Saturday 26 January 2019

Rebuttal to Andrew Vargo's Article "Was 'Uzayr (Ezra) Called The Son Of God?"



By

Bassam Zawadi


Andrew Vargo's article could be located here. His article was in response to Islamic Awareness's article here. It's best for the readers to read both of these articles before they proceed to read this one.

Vargo said:

It should be noted that Ibn Hazm lived during the late 9th and early 10th centuries in CordobaSpain. Therefore, his statements are pure conjecture, and are nothing more than an attempt to explain away this error in the Qur'an.

Vargo disputes Ibn Hazm's argument because he lived a long time after the event. However, who said that Ibn Hazm is the one we rely upon? We have the following narration that goes all the way back to Al-Tufayl bin Sakhbara a companion of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who narrates a dream he once saw:


أتيت على نفر من اليهود , فقلت : من أنتم ؟ فقالوا : نحن اليهود , قلت : إنكم لأنتم القوم لولا أنتم تقولون : عزير ابن الله . قالوا : وأنت لأنتم القوم لولا أنكم تقولون : ما شاء الله وشاء محمد . قال : ثم مررت بنفر من النصارى , فقلت : من أنتم ؟ قالوا : نحن النصارى . قلت : إنكم لأنتم القوم لولا أنكم تقولون : المسيح ابن الله . قالوا : وإنكم لأنتم القوم لولا أنكم تقولون : ما شاء الله وشاء محمد . فلما أصبحت أخبرت بها من أخبرت , ثم أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأخبرته , فقال : هل أخبرت بها أحدا ؟ فقلت : نعم . فقام , فحمد الله وأثنى عليه ثم قال : أما بعد , فإن طفيلا رأى رؤيا أخبر بها من أخبر منكم , وإنكم قلتم كلمة كان يمنعني كذا وكذا أن أنهاكم عنها , فلا تقولوا : ما شاء الله وشاء محمد , ولكن قولوا : ما شاء الله وحده


I came to a group of Jews and I said to them: "Who are you?" They said: "We are the Jews." I said: "You would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying that Uzayr is the Son of Allah". They replied: "And you would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying 'If Allah wills and Muhammad wills'". Then I passed by a group of Christians and said to them: "Who are you?" They replied: "We are the Christians." I then replied: "You would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying that Christ is the Son of Allah." They replied: "And you would have been a great people if it wasn't for your saying 'If Allah wills and Muhammad wills'". So when I woke up, I told people about it and then I approached the Prophet (peace be upon him) about it. He said: "Did you tell anyone about this?" I said: "Yes." He began to praise Allah and then he said: "Tufayl saw a vision and told you about it and you used to utter a word and I was hesitant to forbid you from saying it. Do not say: 'If Allah wills and Muhammad wills'. Rather say, 'If Allah alone wills'" (This narration has been authenticated by hadith scholar Ahmad Shakir in 'Umdat Al-Tafseer, Volume 1, page 91)


This narration shows that the Muslims at the time understood that there were Jews who were uttering Uzayr's divine son ship. How could such a misunderstanding have taken place from the Muslim side?

Vargo proceeds:

Suppose, as in the case of the Qur'an's error that Mary was a member of the Trinity, there was a heretical sect of Jews who believed that Ezra was the Son of God. An all-knowing God would know that the vast majority of the Jews DO NOT believe this. Why is the majority opinion important in this case?
Notice that the Qur'an says "The Jews", and not "some Jews"! This wording indicates that this verse is talking about the mainstream majority of the Jewish community. Notice also that this passage says "The Christians" (referring to the majority of Christians) call Christ the Son of God in spite of the fact that there were heretical groups in Arabia who denied this belief.
Vargo states that "the Jews" in the verse denotes all Jews.

Imam Al-Qurtubi states:


" وَقَالَتْ الْيَهُود " هَذَا لَفْظ خَرَجَ عَلَى الْعُمُوم وَمَعْنَاهُ الْخُصُوص , لِأَنَّ لَيْسَ كُلّ الْيَهُود قَالُوا ذَلِكَ . وَهَذَا مِثْل قَوْله تَعَالَى : " الَّذِينَ قَالَ لَهُمْ النَّاس " [ آل عِمْرَان : 173 ] وَلَمْ يَقُلْ ذَلِكَ كُلّ النَّاس .


