10

Simlah Chadasha writes (2:25) that those groups of people that do not accept the validity of the Oral Torah such as צדוקים (Sadducees) is acceptable, because even though all laws of kosher slaughter are recorded in the Oral Law and no mention of them is made in the Written Law, and the Sadduccees rejected the Oral Law; nevertheless, since it is clear that the laws of kosher slaughter are contained outside of the Written Law*, the slaughter of a Sadducee is acceptable (if we have established that this particular person knows the laws -- see there) because they have the same tradition of slaughter laws that we do.
What is a little confusing is that at the end of that halacha, after writing that the shechita of Sadducees is acceptable, Simla Chadasha writes "therefore, the shechita of Karaites is not acceptable." [emphasis mine]

What follows is from my rebbi's notes on Simla Chadasha, answering this question:

The Karaites are different from the Sadducees and the Bitusim. While the latter are allowed to slaughter for a Jew, if they are being adequately supervised, the Karaites are not. The Karaites who lived at the time of the Simlah Chadashah, did not accept the oral laws, even those pertaining to shechitah. As a result they were not considered to be בר זביחה and that which they slaughtered is neveilah. Once a person is not a ‫בר זביחה‬ the meat this person slaughtered is forbidden regardless of the level of certification. The meat is neveilah even if every action of this person were observed to be correct and the knife was inspected prior to the shechitah and found to be perfect.

Question 1: Is the above quote accurate? How do Karaites slaughter animals to avoid the prohibitions of neveilah נבילה (Deut. 14:21) and treifah טריפה (Ex. 22:30)?
Question 2: How would a Karaite explain Deut. 12:21, "וזבחת...כאשר צויתיך" "and you shall slaughter...how I commanded you" -- where is that צווי if it was not written down anywhere in the Torah?

