Druckschrift 
Napoleon's influence on Jewish law : the Sanhedrin of 1807 and its modern consequences / edited by Walter Jacob in association with Moshe Zemer
Seite
112
Einzelbild herunterladen

112 Mark Washofsky

circumcise. They do not welcome(Rabbinite) Torah scholars into their homes; on the contrary, they flee from the Sages as though from a snake and insult their dignity. For their recent authorities, Aaron® and his colleagues, have enticed them to sinfulness and guilt. They do not pray at all according to our custom; they do not recite the Tefilah. Indeed, I have seen the sidur of the aforementioned Aaron may his name be blotted out and their entire ritual is deviant.*

The critical distinction between Radbaz s portrayal of the Karaites and that of Maimonides lies essentially in its assignment of blame. R. David writes that the Karaites have beenenticed into transgression, using a Hebrew verb Aisi'u that carries the meaning ofpersuade oradvise. It was bad advice, to be sure, but the Karaites have accepted it in the same way that any mature, responsible adult is liable to accept bad advice. They have erred, in other words, but they bear full responsibility for their poor judgment. To act on bad advice does not imply that one iscoerced into taking the action, which is precisely how Rambam describes the Karaites of his time. In his view, one who was raised by sinners may now be living as an adult in the midst of the Jewish community, but her choices and decisions in matters of religious life and observance cannot be equated to those of a mature adult, fully responsible for her actions. Radbaz has a very differenttake on the Karaites , on the level of their religious knowledge and sophistication, and(accordingly) on the degree to which they are to be held accountable for their behavior. They are heretics, just as their ancestors were heretics. We seek to draw them back to the truth, but their resistance to our efforts is the result not of their history but of their own obstinacy.**

We cannot account for the significant differences betwee! these two positions in terms of their divergent fact patterns. Both poskim confront a sect of Jews whose religious behavior meets the halakhic definition of heresy. Both must determine the Jewish legal