Introduction
Researching the translation and commentary of the tenth century Karaite scholar and exegete Yefet ben ʿElī on the Book of Proverbs, numerous statements that seemed to ring with egalitarianism were found. Some of these statements found in Yefet's commentary on wisdom literature and biblical narrative will be examined in this article. One case in which he speculates on biblical Hebrew syntax will also be examined. Gender equalityFootnote 1 in Yefet's work is anchored in the principle of logical inference, also known as analogy, qiyās, which served as one of the three major sources for the determination of Karaite halakhah. This article includes also a brief discussion of the role of qiyās in Karaite halakhah on marriage, divorce, and inheritance laws.
Wisdom Literature
In his commentary on Proverbs 18:22–19:2Footnote 2 Yefet claims that in light of the first verse, the entire segment deals with the topic of marriage. He adds a disclaimer saying that the literal meaning of the last four verses may suggest that they do not deal with this topic, but that it is legitimate to assume so on the basis of context (ʿala niẓāmihi). Therefore, he offers two sets of commentaries, one pertaining to the literal meaning and the other to the contextual meaning. In his commentary on 18:22 Yefet states that it is the obligation of every man to look for a suitable wife in order to obtain goodness from God, as the wife determines a man's material and spiritual life. In his commentary on the following verse, Yefet first presents the literal meaning which pertains to the relationship and power play between the poor and the rich. However, as part of his hermeneutic scheme, he also includes an interpretation that he justifies as contextually based (wa-fī niẓāmihi maʿna). Inequality marks the relationship between the rich and the poor, he says; therefore, it is necessary for men and women to resemble each other in their conditions in order for their union in marriage to be successful. Yefet mentions four areas in which it is important for the couple to resemble each other: social and ancestral status (ḥasab wa-nasab),Footnote 3 financial state of affairs, age, and appearance.Footnote 4 Verse 18:24 prompts Yefet to make statements in favor of the institution of marriage as opposed to the disadvantages of bachelorhood. In his commentary on the subsequent verse, Yefet adds another area in which the couple should resemble each other. One must look for a mate who is intellectually on par with oneself. This trait, he says, far outweighs riches and looks.
Yefet's novelty does not present itself in the subject matter of this set of advice. After all it is common sense that one should look for a well-to-do mate from a respectable bloodline. Instead, Yefet's originality lies in his egalitarian approach. It is the responsibility of both parties, he says, to look for a suitable match. Even more so, the success of their union, he claims, depends on the resemblance of their situation. They must share similar circumstances and dispositions financially, socially, intellectually and physically. While some of these were common considerations in marriages of the time, others seem avant-garde and betray a unique worldview, as will be discussed below.Footnote 5
The concept of mutuality and shared responsibility of the married couple in their role as parents is expressed in Yefet's commentary on Proverbs 29:15, “The rod and reproof give wisdom but the neglected lad disgraces his mother:”
He [the author] relates this [topic] to the rod and reproof because it is by them that sins are avoided. Without them [a child] is raised by ignorance, and becomes a disgrace to his parents. He only mentioned the mother without the father; however, no doubt they both participate in this [task]. Perhaps, he only mentioned the mother because trouble is initially apparent to her, for he [the child] attacks her first before [he attacks] the father.Footnote 6
Yefet is aware that the biblical text only mentions the mother. However, motivated by a sense of equality, he stresses that it is the obligation of both parents to educate and discipline their children. At the same time, Yefet does not dismiss the biblical text's formulation; rather, after expressing his stance, he explains why only the mother is mentioned.Footnote 7
In order to further examine Yefet's egalitarian approach it is important to compare his commentary with that of other exegetes of his time. In his commentary on Proverbs 23:22, “Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old,” Saadiah Gaon does not address the first hemistich. Concerning the second he says:
His saying “do not despise your mother when she is old,” is related to what people say about young individuals. Even if he [a young person] has a greater intellectual capacity than an elderly man, he must listen to the elderly man and not deprecate him. For the elderly man teaches him from his experience, and experience has more value than sharpness of mind.Footnote 8
Saadiah addresses the main idea of the verse, namely the obligation to respect the elderly. His commentary is intended as a general statement that refers to the entire verse. However, he only uses masculine parts of speech, taking no account of the mother figure, rather treating the verse as if only the father figure were its subject. In contrast, Yefet's commentary on this verse is divided into three segments. In the first he says:
He [Solomon] says here “he who begot you” after he had already said “to your father” in order to stress that he [your father] begot you and took care of you, meaning, he hopes the best for you.
In the second he says:
The clause “and do not despise your mother when she is old” means that when she grows old she might have difficulties, for many are the shortcomings of old age. He therefore says, beware not to despise her.
In the last segment he concludes saying “Yet, anything that is mentioned about one parent no doubt applies to the other as well.”Footnote 9
Both Saadiah and Yefet comment on the literal meaning of the verse. However, while Saadiah presents one collective interpretation using the masculine voice, Yefet treats each hemistich of the verse separately, offering gender appropriate discussion of each one. In addition, Yefet concludes with an egalitarian statement in which he highlights that the teachings of the Book of Proverbs guide people to treat both parents respectfully.
