Karaite Jews?
Seraph
of Judaism was mentioned on one of her newsgroups. This was in reference to
the fact that Karaite Jews were not murdered during the Holocaust.
She was wondering about the accuracy of the statement. I, personally, have
never heard of this sect? of Judaism. So, would some kind soul with
knowledge on this topic expand our knowledge on this topic?
--
Seraph
John W. Leys
The Karaites originated, if memory serves, in 8th Century Bagdad when
they broke away from mainstream Judaism by rejecting the Oral Torah &
accepting only the written Torah as binding. The movement never really
caught on though they do still exist in very small numbers to this day,
but are not considered "legit" by other Jewish groups so far as I know..
of course other Jewish groups don't consider each other "legit"
either.. If you do a search on the net you should be able to find some
more information. I seem to recall running across a number of Karaite
websites that explain thier position fairly well
--
Shalom!
John W. Leys
"Come on, then, back to Creation. I mustn't waste any more time.
They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution."
- The Supreme Being
from 'Time Bandits'
QandA
> Is this a legitimate form of Jewry? A non-Jewish friend said that this form
Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
Whether or not they are "legitimate" is a matter of perspective. I'm
sure many other posters here will give you their views.
Contrary to popular belief, Karaites are not "fundamentalist", that
is, they do not take the Tanakh literally. They believe that all
interpretations of the Tanakh must be logical. They do not have an
equivalent to the Oral Torah.
Karaites trace their (ideological) roots to the Sadducees. In the
early Middle Ages, there was a major schism between Karaites and
Rabbinical Jews. Saadia Gaon is particularly famous for attacking
them. Because of this schism, Karaites have been separated from the
rest of Jewry for many centuries.
Because of their separation from other Jews, they were eventually able
to change their classification in tsarist Russia. They officially
became classified as "Russians of Old Testament faith" (around 18th
century?). They did this to somewhat decrease discrimination against
them.
> of Judaism was mentioned on one of her newsgroups. This was in reference to
> the fact that Karaite Jews were not murdered during the Holocaust.
During the Holocaust, Nazis and their allies sometimes (often?) did
not consider Karaites as Jews because of the way they were classified
in Russia. Some (non-Karaite) Jews obtained fake Karaite papers
thereby saving themselves.
You can do a Google search of this group for more opinions and views.
Herman Rubin
There is a disputed history on this. At any rate, the Orthodox
bodies ruled in the Middle Ages that it was not Judaism, and
almost completely destroyed the group. There are not many
Karaites left.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
CW
They have been a continuous presence in Eretz Yisrael since the sect evolved
after the Roman wars. There is also a cluster of Karaites in LA (you can
find anything in LA). It is a small group; between Israel and LA less than
25,000. There are others who write to the newsgroup who are more conversant
with their beliefs and so I won't write on those.
CW
"Seraph" <ser...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:IqJ58.6406$ks5.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Micha Berger
: The Karaites originated, if memory serves, in 8th Century Bagdad when
: they broke away from mainstream Judaism by rejecting the Oral Torah &
They do have some historical connection to the Sadducee movement, as
the remnants of the Saducees ended up absorbed in their community.
Some ideas flowed across.
The Saducees were a late 2nd Temple movement that had a very text-only
and Temple-and-priest centered religion.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
Micha Berger
: Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
: reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
Which is ironic since the Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, finalized the
decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
Herman Rubin
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC), QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>: Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
>: reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
>Which is ironic since the Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, finalized the
>decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
So accepting this, about which there was not THAT much
controversy, requires accepting the Oral Law?
Why did the Sanhedrin not put the Mishnah into the canon?
After all, they considered it to be canonical.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC), QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>: Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
>>: reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
>>Which is ironic since the Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, finalized the
>>decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
>So accepting this, about which there was not THAT much
>controversy, requires accepting the Oral Law?
>Why did the Sanhedrin not put the Mishnah into the canon?
>After all, they considered it to be canonical.
Ah, another fine ahistorical post from the fellow who rejects so much
on the basis of "history."
Let me clue you in to something:
Mishnah: 200 CE
Canonization of Scripture: mostly 400 BCE, some still open until about 40 CE
Unless they had a time machine, the Sanhedrin could not have canonized the
Mishnah.
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy birthday, trees!
jjb...@panix.com | Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Herman Rubin
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC), QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>: Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
>>>: reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
>>>Which is ironic since the Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, finalized the
>>>decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
>>So accepting this, about which there was not THAT much
>>controversy, requires accepting the Oral Law?
>>Why did the Sanhedrin not put the Mishnah into the canon?
>>After all, they considered it to be canonical.
>Ah, another fine ahistorical post from the fellow who rejects so much
>on the basis of "history."
>Let me clue you in to something:
>Mishnah: 200 CE
>Canonization of Scripture: mostly 400 BCE, some still open until about 40 CE
I thought some was as late as 90 CE, but this is not
relevant to my point.
>Unless they had a time machine, the Sanhedrin could not have canonized the
>Mishnah.
I am equating the Mishnah with the Oral Law. If the
Oral Law goes back to Mosheh, it could have definitely
been canonized by 400 BCE.
Micha Berger
: I am equating the Mishnah with the Oral Law. If the
: been canonized by 400 BCE.
How? It's inherently not a text!
How do you canonize something that's part law, part process, and part
culture?
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Why did the Sanhedrin not put the Mishnah into the canon?
>>>After all, they considered it to be canonical.
>>Ah, another fine ahistorical post from the fellow who rejects so much
>>on the basis of "history."
>>Let me clue you in to something:
>>Mishnah: 200 CE
>>Canonization of Scripture: mostly 400 BCE, some still open until about 40 CE
>I thought some was as late as 90 CE, but this is not
>relevant to my point.
>>Unless they had a time machine, the Sanhedrin could not have canonized the
>>Mishnah.
>I am equating the Mishnah with the Oral Law. If the
>Oral Law goes back to Mosheh, it could have definitely
>been canonized by 400 BCE.
You seem to have a very strange idea of "canon" and "Oral Law."
Oral Law was not only Law, it was Oral, fluid, open to interpretation
(within limits). How would you propose to have canonized it? Canon
is a set of more-or-less fixed texts that have sanctity as texts.
The Mishnah itself is only an outline of a snapshot of much (not all)
of the Oral Law at the time of Rebbi Yehuda, shaped by the halachic
positions taken by Rebbi Yehuda against some other tannaim.
Can you write down a cloud, or print a snowstorm?
Seraph
question I did check the Net and checked out 2 sites. I still couldn't get
a sense of this particular group, which is why I posed the question.
The comment by CW is exactly what I wrote to my friend. Based on what she
said about this group, I surmised they weren't in Europe. I told her that
American Jews did not perish during the Shoah, either.
The good news is that I now know about this obscure group. Also, I don't
believe I have posted before to this newsgroup, and appreciated all of your
responses.
--
Seraph
"CW" <chsw...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fqS58.1701$zT.1...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Seraph" <ser...@sprintmail.com>
>Subject:Re: Karaite Jews?
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:52:30 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Li068.8446$By6.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>I would like to thank all who responded to my question. Prior to asking the
>question I did check the Net and checked out 2 sites. I still couldn't get
>a sense of this particular group, which is why I posed the question.
>
>The comment by CW is exactly what I wrote to my friend. Based on what she
>said about this group, I surmised they weren't in Europe. I told her that
Not true. Karaites were in Russia. The only reason the Nazis didn't
exterminate them was that they claimed they were NOT Jewish.
>American Jews did not perish during the Shoah, either.
>
I'd suggest you check Martin Gilbert's ATLAS OF THE HOLOCAUST (p. 135)
for the list of dozens of Jews born in North America who happened to be
in Occupied Europe during WWII and who were deported to Auschwitz.
American-Jewish POW's were also mistreated and a number died in slave
labor camps. I have a file on this and will try and post it.
Josh
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "Seraph" <ser...@sprintmail.com>
>Subject:Re: Karaite Jews?
>Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:52:30 +0000 (UTC)
>Message-ID:<Li068.8446$By6.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>I would like to thank all who responded to my question. Prior to asking the
>question I did check the Net and checked out 2 sites. I still couldn't get
>a sense of this particular group, which is why I posed the question.
>
>The comment by CW is exactly what I wrote to my friend. Based on what she
>said about this group, I surmised they weren't in Europe. I told her that
>American Jews did not perish during the Shoah, either.
Check Mitchell Bard's book AMERICAN VICTIMS OF THE HOLOCAUST.
Apart from a large number of US Jewish civilians who were deported to
Auschwitz and exterminated (Robert Schilio from Chicago; Hety Baum,
Louis Haas and Benjamin Bloch from St. Louis; Erna Abelson from Port
Chester NY; Rose Heymann, Sadie Leon, Jonas Silber from San Francisco;
and a large contingent from NYC), of the 600,000 Jewish servicemen
serving in the armed services of the US during WWII, some of those
who were caught and placed in German POW camps were singled out.
In Stalag Luft 3, Jewish US servicemen were victims of *special treatment*
and physical abuse. Some Jewish POW's were sent to concentration camps where
the prisoners were tortured and killed. According to Paul Forman in an
article in the May 1959 issue of SOCIAL FORCES, more than 30 US POW's
were found in Buchenwald. A report by the US Third Army (presented at
the Nuremberg Trials) cited cases of murder by "shooting, beating,
use of poison gas, drowning, starvation, injections, stoning, exposure,
burning, and choking of nationals of 23 nations, including members of
the US armed forces".
Lt. Jack Taylor USN (caught at the Mauthausen concentration camp) testified
that at least 2 American officers were killed in the gas chambers.
After the Battle of the Bulge, 200 US Jewish POW's were sent to the Berga
slave labor camp on the River Elster near the Czech border. They were
packed 60 to a boxcar with no food aboard. They were housed in a foul-
smelling, lice-infested barracks with no blankets and one daily meal
of hot soup. They were placed on forced slave labor (digging an
underground chamber for a synthetic rubber factory) and many were beaten
to death. At least 70 died.
American Jewish POW's were also forced to work in the slate mines at
Bad Orb.
QandA
> You seem to have a very strange idea of "canon" and "Oral Law."
> Oral Law was not only Law, it was Oral, fluid, open to interpretation
> (within limits). How would you propose to have canonized it? Canon
> is a set of more-or-less fixed texts that have sanctity as texts.
Oh come on. IIUC, Oral Law is claimed to be a small amount (5%?) of
laws actually given by God at Sinai and a great majority (95%) of laws
derived using principles given by God at Sinai. Now, both the laws
actually given, and the principles on which other laws are to be
derives could have been easily written down. Of course, by the time of
the Mishna, the principles were "forgotten".
> Can you write down a cloud, or print a snowstorm?
No, but you can write down the laws that control the behavior of a
cloud. Oral Law is derived using certain laws of derivation. Could
those have been written down?
Izak R.
Herman Rubin wrote in message ...
>There is a disputed history on this. At any rate, the Orthodox bodies
ruled in the Middle Ages that it was not Judaism, and almost completely
destroyed the group. There are not many Karaites left.
>Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette
IN47907-1399
IR: Point of order: The label "Orthodox" only appears in the 19th Century
and was used by the modern Reform movement to describe those who adhered to
the strict Mosaic and Rabbinic Law i.e.Torah Law.
Anan "founded" Karaism c.760.This is what Rabbi Berel Wein says in 'Echoes
of Glory'(Shaar Press.1996):
"...Eventually Anan's machinations developed into Karaism, a heretical
philosophy which plagued Jewish solidarity and Torah faith for two centuries
untill meaningfully bested by R' Saadia Gaon in the TENTH Century.
Altho Karaism was initially popular in Babylonia, its appeal soon waned as
the Babylonian Jews , under sophisticated and strong Geonic leadership, came
to realize the inherent contradictions and weaknesses of the Karaite
doctrine. However, Karaism remained potent and strong in the Jewish
community of Egypt until the TWELFTH Century. when Maimonides yet struggled
to eradicate it from the Jewish Nation. "
Izak Rudomin.
BUSHBADEE
Baker) writes:
>
>Let me clue you in to something:
>
>Mishnah: 200 CE
>
I could be wrong.
By your dating the Torah would be about 500 ce when it was all finally put in
one book.
By the same token the Mishnah was assembled around 200 CE but it existed long
before that.
But of course you are right it could not precede the Torah and from the Torah,
in an incident when a part of it is found in the cleaning up of a temple and
that is mentioned in the torah, we know that it existed if not in it's entirety
at least before 500 bce.
Funny, we no not allow ARchaeologically, religious books to Justify themselves,
but this is a case where we do.
.
.
I DO NOT FOLLOW MANY OF THESE NEWS GROUPS
To answere me address mail to
Bush...@aol.com
BUSHBADEE
Rubin) writes:
>
>>Canonization of Scripture: mostly 400 BCE, some still open until about 40 CE
>
>I thought some was as late as 90 CE, but this is not
>relevant to my point.
>
You have to distinguish between the cannonization of the scripute and the
compilation of the tanach.
I could be wrong but I believe the incident described in the torah where parts
of the torah are found occured around 500 bce, but I am open to correction
there as I did not check my history books for the dates.
QandA
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC), QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
> : reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
>
> Which is ironic since the Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, finalized the
> decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
Sanhedrin was a rabbinic body? I thought there were plenty of
Sadducees on it...
And IIRC, weren't the Karaites responsible for the Masoretic Text? The
text that all Jews use today.
Charles Vitez
severe health warning to readers.
1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down a blind
alley (from the viewpoint of normative judaism) they reached a point from
which they could not return. That was as long ago as the 14th century - when
Karaism was put under a perpetual ban in Spain, which was universally
accepted by normative jewish communities.
2. The minute Karaite communities which remained into the 20th century,
mostly in the Crimea and in Volhynia, indeed expressed very forcefully and
convincingly the view that they are not jews and, within the context of
Nuremberg Laws, had not been jews for many centuries. Their continued
animosity towards jews and judaism was reflected in the collaboration of
members of the Crimean Karaite communities with our SS murderers.
3. The true historical development of Karaism has been fully documented by
historians (foremost amongst them being Albert de Harkavy - in the late
1900s). I say "true", because the Karaites have tried to falsify their
history by creating "back-dated documents", and commissioned so called
histories, which, unsurprisingly, put them in a very good light and jews in
a bad one.
4. The connection of Karaism with the Sadducees is a romanticisation of
history with no evidence to back it up. The religious philosophy of the
Sadducees became extinct during the 1st century. It would have taken a time
warp machine to transplant it to the Babylonia of Sadyah Gaon, some 700
years later.
5. In theory, the Karaite movement started with Anan ben David, a
disgruntled candidate for the post of Exilarch, but the religious philosophy
was developed in the following centuries by better and more coherent
scholars. The first major refutation of Karaism was written by Sadya Gaon -
later the outstanding head of the Babylonian academies. Unfortunately the
work itself has been lost, though parts are available via other (later)
scholars quoting him.
6. The new religion - for that is what it was - denied the ascendency of the
mishna and gemara in jewish life and substituted a different methodology of
interpretation and derivation of Torah laws. It focused on the study of the
written text ("mikra") and, had the beneficial effect of encouraging a
renewed study of the same texts by jews, who wished to be in a better
position to refute their dangerous heresies.
7. The masoretic review and correction of Torah texts (finalised circa
1100/1200) was all done by jews (the followers of "rabbinical" theology) and
does not include work by any Karaites (so, no, the Karaites were no more
responsible for creating the masoretic text than Ernest Bevin was
responsible for creating the State of Israel).
8. In the period from 800 to 1400, most Karaite communities came back to
normative judaism and after that time only small remnants were left - in
Egypt, Constantinople and Russia.
9. In the 19th century, certain Karaite scholars tried to reawaken the
former scholarship of their moribund religion. Unfortunately the method they
chose was to forge documents and inscriptions. This was intended to go a
long way towards establishing the antiquity of their religion. This scandal
was unmasked by Harkavy.
10. Although Harkavy's book has not been translated into English as far as I
am aware, a very succinct summary was included in the 1904 Jewish
Encyclopaedia. Of course, Graetz also deals extensively with the history of
Karaism in his usual scholarly style. All other jewish historians avert to
Karaism in its most successful phase (800 to 1200) in their works covering
the periods in question.
On the web, apart from the self-serving Karaite websites (also one promoted
by Q&A) which seem to have scant regard for honesty, the Jewish Theological
Society Library website recently produced a virtual reality exhibition. This
may still be available. Unfortunately the JTSA exhibition is based on very
poor scholarship and perpetuates scores of myths which had been disposed of
by reputable scholars 50 to a 100 years ago.
Charles Vitez
"QandA" <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:edb3698b.02013...@posting.google.com...
Eliyahu
"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a3b7o9$rd5$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
>
> On the web, apart from the self-serving Karaite websites (also one
promoted
> by Q&A) which seem to have scant regard for honesty, the Jewish
Theological
> Society Library website recently produced a virtual reality exhibition.
This
> may still be available. Unfortunately the JTSA exhibition is based on very
> poor scholarship and perpetuates scores of myths which had been disposed
of
> by reputable scholars 50 to a 100 years ago.
>
Eliyahu
Henry Goodman
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:71886
>
> >From: "Seraph" <ser...@sprintmail.com>
> >Subject:Re: Karaite Jews?
> >Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 00:52:30 +0000 (UTC)
> >Message-ID:<Li068.8446$By6.9...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
>
> >I would like to thank all who responded to my question. Prior to asking
the
> >question I did check the Net and checked out 2 sites. I still couldn't
get
> >a sense of this particular group, which is why I posed the question.
> >
> >The comment by CW is exactly what I wrote to my friend. Based on what
she
> >said about this group, I surmised they weren't in Europe. I told her
that
>
>
> Not true. Karaites were in Russia. The only reason the Nazis didn't
> exterminate them was that they claimed they were NOT Jewish.
>
>
>
> >American Jews did not perish during the Shoah, either.
> >
>
> I'd suggest you check Martin Gilbert's ATLAS OF THE HOLOCAUST (p. 135)
> for the list of dozens of Jews born in North America who happened to be
> in Occupied Europe during WWII and who were deported to Auschwitz.
>
> American-Jewish POW's were also mistreated and a number died in slave
> labor camps. I have a file on this and will try and post it.
>
Not sure about that. I had a cousin who was in the British Army and was
taken prisoner and was not treated differently from other British POWs. Not
sure if the Germans knew he was Jewish though.
If British Jewish POW's had been gassed, it would have been mentioned at the
Holocaust exhibition recently opened at the Imperial War Museum and it
isn't.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
31/1/02 3;15 p.m. GMT
Eliyahu
"Henry Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:rdg68.3448$sU.5...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Joe Sedaka, had been a German POW from mid1944 through the end of the war.
He told me once that he felt that his being Jewish was what saved him from
the harsher treatment the rest of the prisoners in his camp received. One of
the guards told him that they had orders to take it easier on the Jewish
prisoners because they'd been warned of reprisals against similarly situated
German prisoners in the US, and because by that time they knew they were
losing the war. Joe also felt strongly that the US soldiers captured by
Germany fared far, far better than those in Japanese POW camps, but that's
another story...
Eliyahu
Henry Goodman
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5j861l...@corp.supernews.com...
Sure, the Japs treated all western prisoners worse than the Nazis did but
did not discriminate between Jews and Christians. Did you see 'Bridge on the
River Kwai'?
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
31/1/02 10p.m GMT
Joel N. Shurkin
BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL wrote:
I didnšt know any of that.
j
--
Joel Shurkin
HopkinsHealth
Baltimore, Maryland
BUSHBADEE
Goodman" <henry....@virgin.net> writes:
>
>Sure, the Japs treated all western prisoners worse than the Nazis did but
>did not discriminate between Jews and Christians. Did you see 'Bridge on the
>River Kwai'?
>--
Many people do not realize it but the Japanese fed the prisoners the same thing
they fed thier own soldiers. Fish heads. It is just we were not used to that
food, they were. Their soldiers had a great shortage of food at the front.
