Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Did the Generations of Post-Moses Israelites Know about the Torah?

Scholars reject the traditional teaching and suggest that the ancient Israelites knew nothing about the Torah until the time of King Josiah (649–609 BCE).[1] Among much else, it is significant that none of the biblical books before this time mention Moses’s Torah; none of the Israelite leaders and prophets, who frequently criticize their nation for its faults, ever criticize them for violating Torah laws; some post-Moses practices are significantly different than those mentioned in Moses’s Torah such as the levirate marriage of Ruth; and there is no indication in the Bible that the Israelites observed important holy days mentioned in the Torah such as the Sabbath and the Festival of Matzot that commemorated the exodus from Egyptian slavery. Joshua and the Israelites totally ignored the clear mandate in Numbers 33:50–56 that the Israelites must expel all Canaanites from Canaan lest they be a thorn upon them and entice them to worship idols. The Israelites not only failed to obey this Torah divine command, there is no indication that they even considered it; it is as if they knew nothing about this Torah command. Instead, they allowed the Canaanites to remain in the country and took tribute from them, until the Canaanites grew strong, became a thorn upon them, and enticed many to worship idols.[2] The following are four examples.

The prophet Micah

The eighth century BCE prophet Micah is an example of a prophet who apparently knew nothing about the Torah. The book of Micah contains seven chapters in which the prophet constantly criticizes both the southern nation of Judah and the northern nation of Israel for improper behavior and promises that they will be destroyed as a consequence of their acts. But despite the catalogue of wrongs, Micah never mentions that they violated the Torah of Moses or failed to observe the holidays, such as the Sabbath and the three festivals of Passover, Shavuot, and Succoth, mentioned in it.

Micah lived at the same time as Amos, Hosea, Jonah, and first Isaiah, around the time of the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE. He berates the people for basic immorality: “they covet fields, and seize them; and houses and take them away; they oppress a man and his household in this way, a man and his heritage” (2:2). “You cast out the women of my people from their pleasant houses; you take away my glory forever from their young children” (2:9). Micah castigates his people for lying, robbery, murder, bribery, priest and prophets charging for their teachings, merchants using deceitful weights, violence, disrespect of parents and in-laws. In 4:2, he mentions that non-Israelites will ascend the mountain of the Lord and God will teach them the divine ways and laws, but he does not mention the Torah of Moses. In 4:6, he states that the Israelites “will walk in the name of the Lord our God for ever and ever,” but does not say that they will observe the Torah of Moses.

In 6:4, Micah states that God sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to redeem the Israelites from Egyptian slavery, as if he did not know that the Torah states he sent only Moses.[3] In 6:6-8, he responds to the people who desire to offer God a thousand rams and ten thousand rivers of oil, and their first-born sons to atone for their transgressions. As in Hosea in 6:6, he tells his people that God does not want sacrifices but moral behavior, and does not mention the Torah. “It has been told to you, man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you: only to act justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with your God.”

Cities of refuge

Despite Moses’s Torah stating that cities of refuge must be established, there is no evidence that such cities were ever created, either in any of the biblical books or other literature. True, they are mentioned in Joshua 20, but since there is no indication they were ever made and in view of other evidence, scholars feel that this chapter was composed centuries after the time of Joshua and it reflects an ideal situation that was never realized.[4]

Cities of refuge are mentioned in Exodus 21:12–14, Numbers 35:9–34, and Deuteronomy 4:41–43; 19:1–13. Numbers and Deuteronomy give details about the cities. In early times, Israelite and non-Israelite communities allowed people who killed other people sanctuary if they took hold of the temple altar. Exodus 21:14 later restricted this practice to only unintentional killings.[5] The Torah established the concept of refuge cities to save the lives of people who negligently but unintentionally killed others; there they would be safe from the revenge of the deceased’s relatives, called “blood avengers.”[6] As long as the manslayer resided in the city, he was safe, but if he left the city, the “blood avenger” could kill him.[7] There were three Levite families and each was assigned two of the six refuge cities.[8]

There are two significant problems relating to cities of refuge. (1) There are differences between these two Torah sources, such as Deuteronomy stating that Moses said that the Israelites should choose the cities of refuge while Numbers has Moses name them, and Numbers states that there should be three such cities in Canaan while Deuteronomy 19 states six.

(2) More significantly, both of these two Torah sources differ with the book of Joshua, as if Joshua did not know about the Torah details.[9]

The Urim and Tummim

The Urim and Tummim is another example suggesting that post-Moses Israelites knew nothing about the Torah until the age of King Josiah. Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, and Deuteronomy 33:8 speak about an Urim and Tummim that the high priest wore to communicate with God in order to secure divine guidance. While Moses was able to speak to God directly, God advises Moses to have Eleazar the priest use the Urim to communicate with God whenever Joshua and the Israelites “go out.” Yet, there is no indication that either Joshua or Eleazar or any other post-Moses person used the Urim in the book of Joshua or any other

biblical book.[10] It is possible that they did not take advantage of its power because it did not exist. The Urim is mentioned in Ezra 2:63 and Nehemiah 7:65 as a hope for the future, but it was not used at the time and these books were composed after the first temple period,[11] when scholars agree the Torah existed. The sole time it is mentioned earlier is in I Samuel 28:6 where it states that God did not answer King Saul by any means, not by dreams, the Urim, or prophets. This may be a late interpolation.

Allowing or Commanding the Institution of a Monarchy

Another seeming proof is Deuteronomy 17:14–20. It states that when Israelites settle in Canaan and desire to appoint a king, they may do so,[12] but the king is restricted in certain ways. Yet I Samuel 8 and 12 describe Israelites requesting the prophet Samuel to appoint a king for them, and he scolds them and says he is opposed to a monarchy. Why didn’t the people respond by reminding him of Deuteronomy 17 or at least discuss whether the people are correct in petitioning for a king? Is it possible that neither they nor he knew anything about Deuteronomy 17?

Were the Israelites Enslaved in Egypt?

Arnold Ehrlich was convinced that the early post-Moses Israelites knew nothing about Moses’s Torah. He even questioned the history of the Israelite enslavement in Egypt.[13] He felt that he could support his view with: (1) None of the prophets, except Micah 6:5, mention the enslavement. (2) Micah 6:5 has a different version than the Five Books of Moses. It states that God sent Moses, Aaron, and Miriam to redeem the Israelites. The Five Books state that only Moses was sent, Aaron was only an assistant to Moses, and Miriam had no role in the redemption other than gathering the women to sing praises that the Israelites were saved at the Red Sea. (3) Scholars say that the song in Deuteronomy 32 is a very old composition. In this version, in 32:40, God found the Israelites in the desert. Thus, Ehrlich feels that the original Israelites were desert nomads who conquered parts of Canaan, settled it, forgot their origin after some generations, and invented a legend that they were saved by God from slavery and brought to Canaan.

Notes:

[1] See II Kings 22–23 and II Chronicles 34–35 for the history of the finding of part of the Torah.

[2] Joshua 22:5 reports Joshua warning the Trans-Jordanian tribes to “heed the commandments and the Torah that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, to love the Lord your God, and to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments, and to cling to him, and to serve him with all your heart and entire being.” This could be seen as a refutation of the idea that the Israelites knew nothing about the Torah: it mentions Moses’s Torah and the words are similar to those in Deuteronomy 6. However, while the term Torah refers today to the Pentateuch or entire Bible or Jewish teachings, it simply means “teachings” when used in the Bible. Also the wording, while similar, is not exact and may not be a quote. As well, scholars claim that the book of Deuteronomy was discovered and used during the reign of King Josiah when the book of Joshua was composed, so this language could have been inserted at that time.