"And the Jews said" this expression is stated in a general sense, yet its meaning is specific because not all Jews said that. This is like Allah's saying "those to whom the people said" (3:173), yet not all people said that. (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi'sTasfir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an, Commentary on Surah 9:30,Source)


In Arabic linguistics the method of referring to a specific group of people by using a general name is known as اطلاق اسم الكل على البعض (itlaaq ism al kull 'ala al ba'd) and this is something very common. Al-Qurtubi gave the example of Surah 3:173 where the Qur'an generally states "people", yet it clearly doesn't mean all people.

An example from the Bible would be:


John 14:17

That helper is the Spirit of Truth. The world cannot accept him, because it doesn't see or know him. You know him, because he lives with you and will be in you.


Notice that the verse is saying that "the world" cannot accept the Spirit of Truth. The world consists of both Christians and non-Christians. Would Vargo argue that since the verse says "the world" that means that even Christians cannot accept the Spirit of Truth? Well of course not. He would argue back that the meaning of "the world" must be restricted to disbelievers only.

So why would he allow for such a possibility here, but not for the Qur'an?

Vargo states:

It is not really possible for us to know for sure how Muhammad came up with the false conclusion that the Jews believed Ezra to be the Son of God. However, there are a few interesting possibilities.
One possibility is that Muhammad misinterpreted the apocryphal text of 4 Ezra [also know as 2 Esdras], chapter 2:42-48:
I Esdras saw upon the mount Sion a great people, whom I could not number, and they all praised the Lord with songs.

And in the midst of them there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns, and was more exalted; which I marvelled at greatly.

So I asked the angel, and said, Sir, what are these?

He answered and said unto me, These be they that have put off the mortal clothing, and put on the immortal, and have confessed the name of God: now are they crowned, and receive palms.

Then said I unto the angel, What young person is it that crowneth them, and giveth them palms in their hands?

So he answered and said unto me, It is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world. Then began I greatly to commend them that stood so stiffly for the name of the Lord.

Then the angel said unto me, Go thy way, and tell my people what manner of things, and how great wonders of the Lord thy God, thou hast seen.

It's unlikely that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) would right away assume that since the Jews said "Son of God" then that would mean that it necessitates divine son ship. Muhammad (peace be upon him) was clearly aware of the fact that the Jews could use this phrase in a non-divine way (for example see Surah 5:18).

There is nothing unbelievable about the fact that there existed a small group of Jews living during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in Medinah who would have held such a belief. The burden of the proof really is on the Islamic critic's side here. He is the one who needs to provide evidence that shows that the Muslims during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly misunderstood the position that some of the Jews took regarding Ezra or that they completely made it up. Till now, no such evidence has been provided.





Missing Verse On Suckling?


By
Bassam Zawadi

Note: FIRST READ THIS ARTICLE (*)

Here are the hadiths which supposedly speak about the "missing verse" from the Qur'an:

Saheeh Muslim 
Book 008, Number 3421:'A'isha (Allah be pleased with, her) reported that it had been revealed in the Holy Qur'an that ten clear sucklings make the marriage unlawful, then it was abrogated (and substituted) by five sucklings and Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) died and it was before that time (found) in the Holy Qur'an (and recited by the Muslims).
Malik's Muwatta
Book 030, Hadith Number 017.
-----------------------------
Section : Suckling in General.

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm from Amra bint Abd ar-Rahman that A'isha, the wife of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, "Amongst what was sent down of the Qur'an was 'ten known sucklings make haram' - then it was abrogated by 'five known sucklings'. When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, died, it was what is now recited of the Qur'an." Yahya said that Malik said, "One does not act on this."


Imam Nawawi says in his commentary on Saheeh Muslim...

هو بضم الياء من ( يقرأ ) ومعناه أن النسخ بخمس رضعات تأخر إنزاله جدا حتى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم توفي وبعض الناس يقرأ خمس رضعات ويجعلها قرآنا متلوا لكونه لم يبلغه النسخ لقرب عهده فلما بلغهم النسخ بعد ذلك رجعوا عن ذلك وأجمعوا على أن هذا لا يتلى                                                                                                                                                                             
There is a dumma on the letter ya'a and it means that the abrogation of the five sucklings came very late until the time that the Prophet (peace be upon him) died and a few people were reciting the five sucklings verse making it part of the Qur'an for they might not have been informed of its abrogation. So when he (Muhammad peace be upon him) did inform them afterwards they stopped reciting it and formed a consensus that this verse should not be recited anymore. (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Ridaa', Bab: Al Tahreem Bi Khams Ridaa'aat, Commentary on hadith no.2634,Source)

Al Sindi says in his commentary on Sunan Al Nisaa'i... 

فقيل إن الخمس أيضا منسوخة تلاوة إلا أن نسخها كان في قرب وفاته صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم فلم يبلغ بعض الناس فكانوا يقرءونه حين توفي صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم ثم تركوا تلاوته                                                                                                                                          

It is said that the five's (verse on five sucklings) recitation has been abrogated and its abrogation came near the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) so some people weren't informed about it. So they used to recite it but when the Prophet (peace be upon him) died they left its recitation. (Al Sindi, Sharh Sunan Al Nisaa'i, Kitab: Al Nikah, Bab: Al Qadar Allazhi Yuharrim Min Al Ridaa'aa, Commentary on Hadith no. 3255, Source

Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi says in his commentary on Sunan Abu Dawud...

والمعنى أن النسخ بخمس رضعات تأخر إنزاله جدا حتى أنه صلى الله عليه وسلم توفي وبعض الناس يقرأ خمس  رضعات ويجعلها قرآنا متلوا لكونه لم يبلغه النسخ لقرب عهده فلما بلغهم النسخ بعد ذلك رجعوا عن ذلك وأجمعوا على أن هذا لا يتلى . والنسخ ثلاثة أنواع : أحدها ما نسخ حكمه وتلاوته كعشر رضعات . والثاني ما نسخت تلاوته  دون حكمه كخمس رضعات                                                                                                                                                                              

And what this means is that the abrogation by five sucklings was revealed very late to the extent that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) died, some people were still reciting the verse of five sucklings and making it part of recited Qur'an for they were not informed about its abrogation but when they wereafter that, they went back on that and formed a consensus on that this verse must not be recited. And abrogation is of three types: One of them is that its ruling and recitation be abrogated just like the ten sucklings verse. And the second is that its recitation has been abrogated without its ruling just like the five sucklings verse... (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Nikah, Bab: Hal Yuhharram Ma Doona Khamsa Ridaa'aat, Commentary on hadith no. 1765, Source

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid said...

For breastfeeding to have the effect of transmitting its benefits from the nursing woman to the child suckled, it must meet certain conditions, which are:
  1. The breastfeeding must happen within the first two years of the child's life, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): "The mothers shall give suck to their children for two whole years, (that is) for those (parents) who desire to complete the term of suckling." [al-Baqarah 2:233].
  2. The number of breastfeedings must total the known five feeds, in which the child eats his fill as if eating and drinking. If the child leaves the breast for a reason, such as to take a breath or to switch from one breast to the other, this (i.e., each separate time the child latches on) is not counted as one breastfeeding. This is the opinion of al-Shaafa'i, and the opinion favoured by Ibn al-Qayyim. The definition of rad'ah (one breastfeeding) is when the child sucks at the breast and drinks until the milk enters his stomach, then he leaves the breast of his own accord. The evidence for the number five (number of breastfeedings) is the report from 'Aa'ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: "There was in the Qur'aan [an aayah which stipulated that] ten [was the number of] breastfeedings which created the relationship of mahram, then this was abrogated [by another aayah which stipulated] five. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died and [the aayah which stipulated five] was still being recited as part of the Qur'aan." (Reported by Muslim, 1452). In other words, the abrogation came so late that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, some people had not yet heard that this aayah had been abrogated, but when they heard that it had been abrogated, they stopped reciting it, and agreed that it should not be recited, although the ruling mentioned in the aayah remained in effect. This is an abrogation of the recitation without abrogation of the ruling, which is one type of abrogation. (Source)