Charles Vitez
held by the German armed forces during WWII. One important factor seems to
have been the solidarity and comradeship shown by non-jewish POWs towards
their jewish comrades. Where, as amongst the Brits, there was a high level
of solidarity, the Germans were wary about inflicting special treatment. I
know one former POW (captured in North Africa) who (together with other
jewish prisoners and with his brother, who, though in a different unit, had
also fallen into captivity and they met up in a POW camp) had some difficult
times and suffered some threats, but generally the Germans backed off at the
end. This was not the case in some French POW camps, where jewish prisoners
were not protected by their so-called comrades and were then transferred to
concentration camps. Russian and Polish jewish POWs had almost a zero chance
of survival.
Charles Vitez
"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u5j861l...@corp.supernews.com...
>
Charles Vitez
Since, "virtual reality" is by definition a ethereal construct ("actual
reality" being a tangible construct), I suppose the librarians considered a
virtual rewriting of history as being within the spirit of the thing.
I am really angry with them (a tangible construct) because, with the
wonderful materials in their possession, they could have done so much
better.
I don't know enough about the teachings of the JTSA, but I did wonder if
this was not just a case of poor scholarship but the working of some sort of
agenda well in the background, eg, to show that as far as way back when,
there had been legitimate alternative expressions of judaism?
Charles Vitez
>
> Eliyahu
Daniel Freedman
> >>>decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
>
> >>So accepting this, about which there was not THAT much
> >>controversy, requires accepting the Oral Law?
>
> >>Why did the Sanhedrin not put the Mishnah into the canon?
> >>After all, they considered it to be canonical.
No
The Oral Law (The Mishnah being one compiled aspect of it), by definition
cannot be written down (technically). The Oral Law, by definition, is Oral,
transmitted from Father to son, Teacher to student generation to generation
(Pirkei Avos 1:1). For this reason the Oral Law cannot be canonised ever.
Take today...what is the Jewish Oral Law? Mishnah, Gemara, Toseftas,
Braisas, Shulchan Aruch, Responsa? Tradition?
Go into an orthodox community (where I think its most prevalent), and you'll
find many stories, comments, halacha, Kabbalah, everything, but is it
written down? NO, yet its "Oral Law", a women is in labour, is it
permissible...." this is not written down as "Shmuel Levi is in rush hour
and his wife, Sarah is in labour", yet this is an halachic problem, that is
Orally transmitted from the Rabbi to Shmuel, and its part of the oral
tradition.
Now its part of the canon, but it cannot be written down, in principle,
because it is Oral.
However, Torah, Nach and Ketuvim are written down, and are thus canonised.
Techinically, canonisation really means "distinction" you are
differentiating between what is holy text, and what isn't. If there is no
need for a distinction, then the canonisation falls away.
For example, the Torah (Pentauteuch) itself, has never needed to be formally
canonised. Why? because it is Holy, and everyone knows it, and it is
unalterable. There is no additional Torah, or alternative...therefore it
doesn't require canonisation...however, by the time the diaspora sets in
there are many books that are deemed holy by the writers, yet are not, hence
the need (overtime) to ensure the survival of texts that are holy, and the
books that aren't are kept out of that category, hence canonisation.
Its only 130 years later that the sages realise that the Jews are forgetting
the Oral tradition, and the cases, there are other texts that some consider
to be authoritative, and others not, therefore SOME of the Oral law is
COMPILED out of texts already written. But its nature is such that it
requires Oral transmission. You cannot read the this compilation like the
Torah, it requires "transmission", hence it cannot be canonised. You cannot
say of it "this logic is unholy, and this logic is holy, or this way of
remembering a point is unholy or not....there is no distinction...which
marks the Oral Law as seprate from the Written texts, fundamentally, what is
written down by Jews after the end of prophecy is entirely REPETITION, i.e.
it is merely a reflection of what is already known. When one studies the
Compilations of the Oral Law, one doesn't read it as authorative, you need
other works to accompany it, such as rulings, and interpretations. Whereas,
if the Torah makes a clear statement regarding a command "Do not murderl",
then one can take it as read that one may not murder." now obviously you
can defend yourself, and take a life in self-defence (depending on the
circumstances, and the actual halacha)... The Torah needs to be canonised,
we need to know what is permissible, and what is not....the Oral Law
however, doesn't say what is permissible and what is not, it defines the
context, and the limitations on that. The Oral Law states what is already
known, that you can stone a murderer, that you can kill in self-defence.
Thus, you can say that the Oral Law is already canonised, in the Torah....it
therefore requires no further canonisation....
Alternatively, you can say that the Oral Law, by definition cannot be
canonised, therefore it is not, in principle.
One further point....Imagine if the Oral Law was Canonised, it would have
the same authority as the Torah...
That would mean that in certain respects the Oral Law would at a certain
point overrule a Torah ruling, permanently. It would stagnate, and
essentially, not become binding.
We would end up living without computers, without electricity, without cars
and we would be wearing what our ancestors wore, in the boiling heat of the
Sahara, and the freezing climate of Ontario...
Daniel
Don't make halachic rulings. Consult a proper Local Orthodox Rabbi.
Herman Rubin
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:26:04 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>: I am equating the Mishnah with the Oral Law. If the
>: Oral Law goes back to Mosheh, it could have definitely
>: been canonized by 400 BCE.
>How? It's inherently not a text!
>How do you canonize something that's part law, part process, and part
>culture?
If it could be canonized in 200 CE, it could be canonized
in 400 BCE. If it was given to Mosheh, it is NOT part
culture.
Now I believe that what the Pharisees called the Oral Law
was accumulated legislation interpreted by their culture,
but that does not make it Mosaic, or as prophecy had been
declared at an end, directly from God. Reform Judaism
considers it to have Divine inspiration, but that only
makes it a suggestion, and it can be disputed.
Herman Rubin
>>>Mishnah: 200 CE
I am willing to accept the existence of an Oral Law
changeable by "ordinary" legislation, and having different
Jewish communities each having its own version. But this
does not make one Oral Law binding on all, nor does it
assume a Mosaic origin.
It was the Pharisees who took the position that their
Oral Law was from Mosheh, as stated in Pirke Avoth 1:1,
and should be imposed on all. Judaism NEEDS that kind
of diversity, and removal of the huge collection of
inventions claimed to be from God.
Herman Rubin
Izak R. <rud...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Herman Rubin wrote in message ...
>>There is a disputed history on this. At any rate, the Orthodox bodies
>ruled in the Middle Ages that it was not Judaism, and almost completely
>destroyed the group. There are not many Karaites left.
>IR: Point of order: The label "Orthodox" only appears in the 19th Century
>and was used by the modern Reform movement to describe those who adhered to
>the strict Mosaic and Rabbinic Law i.e.Torah Law.
>Anan "founded" Karaism c.760.This is what Rabbi Berel Wein says in 'Echoes
>of Glory'(Shaar Press.1996):
>"...Eventually Anan's machinations developed into Karaism, a heretical
>philosophy which plagued Jewish solidarity and Torah faith for two centuries
>untill meaningfully bested by R' Saadia Gaon in the TENTH Century.
>Altho Karaism was initially popular in Babylonia, its appeal soon waned as
>the Babylonian Jews , under sophisticated and strong Geonic leadership, came
>to realize the inherent contradictions and weaknesses of the Karaite
>doctrine. However, Karaism remained potent and strong in the Jewish
>community of Egypt until the TWELFTH Century. when Maimonides yet struggled
>to eradicate it from the Jewish Nation. "
>Izak Rudomin.
I have seen posted some evidence that Karaism existed a
century before Anan, at least according to Muslim records.
As the rabbinic leaders considered Karaism to be heresy,
their writings about it must be viewed with some suspicion.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
Micha Berger
:>How do you canonize something that's part law, part process, and part
:>culture?
: If it could be canonized in 200 CE, it could be canonized
: in 400 BCE. If it was given to Mosheh, it is NOT part
: culture.
The mishnah is not a canonization of the Oral Torah. If it were, there'd
be no need for a Talmud.
As it is, though, the mishnah was a comprimise. It was R' Yehudah
haNasi's desperate measure to preserve something despite the Hadrianic
persecutions.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Herman Rubin
The Talmud itself claims to have the laws of derivation
present. However, these are not laws of derivation, but
guidelines, and almost anything can come from them. The
real "principle" in the process of derivation is that the
rabbis will use them in the right way.
In fact, we have an example, the akhnah stove, in which
the rabbis openly state that their interpretation is to
be used rather than one which God Himself argues for.
There are several ways the principles used for mathematical
derivation can be written down, and they have been, in a
few pages. With these principles, it is possible to verify
a formal proof, although formal proofs are rarely given, and
less often are they verified. But the structure is there.
There is nothing remotely like that in the supposed rules
for exegesis. The Talmud was produced by a body of scholars,
which could exclude anyone they thought was "inappropriate".
Herman Rubin
BUSHBADEE <bush...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <a39ofd$a...@odds.stat.purdue.edu>, hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman
>Rubin) writes:
>>>Canonization of Scripture: mostly 400 BCE, some still open until about 40 CE
>>I thought some was as late as 90 CE, but this is not
>>relevant to my point.
>You have to distinguish between the cannonization of the scripute and the
>compilation of the tanach.
>I could be wrong but I believe the incident described in the torah where parts
>of the torah are found occured around 500 bce, but I am open to correction
>there as I did not check my history books for the dates.
The incident is that a copy of "Torah" was found in a
cornerstone in the time of Josiah, shortly before 600 BCE.
Many, if not most, scholars believe that this was most of
Deuteronomy, and was written by Baruch, the scribe of
Jeremiah. This does not mean that much of it was not from
older legends and even documents.
Scholars generally believe that the Torah and much more
was compiled by the Redactor, probably with others helping,
and Ezra is an excellent candidate for the Redactor. This
would place it before 400 BCE.
The Dead Sea Scrolls show that copying was not that great,
and that there are probably many differences from the
redacted text and what we ended up with. Most are minor,
but some are not. I believe that all of the books of the
Tanakh, with possibly some exceptions, are found there.
I suggest you read Tov's book on this.
Herman Rubin
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 15:17:41 +0000 (UTC), QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> : Karaites believe that the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) is from God, but they
>> : reject the basic Rabbinical belief that the Oral Torah is from God.
>> Which is ironic since the Sanhedrin, a rabbinic body, finalized the
>> decision of which books would go into the Jewish canon.
>Sanhedrin was a rabbinic body? I thought there were plenty of
>Sadducees on it...
The judicial Sanhedrin may have had some; we do not know.
However, the final decision was made by the Academy, and
this was "rabbinical", even though the early members did
not have that particular title.
>And IIRC, weren't the Karaites responsible for the Masoretic Text? The
>text that all Jews use today.
Unlikely, although they may have been involved.
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <due.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>Herman Rubin:
>>>>>Why did the Sanhedrin not put the Mishnah into the canon?
>>>>>After all, they considered it to be canonical.
>>>>Mishnah: 200 CE
>>>>Canonization of Scripture: mostly 400 BCE, some still open until about 40 CE
>>>>Unless they had a time machine, the Sanhedrin could not have canonized the
>>>>Mishnah.
>>>I am equating the Mishnah with the Oral Law. If the
>>You seem to have a very strange idea of "canon" and "Oral Law."
>>Oral Law was not only Law, it was Oral, fluid, open to interpretation
>>Can you write down a cloud, or print a snowstorm?
>I am willing to accept the existence of an Oral Law
>changeable by "ordinary" legislation, and having different
>Jewish communities each having its own version. But this
>does not make one Oral Law binding on all, nor does it
And yet, most countries had this, prior to the invention of the
printing press. Common law was more oral than not, and if one
didn't like the justice one was getting, assuming one had managed
not to be executed, one could appeal to the King's Bench.
>assume a Mosaic origin.
Mosaic origin is as good an assumption as any for the existence
of a binding common law-base.
>It was the Pharisees who took the position that their
>Oral Law was from Mosheh, as stated in Pirke Avoth 1:1,
>and should be imposed on all. Judaism NEEDS that kind
>of diversity, and removal of the huge collection of
>inventions claimed to be from God.
No. Judaism NEEDS that kind of uniformity, in the absence
of printed law, or else it deteriorates into religious anarchy,
which in fact it did in the First Temple. Until the Men of
the Great Assembly formulated a common home-ritual, it was
all too easy for people to fall into paganism, or to be pushed
into it by the Bad King (e.g. Menashe).
Without the Sanhedrin, consensus of religious scholars took
over the dispositive role in formulating law. With the advent
of emancipation, though, other religious influences were allowed
to contaminate the Jewish community, and they did once again,
which produced the religious anarchy of the 19th century in
Western Europe: mass apostasy, formation of Reform, etc.
--
Jonathan Baker | Happy birthday, trees!
jjb...@panix.com | Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>
Jonathan J. Baker
>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in
>> I am willing to accept the existence of an Oral Law
>> changeable by "ordinary" legislation, and having different
>> Jewish communities each having its own version. But this
>> does not make one Oral Law binding on all, nor does it
>> assume a Mosaic origin.
>Both the concept of Paradise (I don't mean Heaven; it's
>obviously in Bereshis) and the Moshiach are pretty much from
>the Oral Law, and would seem to come from the RamBam (12th
"come from"? Rambam made a snapshot of what he thought the
Gemara said about halacha. Rambam's concept of Pardes comes
from the braita about the four sages who went to Pardes, which
is recorded several places in the Midrash and the Gemara.
The contemporary ideas about Moshiach come from Isaiah and
Jeremiah, for the most part. The concept itself can be found
in the Torah. To claim that it is not in the Torah is hereay
according to Rambam, and according to the Talmud, but that
doesn't mean that the concept itself came from them.
>century CE). Maybe this is why, even though its an "official"
>Jewish belief (we recite Yigdal), it's still a pretty vague
>concept. Does anyone know if the Karaites believe[d?] in
>either of these concepts?
Jonathan J. Baker
>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote in message news:<a39uno$55d$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
>>> You seem to have a very strange idea of "canon" and "Oral Law."
>>> Oral Law was not only Law, it was Oral, fluid, open to interpretation
>>> (within limits). How would you propose to have canonized it? Canon
>>> is a set of more-or-less fixed texts that have sanctity as texts.
>>Oh come on. IIUC, Oral Law is claimed to be a small amount (5%?) of
>>laws actually given by God at Sinai and a great majority (95%) of laws
>>derived using principles given by God at Sinai. Now, both the laws
Eh? Hardly. Read the Rambam's introduction to the Mishnah.
Available in several translations.
>>actually given, and the principles on which other laws are to be
>>derives could have been easily written down. Of course, by the time of
>>the Mishna, the principles were "forgotten".
Again, hardly. The principles themselves were known. But the specific
places in which God said those principles applied were disappearing.
>>> Can you write down a cloud, or print a snowstorm?
>>No, but you can write down the laws that control the behavior of a
>>cloud. Oral Law is derived using certain laws of derivation. Could
>>those have been written down?
>The Talmud itself claims to have the laws of derivation
>present. However, these are not laws of derivation, but
>guidelines, and almost anything can come from them. The
>real "principle" in the process of derivation is that the
>rabbis will use them in the right way.
>In fact, we have an example, the akhnah stove, in which
>the rabbis openly state that their interpretation is to
>be used rather than one which God Himself argues for.
Which itself is in God's Torah, the Torah that He Himself
said would never change. To follow the Bat Kol against
the sages' own reason would itself overturn the authority
of the Torah.
Remember God's response to the story: "My children have
conquered Me". Had they listened to the Bat Kol, His response
would have been "My children have turned away from me."
"The Torah is not in heaven" + "Do not add to it or take away
from it" + "When a matter is too hard for you, go to the priests,
levites and judges in your generation...do what they say, turning
neither to the right or to the left" = absolute rabbinic authority
to interpret and apply the Torah.
>There are several ways the principles used for mathematical
>derivation can be written down, and they have been, in a
>few pages. With these principles, it is possible to verify
A few pages? Three volumes of Whitehead & Russell, and it
still didn't work - and was proven not to be a valid endeavor
by Godel.
And mathematics has been getting more & more refined over time.
Why do you expect more from a system which has been getting
fuzzier and fuzzier over time, as distance from the singular
injection of data grows?
Herman Rubin
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 01:37:40 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>:>How do you canonize something that's part law, part process, and part
>:>culture?
>: If it could be canonized in 200 CE, it could be canonized
>: in 400 BCE. If it was given to Mosheh, it is NOT part
>: culture.
>The mishnah is not a canonization of the Oral Torah. If it were, there'd
>be no need for a Talmud.
>As it is, though, the mishnah was a comprimise. It was R' Yehudah
>haNasi's desperate measure to preserve something despite the Hadrianic
>persecutions.
Hadrian? That was long before.
Herman Rubin
>> changeable by "ordinary" legislation, and having different
>> Jewish communities each having its own version. But this
>> does not make one Oral Law binding on all, nor does it
>> assume a Mosaic origin.
>Both the concept of Paradise (I don't mean Heaven; it's
>obviously in Bereshis) and the Moshiach are pretty much from
>the Oral Law, and would seem to come from the RamBam (12th
>century CE). Maybe this is why, even though its an "official"
>Jewish belief (we recite Yigdal), it's still a pretty vague
>concept. Does anyone know if the Karaites believe[d?] in
>either of these concepts?
I do not know about the Karaites, but I also doubt that
it can in any way be considered of Mosaic origin. In fact,
I believe that any reference to the nature of life after
death was deliberately removed from Judaism in the beginning
of the religion, as it was a central part of the Egyptian
religion. I have to consider those parts of the rabbinic
interpretations, including Maimonides, to be exactly the
type of addition prohibited in the Torah.
As for the possibility of a resurrection on Earth, the
physical problems are insurmountable.
Herman Rubin
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In <due.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>Herman Rubin:
................
>And yet, most countries had this, prior to the invention of the
>printing press. Common law was more oral than not, and if one
>didn't like the justice one was getting, assuming one had managed
>not to be executed, one could appeal to the King's Bench.
Common law is subordinate to statute law. The King could,
in most places, make major changes to the law on the spot.
It is only where there is a somewhat constitutional setup
that this is not the case. The Code of Hammurabi was such
a limiting code, and Athens and Rome had such constitutions,
until they were overthrown.
>>assume a Mosaic origin.
>Mosaic origin is as good an assumption as any for the existence
>of a binding common law-base.
>>It was the Pharisees who took the position that their
>>Oral Law was from Mosheh, as stated in Pirke Avoth 1:1,
>>and should be imposed on all. Judaism NEEDS that kind
>>of diversity, and removal of the huge collection of
>>inventions claimed to be from God.
>No. Judaism NEEDS that kind of uniformity, in the absence
>of printed law, or else it deteriorates into religious anarchy,
>which in fact it did in the First Temple.
I see little evidence of this in the Tanakh. However,
there were lots of sects in the time of the Second Temple.
Until the Men of
>the Great Assembly formulated a common home-ritual, it was
>all too easy for people to fall into paganism, or to be pushed
>into it by the Bad King (e.g. Menashe).
I am inclined to think that the writing down of the Torah,
and also the protection given to the non-sovereign Jewish
state by the Persians, and then the Ptolemies, made it the
case that these pagan influences were reduced. The attempt
of the Seleucids to force them caused the Maccabean revolt.
Even the Romans, before the revolution, respected the
Jewish religion and made no attempt to introduce paganism,
although the chose the rulers and the high priests.
But I doubt that the efforts of the Great Assembly had
that much to do with it. And as remarked above, there
were many sects in the later period.
>Without the Sanhedrin, consensus of religious scholars took
>over the dispositive role in formulating law.
There does not seem to have been that much of it in late
Temple times. We know little about the practices of those
groups which were "less strict" than the Pharisees.
With the advent
>of emancipation, though, other religious influences were allowed
>to contaminate the Jewish community, and they did once again,
>which produced the religious anarchy of the 19th century in
>Western Europe: mass apostasy, formation of Reform, etc.