The following example is taken from the commentary on Proverbs 31:10–31, the acrostic poem also known as ‘The Woman of Valor.’ In his introduction to the poem, Saadiah explains that the author ends his book with a metaphor of the good wife in order to compare her with every wise and proper man. He further expounds that humans are made up of a physical body, a soul which is more eminent than the body, and an intellect which is more eminent than both the body and the soul. He says that because the physical body is the only one of these three which is visible to the senses, the poet chose to use plain language and describe physical skills. However, Saadiah adds that the sage (Solomon) chose to devise his metaphor about the skills of a woman, and not a man, out of reverence for men. The supposition that underlies Saadiah's commentary is that the description of a woman's body is acceptable, while the description of a man's body is disrespectful. In accordance with this supposition, Saadiah interprets each verse of the poem as if it were written about a man. For example in his commentary on Proverbs 31:11, “the heart of her husband trusts in her,” he says “[people] trust the exalted manager and depend on his opinion.”Footnote 10 Likewise, throughout the poem Saadiah assumes the subject of each verse to be a man and systematically relates to each one of them in the masculine voice. It is easy to imagine that Saadiah's intellectual world is a men's world, his writings address an audience of men, and perhaps he assumes that the poet of Proverbs aims to target exclusively male audiences as well. Such supposition allows him to suggest that ‘The Woman of Valor’ describes the attributes of man, similar to his aforementioned treatment of “and do not despise your mother when she is old” (Proverbs 23:22). In the case of ‘The Woman of Valor,’ Saadiah justifies his use of the masculine voice based on the classification of the poem as a metaphor.
Yefet's approach to ‘The Woman of Valor’ is very different. To begin with, while Saadiah surmises that the author of the poem is Solomon, Yefet suggests that it was penned by a woman, Lemuel's mother, whom he assumes is Bathsheba, Solomon's mother. Yefet's suggestion is based on contextual and structural considerations, as the acrostic poem immediately follows the words of Lemuel's mother. He explains that after warning her son against amassing and being preoccupied by women, Lemuel's mother states that good women are rare. She then begins to enumerate the good woman's attributes. Yefet interprets each verse literally in the feminine voice without questioning the author's choice of gender. Nevertheless, in his commentary on verse 31, “and let her works praise her in the city gates,” he says:
She [Solomon's mother] included in this statement her [The Woman of Valor's] husband and sons and all who heard of her fame both during her life and after her death, for it is her merit, as it is the merit of each and every noble, wise, and pious person, as it is said “a person is commended according to his intelligence” (Proverbs 12:8).Footnote 11
Unlike Saadiah, Yefet identifies the main subject of the poem as the ideal woman. Yet, he also acknowledges the universality of the poem by pointing out that the praise the ideal woman deserves is, in fact, the praise every noble person deserves, whether a man or a woman. Thus, even if in the end both Saadiah and Yefet conclude that the poem describes the ideal person, for Saadiah this ideal is a man, while for Yefet it is a human being, be it a man or a woman.
Biblical Narrative
A similar propensity for gender equality is found in Yefet's commentary on narrative passages of the Bible as the following examples demonstrate. In his commentary on Ruth 3:19 Yefet returns to the theme of marriage:
The clause “in that you have not gone after young men” points to three matters, the first is what was mentioned before; the second is that Boaz was an old man; and the third is that just like a young lad wishes for a maid young as he is for himself, so too a young maid wishes for a lad young as she is for herself. However, Ruth, for her humbleness and pursuit of faith in God was content with an old man.Footnote 12
Yefet underscores that, concerning marriage, both men and women look to fulfill their heart's desires and both look for spouses who are similar to them. According to Yefet's egalitarian approach the process a woman goes through when choosing a spouse is not different than a man's. Even more so, he describes women as active agents when seeking a spouse.Footnote 13
In his introduction to the Book of Ruth, Yefet includes in his egalitarian approach a discussion of faith:
We found that the convert who joins the faith of Israel may reach an exalted level by his obedience, as was said about Jethro, peace upon him, who had a great reputation and an honorable position as a result of his trust in God and his obedience to Him, as we have discussed in the passage of “Jethro heard” (Exodus 18:1). Such matters are not limited to men only, rather they can be demonstrated in women too. Such is the case of Jael whom Deborah mentioned in her poem proclaiming her exalted rank with God saying “Most blessed of women be Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, of tent-dwelling women most blessed” (Judges 5:24), so too is this person whose story and the content of her scroll we interpret. I mean Ruth, peace upon her.Footnote 14
This passage is a testimony to Yefet's egalitarian approach. For him faith in God and proclamation of monotheism, the main tenet in the Jewish faith, are not limited to one gender. For Yefet women are equal to men in their pursuit of faith and obedience to God. By emphasizing the equality between a man and a woman in matters of faith Yefet seems to be making a consciously polemical statement, meant as a refutation of an opposing opinion.
Yet, are women more liable for their actions than men? Yefet's commentary on Numbers 12:1 elucidates his position on this question:
The meaning of “Miriam spoke” is in the sense of vilification such as “they spoke against God” (Psalms 78:19); “the people spoke against God and against Moses” (Numbers 21:5); and “when I rise, they speak against me” (Job 19:18). The meaning of all these [citations] is vilification and defamation. It has been said about Miriam that she was the one who spoke and that Aaron did not deny her words, therefore the verb refers to him too. It has also been said that she began (speaking) and that Aaron collaborated with her...Footnote 15
