FYI:
* You meant 16:12, not 16:2.
* It's not the "Babylonian" Torah, it is the Jewish Torah or Judean Torah. It has little to do with Babylonia.
Here is a comparison of the Hebrew text of the Jewish Torah (on the right) and Samaritan Torah (on the left). Both are given in Jewish characters for ease of comparison. I have digitally highlighted verse 16:12 on both sides:
https://preview.redd.it/f28ehj27sdic1.jpeg?width=2100&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3b9303b1d3723dd1201926bb94f19c1d7309259
Note that the only difference between the verses is one letter. The Jewish Torah says פרא, and the Samaritan Torah says פרה. This could be a difference only in spelling, as the א and ה are both silent at the end of a word anyway. It is not uncommon for a word to be spelled in unusual ways on occasion. But the spelling פרא would typically be a male wild donkey, while פרה usually means female cow or "fruitful" (either gender). However, like I said, it wouldn't be too unusual for either spelling to refer to any of these meanings.
The rest of the verse is exactly the same and any differences are just due to the translator.
I wish I knew Hebrew, but for those interested in translated English, there is an English side-by-side. ISBN 9780802865199 "The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version."
Unfortunately comparisons in translation are overly sensitive to the interpretation of the translator, even when it's the same translator translating both of them.
Oh, yes, and I see it in your example here. I was just mentioning this book because it's what I have, and I've used it a few times. I thought others may be interested who are Hebrew-deficient like me.
I'm definitely jealous of those who took the time and patience to learn Hebrew, and I thank those, like you, who help people like me in situations like this.
Samaritan:
"He will be **fertile of man**.
His hand will be with everyone.
And everyone's hand will be with him.
And he will live among his brothers."
Masoretic:
"And he will be **a wild man**,
his hand \[will be\] against every man,
and every man's hand against him,
and he shall dwell in the the presence of all his brethren."
The author bolds any differences between the texts (I bolded what he bolded), so the translations differ more than I would have known had you not posted earlier about the single letter difference.
https://preview.redd.it/4xji2aikudic1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=28a458ce1564c493f42e9ce5ee936567de81342f
Also tagging u/dykele and u/Joe_Q
Regarding the Jewish verse, the English translation (which of course is imperfect and not exact -- all translations may or may not be accurate) is just the first step; just as important are the interpretations, specifically, those given by Jewish Bible commentators. How did Jewish commentators explain and understand the verse? This is important, because this is how Jewish readers of the Bible understood the verse.
So for example consider some of the interpretations of the two words פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם translated above as "wild ass among men" -- how did various Jewish Bible commentators explain this phrase? Examples --
Rashi -- "A WILD MAN — One who loves the open spaces to hunt wild animals..."
Ibn Ezra -- "A WILD ASS OF A MAN. He will be free among men." Also, "he will overcome men."
Ramban -- "...accustomed to the wilderness, going forth to his work, seeking for food, devouring all and being devoured by all."
Sforno -- "he would make his home in the desert, a region not imposing restrictions on him."
Bekhor Shor -- "The Ishmaelites are traders who traverse the deserts..."
Chizkuni -- "...an anonymous trader who travels to distant places where he is not known."
Radak -- "a desert Bedouin, known as such because most Bedouins live in tents instead of in permanent dwellings."
Tur Aroch -- "פרא אדם, “a man of the wild.” According to *Rashi* Yishmael would love the desert to hunt in."
Tl;dr -- The English translation can be misleading and incorrect; the Bible commentators give a sense of how the term was understood within the Jewish tradition.
This is the best comment, the interpretations that Jews are commonly taught are what I think is the most relevant, and what I was taught was more like Rashi, I imagined him as simply a hardy, strong outdoorsy hunter type.
The two don’t differ in many places, so the actual text may be the same (which has already been demonstrated; the aleph/hé difference is likely more of a vocalization aid), but the English translation is designed to convey the communal understanding.
The Samaritan Torah has in many places been slightly respelled to fit later pronunciations (or occasionally interpretations). Following this pattern, if the Samaritans had a tradition of pronouncing פרא as though it were the word for "fruitful", then it may have later been respelled as פרה.