[3] The Targum invents a role for each. Moses to teach religion and law, Aaron to teach how to repent, and Miriam to give instruction to women.

[4] See Olam Hatanakh’s treatment of Joshua 20. Olam Hatanakh, Misrad Hachinuch Vehatarbut, Sifrei Chamad, Yehoshua, notes that some of the cities assigned as cities of refuge and as Levite towns were not conquered by Israel until the time of King David, suggesting a late composition of the book Joshua.

[5] This is discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 12a, and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Rotzei’ach 5:12. See I Kings 1:50 and 2:28–30 for instances in which manslayers sought refuge at an altar. The Roman Catholic Church retains the concept of sanctuary at a church, but not a field altar. The concept that an altar is not so holy that it saves murderers fits in with Maimonides’s concept that nothing has a holy essence; holiness depends on human behavior (Menachem Kellner, Maimonides’ Confrontation with Mysticism [Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2011]).

[6] Discussed in the Babylonian Talmud, Makkot 10a, and Tosephta Makkot 3. The rabbis added many details to this concept (see Makkot 13a and Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Rotzei’ach 8), including designating the forty-two cities assigned to the Levites (Joshua 21 and I Chronicles 6) as additional cities of refuge, making a total of forty-eight.

[7] Numbers 35:27.

[8] Although, as previously stated, Deuteronomy 19 seems to indicate that there are nine cities of refuge.

[9] There is a detailed discussion of the many differences in Olam Hatanakh. For instance, among others: (1) The Torah does not require the manslayer to defend himself before the elders of the city of refuge before he is allowed entry, but Joshua 20:4 does so. (2) 20:6 seems to have conflicting times when the manslayer can leave the city: “until he stands before the community” and “the death of the high priest.”

[10] The Urim and Tummim were placed in the folds of the choshen, a garment worn by the high priest. It contained the name of God and was used by the high priest to consult with God on matters requiring divine guidance (Numbers 27:21). Scripture does not reveal exactly what it looked like, or of what materials it was made of, or exactly how it was used. There is a tradition that the letters on it (in Jacob’s sons’ names) would light up and the high priest, by means of divine inspiration, would interpret their message. The Babylonian Talmud, Yoma 73a–b, states that they are called Urim and Tummim because they bring light (Hebrew: or) and are perfect (Hebrew: tam). Although the Urim is mentioned six times in the Torah (Exodus 28:30, Leviticus 8:8, Numbers 27:21, I Samuel 28:6, Ezra 2:63, and Nehemiah 7:65), we have no evidence that it was ever used. Arguably, this does not prove that the authors of post-Pentateuch books knew nothing about the Urim or that the Israelites never used it because this is “an argument from silence.”

[11] The first temple was destroyed in 586 BCE. Ezra and Nehemiah’s date is unknown, but probably around the fifth century BCE.

[12] Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 1:1) understood that the Torah obligated the Israelites to appoint a king when they entered Canaan.

[13] In his commentary Mikra kiPeshuto.on Numbers 13–15.

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

SLAVERY

Most people are familiar with the word A’bd عبد which means slave or A’beed in the plural عبيد but most do not know that there were many other words used such as:

الرق / رقيق

مملوك/ مملوكة / مماليك

امة /الإماء

خادم/ خادمة / خدام /خادمات

جاري/ جارية / جوار / جاريات

مولى / موالي

لأغر /الغر

ام الولد / امهات الاولاد

and sometimes

غلام

The common myth that most of us hear is that,

”Most of the slaves were black in colour”

and if we did hear differently, it was just by word of mouth and without any proof.

”The Arabs enslaved other than blacks”,

However, there is plenty of proof and in fact there was a period of time when most of the slaves were red ( pale white ) who were from amongst the Persians and Roman people.

Sahih Muslim Book of Oaths

Ayyub said: We were sitting in the company of Abu Musa that he called for food and it consisted of flesh of fowl. It was then that a person from Banu Tamim visited him. His complexion was red resembling a slave. He said to him: Come and (join me in food). He showed reluctance. He (Abu Masa) said: Come on, for I saw Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) eating it (fowl’s meat), whereupon that person said: I saw it eating something and I found it off putting and took an oath that I would never eat that. He said: Come, so that I would narrate to you about that, I came to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) along with a group of people belonging to the tribe of Ash’ari, asking him to provide us with riding camels. He (the Holy Prophet) said: By Allah, I cannot provide you with riding animals. And there is nothing with me with which I can provide you a mount. We stayed there as Allah willed, and there was brought to Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) booty of camels. He called us and commanded that we should be given five white humped camels. As we were about to go back, some of us said to the other: As we made Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) forget his oath, there would be no blessing for us. We went back to him and said: Allah’s Messenger, we came to you to provide us with riding animals and you swore to Allah that you would never equip us with mounts then you have provided us with the riding beasts Allah’s Messenger, have you forgotten? Thereupon he said: I swear by Allah that if Allah so wills, I shall not swear an oath, and then consider something else to be better than it without making atonement for my oath and doing the thing that is better. So you go; Allah, the Exalted and Glorious, has given you riding animals.

حَدَّثَنِي أَبُو الرَّبِيعِ الْعَتَكِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ، – يَعْنِي ابْنَ زَيْدٍ – عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ أَبِي، قِلاَبَةَ وَعَنِ الْقَاسِمِ بْنِ عَاصِمٍ، عَنْ زَهْدَمٍ الْجَرْمِيِّ، – قَالَ أَيُّوبُ وَأَنَا لِحَدِيثِ الْقَاسِمِ، أَحْفَظُ مِنِّي لِحَدِيثِ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ – قَالَ كُنَّا عِنْدَ أَبِي مُوسَى فَدَعَا بِمَائِدَتِهِ وَعَلَيْهَا لَحْمُ دَجَاجٍ فَدَخَلَ رَجُلٌ مِنْ بَنِي تَيْمِ اللَّهِ أَحْمَرُ شَبِيهٌ بِالْمَوَالِي فَقَالَ لَهُ هَلُمَّ ‏.‏ فَتَلَكَّأَ فَقَالَ هَلُمَّ فَإِنِّي قَدْ رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَأْكُلُ مِنْهُ ‏.‏ فَقَالَ الرَّجُلُ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُهُ يَأْكُلُ شَيْئًا فَقَذِرْتُهُ فَحَلَفْتُ أَنْ لاَ أَطْعَمَهُ فَقَالَ هَلُمَّ أُحَدِّثْكَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ إِنِّي أَتَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي رَهْطٍ مِنَ الأَشْعَرِيِّينَ نَسْتَحْمِلُهُ فَقَالَ ‏”‏ وَاللَّهِ لاَ أَحْمِلُكُمْ وَمَا عِنْدِي مَا أَحْمِلُكُمْ عَلَيْهِ ‏”‏ ‏.‏ فَلَبِثْنَا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ فَأُتِيَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِنَهْبِ إِبِلٍ فَدَعَا بِنَا فَأَمَرَ لَنَا بِخَمْسِ ذَوْدٍ غُرِّ الذُّرَى قَالَ فَلَمَّا انْطَلَقْنَا قَالَ بَعْضُنَا لِبَعْضٍ أَغْفَلْنَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَمِينَهُ لاَ يُبَارَكُ لَنَا ‏.‏ فَرَجَعْنَا إِلَيْهِ فَقُلْنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّا أَتَيْنَاكَ نَسْتَحْمِلُكَ وَإِنَّكَ حَلَفْتَ أَنْ لاَ تَحْمِلَنَا ثُمَّ حَمَلْتَنَا أَفَنَسِيتَ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ ‏”‏ إِنِّي وَاللَّهِ إِنْ شَاءَ اللَّهُ لاَ أَحْلِفُ عَلَى يَمِينٍ فَأَرَى غَيْرَهَا خَيْرًا مِنْهَا إِلاَّ أَتَيْتُ الَّذِي هُوَ خَيْرٌ وَتَحَلَّلْتُهَا فَانْطَلِقُوا فَإِنَّمَا حَمَلَكُمُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ ‏”‏ ‏.‏

Ibn Haajjar said in Fath Al Baari , Book Kafaaraat Al Imaan, Chapter 15 Page 406

” The saying Red as if he was from the slaves” commenced in the subject of the 5th of the share of the war booty ” As if he was from the slaves‘ Dawoodi said , ” It means he was from the Roman prisoners of war’‘ just as it is said and if the chain was looked into or not , the Romans are not specified, it could have actually been a slave from the Persians , or the Nabeateans or the Daylamites.”

