Karaite Judaism - Karaism in Rabbinic Jewish Opinion

Karaism in Rabbinic Jewish Opinion

Rabbinic Judaism's scholars, such as Maimonides, write that people who deny the divine authority of the Oral Torah are to be considered among the heretics. However, at the same time Maimonides holds (Hilkhot Mamrim 3:3) that most of the Karaites and others who claim to deny the "oral teachings" are not to be held accountable for their errors in the law because they are led into error by their parents and are similar to a tinoq shenishbah (a captive baby), or to one who was forced.

Rabbinic scholars have traditionally held that, because the Karaites do not observe the rabbinic law on divorce, there is a strong presumption that they are mamzerim (adulterine bastards), so that marriage with them is forbidden even if they return to Rabbinic Judaism. Some recent Ashekenazi Ḥaredi scholars have held that Karaites should be regarded as Gentiles in all respects, though this is not universally accepted. They hasten to add that this opinion is not intended to insult the Karaites, but only to give individual Karaites the option of integrating into mainstream Judaism by way of conversion. As opposed this, in 1971 Rav ‘Ovadia Yosef, who was then the Rishon LeṢiyyon/Chief Rabbi of the Sefaradim and ‘Edot HaMizraḥ of Israel proclaimed that Karaites are Jews "LeKhol Davar" (literally, for all purposes) and that it is permissible for Rabbanite Jews to marry with them.

In response to the position taken by the Karaites in regards to the authority of the Talmud, Orthodox Judaism counters first that the majority of the Oral Law codified in the Mishnah and Talmud are the legal rulings of the last Sanhedrin, a body of 71 elders that made up the highest court of jurisprudence in ancient Israel, and that not all of the Oral Law are literally "Laws given to Moses on Mount Sinai". The decisions made by this High Court must be upheld, per se the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 17), this gives their legal rulings divine authority. Secondly Rabbinic Judaism points to the innumerable examples of biblical commandments that are either too ambiguous or documented in such a concise fashion that proper adherence could not be enforced on a national scale without the further legislation provided by the Talmud.

• Tefillin: As indicated in Deuteronomy 6:8 among other places, tefillin are to be placed on the arm and on the head between the eyes. However, there are no details provided regarding what tefillin are or how they are to be constructed. Karaites, however, argue that since other passages in the Bible with similar language are read metaphorically, the verses from which the Rabbis derive the law of teffilin should also be read metaphorically.
• Kosher laws: As indicated in Exodus 23:19 among other places, a kid may not be boiled in its mother's milk. In addition to numerous other problems with understanding the ambiguous nature of this law, there are no vowelization characters in the Torah; they are provided by the Masoretic tradition. This is particularly relevant to this commandment, as the Hebrew word for milk is identical to the word for fat when vowels are absent. Without the oral tradition, it is not known whether the violation is in mixing meat with milk or with fat.
• Shabbat laws: With the severity of Sabbath violation, namely the death penalty, one would assume that direction would be provided as to how exactly such a serious and core commandment should be upheld. However, there is little to no information as to what can and cannot be performed on the Sabbath. Karaites, nonetheless, do keep the Shabbat according to their own traditions and interpretations, as described in the section above.
• Mezuzah: Deuteronomy 6:9 is sometimes interpreted to mean that a mezuzah needs to be placed on the doorposts of a house. However, there are no details regarding where on the doorpost, if it is all doorposts or just one, what words go in it, how the words should be written or how the mezuzah should be constructed. Other times, the passage is interpreted to be metaphorical and not literal.

Orthodox Judaism also notes that the Torah was never meant to be observed as a personal covenant between the individual Jew and God, but a national covenant wherein the Torah functions as the constitution of Israel as a whole. Orthodox Jews point out that the Torah could never be enforced as a national law, as it was during the time of Joshua, King David, and Ezra, if every individual Jew had their own opinion on how to observe its commandments. In order for the Torah to properly govern the Jewish people, and for its laws be legally enforced with the punishments and penalties prescribed in the Torah, those laws must be legislated and clearly defined by a ruling Sanhedrin.

For Karaites, in sum, the rabbinic interpretations above, as codified in oral law, are only one form of interpretation. They are not divinely ordained, and they are neither binding halakhah nor practical religious law.