MAIMONIDES’ CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS REGARDING THE KARAITES: A STUDY IN MAIMONIDEAN JURISPRUDENCE Yuval Sinai Netanya Academic College The contradictory positions that appear in Maimonides’ various writ- ings regarding the appropriate treatment of Karaites and heretics have merited extensive discussion in both modern and traditional scholarship.1 The problem is this. In a number of responsa and in the Epistle to Teiman (Yemen), Maimonides expresses a consistent attitude of ideological and practical vehemence towards hereticism.2 Thus, in a responsum, Maimonides prohibits counting Karaites in a prayer-quorum (minyan) or even including them for purposes of the group recitation of the Grace after Meals (zimun).3 In another responsum he states that “divorces performed by Karaites have no validity as divorces according to our Law.”4 And in the Epistle to Teiman Maimonides expressed himself scathingly against Karaites and heretics:5 It is incumbent upon you to know that the rule that nothing may be added to or diminished from the laws of Moses applies equally to the Oral Law, that is, to the traditional interpretation transmitted through the sages of blessed memory. Be cautious and on your guard lest any 1 See, e.g., comments of Y. Kapach in the Commentary on M. Hul. 1:2, n. 33; J. Faur, Studies in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah, pp. 136–144 ( Jerusalem, 1978); I. Shailat, Letters and Essays of Moses Maimonides (Maaleh Adumim, 1988), pp. 142, and pp. 668–669; D. Lasker, “The Karaite’s Influence on the Rambam,” in Sefunot 68 (2) (1991), pp. 146–149; G. Blidstein, “Maimonides’ Approach to the Karaites,” in Tehumin 8, pp. 501–510 (1987); idem, Authority and Rebellion in Maimonidean Halakhah (Tel-Aviv, 2002), pp. 185–203; Y. Shapira, “The Halakhic Attitude to Karaites— Policy and Halakhic Tradition,” in Bar-Ilan Law Studies 19 (2002), pp. 293–299. 2 See Shailat, ibid. 3 Resp. Rambam (Blau) #265, new translation of Shailat, ibid., 41.2, at p. 612. 4 Resp. Rambam (Blau) #351, new translation of Shailat, Iggerot HaRambam, 41.3, at p. 613. Shailat also mentions Letter F (p. 177 in his edition, and # 242 in Blau’s edition), which similarly evinces an attitude of practical and ideological hostility to Karaitic heresy (concerning a regulation regarding the laws of immersion). 5 Shailat, ibid., pp. 141–142. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11.2 Also available online – www.brill.nl 278 yuval sinai of the heretics [i.e., Karaites6], may they speedily perish, mingle among you, for they are worse than apostates.... If any of the heretics min- gles among you and undertakes to corrupt the people, he will under- mine the faith of the young and they will not find a savior. Beware of them, and know that by law, their blood is permitted by law (another version: it is permitted to slay them in our opinion).7 Maimonides also pronounced a death sentence upon the Karaites and heretics in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mamrim 3.1–2: He who repudiates the Oral Law is not to be identified with the rebel- lious elder spoken of in Scripture but is classed with the epicureans whom any person has a right to put to death. As soon as it is made public that he has repudiated the Oral Law, he is cast into the pit and is not rescued from it. He is placed on a par with heretics, epi- cureans, those who deny the divine origin of Scripture, informers, and apostates-all of whom are ruled out of the community of Israel. No witnesses or previous warning or judges are required. Whoever puts any of them to death fulfills a great precept, for he removes a stum- bling block. Maimonides also expressed himself acerbically in his commentary on M. Hul. 1:2. He viewed the Karaites as the perpetuators of the heresy of Zadok and Beitus, the students of Antigonus of Sukko; the Karaites of his era are therefore liable for the fate prescribed by sages for heretics, that is, the death penalty. Yet, at least on the face of matters, a categorically different approach appears in another of Maimonides’ responsa (Blau, #449). Maimonides was asked about the permissibility of circumcising Karaites’ sons, enquiring after their well-being, visiting their houses, drinking wine they produce, and other such matters. He answers: I say that these Karaites who live in No-Amon in Egypt and Syria and other parts of the lands of Ishmael [= Arabs] should be treated with respect and dealt with honestly; relations with them should be conducted in humility and in the path of truth and peace, for as long as they treat us in good faith and avoid speaking obdurately and per- versely and ignorantly of the rabbis in this generation, and all the more so guard their tongues from speaking contemptuously of our holy rabbis of blessed memory, the Tannaim, sages of the Mishnah and Talmud according to whose teachings and practices that we have learned from them and from the mouth of Moses, from the Almighty, 6 See comments of Shailat, ibid. Similar comments were made by Rabinovitz in Iggerot HaRambam, 401 ( Jerusalem, 1981). 7 Iggerot HaRambam, ibid., 399..