Sami Zaatari's Refutations

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

haven't a clue



This one is easier. It is because the English are descendants of the Normans and Saxons which were Germanic tribes, hence they already had a word for god in their language when the Romans came and introduced them to Christianity.



Well the English word Christ is derived via the Latin Christus from the Greek word christos.

Paul, in taking the message of the Messiah (whether you think he perverted it or not is another story) to the Greeks used the term christos to talk about the Messiah. My best guess is he was following the pattern established some 200 years before, when the Jews translated the Tanakh into Greek, that Jews themselves used the Greek word christos as the equivalent of the Aramaic word mesiha, which in turn corresponds to the Hebrew word masiah.

(information regarding the translation of Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek taken from The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theoloy, Colin Brown, ed.)

I agree with that. So this leaves that what is often considered transling those words into Arabic, is not a translation. It is reference to what the English translation was from.

ie:

the Arabic Kitaab al-Muqadas does not translate into the English word Bible. But the English word Bible was translated to be Kitaab al-Muqadas


I know I'm confusing the issue, but possibly somebody understands what I mean.

format_quote Originally Posted by NoName55

one should ask an original arab, one who knows Al-Kitaab before he was accosted by any misionary for example a Paletinian, Iraqi, a Lebenese or an african from egypt or even a sudanese or Ethiopean, They all Know what I'm talking about.

They were Christians long before the English
coptics have always called it الكتاب المقدس
any how, I give up before start being called names like kafir etc again as was done earlier.

That is most likely correct. however although the Coptics call the Bible الكتاب المقدس , it's proper English translation is not Bible although it has taken upon meaning bible. Even the Word Bible has to translated to unerstand what it means in English. Bible itself simply means "book collecection" al ready we have a problem as kitaab just means a single book.

Grace seeker, You understood what I was trying to say.

I don't understand your claims. The first thing I read was an attack on the Bible so let us analyze this verse:

25. But if a man finds the betrothed girl in the field, and the man overpowers her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die.
26. Whereas to the girl, you shall do nothing the girl did not commit a sin deserving of death, for just as a man rises up against his fellow and murders him, so is this case.
Okay, so this says that the girl who is raped did no sin.

27. Because he found her in the field. The betrothed girl had cried out, but there was no one to save her.

28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found,
29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life.
You misunderstand this verse. You see, Jews at this time would not marry a non-virgin women. Therefore, the only way the women would survive is if the perpetrator had to marry this women and the man had to pay for his crimes to in a lot of money.

In those times, although it seems odd to you, this was the best situation for the women because no one would marry the women and she would when leaving her fathers house be all alone forever.

So should I go on, or do you not wish for me to actually provide sanity to this thread and refute your complete lack of understanding when it comes to the Bible.

folks notice what manchester is saying, that IT IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE RAPE VICTIM TO MARRY HER RAPIST. wow! i mean is it just me or what? so there you have it, the bible says the rapist marry his victim, and oh yeah pay a fine for it, just like a parking ticket, thats how the bible views women.

and to refute your -- response that BACK THEN IT WAS DIFFERENT, wrong, arabian culture was the same, a women who is raped is shuned and avoided even dishonored, which happens to this day, yet when Islam came it didnt say the rapist must marry his victim 'because it would be to tough for her to get married' no, it said KILL THE RAPIST, so therefore dont give -- responses by saying its a good thing for the rapist to marry his victim. i mean you also show how weak your god is, why didnt your god make a law stating that a raped lady is no different than a non-raped lady and that ppl who view her differently in a bad way are sinners, why didnt you god just fix the society? so your response shows your god is weak and in-effective and is useless, instead of changing the society and how ppl view things he doesnt change it, he just carries it on by making the rapist marry the rape victim. --

folks notice what manchester is saying, that IT IS THE BEST OPTION FOR THE RAPE VICTIM TO MARRY HER RAPIST. wow! i mean is it just me or what? so there you have it, the bible says the rapist marry his victim, and oh yeah pay a fine for it, just like a parking ticket, thats how the bible views women.

and to refute your -- response that BACK THEN IT WAS DIFFERENT, wrong, arabian culture was the same, a women who is raped is shuned and avoided even dishonored, which happens to this day, yet when Islam came it didnt say the rapist must marry his victim 'because it would be to tough for her to get married' no, it said KILL THE RAPIST, so therefore dont give -- responses by saying its a good thing for the rapist to marry his victim. i mean you also show how weak your god is, why didnt your god make a law stating that a raped lady is no different than a non-raped lady and that ppl who view her differently in a bad way are sinners, why didnt you god just fix the society? so your response shows your god is weak and in-effective and is useless, instead of changing the society and how ppl view things he doesnt change it, he just carries it on by making the rapist marry the rape victim. --

Right, okay so you hate the God of the Bible fine with me. So do you believe any part of the Bible at all was written by God or do you think that the whole Bible is fiction and the real Bible that was "corrupted" was in reality a completly different book?

If so, you could be attacking a version written by God.

'because it would be to tough for her to get married' no, it said KILL THE RAPIST

I think your view oof what the Bible says is a bit different. I am not sure about the Christian interp of the verse, but the wife is not forced to marry him. The wife can not consent and say I do not wish to be married to him.


then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver. He must then take the girl he violated as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives.

Read: But only if the girl consents (Yad, Naarah Bethulah 1:3).

In that book, it says that if the girl rejects the marriage option although she might never find a husband because she is no longer a virgin, the rapist might end up being put to death.

___________


On the other hand, what happens in Islam if someone rapes a women and there is only 1 witness to the crime? Is the rapist guilty?


By the way, what does the Quran say you can do to female slaves obtained in war?

Would you like to post the verses or can I?

Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

There really were no slaves in Ancient Israel. There were eveds -- which were more like indentured servants.

There are many mitzvot that apply to the human treatment of eved.

There are two types of eved, Jewish ones and non-Jewish ones. From Torah.org:

An *'eved 'ivri* (lit. Hebrew slave) is a fellow Jew who is either sold into indentured servitude because he stole and cannot pay back, or who was so poor that he sold himself into such servitude. This is the slave who goes free after 6 years, whose ear is pierced if he chooses to stay after 6 years and who, in any case, goes free at the Yovel (Jubilee year). An 'eved 'ivri is 100% Jew and is bound by all of the Mitzvot - with the exception of one marriage/procreative law. (You can read up on the 'eved 'ivri at Shemot [Exodus] 21:1-6, Vayyikra [Leviticus] 25:8-24,39-43, Devarim [Deuteronomy] 15:12-18 and in MT, Hilkhot Avadim, Chapters 1-3). The institution of 'eved 'ivri went the way of the Yovel, with the destruction of the first Temple (586 BCE) and has been "out of practice" since then.

On the other hand, a non-Jew who becomes enslaved to a Jew is called an *'eved k'na'ani*. Such an 'eved, when he/she enters the master's house (whether through purchase or through conquest), goes through a phase of conversion which gives him/her the status of a member of B'nai Yisra'el - albeit without *Kedushat Yisra'el* (the sanctity of Yisra'el). After being freed, the 'eved k'na'ani goes through another conversion (just ablution) process (the nature of this second ablution is subject to a debate among the Rishonim - see MT Issurei Bi'ah 13:12 and Magid Mishneh ad loc.).

An 'eved k'na'ani is obligated to refrain from all Halakhic violations and to fulfill some Mitzvot 'Aseh - the same ones which women are obligated to do. This is argued as follows: There is a corollary between some rules affecting the bill of emancipation of an 'eved k'na'ani and a divorce write, based upon the common word "lah" used in both contexts in the Torah (*gamar lah-lah me'ishah* - Kiddushin 23a). The Gemara in Hagigah (4a) extends this comparison to obligations of Mitzvot - that any Mitzvah which is obligatory for women is incumbent on slaves. Rambam (MT Hagigah 2:1) rules this way.

Read Deuteronomy 23:

16. You shall not deliver a slave to his master if he seeks refuge with you from his master. 17. [Rather,] he shall [be allowed to] reside among you, wherever he chooses within any of your cities, where it is good for him. You shall not oppress him.

This applies to Jewish and non-Jewish eved.

There are many mitzvot that apply to eved -- and yes, a non-Jewish eved could convert and become a Jew.

______

Slavery, Rav Kook explained, is like any other natural phenomenon. It can be used properly and responsibly; or it can be abused. As long as some people are wealthy and powerful, while others are poor and weak, the wealthy will hire out the poor to do their labor and will control them. This is the basis of natural servitude, which exists even if slavery as a formal institution is outlawed.


