Talmud Daughters Become Talmud Wives

It is astonishing to note the amount of hostile misrepresentation
that exists in regard to woman's position in Jewish life.
"The relation of the wife to the husband was,
to all intents and purposes, that of a slave to her master,"
are the words of a writer in the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
That this judgment is radically false
may be proved from hundreds of instances throughout Scripture.

— Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz (1)

MISHNAH. … A man may sell his daughter,
but a woman may not sell her daughter.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah 23a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 115

Talmud scholars generally present the Talmud laws concerning women and family issues in a favorable light. (41) For example, see the Nashim Foreword, written by the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth the late Dr. J.H. Hertz, (3) and the Nashim Introduction, written by Jews College scholar and Soncino Talmud editor, Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein. (4)

In America, the Talmud is presented both as the Word of God and as an exemplar of practical law that has been tested and applied over millennia. Our Supreme Court and our law schools are integrating Talmud law into our society. (See America Is Rapidly Becoming Talmudized).

Without intending any disrespect for the opinions of rabbinical experts who extol the virtues of the Talmud, we prefer to take a pragmatic approach. We prefer to look at Talmud law ourselves. We have already learned much by doing exactly that.

What We Have Learned Thus Far

In Sex with Children by Talmud Rules, (34) we learned that under Talmud law, grown men may have sexual intercourse with children. Sex with girls younger than three years old is specifically permitted. We learned that the little girls are wounded and bleed as a result. Little girls may bleed after each copulation. The Sages teach that the repeated bleeding is the result of the hymen growing back and being newly ruptured with each copulation. We learned that Jewish law permits male homosexuality if the passive partner is younger than nine years old, and that homosexuality between adult men is punishable by death. We wondered how these laws could be integrated into the present system of American law and custom.

In Talmud Laws of Menstruation, (35) we learned that the Talmud's menstruation laws "concern the very being of the soul of the Jew." These laws decree that for a period of approximately two weeks, women are "unclean" and contaminate everyone and everything they touch; husbands may not have sexual intercourse with their wives. To guard against a husband and wife accidentally having intercourse during her period, a virtuous Jewish wife inserts rags into her vagina to test for menstrual fluids before and after intercourse. Having intercourse during menstruation is an actionable criminal offense under Talmud law. We wondered how laws would comport with privacy sensitivities of contemporary American culture.

In Jewish Harems in Talmud Law, (36) we learned that there is some question about how many wives a Jew is permitted. The rabbis argue — 4 wives, 12 wives? 24? 48? We learn that the relationship between wives can be bitter, and that causes concern. We also learned that there is a movement among today's Orthodox Jews to reinstate open polygamy.

In Really, Really, Kosher Sex (37) we learned the Talmud Sages' tips for eroticism. The wife must submit to any sexual demand the husband makes, including anal intercourse, even if she hates it. Lovemaking must take place in the dark, lest the husband see his wife and find something repulsive. No talking during intercourse, no looking at "that place," no kissing "that place," etc. But unfortunately, we didn't learn what "that place" is.

Do Your Own Research

Now, in a two-part essay, "Talmud Daughters Become Talmud Wives" (this page) and the next, And So a Talmud Marriage Ends, we will examine other laws of the Talmud that affect women. But first a word of warning. These essays do not pretend to be a comprehensive overview of Talmud marriage and divorce laws. Rather, we hope they serve as an entry point for further research and discussion.

Women are discussed throughout the Talmud, but especially in tractates Sanhedrin, Niddah, Kethuboth, Yebamoth, Gittin, and Sotah. We have cited excerpts from most of these in the following article. But don't rely upon our interpretation. We have placed the entire tractates on line so you can see the excerpts in context.

Do your own research on women's issues with the Come and Hear™ Search Engine. The following search terms may yield results: virgin, harlot, girl, damsel, whore, menstruant, woman, wife, adultery, sister, daughter, lewdness, bogereth, sotah, adulteress, marital, cohabitation, intercourse, cohabit, matrimonial, rival.

What's Coming Up?

In the following articles, we will discover that, under Jewish law:

1. A father owns everything his daughter finds and earns
2. A father is urged to marry his daughter off before puberty
3. A father can sell his minor daughter into marriage, concubinage, or slavery
4. A rape victim must marry the rapist
5. After marriage, the husband owns everything the wife finds and earns
6. The only way a married woman can acquire wealth is through inheritance or gift
7. A husband has exclusive use of his wife's inheritance while she is alive, though it remains hers
8. A husband can divorce his wife at any time on payment of a settlement (kethubah)
9. A kethubah can be nullified for failure to perform wifely duties properly
10. A kethubah can be nullified if the wife has physical imperfections, anything from a hunched back to bad breath or moles
11. A wife dismissed without kethubah faces destitution; hence the threat of divorce gives a husband almost absolute authority over his wife
12. A wife cannot divorce her husband
13. If a wife runs away, she has no property to take with her. She is a pauper
14. If she goes with another man without a divorce, she and the other man are stoned
15. On rare occasions a Beth din (court) may force a husband to give his wife a divorce

We will have a look at these doctrines in more detail. In the following excerpts, we sometimes omit footnotes. Please follow the link to the Come and Hear™ hypertext to read those footnotes. Now, let's get some legalities out of the way.

(Note: When excerpting quotations from the Talmud, we sometimes omit non-germane text and footnotes. Omission of text is indicated by an ellipsis (…). To see the full text and footnotes, follow the hot link at the end of the excerpt. It is our pleasure to make available on line a number of Talmud tractates, so that you can see the excerpt in full context. We indicate unprintable Hebrew characters, words, and phrases with the symbol [H].)

Some Important Legal Definitions

The authority of a father over his daughter depends (according to one definition) upon her sexual maturity. When a girl is fully developed sexually, she is a bogereth, and no longer a minor. Therefore the Sages concern themselves with the intimate details of a pubescent girl's physical development. Phenomena of significance include: A wrinkle beneath the breast, breasts hanging down, breasts beginning to shake, a dark ring appearing around the nipple, the nipple sinking and rising again when a hand is placed on it, the mons veneris growing lower, and the appearance of at least two pubic hairs.

Note that the one categorical indicator of fecundity, menstruation, is not mentioned as an indicator of sexual maturity.

MISHNAH. THE SAGES SPOKE OF [THE PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF] A WOMAN IN FIGURATIVE SPEECH: AN UNRIPE FIG, A FIG IN ITS EARLY RIPENING STAGE AND A RIPE FIG. SHE IS LIKE AN UNRIPE FIG' WHILE SHE IS YET A CHILD; A FIG IN ITS EARLY RIPENING STAGE' WHEN SHE IS IN THE AGE OF HER MAIDENHOOD. DURING BOTH THE LATTER AND THE FORMER AGES, THEY RULED, HER FATHER IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS AND TO HER HANDIWORK AND TO THE RIGHT OF INVALIDATING HER VOWS. 'A RIPE FIG' — AS SOON AS SHE BECOMES A BOGERETH, AND HER FATHER HAS NO LONGER ANY RIGHT OVER HER.
 WHAT ARE THE MARKS [OF A BOGERETH]? R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAYS: THE APPEARANCE OF THE WRINKLE BENEATH THE BREAST. R. AKIBA SAYS: THE HANGING DOWN OF THE BREASTS. BEN AZZAI SAYS: THE DARKENING OF THE RING AROUND THE NIPPLE. R. JOSE SAYS: [THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BREAST TO A STAGE] WHEN ONE'S HAND BEING PUT ON THE NIPPLE IT SINKS AND ONLY SLOWLY RISES AGAIN.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 47a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 327

Commentary on this passage continues in the Gemara. Note the word bagruth, which appears in the same context as bogereth and appears to have the same meaning.

GEMARA. … Our Rabbis taught: What are the marks of bagruth? R. Eleazar son of R. Zadok stated, When the breasts begin to shake. R. Johanan b. Beroka stated, When the top of the nose (17) grows white. But is not a woman when this grows white already old? — Rather said R. Ashi, when the top of the nose splits. (1) R. Jose stated, When a ring is formed around the nipple. R. Simeon stated, When the mons veneris grows lower.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 47a
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 328-329

Reverend Dr. Israel Slotki, translator of Tractate Niddah, amplifies the text with footnotes:

17. The central circle of the oblate part of the breast (Jast.),
1. Aliter (Jast.). When the skin of the central circle of the oblate part of the breast appears wrinkled.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Here is an alternate definition of bogereth from the Soncino Talmud Glossary:
Bogereth. A girl from the age of twelve and a half years plus one day onwards.

Here are some other pertinent definitions from the Glossary:
Na'arah. A girl between the ages of twelve years and one day and twelve and a half years plus one day.

There were two stages of marriage: betrothal (or the promise of matrimony) and home-taking:
Erusin. (Lit., 'betrothal') — a formal betrothal, which cannot be annulled without a bill of divorce
Nissu'in. The ceremony of home-taking, which completes the marriage

Another important term is Get
Get. A deed or legal document; when used without further specification denotes generally a writ of divorce.

Let us also review the meaning of usufruct, because we will see it used in the upcoming discussions.
Usufruct. In the civil law, the right of enjoying a thing, the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility, and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering the substance of the thing. — Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

Now let's look at the Talmud teachings more closely.

Intellectual Orientation Toward Women

Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman introduces us to Chapter I of Tractate Kiddushin. He states that the theme of this chapter is acquisition, including acquisition of slaves, real estate, movables, Sanctuary property — and wives.

CHAPTER I commences by stating how a woman is acquired in marriage. The unit of thought, or the connecting link, however, is not marriage but acquisition, and the Tractate immediately proceeds to discuss the modes of acquisition employed elsewhere, viz., for Hebrew and heathen slaves, real estate, movables, and how the Sanctuary acquires property.

— Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (8)

The word kinyan is frequently used to denote the execution of a contract of betrothal. For example, the word is so used in Kethuboth 102b. A sum of money is given by the groom to the father, and Reverend Dr. Israel W. Slotki writes of that in a footnote:

4. Sc. the sum of money or object of value which the man gives to the woman as a token of betrothal which constitutes the required kinyan.

— Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki (14)

The word kinyan itself is defined in the Soncino Talmud Glossary as:
Kinyan. 'Acquisition'; the legal acquisition of either landed or movable property.

Daughters May Be Sold

MISHNAH. … A MAN MAY SELL HIS DAUGHTER, (5) BUT A WOMAN MAY NOT SELL HER DAUGHTER. A MAN MAY GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL (6) BUT A WOMAN MAY NOT GIVE HER DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah 23a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 115

Reverend Dr. Abraham Cohen, translator of Tractate Sotah, amplifies the text with a footnote:

5. As a bondwoman (Ex. XXI, 7).
6. Without her consent when she is a minor.

— Rev. Dr. Cohen

Reverend Dr. Cohen mentions a bondwoman, that is, a slave. Slavery is described in part in Exodus 21. Male slaves are free after seven years of service, but Exodus 21:7 tells us that female slaves are not set free.

2. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
   …
7. And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

— Exodus 21:2, 7 (KJV)

Thus, by citing Exodus 21:7, Reverend Dr. Cohen confirms that under Talmud law, a father may sell his daughter into a lifetime of slavery.

By ancient Hebrew tradition, a slave is owned completely. Sara gave her slave Hagar to Abraham for begetting the children that Sarah thought she could not have. There is no mention that Hagar consented to the arrangement, or that she had a choice. After the child was born, Abraham sent Hagar into the wilderness to die (Genesis 21:14). It was all perfectly legal.

But let us return to other aspects of a young girl's life under the Talmud.

Betrothed by Intercourse

A father may betroth his minor daughter by allowing the groom to have intercourse with her, or by accepting money or other valuables in exchange for her.

MISHNAH. A FATHER HAS AUTHORITY OVER HIS DAUGHTER (1) IN RESPECT OF HER BETROTHAL [WHETHER IT WAS EFFECTED] BY MONEY, (2) DEED (3) OR INTERCOURSE; (4)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 46b
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 265-266

Reverend Dr. Israel Slotki, translator of the above section of the Soncino Kethuboth, amplifies the above text with footnotes:

1. While she is under the age of twelve and a half years and one day.
2. Sc. the money belongs to him.
3. The receipt of the deed by him effects his daughter's betrothal.
4. It is within his rights to allow such an act to have the validity of a kinyan (v. Glos.).

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Father or Husband Owns Her Labor

While a daughter is under her father's authority, the father owns anything she finds and all her handiwork. Once she is married, the husband owns anything she finds and all her handiwork. Her husband is obliged to support her, ransom her, and pay for her funeral.

MISHNAH. … HE IS ENTITLED TO ANYTHING SHE FINDS AND TO HER HANDIWORK; [HE HAS THE RIGHT] OF ANNULLING HER VOWS (5) AND HE RECEIVES HER BILL OF DIVORCE; (6) BUT HE HAS NO USUFRUCT (7) DURING HER LIFETIME. (8) WHEN SHE MARRIES, THE HUSBAND SURPASSES HIM [IN HIS RIGHTS] IN THAT HE HAS (9) USUFRUCT DURING HER LIFETIME, (10) BUT HE IS ALSO UNDER THE OBLIGATION OF MAINTAINING AND RANSOMING HER (11) AND TO PROVIDE FOR HER BURIAL. R. JUDAH RULED: EVEN THE POOREST MAN IN ISRAEL MUST PROVIDE (12) NO LESS THAN TWO FLUTES AND ONE LAMENTING WOMAN.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 46b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 266

5. V. Num. XXX. 4ff.
6. If she was divorced during her betrothal before attaining her adolescence (v. Glos. s.v. bogereth).
7. Of property that came into her possession from her mother's side.
8. Such property passes into the possession of a father as heir to his daughter only after her death.
9. In addition to the privileges enjoyed by a father.
10. Cf. infra 65b, Kid. 3b.
11. If she was taken captive.
12. For his wife's funeral.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Not Ownerless Property

In Tractate Yebamoth 107a, you will find this statement by the Talmud school, Beth Shammai:

MISHNAH. … THE DAUGHTERS OF ISRAEL ARE NOT OWNERLESS PROPERTY.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 107a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 738

A minor girl belongs to the father "always" until the moment she enters under the authority of her husband. (All but one footnote in the following passage have been omitted; they are available through the hot link.)

MISHNAH. SHE REMAINS (8) UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER UNTIL SHE ENTERS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND [BY GOING INTO THE BRIDAL CHAMBER] AT MARRIAGE. IF HER FATHER DELIVERED HER TO THE AGENTS OF THE HUSBAND SHE PASSES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND. IF HER FATHER WENT WITH HER HUSBAND'S AGENTS OR IF THE FATHER'S AGENTS WENT WITH THE HUSBAND'S AGENTS SHE REMAINS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER FATHER. IF HER FATHER'S AGENTS DELIVERED HER TO HER HUSBAND'S AGENTS SHE PASSES UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HER HUSBAND.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 48a-48b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 276

Look at footnote 8, written by the translator Reverend Dr. Israel W. Slotki. The [H] represents a Hebrew character.

8. [H], lit., 'for ever', 'always'.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

In Reverend Dr. Slotki's opinion, the correct Hebrew translation indicates that a Jewish woman never passes into her own authority while living with her father. She is under her father "for ever" — or until she is passed to her husband. From that point onward, she is under the authority of her husband.

Reverend Dr. Slotki's understanding is consistent with that of Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, translator of the Tractate Sanhedrin. Rabbi Dr. Freedman commented on the wickedness of the father of a bogereth who "keeps her unmarried, that he may profit by her labour whilst endangering her chastity." (12) If a bogereth were able to keep the products of her own labor, Rabbi Dr. Freedman's statement would have no meaning.

Status of a Young Girl

Now let's summarize what we have learned. A father has authority over his young daughter; he can betroth her to whom he chooses, and her consent is not required. He can betroth her by selling her for money or property, or allowing her prospective husband to have sexual intercourse with her.

While living with her father, her father owns anything the girl finds, and anything she produces; but her father may not use the property given to her by her mother.

After she has married, her husband owns anything she finds, and anything she produces; her husband may use the property given to her by her mother's will; i.e., the married woman cannot accumulate wealth by any means except by inheritance, and cannot use any of her inherited wealth independent of her husband.

Contracts Enforceable by Death

A betrothal is legally binding, and cannot be dissolved without a Get (divorce order). A betrothed girl is legally obliged to be faithful to her prospective husband. If she has sexual intercourse with another man and is caught, she will be stoned to death or strangled, depending upon her age at the time of the offense.

GEMARA. … Shila taught: There are three modes [of execution] in the case of a [betrothed] damsel [who played the harlot]. If witnesses appeared against her in the house of her father-in-law [testifying] that she had played the harlot in her father's house she is stoned at the door of her father's house, as if to say, 'See the plant that you have reared'. If witnesses came [to testify] against her in her father's house that she played the harlot in his house she is stoned at the entrance of the gate of the city. If having committed the offence she eventually attained adolescence she is condemned to strangulation.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Niddah 44b-45a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 254

Some Hope for Fatherless Girl

If the girl's father is dead and her mother or brother marry her off to a man she does not want, there is hope. If she did not give her consent, she can walk away from her husband without any formal procedures; if she did give her consent (though a minor) she must make a declaration before a Beth din (court).

MI'UN. Lit., 'refusal'); a declaration by a fatherless girl who has been married off by her mother or brothers under age, that she does not wish to live with her husband. Such a declaration made by her in the presence of a Beth din secures her freedom without the requirement of a Get.

— Soncino Talmud Glossary

MISHNAH. WHICH MINOR MUST MAKE THE DECLARATION OF REFUSAL? (1) ANY WHOSE MOTHER OR BROTHERS HAVE GIVEN HER IN MARRIAGE WITH HER CONSENT. IF, HOWEVER, THEY GAVE HER IN MARRIAGE WITHOUT HER CONSENT SHE NEED NOT MAKE ANY DECLARATION OF REFUSAL. (2)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yebamoth 107b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 746

Reverend Dr. Israel W. Slotki, translator of the above section of the Soncino Kethuboth, amplifies the text with footnotes:

1. If she desires to leave her husband.
2. She may leave her husband without any legal formality, and may marry any other man.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Marriage to Ants and Cabbage Heads

The Sages of the Talmud believe that, for a woman, any husband is better than none. Unhappiness and misery in marriage are preferable to a happy and prosperous life in solitude. Here is the view of the Sages:

GEMARA. … A woman is satisfied with any sort [of husband] as Resh Lakish said. For Resh Lakish stated: 'It is preferable to live in grief (13) than to dwell in widowhood'. (14) Abaye said: With a husband [of the size of an] ant her seat is placed among the great. (15) R. Papa said: Though her husband be a carder (16) she calls him to the threshold and sits down [at his side]. (1) R. Ashi said: Even if her husband is only a cabbage-head (2) she requires no lentils (3) for her pot. (4).

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 75a
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 469, 470

Reverend Dr. Israel W. Slotki, Talmud scholar and translator of this section of the Tractate Kethuboth, amplifies the text with footnotes:

13. Or 'together', 'as husband and wife'. V. following note.
14. Yeb. 118b. This is a woman's maxim. She prefers a married life of unhappiness and misery to a happy and prosperous life in solitude. [H] (adv.) 'with a load of grief', 'in trouble' (Jast.) Aliter: (Cf. supra n. 13) 'two bodies' (Rashi); 'two persons' (Levy).
15. A woman's opinion of a married life (v. Yeb. l.c.).[H] pl. of [H], 'a free woman'.
16. [H], 'flax-beater' (Rashi), a watchman of vegetables' (Aruch.), i.e., of a poor and humble occupation.
1. To shew her friends that she is a married woman. She is proud to be in the company of a husband however humble his occupation and social status.
2. [H], i.e., 'dull', 'ugly' (v. Jast.): 'of a tainted family' (Rashi).
3. I.e., even a cheap vegetable.
4. A woman is content to dispense even with the cheapest enjoyments for the sake of a married life.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

So according to the Sages, being married to an "ant" or a "cabbage head" is preferable to being unmarried.

Either Wives or Whores

A father is under great societal pressure to marry off his daughter early. If there is a delay and she is not married at about the age of 12 1/2, she is in danger of becoming a whore. It is best to marry the girl off before puberty. Respectable spinsterhood is not an option; the word "spinster" does not appear in the 1952 General Index published as part of the 1961 Edition of the Soncino Talmud.

GEMARA. As it has been taught: Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be a whore; R. Eliezer said: This refers to marrying one's [young] daughter to an old man. R. Akiba said: This refers to the delay in marrying off a daughter who is already a bogereth. (1)
 R. Kahana said on R. Akiba's authority: The only poor in Israel is the subtly wicked and he who delays in marrying off his daughter, a bogereth. (2) But is not one who thus delays himself subtly wicked? (3) — Abaye answered: [76b] This is its meaning: Which poor man is subtly wicked? He who delays marrying off his daughter, a bogereth. (4) 
 … He who loves his wife as himself and honours her more than himself, (8) and leads his children in the right path, and marries them just before they attain puberty — of him Scripture saith, And thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace and thou shalt visit thy habitation, and shalt not sin. (9)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 76a-76b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 517

Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, translator of this section of the Soncino Sanhedrin, amplifies the above text with footnotes:

1. Having attained puberty, she may become unchaste if not married. Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.
2. This is explained further on.
3. Why 'and he who delays etc.': the two are identical. His wickedness consists in that he keeps her unmarried, that he may profit by her labour whilst endangering her chastity.
4. Through his poverty he delays her marriage, that he may profit from her labour, The poor man has no other opportunity of cunning wickedness
   …
8. By providing her with fine ornaments (Rashi).
9. Job. V. 24. This proves that it is meritorious to marry off one's children whilst minors.

— Rabbi Dr. Freedman

What dutiful father would hesitate to marry off his daughter when she is a minor, given that delay may cause her to become a whore? Given that girls can be betrothed and married off at the age of three, it would seem that many daughters were married off before they could make an informed decision.

Punishment for Rape — Who Is Punished?

This Mishnah deals with the consequences of rape to the rapist, and of seduction to the seducer.

MISHNAH. … WHAT [IS THE DIFFERENCE] BETWEEN [THE PENALTIES OF] A SEDUCER AND THOSE OF A VIOLATOR? THE VIOLATOR PAYS COMPENSATION FOR THE PAIN BUT THE SEDUCER DOES NOT PAY COMPENSATION FOR THE PAIN. THE VIOLATOR PAYS (8) FORTHWITH (9) BUT THE SEDUCER [PAYS ONLY] IF HE DISMISSES (10) HER. THE VIOLATOR MUST DRINK OUT OF HIS POT (11) BUT THE SEDUCER MAY DISMISS [THE GIRL] IF HE WISHES. WHAT IS MEANT BY (12) 'MUST DRINK OUT OF HIS POT'? — EVEN IF SHE IS LAME, EVEN IF SHE IS BLIND AND EVEN IF SHE IS AFFLICTED WITH BOILS [HE MAY NOT DISMISS HER]. IF, HOWEVER, SHE WAS FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN IMMORAL ACT OR WAS UNFIT TO MARRY AN ISRAELITE HE MAY NOT CONTINUE TO LIVE WITH HER, FOR IT IS SAID IN SCRIPTURE, AND UNTO HIM SHE SHALL BE FOR A WIFE, [IMPLYING] A WIFE THAT IS FIT 'UNTO HIM.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 39a
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 218-219

Several aspects of this Mishnah deserve closer study. What is the "pot" from which the rapist must drink? It is an earthen vessel such as is used as a receptacle for refuse; this is the Sages' metaphor for the rape victim. Note also that the entire penalty for the pain the rapist has caused the girl is paid to the girl's father (see Soncino Footnote 8, below).

Reverend Dr. Israel W. Slotki, Talmud scholar and translator of this section of the Tractate Kethuboth, explains this in footnotes:

8. To the damsel's father.
9. Even if he marries her.
10. This is explained infra.
11. [H], an earthen vessel used as a receptacle for refuse or as a plant pot; i.e., the violator must marry his victim whatever her merits or defects.
12. Lit., 'how'.

— Rev. Dr. Slotki

Note that the Mishna does not provide for the wishes of the rape victim to be consulted. The presumption is that she'll do as she's told and marry the man who committed the brutal act upon her. If, however, it can be shown she ever committed an "immoral" act, the rapist is excused on that account. In the discussion that follows, Abaye introduces an amendment, stating that the rape victim and her father may refuse the marriage, but Raba disagrees. See the Gemara of Tractate Kethuboth 39a-b for the full discussion.

The doctrine expressed in the Mishna is derived directly from Deuteronomy 22:28-29:

28. If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29. Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

— Deuteronomy 22:28-29

This is the wording in the King James Version. The New International Version is less delicate: "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her …"

Rape As a Crime Against Property

Compare this treatment of the rapist with the treatment of a man who seduces a betrothed maiden.

MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE STONED: … HE WHO COMMITS ADULTERY WITH A BETROTHED MAIDEN.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 53a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 359

If the rape victim is not married or promised in marriage, the rapist marries the woman. However, if she is married or promised in marriage, the rapist is stoned to death. Thus we see the object of the law is not so much to punish the rapist as to protect the property rights of other male Jews.

Indeed, the lesson one might draw this law is — if you see a beautiful girl who is not married or betrothed, rape her and she's yours. Courtship is an expensive and unnecessary luxury.

Talmud Popularizers vs. the Talmud

Repeated over and over in the Talmud are doctrines from the Sages themselves. Young girls — from younger than three years of age through pre-puberty and up to bogereth state — can be sold or otherwise given in marriage. (See Sex with Children by Talmud Rules for specific information on three year olds.) Their consent is not required. Nor, or course, would the consent of a minor be legally meaningful.

Talmud spokespersons seem to have a hard time dealing with this. When writing of women's issues, they usually avoid mentioning these laws, or mischaracterize them. Surely this is not advisable. If these Talmud spokespersons believe that the Talmud is the word of God, they should speak up in clear voices and state their beliefs. We can listen respectfully, and decide whether Talmud policies strike the same chord in our hearts. If they do, we can adopt them. But we should be allowed to make a fully informed decision.

— Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach is the author of more than a dozen books popularizing Judaism. Titles include Judaism for Everyone, Dating Secrets of the Ten Commandments, Kosher Sex, Kosher Emotions, The Jewish Guide to Adultery, Why Can't I Fall in Love.

Rabbi Boteach obviously feels a little awkward about the Talmud laws on marriage and rape. First defining Torah, Rabbi Boteach says of these laws:

"Torah" refers to all 24 books of the 'written law' plus the 'oral code' as written and compiled by the ancient rabbis in the Mishnah and the Talmud.

…
 The Torah also made marrying a woman against her will illegal and imposed extremely harsh penalties on rape.

— Rabbi Boteach (28)

Rabbi Boteach seriously mischaracterizes the Talmud teaching on marriage and rape, as we have just seen.

— Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz

Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, famed Israeli Talmud scholar and recipient of the Israel Award, Israel's top civilian honor, is the author of The Essential Talmud, a 269-page compendium written for popular consumption. Rabbi Steinsaltz is currently translating the Talmud into French, Russian, and English. While you almost certainly will not find a complete and uncensored copy of the Talmud (with a workable and comprehensive subject index [18]) in your local public library, you may find Rabbi Steinsaltz's The Essential Talmud.

Here is what Rabbi Steinsaltz says:

… although a father may marry off his daughter and cancel her vows, his authority is limited to minor daughters who have not yet reached the age of sexual maturity (twelve). Neither a father nor any other individual may impose his will on an adult daughter or attempt to force her into a marriage against her will.

— Rabbi Steinsaltz (15)

A key word in this statement is "adult." Before the girl is adult, she certainly may be married or sold without her consent. Recall the great pressures on Jewish fathers to marry off their minor daughters. Neither we nor Rabbi Steinsaltz could know what percentage of Jewish women were married off as minors; but to fail to mention the fate of minor girls and the societal pressure on fathers to marry off their daughters as minors — while at the same time lauding the independence of bogereths — is disclosing less than the full truth. We suspect that many, if not most, brides were married before reaching puberty.

— Rev. Dr. Abraham Cohen

Rev. Dr. Abraham Cohen translated the tractates Sotah and Abodah Zarah into English for Jews College/Soncino Press. You will find his signature and the bottom of the Introductions to each of these tractates. He also wrote a popularized compendium, Everyman's Talmud, that is still in print and may be available at your local public library.

Now let's compare the work of Rev. Dr. Cohen, the popularizer, with Rev. Dr. Cohen, the Talmud scholar and translator. Rev. Dr. Cohen (the translator) rendered (Sotah 23a (see above) as follows: "A man may sell his daughter, [5] but a woman may not sell her daughter. A man may give his daughter in betrothal [6] but a woman may not give her daughter in betrothal." (16) Footnotes written by Rev. Dr. Cohen read: "[5] As a bondwoman (Ex. XXI, 7). [6] Without her consent when she is a minor."

Remember that Rev. Dr. Cohen, Talmud scholar and translator, must have been familiar with the many other Talmud doctrines governing marriages of minor children — even children younger than three. With this in mind, let's see what Rev. Dr. Cohen, the popularizer, writes concerning a girl's consent in marriage:

According to Talmudic law, 'a man is forbidden to give his daughter in marriage while she is a minor, until she is grown up and says, I wish to marry so-and-so (Kid. 41a). If he married her while in her minority she could repudiate the marriage on reaching the age of twelve, and have it annulled without a divorce.

— Rev. Dr. Cohen (11)

This statement from Rev. Dr. Cohen (the popularizer) is untrue. Only a fatherless girl can escape an unwanted marriage (Yebamoth 107b, quoted above). To support his untrue statement, Rev. Dr. Cohen quotes from Chapter II of Tractate Kiddushin 41a. The Soncino Tractate Kiddushin was translated by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman, who describes Chapter II in his Introduction:

CHAPTER II returns to betrothal, with which the whole is exclusively concerned. It treats of betrothal by proxy; more detailed laws on money or its equivalent as one of the modes of betrothing a woman; conditional betrothal; and the simultaneous betrothal of more than one woman.

— Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman (7)

So we see the subject of Chapter II is specifically the arrangement of marriage through proxies. It begins with these words:

MISHNAH. A MAN CAN BETROTH [A WOMAN] THROUGH HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AGENT. A WOMAN MAY BE BETROTHED THROUGH HERSELF OR THROUGH HER AGENT. A MAN MAY GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL WHEN A NA'ARAH [EITHER] HIMSELF OR THROUGH HIS AGENT.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin 41a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 204

The Gemara of Kiddushin 41a contains the phrase that Rev. Dr. Cohen quotes out of context:

GEMARA. … A MAN MAY GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL WHEN A NA'ARAH. Only when a na'arah, but not when a minor: this supports Rab. For Rab. Judah said in Rab's name. One may not give his daughter in betrothal when a minor, [but must wait] until she grows up and says, 'I want So-and-so.'

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kiddushin 41a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 205

Rev. Dr. Cohen gives his readers the impression Kiddushin 41a represents the Talmud legal doctrine on minor girls and betrothal, without mentioning the specific context of the provision (proxy marriage). He fails to mention the many doctrines on minor girls and betrothal that fall outside Kiddushin 41a.

What are we to think? We must recognize that Rev. Dr. Cohen was under editorial supervision when he translated Tractate Sotah of the Soncino Talmud. He was part of the Jews College team under editor Rabbi Dr. Isidore Epstein. The reputation of Dr. Epstein's school, Jews College of London, was on the line. Many learned rabbis and Hebrew scholars would read the Jews College-Soncino translation. Rev. Dr. Cohen's Everyman's Talmud, however, was intended not as a book for learned Jews, but as a popularization for the uninformed public. Rev. Dr. Cohen had no fear of challenge from the readers of Everyman's Talmud, and he presents the Talmud doctrines that cause less offense. We believe Rev. Dr. Cohen failed to meet the Rudin Standard for openness and full disclosure. (19)

This website is dedicated to realizing the goal close to the heart of the Very Reverend the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth, Professor Jonathan Sachs. It is his hope that people of different religious faiths can come to understand each others' beliefs. How can this happen when spokespersons do not give accurate representations of those beliefs?

Protection of the Kethubah

The Old Testament permits a man to dismiss his wife at will:

1. When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

— Deuteronomy 24:1

Much to the credit of the Sages of the Talmud, they sought to soften this harshness by instituting the kethubah (plural, kethuboth). Here is the definition from the Soncino Talmud Glossary:

KETHUBAH. (Lit., 'a written [document]'); (a) a wife's marriage settlement which she is entitled to recover on her being divorced or on the death of her husband. The minimum settlement for a virgin is two hundred zuz, and for a widow remarrying one hundred zuz; (b) the marriage contract specifying the mutual obligations between husband and wife and containing the amount of the endowment and any other special financial obligations assumed by the husband.

