Removed from the Torah

R. Yehudah HaChasid’s Radical Suggestion:
The Song of the Well, Psalm 136,
Was Removed from the Torah 

Dr. Rabbi Zev Farber

The Song of the Well

In Parashat Chukkat, the Israelites begin their march to the Promised Land. While skirting the Moabite border, they come to a well:

במדבר כא:טז וּמִשָּׁם בְּאֵרָה הִוא הַבְּאֵר אֲשֶׁר אָמַר יְ-הֹוָה לְמֹשֶׁה אֱסֹף אֶת הָעָם וְאֶתְּנָה לָהֶם מָיִם:

Num 21:16 And from there to the well[1]: this is the well where YHWH said to Moses, “Assemble the people that I may give them water.”

 Upon encountering this well, the Israelites sing a song:

אָז יָשִׁיר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַשִּׁירָה הַזֹּאתעֲלִי בְאֵר עֱנוּ לָהּבְּאֵר חֲפָרוּהָ שָׂרִיםכָּרוּהָ נְדִיבֵי הָעָםבִּמְחֹקֵק בְּמִשְׁעֲנֹתָם.

Then Israel sang this song:Spring up, O well—sing to it—The well which the chieftains dug,Which the nobles of the people startedWith maces, with their own staffs (vv. 17-18).

Too Brief and Human FocusedThe song is unusually brief for a biblical song of thanks; it simply describes the Israelite leaders digging the well, and calls on the listeners to sing about it. Its subject is relatively prosaic in comparison with the Song of the Sea (Exodus 15) or the Song of Deborah (Judges 5).  It does not mention of God or any miracle, instead placing the achievements of Israel at its center.

The traditional commentators try to deal with some of these problems. Rashi, for example, explains that God is not mentioned out of solidarity with Moses, who is also missing.^[2] The late 12^th century Midrash Aggada (Buber ed.), on the other hand, reads praise of God into the text, saying that this was the entire point of the song.^[3]

Dealing with the length problem, Ibn Ezra suggests that what is quoted is merely the opening of the song, but that the full version was never recorded.^[4] A unique variation of this suggestion appears in the commentary of R. Yehudah HaChasid on the Torah.^[5]

The Song is Missing:
R. Yehudah HaChasid’s Solution

R. Yehudah HaChasid of Regensberg (1150-1217) was the leader of the Chasidei Ashkenaz movement, a mystical group emphasizing prayer, repentance, and piety. He inherited the mantel of leadership from his father, R. Shmuel ben Kalonymus HaChasid of Speyer (12^thcent), the movement’s founder. The Sefer HaChasidim, a book collecting moral aphorisms, anecdotes, mystical speculations, and halakhot, was based largely on his teachings.^[6]

His commentary on the Torah was written down in the thirteenth century by his son, R. Moshe Saltzman,^[7] and is known for its strong adherence to peshat readings.^[8] On this passage, the commentary offers a radical new suggestion: Numbers 21:17-18 is not the song, but a description of what happened when Israel encountered the well; the actual song is missing from the Torah because King David removed it from the Torah and included it in the book of Psalms:

אז ישיר ישראל את השירה הזאת – פירוש מורי אבי: זהו הלל הגדול, שלאחר שניצולו מסיחון ועוג ועברו נחל ארנון אז נעשה זה השיר, ובחומש היה כתיב, אלא שדוד המלך הסיר כל מזמורי יתמי של משה שבחומש וחיברן בספר תהלים שלו.

“Then Israel sang this song” – My father (=R. Yehudah HaChasid) explained: This refers to the Great Hallel (Psalm 136). For after they were saved from Sihon and Og, and they crossed the Arnon stream, then they wrote this song. It was once included in the Chumash, but King David removed it, along with all of Moses’ untitled (i.e. lacking superscription) psalms in the Chumash, and included them in his (David’s) book of psalms.

The Great Hallel,^[9] best known by its opening verse הודו לה’ כי טוב כי לעולם חסדו (Praise the Lord for he is good; his steadfast love is eternal) praises God consistently, listing the many things God did for the Israelites in Egypt and the wilderness. But what about this Psalm led R. Yehudah HaChasid to believe it originated in the wilderness?

A Wilderness Psalm

The latest event Psalm 136 mentions is the conquest of the territories of Sihon and Og, and it lacks any reference to the conquest or settlement of the Cisjordan; this may have suggested to R. Yehudah HaChasid that it was recited in the wilderness. The structure of the psalm is as follows:

• General praise of God (vv. 1-4)
• Praise of creation (vv. 5-9)
• Smiting of firstborns and escape from Egypt (vv. 10-12)
• Splitting the sea and escape from Egyptian army (vv. 13-15)
• Guiding through Wilderness (v. 16)
• Defeat of Sihon and Og (vv. 17-22)
• Remembering and redeeming us (vv. 23-24)
• Providing food for the world (v. 25)
• Praise God of the heavens (v. 26)

Comparison with the “Later” Psalm 135
R. Yehudah HaChasid compares Psalm 136 with the similar Psalm 135, which he attributes to Joshua.  More specifically, R. Yehudah HaChasid believes that Joshua wrote Psalm 135 with the template of Moses’ Psalm 136 in mind, and added a reference to “Canaan” (v. 11):

בא יהושע והוסיף ועשה מזמור שיני שדומה לזה, שעומדים בבית יי, והוסיף רק חדוש אחד, “ולכל ממלכות כנען,” פרוש, על ידי נס זה נעשה.

Joshua came and wrote a second psalm which was similar to this one, “Standing in the House of God” (Psalm 135:2), which adds only one new element, “and all the royalty of Canaan,” meaning, this was accomplished miraculously.

R. Yehudah HaChassid adds that David further updated Joshua’s Psalm, adding the reference to Zion and Jerusalem at the end (v. 21).

וכשדוד כיבש את ציון הוסיף גם הוא שיטה אחת, “ברוך יי מציון שוכן ירושלים הללויה.”

When David conquered Zion, he added one line [to this psalm], “Blessed is the LORD from Zion, who dwells in Jerusalem, halleluyah.”

The MannaPsalm 136 only seems to deal with the wilderness wandering in v. 16, and none of its other verses deal with God’s miraculous intervention in this period. R. Yehudah HaChasid’s reading of the psalm differs, since he interprets vv. 25-26, which seem to be general verses about God feeding all creatures, to be about the manna:

תדע לך, נותן לחם לכל בשר על מן אמרו… הודו לאל השמים כי לעולם חסדו, פירוש, שהמטיר להם לחם מן השמים.

You should know that “Who gives food to all flesh” (v. 25) refers to the manna… “Praise the God of heaven, his steadfast love is eternal” (v. 26), meaning, that he rained bread upon them from heaven.

Thus, the psalm thanks God for at least one wilderness miracle.^[10]

Sihon and Og: A Song in the Wrong Place

R. Yehudah HaChasid’s interpretation raised another problem: The psalm’s mention of the wars of Sihon and Og, which only come later in the chapter (vv. 21-35), suggest that this poem could not have been written when Israel reached the well (vv. 16-18). This forces R. Yehudah HaChassid to suggest that the chapter in Numbers reflects events out of order, and the digging of the well and the accompanying song actually came after Israel’s conquest of the Transjordan:

וזאת הפרשה אינה במקומה, אחר מלחמת סיחון ועוג הוא מקומה, אלא בעבור שהזכיר בארה הזכיר השירה.

This passage (Num 21:16-18) is not in its proper (historical) place, rather, its place is really after the wars of Sihon and Og, but since v. 16 mentioned Be’era (as part of the itinerary), it mentioned the song there as well.

Although he does not use the term, R. Yehudah HaChasid seems to be applying the rabbinic principle that “there is no order in the Torah ^[11](אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה).” This may be why R. Saltzman was not bothered by the chronological rearrangements. He was, however, bothered by his father’s contradiction of an explicit passage in the Talmud.

Contradicts the Talmud

A passage in tractate Rosh Hashanah of the Babylonian Talmud (31a) discusses which psalms should be recited as part of the afternoon service (mincha) of Shabbat.

במנחתא דשבתא מה היו אומרים? אמר רבי יוחנן: אז ישיר ומי כמוך ואז ישיר.

At the afternoon Shabbat sacrifice [in the Temple], what did they say? — R. Johanan said: Az Yashir (“He then sang,” the Song of the Sea, Exod 15:1-10), and Mi Kamocha (“Who is like you,” the second half of the Song of the Sea, Exod 15:11-19/21), and Az Yashir (“the Song of the Well,” Num 21:17-18).

