BS"D

Karaite Liturgy: The Preeminence of Scripture

Introduction

The preeminence of Scripture in establishing Divine law and a passionate rejection of andopposition to the Talmudic tradition characterizes the basic tenets of Karaite theology.1Not surprisingly, Karaite perspectives on prayer also reflect these over-arching points ofview. Karaism viewed itself as returning toward a more ancient and legitimate form ofJudaism reflective of the Second Temple period. As time progressed, Karaism saw itselfas 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 andKaraism grew to quietly include a number of distinct rabbinic features even whilerejecting the core components of rabbinic prayer.2 Karaite prayer and its key features arethe 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 oraltradition, Karaism did not develop a system of authority that could easily standardize itsbeliefs or practices.3 Early Karaism was characterized as much by its opposition torabbinism as by its lack of coherency.4

The birthplace of Karaism was on Persian soil and this geographical area appears to haveinfluenced the movement or at least provided fertile soil for the rise of sectarianism. Anumber of non-Jewish philosophies and sects were to be found in this vicinity and the

1 Inherent to Karaite views on the Oral tradition was the subsequent rejection of the authority and of the exiliarchic andlater Gaonic leadership. Nathan Shur, History of the Karaites, (Frankfurt: Perter Lang, 1992), p. 21.2 Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, Excerpts from the Early Literature, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), xvi.“The anarchy of individual interpretation of the Bible was softened to some extent by partial recognition of theauthority of outstanding Karaite scholars.”

3 “In the Written Torah we put our trust,” states Salmon Ben Yeruhim. He continues by declaring, “It is written (Psalm19:8) ‘The law of the L-rd is perfect’; what further need can the Mishnah fill?” (Sefer Milhamot Hashem).4 “…Rabbanite intellectuals were repelled by the chaotic condition of Karaism even as late as the second quarter of thetenth century. There was as yet not such thing as a unified Karaite sect, rather a mass of quarreling schismatics amongwhom, as a contemporary Karaite author (Al-Kirkisani) pointedly expressed it, it was impossible to find twoindividuals in complete agreement with one another.” The very name adopted to represent the groups reveals its coreprinciple. The word “Karaim” has been interpreted to have several possible renderings. The first rendering is“champions of Scripture” being derived from the word kara, “to read.” Another possible rendering has been suggested,that the root word kara can also mean “to invite, or to call,” reflecting the possible missionary components of themovement. The last is related to the first and means “expert reader of the Scripture.” Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology,Excerpts from the Early Literature, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), xxi, xvii.

rise of Islam only appears to have increased this reality.5 The ancient religious traditionsof Babylon still wielded considerable influence. Manicheism had spread beyond Persiaand, various Neo-Platonic and Gnostic ideas were promulgated through the infusion ofsuch philosophies from the Byzantine Empire. As Louis Finkelstein points out, thesevariegated beliefs found articulation in an assortment of motley sects.6

The origin of the Karaites easily reveals this reality. Anan ben David has often beenviewed as the individual most responsible for the creation of this movement, though laterscholars seriously question to what extent the followers of Anan can be described asKaraites. The newest stipulation regarding the origins of Karaism is that there were atleast two “groups” composed of the Ananites, the immediate followers or family ofAnan, and the Karaites, who were themselves the result of several coalescing groupsreflecting 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 waswritten as a collection of Oral tradition and reflects Anan’s own mastery of rabbinicthought and sources. It appears on some level to have been an attempt to counter theauthority of the Sages by establishing itself as a counter body of Halakah by renderingalternative decisions to legal issues. In any case, the repudiation of the Talmud as acenterpiece of Karaite thought appears to have been grounded in other groups and notnecessarily in Anan’s own perspectives or that of his followers.8 His principle assertionslie in a return to “proper interpretation” of religious law independent from the authoritysanctioned by the rabbinic system.