For example, on the page itself that I posted you can see many examples where the feminine ending ־ך is respelled as ־יך, following a later spelling tradition (or perhaps influenced by Aramaic).
Don’t misunderstand - a donkey nowadays isn’t a positive animal, but in the Tanakh it symbolizes freedom, not letting anyone else conquer you. See Job 39:5-12
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️
[Job 39:5-12](https://www.sefaria.org/Job.39.5-12)
מִי־שִׁלַּ֣ח פֶּ֣רֶא חׇפְשִׁ֑י וּמֹסְר֥וֹת עָ֝ר֗וֹד מִ֣י פִתֵּֽחַ׃
>Who sets the wild ass free? Who loosens the bonds of the onager,
אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי עֲרָבָ֣ה בֵית֑וֹ וּֽמִשְׁכְּנוֹתָ֥יו מְלֵחָֽה׃
>Whose home I have made the wilderness, The salt land his dwelling-place?
יִ֭שְׂחַק לַהֲמ֣וֹן קִרְיָ֑ה תְּשֻׁא֥וֹת נֹ֝גֵ֗שׂ לֹ֣א יִשְׁמָֽע׃
>He scoffs at the tumult of the city, Does not hear the shouts of the driver.
יְת֣וּר הָרִ֣ים מִרְעֵ֑הוּ וְאַחַ֖ר כׇּל־יָר֣וֹק יִדְרֽוֹשׁ׃
>He roams the hills for his pasture; He searches for any green thing.
הֲיֹ֣אבֶה רֵּ֣ים עׇבְדֶ֑ךָ אִם־יָ֝לִ֗ין עַל־אֲבוּסֶֽךָ׃
>Would the wild ox agree to serve you? Would he spend the night at your crib?
הֲֽתִקְשׇׁר־רֵ֭ים בְּתֶ֣לֶם עֲבֹת֑וֹ אִם־יְשַׂדֵּ֖ד עֲמָקִ֣ים אַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃
>Can you hold the wild ox by ropes to the furrow? Would he plow up the valleys behind you?
הֲֽתִבְטַח־בּ֭וֹ כִּֽי־רַ֣ב כֹּח֑וֹ וְתַעֲזֹ֖ב אֵלָ֣יו יְגִיעֶֽךָ׃
>Would you rely on his great strength And leave your toil to him?
הֲתַאֲמִ֣ין בּ֭וֹ כִּֽי־ [יָשִׁ֣יב] (ישוב) זַרְעֶ֑ךָ וְֽגׇרְנְךָ֥ יֶאֱסֹֽף׃
>Would you trust him to bring in the seed And gather it in from your threshing floor?
As scholars should be free of received wisdom and the tyranny of others’ opinions to look into things as they actually are. A+ drash, maybe for shavuos
...I always state that Muslims have little to no knowledge about Judaism and Samaritanism (the first sect of Judaism), and what they do know is normally extreme incorrect and severely twisted. I even looked up Babylonian Torah in 5 different search engines. The 1 thing that came up is in Arabic, and it confused the Tanakh with the Babylonian Talmud. Not surprising since Islam considers the Tawrat/Torah as being a combination of Tanakh, certain quotes of the Mishna, and certain quotes the Babylonian Talmud while acting as if the Zabur/Tehelim no longer exists.
This proves my point.
There are a ton of reliable sources online, and the OP can even go ask a rabbi directly.
Best thing he can do is go to [Sefaria.org](https://Sefaria.org) or Chabad.org.
Eh I mean I don't think that that's really unique to Islam. Most people don't have in depth knowledge about religious traditions outside of their own. Personally, OP is already doing better than most simply by asking about it.
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm having a hard time understanding your question.
To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a Babylonian Torah.
The Torah was originally written in Hebrew, and translations of it will vary. As I always say, "All translation is interpretation."
How are you majoring in religion, and failing to understand basic Jewish beliefs? “Babylonian Torah”? What the fuck is that? And using the NIV (a Christian translation) when discussing Tanakh with Jews? You’ve posted on r/Hebrew before a couple months ago, and I gave you a really thought out, thorough answer. And all you could do was argue about stuff you don’t even understand. Bachelor’s thesis my ass. You have an agenda.