We can clearly see that the evidence shows that the consensus amongst the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was that the verse's recitation was meant to be abrogated and it was also commanded by the Prophet (peace be upon him) to abrogate this verse. However, the command came just a very short while before the Prophet's (peace be upon him) death and therefore not everyone was informed about it and some still thought that it was still a recited part of the Quran. However, once they have been informed that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered its abrogation, then they stopped reciting it. 

The Quranic Verse On Stoning


By
Bassam Zawadi

Note: FIRST READ THIS ARTICLE (*)

Some of the hadith that talk about the verse on stoning...

Saheeh Bukhari 
Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:
'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

Saheeh Muslim
Book 017, Number 4194:'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession.

Christian missionaries tend to argue that this verse was removed from the Quran and they claim that this is proof that Muslims corrupted the Quran. Let's see if this argument holds any water. 

The alleged verse is...


الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة                                                                                                                

The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them 

Another opinion is that it is...

الشيخ والشيخة إذا زنيا فارجموهما البتة نكالا من الله والله عزيز حكيم                                                                                

The old man and the old lady if they committed adultery then stone them as a punishment from Allah and Allah is the Most Mighty, Most Wise 


Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani says in his commentary on Saheeh Bukhari...

فقال عمر : لما نزلت أتيت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقلت أكتبها ؟ فكأنه كره ذلك , فقال عمر : ألا ترى أن الشيخ إذا زنى ولم يحصن جلد , وأن الشاب إذا زنى وقد أحصن رجم                                                                                                               

Umar said: "When this verse came down I approached the Prophet peace be upon him so I asked him: Should I write it down?' It is as if he hated that" Then Umar said: "Cant you see that if the old man if he commits adultery he does not get the whip, and that if the young man if he commits adultery he gets stoned?" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al I'tiraaf bil Zina,Commentary on Hadith no. 6327Source)


Here we clearly see that the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not want the verse to be written down because it was never meant to be part of the text of the Quran. The scholars of Islam are unanimous that the recitation of this verse has been abrogated but its ruling still remains in effect. 
However, the only reason why Umar got emotional and wanted to put the verse in the Quran was because he was afraid that one day people would think that its ruling had been cancelled. However, the companions did not allow him to because they all knew that its recitation had been abrogated. In order to put a verse in the Quran there needed to be two witnesses and Umar was all by himself. Umar himself knew that its recitation was abrogated but he was getting emotional, for he feared that people in the future would not believe in the ruling of stoning the adulterers. 

Imam ibn Hajar Al Asqalani has in his commentary...

أي في الآية المذكورة التي نسخت تلاوتها وبقي حكمها , وقد وقع ما خشيه عمر أيضا فأنكر الرجم طائفة من  الخوارج أو معظمهم وبعض المعتزلة                                                                                                                        

In the verse whose recitation has been abrogated but its ruling remained, and it has happened what Umar feared. A tribe from the Khawarij or most of them and some of the Mu'tazilites rejected the stoning.

وقد أخرج عبد الرزاق والطبري من وجه آخر عن ابن عباس أن عمر قال " سيجيء قوم يكذبون بالرجم "                                   

And it was reported by Abd al Razzaq and Al Tabari from another view that Ibn Abbas said that Umar said "There will come a people that will lie (or disbelieve) in the stoning" (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani,Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Hublah min Zana Eezha Ahsanat, Commentary on Hadith no. 6328Source)  


Imam Nawawi says in his commentary in Saheeh Muslim...

وهذا مما نسخ لفظه وبقي حكمه                                                                                                                             

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated and its ruling remained. 


