Amazing how people can believe this anti-Bible stuff.

I found this through technorati but feel wary of giving it anymore consideration than it deserves. This is about how the Torah supports rape.

1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.

The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”

Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.'” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
<i> Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil? </i>

The first and supposedly most proved example of this phenomenom is already flawed. Take for example the fact that the context of the story is the Jews fighting a deadly war against Binyamin because they refused to deal with the rape of a woman of no particular importance. To characterize this as rape is misunderstanding the basic economics of the time. The people had killed all but a few hundred of the Benjamites, but they kept all of their ancestral land. These people were fantastically wealthy, but couldn’t marry due to the people agreeing to not marry off any children to them. In fact these people were probably the most eligible bachelors out there. To characterize the traditional seeling off of women normal for ther time as rape is to judge a 11 century culture by our standards and blaming the Bible for it.


2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.

Maybe the key mistake here is assuming women slaves, equals women raped. There was clearly a market for women slaves and because they hadn’t participated in the orgy whixh was intended (and suceeded) to kill Jews. In the war the virgins were presumed not guilty of this sin and therefore got the right to become a slave instead of being killed. Whatever you may say about this, this is not rape and was quite normal by the standards of the time.

3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?

Same point. Furthermore, there really was no solutin for conquering a country at the time without genocide or mass slavery. Whenever every man is a member of the army and there are no prisons and no way to keep hundreds of thousands of people at bay there really is no alternative. But, again women captives does not equal rape.

4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NAB)

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.

This is a standard translation error. The word is not Ansah which means raped, the word is Mifateh which means seduced. If you replace that word it makes a fair amount of sense especially when you consider the damage done to the father in terms of money.

5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)

If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
It is clear that God doesn’t give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans “property”.

This passage is both not unfair and makes a pretty clear distinction. It is assumed that in a public area that a rape victim would be heard while a woman who wanted to later claim rape would have been quiet at the time and not found out. In fact the next passage which is conveniently omitted says that if the woman is raped in the fields she is not punished and even keeps the marriage contract of a virgin.


6) David’s Punishment – Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God’s “Forgiveness” (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’

Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.” [The child dies seven days later.] This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!

The story of David and Batsheba is not one of rape or (possibly) one of adultery (though it was adultery in everything but name), The story is one of abuse of power by even the greatest of kings when he has Uriah killed for refusing to cover up for David. First consider Batsheba, she is introduced as bathing on the roof naked in the kings line of sight. She doesn’t seem to be the modest victim of a king. Furthermore as the wife of a prominent general she proably could have protested and avoided this if possible. In fact she comes out really well in the story, considering that she got to be the favorite wife of the most powerful man in the kingdom. Uriah came out the worst in the story. Furthermore, G-d clearly disapproves of this sin and sends his prophet to rebuke David.

7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Once again God approves of forcible rape.

This is probably the most legitimate claim in the article. First of all it is an argument about whether this process is after a permissal of rape on the battlefield or a substitute. Furthermore the process is designed to avoid the keeping of these women. Also these women were given a vast improvement from the Bible. First of all, they were allowed to live after battle when most nations would have killed them. Furthermore any children they had from the mariage would be required to get full inheritance rights and would be considered the firstborn if he was born first. The treatment of these women wasn’t ideal, but it was better than was available from any other army.

8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)

When I saw this I realized that the person making this list didn’t even bother looking at the context of the verses they just looked for verses which superficially supported their position. In fact this verse is from the point of view of Sisera’s mother. Sisera was the enemy of the Jews and the villian of the story. This was supposed to illustrate in the song of victory how the mother felt when her son didn’t come home and how she was consoled. This is obviously not an endorsement of rape.

9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Selling daughters off to be married was a common practice at the time and can only not be done in a society as rich as ours can afford to not do it. In fact any society which didn’t allow any form of marriage selling in a culture like theirs would have huge numbers of female infanticide because it would be just to expensive to maintain them when they couldn’t physically do that much useful work.

10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

See comment number 8.




11 Responses to Amazing how people can believe this anti-Bible stuff.

  1. Tobie says:

    Excellent points. I never cease to be annoyed at those who choose to misunderstand, quote out of context, or judge Bronze Age nations by Enlightenment standards. And it’s pretty clear that the person didn’t even try- not only the Sisera one, but also the one about the engaged girl, in which the very next verses show a very anti-rape stance. That verse also compares rape (rape as opposed to seduction) to murder, from which the Talmud learns that you can kill somebody to prevent it. Sigh.