For example, coal miners are de facto slaves to their employer, and in some ways worse off than legal slaves. The mine owner often cares more about his profits than his workers. He allows his miners to work without proper light and ventilation, in poorly built mines. It does not bother the owner that the workers' lives are shortened due to these abysmal working conditions. He is not overly troubled that the mine may collapse, burying alive thousands of miners — he can always hire more.
Yet, if these miners were his legal slaves, for whom he paid good money, then the owner would look out for their lives and welfare, just as he watches over his machines, animals, and the rest of his property. For this reason, the Torah emphasizes that a slave is his master's property. When it is in the master's self-interest to look after his slave's welfare, the servant can expect a better, more secure future.


The legalized slavery of the Torah only comes to correct certain potential pitfalls of natural servitude. As long as slavery exists, the Torah legislated laws to protect slaves from abuse and mistreatment. If an owner knocked out his slave's tooth, the slave went free. An owner who killed his slave was executed, like any other murderer.
Since the destruction of the Temple, however, the Torah's positive influence upon general society has greatly weakened. The darkness of the Middle Ages severely corrupted natural forms of life, turning slavery and serfdom into a monstrous institution. Instead of protecting the weak by giving them the security of property, slavery became such a horror that humanity decided it needed to be permanently outlawed.

_____

Once in a while a question comes along that gets to the core of everything. Then along comes some smart-aleck to provide an answer and wash the whole thing away.

Questions such as these are not just holes in the ground waiting to be plugged up. They are invitations to spelunk deep beneath the surface, traveling all the way to the bedrock of our beliefs, challenging basic assumptions and redefining the landscape.

Your question is one of those bedrock questions: After all, isn't slavery the antithesis of Torah?

Torah begins with the creation of Adam in the Divine Image. The central event of the Torah narrative is the liberation of an entire nation of slaves from a cruel oppressor. Torah is about liberty, human dignity and respect for our fellow citizens of this planet for which the Creator cares so much. More than Torah is Man's discovery of G-d, Torah is G-d's discovery of Man and his world.

How can that same Torah that makes us kind permit oppressive labor of a fellow Divine Image? You'll note, too, that as soon as the Ten Commandments are done with, where does the Torah begin legislating? "If you will have a maidservant..."--with the rights of the most easily oppressed citizen, a young girl working in your home.

Let me point out another powerful weapon of social upheaval that the Torah espouses, especially through the medium of King David's collection of psalms: The Divine CEO open-door policy. A.k.a. "personal prayer": Any individual, indeed, any living creature, can at any moment, for any complaint, cry out to the Master of the Universe and his/her/its petition will be heard and acted upon. Guaranteed. "This poor man cries out and G-d listens." You may not have thought about this, but those may just be the most radical, subversive and revolutionary words in history. Whereas the kings and priests of old would have their subjects believe that life is a grand chain of command with yours truly on top and you scum on the bottom, this idea of personal prayer flattened all hierarchies: Everyone is equally close to the top of the ladder.

Torah is not just about liberty, Torah liberates in a radical way. Yet here you have these laws about buying and selling slaves. What's going on?

Okay, they're not really slaves. Slaves are people owned by other people. In Torah law, you never have complete ownership over anything. These slaves rest on the seventh day and Jewish holidays, cannot be physically or sexually abused and are obligated in many mitzvot. So they are really more like indentured servants.

But that certainly does not answer our question: Why should any human being be deprived of rights and privileges that others have? Such as the right to live wherever they please, work for whoever they wish to work and quit whenever they want? How does this divvy up with the Torah's assertion that every human being bears the Divine Image?

Maimonides

Yes, there's tension here, and as every good dramatist and massage therapist knows, tension is a good point to play with.

The place we're going to start is Maimonides' Laws of Servants. Being the reckless, impatient souls that we are, we'll start from the very last words.

(You may ask, "Why the obsession with Maimonides? Is he the only authority on everything?"

No, he's not. But he's usually a great place to search for answers.

Maimonides wrote the only codification of the entire gamut of Jewish law-the Mishnah only includes those matters that were not common practice and could come to be forgotten. And the Shulchan Aruch includes only those matters that apply in the time of exile. And he wrote in a concise style with great precision.

Sure, he hit up against lots of controversy for a few hundred years. But eventually he was accepted as the foremost authority since the close of the Babylonian Talmud.)

So here goes:

It is permissible to work a non-Jewish servant harshly. Yet, although this is the law, the way of the pious and the wise is to be compassionate and to pursue justice, not to overburden or oppress a servant, and to provide them from every dish and every drink.