 وفي ترك الصحابة كتابة هذه الآية دلالة ظاهرة أن المنسوخ لا يكتب في المصحف , وفي إعلان عمر بالرجم وهو على المنبر  وسكوت الصحابة وغيرهم من الحاضرين عن مخالفته بالإنكار دليل على ثبوت الرجم                                                            

And the companions of the Prophet abandoning the writing of this verse is clear evidence that the abrogated should not be written in the Quran and that Umar's statement about the stoning as he is on the pulpit and the silence of the companions and other than them from who were present from opposing him is evidence about the ruling of the stoning (still being implemented) (Imam Nawawi, Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Rajam Al Thayb fil Zina, Commentary on Hadith no. 3201,Source)


Al Sindi says in his commentary on Sunan Ibn Majah...

أي آية الرجم وهذه الآية مما نسخ لفظها وبقي حكمها                                                                                                  
The verse of stoning: Its recitation has been abrogated and its ruling still remains in effect. (Al Sindi,Sharh Sunan Ibn Majah, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Al Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 2543,Source)


Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi says in his commentary on Sunan Abu Dawud...

وهذا مما نسخ لفظه وبقي حكمه                                                                                                                          

And this is whose recitation has been abrogated but ruling remains in effect. (Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi, Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Hudood, Bab: Fil Rajam, Commentary on Hadith no. 3835, Source)


Conclusion
We can clearly see that there was a consensus amongst the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the scholars that the recitation of the verse on stoning was abrogated and that they did not corrupt it. How can all the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) who sacrificed everything they had for this religion just happen to decide to come together and purposely corrupt the Quran by removing this verse? What motive would they have in doing so if its law was to remain being implemented? So there can't be a motive to remove this verse simply because they wished to not follow its ruling since the ruling still remains in effect up to this day.

So clearly the evidence shows that this recitation was always meant to be abrogated while its ruling remains in effect.

Friday 25 January 2019

Torah scrolls burnt



The reason why there is no existing manuscripts from the time of Moses is, all the Torah scrolls were burnt.


Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. (2 kings 22:8)



Rashi Commentary

I have found the Torah Scroll. It was hidden under a layer of stones where they had concealed it when Achaz burned the Torah.1  According to II Divrei Hayomim 34:14, this was the original Torah Scroll written by Moshe. God had commanded Moshe to write this Scroll at the end of his life. See Devarim 31:24-26.



Ahaz nullified the Templeservice and sealed the Torah, prohibiting its study, as it is stated: “Bind up the testimony, seal the Torah among my disciples” (Isaiah 8:16). Manasseh excised the mentions of God’s names from sacred books and destroyed the altar. Amon burned the Torah and sacrificed a gecko, an impure creeping animal, upon the altar. ( Talmud Sanhedrin Daf 103b)


There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av. On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid ( offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple. ( MISHNAH Mishnah Danes Chapter 4)


The Gemara further asks: Anddoes anyone who performs one mitzva in addition to his other merits have goodness bestowed upon him in this world? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraitaAnyone whose merits are greater than his sins is punished with suffering in order to cleanse his sins in this world and enable him to merit full reward for his mitzvot in the World-to-Come. And due to this punishment he appears to observers like one who burned the entire Torah without leaving even one letter remaining of it. (that would be Apostomos) (Talmud Kiddushin Daf 39b:5)


On the seventeenth of Tammuz the tablets‏ ‏were broken [by Moshe Rabbeinu upon‏ ‏seeing the golden calf], the Tamid [twice-daily] offering ‎ceased, the city‏ ‏‎[Jerusalem] was breached, Apostomus‎‏ ‏burned the Torah and an idol was‏ ‏erected ‎in the sanctuary. ( HALAKHAH There Orach Chaim, Siman 549:1)

On the ninth of that month the Temple was burned and the Torah with it. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bamidbar 33:38:1)

And the city of Jerusalem was breached at the [time of] the destruction of the second Temple. And Apostimos burned the Torah and set up an image in the [Temple] chamber. (Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 549:3)



Therefore the Sages relate that when the Torah scroll was burned by the Romans together with Rabbi Chanina ben Teradyon, the letters flew off and only the parchment was burned (Avodah Zarah 18a). Similarly, in the pogroms of Poland thousands of Torah scrolls were burned (MUSAR Kav HaYashar Chapter 102)



Interestingly, the rabbis admit the scrolls of the Torah were burnt by the Romans. MUSAR Kav HaYashar Chapter 102 to save the embarrassment tries to cover the story by saying the letter flew off? Sorry sir such story wont work with us.

