Fondazione M


Yeshivah Qatan

L’Albero di Zaffiro

Nelle foto sopra, alcuni momenti della presentazione del libro “L’Albero di Zaffiro” di Annarita Barbagallo. Organizzato nell’ambito delle iniziative del Giorno della Memoria. l’incontro è stato occasione per uno scambio a più voci che ha aperto significative riflessioni sulla tremenda memoria dei terribili eventi delle leggi razziali e della Shoah. Accanto a questi significati civili e politici, stimolante la prospettiva offerta dal libro presentato, che compone una interessante tessitura delle relazioni tra psicoanalisi, ebraismo e natura intima del linguaggio, che ha aperto un serrato dibattito che si è sviluppato in una conversazione tra gli intervenuti. Testo e contesto si sono sviluppati fino a toccare una pluralità composita di temi di cui sarebbe necessario comporre un atlante, spaziando dalla riflessione sulle vicende storiche dell’ebraismo siciliano alla relazione con cristiani e musulmani, toccando temi teologici e metafisici e reintroducendoli nella dimensione della psiche e della relazione tra mente e cuore. Il vero problema è stato consentire a Mauro Agata di Catania Libri, dopo oltre tre ore e mezza di interessanti analisi e animato dibattito, di chiudere. In realtà, anche lui si è trovato molto d’accordo nel dire “ne è valsa la pena”. Per la memoria, per il presente, per il futuro.

[Articolo di Davide C. Crimi, foto di Donato Scuto]

Fondazione M


View original post


Exilarch (Hebrew: ראש גלות Rosh Galut, Aramaic: ריש גלותא Reysh Galuta or Resh Galvatalit. “head of the exile”, Arabic: رأس الجالوت Raas al-Galut, Greek: Αἰχμαλωτάρχης Aechmalotarches lit. “the captives”) refers to the leaders of the Diaspora Jewish community in Babylon following the deportation of King Jeconiah and his court into Babylonian exile after the first fall of Jerusalem in 597 BCE and augmented after the further deportations following the destruction of the kingdom of Judah in 587 BCE. The people in exile were called golah (Jeremiah 28:6, 29:1) or galut (Jeremiah 29:22).

The Greek term has continued to be applied to the position, notwithstanding changes to the position over time, which was at most times purely honorific. The origin of this dignity is not known, but the princely post was hereditary in a family that traced its descent from the royal Davidic line. It was recognized by the state and carried with it certain prerogatives. The first historical documents referring to it date from the time when Babylon was part of the Parthian Empire. The office lasted to the middle of the 6th century, under different regimes (the Arsacids and Sassanids). During the end of 5th century and the beginning of 6th century Mar-Zutra II formed a politically independent state where he ruled from Mahoza for about seven years. He was eventually defeated by Kavadh I, King of Persia.[1] The position was restored in the 7th century, under Arab rule. Exilarchs continued to be appointed through the 11th century. Under Arab rule, Muslims treated the exilarch with great pomp and circumstance.

The history of the exilarchate falls naturally into two periods, separated by the beginning of the Arabic rule in Babylonia. Nothing is known about the office before the 2nd century, including any details about its founding or beginnings. It can merely be said in general that thegolah, the Jews living in compact masses in various parts of Babylon, tended gradually to unite and create an organization, and that this tendency, together with the high regard in which the descendants of the house of David living in Babylon were held, brought it about that a member of this house was recognized as “head of the golah.” The dignity became hereditary in this house, and was finally recognized by the state, and hence became an established political institution, first of the Arsacid and then of the Sassanid empire.

Such was the exilarchate as it appears in Talmudic literature, the chief source for its history during the first period, and which provides our only information regarding the rights and functions of the exilarchate. For the second, Arabic, period, there is a very important and trustworthy description of the institution of the exilarchate (See the sections Installation ceremonies and Income and privileges); this description is also important for the first period, because many of the details may be regarded as having persisted from it.

Biblical and rabbinic

Exilarchs listed in the Second Book of Kings, the Books of Chronicles and in the Seder Olam Zutta, some possibly legendary, are:

Probably historical exilarchs also found in the Seder Olam Zutta:

David ben Zakkai was the last exilarch to play an important part in history. His son Judah survived him only by seven months. At the time of Judah’s death, he left a twelve-year-old son, whose name is unknown. The only later exilarch whose name is recorded is Hezekiah, an exilarch who in 1038 also became gaon of Pumbedita, but was imprisoned and tortured to death in 1040. He was the last exilarch and the last gaon.


Karaite princes beginning in the 8th century, after the time of David ben Judah:

Traced to Jehoiachin

Tradition has it that the first exilarch was Jehoiachin, a king of Judah carried off to captivity in Babylonia in 597 BCE. A chronicle from about the year 800 – the MidrashicSeder ‘Olam Zuta – fills up the gaps in the early history of the exilarch. The captive king’s advancement at Evil-Merodach‘s court – with which the narrative of the Second Book of Kings closes (2 Kings 25:27) – was apparently regarded by the author of the Seder ‘Olam Zuta as the origin of the exilarchate. A list including generations of the descendants of the king is given in I Chronicles 3:17 et seq.

A commentary to Chronicles [Kirchheim 1874, p. 16] dating from the school of Saadia Gaon quotes Judah ibn Kuraish to the effect that the genealogical list of the descendants of David was added to the book at the end of the period of the Second Temple, a view which was shared by the author of the list of exilarchs in Seder ‘Olam Zuta. This list has been synchronistically connected with the history of the Second Temple, with Shechaniah being mentioned as having lived at the time of the Temple’s destruction. The following are enumerated as his predecessors in office: Salathiel, Zerubbabel, Meshullam, Hananiah, Berechiah, Hasadiah, Jesaiah, Obadiah, and Shemaiah, all of which names are also found in I Chron. 3. (compare the list with the variants given in [Lazarus 1890]).

The names of the next two exilarchs – Hezekiah and Akkub – are also found at the end of the Davidic list in Chronicles. Then followsNahum, with whom the authentic portion of the list probably begins, and who may, perhaps, be assigned to the time of the Hadrianic persecution (135). This is the period in which are found the first allusions in traditional literature to the exilarch.

First historic mention

In the account referring to the attempt of a teacher of the Law from the land of Israel, Hananiah, nephew of Joshua ben Hananiah, to render the Babylonian Jews independent of the authority residing in the land of Israel, a certain Ahijah is mentioned as the temporal head of the former, probably, therefore, as exilarch [Berakhot 63a, b], while another source substitutes the name Nehunyon for Ahijah[Jerusalem Talmud Sanhedrin 19a]. It is not improbable that this person is identical with the Nahum mentioned in the list [Lazarus 1890, p. 65].

The danger threatening the authority residing in the land of Israel was fortunately averted; at about the same time, Rabbi Nathan, a member of the house of exilarchs, came to land of Israel, and by virtue of his scholarship was soon classed among the foremost tannaimof the post-Hadrianic time. His Davidic origin suggested to Rabbi Meïr the plan of making the Babylonian scholar nasi (prince) in place of the Hillelite Simon ben Gamaliel. But the conspiracy against the latter failed [Horayot 13b]. Rabbi Nathan was subsequently among the confidants of the patriarchal house, and in intimate relations with Simon ben Gamaliel’s son Judah I (also known as Judah haNasi).

Rabbi Meïr’s attempt, however, seems to have led Judah I to fear that the Babylonian exilarch might come to the land of Israel to claim the office from Hillel‘s descendant. He discussed the subject with the Babylonian scholar Hiyya, a prominent member of his school [Horayot 11b], saying that he would pay due honor to the exilarch should the latter come, but that he would not renounce the office of nasi in his favor [Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 32b]. When the body of the exilarch Huna, who was the first incumbent of that office explicitly mentioned as such in Talmudic literature, was brought to the land of Israel during the time of Judah I, Hiyya drew upon himself Judah’s deep resentment by announcing the fact to him with the words “Huna is here” (Yerushalmi Kilayim 32b).

A tannaitic exposition of Genesis 49:10 [Sanhedrin 5a] which contrasts the Babylonian exilarchs, ruling by force, with Hillel’s descendants, teaching in public, evidently intends to cast a reflection on the former. But Judah I had to listen at his own table to the statement of the youthful sons of the above-mentioned Hiyya, in reference to the same tannaitic exposition, that “the Messiah can not appear until the exilarchate at Babylon and the patriarchate at Jerusalem shall have ceased” [Sanhedrin 38a].

Succession of Exilarchs

Huna I, the contemporary of Judah I, is not mentioned in the list of exilarchs in the Seder ‘Olam Zuta, according to which Nahum was followed by his brother Johanan; then came Johanan’s son Shaphat (these names also are found among the Davidians in I Chron. 3:22, 3:24), who was succeeded by Anan (comp. “Anani,” I Chronicles). From the standpoint of chronology the identification of Anan with the Huna of the Talmud account is not to be doubted; for at the time of his successor, Nathan ‘Ukban, occurred the fall of the Arsacids and the founding of the Sassanid dynasty (226 CE, which is noted as follows in Seder ‘Olam Zuta: “In the year 166 after the destruction of the Temple (c. 234 C.E.) the Persians advanced upon the Romans” (on the historical value of this statement see [Lazarus 1890], p. 33).

Nathan ‘Ukban, however, who is none other than Mar ‘Ukban, the contemporary of Rab and Samuel, also occupied a prominent position among the scholars of Babylon’ (see Bacher, “Aggadoth of the Babylonian Amoraim” pp. 34–36) and, according to Sherira Gaon (who quotes Talmud Shabbat 55a), was also exilarch. As ‘Ukban’s successor is mentioned in the list his son Huna (Huna II), whose chief advisers were Rab (died 247) and Samuel (died 254), and in whose time Papa ben Nazor destroyed Nehardea. Huna’s son and successor, Nathan, whose chief advisers were Judah ben Ezekiel (died 299) and Shesheth, was called, like his grandfather, “Mar ‘Ukban“, and it is he, the second exilarch of this name, whose curious correspondence with Eleazar ben Pedat is referred to in the Talmud [Gittin 7a; see Bacher, l.c. p. 72; idem, “Aggadoth of the Palestinian Amoraim” i. 9]. He was succeeded by his brother (not his son, as stated in Seder ‘Olam Zuta); his leading adviser was Shezbi. The “exilarch Nehemiah” is also mentioned in the Talmud [Bava Metzia 91b]; he is the same person as “Rabbanu Nehemiah,” and he and his brother “Rabbeinu ‘Ukban” (Mar ‘Ukban II) are several times mentioned in the Talmud as sons of Rab’s daughter (hence Huna II was Rab’s son-in-law) and members of the house of the exilarchs [Hullin 92a; Bava Batra 51b].

