). Wacholder, ‘Ezekiel’ = B. Z. Wacholder, ‘Ezekiel and Ezekielianism as Progenitors of Essenism’, The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of

Bibliography

481

Research, ed. by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, (Leiden: 1992), pp. 187–196. Wacholder, ‘Jubilees’ = B. Z. Wacholder, ‘Jubilees as the Super Canon: Torah-Admonition versus Torah-Commandment’, Legal Texts and Legal Issues, Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten, ed. by M. M. Berenstein and others, (Leiden: 1997), pp. 195–211. Wacholder, ‘Omer’ = B. Z. Wacholder, ‘The Omer Polemics in 4Q513 Fragments 3–4: Is Annani Their Author?’, RQ 20 (2001), pp. 93–109. Wacholder, ‘Sealed Torah’ = B. Z. Wacholder, ‘The “Sealed” Torah versus the “Revealed” Torah: An Exegesis of Damascus Covenant V, 1–6 and Jeremiah 32, 10–14’, RQ, 12 (1986), pp. 351–367. Wansbrough, Sectarian Milieu = J. Wansbrough, The Sectarian Milieu, (Oxford: 1978). Wansbrough, Studies = J. Wansbrough, Quranic Studies, (Oxford: 1977). Wasserstrom, ‘ʿĪsāwiyya’ = S. Wasserstrom ‘ʿĪsāwiyya Revisited’, SI, 75 (1992), pp. 57–80. Wasserstrom, ‘Šaharastānī’ = S. M. Wasserstrom, ‘Šaharastānī on the Magariyya’, IOS, 17 (1997), pp. 127–154. Watt, ‘Ashʿariyya’ = W. M. Watt, ‘Ashʿariyya’, EI 2, I, p. 696. Weinberg, ‘Philo’ = J. Weinberg, ‘The Quest for Philo in SixteenthCentury Jewish Historiography’, Jewish History: Essays in Honour of Chimen Abramsky, (London: 1988), pp. 163–182. Weinfeld, ‘Jeremiah’ = M. Weinfeld, ‘Jeremiah and the Spiritual Metamorphosis of Israel’ (in Hebrew), Zer Li-Gevurot: The Zalman Shazar Jubilee Volume, ed. by B. Z. Luria, (Jerusalem: 1973), pp. 244–278. Weis, ‘Ibn Ezra’ = P. R. Weis, ‘Ibn Ezra, the Karaites, and the Halakha’ (in Hebrew), Melilah, 1 (1944), pp. 35–53, 2 (1946), pp. 121–134, 3–4 (1950), pp. 188–203. Weis, ‘Tendency’ = P. R. Weis, ‘The Anti-Karaite Tendency of R. Saadya Gaon’s Arabic Version of the Pentatuech’, Saadya Studies, ed. by E. I. J. Rosenthal, (Manchester: 1943), pp. 227–244. Weiss, Dor = I. H. Weiss, Dor Dor ve-Dorshav, 4, (Vilna: 1904). Wensinck and Gimaret, ‘Shafāʿa’ = A. J. Wensinck and D. Gimaret, ‘Shafāʿa’, EI 2, IX, pp. 177–179. Werman, ‘Consumption’ = C. Werman, ‘Consumption of the Blood and Its Covering in the Priestly and Rabbinic Traditions’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 63 (1994), pp. 173–183.

482

Bibliography

Werman, ‘Torah’ = C. Werman, ‘“The Torah and the Teʿudah” on the Tablets’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 68 (1999), pp. 473–492. Wieder, ‘Benediction’ = N. Wieder, ‘An Unknown Benediction from the Geniza on Reading the Chapter “With What May One Light?”’ (in Hebrew), Sinai, 82 (1978), pp. 197–221. Wieder, ‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ = N. Wieder, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls Type of Biblical Exegesis among the Karaites’, Between East and West: Essays Dedicated to the Memory of Bela Horovitz, ed. by A. Alexander, (London: 1958), pp. 75–106. Wieder, Judean Scrolls = N. Wieder, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism, (London: 1962). Wieder, ‘Law Interpreter’ = N. Wieder, ‘The “Law-Interpreter” of the Sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Moses’, JJS, 4 (1953), pp. 158–175. Wieder, ‘Qumran Sectaries’ = N. Wieder, ‘The Qumran Sectaries and the Karaites’, JQR NS, 47 (1956–1957), pp. 97–113, 269–292. Wieder, ‘Two Messiahs’ = N. Wieder, ‘The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs among the Karaites’, JJS, 6 (1955), pp. 14–25. Williams, Gnosticism = M. A. Williams, Rethinking Gnosticism, (Princeton: 1996) Wintermute, ‘Jubilees’ = O. S. Wintermute, ‘Jubilees’, The Old Testament Pseudepigripha, II, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth, (New York: 1985), pp. 35–50. Wise, Critical Study = M. O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11, (Chicago: 1990). Wise, ‘Temple of Adam’ = M. O. Wise, ‘4QFlorilegium and the Temple of Adam’, RQ 15, (1991), pp. 103–132. Wolfson, ‘Angel’ = H. A. Wolfson, ‘The Pre-Existent Angel of the Magharians and al-Nahāwandī’, JQR NS, 51 (1960–61), pp. 89–106. Yadin, ‘L’attitude essénienne’ = Y. Yadin, ‘L’attitude essénienne envers la polygamie et le divorce’, RB, 74 (1972), pp. 98–99. Yadin, War Scroll = Y. Yadin, The War Scroll (Hebrew edition), (Jerusalem 1957). Yahalom, Piyyūṭ = Y. Yahalom, Piyyūṭ w-Meṣiut be-Shilhei ha-Zman ha-ʿAtiq, (in Hebrew), (Tel Aviv: 2000). Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia’ = A. S. Yahuda, ‘Saʿadia Gaon and the Karaite Danger in Light of the Arabic Environment’, ʿEver ve-ʿArav – Osef Meḥqarīm shel A. S. Yahuda, (New York: 1946), pp. 150–169.

