THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 41
with its inbuilt “perplexing contradiction— harmonious daily life, ideo-
logical wars.”^58 It has been suggested that Maimonides himself may have
been partly responsible for widening the social rift between the two com-
munities; that by denying the validity of Karaite divorce he effectively
discouraged marriage with Karaites.^59 The actual impact of Maimonides’
rulings on the historical development of the schism can be appraised only
after a careful reevaluation of this development, which should take into
account the vast amount of new information provided by recent studies
of the Geniza as well by the Firkovich collections. In the present context,
however, I wish to focus only on the place of the Karaites in Maimonides’
heresiography. Although Maimonides was clearly irked by the Karaite
challenge to Rabbinic authority, he walked a fi ne line in this respect. As
his terminology, elaborate discussions, and in par ticular his occasional
self-contradiction show, he recoiled from pushing for a fi nal schism with
the Karaites.^60
The terminology he chooses is highly indicative here. An edict signed
by Maimonides and other Rabbanite dignitaries attempts to counterbal-
ance the apparently widespread infl uence of Karaite practices regarding
women’s ritual purity, and the edict identifi es the Karaites’ practice as that
of the minim.^61 In his “Epistle to Yemen” Maimonides warns his Yeme-
nite correspondents of the possible infi ltration into their midst of “one of
theminim” who deny the oral law— again, an obvious reference to the
Karaite position— and points out that “according to our system (madh-
hab) one can spill the blood of these minim with impunity.”^62 At the
Egypt?” in: I. Twersky, ed., Studies in Maimonides (Cambridge, Mass., 1990), 83– 93; Rus-
tow, Rabbanite-Karaite Relations in Fatimid Egypt, 388, 395– 96; cf. H. Davidson, “Mai-
monides’ Putative Position as Offi cial Head of the Egyptian Jewish Community,” in N.
Lamm, ed., Hazon Nahum (New York, 1998), 115– 28. I wish to thank Menahem Ben-
Sasson for discussing this point with me.
(^58) Rustow, Rabbanite-Karaite Relations in Fatimid Egypt, 400. On the combination of
daily coexistence and doctrinal tension, see also see H. Soloveitchik, “Mishneh Torah: Po-
lemic and Art,” in Jay Harris, ed., Maimonides after 800 Years (Cambridge, Mass., 2007),
327–43, esp. 332.
(^59) See Rustow, Rabbanite-Karaite Relations in Fatimid Egypt, 37- 38;Responsa, 628– 29;
Epistles, 612– 13; see also S. Assaf, “On the History of the Karaites in the East,” Zion 1
(1935–36): 211 [Hebrew], who notes a deterioration of relations after Maimonides, but
does not suggest a causal connection. S. W. Baron, Social and Religious History of the
Jews, vol. 5 (New York, 1957), 28 and 266, points to the diffi culty posed regarding inter-
marriage by Maimonides’ view of Karaite divorce, a diffi culty of which Maimonides must
have been aware. Contrary to Rustow’s reading, however, neither Assaf nor Baron “laid
responsibility for the schism at Maimonides’s doorstep”; see, also, note 60, below.
(^60) Maimonides’ complex but, on the whole, tolerant policy towards the Karaites is noted by
Baron,Social and Religious History of the Jews, 5:281.
(^61) See Davidson, Moses Maimonides, 48; Responsa, 434– 44, 588– 89;Epistles, 177, 412.
(^62) Epistles, 98, 141– 42.