After establishing that the use of וַתְּדַבֵּר “(she) spoke” refers here to slander, Yefet deliberates over this problematic verb. Why is the verb declined in the feminine singular, yet followed by two names? Yefet presents two solutions, both of which he quotes in the name of anonymous commentators. Both solutions result with putting the blame equally on Aaron and Miriam. Whether Miriam was the only speaker and Aaron did not deny her words, or she initiated the conversation and Aaron joined in, Yefet accuses both Aaron and Miriam of slanderous talk. Yefet's second solution resembles an interpretation found in Sifrei Bamidbar: “‘Miriam spoke’ teaches us that both vilified him, however, Miriam was the first to speak.”Footnote 16 Yet, it stands in contrast to most other interpretations of this text. Rabbi Judah son of Nehemiah is quoted making general statements about women in a midrash found in Bereshit Rabba. Among other things he blames women for being loquacious and mentions Numbers 12:1 as his prooftext.Footnote 17 Miriam is accused of slander and falsehood in a number of midrashim in this text found in Vayikra Rabba and Bamidbar Rabba. Footnote 18 Yefet's view of Miriam and Aaron bearing equal responsibility for the vilification is not only unique when compared with the sages quoted in the early midrashim, but also in comparison with medieval European commentators who lived after him. Of those, Rabbi Levi b. Gershom stands out, as he accuses Miriam of being the only one who spoke against Moses, while he reduces Aaron's fault to merely not rebuking his sister.Footnote 19
Not only does Yefet present women as men's equal with regard to matters of marriage, respect, faith, and responsibility, he also finds women equally intelligent, resourceful, and capable of making crucial decisions that had an impact on the history of the Jewish people. In the last segment of his commentary on chapter seven of the Book of Esther, Yefet deliberates over several difficulties in the story. Among others, he asks the following question: Was Esther's undertaking her own, or did she act on the advice of Mordechai, or at the behest of God? He argues:
Now we would maintain that she possessed merit and forethought and had no need for advice of another, for do you not see that she says to Mordechai, “Go, gather together,” etc. (Esther 4:16); though if we should say that God prompted her to it in a dream, it is possible.Footnote 20
Yefet has no doubt in Esther's abilities, initiative, and resourcefulness. He maintains that Esther was the mind behind her mission, and did not require the guidance of Mordechai. It is noteworthy that Yefet considers this an important matter that needs to be deliberated. Perhaps this issue was a subject of polemics to which he is reacting. Perhaps Yefet responds here to the common view that minimizes Esther's role in the salvation of the Jews and portrays her as a fearful and passive figure.Footnote 21
In the same passage Yefet discusses another crux in the text, namely the absence of the name of God. He suggests several reasons for this. Among others, he suggests that the Book of Esther, as we have it, is a product of a redactor (אלמדוון) who copied Esther's writings. She, on her part, avoided mentioning the name of God out of fear that her writings might fall into the hands of gentiles, who might attribute the work of God to other deities.Footnote 22 We learn from this that Yefet credits the original writing of the story to Esther herself. It is possible that Yefet assumes that Esther wrote the text in light of the title of the scroll. It is important to mention that Ibn Ezra, citing Saadiah, attributes the writing of the Book of Esther to Mordechai. Yet, there is no evidence that Saadiah himself attributed the writing of the book to Mordechai.Footnote 23 Be that as it may, Yefet suggests that in the case of the Book of Esther, a woman was the author of the vorlage upon which the redactor based the composition of the book. As was mentioned before, Yefet attributes also the acrostic of ‘The Woman of Valor’ (Proverbs 31:10–31) to the authorship of a woman, Lemuel's mother. The attribution of biblical text to female authors is an uncommon egalitarian approach, especially in light of the reality in which Yefet lived, where most writings were products of male authors, while women authors were an extremely marginal phenomenon.Footnote 24
Commenting on the attribution of authorship to Esther, Michael Wechsler suggests that Yefet's exegesis stems from “careful attention to psychology and logical inference extending from highly developed rationalistic, or literary-contextual, hermeneutics.”Footnote 25 Further comments by Meira Polliack argue that such Karaite exegesis was a result of a “developed linguistic-contextual and literary approach to scripture, which led to a deeper acknowledgement of the process behind its authorship.”Footnote 26 While both Wechsler and Polliack's arguments are sound and valid, it is important to underscore that Yefet's approach has resulted in an egalitarian exegesis, and in a heightened sensitivity to social justice, and to women's roles in various walks of daily life, leadership, intellectual engagement, and religious commitment.
Biblical Hebrew Syntax
Further evidence for Yefet's egalitarian worldview is found in his discussion of the syntax of biblical Hebrew. In his commentary on Exodus 21:10–11, “If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish the food, clothing, or conjugal rights of the first wife. And if he does not fulfill these three for her, she shall go out without debt, without payment of money.” Yefet devotes a lengthy passage to the explanation of the terms “food” (שאר), “clothing” (כסות), and “conjugal rights” (ענה). In the end of the passage he asks why the Hebrew text counts “these three” (items) in the feminine voice (shlosh elleh) when one item, “food” (שאר), is grammatically masculine and the other two, “clothing” (כסות), and “conjugal rights” (ענה), are grammatically feminine. Yefet suggests two ways to resolve this problem. First, he suggests that while it says shlosh elleh (“these three”) the text implies shlosh ḥukkot elleh (“these three” rights). Since the term חקות, “rights,” is grammatically feminine, such a reading would restore the agreement between number and counted items. Second, Yefet suggests that perhaps because the majority of the counted items is feminine, the text refers to all in the feminine voice.Footnote 27 Yefet's second suggestion is intriguing as he suggests that the gender of a number of counted items is determined by the gender of the majority of the items counted and not, as the common rule requires, by the presence or absence of a grammatically masculine element among the counted items. This egalitarian grammatical rule, even if not known elsewhere, is inspired by analogy and logical inference. Yefet's understanding of grammar as based on egalitarian concepts betrays an epistemological sense of equality, which exceeds biblical exegesis, as it assumes that one's most fundamental tool, language itself, adheres to egalitarian rules.
It is important to point out that despite his heightened sense of gender equality, Yefet did not shy away from writing misogynistic remarks. One such occasion is found in his commentary on Zechariah 5:9–11 in which he suggests that the woman sitting in the basket (אֵיפָה) in Zachariah's vision is a metaphor for the sages of Mishnah and the Talmud. He speculates that these sages are compared to women to show that they possess some of the inferiorities that characterize women.Footnote 28 In this case Yefet presents the common view of women known from other medieval Jewish and non-Jewish sources. Such views may demonstrate an inner tension in his thought as well as an ambivalence of the Karaite reformation of medieval Judaism at large.
