Varda Books



 View book pages:
 Buy this book:
  eBookshuk
  




433 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA

by Isidore Singer
433 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA the end of the ninth or at the beginning of the tenth century; a native of Damagan, the capital of the Persian province of Kumis, in Tabaristan, as is shown by his two surnames, the latter of which is found only in “ Kirkisani.” His attitude to Anan and his violent opposition to the Ananites ( i. e., the first Karaites, Anan’s followers and immediate succes-sors) are characteristic of his place in Karaism. At first he esteemed Anan highly, calling him “ rosh ha-maskilim” ( chief of the scholars); but later he de-spised him and called him “ rosh ha- kesilim” ( chief of the fools). Nevertheless, Daniel’s opinions were respected by the Karaites. As regards Daniel’s theories, he denied that spec-ulation could be regarded as a source of knowledge, and, probably in accordance with this tenet, he maintained, in opposition to Anan, the principle that the Biblical laws must not be interpreted allegoric-ally, nor explained contrary to the simple text ( see below). He evinces little regard for science, as, for instance, when he asserts that it is forbidden to de-termine the beginning of the new moon by calcula-tion, after the manner of the Rabbinites, because such calculations are condemned like astrology, and the practise of them is threatened with severe pun-ishment, according to Isa. xlvii. 13– 14. Yet Daniel himself, in his commentary to Lev. xxvi., indulges in long reflections on the theodicy and on the suffering of the pious. His conception of the angels, also, is most extraordinary. He says that wherever “ mal’akim” ( angels) are mentioned in the Bible, the designation does not refer to living, speaking beings who act as messengers, but to forces of nature, as fire, fog, winds, etc., by means of which God per-forms His works ( compare Maimonides, “ Moreh,” ii. 6). This may be due to the influence of the Sad-ducees ( who also denied the existence of angels; compare Acts xxiii. 8), in view of the fact that works circulated among the earlier Karaites named after Zadok and containing Sadducean opinions. Daniel favored a rigorous interpretation of the Law. The following decisions of his have been pre-served: It is forbidden to do any work whatever on the Sabbath— even to clean the hands with pow-der— or to have any work done on the Sabbath by a non- Jew, whether gratuitously, or for wages or any other compensation. The burning of lights is forbidden not only on Friday evenings, but also on the evenings of the festivals. In the description in Lev. xxiii. 40 of the trees which, ac-cording to Daniel, were used in erect-ing the booths, the phrase “ peri ez hadar” ( the fruit of goodly trees) is more definitely explained by “ kappot temarim” ( branches of palms), the palm being distinguished for its beauty ( Cant. vii. 8). Like Anan, Benjamin al- Nahawandi, and Ishmael al-‘ Okbari, Daniel forbade in the Diaspora the eat-ing of those animals that were used for sacrifice, adding to the proofs of his predecessors others drawn from Hosea ix. 4 and Isa. lxvi. 3. The prohi-bition contained in Ex. xxiii. 19 (“ Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk”) must not be in-terpreted allegorically, as Anan interpreted it, but literally. The priest carried out the injunction to “ wring [ pinch] off the head” of the bird (“ melikah,” Lev. i. 15) by cutting the head off entirely, after the slaughtering. The clean birds are not recognizable by certain signs, as the Rabbinites assert, but the names of the birds as found in the Pentateuch are decisive ( and as these can not always be identified, the Karaites make the class of forbidden birds very large). Among the locusts only the four species expressly named in Lev. xi. 22 are permitted as food. It is forbidden to eat eggs because they must be considered as living things that can not be slaughtered, as is proved by Deut. xxii. 6– 7, where it is permitted to take the young, but not the eggs. Of fish the eggs only are permitted; the blood is forbidden. The leper must still be considered as unclean ( this, too, is directed against Anan, who had held that the laws regarding the clean and the unclean were not applicable in the Diaspora). The carcass of an animal, however, ceases to be un-clean after use has been made of it in any way, as is proved by Lev. vii. 24. In regard to the levirate marriage Daniel agrees with Anan that “ ahim,” in Deut. xxv. 5, does not mean “ brothers,” which would violate the prohibi-tion contained in Lev. xviii. 16, but “ relations.” The story of Judah and his sons ( Gen. xxxviii. 8) proves nothing, because at that time the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife did not exist. The prohibition contained in Lev. xviii. 18 can not be taken literally ( as the Rabbinites take it), for the wife’s sister is forbidden under any circumstance, just as is the husband’s brother ( there is here an example of the method of analogy, “ hekkesh”); it is rather the stepsister of the wife that is meant in the passage in question; e. g., the daughter of the father-in- law’s wife whom the last- named had by her first husband. In this case the prohibition ends with the wife’s death. The daughter is not excluded from the heritage, as the Rabbinites say, although her por-tion is less than that of the son, being only one-third; for in the law of valuation in connection with vows ( Lev. xxvii.) women were valued less than men. In conformity with this law, the mother also receives one- third. Daniel was doubtless influ-enced here by the Mohammedan law ( see Koran, sura iv. 12, 175). In other respects Daniel follows the Talmud in holding that the descendants of one entitled to a portion succeed to his entire rights; the children of the son— i. e., grandchildren— taking precedence over the daughter, their aunt. Finally, Daniel holds that responsibility for the observance of the com-mandments must begin not with the thirteenth, but with the twentieth year; that the New- Year begins on the tenth of Tishri, as follows from Ezek. xl. 1; and that Mohammedans also may act as witnesses of the new moon’s appearance. Daniel wrote several works in Hebrew, all of which, save for a few quotations and fragments, have been lost. There is undeniable evidence that he compiled a legal code (“ Sefer ha- Mizwot”), and a work on the rights of inheritance. The latter, against which Saadia directed his polemics, was perhaps merely a part of the code just mentioned. He also wrote commentaries to the Pentateuch, to Joshua, and to Judges, and probably to other Bib- Daniel Daniel ben Moses Legal Decisions. Influence of Islam and Talmud.Aac— Apo  | Apo— Ben | Ben— Cha | Cha— Dre | Dre— Goa  | God— Ist  | Ita— Leo  | Leo— Mor | Mor— Phi | Phi— Sam | Sam— Tal  | Tal— Zwe   P  a g   V  ie w Search  | F i n d  | H o m e | I n d e x   P  a g   V  ie w

Zoom in  zoom  Zoom out
  << Topic >>             |<   <<    Page       >>   >|  
433 THE JEWISH ENCYCLOPEDIA the end of the ninth or at the beginning of the tenth century; a native of Damagan, the capital of the Persian province of Kumis, in Tabaristan, as is shown by his two surnames, the latter of which is found only in “ Kirkisani.” His attitude to Anan and his violent opposition to the Ananites ( i. e., the first Karaites, Anan’s followers and immediate succes-sors) are characteristic of his place in Karaism. At first he esteemed Anan highly, calling him “ rosh ha-maskilim” ( chief of the scholars); but later he de-spised him and called him “ rosh ha- kesilim” ( chief of the fools). Nevertheless, Daniel’s opinions were respected by the Karaites. As regards Daniel’s theories, he denied that spec-ulation could be regarded as a source of knowledge, and, probably in accordance with this tenet, he maintained, in opposition to Anan, the principle that the Biblical laws must not be interpreted allegoric-ally, nor explained contrary to the simple text ( see below). He evinces little regard for science, as, for instance, when he asserts that it is forbidden to de-termine the beginning of the new moon by calcula-tion, after the manner of the Rabbinites, because such calculations are condemned like astrology, and the practise of them is threatened with severe pun-ishment, according to Isa. xlvii. 13– 14. Yet Daniel himself, in his commentary to Lev. xxvi., indulges in long reflections on the theodicy and on the suffering of the pious. His conception of the angels, also, is most extraordinary. He says that wherever “ mal’akim” ( angels) are mentioned in the Bible, the designation does not refer to living, speaking beings who act as messengers, but to forces of nature, as fire, fog, winds, etc., by means of which God per-forms His works ( compare Maimonides, “ Moreh,” ii. 6). This may be due to the influence of the Sad-ducees ( who also denied the existence of angels; compare Acts xxiii. 8), in view of the fact that works circulated among the earlier Karaites named after Zadok and containing Sadducean opinions. Daniel favored a rigorous interpretation of the Law. The following decisions of his have been pre-served: It is forbidden to do any work whatever on the Sabbath— even to clean the hands with pow-der— or to have any work done on the Sabbath by a non- Jew, whether gratuitously, or for wages or any other compensation. The burning of lights is forbidden not only on Friday evenings, but also on the evenings of the festivals. In the description in Lev. xxiii. 40 of the trees which, ac-cording to Daniel, were used in erect-ing the booths, the phrase “ peri ez hadar” ( the fruit of goodly trees) is more definitely explained by “ kappot temarim” ( branches of palms), the palm being distinguished for its beauty ( Cant. vii. 8). Like Anan, Benjamin al- Nahawandi, and Ishmael al-‘ Okbari, Daniel forbade in the Diaspora the eat-ing of those animals that were used for sacrifice, adding to the proofs of his predecessors others drawn from Hosea ix. 4 and Isa. lxvi. 3. The prohi-bition contained in Ex. xxiii. 19 (“ Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk”) must not be in-terpreted allegorically, as Anan interpreted it, but literally. The priest carried out the injunction to “ wring [ pinch] off the head” of the bird (“ melikah,” Lev. i. 15) by cutting the head off entirely, after the slaughtering. The clean birds are not recognizable by certain signs, as the Rabbinites assert, but the names of the birds as found in the Pentateuch are decisive ( and as these can not always be identified, the Karaites make the class of forbidden birds very large). Among the locusts only the four species expressly named in Lev. xi. 22 are permitted as food. It is forbidden to eat eggs because they must be considered as living things that can not be slaughtered, as is proved by Deut. xxii. 6– 7, where it is permitted to take the young, but not the eggs. Of fish the eggs only are permitted; the blood is forbidden. The leper must still be considered as unclean ( this, too, is directed against Anan, who had held that the laws regarding the clean and the unclean were not applicable in the Diaspora). The carcass of an animal, however, ceases to be un-clean after use has been made of it in any way, as is proved by Lev. vii. 24. In regard to the levirate marriage Daniel agrees with Anan that “ ahim,” in Deut. xxv. 5, does not mean “ brothers,” which would violate the prohibi-tion contained in Lev. xviii. 16, but “ relations.” The story of Judah and his sons ( Gen. xxxviii. 8) proves nothing, because at that time the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife did not exist. The prohibition contained in Lev. xviii. 18 can not be taken literally ( as the Rabbinites take it), for the wife’s sister is forbidden under any circumstance, just as is the husband’s brother ( there is here an example of the method of analogy, “ hekkesh”); it is rather the stepsister of the wife that is meant in the passage in question; e. g., the daughter of the father-in- law’s wife whom the last- named had by her first husband. In this case the prohibition ends with the wife’s death. The daughter is not excluded from the heritage, as the Rabbinites say, although her por-tion is less than that of the son, being only one-third; for in the law of valuation in connection with vows ( Lev. xxvii.) women were valued less than men. In conformity with this law, the mother also receives one- third. Daniel was doubtless influ-enced here by the Mohammedan law ( see Koran, sura iv. 12, 175). In other respects Daniel follows the Talmud in holding that the descendants of one entitled to a portion succeed to his entire rights; the children of the son— i. e., grandchildren— taking precedence over the daughter, their aunt. Finally, Daniel holds that responsibility for the observance of the com-mandments must begin not with the thirteenth, but with the twentieth year; that the New- Year begins on the tenth of Tishri, as follows from Ezek. xl. 1; and that Mohammedans also may act as witnesses of the new moon’s appearance. Daniel wrote several works in Hebrew, all of which, save for a few quotations and fragments, have been lost. There is undeniable evidence that he compiled a legal code (“ Sefer ha- Mizwot”), and a work on the rights of inheritance. The latter, against which Saadia directed his polemics, was perhaps merely a part of the code just mentioned. He also wrote commentaries to the Pentateuch, to Joshua, and to Judges, and probably to other Bib- Daniel Daniel ben Moses Legal Decisions. Influence of Islam and Talmud. Aac— Apo | Apo— Ben | Ben— Cha | Cha— Dre | Dre— Goa | God— Ist | Ita— Leo | Leo— Mor | Mor— Phi | Phi— Sam | Sam— Tal | Tal— Zwe < < P a g e > > < < V ie w >> Search | F i n d | H o m e | I n d e x < < P a g e > > < < V ie w >>
Zoom in  zoom  Zoom out
  << Topic >>             |<   <<    Page       >>   >|  

Varda Books - 4partofaset


 Already viewed books:
The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. 4The Jewish Encyclopedia Vol. 4


TANAKH - INTERACTIVE HEBREW BIBLE