The Basic Philosophy of Karaite Prayer

Until the thirteenth century, “Karaism” appears to have embraced the view that all prayermust consist of scriptural quotations only.9 Much of this was based upon the generalapathy for practices established on the basis of rabbinic formulation and authority. Thosecontending that the rabbis had deviated from the proper path with regards to law wouldalso 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 therabbis for having abolished the custom of the prophets and singers by substituting theirown prayers10. His chief contention lies in the assertion that these prayers were notancient in origin or prayed by the Psalmists or prophets.11

5 Ibid. 27.6 Louis Finkelstein, The Jews: Their History, (New York: Schocken, 1970), p.198.7 Ibid. 22. Nemoy lists a number of groups, which apparently joined Karaism in the ninth century. Their leadersincluded: Ismail al-Ukbari of Iraq; Malik al-Ramli of Palestine; Musa al-Zafarni of Bagdad;8 Ibid. 22.9 Leon Nemoy, Karaite Anthology, Excerpts from the Early Literature, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952),xxiii.10 (i.e. Amidah, Yizkor, the Nehemata, and the Minchah and Maariv services)11 P.Selvin Goldberg, Karaite Liturgy and Its Relation to Synagogue Worship, (Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1957), p.97.

Saadiah Gaon as His Opposition to Karaite Prayer

Saadiah Gaon, the leading rabbinic scholar of the tenth century, levied the strongestrabbinic polemic against Karaite views on prayer.12 Saadiah Gaon argued that prayerssolely 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 addressingG-d in an appropriate manner.13 The Karaites, in Saadiah’s opinion were approachingG-d in the words that the Master had used to speak to his servants.14 In his commentaryon Psalms Saadiah states:

To keep the reader of this book from discriminating among itscontents and understanding what is placed in the mouth of theservant as his own speech and not that of his master; that is, thereader should not think that ‘have mercy upon me,’ ‘succor me,’‘save me,’ and the like are the words of the servant rather that partof 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 personinstead of direct address; nor anything that might be construedopponent opposite to the L-rd’s intention. We must realize that allof the were phrased by the L-rd in the various forms of speechemployed by his creatures. (Saadiah, Psalms, p.53)

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

But the servant cannot address his Master with these kinds ofwords, because he would be rebelling against Him were he tocommand, prohibit, promise, and threaten Him…Therefore theL-rd commanded worshippers to select the sort of words that aresuitable 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 ofsupplications spoken by you as from a servant to the lord of the realm.16” Saadiah’sexegetical approach to the book of Psalms denied that the book had any literaryuniqueness within the biblical canon:

12 Ibid 59. . The Karaites appear to have misinterpreted the words of Saadiah Gaon, whom they incorrectly viewed asrejecting the recitation of Psalms outside of the Temple. Saadiah Gaon’s own prayer book also includes Psalms.13 In his anti- Karaite work, Essa Meshali, Saadiah states: “See how the servant returns to his Maker/ the words ofcommandment that come from the L-rd.” In his introduction to his Siddur, he states: “ Even those places in the Biblethat sound like prayer cannot (truly) be prayer, since they are juxtaposed with commandments, admonitions, promises,and threats.”14 Ibid. p.99.15Ibid. p.44.16 Essa Meshali lines 22-24.

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

Saadiah differentiated between prayers composed by Moses and David, which heregarded as pure prophecies, and rabbinically instituted prayer, which he saw as humanspeech reflecting the worshippers stand before heaven. According to Zucker, Saadiah hadalso transferred the book of Psalms from the realm of prayer to that of commandmentsand admonitions. Saadiah’s approach was rather unique and he even found himselfbreaking with the rabbinic norm a number of times. Central to his argument was thehalakhic argument that only singers named in the superscriptions of the Psalms wereallowed to chant these songs in the Temple thus eliminating the view of the ongoingvalidity of the Psalms as prayers.17

According to Uriel Simon, part of the conflict between the Rabbinates and the Karaitesmay have centered on the differing views on inspiration of the Psalms. Saadiah may havemisinterpreted the Karaite position on the Psalms and viewed them as affirming theirinspiration by the Holy Spirit in the sense that they were written by inspiration though theperson seems to speak of his own accord. Saadiah’s defense of rabbinically composedprayers 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 propheticinspiration of the Psalms.19 Instead, Simon contends, their disagreement centered on theirliterary nature and the halakhic consequences relating to their use. The question then is

17 M. Zucker, Rav Saadya Gaon’s Translation of the Torah, (New York: 1959), p225.18 Since the Jews’ prayers and benedictions to the L-rd are not formulated in Scripture, just as many of the laws andcommandments are not explicated therein, He who ordained them made us dependent upon the tradition enunciated byHis prophets. Those passages in Scripture that sound like prayer cannot be prayer (in truth), since they are juxtaposedwith commandments, admonitions, promises, and threats in every chapter, and reason dictates that none of these can beincorporated into prayer, as we have explained in the Proof of Prayer. In both prayers and benedictions they dependedon the tradition handed down by the prophets of the L-rd. They had two rituals, one for the era of the monarchy and theother for the Exile. (Saadiah’s Introduction to his, Siddur, p.10.)19 Quite interestingly, Uriel Simon argues that the Karaite views of the Holy Spirit were in actuality “in line” withoverall rabbinic perspectives. Saadiah’s own position was amazingly in disagreement with the predominant views heldby the sages.

