Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

What's your opinion of Karaite Judaism? I've seen some here say that they don't consider them "real Jews," but I'm curious as to why. Their beliefs seem fairly rational.

Quote: Karaites do not accept the Mishnah because [1]:

1. They question if the law as it is in the Mishnah, was intended to be oral, then how would it be permissible to be written?
2. The Mishnah quotes many different opinions that contradict one another.
3. The Mishnah doesn't go on to say in which opinion the truth lies. Rather the Mishnah sometimes says "Others say" agreeing with neither one nor the other, contradicting both.
4. They argue the truth of the oral law given to Moses could only be in one opinion, not many contradictory opinions.
5. They question why the Mishnah does not solely speak in the name of Moses.
For example, the traditional interpretation that "eye for an eye" means monetary compensation in tort cases is clearly off. Granted, I'm glad that Jews have developed this idea of individual interpretation and rigorous argument rather than fundamentalism, because that's what's led them to be so secular and liberal. As opposed to Muslim and Christian doctrine, where there are only two kinds of opinions: right ones and wrong ones.

[Mailech]

Nathyn wrote: What's your opinion of Karaite Judaism? I've seen some here say that they don't consider them "real Jews," but I'm curious as to why. Their beliefs seem fairly rational.

Quote: Karaites do not accept the Mishnah because [1]:

1. They question if the law as it is in the Mishnah, was intended to be oral, then how would it be permissible to be written?
2. The Mishnah quotes many different opinions that contradict one another.
3. The Mishnah doesn't go on to say in which opinion the truth lies. Rather the Mishnah sometimes says "Others say" agreeing with neither one nor the other, contradicting both.
4. They argue the truth of the oral law given to Moses could only be in one opinion, not many contradictory opinions.
5. They question why the Mishnah does not solely speak in the name of Moses.
For example, the traditional interpretation that "eye for an eye" means monetary compensation in tort cases is clearly off. Granted, I'm glad that Jews have developed this idea of individual interpretation and rigorous argument rather than fundamentalism, because that's what's led them to be so secular and liberal. As opposed to Muslim and Christian doctrine, where there are only two kinds of opinions: right ones and wrong ones.

Whether Karaite Jews are real Jews or not is for G-d to decide. Are they practicing a wrong form of Judaism, sure they are like Reform Jews and aspects of Conservative Jews.

Now as for the claims against the Mishnah, it is true that the fact that there are arguments in the oral law is because of slight flaws in the transmission. Now I should caution that these flaws are all in the details. for example no one argues what tephillin are and that they have to be black and that they are square and that they have 4 paragraphs, they only question in what order the paragraphs should be written. Also they don't argue that there are 39 illegal actions on the Sabbath and what their tributary actions are, they only argue about the limits of the law. That is really where most of the arguments lie, in the limits of the law and some of the details.
That is why there are different opinions. The reason there seems to be no diffinitive answer is that there was no High Court anymore to rule on a diffinitive answer. There are certain rules that apply as to how we rule based on the structure of the Mishnah and Gemara, so what might appear as giving multiple options actually has a definite ruling. Ask your local Rabbi for more details.
I think I have addressed the 5 points.
In terms of Karaite Jews though, they reject the Oral Torah and say that everything is found in the written one, but at the same time they have thier own version of an oral Torah, since the Torah is not meant and cannotbe understood without commentary. There has to be commentary. In reallity they are rejecting one thing for another.

As for the eye for an eye read it in context, it was never meant to be interpretted as a literal situation. you can search my posts for this I have addressed it.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: What's your opinion of Karaite Judaism? I've seen some here say that they don't consider them "real Jews," but I'm curious as to why. Their beliefs seem fairly rational.

Their belief is about as rational as someone saying that the entire American court system and judicial precedent should be thrown out the window because every now and then there is a circuit split on certain issues. :lol:



Ok, granted, I myself wouldn't mind throwing the entire 9th circuit out the window, but that's a different subject. :roll:

[Nathyn]

Mailech wrote: Nathyn wrote: What's your opinion of Karaite Judaism? I've seen some here say that they don't consider them "real Jews," but I'm curious as to why. Their beliefs seem fairly rational.

Quote: Karaites do not accept the Mishnah because [1]:

1. They question if the law as it is in the Mishnah, was intended to be oral, then how would it be permissible to be written?
2. The Mishnah quotes many different opinions that contradict one another.
3. The Mishnah doesn't go on to say in which opinion the truth lies. Rather the Mishnah sometimes says "Others say" agreeing with neither one nor the other, contradicting both.
4. They argue the truth of the oral law given to Moses could only be in one opinion, not many contradictory opinions.
5. They question why the Mishnah does not solely speak in the name of Moses.
For example, the traditional interpretation that "eye for an eye" means monetary compensation in tort cases is clearly off. Granted, I'm glad that Jews have developed this idea of individual interpretation and rigorous argument rather than fundamentalism, because that's what's led them to be so secular and liberal. As opposed to Muslim and Christian doctrine, where there are only two kinds of opinions: right ones and wrong ones.

Whether Karaite Jews are real Jews or not is for G-d to decide. Are they practicing a wrong form of Judaism, sure they are like Reform Jews and aspects of Conservative Jews.

