Karaites and Karaism

The Karaites (

Modifications of Ananism.

On Anan's death, between 780 and 800, his son Saul, and then his grandson Josiah, succeeded him as head of the sect, but both of them were too insignificant intellectually to leave many traces in Karaism. But between 830 and 890 men of greater mark appeared among the Karaites, who, while differing among themselves and creating various subdivisions in the new sect, agreed in diverging from Anan's doctrines, and even from his methods of teaching. The leaders of that time whose names have come down to us are: Benjamin al-Nahawendi, Ishmael of 'Akbara, Musa al-Za'farani (called also Al-Tiflisi), Mashwi al-'Akbari, and Daniel al-Ḳumisi (called also Al-Damaghani). Anan was an eclectic, borrowing various regulations of his code (a large part of which has recently been discovered and published by A. Harkavy) from rabbinical Judaism and from Jewish sects; but he attempted to base all this borrowed material, as well as the regulations which he himself drafted, on the Biblical text, resorting with that end in view to the most curious etymologies and exegetical rules. His ascetic views throughout were, moreover, so ill adapted to practical life that an unhampered secular life in agreement with Anan's code was entirely impossible. Anan's successors, therefore, set themselves the task of removing or modifying these shortcomings of Ananism, thus insuring the practical existence of the sect. While the strict Ananites lost more and more ground in the course of the ninth century in consequence of their asceticism, subsisting merely for a time at Jerusalem as strict hermits and mourners for Zion (ABELE ZION), and while Ananism entirely disappeared in the tenth century, Karaism still exists, though it is stricken with intellectual impotence.

Anan's eclecticism, which at first did good service to the heretic, since the members of various anti-rabbinical sects apparently found congruous ideas in the new heresy, caused after a time dissatisfaction in different quarters. While the liberals did not take kindly to the aggravations and rigorous ordinances of the new code, which entirely lacked the sanction of national tradition, this code was not strict enough for the rigorists in the sect, and throughout the ninth century and the first half of the tenth there were continuous dissensions, as appears from the detailed accounts of Al-Ḳirḳisani and Saadia. In some Karaite circles of the ninth and tenth centuries there arose, perhaps under Gnostic influence, an antagonism to the ceremonial law and the dogma of traditional Judaism similar to the inimical attitude toward Jewish law found among the first Christian Gnostic circles (the echo of which still appears in the attacks of Christian theologians on Jewish "legalism," although no one religion is exempt from nomism). This antagonism went so far, for instance, that the Sabbath and the feast-days were regarded merely as memorial days during the existence of the Jewish state, their observance being no longer obligatory in the exile, the resurrection of the dead was interpreted in an allegorical and rationalistic sense, as Israel's deliverance from exile, this view being probably borrowed from Sadduceeism; and the advent of the Messiah, as well as the restoration of the Temple, was referred to the past epoch of the Second Temple. The rigoristic Karaites, on the other hand, even forbade any one to leave the house on the Sabbath, to carry anything from one room into another, to wash the face, to wear a coat, shoes, girdle, or anything except a shirt, to make a bed, to carry food from the kitchen into another apartment, etc. In time, however, the extremists, such as the Ananites, 'Isawites, Yudghanites, and Shadganites, disappeared, and the moderate party in the sect organized itself under the name of Karaites.

Development of Dogma.

