The Samaritans and Karaaites in Israeli Society
The Zionists who spearheaded the movement to create a state in the Holy Land did not envision a simple nation state like any other, but rather they sought to create a state of the Jews – a Jewish state. The writers of Israel’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed, “The establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel” (Israel’s Declaration of Independence). When Israel became a state in 1948,
Jews gained autonomy for the first time in millennia. Thus, for the first time, Jewish leaders were forced to contend with the meaning of a Jewish state. After much negotiation between the largely secular Zionist leaders and the leaders of the largely non-
Zionist, traditional religious Jewish population already living in the Yishuv, Israel emerged as a complex phenomenon of consociational arrangements1. Since Israel was formulated as a Jewish state, Judaism retained a powerful role within the government pursuant to these arrangements.
In many ways, Israel functions like any western-style liberal democracy.
However, there are several important areas in which religion, and Judaism in particular, intersects with the daily lives of the Israeli population. These include the definition of a
Jew under the Law of Return, the governing of personal status, organizational and funding arrangements for religious groups, and state holidays. Although increasing tension between the “secular” and the “religious” Jewish populations often calls these intersecting areas into question, they remain practicable for the majority of Israel’s
Jewish population. However, several groups that exist in the margins of Judaism undermine these arrangements and even the Jewish identity of the state. In short,
1 The term Yishuv is used to refer to the geographic area that eventually became the State of Israel. interactions between the Jewish aspects of the government and the daily lives of the population break down when applied to marginal Jewish sects.
The Samaritans and the Karaites comprise two such marginal Jewish sects with populations in Israel2. Although these are certainly not the only such groups, they do serve as a convenient illustration of the problematic place of Judaism in the government.
They form two of the most extreme minority sects, and they are different enough from each other that that the Jewish aspects of government effect them both differently although equally profoundly. These two groups also serve as a convenient category for discussion as they were formerly served by the same department within Israel’s Ministry of Religious Affairs – the Department of Samaritans and Karaites.
First, this paper will further describe the Samaritans and the Karaites. It will then examine the ways in which the Law of Return, personal status arrangements, organization and funding of religious groups, the educational system, and state holidays affect the
Jewish population of Israel in general and the Samaritan and Karaite populations in particular. It will also address the implications of the application of these areas of intersection to marginal Jewish sects on the governance and identity of Israel as a Jewish state.
2 Movements within normative Judaism (ie. the Reform movement) will not be discussed here. Although these movements are problematic for the State of Israel and any attempt at a cohesive definition of Judaism, they do not challenge Jewishness at the same level as sects such as the Samaritans and the Karaites. However, the discussion of these sects and any resolution of issues regarding them will have an impact on the status of movements still concretely within the fold of normative Judaism. Who are the Samaritans?
Samaritan-Israelites at Passover 2005
The Samaritans are a group historically living in close proximity to the modern city of Nablus in the West Bank. They claim descent from the tribes of Joseph –
Manasseh and Ephraim, and, as such, they consider themselves a branch of the biblical
Israelites, the same ancestral heritage claimed by the Jews. Although this is the version of their origin perpetuated by the Samaritans themselves, various other explanations for their roots also exist. Throughout history, the Jews have at various times considered the
Samaritans brethren, heretics, idolaters, and gentiles. These perceptions also translated to the perceptions of the groups ruling the area.3
Although many elements of the Samaritan religion resemble normative Judaism, the religion also contains many distinctive elements. The Samaritans are led by a High
3 Modernity, and particularly modern Israeli society, tends to consider the Samaritans as a marginal sect of Judaism. However, as Mordecai Roshwald points out, this is only a convenient categorization stemming from the small numbers of the Samaritan community. It may be more appropriate to consider the Samaritans as “a different branching off from a common Israelite (rather than Jewish) religion and civilization” (Roshwald (I), 1973, 220). Priest claiming descent from the family of the biblical Aaron, whereas Judaism no longer recognizes one High Priest. The Samaritans claim Mount Gerizim, complete with a ruined temple, as their holy site, and it is towards this mountain that they direct their prayers. They also make pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim, located near Nablus, on several festivals, even conducting animal sacrifice there to commemorate the Passover4. In fact, the holy status of Mount Gerizim is so central to Samaritan theology that it comprises the tenth commandment. Like the Jews, the Samaritans possess a five book Torah, although it contains certain differences emphasizing variant aspects of the religion such as the choice of holy sites. This Torah and other ancient Samaritan works are written in a paleo-Hebrew script which may have been the predecessor to Hebrew. Another important variation between the Samaritan religion and normative Judaism is the method of calendar calculation.