The early sages would give their servants from every dish on their table. They would feed their animals and their servants before sitting to their own meals. Does it not say (Psalms 123:2), "As the eyes of the servant to the hand of his master; as the eyes of the maid to her mistress [so our eyes are towards the L-rd our G-d...]"?

So, too, you should not denigrate a servant, neither physically nor verbally. The Torah made him your servant to do work, not to be disgraced. Do not treat him with constant screaming and anger, rather speak with him pleasantly and listen to his complaints. Such were the good ways in which Job took pride when he said, "Did I ever despise the judgment of my servant and my maid when they argued with me? Did not my Maker make him, too, in the belly; did not the same One form us both in the womb?"

For anger and cruelty are only found among other nations. The children of Abraham, our father-and they are Israel, to whom the Holy One, blessed be He, has provided the goodness of Torah and commanded us righteous judgments and statutes--they are compassionate to all. This is one of the attributes of the Holy One, blessed be He, that we are commanded to emulate (Psalms 145:9): "And He has compassion for all He has made."

Furthermore, all who have compassion will be treated compassionately, as was stated (Deuteronomy 13:18), "He will give you compassion and He will have compassion upon you and multiply you."

(Mishneh Torah, Laws of Indentured Servants, 9:8)

Tightening the Screws

Reading superficially, you might imagine that Maimonides is presenting us with little more than apologetics. He seems to be saying, "The Torah says we can be real mean, but that's not nice, so we don't do that."

But I'm asking you to read his words a little more carefully. Look for the tension in those words. Tension is meaningful, tension indicates something deep going on: Here you have the Torah telling you to be kind and compassionate towards all G-d's creatures. And this is not just a polite suggestion--this is a command:

"And you shall go in His ways!" (Deuteronomy 28:9)

"Is it possible to say such a thing? Rather, it means that since He is compassionate, you too must be compassionate. Since He is kind, you must also be kind. Since He dresses the naked and feeds the hungry, so must you....." (Midrash Sifri; Talmud, Sotah 14a)

--which Maimonides himself counts as one of the 613 mitzvahs of the Torah (Book of Mitzvot, Positive Commandment #8).

And then the same Torah says, "But you're allowed to be nasty to your slaves"!

The tension screws tighter: Why are we kind and compassionate? Because "the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us His Torah." So how can that same Torah that makes us kind permit oppressive labor of a fellow Divine Image?

How about a little consistency over here? Why can't the Torah start outright with the laws of servants, "If you have people working for you, you must treat them as equals. You must talk to them in a pleasant voice, listen to their complaints, feed them the same food you eat, provide employee benefits, regular vacations, perks and incentives, great office parties, stock options in the company, in-house professional massage therapy at lunch break and a sushi bar on every floor. If you don't like it, do the work yourself."

Why not? Because that would undermine the purpose of Torah.

The Purpose

Let me explain: (notice that now we're getting down to that which I first promised--the bedrock.)

As we discussed, Torah is a radical element in our world. Torah is that which says, "This is not the way things are supposed to be. Do like this. Not like that." That's why Torah had to be given--we couldn't just figure it out on our own. Because to effect real change it must come from "outside the system."

On the other hand, Torah is the essence of all things. As the sages called it, "the blueprint of the universe." So the Torah effects change not by imposing an exogenous order, but by revealing the inner, hidden order latent within all things. Torah is very much like a good teacher, one who shows you who you really are--which may be very different, even the opposite, of who you think you are.

The Torah effects change not by imposing an exogenous order, but by revealing the inner, hidden order latent within all things. So the Torah, of necessity, has two faces. Unlike human wisdom which has one face. Human wisdom must either reject or accept the status quo. But Torah is a voice heard from beyond--and so it may have two faces at once.

On the one hand, the Torah speaks from a future that has yet to occur, inspiring us with its vision, pulling us toward that time.

On the other hand, the Torah must deal with the world as it is, not artificially imposing upon it a foreign mold, but bringing it on its own from the place it stands by nature and circumstance to the place it truly belongs.

Let's start simple:

Take an agrarian society surrounded by hostile nations. Go in there and forcefully abolish slavery. The result? War, bloodshed, hatred, prejudice, poverty and eventually, a return to slavery until the underlying conditions change. Which is pretty much what happened in the American South when the semi-industrialized North imposed their laws upon the agrarian South. And in Texas when Mexico attempted to abolish slavery among the Anglophones there.