Bibliography

483

Yehoshua, ‘Exile’ = A. B. Yehoshua, ‘Exile as a Neurotic Solution’, BiZekhut ha-Normaliut, (Tel Aviv: 1980), pp. 27–73. Yinnon, ‘Karaites’ = P. Fenton (Y. Yinnon), ‘Karaites and Sufis – The Traces of Sufism in Karaite Manuscripts’ (in Hebrew), Peʿamim, 90, (2002), pp. 5–19. Zucker, ‘Against’ = M. Zucker, ‘Against Whom Did Saʿadia Gaon Write the Polemical Poem “Essa Meshalī”?’ (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 27 (1958), pp. 61–82. Zucker, ‘Clarification’ = M. Zucker, ‘Clarifications in the History of the Polemics between Judaism and Islam’ (in Hebrew), Festschrift Armand Kaminka, (Vienna: 1937) pp. 31–42. Zucker, ‘Controversy’  = M.  Zucker, ‘The Rabbanite-Karaite Controversy regarding a Positive Commandment Superseding a Negative One’ (in Hebrew), Dinei Israel, 6 (1975), pp. 181–194. Zucker, ‘Fragments’ = M. Zucker, ‘Fragments from R. Saʿadia Gaon’s Commentary on the Pentateuch’ (in Hebrew), Sura, 2, (1955–1956), pp. 313–355. Zucker, ‘Reactions’ = M. Zucker, ‘Reactions to the Karaite Mourners of Zion Movement in Rabbinic Literature’ (in Hebrew), Jubilee Volume in Honor of Ḥanokh Albeck, (Jerusalem: 1963), pp. 378–401. Zucker, Targum = M. Zucker, ʿAl-Targum Rasag la-Torah, (New York: 1959).

CORRECTED INDICES AND OTHER CORRIGENDA

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

ASTI

Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

BEK

Bulletin des études karaites

BGS

Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft

BSOAS

Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies

BT

Babylonian Talmud

CBQ

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly

DJD

Discoveries in the Judean Desert

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

EI

The Encyclopaedia of Islam

EJ

Encyclopaedia Judaica

HTR

The Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

IOS

Israel Oriental Studies

IS

Islamic Studies

JA

Journal asiatique

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

422

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JR

Journal of Religion

JSAI

JSP

Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha

JSS

Journal of Semitic Studies

JT

RB

Jerusalem Talmud Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research Revue biblique

REJ

Revue des études juives

RHPR

Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses

RHR

Revue de l’histoire des religions

RQ

Revue de Qumran

SBB

Studies in Bibliography and Booklore

SI

Studia Islamica

VT

Vetus Testamentum

JSJ

PAAJR

423

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Index of Holy Scriptures The Hebrew Bible Genesis 1.14 10, 111, 119 1.14‒1610 1.16 10, 159 1.26154–56 1.27134 1.29 235–36, 276 1.29‒30276 2.2473 4.26 73, 353, 400–401 7.9134 7.11118 8.3118–119 8.3‒4119 8.4118 8.20 235–236, 238, 241, 277 8.21236 9.3 72, 235–38 9.3‒4277 11.1404 11.29132 12.6‒7401 12.8401 13.4400–401 13.9108 18.2155 18.7238 19.10‒11154 21.33404 27.9 235, 238 43.16238 45.18297 48.1‒20375 Exodus 2.1 297 3.7155 3.997 3.12 218–20, 223 3.18 218–19, 223, 250 3.22225

5.1223 6.23‒25396 8.23‒24250 9.3158 10.25 218, 239–40 10.25‒26223 10.26220 11.10156 12.5184 12.11188 12.14 187, 193 12.16175 12.19187 12.20 198, 297 12.25 188, 196–98, 204 12.43188 13.5 188, 193, 209 13.7 197, 198, 296 13.21 69, 155 14.1969 15.3342 15.11156 16.3230 16.4173 16.23173 16.2524 18.1222 18.11156 18.12 220, 239–40, 244 19.2219 20.21 240, 261–64, 266–68,  270, 272, 274, 277–79 20.21‒22262 20.22 260–62, 265–66, 270,  272, 278–79, 281 20.23 266–67, 269–72 20.20‒23261–63 21.13254 21.13‒14226 21.34 52, 54–55 23.19319

424

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

24.4 244, 272, 277 24.4‒5271 24.4‒6244 24.5 239–41, 271–72, 278 24.5‒6221 24.6221 24.8221 24.10342 24.1295 25.40297 27.8278 28.42266 28.43267 29.35180 29.42 221, 223 30.33263 32.1‒4138 32.4138 32.16 175, 298 33.19401 33.21155 34.5401 34.26320 35.3 96, 413 38.21185 40.1184 40.2 180, 182, 189–90, 193 40.17 180, 183, 189, 223 40.33185 40.34185 Leviticus 1.15289 3.9 205, 214, 291 3.16 293, 295, 297 3.17 205, 291–93, 295–98 5.9289 6.2 269, 288 6.17292 7.11‒13195 7.13195 7.15172–73 7.17243 7.20 205, 291–95, 297 7.22292

7.23 215, 292–93, 296–97 7.24293 7.25 291–93, 295, 297 7.26 213, 296–97 7.31293 7.36‒38212–13 7.38267 8.7‒9267 8.33 180, 183 9.1 180–81, 189, 201 10.1181 10.4‒7181 10.8‒1044 13.46254 14.6289 14.51289 15.18250 16.34298 17.1‒5235 17.1‒6245 17.1‒9 230, 233–35, 242–43,  248, 263–65, 270 17.2 253, 256 17.3 242, 244, 249–50,  252–56, 265 17.3‒4 241, 247–48 17.4 244, 260, 279 17.5 236, 246, 260–61, 267, 270 17.7242 17.10‒12287 17.13 285, 289, 301–302 17.22‒25292 18.7130 18.10130 18.12‒13 129, 144 18.13129 18.1656 18.18 46, 56, 130 18.2672 19.20250 19.23‒24255 19.26 260, 264, 267,  270–72, 284 23.3 206, 233, 298

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

23.5122 23.9 125, 178 23.9‒14125 23.10 176, 178, 204 23.11 125, 127–29, 143, 145 23.12297–98 23.15 126–27, 176, 178 23.15‒16125 23.21296 23.32173 23.38123 23.39211 26.44386 27.9292 Numbers 1.16‒17384 5.2‒4254 7.1186 7.1‒2182 7.12 182, 185 7.17 183, 195–96 7.48 182, 190 7.54186 8.2180 9.1183 9.1‒2183 9.1‒3196 9.3 184, 188 9.6 181, 185 9.6‒8 181, 185 9.7185 9.11195 9.11‒12188 10.11 189, 222–23 10.33280 11.22 243, 245 15.1245 15.2217–18 15.2‒3 217, 220, 223 16.2384 16.3234–35 18.7269–70 19.11181 19.14323

425

21.18362 23.7335 24.17362 26.9 384, 397 28.3‒4123 28.6 196–97, 217–18,  220–24, 281 28.10 124, 174–75 28.16‒25123 28.24123 29.6178 29.12‒38123 31.12242 35.29 233, 295, 298 Deuteronomy 1.6219 3.24157 4.14226 5.25226 11.31229 12.1 226–29, 306 12.1‒2306 12.2306 12.4225 12.4‒11273 12.5 261, 273 12.6 251, 273 12.7273 12.8 257, 282–84 12.8‒9 188, 217–18, 273, 281–82 12.9 13, 256, 258, 270,  280, 283, 307 12.10 13, 229, 258, 283 12.10‒11275 12.11 13, 227, 229, 258–59,  262, 273–74, 283 12.13229 12.13‒14 228, 270 12.15 213, 215, 225–28, 234,  251, 294–95, 301–303 12.15‒16 213, 286, 301, 303 12.16 286–91, 300 12.16‒23293 12.17228