Karaite Halakhah in Light of the Principle of Logical Inference
Yefet's propensity for gender equality as demonstrated in his commentary on wisdom literature, biblical narrative, and syntax presented above stems from his commitment to the principle of logical inference. The principle of logical inference not only shaped Yefet's exegesis but was also formative in the development of Karaite thought at large. Evidence for the role of logical inference in Karaite thought is found in the collective effort of Karaite sages to shape and redefine Karaite halakhah throughout the ages.Footnote 29
The principle of logical inference, also known as analogy, היקש, was known in rabbinical literature as one of the hermeneutical devices for the determination of halakhah long before the emergence of Karaite Judaism. The presupposition behind the principle of logical inference is that when two subjects are connected by a common predicate, under certain circumstances, the same provisions that apply to one will also apply to the other.Footnote 30 A homologous principle, qiyās, is also known as the fourth source of Muslim law adopted if a ruling is not explicitly formulated in one of the other three sources, the Qurʾān, Ḥadīṯ, or ijmāʿ. Qiyās is a type of inductive reasoning used in Islamic jurisprudence to infer the unknown from the known (qiyās al-ġāʾib ʿala l-šāhid).Footnote 31 In other words, qiyās is a conclusion by analogy, based on the existence of an essential common feature in the original and in the parallel case.Footnote 32 In Judeo-Arabic literature the term qiyās is used as a translation of the rabbinic term היקש. Saadiah presents such a principle in the ninth category in his introduction to the Book of Proverbs. He explains that sometimes the author compares new information with something known for the purpose of teaching.Footnote 33 Karaites adopted the principle of qiyās and turned it into one of the three sources for Karaite halakhah.Footnote 34 Qirqisānī mentions qiyās not only in his list of three sources for halakhah, but also in his discussion on hermeneutics.Footnote 35 Yefet frequently uses logical inference in his commentaries.Footnote 36 In fact, all the Karaite sages used this principle starting with ʿAnan ben David and Benjamin al-Nahāwandī, through Qirqisānī, Yefet, Yousuf al-Baṣīr and others. The application of this principle by Karaite authorities was most noticeable in the realm of family law and the interpretation of laws of consanguinity. In his Book of Precepts ʿAnan writes:
...and also anyone who weds a woman must wed her out of his own will. His father must not marry him off to a woman he does not desire. A woman too, must not be wedded unless she so wills, her father must not marry her off to a man she does not desire.Footnote 37
ʿAnan's ruling was adopted by the Karaites in subsequent generations as Geniza Karaite marriage documents confirm. While both Rabbanite and Karaite marriage documents found in the Geniza include a passage in which the groom expresses his agreement to marry the bride, Karaite marriage documents also include a parallel passage in which the bride expresses her agreement to marry the groom. This passage, formulated in an egalitarian language, highlights the mutuality in marriage as it presents the wife as an equal partner.Footnote 38 With regard to divorce ʿAnan says:
“but if she does not please him because he finds something objectionable about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1) [indicates] that if she does not please him because he finds loathsome matters in her and he does not desire her, he [may] divorce her; whether he does not desire her, or she does not desire him.Footnote 39
ʿAnan's rulings display symmetry and equality between genders. His ruling concerning divorce has no support in the Bible, nor does it have a precedent in rabbinic halakhah.Footnote 40 It is reasonable to assume that he reaches his conclusion based on the application of the principle of qiyās. Just as it is the right of a man to divorce his wife, so too it is the right of a woman to demand a divorce according to her will. Such an egalitarian approach is attested already in the writings of the Qumran community.Footnote 41 Benjamin al-Nahāwandī limited the right of a woman to demand divorce only to cases in which she was deprived of “food,” “clothing,” or “conjugal rights” (Exodus 21:10). However, he was the first to suggest the use of coercion in order to extricate a bill of divorce from the husband, stating that a man who refuses to support his wife “must be coerced to divorce with a complete get.”Footnote 42 Benjamin does not disclose his source, but the Karaites explain his ruling as based on the application of qiyās to the biblical law according to which a man who rapes an unmarried woman is compelled to marry her (Deuteronomy 22:28–29).Footnote 43 That is to say, just as it is possible to force a man to wed a woman, so too it must be possible to force a man to divorce her. The Karaites’ reform of divorce laws went even further when Levi ben Yefet decreed that in some cases a divorce may be granted to a woman who demands it even without a divorce bill.Footnote 44 Similar to ʿAnan, Levi ben Yefet applies the principle of qiyās and equates between men and women saying “just as it is permissible for him to divorce her, so too it is permissible for her to divorce him.”Footnote 45
In the Jewish law of the Mishnah there is no allowance for the wife to give a bill of divorce to her husband. A man can be coerced to grant a divorce, according to this early law, under certain circumstances such as binding the wife by unreasonable restrictions or in cases of serious afflictions.Footnote 46 The debate in the Mishnah concerning grounds for divorce demonstrates that over time the right to divorce became the almost total, unlimited, and exclusive right of the husband.Footnote 47 However, a parallel ancient tradition does recognize the wife's right to demand the termination of the marriage. A clause fashioned after the Palestinian Talmud and found in Palestinian marriage documents allows both partners to dissolve the marriage, stating “If he hates her.... If she hates him....” followed by a binding monetary stipulation.Footnote 48 Geniza documents demonstrate that in some cases Jewish courts ordered a husband to grant his wife a bill of divorce upon her demand, and on the condition that she relinquish her claims to her late divorce fees (mĕʾuḥār). Such a procedure was termed by the Jewish court iḫtilāʿ.Footnote 49
Levi ben Yefet's adjudication, which sanctions court granted divorce, marks a significant breakthrough towards egalitarian divorce procedures. Changes in the Karaite divorce laws took place even after Levi ben Yefet's decree. The twelfth century Karaite sage, Judah Hadassi, author of Eshkol ha-kofer, restricted women's right to initiate divorce even beyond the circumstances in which the Mishnah allows the coercion of the husband.Footnote 50 However, the fourteenth century sage, Aaron ben Elijah, reinstated Levi ben Yefet's ruling asserting that “a man divorces willingly and against his will, and so too a woman gets divorced willingly and against her will.”Footnote 51 The fifteenth-century sage, Eliyahu Bashyachi, who was known for his leniency, legitimized court decreed divorce in place of coercion of the husband. By this adjudication, motivated by the principle of qiyās, Bashyachi elevated the legal status of women and granted them equal rights for divorce.Footnote 52 Karaite laws of divorce were a subject of debate in the Karaite courts again at the end of the eighteen century in Crimea. In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Karaite sage Isaac ben Shlomo legitimized court-sanctioned divorce without get. His adjudication spread through all Karaite communities including Egypt and it is still a common practice today among all Karaites to prefer court-sanctioned divorce to coercion.Footnote 53