قال ابن حجر في فتح الباري ، كتاب كفارات الايمان ج ١٥ ص ٤٠٦

‎قوله أحمر كأنه مولى تقدم في فرض الخمس ” كأنه من الموالي ” قال الداودي : يعني أنه من سبي الروم كذا قال فإن كان اطلع على نقل في ذلك وإلا فلا اختصاص لذلك بالروم دون الفرس أو النبط أو الديلم

Abu Lulu the Slave of Mugheera and murderer of Umar bin Al Khattab Radiya Allahu anhu

This is a long authentic narration about when Umar may Allah be pleased with him was stabbed and killed. The word رقيق is used which means slave, to describe the Persian slave Abu Lulu who was the slave of Mughairah.

What is also strikingly significant is what Abdullah ibn Abbas said to Umar may Allah be pleased with them.

Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith 3700 : Book 62, Hadith Vol. 5, Book 57, Hadith 50
Umar said, “O Ibn `Abbas! Find out who attacked me.” Ibn `Abbas kept on looking here and there for a short time and came to say. “The slave of Al Mughira.” On that `Umar said, “The craftsman?” Ibn `Abbas said, “Yes.” `Umar said, “May Allah curse him. I did not treat him unjustly. All the Praises are for Allah Who has not caused me to die at the hand of a man who claims himself to be a Muslim. No doubt, you and your father (Abbas) used to love to have more infidels (Persian disbelievers) in Medina.” Al-Abbas had the greatest number of slaves. Ibn `Abbas said to `Umar. “If you wish, we will do.” He meant, “If you wish we will kill them.” `Umar said, “You are mistaken (for you can’t kill them) after they have spoken your language, prayed towards your Qibla, and performed Hajj like your Hajj...

صحيح البخاري حديث ٣٧٠٠ كتاب ٦٢

‏ قَالَ يَا ابْنَ عَبَّاسٍ، انْظُرْ مَنْ قَتَلَنِي‏.‏ فَجَالَ سَاعَةً، ثُمَّ جَاءَ، فَقَالَ غُلاَمُ الْمُغِيرَةِ‏.‏ قَالَ الصَّنَعُ قَالَ نَعَمْ‏.‏ قَالَ قَاتَلَهُ اللَّهُ لَقَدْ أَمَرْتُ بِهِ مَعْرُوفًا، الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي لَمْ يَجْعَلْ مَنِيَّتِي بِيَدِ رَجُلٍ يَدَّعِي الإِسْلاَمَ، قَدْ كُنْتَ أَنْتَ وَأَبُوكَ تُحِبَّانِ أَنْ تَكْثُرَ الْعُلُوجُ بِالْمَدِينَةِ وَكَانَ ‏{‏الْعَبَّاسُ‏}‏ أَكْثَرَهُمْ رَقِيقًا‏.‏ فَقَالَ إِنْ شِئْتَ فَعَلْتُ‏.‏ أَىْ إِنْ شِئْتَ قَتَلْنَا‏.‏ قَالَ كَذَبْتَ، بَعْدَ مَا تَكَلَّمُوا بِلِسَانِكُمْ، وَصَلَّوْا قِبْلَتَكُمْ وَحَجُّوا حَجَّكُمْ فَاحْتُمِلَ إِلَى بَيْتِهِ فَانْطَلَقْنَا مَعَهُ،

Here is some more on the death of Umar bin Al Khattaab and the Abu Lulu the Persian who killed him.

In Tareeq Al Madinah li Ibn Abi Shaybah, Chapter 3, pages 490- 491

Uyaynatu ibn Hasn said, “Oh leader of the believers,Verily I see the non Arabs (Persians) increasing in number in your country , beware of them. He said (Ameer al Mumimeen) they have been holding onto the ropes of Islam…. Look at red (white skinned) blue eyed from them striving in this (religion of Islam), and he poked his stick into the stomach of Umar may Allah be pleased with with him.”

تاريخ المدينة لابن ابي شيبه ج ٤٩٠ – ٤٩١

فَقَالَ : يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ، إِنِّي أَرَى هَذِهِ الأَعَاجِمَ قَدْ كَثُرَتْ بِبَلَدِكَ فَاحْتَرِسْ مِنْهُمْ ، قَالَ : إِنَّهُمْ قَدِ اعْتَصَمُوا بِالإِسْلامِ ، قَالَ : أَمَا وَاللَّهِ لَكَأَنِّي أَنْظُرُ إِلَى أَحْمَرَ أَزْرَقَ مِنْهُمْ قَدْ جَالَ فِي هَذِهِ ، وَنَخَسَ بِأُصْبُعِهِ فِي بَطْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ

Ibn Asaakir narrates in Taarikh Al Damashq that….

… Nusayb entered on the leader of the believers Abdul Maalik Ibn Marwaan , Marwan told him to tell him a story and Nusayb said that he got hold of a Red slave : meaning : white ……

قال ابن عساكر في تاريخ الدشق حرف النون » ذكر من اسمه نصر » نُصَيْبُ بْنُ رَبَاحٍ أَبُو مِحْجَنٍ مَوْلَى عَبْدِ …

أنبأنا أبو سعد أحمد بن عبد الجبار بن الطيوري ، عن القاسم أبي التنوخي ، وأبي محمد الجوهري ، وأنبأنا أبو الفوارس هبة الله بن أحمد بن سوار ، وأبو بكر أحمد بن علي بن جبير ، وأبو البركات الأنماطي ، قَالَوا : أخبرنا أبو الحسين بن الطيوري ، أخبرنا الجوهري ، قَالا : أخبرنا أبو عمر بن حَيَّوَيْهِ ، نا محمد بن خلف بن المرزبان ، نا محمد بن يزيد المهلبي ، عن محمد بن سلام ، قَالَ : دخل نصيب على يزيد بن عبد الملك بن مروان ، فقَالَ له : حدثني ببعض ما مر عليك ، قَالَ : نعم يا أمير المؤمنين ، علقت جارية حمراء ؛ يعني : بيضاء ، فمكثت زمانا تمنيني الأباطيل ، فلما ألححت عليها ، قَالَت : إليك عني ، فوالله لكأنك من طوارق الليل ، فقلت : وأنت والله كأنك من طوارق النهار ، فقَالَت : ما أظرفك ، فغضبت من قولها ، فقَالَت : وهل تدري ما الظرف ؟ الظرف العقل ، ثم قَالَت لي : انصرف حتى أنظر في أمرك ، فأرسلت إليها بهذة الأبيات : فإن أك حالكا فالمسك أحوي وما لسواد جلدي من دواء ولي كرم عن الفحشاء يأبى كبعد الأرض من جو السماء ومثلي في رحالكم قليل ومثلي لا يرد عن النساء فإن ترضي فردي قول راض وإن تأبي فنحن على السواء قَالَ : فلما قرأت الكتاب ، قَالَت : المال والعقل يعقبان على غيرهما ، فزوجتني نفسها