— Soncino Talmud Glossary

Rabbi Dr. Epstein tells us:

The kethubah — the deed of marriage settlement instituted primarily with the object of protecting a wife against hasty divorce, had to be drawn up and duly completed before the consummation of marriage. In view of the right vested by the Bible in the husband to divorce the wife at his pleasure — a theoretical right which the Rabbis could not entirely set aside - it was felt that no woman could enter upon matrimony with a free and easy mind without being in possession of this safeguard to her marital security. The Sages accordingly forbade marital relations as long as the kethubah had not been completed. Furthermore, they declared that it was forbidden for husband and wife to live together for a single moment without a kethubah (B.K. 89a); and where the kethubah was lost, they had to abstain from intercourse until another kethubah had been made out.

— Rabbi Dr. Epstein (5)

Obviously, the possibility of a wife being dismissed at a moment's notice looms large in the Sages' minds, for Rabbi Dr. Epstein states: "… and where the kethubah was lost, they had to abstain from intercourse until another kethubah had been made out." No sex until the financial arrangements have been set in stone.

What Price Virginity? One Hundred Zuz

The wife's virginity on her wedding night affects the amount of the kethubah. Therefore, virginity, literally, has a price. Rev. Dr. Israel W. Slotki states this in his Introduction to the Tractate Kethuboth:

The minimum amounts of the kethubah to which virgins, widows, divorcees or other women belonging to the various strata of social and religious life are entitled, and the conditions governing the forfeiture of her kethubah by a wife in the absence of her virginity, are duly indicated …

— Rev. Dr. Slotki (9)

In the following, "zuz" and "maneh" are units of currency. A maneh is one hundred zuz. Footnotes have been omitted from this excerpt, but may be viewed by following the link at the end of the cite.

MISHNAH. A MAIDEN — HER KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ], AND A WIDOW — A MANEH. A MAIDEN, WHO IS A WIDOW, [OR] DIVORCED, OR A HALUZAH FROM BETROTHAL — HER KETHUBAH IS TWO HUNDRED [ZUZ], AND THERE LIES AGAINST THEM THE CHARGE OF NON-VIRGINITY.

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 10b
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 52

The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia published in 1942 states that the price specified for a virgin was equivalent to about $30 (1942 US dollars). (10) We thus see that a virgin's base kethubah is worth twice as much as a non-virgin's.

See Tractate Kethuboth 6b for the function of the groomsmen, including page 23, footnotes 12 and 13 (Kethuboth 6b, footnotes 37 and 38 in Come and Hear™ hypertext). (40)

Rabbis Have Virginity Tests

When the bride does not bleed on the wedding night, the groom might consult a rabbi. The Talmud Sages have several tests for virginity. A conversation between the bride, the groom, and the rabbi contains a description of one test:

GEMARA. … 'My master, I have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife] and I have not found any blood.' She [the wife] said to him, 'My master, I was a virgin.' He said to them: Bring me that cloth. (1) They brought him the cloth, and he soaked it in water and he washed it and he found on it a good many drops of blood. (2) [Thereupon] he [Rabban Gamaliel] said to him [the husband]: Go, be happy with thy bargain.'

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 10a
Soncino 1961 Edition, page 50

Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches amplifies the text with the following footnotes, which appear as footnotes 45 and 46 in the Come and Hear™ hypertext version:

1. Upon which they spent the night.
2. The blood was covered by semen.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

Here is an account of the "cask of wine" test. If a non-virgin sits over an open cask of wine, the perfume of the wine passes through her body. The wine and can be smelled on her breath by a rabbi. On the other hand, if a virgin sits over an open cast of wine, the perfume of the wine does not pass through her body, and, naturally, a rabbi cannot smell it. Here is an account of the conversation between the bride, the groom, and the rabbi that describes the technique.

GEMARA. … 'My master, I have had intercourse [with my newly-wedded wife] and I have not found any blood.' She [the wife] said to him, 'My master, I am still a virgin.' He [then] said to them: Bring me two handmaids, one [who is] a virgin and one who had intercourse with a man. They brought to him [two such handmaids], and he placed them upon a cask of wine. [In the case of] the one who was no more a virgin its smell (1) went through,(2) [in the case of] the virgin the smell did not go through.(3) He [then] placed this one [the young wife] also [on a cask of wine], and its smell (4) did not go through. He (5) [then] said to him:(6) Go, be happy with thy bargain.(7)

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Kethuboth 10b
Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 50-51

Rabbi Dr. Samuel Daiches amplifies the text with the following footnotes:

1. I.e., the smell of the wine.
2. One could smell the wine from the mouth (Rashi).
3. One could not smell the wine from the mouth.
4. I.e., the smell of the wine.
5. Rabban Gamaliel.
6. To the husband.
7. The test showed that the wife was a virgin.

— Rabbi Dr. Daiches

These tests give us an insight into the mindset of husbands, wives, and rabbis in the Talmud days. Modern American men and women might be uncomfortable with the concept behind these tests.

Contraception

Under the Talmud, none. Not in any form, not for anybody. See Really, Really Kosher Sex (Contraception) for details.

Double Standards

The Talmud Sages do not value male virginity. Theirs is a culture of double standards. Do a search on "virgin" to see how many times "virgin" refers to a man. For a man, visiting a harlot and paying for her services was perfectly acceptable — even among rabbinical students. (See Really, Really Kosher Sex.)

Many bygone cultures and legal systems had sexual double standards, of course, in which women were treated very much like cows sold in a market place. We don't necessarily single out the Sages for blame. However, the Talmudic system is different from others; it forms the bedrock of the Judaic system that is being offered for future America.

America Is Rapidly Becoming Talmudized

In 1991, the US Congress declared the Talmudic Noahide Laws to be the basis "upon which our great Nation was founded" (see America's New Government Church). Under Noahide Law regulations, idolaters (which includes Christians by definition) are put to death.
 In 1999, the Supreme Court agreed to consider an amicus brief based wholly on Talmudic law (see Sentence and Execution). 
 In November 2002, the American Orthodox Jewish community held a kosher dinner in the Supreme Court building to celebrate the establishment of the National Institute for Judaic Law. (6) The dinner was attended by 200 people, including three Supreme Court Justices. The purpose of the Institute is to introduce Talmudic laws into the US legal system and law schools. 
 It is thus the clear civic duty of every American to become intimately acquainted with the Talmud. Read articles at:
America's New Government Church: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/america_1.html
Death Penalty: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/capunish_1.html
Kosher Dinner: http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jp-11-09-2002 and http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/cp-jw-01-08-03

It therefore behooves us to examine Talmud laws concerning marriage and divorce very carefully and ask: Is this the direction in which we want to go?

We've seen how wives are acquired. Now let us look at how to get rid of a wife no longer wanted.

Yahweh breaks his promise?

We read in the book of Jeremiah, how Yahweh lied to Jeremiah and broke his promise to king Zedekiah. How evil is that! Let's read the passage.

-----------

4 “‘Yet hear the Lord’s promise to you, Zedekiah king of Judah. This is what the Lord says concerning you: You will not die by the sword; 5 you will die peacefully. As people made a funeral fire in honor of your predecessors, the kings who ruled before you, so they will make a fire in your honor and lament, “Alas, master!” I myself make this promise, declares the Lord.’” (Jeremiah 34:4-5)

It's clear from the above passage Yahweh promises Zedekiah will die a peaceful death. But the question is did he? Let's find out

8 but the Babylonian army pursued King Zedekiah and overtook him in the plains of Jericho. All his soldiers were separated from him and scattered, 9 and he was captured.He was taken to the king of Babylon at Riblah in the land of Hamath, where he pronounced sentence on him. 10 There at Riblah the king of Babylon killed the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes; he also killed all the officials of Judah. 11 Then he put out Zedekiah’s eyes, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon, where he put him in prison till the day of his death. (Jeremiah 52:8-11)

That doesn't sound peaceful in any way. Watching his sons get killed in front of him, then having his own eyes put out and after thrown into prison till the end of his days. How was Yahweh's promise fulfilled. Just because zedekiah wasn't killed by the sword, this doesn't explain why his sons and his eyes were taken from him and rot in prison as something peaceful.

This concludes Yahweh lied and didn't not fulfil his promise. How could you trust such a God and expect salvation when he openly lied to his prophet?

THINK ABOUT IT GUYS

what a fascinating Contradiction!

Imagine two books speaking of the same event, yet they completely lose the plot. Let's read each passage, and see if you can spot the difference

While Josiah was king, Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the Euphrates River to help the king of Assyria. King Josiah marched out to meet him in battle, but Necho faced him and killed him at Megiddo. Josiah’s servants brought his body in a chariot from Megiddo to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz son of Josiah and anointed him and made him king in place of his father. (2 kings 23:29-30)

So, from the above passage it's crystal clear, King Josiah was slain at Magiddo. Servants brought his dead body to Jerusalem. Yet when we read the exact same situation from the book of Chronicles, we find a compete contradictory passage.

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

Josiah, however, would not turn away from him, but disguised himself to engage him in battle. He would not listen to what Necho had said at God’s command but went to fight him on the plain of Megiddo.Archers shot King Josiah, and he told his officers, “Take me away; I am badly wounded.” So, they took him out of his chariot, put him in his other chariot and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his ancestors, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him. (2 chronicles 35:22-24)

Wait a sec, according 2 Chronicles King Josiah was wounded at Magiddo and not killed. His Servants brought him alive to Jerusalem, where he died, contradicting 2 kings 23:29-30

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

In short:

2 Kings 23:29-30 tells us King Josiah was slain at Magiddo. Servants brought his dead body to Jerusalem. Whereas 2 Chronicles 35:22-24 tells us King Josiah was wounded at Magiddo. Servants brought him alive to Jerusalem where he died.

Such super contradiction in the supposed inspired word of God!

CHALLENGE According to the Gemara and the Rambam, certain prophecies must come true. However, there are many that did not.

Unfulfilled Prophecies

How do we determine if a prophet is false?

It is a matter of halacha that a rabbinical court must know how to prove that a prophet is false in order to punish him as described in Deuteronomy 18:18-22. However, because there has not been prophecy since the time of Malachi, this topic is not discussed in detail in the halachic literature. Elsewhere, we have explained the positions of a number of rishonim. Here, we will only discuss the Rambam's view.

In his introduction to his commentary on the Mishna (Kaffih edition, vol. 1 pp. 3-8) as well as in Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah (1:1-2), Rambam discusses this issue. Rambam explains that there are two types of idolatrous prophets - those who say that a god other than G-d communicated to them and those who say that G-d commanded them to worship idolatry. Additionally, there are non-idolatrous prophets who say that G-d told them to add or subtract from the commandments. These three types are definitely false prophets. However, there are also prophets who give us specific instructions or tell us the future and they may or may not be false prophets. We need to be able to determine whether they are true or false prophets. This is particularly important because every person is obligated to follow a prophet's directions (Deuteronomy 18:15).

