Book review

Jewish Religious Observances by the Jews of Kaifeng China

By Rabbi Dr. Chaim Simons

Reviewed by Tiberiu Weisz

Kiriyat Arba, Israel,  June 2010

This book Jewish Religious  Observances by the Jews of Kaifeng China by Chaim Simons (Observances) is an alternative story of the customs of the Kaifeng Jews in China.  It explores the theory of how the Jews of Kaifeng would have observed the Jewish customs had the physical evidence survived. Very little hard evidence had been preserved from the Kaifeng Jewish community and Simons took on the daunting task of trying to prove that ““there is a source in the rabbinical literature for almost all the activities which the Jews of Kaifeng considered to be Jewish practice (Pg 7). “   

Simons’ assumption is that the religious practices of the Jews in Biblical times (pre - 586 BCE) were the same as in later times during the Rabbinic period (from c.a. 300 BCE ). He treats the hallacha (rabbinic code/Oral Law) in Observances as being the source of Judaism rather than making it clear that the Oral Law emerged as an interpretation to the Torah (Bible). Thus he neglects to differentiate between Judaism in biblical times, centered on the Temple and the services/ceremonies performed by Levite and Cohanim (priests) and Judaism in the rabbinic period centered on individual communities lead by Rabbis. This important transition in Jewish history is disregarded.  Instead the author has attributed Jewish religious practices of the Kaifeng Jews to rabbinic roots ignoring the evidence that pointed to biblical roots.

To substantiate his theory, Simons applied very loose interpretations to a rather large bibliographical material. Included are a few scholarly works, eyewitness accounts, observations, rumors and opinions. Though the bibliography is extensive, the Observances often emphasize opinions and unsubstantiated rumors by placing them in the realm of possibility. For example, Simons ponders whether or not the two ponds on the side of the old synagogue “could possibly be a mikva?” (ritual bath). He chose to believe that they served as mikva, one for men and one for women, which was in compliance with the rabbinic code. He dismissed the eyewitness’s accounts that stated clearly they did not see a mikva in Kaifeng. 

In another example, the author tried to show that the Jews of Kaifeng wore Tallith [prayer shawl], or Tsitsit (an everyday undergarment with fringe) or tefilin,  etc… in compliance with the rabbinical code. He detailed the hallacha of these garments and rejected the eyewitness accounts that: [they/eyewitnesses] “might have missed them”.  Or, in the case of the amida prayer, Simons had detailed the hallacha, but neglected to mention that the Chinese version was inscribed in the 1512 inscriptions and that the two versions were quite different. The Chinese version derived from biblical source, while Simons version was composed by the rabbis in exile. Similarly, many of Jewish concepts, prayers, and customs are detailed in the Observances according to the hallacha but with little relevancy to the Kaifeng Jews.

Dubious were also his sources for the mezuza. The Observances quotes a paper by Dr. Leslie Malkin from California entitled The Jews of China: “Ai [presumably the Ai who met with Ricci at the beginning of the 17th century] mentioned Hebrew character (sic) on the door frames of the homes, perhaps confirming that the Jewish families had a representation of the mezuzah on the doorpost. Though Malkin did not give his source of this information”, Simons treated Malkin’s opinion as fundamentally solid evidence. Furthermore, in the next paragraph, the author quoted from   “a book on mezuzot written by Dr. Belle Rosenbaum…” who “…does not state whether or not it (mezuza in Kaifeng) has been examined.” Yet, Simons assumed that: “Possibly this is the parchment inside the mezuzah” and proceeded as though it was evidence.

Even more questionable is Simons choice of translations. He chose to accept Bishop White’s translation despite the warning that “the Chinese scholar Wang Yisha claimed that he had found 123 errors or misleading statements in White’s book on China.” (pg. 13). One of the errors is the translation of the Chinese character for Liehwei (Levites). Bishop White translated it as a surname “Levi”, therefore by extension Rabbi Levi. But Leslie, an Australian scholar quoted extensively in the Observances, had his doubts and put a question mark after the world  “Levi?” Simons failed to include Leslie’s doubts. Another questionable choice of the translation was the strange interpretation offered by another Chinese scholar, Chen Changqi. Chen, a scholar of Buddhism with a very superficial knowledge of Judaism, wrote that: “since the Levi clan traditionally had always served as High Priests and Chief Rabbis, he too must have been a "Rabbi Levi" (pg.48 fn. 433). Apparently, Levites, priests and rabbis were the same to Chen, but what is troubling that Simon chose to ignore this obvious misinterpretation and use it as supporting evidence. Needless to say that Chen’s explanation was omitted in the Observances.

Historically, the book is inconsistent with the timelines. Although Simons mentioned in the introduction that the Kaifeng community preceded the rabbinic period (pre 300 BCE), he still proceeded with the “possibility” that the Kaifeng Jews observed the codes of Rambam (12^th century CE) and the Shulchan Aruch (16^th century CE).  He assumed that the Jews of Kaifeng observed these codes and then proceeded as though that might be true. Then he outlined the essence of Rambam and the Shulachan Aruch but neglected to frame in the historical context of the Kaifeng Jews He also failed to explain how these works had reached the isolated community in Kaifeng, or to tie them to the Chinese Jews.

These are just a few of the many examples that I found to be the norm in the Observances.  Primary sources are often paraphrased to comply with the author’s theory, and by and large out of context. If they do not support his theory they are ignored or dismissed. Secondary sources, opinions and general articles are given more weight as “possibilities” that, according to Simons, should have been taken into account. Other “possibilities” that, for instance, the Kaifeng Jews were Levites and Cohanim, or that they followed the tenets of the Torah were rejected offhand.

Simons displays a great knowledge of Judaism in the Observances, particularly in the area of rabbinic Judaism, and at the same time, he reveals a very rudimentary knowledge and understanding of China in general and the Chinese Jews in particular. His explanations of the hallacha are comprehensive, yet the corresponding explanations of the Chinese observances fall short.  In summation, the Observances contains very little unbiased information to advance our knowledge of the observances of the Jews of Kaifeng.