In Al Muntadim Chapter 6 page 191

.. that Yazeed Ibn Naeem the father of Shabeeb was with those that were in the army of Salmaan Ibn Rabea when it was sent with Al Waleed Ibn Uqbah on the authority of Uthmaan Ibn Affaan to expand the military expeditions of Al Shaam to the land of the Romans. And when the Muslims had locked up the captives and rounded them up for sale, Yazeed saw a red female slave who wasn’t black or blue eyed and was tall and beautiful

المنتظم – ج ٦ ص١٩١

وقد روى أبو مخنف، عن فروة بن لقيط: أن يزيد بن نعيم أبا شبيب كان ممن دخل في جيش سلمان بن ربيعة إذ بعث به الوليد بن عقبة على أمر عثمان بن عفان إياه بذلك مددا لأهل الشام إلى أرض الروم، فلما قفل المسلمون أقيم السبي للبيع، فرأى يزيد بن نعيم جارية حمراء، لا شهلاء، ولا زرقاء، طويلة جميلة، تأخذها العين، فابتاعها وذلك سنة خمس وعشرين أول السنة، فلم أدخلها الكوفة قال: أسلمي، فأبت فضربها فلم تزدد إلا عصيانا، فأمر بها فأصلحت له، ثم أدخلت عليه، فلما تغشاها حملت فولدت له شبيبا…” (المنتظم- ج2 ص274)

Yaa son of a red woman

Ibn Atheer narrates in his book Al Nihaayah Fee Ghareeb Al Hadeeth Wal Athar Chapter 1 Page 440

”And in the hadeeth Ali .. A man from the mawaali(clients) opposed him so Ali said , ” Shut up you son of a red Ijaan ” ,meaning son of a slave woman. The Al Ijaan is the area between the anus and the scrotum or vulva” and this is the way the Arabs talk when being derogatory and insulting”

(In Ghareeb Al Hadeeth by Ibn al Jawzy Chapter 1 Page 241 Ibn Al jawzi repeats this.)

قال ابن اثير في كتابه النهاية في غريب الحديث ج ١ ص ٤٤٠

قال مجد الدين أبي السعادات المبارك بن محمد (ابن الأثير) في النهاية في غريب الحديث والأثر – حرف الحاء – باب الحاء مع الميم

هـ ) وفي حديث علي ” عارضه رجل من الموالي فقال : اسكت يا ابن حمراء العجان ” أي يا ابن الأمة ، والعجان ما بين القبل والدبر ، وهي كلمة تقولها العرب في السب والذم .

In Kitaab Jawaaher A Uqood wa Maeen Al Qadhaah wa Al Shuhood, Chapter 1 pages 96-97 , Imaam Al Suyooti narrates:

”And if the sale is of slaves, then the slaves differ in their races and their quality. As for the Turkish, they come in different types, and Qiyyaat, and Naimaan, and Mughal, and Qabjaq, and Khataamy, Jarkas, Russians and Was and Bulgarian and Tataar, and Aaq, and Jaqatay, and Karaj, and Romans , and Armenians.

and the Sudaan races: Amhari Habashi, Takroori , Nubian , Zaghaawi, Daajawi, Indian, Khalaanji, Bejaawi , Zinji,Yemeni , Saruwi, Muwallad( mixed raced )”

Note: Imam As Suyooti was referring to quite modern events and not ancient history (1445–1505 AD).

جواهر العقود و معين القضاة و الموقعين و الشهود الجزء الاول صفحات٩٦~٩٧

وإن كان المبيع رقيقا، فالرقيق تختلف أجناسه وحلاه فالتركي منه أنواع قياط، ونيمان، ومغل، وقبجق، وخطامي، وجركس، وروس وآص، وبلغار، وتتر، وآق وجقطاي، وكرج، وروم، وأرمن

والسودان أجناس: أمحري حبشي، وتكروريونوبي، وزغاوي، وداجوي، وهندي، وخلنجي، وبجاوي، وزنجي، ويمني، وسروي، ومول

The slave Safeenah

There is much talk about the slave called Safeenah may Allah have mercy on him but little do people know about his ethnicity .

Al Bidaayah wa Al Nihaayah Chapter 8 page 261

And from them is Safeenah , Abu Abdur Rahman , and it was said Abu Al Buhtaar, his name was Mihran , it is Abas and it is said ( he was ) red ( pale white in colour) and it is said Rumaaan . So the Prophet Mohammed May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him nicknamed him Safeenah so we will mention him as he was most commonly mentioned as. And he was the slave of Umm Salamah , so she released him under the condition that he serves the Prophet Mohammed May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him , until he dies. …….. and he is from mixed raced parents with Arab blood and he originates from the sons of the Persians.

البداية و النهاية الجزء الثامن صفحة ٢٦١

ومنهم سفينة أبو عبد الرحمن . ويقال : أبو البختري . كان اسمه مهران وقيل : عبس . وقيل : أحمر . وقيل : رومان .فلقبه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سفينة لسبب سنذكره ، فغلب عليه ، وكان مولى لأم سلمة ، فأعتقته واشترطت عليه أن يخدم رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم حتى يموت ، فقبل ذلك ، …… . وهو من مولدي العرب ، وأصله من أبناء فارس
البداية و النهاية الجزء الثامن صفحة ٢٦١

In Tareekh Al Tabary chapter 3 pages 171 – 172

Safeenah , some people say that he originated from the non Arabs of Persia and that his mother was Habashiyyah and his father was Persian.

تاريخ الطبري الجزء الثالث صفحات ١٧١~١٧٢
سفينه …يقال بعضهم اصله الي عجم الفارس و كانت امه حبشية و ابه فارسيا

In Tareekh Al Tabary chapter 3 pages 176 Another slave called Abu Dhameerah was also described

”Some of his blood relations were Persian and it was determined that verily he was from the non Arab Persians”

وأبو ضميرة- كان بعض نسابة الفرس زعم أنه من عجم الفرس، ……….صفحة ١٧٦

Maariyyah Al Qitbiiyah , Al Isaabah fee Tamyeez Al Sahaabah page 1958

Maariyyah Al Qitbiyyah was a slave and a daughter of a slave woman….. And Baladhaari said” Maariyyah Al Qitbiyyah’s mother was Roman and Maariyyah was white skinned with kinky hair and beautiful.”

مارية القطبية، الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة ص ١٩٥٨

……. مارية القبطية أم ولد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم……….. وقال البلاذري كانت أم مارية رومية وكانت مارية بيضاء جعدة جميلة

RRR

Read how the word white was used in the past.

Bukhari Book of blood money, Section : The foetus of a women

On the authority of Abi Hurairah May Allah be pleased him said, ” Two women from Hudail fought each other and one of them threw the other and caused her to have a miscarriage so the Prophet May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him gave a verdict that the payment for this is by way of (paying with) a slave.”