The Mar ‘Ukbans

According to Seder ‘Olam Zuta, in Nehemiah’s time, the 245th year after the destruction of the Temple (313 CE), there took place a great religious persecution by the Persians, of which, however, no details are known. Nehemiah was succeeded by his son Mar ‘Ukban III, whose chief advisers were Rabbah ben Nahmani (died 323) and Adda. He is mentioned as “‘Ukban ben Nehemiah, resh galuta,” in the Talmud [Shabbat 56b; Bava Batra 55a]. This Mar ‘Ukban, the third exilarch of that name, was also called “Nathan,” as were the first two, and has been made the hero of a legend under the name of “Nathan de-Ẓuẓita” [Shabbat 56b]. The conquest of Armenia (337) by Shapur (Sapor) II is mentioned in the chronicle as a historical event occurring during the time of Mar ‘Ukban III.

He was succeeded by his brother Huna Mar (Huna III), whose chief advisers were Abaye (died 338) and Raba; then followed Mar ‘Ukban’s son Abba, whose chief advisers were Raba (died 352) and Rabina. During Abba’s time King Sapor conquered Nisibis. The designation of a certain Isaac as resh galuta in the time of Abaye and Raba [Yebamoth 115b] is due to a clerical error [Brüll’s Jahrbuch, vii. 115]. Abba was succeeded first by his son Nathan and then by another son, Mar Kahana. The latter’s son Huna is then mentioned as successor, being the fourth exilarch of that name; he died in 441, according to a trustworthy source, the “Seder Tannaim wa-Amoraim.” Hence he was a contemporary of Rav Ashi, the great master of Sura, who died in 427. In the Talmud, however, Huna ben Nathan is mentioned as Ashi’s contemporary, and according to Sherira it was he who was Mar Kahana’s successor, a statement which is also confirmed by the Talmud [Zevachim 19a]. The statement of Seder ‘Olam Zuta ought perhaps to be emended, since Huna was probably not the son of Mar Kahana, but the son of the latter’s elder brother Nathan.

Persecutions under Peroz and Kobad

Huna was succeeded by his brother Mar Zutra, whose chief adviser was Ahai of Diphti, the same who was defeated in 455 by Ashi’s sonTabyomi (Mar) at the election for director of the school of Sura. Mar Zutra was succeeded by his son Kahana (Kahana II), whose chief adviser was Rabina, the editor of the Babylonian Talmud (died 499). Then followed two exilarchs by the same name: another son of Mar Zutra, Huna V, and a grandson of Mar Zutra, Huna VI, the son of Kahana.

Huna V fell a victim to the persecutions under King Peroz (Firuz) of Persia, being executed, according to Sherira, in 470; Huna VI was not installed in office until some time later, the exilarchate being vacant during the persecutions under Peroz; he died in 508 [Sherira]. TheSeder ‘Olam Zuta connects with the birth of his son Mar Zutra the legend that is elsewhere told in connection with Bostanai‘s birth.

Mar Zutra II, who came into office at the age of fifteen, took advantage of the confusion into which Mazdak‘s communistic attempts had plunged Persia, to obtain by force of arms for a short time a sort of political independence for the Jews of Babylon. King Kobad, however, punished him by crucifying him on the bridge of Mahuza (c. 502). A son was born to him on the day of his death, who was also named “Mar Zutra.” The latter did not attain to the office of exilarch, but went to the land of Israel, where he became head of the Academy of Tiberias, under the title of “Resh Pirka” (‘Aρχιφεκίτησ), several generations of his descendants succeeding him in this office.

After Mar Zutra’s death the exilarchate of Babylon remained unoccupied for some time. Mar Ahunai lived in the period succeeding Mar Zutra II, but for almost fifty years after the catastrophe he did not dare to appear in public, and it is not known whether even then (c. 550) he really acted as exilarch. At any rate the chain of succession of those who inherited the office was not broken. The names of Kafnai and his son Haninai, who were exilarchs in the second half of the 6th, have been preserved.

Haninai’s posthumous son Bostanai was the first of the exilarchs under Arabic rule. Bostanai was the ancestor of the exilarchs who were in office from the time when the Persian empire was conquered by the Arabs, in 642, down to the 11th century. Through him, the splendor of the office was renewed and its political position made secure. His tomb in Pumbedita was a place of worship as late as the 12th century, according to Benjamin of Tudela.

Not much is known regarding Bostanai’s successors down to the time of Saadia except their names; even the name of Bostanai’s son is not known. The list of the exilarchs down to the end of the 9th century is given as follows in an old document [Neubauer, “Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles,” i. 196]: “Bostanai, Hanina ben Adoi, Hasdai I, Solomon, Isaac Iskawi I, Judah Zakkai (Babawai), Moses, Isaac Iskawi II, David ben Judah, Hasdai II.”

Hasdai I was probably Bostanai’s grandson. The latter’s son Solomon had a deciding voice in the appointments to the gaonate of Sura in the years 733 and 759 [Sherira]. Isaac Iskawi I died very soon after Solomon. In the dispute between David’s sons Anan and Hananiah regarding the succession the latter was victor; Anan then proclaimed himself anti-exilarch, was imprisoned, and founded the etc. of theKaraites. So says the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1906; the origin of the Karaites is not uncontroversial. His descendants were regarded by the Karaites as the true exilarchs. The following list of Karaite exilarchs, father being succeeded always by son, is given in the genealogy of one of these “Karaite princes”: Anan, Saul, Josiah, Boaz, Jehoshaphat, David, Solomon, Hezekiah, Hasdai, Solomon II.[9] Anan’s brother Hananiah is not mentioned in this list.

Judah Zakkai, who is called “Zakkai ben Ahunai” by Sherira, had as rival candidate Natronai ben Habibai, who, however, was defeated and sent West in banishment; this Natronai was a great scholar, and, according to tradition, while in Spain wrote the Talmud from memory. David ben Judah also had to contend with an anti-exilarch, Daniel by name. The fact that the decision in this dispute rested with the calif Al-Ma’mun (825) indicates a decline in the power of the exilarchate. David ben Judah, who carried off the victory, appointed Isaac ben Hiyya as gaon at Pumbedita in 833. Preceding Hasdai II‘s name in the list that of his father Natronai must be inserted. Both are designated as exilarchs in a geonic responsum.[10]

Deposition of ‘Ukba

‘Ukba is mentioned as exilarch immediately following Hasdai II; he was deposed at the instigation of Kohen Zedek, gaon of Pumbedita, but was reinstated in 918 on account of some Arabic verses with which he greeted the calif Al-Muktadir. He was deposed again soon afterward, and fled to Kairwan, where he was treated with great honor.

After a short interregnum ‘Ukba’s nephew, David ben Zakkai, became exilarch; but he had to contend for nearly two years with Kohen Zedek before he was finally confirmed in his power (921). In consequence of Saadia’s call to the gaonate of Sura and his controversy with David, the latter has become one of the best-known personages of Jewish history. Saadia had David’s brother Josiah (Al-Hasan) elected anti-exilarch in 930, but the latter was defeated and banished to Chorasan. David ben Zakkai was the last exilarch to play an important part in history. He died a few years before Saadia; his son Judah died seven months afterward.

Judah left a son (whose name is not mentioned) twelve years of age, whom Saadia took into his house and educated. His generous treatment of the grandson of his former adversary was continued until Saadia’s death in 942.

End of Babylonian Exilarchate and Gaonate (1040)

Only a single entry has been preserved regarding the later fortunes of the exilarchate. When Gaon Hai died in 1038, nearly a century after Saadia’s death, the members of his academy could not find a more worthy successor than the exilarch Hezekiah, a descendant, perhaps a great-grandson, of David ben Zakkai, who thereafter filled both offices. But two years later, in 1040, Hezekiah, who was the last exilarch and also the last gaon, fell a victim to calumny. He was imprisoned and tortured to death. Hezekiah, is counted as the last exilarch and also the last gaon. Two of his sons fled to Spain, where they found refuge with Joseph, the son and successor of Samuel ha-Nagid. However, Jewish Quarterly Review mentions that Hezekiah was liberated from prison, and became head of the academy, and is mentioned as such by a contemporary in 1046. [Jewish Quarterly Review, hereafter “J. Q. R.”, xv. 80]

Later traces

The title of exilarch is found occasionally even after the Babylonian exilarchate had ceased. Abraham ibn Ezra [commentary to Zech. xii. 7] speaks of the “Davidic house” at Baghdad (before 1140), calling its members the “heads of the Exile.” Benjamin of Tudela in 1170 mentions the exilarch Hasdai, among whose pupils was the subsequent pseudo-Messiah David Alroy, and Hasdai’s son, the exilarch Daniel. Pethahiah of Regensburg also refers to the latter, but under the name of “Daniel ben Solomon”; hence it must be assumed that Hasdai was also called “Solomon.” Yehuda Alharizi (after 1216) met at Mosul a descendant of the house of David, whom he calls “David, the head of the Exile.”

A long time previously a descendant of the ancient house of exilarchs had attempted to revive in Egypt the dignity of exilarch which had become extinct in Babylon. This was David ben Daniel; he came to Egypt at the age of twenty, in 1081, and was proclaimed exilarch by the learned Jewish authorities of that country, who wished to divert to Egypt the leadership formerly enjoyed by Babylon. A contemporary document, the Megillah of the gaon Abiathar from the land of Israel, gives an authentic account of this episode of the Egyptian exilarchate, which ended with the downfall of David ben Daniel in 1094 [“J. Q. R.” xv. 80 et. seq.].

Descendants of the house of exilarchs were living in various places long after the office became extinct. A descendant of Hezekiah, Hiyya al-Daudi, Gaon of Andalucia, died in 1154 in Castile (according to Abraham ibn Daud). Several families, as late as the 14th century, traced their descent back to Josiah, the brother of David ben Zakkai who had been banished to Chorasan (see the genealogies in [Lazarus 1890] pp. 180 et seq.). The descendants of the Karaite exilarchs have been referred to above.

Character of the exilarchate in the first era

Relations with the Academies

In accordance with the character of Talmudic tradition it is the relation of the exilarchs to the heads and members of the schools that is especially referred to in Talmudic literature. The Seder ‘Olam Zuta, the chronicle of the exilarchs that is the most important and in many cases the only source of information concerning their succession, has also preserved chiefly the names of those scholars who had certain official relations with the respective exilarchs. The phrase used in this connection (“hakamim debaruhu”, “the scholars directed him”) is the stereotyped phrase used also in connection with the fictitious exilarchs of the century of the Second Temple; in the latter case, however, it occurs without the specific mention of names — a fact in favor of the historicalness of those names that are given for the succeeding centuries.

The authenticity of the names of the amoraim designated as the scholars “guiding” the several exilarchs, is, in the case of those passages in which the text is beyond dispute, supported by internal chronological evidence also. Some of the Babylonian amoraim were closely related to the house of the exilarchs, as, for example, Rabba ben Abuha, whom Gaon Sherira, claiming Davidian descent, named as his ancestor. Nahman ben Jacob (died 320) also became closely connected with the house of the exilarchs through his marriage with Rabba ben Abuha’s daughter, the proud Yaltha; and he owed to this connection perhaps his office of chief judge of the Babylonian Jews. Huna, the head of the school of Sura, recognized Nahman ben Jacob’s superior knowledge of the Law by saying that Nahman was very close to the “gate of the exilarch” (“baba di resh galuta”), where many cases were decided [Bava Batra 65b].

The term “dayyane di baba” (“judges of the gate”), which was applied in the post-Talmudic time to the members of the court of the exilarch, is derived from the phrase just quoted [compare Harkavy, l.c.]. Two details of Nahman ben Jacob’s life cast light on his position at the court of the exilarch: he received the two scholars Rav Chisda and Rabba b. Huna, who had come to pay their respects to the exilarch (Sukkah 10b); and when the exilarch was building a new house he asked Nahman to take charge of the placing of the mezuzahaccording to the Law [Men. 33a].

Retinue of the exilarch

The scholars who formed part of the retinue of the exilarch were called “scholars of the house of the exilarch” (“rabbanan di-be resh galuta”). A remark of Samuel, the head of the school of Nehardea, shows that they wore certain badges on their garments to indicate their position (Shabbat 58a). Once a woman came to Nahman ben Jacob, complaining that the exilarch and the scholars of his court sat at the festival in a stolen booth [Sukkah 31a], the material for it having been taken from her. There are many anecdotes of the annoyances and indignities the scholars had to suffer at the hands of the exilarchs’ servants [Gittin 67b, the case of Amram the Pious; Avodah Zarah 38b, of Hiyya of Parwa; Shabbat 121b, of Abba ben Marta].

The modification of ritual requirements granted to the exilarchs and their households in certain concrete cases is characteristic of their relation to the religious law [Pesahim 76b, Levi ben Sisi; Hullin 59a, Rab; Avodah Zarah 72b, Rabba ben Huna; Eruvin 11b, Nahman versus Sheshet; Eruvin 39b, similarly; Mo’ed Katan 12a, Hanan; Pesahim 40b, Pappai]. Once when certain preparations which the exilarch was making in his park for alleviating the strictness of the Sabbath law were interrupted by Raba and his pupils, he exclaimed, in the words of Jeremiah 4:22, “They are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge” [Eruvin 26a].

There are frequent references to questions, partly halakic and exegetical in nature, which the exilarch laid before his scholars (to Huna, Gittin 7a; Yebamoth 61a; Sanhedrin 44a; to Rabba ben Huna, Shabbat 115b; to Hamnuna, Shabbat 119a). Details are sometimes given of lectures that were delivered “at the entrance to the house of the exilarch” (“pitha di-be resh galuta”; see Hullin 84b; Betzah 23a; Shabbat 126a; Mo’ed Katan 24a). These lectures were probably delivered at the time of the assemblies, which brought many representatives of Babylonian Judaism to the court of the exilarch after the autumnal festivals (on Sabbath Lek Leka, as Sherira says; compare Eruvin 59a).

Etiquette of the Resh Galuta’s court

The luxurious banquets at the court of the exilarch were well known. An old anecdote was repeated in the land of Israel concerning a splendid feast which the exilarch once gave to the tanna Judah ben Bathyra at Nisibis on the eve of the 9th of Ab [ Lam. R. iii. 16] (but, in the more exact S. Buber‘s edition, the feast was given by the chief of the synagogue). Another story told in the land of Israel[Jerusalem Talmud Megillah 74b] relates that an exilarch had music in his house morning and evening, and that Mar ‘Ukba, who subsequently became exilarch, sent him as a warning this sentence from Hosea: “Rejoice not, O Israel, for joy, as other people.”

The exilarch Nehemiah is said to have dressed entirely in silk [Shabath 20b, according to the correct reading; see Rabbinowicz, “Dikdukei Soferim”]. The Talmud says almost nothing in regard to the personal relations of the exilarchs to the royal court. One passage relates merely that Huna ben Nathan appeared before Yazdegerd I, who with his own hands girded him with the belt which was the sign of the exilarch’s office. There are also two allusions dating from an earlier time, one by Hiyya, a Babylonian living in the land of Israel [Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 5a], and the other by Adda ben Ahaba, one of Rab’s earlier pupils [Sheb. 6b; Jerusalem Talmud Sheb. 32d], from which it seems that the exilarch occupied a foremost position among the high dignitaries of the state when he appeared at the court first of the Arsacids, then of the Sassanids.

An Arabic writer of the 9th century records the fact that the exilarch presented a gift of 4,000 dirhems on the Persian feast of NauruzRevue des Études Juives – hereafter R. E. J. – viii. 122. Regarding the functions of the exilarch as the chief tax-collector for the Jewish population, there is the curious statement, preserved only in the Jerusalem Talmud [Sotah 20b, bottom], that once, in the time of Huna, the head of the school of Sura, the exilarch was commanded to furnish as much grain as would fill a room of 40 square ells.

Juridical functions

The most important function of the exilarch was the appointment of the judge. Both Rab and Samuel said [Sanhedrin 5a] that the judge who did not wish to be held personally responsible in case of an error of judgment, would have to accept his appointment from the house of the exilarch. When Rab went from the land of Israel to Nehardea he was appointed overseer of the market by the exilarch [Jerusalem Talmud Bava Batra 15b, top]. The exilarch had jurisdiction in criminal cases also. Aha b. Jacob, a contemporary of Rab [compare Gittin 31b], was commissioned by the exilarch to take charge of a murder case [Sanhedrin 27a, b]. The story found in Bava Kamma 59a is an interesting example of the police jurisdiction exercised by the followers of the exilarch in the time of Samuel. From the same time dates a curious dispute regarding the etiquette of precedence among the scholars greeting the exilarch [Jerusalem Talmud Ta’an. 68a]. The exilarch had certain privileges regarding real property [Bava Kamma 102b; Bava Batra 36a]. It is a specially noteworthy fact that in certain cases the exilarch judged according to the Persian law [Bava Kamma 58b]; and it was the exilarch ‘Ukba b. Nehemiah who communicated to the head of the school of Pumbedita, Rabbah ben Nahmai, three Persian statutes which Samuel recognized as binding [Bava Batra 55a].

A synagogal prerogative of the exilarch was mentioned in the land of Israel as a curiosity [Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 22a]: The Torah roll was carried to the exilarch, while every one else had to go to the Torah to read from it. This prerogative is referred to also in the account of the installation of the exilarch in the Arabic period, and this gives color to the assumption that the ceremonies, as recounted in this document, were based in part on usages taken over from the Persian time. The account of the installation of the exilarch is supplemented by further details in regard to the exilarchate which are of great historical value; see the following section.

Character of the exilarchate in the Arabic era

Upon their conquest of Iraq, the Arabs confirmed the authority of Exilarch Bustanai and the continuation of his governance of the Jewish community. For his services to the caliph during the conquest he received the hand of the daughter of the former Shah as a wife. The Muslims regarded the office of Exilarch with profound respect because they viewed him as a direct descendant of the prophet David. Under the Abbassids, the Exilarch ruled over more than 90% of the Jewish nation. The subsequent fragmentation of the authority of the Abassids resulted in the waning of the authority of the Exilarch beyond Persia. A struggle for leadership between the Geonim and Exilarchs saw the slow relinquishing of power to the Geonim but remained an office of reverence to which Muslims showed respect.[11]

Installation ceremonies

The following is a translation of a portion of an account of the Exilarchy in the Arabic period, written by Nathan ha-Babli in the 10th century, and included in Abraham Zacuto’s “Yuhasin” and in Neubauer’s “Mediaeval Jewish Chronicles,” ii. 83 et seq.:

The members of the two academies [Sura and Pumbedita], led by the two heads [the geonim] as well as by the leaders of the community, assemble in the house of an especially prominent man before the Sabbath on which the installation of the exilarch is to take place. The first homage is paid on Thursday in the synagogue, the event being announced by trumpets, and every one sends presents to the exilarch according to his means. The leaders of the community and the wealthy send handsome garments, jewelry, and gold and silver vessels. On Thursday and Friday the exilarch gives great banquets. On the morning of the Sabbath the nobles of the community call for him and accompany him to the synagogue. Here a wooden platform covered entirely with costly cloth has been erected, under which a picked choir of sweet-voiced youths well versed in the liturgy has been placed. This choir responds to the leader in prayer, who begins the service with ‘Baruk she-amar.’ After the morning prayer the exilarch, who until now has been standing in a covered place, appears; the whole congregation rises and remains standing until he has taken his place on the platform, and the two geonim, the one from Sura preceding, have taken seats to his right and left, each making an obeisance.

A costly canopy has been erected over the seat of the exilarch. Then the leader in prayer steps in front of the platform and, in a low voice audible only to those close by, and accompanied by the ‘Amen’ of the choir, addresses the exilarch with a benediction, prepared long beforehand. Then the exilarch delivers a sermon on the text of the week or commissions the gaonof Sura to do so. After the discourse the leader in prayer recites the kaddish, and when he reaches the words ‘during your life and in your days,’ he adds the words ‘and during the life of our prince, the exilarch.’ After the kaddish he blesses the exilarch, the two heads of the schools, and the several provinces that contribute to the support of the academies, as well as the individuals who have been of especial service in this direction. Then the Torah is read. When the ‘Kohen’ and ‘Levi’ have finished reading, the leader in prayer carries the Torah roll to the exilarch, the whole congregation rising; the exilarch takes the roll in his hands and reads from it while standing. The two heads of the schools also rise, and the gaon of Sura recites the targum to the passage read by the exilarch. When the reading of the Torah is completed, a blessing is pronounced upon the exilarch. After the ‘Musaf’ prayer the exilarch leaves the synagogue, and all, singing, accompany him to his house. After that the exilarch rarely goes beyond the gate of his house, where services for the community are held on the Sabbaths and feastdays. When it becomes necessary for him to leave his house, he does so only in a carriage of state, accompanied by a large retinue. If the exilarch desires to pay his respects to the king, he first asks permission to do so. As he enters the palace the king’s servants hasten to meet him, among whom he liberally distributes gold coin, for which provision has been made beforehand. When led before the king his seat is assigned to him. The king then asks what he desires. He begins with carefully prepared words of praise and blessing, reminds the king of the customs of his fathers, gains the favor of the king with appropriate words, and receives written consent to his demands; thereupon, rejoiced, he takes leave of the king.”

Income and privileges

In regard to Nathan ha-Babli’s additional account as to the income and the functions of the exilarch (which refers, however, only to the time of the narrator), it may be noted that he received taxes, amounting altogether to 700 gold denarii a year, chiefly from the provincesNahrawan, Farsistan, and Holwan.

The Muslim author of the 9th century, Al-Jahiz, who has been referred to above, makes special mention of the shofar, the wind-instrument which was used when the exilarch (ras al-jalut) excommunicated any one. The punishment of excommunication, continues the author, is the only one which in Muslim countries the exilarch of the Jews and the catholicos of the Christians may pronounce, for they are deprived of the right of inflicting punishment by imprisonment or flogging [“R. E. J.” viii. 122 et. seq.].

Another Muslim author reports a conversation that took place in the 8th century between a follower of Islam and the exilarch, in which the latter boasted; “Seventy generations have passed between me and King David, yet the Jews still recognize the prerogatives of my royal descent, and regard it as their duty to protect me; but you have slain the grandson [Husain] of your prophet after one single generation” [ibid. p. 125].

The son of a previous exilarch said to another Muslim author: “I formerly never rode by Karbala, the place where Husain was martyred, without spurring on my horse, for an old tradition said that on this spot the descendant of a prophet would be killed; only since Husain has been slain there and the prophecy has thus been fulfilled do I pass leisurely by the place” [ibid. p. 123]. This last story indicates that theresh galuta had by that time become the subject of Muslim legend, other examples also being cited by Goldziher. [Goldziher, 1884]

That the personage of the exilarch was familiar to Muslim circles is also shown by the fact that the Rabbinite Jews were called Jaluti, that is, those belonging to the exilarch, in contradistinction to the Karaites [ibid.]. In the first quarter of the 11th century, not long before the extinction of the exilarchate, Ibn Hazm, a fanatic polemicist, made the following remark in regard to the dignity: “The ras al-jalut has no power whatever over the Jews or over other persons; he has merely a title, to which is attached neither authority nor prerogatives of any kind” [ibid., p. 125].

Curiously enough the exilarchs are still mentioned in the Sabbath services of the Ashkenazim ritual. The Aramaic prayer “Yekum Purkan“, which was used once in Babylon in pronouncing the blessing upon the leaders there, including the “reshe galwata” (the exilarchs), is still recited in most synagogues. The Jews of the Sephardic ritual have not preserved this anachronism, nor was it retained in most of theReform synagogues, beginning in the 19th century.


  1. Jump up^ http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=171&letter=Z&search=Mar%20zutra
  2. Jump up^ Ezekiel never mentions by name Jeconiah’s successor, Zedekiah, with dates in the book of Ezekiel being given according to the year of captivity of Jeconiah.
  3. Jump up^ Babylon installed his uncle, Zedekiah on the throne, who continued as king of Judah for eleven years.
  4. Jump up^ James B. Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1969) 308.
  5. Jump up^ Geoffrey Herman (2012). A Prince Without a Kingdom: The Exilarch in the Sasanian Era. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, German. p. 295. Retrieved15 January 2014.
  6. Jump up^ Geoffrey Herman (2012). A Prince Without a Kingdom: The Exilarch in the Sasanian Era. Mohr Siebeck, Tubingen, German. p. 295. Retrieved15 January 2014.
  7. Jump up^ Jacob Neusner (1975). A history of the Jews in Babylonia v. later Sasanian times. printed in the Netherlands. p. 126. Retrieved 15 January2014.
  8. Jump up^ Jacob Neusner (1975). A history of the Jews in Babylonia v. later Sasanian times. printed in the Netherlands. p. 127. Retrieved 15 January2014.
  9. Jump up^ Pinsker, “Likkute Kadmoniyyot,” ii. 53
  10. Jump up^ Harkavy, “Responsen der Geonim,” p. 389
  11. Jump up^ Lucien Gubbay, “Sunlight and Shadow: The Jewish Experience of Islam”, 2000, Other Press, LLC, ISBN 1-892746-69-7 pg. 31

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domainSinger, Isidore; et al., eds. (1901–1906). Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk & Wagnalls Company. This article is an evolution of the corresponding article which gives the following bibliography:

The following is a reconstruction of some other references used in that Jewish Encyclopedia article but not explicitly mentioned in its bibliography:

  • Sherira (also Sherira Gaon or Gaon Sherira), was one of the post-Talmudic geonim.
  • Raphael Kirchheim, Commentar zur Chronik aus dem Zehnten Jahrhundert, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1874. The Jewish Encyclopediaarticle refers to this as “A commentary to Chronicles (ed. Kirchheim)”.
  • S. Pinsker, Likkute Kadmoniyyot, Vienna, 1860. Various sources transliterate differently the name of this Hebrew-language work on Karaite history and literature, e.g. Likkutei Kadmoniyyot[1], Likute kadhmoniot[2]
  • The Jewish Encyclopedia article from which this derives relies heavily on material from the Talmud. Unless otherwise noted, references are to the Babylonian Talmud; Jerusalem Talmud or Yerushalmi preceding the name of a Talmudic tractate means it is from the Jerusalem Talmud. This article uses the following tractates as reference material:
    • Avodah Zarah, a tractate in the order of Nezikin.
    • Bava Batra, a tractate in Nezikin.
    • Bava Kamma, a tractate in Nezikin.
    • Bava Metzia, a tractate in Nezikin.
    • Berakhot —Berachos, a tractate in Zeraim.
    • Betzah, a tractate in Moed.
    • Eruvin—Eruvin, a tractate in Moed.
    • Horayot, a tractate in Nezikin.
    • Gittin, a tractate in Nashim.
    • Hullin, a tractate in Kodshim.
    • Kilayim, a tractate in Zeraim.
    • Lam. R., Eicha (Lamentations) Rabba, a book of midrash.
    • Megillah, a tractate in Moed.
    • Men.—Menachos, a tractate in Kodshim.
    • Mo’ed Katan, a tractate in Moed.
    • Pesahim, a tractate in Moed.
    • Sanhedrin, a tractate in Nezikin.
    • Shabbat, a tractate in Moed.
    • Sheb.—Shebuot, a tractate in Nezikin.
    • Sotah. a tractate in Nashim.
    • Sukkah, a tractate in Moed.
    • Ta’an.—Ta’anis, a tractate in Moed
    • Yebamoth, a tractate in Nashim.
    • Zech.—Zachariah, a book of the Tnach
    • Zevachim, a tractate in Kodashim
Image description

what official Judaism says about Karaites:

Are the Karaites still a threat to Klal Yisroel?

Early this month, a small group of Karaites gathered in America’s only Karaite synagogue, located in Daly, North California, to induct fourteen non-Jews garnered from the four corners of earth into their dying organization. Is this a sign of revival or the last convulsion of a dying man? Probably the latter! Once a major threat to Torah-true Judaism, the Karaites now number about 30,000 worldwide and are probably headed for extinction.


When did this sect begin? Most Rishonim agree that it began in the generation before Rav Saadyah Gaon, during the early years of Muslim conquest. The Reish Galusa had passed away in about 4520/760, leaving behind his two closest relatives, Anan ben David and the younger Yoshiyahu. Although Anan was first in line for succession, because of his lack of yiras Shamayim and brazenness, Geonim and communal leaders selected the younger Yoshiyahu to be next Reish Galusa and their decision was sanctioned by the caliph of Baghdad.

Furious at his rejection, Anan ben David had his followers proclaim him Reish Galusa. The Baghdad caliph, King Al Mansur, regarded this as an act of rebellion and hurled Anan into prison. Fortunately for Anan, one of his fellow jailbirds was a person ideally suited to getting him off the hook – the major Muslim scholar and judicial expert of the time, Abu Chanifa. What was he doing behind lock and key?

King Al Mansur had offered Abu Chanifa the position of chief state justice and he had declined the offer, arguing that he regarded himself unfit for the position.

“You are lying,” the king shouted. “Everyone knows that you are one of the most brilliant men in my kingdom! How can you turn down my offer?”

“If I am lying,” replied Abu Chanifa, “my refusal to be chief judge is doubly correct, for how can you appoint a liar to such an exalted post?”

Furious at Abu Chanifa’s brazen reply, the king threw the scholar into jail and he rotted there until his death. However, this historical quirk enabled Anan to get the best legal council, free of charge, and he certainly needed it, as the caliph had ordered Anan to be executed on the coming Friday unless he came up with a good excuse for his insubordination.

“I’ll tell you what to do,” the wily Abu Chanifa advised Anan. “Your crime is your attempt to usurp the leadership of the Jewish community. What you must do is start a new religious sect. Interpret your Torah’s laws in a new way that conflicts with the rabbis. Then, during your trial, tell the caliph that you were not being insubordinate by setting yourself up as Reish Galusa because you and your followers belong to a totally different sect.”

This would not have been unusual at this time when new sects and religions were springing up like mushrooms. Even Islam was in the process of splitting into its two main groups, the Sunnis, who follow an oral tradition that slightly mellows the Koran’s fanatical ravings, and the Shiites, who follow nothing but the madness of the written Koran.

Following this advice, Anan created a new sect comprised of “every evil, rebellious person who remained from the cult of Tzadok and Baisus” (Raavad), which the caliph acknowledged as a separate group. This action breathed new life into a philosophy that had first sprung up in the days of the Mikdash Sheini when the Tzedukim (Sadducees) denied the Oral Torah, claiming that the sole guide to a Jew’s life is the Written Torah. Thus, Anan’s Sefer HaMitzvos, in which he lays out the laws of his new creed, borrowed Tzeduki ideas, such as burning no lights in one’s home on Shabbos and always celebrating Shavuos on a Sunday.

As the Raavad states, “He wrote books, established talmidim, and invented evil laws and statutes with which one cannot live. Since after Churban HaBayis, the Tzedukim had diminished until Anan came and strengthened them” (Sefer HaKabbalah).

Anan also invented strange new rules for deriving laws from the Torah, such as creating gezeirah shavahs (a method of deducing Torah laws through the comparison of words in different contexts only based on received tradition) from single letters, even proving that Jews are supposed to fast for seventy days from the 13th of Nissan until the 23rd of Sivan, eating or drinking nothing during daylight hours. As he told his followers, “Leave the way of the Mishnah and Talmud and I will make you a Talmud of my own” (Rav Natronai Gaon).

These personal innovations of his caused later generations of Tzedukim to reject his system in disgust, as they preferred to rely more on the written text. For example, Binyamin the Gaondi instructed every individual to understand the Torah according to his own understanding, to the extent that a brother could contradict a brother, a son his father, and a disciple his teacher, and no one could object, “Why are you contradicting me?” Nevertheless, even he drew heavily on Talmudic teachings.

Officially, Karaites tried to derive everything from the plain pshat of the Torah’s verses, a task they eventually realized is virtually impossible, as most verses can be understood in many different ways. As a Karaite, Yaakov the Corsican said in the time of Rav Saadyah Gaon, “No two Karaites have the same opinion; every Karaite has a different opinion.”

Because of this problem, many of them, in particular Egyptian Karaites, developed a collection of customs known as “Sevel HaYerushah,” de facto ending up with their own “Oral Torah” largely based on a plain reading of the texts.


Some Rishonim state that the Karaite cult began not in the days of the Geonim but in the days of Bayis Sheini, when King Yanai killed all the chachamim. For example, Rav Yehudah HaLevi writes in the Kuzari: “After them were Yehudah ben Tabai, Shimon ben Shetach, and their colleagues. In his day, the cult of the Kara’im originated as a result of what Yanai did to the chachamim. Yanai was a kohen and there was a suspicion that his mother was a challal [a woman to whom a kohen is forbidden to be married]. One of the chachamim hinted at this by saying, ‘King Yanai, the crown [of royalty] is enough for you. Leave the crown of kehunah for the seed of Aharon.’

“Then Yanai’s friends advised him to persecute the chachamim, degrade them, exile them, and kill them. However, he asked his friend, ‘If I destroy the chachamim, who will teach us Torah?’ To this he answered, ‘Behold, the Written Torah is rolled up and rests in the corner; whoever wants to learn can come and learn.’”

The Gemara says that at this moment Yanai was influenced by heresy, as he should have answered, “But how will the Oral Torah be perpetuated?”

When Yanai discovered that it was impossible to understand Torah without the chachamim, he brought back Shimon ben Shetach and most of his talmidim from Alexandria. However, in the meantime, the Karaites had sprung up. As the Kuzari continues:

“The Karaites who had taken root at that time were people who rejected the Oral Torah and argued against it with arguments like those you find in Karaites of our time. One should distinguish between them and the Tzedukim and Baisusim, who are people who deny the World to Come, and they are the minim that we pray for their destruction in the Shemoneh Esrei. Concerning Yeshu and his companions, they are the apostates who joined the cult that immerses in the Jordan. But the Karaites acknowledged the roots of the Torah, only they argued about the branches. It is possible that this caused damage to the roots, but this was through ignorance and not with intent” (Kuzari, Ma’amar 3, Chap. 65).

As the centuries rolled on, the Karaites increased their numbers and spread from country to country, resulting in the proliferation of controversy. Their greatest opponent was Rav Saadyah Gaon, who weakened, but could not destroy, the growing movement that reached its so-called

Golden Age between the tenth and eleventh centuries. During this time, they produced hundreds of books, most of them lost except for tiny scraps in the Cairo Genizah. During this Golden Age, large numbers of Karaites penetrated Spain, where prominent Jews, including Rav Todros HaLevi, drove them out with royal support.

When the Rambam arrived in Egypt, he discovered that Karaite customs were beginning to infiltrate the Torah community. He fought so successfully against them that many of the Karaites returned to true Torah beliefs.

In Hilchos Mamrim (3), the Rambam gives a ruling that may have contributed to Middle Eastern Karaites not totally drifting away from the Torah. He writes that although the Karaites’ beliefs are absolute apikorsus, there is a mitigating factor:

“Someone who does not acknowledge the Oral Torah … is included among the apikorsim. … When is this said? When a person denied the Oral Torah with his intellect and through things that seem [logical] to him and went after his weak mind and the desires of his heart and was the first to deny the Oral Torah, and all who strayed after him.

“But the sons of these who strayed and their grandsons whose fathers drove them away and were born among the heretics and they raised them according to their opinion, these are like a baby who was captured by them and they raised him. . Therefore, it is fitting to return them in repentance and to draw them with words of peace until they return to the strength of the Torah.”

The Radva”z writes that the Rambam is being melamedz’chus on the Karaites of his day. (However the Radva”z adds that the Karaites of his own day are to be considered full-fledged heretics.)

Following this ruling, some authorities advocated teaching Karaites Torah in order to enlighten them with the truth. Other authorities forbade it.


During the nineteenth century, an Eastern European Karaite, Avraham Firkovich, widened the difference between Karaites and the Jewish people further by claiming that Karaites had lived there since before the Churban HaBayis and were thus not guilty of killing the founder of the Russian religion. In his fight to gain the Karaites equal rights, Firkovich fooled the czar into believing they had been in Russia for millennia by forging ancient Crimean tombstone inscriptions to make it appear as if they marked the burial sites of Jews from the Ten Lost Tribes. This ploy saved Karaites from Nazi persecution during World War II.

The large Karaite population in Egypt still remained attached to the Jewish people to such an extent that one of them, Moshe Marzouk, participated in the Lavon Affair of 5714/1954, a bizarre Israeli plot to disrupt Egyptian society by exploding incendiary devices in public buildings. Despite the strong objections of chareidim and the Israeli Rabbinate, Israel imported the Egyptian Karaites in the 5710s/1950s and their 20,000 members. Living in Ramle, Ashdod, and Beersheva, they constitute the largest Karaite community in the world.

Another 10,000 of them migrated to the United States, resulting in a total population of over 30,000. Most Karaites are not particularly observant and it is probable that they will gradually assimilate into their host societies. In Israel, for example, marriage between nonobservant Israelis and Karaites is on the rise. Thus ends a centuries-old battle started by the foolish vanity of one man.




De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

El caraísmo proviene del término hebreo bené mikrá, que significa
“Seguidores (o ‘lectores’) de la Escritura”.

“Escudriñad a fondo la Torá [Ley escrita de Dios] y no confiéis en mi
opinión”, estas palabras las mencionó Anán ben David, judíosecesionista que proclamaba el derecho de todo judío a estudiar las
Escrituras Hebreas de un modo libre, sin tener en cuenta lainterpretación rabínica ni el Talmud; debido al énfasis que le daban a
las Escrituras, se les llamó desde el siglo VIII “Qara’ìm” (en hebreo “lectores”) a los seguidores de Anán, que se oponían a la autoridad religiosa de los rabinos y a sus creencias.

1 Inicio de la controversia
2 Desarrollo
3 Algunos rasgos entre caraítas y rabinos
4 Historia
5 Doctrina
6 Referencias

Inicio de la controversia
Dentro del judaísmo de la Diáspora babilónica de la época talmúdica
surgió una nueva filosofía. La idea siempre había sido que Dios había
dado dos Leyes (Torá)en el Sinaí una Oral y otra Escrita. Ya durante
la época del Segundo Templo de Jerusalén aparecieron sectas (los
Saduceos y los Esenios), que iban en contra de las enseñanzas de los
Prushim (Fariseos), que eran considerados como la corriente ortodoxa,
en cuestión del valor divino de la Ley Oral, pero con la destrucción
del Templo, las sectas heterodoxas desaparecieron.

El Caraísmo apareció en el siglo VIII, con la figura de Anán ben David.

Anán procedía de una familia noble judía, descendientes del Rey David,
y por ello aspiraba al título de ‘Jefe de la Diáspora’, que le fue

Desde aquel momento se convirtió en el líder del movimiento heterodoxo
que predicaba que la Ley (Torá) Oral no era palabra divina. Escribió
un Libro de los Mandamientos en el cual concentraba sus ideas y
enseñanzas (bastante divergentes de lo que actualmente se considera la
doctrina caraíta) que se negaban a la obediencia de las tradiciones
rabínicas y declaraba el poder de cualquier judío a explicar y
practicar los mandamientos bíblicos a su propio modo de ver, cada uno
según sus capacidades.

Después de la muerte de Anán ben David, el desarrollo de los caraítas
se hace patente, alcanza popularidad e influencia extendiéndose fuera
de la comunidad judía de Babilonia por Oriente Medio y en la misma
Jerusalén, en esta ciudad se abre un centro caraíta importante. Los
siglos IX y X experimenta su época dorada, período de rápido
crecimiento. El proselitismo del judaísmo caraíta supuso una clara
amenaza al judaísmo rabínico. Aunque hubo desacuerdos entre guías
caraítas y no se reconocía a un líder en particular, el peligro vino
de Saadia Gaon del judaísmo rabínico el cual comenzaría a derrotar a
los caraítas con sus propias armas a saber: “la Ley escrita”. Acabaría
imponiéndose el judaísmo rabínico, a la manera de Saadia, pero el que
daría el golpe mortal a este movimiento fue Maimónides, destacado
talmudista del siglo XII, que debido a su eficiente erudición, actitud
tolerante con los caraítas se ganó la admiración de éstos, cosa que
hizo que se debilitase la posición de los líderes caraítas. Con el
tiempo perderían fuerza modificando criterios y principios, en esencia
perdieron el objetivo principal y se adaptaron en parte al judaísmo

Algunos rasgos entre caraítas y rabinos
Los caraítas consideran sagradas a las ‘Escrituras Hebreas’, pero no
las ‘Tradiciones orales’; todo lo contrario de los rabinos, la
Tradición en primer lugar las Escrituras secundario. Los caraítas dan
lectura e interpretación personal a las Escrituras a diferencia de los

Algunos ejemplos

Éxodo 23:19 dice:

“No cocerás un cabrito en la leche de su madre”.

Los caraítas entendían estas palabras al pie de la letra. Sin embargo
los rabinos para este versículo entendían que hablaba de la
prohibición de comer carne y leche juntas.

En Deuteronomio 6: 8, 9 los caraítas le daban a estos versículos el
significado figurado y simbólico, sin embargo los rabinos afirmaban
que los varones judíos debían llevar las Filacterias cuando oraban y
tenían que colocar la Mezuzá en la jamba de su puerta.