Gradually the Karaite leaders abandoned their controversiesrelating to individual laws and details referring to the cult, and turned their attention to principles concerning dogma and the Mosaic Law in contradistinction to rabbinical oral law, visibly proceeding under the influence of the Islamic "kalam" and "mu'tazilah," especially the "uṣul alfiḳh" of the Mohammedans. Although Anan commonly applied the rabbinical rules of Biblical hermeneutics ("middot"), yet even he borrowed from Islam, chiefly from his contemporary and fellow sufferer, Abu Nu'man Thabit Abu Ḥanifah, the founder of the theological school of the Hanafites, and also from the then newly-founded Mohammedan sect of the Rawandites, who transplanted the doctrine of the transmigration of souls from India to Bagdad. This attitude of Anan was closely connected with his personal circumstances at the time of the founding of the new sect (see Jew. Encyc. 1:554, s. ANAN). Benjamin al-Nahawendi (c. 830-850), the first noteworthy Karaite teacher in the period following Anan, did not directly borrow from Mohammedan theology anything relating to the religious law, being probably too far removed from Bagdad, then the center of Arabic scholarship; he borrowed instead the allegorical method of Scriptural interpretation of the Judæo-Alexandrian (Hellenistic) school. This method was at that time known partly through Hebrew works still extant in the beginning of the tenth century, and partly through Greek sources made available by the Syrians, these works being ascribed to the sect of the Maghariyyah (Al-Maghariyyah = "cave-dwellers," as the Essenes were then called). Nahawendi even borrowed Philo's doctrine of the Logos. Anan's and Nahawendi's differing opinions regarding the Law have been noted elsewhere (BENJAMIN BEN MOSES NAHAWENDI). The list of these differences can be materially increased from the recently published fragments of Nahawendi's code (A. Harkavy, "Studien und Mittheilungen," 8:175-184), and also from quotations of Al-Ḳirḳisani, Al-Baṣir, Abu al-Faraj Furḳan, and later authorities.

Benjamin Nahawendi.

Although no derogatory remarks referring to Anan have been found in Nahawendi fragments, it is yet evident that Nahawendi silently disapproved of Anan's extraordinary interpretation of Biblical words and his glaring abuse of the rabbinical hermeneutic rules, although he himself is not free from eccentricity. Nor is his attitude toward Rabbinism so harsh and absolutely inimical as that of Anan. Nahawendi shows no trace of Anan's artificial opposition to the Talmud; on the contrary he often defends the Talmudists against Anan's attacks. He occupies a highly important position in the history of Karaism, and he did much for the consolidation of the new sect. He was, moreover, the first Karaite writer to use the Hebrew language; as far as is known, he composed at least three of his works in Hebrew—"Sefer Dinim," "Sefer ha-Miẓwot," and the commentary on Genesis. He marks, therefore, a new epoch in the development of Karaism.

Contemporaneously with Nahawendi and somewhat later in the ninth century appeared Karaite writers and leaders who violently attacked the founder of the sect and heaped vituperation upon his method. Ishmael of 'Akbara, after whom a subdivision of the sect, the Okbarites ('Akbarites), was named, did not hesitate, for instance, to call Anan "asinine." This contemporary of Nahawendi, who took his name from 'Akbara, a place near Bagdad, abrogated several of Anan's severe measures; and he was the only one among the Karaites who had aptitude or liking for Biblical criticism. He did not hesitate to say that errors had crept into the traditional text of Scripture and that some of the readings of the Samaritan text and the Septuagint were preferable to the Masoretic text. Other subdivisions of the Karaite sect, as the Mashwites (c. 850; so called after their founder Mashwi al-Ba'labakki, a pupil of Ishmael of 'Akbara), the Tiflisites (the followers of Al-Tiflisi, c. 850), the Ramlites or Malikites (called after their founder Malik al-Ramli), and various other smaller groups, which have been fully described by A. Harkavy in his Karaite studies (in "Voskhod," 1898-99), differed considerably from Anan not only in regard to single religious laws, but also in leading doctrines. A somewhat later and very important Karaite writer, Daniel ben Moses al-Ḳumisi (toward the end of the ninth century), who at first was an enthusiastic follower of Anan, and called him "Head of the Sages" ("Rosh ha-Maskilim"), subsequently felt entirely disillusioned, and then styled Anan "Head of the Fools" ("Rosh ha-Kesilim"). On his divergences from Anan in detail see Jew. Encyc. 4:433, s. See DANIEL BEN MOSES AL-ḲUMISI; the account there can now be supplemented in agreement with recently published fragments of his code (idem, "Studien und Mittheilungen," 8:187-192). His leaning toward rationalism in theological matters is noteworthy.

Flood-Tide.