كِتَابُ الدِّيَاتِ بَابُ جَنِينِ المَرْأَةِ

حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ يُوسُفَ أَخْبَرَنَا مَالِكٌ وَحَدَّثَنَا إِسْمَاعِيلُ حَدَّثَنَا مَالِكٌ عَنِ ابْنِ شِهَابٍ عَنْ أَبِي سَلَمَةَ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّ امْرَأَتَيْنِ مِنْ هُذَيْلٍ رَمَتْ إِحْدَاهُمَا الأُخْرَى فَطَرَحَتْ جَنِينَهَا فَقَضَى رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ فِيهَا بِغُرَّةٍ عَبْدٍ أَوْ أَمَةٍ

( ر 6904 )

Al Khateeb Al Sharabeeny , in his book Al Iqnaa’ fee Hal Al Faadh Abi Shujaa’ . Chapter 2 page 513 .said,”

”… And the root of (payment) is with a white slave, the whiteness that (you see) in the face Persians, and for this was a condition of Amroo Ibn Al Alaa that the slaves be a white man or white woman …… but that wasn’t a condition for most”…

الخطيب الشربيني

الإقناع في حل ألفاظ أبي شجاع ج 2 ص 513

القَوْل فِي دِيَة الْجَنِين وفِي دِيَة الْجَنِين الْحر الْمُسلم غرَّة لخَبر الصَّحِيحَيْنِ أَنه صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم قضى فِي الْجَنِين بغرة عبد أَو أمةوأصل الْغرَّة الْبيَاض فِي وَجه الْفرس وَلِهَذَا شَرط عَمْرو بن الْعَلَاء أَن يكون العَبْد أَبيض وَالْأمة بَيْضَاء…. وَلم يشْتَرط الْأَكْثَرُونَ ذَلِك

kAl Sirkhamsee said in his book Al Mabsoot Chapter 26 , page 87.

‘If a man hits the stomach of a pregnant woman and causes her to have a miscarriage then he has to pay ( blood money ) by giving a male or female slave . He can rectify the situation by giving 500 and a ghurrah slave according to some of the scholars of language is that the slave must be white .”

السَّرْخَسيّ في المبسوط ج 26 ص 87

”وَإِذَا ضَرَبَ الرَّجُلُ بَطْنَ الْمَرْأَةِ فَأَلْقَتْ جَنِينًا مَيِّتًا فَفِيهِ غُرَّةٌ عَبْدٌ أَوْ أَمَةٌ يَعْدِلُ ذَلِكَ بِخَمْسِمِائَةٍ وَالْغُرَّةُ عِنْدَ بَعْضِ أَهْلِ اللُّغَةِ الْمَمْلُوكُ الْأَبْيَضُوَمِنْهُ غُرَّةُ الْفَرَسِ وَهُوَ الْبَيَاضُ الَّذِي عَلَى جَبِينِهِ

Al Khumaydy . Gharreb Al Hadeth ma fee Sahehayn Al Bukhaari wa Muslim (Page 423)

”GHURRAH is a male or female slave whiteness all over the body . …. And Abu Amroo In Alaa says in his explanation ” The Ghurrah is a not anyone except that he is from the white slaves”

تفسير غريب ما في الصحيحين البخاري ومسلم ( ص 423 )الحَمِيدي

”غرَّة عبد أَو أمة قالَ أَبُو عبيد الْغرَّة عبد أَو أمة أَي أَنه عني بالغرة الْجِسْم كُله وَقيل الْغرَّة…وَكَانَ أَبُو عَمْرو بن الْعَلَاء يَقُول فِي تَفْسِير غرَّة الْجِنْس الَّذِي لَا يكون إِلَّا الْأَبْيَض من الرَّقِيق

;

In Al Atheer said in Al Nihaayah Fee Ghareeb Al Hadeeth , Chapter 3 page 354

”It is permissible to want any type of valuable slave ….

”Al Ghurra ; plural Al Agharr : whiteness of the face is: he meant the whiteness and their bright faces with light of the day of judgement”

قال ابن اثير النهاية في غريب الحديث والأثر ج٣ ص ١٥٤

ويجوز أن يكون أراد بالغرة النفيس من كل شيء

الغر : جمع الأغر ، من الغرة : بياض الوجه ، يريد بياض وجوههم بنور الوضوء يوم القيامة .

Note : ‘Although it is quite obvious that there were both black and white slaves , some of the scholars believed that there was no condition that the slave had to be white or from Persia and that a black slave or black person can also be called white as the meaning of white can also mean pure , bright and something good.” This can also work the opposite way , as a white person can also be called black if they were sad or evil. The word black can also be used in a positive way too examples of this can be found here.

BUQAA’N

According to the scholars the word Buqaan means a mixed raced people who have Arab fathers whom are black and white non Arab mothers that the Arabs took a slaves.

Zamkashri reports in his book Al Faaiq Fee Ghareeb Al Hadeeth Chapter 1 page 124

” The Buqaan of Shaam will seek to rule you and it is said he meant the mixed raced ones , mixed between Arab men and Roman women who will mate and mix the blackness from the Arab men and the whiteness from the non Arab women.”

أَبُو هُرَيْرَة رَضِي الله عَنهُ يُوشك أَن يسْتَعْمل عَلَيْكُم بقعان أهل الشَّاموَقيل أَرَادَ المولدين بَين الْعَرَب والروميات لجمعهم بَين سَواد لون الْآبَاء وَبَيَاض لون الْأُمَّهَات

What was the lineage of the great scholar Abu Ubayd AlQaasim Ibn Salaam? According to Imam Al Dhahabi, this great scholar was a white slave descendant

In Seera A’lam AlNubala, the great Imam Al Dhahabi narrates:

”His father Salam was a Roman slave for a Haraawy(tribe name) man”

سير أعلام النبلاء.

”كان أبوه سلام مملوكا روميا لرجل هروي”

What did Abu Ubayd AlQaasim Ibn Salaam (the person being spoken about above) say about the Buqaan?

Abu Ubayd AlQaasim Ibn Saalam gives an explanation of this word (Buqaan) in his book Ghareeb Al Hadeeth. Chapter 4 Page 206

” The saying ‘Buqaan means the whiteness of the servants of Shaam , they are only from the Roman and the Slavic races, so they were named Buqaan because of their whiteness. And for this it is said that for the the blackness of the crow if it has some whiteness and it is the worst type of crow. They became an example of things that are filthy.

غريب الحديث ج 4 ص 206

قَوْله بقعان أَرَادَ الْبيَاض لِأَن الخدَم بِالشَّام إِنَّمَا هم الرّوم والصقالبة فسماهم بُقعان للبياض وَلِهَذَا قيل للغراب أبقع إِذا كَانَ فِيهِ بَيَاض وَهُوَ أَخبث مَا يكون من الغِربان فَصَارَ مثلا لكل خَبِيث

Lisaan Al Arab , Chapter 7 page 17

”Soon the Buqaan of Shaam will seek to rule you “what is meant here Is the Arabs’s slaves and slave soldiers, they are called that because of their mixed colour , as whiteness and yellowness is the dominant colour amongst them. Al Qutaibi said: “The buq’aan are those who have blackness and whiteness, it is not said abq’a to one who is white without blackness mixed with it, and the meaning is that the Arabs with marry the Roman slave girls then their offspring will rule over shaam and their offspring ( بقعان) together between BLACKNESS of the Arab (Fathers) and the whiteness of their Roman (mothers).” And they are from the Arabs and they are BLACK and from the people of Rome, they are white . And the Arabs never married the Romans before this and the slaves of the Arabs were black skinned. And the Arabs say ‘ ” The black and the red came to me , meaning the Arab and the Ajam . He didn’t intend to mean that the children of the slaves are from the Arabs are Buqi’ like the Buqi’ of the crow. He meant that they (the buq’aan) took from the blackness of their fathers (the Arabs) and the whiteness of their mothers (the Romans).’’

لسان العرب ج ٧ ص ١٧

يوشك أن يستعمل عليكم بقعان الشام ” أراد عبيدها ومماليكها ، سموا بذلك لاختلاط ألوانهم ، فإن الغالب عليهم البياض والصفرة . وقال القتيبي : البقعان الذين فيهم سواد وبياض ، ولا يقال لمن كان أبيض من غير سواد يخالطه أبقع ، فكيف يجعل الروم بقعانا وهم بيض خلص ؟ قال : وأرى أبا هريرة أراد أن العرب تنكح إماء الروم فتستعمل عليكم أولاد الإماء ، وهم من بني العرب وهم سود ومن بني الروم وهم بيض ولم تكن العرب قبل ذلك تنكح الروم إنما كان إماؤها سودانا ، والعرب تقول : أتاني الأسود والأحمر ، يريدون العرب والعجم ولم يرد أن أولاد الإماء من العرب بقع كبقع الغربان ، وأراد أنهم أخذوا من سواد الآباء وبياض الأمهات

HAJEEN

The word Hajeen is a word similar to the word buqaan.