The passage continues by explaining that the three readings are meant to cover a three week cycle, i.e., one song every Shabbat and then the cycle would start anew on the fourth week.^[12] Noting this passage, R. Saltzman writes:

ותימה לי על דברי אבי מפרק בתרא דראש השנה, דקאמר התם, במנחה ובשבת מה היו אומרים? “ויושע עד מי כמוך.” ובשבת שנייה מ”מי כמוך” עד סייום השירה, ובשבת שלישית הוא אומרים “אז ישיר ישראל.”

I have a problem with my father’s words from the final chapter of Rosh Hashanah, for there it states (paraphrasing the Talmudic passage): On Shabbat mincha, what did they say? From “And God saved” (Exod 14:30-15:10) until “who is like you.” On the second Shabbat, from “who is like you” until the end of the song (15:11-19/21). On the third Shabbat, they would say, “Then Israel sang” (the Song of the Well).

ואם איתא כדברי אבי, היה לו לומר “הלל הגדול” כי היא השירה. ואינך יכול לומר בראש השנה רק תחילת הפסוק של הפרשה והתחיל ודעת הספר היא על הלל הגדול. זה אינו, כי בכל מקום שצריך הספר [להביאו] קוריהו הלל הגדול, בערבי פסחים, ובשאר מקומות. גימגום.

If my father’s words were correct, the passage should have stated [that on the third Shabbat they sing] “The Great Hallel.” And you can’t deflect this problem by suggesting that Tractate Rosh Hashanah is merely citing the beginning words of the passage, but that it means The Great Hallel.  This cannot be, since in every other place in which the Talmud wishes to reference The Great Hallel, it calls it The Great Hallel, as in the final chapter of Pesachim and other places. It is puzzling.

R. Saltzman is forced to end with a statement of his bewilderment, since he sees no way to square his father’s suggestion with the terminology used in the Talmud.

No Reflection on the Heretical Aspect of the Suggestion

R. Saltzman’s comment is far more interesting for what it does not say. Although he is bothered by the possibility that his father’s interpretation was not in consonance with a halachic ruling of the Sages, he does not seem bothered by the fact that his father suggests that King David removed a piece of the Torah and placed it in the book of Psalms.

Sefer Tzioni Adopts this InterpretationR. Menachem ben Meir Tzioni of Speyer (late 14^th cent) was not bothered by this “heretical” suggestion either, since he quotes this very gloss in abridged form in his own commentary on the Torah, Sefer HaTzioni (ad loc.).^[13] R. Tzioni was hardly a radical philosopher or rationalist, in the mold of ibn Ezra or Ralbag. Rather, like R. Yehudah HaChasid, R. Tzioni was primarily a kabbalist, but also a poet.

In addition to quoting the classic parshanim such as Rashi and Ramban, his commentary is filled with quotes from mystical works such as the Zohar and the Sefer HaBahir, and is embroidered with bits of poetry at transition points. Unlike the commentary of R. Yehudah HaChasid, the Sefer Tzioni was never lost (though admittedly it was never all that popular), and R. Menachem Tzioni is quoted authoritatively in halakhic sources as well. And yet, R. Yehudah HaChasid’s suggestion did not bother him.

R. Moshe Feinstein vs. R. Menashe Klein:
Is It a Forgery?

     

Some traditional thinkers, however, have been greatly bothered by the idea of King David excising a piece from the Torah, and have responded that this claim is heresy. The most famous example of this is the responsa of R. Moshe Feinstein, the most prominent halachic decisor in late 20^th century America (1895-1986). Late in his life, R. Feinstein was asked about the newly discovered commentary of R. Yehudah HaChasid. R. Feinstein declared that the comment about David removing a passage from the Torah was heresy.

He went even further, declaring the commentary to be a fraud and its author—emphatically not R. Yehudah HaChasid—to be a heretic.^[14] In fact, when it was pointed out to R. Feinstein that no less an authority than R. Menachem Tzioni quotes this very gloss in R. Yehudah HaChasid’s name in his own commentary on the Torah, R. Feinstein doubled down, stating that he doesn’t really know much about Menachem Tzioni, and that, to be safe, he is now declaring the Sefer Tzioni off limits as well.^[15]

Postulating R. Moshe Feinstein’s Responsa on R. Yehudah HaChasid are a Forgery

     

This sparked the ironic response of the Ungvarar Rav, R. Menashe Klein (1924-2011), published in his collected responsa, Mishneh Halakhot (12:214). R. Klein states that it is impossible that a great scholar like R. Moshe Feinstein never heard of R. Menachem Tzioni, one of the greatest kabbalists. As a Chasidic rabbi and a kabbalist himself, R. Klein held R. Tzioni in exceptionally high regard, and quotes him in his responsa on numerous occasions.

Nevertheless, even though R. Feinstein was not an expert in kabbalah, R. Klein reasoned, R. Tzioni is quoted as an authority in halachic works, including commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch! It is impossible for one of the greatest halachists in the modern period, like R. Moshe Feinstein, not to know this, argued R. Klein, and it is further unthinkable that R. Feinstein would have had the temerity to forbid the works of one of the Rishonim (early medieval rabbis). Thus, R. Klein concludes that R. Feinstein didn’t actually write those responsa, but that they are a forgery from the pen of some misguided student.^[16]

Although R. Klein is certainly wrong about the authorship of these responsa, whichwere written by R. Moshe Feinstein,^[17] he is right that the Tzioni’s use of R. Yehudah HaChasid’s commentary is solid evidence that the text of the commentary is not a forgery.^[18]As far as I know, scholars of medieval parshanut are in agreement that the commentary is authentic.

Kashering the Commentary: 
Rabbi Klein’s Rereading of the Gloss

Having defended the Sefer Tzioni, and by extension the commentary of R. Yehudah HaChasid, R. Klein, a traditionalist like R. Moshe Feinstein, is bothered with the heresy problem. He takes up this issue in a later volume of the Mishneh Halachot (16:102), where he offers this creative reimagining of the history of the composition of the Torah. Basing himself on early aggadic literature, which claims that the patriarchs already knew the Torah more or less, before God revealed its exact wording to Moses at the end of the wilderness period, R. Klein claims that they wrote the Torah they knew down on scrolls and studied it.

In addition, throughout the exodus and wilderness periods, Moses wrote down notes about what was occurring. After the defeat of Sihon and Og, and the finding of the well, Moses wrote down the Song of the Well, i.e., The Great Hallel, in his expanded Torah “notebook.” R. Klein refers to this notebook as a chumash (as opposed to a Torah).^[19] When God eventually dictated the Torah to Moses, this song was not included, but it remained in Moses’ chumash, which was passed down and studied over the generations along with the Torah. It was from this book, R. Klein argues, that King David cut the song, not from an actual Torah scroll.^[20]

As creative as this suggestion is, it is not a plausible reading of R. Yehudah HaChasid’s gloss. We are, thus, left with the question of why such an ostensibly radical suggestion did not bother such pious scholars such as R. Yehudah HaChasid and R. Menachem Tzioni.

Heresy and the Eighth Principle of Maimonides

The interpretation of R. Yehuda Hachasid appears to contradict the eighth principle of Maimonides, that the Torah is supposed to be perfect, with not a word out of place.^[21] How could anybody remove a passage from the Torah?!  To compound this problem:  The exceedingly prosaic reason R. Yehudah ha-Chassid gives, namely that David simply wanted to collect unsuperscribed psalms and put them in his new book of Psalms, is noteworthy. This is hardly an emergency situation calling for extraordinary measures!

It seems clear that neither R. Yehudah HaChassid nor his son knew of the eighth principle.^[22]Thus, they could imagine the possibility of a later great sage or prophet making a change in the Torah. Jarringly enough, King David’s reason seems to have little to do with improving the Torah, which is now missing a song, and everything to do with improving his own book.

___________________

Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber is a fellow at Project TABS – TheTorah.com. He holds an M.A. from Hebrew University in Jewish History (biblical period) and a Ph.D. from Emory University in Jewish Religious Cultures. In addition to academic training, Zev holds ordination (yoreh yoreh) and advanced ordination (yadin yadin) from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) Rabbinical School. Zev’s edited volumes on brain death and organ donation are forthcoming from Koren and his book on Joshua in reception history is forthcoming in De Gruyter’s BZAW series. 

[1] Be’er could mean “the well” or could be a place name, Be’er. The latter is more likely here. 

[2] Since the traditional commentators assume that this is the same well as in the story of Mei Meribah, Moses and Aaron can only be hinted at, since their digging of the well was actually a sin.