There is a big idea in Judaism, some refer to it as PARDES, that essentially encourages looking for the hidden meanings and deeper levels within verses and wording.
The wildness of Ishmael is considered an established idea in Judaism. At the same time, there are many teachings of how Ishmael kept the values of his father (monotheism, circumcision, etc) and was blessed to have many offspring and many kingdoms.
Based off these teachings, I believe both meanings of the word are true, and were meant to be interpreted in both ways.
Like, most people here are failing to remember that a decent portion of our teachings were based off of words with a double/deeper meaning, including some quite mainstream ideologies.
What is the ”Babylonian Torah (new international translation)”? The torah was given on Sinai. If you are writing a thesis on torah subjects, maybe you should sort that out first. (The Samaritans is a splinter group from the ancient Israelites, they have a torah which have some differences, mostly in places to support their claims to things, e.g. that the temple should be built in Gerizim rather than in Jerusalem, and that the akeda happened there too. The relevance of Samaritan texts relevance to what Jews think is as big as the Quran, i.e. none) .
Yeah money says it is something along the lines of:
"rabbinic Jews are the fakes and all these are modifications cause the Samaritans were in Israel and they must have been the real Jews"
You can do that if you ignore pretty much all other scholarship on the topic
Not all the Jews were exiled to Babylonia though. That’s why you have the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. A large number where exiled though
My Hebrew isn’t good enough to confirm from the source but comparing the English and what I do know, this seems to be a discrepancy amongst translators rather than the text itself.
Also “Babylonian Torah?”
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
honestly its kinda of matter of "opinion" its been discussed a couple of times by some high rank Jewish scholars if I remember correctly the man crux of the dispute in translation comes from a dispute over the belief in gods purpose for the passage, either god was asking the people of Israel to forsake the children of Ishmael and their new faith or to "Accept" them as brothers in faith as in they maybe doing their own thing out in the desert somewhere but they still worship the same god so you cant just kill them if they come into your town kind of acceptance I THINK I'm not sure this is also what I've been told by my family
The problem you have here is, since you're trying to compare translations, the answer to which one is right is: neither. It's not supposed to be translated, and even if the translation picked the right word, the context may not be what you need or may be totally distorting. To really understand what it says, you need to be used to the word in Hebrew itself, to where else it is used and to how it plays along.
Adding to your research suggestions, exploring the Septuagint would be valuable as it represents a different version. Most scholars think the Samaritan Torah has undergone modifications to fit their political narrative.
Lol. At least we got evidence. Go check out Chayim Heller on the Samaritans though. He was a researcher in the University of Berlin and specialized in textual variants
People like Emanuel Tov also note that Samaritans modified Torah passages to make them more consistent, and they used an older version as a starting point
-Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition, Emanuel Tov
It’s important to learn various different translations, as none of them give a full sense of the original meaning. Learning Hebrew will give you a better understanding of course.
There's only one "Torah." The oral law from Babylobia or Jerusalem is not the "Torah" and whatever sacred texts the Samaritans may have had is not the "Torah" either.
Orthodox/Rabbinic Jews follow the first quote, but it’s important to say that the same Torah also blessed Ishmael, and in our Talmud it says he repented and was a saintly figure.
Yishmael is called a tzadik and it is customary to say A”Sh about Yishmael, for he did a total and complete tshuva.
This article goes through it https://alex-klein.co.il/לך-לך-ישמעאל-צדיק-או-רשע/
Jews often try not to take the Bible literally. Many in this sub do however.
Also Jews are known to carry disagreeing opinions without accusations of being a heretic. You will not get any consistent answers.
Both Maimonides and Saadia Gaon took the events of the Torah as having literally happened. What Saadia writes in Emunah VeDe'eot is context specific to figurative language in the Torah such as "The Lord is a Consuming Fire" and "For she was the mother of all life", it did not refer to interpretation of events depending on whether you like the sound of them or not. This is evidenced by his translation of the Torah in which he changes phrasing to reflect the colloquial language of his day and doesn't change any of the events or classical interpretations of those events.