In Kaamil Al Mubarrad Chapter 2 page 147, he explains the meaning of this word by first mentioning some lines of poetry.

“Verily the sons /children of the concubines have grown in number amongst us, Oh Lord enter me into a land where there are no Hajeen in it”

ان اولاد السراري كثروا يا رب فينا رب أدخلني بلادا لاارائ فيها هجينا

He said , the Hajeen to the Arabs means a father who is shareef and a mother who is a lowlife weak individual and the root of that is because they are SLAVES. And it is only said Hajeen to mean WHITE : Meaning the Romans , the Slavic( groups) and those that resemble them. And the evidence for that is the Hajeen are white and the Arabs say “It’s not hidden from anyone about the black and the red meaning the Arab and the Ajam (respectively) and they call the slaves and the rest of the Ajam الحمراء.

والهجين عند العرب: الذي أبوه شريفٌ وأمّه وضيعة?، والأصل في ذلك أن تكون أمّةً، وإنما قيل: “هجين” من أجل البياض، وكأنهم قصدوا قصد الرّوم والصّقالبة ومن أشبههم، والدليل على أن الهجين الأبيض أن العرب تقول: ما يخفى ذلك على الأسود والحمر، أي العربي والعجميّ، ويسمّون الموالي وسائر العجم الحمراء

Note: Understanding the way this mixture happened is crucial as the Arabs take their lineage from their father’s. The mother’s lineage is disregarded and irrelevant to them now which is why they find it difficult to believe how they changed colour and race in general.

In conclusion,

The early Arabs enslaved every and anyone of those who deserved to be enslaved after a war and freed whomsoever they wanted free after war including other Arabs who were their first main set of slaves. The early Arabs were not Muslims and that must be distinguished between the slavery carried out by the Prophet Mohammed and the righteous predecessors whom encouraged the releasing of slaves. The righteous Muslims would only enslave their enemies after wars and would treat them well and eventually release them . This was the way of most people and civilisations in that period. Anyone whom the Muslims enslaved such as the Persians and the Romans and even the people of Habasha also practised slavery The people of Habasha even enslaved the Arabs in part of Yemen in the pre Islamic period.

It is totally incorrect to assume that a slave was from Habasha or Al Zanj or any other dark skinned ” African” race because of his or her colour, as the scholars have mentioned the Arabs in the time of the Prophet may Allah’s peace be upon him were black and brown too and black people in general.

Ibn Sayaadh made clear to us in his book Al Muhkam Wal Muheet Al Adham , chapter 4 page 209.

المحكم والمحيط الأعظم ج ٤ ص ٢٠٩

فهم عرب، وألوانهم الأدمة والسمرة والسواد”

Not only did Ibn Sayaadah say this but all of the Arab and non Arab Muslim historians have also said similar. Read more about the explanation of the authentic narration : I was sent to the reds and the blacks/ بعث الى الاحمر و الاسود here

The Arabs had very little contact with red people (pale white) until they conquered reds ( pale white ) which became the majority of the slaves due to the countries of the reds ( pale white ) being totally taken over. Hence why Imam Al Dhahabi ( Seera A’laam Al Nubalaa, Chapter 2, page 168) said that

‘“Red, in the dialect of the Hijaazi people means a pale white complexion and it was a colour that was rare amongst them.”

سير اعلام النبلاء ج ٢ ص ١٦٨

الحمراء ، في خطاب أهل الحجاز : هي البيضاء بشقرة ، وهذا نادر فيهم

Note: Hijaaz is the western region of Saudi Arabia. It comprises of the cities Mecca, Medina, Jeddah, Tabuk, Yanbu and Taif

This also means that the Children of Israel who were following the Jewish faith at that time were also similar in colour to the Arabs and definitely NOT from the reds as they would’ve been referred to as the reds.

The colour of most the slaves was red ( pale white ) as documented at particular points in the days of the Sahaabah. When Persia and Rome were taken over almost right after one another, the Persians and the Romans were enslaved in masses.

Islamic slavery and more recent so called modern Islamic slavery must also be distinguished. Stories related to harems, their eunuch guards, slaves being castrated and treated like cattle have no place in Islam and we do not find this in the teachings and actions of the Prophet Mohammed may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, nor do we find this in the teachings and actions of the righteous predecessors.

The Israelites may not have known about Moses’ Torah until around 620 BCE

written by RABBI DR. ISRAEL DRAZIN

It appears that the Israelites knew nothing about Moses’ Torah before a book of the Torah was found in the Temple around 620 BCE, a story told in II Kings 22. Scholars contend that there are many indications in the biblical books that support this view. During the writing of my 35th book, “Who was the Biblical Prophet Samuel,” a book that Gefen Publishing house will publish later this year, in which I examined only the 200 verses in the book of Samuel that deal with Samuel, I found 31 supports for this view and also verses that seem to show that the author of Samuel may not have known about the books of Joshua and Judges.

