Tuesday 15 September 2015

The Karaite Oral Law




One accusation of the Rabbis against the Karaites is that they created their own “Oral Law”, in competition with the rabbinic Oral Law.  There is a legendary accusation, quoted in Nemoy’s book, that Anan ben David offered his followers an entirely new Talmud.  

In order to test this hypothesis,  one first needs to define what the Oral Law is. The rabbinic O.L. is no longer oral, if it ever was. We only have access to the oral law by what is written, ie the Mishnah, Talmud etc.  So functionally, the oral law is a set of rules and principles outside of the Scriptures, which influence how the TNK is understood and placed into practice. These principles and modes of interpretation are not always logical, and often contradict the rational reading of the Scripture.  A most obvious example would be on how to count the Omer.

If the above is a reasonable description of the Oral Law, we have to search for a Karaite version. Certainly there are varying opinions and interpretations in Karaite literature. There are also principles of interpretation, eg Hekesh, which is also used within the Talmud.

However, there is not a systematic methodology which is able to supersede Torah law, nor is there a justification for adding new laws, either as a fence or an upgrade (Takkanah). It can, and is argued that some Karaite interpretations are erroneous. Indeed, there are some examples. And, there are also practices not found commanded in the TNK, eg the extra fasts. There also is no claim amongst Karaites to have an oral tradition from Sinai.  There are logical and pragmatic methods of interpretation, which might be described as “oral law”, but any departure from the scripture by these would be accidental.

So at best, it might be argued the Karaites have a “weak oral law” i.e. some methodology, but this is the case in any legal system. If, on the other hand, they claim to have a tradition from an earlier Sage, of interpreting the Torah contrary to its plain meaning, that would be stronger evidence of some form of oral law.  A tradition from the Sadducees might be a more interesting concept.  If the Sadducees did not have an oral law, but their positions are accepted, regardless of the logical validity, this might also be some form of shadow oral law.
On the other hand, it can be countered that the Sadducees represented the Priesthood, and the Torah commands us to accept the Priests and their judgements. The same verses, (Deut 17; 8-12) are used by the Rabbis to justify their own oral law!

This article has no final conclusion, and would welcome comments fromreaders.