whether the Psalms were truly prayers of commandments and admonitions expressed inprayer like forms.20

The Karaite Response

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

This is due to the perversion of the commandments given us andto the wicked laws taught by the misleading shepherds…Worsethat all of this is that even when Israel gathers on fast days and onthe Day of Atonement they have placed in their mouths manywords, liturgies in which there is no delight, instead of songs fromPsalms, 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 andawesome G-d” (9:4); and Nehemiah’s “Bless the L-rd you G-dwho is from eternity to eternity” (9:5-6) [The Rabbanites] say noneof this.21

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

Salmon Ben Yehuram

20 Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms, (New York: State University Press, 1991), p7.

21 Ibid-p. 8.22 Jacob al-Kirkisani, Saadiah’s contemporary and primary adversary noted that: One [of the rabbis mistakes] is thatthey stopped praying from the Book of Psalms and made [their prayers] from what they themselves composed. Thiscontradicts Scripture: “To give praise to the L-rd as David had ordained (Ezra 3:10). “Moreover, they themselves say,at the beginning of their prayers: “who chose David His servant and found pleasure in his holy songs.” Kirkisanicontinued by noting: “…That prayer ought to consist of the Psalms and the words of David, would be almost be alogical imperative, even were there no [scriptural] proofs thereof. None of our people dispute this, except for the rabbis.But they, after admitting its necessity, reneged and denied it. It is known that they admitted because, as mentioned atthe beginning of our book, they say, at the beginning of their prayers, “who chose David His servant and foundpleasure in his holy songs, “ etc. Similarly, they begin their prayer called Sh’moneh Esreh with David’s words, “ L-rd,open my lips (Psalm 51:17) and conclude with his words, “May the words of my mouth find favor” (Psalm 19:15).Their denial seems to be caused by their hatred and disdain for those pray in this way, carried to the point, it had beensaid, that once upon a time they considered removing the Book of Psalms from the canon. (Kitab u’lanwarwa’lmarakib, volume 3)

Another Karaite scholar, Salmon Ben Yehuram defended the use of the Psalms as Israel’sprincipal 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); itswarnings 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 passagesreflected historical events recorded also in the Pentateuch. Salmon found the surprisingnumber of parallels as demonstrating the fact that no root or branch of the Torah was notincluded in this book. Furthermore, Salmon viewed the Psalms as containing the majorityof 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’strue prayer book lay in their view that the Psalms were mandatory prophetic prayers thatspoke of Israel’s monarchy, exile and redemption. Salmon responded to Saadiah’sopposition to viewing the Psalms as prayer by appealing to a series of passages found inthe Tanakh. I Chronicles 23:30 served as one of the selections that Saadiah and Salmondebated over. According to this passage:

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

Saadiah had contended, quite easily, that this referred only to the Levites and that theirpraises had no connection to the prayers of the people. But Salmon responded byappealing to Ezra 3:11 where it is written: “They chanted praise and thanksgiving to theL-rd: For He is good, His steadfast love for Israel is eternal.” All the people raised a greatshout 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, Nehemiah11:17, 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 fromthe nations, to acclaim Your Holy name, to glory in your praise.Blessed is the L-rd, G-d of Israel, from eternity to eternity.” Andall the people said, “Amen” and “Praise the L-rd.”

For Ben Yehoram, these words made little sense at a time of Israel’s greatest politicalsecurity. Instead, he argued they served prophetically as instruction to the future exiles on 23Ibid 60-61.

how to pray to G-d. The Temple liturgy included the participation of the people, but hadalso provided that such prayers be said outside of the land of Israel during the time ofExile. For Salmon, the purpose of the book of Psalms was to serve as a book of prayer forthe 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 Psalmsas prophetic prayers. Yefet argued that prayer was a rational obligation stemming fromthe need of an individual or community to praise and bless its benefactor. Yefet reasonedthat since G-d’s blessings were present at all times, Jews should extend thanksgiving atall times. Since this was feasible, the essential components of thanksgiving should beincluded in regular occasions. Yefet understood there to be two different types ofthanksgiving that were differentiated by their wording and composition. Yefet, like hisfellow Karaites, viewed obligatory prayer as prophetic in nature, while “personal”thanksgiving need not stem from divine revelation. Yefet’s distinction between two typesof prayer helped strengthen his polemic against rabbanite claims regarding the humancomposition of all prayers, both obligatory and personal.