426

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

12.18228 12.20 227, 247, 279 12.20–21 213, 233, 235,  245, 286 12.20–23 213, 293 12.21 232, 243, 247–49,  251, 254–56, 303, 307 12.22295 12.23286 12.24 288–89, 300 12.26 226, 259, 298 12.27237–38 13.1 54, 410 13.13256 14.4237 14.4‒5213 14.24 250, 255–56 14.26247 14.26–27211 15.21‒23301 16.2188 16.3211 16.7120 16.9176 16.16188 16.17230 16.18232 17.17275 18.3237 19.8‒9247 21.1‒990 21.15135 21.19256 22.8323 23.11 249, 254 24.1 134, 144 24.5 321, 323 24.6320–21 25.7232 25.17258 26.1258 27.6 262, 279 27.7263 29.28 322, 328, 347

30.1333 30.11 319–20, 322–23, 325, 353 30.15333 32333 32.14291 33.2 65, 70 33.4 46–47, 56 33.765 Joshua 3.4242–43 5.11177 6.14‒15190 8.30‒32281 15.16‒17131–32 18.28103 21.42258 22.19228 Judges 1.13131–32 5333 6.26263 20.26‒27268 I Samuel 6.11‒16268 7.9263 7.9‒14263 13.1 263, 273 14 261, 263, 267, 269, 288 14.18 264, 268, 285 14.31267 14.32 259–60, 264–65, 267 14.32‒35 12, 72, 259 14.33 260, 262, 264 14.33‒34259–60 14.34285 14.35260 18.14335 28.8‒25156 II Samuel 6.12‒13268 7.1‒5275 7.6298 7.10274 7.11 139, 274

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

I Kings 1.50269 2.28269 3.2‒3265 6.20261 8.10121 8.65191 8.65–66119–20 8.66120 12.25‒33372 17.4‒7231 18.31‒32263 22.19342 II Kings 4.35340 12.4 265, 269 13.21340 14.4265 15.4265 15.35265 19.16341 22.8275 35265 Isaiah 1.13414 5338 11.4352 22.12‒13 236, 238 26.19340 28.10372–73 29.13 82, 96, 326, 373 30.19402 30.21329 31.4402 31.5402 35.3‒4332 40.1‒2332 40.18342 41.2400–401 41.25400–401 47.9‒10107 48.12404 49.1 386, 404 51.1383

427

52.7377 58.7132 59.1367 59.20371–72 60.21394 60.22387 61377 61.3 100, 332 64.567 64.6398–400 66.2 156, 393–94 66.3236 66.5 43, 393–94 Jeremiah 3.8373 5.1377 7.21‒23219 7.22 219–20, 223–24 7.22‒3 219, 221, 223, 240 15.9340 17.24225 22.4225 27.22416 31.18326 43110 Ezekiel 1.10155 6.6298 9.4 48, 376–77 9.14366 17.3334 20.35‒3892 20.39414 20.40414 20.41414 20.44385 21.3334 24.7 72, 288–89 32.2768 33.25237–38 37.14334 37.23388 39.28403 40.39261

428

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

40.42261 42.2242 44.15 388, 390 Hosea 1.1333 2.1396 2.9131 6.6222–23 9.3‒4 236, 238 9.4237 10.12 326–27, 329 12.2373 Joel 2.12 98, 378 2.17337 2.23327 3.4 327, 402 3.5400–403 Amos 2.8269 3.7318 5.2372–73 5.12394 5.13383 5.25 183, 189, 196–97,  199, 201, 207, 210,  217, 219–24, 281, 362 5.26207–208 6.8275 7.1473 8.11 330, 334 8.11‒12329–31 8.12331 Micah 1.6375 2.12‒13 92, 372 2.13372 4.6386 4.6‒7103 4.7 385, 386 5.12 209, 414 8. 12 209 Nahum 3.1374

3.4375 Habakkuk 2.2 15, 357, 392 2.3 334, 357 2.8392 2.17378 3.2‒393 3.17393 3.18382 3.19388 Zephaniah 2.3398–99 3.6‒8394–95 3.8395 3.9 16, 79, 401, 403–405 3.11380 3.11‒12380 3.12395 3.13 38, 370, 386, 403 3.14372 3.19103 Haggai 1.1390 1.15118 2.1118 2.17326 Zechariah 1.7‒8336 1.8336 1.10‒12394 1.12394 3.9394 4.793 5.3 146, 381 5.4146 5.6382–83 5.6‒9372 5.8 43, 73 7.1–9210 7.3102 7.5220 8.9333–34 8.16233–34 8.19210

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

9.1 275, 280 9.9352 11.794 11.10379–80 11.11379 11.11‒14379 11.12 317, 379, 394 13.9403 14.9405 14.20‒22102 Malachi 1.10206 1.11‒12400 2.9319 2.16136 3.5131 3.20372 3.22‒2492 3.23 93, 329 3.24327 3.23–24329 Psalms 1.2335 1.6336 2.17‒18375 5.1336 8.6155 10.7371 11.2106 14.2332 16.4289 16.11 289, 395 17.1371 17.6399 17.10380 18.1333 18.34388 22.32387 25.14 94, 328 30.1083 35.1068 37.11378 37.11‒12375 37.14‒15375

429

37.24357 37.32358 38.14337 39.3383 42.1335 42.263 43.3329 44.24336 45.1395 45.2397 46.199 48.9387 50.8234 51.19 98, 378 52.8393 55.6393 55.23393 56.1337 60.7370 60.8‒9374 60.9374 66.1404 69336 69.1 37–38, 43, 74, 89, 335, 393 69.1‒2387 69.2387 74.39340 78.4969 78.67374 78.68373–74 80.2374 80.2‒3374 80.3374 84.4332 89.37373 89.38159 91.1370 91.4337 91.15403 102.1330 102.14386–87 103.16340 104.469 104.19118

430

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

107.10337 115.11395 119.18 324–25, 328 119.19329 119.20100 119.33328 119.55370 119.62370 119.67329 132.5283 132.14 280, 283 135.4374 136.468 137.1‒2366 139.18403 144.1388 145.18399 147.14297 149.6‒7388 Proverbs 1.20353 1.28399 2.4 45, 55, 71, 324, 365 2.4‒5324 2.1055 3.1455 3.32318 8.9323 8.1955 8.2155 8.22273 21.27207 29.18327–28 Job 11.995 14.14340 27.9399 31.10321 Song of Songs 1.1 333, 336, 338, 340 1.2395 1.5383 1.892 2.237

