BS"D

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

1
Inherent to Karaite views on the Oral tradition was the subsequent rejection of the authority and of the exiliarchic and
later 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 the
authority of outstanding Karaite scholars.”
3
“In the Written Torah we put our trust,” states Salmon Ben Yeruhim. He continues by declaring, “It is written (Psalm
19:8) ‘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 the
tenth century. There was as yet not such thing as a unified Karaite sect, rather a mass of quarreling schismatics among
whom, as a contemporary Karaite author (Al-Kirkisani) pointedly expressed it, it was impossible to find two
individuals in complete agreement with one another.” The very name adopted to represent the groups reveals its core
principle. 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 the
movement. 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 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 prayers10. His chief contention lies in the assertion that these prayers were not
ancient 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 leaders
included: 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 University
Press, 1957), p.97.
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:

12
Ibid 59. . The Karaites appear to have misinterpreted the words of Saadiah Gaon, whom they incorrectly viewed as
rejecting 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 of
commandment that come from the L-rd.” In his introduction to his Siddur, he states: “ Even those places in the Bible
that sound like prayer cannot (truly) be prayer, since they are juxtaposed with commandments, admonitions, promises,
and threats.”
14
Ibid. p.99.
15
Ibid. p.44.
16
Essa Meshali lines 22-24.
 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

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 and
commandments are not explicated therein, He who ordained them made us dependent upon the tradition enunciated by
His prophets. Those passages in Scripture that sound like prayer cannot be prayer (in truth), since they are juxtaposed
with commandments, admonitions, promises, and threats in every chapter, and reason dictates that none of these can be
incorporated into prayer, as we have explained in the Proof of Prayer. In both prayers and benedictions they depended
on the tradition handed down by the prophets of the L-rd. They had two rituals, one for the era of the monarchy and the
other 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” with
overall rabbinic perspectives. Saadiah’s own position was amazingly in disagreement with the predominant views held
by the sages.
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

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 that
they stopped praying from the Book of Psalms and made [their prayers] from what they themselves composed. This
contradicts 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.” Kirkisani
continued by noting: “…That prayer ought to consist of the Psalms and the words of David, would be almost be a
logical 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 at
the beginning of our book, they say, at the beginning of their prayers, “who chose David His servant and found
pleasure 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 been
said, that once upon a time they considered removing the Book of Psalms from the canon. (Kitab u’lanwar
wa’lmarakib, volume 3)
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
23
Ibid 60-61.
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
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 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

Rabbinic Prayers Karaite Prayers

Pesukei 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 of Kedushah- The Sanctification of G-d
G-d
Bk’Shoot- Amidah - Personal Needs Tefillah Bichash - Personal Needs
Ho’daah- Amidah - Thanksgiving Ho’daah - Thanksgiving
Viduy – Confessions Viduy – Confessions
Tachanun – Prayers of Supplication Tachanun – Prayers of Supplication

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

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 of
reciting late in the day in connection with Maariv. Other Karaites Joshua Hadassi contended that up to seven times of
prayer 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 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

easily settled for many argued on the basis of other Scriptural allusions as found in Psalm 99.147 or Psalm 55.7. Ibid
pp. 1, 272.
28
Ibid. Pp.35-37.
29
P.Selvin Goldberg, Karaite Liturgy and Its Relation to Synagogue Worship, (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 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 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,

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 University
Press, 1957), p.96.
35
Ibid. p.6.
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.