En el siglo VIII Anan ben David, un líder judío de la Mesopotamia,
organizó a diversos elementos anti-talmúdicos y presionó al Califato
para que estableciera una segunda organización autónoma de judíos en
el exilio o Exilarcado para aquellos que rechazaban por completo el
Talmud, y por ende a los rabanitas que lo imponían. Los musulmanes
concedieron a Anán y sus partidarios la libertad religiosa para
practicar el judaísmo a su modo. Reunió Anan en derredor suyo, a un
amplio grupo de seguidores, quienes fueron conocidos como ananitas.
Poco tiempo después de la muerte de Anan, sus seguidores se fusionaron
con otros grupos anti-talmúdicos y tomaron el nombre de “Seguidores de
la Biblia”, o en hebreo Benei Mikrá. Más tarde se abrevió a Qa’raím, o
en castellano, “caraítas”. En el siglo X el principal dirigente de
judaísmo rabínico en el Oriente Medio, Sa’adiah Gaón, los excomulgó.

Sin embargo, los caraítas se expandieron por Palestina, Siria y
Egipto. Algunos llegaron también a Al-Ándalus, parte meridional de la
Península Ibérica de predominio musulmán durante la Edad Media. Desde
el siglo IX floreció la comunidad caraíta de Jerusalén. Los cruzados
los expulsaron y quemaron allí sus sinagogas en el 1099, pero fueron
restauradas cuando la ciudad fue retomada por los musulmanes. Muchos
caraítas se radicaron en el imperio jázaro, desde que a finales del
siglo VIII el rey se convirtió al judaísmo. El número de judíos
aumentó allí especialmente desde el 944 cuando el emperador de
Bizancio pretendió obligar a los judíos a convertirse al cristianismo.
Tras la decadencia y desaparición de “Jazaria” en el siglo XI, el
mayor número de caraítas se radicó en Crimea, de donde pasaron a
Lituania y Polonia.

Actualmente viven unos 50.000 adherentes al caraísmo. Cerca de 2.000
de ellos viven en Estados Unidos, la mayoría en Daly City, California.
Actualmente la mayoría de los caraítas viven en Ramle, una pequeña
ciudad al occidente de Tel Aviv, Israel, a donde llegaron procedentes
de Egipto, Turquía, Rusia y el resto de Europa. Algunos residen en
Ashdod y Be’er Sheva.

] Doctrina

Sinagoga Caraíta Bnei Yisrael.Los caraítas se guían solamente por una
interpretación literal de la Biblia Hebrea y de la Ley Mosaica,
rechazando innovaciones posteriores tales como la Ley Oral Rabínica.
Rechazan la forma de judaísmo más practicada hoy día, que en sus tres
corrientes se guía por el Talmud. Creen que “los talmudistas”
adulteran el verdadero mensaje de las Escrituras Hebreas agregando las
enseñanzas de los Rabinos que encontramos en el Talmud. Enfatizan en
el mandato de Deuteronomio 4:2 No añadiréis a la palabra que yo os
mando ni disminuiréis de ella, para que guardéis los mandamientos de
YHWH, vuestro Dios, que yo os ordeno..

Consideran la era actual de la historia humana como el periodo del
Gran Exilio. Interpretan que las Escrituras Hebreas describen esta era
y predicen que en ella la nación de Israel abandonará el verdadero
camino del Creador por la religión de fabricación humana. Dicen que
los profetas enseñan que esta era acabará con el retorno de Israel al
Creador bajo el liderazgo del ungido Rey de la Casa de David y con
adopción de la religión de las Escrituras Hebreas por toda la raza

El caraísmo no es una fe monolítica en la que cada creyente está de
acuerdo en todos los detalles, pues el peso de la interpretación recae
en el individuo y no en una autoridad central. Los caraítas mantienen
que cada ser humano tiene la obligación de estudiar las Escrituras
Hebreas y determinar por sí mismo el significado correcto de los
mandamientos de Dios basándose en su propio razonamiento y
entendimiento. A cada persona le exigen tomar responsabilidad personal
en la interpretación de la Biblia hebrea pues es cada individuo quien
va a ser llamado a dar cuenta de sus propias acciones en el Día de
Juicio. Enseñan a investigar con cuidado las Escrituras sin confiar en
la opinión de nadie y piensan que “aquel que se apoya en cualquiera de
los maestros del Exilio sin investigación personal, es como si hubiera
cometido idolatría”.

Astren, Fred Karaite Judaism and Historical Understanding ISBN 1-57003-518-0
Lasker, Daniel J. The Dead Sea Scrolls in the Historiography and
Self-Image of Contemporary Karaites Dead Sea Discoveries, Nov 2002,
Vol. 9 Issue 3, p. 281, 14p-294; DOI: 10.1163/156851702320917832; (AN
Mourad el-Kodsi 1987: Karaite Jews of Egypt
2002: Just for the record in the history of the Karaite Jews of Egypt
in modern times.
Nemoy, Leon 1987: Karaite Anthology ISBN 0-300-03929-8
Wieder, N. 1962: The Judean Scroll and Karaism; London, 1962.
Yaron, et. al. An Introduction to Karaite Judaism ISBN 0-9700775-4-8

source: https://yadbeyad.wordpress.com/tag/anan-ben-david/

From Ishak Serenus to Shabbatai Tzevi

The son of Exilarch Ishak Serenus

Saura ben Ishak (713-721) was the grandson of Yaakov (Ka’b Al-Ahbar) and the son of the Exilarch Ishak Serenus, In 720CE, Serenus promised to recapture the Holy Land. He also urged that the Talmud be abolished. Khalif Yezid, Omar’s successor, arrested this “Messiah” and handed him over to the Jews in Pumpedita for punishment. Natronai ben Nehemia (Gaon) urged the Jewish community to readmit their brethren into the fold. They eventually did so, though they were initially reluctant. He claimed to some that he was the messiah and that he came to liberate the Jews or to return them to their ancient land. To others he claimed that he was the emissary of the messiah or the son of God. Active at the time of the Muslim conquest of Spain, he attracted followers as far away as Spain and Gaul, chronicles reports that all the Jews abandoned their property and left Spain to join him in Syria. One of the Geonim, Natronai I, accused Saura of leading his followers to sectarianism, abandoning prayer, enjoying non-kosher food and drink, doing work on the second days of holidays, and writing marriage contracts that were not in accordance with Jewish law. The Calif, Yazid II ibn adb-al Malikh (720-724), ordered him to be killed. His followers then sought rabbinic permission to return to Judaism and asked the Gaon Natronai whether they needed ritual immersion again upon their return. Although some rabbis wanted to turn them away because they did not follow the proper laws of divorce and marriage, especially the proper rules of consanguinity, too closely related by blood. Natronai ruled that even though they were sinners who went out to an evil culture, denied the teachings of the rabbinic sages, desecrated the Jewish holidays and commandments, and contaminated themselves with unkosher food, it would be better to receive them than to reject them. Natronai urged that Saura’s followers be flogged and fined by the Jewish court, then after they were afflicted they should stand in the synagogues and agree that they would never rebel again. Natronai also warned that their marriages should be investigated and any that were in accordance with Rabbinic law should be annulled and the children declared mamzers, children of a forbidden union, not allowed to marry in the Jewish community. Their marriage contracts should also be examined to make sure that they were proper and if not, they should be rewritten. Accounts of Saura circulated for many centuries.

The grandson of the Exilarch Ishak Serenus

Ishaq (Abu ‘Isa) al-Ra’i al-Isfahani was the son of Yakuv Ovadiah, and the grandson of the Exilarch Ishak. He preached in Isphahan, from about 680 or 740, depending on whether the Khalif mentioned was the Marwan I or II, both of whom reigned during struggles between the Umayyids and the Abbasids. He declared that he was an elevated prophet established by God and the final one of the five emissaries of the messiah, perhaps also the messiah as well. His followers confessed belief in Muhammed and Jesus. According to the twelfth century account by Maimonides, he was of the davidic line and attracted hundreds of thousands of followers, medieval code for a lot, and that he and his followers went out armed and killed anybody who bothered them. According to legends, he drew a line with a myrtle branch to protect his followers when they fought, he cured a leper, banned divorce completely, despite the generous provisions of Jewish and Islamic law, required prayer seven times a day, based on Psalms 119, forbade eating meat and drinking wine based on the behavior of Rechabites in Jeremiah 35:5, and used a solar calendar while the rabbis used a combined solar-lunar calendar. After he attacked the government, the governmental forces launched a war against him, killing him at Rai. Nevertheless, some of his followers claimed that he had not been not killed, and was only hiding in a cave. Reports about this movement continued for many centuries, some, as mentioned, reached Maimonides who reported them in his letter to Yemen, written at the end of the twelfth century (Stillman, 242).

The son of the grandson of the Exilarch

Judah of Hamadan, (Yudghan al-Ra’i), about 720 or 756-785 was the son of Isaq abu Isa. He attracted disciples, the Yudganites, who called him, Ro’i, usually interpreted as my shepherd, but it also could be connected with Rai, the place where Abu Isa died since the Yudganites claimed that Yudgan was chosen leader after of Abu Isa. Yudgan declared himself to be a prophet; the Yudganites, believed he was the messiah. Various sources attributed to Yudgan practices such as asceticism, excessive prayer, a ban on meat and liquor, a belief in transmigration of souls or reincarnation, a relaxation of Sabbath and holiday observance, and the complete negation of all the commandments for Jews in the diaspora. Finally, Yudgan and nineteen followers were killed in battle. Yudgan’s teachings later reached the attention of Saadia Gaon who attacked them in his Book of Beliefs and Opinions, the earliest Jewish philosophical work of the middle ages (Emunot vedeot 6:7) and Abraham ibn Ezra, the famous Spanish Jewish scholar, who also attacked them.

Judeo-Arabs mixed doctrines

These movements show a high level of syncretism between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, highly political and militant tendencies among groups of Jews, a passionate connection between Jews throughout the world with the land of Israel, and the attempt of Rabbinites to maintain stability. These movements are proof that the Jews of the Middle East had not been repressed by Christianity, Islam, or even Jewish leaders. These movements did not arise at times of acute distress or trouble; they seem to have come at times of change, times of rising expectations. In fact, going against the conventional wisdom which associates messianic figures with times of deprivation, it can be argued on the basis of much evidence from Jewish history that messianic movements do not arise at times of great distress but at times when hope is rising. Reports about these movements continued to circulate among Jews for centuries providing opportunities for both subsequent inspiration as well as for polemics against them.

