Karaite Liturgy: 
The Preeminence of Scripture

Introduction

The preeminence of Scripture in establishing Divine law and a passionate rejection of and opposition to the Talmudic tradition characterizes the basic tenets of Karaite theology.[1]  Not surprisingly, Karaite perspectives on prayer also reflect these over-arching points of view. Karaism viewed itself as returning toward a more ancient and legitimate form of Judaism reflective of the Second Temple period.  As time progressed, Karaism saw itself as a minority in the tradition of the prophets who fought to return Israel to righteousness. Yet like much of Karaite life, the influence of greater Judaism remained strong and Karaism grew to quietly include a number of distinct rabbinic features even while rejecting the core components of rabbinic prayer.[2]  Karaite prayer and its key features are the subject of this paper.

A Brief History

The subject of Karaite prayer is intrinsically tied to the complex nature of the movement. Unlike its rabbinic counterpart, and due in part to its rejection of the established oral tradition, Karaism did not develop a system of authority that could easily standardize its beliefs or practices.[3]  Early Karaism was characterized as much by its opposition to rabbinism as by its lack of coherency. [4]

The birthplace of Karaism was on Persian soil and this geographical area appears to have influenced the movement or at least provided fertile soil for the rise of sectarianism. A number of non-Jewish philosophies and sects were to be found in this vicinity and the rise of Islam only appears to have increased this reality.[5] The ancient religious traditions of Babylon still wielded considerable influence. Manicheism had spread beyond Persia and, various Neo-Platonic and Gnostic ideas were promulgated through the infusion of such philosophies from the Byzantine Empire. As Louis Finkelstein points out, these variegated beliefs found articulation in an assortment of motley sects.[6]

The origin of the Karaites easily reveals this reality. Anan ben David has often been viewed as the individual most responsible for the creation of this movement, though later scholars seriously question to what extent the followers of Anan can be described as Karaites. The newest stipulation regarding the origins of Karaism is that there were at least two “groups” composed of the Ananites, the immediate followers or family of Anan, and the Karaites, who were themselves the result of several coalescing groups reflecting degrees of contempt against the legitimacy of Gaonic leadership.[7] 

Anan’s primary theology is found in a work entitled, “Sefer haMitzvot le-Anan.” It was written as a collection of Oral tradition and reflects Anan’s own mastery of rabbinic thought and sources. It appears on some level to have been an attempt to counter the authority of the Sages by establishing itself as a counter body of Halakah by rendering alternative decisions to legal issues. In any case, the repudiation of the Talmud as a centerpiece of Karaite thought appears to have been grounded in other groups and not necessarily in Anan’s own perspectives or that of his followers.[8] His principle assertions lie in a return to “proper interpretation” of religious law independent from the authority sanctioned by the rabbinic system.

The Basic Philosophy of Karaite Prayer

Until the thirteenth century, “Karaism” appears to have embraced the view that all prayer must consist of scriptural quotations only.[9] Much of this was based upon the general apathy for practices established on the basis of rabbinic formulation and authority. Those contending that the rabbis had deviated from the proper path with regards to law would also contend that they had done the same in the case of liturgy.  Judah Ben Elijah Hadassi, writing in his encyclopedia of Karaite theology, “Eshkol ha-Kofer,” railed against the rabbis for having abolished the custom of the prophets and singers by substituting their own prayers[10]. His chief contention lies in the assertion that these prayers were not ancient in origin or prayed by the Psalmists or prophets.[11]

Saadiah Gaon as His Opposition to Karaite Prayer

Saadiah Gaon, the leading rabbinic scholar of the tenth century, levied the strongest rabbinic polemic against Karaite views on prayer.[12]  Saadiah Gaon argued that prayers solely based upon scripture were wanting because of their lack of a proper perspective. Saadiah argued that by “praying” passages of Scripture, the Karaites were not addressing G-d in an appropriate manner.[13] The Karaites, in Saadiah’s opinion were approaching G-d in the words that the Master had used to speak to his servants.[14] In his commentary on Psalms Saadiah states:

  To keep the reader of this book from discriminating among its contents and understanding what is placed in the mouth of the servant as his own speech and not that of his master; that is, the reader should not think that ‘have mercy upon me,’ ‘succor me,’ ‘save me,’ and the like are the words of the servant rather that part of the prophet’s vision from the L-rd; nor should he think that ‘they will praise’ and ‘they will sing’ are really in the third person instead of direct address; nor anything that might be construed opponent opposite to the L-rd’s intention. We must realize that all of the were phrased by the L-rd in the various forms of speech employed by his creatures. (Saadiah, Psalms, p.53)

For Saadiah, the speech of the servant to his Master had to be different that the speech of the Master to his servants. Saadiah found various proof texts from the Pentateuch to support his position.  His conclusion is as follows:

  But the servant cannot address his Master with these kinds of words, because he would be rebelling against Him were he to command, prohibit, promise, and threaten Him…Therefore the L-rd commanded worshippers to select the sort of words that are suitable for a servant coming before his master, as it is said: “Provide yourself with words (Hosea 14:3).[15]

From these Saadiah deduced that,” G-d commanded us; provide yourself with words of supplications spoken by you as from a servant to the lord of the realm.[16]”  Saadiah’s exegetical approach to the book of Psalms denied that the book had any literary uniqueness within the biblical canon:

  What has brought me to include these matters in the introduction to this book and explain that all of them aim at commandment and prohibition is that I have seen a few of our nation who imagine that this book was uttered by David the prophet on his own. It seems to me that the cause of this delusion is that they find many prayers in it. This had caused them not to attribute it to the L-rd, since it is the speech of men; in particular they came to do so because they use in their prayers. Therefore I have seen fit to reveal the entire meaning of this book; I say that it is divine speech, what the master says to his servant, commanding him and warning him and encouraging him and threatening him and describing to him his exalted glory, and reminding him that he is weak before him and dependent upon him. (p.24.)

Saadiah differentiated between prayers composed by Moses and David, which he regarded as pure prophecies, and rabbinically instituted prayer, which he saw as human speech reflecting the worshippers stand before heaven.  According to Zucker, Saadiah had also transferred the book of Psalms from the realm of prayer to that of commandments and admonitions.  Saadiah’s approach was rather unique and he even found himself breaking with the rabbinic norm a number of times. Central to his argument was the halakhic argument that only singers named in the superscriptions of the Psalms were allowed to chant these songs in the Temple thus eliminating the view of the ongoing validity of the Psalms as prayers.[17]

According to Uriel Simon, part of the conflict between the Rabbinates and the Karaites may have centered on the differing views on inspiration of the Psalms. Saadiah may have misinterpreted the Karaite position on the Psalms and viewed them as affirming their inspiration by the Holy Spirit in the sense that they were written by inspiration though the person seems to speak of his own accord. Saadiah’s defense of rabbinically composed prayers lay in his affirmation of the authority of tradition.[18] Uriel Simon concludes, however, that the Karaites and the Rabbis did not ultimately disagree about the prophetic inspiration of the Psalms.[19] Instead, Simon contends, their disagreement centered on their literary nature and the halakhic consequences relating to their use. The question then is whether the Psalms were truly prayers of commandments and admonitions expressed in prayer like forms.[20]

The Karaite Response

I now turn to three Karaite perspectives on the Psalms. The first is by Daniel al-Kumissi who lived in Jerusalem at the end of the ninth century. Kumissi was quite passionate in his defense of the Psalms as the legitimate prayer book of Israel and vehemently railed against his opponents. He commented on why G-d had not answered the cries of the children of Israel even though they no longer worshipped idols:

  This is due to the perversion of the commandments given us and to the wicked laws taught by the misleading shepherds…Worse that all of this is that even when Israel gathers on fast days and on the Day of Atonement they have placed in their mouths many words, liturgies in which there is no delight, instead of songs from Psalms, or “I will recount the kind acts of the L-rd,” and “O L-rd, You are my G-d and I will extol You.  I will praise Your name,” from Isaiah (63:7, 25:1) Daniel’s prayer, “O L-rd, great and awesome G-d” (9:4); and Nehemiah’s “Bless the L-rd you G-d who is from eternity to eternity” (9:5-6) [The Rabbanites] say none of this.[21]

For Kumissi, the blame lay in the rabbis’ substitution of their own prayers for those that G-d had ordained for Israel to pray.[22] The Psalms were to be recognized as valid for all worshippers in every generation.