“במחקק” – ע”פ משה שנקרא מחוקק שנאמר (דברים לג) כי שם חלקת מחוקק ספון ולמה לא נזכר משה בשירה זו לפי שלקה ע”י הבאר וכיון שלא נזכר שמו של משה לא נזכר שמו של הקב”ה משל למלך שהיו מזמנין אותו לסעודה אמר אם אוהבי שם אני שם ואם לאו איני הולך.

[3]

 [יז] אז ישיר ישראל. אמרו שירה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא על הנס, ושבחו להקב”ה על הטובות שעשה להם על ידי הבאר, מן תחלה ועד סוף, התחילו לזכור היאך נתנו הבורא מתחלה ועד סוף,

[4] עלי באר – תחלת השירה ולא נכתבה כלה.

[5] It is possible that R. Yehudah HaChasid is spurred by ibn Ezra’s observation, since we know that the encounter with ibn Ezra’s commentary during this period stimulated much of the peshat project among the German parshanim. See discussion in Israel M. Ta-Shma, “Bible Criticism in Early Medieval Franco-Germany,” in The Bible in the Light of Its Interpreters: Sarah Kamin Memorial Volume (ed. Sara Japhet; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994), 453-459 [456-457] (reprinted in: Collected Articles [=Knesset Meḥkarim: Iyyunim be-Sifrut ha-Rabbanim bi-Yemei ha-Beinayim] vol. 1, Ashkenaz [ed. Yechezkel Hovav; Jerusalem: Bialik, 2004], 273-281), [Hebrew].

[6] For more on this movement, see: Haym Soloveitchik, “Piety, Pietism and German Pietism:Sefer Ḥasidim and the Influence of Ḥasidei Ashkenaz,” The Jewish Quarterly Review 92.3/4 (2002): 455-93; Elisheva Baumgarten, Practicing Piety in Medieval Ashkenaz: Men, Women, and Everyday Religious Observance (Jewish Cultures and Contexts; University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014); Ivan G. Marcus, ed., The Religious and Social Ideas of the Jewish Pietists in Medieval Germany: Collected Essays (Issues in Jewish History; Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, 1999 [Hebrew]).   

[7] R. Moshe Saltzman, mostly quotes his father and only rarely adds his own thoughts.

[8] See Gershon Brin, “Studies in Rabbi Judah the Pious’ Exegesis of the Pentateuch (=Kavim le-Perush ha-Torah shel Rabbi Yehuda he-Chasid),” in: Te’udah 3: Studies in Talmudic Literature in Post-Biblical Hebrew and in Biblical Exegesis (=Mehkarim be-Sifrut ha-Talmud, be-Lashon Chazal, u-ve-Parshanut ha-Mikra) (eds., M.A. Friedman, Avraham Tal, and Gershon Brin; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1983), 215-226 [Hebrew]. 

[9] This is the rabbinic name for Psalm 136, going back to Tannaitic times (m. Ta’anit 3:9, t.Ta’anit 3:5). Saul Lieberman, in his Tosefta KePeshuta mentions that the older manuscripts read הלל הגדולה (Hallel HaGedolah; with a feminine adjective) and that this is grammatically correct and likely original. “Great” is likely a reference to its length and/or its many praises of God. The Talmud offers a homiletical interpretation of this name (b. Pesachim 118a):

ולמה נקרא שמו הלל הגדול? אמר רבי יוחנן: מפני שהקדוש ברוך הוא יושב ברומו של עולם, ומחלק מזונות לכל בריה.

And why is it called the great Hallel? — Said R. Yohanan: “Because the Holy One, blessed be He, sits in the heights of the universe and distributes food to all creatures.”

Rashbam (ad loc.) explains, “this is a great thing (והיינו דבר גדול).”

[10] The inclusion of two verses about the manna highlights a stark problem with R. Yehudah HaChasid’s suggestion. How can this psalm be read as the original “Song of the Well” if it never refers to anything about a well or God’s supplying Israel with water in the wilderness? R. Yehudah HaChasid does not deal with this question, so I cannot speculate about what he would have said.

[11] For more on this, see Isaac Gottlieb’s TABS essay, “Highlighting Juxtaposition in the Torah.”

[12] The continuation of the passage reads:

איבעיא להו: הני כולהו בחד שבתא אמרי להו. או דלמא כל שבתא ושבתא אמרי חד? תא שמע, דתניא, אמר רבי יוסי: עד שהראשונה אומרת אחת – שניה חוזרת שתים, שמע מינה: כל שבתא ושבתא אמרי חד, שמע מינה.

The question was raised: Were all these portions said on each Sabbath, or was only one said on every Sabbath? — Come and hear, since it has been taught: “R. Jose said: By the time the first of these sections has come round once, the second has come round twice.” This shows that each Sabbath one portion was said: and this may be taken as proved.

[13]

אז ישיר ישראל וגו’ – כתב הר”יח: זה הלל הגדול, שאחר שניצולו מסיחון ועוג ועברו נחל ארנון נעשה זה השיר והיה כבות בחומש עד שבא דוד הע”ה והסיר מזמור דמשה וחברו בתהילים. ותדע שכן הוא ש”נותן לחם לכל בשר כל”ח הודו לאל השמים כל”ח” קאי על המטיר להם לחם מן השמים. ובא יהושע ועשה מזמור שני שעומדים בבית ה’, והוסיף רק חדוש אחד “ולכל ממלכות כנען,” ר”ל ע”י נעשה נס זה, וכשדוד כיבש הוסיף גם הוא “ברוך ה’ מציון שוכן ירושלים הללויה.” וזה היה דרכם בימים ההם כשהיו מתקנין השיר על הנס, היו חוקרין אחר באר טוב, שנאמר, “במקהלות ברכו ה’ ממקור ישראל.”

[14] Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah 3:114-115.

[קיד] וספר זה עוד גרע כי הרי הכופרים הרשעים זייפו זה בתוך ספר שנקרא על שם ר’ יהודה החסיד כדי להטעות את העולם בהסתה והדחה כזו שגם ריה”ח אמר זה לכן פשוט שאסור להדפיס ספר זה ועוד גרוע הוא מספרי מינים ששם המין המחבר כתוב עליו, שהרבה אפילו מפשוטי העם לא יאמינו לזה אבל כששם ריה”ח =ר’ יהודה החסיד= כתוב יש לחוש שגם יותר יטעו ויעשו כופרים בתורה עי”ז ולכן ברור שאסור באיסור היותר גדול דמחטיא את הרבים. ואני הייתי אומר שלא ידפיסו כלל אף לא הדברים האחרים כי אפשר לא נבדק היטב ובפרט כי נעשה ספק גדול ממילא על כל הספר מי הוא מחברו ואף אם נמצא שם איזה דבר שנמצא בשמו של ריה”ח בספרי הראשונים אין ראיה על שאר הדברים מאחר שאיכא ריעותא גדולה כזה. [קטו]  ומאחר שכבר נתפרסם בעוה”ר ספר המזויף הזה אין לנו שוב מה לחוש להצניע הדבר ויש לפרסם שספר הנדפס על החומש בשם ר’ יהודה החסיד הוא מזויף וצריך לבערו מן העולם.

See discussion in, Ta-Shma, “Bible Criticism,” 453-454; Marc B. Shapiro, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2015), 57.

[15]

אחרי כתבי השיגו הספר ציוני של ר’ מנחם ציוני ומצאתי מה שמר פ’ אמר לכם שמביא זה בשם הרי”ח, אבל זה אינו מתרץ כלום שודאי הוא כפירה בתורה ומי שיאמר זה הוא כפירה בתורה וגם ענין גדוף על דוד המלך, ולא ידוע לנו בברור מי הוא ר’ מנחם ציוני וכנראה שהעתיק מה שנמצא באיזה ספר על שם ריה”ח בלא עיון, ואני הייתי אומר שאסור למכור ולקנות גם ספר ציוני מאחר שנמצא דבר כפירה זו

[16]

וגם אני הקטן תמהתי כשראיתי דבר זה כי ספר הציוני הוא הי’ מגדולי המקובלים אשר סמכו עליו הן בהלכה והן בקבלה מגדולי האחרונים ז”ל… אבל האמת כי לא אאמין אשר דברים אלו יצאו מפי הגרמ”פ אלא נלפענ”ד שאיזה תלמיד טועה כתבו והכניסו בין מכתביו לאחר פטירתו וידי זרים שלטו בו ותלה עצמו באילן גדול גם כי לא אאמין שהגרמ”פ לא ראה ספר הציוני אשר מפורסם בעולם וודאי שהגרמ”פ ז”ל ראה את ספר הציוני והמפרשים המביאים דבריו כי דברי הש”ע היו שגורים וסדורים לפניו כשלחן ערוך אלא מי שהוא אחר הכניס בתשו’ ושארי ליה מארי להאי אחר.