These divergences contributed not a little to the undermining of Anan's authority among the Karaites, and his faithful followers, the Ananites, were pushed to the wall; as their rigorous observances were entirely unsuited to ordinary life, they were finally obliged to emigrate to Jerusalem and adopt the hermit life of the old Essenes, as mourners for Zion. Gradually disappearing, they left the field free for the great noontide of Karaism in the tenth and eleventh centuries. The representatives of this epoch are: Abu Yusuf Ya'ḳub al-Ḳirḳisani, Sahl ibn Maẓliaḥ, Solomon ben Jeroham, Yafith ibn 'Ali, David al-Fasi, Abu al-Faraj Harun, Yusuf al-Baṣir and his pupil Abu al-Faraj Furḳan.

Abu Yusuf al-Ḳirḳisani.

The first-named, Abu Yusuf Ya'ḳub al-Ḳirḳisani (called incorrectly by later authors and even by Steinschneider, "Yusuf" instead of "Abu Yusuf"), wrote in the third and fourth decades of the tenth century; he is a unique figure in Karaite literature on account of his historical sense, his comprehensive survey of the development of the Jewish sects, and his acute, even if partial, criticism of his predecessors. For the historical part of his work he consulted the works of David ibn Merwan al-Muḳammaṣ see Jew. Encyc. 4:466, where he is confounded with a later David al-Muḳammaṣ) and the accounts of Mohammedanwriters, whose works, however, have not been handed down. Although a great admirer of Anan, whom he frequently defends, Ya'ḳub seldom agrees with him, and generally endeavors to mitigate the severity of the heresiarch's legal interpretations. Al-Ḳirḳisani went very far in regard to forbidden marriages, being one of the chief representatives of the so-called "system of extension" ("rikkub").

Al-Ḳirḳisani was, so far as is known, the first Karaite writer to defend the dictates of common sense and of knowledge in religious matters; the second part of his chief work, "Kitab al-Anwar" (Book of Lights), treats of the necessity of investigation and of reason, and of the determination of the proofs of reason and analogical conclusions. He adopts for Karaism without modification the views of the Motekallamin and the Motazilites. Since that time there has been a wide schism in Karaism between the followers of scientific investigation, who patterned their theology on the Mohammedan kalam and the Motazilite doctrines, and the Orthodox, who would have nothing to do with philosophy and science. Among the former are some Karaite scholars of the tenth century mentioned by their contemporary the Arabian polyhistor 'Ali al-Mas'udi, and Yusuf al-Baṣir, the foremost Karaite philosophical writer, together with his pupil Abu al-Faraj Furḳan (Jeshua b. Judah; about the middle of the eleventh century). Among the latter are the important Karaite authors Sahl ibn Maẓliaḥ, Solomon ben Jeroham, and Yafith ibn 'Ali, all three of whom lived during the middle and the end of the tenth century. The Karaites produced no original author in this field after the middle of the eleventh century, but merely translators from the Arabic, compilers, and imitators, such as Israel Maghrabi and his pupil Yafith ibn Saghir (13th cent.), Solomon Nasi (Abu al-Faḍl; 13th cent.), Samuel Maghrabi (14th cent.), and others.

The following Karaite writers of this epoch cultivating other fields are noteworthy: Exegetes: Al-Ḳirḳisani, Sahl ibn Maẓliaḥ, Solomon ben Jeroham, Yafith ibn 'Ali, and Yusuf ibn Nuḥ (10th cent.); Abu al-Faraj Harun, Abu al-Faraj Furḳan, and 'Ali ibn Sulaiman (11th cent.). Lexicographers: Abu Sulaiman Daud al-Fasi (end of the 10th cent.) and his editors Abu Sa'id (probably identical with Levi ha-Levi, beginning of the 11th cent.) and 'Ali ibn Sulaiman; the first-named knows nothing as yet of the triliteral roots of the Hebrew language, and the last-named hardly uses the new system, although acquainted with Ḥayyuj's works. As Hebrew grammarians, only the above-mentioned Yusuf ibn Nuḥ and Abu al-Faraj Harun (called "the grammarian of Jerusalem" by Ibn Ezra) need be noted; the latter wrote first his "Kitab al-Mushtamil," a comprehensive work in seven parts, which also includes a large part of Hebrew lexicography, and then made a compendium," Kitab al-Kafi," so that (1026) Ibn Ezra mentions eight works. Codifiers (of Karaite religious law): Ya'ḳub al-Ḳirḳisani, in the third and fourth decades of the tenth century, whose "Kitab al-Anwar" may be considered as the most important Karaite work written in the Arabic language; Sahl (called "Ben Zita" by Ibn Ezra), whose code was entitled "Sefer Dinim," although written in Arabic; Yafith ibn 'Ali, known only through citations, and his son Levi ha-Levi, one of the most noteworthy codifiers, who often agrees with the Rabbinites; Yusuf al-Baṣir, author of the "Kitab al-Istibṣar," of which the "Sefer ha-Abib" and "Sefer ha-Mo'adim," mentioned by Pinsker, are subdivisions; Abu al-Faraj Furḳan, Sahl ibn Faḍl Tustari (called in Hebrew "Yashar b. Ḥesed"; end of the 11th cent.), and others.