How do we determine if a prophet is true or not? Rambam (ibid. pp. 4-5) says that if this person is morally worthy of prophecy, we ask him or her to give us a prophecy of a future event. If this prophecy does not come totally true then we know that this prophet is false. If it comes true then we continue this a few times until we are certain that this is a true prophet. Rambam does not specify how many times.

Rambam (p. 6) then goes on to say that a prophecy for a bad thing does not have to come true because G-d may change His mind. However, a prophecy for a good thing must come true "in order to prove the truth of their prophecy to people." This, of course, is based on the Gemara in Berachot 7a.

However, there is an exception to this rule. Rambam notes that Ya'akov our forefather was scared that something bad might happen to him (Genesis 32:8) even though G-d had already promised him in a prophecy that he would be fine (ibid. 28:15). Why was Ya'akov scared? The Gemara in Berachot 4a says that Ya'akov was scared because his sins might cause G-d to change His mind. Yet, Rambam asks, Ya'akov received a prophecy that he would survive and a prophecy for a good thing must come true. Rambam explains that this rule that a good prophecy must come true only applies to public prophecies, those that the prophet is commanded to tell others. These prophecies must come true because otherwise "there would be no way left in which we can prove a prophecy to be true." However, a personal prophecy, one given to the prophet for himself, does not need to be proven. He knows that G-d spoke to him. Therefore, a private prophecy for good does not have to come true.

Isaiah's Prophecies

It is also asked that Isaiah (13:17) says that the Medes will conquer Babylonia when it was really the Persians who conquered it. This question is puzzling because Darius the Mede conquered Babylonia (Daniel 5:30-6:1). Is that not a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy?

Isaiah (13:19-20) says that Babylonia will be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah and will remain uninhabited forever. Did that come true? We recommend that anyone who questions this prophecy visit the city of Babylon. It is nothing but a mound that only archaeologists visit. Compare that to Jerusalem and Alexandria which are still inhabited today.

In Isaiah 7:8, Isaiah tells Achaz that in sixty five years Ephraim will cease being a people. However, the kingdom of Israel was actually conquered twenty two ears after the beginning of Achaz's reign. It seems to us that it would not be a false prophecy if the punishment came quicker than originally prophesied. This only means that the sins of the people made G-d even angrier.

However, Rashi quotes Seder Olam that the sixty five years began at the beginning of Isaiah's prophecies. While the arrangement of the books of the Bible do not imply this, the historical truth is that Isaiah and Amos lived at the same time and prophesied basically the same things to the same people. If you start counting from the beginning of Amos' prophecy (two years before Isaiah), which is justified because Isaiah essentially continued Amos' job, then there are sixty five years from the beginning of these types of prophecies to the destruction of the kingdom of Israel. Is this necessary to prove that Isaiah was not a false prophet? We do not think so. (See also Da'at Mikra's important commentary to this verse.)

While discussing Isaiah's prophecies, let us look at one of his prophecies that was so accurate that modern scholars are forced to say that Isaiah did not really write it but that it was written later. However, those of us who believe in prophecy know that this was the word of G-d through Isaiah. About the mighty Persian conqueror Cyrus, who came to power many years after Isaiah's prophecy, Isaiah (45:1-3) says:

Thus said the Lord to Cyrus, His anointed one - whose right hand He has grasped, treading down nations before him, ungirding the loins of kings, opening doors before him and letting no gate stay shut: I will march before you and level the hills that loom up. I will shatter doors of bronze and cut down iron bars. I will give you treasures concealed in the dark and secret hoards - so that you may know that I am the Lord, the G-d of Israel ,who call you by name.

Jeremiah's Seventy Years

The next questioin that has been asked is a little puzzling. Jeremiah said (29:10) that after seventy years in the Babylonian exile, G-d would bring the Jews back to Israel. As a comfort to those who would soon be exiled, Jeremiah told them that the exile would be short. The Gemara in Megillah (12a) says that Daniel, while in Babylonia, tried to calculate when the seventy years ended and made a mistake in the calculations. How is this a problem with Jeremiah's prophecy? He told them that the exile would be short and Daniel was slightly mistaken about how short. In fact, the book of Ezra begins by demonstrating that this prophecy came true (see Ezra 1:1-4).

Indeed, this prophecy came true in many different ways. Esther Rabbah (2:11) tells us based on Esther (1:7) that Achashverosh used utensils from the Holy Temple. However, this is difficult because in Ezra (1:7-8) we are told that Cyrus had previously sent the utensils from the Temple to Israel. If the utensils had already been sent to Israel, how could Achashverosh use them in Shushan? The Ramban (Chiddushim on Talmud, Megillah, end of first chapter) answers this beautifully. We know from Daniel (1:2) that when Yehoyakim was exiled, some of the utensils from the Temple were taken to Babylonia. Eighteen years later, when the Temple was destroyed, the remaining utensils were taken (Jeremiah 52:17-23).

Seventy years after Yehoyakim's exile, in fulfillment of Jeremiah's prophecy, Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to Israel and rebuild the Holy Temple (Ezra 1:1). This did not end up allowing the Jews to rebuild the Temple, as explained in the book of Ezra, because it had only been fifty two years since the destruction of the Temple. However, some people and, as Ramban points out, some but not all utensils were allowed to return to Israel. The remaining utensils stayed in exile until seventy years from their exile had passed. Not only was Jeremiah's prophecy fulfilled, it was even fulfilled with the utensils of the Temple

Chulda's Prophecy

Another question that can be raised is that in 2 Kings (22:20) Chulda the prophetess told the king Josiah that he would be laid in his tomb in peace. Yet in 2 Chronicles (35:23) it says that King Josiah was shot by archers during battle. Is this not a case of a phrophecy for good that did not come true? It is not, as the very next verse in 2 Chronicles demonstrates. Rather, Josiah was only injured in battle and he was brought back to Jerusalem, died there, was buried in his ancestral tomb, and was mourned by all of Judah. He truly was laid in his tomb in peace, as Chulda prophesied.

Second Return to Israel

It can be asked on the Rambam that the very Gemara that discusses Ya'akov brings another example of a good prophecy that did not come true. Based on the verse in Exodus (15:16), the Gemara says that the Jews who entered Israel in Ezra's time were supposed to witness miracles like in Yehoshua's time but their sins prevented it. Does this not contradict the Rambam's principle (that is based on the Gemara)? Moshe said a prophecy for good but it did not come true because of people's sins.

The answer to this, given by R' Yechezkel Landau in his Tzelach on Berachot (4a sv re'uyim), is quite obvious. The Rambam said twice that the reason a good prophecy must always come true is so that we will be able to test prophets and know that they are true. However, Moshe had already been proven to be the ultimate prophet and needed no testing. Does it not say (Exodus 19:9), "And even in you they will believe forever"? Since there is no question that Moshe was a true prophet, the rule that a good prophecy must always come true, even when undeserved, does not apply. A careful reading of the Rambam's words will show that this is his true intention.

Jewish Circumcision "Sucks"

According to Jewish tradition on circumcision, we learn they had a pretty disturbing way performing this surgery.  Jews regard circumcision as a covenant to Yahweh thus, they perform the act of circumcising a new born child as a devotion following the covenant made to Abraham. Each Jewish child must be circumcised so he is purified  and  join the covenant which his forefathers agreed to as part of the faith in God.

The question is, how was circumcision performed during ancient days? Well, the question to the answer is not limited.

The Circumcision Ritual

Circumcision consists of three actions: milah — cutting the foreskin with a knife, peri'ah — ripping the membrane with a fingernail, and mezizah — applying the mouth to the baby's bleeding penis and sucking blood from the wound.

MISHNAH. WE PERFORM ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF CIRCUMCISION ON THE SABBATH. WE CIRCUMCISE, UNCOVER [THE CORONA], SUCK [THE WOUND], AND PLACE A COMPRESS AND CUMMIN UPON IT. IF ONE DID NOT CRUSH [THE CUMMIM] ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATH, HE MUST CHEW [IT] WITH HIS TEETH AND APPLY [IT TO THE WOUND] …

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbath 133a

Soncino 1961 Edition, pages 668-669

GEMARA. … WE SUCK OUT, etc. R. Papa said: If a surgeon does not suck [the WOUND], it is dangerous and he is dismissed. It is obvious? Since we desecrate the Sabbath for it, it is dangerous? — You might say that this blood is stored up, therefore he informs us that it is the result of a wound, and it is like a bandage and cummin: just as when one does not apply a bandage and cummin there is danger, so here too if one does not do it there is danger …

— Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Shabbath 133b

Soncino 1961 Edition, page 672

he method to be adopted is laid down thus: 'One excises the foreskin, [that is] the entire skin covering the glans, so that the corona is laid bare. Afterwards, one tears with the fingernail the soft membrane underneath the skin, turning it to the sides until the flesh of the glans appears. Thereafter, one sucks the membrane until the blood is extracted from the [more] remote places, so that no danger [to the infant] may ensue; and any circumciser who does not carry out the sucking procedure is to be removed [from his office].' … The operation itself, then, consists of three distinct acts: the excision of the prepuce; the laceration of the mucous membrane covering the glans; and the sucking of the blood from the interior of the wound.

— Rabbi Lord Jakobovits (

Jewish Medical Ethics: A Comparative and Historical Study of the Jewish Religious Attitude to Medicine and Its Practice, New York: Bloch Publishing Company, 1959, pages 193-194)

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1906) gives this detailed description:

The operation [circumcision] consists of three parts: "milah," "peri'ah," and "mezizah." 

Milah: The child having been placed upon a pillow resting upon the lap of the godfather or "sandek" (he who is honored by being assigned to hold the child), the mohel exposes the parts by removal of garments, etc., and instructs the sandek how to hold the child's legs. The mohel then grasps the prepuce between the thumb and index-finger of his left hand, exerting sufficient traction to draw it from the glans, and places the shield (see Fig. 1, next column) in position just before the glans. He now takes his knife and with one sweep excises the foreskin. This completes the first act. The knife (see Fig. 3) most commonly used is double-edged, although one like those ordinarily used by surgeons is also often employed.

Peri'ah: After the excision has been completed, the mohel seizes the inner lining of the prepuce, which still covers the glans, with the thumb-nail and index-finger of each hand, and tears it so that he can roll it fully back over the glans and expose the latter completely. The mohel usually has his thumb-nail suitably trimmed for the purpose. In exceptional cases the inner lining of the prepuce is more or less extensively adherent to the glans, which interferes somewhat with the ready removal; but persistent effort will overcome the difficulty.

Mezizah: By this is meant the sucking of the blood from the wound. The mohel takes some wine in his mouth and applies his lips to the part involved in the operation, and exerts suction, after which he expels the mixture of wine and blood into a receptacle (see Fig. 4, below) provided for the purpose. This procedure is repeated several times, and completes the operation, except as to the control of the bleeding and the dressing of the wound. 