Lastly, it is important to mention that early Karaite sages debated the rights of women with regard to inheritance laws. In light of the principle of qiyās, some of them suggested far-reaching egalitarian reforms. ʿAnan argued that both the son and the daughter must receive equal shares in the inheritance of their father.Footnote 54 Yousuf al-Baṣīr also maintained that sons and daughters should receive equal shares.Footnote 55 Others held that the ratio between the share of a son to the share of a daughter must be like the ratio between the share of the first-born to the share of a subsequent child, meaning that the son takes two parts while the daughter takes one part of the inheritance. Other Karaites agreed with the tradition, accepted also by the Rabbanites, that as long as there are sons, daughters have no share in the inheritance of their fathers.Footnote 56 Yet, some Karaites accepted this tradition only with regard to landholding within the land of Israel, but dismissed it with regard to landholding outside the land of Israel and with regard to other possessions. According to Hadassi, both Daniel al-Qūmisī and Benjamin al-Nahāwandī were of the opinion that daughters inherit from their fathers only in the absence of sons.Footnote 57 Bashyachi, who was regarded as the last legislator among the Karaites, adopted the position that daughters should receive one-third of their father's estate.Footnote 58 It is somewhat ironic that by their effort to change inheritance laws in favor of females, Karaites effectively were enacting the talmudic dictum השוה הכתוב אשה לאיש לכל דינין שבתורה “Scripture equated a woman to a man with regard to (all monetary) laws of the Torah” (B. Bava Kamma 15a).
It is surprising that Yefet does not share these opinions. In his commentary on Numbers 27:7–11 he rejects the opinion that daughters inherit together with sons. He therefore also refutes the opinion that sons receive two-thirds and daughters receive one-third of the inheritance. In addition, he opposes the notion that these laws of inheritance pertain only to the land of Israel.Footnote 59 According to Yefet, sons receive everything, and only in the absence of sons do daughters receive the inheritance of the father. This includes land and all other possessions. Yefet adds, that after the death of their fathers, unmarried females must be taken care of by their brothers. He asserts that brothers must allocate gifts from the inheritance, which must be dedicated to the livelihood of their unmarried sisters. The size of the gift is a variable to be determined by the means of the family and its particular circumstances. Yefet's stand on the laws of inheritance is not different from that of the Rabbanites of his time.
Influence of IslamFootnote 60
It is possible that the Karaites’ recognition of the right of women to initiate a divorce was not driven only from the principle of qiyās. It is reasonable to assume that they were also influenced by Qurʿānic text and Islamic law. There are numerous verses in the Qurʿān which advocate the equality between genders. Both men and women are addressed in the same manner with regard to their spiritual path and religious obligations.Footnote 61 The Qurʿān affirms the right of women to own property and entitles them to earnings. Women are free, according to the Qurʿān, to handle their property and earnings as they please.Footnote 62 In the story of creation, as presented in the Qurʿān, humans are created from a single soul. Eve is not said to be made of Adam's rib, which might point to her secondary and inferior status.Footnote 63 Evidence from the Ḥadīṯ further illustrates that women were entitled to an egalitarian position in society. There are accounts of women who worked for a living, women warriors who participated in battle alongside their male coequals, and women who took part in business and government positions. In the Abbasid period women participated in public life and held positions of influence and prominence.Footnote 64
Islamic law allowed women to claim a divorce. A common procedure in Islamic law was the ḫulʿ, also known as iḫtilāʿ in the Qurʿān (2:229), which enabled women to initiate legally binding divorce agreements with their husbands. In the case of ḫulʿ the husband would agree to restore the wife's freedom on condition that she forfeits all or most of the property she had received from him. Such an agreement is allowed on the condition that the financial arrangement is mutually acceptable.Footnote 65 This procedure is distinguished from the more common type of divorce, known as ṭalāq, which is granted as a unilateral privilege of the husband to divorce his wife.Footnote 66 In certain cases Islamic law allowed for yet another type of divorce, fasḫ. This was a court-sanctioned divorce, which was granted to women abandoned by their husbands for more than six months without means of support or income.Footnote 67
With regard to the laws of inheritance, the arrival of Islam ushers in radical changes in customs and rules. While in the pre-Islamic era only men were eligible to inherit their father's wealth, the Qurʿān instructs that both male and female are entitled to a share in the inheritance. The new order unfolds in stages in the Qurʿān in response to particular circumstances. According to the Qurʿān, in the event of death of the parents, daughters receive half the share of sons.Footnote 68
It is evident from the above survey of Qurʿānic passages and Islamic law that there is affinity between the reforms of Karaite sages towards gender equality and the status of women in medieval Islamic tradition both in the realm of Qurʿānic text and Islamic law.
Conclusion
This paper examnined Yefet's propensity for gender equality in his commentaries on wisdom literature and biblical narrative. Yefet's commitment to egalitarian ideology is reflected in his discussions of topics such as marriage, parental roles, honor, faith, accountability, leadership and even authorship of biblical passages. His work also bespeaks an inclination to egalitarianism in his understanding of the rules that govern the Hebrew language. Yefet was guided by the principle of qiyās and often applied it consciously in his commentaries. It was his commitment to the principle of qiyās which resulted in a worldview and ideology of egalitarianism and gender equality, and distinguished him from other contemporaneous commentators and those who lived before and after his time. While Yefet's commitment to gender equality and the principle of qiyās is undeniable, his commentary reflects an inner tension that manifests itself in occasional misogynistic statements on women.