Although the Oriental Karaite authors since Nahawendi wrote in Hebrew with more or less fluency, there were no noteworthy poets among them. The orthodox and ascetic views of the earlier Karaites did not encourage secular poetry, which was held to profane the holy language; nor did they produce anything noteworthy in liturgical poetry ("piyyuṭim"), for according to Anan, with the exception of short benedictions, prayers could be taken only from the Psalter (see specimens in Harkavy, "Studien und Mittheilungen," ). Even in later times they generally either borrowed Rabbinite poems or resorted to imitations of them. The only Karaite poet who left secular poems, Moses Dar'i (13th cent.), either imitated or simply borrowed from the Judæo-Spanish poets. It goes without saying that polemics against Rabbinism were obligatory upon every Karaite author in the period of propaganda and extension. The writers mentioned herein attacked the Rabbinites on every occasion and in almost all their works, and also wrote special polemical pamphlets, as Solomon ben Jeroham against Saadia Gaon, Sahl and Yafith against Saadia's pupil Jacob b. Samuel, Yusuf al-Baṣir against Samuel ibn Ḥofni. Some Karaite writers may also be noted who are known only as polemicists, as Ibn Mashiaḥ and Ibn Sakawaihi; some details have recently been discovered regarding the latter's "Kitab al-Faḍa'iḥ" (Book of Infamies), which was refuted by Saadia.

Principles of Karaism.

In formulating the principles of primitive Karaism concerning the doctrine of the Law the leaders of the sect generally followed Mohammedan patterns. Anan, as has been seen, was influenced by Abu Ḥanifah, and added to the three sources of Islamic law—the Koran, the "sunnah" (tradition), and "ijma'" (the agreement of all Islam)—a fourth source, namely, "ra'y," e., speculation, or the speculative opinions of the teachers of the Law and of the judges, which are deduced by analogy ("ḳiyas"; Talmud, "heḳḳesh") from the laws originating in the other three sources. Anan, opposed on principle to Rabbinism, could not recognize tradition as a source of law, nor could he, the founder of a new sect, consider agreement as a basis for religious law; hence he found it all the more necessary to seize upon analogical speculation. But he introduced two important modifications, based on rabbinical precedent, into the principle of Abu Ḥanifah: (1) instead of logical analogy, of chief importance with Abu Ḥanifah, Anan gave preference to verbal analogy (the rabbinical "gezerah shawah"), and frequently even resorted to literal analogy; (2) for the religious laws which he based on his speculations he endeavored to deduce support from the Biblical text: he did not hesitate at the most forced interpretations, but followed rabbis who made deductions("asmakta") in support of ancient traditions. Hence this heresiarch believed himself justified in asserting that he took all his teachings directly from the Bible. Later, however, when Ananism with its opposition to traditional Judaism and its artificial system was gradually disappearing, and Karaism was so well established that it need hesitate no longer to call things by their right names, the Karaite leaders adopted openly the Mohammedan principles concerning canons of the Law. Thus Sahl ben Maẓliaḥ, according to Judah Hadassi, adopted outright Abu Ḥanifah's principles, with the single modification that instead of tradition he considered speculation and analogy as authoritative. Yusuf ibn Nuḥ entirely rejected speculation, like the non-Ḥanifitic Mohammedan theological schools; Levi ha-Levi (probably the reading in Hadassi should be "Abu Sa'id" instead of "Sa'id"), again, agrees with Abu Ḥanifah, though of course excluding tradition. Abu al-Faraj Furḳan similarly determines three categories of the Law, which agree with Abu Ḥanifah's categories, exclusive of tradition. However, many Mohammedan faḳihs also have excluded tradition from the socalled roots of the doctrine of the Law ("uṣul al-fiḳh"). Tradition was included among the nomocanons, under the curious designation "the inherited burden" ("sebel ha-yerushshah"), at a much later date, during the Byzantine epoch of Karaism.