  2. Adam says:

    It is obviously important not to “judge bronze age nations by enlightenment standards”, yet it is also important to engage with the central theological problem raised by the Torah’s ‘bronze age’ laws. To dismiss all such challenges as ‘anti-Bible’ is to refuse to engage Dvar Hashem with the seriousness it deserves. We must seriously contend with the question of how the Torah can be considered divine revelation if it prescribes courses of action that today are considered patently immoral, without engaging in apologetics. To distinguish between ‘Torah tolerated’ and ‘Torah advocated’ laws as Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits does (re: slavery and the status of women) is to miss the point entirely: the Torah simply advocates things most moderns consider completely immoral. One simple example should prove this point:

    It is absolutely clear that the Torah advocates the sacrifice of human beings to Hashem within the context of the ‘Herem’. Whatever the attempts made to minimise the impact of the passages that advocate this by Hazal and later commentators, “scripture does not depart from its plain meaning”; the text still means exactly what it says.
    Leviticus 27 contrasts the status of ‘Holy’ (‘Hekdesh’) with the status of ‘Devoted’ (‘Herem’). It states clearly that objects and people may be ‘devoted’ (made Herem), just like objects can be dedicated to the sanctuary (made ‘hekdesh’). Any person who is devoted (i.e. made Herem) must surely be put to death:

    28 Notwithstanding, no devoted thing, that a man may devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy unto the LORD. 29 None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.

    We are more familiar with the concept of ‘Herem’ when it is applied to the Canaanite nations. Despite the fact that Hazal attempt to circumvent the plain meaning of the text (see Jerusalem Talmud Shevi‘it 6:1., where the offer of peace to Gibeon is, contra Deut. 20 extended to the Canaanite nations), the text still demands that every man, woman and child of the Canaanite nations be put to death as part of this ‘Herem sacrifice’ to Hashem:

    When the LORD thy God shall deliver them up before thee, and thou shalt smite them; then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them (Deut 7:2)

    Howbeit of the cities of these peoples, that the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (Deut 20:16(

    Despite the fact that in each of these cases a reason beyond the sacrifice is given for the extermination: “that they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, and so ye sin against the LORD your God” (Deut. 20:18) the sacrificial nature of the Herem institution as a whole becomes clear on the basis of two further sources. Numbers 21 states:

    1 And the Canaanite, the king of Arad, who dwelt in the South, heard tell that Israel came by the way of Atharim; and he fought against Israel, and took some of them captive. 2 And Israel vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said: ‘If Thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy (VeHeheramtiy) their cities.’ 3 And the LORD hearkened to the voice of Israel, and delivered up the Canaanites; and they utterly destroyed (performed ‘Herem on) them and their cities; and the name of the place was called Hormah (i.e. because ‘Herem’ was performed there).

    This text depicts a straightforward sacrifice-exchange between Israel and Hashem: Israel vows to ‘Herem’ the cities of Arad if Hashem gives them success in battle. Israel offers human sacrifice to Hashem in exchange for a successful revenge attack and the transaction takes place as planned. The second text that depicts the ‘Herem’ in explicitly sacrificial terms is the case of the ‘Iyr HaNidakhat’, the wayward city in Deut. 13:12-18.

    12 “If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God gives you
    to dwell there, 13 that certain base fellows have gone out among you and have drawn away the inhabitants of the city, saying, `Let us go and serve other gods,’ which
    you have not known, 14 then you shall inquire and make search and ask diligently; and behold, if it be true and certain that such an abominable thing has been done among you, 15 you shall surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, destroying it utterly, all who are in it and its cattle, with the edge of the sword. 16 You shall gather all its spoil into the midst of its open square, and burn the city and all its spoil with fire, as a whole burnt offering (KHALIL) to the LORD your God; it shall be a heap for ever, it shall not be built again. 17 None of the devoted things (HEREM) shall cleave to your hand; that the LORD may turn from the fierceness of his anger, and show you mercy, and have compassion on you, and multiply you, as he swore to your fathers, 18 if you obey the voice of the LORD your God, keeping all his
    commandments which I command you this day, and doing what is right in the sight of the LORD your God. (RSV)

    The specific use of the term ‘khalil’, which usually means ‘whole burnt offering’, to describe the Herem, indicates that the act of performing the Herem was conceived of in sacrificial terms. The sacrifice of the people and belongings of the town to Hashem is designed to assuage the anger of Hashem over their waywardness.

    Even though, at the end of the discussion, most of these sources can almost certainly be dismissed as the “radicalism of the writing desk,” VHMY, the plain meaning of the texts and the theology that underpins that plain meaning must be dealt with seriously. The ideology of ‘Herem’ poses serious questions for moderns as to the morality of Hashem’s Torah. To dismiss all such challenges as ‘anti-Bible’ is to refuse to engage Dvar Hashem with the seriousness it deserves.

    See also the excellent article by Rabbi Norman Solomon at:$File/irrc_858_solomon.pdf

  3. mike529 says:

    I believe that the concept of consecrating oneself to the Temple is simply understood as monetary given the discussion in the next few verses. Cherem means forbidden to others. The city is not a sacrrififice to G-d, but rather a punishment for idolatry which means that the items in the city are not usable by others.