Although the Samaritans once geographically spanned the Middle East, their numbers dwindled as low as 152 individuals at turn of nineteenth century. The community has grown considerably since then, and today the Samaritans number between six and seven hundred individuals. This rejuvenated group is divided almost equally between the area surrounding Nablus5 in the West Bank and the city of Holon within Israel proper. Interestingly, the Palestinian Authority has offered a government seat to the Samaritans while the Israeli Samaritans serve in the Israel Defense Force.
Although political divisions tend to make communication and travel between the communities difficult at times, they have managed to remain remarkably united. Also
4 This concept is enacted only symbolically during the Passover Seder in normative Jusaism.
5 This is located near the Samaritan’s holy site, Mount Gerizim. importantly, with only one brief interruption, the Israeli Samaritans have always been allowed to cross the border to participate in the Passover sacrifices on Mount Gerizim.
As the status of the residents of the occupied territories differs considerably from those residing in Israel proper, the scope of this paper will be confined to the Samaritan community in Holon. The Samaritans that now live in Holon largely entered Israel pursuant to the Law of Return, which applies to the community in a problematic way.
Who are the Karaites?
Karaite Jews Praying in Ashdod, Israel
In a simplistic attempt at definition, the Karaites are Jews that accept only the
Torah as authoritative and, thus, reject the additional rabbinic teachings collectively known as the Oral Law6. Despite this difference, which, in the eyes of Orthodox
Judaism, comprises a major heresy, modern Karaites generally consider themselves to be a branch of Judaism7. There are different versions of when and how Karaism began to
6 Like the Torah, the Oral Law is said to have been divinely inspired at Mount Sinai.
7 Unlike the Samaritans, the Karaites comprise a sect of Judaism in the true sense of the word. Roshwald defines a religious sect as “a dissenting group which broke away from, or was ousted by, the mainstream of its parent religion.” Roshwald also points out that the Karaite community would not necessarily agree with emerge as a distinctive sect. The Karaites assert a point of origin as early as the Second
Temple Period, while the Rabbanites assert a much later date8. At the latest, Karaism seems to have emerged as a distinct movement by the tenth century. The sect originated in Iraq and Persia but truly developed with in Palestine and, more specifically, Jerusalem.
From this center, Karaites spread over a large geographically range including much of
Eastern Europe and North Africa. The community that developed in Egypt will be discussed here as this community immigrated en mass to Israel in the decades after the state’s creation in 1948.
Some Karaite traditions have developed in variance with Rabbanite traditions beyond the rejection of the Oral Law. Karaite laws of Sabbath observance and family purity tend to be more strict than those of there Rabbanite counterparts. Although the
Karaite laws of Keshrut tend to be stricter than those of the Rabbanites, they do not universally disallow the combination of all meats with milk. The prayer services of the
Karaites, especially the North African Karaites, tend to display elements of heavy Arab influence. Also, like the Samaritans and important to the relationship between the sect and larger Jewish society, the Karaite method of calendar calculation differs from that of
Rabbanite Judaism.
The population of Karaites in Israel mostly consists of Egyptian Karaites that immigrated to Israel during the 1950s and the 1960s. When the State of Israel was first formed, several Egyptian Karaites preformed services such as spying for the new state. A few of them even sacrificed their lives. After these events and the general negative feelings of the Egyptians, the Karaite community immigrated en mass to Israel. This such a characterization. (Roshwald (I), 1973, 220)
8 In discussing Karaites, it is common to refer to normative Jews as Rabbanites. This terminology will be adopted here. original community of immigrants numbered approximately seven thousand individuals
(Abramov 1976, 281). These Karaites live in various communities throughout Israel with concentrations in the cities of Ramla, Ashdod, and Ofakim. Although many of the interactions between Judaism and daily life breakdown when applied to the Karaite community, they are treated just like any other Jewish Israeli citizens in all realms of life falling outside the scope of religious matters.
The Law of Return
Within two years of the founding of the State of Israel, the question of
“Who is a Jew?” became important for practical rather than simply ideological reasons when the state issued the Law of Return. This law guaranteed to every Jew anywhere in the world the right to become an Israeli citizen. The language of the original law is actually quite simple: “Every Jew has the right to come into this country as an oleh
[immigrant]” (Law of Return). The only restrictions on this right regard persons who are harming the Jewish people, posing a threat to State security, or posing a danger to public health. Since no direct definition of Jewishness was offered by this original manifestation of the law, it was generally left as a matter of personal consciousness and self-affiliation. The law remained open in this way until the addition of a 1970 amendment which defined Jewishness for the purpose of the law. The 1970 amendment specifically defines a Jew as “a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has been converted to Judaism,” although it did allow for people related to Jews to several degrees to enter the country under the auspices of the law.
When the Law of Return was passed in 1950, the Samaritan immigrants who had been immigrating to Israel since the State’s establishment in 1948, continued to enter Israel under that law. Even after the addition of a halakhicly inspired definition of
Jewishness in 1970, the right of a Samaritan to enter Israel as an oleh was not immediately challenged. However, the government changed its position in 1992, refusing entry under the law based on the 1970 amendment. The government took the position that Samaritans “are not born to a Jewish mother, and secondly that they belong to another religion” (Corinaldi). This policy lasted for only two years, and, in 1994, after a petition to the High Court of Justice, the Samaritans again entered Israel under the Law of Return.
The determination of the status of the Karaites for the purposes of immigration under the Law of Return has generally been much less problematic than in the case of the
Samaritans. At least for this purpose, the Judaism of the group remained largely unquestioned.
Personal Status
The matter of the determination of personal status became another realm in which the meaning of Jewishness in a Jewish state had tremendous implications. When the State of Israel was officially born, the new government adopted many policies developed under the British during the Mandatory period. One such policy, outlined in the Palestinian
Orders in Council, gave each religious community jurisdiction over internal matters of personal status (Roshwald (I) 1973, 228-229). The British government determined which groups were to be considered religious communities for this purpose and listed them in the Mandatory List of Religious Communities. Following this precedent, the Israeli
Knesset has also retained the right to recognize (or not) individual religious communities.
For all people considered Jews by the State, Rabbinical (and thus Orthodox) courts were given jurisdiction over personal status, and these courts became an official part of the
State judicial system. In this way, the civil branch of government came to decide how to define Jewishness for the purpose of citizenship while religious authorities gained the right to determine Jewishness for purposes of personal status (Colligan 1980, 75). This power to determine personal status is extremely important in Israel as there is virtually no institution of secular marriage in the state.
The determination of the personal status of the Israeli Samaritans is quite problematic. Although the Samaritans have been recognized as Jews by the Israeli government, at least for the purpose of the Law of Return, they are uniformly considered gentiles by the rabbinic system. Since there is no civil marriage within Israel, marriage and divorce within the Samaritan community essentially has no legal basis. As Michael
Corinaldi, an Israeli lawyer and expert on Samaritan issues aptly characterizes the situation, “since the rabbinical system and the courts do not apply to the Samaritans according to the halakha, and are also in opposition to the Samaritans’ religious beliefs, they are organized, de facto, as a separate religious community” (Corinaldi). Thus, personal status is regulated in a somewhat sub-legal manner within the Samaritan community itself. Although this arrangement is generally sufficient, it has no legal basis and can be challenged. Although this has not yet happened in the tight-knit Samaritan community, a no-consent divorce challenged by one of the parties could completely undermine this de facto situation.