It has been pointed out that the formation of Reform reduced
the apostasy in Berlin. "Other religious influences" were
not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>>It was the Pharisees who took the position that their
>>>Oral Law was from Mosheh, as stated in Pirke Avoth 1:1,
>>>and should be imposed on all. Judaism NEEDS that kind
>>>of diversity, and removal of the huge collection of
>>>inventions claimed to be from God.
>>No. Judaism NEEDS that kind of uniformity, in the absence
>>of printed law, or else it deteriorates into religious anarchy,
>>which in fact it did in the First Temple.
>I see little evidence of this in the Tanakh. However,
You haven't read enough of Kings, have you? All the paganism
that eventually brough down the First Temple.
>there were lots of sects in the time of the Second Temple.
Late Second Temple. Not early. Similar conditions to the
past couple of centuries: semi-open society that paid
lip-service to accepting Judaism (there were many Judaizers
among the Romans), accepting Jews as citizens of the Empire
as much as any other subject state. Not like Persian or
Greek rule, where the society was much more opposed in nature
to that of the Jews.
> Until the Men of
>>the Great Assembly formulated a common home-ritual, it was
>>all too easy for people to fall into paganism, or to be pushed
>>into it by the Bad King (e.g. Menashe).
>I am inclined to think that the writing down of the Torah,
>and also the protection given to the non-sovereign Jewish
>state by the Persians, and then the Ptolemies, made it the
>case that these pagan influences were reduced. The attempt
>of the Seleucids to force them caused the Maccabean revolt.
Which was brought on by assimilationists going to Antiochus
and a) showing him how nice we assimilationists are, vs. those
idiots back home, and b) practically inviting him in to
suppress Judaism. See Josephus, Antiquities XII:5, I Macc 1.
>Even the Romans, before the revolution, respected the
>Jewish religion and made no attempt to introduce paganism,
>although the chose the rulers and the high priests.
Yup, and we had many of the same problems as today, with sectarians
denying the validity of the Oral Law and the authority of the Rabbis.
>But I doubt that the efforts of the Great Assembly had
>that much to do with it. And as remarked above, there
>were many sects in the later period.
For the reasons stated above.
>>Without the Sanhedrin, consensus of religious scholars took
>>over the dispositive role in formulating law.
>There does not seem to have been that much of it in late
>Temple times. We know little about the practices of those
>groups which were "less strict" than the Pharisees.
Because they didn't leave written records of their own, except
at Qumran, and it's quite debatable who the Qumranites were,
whether a sept of some known sect, or something else altogether.
But we know they didn't like the Pharisees who were clearly
running things, in the Temple and out, as of the Maccabean period,
and that they kept a Sadducean calendar. (4QMMT)
> With the advent
>>of emancipation, though, other religious influences were allowed
>>to contaminate the Jewish community, and they did once again,
>>which produced the religious anarchy of the 19th century in
>>Western Europe: mass apostasy, formation of Reform, etc.
>It has been pointed out that the formation of Reform reduced
>the apostasy in Berlin. "Other religious influences" were
Tell that to Heine. What may have reduced the apostasy was
the realization of those like Heine that apostasy didn't help:
one was still socially a Jew. It was the beginning of the
racialist antisemitism that led to a Hilter. OTOH, it didn't
seem to be as much of a problem in, say, England.
>not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
>to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
>to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
Also the sermon, also the organ, etc. The Sermon spread to
all of Judaism, the organ (and guitar mass, etc.), the rabbi's
robes, are mostly confined to Reform.
Jonathan J. Baker
>> I do not know about the Karaites, but I also doubt that it
>> can in any way be considered of Mosaic origin. In fact, I
>> believe that any reference to the nature of life after death
>> was deliberately removed from Judaism in the beginning of
>> the religion, as it was a central part of the Egyptian
>> religion. I have to consider those parts of the rabbinic
>> interpretations, including Maimonides, to be exactly the
>> type of addition prohibited in the Torah.
>I wonder if the RamBam, who spoke Arabic and worked as a
>physician for the Sultan, may have been influenced by Islamic
And today's rabbonim speak English, and there are lots of
Jewish doctors. But does that affect Orthodoxy? The "stricter"
flavors make a point of reducing or eliminating the influence of
Americanism on religion.
>culture or intended these additions as a way to preserve
"influenced by Islamic culture"? Yes, to the extent of rejecting
it. See the first part of the Guide for his rejections of various
Islamic philosophies.
>Jewish culture in the midst of forced Islamic conversions? Or
What additions did Rambam make? If you read the MT, you won't
find any.
>do these discussions go back to the early days of the
>Babylonian Talmud? In any event, it does seem odd to me.
What's odd. You haven't made a point to be odd.
Yes such discussions do go back. See Mishna Chagigah ch. 2,
and other places where the value of "Greek knowledge" is
debated, and mostly rejected.
Micha Berger
:>As it is, though, the mishnah was a comprimise. It was R' Yehudah
:>haNasi's desperate measure to preserve something despite the Hadrianic
:>persecutions.
: Hadrian? That was long before.
The persecutions started by Hadrian in response to the Bar Kochva
rebellion were still in force. Why do you think we see in that period
the sudden rise of centers of learning in Sura and Pumpedisa, in Babylon?
Judea was a hostile place to live.
In any case, you don't reply to the point. The mishnah was a compromise.
Such sentiment is attributed to its compliler. "That which were given
orally, it is inappropriate for you to write down." However, as it was
"a time to act for G-d, overturn Your Torah", the inappropriateness was
overlooked for the sake of preserving the entirety of Judaism.
BTW, the rishonim argue as to whether R' Yehudah haNassi (a/k/a
"Rebbe") actually wrote down the mishnah, or if he compiled it as a
set to memorize that had structure, near completeness of coverage, and
easier to remember. The latter position (held by Rashi and the Tosafists)
opine that the mishnah was not actually published until around the same
time as the Babylonian Talmud.
The point of Oral Torah is to be a fluid system. Rebbe's work comprimised
that. Even though the Babylonian Talmud often turns to beraisos and toseftos
not included in Rabbe's compilation of the Mishnah. Canonization have done
so entirely.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Life is complex.
mi...@aishdas.org Decisions are complex.
http://www.aishdas.org The Torah is complex.
Fax: (413) 403-9905 - R' Binyamin Hecht
QandA
> I have seen so much misinformation written in this thread that it requires a
> severe health warning to readers.
We had a similar exchange some time ago. You sound very antagonistic
to Karaites. Why? If you disagree with their religious doctrines, you
can post a refutation. Traditional Judaism has rejected Karaism so I'm
sure that are plenty of such refutations around. But for you, it seems
to go beyond that. You make attacks that have nothing to do with
religion.
> 1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
> jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down a blind
Are you introducing a new definition of "who is a Jew"? Aren't they
Jews according to traditional halakhic definition?
As for "Jews by religion"... Will you now say that "Reform Jews" is an
oxymoron as well?
> 2. The minute Karaite communities which remained into the 20th century,
> mostly in the Crimea and in Volhynia, indeed expressed very forcefully and
> convincingly the view that they are not jews and, within the context of
Please! You know full well that they said that they were not Jews only
in order to avoid anti-Semitism. What specifically is wrong with
that?? They did not have to compromise their religion, or do anything
differently. All they did was call themselves by a different name and
because of that avoided much persecution.
> Nuremberg Laws, had not been jews for many centuries. Their continued
Now, instead of relying on halakha to determine who is a Jew, you rely
on Nuremberg Laws? This is what I don't get. *If* you disagreed with
their religion, you would have used religious arguments.
> animosity towards jews and judaism was reflected in the collaboration of
The animosity was mutual. Wasn't it the Rabbinical leadership that
expelled them from the rest of the Jewish community?
> members of the Crimean Karaite communities with our SS murderers.
First, I'm a Jew according to any definition you want to bring. My
relatives were murdered in the War as well. Now, how is the fact that
someone did something horrible an argument against the correctness of
his religion? Or are you saying that because they did this, they and
all of their descendants are forever evil?
Second, what are your views of Finland? Or France? What about the
Russians who collaborated with the Nazis? There were collaborators of
every nationality and religion.
> 3. The true historical development of Karaism has been fully documented by
> historians (foremost amongst them being Albert de Harkavy - in the late
> 1900s). I say "true", because the Karaites have tried to falsify their
> history by creating "back-dated documents", and commissioned so called
I assume you are referring to Firkovich? He was a collector of ancient
documents. He did forge some of those documents. All this means is
that we should be extra careful when looking at the documents in his
collection. But AFAIK, the majority were real, not forgeries.
> histories, which, unsurprisingly, put them in a very good light and jews in
> a bad one.
Just like Rabbinical histories put Karaites in a bad light and
Rabbanites in a good one.
> 4. The connection of Karaism with the Sadducees is a romanticisation of
> history with no evidence to back it up. The religious philosophy of the
Both Karaites and Rabbanites claimed that Karaites had ideological
ties to the Sadducees. However, the historical evidence for this is
almost non-existent. Thus, as far as I can tell, it could be either
way.
> Sadducees became extinct during the 1st century. It would have taken a time
> warp machine to transplant it to the Babylonia of Sadyah Gaon, some 700
> years later.
At the time of the Temple, there were Jews who rejected the Oral
Torah. Are you saying that with the destruction of the Temple they
simply disappeared and then reapeared 700 years later? Sadducees could
not adopt and died out like the poor dinosaurs?
> 5. In theory, the Karaite movement started with Anan ben David, a
No. There is evidence of Karaites at least a couple of centuries
before Anan. To be more precise, there were *several* groups that
rejected the Oral Torah. Some centuries later, they fused into one
that became known as the Karaites.
Anan was the founder of a group known as the Ananites. His followers
valued him as a political leader but were skeptical of his religios
rulings. In Karaism, any interpretation of the Torah is evaluated on
its merits -- regardless of who makes it. Anan interpreted the Torah;
though he was a famous leader, many of his interpretations were
rejected.
> 6. The new religion - for that is what it was - denied the ascendency of the
Just as much as Reform and Concervative are "new religions"?
> mishna and gemara in jewish life and substituted a different methodology of
> interpretation and derivation of Torah laws. It focused on the study of the
This, we *have to* look at closer. Are you saying that the Talmud
contains a "methodology of interpretation"? I thought the laws of
derivation were forgotten before the Talmud was written down. IOW,
these laws existed and were used by the Sages of old, but the Talmud
does not contain them. How can something that's missing be
"substituted"? The "different methodology of interpretation" is simply
reason. We are all born with it. It does not have to be passed to us
from the ancients. It cannot be forgotten. God, in His infinite mercy
and wisdom, has granted us the gift of reason.
> written text ("mikra") and, had the beneficial effect of encouraging a
> renewed study of the same texts by jews, who wished to be in a better
> position to refute their dangerous heresies.
Wait. Something beneficial because of the Karaites? Impossible... ;)
> 7. The masoretic review and correction of Torah texts (finalised circa
> 1100/1200) was all done by jews (the followers of "rabbinical" theology) and
> does not include work by any Karaites (so, no, the Karaites were no more
> responsible for creating the masoretic text than Ernest Bevin was
> responsible for creating the State of Israel).
See http://www.jewishgates.org/personalities/basher.stm
++++
From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most
famous masorete [Aaron ben Moses ben Asher] (and, possibly, his family
for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.
It should not be surprising to discover that many masoretes, so
involved in the Masorah, held Karaite beliefs. After all, it was the
Karaites who placed such absolute reliance on the Torah text. It would
be natural that they would devote their lives to studying every aspect
of it.
The surprising element was that being a Karaite didn't disqualify
Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the eyes of Rabbinic Jews (like RaMBaM).
++++
> On the web, apart from the self-serving Karaite websites (also one promoted
"Self-serving"? Such a negative term... If someone makes a website,
who should it serve?
Daniel Israel
>As for the possibility of a resurrection on Earth, the
>physical problems are insurmountable.
By simple logical necessity, no one maintains that there will be a
physical reserruection without a changing of the laws of nature.
Assuming you realize this, are you asserting that God won't make
such a change, or that he can't? (Your phrasing implies the latter,
which is an incomprehensible position to me.)
--
Daniel M. Israel
<dan...@cfd.ame.arizona.edu> 1130 North Mountain Ave.
Dept. of Aerospace & Mechanical The University of Arizona
Engineering Tucson, AZ 85711
QandA
> >And IIRC, weren't the Karaites responsible for the Masoretic Text? The
> >text that all Jews use today.
>
> Unlikely, although they may have been involved.
See my long answer to Charles that just went through.
I site http://www.jewishgates.org/personalities/basher.stm
that says that Aaron ben Moses ben Asher, the "most famous masorete",
was a Karaite. Further, the Rabbinical authorities of old didn't have
any problem with this. I don't know why some people (like Charles) do.
Why are they trying to be so pious?
Daniel Israel
>"Other religious influences" were
>not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
>to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
>to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
I don't want to turn this into R bashing, so please take this
question in that spirit. In what sense is moving the services to
Sunday only "slightly" non-Jewish? I see no Jewish content at all
in such a change.
Daniel Israel
>1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
>jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down a blind
>which they could not return. That was as long ago as the 14th century - when
>Karaism was put under a perpetual ban in Spain, which was universally
>accepted by normative jewish communities.
I am not an expert in this area, but to the best of my knowledge
real Karaites maintain matrilineal descent, and therefore someone
who identifies as a Karaite would be given a presumption of being
halachically Jewish. Since the reject the Oral Torah, however,
they would also have the presumption of being both mamzerim (because
they don't perform valid divorces) and apostates. The latter means
that they would not be treated as Jews for practical purposes. The
former implies that if they wished to join the Jewish community they
would not need to convert, but they would be severely restricted
as to who they could marry.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
>real Karaites maintain matrilineal descent, and therefore someone
>who identifies as a Karaite would be given a presumption of being
>halachically Jewish. Since the reject the Oral Torah, however,
Testing, or is it just a slow news day?
Herman Rubin
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>Herman wrote:
>>>>It was the Pharisees who took the position that their
>>>>Oral Law was from Mosheh, as stated in Pirke Avoth 1:1,
>>>>and should be imposed on all. Judaism NEEDS that kind
>>>>of diversity, and removal of the huge collection of
>>>>inventions claimed to be from God.
>>>No. Judaism NEEDS that kind of uniformity, in the absence
>>>of printed law, or else it deteriorates into religious anarchy,
>>>which in fact it did in the First Temple.
>>I see little evidence of this in the Tanakh. However,
>You haven't read enough of Kings, have you? All the paganism
>that eventually brough down the First Temple.
There is a huge difference between pagan worship and not
having uniformity. However, it was not paganism which
brought down the First Temple, but war. From what I read
in the Tanakh, the Kingdom of Judea managed to survive
by a combination of tribute and luck.
However, the defeat by the Babylonians (Chaldeans) did not
cause the destruction immediately, but the subsequent
revolt did, at least according to Kings. Now prophets
have always claimed that military defeats are almost
entirely to to not being sufficiently observant, but does
that make it so?
>>there were lots of sects in the time of the Second Temple.
>Late Second Temple. Not early.
How do we know this? The only Jewish records we have
are from the Tanakh, and the Ezra-Nehemiah branch of
the Kohanim wrote essentially all that we have.
Similar conditions to the
>past couple of centuries: semi-open society that paid
>lip-service to accepting Judaism (there were many Judaizers
>among the Romans), accepting Jews as citizens of the Empire
>as much as any other subject state. Not like Persian or
>Greek rule, where the society was much more opposed in nature
>to that of the Jews.
The Persians certainly accepted their subjects as citizens,
and the Persian forces attempting to conquer Greece has
many non-Persians included, including Greeks from their
Asian provinces. There seem to have been many Jews in the
Persian army as well. The only restriction, the Book of
Esther notwithstanding, seems to have been that the King
had to marry a Persian. The Persians seem to have been
much better at running an empire than the Romans.
>> Until the Men of
>>>the Great Assembly formulated a common home-ritual, it was
>>>all too easy for people to fall into paganism, or to be pushed
>>>into it by the Bad King (e.g. Menashe).
>>I am inclined to think that the writing down of the Torah,
>>and also the protection given to the non-sovereign Jewish
>>state by the Persians, and then the Ptolemies, made it the
>>case that these pagan influences were reduced. The attempt
>>of the Seleucids to force them caused the Maccabean revolt.
>Which was brought on by assimilationists going to Antiochus
>and a) showing him how nice we assimilationists are, vs. those
>idiots back home, and b) practically inviting him in to
>suppress Judaism. See Josephus, Antiquities XII:5, I Macc 1.
The Seleucids had a short-lived period during which they
tried to forcibly Hellenize all in their realms, prompted
by the loss of their eastern domains. It did not work,
and the Romans soon put an end to the Seleucid control of
anything.
There was far more assimilation under the Ptolemies, who
did not try to force pagan practices. It is the attempt
to force paganism which fails.
>>Even the Romans, before the revolution, respected the
>>Jewish religion and made no attempt to introduce paganism,
>>although the chose the rulers and the high priests.
>Yup, and we had many of the same problems as today, with sectarians
>denying the validity of the Oral Law and the authority of the Rabbis.
You know my opinions on this. The Torah did not permit
additions, and so the Pharisees (rabbis did not yet exist)
came up with the idea that much of the Torah was not
written to justify imposing more additions than what is
in the Torah itself.
>>But I doubt that the efforts of the Great Assembly had
>>that much to do with it. And as remarked above, there
>>were many sects in the later period.
>For the reasons stated above.
No, for the simple reason that, without persecution or
major secular promulgation, any religion will tend to
develop sects. With the n'viim declared ended, and the
lack of a strong Jewish secular authority until the
Maccabees, this is what happened.
>>>Without the Sanhedrin, consensus of religious scholars took
>>>over the dispositive role in formulating law.
>>There does not seem to have been that much of it in late
>>Temple times. We know little about the practices of those
>>groups which were "less strict" than the Pharisees.
>Because they didn't leave written records of their own, except
>at Qumran, and it's quite debatable who the Qumranites were,
>whether a sept of some known sect, or something else altogether.
The Qumran books are not that of a single sect. This
shows in the numerous types of books of the Tanakh, and
even that there may have been a commercial operation in
one of the caves. Those caves were not that bad as
places in which to live.
However, how much do we have of the Pharisaic records
until the writing down of the Mishnah? We have legends
only until that time.
>But we know they didn't like the Pharisees who were clearly
>running things, in the Temple and out, as of the Maccabean period,
>and that they kept a Sadducean calendar. (4QMMT)
Were the Pharisees running things? I believe that there
was even a Temple takeover by the Zealots. It would not
take a large body to temporarily take over Jerusalem.
>> With the advent
>>>of emancipation, though, other religious influences were allowed
>>>to contaminate the Jewish community, and they did once again,
>>>which produced the religious anarchy of the 19th century in
>>>Western Europe: mass apostasy, formation of Reform, etc.
>>It has been pointed out that the formation of Reform reduced
>>the apostasy in Berlin. "Other religious influences" were
>Tell that to Heine. What may have reduced the apostasy was
>the realization of those like Heine that apostasy didn't help:
>one was still socially a Jew. It was the beginning of the
>racialist antisemitism that led to a Hilter. OTOH, it didn't
>seem to be as much of a problem in, say, England.
It might have been partially due to the schisms in the Church
of England, and also partially due to the English Bible using
the original Hebrew more. Lutheranism might have been more
antisemitic because of Luther himself, and it seems that the
Catholic regions outside of Italy were more antisemitic than
in Italy, partly because of Italy being fragmented before the
middle 19th century, and partly because of the Counterreformation.
I would say that England, the Low Countries, and Scandinavia
were the exceptions in antisemitism.