  4. Adam says:

    Need I point out that:

    a) I wasn’t talking about hekdesh, I was talking about Herem, in which Vayikra 27 makes absolutely clear that if a human being is made Herem, their slaughter, i.e. sacrifice, is demanded.

    b) Herem with regard to humans, as is absolutely clear from every context in which it appears as cited above, means dedicated to extermination for Hashem.

    c) You have completely failed to relate to the central point of my post: the Herem, i.e. extermination ban that the Torah prescribes for the Canaanite nations is (1) completely immoral by modern standards as (2) it can easily be seen as a form of human sacrifice.

    It does not do Dvar Hashem any service to ignore the bits of Torah which do not fit with our modern fluffy understanding of what the morality of the Torah is ‘supposed’ to look like.

  5. Tobie says:

    First of all, I do not see sufficient reason to assuume that slaughter is the same as sacrifice. If there is one thing that the Indian wig scandal taught us, it is that destruction for ritual purposes is not necessarily the same as sacrifice. Cities and their inhabitants may equally well be destroyed because they are unholy and the act of devotion is giving up potential benefit from these tainted sources. It is in fact the ‘taintedness’ of the Canaanite peoples that seems to motivate all of the commands for complete destruction- lest they tempt us to follow their idolatrous ways.

    I don’t have sources in front of me, but I would also bring up the Amalek example. There, bringing the animals back for sacrifices was considered disobedience to the command of cherem (if that term is used)- the point was complete and utter destruction.

    All of which leaves aside the larger question of Biblical morality. I think that it’s impossible to ignore the fact that G-d a) had to make due with the nation that was available and b) could not mandate a morality that would be too moral to survive in the nasty and brutish Bronze Age world. Is complete destruction of a conquered nation immoral? By modern standards, certainly, but in modern times, we have the luxury of morals and standards and Geneva Conventions and all sorts of things. Asking a Bronze Age nation to go around taking prisoners may be more moral, but is it reasonable?

    I am not denying that the action could be interpreted as a form of human sacrifice, and I might, for the sake of argument, go so far as to say ‘so what?’ After all, the Ramban believes that every form of sacrifice was simply pandering to the nation’s idolatrous past and tendencies; what would human sacrifice be but a more extreme form of the same?

  6. Rachel says:

    I understood the sentence “None devoted, that may be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death.” as forbidding people to buy out of execution. In other words, a person that is condemned to death can’t pay weregild to the relatives. It doesnt quite fit in the context- but it’s not wildly off, and there are plenty of similar passages that say the same.

  7. Rachel says:

    I think a crucial explanation for this guy’s complaint is that his definition of rape differs from the Bible. He probably defines rape as “Forced Sex”. In fact, the Bible define rape as “Forced Sex by a man not allowed to have sex”. A wife could not be raped. A woman married against her will might complain about the forced marriage -but she was not raped. This is not an outdated rule. English common law never punished marital rape, and the many states still don’t.

    The Bible’s definition of rape is obviously correct. Why is rape punished so much worse than ordinary assault? Sex is special. Rape often created bastards nobody would care for. An unmarried woman who had sex was damaged goods, and was generally not marriageable. A man who raped who wife only damaged her physically – which was separately forbidden and punished.

  8. Adam says:

    Rachel: I do not see how one could interpret Leviticus 27 as “forbidding people to buy out of execution” as the context (as you seem to admit) is to do with Herem: it has absolutely nothing to do with juridical procedures taken against an offender in punishment for crimes committed. The context is that the passage concerns two different types of sanctity that can be conveyed to objects, rendering them unfit for secular ussage and dedicated to Hashem. Type (a) is the status of ‘Kodesh’, type (b) is the status of ‘Herem’. If a person (i.e. a person who is property, such as a slave or captive) is designated ‘Herem’ then they must be put to death. Although the context strongly suggests that this is a type of ‘Human sacrifice’, the objection can convincingly be raised that there is obviously no ritual slaughter for slaughtering humans described here or elsewhere in the Torah (besides forbidden forms of worship, e.g. Molekh).

  9. Tobie says:

    So I looked up the story re: Amalek today and it seems to me to completely counter a reading of cherem as any sort of sacrifice. It says that the Jews ”cherem” all of the stuff, except for some sheep that they bring to sacrifice to G-d. Clearly, cherem of people and property is destruction, and not sacrifice. Now, whether that destruction has ritual implications is doubtful. It certainly is a religious thing, but I think it’s a stretch to read any sort of religious destructiveness as sacrifice. The purpose seems mainly to get rid of the cheremed rather than to ‘give’ him to G-d.