If you don’t believe the Torah which Moses wrote was not burnt, then where is it now? In fact, you don’t have to go as far as showing us the Torah scrolls which Moses wrote on, just show us the Septuagint manuscripts copied by the Hebrew (note the original Septuagint manuscripts not copies of copies). Again, Christians will fail to show us the original scrolls written by Moses or any of the original Septuagint manuscripts.  

Now lets get back to the verse which says

Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the secretary, "I have found the Book of the Law in the temple of the LORD." He gave it to Shaphan, who read it. (2 kings 22:8)

Notice how the high priest said he found the “Book of the Law” in the temple? Now why would that be such a big fuss if they had multiple copies of the Torah with them? unless they didn’t have the Torah with them, then it’s a matter of urgency to declare such a discovery. Thus, the Torah was already gone burnt and somehow this one survived withing the pillars of the temple and rediscovered later to be lost again.

Friday 18 January 2019

Talmud Torah for Non-Jews

Written by Rav Tzvi Sinensky

Toward the end of our previous shiur, we noted that there may be a qualitative distinction between the Written Torah and Oral Torah, in the sense that only the latter reflects the unique covenantal relationship between God and the Jewish people. We will pick up on that theme in this week’s shiur as we explore a prohibition that, as we noted briefly last week, might be seen as an outgrowth of this notion of covenant: the prohibition of Torah study for non-Jews. To that end, this shiur will consider two schools of thought regarding the basis for this prohibition, its scope, and its wider connection to the themes of talmud Torah.
 
The Babylonian Talmud cites two texts to establish the unique connection of the Jewish people to the Torah:
 
Moshe commanded us the Torah, inheritance of the congregation of Ya’akov. (Devarim 33:4)
He has revealed his word to Ya’akov, His laws and decrees to Yisrael. He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws. Praise God! (Tehillim 147:19-20)
 
The first is cited in Sanhedrin 59a, as the Gemara explores two ways to read the verse: either literally, in which case the Torah is the inheritance (morasha) of the Jewish people; or exegetically, in which case the Torah is the betrothed (me’orasa) of the Jewish people.
 
Rabbi Yochanan said: “A non-Jew who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: ‘Moshe commanded us the Torah, inheritance of the congregation of Ya’akov’ — it is an inheritance for us, but not for them.”
Then why is this not included in the Noahide laws? ]It may be subsumed under the existing laws:] according to the one who reads it as morasha, the non-Jew would be stealing it; according to the one who reads it as me’orasa, the non-Jew would be like one who [commits adultery with] a betrothed maiden, who is liable to receive stoning.
This was challenged with a baraita: “Rabbi Meir would say: ‘From where is it derived that even a non-Jew who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “[You shall therefore keep My laws and My decrees,] which if a man does he shall live by them” (Vayikra 18:5). Priests, Levites or Israelites are not specified, but rather “a man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a non-Jew who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.’”
However, there, in the baraita, the reference is to a non-Jew who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot.
 
It is a mitzva for a non-Jew to study the halakhotthat pertain to the seven Noahide mitzvot, and any human being who does so is highly regarded.
 
This sugya is important for a number of reasons:
 
1) The Gemara points to the severity of the prohibition for non-Jews to study Torah. Whether or not we take the punishment literally (Rambam does not, but Ran does), the seriousness is clear.
2) As we will explore in greater depth later on, the Gemara’s comparison of this issurto theft and adultery may open the door to an understanding of the logic for the prohibition.
3) Though there remains a ban against Torah study, the surface reading of the Gemara seems to indicate that a non-Jew is to be congratulated, even revered, for studying the seven Noahide laws.
 
Chagiga 13a cites the second proof text:
 
Rabbi Ammi further said: “The teachings of the Torah are not to be transmitted to a non-Jew, for it is said ‘He has done this for no other nation; they do not know his laws.’”
 
This passage raises an immediate problem: Why does the Gemara need to cite a separate source proscribing the teaching of Torah to non-Jews? If non-Jews are barred from Torah study, as we see in Sanhedrin, it should be prohibited to teach Torah to non-Jews on the basis of the prohibition against placing a (metaphorical) stumbling-block before a blind person, which applies to a Jew’s interactions with non-Jews as well as Jews (see Avoda Zara 6b).
 
Tosafot (Chagiga ad loc. s.v. Ein) conclude that the second sugya informs us that a Jew may not teach Torah to a non-Jew even when the stumbling-block prohibition does not apply, for example when there is another non-Jew present who would like to teach him Torah. Since the non-Jew who wishes to learn Torah will inevitably find a teacher, one would not be placing a stumbling-block before the blind; nevertheless, the source in Tehillim would forbid a Jew from teaching such a person. According to Tosafot, then, there are in fact two independent prohibitions that pertain to our topic. For the purposes of our shiur, we will not draw a sharp distinction between the two. Still, it is worthwhile to bear Tosafot’s distinction in the back of our minds.
 
It is also worth noting that Rambam appears to reject this distinction; he cites only the line from Sanhedrin (Hilkhot Melakhim 10:9). While he does mention in another halakha that a Jew may not teach Torah to a non-Jewish slave (Hilkhot Avadim 8:18; this law is cited in Shulchan Arukh as well, YD 267:71), there is no indication in Rambam’s treatment of our subject that this is to be viewed as a distinct prohibition of teaching a non-Jew Torah.
 
What is the reasoning for the prohibition against Torah study by a non-Jew? We may point to two basic schools of thought. Sometimes partly motivated by a desire to legitimize contemporary practice, some seek to offer more technical or extrinsic explanations. Meiri (Sanhedrin ad loc. s.v. Ben Noach) contends that there is no intrinsic prohibition. Instead, the reason a non-Jew may not study Torah is that the Jewish community may think that this induvial is in fact Jewish “and will come to err in following this one’s ways.” In other words, Jews will be misled regarding matters of halakhic practice because they incorrectly assume the learned individual is a practicing Jew.
 
Similarly, R. Yechiel Weinberg (Seridei Esh 2:56) interprets the view of the Rambam as seeing the prohibition against Torah study as part of a larger ban against non-Jews who seek to establish a new, independent religion. In this view, if the non-Jew studies merely in order to understand the precepts of Judaism, the prohibition is inapplicable.
 
This approach is supported by a striking ruling of Rambam (Responsum #249, Blau Edition): one may teach Torah to Christians but not Muslims. His argument is that whereas the Christians accept the divine authority of Tanakh, Muslims do not. Therefore, when teaching Torah to Muslims, they are more likely to challenge the basic teachings of the Torah, thereby undermining Jews’ faith. This distinction —which is hotly debated and may be inconsistent with Rambam’s rulings in Mishneh Torah — dovetails with Meiri’s later interpretation for the reasoning of the prohibition.
 
Based on the language of the Gemara itself, however, a more intrinsic reading of the prohibition emerges. Recall the Gemara’s suggestion to categorize a non-Jew’s Torah study as theft of the Jews’ inheritance or adultery with the Jews’ betrothed. Both suggestions seem to underscore that the prohibition stems from the unique relationship between God and the Jewish people, and that the Torah serves as the fulcrum of the covenantal relationship between the two.
 
A number of Rishonim lend support to this interpretation. Returning to Tosafot, their reading of Chagiga 13a as presenting an additional prohibition is significant. In particular, the text from Tehillim, which emphasizes that God gives His laws to Jews alone, lends support to this more essentialist reading of the prohibition.
 