I first heard about R. Klein’s response in a lecture by Rabbi Jason Rubenstein of Mechon Hadar. (The discussion of R. Yehudah HaChasid and the debate between Rabbis Feinstein and Klein are towards the end of lecture one in that series).

[17] In discussing a different text (Bemidbar Rabbah 3:13, Abot deRabbi Natan 34:5), which R. Moshe Feinstein also declared to be a heretical interpolation, Marc Shapiro writes, “Feinstein’s rejection of the authenticity of this passage should be viewed as part of his pattern of discarding sources that do not fit in with his understanding.” See Marc B. Shapiro,The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides Thirteen Principles Reappraised (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004), 101 n. 73. R. Feinstein was taken to task for this tendency by R. Eliezer Waldenberg (1915-2006) in his Tzitz Eliezer (14:100), with regard to yet a third example, in which R. Feinstein changes a word with which he does not agree. R. Waldenberg responded by saying, “With all due respect, no sir, this is not the way (והנה עם כל הכבוד, לא אדוני, לא זו הדרך).” 

[18] He makes this point explicitly in a later responsum (Mishneh Halachot 16:102):

אבל דע ידידי כי הציוני שהביא מע”כ הוא לאו משלו אלא העתק כתב מהרי”ח והנה פשוט דהאי מהרי”ח היינו רבינו יהודה החסיד אשר אנחנו דברנו הימנו וע”ז דן הגרמ”פ זצלה”ה והלשון כמעט ממש כפי שנעתק בכתב יד שלו וכפי מה שציין עליו הגרמ”פ זצל”ה וא”כ אומר אני אדרבה מהעתקת הציוני כת”י של רבינו יהודה החסיד זה הוא עדות נאמנה גם על הכת”י של רבינו יהודה החסיד שהוא קודש קדשים וח”ו לרחקו ולומר שמינים כתבוהו, וזה בס”ד ברור ואמת.

[19]  Chumash, literally “a fifth,” in most Jewish literature is typically a synonym for the Torah.

[20]

ידידי היקר ודאי צודק מאד כי ח”ו לא דוד ולא שלמה ולא שום מלך או הדיוט שבעולם בידו לשנות אפי’ אות אחת בתורה ושלמה המלך שרצה לבטל אות יו”ד מה”ת יצתה ב”ק יאבדו אלף כמותו ואות אחת מה”ת לא ישתנה והיו”ד שלקחו אותה מאמנו שרה ונתנו לה שם שרה במקום שרי קבלה והתלוננה עד שהוסיפו לו ליהושע אות יו”ד והעלוה מאשה לאיש ואין חולק בזה, אבל מה שכתב הציוני שהלל הגדול הי’ כתוב בחומש עד שבא דוד וכו’ נראה ביאור לזה כך.

דע כי ס”ת לחוד וחומש לחוד, ואבאר דברי שלא יטעו בהם ח”ו בנ”א, והנה מעולם היו בישראל ספרים וקודם קבלת התורה הי’ ספר יצירה ואברהם אבינו הי’ לו מס’ ע”ז מארבע מאות פרקים והי’ לו כל התורה כולה…

עכ”פ פשוט כיון שלמדו תורה והי’ להם ישיבות הי’ להם ספרים במה ללמוד, ואף כי תורה שבע”פ לא כתבו אבל תורה שבכתב שהי’ להם כתבו לעצמן בחומשים ולמדו כאינו מצוה ועושה, והי’ הכל כתוב על קלף ומכורך שלא הי’ להם נייר וכיוצא בו, ומסתמא הי’ זה כל ארבעים שנה שהיו במדבר ג”כ שמשה כותב את כל המסעות והמאורעות והצווים וכו’ ומיהו לאחר שנתנה תורה לישראל כתב משה רבינו כל התורה שקבל ונצטווה מפי הקדוש ברוך הוא לכתוב וכתבה קודם מותו בי”ג ס”ת ונתן ס”ת אחת לכל שבט ושבט כמבואר במדרש רבה וילך וס”ת אחת שם בארון ומאז ואילך היו שני מיני ספרי תורות הי’ ס”ת שנכתב ע”י משה רבינו בקדושה והי’ לקריאת התורה בו בציבור וכיוצא בו, והיו כותבין ס”ת ללמוד בהם תורה לישראל ונקרא חומש וכיון שהיו להם לישראל חומשים מלפני מ”ת שהיו לומדים בהם תורה כמבואר במדרש הנ”ל הי”ל גם למשה רבינו חומש שכתב לעצמו וחומש הזה הי’ נכלל בו גם מה שלעתיד לבא כגון ס’ תהלים שעתיד דוד לחברו ע”י עשרה זקנים, אבל אין זה הס”ת שכתב משה רבינו לשם ס”ת, אלא ממה שכתב לו מקודם.

וכיון דכתיב בתורה אז ישיר ישראל עלו באר ענו לה ואינו מבואר השירה שאמרו ושוב מצאנו הלל הגדול שתקנו וכתיב שם לסיחון מלך האמורי כי לעולם חסדו שהיא שיר על שניצולו מסיחון ועוג ועברו נחל ארנון ואז נעשה זה השיר ושרו וע”כ שהודו מיד שנצחו את סיחון ועוג ולמה לא מובא בתורה שמשה רבינו לא נצטווה להכניס שיר זה בפנים בתורה ונשאר כשיר הודאה שעשה משה וכשאר מזמורים שעשה משה שלאו הכל נצטוה להכניס בתורה רק מה שנצטוה מפי ה’ לכתוב…

ולזה כתב מהרי”ח שבאמת משה רבינו וישראל אז שרו שירה זו של הלל הגדול וכמו שביציאת מצרים שרו הלל המצרי ואף על פי שדוד תקנה מ”מ הוא נקרא הלל המצרי ע”ש שיצאו ממצרים ובגמ’ אפשר ישראל עושין פסחיהם ואינם אומרים שירה הכ”נ במזמור זה שאמרו משה והיכן מצא דוד המלך את מזמור זה של משה אלא שזה הי’ כתוב בחומש שלו ולקחו דוד מחומש של משה וחברו בתהלים…

[21] The eighth principle is that the Torah is from Heaven. This means that we believe that the entire Torah that is in our hands today is the Torah that was given to Moses, and that it is from the Powerful One entirely. Meaning, that it came to [Moses] entirely from God, in the kind of transmission that may be referred to metaphorically as “speech”… every letter of the Torah contains within it wisdom and wonders to whomever the Lord has granted the wisdom to discern it.…

והיסוד השמיני הוא תורה מן השמים. והוא, שנאמין שכל התורה הזו הנמצאת בידינו היום הזה היא התורה שניתנה למשה, ושהיא כולה מפי הגבורה, כלומר שהגיעה עליו כולה מאת ה’ הגעה שקורים אותה על דרך ההשאלה דבור… כל אות שבה יש בה חכמות ונפלאות למי שהבינו ה’…

The English is from Sam Fleischacker’s TABS essay, “Making Sense of the Revelation at Sinai: Revisiting Maimonides’ Eighth Principle of Faith.”

[22] They would not have known Rambam’s work, since they were contemporaries who lived in Germany. More significantly, they didn’t have anything similar in their own theologies. Although R. Menachem Tzioni lived later, and likely would have been familiar with Rambam’s principles, he did not see R. Yehudah HaChasid’s suggestion as problematic; perhaps he did not view Rambam’s principles as binding. For more on the controversies around this principle, see the chapter on this principle in, Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, 91-121.

The Quran did Not Copied from the Bible

1 - Who was created first, Adam or Satan? The Quran says Satan, the Bible doesn’t say anything.

2 - Who was created first,Adam or the Angles? The Quran says the Angels, the Bible doesn’t say anything.

3 - Why didn't  the Bible mention that the people Noah  were worshipping idols
Three different idols  ?

4 - Why does the Bible say that Noah’s ark stopped Ararat but it was discoveredin Al-Judyy, as the Quran says so?

5 - Why does the Bible say that God afflictedwomen for Eve’s sin,and theQuran doesn’ttell us such thing.

6 - Where does the Bible tell us about the story of Aad and Thamood ? The town of Thamoud has been discovered in Saudi Arabia–it’s located in a place called Mada-inSaleh. And recently, the town of Aad has been discovered with the help of NASA’s satellites.

7 - Where does the Bible mention Prophet Saleh?

8 - Where does the Bible mention Prophet Hud?

9 - Where does the Bible mention Prophet Shu’ayb?

10 - Where does the Bible refer to Al-Khidr ?