Yefet continues his arguments but also introduces an interesting approach to exegesisfamiliar 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 thePesher method of interpretation employed by the Essenes. The growing tensions betweenKaraite and rabbinic Jewish communities caused Yefet to view the Karaite movement asvictims of persecution in the tradition of the great prophets of Israel such as Micaiah andJeremiah. In the book of Jeremiah, the prophets of the L-rd had been beaten because theyhad contradicted the prophecies and instructions given by false prophets. So strong wasthis sense in Yefet’s mind that he identified the Karaites cause “…to declare to Jacob histransgressions and to Israel his sin (Micah 3:8).” As for the rabbis, Yefet’s polemic washarsh for he identified them as “ the prophets who lead My people astray…[and] theshepherds of the exile who mislead and permitted them food and drink, contaminationand purity, Sabbath and festival, and forbidden sexual relationships.”

Saadiah had argued for the Psalms as a book of edification. Yefet’s views transformedthe Psalms into prayers of identification. Yefet’s arguments not only strengthened theKaraite notion of the superiority of their prayers over rabbinic ones, but also through theexegetical 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, hadwritten these words down to serve as a reminder of the destruction of the Temple. Thepower of these prophetic prayers thus lay in the fact that they also spoke of Israel’scoming redemption. Yefet’s commentary on Psalm 137 illustrates how far the view ofprophetic prayer could go. Yefet maintained that a Psalmist during David’s time had 24 Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms, (New York: State University Press, 1991), pp64-65.

written this song that speaks of a time immediately following the destruction of the firstTemple. The psalmist saw the Babylonian soldiers besieging Jerusalem and overheard thelyres and hymns in the Temple. After its capture, the soldiers ordered the Levites to playand 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 remindingfuture generations living in the exile to recite the Psalms as prayer and vow never toforget 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 asequence of prayer strikingly similar to that of their rabbinic counterparts. Six areas inKaraite prayer find comparable components in the rabbinic order of service. Goldbergillustrates these commonalities.26

Rabbinic Prayers Karaite PrayersPesukei D’Zimrah- Songs of Praise Sh’vach – Verses rendering G-d praise.Shema –Basic Affirmation of Faith Y’hud – Verses in connection to G-d’s

Unity.Kedushah-Amidah - The Sanctification ofG-d

Kedushah- The Sanctification of G-d

Bk’Shoot- Amidah - Personal Needs Tefillah Bichash - Personal NeedsHo’daah- Amidah - Thanksgiving Ho’daah - ThanksgivingViduy – Confessions Viduy – ConfessionsTachanun – Prayers of Supplication Tachanun – Prayers of Supplication

Karaism aspired to establish its own liturgy reflecting the Temple service. Thus, Scripturesanctioned institutions and prayers were to be considered the most authentic andlegitimate. Temple worship was seen as the only true form of worship and prayer as itssubstitution 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 ofprayer is comparable to the rabbinic concept of prayer.

Unlike the rabbis however, the early Karaites adopted only two daily services andrejected the afternoon (minchah) prayer.27 Furthermore, early Karaism viewed its

25 Uriel Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms, (New York: State University Press, 1991), pp110-111.

26 Ibid. 60.27 Later Karaites apparently acknowledged the validity of the minchah prayer, but rejected the rabbinic practice ofreciting late in the day in connection with Maariv. Other Karaites Joshua Hadassi contended that up to seven times ofprayer were attested to in the Scripture based on interpretation of Psalm 99: 164. “Seven times a day do a I praise Thee,because of Thy righteousness ordinances.” These are identified by Hadassi as the following: early morning(Shacharit),, morning (Boker), midday (Tsharim), evening (Erev) and three watches of the night. The debate was not so