* Because it is written (Deut. 12:21) "וזבחת...כאשר צויתיך" "and you shall slaughter...how I commanded you." The problem is that there is no mention of a method of slaughter recorded anywhere in Tanach. Therefore, that this verse teaches that Hashem taught Moshe about the method of kosher slaughter on Mount Sinai. (Chullin 28a, SC 1:1)
MTL
  • 19,073
  • 4
  • 51
  • 161
  • 1
    From the story in Yoma 19b it seems the tzeduki opinion was not actually practiced, even by the tzedukim. See there about the tziduki who was 'misaken outside and then entered the kodesh hakidoshim, as per tzeduki rules, when he walked out his father said 'even though we are tzidukim, we still are afraid of the prushim', the kid dies etc. Accordingly they are given dependability when seen fit. Kraim however were much worse in this respect. They rejected all traditional laws and practices. – user6591 Sep 10 '14 at 00:29
  • This is part of the reason that even when a group claims to only follow Torah shebich'sav we know they are lying. – sabbahillel Sep 10 '14 at 09:42
  • @user6591 I think you're confusing the Yom Kippur service and shechita. That gemara discusses the Yom Kippur service; my question discusses shechita. Is my question unclear? – MTL Sep 10 '14 at 11:15
  • @Shokhet No no. Very clear. I wasn't clear about the point I was trying to make. What i see from that story is a general insight into to the Tzeduki way of life. In fact when we prepared the para aduma with a tvul yom, it was lihotzi miliban shel Tzedokim. They had a theory in their hearts, not necessarily a practice. – user6591 Sep 10 '14 at 12:12
  • @Shokhet see also Nida 33b a machlokes if the average Tzeduki lady showed her maros to the Rabbi. I know its unfair to make comparisons but it seems the Tzedukim were akin to first generation maskilim, people who basically kept all the mitzvos, but thought they were smarter than tradition and ended up doing things wrong inadvertently. Wheres Kra'im are more like revisionists, people who have no interest in doing anything at all like the standard practice. – user6591 Sep 10 '14 at 12:35
  • Why isn't it pashut that they take no care as far as shehiyah drassa etc goes? – user6591 Sep 11 '14 at 22:37
  • @user6591 That's exactly what I don't know about them....I would like to either hear from one of them what they do, or even from a "Rabbanite" about what they do, if they can provide sufficient documentation about it – MTL Sep 12 '14 at 01:19
  • @Shokhet And I guess watching Samaritans slaughter their korban pesach wouldn't help much, huh? – user6591 Sep 12 '14 at 01:39
  • @user6591 No, probably not....I don't know how שומרונים‎ deal with שחיטה....maybe that could be a different question – MTL Sep 12 '14 at 13:41
  • BTW, I would not say that Karaites are "revisionists" in any sense of the word. There were many Jewish groups ("cults) during the second temple. The Pharisees were just one. For the most part, the Rabbinic tradition is an extension of the Pharisaic tradition. But other traditions might have survived and formed the basis of other Jewish movements. – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 19:33
  • @ABlueThread If you want to get someone's attention in a comment thread, you can write their username, preceded by the @ symbol, like I did for your name....I'm assuming you wanted to respond to user6591 above? – MTL Sep 29 '14 at 20:07
  • @A Blue Thread i tried to give a mashal without realy comparing them. Just a mashal of something similar that we have reference to. Btw Karaites are not really the offshoot of tzidukim like the Rambam makes it sound. They were a new group invented sometime in the Gaonic period. – user6591 Sep 29 '14 at 20:22
  • @A Blue Thread and yes I wrote that last comment before I saw the introduction to your answer. – user6591 Sep 29 '14 at 20:24
  • @user6591 I guess I would say that Karaites as we understand them today are a coalition of non-rabbinic movements that existed in the middle ages. Some non-rabbinic movements got absorbed into the Rabbanites. Some got absorbed into what became the Karaites. I do not know how likely it is that we can trace the origins of all these movements. (And some may not have even been formal "movements", they might just have been enclaves of Jews that practiced a non-rabbinic form of Judaism.) – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 23:51
  • @A Blue Thread Aren't you curious when your version of your religion started or how it came about? I mean, wouldn't it mean a world of difference if you could trace your practices back two millennia as a parallel version as opposed to a few hundred year old version based on rebelion from the status quo? I hope i'm not being insulting, I am just curious, as you seem very laissez faire about this. – user6591 Sep 30 '14 at 00:10
  • 1
    @user6591 The origins of Karaism as a formal movement actually do not matter to me. I believe it to be the closest form of Judaism to the one prescribed in the Torah. I believe that all of Israel was once "Karaite" (i.e., non-Talmudic) and that the Talmud is a later addition to the Jewish tradition. (In many ways the Talmud is a spectacularly wonderful addition.) But I don't focus much on these issues - because they are a matter of faith. No amount of proof-texting would convince a devout Rabbanite that the Oral Law is an addition. And same thing for Karaites. – A Blue Thread Sep 30 '14 at 20:39
  • 2
    To VTCers: Even if you disagree with Karaite beliefs, they are on-topic as per site policy. If you disagree with site policy, feel free to take it to Meta, but as it stands now, that’s what the policy is. – DonielF Nov 10 '18 at 19:57

2 Answers2

12

By way of background, I am a Karaite Jew (from an actual Karaite family). I run a Karaite Jewish blog (ABlueThread.com); and I actually have an entire article on this topic.

See my post here: http://wp.me/p43Sek-sm

And here is an explanatory video: http://youtu.be/gARsacJ5oWs?t=2m

To Summarize:

Karaites require completely cutting of all four signs (two veins, windpipe and gullet) - the Rabbinic tradition only requires cutting of at least two signs.

In the middle ages, and even today, there are Karaites who won't eat meat slaughtered by Rabbanites because of this difference -and others, including the fact that Karaites deems slaughtering a pregnant animal to be forbidden (whereas Rabbanites do not).

I hope this was helpful.

A Blue Thread
  • 567
  • 4
  • 11
  • 2
    Majority opinion: This refers to a few lines previously, in which we are commanded to spill the blood on the ground.

    Minority Opinion: Before the Torah was written, there was an oral law. (This is not controversial, as interactions between Hashem and man prior to the revelation were oral.) And one of those oral commandments was that Hashem told Abraham how to slaughter for the akeidah. So, the as I commanded you, refers to this teaching. (I reject this opinion, btw; and I don't think it existed in Karaite literature prior to the 14th century; I'll research this.)