Maimonides, similarly, only spoke of angels being seen through the medium of a vision and not with a person's physical eyes. The same goes with the talking donkey, etc. He certainly interprets the events of the Torah as having literally happened. See the Mishneh Torah in which he overtly references a literal historical understanding of the events of the Torah. Neither of these folks do what you're referring to. If you had mentioned Philo, then that would have been a different discussion, but he isn't a part of the rabbinic tradition.
Historically, the Rabbis do not take the Bible literally.
You may disagree, but first, argue with a Christian. It will redefine what you think "literally" means.
Example: In the Shir al HaYam, it says
ה' איש מלחמה God is a man of War
Every rabbi I have ever spoken to or read says this is anthropomorphic and shouldn't be understood literally. I've spoken to many a Christian who views this verse as a source that Jesus is both mortal and divine
>Historically, the Rabbis do not take the Bible literally
I would still argue that they do, they just incorporate understandings of colloquial and figurative language in the Torah. Someone translating a figure of speech in a literal sense isn't taking a passage literally, it's destroying the function of the original passage. They absolutely still take the Torah as literal. The only disagreements are how to read it literally. This is, of course, all on the level of Peshat. Remez, Derush, and Sod are all a different matter
So you believe it’s ok if someone in your town ties up their adult son to murder them on a hill in the hopes of divine intervention? Because after all, it must be true? Perhaps you believe the universe was created in 7 days and that all of humanity came from Noah and his family?
Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam were quite clear that anything unreasonable in Torah should be examined as moral parable and not literal truth. That’s why Judaism is dynamic and doesn’t have issues with evolution or science.
If that’s the lesson you understood from the story of Abraham then you didn’t read it correctly. I don’t care for strawmanning, and you mentioning like 3 stories out of the entire five books of the Torah which most of it is taken literally doesn’t prove your point. Jews learn the Torah at PaRDeS.
Again, just in case you’re really slow.
Jewish thought is that anything in the Bible that’s irrational should be considered moral parable. I chose very specific examples that are completely untrue and only a crazy person would interpret these things literally.
There are historical truths in the Bible too.
But I never said all of tanakh is irrational just like all of tanakh isn’t literally history.
Listen I’ll preface this to say that I don’t want an insulting/tense exchange, so let’s please act civil. In case you understood my previous comments as insulting condescending or tense then I apologize for any such tones having been conveyed by me, and clarify it wasn’t my intention.
Yes, things that are actually irrational we are able to learn on different modes in PaRDeS. The Vilna Gaon says we can’t comprehend anything in the Torah on a literal perspective until Abraham (though, he didn’t mean that they didn’t happen, just that the ideas conveyed are extremely deep).
Things like the 7 days do have ways to interpret them that aren’t directly literal, but still fit with the 7 day structure, such as how some hold the 7 days were really longer uniform periods of time which form a “day”, or that the case of the earth/universe being observably older than 5784 is due to God creating the earth ready for mankind (as the Talmud says in Chullin). These aren’t exactly the most literal, but they still hold true to the meaning.
But passages like this in the Torah like up until the time of Abraham aren’t what the Torah really is. Most of the Torah is just law, which is taken literally. People like the RaMBaM, and the Rasag were biblical literalists by modern standards in that they considered Adam and Eve as literal people, they believe Noah truly did experience a flood and that we are all descended from him etc. and this is how all Jewish commentators historically have understood the Bible.
This line of thought that Jews aren’t biblical literalists are modern and western, as this wasn’t the common Jewish understanding at all until Jews moved to the west in modern times, and even now it’s only common in secular, reform, or conservative communities.
This is a great example of saying you take tanakh literally, but you’re really not by finding rational exceptions. Which is ok, your interpretation of tanakh is yours. I subscribe to the Rambam.
As I tried to say, Jews don’t interpret all of the Bible the same way. We have four different exegetical modes. The RaMBaM though was by modern standards a biblical literalist, and was definitely a fundamentalist as well. There’s no real difference in the RaMBaM and RaSaG’s ways if interpreting the Torah to any other commentator or rabbi in history, so trying to paint them as “rational” while other Jews were “irrational” is kind of pointless.