This same egalitarian ideology, which was embraced by Karaite sages, was not confined to the realm of biblical commentary but had a significant influence on Karaite halakhic reforms. A similar proclivity is evident in the Qurʿān, the Ḥadīṯ, and medieval Islamic law and can be regarded as inspirational for the reforms suggested by Karaite legislators. While distinct from the spirit of feminism of modern times, Karaite egalitarianism reveals a heightened sense of social justice and a humanistic worldview. Concerned with women's rights, Karaite sages dared to take a stand and make a difference, as is evident with regard to divorce laws and to a certain degree also with regard to inheritance laws.
Appendix
A Proverbs 18:22–19:2, BL Or. 2553 (76b–78a)
ماصا اشا ماصا طوب ويافق راصون مياذوناي: من وجد امراة موافقة فقد وجد الخير واخرج (22) الرضا من عند 
قال ماصا اشا ليعرف انه يجب على الانسان ان يطلب من يصلح له لدينه ودنياه لان امور الرجل لدينه ودنياه معلقة بالزوجة فسبيله ان يبحث عن حالها قبل ان ياخذها فاذا وصل الى مراده فقد حصل له الخير قال ماصا طوب نظير قوله لوا طوب هيوث هاذام لبدوFootnote 69 فاذا تزوج باشث حايل حصل له الطوب وهو طوب للدين والدنيا وقال ويافق راصون مياذوناي لانها اذا كانت موافقة [...]Footnote 70 على رضا وبضد ذلك الزوجة الردية تضر به في امور دينه ودنياه وسخط عليه مهما هي في بيته فسبيله ان يبادر الى الخلاص منها فهو فوق كل عرواث دابار:Footnote 71
تاحنونيم يذبر راش وعاشير ياعنا عزوث: بالتحننات يتكلم الفقير والموسر يتكلم بالصعوبات (23) ظاهر هذا القول ان الفقير اذا احتاج الى الموسر فسبيله ان يلطف به ويضرع اليه حتى يصل الى مراده منه وان خرج عليه الموسر بالكلام واسخف به فسبيله هو ان لا يغير حاله في الملطف بل يزيد في التذلل اليه لان الموسر غنى عنه وهو محتاج اليه فيحتمل جميع ما جرى عليه وفي نظامه معنى وهو انه سبيل الرجل ان يتزوج بزوجة تقاربه في احواله فيطيب عيشهما جميعا لانه اذا كان احدهما موسرا كان الاخر ذليلا مهانا لان اليسار يكبر القلب وقليل من الناس من يكون يعكس ذلك ويجب ان يكون الزوج والزرجة قريبين في اربعة اشيا احدها في الحسب والنسب والثاني في الفقر والغنى والثالث في السن والرابع في الصورة فمتى جرت الامور على مثل ذلك طاب العيش واذا لم تجري الامور كذاك تنكد العيش وتمرمرت الروح وهذه امور واضحة
ايش ريعيم لهثروعيع وييش اوهيب دابيق مياح: رجل ذو رفقا للمرافقة وموجود محب ملازم (24) اكثر من الاخ
هذا الفسوق مقول في رجل يفكر فيما يلحقه من الامراة فيقول في نفسه لما اخذ امراة ما اخبر حالها في دينها وادبها وعقلها وبزالتها فاحصل في بلا ما اجد خلاص منه فالاصلح لي ان اتخذ رفيق يكون لي لوقت شدة وانا اعرف حاله احب الي من امر مغطا مستور فقال له الحكيم اعلم انه من اتخذ له رفيق لمهماته واسبابه فهو ابدا يطلب رفيق بحيث انه عسر ان يجد رفيق كما يحب فانه ربما كان [رفي]ق يلازم الانسان اكثر من الاخ في خيره وشره ولا يفارقه بل يشاركه في جميع احواله فانت ايضا اذا كنت لا تريد ان تخاطر في زيجة امراة خوف من ان لا تجد كما تحب فهذا ايضا يلحقك في الرفيق والصديق فعرف ان اتخاذ الزوجة اصلح اذ تصلح لاشيا لا يصلح لها الصديق
طوب راش هوليخ بثمو ميعقيش سفاثاو وهو خسيل: الاجود الفقير الساير بصحته من (19:1) يشكس شفتيه وهو جاهل
هذا الفسوق وان كان قولا عاما فانه له تعلق في النظام في باب الزوج مع زوجته فكانه قال لكل واحد منهما اذا طلبت نظيرك ولم تجد في باب الدين والدنيا فاتخذ الفقير الديين ولا ترغب الى موسر شكس جاهل فيلقالFootnote 72 بما يثقل عليك وتضطرب عليك احوالك لجهله وقد قلنا لك ليخ مناغذ لايش كسيلFootnote 73 فابعد عنه ولا تصاحبه فكيف ان تكون لك زوجة بهذه الصورة او رجل بهذه الصورة لامراة عاقلة مثل نابال هاكرملي وابيغايل الذي وصفهما وهاشا طوبث ساخل ويفث توارFootnote 74 وتمامه
جام بلوا ذاعث نافش لوا طوب واص برغلايم حوطي: ايضا بغير معرفة النسا للشهوة ليس جيد (2) والملح في الميعة جاني على نفسه
هذه الداعث هي معرفة الميعة مثل وهاذام ياذاع اث حوا اشتوFootnote 75 وقال جام مضاف الى ما ينتفع الرجل من الامراة بخدمتها وغير ذلك فقال انه اذا بقي الانسان بغير مرة هو ضرر على الجسم لانه يجلب عليه امراض فقد صار في بلوغ الشهوة واللذة منافع ذكرها الاطبا وهي صحيحة فاذا جرى ذلك باعتدال كان نفع ذلك بين واذا خرج عن الحد تلف الجسم لانه يستفرغ قوته كقوله واص برغلايم حوطي والمراد بقوله برغليم الميعة مثل وتفسقي اث رغلايخ لخل عوبيرFootnote 76 وهذا الحوطي هو خاطي على نفسه وتلف جسمه فلو لم يفرط في ذلك ويزيد على نفسه لانتفع ولم يستضر
Translation
(22) “He who finds a suitable wife finds goodness and obtains favor from the Lord.”