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

In short during circumcision blood from the baby's penis has to be sucked. This is not only the tradition but also a custom. Jewish rabbis through centuries have been performing this act.

Jesus of the Bible would have been no exception to this Jewish tradition of circumcision.

 On the eighth day, when it was time to circumcise the child, he was named Jesus, the name the angel had given him before he was conceived. (Luke 2:21)

We read from the account of Luke, Jesus was circumcised when he was a baby. We also know from Jewish traditions how circumcision was performed. Now the question is did the rabbis who circumcised Jesus know he was circumcising God? If so was the same rabbi aware he was putting the penis of Yahweh in his mouth sucking the blood? If you say Jesus was a man or baby in this case it was not God, how does it sound the saviour of Christians had his penis inside the mouth of an unknown rabbi?

You can't have the cake and eat it. By tradition and ritual Jesus of the Bible being a Jew would have been circumcised the same way as any Jewish baby, he would not have been an exception.

Thus, we can conclude Jesus of the Bible was circumcised by a Jewish rabbi who put his penis in his mouth an sucked it.

Explaining the Tongue-Sucking Hadith

From http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/01/explaining-tongue-sucking-hadith.html:

It appears Islamophobic rabble-rousers on the internet have been distorting the reason behind Prophet Muhammad allowing his grandchildren (Hassan and Husayn, ra) to suck his tongue. [1]

Sadly, these folk have very little research behind them and even less desire for the truth. They have twisted these actions of genuine devotion and concern for these boys to reflect their debauched minds by accusing the Prophet of homosexuality. 

What is the actual reason behind the tongue-sucking?

The answer lies in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad. The reason behind the tongue-sucking was to quench their thirst and help settle them down. We must remember this was an arid environment (desert) where water was scarce, thus loving parents/guardians did go to such lengths in caring for children:

He gave al-Hasan and al-Husayn his tongue to suck. They had been weeping from thirst and upon this they became quiet. [2]

This was a genuine act of devotion; had Jesus (p), Gandi, Guru Nanak or Mother Theresa carried out such an act of devotion to children they would have been praised for it. Sadly, this is not always the case for Prophet Muhammad (p) as malicious Islamophobes on the internet have dark agendas they are pursuing assiduously.

Outrageous Islamophobic spin on a genuine act of devotion!

Islamophobes who present Ahadith (narrations) of such a nature in order to promote the idea of homosexuality or child abuse should desist immediately as their spin amounts to nothing more than a fallacious and fanciful attempt at character assassination.

May Allah guide these people. Ameen.

Muslims and Non-Muslims should be alert…

If a hater does present a claim where this occurred between the Prophet (p) and his grandchildren or his daughter (Fatima) please realise there is nothing untoward and the action was a genuine act of devotion that any caring person would undertake for the betterment of the infants. Do not be swayed by such hollow and outrageous distortions. 

We must also remember homosexuality is forbidden and sinful in Islam. [3]

The Prophet’s saliva

 Prophet even used to spit in the mouths of suckling children in order to satisfy them until nightfall [4]. Further examples of the blessings within the Prophet’s saliva are given in footnotes [5], [6].

A couple of narrations Islamophobes erroneously “use” in their efforts to degrade and dehumanize the Prophet (p) and Islam:

Bukhari, 1183. It is related that Abu Hurayra said, "I never sae al-Hasan without my eyes overflowing with tears. That is because the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, went out one day and I found him in the mosque. He took my hand and I went along with him. He did not speak to me until we reached the market of Banu Qaynuqa'. He walked around it and looked. Then he left and I left with him until we reached the mosque. He sat down and wrapped himself in his garment. Then he said, 'Where is the little one? Call the little one to me.' Hasan came running and jumped into his lap. Then he put his hand in his beard. Then the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, opened his mouth and put his tongue in his mouth. Then he said, O Allah, I love him, so love him and the one who loves him!'" [Al-Adab al-Mufrad Al-Bukhari by Imam BukhariTranslated by: Ustadha Aisha Bewley] From -http://www.sunnipath.com/Library/Hadith/H0003P0046.aspx

Also:

Musnad Ahmed Hadith Number 16245, Volume Title: "The Sayings of the Syrians," Chapter Title: "Hadith of Mu’awiya Ibn Abu Sufyan": "I saw the prophet – pbuh – sucking on the tongue or the lips of Al-Hassan son of Ali, may the prayers of Allah be upon him. For no tongue or lips that the prophet sucked on will be tormented (by hell fire)

[2] Muhammad, Messenger of Allah – Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press, 2004 pg 184

[3] Imam Dhahabi’s list of enormities (sins), p17.0 he writes, “…There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of other religions that sodomy is an enormity…”[From the list of enormities presented in Nuh Hamim Keller’s translation of Umdat as Salik, Amana Publications, 2008, p17.0 (page 644)]

[4] He used to spit into the mouths of suckling children and his saliva would satisfy them until nightfall [page 184 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]

[5] He spat in a well that was in Anas’ house and there was no water in Madina sweeter than it – Al Bayhaqi [from page 183 in Ash Sifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]

[6] This narration is unclear as to whether the blessings were within the saliva of the Prophet (p) or not but it is of benefit to mention:

In the hadith of Hanash ibn Uqayl we find, “The Messenger of Allah would give me a drink of sawiq (a kind of mash). He would drink first and I would drink last. I always found that it filled me up when I was hungry and quenched me when I was thirsty and was cool when I was parched”

[from page 184 in Ash Shifa of Qadi Iyad, Madinah Press, 2004]

Abu Huraira reported: The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, heard Hasan and Hussein crying while they were with their mother, so he hurried to them and he said:

What is the matter with my boys?

Their mother said:

It is thirst.

The Prophet went to the source of water but at that time water was scarce. The Prophet called out:

Does anyone have any water?

But no one had any water, so the Prophet said to their mother:

Bring me one of them.

Abu Huraira said:

He massaged his tongue and moistened it until he calmed down.

Source: al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr 2588, Grade: Hasan

This tradition was declared reliable by Al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawā’id 9/183 and by Ash-Shawkani in Darr al-Saḥābah 242.

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

Refutation of the lie :

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ used to kiss Al Hussein’s ( little ) Penis !!!

What Christians and Hadith Rejecters don’t understand is : we don’t accept narrations just like that , we don’t accept narrations from weak narrators , from unknown people but only from trusted people .

Imam Muslim says in the introduction of his book Sahih Muslim :

Know - may Allah, exalted is He, grant you success – that what is obligatory upon everyone who is aware of the distinction between the Sahīh transmissions and their weak, the trustworthy narrators from those who stand accused, is to not transmit from them except what is known for the soundness of its emergence and the protection of its narrators; and that they fear what may be from those accused (of deficiency in narrating) and the stubborn people of innovation . [ 1 ]

Takhrij Al Hadith ( tracking of hadith ) :

This Hadith have 5 ways ( was narrated by 5 people about the messenger of Allah ﷺ with different chains ) : 
1==  Hadith of Ibn Abbas RA ,
2== Hadith Abi Dabyan (a companion of a companion ) ,
3==  Hadith Jabir ibn Abdellah RA ,
4==  Hadith of Abi Layla Al Ansari ,
5== Hadith of Anas ben Malik RA .

In shaa Allah we will list all the books who mentioned the Hadith ,all the different Isnads the Hadith have been reported with , will see what scholars said about the Hadith , will check the chains of Narrations ( Isnad ) of each Hadith and see either if it is authentic or just someone fabricated the Hadith and the chains of Narration .

1 ==  Hadith of Ibn Abbas RA


Al Tabari said :
Al Hasan ben Ali Al Faswi narrated to us about Khaled ben Yazid Al Arni , about Jarir , About Qabous ben Abi Dabyan about his father , that Ibn Abbass RA said :
He (the prophet) put Husein’s legs apart and kissed his (little) penis . [ 2 ]

What Christians and HR don’t know is that there is a defect in this Hadith , which is Qabous ben Abi Dabyan ; Who is a weak narrator according to the scholars of Jarh and Taadil .

Ibn Al Mulaqan in Al Badr Al Munir, after he cited the Hadith commented : Qabous , Al Nisaai and others said he is not a strong narrator . [ 3 ]
Ibn Saad said : he is a weak narrator and his narration shouldn’t take as a testimony . [ 4 ]

Al Nisaai said : Not a Strong narrator . [ 5 ]

Ibn Hibban said : he was a bad memorizer (weak memory ) ,he used to narrate about his father things no other one has mentioned . [ 6 ]

Al Dahabi in Mizan Al Itidal :
Qabous ben Abi Dabyan ; Ibn Mouyein ,Abo Hatim ,Nisaii and Ibn Hiban declared him : not a trustworthy narrator . [ 7 ]

Al Albani in Asilsila Daeefa : commented on the Hadith as weak he cited what the scholars said about Qabous . [ 8 ]

Ibn Hajar in Al Talkhis Al Habir : Hadith is Daeef and Qabous is not a trustworthy narrator. [ 9 ]

Muheyii Deen Al Dimashqi in Khulasat Al Ahakam : weak Hadith . [ 10 ]

Muhamed ben Tahir Al Maqdisi in Dakhirat Al hufad : weak Hadith and Qabous is a weak narrator . [ 11 ]

Imam Shawkani in Nail Al Awtar : in the Isnad Qabous ben abi Dabyan , declared weak by Al Nisaai . [ 12 ]


2 == Hadith of Abi Dabyan 

Ibn Abi Dunya narrated about his sheikh Isaac ben Ismail about Jarir about Qabous ben Abi Dabyan about his father :
the prophet used to put Al Husein’s legs apart and kiss his (little) penis . [ 13 ]

This Isnad reported by Ibn Abi Dunya here is much weaker than the one reported by Al Tabari, because it adds another defect which is : Qabous ben Abi Dabyan attributed the Hadith directly to the prophet ﷺ .

-The Isnad reported by Tabari was : ….. Qabous ben Abi Dabyan about his father , that Ibn Abbass RA said .
-The Isnad reported by Ibn Abi Dunya is :….. Qabous ben Abi Dabyan about his father .

In the science of Hadith we call it “ Mursal Hadith ” which means a companion of the companion (of the prophet ﷺ ) narrates directly from the Prophet ﷺ without mentioning the companion which he heard the Hadith from .
Dabyan the father of Qabous narrated the Hadith directly from the Prophet ﷺ .
The father of Qabous was a companion of a companion of the prophet ﷺ. he never saw the prophet ﷺ .

So , the narration reported by Ibn Abi Dunya has two problems :
1= Qabous ben Abi Dabyan is a weak narrator
2= the Hadith is Mursal .