Not a good idea. Better idea: Place humane restrictions upon the institution of indentured servitude. Yes, it's still ugly, but in the meantime, you'll teach people compassion and kindness. Educate. Make workshops. Go white-water rafting together. (Hey, why didn't Abe Lincoln think of white-water rafting?) Eventually, things change and slavery becomes an anachronism for such a society.

Which is pretty much what happened to Jewish society. Note this: At a time when Romans had literally thousands of slaves per citizen, even the wealthiest Jews held very modest numbers of servants. And those servants, the Talmud tells us, were treated better by their masters than foreign kings would treat their own subjects.

Torah teaches us how to run a libertarian society--through education and participation. Elsewhere in the world, emperors and aristocracy knew only how to govern a mass of people through oppression. Look what happened to Rome: When Roman slaves began demanding a day of rest among other privileges, along with talk of a personal relationship directly to G-d, Emperor Constantine made sure to dismiss the whole concept of mitzvahs and human dignity by adopting a stripped-down, benign version of Judaism for his empire. That'll keep 'em quiet, he thought. (And it did, for about one thousand years.)

So the "conservative-radical" approach of Torah is this: Work with the status quo to get beyond it. Torah is more about process than about content.

Climbing Deeper

Are you satisfied with this answer? I'm not. I'm convinced there's a deeper effect that Torah is looking for. Call it "the participatory effect." A.k.a. nurture.

The Participatory Effect tells us that if you want people to follow rules, you put guns to their heads. But if you want them to learn, grow, internalize those rules and be able to teach them to others, you're going to have to involve them in the process of forming those rules.

School teachers do this when they work with their class on the first day to design rules that everyone will see as reasonable and useful. Parents do this when they allow their child to makes mistakes so that s/he will learn from them. A skilled wife is doing this when she gets her husband to believe that he came up with the idea of re-tiling the kitchen floor.

In general, this strategy comes more naturally to women than to men. Men find it much easier to shove their opinions down other people's throats and, if need be, argue the other into the ground until he surrenders. All variations of the old gun-to-the-head technique. Women are designed to nurture, physically and emotionally, so they take naturally to the participatory technique. To quote Gluckel of Hameln, "She was a true woman of valor. She knew how to control her husband's heart."

In Torah, both the masculine and the feminine approaches exist--they're called "The Written Torah" and "The Oral Torah." The Written Torah (principally, the Five Books of Moses, but also including all the Prophets and Scriptures) lays down the law in a fatherly, authoritarian voice. It says: "These are the rules. They are for you own good, whether you understand that or not. I only made them because I love you so much. If you don't like them, just remember that I'm a lot bigger than all of you put together."

Then along comes the mother of us all, The Oral Torah. Although the Oral Torah includes many fixed traditions--some originating from Moses and even earlier--the bulk of the Oral Torah is our own participation in the process of Torah. The Written Torah itself empowers us to discuss matters, expand on that which we have received, extrapolate and make decisions accordingly. It was concerning The Oral Torah that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chanania declared, "The Torah is not in heaven." It is here, within us, in our struggle to fathom the depths of our received tradition and in our ability to take Torah to the next step.

Of course, that doesn't mean we can make up whatever sounds nice to us and call it Torah. There are rigorous guidelines and a firm set of criteria for a novel idea to be considered Torah. We're dealing with a delicate ecology here--you have to understand the landscape very well before building a highway here and damming a river over there.

But what it does mean is that when you are working through a Torah idea, doing all that examining and letting the creative juices pour (within the guidelines mentioned above), those ideas within your brain and those words that you are speaking are no different than G-d declaring, "I am the L-rd your G-d, etc." at Mount Sinai.

When you are working through a Torah idea, those ideas within your brain and those words that you are speaking are no different than the words of the written Torah themselves. As those Talmudic sages put it, "Any new idea a qualified Torah student comes up with was already given to Moses at Sinai." The idea is new, but it's still Torah. It's new, because until now it was hidden deep within the folds and creases of the package Moses delivered. It's Torah, because all the qualified student did was unfold the package and smooth out the creases.

So if I come up with one of those bright Torah ideas one day, is it my idea or is it Torah? It's both. In The Oral Torah, we and G-d become one.

Getting Real Change

So you can see where I'm getting to with the slavery thing. If G-d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.