11 - Where does the Bible mention Luqmaan?

12 - Why doesn’t the Bible mention the story of the Cow that happened between Moses and the Jews.

13 - Where do you find in the Quran any reference to Hosea, Malachi, Micha, Jude,Nahum, Nehemiah, Obadaiah, Esther,Joel, Ruth,etc?

14 - Why doesn’t the Bible mention the storyof Thul-Qarnayn.

15 - Why doesn’t the Biblemention the story of the People of the Cave?.

16 -Why doesn’t the Bible mention the story of Antioch in Surat Yasin?

17 -Why does the Bible say that Jesus was crucified, and the Quran says that he was saved?

18 - Why does the Bible say that Abraham sacrificed his only begottenson,Isaac, and forgets that he had another son called Ishamael, who is older than Isaac?

19 - Regarding the dream Joseph had in Genesis 37,why is it fulfilled inthe Quran and not fulfilled in the Bible? Couldit be because that Joseph’s mother died before Joseph had his dream? Bad prophecy.

20 -Why is it that the Bible tells us that the Holy Spirit had sex with Mary,and the Quran tells us that the Angel who visited Mary told her that she will bear a son, and he is ONLY informing her of what God has decreed?

21 - Why is it that the Bible tells us that Moses was adopted by Pharaoh’s daughter,and the Quran tells us it was Pharaoh’s wife?

22 – Why is it that the Quran tells us that Lut was a pious prophet, and the Bible tells us that he had sex with his daughters?

23 - Why is it that the Quran tells us in Sura19 and 20 that Moses was a special chosen prophet who was raised under God’s supervision,
and the Bible tells us that he disobeyed God? Numbers 20

24 - Why is it that the Bible says that it is written with the false pen of the scribe inJeremiah 8:8,and the Quran tells us that it has no discrepancies?

25 - Why is it that the Bible tells us that Pharaoh did not drown, and the Quran tells us that he drowned,but Allah left his body as a sign to mankind. When they dissected Pharaoh’s body,they found out that his body had too much salt inside it.You say the Quran is copied from the Bible? I say you are ignorant! Read the Quran 10:92.

26 – Why does the Bible tells usin Genesis that God had to take a walk to find Adam,and the Quran tells us that God’sknowledge doesn’t require that He walks?

27 - Why is it thatthe Quran tells us that Jesus spoke in the cradle,but the Bible knows nothing about the childhood of Jesus?

28 - Why is it that the Quran tells us that Jesus made miracles by giving life to statues made from clay?

29 - The Quran tells us that Aaron is innocent; he did not make the golden calf,but a man called Al-Samirri (A person whoorganizes songs and joy) made it, while the Bible tells us that Aaron made the Goldencalf.

30 - why is it that the Quranic Laws state that the thief’s hands should bechopped, and the laws of Moses say something else?

31 – Why does the Quran say lash the fornicators 100 times, and the Bible says stone them.

32 - Why does the Quran orders us to fast in Ramadhan and the Bible doesn’t.

33 - Why does the Quran tells us that the inheritance share of the man is as twice as much as the woman,and the Bible has no such law?

34 - Why does the Quran tells us not to transgress in wars, and the Bible teaches us to kill every living thing including plants (Joshua 6).

35 -The Bible teaches us to kill unbelievers,and leave to ourselves YOUNG virgins whonever knew a man (Numbers31).Why isn’t such thing presentin the Quran?

36 - The Quran tells us to freeslaves to enter heaven in Surat Al-Balad. Why doesn’t the Bible say such thing?

37 - Whyis Satan called a FALLEN ANGEL in theBible,and not in the Quran?

38 –Why does the Quran tellsus there are Jinn (Some are good and othersare bad),but the Bible doesn’t mention Jinn?

39 – Why is it that the Quran tells us to perform Hajj to Makkah, and the Bible doesn’t tell us such thing?

40 – Why does the Quran tells us that Abraham and Ishmael built the Kaaba,while the Bible says no such thing?

41- Why is it that the Bible condemns David as a murderer,and the Quran tells us that he was a pious sinless prophet?

42-Why doesn’t the Bible tell us the story of Solomon and Balqees?

43 -Why doesn’t the Bible tell us that Solomon had Jinns who worked for him,andthe Quran says so?

44 -Why is it that the Quran tells us that Solomon had soldiers from the Jinn and the Bible doesn’t say so?

45 -Why is it that the Quran tells us that Solomon understood the speech of the birds and the Bible doesn’t say so?

46–Why is it that the Quran tells us that Solomon understood the speech of the ants and the Bible doesn’t say so?

47- Why is it that the Quran tells us that ONLY female bees get the honey, and the Bible doesn’t say so?

48 –Why is it that the Quran tells us that the Quran mentions different levels in Paradise, and the Bible doesn’t say so?

49-Why is it that the Quran tells us that there is a tree in hell called Zaqquum,and the Bible doesn’t say so?

50 -The Quran mentions Thal-Kifl as one ofthe prophets. Can you find hisname in theBible?

51- The Quran tells us God does not have a son
The bible says he does?

 52- The Quran tells us God is not THREE but ONE
The bible tells us God is THREE ( even though the NIV recognized it as a interpolation and fabrication and threw it out, yet majority Christians accept it

Islam the chosen religion / fruitful man

Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and shall be given to a nation producing the fruits of it. (Matthew 21:43)

--------------

From the above verse we read Jesus telling the Jews the Kingdom of God shall be taken away from them, and given to a nation producing it's fruits. The question is which nation is that, behold the bible gives the answer, it's the nation of Ishmael:

And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. (Genesis 17:20 Masoretic text )

He will be a FRUITFUL MAN; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."(Genesis 16:12 Samaritan text) 

There we have it the Islamic nation was meant to take over from start and that's according to the words of Jesus whom Christians can't reject unless, they have an objection to make that he wasn't speaking the truth.

i really really doubt Christians would commit such blaspheme!

Rambam confirms after Jesus rose the Ishmaelite to make way for the Messiah

But, the plans of the creator of the world--no person can understand them for our ways are not the same as His ways and our plans are not His plans. And all of these things about Jesus of Nazareth, and about that Ishmaelite who rose after him--they are only to make the path for the King Messiah straight, and to fix the whole world for worshipping God together, as it is said, "For I will give the peoples clear speech, for them all to call out the name of God, and to worship Him with one purpose (Zephaniah 3:9)

(Rambam HALAKHAH Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars Chapter 11:7)

Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Passover Seder?

Ask virtually anyone: “Was Jesus’ Last Supper a Passover seder?” and the response is likely to be “Of course!”Yet, Jesus could not have known what a “seder” was, let alone have modeled his Last Supper after one. The elements of even the primitive seder originated decades after he died.

The Gospels date Jesus’ ministry to the period of Pontius Pilate, Roman prefect of Judea from 26 C.E. to early 37 C.E. Jesus’ year of death is unknown; scholars settle on between 30 and 33 C.E.

At that time, the core element of Passover observance had been Jerusalem’s sacrificial cult, from 621 B.C.E. (when the biblical mandate first appeared) up until 70 C.E. (the destruction of the Second Temple). Jewish families brought paschal (Passover) lambs for sacrifice on the Temple altar as biblically prescribed: “Thou shalt sacrifice the Passover offering…in the place which the Lord shall…cause His name to dwell [Jerusalem’s Temple]” (Deuteronomy 16:2, 5-6); and the practice of King Josiah: “In the eighteenth year of King Josiah [621 B.C.E.] was this Passover kept…in Jerusalem” (Second Kings 23:21-23). For the ceremony, the kohanim (priests) conducted the sacrificial rite. Then families retrieved and consumed their meat as the main part of their Passover meal, which also included unleavened bread and bitter herbs (recalling the Hebrews’ enslavement in Egypt).

Passover meals Jesus experienced in his lifetime would have had to be along these Temple-centered lines.

Then, in 70 C.E., approximately 40 years after Jesus’ death, Rome destroyed the Second Jerusalem Temple, thus ending the required central component of Passover observance, as sacrifice of paschal lambs by the Temple priests was no longer  possible.

Instead, the early rabbis eventually introduced an inchoate, rudimentary practice that over the ensuing decades evolved into a new way of observing Passover. Thi  s would become known as a “seder,” Hebrew for “order,” because the ceremony followed a set sequence of liturgical recitations and ritual foods narrating the Passover saga, ultimately to be governed by an instructional guide called thehaggadah. In our oldest reference, the early third century rabbinic compendium, the Mishnah, we read that Gamaliel II, the greatest rabbi of the post-destruction era (likely during the late 80s C.E.), customarily said: “Whoever does not mention [expatiate upon] these three things on Passover does not discharge one’s duty…: the Passover offering [lamb], unleavened bread, and bitter herbs” (Pesahim 10:5). Thus the core Temple-centered observance mutated from sacrificing lambs into drawing upon Passover motifs to retell the Hebrews’ escape from Egypt.