3 ==  Hadith of Jabir ibn Abdullah RA

Ibn Asaker narrated in Tarikh Dimashk (history of Damascus ) :
Abu Al Kasim Ali Ben Ibrahim and Abu Al Hassan Ali ben Ahmed , about Abu mansour ben Zurayq told us , about Abu Bakr Ahmed ben Ali Al Khateeb , about Al Azhari , about Al muaafi ben Zakarya , about Muhamed ben Mazyad ben Abi Al Azhar , about Ali ben Muslim Al Tousi , about Said ben Ameir , About Qabous ben Abi Dabyan , about his father , about his grandfather , about Jabir ben Abd Allah RA .
And he narrated to us Another time ( Qabous ) about his father , about jabir ben Abd Allah RA said :
I saw the messenger of Allah ﷺ putting Al Hassan’s legs apart and kissed his (little) penis and Saying : May Allah curse the one who will kill you . End quot [ 14 ]

A fabricated narration : In the Isnad we have a weak narrator and a liar.

Ibn Asakir in the next page , after citing the hadith said : Al Khateeb Said : this hadith is a fabricated one both its Isnad (the chain of narration) and its Matn (the story ) , and I think that Ibn Abi Al Azhar put / invented / fabricated it , then attributed it to Qabous about his father about his grandfather about Jabir ben Abdellah RA; when he released that this Isnad is impossible he changed it to Qabous about his father about jabir RA .End quot

Al Kahteeb Al Baghdadi in Tarikh Baghdad , after citing the Hadith :

this hadith is a fabricated one both its Isnad (the chain of narration) and its Matn (the story ) , and I think that Ibn Abi Al Azhar fabricated it (made it up ) , then attributed it to Qabous about his father about his grandfather about Jabir ben Abdellah RA; when he released that this Isnad is impossible he changed it to Qabous about his father about jabir RA ; Abu Dabyan ( the father of Qabous ) met Salman Al Farisi RA and Ali Ben Abi Talib RA and heard Hadith from them ,
the father of Qabous ‘s name was Huseein ben Jundob , and this Jundob ( the grandfather of Qabous ) we don’t know if he was either a Muslim or a Kafir .
there is another evidence that shows the Hadith is fabricated : it is impossible for Said ben Ameir to narrate from Qabous , they never met each other , Said is from Basra and Qabous from Kufa ,more than that Qabous died before Said was born . End quot [ 15 ]

The defects in the Narration are :

1 = Qabous ben Abi Dabyan as we mentioned earlier is a weak narrator.
2 = Muhamed ben Mazyad ben Abi Al Azhar is a Liar .
3 = broken chain of narration

Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani said in Lisan Al Mizan :
Al Khateeb said : it’s possible that ibn Abi Al Azhar fabricated the Hadith , he fabricated many Ahadith ; he was (Muhamed ben Mazyad) not a trustworthy narrator, he used to fabricate Hadith and attribute it to a trusted narrators .
Al Daraqoutni : he was weak ; other fabricated Ahadith were narrated about him .
Abu Al Hassan ben Al Furat said , Abu Al Fath Ubaid Allah ben Ahmed Al Nahwi said :the scholars of Hadith declared ben abi Al Azhar as a liar .
Al Marzabani said : the scholars of Hadith declared him as a liar ; and I say he was a shameless liar . End quot [ 16 ]

Al Tarablosi in Al Kashf Al Hatit : a fabricated Hadith . [ 17 ]

Al Dahabi in Mizan Al Itidal : a fabricated Hadith , Muhammed ben Mazyad ben Abi Al Azhar is a liar . [18]

Imam Shawkani in Al Fawaid al majmouaa : this Hadith of Jabir about the prophet ﷺ kissing Husein’s little penis , Al Khateeb said it is fabricated both Isnad and Matn . [ 19 ]

A fabricated Hadith said Ibn Al Jawzi in Al Mawduaat (the fabricated ones ). [ 20 ]

Ibn Iraq Al Qinani Al Shafii in his book Tanzih Al Sharia : a fabricated Hadith . [ 21 ]

Jalal udeen Al Suyuti in Al La alyi’ Al Masnouaa fi Al Ahadith Al Maoudouaa : a made-up Hadith. [22]

4 ==  Hadith of Abi Layla Al Ansari

Al Bayhaqi narrated in his book Al Sunan Al Kubra :

Abu bakr Al Qadi and Abu Said ben Abi Amrou said, Abu Al Abbas Muhamed ben Yacoub said, muhamed ben Isaac said ,Muhamed ben Imraan about his father , about ben Abi Layla about Isa about Abd-alrahman ben Abi Layla said :
We were at the presence of Rasoul Allah , and al Hasan came to him ,he kissed his (little) penis. [23]

Al Bayhaqi himself commented on this narration as weak , he cited the narration then just after he commented : and this Isnad is not strong ; In the Isnad there is Muhamed ben Abd-alrahman ben Abi Layla , who is a weak narrator .

Al Albani said in Irwa’ Al Ghalil : the Hadith was narrated by ibn Abi Layla who is Muhamed ben Abd-alrahman ben Abi Layla and he is a weak narrator for his bad memorization . [ 24 ]

Al Dahabi said in Mizan Al Itidal :

Abu Zuraa (Al Razi) said : not a strong narrator .
and Ahmed (ben Hanbal ) Said : confused (used to mix narrations ) .
and Shuba said : I didn’t saw worse than his memorization .
Yahya Al Qatan said : he had a very bad memorization / memory.
Nisaii : not so strong .
Al Daraqoutni : weak memorization , illusionist .
Abu Ahmed Al hakim : most of his narrations are
Reversed /mixed. [ 25 ]

Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani in Al Talkhis Al Habir : Muhamed ben Abd-alrahman ben Abi Layla is a weak narrator . [ 26 ]

Ibn Al Mulaqan said in Al Badr Al Munir : …. Weak Hadith . [ 27 ]

Imam Nawawi in Al Majmou’ Sharh Al Muhadab : … Hadith of Abi Layla is weak . [ 28 ]

Ibn Abi Dunya in Al Iyal : weak Hadith . [ 29 ]

5 == Hadith of Anas ben Malik RA

Ibn Asaker in Tarikh Dimashq :

Abu Muhamed Ismail ben Abi Al Qasim , about Abu Hafs Omar ben Ahmed ben Masrour ,about Al Hakim Abu Ahmed Muhamed ben muhamed ben Ahmed Al Hafiz , about Abu Yusef Muhamed ben Sufyan Al Safaar in Al Masisa , about Al yaman ben Said , about Al Harith ben Atiya , about Shu’ba , About Al Hakam , about Ibrahim , About Anas RA that he said : I saw the messenger of Allah ﷺ putting Al Hassan’s legs apart and kissed his (little) penis . [30]

Tamam Al Razi in Al Fawaid : Al Hassan ben Al Hassan ben Alan Al Harani Al Hafiz told us , about Muhamed ben Sufyan Al masisi , about Al yaman ben Saiid ,about Al harith ben Atia, About Shu’ba , about Al hakam , about Ibraheem , that Anas ben malik Said : I saw the messenger of Allah ﷺ putting Al Hassan’s legs apart and kissed his (little) penis . [ 31 ]

  

The Narration is too weak for 6 reasons :

1 = This is a weak Isnad , Al Yaman ben Said al Masisi is a weak narrator .
Imam Ibn Hajar Al Haithami said in his book Tuhfat Al Muhtaj fi sharh al minhaj :
Ibn Asakir narrated in his Tarikh with a >>weak Isnad 32 ]

Al Yaman Ben Said al masisi , Al Daraqoutni classified him among the weak narrators in his book Al Duaffa’ wal Matroukin (the weak narrators and those who shouldn’t take narrations from them ). [ 33 ]

Ibn AL Jawzi in Al Duafaa wal Matroukin : Yaman ben Said Abu redwan Al Shami Al Masisi , Daraqoutni Said he is weak . [ 34 ]

Al Dahabi in Al Mughni fi Al Duafaa : Yaman Ben Said al masisi , Al Daraqoutni classified him among the weak narrators . [ 35 ]

Al Dahabi in Mizan ul Itidal :
Yaman Ben Said al masisi , declared weak by Al Daraqoutni . [ 36 ]

Ibn Hajar in lisan Al Mizan :
Yaman Ben Said al masisi , declared weak by Al Daraqoutni and others …. [ 37 ]

2 = In the Isnad Al Harith ben Atiya Al Basri .

Ibn Hajar in Tahdib Al Tahdib : …. Al Saji Said , he is a weak narrator, Ahmed said I didn’t took Hadith from him . [ 38 ]

3 = Muhamed ben Sufyan Al Masisi is not mentioned in the biographies of narrators , an unknown narrator .

4 = Ibrahim that was mentioned in the Hadith full name is Ibn yazid Al Nukhaai , and he is a Mudalis ( used to change the Isnad - to make it short - and attribute narrations to someone who didn’t say it ) .

Al Ala’yi in Jamii’ Al tahseel : Ibrahim ben Yazid Al Nukhaai , Al hakim mentioned that he was a dangerous Mudalis…. . [ 39 ]

5 = The Hadith is maktou’ (broken chain of narration ) because Ibrahim ben Yazid al Nukhaai never heard from any Sahabi .
Al Ala’ii in Jamii’ Al tahseel :

Ibrahim ben Yazid Al Nukhaai , was a Mudalis and used to narrate Hadith with a broken Isnads , Ali ben Al Madini said : Ibrahim never met any of the Sahaba of the prophet [ 40 ]


6= Al Hakam ben Utaiba is a Mudalis .
Al Ala’i in Jamii’ Al tahsil :
Al Hakam ben Utaiba accused of being a Mudalis according of many scholars . [ 41 ]



Bibliography :