Like all the biblical books after the Pentateuch and before the time of King Josiah (649-609 BCE), no mention is made in Samuel of the Torah.
This is especially troublesome in the book of Samuel. The prophet criticizes King Saul for two wrongs and makes them the basis for why Saul’s dynasty will cease, one of which was that he did not utterly destroy the tribe of Amalek.[1] As strongly as Samuel wanted to berate the king, why didn’t he say that Saul violated the Torah which requires the eradication of Amalek, and why in chapter 28 does he not tell the king he disobeyed the Torah law in Leviticus 20:27 and Deuteronomy 18:11 against using diviners?
Even when the biblical books criticize the Israelites for improper behavior, neither the leaders of the people nor prophets mention that they violated the Torah. It was not until II Kings 22:8ff that scripture relates that a Sefer Torah, “book of the Torah,” was found.
According to the Torah, only descendants of Aaron may function as priests in the temple and only members of the tribe of Levi may assist them.[2] The service of the Levites began at age 25 and ended at age 50.[3] This raises the question: What function was Samuel supposed to perform in the temple since the book of Samuel seems to say he was of the tribe of Ephraim and not Levi and since he was a child, below age 25?
Elkanah gave his wife Hannah manah achat apayim, which literally means “a double portion.” Leviticus 7:15 mandates that people offering sacrifices must eat it on the day of the sacrifice and not leave any of it until morning.[4] If Hannah received so much food, she could not have consumed it in the one day, and, as Ehrlich argues, this would violate Torah law. Accordingly, the Targum, Rashi, Radak, and others explain the words to mean “a choice part of the sacrificial meat.”
When Elkanah gave his beloved wife Hannah a double portion, he ignored the clear lesson that the Torah highlights about treating one wife or one son better than another. Jacob treated Rachel and Joseph better than his other wives and sons with the result that there was strife between Leah and Rachel, just as between Peninnah and Hannah, and Jacob’s sons teamed up to kill Joseph, which ended with the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt.[5]
Since the Torah in Numbers 30:3-17 allowed Elkanah to annul his wife’s vow to give up her son to the temple, why didn’t he do so? Did he not know about the Torah law? Did he not do so because Hannah felt so strongly that she should give up her son? If so, why did she act so unreasonably – the Torah allowed her to keep Samuel home?
Why does chapter 1 indicate that Elkanah’s family only visited the temple annually when the Torah demands three visits a year?
Although the ish elohim[6] goes into some detail in delineating the wrongs committed by Eli’s sons in chapter 2, why didn’t he mention that they violated the law of the Torah regarding sacrifices?
Verse 2:18 indicates that Samuel wore a linen ephod contrary to Torah law that only the high priest can wear the ephod.[7] This problem reappears in II Samuel 6:14 which states that King David donned an ephod.
Ehrlich contended that 2:27 and 28 are problem verses because contrary to the words of the ish elohim, God did not appear to Moses’ brother Aaron in Egypt and did not chose him there to be a priest and wear an ephod and allow him to eat parts of the sacrifices. In fact, according to Ehrlich, God never spoke to Aaron until after the erection of the tabernacle; all prior communications to Aaron where transmitted to him through Moses.
Verse 3:3 describes Samuel sleeping “in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was.” The rabbis pointed out that this was not allowed and amended the text.[8] The Aramaic translation, called Targum, for instance, states that he slept in the chamber of the Levites, and Gersonides wrote that he slept in an adjacent room, both saying what is contrary to the plain reading of Samuel 3:3.
In 4:8 the Philistines heard that the ark was brought into the Israelite camp which they had planned to attack. Thinking the Israelites had many gods, they wailed: “Woe is us! Who will deliver us from the hand of the mighty gods? These are the gods who smote the Egyptians with all kinds of plagues in the wilderness.” The mistaken notion of the Philistines that the Israelites were polytheists aside, is it possible that the author of Samuel did not know that the plagues were inflicted in Egypt not in the wilderness? This bothered the translators of the Septuagint and the Aramaic Peshitta who changed the text to “and in the desert.” It also bothered traditional commentators. Rashi and Altschuler, for example, explain that “desert” means the Red Sea where God destroyed the Egyptian army.
Chapter 6:14 describes the Israelites celebrating the return of the ark that had been captured by the Philistines by, among other things, sacrificing female cows to God. This is a violation of Torah law in Leviticus 1:10. The problem reoccurs in 7:9 when Samuel offers a female as an offering. The Babylonian Talmud Avoda Zara 24b states this was an exigent circumstance, which Ehrlich mocks saying the rabbis come up with this solution whenever such a problem arises; there certainly wasn’t an emergency here, the people were celebrating and did not have to make the offering.
6:14, where the people offer a sacrifice violates the law of Deuteronomy 12:10 which restricts sacrifices to “the place which the Lord your God shall choose.” The problem also exists in 7:17 where Samuel builds an altar in Ramah. The Talmud explains that after the destruction of Shiloh, when there was no longer a central sanctuary, sacrifices could be brought anywhere. There are several problems with this proposed solution. (1) There is no statement in the Torah that God ever chose Shiloh, and the Deuteronomy verse may mean that the Torah prefers one central location. If so, with the destruction of Shiloh, the people should have selected another central location and not allowed sacrifices everywhere. (2) There are many instances in scripture where people brought sacrifices outside of Shiloh or a central sanctuary, which seems to indicate that the Israelites offered sacrifices at will whenever and wherever they wanted to do so. Examples are the sacrifices of Gideon and the prophet Elijah.[9]
In 6:19, God “smote the men of Beth-shemesh because they looked at the ark of the Lord.” Over fifty thousand men were killed. Since looking at the ark is not prohibited, especially in this situation where it had just been returned to the Israelites, Kimchi suggest that, contrary to what is stated, the Israelites did something more, such as opening the ark to see its contents or treating it disrespectfully. Chapter 6 is also in conflict with II Samuel 6:6 where one man touched the ark and God killed him and no one else. In that section, the Israelites brought up the ark under the direction of King David and, contrary to the mandate of Numbers 3:31, 7:9, which states that the ark can only be moved on the shoulders of Levites, the ark was also driven in a cart.[10]
The ark was placed with Eleazar for twenty years after its return from the Philistines,[11] but there is no indication that Eleazar was a priest or a Levite.[12]
In 7:3, Samuel tells the people that they lost the war with the Philistines because of idol worship, and the way to secure divine aid in the future is to stop worshipping foreign gods and direct their hearts to God and serve him only. The Israelites did as Samuel instructed and were able to subdue the Philistines. The question arises again, if the Torah existed during the time of Samuel, why didn’t he tell them to observe the Torah?
In Samuel 8, the people demanded that Samuel appoint a king to rule over them. Samuel did not want to do it and only agreed when God told him to accept the people’s demand. Why didn’t the people and God say to Samuel that the Torah explicitly allows the appointment of a king in Deuteronomy 14? Also why didn’t Samuel know this and when he speaks about what a king will do, why doesn’t he include the items mentioned in Deuteronomy 14?
Verse 9:9 states that a person who is called today navi, “prophet,” was previously called ro’eh, “seer.” The narrator seemingly knew nothing about the Torah. The facts are just the opposite. The term navi, “prophet,” appears eighteen times in the Pentateuch, while the two synonyms for “seer,” ro’eh and chozeh, never appear in the Pentateuch. In contrast, ro’eh is found twelve times in Samuel and chozeh
The description of the location of Rachel’s tomb in 10:2 differs with the one in Genesis 35:16ff and 48:8 suggesting that the author of the book of Samuel was unfamiliar with the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch.
Leviticus 20:27 states that mediums and spiritists should be killed. Deuteronomy 18:11 calls the two kinds of witches an abomination and states they should be driven out of the land.[13] Yet neither the Bible in verse 28:3 nor the witch in verse 28:9 state that the command is biblical, and say instead that it is a decree by Saul, as if neither the author of Samuel nor any character in the book, including Samuel knew about the existence of the Torah.
The Urim is mentioned in Exodus 28:30, Numbers 27:21, Deuteronomy 33:8, as an instrument whereby the Israelites could communicate with God, but it does not appear in Joshua, Judges, and Samuel, except in 28:6.[14] This is a further indication that the author of these books did not know about the Torah. In fact, I Samuel 10:19–24 states that Saul was chosen as king by lots, 14:42 has King Saul using lots. Lots rather than the Pentateuchal Urim was the means of communication with God. Joshua used it in Joshua 7 to determine who was a guilty party, and Jonah’s guilt was established by frightened sailors in Jonah 1:7 by lots. The ancient Greeks also used lots, as seen in Odyssey 6:6, Plato’s Laws 5, 745, and other places.
With all the significance placed upon the ark, that it was “the seat of God,” that God spoke to Moses from between the cherubim that covered it,[15] why wasn’t the Torah set inside of it during the post-Moses period; the Torah with the multitude of commands is certainly more significant than the close to a dozen commands in the Decalogue? Is it possible that the more significant Torah was not placed in the ark because it did not exist until it was found during the reign of King Josiah, as many scholars claim? Is it also possible that the current practice of placing Torah scrolls inside synagogue arks and setting a replica of the Decalogue outside its enclosure, confirms that it was only after the discovery of the Torah that Judaism felt that it must place the Torah in the sacred place?
Some people may suppose that Deuteronomy 31:24-26 is opposite to what is stated above, for these verses say that Moses commanded the Levites to place “this Torah” on the “side” of the ark so that the people will be reminded when they see it that they will be punished if they abandon God. The words “this Torah,” stated twice, refers to the prior teaching that the people should not abandon God, for if they do so, they will be punished. The word “Torah” here, as in all other appearances in the Pentateuch, means “teaching,” a single teaching. Thus, the Torah was not placed inside the ark. Besides, the parchment was not placed in the ark, but on its side.
Having mentioned Deuteronomy 31:24-26, we see another problem, the Pentateuch states the Torah, meaning the parchment warning about punishments if the people abandon God, why didn’t the prophets who berated the Israelites repeatedly that they will be punished for abandoning God, mention this “Torah” that the Pentateuch states was on the side of the ark?
Verse 12:6 states that Moses and Aaron brought the Israelites out of Egypt. Strictly speaking, Aaron was not involved in bringing the Israelites out of Egypt. He was at best an assistant. In fact, God never speaks to him directly until he is high priest. Arguably, this is another indication that the author of Samuel was unfamiliar with the Pentateuch.[16]
In both the story of Joshua trying to find out who caused the Israelite defeat[17] and Saul’s attempt to discover who violated his oath in chapter 14, a lottery was used to identify the culprit, but the final decision that he was the guilty party and be sentenced to death was based on confessions. Both stories may be in violation of Torah law that a person may not testify against himself.[18]
According to a literal reading of chapter 14, Saul’s army returned from battle with cattle as booty and ate the cattle with the blood. This would be a violation of the prohibition in Leviticus 19:26 and Deuteronomy 18:10.
Saul appears to have violated the Torah in 14:34, which allows sacrifices only during the day. But, the Babylonian Talmud[19] tries to justify Saul’s act by saying that the biblical rule only applies to a national altar or because the animals were not sacrifices.
Samuel orders Saul to destroy the Amalek in chapter 15 but fails to mention that Moses and Joshua defeated the tribe, a story told in Exodus 17:8-16.