Expansion of Karaism.

During the first centuries of the existence of the sect, Karaism was widely extended among the Jews, and could boast of making many converts among the followers of the parent religion, gathering them in Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Babylonia, and Persia. Several circumstances contributed to its success. Firstly, sectarianism was then rife in the East in consequence of the great changes brought about by Islam, and numbers of the adherents of different confessions throughout the califate eagerly accepted any new departures. In the second place, Anan's proclamation of the unrestricted study of the Bible as the only source of religion was most attractive, not only to the members of earlier anti-rabbinic sects, which had by no means been uprooted, but also to the more liberal elements within traditional Judaism that were dissatisfied with the stagnation shown in the methods of the Babylonian academies. In the third place, the directors of the academies (the Geonim), who were at that time out of touch with science and all secular matters, were too short-sighted to recognize the dangers threatening traditional Judaism on the part of the new sect, and believed that by simply ignoring it they could destroy it. They were, moreover, incapable of engaging in religious polemics with their adversaries, as they were familiar only with weapons which the latter refused to recognize, namely, arguments taken exclusively from the traditional writings, and did not distinguish critically between halakic and haggadic and mystical elements in rabbinical literature. Hence none of the attacks on traditional Judaism, not even those that were unfounded, were properly refuted, nor was the true state of affairs explained. Small wonder, then, that the new sect, filled with the zeal of propaganda, generally had the upper hand and went from victory to victory.

Reaction or Rabbinism—Saadia.

At the end of the ninth and in the tenth century, however, there was a decided change, for several rabbinical scholars took up the study of the Biblical books, Hebrew grammar, and secular science, as in the case of Saadia's teacher Abu Kathir Yaḥya ibn Zakariyya of Tiberias (d. 932), David ibn Merwan al-Muḳammaṣ, and other Jewish scholars of that time. Men like these, who were well fitted to take up the systematic defense of their belief, presumably did engage in that work. Thus it has recently been discovered that a Palestinian scholar, Jacob b. Ephraim by name, of the beginning of the tenth century, wrote at least one polemic in Arabic against Karaism and in behalf of Rabbinism, and he probably was not the only one in the field. All these Jewish scholars, however, were eclipsed by Saadia al-Fayyumi (892-942), who subsequently became famous as the director of the Academy of Sura. As in many other branches of Jewish science, he was successful also in his polemics against the Karaites, which he began in 915, returning to the subject again in 926, and also, probably, later. Thanks to his forceful intellect and his scientific attainments, he entirely averted the danger threatening traditional Judaism and assured its victory over Karaism; he has therefore been the object of attack by all the leading Karaite writers, even of later periods. Saadia's pupils followed in his foot-steps. One of these, Jacob b. Samuel (c. 950), wrote polemical works in Hebrew, and possibly also in Arabic, against the Karaites, calling forth replies by Sahl and Yafith.

With the beginning of the second half of the eleventh century the field of Karaite activity was transferred from Asia to Europe by Abu al-Faraj Furḳan's (Jeshua b. Judah's) pupils from Spain and Byzantium. Karaism had been introduced into Spain by a certain Ibn Altaras, who carried it to Castile, where his successors, and chiefly his widow (!), apparently were too outspoken in their attacks upon Rabbinism, for the new heresy was soon suppressed by two influential Judæo-Spanish statesmen—Joseph Farissol and Judah ibn Ezra. This is the sole instance in Jewish history where the temporal powers interfered on behalf of the faith. This ephemeral appearance of Karaism on Spanish soil was fruitful for Jewish historical literature, for it induced the philosophically trained Abraham ibn Daud of Toledo to write his "Sefer ha-Ḳabbalah" (1161), which is invaluable for the history of the Jews in Spain. The new sect enjoyed a longer life at Byzantium. Two pupils of Abu al-Faraj of Constantinople, Tobias b. Moses (called "the Translator") and Jacob b. Simon, devoted themselves after their return home to translating into Hebrew the Arabic works of their teacher Abu al-Faraj Furḳan, those of the latter's teacher Yusuf al-Baṣir, and other works, adding glosses of their own and their teacher's replies to their questions.

Karaism in Europe.

It seems that these scholars in turn had pupils and imitators. Although the translators were very unskilful, interpolating many Arabic or Greek words and phrases, their work was yet important for the European Karaites, who were unacquainted with Arabic. Karaism owes to these translationsits original Hebrew style—on the whole an acquisition of doubtful value—and the appearance of its leading European exponents. Among these are Judah Hadassi (beginning in 1149), Jacob b. Reuben (12th cent.), Aaron b. Joseph (end of the 13th cent.), Aaron of Nicomedia (about the middle of the 14th cent.), Elijah Bashyaẓi and his brother-in-law Caleb Afendopolo (second half of the 15th cent.), and Moses Bashyaẓi (first half of the 16th cent.). The first-named is the author of the "Eshkol ha-Kofer," a comprehensive work in the form of a commentary on the Decalogue, arranged alphabetically and in acrostics, and written in quasi-rime, all sentences riming with "kaf." As the author intended this to be a kind of encyclopedia, he not only included all the opinions and doctrines of religious law of Karaite authors known to him, together with the continual attacks upon the Rabbinites, but he also covered the entire field of Karaite dogmatics, religious philosophy, hermeneutic rules, Hebrew grammar (with unacknowledged borrowings from Ibn Ezra's grammatical works), etc.; he included also passages relating to natural science, partly fabulous, from Arabic and Byzantine sources. This work was until recently the chief authority for information regarding the earlier Karaite writers, and it has still some value, although the original sources of a large portion of the encyclopedia are now accessible. Hadassi composed, in addition, a few smaller works, including a compendium of the Karaite religious laws, of which there have been preserved only fragments—unless these fragments represent all that the author had accomplished. Jacob b. Reuben, whose birthplace and circumstances of life are unknown, used, in his Hebrew commentary on the Bible ("Sefer ha-'Osher"), the exegetical works of Yafith, Abu al-Faraj Harun, Abu al-Faraj Furḳan, and 'Ali ibn Sulaiman. As the last-named flourished at the end of the eleventh and the beginning of the twelfth century, Jacob can not have written his book before the twelfth century. He consulted also Ibn Janaḥ's lexicon. The Greek words occurring in his commentary point to his Byzantine origin; he frequently uses the current technical terms of the Byzantine Karaite translators, although his Hebrew style is in general more fluent and developed.

Aaron ben Joseph (called "the Elder") is more independent in his exegesis than his predecessor, although in his Bible commentary ("Sefer ha-Mibḥar") he follows earlier 'scholars, chiefly Ibn Ezra, whose pregnant style he endeavors to imitate. He often quotes early rabbinical views, without polemical intention, salving his Karaite conscience with the saying of Nissi b. Noah (a Karaite author of Persia; 11th cent.) that it was obligatory upon the Karaites to study early rabbinical literature, as the larger part of their teachings was based on the true national tradition (on his theology see Jew. Encyc. 1:14-15). He is also highly esteemed for his arrangement of the Karaite liturgy, being called "the Holy" by his coreligionists in recognition of this work. Nothing is known of the circumstances of his life except that he disputed in 1279 at Solchat (now Stary Krüm), then the Tatar capital in the Crimea, with the Rabbinite Jews of that city, and that fourteen years later, in 1293, he wrote his commentary on the Pentateuch. He probably lived at Constantinople.