Centuries of further embellishment and refinement produced the full-fledged, mature seders we know today-the kind that many modern churches adopt and adapt in “reenacting” the Last Supper even though no such seder could have been practiced during Jesus’ day.

-----------------------

Virtually all are in agreement that, as a Jew, Jesus would have observed Jewish rituals as they were practiced in his day. But this begs the question somewhat, for there is abundant evidence that the seder has evolved over the centuries and much of what Jews do and say at the seder table in 2002 would have been unknown to Jesus and his fellow Jews in ancient Jerusalem.

The common assumption that the Last Supper was a Passover seder is based upon the "testimony" of the "synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke). Mark 14:12 tells us that Jesus prepared for the Last Supper on the "first day of Unleavened Bread, when they sacrificed the Passover Lamb." If he and his disciples gathered to eat the Passover sacrifice, what else could that meal have been except a Passover seder?

The problem is, however, that there exists serious doubt in the minds of many New Testament scholars about the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. They may accurately record Jesus's sayings, but very little about what he actually did.

The Gospel According to John stands alone against Matthew, Mark and Luke in recording that the Last Supper took place the night before the festival began and having the crucifixion take place as Jews were preparing to usher in the festival. In this way Jesus becomes, symbolically, the Passover lamb slaughtered for the festival. So whom are we to believe? John or the other Gospels?

Among the many problems of assuming the Last Supper was a Passover seder is the fact that this would place Jesus' trial and execution on the first day of Passover. The Gospel writers may have intended to implicate Jewish officials in the death of Jesus and by having them so involved on one of their most sacred calendar days would have furthered the polemical anti-Jewish ends for which they may have been striving when the Gospels were compiled after the death of Jesus.

In the October issue of Biblical Archeology Review, Jonathan Klowans writes: "That Jesus ate a meal in Jerusalem, at night, with his disciples is not so surprising. It is also no great coincidence that during this meal the disciples reclined, ate both bread and wine, and sang a hymn. While such behavior may have been characteristic of the Passover meal, it is equally characteristic of practically any Jewish meal... A number of scholars now believe that the ritual context for the Last Supper was not a Seder but a standard Jewish meal."*

The constraints of my article preclude an exhaustive examination of this question and the controversy to which it gives rise. The curious reader will want to pursue the various threads which comprise this intriguing tapestry-of-a-question. But it is important to make note of another phenomenon: Christian churches offering a seder, in a non-Jewish context, as an act of Christian faith and worship. Many churches do so in the belief that they are bringing worshipers closer to Christianity's Jewish roots, a laudable goal. But to usurp an inherently Jewish ritual and adapt it to fit Christian theology is deeply offensive to many Jews.

Was the Last Supper a Passover seder? The weight of the evidence leads me to conclude that it probably was not. Christian interest in the Passover seder will endure and is best addressed by efforts on the part of Jews to welcome Christians to a seder table or, failing that, to teach about the seder in Christian settings in ways that helps insure the Jewish integrity of that ritual. 

* "Was Jesus' Last Supper a Seder?", Jonathan Klowans, Biblical Archeology Review, October, 2001.

[For further reading, I recommend Passover and Easter: The Symbolic Structuring of Sacred Seasons, Bradshaw and Hoffman, Editors, Two Liturgical Traditions, Vols. 5 & 6, Notre Dame, 1999.]

Not only was Dinah raped by shachem at the age of 8 she also had a child from him!

One day Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, went to visit some of the Canaanite women.When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who was chief of that region, saw her, HE TOOK HER AND RAPED HER. (Genesis 34:1-2)

“His soul became attached to Dinah.” At that time Dinah was eight years and one month old. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 72,6) arrive at this conclusion by assuming that Leah’s prayer that her fetus should be a girl was offered when she was in a state of advanced pregnancy. Dinah was born before Joseph as the Torah mentions Rachel as becoming pregnant after her birth. Joseph was born 14 years after Yaakov had arrived in Charan when Yaakov started serving Lavan an additional six years for his sheep. They stayed in Sukkot for 18 months before moving on to Shechem. This makes Joseph seven and a half years old at that time. Dinah was seven months older than he (Joseph was born at the end of a seven month pregnancy) so that made Dinah eight years and one month when she was raped. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 34:3:1 Torah Commentary by Rabbi Bachya ben Asher, trans. Eliyahu Munk, 1998.)

Simeon’s sons: Jemuel, Jamin, Ohad, Jachin, Zohar, and Saul the son of a Canaanite woman. (Genesis 46:10)

THE SON OF THE CANAANITISH WOMAN — means the son of Dinah, who had been associated with a Canaanite (Shechem). When they (her brothers) had killed Shechem, Dinah refused to leave the city until Simeon swore to her that he would marry her and regard the child she was about to bear as his own (cf. Genesis Rabbah 80:11).

Genesis 46:10 tells us Dinah she had a son called Shaul this is also mentioned on Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers

What does that tell you

Dinah was also given away to Shachem after Jacob found out she was raped. But her brothers killed shechem and his tribe. Notice from the above commentary simeon her brother said he would marry her?

It gets worse a different Midrash relates that Dinah was married to Job, basing this on Job’s telling his wife: “You talk as any shameless woman [ha-nevalot] might talk!” (Job 2:10), and on the episode of Dinah in Gen. 34:7: “because he had committed an outrage [nevalah] in Israel” (Gen. Rabbah 19:12). 

So now Job was married to Dinah. Now if we are to take Genesis 46:10, then it’s likely Dinah had her son when she was 9 years old from shechem and Job took her after she had the child. No doubt the son would be Shechem's, by Dinah, which son was adopted by Simeon through a marriage to his full blood sister? And Dinah is being referred to as a Canaanitess (and not by name for what reason...?) because she had been joined to the Canaanite Shechem in marriage, correct? In other words, she became a Canaanitess through that marriage. If I've understood correctly, it is an interesting find.

I've also taken Gen 34:12 to be Shechem's proposal to take Dinah as a wife, v.15 to be the conditions the brothers would allow that (circumcision), v.24 the fulfillment of the conditions, and v.26 confirmation that the brothers had in fact given Dinah to be Shechem's wife, since she was taken from his house three days (v.25) after the circumcision event--which implies to me that on the day of circumcision Shechem took her to his house as his wife. So while she was violated initially, I don't see anything to indicate she was also not married to him for those three days. 

If the "Canaanite" here is Dinah, who married Shimon (see Bereshit Raba 80, 10), it is possible that Shaul isn't Shimon's son, but rather a son born to Dinah from Shechem. If so, even this son did not estrange himself from Jacob's family. She is called "Canaanite" because her son, biologically, was the son of a Canaanite (man). Therefore we can conclude that even then, when a daughter of Jacob marries a Canaanite, the newborn's identity is considered based on his/her mother (see Yevamot 45b).

And some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and that he married Dina, the daughter of Jacob. As it is written here: “You speak as one of the loathsome women speaks” (Job 2:10), and it is written there in the account of the incident involving Dina: “He has done a loathsome act in Israel” (Genesis 34:7). (Bava Batra 15b:7)

So we can conclude Dinah was raped when she was 8 years old, had a son called Saul. Soon after Job married her rebuked her when he was angry (Job 2:10) rejecting the fact she was an 8 year old girl who was raped. Also one wonders If the punishment for raping a young girl is paying 50 shekels to the father and marrying the raped girl (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). Why then did Jacobs sons kill shachems when he raped their 8 year old sister? 

One must also note that, Jacob had no problem giving away his 8 year old daughter for marriage. There is no evidence where Jacob objected the handover of Dinah to Shechem. It’s understood traditionally a father gave away his daughter at a very young age. We also see the two brothers of Dinah did not object her age. It was their rage and anger that that make them kill Shechem and his tribe. Why didn’t the father or brothers say our daughter/sister is extremely young for marriage?