Salmon Ben Yehuram

Another Karaite scholar, Salmon Ben Yehuram defended the use of the Psalms as Israel’s principal prayers because of their strikingly similarity to the content of the Pentateuch.  Part of this similarity lay in the following: exhortations to do good (Psalm 31:20); its warnings of punishment (1:5); its focus on commandments and admonitions (78.5); threats of exile (106:27); and promises of redemption (85:2; 107:2-3). Other passages reflected historical events recorded also in the Pentateuch.  Salmon found the surprising number of parallels as demonstrating the fact that no root or branch of the Torah was not included in this book. Furthermore, Salmon viewed the Psalms as containing the majority of the prophetic consolations regarding Israel’s exile and eventual redemption.[23]

The core of Salmon’s and other Karaites’ unwavering support of the Psalms as Israel’s true prayer book lay in their view that the Psalms were mandatory prophetic prayers that spoke of Israel’s monarchy, exile and redemption. Salmon responded to Saadiah’s opposition to viewing the Psalms as prayer by appealing to a series of passages found in the Tanakh. I Chronicles 23:30 served as one of the selections that Saadiah and Salmon debated over. According to this passage:

“For David said, “The L-rd G-d of Israel has given rest to His people and made His dwelling in Jerusalem forever... For their appointment was alongside the Aaronites for the service of the House of the L-rd, to look after the courts and the chambers, and the purity of all the holy things, and the performance of the service of the House of G-d…and to be present every morning to praise and extol the L-rd and at evening too, and whenever offerings were made to the L-rd, according to the quantities prescribed for them, on Sabbaths, new moons and holidays. Regularly before the L-rd…

Saadiah had contended, quite easily, that this referred only to the Levites and that their praises had no connection to the prayers of the people.  But Salmon responded by appealing to Ezra 3:11 where it is written: “They chanted praise and thanksgiving to the L-rd: For He is good, His steadfast love for Israel is eternal.” All the people raised a great shout extolling the L-rd because the foundation of the House of the L-rd had been laid.”  Salmon also found support in other passages such as II Chronicles 29:27, Nehemiah 11:17, and in the Psalms themselves.  Salmon further appealed to I Chronicles 16:35:

  Deliver us, O G-d, our deliverer, and gather us and save us from the nations, to acclaim Your Holy name, to glory in your praise. Blessed is the L-rd, G-d of Israel, from eternity to eternity.” And all the people said, “Amen” and “Praise the L-rd.”

For Ben Yehoram, these words made little sense at a time of Israel’s greatest political security. Instead, he argued they served prophetically as instruction to the future exiles on how to pray to G-d.  The Temple liturgy included the participation of the people, but had also provided that such prayers be said outside of the land of Israel during the time of Exile. For Salmon, the purpose of the book of Psalms was to serve as a book of prayer for the people of the Exile, to show them how to repent, weep, fast and wear sackcloth.[24]

Yefet Ben ‘Ali

Yefet Ben Ali provides another detailed case defending the Karaite notion of the Psalms as prophetic prayers.  Yefet argued that prayer was a rational obligation stemming from the need of an individual or community to praise and bless its benefactor. Yefet reasoned that since G-d’s blessings were present at all times, Jews should extend thanksgiving at all times. Since this was feasible, the essential components of thanksgiving should be included in regular occasions. Yefet understood there to be two different types of thanksgiving that were differentiated by their wording and composition. Yefet, like his fellow Karaites, viewed obligatory prayer as prophetic in nature, while “personal” thanksgiving need not stem from divine revelation. Yefet’s distinction between two types of prayer helped strengthen his polemic against rabbanite claims regarding the human composition of all prayers, both obligatory and personal.

Yefet continues his arguments but also introduces an interesting approach to exegesis familiar during the Second Temple period.  Yefet began to identity various Psalms and the “personalities” in them with the Karaite movement and Karaite individuals similar to the Pesher method of interpretation employed by the Essenes. The growing tensions between Karaite and rabbinic Jewish communities caused Yefet to view the Karaite movement as victims of persecution in the tradition of the great prophets of Israel such as Micaiah and Jeremiah.  In the book of Jeremiah, the prophets of the L-rd had been beaten because they had contradicted the prophecies and instructions given by false prophets.  So strong was this sense in Yefet’s mind that he identified the Karaites cause “…to declare to Jacob his transgressions and to Israel his sin   (Micah 3:8).” As for the rabbis, Yefet’s polemic was harsh for he identified them as “ the prophets who lead My people astray…[and] the shepherds of the exile who mislead and permitted them food and drink, contamination and purity, Sabbath and festival, and forbidden sexual relationships.”

Saadiah had argued for the Psalms as a book of edification. Yefet’s views transformed the Psalms into prayers of identification.  Yefet’s arguments not only strengthened the Karaite notion of the superiority of their prayers over rabbinic ones, but also through the exegetical approach identified themselves with the Moses, David, the sons of Korah, Asaph and others who sought to maintain Israel’s ”pure” religious tradition.

For Yefet, the Psalms had been written for the time of the exile. G-d, Yefet argued, had written these words down to serve as a reminder of the destruction of the Temple. The power of these prophetic prayers thus lay in the fact that they also spoke of Israel’s coming redemption.  Yefet’s commentary on Psalm 137 illustrates how far the view of prophetic prayer could go.  Yefet maintained that a Psalmist during David’s time had written this song that speaks of a time immediately following the destruction of the first Temple. The psalmist saw the Babylonian soldiers besieging Jerusalem and overheard the lyres and hymns in the Temple. After its capture, the soldiers ordered the Levites to play and sing songs of Zion. The Psalmist records that the Levites responded by saying “…How can we sing….” And continues with the phrase “…If I forget you, Jerusalem.”  As far as Yefet was concerned, the Psalm was only included for the sake of reminding future generations living in the exile to recite the Psalms as prayer and vow never to forget Jerusalem like the Levites who wept after the Temple had been destroyed.[25]

Reconstructing Temple Worship

Though Karaism rejected the core prayers of rabbinic liturgy they amazingly preserved a sequence of prayer strikingly similar to that of their rabbinic counterparts. Six areas in Karaite prayer find comparable components in the rabbinic order of service.  Goldberg illustrates these commonalities.[26]

Karaism aspired to establish its own liturgy reflecting the Temple service.  Thus, Scripture sanctioned institutions and prayers were to be considered the most authentic and legitimate. Temple worship was seen as the only true form of worship and prayer as its substitution should emulate it as much as possible. As early as Anan’s Book of Precepts, this appears to have been a serious endeavor. For this much, the Karaite perspective of prayer is comparable to the rabbinic concept of prayer.

Unlike the rabbis however, the early Karaites adopted only two daily services and rejected the afternoon (minchah) prayer.[27] Furthermore, early Karaism viewed its synagogues as miniature Temples to a degree surpassing that of the rabbis. Priests read scriptural selections daily as lessons, since only priests could perform sacrifice in the Temple. Similarly, only Levites were to read the daily Psalm as once done in the Temple. While normative Judaism of the period midrashically viewed the synagogues as miniature sanctuaries (mikdash maat), the Karaites went as far as to transfer purity concerns once related to the Temple to their synagogues.  They maintained the notion that ritual uncleanness even in every day activity was sinful and consequently adopted measures to insure that people would not enter the synagogue while ritually unclean because of disease, contact with the dead, or impurity stemming from sexual intercourse.[28] The most extreme Karaites argued that persons in a state of ritual impurity were not to pray at all. Such a position led some Karaites to view prayer as not simply a substitute for sacrifice but as its equivalent. The perspective adopted by most Karaites, however, regarded prayer as equivalent to sacrifice in the equality of their efficaciousness in obtaining atonement, but not in requiring the same level of purity.[29] Thus ritual purity was seen as relevant to the sanctity of the synagogue and not in prayer itself. 