He says “he who finds a suitable wife” in order to assert that it is the obligation of every person to search for the one who is appropriate for him with regard to both his spiritual and worldly life. For a man's religious and worldly affairs depend upon his wife. It is therefore the obligation of a man to examine her background before he marries her, and once he finds what he wants he will obtain goodness. His (i.e., the author) saying “obtains favor” is similar to “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). For, when one marries ēshet ḥayil (a woman of good judgment) he obtains ṭōḇ (favor) which is ṭōḇ (good) both from spiritual and worldly points of view. He says “he obtains favor from the Lord” for when she is an appropriate [...] finds favor from the Lord. On the other hand, an evil wife will harm him both in religious and worldly matters and the Lord will be angry with him as long as she is in his house. In such a case, he ought to save himself from her at once, for it is above and beyond (the case of) “something obnoxious” (Deuteronomy 24:1).
(23) “The poor person speaks by pleading, but the rich one speaks harshly.”
The literal meaning of this saying is that when a poor person seeks favor from a rich one the former approaches the latter gently and submissively until he obtains that which he wants. Even if the rich one charges at him and denigrates him, he (i.e., the poor one) does not change his gentle behavior but rather, he increases his submission. For the rich one does not need the poor, but the poor one needs the rich and must endure everything that befalls him. The context provides a meaning as well: It is necessary for a man to marry a wife who's circumstances resemble his in order for them to have a good life together. For if one of them is rich the other is bound to be humiliated and inferior, as wealth swells the heart and very few people can resist that. Therefore, it is necessary for the husband and wife to resemble each other in four manners. The first is the social and ancestral status. The second pertains to poverty and wealth, the third pertains to age (lit: years) and the fourth has to do with external look (lit: form). When events run their course accordingly life is good, but if not, life is miserable and the spirit is bitter, and these things are obvious.
(24) “A man of friends keeps friendship, and there is one who loves and adheres more than a brother.”
This verse pertains to a man who is concerned with what will happen to him by (marrying) a wife. He says to himself: “Why should I marry a wife whose affairs, piety, education, intelligence and efficiency I do not know. I might bring upon myself harm from which I will not be delivered. It is best for me to acquire a friend who will be there for me in times of difficulties and whose circumstances I know. (Such a friend) is dearer to me more than something hidden and unknown.” To him says the wise one (i.e., Solomon): “Know that the one who looks for a friend with whom to share his concerns and affairs will always be in need for a friend, for it will always be difficult for him to find one to his liking. Yet there may be a friend who sticks to a person more than a brother, in good times and in bad, one who will not separate from him but rather share in all his affairs. Therefore, you too, if you do not wish to risk marrying a wife out of fear that you will not find the right one; the same will happen to you with a friend and an acquaintance. So he (i.e., the author) explains that taking a wife is better, for she is suitable (for you) in matters for which a friend cannot be suitable.”
(19:1) “Better the poor walking in integrity than one stubborn of lips who is a fool.”
Although this verse seems like a general statement it is related contextually to the subject of husband and wife. It is as if he (the author) says to each one of them: “When you look for one like you but you do not find [one who is like you] both spiritually and materially, than you should marry the poor one who is pious. Wish not for the rich one who is stubborn and ignorant, for that one will belittle (?) that which troubles you, and will confuse your affairs as a result of his ignorance. We have already said to you “Walk away from a foolish person” (Proverbs 14:7), therefore keep away from him (the ignorant one) and do not befriend him. It will not be possible, then, for you to have such an [ignorant] wife, nor [will it be possible] for an intelligent wife to have such an [ignorant] husband, like [the case of] Nabal the Carmelite and Abigail, who was described as “The woman was clever and beautiful” (1Samuel 25:3) etc.”
(2) “Also not knowing women sexually is not good, but the one who is intensely engaged in sexual acts sins against himself.”
This knowing is carnal knowledge like “Now the man knew his wife Eve” (Genesis 4:1). He (the author) says “Also” [to indicate that this is] in addition to the benefit a man gains from a wife's [other] services, etc. He says that when a man remains without a wife he harms his body for he brings upon himself disease. Satisfying the sexual drive and desire brings benefits physicians have spoken of, and they are true. When it takes place in moderation the benefit is obvious. However, when it exceeds the limits the body is destroyed because it is drained of its strength as his saying “but the one who is intensely engaged in sexual acts sins against himself.”Footnote 77 The meaning of his saying “legs” is carnal knowledge like “spread your legs to every passerby” (Ezekiel 16:25). This “sinner” sins against himself and ruins his body, for if he did not exaggerate in this matter straining himself he would have gained benefit not harm.