According to the Marriage and Divorce Registration Ordinance of 1919, the
Samaritan High Priest is recognized by law as a competent registering authority
(Marriage and Divorce (Registration) Ordinance of 1919). Thus, the community receives official marriage and divorce certificates from the Ministry of Religious Affairs, and the marriages and divorces preformed in this manner are registered in the Population
Registry.
Personal status in the Karaite community is also hugely problematic. A de facto situation of personal status determination exists among the Karaite community similar to that among the Samaritans. However, this situation has been repeatedly and severely challenging, undermining the integrity of the community and calling attention to deficiencies in the Israel situation. A 1956 contested divorce case led to a special
Commission for the Examination of the Personal Status of the Karaites appointed by the
Minister of Religious Affairs. This commission issued a Report in 1967 which included recommendations for legislation, but these were never implemented and the problem remains pressing and unsolved (Roshwald (I) 1976, 230).
Another interesting aspect of personal status pertains to the intermarriage between normative, Rabbanite Jews and members of marginal Jewish sects. Since the birth of the
State of Israel, Samaritans have sometimes allowed their men to intermarry with Jewish women provided that the woman accepts the Samaritan religion; however, rabbinic authorities never allow intermarriage with Samaritans. Similarly, intermarriage between the Karaites and the Rabbanites is actually forbidden by the religious authorities of both communities.
Government Infrastructure
The administration of government funds to religious communities, previously conducted through the Ministry of Religious Affairs until succeeded by the Prime Minister’s Office in 2004, forms another area of intersection of Judaism and daily life.
This process again raises the issue of the determination of religious communities by the government. This is a particularly problematic issue where minority Jewish sects are concerned as the governmental religious infrastructure is controlled by Orthodox Jews with a very narrow definition of Jewishness. In fact, “The Chief Rabbinate is recognized by law as the supreme halakhic authority for the Jewish people in the state of Israel”
(www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org). The former Ministry contained a particularly division to deal with the affairs of non-Jews. However, the minority Jewish sects in Israel did not seem to fall neatly into the category of Jews, as defined by Orthodox authorities. Thus, ambiguous determinations were made, including the development of the Division of
Samaritans and Karaites within the Ministry of Religious Affairs. As of 2004, when the
Prime Minister’s Office took direct control of religious administration, a separated division provides services for “Religious Communities” primarily consisting of non-
Jewish groups. Interestingly, both the Samaritans and the Karaites are placed in this category.
As a subset to the problem of the administration of religious funds and services, the issue of burial societies looms as a major issue. Previously, the Ministry of Religious
Affairs and now the Prime Minister’s Office control the approval of burial societies within Israel. Until the 1990s, the Orthodox rabbinate essentially controlled burials in
Israel. However, according to traditional Jewish law, those who are not Halakhicly considered Jewish cannot be buried in a Jewish cemetery (Cohen and Susser 2000, 114).
With a lack of alternative available burial systems, this arrangement created some obvious problems for groups whose Judaism was in question. The creation of civil cemeteries in the mid-1990s partially alleviates this problem, although it is not an entirely satisfactory solution.
First the Ministry of Religious Affairs and then the Prime Minister’s Office has played an ambiguous role in the Holon Samaritan community. Since the Samaritans have not been established as an independent religious community, and since they enter Israel under the Law of Return, they should theoretically receive the same services as any other
Jewish community and, in Israel, this means the Orthodox variety. However, since the rabbinic authorities do not recognize Samaritans as Jews and since the religious practices of the Samaritans are extremely distinct from those of normative Judaism, this approach can not be implemented.
Not only are the Samaritans and the Karaites not recognized as separate religious communities, but their religious leaders are afforded ranks and salaries lower than those of their Orthodox counterparts. As of 2002, the Samaritans were petitioning for equal status and pay for their religious officials (Aleph Bet, 2002). Alongside the inequality with rabbinic officials, inequalities also exist between the amount of government support offered to the Samaritan and Karaite communities respectively. The Samaritans and the
Karaites have tended to receive different proportions of support from the Ministry of
Religious Affairs with the Samaritans receiving more funding per capita (Roshwald (II)
1976, 343).