2.5 94, 98, 378 2.6338–39 2.1137 2.12370–71 2.12‒13100 2.15316 3.2 47, 105, 383 3.3339 5.7339 5.10342 5.11342 6.2396 6.1196 7.8318 7.9318 Lamentations 1.879 2.14372 3.40399 5.18107 Ecclesiastes 1.1338 1.5340 3.7383 4.3383 4.17 383, 399 Esther 4101–102 Daniel 2.43106 8.6335 9.13399 9.21155 10.1‒3231 10.2‒3 232, 234 10.3231–32 11.1 342, 352 11.2335 11.14154 11.32316 11.33 318, 335 11.35 45, 318 11.40337 12.1 394, 402

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

12.1‒2403 12.2340 12.3395–96 12.4 325, 328 12.594 12.9‒10333 12.10318 12.12 352, 370 Nehemiah 5.18231 9.1121 9.36231 10.30381 13.2471 I Chronicles 5.29‒34 360, 396 17.9283 17.10274–75 22.9275 22.18 229, 259, 273 23.25283 28.4374 II Chronicles 4.1261 7.9191 7.10121 10.1374 29.17195–96

431

The New Testament Matthew 5.31134 19.1‒9134 19.9134 20.20‒23152 Mark 10.2‒11134 10.18152 Luke 18.19152 22.44152 Acts 23.8113 Qurʾān 3.7347–48 6.20351 6.147212 6.152349 9.30138 9.36‒3758 10.55‒56208 21.91153 29.42349 31.19351 57.3349 66.12153

Rabbinic Texts Mishnah Maʿaser sheni 5.2255 Orla 2.17255 Pesaḥim 6.1‒2124 Yoma 3.8398 4.2398

Sukka 3.13‒14124 4.2125 4.3125 Megīlla 1.10277 1.11281 Ḥagiga 1.8 5 3, 95

432

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Yevamot 1.1‒4135 Gittin 9.10134 Sanhedrin 10.1 94, 113 ʿEduyot 1.5326 8.7329 Avot 1.176 1.3 112, 114 Zevaḥim 14.4 276, p. 279 14.5279 14.6280 14.7279 14.8280 Menaḥot 4.3206 8.1206 10.3177 Ḥulin 1.2246 6.1300 8.6299 Temurah 2.6183 Ohalot 1.1181 Tosefta (Zuckermandel edition) Maʿaser sheni 1.9255 ʿEruvin 11.2353 Sukka 3.1125 Kiddushin 1.4132 ʿEduyot 1.1329 1.4326

Zevaḥim 13.15277 13.19280 Negaʻim 6.2256 Megīllat Taʿanit (Noam edition), Jerusalem 2003 Nisan p. 43 182 pp. 57‒59 200 p. 59 184 Tammuz pp. 77‒79 115 Kislev p. 104 183, 192 Tevet pp. 107‒109 116 Avot de-Rabbi Natan (Schechter edition), Vienna 1887 Version A, Chapter 5 112 Version B, Chapter 10 112 Midrash Halakha Mekhilta de-Rabbi Yishmaʿel (Horovitz-Rabin edition), Frankfurt 1891 Yitro

Chapter 3 Chapter 11

126, 239 266, 278

Sifra (Schlossberg edition), Vienna 1862

43b181 44b180

Sifre Numbers (Horovitz edition), Leipzig 1877 Naso 1253–54

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

44180–82 51183 Be-haʿalothkhah 65184 67183 68181 Sifre Deuteronomy (Finkelstein edition), New York– Jerusalem 1993 Chapter 1 280 Chapter 59 306, 413 Chapter 65 277, 284 Chapter 66 280 Chapter 71 213, 300 Chapter 75 245, 255, 303 Chapter 92 256 Chapter 255 254 Chapter 221 323 Sifre Zuta (Horovitz edition) in Sifre Numbers Numbers 7.1 180 Numbers 28.6 221 JT = Jerusalem Talmud (Venice edition) Peʾah 2.6, 17a 95 Shabbat 1.3, 4a-b 190 19.2, 17a 41 Pesaḥim 6.1, 33 124–25 Megīlla 1.14, 72c 263 Yevamot 13.2, 13c 132 The Targum Credited to Jonathan ben Uziel (Rieder edition), Jerusalem 1974 Leviticus 9.1181

433

Deuteronomy 21.1‒990 24.5323 BT = Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 30b312 Shabbat 30a191 63a333 86b126 87b182 132b70 138b330 ʿEruvin 21b 95, 96, 312 Pesaḥim 66a124 Sukka 20a414 43b125 Megīlla 14a246 Moʿed Qatan 9a 120, 183, 191 Ḥagiga 6a 183, 221 6a–b277 6b 207, 221 10a95 10b 143, 223, 224 14a312 17a–b120 Yevamot 15b133 Ketuvot 111b416 Kiddushin 37a 305, 413 66a114–15 Baba Qama 59a–b99 Baba Meṣiʿa 59b132 83a–87a416

434

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Baba Batra 12a95 60b 99, 246 Sanhedrin 33b114 35b413 59b277 63a284 Horayot 4a114 Zevaḥim 61b279 108b277 111a245 112b280 114a284 115b238–39 116a239 116b254 116b–117a254 117a254 118b279–80 119a–b280 120a285 Menaḥot 29b41 45a 198, 329 45b206 65a126 65b–66a126 83b–84a206 Ḥulin 16b246 17a245 74b215 84a300 Midrash Aggadah Midrash Bereshit Rabba (Theodor-Albeck edition), Berlin 1903‒1924 Chapter 34.3 277

Chapter 35.3 Chapter 41.1 Chapter 47.10 Midrash va-Yiqra Rabba (Margoliouth edition), Jerusalem 1953‒1958 Chapter 22.7 Chapter 30.1 Chapter 30.2

191 312 190

245 312 395

Midrash Tanḥuma (Buber edition), photocopy, Jerusalem 1964 Be-Ḥuqotai 593 Midrash Rabba – Shir ha-Shirim (Donsky edition), Jerusalem 1980 Chapter I 18 95 Mishnat Rabbi Eliezer (Enelow edition), New York 1934 Chapter 1 49, 89 Chapter 13 39 Seder Eliyahu Rabba (IshShalom edition), Vienna 1904 Chapter 16 292 Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer (photocopy), Jerusalem 1990 Chapter 9, f.21b 300 Pitron Torah (A. A. Urbach edition), Jerusalem 1978 p. 29 141 p. 64 141 p. 329 65, 70, 141 p. 331 141 p. 334 141