B BL Or. 2553 (123a)
شيبط وثوخاحث ييتن حخما وناعر مشلاح ميبيش امو: القضيب والتوبيخ يعطي الحكمة والصبي المخلا مخزي والدته
نسب ذلك الى القضيب والتوبيخ لان بهما ترتدع عن الذنوب واذا لم يكن ذلك ربي على جهله فيخزي والديه وان كان ذكر الوالدة دون الوالد فلا محالة انهما مشتركان في ذلك ولعلة انها ذكر الام لان البلا بها يبدي لانه يجسر عليها اولا قبل الاب
C BL Or. 2553 (108a)
شماع لابيخا زا يلاذاخا وال تابوز كي زاقنا اماخا: اقبل من ابيك هذا الذي اولدك ولا تزري بوالدتك اذا عجزت
وقال زا يلاذاخا بعد قوله لابيخا يوري انه اولدك وهو شفق عليك فما ان له لك الامل ينفعك وقال وال تابوز كي زاقنا اماخا لانها اذا عجزت اضطربت حالها لان عيوب الكبر كثيرة فقال اياك ان ان (!) تزري بها.... والمذكور في كل واحد من الوالدين مثله القول في الاخر لا محالة
D BL Or. 2477 (38a–b)
מעני ותדבר מרים הו קול עלי סביל אלטען עלי משה מתל וידברו באלהיםFootnote 78וידבר העם באלהים ובמשהFootnote 79אקומה וידברו ביFootnote 80 כל הדה מעאניהא טען ווקיעה: וקיל אן מרים הי כאנת אלקאילה ואהרן לם ינכר עליהא אלקול פלדלך נסב אליה אלפעל איצ֗א: וקיל אנהא אבתדת תם שארכהא אהרן.
E SP Academy of Oriental Studies B367 (22b–23a)
ופי קולה ואם שלש אלה בלג֗הֿ אלתאנית אד לם יקל ואם שלשה או אם שלשת אלדי הו יעמל עמלין יחתמל פיה גואבין אחדהמא הו אנה יריד בה אם שלש החקות האלה אד ואגבאת אלנסי יכ֗רגִהא בלשון חקה כמא קאל ואגרע חקך.Footnote 81 יריד בה אני נקצת ואגִבך אלדי כנת אגִריה עליך מן סלת ושמן ודבש ובגדי שש ומשי ורקמה והו קריב ואלתאני הו אן יכון קאל שארה כסותה ועונתה פאמא אלשאר מסמועה מסמוע זכר ליכן כסות ועונה מסמועהמא מסמוע אלתאנית פיחתמל אנה קאל ואם שלש אלה מן חית אן אלאכתר הו מונת.
F BL Or. 2401 (173a)
ותמתילה לאצחאבהא בְאִשָה הו יחתמל ד׳ מעאני אמא לנקץ מערפתהם לאן אלנסא גִהאל וג֗אלב עליהם אלגִהל וכדלךּ כאנו האולאי נאקצי אלמערפה בכתאב אללה ובטרקה אלא פי בעץ֗ אלאשיא או לנקץ רתבתהם ומקדארהם פי מבאדי אחואלהם או מן חית אן אלאמראה תג֗ר אלגִהאל ותפסדהם בלפט֗הא וכדלךּ להולאי אלקום חלאוה פי קלוב אלגִהל או לכתרה נגִאסתהם לאן אלנסי כתירין אלנגִאסה ונגִאסתהם נגִאסה תקילה וכדלךּ האולי אלקום
Translation
He compares the masters [of the Mishnah and Talmud] to a woman for four possible reasons: a. For their lack of knowledge; just as women are not educated and ignorance gets the better of them, so too they (the masters of the Mishnah and the Talmud) lack knowledge of the Book of the Lord and his paths with a few exceptions. b. For their low rank and status resulting from their inherent condition. c. Just as women seduce the ignorant ones and ruin them by their speech, so too they plant sweetness in the hearts of the ignorant ones. d. For the abundance of their pollution (likuṯrat najāsatihim), for women have much pollution and their pollution is severe, so too are these people.
G SP AOS B365 (102a–b)
פכל מן זעם אן אלבנאת ירתן בוגוד אל בנין קד אדעא דעוי בלא דליל ובאלאחרי מן אדעא אן אלאבן ירת אלתלתין ותרת אלבנת אלתלת וליס פי אלתורה מכתוב שיא ממא אדעאה….
וקולה את נחלתו הו מעמום פי כל מא ללמית שא כאן עקאר ושא כאן דינאר ודרהם ואתאת ועביד וסאיר מא מלכה אלאנסאן לאן ראינא לשון נחלה פי אלעביד כק׳ והתנחלתם אתםFootnote 82 וג’ ופי אלמנאזל ואלאמואל כק’ בית והון נחלת אבותFootnote 83 וקולה איצא והיה ביום הנחילו את בניוFootnote 84 אתרי דלך אלקול מכצוץ בנחלת ארץ ישראל פהו דעוי בלא דליל.... ומא וגדנא מן אחד אלדלאיל ממא יוגב תכציצה בדלך בנחלת ארץ דון אלממון לא פי נץ אלכתאב ולא קיאס צחיח ולא אגמאע ומן אלמעלום אן אלרבאנין געלו הדא אלפצל יתעלם מנה אלמיראת כלה פלו כאן תם אגמאע מעה אצל פי נחלת .ממון אלדי הו אצל כביר לא ינץ אללה עליה פי כתאבה
Translation
Anyone, who opines that daughters inherit even when there are sons, holds to an unfounded opinion. Even more so the one who opines that sons receive two thirds and daughters one third of the inheritance. For none of this is written in the Torah....
The phrase אֶת נַחֲלָתו ֹ (“his portion”) is general and (includes) everything the deceased owned, whether hard cash, furniture, servants, or anything else in his possession. For we have seen that the semantic sphere of נחלה includes servants from the saying “you shall keep them as a possession” (Leviticus 25:46), and houses and wealth from the saying “house and wealth are inherited from parents” (Proverbs 19:14). See also the verse “then on the day he wills his possessions to his sons” (Deuteronomy 21:16). Therefore, the one who says (“his portion”) is specific to the land of Israel declares an unfounded claim.... As we have not found any evidence that it is specific to the land of Israel and excludes the inheritance of (other) possessions; not in Scripture (nuṣṣ al-kitāb), not by means of proper (application of) logical inference (qiyās), and not by the consensus (ijmāʿ). In addition, it is well known that the Rabbanites have used this chapter to draw all laws of inheritance. For even if there were a consensus that there was a (separate) chapter dealing with the inheritance of (other) possessions, which is an immense topic, God has not included it in His Book.