>>not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
>>to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
>>to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
>Also the sermon, also the organ, etc. The Sermon spread to
>all of Judaism,
I believe that there was some of this before.
the organ (and guitar mass, etc.),
The use of the guitar is modern, and has no relation to any
kind of mass. But I see nothing wrong with following the
description of the use of music as found in the psalms; it
does not say that this was for Temple service only, and any
prohibition of this because of mourning for the Temple seems
to be beyond any reasonable period.
the rabbi's
>robes, are mostly confined to Reform.
Is the adoption of robes by rabbis contraindicated by
anything in the religion? During the early part of that
period, it was customary in many places for teachers with
degrees to wear their academic robes while teaching, and
one function of a rabbi is a teacher. Also, in the secular
community, judges wore, and often still wear, robes, this
coming from academic law degrees. Rabbis are also jurists.
Barbara
J. Baker) wrote:
>Testing, or is it just a slow news day?
I'm having posting, so I'm going to piggyback my test on yours and
hope no one gets mad.
Apologies if this does show up!
Barbara
Russell Steinthal
>>"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>>1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
>>I am not an expert in this area, but to the best of my knowledge
>>real Karaites maintain matrilineal descent, and therefore someone
>>who identifies as a Karaite would be given a presumption of being
>>halachically Jewish. Since the reject the Oral Torah, however,
>
>Testing, or is it just a slow news day?
Just to clarify, we had a technical problem which held most (but
apparently not all, although I'm not sure which) posts today. The
problem should be resolved and the posts have now either been approved
or referred to moderators as normal.
Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you to those who reported the
problem by e-mail.
-Russell
--
Russell Steinthal Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rm...@columbia.edu> Columbia College, Class of 1999
<ste...@nj.org> UNIX System Administrator, nj.org
Abe Kohen
"Russell Steinthal" <rm...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:a3prs1$oi4$1...@condor.nj.org...
> In article <a3otq0$85f$1...@panix2.panix.com>,
> Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In <du> dan...@pluto.ame.arizona.edu (Daniel Israel) writes:
> >>"Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> writes:
> >>>1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are
not
> >>I am not an expert in this area, but to the best of my knowledge
> >>real Karaites maintain matrilineal descent, and therefore someone
> >>who identifies as a Karaite would be given a presumption of being
> >>halachically Jewish. Since the reject the Oral Torah, however,
> >
> >Testing, or is it just a slow news day?
>
> Just to clarify, we had a technical problem which held most (but
> apparently not all, although I'm not sure which) posts today. The
> problem should be resolved and the posts have now either been approved
> or referred to moderators as normal.
Perhaps my Outlook Express or news server is broken, but I never saw my post
on Annulment of Marriage in response to Micha, nor did I get a message that
it is being hand moderated.
>
> Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you to those who reported the
> problem by e-mail.
Was not aware of it until now. Thanks for working on it.
Abe
Charles Vitez
to be an underlying agenda, which some people are trying to push, backed up
by a very selective use of near truths - something like the old
conversionist trick of using truth twisted out of shape so that when it is
deployed it is more difficult to demolish the misinformation.
See below for my specific comments. Please do not think that I am trying to
convince you Q&A- that seems pointless - but only to put the record straight
for others.
"QandA" <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:edb3698b.0201...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<a3b7o9$rd5$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
>
> > I have seen so much misinformation written in this thread that it
requires a
> > severe health warning to readers.
>
> We had a similar exchange some time ago. You sound very antagonistic
> to Karaites. Why? If you disagree with their religious doctrines, you
> can post a refutation. Traditional Judaism has rejected Karaism so I'm
> sure that are plenty of such refutations around. But for you, it seems
> to go beyond that. You make attacks that have nothing to do with
> religion.
>
**CV replies**
You say I am antagonistic to Karaism, but in fact that is just your debating
ploy. I am not anything to up-front followers of Karaism, they, per se do
not interest me much. I am antagonistic to falsehoods about the historical
divide between judaism and Karaism.
I do not seek to refute their religion at all. It is not my place to refute
any person's beliefs, that would be a level of arrogance well beyond
anything that I have ever aspired to.
My "attacks" are nothing to do with their religion but quite a lot to do
with mine.
***
> > 1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
> > jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down a
blind
>
> Are you introducing a new definition of "who is a Jew"? Aren't they
> Jews according to traditional halakhic definition?
**CV replies**
No new definition of who is a jew is required. The issue was settled 600
years ago. They are not jews according to halakha. They are persons of a
different faith.
***
>
> As for "Jews by religion"... Will you now say that "Reform Jews" is an
> oxymoron as well?
>
**CV replies**
This is just another cheap debating shot. You know full well that any person
who meets the halachik definition is a jew and most R are jews according to
that. There is a vast difference in jewish law between a Karaite and a
reform jew.
For anyone really interested, there is an unbridgable gulf between the
theology of Karaism and the theology of reform judaism.
***
> > 2. The minute Karaite communities which remained into the 20th century,
> > mostly in the Crimea and in Volhynia, indeed expressed very forcefully
and
> > convincingly the view that they are not jews and, within the context of
>
> Please! You know full well that they said that they were not Jews only
> in order to avoid anti-Semitism. What specifically is wrong with
> that?? They did not have to compromise their religion, or do anything
> differently. All they did was call themselves by a different name and
> because of that avoided much persecution.
**CV replies**
They certainly avoided some persecution, but that was not their reason for
dividing themselves from normative jews in these regions - much of it before
persecutions started. Their theology and their hold on their membership
demanded that their exclusivity be maintained, particularly in the face of
diminishing numbers (diminishing not particularly as a result of low birth
rate but high defection rate). The main fear of their leadership in the 12th
to 16th centuries was that members of the community would clamour for
readmittance to judaism as did the communities of Egypt.
Many of the Karaite rites/laws deal with exclusivity in marriage, kashrus,
etc. See Graetz and Harkavy.
***
>
> > Nuremberg Laws, had not been jews for many centuries. Their continued
>
> Now, instead of relying on halakha to determine who is a Jew, you rely
> on Nuremberg Laws? This is what I don't get. *If* you disagreed with
> their religion, you would have used religious arguments.
**CV**
Another cheap debating shot. What I said was that by the time of the
Nuremberg Laws they had been divided from the jewish community for many
centuries so it is not too surprising that the nazis accepted that they were
not jews. They would also have accepted that the Frankist and Shabtaians
were also not jews.
I am relying on nothing but documented history and repeat that I have no
right to discuss a non-jewish person's beliefs. It is not for me to say if
it is right or wrong, or even if it means that they are observers of the
Noachide laws.
***
>
> > animosity towards jews and judaism was reflected in the collaboration of
>
> The animosity was mutual. Wasn't it the Rabbinical leadership that
> expelled them from the rest of the Jewish community?
>
**CV replies**
Absolutely true. The Karaites divided themselves from the community and the
rabbis of the community banned them. We, who claim to be jews, follow
normative judaism which relies on our leadership to point the right way for
us - in this case we followed our rabbis and the rest is history.
***
> > members of the Crimean Karaite communities with our SS murderers.
>
> First, I'm a Jew according to any definition you want to bring. My
> relatives were murdered in the War as well. Now, how is the fact that
> someone did something horrible an argument against the correctness of
> his religion? Or are you saying that because they did this, they and
> all of their descendants are forever evil?
**CV replies**
This replied to a specific point made earlier in the thread and should be
seen as saying that not only did the Karaites survive the German invasion of
the Crimea, some or perhaps many did so because they collaborated. Because
we do not have a clue as to their numbers in 1941, we do not know what
proportion of the community collaborated. All I know is that not a few were
arraigned in post 1945 trials. For me 1 is too many and I curse them into
eternity.
***
>
> Second, what are your views of Finland? Or France? What about the
> Russians who collaborated with the Nazis? There were collaborators of
> every nationality and religion.
**CV replies**
I hate them too.
***
>
> > 3. The true historical development of Karaism has been fully documented
by
> > historians (foremost amongst them being Albert de Harkavy - in the late
> > 1900s). I say "true", because the Karaites have tried to falsify their
> > history by creating "back-dated documents", and commissioned so called
>
> I assume you are referring to Firkovich? He was a collector of ancient
> documents. He did forge some of those documents. All this means is
> that we should be extra careful when looking at the documents in his
> collection. But AFAIK, the majority were real, not forgeries.
**CV replies**
Not only was he a forger on a grand scale and a thief, but he had the
misfortune to publicise his "finds" and offer them to the Czar's library in
Petrograd. The Czar liked Karaites, because they pandered to his already
poisonous views about jews and the documents were avidly accepted. It was
only considerably later that Harkavy was appointed and started examining
them. Much to the disquiet of the black hundreds, he had no choice as a
professional scholar but to denounce them as forgeries.
***
>
> > histories, which, unsurprisingly, put them in a very good light and jews
in
> > a bad one.
>
> Just like Rabbinical histories put Karaites in a bad light and
> Rabbanites in a good one.
**CV replies**
Another cheap shot. I have not read rabbinical histories of the Karaites.
None of the histories I have read point to rabbinical sources for this. The
sources I have read and have quoted are histories written by professional
historians such as Harkavy and Graetz. These historians have no axe to grind
(except a fanatical deisre to propound the truth).
Karaism itself is of no current threat to judaism. The threat seems to be
from those who use examples of break-away groups of 1000 years ago as some
sort of justification to divide jewry today.
***
>
> > 4. The connection of Karaism with the Sadducees is a romanticisation of
> > history with no evidence to back it up. The religious philosophy of the
>
> Both Karaites and Rabbanites claimed that Karaites had ideological
> ties to the Sadducees. However, the historical evidence for this is
> almost non-existent. Thus, as far as I can tell, it could be either
> way.
>
**CV replies**
Curious! So if there is no evidence for something then we are to assume that
it is a moot point? Masterful logic!
---Oh, oh,--- I have been told that sarcasm does not work on the web unless
I explain that I was being sarcastic; so here goes - I was being sarcastic.
***
> > Sadducees became extinct during the 1st century. It would have taken a
time
> > warp machine to transplant it to the Babylonia of Sadyah Gaon, some 700
> > years later.
>
> At the time of the Temple, there were Jews who rejected the Oral
> Torah. Are you saying that with the destruction of the Temple they
> simply disappeared and then reapeared 700 years later? Sadducees could
> not adopt and died out like the poor dinosaurs?
**CV would like to reply but does not understand the question**
Just in case I am answering your question, I would add that it is entirely
logical to believe that the descendents of the Sadduccees did adapt by
rejoning normative judaism under the rabbis. This assumption is the one
accepted by most historians of the period writing within the last 150 years.
***
>
> > 5. In theory, the Karaite movement started with Anan ben David, a
>
> No. There is evidence of Karaites at least a couple of centuries
> before Anan. To be more precise, there were *several* groups that
> rejected the Oral Torah. Some centuries later, they fused into one
> that became known as the Karaites.
>
> Anan was the founder of a group known as the Ananites. His followers
> valued him as a political leader but were skeptical of his religios
> rulings. In Karaism, any interpretation of the Torah is evaluated on
> its merits -- regardless of who makes it. Anan interpreted the Torah;
> though he was a famous leader, many of his interpretations were
> rejected.
**CV replies**
Curiously there is no evidence that Karaism pre-dated Anan - indeed the only
evidence ever produced arguing for this view was the totally discredited
evidence of Firkovitch.
I did also point out that the Karaism that went forward was more the product
of later brains.
***
>
> > 6. The new religion - for that is what it was - denied the ascendency of
the
>
> Just as much as Reform and Concervative are "new religions"?
>
> > mishna and gemara in jewish life and substituted a different methodology
of
**CV replies**
I had not realise that anyone was claiming that Mishna and Gemara are
nullified by R and C theology. In all my readings in SCJM the assertion has
always been that R and C accept the ascendancy of Oral Law, but interpret it
in different ways.
***
> > interpretation and derivation of Torah laws. It focused on the study of
the
>
> This, we *have to* look at closer. Are you saying that the Talmud
> contains a "methodology of interpretation"? I thought the laws of
> derivation were forgotten before the Talmud was written down. IOW,
> these laws existed and were used by the Sages of old, but the Talmud
> does not contain them. How can something that's missing be
> "substituted"? The "different methodology of interpretation" is simply
> reason. We are all born with it. It does not have to be passed to us
> from the ancients. It cannot be forgotten. God, in His infinite mercy
> and wisdom, has granted us the gift of reason.
**CV replies**
What?
Of course there are interpretational methodologies (and you are encouraged
to use not just common sense but all your senses except yetzer hara). I
would refer readers to Boraysa de Rabbi Ishmael, which we (ie, orthodox and
conservative jews, at least) read every morning (near the beginning of the
service; after the "sacrifices" and before the "psalms").
***
>
> > written text ("mikra") and, had the beneficial effect of encouraging a
> > renewed study of the same texts by jews, who wished to be in a better
> > position to refute their dangerous heresies.
>
> Wait. Something beneficial because of the Karaites? Impossible... ;)
>
> > 7. The masoretic review and correction of Torah texts (finalised circa
> > 1100/1200) was all done by jews (the followers of "rabbinical" theology)
and
> > does not include work by any Karaites (so, no, the Karaites were no more
> > responsible for creating the masoretic text than Ernest Bevin was
> > responsible for creating the State of Israel).
>
> See http://www.jewishgates.org/personalities/basher.stm
>
> ++++
> From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most
> famous masorete [Aaron ben Moses ben Asher] (and, possibly, his family
> for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.
>
> It should not be surprising to discover that many masoretes, so
> involved in the Masorah, held Karaite beliefs. After all, it was the
> Karaites who placed such absolute reliance on the Torah text. It would
> be natural that they would devote their lives to studying every aspect
> of it.
>
> The surprising element was that being a Karaite didn't disqualify
> Aaron ben Moses ben Asher in the eyes of Rabbinic Jews (like RaMBaM).
> ++++
**CV replies**
This seems to be a pretty unique connection made in this article. I am not
in any position to comment on this beyond saying that I have not seen it
made elsewhere and would add that this connection was not made by Dr Solomon
Schechter (the Geniza scholar), who amongst so many other things was very
much the expert on Sadyah and his times. I would also add that ben Asher is
a pretty common name. I add that particularly because my late father Z"L was
Shlomo ben Asher Zvi Hacohen (a very nice man whose name deserves
remembrance).
***
>
> > On the web, apart from the self-serving Karaite websites (also one
promoted
>
> "Self-serving"? Such a negative term... If someone makes a website,
> who should it serve?
**CV replies**
Truth perhaps?
***
Herman Rubin
Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 15:10:43 +0000 (UTC), Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>:>As it is, though, the mishnah was a comprimise. It was R' Yehudah
>:>haNasi's desperate measure to preserve something despite the Hadrianic
>:>persecutions.
>: Hadrian? That was long before.
>The persecutions started by Hadrian in response to the Bar Kochva
>rebellion were still in force. Why do you think we see in that period
>the sudden rise of centers of learning in Sura and Pumpedisa, in Babylon?
>Judea was a hostile place to live.
Possibly they were on the statute books, but the Roman Empire
had long ceased to be so governed. It was a later persecution;
these went on and off, until Christianity became established
more than a century after the writing of the Mishnah, and then
forced a separation from Judaism, and made things worse.
Why did the Academy not split, with some going to Babylonia?
If the persecution was that bad, this would have been the
logical action; there was nothing particularly sacred about
the location of Yavneh.
>In any case, you don't reply to the point. The mishnah was a compromise.
>Such sentiment is attributed to its compliler. "That which were given
>orally, it is inappropriate for you to write down." However, as it was
>"a time to act for G-d, overturn Your Torah", the inappropriateness was
>overlooked for the sake of preserving the entirety of Judaism.
Did they not overturn the Torah by instituting the beliefs of
one sect that their customs had become legendary law?
>BTW, the rishonim argue as to whether R' Yehudah haNassi (a/k/a
>"Rebbe") actually wrote down the mishnah, or if he compiled it as a
>set to memorize that had structure, near completeness of coverage, and
>easier to remember. The latter position (held by Rashi and the Tosafists)
>opine that the mishnah was not actually published until around the same
>time as the Babylonian Talmud.
>The point of Oral Torah is to be a fluid system. Rebbe's work comprimised
>that. Even though the Babylonian Talmud often turns to beraisos and toseftos
>not included in Rabbe's compilation of the Mishnah. Canonization have done
>so entirely.
If it is a fluid system, then the sages of ANY generation can
overthrow what a previous generation has enacted. It is not
necessary to replace a law with another. The damage came with
the elevation of the Oral Law to the level of the Sefer Torah;
some posters here have even claimed it above, with the Sefer
Torah merely being the "crib notes".
The Reform position, even before the group separated, was that
the secular knowledge gained invalidated much of the Talmudic
legislation, that the changed political situation of the Jews
invalidated more, and that it needed to be reexamined, and
that so much of this had been accumulated that much needed to
be done quickly. The utter rejection of this by those who
considered being bound by tradition to be more important is
what caused the split. The early Reform Jews overreacted in
a few matters, but made some attempt to get the dead material
out, and they did not even manage that, although they cut out
some which should have been left.
We need a reconstruction of the Jewish religion from those who
start out with a strong body of secular knowledge, strong enough
to discard tradition and custom, and the exaggerations of the
past generations. It also has to be rather flexible, as the
saying, "Two Jews, three opinions," should hold even in religion.
Jonathan J. Baker
>>:>As it is, though, the mishnah was a comprimise. It was R' Yehudah
>>:>haNasi's desperate measure to preserve something despite the Hadrianic
>>:>persecutions.
>>: Hadrian? That was long before.
>>The persecutions started by Hadrian in response to the Bar Kochva
>>rebellion were still in force. Why do you think we see in that period
>>the sudden rise of centers of learning in Sura and Pumpedisa, in Babylon?
>>Judea was a hostile place to live.
>Possibly they were on the statute books, but the Roman Empire
>had long ceased to be so governed. It was a later persecution;
>these went on and off, until Christianity became established
>more than a century after the writing of the Mishnah, and then
>forced a separation from Judaism, and made things worse.
Xianity forced a separation from Judaism long before the Mishna:
when they didn't join up with the rest of the Jews during the
Bar Kochba rebellion. Why should we join up? We have The Messiah
already.
>Why did the Academy not split, with some going to Babylonia?
Some did. There was commerce between the academies of Bavel and
Israel, not that they necessarily officially recognized each other
as being the authoritative High Court for all of Israel. There's
also some evidence that they didn't even recognize each other's
smicha.
>If the persecution was that bad, this would have been the
>logical action; there was nothing particularly sacred about
>the location of Yavneh.
There were already Jews in Bavel, and had been for hundreds of
years. They had, by then, set up their own institutions. See
Graetz on the Mishnaic period.
>>In any case, you don't reply to the point. The mishnah was a compromise.
>>Such sentiment is attributed to its compliler. "That which were given
>>orally, it is inappropriate for you to write down." However, as it was
>>"a time to act for G-d, overturn Your Torah", the inappropriateness was
>>overlooked for the sake of preserving the entirety of Judaism.
>Did they not overturn the Torah by instituting the beliefs of
>one sect that their customs had become legendary law?
No, since their customs *were* law. The authority of the Oral
Torah, and of the Rabbis, rests on verses, so it's not an "overturning"
of the Law. But you've heard all that before.
>The Reform position, even before the group separated, was that
>the secular knowledge gained invalidated much of the Talmudic
>legislation, that the changed political situation of the Jews
>invalidated more, and that it needed to be reexamined, and
I don't think even the Orthodox would disagree with this:
look at the vast stretches of criminal law and Temple
observances discussed in the Talmud that have become mooted
by history. But the law remains on the books, and is of
value when it is studied.
>that so much of this had been accumulated that much needed to
>be done quickly. The utter rejection of this by those who
The utter rejection of pretty much everything else that was
left as normative, current law in the Talmud and poskim,
is what caused the split.
>considered being bound by tradition to be more important is
>what caused the split. The early Reform Jews overreacted in
>a few matters, but made some attempt to get the dead material
>out, and they did not even manage that, although they cut out
>some which should have been left.