Now as for the claims against the Mishnah, it is true that the fact that there are arguments in the oral law is because of slight flaws in the transmission. Now I should caution that these flaws are all in the details. for example no one argues what tephillin are and that they have to be black and that they are square and that they have 4 paragraphs, they only question in what order the paragraphs should be written. Also they don't argue that there are 39 illegal actions on the Sabbath and what their tributary actions are, they only argue about the limits of the law. That is really where most of the arguments lie, in the limits of the law and some of the details.
That is why there are different opinions. The reason there seems to be no diffinitive answer is that there was no High Court anymore to rule on a diffinitive answer. There are certain rules that apply as to how we rule based on the structure of the Mishnah and Gemara, so what might appear as giving multiple options actually has a definite ruling. Ask your local Rabbi for more details.
I think I have addressed the 5 points.
In terms of Karaite Jews though, they reject the Oral Torah and say that everything is found in the written one, but at the same time they have thier own version of an oral Torah, since the Torah is not meant and cannotbe understood without commentary. There has to be commentary. In reallity they are rejecting one thing for another.

As for the eye for an eye read it in context, it was never meant to be interpretted as a literal situation. you can search my posts for this I have addressed it.
I agree that there always need to be commentary, an actual interpretation -- the Christian and Islamic claim that you can just get the "plain meaning," of the text is silly. But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah? I.E., should the oral torah be immune from the same kind of criticism that the Torah is immune to? Why should one interpretation be "authoritative"?

2,000 years ago, how did Jews determine, "THIS person's opinion is authoritative," but not another? How can anyone be certain that all opinions were equally taken into account?

[Duchifas]

Quote: But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah?

Rabbinic prohibitions have always been understood to not be on the same level as Torah prohibitions.

You didn't know this?

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Quote: But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah?

Rabbinic prohibitions have always been understood to not be on the same level as Torah prohibitions.

You didn't know this?
Nope!

But wait, when you say "Rabbinic prohibitions," you mean to tell me that there are rules beyond the 613 commandments of the Torah?

Like not listening to women sing.

[Duchifas]

Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: Quote: But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah?

Rabbinic prohibitions have always been understood to not be on the same level as Torah prohibitions.

You didn't know this?
Nope!

But wait, when you say "Rabbinic prohibitions," you mean to tell me that there are rules beyond the 613 commandments of the Torah?

Like not listening to women sing.

Yes.

[Nathyn]

Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: Quote: But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah?

Rabbinic prohibitions have always been understood to not be on the same level as Torah prohibitions.

You didn't know this?
Nope!

But wait, when you say "Rabbinic prohibitions," you mean to tell me that there are rules beyond the 613 commandments of the Torah?

Like not listening to women sing.

Yes.
If you were to guess how many rules?

Like.. put a number on it.

[Duchifas]

Guessing: tens of thousands.

[Saracen]

I grant you also view Samaritans in a similar light?

[Pareve]

Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: Nathyn wrote: Duchifas wrote: Quote: But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah?

Rabbinic prohibitions have always been understood to not be on the same level as Torah prohibitions.

You didn't know this?
Nope!

But wait, when you say "Rabbinic prohibitions," you mean to tell me that there are rules beyond the 613 commandments of the Torah?

Like not listening to women sing.

Yes.
If you were to guess how many rules?

Like.. put a number on it.

I wouldn't call them "more rules" so much as interpreted extensions. Some of the ones in the Torah are pretty vague, so many are kind of like clarifications. Others concern how the law applies to the modern world.

Man, do I ever hate that one you mentioned... I disagree with that. It says that women should not show their "true beauty" which is usually interpreted as covering one's hair if one is married and dressing modestly. I think that extending that to singing is like the difference between a hijab and a burqa in Islam.

[Mailech]

Nathyn wrote: But wait, when you say "Rabbinic prohibitions," you mean to tell me that there are rules beyond the 613 commandments of the Torah?

Like not listening to women sing.

Pareve mentioned this but just to stress this. The Rabbinic laws (not just prohibitions, are extentions of the Torah Law usually for the reason of putting of fences. Like in the example that you gave, The Torah prohibits you from having pre-marital or adulterous sex, from touching them and from looking at them in a lewd manner. The Rabbis add onto that that being alone in a room with them and hearing them sing because they don't even want you to be in the same district as violating the law.

Also for example, there are certain actions that are prohibitted on the Sabbath, the Rabbis added the idea of Muktzah which says that you are not allowed to touch objects through which illegal actions are done, so since I cannot write I cannot touch a pen.

[Mailech]

Nathyn wrote: I agree that there always need to be commentary, an actual interpretation -- the Christian and Islamic claim that you can just get the "plain meaning," of the text is silly. But if the transmission of the oral torah is flawed, shouldn't it at least be held in lower rather than equal regard than the written Torah? I.E., should the oral torah be immune from the same kind of criticism that the Torah is immune to? Why should one interpretation be "authoritative"?

2,000 years ago, how did Jews determine, "THIS person's opinion is authoritative," but not another? How can anyone be certain that all opinions were equally taken into account?
As Duchifas mentioned Rabbinic enactments are in fact on a lesser level of obligation that Divine commandments. (As to what that means ask me if you care)
But also as you where saying it is in fact open to criticism much more than the Torah. There are 3 types of Mishnah level stuff, they are called Mishnah Braitah and Tosephta, the Mishnah is considered the most accurate based on who compiled it and how it was kept. But the Braita and Tosephta also have validity, but if there is an argument between a Mishnah and a Braitah we say that they Braitah is wrong. There are many cases in the Gemara when they will thow out or change a Braita because in does not make sense given other Braitas or Mishnahs, or other precidents.

Well if you go back 3000 years ago I think that if there where multiple options either I think it was decided by the High Court.

After that period, well there are many factors, who says what is important because certain Rabbis where accepted as greater authorities in certain areas than others. When it was said is important a later authority in the same strata is usually given greater credence than an earlier one. Majority opinion is also important becuase alot of times the rule goes according to the majority. There are many rules that I am not all versed in. But you get the idea.