The special place of Karaites

The question remains what happened to all their followers. The Judaic followers of the Prophet who lost any Jewish identity merged with the majority of Muslims. Those who, for ethnic, or religious reasons were unable to merge with the Muslims became the Karaites, The Karaites trace their heritage to the Jews of Arabia, and before that to the Sadducees. They were not one group, but consisted of several, some of which were called Ananites, Baalei Mikra, and Benai Mikra. At the same time that Jewish messianic movements arose under Islam, Rabbinic Judaism was severely threatened by Karaism. Like Khawarjites, and perhaps because of them, Karaites, from the Hebrew verb Qara, meaning the Readers or literalists. These literalists claim to have retained the true meaning of the Bible (and for some the Qur’an). This group challenged rabbinic authority, and until the Saadia Gaon, it appeared that they might succeed.

The Exilarch and Anan ben David

The Karaites were given a boost by the nephew of the sixth Exilarch of the Bustenai line, Anan ben David. Documents written much after his own time, sometimes by rabbis, describe much of what was known about his life. He born in the middle of the eighth century to a learned and aristocratic Jewish family. His uncle was the Exilarch, and, when he was denied the position of Exilarch in favor of his own younger brother Hananiah, he tried to set up a rival Exilarchate, but he was jailed by the Khalif, Abu Jaafar Abdullah al-Mansur, 754-775. In jail he met and received advice from a Muslim cleric, also under arrest, to do what was necessary to obtain an audience with the Khalif and declare that he represented a new religion that, like Islam, determined the new month by observing the moon, unlike rabbinic Judaism which did it on the basis of calculations. This Muslim cleric, identified as al-Numan ibn-Thabit Abu Hanifah (699-767), the founder of one of the major schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence, the Hanafis, a school that was dedicated to using judgment and reason in determining the law. Many studies of the Karaites focus on the profound similarities of the development of their legal procedures alongside those of the emerging schools of Islamic jurisprudence. The similarities of Anan to the Hanifis, if not due to direct influence, represented only the first stage. In Anan’s name the contradictory principles were put forth, “Forsake the words of the Mishnah and the Talmud and I will compose for you a Talmud of my own. Search throughouly in the Torah and do not rely upon my opinion.” This statement reflected the view of Muhammed ibn Idris al-Shafi’i (769-820), founder of another school of Islamic jurisprudence, the Shafiites, who believed that his opinion should not be accepted without question.

David of Edessa

Four hundred years later, about 1160, David Alroy or Al-Rai (the Edessian), who was born in Kurdistan, declared himself a Messiah. By taking the title Al-Rai he claimed his authority from the “true” Exilarch line of Abu Isa. Taking advantage of his personal popularity, the disturbed and weakened condition of the Caliphate, and the discontent of the Jews, who were burdened with a heavy poll tax, he set out upon his political schemes, asserting that he had been sent by God to free the Jews from the Moslem yoke and to lead them back to Jerusalem. For this purpose he summoned the warlike Jews of the neighboring district of Adherbaijan and also his coreligionists of Mosul and Baghdad to come armed to his aid and to assist in the capture of Amadia. From this point his career is enveloped in legend. His movement failed, and he is said to have been assassinated, while asleep, by his own father-in-law. A heavy fine was exacted from the Jews for this uprising. After his death Alroy had many followers in Khof, Salmas, Tauris, and Maragha, and these formed a sect called the Menahemists, from the Messianic name “Menahem,” assumed by their founder.

The role of Shabbatai Tzevi

The last of the Exilarchic Messiahs was Shabbatai Zvi, the son of a wealthy merchant from Smyrna. He gave the boy the best Jewish education possible. Shabbatai possessed a captivating personality but he was easily influenced by others. He grew up to believe that he had a special calling by God to perform great deeds. He set out on an attempt to capture Turkey. The Jews there awaited his arrival excitedly. Many muslims came to believe in him too. When he arrived he was immediately arrested. The Sultan did not kill him however and was treated quite well. This favor by Turks only fanned the flame of enthusiasm further. Jewish communities all over the world sent emissaries with proclamations of Shabbatai’s messiahship. A Polish kabbalist came to visit Shabbatai and debate Torah with him. He denounced Shabbatai for fomenting sedition. Shabbatai was taken to the Sultan, where he denied that he was the messiah. He was given the choice of death or conversion to Islam. On September 15, 1666, Shabbatai, the messiah, converted to Islam. The Jews reeled in shock at these events. While some accepted the fact that they had been misled, others clung to their Messiah, believing somehow that the conversion as part of his messianic mission. In a form of self censure, they destroyed all the records relating to what had happened. They went underground with their hopes, as other leaders tried to take his place.

Anan ben David

Anan Ben David (c. 715 – c. 795) (Hebrew: ענן בן דוד‎‎) is widely considered to be a major founder of the Karaite movement of Judaism. His followers were called Ananites and, like modern Karaites, do not believe the Rabbinic Jewish oral law (such as the Mishnah) to be authoritative. Later Karaite sages are highly critical of ben David, leading some modern scholars to believe that Ananism was separate from Karaism.


In the second half of the 7th century and in the whole of the 8th, as a result of the tremendous intellectual commotion produced throughout the southwestern Asia by the swift conquests of the Arabs and the collision of Islam with the older religions and cultures of the world, there arose a large number of religious sects, especially inPersia, Babylonia (Iraq), and Syria. Judaism did not escape this general fomentation; the remnants of Second Temple sects picked up new life and flickered once more before their final extinction, and new sects also arose, including the Isawites, the Yudganites, the Shadganites, the Malakites, the Mishawaites, and others. All these groups may have quickly disappeared, or been assimilated by rabbinical Judaism, if not for the actions of Anan Ben David.

Some polemical accounts supply Anan with a typical background story often used of “heretics” – namely, that he was frustrated in a bid for power within the religious community, and as a result broke away to form his own sect. According to these accounts, when, about the year 760, the Jewish exilarch in Babylon (probably Isaac Iskawi) died, two brothers among his nearest kin, probably nephews of his, Anan and Josiah (Hassan), were next in order of succession to the exalted office. Eventually Josiah was elected exilarch by the rabbis of the Babylonian Jewish colleges (the Geonim) and by the notables of the chief Jewish congregations; and the choice was confirmed by the caliph of Baghdad. The story continues that Anan was proclaimed exilarch by his followers – an act construed by the Muslim authorities as rebellion against the authority of the caliph, who had formally invested Josiah with the position. He was arrested by the authorities one Sunday in 767, and thrown into prison, to be executed on the ensuing Friday, as guilty of high treason. Luckily for Anan, the story goes, he met in jail a prominent fellow-prisoner, the founder of the Muslim casuistic school of the Hanifites, Abu Hanifah al-Nu’man ibn Thabit. He gave Anan Ben David advice which saved his life: He should set himself to expound all ambiguous precepts of the Torah in a fashion opposed to the traditional interpretation, and make this principle the foundation of a new religious sect. He must next get his partisans to secure the presence of the caliph himself at the trial — his presence not being an unusual thing at the more important prosecutions. Anan was to declare that his religion was different from Rabbinical Judaism, and that his followers entirely coincided with him in matters of religious doctrine; which was an easy matter for Anan to say, because the majority of them were opposed to the rabbis. Complying with this advice, Anan defended himself in the presence of the caliph Al-Mansur (754-775), who granted his favor. The story manages to put both Anan ben David and Abu Hanifah in a bad light at the same time.

The story so closely fits polemical clichés about the personal motives of “heretics” that it is open to grave doubt. Moreover, Leon Nemoy notes that “Natronai, scarcely ninety years after Anan’s secession, tells us nothing about his aristocratic (Davidic) descent or about the contest for the office of exilarch which allegedly served as the immediate cause of his apostasy.” He later notes that Natronai – a devout Rabbinical Jew – lived where Anan’s activities took place, and that the Karaite sage Ya’acov Al-Kirkisani never mentioned Anan’s purported lineage or candidacy for exilarch. (See Karaite Anthology; Yale Judaica Series 7)

Anan ben David’s Sefer ha-Mitzvot (“The Book of the Precepts”) was published about 770. He adopted many principles and opinions of other anti-rabbinic forms of Judaism that had previously existed. It has been suggested that he took much from the old Sadducees and Essenes, whose writings — or at least writings ascribed to them — were still in circulation. Thus, for example, these older sects prohibited the burning of any lights and the leaving of one’s dwelling on the Sabbath; they also enjoined the actual observation of the new moon for the appointment of festivals, and the holding of the Pentecost festival always on a Sunday.

Fundamental principles of Ananism

Abu Hanifah was accustomed in certain cases to take the words of the Qur’an not in their literal, but in a symbolical sense (Ta’awil); see also Qur’an#Levels of meaning and inward aspects of the Qur’an. Anan adopted a similar method with the Hebrew text of the Bible. Illustrations of this method are not infrequently, indeed, afforded by the Talmud itself. Thus he interpreted the prohibition of plowing on Sabbath (Ex. xxxiv. 21) as applying to marital intercourse; the word “brothers” (aḥim, Deut. xxv. 5) in connection with the levirate marriage he interpreted as “relatives,” etc. Anan’s method of interpretation, however, was distinct from its Muslim counterpart in that he primarily built upon analogy of expressions, words (the rabbinical gezerah shawah), and single letters.

Some sources claim that Anan borrowed the belief in the transmigration of the soul (metempsychosis) from Muslim sectarians. This doctrine, represented in Greek antiquity especially by Empedocles and the Pythagoreans, had always been widespread in India, and even though it was found among some Muslim sects, such as the Rawendites, it was also a central tenet of Manichaeism, which was enjoying something of a renaissance in the region at the time of Anan. He is said to have written a special work in its defense. The belief in transmigration is also found in Kabbalah.

Ananism in practice

A number of ben David’s teachings differ from those of Rabbinic Jews and of the majority of modern Karaites. Anan rejected the admeasurements instituted by the rabbis (shi’urim); and instead of any permissible minimum for prohibited things—which the Talmud admits, as for instance shishim, one part in sixty, or ke-zait, “the size of an olive,” etc.—he insisted that even the smallest atom of anything prohibited, mingling with an infinitely large quantity of a thing permitted, was sufficient to render the whole of the latter prohibited.