The book of Samuel also raises the question whether the author knew about the biblical books of Joshua and judges. It is possible that he did not because these two books were perhaps composed after the author of Samuel wrote his book, and the author relied on oral reports of the past that were sometimes contrary to what later appeared in Joshua and Judges. For example:

Verse 12:8 states that Moses and Aaron brought the Israelites into Canaan. If taken literally, as Ehrlich does, this is contrary to what is stated in the Pentateuch. Moses and Aaron did not bring the Israelites into Canaan. It was Joshua, who is not mentioned in the chapter.
Only four of the more than a dozen judges are identified in 12:11; Bedan is named but is not in the book of Judges, although tradition supposes that Bedan refers to Samson who was of the tribe of Dan, and Bedan is understood as Ben Dan, a member of (the tribe of) Dan.
The Book of Samuel implies that there were many citizens of the tribe of Benjamin were alive during the days of Samuel which was not long after the civil war described at the end of the biblical book of Judges which states that all but 600 males were alive in the tribe of Benjamin and only 400 virgins in Jabesh-gilead. While the accounts in Judges were most likely exaggerated statements and many more people survived, as indicated in Samuel, it is also possible that the Samuel author did not know what is stated in the book of Judges.

The fact that most biblical books have no idea that the Pentateuch existed is not unique to the book of Samuel. I pointed out examples in all of my “Unusual Bible Interpretations” books, in Joshua, Judges, Amos, Hosea, Esther, and Ruth. Rabbi Evan Hoffman showed the problem in Ezekiel in his weekly “Thoughts on the Parashah” of April 9, 2016. He wrote:

“The discrepancies are many: Ezekiel instructs the priests to wear only linen vestments when ministering in the Temple’s inner courtyard (44:17). According to the Pentateuch, the priestly uniform was made partly out of wool (Exodus 28:5). Ezekiel forbids priests to marry widows, with the exception of women widowed from priests (44:22). The Torah permits priests to marry widows. Only the High Priest is forbidden to marry a widow and is required to marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:7, 13-14). Ezekiel instructs priests undergoing the process of ritual purification to wait an additional seven days before re-entering the Temple compound (44:26). No such requirement appears in the Pentateuch. Numbers 19:19 states, without any caveat, that a person is entirely pure after the sprinkling ritual, immersion, and nightfall on the close of the seventh day. Ezekiel forbids priests to eat carrion or the flesh of torn beasts, possibly implying that non-priests are permitted to eat such meat (44:31). The Torah, however, prohibits all Israelites from eating neveilah and tereifah (Exodus 22:30, Deuteronomy 14:21). Ezekiel instructs the prince of the nation to sacrifice a bull on Rosh Chodesh Nisan as a means of cleansing the Sanctuary (45:18). There is no precedent for this in the Torah. Ezekiel mandates a repeat performance of that sacrifice on 7 Nisan, though according to the Septuagint the text should read “in the seventh month” (45:20). Either way, no precedent exists in the Pentateuch for such a ritual. Ezekiel’s version of the holiday sacrifices (45:22-25) differs considerably from the Musaf offerings recorded in Numbers 28-29. Most notably, he requires the same number and type of sacrifices on each day of Sukkot as on the days of Passover. The Torah, famously, requires a diminishing number of bulls as the Sukkot holiday progresses. Ezekiel’s Sabbath offering consists of six lambs and one ram (46:5), while the Torah mandates only two lambs (Numbers 28:9). Lastly, Ezekiel calls for the same ephah measure of meal to be offered irrespective of which type of animal is being sacrificed (46:7), whereas the Torah requires different sized portions of meal to be offered as a function of whether the sacrifice is a bull, ram, or lamb (Numbers 28:12-13).” Rabbi Hoffman explains that the talmudic rabbis attempted to explain this problem in Shabbat 13b, Hagigah 13a, Sifrei Deuteronomy 294, Kiddushin 78b, Menahot 45a, and other rabbinic sources, including Rashi who gave homiletical explanations for the differences.

Notes:

[1] Chapter 13 for the first, that he did not wait for him, and chapter 15 for the second about Amalek.

[2] Numbers 1:50-53; 3:6-9; 4:1-33; 18:21-24 and elsewhere. It is true that non-Levites, such as the Gibeonites of Joshua 9 performed menial acts for the temple, such as bringing water, but it is clear that Samuel was not sent to the temple to perform such acts.

[3] Numbers 4:3, 8:24-28.

[4] According to the Bible, the day began at day break and ended when the sun arose the next day. See Rashbam to Genesis 1:5.

[5] The command against treating the son of an unloved wife improperly is in Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

[6] “Man of God” or “great man” or esteemed man.”

[7] Exodus 28:6ff is understood to say that only the high priest wore the ephod.

[8] Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 78a and Tanchuma Leviticus 6:2

[9] See Babylonian Talmud Temurah 28b-29a, and Berachot 9b that discuss these sacrifices and say they were a necessary exception due to the exigencies of the time. See also Zevachim 106a, 112b, 119b; Avoda Zara 51b, Meilah 3b; Megilah 10a, and Berachot 4b. See also Encyclopedia Talmudit, volume 3, Yad Harav Herzog, 1973.

[10] No claim should be made that the Philistines also failed to observe the Torah law since they were not obligated to do so.

[11] 7:1 and 2.

[12] Olam Hatanakh.

[13] See also Leviticus 19:31 and 20:6.

[14] While the Torah states that the Urim will work and reveal God’s wishes, there is no indication that it was used in the post-Pentateuchal books, and in 28:6 it states that Saul received no information from it.

[15] Exodus 25.

[16] Both this and the next item are not very good proofs that the author of Samuel did not know about the Pentateuch. One can respond that verses 6 and 8 should not be taken literally.

[17] Joshua 7:19.

[18] See Aaron Kirschenbaum, “Self Incrimination in Jewish Law,” the Burning Bush Press, 1970, where the author adds II Samuel 4 and Judges 17:1-4. Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15, which require the testimony of two witness, can be construed to imply that self-incrimination cannot be used as evidence.

[19] Zevachim 120a.

Truth behind the veil

Tuesday, 21 May 2019

Did the Generations of Post-Moses Israelites Know about the Torah?

SLAVERY

The Israelites may not have known about Moses’ Torah until around 620 BCE

“If you are in doubt”

Blog Archive