Overreacted in many many matters: just because history has
mooted part of the Law, doesn't mean that the whole Law is
now invalid. It's the baby-bathwater thing.
>We need a reconstruction of the Jewish religion from those who
>start out with a strong body of secular knowledge, strong enough
>to discard tradition and custom, and the exaggerations of the
Many traditions and customs are getting reorganized, by the
historical process of loss of tradition created by the destruction
of cohesive Jewish communities that had sat in the same places for
centuries in Europe.
Much contemporary psak is based on strong secular knowledge,
if not from the poskim themselves, then from their consultants.
>past generations. It also has to be rather flexible, as the
>saying, "Two Jews, three opinions," should hold even in religion.
Which it does. The "rigid Orthodox" is a myth put forth by the
liberal movements to win converts, and to make themselves feel
superior. In reality, there are wide ranges in legal and philo-
sophical opinion among the Orthodox.
But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and
try to reconstruct a human being from COHN atoms. Better just
to train up the baby right, and hope that he turns out to be a
good person and a good Jew.
Barbara
<vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>For anyone really interested, there is an unbridgable gulf between the
>theology of Karaism and the theology of reform judaism.
I'm interested, if it's not too much trouble,
Barbara
Herman Rubin
Daniel Israel <dan...@pluto.ame.arizona.edu> wrote:
>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>As for the possibility of a resurrection on Earth, the
>>physical problems are insurmountable.
>By simple logical necessity, no one maintains that there will be a
>physical reserruection without a changing of the laws of nature.
>Assuming you realize this, are you asserting that God won't make
>such a change, or that he can't? (Your phrasing implies the latter,
>which is an incomprehensible position to me.)
I am not sure that the medieval mystics realized this. One
reason is that they were unaware of much about the laws of
nature; Aristotle believed in them, but may have hindered
their discovery.
I maintain that He won't, that He will not change the laws
of nature in such a way that we can be reasonably sure that
He has done so.
I believe that God has deliberately designed the universe
so that we, and others "like" us, are to use our minds and
physical abilities to occupy it.
There is nothing in the Torah about the nature of an afterlife,
and I believe that this is deliberate. Why should there be a
resurrection on Earth? This is a "goyische" idea which crept
into Judaism, and I see it as highly detrimental.
The Torah is noticeably silent on the nature of the afterlife,
other than indicating it exists. The Tanakh is almost as
silent. The idea of a physical resurrection seems not to be
in line with the spirit of those writings.
Herman Rubin
....
>> We need a reconstruction of the Jewish religion from those
>> who start out with a strong body of secular knowledge,
>> strong enough to discard tradition and custom, and the
>> exaggerations of the past generations. It also has to be
>> rather flexible, as the saying, "Two Jews, three opinions,"
>> should hold even in religion.
>This sounds like Mordechai Kaplan and Reconstructionism.
Except that Reconstructionism did not consider the religion
but the culture. Nor was it primarily based on secular
knowledge applied to the Torah first, and to theTanakh and
other aspects later.
Jonathan J. Baker
>On Wed, 6 Feb 2002 09:23:48 +0000 (UTC), "Charles Vitez"
>>For anyone really interested, there is an unbridgable gulf between the
>>theology of Karaism and the theology of reform judaism.
>I'm interested, if it's not too much trouble,
Divnity and unity of the Torah text?
Jonathan J. Baker
>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in
>....
>> There is nothing in the Torah about the nature of an
>> afterlife, and I believe that this is deliberate. Why
>> should there be a resurrection on Earth? This is a
>> "goyische" idea which crept into Judaism, and I see it as
>> highly detrimental.
>Was this idea in the Jerusalem Talmud as well as the Babylonian
>one? I'm curious because it seems likely that this idea crept
>into Judaism during the time scholars worked in a largely Islamic
>world, which stresses this much more extremely.
Resurrection is also in the later Prophets, and expanded on in the
Talmud. There certainly are examples of reward & punishment in an
afterlife in the Talmud, long before the Islamic period.
Herman Rubin
>>Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>>> Herman Rubin <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote:
>>>:>As it is, though, the mishnah was a comprimise. It was R' Yehudah
>>>:>haNasi's desperate measure to preserve something despite the Hadrianic
>>>:>persecutions.
>>>: Hadrian? That was long before.
>>>The persecutions started by Hadrian in response to the Bar Kochva
>>>rebellion were still in force. Why do you think we see in that period
>>>the sudden rise of centers of learning in Sura and Pumpedisa, in Babylon?
>>>Judea was a hostile place to live.
>>Possibly they were on the statute books, but the Roman Empire
>>had long ceased to be so governed. It was a later persecution;
>>these went on and off, until Christianity became established
>>more than a century after the writing of the Mishnah, and then
>>forced a separation from Judaism, and made things worse.
>Xianity forced a separation from Judaism long before the Mishna:
>when they didn't join up with the rest of the Jews during the
>Bar Kochba rebellion. Why should we join up? We have The Messiah
>already.
It was not the type of separation set up by the Council
of Nicea. There were quite a few who claimed both to be
Jews and Christians.
Did all of the Jewish sects join the Bar Kochba rebellion?
The timing of that rebellion was supposed to be such that
the major unrest in the Roman Empire would cause other
groups to join; the Romans managed to keep this from
happening. Hadrian had lots of well-trained and combat
seasoned troops.
>>Why did the Academy not split, with some going to Babylonia?
>Some did. There was commerce between the academies of Bavel and
>Israel, not that they necessarily officially recognized each other
>as being the authoritative High Court for all of Israel. There's
>also some evidence that they didn't even recognize each other's
>smicha.
>>If the persecution was that bad, this would have been the
>>logical action; there was nothing particularly sacred about
>>the location of Yavneh.
>There were already Jews in Bavel, and had been for hundreds of
>years. They had, by then, set up their own institutions. See
>Graetz on the Mishnaic period.
I agree. Many did not return after the end of the Exile;
apparently, their status in Babylonia was not bad. Under
the Persians, the head of the Jewish community, the
Exilarch, was I believe the fourth ranking official.
It was the successful Persian revolt which caused the
Seleucids to attempt their forced Hellenization of what
was left of their realms, leading to the Maccabean revolt.
>>>In any case, you don't reply to the point. The mishnah was a compromise.
>>>Such sentiment is attributed to its compliler. "That which were given
>>>orally, it is inappropriate for you to write down." However, as it was
>>>"a time to act for G-d, overturn Your Torah", the inappropriateness was
>>>overlooked for the sake of preserving the entirety of Judaism.
>>Did they not overturn the Torah by instituting the beliefs of
>>one sect that their customs had become legendary law?
>No, since their customs *were* law. The authority of the Oral
>Torah, and of the Rabbis, rests on verses, so it's not an "overturning"
>of the Law. But you've heard all that before.
I have heard it, and have disagreed with it. Each sect had its
Oral Law. I suspect myself that the Great Assembly acted to
limit the influence of these on the others.
>>The Reform position, even before the group separated, was that
>>the secular knowledge gained invalidated much of the Talmudic
>>legislation, that the changed political situation of the Jews
>>invalidated more, and that it needed to be reexamined, and
>I don't think even the Orthodox would disagree with this:
>look at the vast stretches of criminal law and Temple
>observances discussed in the Talmud that have become mooted
>by history. But the law remains on the books, and is of
>value when it is studied.
It may be of historical value, but then it should be
removed from the books. The Temple observances clearly
cannot be carried out without the Temple, and probably need
to be reconsidered if we ever have the opportunity to build
a Third Temple.
But not only have some of the laws been mooted, but many
have to be completely reconsidered, even if not moot.
>>that so much of this had been accumulated that much needed to
>>be done quickly. The utter rejection of this by those who
>The utter rejection of pretty much everything else that was
>left as normative, current law in the Talmud and poskim,
>is what caused the split.
I get the opinion that much of this would be overthrown if
it was not believed that the current scholars are bound by
what the previous ones did. The Oral Law as sectarian
legislation means that any sect can overthrow it; as coming
from God, it cannot be changed. Tradition should only be
used if there is no reason to do otherwise, and most of it
needs to be redone ab ovo, using secular knowledge, and
ignoring most of the stretches made by those who really
wanted an authoritarian religion; this includes most of the
ones who did decide.
>>considered being bound by tradition to be more important is
>>what caused the split. The early Reform Jews overreacted in
>>a few matters, but made some attempt to get the dead material
>>out, and they did not even manage that, although they cut out
>>some which should have been left.
>Overreacted in many many matters: just because history has
>mooted part of the Law, doesn't mean that the whole Law is
>now invalid. It's the baby-bathwater thing.
I agree that it is not ALL invalid; but I would put the part
which should be thrown out as well over half. As I stated,
it has to be done by those who will not recognize anything
binding because Rabbi Meir or Maimonides or Yosef Karo said
it is.
>>We need a reconstruction of the Jewish religion from those who
>>start out with a strong body of secular knowledge, strong enough
>>to discard tradition and custom, and the exaggerations of the
>Many traditions and customs are getting reorganized, by the
>historical process of loss of tradition created by the destruction
>of cohesive Jewish communities that had sat in the same places for
>centuries in Europe.
>Much contemporary psak is based on strong secular knowledge,
>if not from the poskim themselves, then from their consultants.
>>past generations. It also has to be rather flexible, as the
>>saying, "Two Jews, three opinions," should hold even in religion.
>Which it does. The "rigid Orthodox" is a myth put forth by the
>liberal movements to win converts, and to make themselves feel
>superior. In reality, there are wide ranges in legal and philo-
>sophical opinion among the Orthodox.
These are quite narrow. One of the things which needs total
reconsideration is kashruth; the stretch of the one quoted
sentence to requiring separate dishes is what I personally
consider total meshuggah. That something is repeated three
times adds NOTHING; there was that much copying in combining
the sources. Few Conservative scholars are willing to agree
to the claim that the Torah was given to Moses by God.
>But we don't need to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and
>try to reconstruct a human being from COHN atoms. Better just
>to train up the baby right, and hope that he turns out to be a
>good person and a good Jew.
From a strictly secular standpoint, it seems that someone who
has been taught mathematical ritual (how to calculate) has a
MAJOR problem in obtaining any understanding, or applying it
appropriately. This is also the case in statistics. It was
observed in reading about 45 years ago, that the teaching of
reading by whole words produced people who read poorly, and
what was worse, often could not learn to read better. I have
argued that we need to break the stranglehold of the
educationists to ever have decent education; the stranglehold
of halakhah is, if anything, greater.
Herman Rubin
>....
>> There is nothing in the Torah about the nature of an
>> afterlife, and I believe that this is deliberate. Why
>> should there be a resurrection on Earth? This is a
>> "goyische" idea which crept into Judaism, and I see it as
>> highly detrimental.
>Was this idea in the Jerusalem Talmud as well as the Babylonian
>one? I'm curious because it seems likely that this idea crept
>into Judaism during the time scholars worked in a largely Islamic
>world, which stresses this much more extremely.
I do not know how much is in the Talmud, but it does not
seem to have any similarity to the Torah. I suspect that
it started with the dualism between the domain of good
and the domain of evil in Zoroastrianism, and that the
ideas were already present before Christianity.
Both Talmuds were essentially finished before Islam, the
Babylonian one not too long before. As I recall, the
Babylonian one was written because of the danger that
it would be lost because of the attempt to convert all
to Zoroastrianism.
Herman Rubin
>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote in message news:<a39uno$55d$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
...............
>Remember God's response to the story: "My children have
>conquered Me". Had they listened to the Bat Kol, His response
>would have been "My children have turned away from me."
Do you believe the miracles reported actually occurred?
The whole account is fictional.
>"The Torah is not in heaven" + "Do not add to it or take away
>from it" + "When a matter is too hard for you, go to the priests,
>levites and judges in your generation...do what they say, turning
>neither to the right or to the left" = absolute rabbinic authority
>to interpret and apply the Torah.
This section of the Torah clearly refers to civil disputes.
It also says "if it is too hard for you"; it does not allow
for preemptive decisions. Also, it says nothing about rulings
of earlier decisors.
How were the judges chosen? I doubt very much that any kind
of "rabbinate" were the ones chosen.
>>There are several ways the principles used for mathematical
>>derivation can be written down, and they have been, in a
>>few pages. With these principles, it is possible to verify
>A few pages? Three volumes of Whitehead & Russell, and it
>still didn't work - and was proven not to be a valid endeavor
>by Godel.
The principles occupy only a few pages.
This is the power of logical deduction. Even fully
expanded, the principles of the restricted predicate
calculus, which is what is used for proofs, fit in
less than five pages.
The axioms which Whitehead and Russell used, which do
not quite work, would take a comparable amount of space.
In his book, _Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis_,
Godel states the axioms for set theory in two or three
pages. There is another essentially equivalent set, also
statable in a few pages. The rest of this book, and all
the modern books on set theory, follow from these few
pages. Other branches of mathematics use a few more.
What Godel showed is that one could not answer whether
something was true or false in any system large enough
to develop the integers. But this does not mean that
the assumptions and methods of proof need more than a
few pages.
This is the power of the axiomatic approach; a few
pages of axioms and rules of inference provide enough
to do all of mathematics.
>And mathematics has been getting more & more refined over time.
With only a slow growth in definitions as more fields
are opened. The basic assumptions and rules of proof
may get reformulated, but this also does not take
volumes to promulgate. It may take volumes to prove.
>Why do you expect more from a system which has been getting
>fuzzier and fuzzier over time, as distance from the singular
>injection of data grows?
The essential lack of completeness is there as soon as
the integers are understood. Distance from data, beyond
this, is not the problem.
Micha Berger
:>Was this idea in the Jerusalem Talmud as well as the Babylonian
:>into Judaism during the time scholars worked in a largely Islamic
:>world, which stresses this much more extremely.
: Resurrection is also in the later Prophets, and expanded on in the
: Talmud. There certainly are examples of reward & punishment in an
: afterlife in the Talmud, long before the Islamic period.
You imply a correction I think should be made explicit.
Even if it's in the Babylonian Talmud, it would mean it predates Islam.
The first and primary round of redaction of the Talmud predates Mohammed.
Only a the occasional ammendment is from afterwards. And even them, before
Islam reached Babylon.
-mi
--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Eliyahu
"David Ehrens" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns91AD5629...@65.96.0.182...> news:a3qshc$nfo$1...@helle.btinternet.com:
>
> ....
> > I am antagonistic to falsehoods about the historical divide
> > between judaism and Karaism.
>
> understanding that Karaism is regarded as a sect with profoundly
> different beliefs and practices from O Judaism, but a part of
> Judaism nonetheless.
I can't speak for the Karaite POV, but I'm unaware of any part of Judaism
that considers them to be anything but a separate religion.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Charles Vitez
"Jewish Encyclopaedia" Funk & Wagnalls 1904?
It is probably all, anyone other than a researcher in esoteric religions,
would need to read to gain some mastery of the subject.
The author of the article is Harkavy. Unfortunately, his full work on the
Karaites seems only to be available in russian (if anyone has come accross
it in English, I would be most interested). In the same work, the articles
on Anan ben David and Nahawendi fill out the main article.
If you had the time and can access a major library's facilities, it could be
very interesting to follow up on some of the bibliography referred to below
the articles. Sadly, I have never been able to spare the time.
I do not own an Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, edition-current) and have
never actually looked at their articles on Karaism, but, based on the
general quality of the work, that should also be good.
There is some very interesting material on the Karaites in Graetz, but you
need to skim for it carefully between two volumes because he sticks pretty
rigidly to time-line.
Most modern historians of the jewish people, eg, Salo Baron, are less
interested in Karaism and the material in their works is generally more
sparse.
I recall that Dubnow wrote some important chapters in his History of the
Jewish People (I suspect relying heavily on Harkavy) but I can not find this
on my bookshelf. I probably never owned but borrowed when I read them some
20 or so years ago.
For a short and very concise appreciation I would suggest reference to
something like Margolis and Marx or Cecil Roth.
It does rather depend on how deeply you wish to go into the subject as to
what will suite you best, but the Harkavy article is a "must read".
My view as to the key difference between Karaism and the theology of all
strands of normative judaism is that even though you do have to dig down
very deep in Reform theology to find it, the basic adherence to rabbinic
theology is still there. Where the Karaite would dismiss any laws which do
not jump at him off the page of the Torah, all normative strands of judaism
would have recourse to rabbinic interpretation of a law. The written law is
the starting point not the start and finish.
I know that is a too simplistic generalisation of the Karaite theology -
they too have some oral law of sorts, but it is not the Oral Law..
Though I would argue that the Reform interpretation goes too often to dilute
rigid principles held sacred by orthodox jews throughout the ages, I do
recognise that they get to their position in a way which is not dissimilar
to how generations of orthodox rabbis have arrived at their code.
Charles Vitez
"Barbara" <ba...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:jlo26u4turcgsc8v8...@4ax.com...
Barbara
Thanks, I'll look for it. Is the pub. date really 1904?
Barbara
Jonathan J. Baker
>>In <due.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote in message news:<a39uno$55d$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
>>Remember God's response to the story: "My children have
>>conquered Me". Had they listened to the Bat Kol, His response
>>would have been "My children have turned away from me."
>Do you believe the miracles reported actually occurred?
>The whole account is fictional.
I'd say we've got a member of Rambam's Category Two here.
So? The point of the story is the moral lessons to be derived
from it. And the moral lesson is that the Torah is in the hands
of the rabbis to interpret, by God's authority and command.
>>"The Torah is not in heaven" + "Do not add to it or take away
>>from it" + "When a matter is too hard for you, go to the priests,
>>levites and judges in your generation...do what they say, turning
>>neither to the right or to the left" = absolute rabbinic authority
>>to interpret and apply the Torah.
>This section of the Torah clearly refers to civil disputes.
No it doesn't. Make a textual argument that it does.
>It also says "if it is too hard for you"; it does not allow
>for preemptive decisions. Also, it says nothing about rulings
>of earlier decisors.
Precedent is inherent in all legal systems. Does the Torah
need to say that the sky is blue for it to be true?
>How were the judges chosen? I doubt very much that any kind
>of "rabbinate" were the ones chosen.
Moses chose the elders of the tribes. Would you pick ignorami
to be your legislature/judiciary? Again, why does it need to
be stated?
>>>There are several ways the principles used for mathematical
>>>derivation can be written down, and they have been, in a
>>>few pages. With these principles, it is possible to verify
>>A few pages? Three volumes of Whitehead & Russell, and it
>>still didn't work - and was proven not to be a valid endeavor
>>by Godel.
>The principles occupy only a few pages.
>This is the power of logical deduction. Even fully
>expanded, the principles of the restricted predicate
>calculus, which is what is used for proofs, fit in
>less than five pages.
>The axioms which Whitehead and Russell used, which do
>not quite work, would take a comparable amount of space.
>In his book, _Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis_,
>Godel states the axioms for set theory in two or three
>pages. There is another essentially equivalent set, also
>statable in a few pages. The rest of this book, and all
>the modern books on set theory, follow from these few
>pages. Other branches of mathematics use a few more.
And the Rambam has 13 axioms. And the 613 mitzvot can
be expressed in a few pages.
>What Godel showed is that one could not answer whether
>something was true or false in any system large enough
>to develop the integers. But this does not mean that
>the assumptions and methods of proof need more than a
>few pages.
And you're looking for internal consistency in a 613-axiom
system, powerful enough to generate the entirety of Judaism?
>This is the power of the axiomatic approach; a few
>pages of axioms and rules of inference provide enough
>to do all of mathematics.
>>And mathematics has been getting more & more refined over time.
>With only a slow growth in definitions as more fields
>are opened. The basic assumptions and rules of proof
>may get reformulated, but this also does not take
>volumes to promulgate. It may take volumes to prove.
Exactly.
>>Why do you expect more from a system which has been getting
>>fuzzier and fuzzier over time, as distance from the singular
>>injection of data grows?
>The essential lack of completeness is there as soon as
>the integers are understood. Distance from data, beyond
>this, is not the problem.
Which is why mathematics and Torah are not analogous, much as
you would like them to be, and you would like the Torah to be
refutable in the same way as mathematical ideas can be refuted.
Charles Vitez
> "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:u6434t6...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> ....
> > I can't speak for the Karaite POV, but I'm unaware of any
> > part of Judaism that considers them to be anything but a
> > separate religion. --
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22karaites+are+jews%22
> &btnG=Google+Search
>
> "is not"
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22karaites+are+not+jews%22
> &btnG=Google+Search
**CV replies**
All very interesting but not at all reliable. Most of it appears to be
official Karaite apologia.
Difficult to understand why they should be so insistent on saying that they
only separated from Jews so as not to share in their suffering, when the
dates do not add up. Not altogether surprisingly the history makes no
mention of their cosying up to the Czar of all Russia and even assisting the
pogromniks - but that is what happened in the 19th century and is referred
to by a number of historians.
As to whether they are jews or not, none of the references you have referred
to help.
If judaism is defined as O, C and R - which it is, mutually, by members of
O, C and R - let us call them the heirs of rabbinic judaism, then Karaism,
however its membership chooses to define itself at any one time, is by
definition not judaism.
Charles Vitez
Micha Berger
: OCR do not define Judaism; they comprise a majority of Jews.
... in America. Other countries have different societal groupings. Although
the US is doing its darndest to export.
-mi
--
Micha Berger For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Susan Cohen
David Ehrens wrote:
> "Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:a3u13g$d20$1...@paris.btinternet.com:
>
> ....
> > If judaism is defined as O, C and R - which it is, mutually,
> > by members of O, C and R ...
>
> Whoa, there! What about Masorti, Reconstructionist, and who knows
> what else?
Most people file them under R, even if this is incorrect.
But they are thus counted when adding up the numbers, etc.
> OCR do not define Judaism; they comprise a majority of Jews.
So you're saying that even those in the minority - the non-believers,
the apostates (who absolutely denounce Judaism) & the ones who
have no idea that they *are* Jews *should* be the ones to define
Judaism? That we should even ask their opinion?
SusanC
Susan Cohen
David Ehrens wrote:
> I asked my original question because there are 30,000 Karaites
> in Israel at present, many of whom came under the Law of
> Return, I believe.
The Law of Return, of course, *not* being a religious ruling.
SusanC
Susan Cohen
David Ehrens wrote:
> Susan Cohen <fla...@hers.com> wrote in
> news:3C62BE7F...@hers.com:
>
> ....
> > So you're saying that even those in the minority - the
> > non-believers, the apostates (who absolutely denounce
> > Judaism) & the ones who have no idea that they *are* Jews
> > *should* be the ones to define Judaism? That we should even
> > ask their opinion?
>
> That's neither accurate nor well-intentioned misrepresentation
> of my quote.
What is not well-intentioned is you insisting that it's not.
If it's not accurate, then you should re-state what you said,
ebacsue the implication was clear.
> I didn't mention or intend non-believers or
> apostates; I mentioned Masorti and Reconstructionists.
And I already said that they were included.
> And we
> have seen what kind of mischief can happen when a single group
> (or even a single person) attempts to define who is a Jew.
So are you now saying that the conglomeration
of OCR - even *wthout* Masorti or Recon
is "a single group"?
Susan
Herman Rubin
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In <due.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote in message news:<a39uno$55d$1...@panix1.panix.com>...
>>>Remember God's response to the story: "My children have
>>>conquered Me". Had they listened to the Bat Kol, His response
>>>would have been "My children have turned away from me."
This is what the rabbis claim.
>>Do you believe the miracles reported actually occurred?
>>The whole account is fictional.
>I'd say we've got a member of Rambam's Category Two here.
Even the Pirke Avoth rabbis were suspicious of miracles.
One thing I like about quantum physics is that it does
leave room for Divine intervention and free will in a
lawful universe, but only to the extent that it cannot
be seen as a violation of the laws.
If something must be considered to be a miracle, it is a
strong candidate for outright rejection.
>So? The point of the story is the moral lessons to be derived
>from it. And the moral lesson is that the Torah is in the hands
>of the rabbis to interpret, by God's authority and command.
So say the rabbis. This puts the rabbis above the prophets
and all the Biblical figures. This argument would justify
the theocrats of the world, who are among the worst of the
terrorists, and the promoters of terrorism.
>>>"The Torah is not in heaven" + "Do not add to it or take away
>>>from it" + "When a matter is too hard for you, go to the priests,
>>>levites and judges in your generation...do what they say, turning
>>>neither to the right or to the left" = absolute rabbinic authority
>>>to interpret and apply the Torah.
>>This section of the Torah clearly refers to civil disputes.
>No it doesn't. Make a textual argument that it does.
The section is introduced by
"If there arise a matter which is too hard for you in judgment,
between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between
stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within your
gates"
This is clearly referring to civil matters.
................
>>How were the judges chosen? I doubt very much that any kind
>>of "rabbinate" were the ones chosen.
>Moses chose the elders of the tribes. Would you pick ignorami
>to be your legislature/judiciary? Again, why does it need to
>be stated?
Moses was the civil authority. As for picking ignorami, I
would say that this tends to be the situation for both.
It is very difficult for a true scholar to become either,
as both being a legislator and being a judge are sufficiently
time-consuming as to prevent scholarly activity, and it is
quite often the case that an ex-scholar is just what one
does not want.
>>>>There are several ways the principles used for mathematical
>>>>derivation can be written down, and they have been, in a
>>>>few pages. With these principles, it is possible to verify
>>>A few pages? Three volumes of Whitehead & Russell, and it
>>>still didn't work - and was proven not to be a valid endeavor
>>>by Godel.
>>The principles occupy only a few pages.
>>This is the power of logical deduction. Even fully
>>expanded, the principles of the restricted predicate
>>calculus, which is what is used for proofs, fit in
>>less than five pages.
>>The axioms which Whitehead and Russell used, which do
>>not quite work, would take a comparable amount of space.
>>In his book, _Consistency of the Continuum Hypothesis_,
>>Godel states the axioms for set theory in two or three
>>pages. There is another essentially equivalent set, also
>>statable in a few pages. The rest of this book, and all
>>the modern books on set theory, follow from these few
>>pages. Other branches of mathematics use a few more.
>And the Rambam has 13 axioms. And the 613 mitzvot can
>be expressed in a few pages.
Besides axioms, one needs rules of inference. These are
totally lacking. Rabbi Ishmael's 13 principles (13 again?)
are sufficiently vague that they can lead to almost
anything. They are statements about what sort of evidence
can be included in an argument, but not about whether the
argument is valid. As they can lead to quite contradictory
results, we are back to the beginning.
You have seen the arguments here; if you really put them to
the test, I believe most nominally Orthodox Jews, if they
thought, would reject them. We have already seen that both
the Conservative and Reform scholars completely reject the
idea that the Torah comes from Moses, which is one of those
13. Once that is rejected, much of halakhah has its basis
removed, as a big part of the basis is that the Oral Law
comes from Moses as well.
Most of those 613 are derived, not axioms. Many of us have
questioned the derivations as being other than mere
philosophical invention. Until modern times, the rabbis
were NECESSARILY ignorant, but this does not excuse their
outlandish exegesis. If anything, the term is too weak.
>>What Godel showed is that one could not answer whether
>>something was true or false in any system large enough
>>to develop the integers. But this does not mean that
>>the assumptions and methods of proof need more than a
>>few pages.
>And you're looking for internal consistency in a 613-axiom
>system, powerful enough to generate the entirety of Judaism?
In mathematics, if ANY inconsistency is found, the
axioms are IMMEDIATELY modified to remove it. There
may be alternate modifications. From an inconsistency,
one can get any result whatever.
>>This is the power of the axiomatic approach; a few
>>pages of axioms and rules of inference provide enough
>>to do all of mathematics.
>>>And mathematics has been getting more & more refined over time.
>>With only a slow growth in definitions as more fields
>>are opened. The basic assumptions and rules of proof
>>may get reformulated, but this also does not take
>>volumes to promulgate. It may take volumes to prove.
>Exactly.
>>>Why do you expect more from a system which has been getting
>>>fuzzier and fuzzier over time, as distance from the singular
>>>injection of data grows?
>>The essential lack of completeness is there as soon as
>>the integers are understood. Distance from data, beyond
>>this, is not the problem.
>Which is why mathematics and Torah are not analogous, much as
>you would like them to be, and you would like the Torah to be
>refutable in the same way as mathematical ideas can be refuted.
We have seen Jews driven from Judaism by the illogic of
those who claim the essentially Divine nature of halakhah.
Herman Rubin
Charles Vitez <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"David Ehrens" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:Xns91AE807...@65.96.0.178...
>> "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:u6434t6...@corp.supernews.com:
.................
>If judaism is defined as O, C and R - which it is, mutually, by members of
>O, C and R - let us call them the heirs of rabbinic judaism, then Karaism,
>however its membership chooses to define itself at any one time, is by
>definition not judaism.
Where did you get the idea that Judaism is restricted to
O, C, and R? There are other groups, and at least Reform
Judaism recognizes many of them as reasonable expressions
of Judaism.
Also, why should we restrict it to the heirs of rabbinic
Judaism, when much of the discussion is whether the rabbis
had any right to do it in the first place?
Eliyahu
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:a41f30$18...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
> In article <a3u13g$d20$1...@paris.btinternet.com>,
> Charles Vitez <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >"David Ehrens" <nos...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns91AE807...@65.96.0.178...
> >> "Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:u6434t6...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> .................
>
> >If judaism is defined as O, C and R - which it is, mutually, by members
of
> >O, C and R - let us call them the heirs of rabbinic judaism, then
Karaism,
> >however its membership chooses to define itself at any one time, is by
> >definition not judaism.
>
> Where did you get the idea that Judaism is restricted to
> O, C, and R? There are other groups, and at least Reform
> Judaism recognizes many of them as reasonable expressions
> of Judaism.
>
purchased a big yacht. He went to visit his mother and was wearing a
captain's hat. She asked him about it, and he told her, "Mama, I've got a
big yacht now, and I'm the captain." "Fine," she replied."By me, you're a
captain, and by you, you're a captain. But tell me, by other captains, are
you also a captain?"
Any group can make the assertion that what it practices and believes is
Judaism. Look at the so-called messianic Jewish groups. Whether or not
Karaism calls itself Judaism, unless it's recognized as such by other Jewish
organizations and by most Jews, it isn't Judaism.
> Also, why should we restrict it to the heirs of rabbinic
> Judaism, when much of the discussion is whether the rabbis
> had any right to do it in the first place?
>
Because that's all that's left?
Eliyahu
QandA
> Can I get away with just pointing you to the article on "Karaite" in the
> "Jewish Encyclopaedia" Funk & Wagnalls 1904?
> The author of the article is Harkavy. Unfortunately, his full work on the
I can also suggest "Rise of the Karaite Sect" by Zvi Cahn, 1937. The
author presents historical evidence and the positions of various
scholars, including Harkavy.
QandA
> > > 1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are not
> > > jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down a
> > Are you introducing a new definition of "who is a Jew"? Aren't they
> > Jews according to traditional halakhic definition?
> **CV replies**
> No new definition of who is a jew is required. The issue was settled 600
> years ago. They are not jews according to halakha. They are persons of a
> different faith.
> ***
All right. Perhaps I don't know halakha as well as I should. I was
under the impression that a child of Jewish parents who is not a
mamzer is Jewish no matter what. (Am I wrong?) Under this definition
they (or an overwhelming majority of them) are Jews, aren't they?
You _could_ argue that they are (or could reasonably be suspected of
being) mamzer because of "invalid divorces". But the same argument
could be made against Reform.
In your original post, you didn't say that they are not Jews, period.
You said "not Jews by religion". So I thought you were talking about
some other definition of who is a Jew.
Your statement that they are not Jews according to halakha is
-extremely- surprising. Could you provide references? Can any Orthodox
poster here verify this?
> > As for "Jews by religion"... Will you now say that "Reform Jews" is an
> > oxymoron as well?
> This is just another cheap debating shot. You know full well that any person
> who meets the halachik definition is a jew and most R are jews according to
> that. There is a vast difference in jewish law between a Karaite and a
> reform jew.
AFAIK, the principal problem with Karaites is that they do not believe
that Oral Torah was given by God. Reform don't believe this either.
What is the difference in law that you are referring to?
> They certainly avoided some persecution, but that was not their reason for
> dividing themselves from normative jews in these regions - much of it before
> persecutions started. Their theology and their hold on their membership
Whose idea was it to create the separation? IIUC, it was the idea of
the Rabbinical leadership. Is this not so?
> > Now, instead of relying on halakha to determine who is a Jew, you rely
> > on Nuremberg Laws? This is what I don't get. *If* you disagreed with
> > their religion, you would have used religious arguments.
> Another cheap debating shot. What I said was that by the time of the
> Nuremberg Laws they had been divided from the jewish community for many
> centuries so it is not too surprising that the nazis accepted that they were
> not jews. They would also have accepted that the Frankist and Shabtaians
> were also not jews.
Excuse me. I must have misread what you said. I thought you were
accusing them of crimes against Jews.
As for Shabbateans and Frankists: they do not believe that there are
any standards to follow. In fact, they purposefully transgressed laws
that are clearly stated in the Torah. They could very well have
intermarried, committed adultry and / or incest. It is because of this
that they are not Jews -- Nuremberg Laws and Nazis have nothing to do
with it.
> I am relying on nothing but documented history and repeat that I have no
> right to discuss a non-jewish person's beliefs. It is not for me to say if
> it is right or wrong, or even if it means that they are observers of the
> Noachide laws.
Cute. :)
> the Crimea, some or perhaps many did so because they collaborated. Because
> we do not have a clue as to their numbers in 1941, we do not know what
> proportion of the community collaborated. All I know is that not a few were
> arraigned in post 1945 trials. For me 1 is too many and I curse them into
> eternity.
I see.
> > Second, what are your views of Finland? Or France? What about the
> > Russians who collaborated with the Nazis? There were collaborators of
> > every nationality and religion.
> I hate them too.
And there were some Jews who collaborated as well. What's your point?
During war many people do many horrible and vile things. How does this
relate to the religious beliefs of the Karaites?
> Not only was he a forger on a grand scale and a thief, but he had the
I think you should write to the JTS. Maybe they'll come to their
senses and close down that exhibit.
> Karaism itself is of no current threat to judaism. The threat seems to be
> from those who use examples of break-away groups of 1000 years ago as some
> sort of justification to divide jewry today.
Who is dividing what? I don't know of any R Jews who want to divide
anything. Who is doing the dividing?
> > Both Karaites and Rabbanites claimed that Karaites had ideological
> > ties to the Sadducees. However, the historical evidence for this is
> > almost non-existent. Thus, as far as I can tell, it could be either
> > way.
> Curious! So if there is no evidence for something then we are to assume that
> it is a moot point? Masterful logic!
No. Rather,
1. Both parties to a big debate agreed on this point.
2. There is some weak evidence to support the point (references to the
Book of Zadok that were not refuted by Rabbanites, etc.)
3. There is no strong evidence to either support or refute the point.
4. Some scholars agree with it while others disagree.
5. I don't care either way.
You claim to be part of "normative" Judaism and follow the rabbis.
They said that Karaites have ideological ties to Sadducees. Why don't
you believe them?
Since you bring up Harkavy, he thought that there was a link between
Sadducees and Karaites. See "Rise of the Karaite Sect" by Cahn. On
page 18:
+++
The above would go to prove according to Harkavy that remnants of the
ancient Sadducees were still to be found in the eight and ninth
centuries, and that the Sefer Zadok had been passed down through the
ages to finally come to rest in the hands of the Sadducees' lineal
successors, the Karaites.
+++
> Curiously there is no evidence that Karaism pre-dated Anan - indeed the only
Again, see the above book. On page 26, the chronology is set as:
* early Karaites 600 - 750
* Ananites 750 - 810
* Benjaminites 810 - 850
* Karaites proper 850 - 1050
* latter Karaites 1050 -
The "early Karaites" are mentioned by Arabian historians. Further,
there are mentions of differences between "Karaites" and "Ananites".
> I had not realise that anyone was claiming that Mishna and Gemara are
> nullified by R and C theology. In all my readings in SCJM the assertion has
I'm not sure what you mean by "nullify" but R do not believe that Oral
Torah was given to Moses on Sinai. Isn't that the problem with the
Karaites?
> > See http://www.jewishgates.org/personalities/basher.stm
> >
> > ++++
> > From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most
> > famous masorete [Aaron ben Moses ben Asher] (and, possibly, his family
> > for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.
> > ++++
> This seems to be a pretty unique connection made in this article. I am not
> in any position to comment on this beyond saying that I have not seen it
> made elsewhere and would add that this connection was not made by Dr Solomon
Did a quick web search. JTS agrees. See
http://www.jtsa.edu/library/news/btl/12_1index.shtml
Jonathan J. Baker
>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>In <due.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>>QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote
>>>>Remember God's response to the story: "My children have
>>>>conquered Me". Had they listened to the Bat Kol, His response
>>>>would have been "My children have turned away from me."
>This is what the rabbis claim.
>>>Do you believe the miracles reported actually occurred?
>>>The whole account is fictional.
>>I'd say we've got a member of Rambam's Category Two here.
>Even the Pirke Avoth rabbis were suspicious of miracles.
Yes, of miracles that were not certified. But once they
were put into the Torah, that certified them.
See Meiri on Avos on the ideas of "interpreting the Torah
non-halachically" and "scorning the festivals" (3:15), and
the limits of allegorizing miracles.
I wrote about some of these ideas in passing in
<http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/avot311.html>
>One thing I like about quantum physics is that it does
>leave room for Divine intervention and free will in a
>lawful universe, but only to the extent that it cannot
>be seen as a violation of the laws.
>If something must be considered to be a miracle, it is a
>strong candidate for outright rejection.
That's heresy according to Meiri. There are others who
say that miracles are part of the way the universe was
created - that's also in Avos, first mishna in I think
chapter 4. If statistical mechanics allow for the possibility
that all the molecules in the Red Sea moved aside for 12 hours,
and that the air molecules helped them, then, that's OK by you:
God just manipulated the statistics, similarly to Douglas Adams'
"Infinite Improbability Drive".
>>So? The point of the story is the moral lessons to be derived
>>from it. And the moral lesson is that the Torah is in the hands
>>of the rabbis to interpret, by God's authority and command.
>So say the rabbis. This puts the rabbis above the prophets
>and all the Biblical figures. This argument would justify
>the theocrats of the world, who are among the worst of the
>terrorists, and the promoters of terrorism.
The theocrats of the world don't have the Torah to authorize
them, so your argument falls flat.
>>>>"The Torah is not in heaven" + "Do not add to it or take away
>>>>from it" + "When a matter is too hard for you, go to the priests,
>>>>levites and judges in your generation...do what they say, turning
>>>>neither to the right or to the left" = absolute rabbinic authority
>>>>to interpret and apply the Torah.
>>>This section of the Torah clearly refers to civil disputes.
>>No it doesn't. Make a textual argument that it does.
>The section is introduced by
>"If there arise a matter which is too hard for you in judgment,
>between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between
>stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within your
>gates"
>This is clearly referring to civil matters.
Not at all. Blood and blood is clearly ritual matters: what is
kosher and what is not. what is valid sacrifice or food and
what is not. That's where blood shows up most often in the Torah,
in sacrifices and food. Plea and plea is civil law, claim and
counterclaim for monetary disagreements; stroke and stroke: makkah
and makkah, injury to others, is criminal law. All three areas are
justiciable.
That you make it refer to "clearly ... civil matters" is your
interpretation, not based on the text itself.
> ................
>>>How were the judges chosen? I doubt very much that any kind
>>>of "rabbinate" were the ones chosen.