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

435

Second Temple Period Literature Pseudo-Epigraphia and Qumran Scrolls Book of Jubilees (Kahana edition) 1.27140 1.27‒29140 1.29391 2.1140 2.2139 2.8‒9159 4.15130 5.27118 6.23‒27118 6.23‒32118 6.37172 7.30‒31300 7.36160 8.6130 11.7130 12.22140 12.25140 12.26‒27140 15.1‒22176 17.16139 18.9‒11139 18.12139 21.17300 33.15‒17130 48.12‒13139 48.15139 50.10‒11123 The Testament of Naphtali = M. Gaster, “The Hebrew Text of One of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs”, Studies and Texts, London 1925‒1928, I, pp. 69‒85; III, pp. 22‒30 III, p. 23 375

Qumran Scrolls Damascus Covenant = The Damascus Document Reconsidered (eds. E. Qimron and M. Brochi), Jerusalem 1992 1.1383 1.4‒5385 1.8‒11361 2.11310 2.11‒13384 3.6‒7300 3.12‒14 359, 385 3.19‒4.6388 4.20‒5.1134 5.1‒5360 5.1‒6275 5.5360 5.7‒11129 6.3‒11365 6.10207 6.10‒11357 6.11‒12207 6.11‒16206 6.19369 7.13376 7.13‒18208 7.18208 7.18‒20362 7.19‒20362 8.21369 11.17‒18123 11.18‒21207 12.1‒2250 13.16‒17136 16.1‒2143 16.3‒4118 16.4‒6139 19.10‒13377 20.17371

436

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition) = The Damascus Document, (4Q122‒273), DJD, 18, Oxford 1996 4Q266 frag. 3 ii, 17‒22, p. 41 206 4Q266 frag. 3 iii, 18‒19, p. 44 208 4Q266 frag. 9 iii, 4‒5, p. 70 136 4Q266 frag. 10, ii, 12‒13, p. 74 163 4Q266 frag. 11, 3‒5, p. 76–77 378 4Q267 2, 17‒22, p. 41 206 4Q269 frag. 3, 1‒2, p. 126 134 4Q269 frag. 11 ii, 1‒2, p. 135 163 4Q270 1 i, 6‒8, pp. 36‒37 385 4Q270 1 i, 11, p. 37 310, 384 Damascus Covenant (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995, pp. 1‒70 1.1383 1.4‒5385 1.8‒11361 2.6‒8385 2.11‒13384 3.3‒5371 3.12‒14 359, 385 3.19‒4.6388 5.1‒5360 6.3‒11365 6.4‒6362 6.10‒11357 6.19369 7.18‒20362 7.19‒20362 8.21369 19.10‒13377 20.17371

Damascus Covenant (Rabin edition) = C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents, Oxford 1954 p. 8 384 p. 18 275 p. 66 136 Damascus Covenant (Schechter edition) = S. Schechter, Fragments of a Zadokite Work, Cambridge 1910 p. xvii 134 pp. xviii-xxi 129 p. xix 134 p. xxiii 384 p. xxxvi 134 p. liii 136 Psalms Scroll (Sanders edition) = J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls, Ithaca, New York 1967 Col. XXVII, 5‒7 123 War Scroll (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995, II, pp. 80‒141 1.1‒2375 1.2 207, 304 1.3207 1.8390 2.6‒7384 2.6‒8314 2.7398 3.2398 4.10‒11398 12.1391 13.4391 13.10140 Temple Scroll (Yadin English edition), Jerusalem 1983 3.3275

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

13.10‒16123 15.3‒8201 15.14201 17.1‒4201 18.3127 43.12250 45.7‒8249 45.11‒12250 47.3‒18249 47.11‒14250 52.9‒12301 52.13‒15250–51 52.15‒19250 52.19‒21249 52.21302 53.1‒4251 53.1‒6301 54.4135 57.17‒19135 66.14‒17130 Blessings (Charlesworth edition) = Blessings 1QSb, The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 3.22‒25360 5.22379 Rule of Community (Charlesworth edition) = Rule of Community, The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 1.9–10369 2.5139 3.13363 3.20383 3.20‒21139 3.23139 4.5383 4.22‒23370

437

5.1‒4360 5.8‒9 360, 389 5.11‒12361 6.6–8361 7.15162 8.6391 8.11‒12361 8.13‒15304 8.15‒16359 9.12363 9.13‒14363 9.14391 9.17‒19363 9.18‒21304 Rule of Congregation (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 1.1‒5389 1.23‒25389 1.27‒28370 2.2 384, 398 2.2‒3389 2.11385 2.13‒14385 Habakkuk Pesher (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995 1.5‒10358 1.12–13392 1.13358 2.6369 5.4391 7.1‒2357 7.3‒5357 9.9‒12392 10.13391 12.2‒6378

438

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

MMT (Qimron edition) = Miqṣat Maʿasei ha-Torah, DJD, 10, Oxford 1994 1.20‒21118 2.27‒31251 2.31‒33253 2.60‒62252 3.7420 3.9‒10275 3.18276 3.18‒19376 3.20‒22358 3.25‒26276 Nahum Pesher (Charlesworth edition) = The Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth), Tübingen 1995, pp. 54‒59 2.2375 2.8375 Thanksgiving Scroll = Thanksgiving Scroll, 1Q Hodayota, DJD, 40, Oxford 2009, pp. 332‒355 23.15‒16377 Micha Pesher = 1Q14, DJD, 1, Oxford 1955, pp. 77‒80 1Q14 frags. 1–5, 4‒7 375 4Q171 Psalms Pesher (a) = 4Q171(a), DJD, 5, Oxford 1968, pp. 42‒51 1, 3‒4, Col. III, 15‒17, p. 44 357 1–2 Coll. II, 17-18, p. 46 375 1‒2, Col. II, 13‒14, pp. 43‒44375 1‒2, Col. II, 8‒9, p. 46 379 3‒10, Col. IV, 22‒23, p. 45 397 4Q Flor. (Steudel edition) = Der Midrash zur Eschatologie

und der Qumrangemeinde (4Q Midr Eschat a, b) (ed. A. Steudel), Leiden 1994 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 7‒9 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 7-10 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 11-12 Col. III, frag. 1, 21.2, 17 Col. III. frag. 1, 21.2, 19

139 274 362 389 391

4Q76 XIIa = 4Q76 XIIa, DJD, 15, Oxford 1997, pp. 221‒233 Col. II, 4‒5 136 4Q215a = 4Q215a Time of Consciousness, DJD, 36, Oxford 2000, pp. 172‒184 Frag. 1 ii, 3, p. 180 391 4Q216 = 4Q216, DJD, 13, Oxford 1994, pp. 1‒22 p. 11 140 4Q225 = 4Q225, DJD, 13, Oxford 1994, pp. 141‒155 pp. 145‒149 139 4Q251 = 4Q251, DJD, 35, Oxford 1999, pp. 25‒51 Frag. 17, 2‒3, p. 45 133 4Q252 = 4Q252, DJD, 22, Oxford 1996, pp. 185‒207 p. 198 119 4Q375 = 4Q375 apocr Moses (a), DJD, 19, Oxford 1995, pp. 111‒119 Frag. 1 i, 1‒4, p. 113 359 Frag. 1 ii, 7‒8, p. 115 360 4Q424 = 4Q424, DJD, 36, Oxford 2000, pp. 333‒346 Frag. 3, 1, p. 342 361