------

Jacob hides 7-8 year old daughter Dinah from his brother Esau to prevent him from  marrying her

That same night he arose, and taking his two wives, his two maidservants, and his eleven children, he crossed the ford of the Jabbok. (Genesis 32:23)

-----------

ואת אחד עשר ילדיו AND HIS ELEVEN CHILDREN — But where was Dinah? He placed her in a chest and locked her in so that Esau should not set his fancy upon her (desire to marry her). On this account Jacob was punished — because he had kept her away from his brother for she might have led him back to the right path; she therefore fell into the power of Shechem (Genesis Rabbah 76:9). (Rashi commentary)

Bereshit Rabbah 76,9 raises the question of where Dinah was in all this, and answers that Yaakov had put her into a box that he had locked. His concern had been that if Esau would see her he would take her by force. "Moreover, if Esau had indeed married Dinah she would not have been raped by Shechem."(Radak commentary )

Besides, on his return to Palestine, when he was preparing to meet his brother, he concealed his daughter Dinah in a chest, lest Esau desire to have her for wife, and he be obliged to give her to him. (Legends of the Jews  1:6:215)

As soon as the messengers came and said to him : WE CAME UNTO YOUR BROTHER ESAU, Jacob took Dinah and put her in a chest so that Esau would not see her and take her for a wife. Gen. R. 76:9.(Midrash Tanchuma Buber, Vayishlach 19:2)

Secondly, he was punished for denying Esau a glimpse of Dinah, for maybe she could have exercised a beneficial influence on him if he had married her. (Rabbeinu Bahya, Bereshit 34:1:1)

At least all Talmudic opinions agree that it was theoretically permitted to marry a stepfather's wife (excepting the mother), and to marry a stepsibling (a man marrying his stepsister, etc. (Yebamot (Tosefta) 2:3)

Thou Shall Not Ignore the Old Testament!

New Testament Verses Which Demand Following the Old Testament and Law Contradictions:

I hear so many Christians now a days claim that the Old Testament is defunct for Jesus was the “lamb” to clear away its rules and regulations.  This is just another  scapegoat that Christians use to ignore the atrocities and bizarre laws commanded by their god.  Their preachers spoon feed them that the Old Testament is no longer binding so that they can excuse the majority of evil that the bible promotes.  I am so tired of Christians manipulating the scriptures so that they can assign a kinder nature to their God, that I have assembled a BRIEF list of verses which clearly show that the Old Testament is not to be ignored.  Its laws should indeed be adhered to, for the New Testament demands it!  After this section I shall list where the Bible contradicts itself concerning other laws.

1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished.  Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”  (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)  Clearly the Old Testament is to be abided by until the end of human existence itself.  None other then Jesus said so.

2) All of the vicious Old Testament laws will be binding forever.  “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”  (Luke 16:17 NAB)

3) Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets.  He hasn’t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament.  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.  Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place.”  (Matthew 5:17 NAB)

3b) “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”  (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)

3c) “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.” (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

4) Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.  Mark.7:9-13  “Whoever curses father or mother shall die”  (Mark 7:10 NAB)

5) Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating.  He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”  (Matthew 15:4-7)

6) Jesus has a punishment even worse than his father concerning adultery: God said the act of adultery was punishable by death. Jesus says looking with lust is the same thing and you should gouge your eye out, better a part, than the whole.  The punishment under Jesus is an eternity in Hell.  (Matthew 5:27)

7) Peter says that all slaves should “be subject to [their] masters with all fear,” to the bad and cruel as well as the “good and gentle.”  This is merely an echo of the same slavery commands in the Old Testament. 1 Peter 2:18

8) “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John7:19) and “For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17).

9) “…the scripture cannot be broken.” –Jesus Christ, John 10:35

Law Contradictions of the Bible:

10) Shall we obey the law?  Romans 13:1-7 says quite clearly that Christians are to submit to the law and regard it as the institution of God.  1 Peter 2:13-14  “Submit your self to every ordinance of man … to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors.”  Matthew 22:21 “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Also see Titus 3:1. Matthew 23:2-3 & Ecclesiastes 8:2 This leads one to assume that Christians must and should obey the law, yet look at these verses which contradicts what I just sited.  Acts 5:29  “We ought to obey God rather then men.”  Exodus 1:17-20 shows God punishing the midwives for following their rulers instead of God.  Also see Daniel 3:16-18, 6:7-10, Acts 4:26 & 27, Mark 12:38-40, Luke 23:11, 24 & 33-35 which all say the law should be ignored.  Now we know why Christians get away with their selective morality so often.

11) Should we steal?  (Exodus 20:15 & Leviticus 19:13)  Stealing is absolutely forbidden.  Yet, Exodus 3:21-22, 12:35-36 & Luke 19:29-34 all promote stealing.

12) Should we judge?  Jesus is quoted in Matthew 7:1-2: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.”  Also see Luke 6:37 & 1 Corinthians 5:12.  Now take a look at “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment”  (John 7:24).  Also note 1 Corinthians 5:12 & 6:2-4.

1 3) Should we covet?  Exodus 20:17 says, “Thou shalt not covet . . . anything that is thy neighbor’s,” while 1 Corinthians 12:31 says, “Covet earnestly the best gifts.”  So, are we or are we not to covet?

14) Is lying okay?  Exodus 20:16.  Proverbs 12:22 & Revelations 21:8 all say lying is forbidden.  Joshua 2:4-6, Exodus 1:18-20 & 1 Kings 22:21-22 all support lying.

15) Can we kill?  Exodus 20:13 says “thou shalt not kill”.  Exodus 32:27, Numbers 31, and THOUSANDS of other verses show God commanding us to kill.

16) Can we own slaves?  Leviticus 25:45 “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy … and they shall be your possession… they shall be your bondmen forever.”  Genesis 9:25 “And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”  Exodus 21:2 & 7 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing…  And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”  Joel 3:8 “And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it.”  Luke 12:47-48 [Jesus speaking] “And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.  But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.”  Colossians 3:22

“Servants, obey in all things your masters.”  So obviously the Biblical God thinks slavery is right, right?  Just look at these: Isaiah 58:6  “Undo the heavy burdens… let the oppressed go free, … break every yoke.”  Matthew 23:10 “Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”  (Also see Exodus 22:21 & 21:16) Let it be known here that pro-slavery Bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa.  There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.  I simply do not have the room to post all of them.

17) What about Improvidence?  Improvidence is enjoined in Luke 12:3 “Sell that ye have and give alms.” also in Luke 6:30 & 35 “Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that taketh away thy goods, ask them not again … And lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward shall be great.” Also note Matthew 6:28, 31 & 34. Improvidence is condemned in I Timothy 5:8 “But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. “ Also see Proverbs 13:22.

18) What does the law say about anger?  Ephesians 4:26 says “Be ye angry and sin not not.”  Anger is disapproved in Ecciesiastes 7:9 “Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry; for anger resteth in the bosom of fools.” Proverbs 22:24 “Make no friendship with an angry man.”  Also see James 1:20.

19) Are we to let our good works be seen?  Matthew 5:16 “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.”  This contradicts verse Matthew 6:1 , “Take heed that you do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.”

20) Should we pray in public? 1 Kings 2:22, 54 & 9:3 shows the Lord is joyed by public prayer and listens intently.  Matthew 6:5-6 condemn public prayer and command people keep it a secret.

21) Can we wear long hair?  Judges 13:5 & Numbers 6:5 encourages people to grow their hair and insists it is a source of strength.  1 Corinthians 11:14 calls long hair a “shame”.

22) Should we circumcise males?  Genesis 17:10  “This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and thy seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised.  Clearly this demands circumcision, yet Galatians 5:2 says “Behold, I Paul, say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”

23) Are there certain kinds of foods we should not eat?  Deuteronomy 14:2-8 lists several animals that we are NOT to eat because they are “unclean”, “chew the cud” and “divide the hoof”. Yet Genesis 9:3 & 1 Corinthians 10:25 insists there is nothing we can’t eat. Romans 14:14 says: “There is nothing unclean of itself.”

24) Can we take oaths?  Numbers 30:2, Genesis 21:23-24, 31, 31:53 & Hebrews 6:13 says that we can take oaths and encourages it.  Matthew 5:34 says “swear (make an oath) not at all.”

25) Can we get married?  Genesis 2:18, 1:28, Matthew 19:5 & Hebrews 13:4 all insist marriage is honorable.  Marriage is disapproved and scorned in 1 Corinthians 7:1 & 7:7-8.

26) Can we commit adultery?  Exodus 20: 14 “thou shalt not commit adultery.”  Also see Hebrews 13:4.  Now look at Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2 & 2:1-3 where adultery is advocated by God.

27) Can we drink alcohol?  Proverbs 31:6-7, 1 Timothy 5:23 & Psalms 104:15 all encourage drinking and intoxication.  Proverbs 20:1 & 23:31-32 discourage drinking and intoxication.

