Talk:Aaron ben Moses ben Asher

Untitled
On the issue of whether Aaron ben Moses ben Asher was a Karaite, while I am not an expert, I am now translating a long and detailed Hebrew article by Yosef Ofer for a website about the Aleppo Codex. Ofer is one of the authoritative scholars in the field and rejects the idea that the Ben Asher family was Karaite. It might be misleading to say that "most" scholars claim that they were Karaites, since scholarship is not a matter of majority rule. Dr. Jeffrey M. Green
 * Thanks for your comments, Dr. Green. I think part of the problem is that there is no clear evidence either way. Thus, we are left we a few scholars (mostly very old ones) who claim he was a Karaite, while most current masoretic scholars remain more or less agnostic on the issue or don't address it much at all, thus leaving the field open to the claim that "most scholars..." we find here. I originally wrote in this article that "some scholars have claimed" Ben Asher was a Karaite, but that formulation was changed to what you find now and I didn't have the patience to argue the point! Perhaps if you are active in the field, then you could make some inquiries on this among the people who currently deal with masorah (besides Dotan, who is already mentioned here), like Ofer, Breuer, Menachem Cohen, etc. Dovi 07:15, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * PS Since, as you rightly say, "scholarship is not a matter of majority rule", it would be wonderful if instead of debating majorities, we could have an authoritative summary of the claims that have been made on this and the reasons for them. Dovi 09:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The newest research on this, named "ההיה מסרן הכתר רבני או קראי?" by "זר, רפאל יצחק" from ספונות ח [כג] (תשסג) 573-587 ‬claims that he was Karaite. --Neria 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC) ‬

Ben Asher could not be a Karaite
My research on this subject shows that the claim ben Asher to be a Karaite is none other than pure propaganda. It was probably a made up claim to support the argument that Karaism existed as a minority during the Second Temple peirod. One disprove to this argument is the Karaite scriptual canon is the one of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. (The Christian canon...) There are many more proofs of post-Sanhedrin practices in Karaism. This claim is no different to those Christians and idiotic scholars think every reference Jesus is to the Christian Jesus.

Prof. Bernstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.217.65.253 (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't know if you are really a Prof. and if you really did any research on this subject.
 * BTW, Are you Orthodox?
 * Why do you think that the Karaite Jews' scriptural canon is the one of Yochanan ben Zakkai and not that Yochanan ben Zakkai hold the Karaite canon?
 * But for sure even if the "Ba'ale HaMasora" had the canon of Yochanan ben Zakkai this is not a proof that they were not Karaites since it was years after.
 * --Neria 13:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

cites
"Documents found in the Cairo Geniza also indicate that ben Asher was a Karaite."
 * please see - "From documents found in the Cairo Geniza, it appears that this most famous masorete (and, possibly, his family for generations) were also, incidentally, Karaites."
 * I thisk that they are talking about "שירת הגפן" of his father that was found there.

"Most of the secular scholars conclude that Aaron ben Asher was indeed a Karaite"
 * The first one that said that he WAS NOT karaite was Aharon Dodan and it was on 1957. Since then there were 2 or 3 others that agree with him. But most of the scholars says he WAS karaite, inclouding the last one Rafael Zer. --Neria 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Karaite
Mind my language but this article reads like some shit a high school child did for homework. Not one scholar is actually cited. This is not NPOV in any way. 124.168.28.42 21:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben Asher as Karaite
This article has obvious NPOV problems. Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, but this section reads like the national enquirer. I have no idea what it is talking about, but it seems like it should be deleted. Aeknipe 18:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is actually the view, nowadays, of the majority of secular scholars. It's only really disputed, so far as I know, in traditionalist circles. The article does indeed need to be rewritten, with more citations from reliable sources, but we don't delete relevant information. This isn't an NPOV issue, and to be honest, this comment seems a bit like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed the heading name and moved it to the biography section, so I think it reads more neutral now. Havradim leaf a message  02:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

What are "open and closed sections"?
This article says that "Maimonides accepted the views of ben Asher only in regard to open and closed sections". What does this mean or refer to? DSatz (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I just added a link in the article which explains it. Havradim leaf a message  01:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A reference or a footnote?
Shalom Neria and Dovi. I noticed reference 11 looks like it was intended to be footnote c. I thought to ask you if that's right so I don't fix the wrong things. If you also want to fix it, that's cool. You've done well to make this article of good quality. Danidamiobi (talk)