שקיעין קומראניים בשתי הלכות של הקרא בנימין אלנִהאוַנְדִי בסוגיית בשר תאווה

In order to remove corporeality from God, Benjamin al-Nihawandi suggested that the biblical godhead, the creator, is a secondary divinity. According to Karaite and Muslim sources, Benjamin based his ideas on the writings of a sect dating back to antiquity. The name of the sect was unknown at that time but it was designated as 'The Sect of the Caves' for its writings were discovered in caves. The calendar of this sect demanded that the beginning of the year always takes place on a Wednesday, since it was on this day that the luminaries were created. It appears that this calendar was a solar one. It should be of no surprise that with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it became common among scholars to assume that the data about the Sect of the Caves indicates an earlier discovery of some Dead Sea Scrolls during the Gaonic period, and it was from here that Qumranic influence on the Karaites derived. There are however scholars who doubted the identification between the two sects leaving the issue still unresolved. In this article the author unravels Qumranic influence on two halakhic rulings of Benjamin al-Nihawandi dealing with desired meat. The rulings are: (a) The requirement to slaughter desired meat ( בשר תאווה ) at the altar, designated in Karaite literature 4The Gates Altar' ( מזבח שערים ), (b) The requirement to cover the blood of desired meat with dust. He presents the Karaite debate of these two rulings, since the Karaites who were active after the days of Benjamin al-Nihawandi rejected them. Simultaneously, the ruling of MIshawayh al ־ 'Ukbari, an outstanding disciple of Qumranic law, helps unravel the connection between the ruling of Benjamin and ancient sectarian law. Regarding the second ruling mentioned above, namely the covering of the blood of desired meat, mention ot it appears in the Qumranic Temple (11QT) Scroll. The Hebrew Bible requires that the blood of game animals and fowl be covered with dust (Leviticus 17: 13). The author of the Scroll had no qualms in applying this biblical injunction to the issue of desired meat as well (11QT 53: 5-6). The redactor of this text assumed that the laws of desired meat and the laws of game and fowl are based on the same principle. This fact illuminates the ruling of MIshawayh who permitted the use of desired meat fat, comparing it to the fats of game and fowl meat. Daniel al-Qumisi who was, as is well known, under Qumranic influence, also connected the laws on both these types of meat. The rabbinic halakhah, on the other hand, deduced the rulings of desired meat from those of the sacrifices. Benjamin al-Nihawandl was no blind disciple of the Dead Sea Sect. He forbade the use of desired meat fat. As for the blood, his fidelity to the Masoretic biblical text could not allow him to rule unequivocally in favour of covering desired meat's blood with dust. He, therefore, assumed that Deuteronomy 12:16 refers to the pouring out of the washed blood ( דם שטיפה ), which he ruled should be covered with dust while the blood of the slaughter should be burnt on the altar. This last ruling leads to a discussion on the obligation to slaughter desired meat at the 'Gates Altar'. The story at Michmash (1 Samuel 14: 32-5) served as evidence for Benjamin's ruling. The sin of eating the blood (ibid., 33) indicates that it is forbidden to slaughter desired meat in the absence of an altar. The sin was expiated when Saul built one. Yefet ben Eli adopted the notion prevalent in rabbinic circles that the altar erected by Saul was intended for the sacrifice of peace offerings. A study of Yefet's interpretations indicates that behind the specific disagreement a broader issue is at stake, namely the prohibition or permission of desired meat and peace offerings in the ensuing generations. This disagreement had a practical aspect, since the 'Mourners of Zion', of whom Yefet was a member, forbade desired meat for their times, while Mishawayh permitted it. According to Yefet, the commandment regarding desired meat is applicable in the Land of Israel alone, and only when a Temple is standing and the independence of Israel is attained. He produced evidence for the prohibition of desired meat in the days of the Patriarchs, during the exile in Egypt and while Israel was wandering in the wilderness, after the foundation of the Tabernacle. In contrast, he produced much evidence for the sacrifice of peace offerings outside the Tabernacle, within the Land of Israel and abroad. The story of Michmash is brought as evidence for the construction of a peace offerings' altar outside the Tabernacle. Yefet identified this altar with the 'stone altar' (Exodus 20:22). Mishawayh, with whom Yefet was at odds, maintained that during the above mentioned period, including the period of wandering in the wilderness, until the construction of the Temple, all sacrifices were prohibited. This is true for all cases except for the specific indications in Scripture for sacrificial activity such as Passover in the wilderness (Numbers 9), which was, in his opinion, a singular event. On the other hand, there was no prohibition on the slaughter of desired meat before the construction of the Temple or while it stood or even after its destruction, within the country or abroad. Therefore Mishawayh permitted it. He may have also assumed the existence of an obligation for a 'Gates Altar', but unlike Benjamin, he did not instruct that fat to be burnt on it, as he permitted the fat. Even those who assume the necessity of a 'Gates Altar' for desired meat maintain that it is described in the Torah as a 'stone altar' (Exodus 20:22). As is well known, the Dead Sea Sect, which designated itself 'the desert exile' ( גולת המדבר ) (War of Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness 1: 2) banned the sacrificial service in the Temple in Jerusalem. It appears that Mishawayh's ruling concerning the prohibition of sacrifices outside the Temple, deduced from the precedent of Israel5s wanderings in the wilderness, reflects Qumranic law. The author maintains that it is in Qumran that one should search for the origin of Mishawayh's claim that Passover in the desert was a unique event, which did not include the obligation to eat unleavened bread for seven days as this commandment was contingent on residence in the Land of Israel. Consistent in his perspective, Mishawayh demanded the cessation of the festivals outside the Land of Israel, and this seems to have also been the practice of the 'desert exile'. In this context it is important to point out that, according to the Muslim scholar al-Biruni, the Cave Sect claimed that only those residing in the Land of Israel were obligated to celebrate Passover. Benjamin's discussion of the Michmash episode and Mishawayh's permission of desired meat provide evidence for the way in which the Qumran Sect enjoyed cattle and sheep meat, even though they completely prohibited sacrifices. They permitted desired meat and its fat, and covered the blood of the meat with dust and from the Michmash story they learnt of the obligation to construct an altar for the slaughter of such meat. Here is further evidence that the law of Qumran served a group which resided in a desert outside Jerusalem, and not, as stated recently, that Dead Sea Scrolls originated in Jerusalem.