    Not sure of other opinions.

     – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 18:42
  • Thanks! ....how do Karaites explain "וזבחת....כאשר צויתיך" (Deut. 12:21)? (meaning, where is that צווי?) And how does this connect with the Karaite refusal to recognize the Oral Law? – MTL Sep 29 '14 at 18:43
  • "I reject this opinion" == second "minority" opinion? – MTL Sep 29 '14 at 18:47
  • @Shokhet See later in that youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gARsacJ5oWs&feature=youtu.be&t=408s – Double AA Sep 29 '14 at 18:47
  • Yes; I reject the minority opinion. – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 18:57
  • 1
    My view (and tat of the person in the video) is that Shechita was known prior to the giving of the Torah. The question is "how was it known."

    The minority opinion above suggests that Hashem gave Abraham instructions.

    The other view is that Shechita developed naturally as a method of slaughter; we already knew what it was at the time of the revelation.

     – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 19:03
  • As background. This is a fundamental point in Karaite Judaism. There are some words/concepts known from culture - these words are called "shem shel lashon"

    There are other words/concepts known through revelation (either at Sinai or before) - these are called "Shem shel Torah."

    The question with Shechita is which one is it.

     – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 19:04
  • @ABlueThread In other words, Karaites do accept that some Oral Law exists, only a very small amount? – MTL Sep 29 '14 at 20:00
  • 1
    Karaites don't accept the Rabbinic concept of an Oral Law. We do not believe there is an unrecorded series of revelations that explain the written law.

    Karaites agree that prior to the revelation Hashem instructed man orally. How much of this is an oral law (lower case) is up for debate. The only example I can think of is shechita, where some later karaites believed that God instructed Abraham.

     – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 20:24
  • 1
    There are many things that were continued from pre-revelation times. The setting of the months based on the new moon is one of them. There is no direct verse that says our months are dependent on the new moon. Karaites believe (generally) that the Israelites were setting their months by the new moon, and Hashem maintained that practice in the written torah. So, I don't think that this qualifies as an oral law of any sort, but the concept explains why the Torah does not command the new moon. – A Blue Thread Sep 29 '14 at 20:25
5

In As it is Written: A Brief Case for Karaism we have the following description of shechitah:

To attempt to prove the existence of the Oral Law the students of the Talmud often quote Deuteronomy 12:21, which states, "...then you shall kill of your herd and your flock, which YHWH has given you, as I have commanded you..." The Rabbis claim that the phrase "as I have commanded you" refers to the parts of the Oral Law which explain the proper methods of slaughtering an animal. Indeed there are many requirements laid down in the Talmud as to the "proper" way of killing an animal; however, these are the customs of those writing the Talmud rather than the laws of God. The most misleading aspect of the claim that this passage refers to an alleged Oral Law is that it ignores the context of the passage. Not more than 5 verses earlier we see that the Torah itself dictates how we are to slaughter animals: "Only you shall not eat the blood; you shall pour it upon the earth like water" (Deuteronomy 12:16). From this, we learn that to properly slaughter an animal we must do it in a manner that pours its blood on the ground — as opposed to letting it harden in the veins of the slaughtered animal (e.g. by strangulation). This reading is confirmed by the lines directly succeeding the verse in question: "Only be sure that you eat not the blood: for the blood is the life; and you may not eat the life with the meat.." (Deuteronomy 12:23). In fact, this verse states that the only requirement of slaughter is that we do not eat the blood.

Alex
  • 49,242
  • 3
  • 120
  • 228
  • 1
    I've never quite understood how a description of how one treats the blood after the shechita is considered a description OF shechita. "Let dough rise" doesn't tell me how to make the dough. – rosends Sep 12 '19 at 10:37
  • @rosends I think it's only hard when the passage is approached with the assumption that an 'oral' Torah is the only explanation. Deut 28:58 "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book..." I would expect a reference as explicit at that to accept information not in the book. oral or not, as Torah. – Paul Walker Feb 27 '24 at 02:18