So, too, with slavery (and there are many other examples): In the beginning, the world starts off as a place where oppressing others is a no-qualms, perfectly acceptable practice. It's not just the practice Torah needs to deal with, it's the attitude. So Torah involves us in arriving at that attitude. To the point that we will say, "Even though the Torah lets us, we don't do things that way."

Which means that we've really learnt something. And now, we can teach it to others. Because those things you're just told, those you cannot teach. You can only teach that which you have discovered on your own.

History bears this out. Historically, it has been the Oral Torah, rather than the Written Torah, that has had the greatest impact on civilization. As much as Rome ruled over Judea, Jewish values deeply transformed Rome. One of the results was the legal privileges eventually granted to slaves and the gradual recognition of the value of human life.

Torah involves us in arriving at the right attitude. And now, we can teach it to others. Because you can only teach that which you have discovered on your own. For over a thousand years, the Church managed to subvert the message of Imagio Deo--that every human being is G-dly--despite the repetition of the concept in the Genesis narrative five times. It wasn't until the Italian Renaissance that a new Humanist spirit dawned and the idea could no longer be repressed. "The Oratory on the Dignity of Man" is often touted as the manifesto of the Renaissance and early Humanism. It was composed by Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. It's no secret that Pico studied under the greatest rabbis of his time and was obsessed with the Zohar and Kabbalah. There are many more such examples.

The greatest force in the emancipation of slavery in colonial times were the "Society of Friends," also known as the "Quakers." Historians discuss the phenomena of the Quakers in the context of the "Hebraizing of Christianity." Again, their leaders were deeply influenced by readings of the Kabbalah in translation and by humanists who had learned their ideas from rabbinic sources.

The history of emancipation is complex and long--and viciously controversial. In truth, Jews took roles on both sides of the prickly fence. Aaron Lopez, a convert to Judaism, brought slaves on some of his ships to America. On the other hand, Baron Nathan de Rothschild and Sir Moses Montefiore made possible the great Slave Emancipation Act of 1835 by granting 20,000,000 pounds sterling in loan subsidies. In the struggle, eventually the true Jewish spirit prevailed and it is those values that Maimonides espouses that eventually became dominant in our society.

I'll end off with a juicy biographical vignette of one Jew who struggled for the freedom of slaves:

August (Anshel) Bondi was born in Vienna, Austria July 21, 1833. He was the son of Jews who wanted him to have both a religious and a secular education. Caught up as a participant in the failed liberal revolution of 1848, the Bondi family fled to New Orleans and settled in St. Louis, Missouri. Young Bondi encountered, first hand, the horrors of slavery and was deeply disgusted. In 1855 a New York Tribune editorial urged freedom-loving Americans to "hurry out to Kansas to help save the state from the curse of slavery." Bondi responded immediately. He moved to Kansas and along with two other Jews, Theodore Weiner from Poland and Jacob Benjamin from Bohemia established a trading post in Ossa-watomie. Their abolitionist sentiments very soon brought pro-slavery terrorists upon them. Their cabin was burned, their livestock stolen. Their trading post was destroyed in the presence of Federal troops who did nothing. The three courageous Jews joined a rabid local abolitionist, to defend their rights as citizens and to help rid the horror of slavery from Kansas. The Jews joined the Kansas Regulars under the leadership of John Brown.

In a famous battle between the Regulars and the pro-slavery forces at Black Jack Creek, with the bullets whistling viciously above their heads, 23 year old Bondi turned to his 57 year old friend Weiner and asked in Yiddish--"Nu, was meinen Sie jetzt?" (Well, what do you think of this now?) He answered, "Was soll ich meinen? Sof odem moves" (What should I think? Man's life ends in death). Kansas joined the union as a Free State. Bondi married Henrietta Einstein of Louisville, Kentucky in 1860. Their home became a way station for the underground railroad smuggling slaves to the North and freedom. The Civil War began in 1861, Bondi enlisted in the Union army encouraged by the words of his mother. He later wrote in his autobiography, "as a Jew I am obliged to protect institutions that guarantee freedom for all faiths." August Bondi died in 1907, a respected judge and member of his Kansas community.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article.asp?AID=305549

First, note that "Slavery" in the Torah generally refers to temporary
indentured servitude to one's creditor. Such slavery was permitted
under Jewish law. However, the treatment of Jews towards their slaves
was much more humane than that of the surrounding culture, for a key
element of Judaism is to remember that Jews were once slaves in Egypt
(in fact, this is the central theme of the holiday of Pesach).