Other commentaries offer additional solutions to Tosafot’s problem, in the process further buttressing the intrinsic reading of the issur of teaching Torah to non-Jews. Meiri and Maharsha, in a highly controversial manner, explain that Chagiga adds a layer of prohibition even for one who teaches the seven Noahide laws to non-Jews. We noted earlier that Sanhedrin 59a, taken at face value, seems to indicate that a non-Jew is rewarded handsomely for studying the Noahide laws. Nonetheless, Meiri and Maharsha’s position points to the context of the second chapter of Chagiga, which discusses secret areas of Torah that are subject to significant restrictions. They therefore suggest that Chagiga means to outlaw the study of deeper secrets in Torah that are tied to the Noahide laws.
 
This bar against teaching the esoteric parts of Torah to non-Jews, while not working particularly well with Meiri’s own comments in Sanhedrin(possibly Meiri holds that there are two distinct prohibitions), does seem to work nicely with the intrinsic interpretation of the prohibition: the esoteric parts of Torah are reserved uniquely for the Jewish people, and are not to be given away to others. Along similar lines, Iyun Ya’akov, pointing to the term “transmitted” (“The teachings of the Torah are not to be transmitted to a non-Jew”), suggests that the Gemara is outlawing handing Torah writings to non-Jews. Because the Torah is comprised of the names of God, this is tantamount to handing over divine secrets.
 
This approach, which sees the issur of teaching Torah to non-Jews as rooted in the concept that the Torah is a treasured gift given by God to the Jewish people , symbolizing their covenantal relationship, helps to account for a number of additional sources. First, as noted in our last shiur, Maharatz Chayot (Sota 35b s.v. Li-dvarekha), Yehuda Ya’aleh (OC 1:4) and Netziv (Meshiv Davar2:77) claim that the prohibition is limited to the Oral Torah; the Written Torah may be taught without reservation. While this assertion is hotly disputed (see, for example, Responsa Vayomer Yitzchak OC 21), it fits perfectly with the rabbinical notion that the covenant was particularly crafted around the Oral Torah.
 
This also helps to account for the similarity between our subject and the Gemara’s parallel ruling that a non-Jew who rests on Shabbat is liable to death, as Reish Lakish declares on the previous page (Sanhedrin 58b). The common denominator between Shabbat and Torah study is that both are emblematic of the covenant between God and His people; it is highly reasonable, therefore, that the Gemara goes out of its way to exclude non-Jews from both categories.
 
Finally, a number of Acharonim make the striking suggestion that a non-Jew is not precluded from all forms of talmud Torah. Tiferet Yisrael (Zevachim 14:36) and Seridei Esh (2:56) contend that a non-Jew who studies without in-depth analysis does not fall under the rubric of this prohibition. (See also Yehuda Ya’aleh OC 4). Indeed, I once heard HaRav Mosheh Lichtenstein propose precisely this distinction.
 
This striking suggestion also fits well with the approach we outlined previously. As Midrash Tanchuma (Parashat Noach 3, cited in our prior shiur) underscores, it is not only the content of Torah, but its intensive study, that, for Rabbinical Judaism, forms the backbone of our covenantal relationship with God. Therefore, one can argue that a non-Jew who hears a lecture in no way compromises that unique covenantal relationship; he or she has merely listened to a shiur.
 
We have seen, then, that the notion that Torah is the crux of our brit with God finds echoes in the sugya of talmud Torah for non-Jews. Not only does this approach seem to emerge quite naturally from the language of the sugyot in both Sanhedrin and Chagiga, it has echoes in the later commentaries as well. This “intrinsic” view on the one hand might imply a stricter application of the prohibition than Meiri’s extrinsic reading, but it also might account for distinctions between study of the Written and Oral Torah, and, fascinatingly, even between different modes of study.
 
Having concluded our analysis of the relationship between the Written and the Oral Torah, next week we will consider the prerequisites necessary for one to properly engage in talmud Torah

Re-Examining Banu Qurayzah Incident

  Kaleef K. Karim & Aliyu Musa Misau Content: 1. Introduction 2. Jewish tribes Made a Pact with Muslims 3. Events that Occurred ...