>>Moses chose the elders of the tribes. Would you pick ignorami
>>to be your legislature/judiciary? Again, why does it need to
>>be stated?
>Moses was the civil authority. As for picking ignorami, I
Moses was the civil and religious authority all rolled into
one. After the Golden Calf business, religious authority
devolved upon Aharon and later, his sons. There is a touching
scene where Moshe is about to consecrate Aharon, and hesitates,
because he knows he is giving up ecclesiastical power. But he
retains the civil authority. The criminal authority was given
over to the hierarchy suggested by Yitro. But Moshe was still
the last word as to the Law. That authority then went to the
Bet Din Hagadol, originally constituted by Moshe from the tribal
elders. Through the Early Prophets: Joshua and Judges, the prophet
(taking over from Moshe) is primarily the political leader, as well
as (in Rashi's opinion), the authorized carrier of the Oral Law
tradition. When kings came up, even those roles split, and the
king took the political authority, leaving the prophet as the carrier
of the tradition and the spokesman for God, although by this point,
since the Torah did not authorize God to continue to give law, God's
voice becomes primarily mussar - advice, warnings, etc. to encourage
the Israelites to keep the Law.
>would say that this tends to be the situation for both.
>It is very difficult for a true scholar to become either,
>as both being a legislator and being a judge are sufficiently
>time-consuming as to prevent scholarly activity, and it is
>quite often the case that an ex-scholar is just what one
>does not want.
On the contrary. If the legislator is a politician, who controls
money flows, then yes. That's what we have in this country: the
legislators are also the exchequer, they hold the pursestrings.
If the legislator is divorced from the political leadership, then
creation of law becomes of a piece with application of the law and
interpretation of the law.
Malbim claims that there were 613 rules of inference, but we don't
know all of them any more. Rabbi Ishmael's 13 principles are understood
to be vague enough to construct anything; that's why they're specifically
limited in most cases to need a root in Sinaitic tradition. Without
being able to make a reliable claim for Sinaitic origin for an application
of the 13 rules, the resulting law is NOT accepted as authoritatively
Torah-itic. So if such an application contradicts a known, supported
legal principle, it cannot stand.
>You have seen the arguments here; if you really put them to
>the test, I believe most nominally Orthodox Jews, if they
>thought, would reject them. We have already seen that both
Well, certainly the oversimplistic, non-text-based versions
presented for our ridicule by our opponents.
>the Conservative and Reform scholars completely reject the
>idea that the Torah comes from Moses, which is one of those
Wrong 13. You were talking about R' Ishmael's 13, not Rambam's
13.
>13. Once that is rejected, much of halakhah has its basis
>removed, as a big part of the basis is that the Oral Law
>comes from Moses as well.
Which is why many of us say that C/R are a different religion.
They have different legal processes, based on different axioms/
principles, which lead to different conclusions from Judaism.
>Most of those 613 are derived, not axioms. Many of us have
All of them are axioms, at least according to some, such as
Abrabanel.
>questioned the derivations as being other than mere
>philosophical invention. Until modern times, the rabbis
>were NECESSARILY ignorant, but this does not excuse their
>outlandish exegesis. If anything, the term is too weak.
That you define the rabbis as NECESSARILY ignorant tells us
a lot about you, but nothing about Judaism. Rambam's Category
Two takes you in like a lover...
>>>What Godel showed is that one could not answer whether
>>>something was true or false in any system large enough
>>>to develop the integers. But this does not mean that
>>>the assumptions and methods of proof need more than a
>>>few pages.
>>And you're looking for internal consistency in a 613-axiom
>>system, powerful enough to generate the entirety of Judaism?
>In mathematics, if ANY inconsistency is found, the
>axioms are IMMEDIATELY modified to remove it. There
>may be alternate modifications. From an inconsistency,
>one can get any result whatever.
So? then they're not axioms. Lobachevskiian geometry
is not Euclidean geometry; so too C/R are not Judaism.
>>>This is the power of the axiomatic approach; a few
>>>pages of axioms and rules of inference provide enough
>>>to do all of mathematics.
>>>>And mathematics has been getting more & more refined over time.
>>>With only a slow growth in definitions as more fields
>>>are opened. The basic assumptions and rules of proof
>>>may get reformulated, but this also does not take
>>>volumes to promulgate. It may take volumes to prove.
>>Exactly.
>>>>Why do you expect more from a system which has been getting
>>>>fuzzier and fuzzier over time, as distance from the singular
>>>>injection of data grows?
>>>The essential lack of completeness is there as soon as
>>>the integers are understood. Distance from data, beyond
>>>this, is not the problem.
>>Which is why mathematics and Torah are not analogous, much as
>>you would like them to be, and you would like the Torah to be
>>refutable in the same way as mathematical ideas can be refuted.
>We have seen Jews driven from Judaism by the illogic of
>those who claim the essentially Divine nature of halakhah.
No. We have seen Jews driven from Judaism by the temptations
of the modern world, and by insufficient education in the complexities
of the Jewish system.
Or, We have seen students driven from mathematics by the illogic
of those who claim the essentially logical and clear nature of
mathematics. When Diffy-Q's exist in the universe of mathematics,
which are essentially approached as illogical tricks.
Henry Goodman
"QandA" <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:edb3698b.02020...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<a3qshc$nfo$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > > 1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are
not
> > > > jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down
a
>
> > > Are you introducing a new definition of "who is a Jew"? Aren't they
> > > Jews according to traditional halakhic definition?
>
> > **CV replies**
> > No new definition of who is a jew is required. The issue was settled 600
> > years ago. They are not jews according to halakha. They are persons of a
> > different faith.
> > ***
>
> All right. Perhaps I don't know halakha as well as I should. I was
> under the impression that a child of Jewish parents who is not a
> mamzer is Jewish no matter what. (Am I wrong?) Under this definition
> they (or an overwhelming majority of them) are Jews, aren't they?
>
> You _could_ argue that they are (or could reasonably be suspected of
> being) mamzer because of "invalid divorces". But the same argument
> could be made against Reform.
For your information a mamzer is a Jew and has to observe the mitzvot. There
are limitations on whom he or she nay marry.
--
Henry Goodman
henry....@virgin.net
10/2/02 11 a.m. GMT
Herman Rubin
Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.................
>Eliyahu
I suggest we consider readmitting those the rabbis drove
out because they did not meet the standards of the rabbis.
Quite a few of the Orthodox Jewish leaders, and the posters
on this newsgroup, claim that Reform Judaism is not
Judaism. I personally consider Karaites to be closer
to Torah Judaism than the claims of following a Mosaic Oral
Law, or even an Ezra-Nehemiah version of that, made by the
Orthodox. You have seen my postings in which I argue that
they have misread the Torah in such a way as to claim that
they can give preemptive interpretations.
I do not see any movement now as being ready to attempt to
reconstruct the religion as a religion, but the Karaites
might possibly be closer than any, I do not know enough
about them. What I do know indicates that they do a
better job of following the Torah than the Orthodox, who
have added their inventions to it.
QandA
> Any group can make the assertion that what it practices and believes is
> Judaism. Look at the so-called messianic Jewish groups. Whether or not
> Karaism calls itself Judaism, unless it's recognized as such by other Jewish
> organizations and by most Jews, it isn't Judaism.
Good idea. Let's vote. I'm unsure about a lot of things in Judaism.
Let's vote on them too.
"Messianic Jews" do not practice Judaism because they worship a dead
man. The same goes for any other group that worships a dead man. How
does this relate to Karaism?
Charles Vitez
"adhesions". Just like rabbinic oral law was essential to make sense of the
Torah, they were forced to create their own halakha, only they had to make
it very different from ours.
One of the least attractive features of their various methods of
interpretation is the close reliance they have on Moslem theology. The
methodology of interpreting the Koran may do very well in Islam but is quite
inappropriate for anything as complex as the Torah.
Oh, and I personally think that the rabbis did a very good job of making the
Torah relevant to every generation of jews.
Charles Vitez
"Herman Rubin" <hru...@stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:a477ho$3e...@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
Ben Dreyfus
>In article <Xns91AD5EEF...@65.96.0.178>,
>>> who start out with a strong body of secular knowledge,
>>> strong enough to discard tradition and custom, and the
>>> rather flexible, as the saying, "Two Jews, three opinions,"
>>> should hold even in religion.
>Except that Reconstructionism did not consider the religion
>but the culture.
A key part of Kaplan's thesis was that the religion and culture are
inseparable.
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
Herman Rubin
Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>In <> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>In <due.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>>>QandA <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) wrote
>>>>>Remember God's response to the story: "My children have
>>>>>conquered Me". Had they listened to the Bat Kol, His response
>>>>>would have been "My children have turned away from me."
>>This is what the rabbis claim.
>>>>Do you believe the miracles reported actually occurred?
>>>>The whole account is fictional.
>>>I'd say we've got a member of Rambam's Category Two here.
>>Even the Pirke Avoth rabbis were suspicious of miracles.
>Yes, of miracles that were not certified. But once they
>were put into the Torah, that certified them.
This is assuming that those who put them into the Torah
had accurate knowledge. As there is much of the Torah
which violates much knowledge from far more credible
sources, this argument cannot be made.
>See Meiri on Avos on the ideas of "interpreting the Torah
>non-halachically" and "scorning the festivals" (3:15), and
>the limits of allegorizing miracles.
Philosophers keep finding non-existent black cats.
>I wrote about some of these ideas in passing in
><http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/avot311.html>
>>One thing I like about quantum physics is that it does
>>leave room for Divine intervention and free will in a
>>lawful universe, but only to the extent that it cannot
>>be seen as a violation of the laws.
>>If something must be considered to be a miracle, it is a
>>strong candidate for outright rejection.
>That's heresy according to Meiri. There are others who
>say that miracles are part of the way the universe was
>created - that's also in Avos, first mishna in I think
>chapter 4. If statistical mechanics allow for the possibility
>that all the molecules in the Red Sea moved aside for 12 hours,
>and that the air molecules helped them, then, that's OK by you:
>God just manipulated the statistics, similarly to Douglas Adams'
>"Infinite Improbability Drive".
Who needs that? We have a historical record of Napoleon
riding across the neck of the shallow lakes which are no
longer there because of the building of the Suez Canal.
This was part of the northeast boundary of Egypt back then,
and a literal reading of "yam suf" is "boundary sea".
Hertz comments that the chariots got stuck in the mud.
Unlike modern horse-drawn vehicles, chariots had extremely
narrow wheels, as the only harnesses available did not
allow the horses to use their strength. The horsecollar
was not invented until the middle ages.
Injury to others is civil law; there is no criminal law in the
Mosaic Code other than offenses against God. Except for murder,
the law code imposes civil damages only.
>That you make it refer to "clearly ... civil matters" is your
>interpretation, not based on the text itself.
Until late medieval times, criminal matters were offenses
against God or the state. Looking at the punishments in
the Mosaic Code can enlighten the mind on this. The use of
prison as punishment, for example, is a modern perversion
of real justice. Joseph was not put into prison to punish
him, but to hold him for a trial which Potiphar was determined
not to have, as he could see no good outcome.
................
>>>>How were the judges chosen? I doubt very much that any kind
>>>>of "rabbinate" were the ones chosen.
>>>Moses chose the elders of the tribes. Would you pick ignorami
>>>to be your legislature/judiciary? Again, why does it need to
>>>be stated?
>>Moses was the civil authority. As for picking ignorami, I
>Moses was the civil and religious authority all rolled into
>one. After the Golden Calf business, religious authority
>devolved upon Aharon and later, his sons. There is a touching
>scene where Moshe is about to consecrate Aharon, and hesitates,
>because he knows he is giving up ecclesiastical power.
Did Moshe WANT ecclesiastic power? Did he even WANT civil power?
But he
>retains the civil authority. The criminal authority was given
>over to the hierarchy suggested by Yitro.
I read this section differently. Moshe must have known about
using lower courts; he was brought up in the Egyptian court,
and it would have been obvious to him that one person cannot
act as the sole judge of many. However, if the alternate
reading of the number of people is to be considered, and there
were between 5000 and 6000 men of fighting age, he might have
considered the possibility, and tried it, not trusting those
he would have to appoint. But there were few criminal laws.
But Moshe was still
>the last word as to the Law.
As was Judah, as the head of his subtribe, in the trial of
Tamar for adultery. Tribal heads and other rulers usually
were the court of appeals. I have seen the sites where the
Mogul rulers of India held their courts for both the nobles
and the common people; this was 17th century.
That authority then went to the
>Bet Din Hagadol, originally constituted by Moshe from the tribal
>elders. Through the Early Prophets: Joshua and Judges, the prophet
>(taking over from Moshe) is primarily the political leader, as well
>as (in Rashi's opinion), the authorized carrier of the Oral Law
>tradition. When kings came up, even those roles split, and the
>king took the political authority, leaving the prophet as the carrier
>of the tradition and the spokesman for God, although by this point,
>since the Torah did not authorize God to continue to give law, God's
>voice becomes primarily mussar - advice, warnings, etc. to encourage
>the Israelites to keep the Law.
Partly clear history, and partly rabbinic opinion.
>>would say that this tends to be the situation for both.
>>It is very difficult for a true scholar to become either,
>>as both being a legislator and being a judge are sufficiently
>>time-consuming as to prevent scholarly activity, and it is
>>quite often the case that an ex-scholar is just what one
>>does not want.
>On the contrary. If the legislator is a politician, who controls
>money flows, then yes. That's what we have in this country: the
>legislators are also the exchequer, they hold the pursestrings.
>If the legislator is divorced from the political leadership, then
>creation of law becomes of a piece with application of the law and
>interpretation of the law.
So what is new? The kings had much of this power in ancient
times; who enforced the limitations on kings? It was mainly
those who had the military power to overthrow them. The nobles
very often had that power, so kept the king in check. And in
any case, what has this to do with having any intellectual
ability whatever?
This is why democracy is possibly the worst form of tyranny.
Does the mob fear overthrow? A term often used is, "The
inmates running the asylum".
However, the rabbis did not believe in individual freedom.
Possibly the early Academy members were somewhat circumspect
in trying to wipe out the heresies, even with the explicit
support of Rome. But later, the rabbis had no such qualms
about wild philosophizing.
Rambam's 13 are statements of dogma, not rules of inference.
>>13. Once that is rejected, much of halakhah has its basis
>>removed, as a big part of the basis is that the Oral Law
>>comes from Moses as well.
>Which is why many of us say that C/R are a different religion.
>They have different legal processes, based on different axioms/
>principles, which lead to different conclusions from Judaism.
>>Most of those 613 are derived, not axioms. Many of us have
>All of them are axioms, at least according to some, such as
>Abrabanel.
>>questioned the derivations as being other than mere
>>philosophical invention. Until modern times, the rabbis
>>were NECESSARILY ignorant, but this does not excuse their
>>outlandish exegesis. If anything, the term is too weak.
>That you define the rabbis as NECESSARILY ignorant tells us
>a lot about you, but nothing about Judaism. Rambam's Category
>Two takes you in like a lover...
No, the rabbis were necessarily ignorant about God's real
laws, the laws governing the universe. Those laws cannot
even be bent. The rabbis were also necessarily ignorant
about the history of even a few centuries earlier, including
the history of the time of Ezra, and more so about the time
of the First Kingdom or before.
>>>>What Godel showed is that one could not answer whether
>>>>something was true or false in any system large enough
>>>>to develop the integers. But this does not mean that
>>>>the assumptions and methods of proof need more than a
>>>>few pages.
>>>And you're looking for internal consistency in a 613-axiom
>>>system, powerful enough to generate the entirety of Judaism?
>>In mathematics, if ANY inconsistency is found, the
>>axioms are IMMEDIATELY modified to remove it. There
>>may be alternate modifications. From an inconsistency,
>>one can get any result whatever.
>So? then they're not axioms. Lobachevskiian geometry
>is not Euclidean geometry; so too C/R are not Judaism.
Or is it possible that Orthodoxy is not Judaism instead?
Euclidean Geometry and Lobachevskian geometry are both
parts of mathematics, as is Riemannian geometry and
those branches of geometry which do not even have
congruent triangles. BTW, their local properties are
based on Euclidean geometry plus deviations.
You claim that God did certain things, and that certain
things happened; we have strong evidence that this was
not so. We have the early myths which gave rise to many
of the legends in the Torah and Tanakh; I have seen the
text of ancient Ugaritic religious songs which are so
similar to some of the psalms that the conversion by the
Israelites is obvious. The flood story is so close to
the Babylonian one that it can only be considered a
depaganization of that, and that one can be traced to
an earlier Sumerian river flood story.
>>>>This is the power of the axiomatic approach; a few
>>>>pages of axioms and rules of inference provide enough
>>>>to do all of mathematics.
>>>>>And mathematics has been getting more & more refined over time.
>>>>With only a slow growth in definitions as more fields
>>>>are opened. The basic assumptions and rules of proof
>>>>may get reformulated, but this also does not take
>>>>volumes to promulgate. It may take volumes to prove.
>>>Exactly.
>>>>>Why do you expect more from a system which has been getting
>>>>>fuzzier and fuzzier over time, as distance from the singular
>>>>>injection of data grows?
>>>>The essential lack of completeness is there as soon as
>>>>the integers are understood. Distance from data, beyond
>>>>this, is not the problem.
>>>Which is why mathematics and Torah are not analogous, much as
>>>you would like them to be, and you would like the Torah to be
>>>refutable in the same way as mathematical ideas can be refuted.
>>We have seen Jews driven from Judaism by the illogic of
>>those who claim the essentially Divine nature of halakhah.
>No. We have seen Jews driven from Judaism by the temptations
>of the modern world, and by insufficient education in the complexities
>of the Jewish system.
If Orthodoxy claims that Jews must be illogical, so be it.
>Or, We have seen students driven from mathematics by the illogic
>of those who claim the essentially logical and clear nature of
>mathematics. When Diffy-Q's exist in the universe of mathematics,
>which are essentially approached as illogical tricks.
What is illogical about differential equations? The
universe of mathematics is purely abstract; many have
pointed out what they consider to be the "unreasonable
effectiveness of mathematics".
Or as some have stated, if it cannot be put into mathematics,
it is opinion.
Charles Vitez
Please see my comments below.
Charles Vitez
"QandA" <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:edb3698b.02020...@posting.google.com...
> "Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<a3qshc$nfo$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
>
> > > > 1. To say "Karaite Jews" is an oxymoron. By definition, Karaites are
not
> > > > jews by religion. At one time they were jews, but having driven down
a
>
> > > Are you introducing a new definition of "who is a Jew"? Aren't they
> > > Jews according to traditional halakhic definition?
>
> > **CV replies**
> > No new definition of who is a jew is required. The issue was settled 600
> > years ago. They are not jews according to halakha. They are persons of a
> > different faith.
> > ***
>
> All right. Perhaps I don't know halakha as well as I should. I was
> under the impression that a child of Jewish parents who is not a
> mamzer is Jewish no matter what. (Am I wrong?) Under this definition
> they (or an overwhelming majority of them) are Jews, aren't they?
>
> You _could_ argue that they are (or could reasonably be suspected of
> being) mamzer because of "invalid divorces". But the same argument
> could be made against Reform.
>
> In your original post, you didn't say that they are not Jews, period.
> You said "not Jews by religion". So I thought you were talking about
> some other definition of who is a Jew.
**CV replies**
By definition, when one says that a person is not a jew by religion, if one
is speaking from a jewish viewpoint, one is saying that the person is not
halakhically jewish.
**
>
> Your statement that they are not Jews according to halakha is
> -extremely- surprising. Could you provide references? Can any Orthodox
> poster here verify this?
>
**CV replies**
In the 12th century in Spain they were put under a perpetual ban and this
ban was gradually recognised by all normative jewish communities during the
following centuries. By the 14th century the separation was complete.
***
> > > As for "Jews by religion"... Will you now say that "Reform Jews" is an
> > > oxymoron as well?
>
> > This is just another cheap debating shot. You know full well that any
person
> > who meets the halachik definition is a jew and most R are jews according
to
> > that. There is a vast difference in jewish law between a Karaite and a
> > reform jew.
>
> AFAIK, the principal problem with Karaites is that they do not believe
> that Oral Torah was given by God. Reform don't believe this either.
>
> What is the difference in law that you are referring to?
**CV replies **
The members of Reform communities are not the subject of a perpetual ban.
***
>
> > They certainly avoided some persecution, but that was not their reason
for
> > dividing themselves from normative jews in these regions - much of it
before
> > persecutions started. Their theology and their hold on their membership
>
> Whose idea was it to create the separation? IIUC, it was the idea of
> the Rabbinical leadership. Is this not so?
**CV replies**
Please read what I say. Their own theology is distinctive and divides them
from judaism. Their leadership liked it that way, because it meant that they
could retain their adherents more easily. This is not at all an unusual
phenomenon in schismatic sects. They claimed separation long before freedom
from persecution could have made it an attractive option just for that
reason.
The perpetual ban was not all bad from the Karaite leadership's point of
view.
***
>
> > > Now, instead of relying on halakha to determine who is a Jew, you rely
> > > on Nuremberg Laws? This is what I don't get. *If* you disagreed with
> > > their religion, you would have used religious arguments.
>
> > Another cheap debating shot. What I said was that by the time of the
> > Nuremberg Laws they had been divided from the jewish community for many
> > centuries so it is not too surprising that the nazis accepted that they
were
> > not jews. They would also have accepted that the Frankist and Shabtaians
> > were also not jews.
>
> Excuse me. I must have misread what you said. I thought you were
> accusing them of crimes against Jews.
>
> As for Shabbateans and Frankists: they do not believe that there are
> any standards to follow. In fact, they purposefully transgressed laws
> that are clearly stated in the Torah. They could very well have
> intermarried, committed adultry and / or incest. It is because of this
> that they are not Jews -- Nuremberg Laws and Nazis have nothing to do
> with it.
**CV replies**
Apostasy can take many forms. If the apostasy took place 4 generations
before, the Nuremberg Laws would not define the person as a jew. As you can
see, the Karaites left judaism 600 to 800 years previously. They certainly
had nothing to fear from the Nuremberg laws.
***
>
> > I am relying on nothing but documented history and repeat that I have no
> > right to discuss a non-jewish person's beliefs. It is not for me to say
if
> > it is right or wrong, or even if it means that they are observers of the
> > Noachide laws.
>
> Cute. :)
>
>
> > the Crimea, some or perhaps many did so because they collaborated.
Because
> > we do not have a clue as to their numbers in 1941, we do not know what
> > proportion of the community collaborated. All I know is that not a few
were
> > arraigned in post 1945 trials. For me 1 is too many and I curse them
into
> > eternity.
>
> I see.
>
> > > Second, what are your views of Finland? Or France? What about the
> > > Russians who collaborated with the Nazis? There were collaborators of
> > > every nationality and religion.
>
> > I hate them too.
>
> And there were some Jews who collaborated as well. What's your point?
> During war many people do many horrible and vile things. How does this
> relate to the religious beliefs of the Karaites?
**CV replies**
You tell me.
All that I see this having relevance to is the rather important point that
Karaites in modern times (from Firkovitch to the Nazi collaborators) have
chosen to ally themselves to our persecutors. That is bound to colour my
views on them.
You asked me why I was so anti the Karaites as a group of people (not as a
religion - that is not my concern but theirs), my simple answer is that I
really dislike people who seek to harm me, my family, the jewish people,
indeed any human being.
***
>
> > Not only was he a forger on a grand scale and a thief, but he had the
>
> I think you should write to the JTS. Maybe they'll come to their
> senses and close down that exhibit.
**CV replies**
Or maybe, they are pursuing an agenda? Let's face it the Karaites are a
miniscule group of absolutely no current relevance. Their interaction with
jewry in the recent past has been shameful and yet the JTS puts them forward
as an example of authentic judaism, why?
Could this be part of the programme for a further divisive lurch away from
orthodoxy?
I certainly fear so.
***
>
> > Karaism itself is of no current threat to judaism. The threat seems to
be
> > from those who use examples of break-away groups of 1000 years ago as
some
> > sort of justification to divide jewry today.
>
> Who is dividing what? I don't know of any R Jews who want to divide
> anything. Who is doing the dividing?
>
> > > Both Karaites and Rabbanites claimed that Karaites had ideological
> > > ties to the Sadducees. However, the historical evidence for this is
> > > almost non-existent. Thus, as far as I can tell, it could be either
> > > way.
>
> > Curious! So if there is no evidence for something then we are to assume
that
> > it is a moot point? Masterful logic!
>
> No. Rather,
> 1. Both parties to a big debate agreed on this point.
> 2. There is some weak evidence to support the point (references to the
> Book of Zadok that were not refuted by Rabbanites, etc.)
> 3. There is no strong evidence to either support or refute the point.
> 4. Some scholars agree with it while others disagree.
> 5. I don't care either way.
>
> You claim to be part of "normative" Judaism and follow the rabbis.
> They said that Karaites have ideological ties to Sadducees. Why don't
> you believe them?
**CV replies**
The ties you claim to perceive are superficial. Sure the Karaites claimed an
ideological paternity in the Tzadukim and Firkovitch forged plenty of stuff
to back that up. If you want to say that your religion pre-dates rabbinic
judaism, you work backwards and find the defeated strand and then claim to
be directly descended from it.
We are used to other religions claiming such things so as to supplant ours
eg, Xtianity.
***
>
> Since you bring up Harkavy, he thought that there was a link between
> Sadducees and Karaites. See "Rise of the Karaite Sect" by Cahn. On
> page 18:
>
> +++
> The above would go to prove according to Harkavy that remnants of the
> ancient Sadducees were still to be found in the eight and ninth
> centuries, and that the Sefer Zadok had been passed down through the
> ages to finally come to rest in the hands of the Sadducees' lineal
> successors, the Karaites.
> +++
>
**CV replies**
Who is Cahn?
Funny that Harkavy fails to mention this in his article in the Jewish
Encyclopaedia. There is nothing about "lineal successors" there.
What is Sefer Zadok? This is presumably some sort of priestly code given the
"Zadok". I have never come accross it. Is this another great Firkovitch
discovery?
***
> > Curiously there is no evidence that Karaism pre-dated Anan - indeed the
only
>
> Again, see the above book. On page 26, the chronology is set as:
> * early Karaites 600 - 750
> * Ananites 750 - 810
> * Benjaminites 810 - 850
> * Karaites proper 850 - 1050
> * latter Karaites 1050 -
>
> The "early Karaites" are mentioned by Arabian historians. Further,
> there are mentions of differences between "Karaites" and "Ananites".
>
**CV replies**
You begin to worry me. This is not some sort of Karaite apologia book is it?
***
> > I had not realise that anyone was claiming that Mishna and Gemara are
> > nullified by R and C theology. In all my readings in SCJM the assertion
has
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "nullify" but R do not believe that Oral
> Torah was given to Moses on Sinai. Isn't that the problem with the
> Karaites?
>
**CV replies**
Please read what I have said. The problem with the Karaites is that they are
not jews but another religion.
***
> > > See http://www.jewishgates.org/personalities/basher.stm
> > >
> > > ++++
> > > From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most
> > > famous masorete [Aaron ben Moses ben Asher] (and, possibly, his family
> > > for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites.
> > > ++++
>
> > This seems to be a pretty unique connection made in this article. I am
not
> > in any position to comment on this beyond saying that I have not seen it
> > made elsewhere and would add that this connection was not made by Dr
Solomon
>
> Did a quick web search. JTS agrees. See
> http://www.jtsa.edu/library/news/btl/12_1index.shtml
**CV replies**
The item also refers to Firkovitch as the greatest of all collectors of
hebrew manuscripts, indeed enthusiastically putting him ahead of Dr
Schechter. If a thief (yes he stole manuscripts from jews on the basis of a
"black hundreds" dispensation) and a forger (yes Harkavy found him out) is
to be lauded by the institution founded by Dr Schechter then what can I say?
I would like to take this opportunity to warn readers of this NG. We may
well come to a point where continued jewish religious and national unity is
no longer relevant - I do not believe that is the case today. I for one will
be considerably saddened if this happened and I hope that my jewish brethren
on this NG who follow the various reform strands would also find this a sad
parting of the ways.
But, and this seems to be clear from the treatment of small issues such as
this, some of the leadership and some of the thinkers in the various reform
strands are now deliberately driving their membership towards this goal.
It seems to me that they are moving surreptitiously because if the
membership realised the implications of this agenda, they would draw back.
They deny such a goal. All they are doing they will say is showing
alternative viewpoints - surely that is the democratic way? If anyone is
forcing a split it is the orthodox by not recognising us as a legitimate
alternative.
I think their actions are shameful humbug.
Is bringing the Sadduccees and Karaism back into the fold such an important
objective for Reform? Do these ideologues really care tuppence about these
defunt sects? I don't think so!
It is just another tool to use to prise open a rupture.
***
Ben Dreyfus
>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>"Other religious influences" were
>>not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
>>to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
>>to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
>I don't want to turn this into R bashing, so please take this
>question in that spirit. In what sense is moving the services to
>Sunday only "slightly" non-Jewish? I see no Jewish content at all
>in such a change.
They didn't move Shabbat to Sunday (as is sometimes accused); they put the
communal service at the time when most of the community was available, for
the same pragmatic reasons that Torah reading was instituted on Monday and
Thursday over 2000 years ago (because those were market days).
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
"Nothing is permanent in all the world ... Time is itself a river in
constant movement, and the hours flow by like water, wave on wave,
pursued, pursuing, forever fugitive, forever new. That which has been, is
not; that which was not, begins to be; motion and moment always in process
of renewal." --Ovid, _Metamorphoses_, Book XV
"All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place
where the rivers flow, thither they return ... That which has been, it is
that which shall be; and that which has been done is that which shall be
done: and there is nothing new under the sun." --Ecclesiastes 1:7,9
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
In article <a48mg4$47n$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu> Ben Dreyfus <dre...@hcs.harvard.edu> writes:
>And 'mid this tumult Daniel Israel heard from far:
>>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>"Other religious influences" were
>>>not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
>>>to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
>>>to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
>>I don't want to turn this into R bashing, so please take this
>>question in that spirit. In what sense is moving the services to
>>Sunday only "slightly" non-Jewish? I see no Jewish content at all
>>in such a change.
>
>They didn't move Shabbat to Sunday (as is sometimes accused); they put the
>communal service at the time when most of the community was available, for
>the same pragmatic reasons that Torah reading was instituted on Monday and
>Thursday over 2000 years ago (because those were market days).
Why were more people available for prayer on Sunday than on Shabbat?
And why encourage this?
-Shlomo-
Herman Rubin
Charles Vitez <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>You err if you think that they do not have their own counter-rabbinic
>"adhesions". Just like rabbinic oral law was essential to make sense of the
>Torah, they were forced to create their own halakha, only they had to make
>it very different from ours.
Every group needs some sort of local oral law. However, I
am not convinced that the Karaites have a global one.
Possibly they come close now, with small numbers. But when
there were many of them, there were likely to be many. Also,
the local interpretation need not come close to a full code
of conduct.
According to Zimmels, the Jews came close to having each
community with its own halakhah in the middle ages. It was
Yosef Karo's efforts, resulting in the Shulkhan Arukh,
which not only terminated this movement, but led to a
complete reversal.
>One of the least attractive features of their various methods of
>interpretation is the close reliance they have on Moslem theology. The
>methodology of interpreting the Koran may do very well in Islam but is quite
>inappropriate for anything as complex as the Torah.
Is there such a "methodology" for Islam? If anything, each
religious sect adds on to the basic tenets of its faith,
usually producing something which is more sectarian than
adhering to the elements of the faith.
This is questionable. Also, it is not Torah which is that
complex, but the exaggerations of those who could not just
use the plain text, but had to squeeze out meanings which
were not there at all.
>Oh, and I personally think that the rabbis did a very good job of making the
>Torah relevant to every generation of jews.
The Torah was relevant before the rabbis. What they have
done is to add much which goes in the other direction.
Except for some of the Hassidic movements, and others
which I do not know about, they have not quite forced
fundamentalism on the people, especially since the
end of the ghetto period. Christianity went into
decline in the middle ages because of it, and Islam
after a short period. Fortunately, even most Orthodox
Jews bend halakhah greatly.
>Charles Vitez
Herman Rubin
Which Jewish culture? I see little common culture between
quite a few groups, although there can be a fair amount of
common religion.
In fact, I think that this is what has cause many of the
problems. Halakhah is more the imposition of a culture
than a religion, but it has elevated itself to religion.
Tradition is culture, but I have argued consistently
against it being a part of religion. People of quite
different cultures can have much in common religiously,
but while my grandparents lived in stetls, my culture has
little in common with that.
Bagels and lox, gefillte fish, potato latkes are culture.
I see no reason to include them in religion. I consider
religion as too important for that.
Eliyahu
"Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)" <arg...@cs.biu.ac.il> wrote in message
news:ARGAMON.02...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il...
in the US, and that non-Jewish employers expected their employees to be
there at work, on time, Monday through Saturday. For that reason, I would
expect that the consideration of moving services to Sunday was a reaction to
knowing that many non-Observant Jews were at work on Saturday and couldn't
get off. I think we're all thankful that it didn't catch on, but I can
understand the social factors that would influence the idea.
--
Eliyahu Rooff
www.geocities.com/Area51/Underworld/8096/HomePage.htm
RSG Rollcall http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/rooffe.htm
Herman Rubin
Charles Vitez <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>This is definitely the final round on this issue as far as I am concerned.
>Please see my comments below.
>Charles Vitez
>"QandA" <qand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:edb3698b.02020...@posting.google.com...
>> "Charles Vitez" <vi...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>news:<a3qshc$nfo$1...@helle.btinternet.com>...
................
>> Your statement that they are not Jews according to halakha is
>> -extremely- surprising. Could you provide references? Can any Orthodox
>> poster here verify this?
They certainly are not Jews observing halakhah.
>**CV replies**
>In the 12th century in Spain they were put under a perpetual ban and this
>ban was gradually recognised by all normative jewish communities during the
>following centuries. By the 14th century the separation was complete.
There were several centuries during which they were still
recognized, although some of the rabbis wanted to ban them
much earlier. This is another reason for eliminating the
power of rabbis like that. Ovadiah Yosef would do the same
for at least Reform Judaism, and probably far more.
This was not the first time that religious leaders have
done such, in Judaism.
>> > > As for "Jews by religion"... Will you now say that "Reform Jews" is an
>> > > oxymoron as well?
>> > This is just another cheap debating shot. You know full well that any
>person
>> > who meets the halachik definition is a jew and most R are jews according
>to
>> > that. There is a vast difference in jewish law between a Karaite and a
>> > reform jew.
I am not sure how much there is. If anything, Reform
Judaism is more flexible, and could include Karaism.
>> AFAIK, the principal problem with Karaites is that they do not believe
>> that Oral Torah was given by God. Reform don't believe this either.
>> What is the difference in law that you are referring to?
>**CV replies **
>The members of Reform communities are not the subject of a perpetual ban.
How long until they are? If the Orthodox leadership felt it
would not lose by doing this, it would be done quickly.
>> > They certainly avoided some persecution, but that was not their reason
>for
>> > dividing themselves from normative jews in these regions - much of it
>before
>> > persecutions started. Their theology and their hold on their membership
>> Whose idea was it to create the separation? IIUC, it was the idea of
>> the Rabbinical leadership. Is this not so?
>**CV replies**
>Please read what I say. Their own theology is distinctive and divides them
>from judaism. Their leadership liked it that way, because it meant that they
>could retain their adherents more easily. This is not at all an unusual
>phenomenon in schismatic sects. They claimed separation long before freedom
>from persecution could have made it an attractive option just for that
>reason.
The Karaites believed in Torah Judaism, not rabbinic Judaism,
It is the rabbis who believed in telling people how to live,
not even attempting to limit it to what can reasonably be
said to come from God.
>The perpetual ban was not all bad from the Karaite leadership's point of
>view.
This is irrelevant. The rabbis more than doubled the size
of the Torah, in violation of the words of the Torah, and
justified this as an Oral Law given to Moses by God. The
Karaites rejected this, and I could not belong to a group
which would consider accepting this.
We even have now enough evidence that the Sefer Torah was
not from Mosheh. What is the source of rabbinic authority?
We have been losing people from this group because they
had difficulty in attempting to reduce Judaism to the word
of God, as interpreted by reason. It is not easy.
Herman Rubin
> -Shlomo-
We need to consider Germany in the early 1800's, as well as
the US in the 19th century. There were small Jewish populations
in the cities, and often restrictive legislation which kept
almost everything closed on Sunday. Economics forced many
Jews to work late on Friday, and even on Saturday. Also,
transportation was much slower.
Few of the Jews were farmers. Combined with the above,
almost all were free and more rested on Sunday morning
than on Saturday morning or Friday night.
Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson)
In article <a499pb$b...@odds.stat.purdue.edu> hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <ARGAMON.02...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il>,
>Dr. Shlomo Argamon (Engelson) <arg...@cs.biu.ac.il> wrote:
>>In article <a48mg4$47n$1...@news.fas.harvard.edu> Ben Dreyfus <dre...@hcs.harvard.edu> writes:
>>>And 'mid this tumult Daniel Israel heard from far:
>>>>hru...@stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>>>>>"Other religious influences" were
>>>>>not that great in Reform Judaism; the only one I am willing
>>>>>to consider even slightly non-Jewish was moving the services
>>>>>to Sunday morning, and this has now almost vanished.
>>>>I don't want to turn this into R bashing, so please take this
>>>>question in that spirit. In what sense is moving the services to
>>>>Sunday only "slightly" non-Jewish? I see no Jewish content at all
>>>>in such a change.
>
>>>They didn't move Shabbat to Sunday (as is sometimes accused); they put the
>>>communal service at the time when most of the community was available, for
>>>the same pragmatic reasons that Torah reading was instituted on Monday and
>>>Thursday over 2000 years ago (because those were market days).
>
>>Why were more people available for prayer on Sunday than on Shabbat?
>>And why encourage this?
>
>the US in the 19th century. There were small Jewish populations
>in the cities, and often restrictive legislation which kept
>almost everything closed on Sunday. Economics forced many
>Jews to work late on Friday, and even on Saturday. Also,
>transportation was much slower.
>
>Few of the Jews were farmers. Combined with the above,
>almost all were free and more rested on Sunday morning
>than on Saturday morning or Friday night.
And the frum Jews managed not to work on Saturdays in 19C Germany.
Unless I misunderstand your other posts, even you would consider
working for pay a violation of a Torah law. Again I ask, why would
Reform authorities encourage this?
-Shlomo-
Herman Rubin
> -Shlomo-
Someone posted the conversion rates in Berlin.
In the small towns, this MIGHT not have been that much
of a problem. From what I heard from my relatives who
migrated from the Pale, this aspect of observance was
not that strictly observed. Also, there were quite a
few stetls in the areas freed by the Enlightenment,
where the problem would not arise.
Did the Reform authorities encourage working on Shabbath?
Ben Dreyfus
>And the frum Jews managed not to work on Saturdays in 19C Germany.
>Unless I misunderstand your other posts, even you would consider
>working for pay a violation of a Torah law. Again I ask, why would
>Reform authorities encourage this?
If having services on Sunday encourages working on Shabbat, does this mean
that O shuls that have services 3 times a day, 7 days a week, are
encouraging working on Shabbat? After all, as was recently noted in
another thread, one can attend services 16 times a week without going to
shul on Shabbat.
--
Benjamin W Dreyfus dre...@post.harvard.edu
Gemini: (May 21 - June 21)
After 90 healthy, prosperous years, you will die in bed surrounded by
loved ones, bringing your life as a masochist to a bitter, tragic end.
--The Onion