28) Do women have rights?  Genesis 3:16 “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  1 Timothy 2:12 says a woman must not teach, remain silent and must be subjugated to her man.  1 Corinthians 14:34 & 1 Peter 3:6 both say that women have limited rights and are under control of their men.  Judges 4:4, 14-15, 5:7, Acts 2:18 & 21:9 all tell of powerful women who were not subjugated by men and were not punished for their authority of men.

29) Should we obey our masters with usurped authority?  Colossians 3:22-23 & 1 Peter 2:18 says we should. 1 Corinthians 7:23 “Be not ye the servants of men.”  Also see Matthew 4:10 & 23:10 which say we should not submit usurped to our masters.

30) Was the law of the Old Testament destroyed by Christ’s crucification?  Luke16:16, Ephesians 2:15 & Romans 7:6 says that the old law is no longer binding.  Yet Matthew 5:17-19 and MANY other verses say that the old law is forever binding.  If you want to see the many verses that command we follow the old law please consult the upper portion of this page.

31) Should we swear an oath?  Numbers 30:2 “If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath…he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth.”  Genesis 21:22-24 & 31 “…swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me…And Abraham said, I will swear…Wherefore he called that place Beersheba [“Well of the oath”]; because there they sware both of them.”  Hebrews 6:13-17 “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself…for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.  Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability ofhis counsel, confirmed it by an oath.” See also Genesis 22:15- 19, Genesis 31 :53, & Judges I 1 :30-39.  So apparently it is okay to swear an oath, we even do this on the Bible in American courts.  Just try and forget these verses: Matthew 5:34-37 “But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven…nor by the earth…Neither shalt thou swear by thy head…But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”

James 5:12 “…swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation.”

32) Do we keep the Sabbath?  Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Exodus 31:15 “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”  Numbers 15:32-36  “And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day…And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”  Each of these contradict Isaiah 1:13  “The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity.“  John 5:16 “And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the Sabbath day.  “Colossians 2:16 “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days.”

33) Should we make graven images?  Exodus 20:4 “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven…earth … water.”  Leviticus 26:1 “Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone.”  Deuteronomy 27:15 “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image.”  Okay, I got it I shouldn’t produce a thing in fear of making a graven image, but wait: Exodus 25:18 “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.”  I Kings 7:15-16 & 23-25 “For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass…and two chapiters of molten brass…And he made a molten sea…it stood upon twelve oxen … [and so on]”

Why Camel flesh is not haram as mandated in Leviticus 11:4; Deuteronomy 14:7?

Christian Missionary often point to the Islamic non-prohibition to Camel flesh as a “proof” that Islam too is not consistent with the law of Moses. Therefore it is legitimate for Jesus (p) to “abandon” the Mosaic dietary law. Another Pauline teaching

As a muslim it is part of our belief that the Qur’an does not limit itself to replacement of earlier laws and customs; it supplements, affirms, and varies. The Qur’an does not consider itself unique in thus altering (while recognizing) prior legislation.

However on the question of what ought to be halal (lawful) and haram (prohibited), prior to the advent of Islam, the people of the book had were confused, permitting many impure and harmful things and prohibiting many things that were good and pure.

Prohibiting something which is halal is similar to committing shirk, and this is why the Qur’an censures the those who were prohibiting to themselves, without any authority from Allah prior to Quranic revelation, the eating and the use of certain kinds of produce and cattle.

God  says:

كُلُّ الطَّعَامِ كَانَ حِلًّا لِّبَنِي إِسْرَائِيلَ إِلَّا مَا حَرَّمَ إِسْرَائِيلُ عَلَىٰ نَفْسِهِ مِن قَبْلِ أَن تُنَزَّلَ التَّوْرَاةُ ۗ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِالتَّوْرَاةِ فَاتْلُوهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ
All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for himself before the Taurat (Torah) was revealed. Say (O Muhammad SAW): “Bring here the Taurat (Torah) and recite it, if you are truthful.”  3:93

The verse refer to is to some prerevelatory Mosaic prohibitions on food. That is the prohibition of ‘‘the flesh and milk of camels.’’ (‘Abdallah Ibn ‘Umar al-Baydawi, Tafsir al-baydawi)

The camel was not the subject of pre-Mosaic prohibition. The Bible does of course prohibit the flesh of camels (Lev 11:4; Deut 14:7.)  but there is no biblical or rabbinic source support for the opinion that there is some pre-revelatory basis for the ban. This is according to Noah Fiedman professor of religious law  Harvard Law School. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Feldman)

According to Prof Fieldman (who is fluent in Hebrew as well as Arabic), Leviticus 11:4 makes the prohibition on consuming camel flesh part of the organizing legal logic of the more general prohibition on eating beasts whose hooves are not split. Possibly the interpretation that connects the ban to camels relates to the pre-Islamic Arabian milieu, rather than the Jewish.

The Qur’an attributes an act of legal prohibition to a human, rather than a divine source: ‘‘save what Israel forbade for himself.’’ When juxtaposed with the revelation of the Torah, this formulation implies that the act of prohibition stemmed from a human source. So if we seek to identify this pre-Mosaic prohibition with anything in Jewish tradition, we ought to try to find it in an apparently non-divine source.

Only one biblical prohibition fits the criteria established: (1) food-related; (2) pre-Mosaic; (3) non-revelatory. This is the statement of Genesis 32:33, establishing the prohibition on consumption of gid ha-nasheh, variously translated as the sciatic nerve, or a vein associated with it:

‘‘Therefore to this day the Israelites do not eat the gid ha-nasheh that is on the hip socket, because he [the angel of the Jacob story] struck Jacob on the hip socket at the gid ha-nasheh.’’

This verse describes the existence of a food prohibition stemming from a non-Mosaic origin. It also, strikingly, does not report a revelatory source, but merely recites the existence of a practice. The three conditions are thus satisfied. By contrast, the Noahide laws of Genesis 9:3-7 appear before the Mosaic revelation, and several involve food (the ban on consumption of blood, and in rabbinic tradition, the ban on the eating of live flesh). But these prohibitions are squarely attributed to God, whereas the ban on eating the sciatic nerve is described simply as an Israelite practice.

God in the Quran makes it clear that prohibiting without divine sanction constitutes proof of error, or failure to adhere to the divine will. The Quran rectify the error by showing the Jews to have partaken of this error in pre-Mosaic times, prophet Muhammad (p) shows their capability for error, and puts the Jews on a level with the pre-Islamic Arab idolaters.

The Qur’anic text continues (Q 3:94): ‘‘For one who fabricates lies about God after this, those are the wicked.’’

So anyone who asserts that all biblical prohibitions are from God may be said to fabricate lies about God. Those who do so (i.e., Jews who assert the divine origin of every prohibition) are the ‘‘wicked,’’ in opposition to ‘‘truth-tellers,’’ the self-description of the Jews in the previous verse.

Prophet Muhammad (p) challenges the Jews by asserting that their own scripture presents Jacob (Israel) as legislating for himself, on his own authority. The Jews themselves (this occurs offstage, as it were) claim that all biblical prohibition, including Genesis 32:33, is divinely mandated.

Camel meat are among those prohibited animals were those which were called bahirah, saibah, wasilah, and ham during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah. (The state of mind and conditions of life prior to the advent of Islam, characterized by deviation from the guidance of Allah and the adoption of ungodly systems and ways of life. (Trans.)) Bahirah (the slit-eared) denoted a female camel which had given birth to five calves, the last of which was a male. The ear of such a camel was slit and she was loosed to roam freely; she was not to be ridden, milked, or slaughtered, and was free to eat and drink from any place she liked without hindrance. Saibah referred to a male or female camel which was released to roam freely because of a vow, usually made following a safe return from a journey, the cure of an illness, or for some other reason. As for wasilah, if the firstborn of a female goat were a male, the polytheists would sacrifice him to their gods, while if it were a female they would keep her for themselves. In the case of twin offspring, one female and the other male, they would say, “He is her brother,” and instead of sacrificing the male they would release him to roam free; he was known as wasilah. And if a male camel’s second generation offspring was capable of carrying a rider, they would let the older camel go free, saying, “He saved his back,” and calling him al-ham.

While there are other interpretations of these four terms, they are all of a similar nature. The Qur’an rejected these prohibitions and left no excuse for those who practiced them to follow the errors of their forefathers: Allah did not institute bahirah or saibah or wasilah or ham; but those who disbelieve forge a lie against Allah, and most of them do not use their reason.

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا إِلَىٰ مَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ وَإِلَى الرَّسُولِ قَالُوا حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ آبَاءَنَا ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ آبَاؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْئًا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ

When it is said to them, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ they say, ‘What we found our fathers doing is enough for us.’ What! And even though their fathers did not know anything and were not rightly guided? (5:104)