[ 1 ] Chapter 1 : The Obligation of Transmitting on Authority of Trustworthy  Narrators and Abandoning the Liars .
http://www.sunnah.com/muslim/introduction
[ 2 ] Al Mujam Al Kabir by Al Tabarani vol 3 , p 51 , N° 2658 .
Also narrated by Al Dyaa’ in his book Al Ahadith Al Mukhtara vol 9 , P 555 , N° 549 .
[ 3 ] Ibn Al Mulaqan , Al Badr Al Munir fi Takhrij Al Ahdith wa Al Atar Al Waqiaa fi Al Sharh Al Kabir vol 2 p 479 .
البدر المنير في تخريج الاحاديث الواقعة في الشرح الكبير لابن الملقن ج2 ص479 ط دار الهجرة – الرياض
[ 4 ] Ibn Saad , Al Tabaqat Al Kubra vol 8 , p 459 .
[ 5 ] Al Nisaai , Al Duafaa wal Matroukin p 227 .
[ 6 ] Ibn Hibban , Al Majrouhin min Al Mutahaditeen vol 2 , p 219 .
[ 7 ] Al Dahabi , Mizan Al Itidal vol 5 , p 445 .
[ 8 ] Al Albani , Asilsila Daeefa vol 5 p 28 Hadith N° 2029 .
[ 9 ] Ibn Hajar , Al Talkhis Al Habir vol 1 p 127 .
تلخيص الحبير في تخريج أحاديث الرافعي الكبير بن حجر العسقلاني ج1 ص222 ط مؤسسة قرطبة .
[10] Muheyii Deen Al Dimashqi Khulasat Al Ahakam vol 1 p 138 N° 283 .
[11] Muhamed ben Tahir Al Maqdisi, Dakhirat Al hufad vol 2 , p 769 , N° 1466 .
ذخيرة الحافظ لمحمد بن طاهر المقدسي ص769 ح1466 ط دار الدعوة بالهند، ودار السلف بالرياض .
[12] Shawkani , Nail Al Awtar vol 2 , p 53 .
[13] Ibn Abi Dunyaa , Al iyal vol 1 , p 376 , N° 211.
كتاب العيال لابن أبي الدنيا ج1/ص 376 برقم 211
[14] Ibn Asaker,Tarikh Dimashk (history of Damascus ) vol 14 , p 224 .
[15] Al Kahteeb Al Baghdadi , Tarikh Baghdad vol 3 , p 290 .
[16] Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani , Lisan Al Mizan vol 7 , p 501.
[17] Al Tarablosi ,Al Kashf Al Hatit aman romia bewada’ al Hadith vol 1 , p 248 , N° 733 .
[18] Al Dahabi , Mizan Al Itidal vol 6, p 330 .
[19] Shawkani , Al Fawaid al majmouaa fi al Ahadith al mawduaa , vol 1 , p 388 , N° 107 .
[20] Ibn Al Jawzi , Al Mawduaat (the fabricated ones ) vol 1 , p 307 .
[21] Ibn Iraq Al Qinani , Tanzih Al Sharia Al Marfouaa an Al Akhbar Al Maoudouaa , vol 1 , p 408 .
تنزيه الشريعة المرفوعة لابن عراق الكناني ج1/ص 408 .
[22] Jalal udeen Al Suyuti , Al La alyi’ Al Masnouaa fi Al Ahadith Al Maoudouaa vol 1 , p 358 .
[23] Al Bayhaqi , Al Sunan Al Kubra vol 1 , p 137 , N° 637 .
[24] Al Albani , Irwa’ Al Ghalil , vol 6 , p 213 .
[25] Al Dahabi , Mizan Al Itidal vol 6 , p 222 .
[26] Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani , Al Talkhis Al Habir vol 1 p 127 ,N° 169 .
[27] Ibn Al Mulaqan , Al Badr Al Munir fi Takhrij Al Ahdith wa Al Athar Al Waqiaa fi Al Sharh Al Kabir vol 2 , p 478 .
[28] Imam Nawawi , Al Majmou’ Sharh Al Muhadab vol 2 , p 54 .
[29] Ibn Abi Dunya , Al Iyal vol 1 , p 375 , N° 210 .
[30] Ibn Asaker , Tarikh Dimashq , vol 13 , p 222 .
[31] Tamam Al Razi , Al Fawaid , vol 1 , p 251 , N° 610 .
[32] Ibn Hajar Al Haithami ,Tuhfat Al Muhtaj fi sharh al minhaj vol 7 , p 196 .
[33] Daraqoutni , Al Duaffa’ w Al Matroukin p 206 , N° 609 .
[34] Ibn AL Jawzi , Al Duafaa wal Matroukin , vol 3 , p 218 , N° 3838 .
[35] Al Dahabi , Al Mughni fi Al Duafaa , vol 2 , p 760 , N° 7219 .
[36] Al Dahabi , Mizan ul Itidal vol 7 , p 289 .
[37] Ibn Hajar , lisan Al Mizan vol 6 , p 316 , N° 1135 .
[38] Ibn Hajar , Tahdib Al Tahdib , vol 2 , p 131 , N° 256 .
[39] Al Ala’yi , Jamii’ Al tahsil , vol 1 , p 104 , N° 1
جامع التحصيل للعلائي ج1/ص104 رقم1
[40] Al Ala’ii , Jamii’ Al tahsil , vol 1, p 141,N° 13 .
[41] Al Ala’i , Jamii’ Al tahsil ,vol 1 ,p 106 ,N° 13 .

Ben Abrahamson published a note. Isa (as) in Judaism, Muhammad (saw) in Judaism, Torah and Talmud

Question: Assalamualaikum. I would like to know and learn a few things about Judaism. For the past few months I have started to study and do research about Islam, Judaism and Christianity to understand better about the historical events and the connections that involved over this past thousand years.

 

1. Do you mind to explain a bit about Isa (as) in Judaism and Jesus in Christianity, what is the position for Isa (as) in Judaism, and how to relate it with Jesus as Christians believe in.

2. Second, what is the position for Muhammad (saw) in Judaism.

3. Third, about Torah and Talmud, what is the relation between it.

 

 sorry if my question offended you, I do not mean so.

 

Answer: wa aleikum salaam wa rahmatullah

 

The historical events of the last two thousand years would take a little time to explain (smile).

 

1) Jesus (pbuh) in Judaism

 

According to Jewish law, a person is declared a Prophet by means of the great court in Jerusalem. Since that court was destroyed by the Romans two thousand years ago, Judaism has given no opinion on Jesus (pbuh) or the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), only on the movements that were founded in their name.

 

In addition there is the problem of knowing exactly what Jesus (pbuh) taught. In the Torah, Deuteronomy 18:13-22, the Children of Israel are given instructions how to recognize a Prophet:

 

1) Must be like Moses (pbuh), morally upright, without sin

2) Must teach the same teachings as Moses (pbuh)

3) If he speaks about the future, his words must be true.

 

Judaism's main source of teachings about Jesus (pbuh) come from the Church. Most Christians teach that God has a son (sure Allah SWT is above that), the Torah is invalid, the law of Moses (pbuh) no longer needs to be kept, and the Children of Israel have been replaced by the Christians.

 

These teachings violate the second rule above. The Torah says that its teachings are eternal and that the Law of Moses (pbuh) will never pass away, so Jews cannot accept the "Jesus" of the Church.

 

"Jesus" as taught by the Qur'an is more acceptable to Jewish views, but I have never heard a Rabbi discuss this issue in depth.

 

There is the additional issue of the claim that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah. In Judaism the expectation is that the Messiah will be like King David (pbuh). He will rule Israel and bring peace to the world, which hasn't happened yet. Christianity says that this will happen when Jesus (pbuh) comes a second time, so we will soon see.

 

2) Muhammed (pbuh) in Judaism

 

We are taught the prophecy is not limited to the Jewish people. There were many Prophets who were not Jewish, some were Arabic. The Torah says "And he said, The LORD came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; He shined forth from mount Paran, and He came with ten thousands of saints (Prophets): from His right hand went a fiery law for them (sharia/covenant)." (Deuteronomy 33:2)

 

The Qur'an explains it in a most perfect way: "To each among you have we prescribed a Shariah (law) and Minhaj (custom). If Allah had so willed, He could have made you a single Ummah (people), but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth about the matters in which ye differ;" (Al Maeda 48)

 

Thus we are taught that prophets were sent, and covenants were made with the nations of the world. These prophets were sent with a Divine Message, and each covenant is important and binding on its people, not unlike how the Torah is the law and guide for the Jewish people.

 

Thus from a Jewish point of view, Muhammed (pbuh) could be a Prophet. But again the biggest problem is the teachings of the followers of the Prophet (pbuh). Most Muslims claim the Torah has been corrupted, and is no longer valid. They claim that the Shari'ah of Musa (pbuh) has been abolished. For a Jew who follows the Torah with all his heart, he cannot accept these claims because the Torah itself says that it is eternal. This causes distance between Muslims and Jews, even though Jews believe that proper Jews and Muslims belong to the same religion.

 

Universal religion

 

I think the problem goes back to Roman Imperialism. With Constantine, there was a tendency to believe that Imperial and military power depended on religious uniformity. This was expressly declared at the council of Nicea in 325CE. Any time a dictator wanted to consolidate his power, he demanded that every person conform to the same form of worship. Judaism has no tradition imposing one form of worship upon all humanity. Judaism does not recognize "thought crimes" or punishment for wrong beliefs, only wrong actions. The dictators, however, demanded religious uniformity and declared all diverse religious views as unfounded, heretical and against the Empire. In order to demand universal uniformity, it was necessary to abrogate all previous beliefs.

 

Judaism cannot accept the abrogation of Torah. The Torah was given with great signs and wonders, thunder and the raising up of Mount Sina (Surat Al-Baqara 2.63) . Yet it is claimed that it has been canceled, albeit quietly. So quietly, in facet that there is nowhere in the New Testament, the Qur'an or the Ahaddith that clearly says the Covenant (Shari'ah) of Torah has been abrogated.  The opposite is true, the Torah is confirmed and upheld in the Qur'an and Ahaddith even while the Prophet (pbuh) was alive. (Surat Al-Maeda 5.43, Abu-Dawud 38.4434). So one could question if this is a true teaching or an innovation. To accept the alternative, that the Torah is still valid and binding, and still recognize Christianity or Islam is to accept multi-covenantism. Judaism accepts multi-covenantism, yet it also teaches there is a fundamental universal basic religion incumbent upon all mankind. Rabbi Benamozegh taught that if Christianity and Islam would really understand Jewish teaching, they would understand we are really all part of the same religion, under different covenants.

 

If either Christianity or Islam would officially re-evaluate claims of the abrogation of the Torah, which we are commanded to keep "as long as there is a heaven and earth", and present their case before the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, Judaism's official stance of silence on Isa (as) and Muhammad (saw) could be re-evaluated. Until then, we see that Christianity and Islam are indeed playing a role in bringing monotheism and scripture to the world. Because of this we can assume that their founders are indeed Messengers of Allah SWT in some way, but we cannot say how. We are told that in the end of days, the Prophet Elijah (pbuh) will come and explain all our questions. The Qur'an too, says in a most perfect way: "The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth about the matters in which ye differ;" (Al Maeda 48)

 

3) Torah and Talmud

 

The Qur'an says in a most perfect way: And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright. (Surat Al Baqara 2,53)

 

We believe that when Moses (pbuh) received the Torah that he was not just given a bunch of words and then left to figure them out. We believe that Moses (pbuh) was given the understanding (criterion) how to apply the teachings of the Torah in all future situations. The written words are called "the Written Torah" and the proper understanding of those words is called "the Oral Torah". This is what the Qur'an calls "Scripture" and the "Criterion".

 

Over time, this understanding was passed down from Moses (pbuh) to Aaron (pbuh), to Joshua (pbuh), to the Prophets, to the elders, even until the spiritual leaders of today. Difficult cases were brought before the Prophets and other leaders, and they applied what they had learned and about 2000 years ago their decisions were written down. The collection of these legal cases, as well as stories and other teachings, were bound together in a set of books that we call today the Talmud (which means "learning").

 

The Talmud is not divinely inspired, but it contains examples of the divine Torah as it was applied and explained by spiritual leaders who had inherited the proper understanding of the Torah. It is believed by Jews, that study of these works, together with pure intention and and a humble heart, will allow a person to reconstruct in his or her mind the proper understanding of the words of Torah.