In addition, he maintained that as long as Israel is in exile the flesh of animals, with the exception of the deer, the pigeon and the turtle-dove, is forbidden from being eaten (although permitted animals may be eaten with dairy). Within Judaism, restrictions on consuming meat and poultry that extend beyond the Rabbinic concept of kashrut are not unique to Ananism—the Talmud relates that after the destruction of the Second Temple certain ascetics (perushim) such as Abu Isa sought to prohibit meat and wine because they had been employed in the Temple ritual, and that Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah repressed the movement. In modern times, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first Ashkenazic chief rabbi of the British Mandate for Palestine, did not eat meat and argued that vegetarianism is supported in the Tanakh as a Jewish ideal.[1]

Rules for slaughtering

To this limitation of the eating of meat must also be added his regulation concerning the personality of the individual who slays creatures for food; Anan rejected the broad precept of the Talmud that “slaughtering is permissible to anybody,” demanded a certain dignity for the act, and required from the slaughterer a complete profession of faith. From this dates the Karaite custom of reciting the articles of the creed preparatory to slaughtering. Finally, not satisfied with the Talmudic dictum that in the act of slaughtering it is sufficient to cut through two ducts—gullet and windpipe—Anan required that in addition two more—arteries or veins—should be severed. In addition to the legal fast-days appointed by the Bible, Anan, by means of word-analogies instituted the following: The seventh day of every month; the 14th and 15th of Adar instead of the rabbinical fast of the 13th, including thus the Purim festival; also a seventy-days’ fast from the 13th of Nisan to the 23d of Siwan; including Passover and Shavuot as times of fasting when neither food nor drink could be partaken of by day.

Rules for Sabbath

It was forbidden to go outside of one’s dwelling on the Sabbath except for purposes of prayer or necessity. Anything that is ordinarily carried on the shoulders, owing to its size or weight, might not be carried around even in a room. Anan’s law-book insists that the Sabbath evening (Friday) must be passed in darkness: lights kindled in the daytime on Friday must be extinguished at nightfall, for it is forbidden to pass the Sabbath in a place artificially illuminated. Cooking and baking must be done on Friday, not only for Friday and Saturday, but also for Saturday night, to forestall any impatient longing for the close of the Sabbath. Foods already prepared must not be kept warm, but eaten cold. Unleavened bread (Maẓẓah) must be made exclusively of barley-meal, and he that prepares it out of wheaten meal incurs the punishment appointed for those that eat actual leaven (ḥameẓ). Nor may this unleavened bread be baked in an oven, but, like the paschal lamb, it must be roasted on the coals.


Anan ben David, in direct contradiction of Karaites such as Daniel Al-Kumisi, had small respect for science as is often shown in his law-book. He forbids the use of medicines and of medical aid in general, for it is written, he says, “I, God, am thy physician” (Ex. xv. 26); this is held to prohibit drugs and doctors.His opposition to the astronomical determination of the festivals, of which he boasted to the caliph, led him to declare astronomy as a branch of the astrology and divination forbidden in the Bible, thus undermining the very foundation of the rabbinical calendar.

See also
  1. The Vegetarian Teachings of Rav Kook

source: wiki

Jew of a Lost Tribe – [ Initiation in Suphism and Qabalah ]

Ny name is Davide Crimi. An ancestor of mine was the last Dayan Kelali – which means “Chief of the Alyamas” (Alyama was the Jewish community in Sicily) before the Galuth (the Hebrew term for the expulsion by Ferdinando il Cattolico, King of Spain and Sicily, 1492).

Well, this is about the origins. I discover all this simply (?) studying the Torah (I’m still a student) and hearing to the connections of this Deep and Holy Book: this is what leaded myself in finding origins and ancestor’s tracks.

I was some years ago on the point to make Tiqqun (which can be improperly translate as “conversion”) but, after spending Pesach in Rome with Jewish friends and families, something in my deep consciousness stopped me to complete this step.

I come back to Baruch Spinoza’s experience in Amsterdam (I suggest to see this page or some analogical, about Spinoza and Uriel Da Costa, like History of the Jews‎ – P. 635 (Simon Dubnow, Moshe Spiegel) or Diaspora: The Post-Biblical History of the Jews‎ – P. 321 (Werner Keller, Ronald Sander).

I desire to take focus on the psychology of the Jew who wants to come back to his father Israel but he is rejected. I’m aware of the history of the Second Temple, when the exponents of the Tribe of Juda refuse to have partecipation of the “Ten Lost Tribes” in the rebuilding of the Temple, and I can agree if you remind the conduct they demonstrate then.

But this is modern time. I identified myself (perhaps also because my ancient ancestors were Qaraimi, Turkish Jews) in the history of Shabbatai Tzevi, as told by Gershom Scholem, the Messiah who converts to Islam (and, if you want see deeper, the way Scholem tell the story is also a way to correct the mistakes done by guys like Aleister Crowley introduced the Qabalah in Western consciousness). Suphism and Qabalah are not so far. The Tree of Life is a perfect symbol even in Buddhism and Inca’s traditions, because, as the Zohar states, the Garden of Eden is nothingh but the brain.

Perhaps, this is not philosophy. Perhaps this is only rock’n’roll. But even because of this, I’m able to imagine a world where people lives for the day, without no possession, and no religion too.

I mean that if religion is an instrumentum regni, a power’s tool, we don’t need for.

I think nationalism (you know, nationalsocialism) was a terrible disgrace for Israel during the XX century (see the introduction to the Manifesto of Ventotene, an important document for modern Europe’s peace ideology). And you know, nationalism is the way to transform people in soldiers. I don’t believe in this. Prophet Jeremy says “Accursed be the man who trusts in men”. So I do. I don’t believe in nationalism, and I hope that Israelian enlightened people do not believe in it too anymore.

After all, this is not an original way to think. You know, Jewish thinkers like Samuel Bergman, Hermann Cohen, Yehezkel Kaufmann state this position, even before the institution of the modern Israel in 1948.

I think that Europe have to be the place for Jewish people to build a new Israel in the Holy Land, which can’t be a nationalist one, but an international protectorate.

With all the berakoth,

Lost Jew
Qabalist and Suphi
Frater Verbvm Est Lvx
In the Conseil of his Ancestor

Altaras, id est Altotas, the Qaraite

Prof. Dan Shapira, dell’università di Yalta, con il quale fui in corrispondenza tempo addietro, mi scrisse affermando: “Crimi it’s a name whose meaning is simply ‘person who comes from Crimea’.

La connessione con la Crimea è remota, e va fatta risalire all’età medievale.

Questo articolo: Davide Crimi – Tracce della presenza caraita.pdf e l’articolo del prof. Morabito sulla presenza dei Caraiti in Sicilia
sono le esili tracce su cui si muove questa speciale ipotesi.

Sul karaismo in generale, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caraismo

e, inoltre, http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saadya_Gaon

Sulla presenza dei karaiti in Sicilia, le origini sono da rinvenire nel loro coinvolgimento nell’esercito di Ruggero II.http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/griechenland/EncJud_juden-in-gr04-wirtschaft-11-12jh-ENGL.html

[Normans take some Jews for silk weaving]

After Roger II, the king of the Normans in Sicily, conquered some Greek towns in 1147, he transferred some Jewish weavers to his kingdom in order to develop the weaving of silk in his country. On Mount Parnassus Benjamin of Tudela found 200 farmers; there were also some serfs among the Jews. During the reign of the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (1042-1055), there were 15 Jewish families in Chios who were perpetual serfs to the Nea Moné monastery. The Jews of Chios paid a poll tax – in reality a family tax – which the emperor transferred to the monastery. The Jews of Salonika also paid this tax.
The majority of the Jews conducted their trade on a small scale and with distant countries. The Greek merchants envied their Jewish rivals and sought to restrict their progress. *Pethahiah of Regensburg describes the bitter exile in which the Jews of Greece lived (see also *Byzantine Empire).> (col. 874).

La connessione tra ebrei kazari (karaim) e la Sicilia è poi avvalorata dalle testimonianze del Dizionario storico degli autori ebrei e delle loro opere di Giovanni Bernardo de Rossi, dove si legge di Altaras, molto probabilmente l’Altotas da cui proviene l’antica dottrina che riemerge con Cagliostro e con Weishaupt, ritornando alla connessione con l’ebraismo riformato dei karaiti, da cui infine dipende la dottrina di Tzevì e dei Frankisti, fino a Firkovich.


La Storia Dimenticata

In seguito alle apprezzate osservazioni di Nicolò Bucaria*, che ringraziamo per le sollecitazioni, restituiamo all’accessibilità pubblica due documenti, relativi a due diverse conferenze entrambe dal titolo “La Storia Dimenticata” che, avendo per oggetto l’indagine di eventi dimenticati (dettagli specifici sulla storia degli Ebrei in Sicilia), hanno subìto la sorte paradossale di essere stati a loro volta dimenticati, per ragioni che non necessita riportare ma che molto dicono sulle umane vicende e confermano il detto del profeta Geremia (XVII.5) “Maledetto l’uomo che confida nell’uomo!”

La prima conferenza, con la partecipazione di Rav. Luciano Caro (Rabbino Capo della Comunità ebraica di Ferrara e responsabile pro-tempore dei beni culturali ebraici in Sicilia), Anna Foa (Università La Sapienza di Roma), Elio Tocco (Presidente IMSU), Orazio Licandro (Consigliere del Comune di Catania) e con la moderazione di Davide Crimi** (Ricercatore in semitistica), si è tenuta presso la Biblioteca Civica di Catania presso l’ex Monastero dei Benedettini (Biblioteca Ursino Recupero), il 7 aprile 2003. Di questa si offre il seguente documento: La Storia Dimenticata

Questo slideshow richiede JavaScript.

Della seconda, tenuta a Randazzo (chiostro comunale) il 7 settembre, con la partecipazione di Giuseppe Lo Porto (Presidente Sicilia Antica), Gaetano Scarpinato (Sicilia Antica), Giovanni D’Amico (Pro-loco Randazzo), Francesco Privitera (Sovraintendenza ai beni culturali), si offre il documento, redatto da Davide Crimi e Michelangela Panebianco, avente ad oggetto l’iscrizione riscontrata su un rògito notarile riportato nel manoscritto del Plumari (recentemente riportato da Angela Militi nel suo “Randazzo Segreta“; si ringrazia Rita Crimi per la significativa segnalazione, riportata in link). Anche di questo studio si offre il documento prodotto come relazione per il convegno richiamato: Randazzo Ebraica


*Autore del saggio Sicilia Judaica

**Autore del saggio Torah Atziluth e di L’ebraismo per non ebrei

Yeshiva Qatan

L’ebraismo per non ebrei: per gli amici e le amiche che si sono riuniti intorno all’accensione delle Luci di Chanukah e che hanno manifestato interesse per progredire nella loro conoscenza, informiamo che sta per riprendere l’attività del centro studi YESHIVAH QATAN. Gli interessati possono scrivere via email per informazioni all’indirizzo fondazionem@gmail.com

Questo slideshow richiede JavaScript.

Sito con tecnologia WordPress.com.

Su ↑