439

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Frag. 3, 9‒10, p. 342 Frag. 3, 6, p. 343

378 379

4Q464 = 4Q464, Exposition of the Patriarchs, DJD, 19, Oxford 1995, pp. 215‒236 Frag. 3 i, 8‒9, p. 218 405 4Q504 = 4Q504, DJD, 7, Oxford 1982, pp. 137‒168 Col. IV, 1‒2, p. 143 274 4Q522 = 4Q522, Prophecy of Joshua, DJD, 25, Oxford 1998, pp. 39‒74 Frag. 9 ii, 3‒7, p. 55 390 4Q524 = 4Q524, DJD, 25, Oxford 1998, pp. 85‒114 Frags. 15‒22, 4, pp. 103‒104 133 4Q26 Levd = 4Q26 Levd, DJD, 12, Oxford 1994, pp. 193‒195 Frag. 4, 1‒5, pp. 194‒195 253

11Q13 Melchizedek = 11Q13, Melch, DJD, 23, Oxford 1998, pp. 221‒241 Col. II, frags. 1, 2i, 3i, 4, 15‒17, p. 225 377

Josephus Antiquities, VIII 1.5 Antiquities, XIII 10.297, 10.288–296114 War, II 8.14 113

Philo De opifico mundi (Loeb edition), sec. 42 159 De vita contemplativa (Loeb edition), sec. 65 161 Quod omnis probus, liber sit (Loeb edition), secs. 75–91 149 Posteritate Caini (Loeb edition), secs. 6–7 341

Karaite Literature Karaite Manuscripts ABBREVIATIONS BL = British Library, London Bodl.  = Oxford Bodleian Library INA  = Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg JTS  = Jewish Theological Seminary, New York PBN = Bibliotheque nationale, Paris

RNL  = Russian National Library, St. Petersburg Israel ben Daniel Book of Precepts = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1769 Jacob ben Reuben Sefer ha-ʿOsher = JTS, MS 9513/2 Leiden, Warner 8

440

Levi ben Yefet Book of Precepts = Leiden, Warner 22 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 509 MS Oxford reggio 5 Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ Commentary on Genesis = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4633 Salmon ben Yerūḥam Commentary on Psalms = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 556 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1345 Commentary on Song of Songs = BL Or. 2515 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1406 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3959 Tobias ben Moses Oṣar Neḥmad = Bodl. MS Opp. 26 (01.555) Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī Commentary on Genesis = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 4529 Yefet ben ʿEli Commentary on Genesis MS Trinity College, Cambridge F 12, 109 BL Or. 2461 BL Or. 2462 INA B 51 INA B 222 PBN Héb. 278 Commentary on Exodus BL Or. 2466 BL Or. 2467 BL Or. 2468 BL Or. 2471

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

BL Or. 2518 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 40 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 41 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 42 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 43 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 51 INA B 220 INA B 367 PBN Héb 280 Commentary on Leviticus BL. Or. 2472 PBN Héb. 282 Commentary on Numbers MS Trinity College, F 12.110 PBN Héb. 283 Commentary on Deuteronomy BL. Or. 2478 BL. Or. 2479 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 95 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 113 INA B 369 INA C 41 INA C 72 Commentary on First Prophets Joshua = BL. Or.2404 I Samuel = BL. Or. 2547 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 156 I Kings = INA C 36 Commentary on Isaiah BL Or. 2501 BL Or. 2502 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 284 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 569 Commentary on Ezekiel BL Or. 5062 RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 3496 INA B 135

441

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Commentary on Minor Prophets Joel = BL Or. 2400 Amos = Trinity College, Cambridge F12.118 Micha = Trinity College, Cambridge F12.118 Habakkuk = BL Or. 2401 Zephaniah = BL Or. 2401 Zechariah = BL Or. 2401 Malachi = BL Or. 2400

Malachi = BL Or. 2401 Commentary on Hagiographa Esther = PBN Héb. 295 Psalms = PBN Héb. 286‒289 Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah Commentary on Exodus = RNL Yevr.-Arab. I 1369

Karaite Books in Print Aaron ben Elijah, ʿEṣ Ḥayyim = Aaron ben Elijah, Sefer ʿEṣ Ḥayyim, Gözlöw 1847 Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden = Aaron ben Elijah, Gan Eden, Gözlöw 1864 Aaron ben Elijah, Keter Torah = Aaron ben Elijah, Sefer Keter Torah, Gözlöw 1867 Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer haMivḥar = Aaron ben Joseph, Sefer ha-Mivḥar, Gözlöw 1835 ‘An Early Karaite’ (Assaf edition) = S. Assaf, Polemic of an Early Karaite Against the Rabbanites (in Hebrew), Tarbiz, 4 (1933), pp. 34‒53, 193‒206 ʿAnan, Book of Precepts (Harkavy edition) = ʿAnan, Sefer haMiṣvot, Zikhron la-Rishonīm, VIII, ed. A. A. Harkavy, St. Petersburg 1903 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, Masʾat Binyamin = Benjamin alNahāwandī, Sefer Dinim – Masʾat Binyamin, Ramla 1979 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Leviticus = Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Leviticus, TS 16.316, in Schechter, Saadyana

Daniel al-Qūmisī, Commentary on Psalms 74, Adler MS 2778 in Marmorstein, Remnants Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’ = H. Ben-Shammai, ‘Fragments of a Commentary on Daniel’ (in Hebrew), Shalem, 3 (1981), pp. 295‒307 Daniel al-Qūmisī, Pitron = Daniel al-Qūmisī, Pitron Sheneim Asar, ed. I. D. Markon, Jerusalem 1957 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Sermon’ (Nemoy edition) = L. Nemoy, ‘The Pseudo-Qūmisīan Sermon to the Karaites’, PAAJR 43 (1976), pp. 49‒105 Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’ = Daniel al-Qūmisī, ‘Tract in Arabic’, in Zucker, Targum, pp. 175‒182 David ben Abraham, Dictionary = David ben Abraham al-Fāsī, Kitāb Jāmi ʿal-Alfāẓ, ed. S. L. Skoss, Yale University Press 1936‒1945 Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu = Elijah Bashyaṣi, Aderet Eliyahu, Gözlöw 1835

442

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq = Elijah ben Abraham, Ḥīllūq ha-Qaraʾīm ve-ha-Rabbanīm, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 99‒106 Hadassi, Eshkol = Judah Hadassi, Eshkol ha-Kofer, Gözlöw 1836 Ibn al-Hītī, Chronicle = G. Margoliouth, ‘Ibn al-Hītī’s Arabic Chronicle of Karaite Doctors’, JQR, 9 (1987), pp. 429‒443 Israel al-Maghribī, ‘Ritual Slaughtering’ (Nemoy edition) = L. Nemoy, ‘Israel al-Maghribī’s Tract on Ritual Slaughtering’, Henoch, 13 (1991), pp. 195‒218 Levi ben Yefet, Book of Precepts (Y. Algamil edition) = Levi ben Yefet, Sefer ha-Miṣvot, Ashdod 2002 Mordechai ben Nisan, Dod Mordechai = Mordechai ben Nisan, Dod Mordechai, Vienna 1830 Nissi ben Noah, Bītan haMaskīlīm = Nissi ben Noah, Bītan ha- Maskīlīm, in Pinsker Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, pp. 37‒41 Nissi ben Noah, Commentary on the Decalogue = Nissi ben Noah, ʿAseret ha-Devarīm, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 2‒13 Qirqisānī, Introduction to the Commentary on the Torah (Hirschfeld edition) = H. Hirschfeld, Qirqisāni Studies (Jews’ College, Publications no. 6), London 1918

Qirqisānī = Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī, Kitāb al-Anwār waʾl-Marāqib, M. L. Nemoy, New York 1939‒1943 Qirqisānī, ‘Prologue’ = G. Vajda, ‘Du prologue de Qirqisānī a son commentaire sur la Genise’, Memoriam P. Kahle (eds. M. Black and G. Fohrer), Berlin 1968, pp. 222‒231 Sahl, Epistle = Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, Tokhaḥat Megūllah, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 24‒43 Sahl, Piyyūṭ = Sahl ben Maṣlīʾaḥ, Piyyūṭ, in Pinsker, Līqqūṭei Qadmoniyyot, II, pp. 26‒27 Sahl, ‘Tract’ = A. A. Harkavy, ‘On the Situation in Jerusalem in the Tenth Century’ (in Hebrew), Meʾasef Nidaḥīm, Vienna 1870, pp. 197‒204 Salmon, Commentary on Lamentations (Feuerstein edition) = E. Feuerstein, Der Commentar des Karäers Salmon Ben Jerucham zu den Klageleidern, Krakow 1898 Salmon, Milḥamot = Salmon ben Yerūḥam, Sefer Milḥamot Adonai, ed. I. Davidson, New York 1934 Salmon, Commentary on Psalms (Marwick edition) = L. Marwick, The Arabic Commentary of Salmon ben Yeroḥam the Karaite on the Book of Psalms Ch. 42‒72, Philadelphia 1956 Samuel ben Moses, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Book of Precepts) = Samuel ben Moses, Sefer ha-Miṣvot

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

(Y. Algamil edition), Ashdod 2002 Samuel ben Moses, Murshid, haMaʾakhalot = M. Lorge, Die speisegesetze der Karäer von Samuel el-Maġreb, Berlin 1907 Yefet, Commentary on Daniel (Margoliouth edition) = D. S. Margoliouth, A Commentary on the Book of Daniel by Yefet ben Ali the Karaite, Oxford 1889 Yefet, Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Bland edition) = R. M. Bland, The Arabic Commentary of Jephet ben ʿAli on the Book of Ecclesiastes, Chapters 1‒6, University of California, Berkeley 1996 Yefet, Commentary on Genesis (Butbul edition) = See BenShammai, Textual Tradition, Jerusalem (in Hebrew) Yefet, Commentary on Hosea (Birenbaum edition) = P. Birenbaum, The Arabic Commentary of Yefet Ben Ali

443

the Karaite on the Book of Hosea, Philadelphia 1942 Yefet, Commentary on Proverbs (Günzig edition) = I. Günzig, Der Commentar des Karäers Jephet ben ʿAli Halevi zu den Proverbien, I-III, Krakow 1898 Yefet, Commentary on Song of Songs (Bargès edition) = J. J. L. Bargès, Rabbi Yaphet Abou Aly in Canticum Commentarium Arabicum, Paris 1984 Yeshuʿah ben Yehudah, Commentary on the Pentateuch (Harkavy edition) = A. A. Harkavy, Zikhron laRishonīm VIII, St. Petersburg 1903, pp. 176‒184 Joseph Begi, Qiryah Neʾemanah (Mann edition) = Joseph Begi, Iggeret Qiryah Neʾemanah, in Mann, Text, II, pp. 302‒315 Yūsuf Ibn Nūḥ, Grammar = G. Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought, Leiden 2000

Rabbinic Geonic Literature Ben Baboi (Ginzberg edition) = see Ginzberg, Genizah Studies Ben Baboi (Lewin edition) = see Lewin, Geniza Fragments Epistle of Sherira Gaon (Rabinowitz edition) = Iggeret sherira gaon, ed. N. D. Rabinowitz, Jerusalem 1991 Halakhot Gedolot (Hildersheimer edition) = A. Hildersheimer, Halakhot Gedolot, Berlin 1892

Naṭronai, Responsa = Teshuvot R. Naṭronai ben Hilai Gaon (Y. Brodly edition), Jerusalem 1994 Oṣar ha-Geonīm = B. M. Lewin, Oṣar ha-Geonīm, Jerusalem 1933 Saʿadia Gaon, Beliefs and Opinions (Rosenblatt edition) = Saʿadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions (S. Rosenblatt edition), Yale 1948

444

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition) = M. Zucker, Prushei Rav Saʿadia Gaon le-Bereshīt, New York 1984 Saʿadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Tamyīz = Saʿadia Gaon, Kitāb al-Tamyīz, TS Misc. 35.85 f. 2 Saʿadia Gaon, Kitab al-Tamyīz = in Saʿadia Gaon, Commentary on Genesis (Zucker edition) Saʿadia Gaon, Sefer ha-Egron (Aloni edition) = Saʿadia Gaon, Sefer ha-Egron

(N. Aloni edition), Jerusalem 1966 Saʿadia Gaon, Taḥṣīl (Zucker edition) = M. Zucker, ‘Fragments of Kitāb Taḥṣīl al-Sharāʾīʿ alSamʿyyah, Written by Saʿadia Gaon’, Tarbiz, 41 (1972), pp. 373‒410 (in Hebrew) Saʿadia Gaon, Translation of the Torah (Derenbourg edition) = Version arabe du Pentateuque de R. Saadia ben Iosef alFayyoûmî, ed. J. Derenbourg, Paris 1893