synagogues as miniature Temples to a degree surpassing that of the rabbis. Priests readscriptural selections daily as lessons, since only priests could perform sacrifice in theTemple. 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 asminiature sanctuaries (mikdash maat), the Karaites went as far as to transfer purityconcerns once related to the Temple to their synagogues. They maintained the notion thatritual uncleanness even in every day activity was sinful and consequently adoptedmeasures to insure that people would not enter the synagogue while ritually uncleanbecause of disease, contact with the dead, or impurity stemming from sexualintercourse.28 The most extreme Karaites argued that persons in a state of ritual impuritywere not to pray at all. Such a position led some Karaites to view prayer as not simply asubstitute for sacrifice but as its equivalent. The perspective adopted by most Karaites,however, regarded prayer as equivalent to sacrifice in the equality of their efficaciousnessin obtaining atonement, but not in requiring the same level of purity.29 Thus ritual puritywas 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 headingbecause of their interwoven nature. I mention this because of their relation to the Karaiteconception of sacrifice. During the Second Temple period, the recitation of the Viduywas connected to sacrifice. It could be on behalf of an individual or a community and wasrecited at times by representatives of various communities or by the High Priest. Therabbinic sages saw the Viduy as such an integral part of the sacrificial process whoseabsence would render the sacrifice pointless. In Karaite practice, the Viduy occurs inevery 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 thedestruction 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 usedto offer up sacrifices in the Temple and it is in memory of theTemple in addition that it was for the atonement of the whole ofIsrael; and during the period of exile the meditation of our lips isinstead of the action (of sacrifice).31

The Karaites, Goldberg argues, maintained a strong connection between the sacrificesand the confessionals, which had belonged to them during the Second Temple period and easily settled for many argued on the basis of other Scriptural allusions as found in Psalm 99.147 or Psalm 55.7. Ibidpp. 1, 272.28 Ibid. Pp.35-37.29 P.Selvin Goldberg, Karaite Liturgy and Its Relation to Synagogue Worship, (Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1957), p.45.30 The Sabbath Morning service includes a completely personal version of the Viddui.31 Aderet 104d.

this is consistent with the general Karaite conviction of using the Temple as a model forprayer. Once point of distinction between the rabbinic tradition and Karaite practicecenters on the times when Tachanun/Viduy was recited in their respective circles.Tachanun, the rabbinic equivalent was excluded from being recited during joyousoccasions (i.e. the Sabbaths and Festivals, Rosh Hodesh, the month of Nissan, LagB’Omer, etc.). The Karaites recited the Viduy on all occasions and even added additionalones to festive occasions.

Rabbinic Influence

It is arguable that the existing models heavily influenced the Karaites, though it can alsobe asserted that the Karaites simply appealed to those models of prayer existent with theperiod of the Second Temple. Indeed various passages from the Talmud affirm theantiquity 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. TheViduy is also mentioned various places in Tractate Yoma in its connection to itsrecitation by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement.32 The songs of praise or Sh’vachas 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 prayerperhaps because of the prolific nature of rabbinic authors. While the primacy ofScripturalized prayer was retained, individuals who were wise were “permitted” to inserttheir own personal prayers. As a consequence, liturgical poems imitating the piyyutim ofthe rabbis were steadily introduced.33 As a result, key features of the standardizedrabbinic prayer service were quickly rejected.

The Amidah, the Kaddish, and even the blessing before and after the Shema, allcenterpieces 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 wasrequired to recite it. This contention may have been linked to the following logisticalreality. As a small sect, the earliest Karaites may have found themselves scattered invarious areas and often prayed as individuals. 35

Conclusion

Karaism’s view on prayer was influenced by a desire and conviction to recapture whatthe Karaites saw as an unadulterated form of Jewish life. They held the rabbisaccountable for the continued exile. They regarded the rabbinic system as not havingpreserved the original intentions of the Toraitic and prophetic traditions. On this basis,

32 Yoma 3,8; 4,2; 6,2.33 Leon WeinBerger, Jewish Hymnography: A Literary History, (London: Littman, 1998), p. 409.34 P.Selvin Goldberg, Karaite Liturgy and Its Relation to Synagogue Worship, (Manchester: Manchester UniversityPress, 1957), p.96.35 Ibid. p.6.

did Karaite theology grow from. Prayer was a central component of the Karaite desire toemulate pre-exilic times. Nevertheless, their existence alongside larger rabbiniccommunities often made them susceptible to adopting traditions earlier Karaites hadfought against. Though the rabbis influenced Karaism, it managed to maintain itsconviction regarding the centrality of Biblical prayer.