Tefillah Bichash, Ho’daah, Viduy, Tachanun

Golberg considers it appropriate to consider these four sections under one heading because of their interwoven nature. I mention this because of their relation to the Karaite conception of sacrifice. During the Second Temple period, the recitation of the Viduy was connected to sacrifice. It could be on behalf of an individual or a community and was recited at times by representatives of various communities or by the High Priest.  The rabbinic sages saw the Viduy as such an integral part of the sacrificial process whose absence would render the sacrifice pointless.  In Karaite practice, the Viduy occurs in every morning and evening service.  In contrast to the rabbinic perspective of the Viduy, the Karaites considered the standard form of the prayer to be a lament over the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem because of current and past sins.[30]   Bashiatsi, a Karaite scholar describes the Viduy in the following fashion:

  And the perpetual offering also belongs…to the L-rd, for they used to offer up sacrifices in the Temple and it is in memory of the Temple in addition that it was for the atonement of the whole of Israel; and during the period of exile the meditation of our lips is instead of the action (of sacrifice).[31]

The Karaites, Goldberg argues, maintained a strong connection between the sacrifices and the confessionals, which had belonged to them during the Second Temple period and this is consistent with the general Karaite conviction of using the Temple as a model for prayer. Once point of distinction between the rabbinic tradition and Karaite practice centers on the times when Tachanun/Viduy was recited in their respective circles.  Tachanun, the rabbinic equivalent was excluded from being recited during joyous occasions (i.e. the Sabbaths and Festivals, Rosh Hodesh, the month of Nissan, Lag B’Omer, etc.).  The Karaites recited the Viduy on all occasions and even added additional ones to festive occasions.

Rabbinic Influence

It is arguable that the existing models heavily influenced the Karaites, though it can also be asserted that the Karaites simply appealed to those models of prayer existent with the period of the Second Temple. Indeed various passages from the Talmud affirm the antiquity of these components. Tractate Berachot 11b refers to the Sh’ma and the Hodaah (Thanksgiving) as part of the portion ascribed to the priests in their Temple service. The Viduy is also mentioned various places in Tractate Yoma in its connection to its recitation by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.[32] The songs of praise or Sh’vach as the Karaites referred to them also stem from antiquity from the days of the Temple. 

As time passed, however, later Karaites became receptive to rabbinic models of prayer perhaps because of the prolific nature of rabbinic authors. While the primacy of Scripturalized prayer was retained, individuals who were wise were “permitted” to insert their own personal prayers. As a consequence, liturgical poems imitating the piyyutim of the rabbis were steadily introduced.[33] As a result, key features of the standardized rabbinic prayer service were quickly rejected.

 The Amidah, the Kaddish, and even the blessing before and after the Shema, all centerpieces of rabbinic prayer, were rejected.[34]  The Kedushah was retained however, though many Karaites objected to the rabbinic assertion that a quorum of ten males was required to recite it. This contention may have been linked to the following logistical reality. As a small sect, the earliest Karaites may have found themselves scattered in various areas and often prayed as individuals. [35]

Conclusion

Karaism’s view on prayer was influenced by a desire and conviction to recapture what the Karaites saw as an unadulterated form of Jewish life. They held the rabbis accountable for the continued exile. They regarded the rabbinic system as not having preserved the original intentions of the Toraitic and prophetic traditions. On this basis, did Karaite theology grow from. Prayer was a central component of the Karaite desire to emulate pre-exilic times. Nevertheless, their existence alongside larger rabbinic communities often made them susceptible to adopting traditions earlier Karaites had fought against. Though the rabbis influenced Karaism, it managed to maintain its conviction regarding the centrality of Biblical prayer