General Rabbinic Literature Abraham bar Ḥiyya, ʿĪbbūr = Avraham bar Ḥiyya, Sefer haʿĪbbūr, (S. Polipofski edition), London 1851 Abraham ben David, Sefer haKabbalah (Cohen edition), Abraham ben David, Sefer ha-Kabbalah (G. D. Cohen edition), Philadelphia 1967 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on Amos (Simon edition) = U. Simon, Shnei Perushei R. Abraham Ibn Ezra le-Treiʿasar, I, Bar-Ilan University 1989 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Commentary on the Pentateuch = Abraham Ibn Ezra, Perushei ha-Torah (A. Weizer edition), Jerusalem 1976 Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod Moraʾ (Cohen-Simon edition) = Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod Moraʾ ve-Sod Torah (Y. Cohen

and U. Simon edition), RamatGan 2002 Eshtori ha-Parḥi, Kaftor vaFeraḥ = Eshtori ha-Parḥi, Kaftor va-Feraḥ (A. M. Lunz edition), Jerusalem 1897 Ibn Kammūnah, Differences (Nemoy edition) = L. Nemoy, ‘Ibn Kammūnah’s Treatise on the Differences between the Rabbanites and the Karaites’, PAAJR, 36 (1968), pp. 107‒165 Josippon (Flusser edition) = Sefer Josippon (D. Flusser edition), Jerusalem 1979 Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari (Baneth and Ben-Shammai edition) = Judah ha-Levi, Sefer ha-Kuzari (D. H. Baneth and H. BenShammai edition), Jerusalem 1977 Judah ha-Levi, Kuzari (Hirschfeld edition) = Judah ha-Levi, Sefer

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

ha-Kuzari (H. Hirschfeld edition), Leipzig 1886 Maimonides, Book of Commandments (Qafiḥ edition) = Rambam, Sefer ha-Miṣvot (Y. Qafiḥ edition), Jerusalem 1971 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah (Y. Qafiḥ edition) = Rambam, Perush ha-Mishnah, Jerusalem 1967 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah Avot (Shilat edition) = Rambam, Perush leMishnah Avot (Shilat edition), Jerusalem 1994 Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed (Pines edition) = Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed (S. Pines edition), Chicago 1979

445

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah = Rambam, Mishneh Torah Maimonides, Responsa (Blau edition) = Rambam, Teshuvot ha-Rambam (Y. Blau edition), Jerusalem 1986 Ramban, Commentary on the Pentateuch = Ramban, Perush ha-Torah (H. D. Sheval edition), Jerusalem 1959 Scroll of Aḥīmaʿaṣ = Megīllat Aḥīmaʿaṣ (B. Klar edition), Jerusalem 1979 Taku, Ketav Tamīm = M. Taku, Ketav Tamīm, in Oṣar Neḥmad (ed. Y. Blumenfeld), Vienna 1860, pp. 54‒99 Tanḥum ben Joseph, Commentary on the Minor Prophets = Tanḥum ben Joseph, Tanḥum ben Joseph le-trei-ʿasar (H. Shai edition), Jerusalem 1991

Arabic Sources Abū al-Faṣl al-Suʿūdī, Muntakhab al-Jalīl = in Schreiner, Notes Ashʿarī, Maqālāt = al-Ashʿarī, Kitāb Maqālāt al-Islāmiyyīn, ed. H. Ritter, Istanbul 1929‒1930 Bīrūnī, Athār = al-Bīrūnī Muḥammad b. Aḥmad, alAthār al-Bāqiya, ed. E. Sachau, Leipzig 1927 (English edition, London 1897) Ibn al-ʿArabī, Aḥkām al-Qurʾān = Ibn al-‘Arabī, Aḥkām alQurʾān, Beirut Ibn al-ʿArabī, Journey = Y. Drory, Ibn al-ʿArabī me-Sivilia. Masaʿ

be-Ereṣ Israel 1905‒1992, BarIlan 1993 (in Hebrew) Ibn Ḥazm, Milal = Ibn Ḥazm ʿAli b. Aḥmad, al-Fiṣal fi al-Milal, Beirut Ibn Khaldūn, Taʾrīkh = Ibn Khaldūn, Taʾrīkh Ibn Khaldūn, Beirut 1958 Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr = Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, Cairo 1988 Maqdisī, Badāʾ = al-Maqdisī Muṭahhar b. Tāhin, al-Badāʾ waʾl-Tarikh, ed. C. Huart, Paris 1889 Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ = al-Maqrīzī Taqī al-Dīn Aḥmad, Kitāb al-Khiṭat, Būllāq 1853

446

Masʿūdī, Tanbīh = al-Masʿūdī ʿAlī b. Ḥusayn, al-Tanbīh waʾlIshrāf, Leiden 1984 Muqātil, Tafsīr = Muqātil ben Sulaymān, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān, Cairo 1979 Severus Ibn al-Muqaffaʿ, Miṣbāḥ al-ʿAql = Severus Ibn alMuqaffaʿ, The Lamp of the Intellect (ed. R. Y. Ehied et. al.) (CSCO 365), Louvain 1975 Shāfiʿī, Risāla = al-Shāfiʿī, Kitāb al-risāla, Cairo 1940

Indices, Sources and Research Literature

Shahrastānī, Milal = alshahrastānī, Abū ʾl-Fatḥ, Kitāb al-milal waʾl-niḥal, ed. N. Cureton, Leipzig 1923 Sijistānī, Iftikhār = Sijistānī Abū Sulaymān, Kitab al-Iftikhār, Beirut 1984 Yāqūt, Muʿjam al-Buldān = Yāqūt b. ʿAbdallah, Muʿjam al-buldān, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Leipzig 1866

Corrigenda

[Deuteronomy 12.10] should read [Deuteronomy 12.11] p. 73, line 8 [Genesis 4.26] should read [Genesis 3.24] p. 126, note 68 BT, Shabbat, 66b should read (in both places) BT, Shabbat, 86b p. 139, note 131 Damascus Covenant 16.4–5 should read Damascus Covenant 16.4–6 p. 163, note 246 Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q266 frag. 11, ii, 1‒2 should read Damascus Covenant (Baumgarten edition), 4Q269 frag. 11, ii, 1‒2 p. 250, note 349 Temple Scroll 52.16–19 should read Temple Scroll 52.15–19 p. 285, note 519 BT, Zevaḥim, 102a should read BT, Zevaḥim, 120a p. 13, line 8

p. 306, note 604 Sifre Deuteronomy, 69 should read Sifre Deuteronomy, 59 p. 335, note 135 Commentary on Psalms 1.20 should read Commentary on Psalms 1.2 p. 340, line 21 Psalms 103; 16 should read Psalms 103.16 p. 373, line 19 (Psalms 189.37) should read (Psalms 89.37)