In Judaism, the slave was protected. Exodus 21:2-11 defines the rights
of the servant. Quoting from the Hertz Penatateuch and Haftorahs:

Slavery, as permitted by the Torah was quite different from Greek
and Roman Slavery, or even the cruel system in some modern
countries down to our own times. In Hebrew law, the slave was not a
thing, but a human being; he was not the chattel of a master who
had unlimited power over him. In the Hebrew language, there is only
one word for slave and servant. Brutal treatment of any slave,
whether Hebrew or heathen, secures his immediate liberty.

Jewish law required that a slave could go free in the seventh year of
service (Exodus 21:2), although his family would not be freed;
although if he came into servitude with a wife, that wife would also
be freed. The slave could, however, indicate that they perferred
bondage to freedom. Every fiftieth year (the "Jubilee"), the slaves
with their families would be emancipated, and property (except house
property in a walled city) would revert to its original owner. (Lev
XXV:8-55).

In Judaism, there is also the concept of an "Eved Canani", a
non-Jewish slave, who is the property of a Jew, as is discussed in
Vayikrah 25:46. This concept of slavery is nothing like slavery that
occurred in America to the Negroes. The slaves were not kidnapped, but
rather were purchased from themselves; i.e., they were offered a sum
of money, or guaranteed shelter and food, in exchange for becoming
slaves. The obligation to treat your slave humanely applies to both
Jewish and non-Jewish slave, as does the obligation to make sure they
have all necessary comforts, even at the expense of their master's own
comfort (e.g., if there are not enough pillows for all, the master
must provide his slaves with pillows before himself).

Slavery is clearly discussed in the Torah, especially in reference to
Canaan, who was cursed by his grandfather Noach to be destined to be
the slaves to the rest of mankind, as stated and repeated a number of
times in Beraishis 9:25-27.

Is slavery moral? We live in a society where same sex marriages,
partial-birth abortions, and mercy killings are considered moral by
many--and perhaps even the majority--of our society. Additionally, it
is considered "sport" to watch two men get together in a ring, and
attempt to injure each other, and we roar in approval when one has
managed to draw blood from the other and knock him unconscious. We
must realize that what we consider moral or immoral is the sum total
of the society in which we live. In Judaism, we've been blessed with
the Torah, which tells us very clearly what is moral and immoral, and
directs us to elevate ourselves above our society and accept the
Torah's definition of morality. When the Torah says that theft is
forbidden, this is not because society has determined that theft is
forbidden, but because G-d is telling us so. Hence, it is forbidden to
steal even in situations that society would not necessarily consider
it theft, such as pirating software from large corporations.
Additionally, when the Torah tells us that there is a Mitzvah to
eradicate Amalek (evil) from the face of the earth (Shemos 17:14-16,
and Devarim 25:17-19), as difficult as it is for us to swallow this,
we must realize that this is the moral thing to do.

One must also keep in mind the problem of translating the Old Testament from Hebrew to English correctly. I believe the words in question are taphas and shakab. Taphas means: To catch, handle, lay hold, seize,etc. Shakab means: To lie, lie down, to lie(sexual relations). The passages below show how these words have been translated into English in various Biblical translations.
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; KJV

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, who is not espoused, and taking her, lie with her, and the matter come to judgment: DOUAY-RHEIMS

If a man shall find a damsel [that is] a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WEBSTER BIBLE

If a man find a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; WORLD ENGLISH BIBLE

When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found, YLT

When a man findeth a damsel that is a virgin who is not betrothed, and layeth hold of her and lieth with her, and they are found, ROTHERHAM

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; JPS 1917 OT

"If a man find a damsel who is a virgin who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her and lie with her, and they be found, THIRD MILLENNIUM

If a man find a damsel, a virgin, who is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found, DARBY

If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; AMV

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, RSV

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are caught in the act, NRSV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, NASB

If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, ESV

If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, AMPLIFIED

Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, CEV

Rape isn't necessarily the view being held here. In the original Hebrew, the word for rape is normally [I]chazaq[I]. I believe a better translation of the passage in question would be as follows.

"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces (chazaq) her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman CRIED OUT, but there was no one to save her. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and THEY ARE found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deuteronomy 22:25-29 NKJV

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

I don't get how this significantly changes what Mr. Zaatari found distasteful in the passage?

Because the view being held by Sami is that the passage is referring to a virgin being raped, when the correct reading of the passage is a virgin having sexual relations with a man outside of marriage.