State Holidays
Less fundamental to issues of individual and group identity, the determination of national holidays, which, in Israel, follows the normative Rabbinic calculation of Jewish holidays can become extremely annoying to minority sects wishing to respect their own holy days. For Jewish sects with different methods of calendar calculation, the same holiday may fall at a different time than the officially recognized one, and it may be difficult or impossible to break civic and occupational responsibilities in order to fully celebrate.
Implications for the Jewish State
Israel may be truly unique among nations, as it straddles the line between theocracy and liberal democracy. This awkward position stems from Israel’s self- conscious attempt to define itself as a Jewish state and a democracy. In doing so, the
Israeli government has inserted aspects of Judaism into its policies which then overlap in several areas with the daily lives of its population. The largest problem with this enterprise is that it involves defining Judaism. While this inherently creates great tension along the “religious” “secular” spectrum, it utterly breaks down when applied to marginal
Jewish sects.
Some of the issues raised by the application of these Jewish aspects of the law to marginal Jewish sects such as the Samaritans and the Karaites might be solved by granting them the status of independent religious communities with authoritative religious courts and government funding. However, doing so would implicitly deny the
Jewishness of these sects. The Karaites certainly consider themselves to be Jews, and the
Samaritans consider themselves to be Israelites with a common ancestry with the Jews.
By denying the Jewishness of these groups, the government would be limiting its function of the “ingathering of exiles” and placing arbitrary limits on the definition of
Jewishness. In effect, Jewish immigrants could, and in some cases, do find themselves transitioning “from being a minority of Jews amongst non-Jews to being a minority of
Jews in a wider Jewish nation” (Colligan 1980, 57). Not only does this situation deny freedom of religion to these groups to a certain extent, but it would also call into question their status under the Law of Return.
As long as Israel tries to legislate aspects of religion, the inherent limitations will become increasingly apparent. The continued hegemony of ultra-Orthodoxy in this process will only further hinder it, causing increasing tensions throughout Israeli society.
The inability to incorporate marginal groups into a religious-legislative scheme only serves to highlight the limitations and shortcomings of the system as a whole.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abramov, S. Zalman. Perpetual Dilemna: Jewish Religion in the Jewish State. Rutherford, Madison, and Teaneck: Farleigh Dickinson University Press; London: Associated University Presses, 1976.
Aleph Bet (Samaritan Newspaper) found at http://www.mystae.com/samaritans.html
Cohen, Asher and Bernard Susser. Israel and the Politics of Jewish Identity: The Secular- Religious Impasse. Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000. Colligan, Sumi Elaine. “Religion, Nationalism, and Ethnicity in Israel: the Case of the Karaite Jews.” PhD diss., Princeton University, 1980.
Corinaldi, Michael. “The Personal Status of the Samaritans in Israel.” http://the- samaritans.com
Israel’s Declaration of Independence. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Dec_of_Indep.html
Law of Return http://www.myisraelsource.com/content/law_of_return
Ministry of Religious Affairs http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Politics/relig.html
Prime Minister’s Office http://www.pmo.gov.il/PMOEng/PM+Office/Departments/legal.htm
Roshwald, Mordecai. “Marginal Jewish Sects in Israel (I).” International Journal of Middle East Studies Vol. 4, No. 2 (Apr. 1973): 219-237.
Roshwald, Mordecai. “Marginal Jewish Sects in Israel (II).” International Journal of Middle East Studies Vol. 4, No. 3 (Jul. 1973): 328-254.
The Lectures of Dr. Kenneth Wald Fall 2006.
Weiner, Rickie, ed., Scripture and Schism: Samaritan and Karaite Treasures. The Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 2000.
ILLUSTRATIONS
I. http://www.thesamaritanupdate.com
II. http://library.stanford.edu/depts/spc/exhibits/nowinonlinkaraites.html