Anan ben David: The Challenge of Karaism

בשם השם נעשה ונצליה
WITH THE HELP OF GOD, WE WILL DO AND SUCCEED!

My dear brother Hillel, I write to you on my own behalf, and the opinions expressed herein are those of my own and not that of Karaite Jewish University of which I am a founding member of the Board of Directors.
I take this occasion to write to you after listening to your lecture on “Anan Ben David and Karaism,” for the purposes of pointing out what I believe to be an egregious error in your presentation, which is rare to see with someone with your sterling academic credentials. There has been a resurgence of Karaite Studies in Academia. Not too long ago, in February of 2012, The Israel Science Foundation and The Goldstein-Goren International Center for Jewish Thought held a multi-day event at Ben Gurion University of the Negev that was hosted by Professor Daniel J. Lasker , a prolific researcher on Karaite Judaism, and Chief Rabbi Moshe Yosef Firrouz.

After listening to your lecture it is clear to me that you bear no animus towards either Karaite Jews or Karaite Judaism, and so I write to set the record straight as to the oldest branch of Judaism known by its current name.

In your lecture you state in pertinent part:

Karaism derived this term primarily because of the extreme Devotion to the Bible Text alone, and put in one sentence the essential belief of the Karaite Movement is that the Torah, the first 5 books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are in fact given by God and nothing else. And the task of a Karaite Jew, or a Karaite simply put, is to divine the divine intent buried in that text without the layering of Rabbinic interpretation that followed particularly in the oral tradition And thereby live one’s life as a Karaite Jew…the bible and nothing else really.

Question: When you say the Karaites were rejecting the oral tradition and emphasizing and only reading the written bible, that’s the TaNakh correct?

Answer: Not the TaNaKh the Chumash. The TaNaKh is like 24 the books; the Chumash is just the five.
Question: So there not looking at the Prophets…

Answer: I’m generalizing, because one thing we see about the Karaite movement, is that especially not under Anan but under a successor it was also a heterodox movement and also willing to tolerate different interpretations within a certain the scope of the parameters of those interpretations. And they did recognize the possibility of limited prophecy given after Moses. But not necessary with the same commanding voice as the Chumash has…the later TaNaKh does not have the ability to overrule the early Chumash.

Well known Karaite Sage Judah ben Elijah Hadassi who wrote his magnum opus “Eshkol ha-Kofer,” or “Sefer ha-Peles” starting in the year 1148 wrote the following:

“The Torah and Prophets and Hagiographa are all three called “Torah,” as it is written: “And we have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God by following his teachings [which He set before us by His servants the torot] Prophets” (Dan 9:10), and the wisest of all men said about them: “Indeed, I wrote down for you a three-fold love, in wise counsel” (Proverbs 22:20) in the Holy Spirit of your God.”. (page 70a, col.2)

Commenting on the above passage, the late Professor Uriel Simon of Bar Ilan University said “In another context Hadassi brings proof texts for this Karaite view of the prophetic books and Hagiographa as the only authentic supplement to the Torah.” See p. 205 in “Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms: From Saadiah Gaon to Abraham Ibn Ezra.” (hereinafter “Four Approaches”)

Tenth Century Karaite Sage, Salmon ben Yeruham, who according to Hebrew University Professor Jonathan Shunary, became know to the scholarly world when Simcha Pinsker published his Lickute Kadmoniot in 1860, commenting on Tehillim wrote: “There is no root or branch [of the Chumash] that is not included in this book [of Tehillim]….It also contains most of the consolations that were written by the prophets in all their aspects and particulars.” (page 169)

Salmon further explained his belief that Tehillim was revelation from the creator, blessed be he, when he wrote: “The purpose in the revelation (Tanzil, ‘bringing down’) of this book is that we pray from it. Therefore all of it is instruction and guidance for the people of the Exile, teaching them how to repent – to weep, fast, and wear sackcloth, and beseech the Merciful one for salvation.”

Another great Karaite Sage and Scholar was Jacob al-Kirkisani. Hakham al-Kirkisani would not have wasted his precious time writing commentaries on the Book of Job (Arabic Tasfir Iyob); Book of Ecclesiastes (Arabic Tasfir Kohelet) if he felt they were not works of importance. The man who wrote:

Thus, Scripture says, confirming the validity of the use of reason: “In order that they may see, know and consider…that the hand of the Lord has done this” (Isaiah 41:20)

would not have quoted Yeshayahu and the other prophets repeatedly on his treatise on biblical exegesis, if he did not believe that it was part of the Holy Writ.

The Karaite Tuv Ta’am, which is the Karaite equivalent of the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith , state:
And His prophets and His messengers and His emissaries and His seers and His angels which prophesy and which are sent in truth and righteousness: Truth! See Karaite Siddur, Volume 2, Vienna 1854, p.110 (Hebrew); reprinted in Karaite Siddur, Volume 2, Ramleh 1977, pp.208-209 (Hebrew)]

All Karaite Jews living today believe that the TaNaKh is the divine word of the creator.

In an Introduction to Karaite Judaism: History, Theology, Practice, and Culture [Y. Yaron, Joe Pessah, Avraham Qanai, Yosef El-Gamil] wrote:

Writing a volume on the beliefs and practices ofKaraite Judaism may, to some, seem strange. After all, one of the fundamental tenants of Karaite Judaism is that the TaNaKh, the Jewish scriptures, is the sole source of Jewish law, and the final authority on theological and legal issues. What the Torah does not provide is interpretation and explanation. Ostensibly, this is the reason behind the Talmud. And, conceptually, 1here is nothing wrong with a Talmud. Karaites have always maintained this. Several prominent figures in Karaite Judaism have written scholarly works on Biblical interpretation, and legal explanation – which is essentially what the Talmud claims to be. Furthermore, one finds examples of Biblical interpretation in the TaNaKh itself. For example, in the book of Nehemyah [Nehemiah] 8.14-15 it is written:

And they found written in the Torah, which was commanded through Mosheh [Moses], that the Children of Yisra’el [Israel] should dwell in arbor-booths during the pilgrimage festival of the seventh month, and that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Yerushalayim [Jerusalem], saying. “Go out to the mountain, and bring olive branches. branches of oil trees, myrtle branches, date palm branches, and branches of densely leafed trees, to make arbor booths, as [it is] written.”

Which is an interpretation of Wayyiqra’ [Leviticus] 23.40:

And you shall take for yourselves by the first day the produce of splendorous trees: branches of date palm trees, the boughs of densely leafed trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before i11i1~ your God for seven days.

The Karaite objection to the Talmud lies in the fact that the Rabbanites contend the Talmud is more important, and more authoritative.

As long as the commentary is not contradicted by the TaNaKh, observance of suggested tradition by our Rabbannic brothers is not prohibited. After all, a notable Karaite Sage, Benjamin al-Nahawandi wrote: “As for other rules, as observed and recorded by the Rabbanites and for which I could find no pertinent biblical verse, I have written them down also, so that you might observe them likewise if you so desire.” Page 29. Karaite Anthology: Excerpts from the Early Literature, Yale University Press, Ed. Leon Nemoy.

Lastly, in your lectures I observed that you like to tell homilies or jokes, allow me one please. In discussing a particular issue with our Chief Rabbi I quoted a position of “Anan ben David” and our Chief Rabbi exclaimed “that he is not Even a Karaite!”

Modern Scholarship does not treat Anan ben David any better. Professor Moshe Gil, a noted Jewish Historian, wrote in HdO Brill: Karaite Judaism: A Guide to its History and Literary Sources, Edited by Meira Polliack, Prof. Tel Aviv University, an article entitled: The Origins of the Karaites in which he stated:

Upon closer scrutiny, the assertion that Anan I left Rabbanites Circles does not hold water, especially in view of what we know about his grandson Daniel, in addition to most of the objections noted above, which Nemoy has already raised. Daniel is one of the two main personages in the Affair discussed below – the struggle over the office of exilarchate – that rocked the Diaspora at the beginning of the ninth century, around the years 820, 825. p.81

Professor Gil adds:

Salomon ben Yeruhim expressed himself even more explicitly, declaring that Karaites existed only from the time of Benjamin al-Nahawandi and thereafter, which is more than 100 years after Anan ben David. p90.

I hope this letter opens dialogue between our communities

אליעזר בן אפרים הכהן
Eli’ezer ben Ephraim HaKohen
Founding Member of the Board of Directors
Karaite Jewish University

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZstMVr43Rk
2. It was Professor Lasker who wrote “And for the Karaites themselves, the real question has always been not: “How did Karaism arise?” but: “How did rabbinic Judaism break away from the Torah-true Judaism as represented by Karaism?” The Dead Sea Scrolls In The Historiography and Self-Image of Contemporary Karaites.” P.282.
3. Our Chief Rabbi is considered by us to be the Chief Rabbi of all of the Children of Israel, be they observant or secular, be they Orthodox or Karaite Jews, be they Ashkenazi or Sephardic, be they reform, Reconstructionist or any other recognized movement within Judaism.
4. Salmon ben Yeruham’s Commentary on the Book of Psalms, The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXIII, No. 2 (October, 1982) 155-175.
5. Four Approaches, page 60-61.