  10. Adam says:

    We cannot presume that all biblical texts that talk about ‘Herem’ have the same theology or have the same definition of the concept. The Tanakh is a whirlwind of competing and sometimes contradictory theologies and vocabularies; of course the texts are interdependent and develop upon one another, but it is quite possible that an interpretation suggested by one text could have become theologically unacceptable in a later generation. Susan Nidditch, in ‘War in the Hebrew Bible’, distinguishes between Herem texts where the Herem is justified (i.e. a reason is given), and those where the Herem is not justified. Hence, I admitted above that the fact that Deuteronomy justifies the Herem does not fit completely with the definition of Herem as a ritual sacrifice of sorts as depicted in other texts. In principle, I am not claiming that the Amalek passage you quote needs to agree with the texts I am quoting, I am simply claiming that in a number of texts, the impression is strongly given of Herem as a ritual sacrifice of sorts.

    With regard to the passage you quote specifically, what is the reason given for the destruction in the first place? Why does the destruction have to be so absolutely complete? How can Amalek’s sheep be threatening to Israel? Were Amalek themselves even an existential threat to Israel at this point in history? I think that the answers, or lack thereof, to these questions indicates a closer affinity to the idea of ‘ritual sacrifice’ than you allow. However, were you to conclude otherwise about this particular passage, it would still not undermine the thesis I have proposed.

    Further evidence for the thesis of ‘ritual sacrifice’ can be adduced from an extra-biblical text known as the ‘Mesha Stele’. Mesha, the ninth century BCE king of Moab, describes his victory over Israel. Because Chemosh, Moab’s god, had been angry with the land of Moab, Israel under the Omrides had been able to oppress Moab. Now, states Mesha, his god has delivered him. Mesha revolts, gains independence for his people (see 2 Kings 1:1) and claims that Israel has ‘utterly perished forever’; a claim that parallels those of the Israelite writers of the biblical ban texts. Mesha explains that Chemosh had ordered him to capture the city Nebo from Israel and the above excerpt is Mesha’s description of the battle and its aftermath. The term translated “devote”…is the root hrm found also in the biblical ban texts .

    [Now Kemosh said to me, “Go seize Nebo from Israel.] So I went by night and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying all, seven thousand men, boy, women, girls and maid-servants for I had devoted (hrm) them to destruction for (the god) Ashtar-Chemosh .

    One of the closest simplest biblical parallels to the Mesha Inscription is offered by Num 21:2-3. Israel confronts the Canaanite enemy, the king of Arad and his forces who have already taken some Israelites captive. Israel makes a vow, note the reciprocal nature of the deal,

    Numbers 21:2-3 2 Then Israel made a vow to the LORD and said, “If You deliver this people into our hand, we will proscribe their towns.” 3 The LORD heeded Israel’s plea and delivered up the Canaanites; and they and their cities were proscribed. So that place was named Hormah.

    Israel promises something for something, a deal that Hashem presumably cannot resist – not wanton, meaningless destruction, but an offering for his use and devotion…Israel is promising a sacrifice to God, the cities and their content. So the Moabite king had promised his Israelite enemies to his deity.

    Some scholars have regarded instances where the Israelites keep booty from a banned city as instanced of a ‘broken ban’. This is a mistake; what is clear and should be emphasized is that in most of the unjustified sacrifice Herem texts, booty is taken. The ban in these texts should properly be defined as the devotion of the conquered humans to God as in the case of the Mesha Inscription and Number 21:2-3. Only this definition explains the ban’s emphasis on killing humans. In giving humans to God the Israelites are not saving the best booty for themselves. To the contrary, the biggest sacrifice, the best sacrifice, is the human life as confirmed by the tale of Jephthah’s daughter. The Israelites keep only lesser animals and inanimate materials for themselves, though even these in some cases may be devoted to God.

    Finally, note the depictions of Hashem, or his sword, devouring human beings. The clearest example of this is alluded to in Anim Zemirot: “Tzah veAdom LiLvusho Adom // Purah Bedorkho BeVo’o MeEdom”. This refers to Isaiah 63:1-3

    1 ‘Who is this that cometh from Edom, with crimsoned garments from Bozrah? This that is glorious in his apparel, stately in the greatness of his strength?’–‘I that speak in victory, mighty to save.’– 2 ‘Wherefore is Thine apparel red, and Thy garments like his that treadeth in the winevat?’– 3 ‘I have trodden the winepress alone, and of the peoples there was no man with Me; yea, I trod them in Mine anger, and trampled them in My fury; and their lifeblood is dashed against My garments, and I have stained all My raiment.

    Now, if Hashem treads Edom in a winepress, what is he intending to do with the blood?

  11. Thankfulness to my father who stated to me concerning this weblog, this blog is truly

Leave a Reply to mike529 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: