^{page 223 note 1} See Fürst, Julius, Geschichte des Karäerthums bis 900 der gewöhnlichen Zeitrechnung (Leipzig, 1862), notably pp. 5 and 36–7.Google Scholar

^{page 223 note 2} See Wieder, Naphtali, The Judean Scrolls and Karaism (London, 1962), notably pp. 254–5.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} See Ben-Sasson, H. H. (ed.), Toldot Am Israel (History of the Jewish People — in Hebrew), vol. 2, The Middle Ages by H. H. Ben-Sasson (Tel-Aviv, 1969), notably pp. 63–5, 70–1.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} The original source for this explanation is reproduced in English translation in Nemoy, Leon, Karaite Anthology (Yale University Press, New Haven, 1952), pp. 4–5. For the criticism of this approach see there, pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 3} For a discussion of the above causal explanation of Karaism, see Leon Nemoy, op. cit., ‘Introduction’, part I.Google Scholar

^{page 225 note 1} The above historical summary of the Karaites relies mostly on Samuel Poznanski's article in The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, vol. 7, pp. 662–72.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 1} See The Palestine Orders in Council, 1922–47, no. 51 ff. Divorces of mixed marriages (which must have been contracted abroad) or of couples who do not belong to a recognized religious community are covered by the recent ‘Law of Jurisdiction in Matters of Marriage Resolution (Special Cases) - 1969’, which envisages lay jurisdiction in some cases. (See Sefer Hahukim [Book of Laws], 573.)Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 2} See ‘Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law–1953’, Sefer Hahukim (Books of Laws), 134.Google Scholar

^{page 227 note 3} ‘Mamzer’ is, inaccurately, translated ‘bastard’. Whatever the original meaning of the term, it is interpreted in the rabbinical law not as a person born out of wedlock, but a person born out of incestuous relations or by an adulterous woman. (See The Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth, ch. IV, pp. 49a ff.; pp. 320 ff. in the Soncino Press English translation, London 1936).Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 1} The Karaites consider a marriage between a man and his niece incestuous by way of an analogous conclusion from Leviticus xviii. 12, 19, where aunt-nephew relations are prohibited. In this case the rabbinite Judaism sticks to the explicit prohibition without drawing such additional conclusions.Google Scholar

^{page 228 note 2} See The Palestine Orders in Council, 1922–47, no. 51 ff. Divorces of mixed marriages (which must have been contracted abroad) or of couples who do not belong to a recognized religious community are covered by the recent ‘Law of Jurisdiction in Matters of Marriage Resolution (Special Cases)–1969’, which envisages lay jurisdiction in some cases. (See Sefer Hahukim [Book of Laws], 573.)Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 1} See ‘Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law–1953’, Sefer Hahukim (Book of Laws), 134.Google Scholar

^{page 229 note 2} The case is mentioned in the opening page of the Report of the Commission for the Examination of the Personal Status of the Karaites, Jerusalem, 11 September 1967. The Report, in Hebrew and unpublished, was made available to the present writer through the courtesy of the Commission's Chairman Mr Justice M. Silberg and the Ministry of Religious Affairs of Israel. More will be said about the Report further on.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 1} Paraphrased and partially quoted from the letter (in Hebrew and unpublished) of Zvi Lidsky, Advocate, to the President of Israel, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Religious Affairs, dated 25 May 1969, paragraphs 16 and 17. The letter was written on behalf of the leaders of the Karaite community.Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 2} In a letter of 17 September 1970, signed by the Vice Director General for Immigration and Registration, Ministry of Internal Affairs of the State of Israel, the present writer was informed that ‘a Karaite Jew presenting a marriage or divorce certificate, issued by an authorized marriage performer, or court, is appropriately registered without any difficulty’. The letter further refers to a case in which a divorce certificate issued by a Karaite court was the basis of such registration. This leaves no doubt that for registration purposes a Karaite court has been accepted as an authorized or competent court. Yet, this practice has no legal foundation, as should be clear from the preceding analysis of the law and from the Government stand in the above mentioned case (see note 11 and the corresponding text).Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 1} Quoted from the letter of the Minister to Mr Justice Silberg, the Chairman of the Commission-to-be-appointed, as reproduced on page 2 of the Chairman's Statement in the Report of the Commission for the Examination…Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 2} The judgment in the Shalit case was given on 23 January 1970. The Second Amendment to the Law of Return was passed by the Knesset on 10 March 1970, less than seven weeks later.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} An article by Menashe Shawa in Hapraklit, the organ of the Israel Bar Association, pp. 302–12, assumes that the ‘Law of Jurisdiction in Matters of Marriage Resolution (Special Cases) — 1969’ takes care of the problem of Karaite divorces. This seems to us an erroneous conclusion. True, the law establishes a procedure for divorces of couples who are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of a (recognized) religious court — which would be the case of the Karaites. Yet, the law specifically excludes cases in which both partners to the marriage are Jews, Moslems, or members of recognized Christian communities. This exclusion obviously affects the Karaites who are by all standards Jews. In fact, the irrelevancy of this law in respect of the Karaite Jews is typical of their peculiar position: being Karaites they are outside the jurisdiction of the rabbinical courts, and being Jews they are outside the coverage of a law dealing with individuals of unrecognized religious communities and with mixed marriages.Google Scholar

^{page 232 note 1} Reproduced from the Report of the Commission, etc., pp. 9–10 of the Chairman's Statement. The interview with Chief Rabbi Nissim took place on 18 January 1967.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 1} Report of the Commission, etc., Chairman's Statement, p. 11.Google Scholar

^{page 233 note 2} The meeting took place on 24 February 1966 and is mentioned in the letter of Zvi Lidsky (see above, p. 230, n. I), paragraphs 7–10.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 1} Report of the Commission, etc., Chairman's Statement, p. 5. Significantly, another member of the Commission, Professor Ben-Sasson, himself an orthodox man, also pointed to the mixed marriages in the early centuries of Karaism and the occasional mutual tolerance of the marriage partners.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 2} The Talmudic scholar mentioned is Radbaz (Rabenu David ben Zimra), who lived in the sixteenth century. The relevant opinion can be found in his Responsa, No. 796 (in Hebrew). See Report of the Commission, etc., Chairman's Statement, p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 3} For the suggested law, see Report of the Commission, etc., Chairman's Statement, p.12.Google Scholar

^{page 234 note 4} The quotation is from a statement of Gideon Hausner, Member of Knesset, of the Independent Liberal Party, who supports the stand of another member of the Commission, Emma Talmi, also a Member of Knesset, of Mapam (United Workers Party, the leftwing socialists).Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 1} This was the suggestion of Israel Yeshayahu, Member of Knesset and Cabinet Minister, of Mapai (Israel Labour Party).Google Scholar

^{page 235 note 2} The statement was made informally, in response to the present writer's question, in the autumn of 1969.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 1} The ‘Bene Israel’ referred to are a Jewish community from India whose marriage with other Jews in Israel was a matter of fierce controversy, before it was finally resolved favourably a few years ago. The quotation in the text is taken from Report of the Commission, Chairman's Statement, p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 236 note 2} Ibid.

^{page 236 note 3} Ibid. p. 8.