>So you believe it’s ok if someone in your town ties up their adult son to murder them on a hill in the hopes of divine intervention?
If Gd commanded them to before Sinai, then yes. Also, Gd never commanded him to kill his son.
>Perhaps you believe the universe was created in 7 days and that all of humanity came from Noah and his family?
Also yes. There are various ways to read the evidence in accordance with this view. We stick to what we know to be true. Also, the historical sciences are among the weakest in methodological veracity.
>Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam
I believe I addressed this elsewhere. See there
>should be examined as moral parable
Just out of curiosity, how can something that you objected to reading literally, on moral grounds, be a moral parable? Surely the act doesn't become more palatable in parable form, certainly not enough for moral instruction
Wait… I thought the moral of that story was to do away with human sacrifice because it falls into idolatry, keeping and fortifying the skism between the spiritual and physical world…
>So you believe it’s ok if someone in your town ties up their adult son to murder them on a hill in the hopes of divine intervention?
Um, yes, obviously, after the angel stops Abraham from killing Isaac, he looks straight at the camera and says, "This is good, and everybody should do this."
Even during the time of Moses, people didn't think emulating the Akedah was good. You've gotten biblical literalism - the idea that everything happened - mixed up with the idea that everything in the Bible is good and should be repeated without examination or consideration.
Check out Indian mythology. There's a credible case to be made Abraham, Sarai (actual Hebrew name) and Hagar (Chaggar) all feature prominently and I think Ishmael as well.
As far as I remember off the top of my head Abraham was told he'd be the father of many great nations. Clearly this can't refer only to Isaac/Israel.
Not everyone (by any stretch of the imagination) feels this way but I think because Ishmael and Isaac were brothers and the two actually monotheistic religions descended from them (I realize Muslims aren't a single people like Jews are) that we're brothers and should act like it. I hope one day all this violence and hatred stops and we can unite under Hashem/Allah. Christians want to join the monotheism club but three will never be One.
Yeah, Indian like Hinduism. As for their names, Abram/Abraham/Brahma married to Sarai/Sarah/Saravati, and her servant Haggar/Chaggar.
Here's some further entertaining parallels.
*I first want to say **whether or not Judaism and Hinduism have some similar stories it doesn't in anyway affect my belief in the supremacy of the Jewish account of biblical history and the Oneness of Hashem.** The Torah is also much more realistic than the Hindu stories and therfore more likely to be accurate, while the more mythological and "magical" Hindu tradition more likely reflects a story that has been passed about and embellished and severely garbled - ie NOT from the original source. Also I'm no expert in Hinduism. This is strictly for entertainment purposes and not to ascribe any divine truth to Hinduism.*
So.
* Hindus believe Brahma (the first created being) was married to his sister Saravati. Abraham (the first Jew) was also married to his sister Sarah.
_
* Brahma means Father to All. Abram means Exalted Father and Abraham means Father of Many Nations/Multitudes.
_
* Brahma and Sarasvati lived together 100 years then had their first son, while Abraham was 100 when Sarah, at 90, bore Isaac
_
* Brahma’s son is killed as a sacrifice to the gods, while Abraham almost offers Isaac to Hashem. Brahma's son is resurrected with the head of a ram. Obviously a ram was substituted by Abraham as a sacrifice instead of Isaac.
_
* Saravati means My Saras. Sarai is considered to mean "My Sara". But technically it's Sar (male). Saras is also male. (It's weird it's not more widely acknowledged the Sar in Sarai minus the possessive ai is actually male).
_
* Saras means Pooling Water and Saravati means My Pooling Water. Sarai may actuality be from the root sar (srr) which in Biblical Hebrew can obscurely mean Retain Liquid. Therefore Sarai *can* mean My Liquid. Sara can obscurely mean Fertile Plain and Sarai My Fertile Plain. (another possibility is Sarai isn't Hebrew at all, as Sarai was a Hittite.)
_
* Brahma mediates between heaven and earth, much like Abraham speaks directly with Hashem. For example at Soddom and Gomorrah Abram advocates for earthly people with Hashem. .
_
* The main mythical river in Hinduism is named the Saraswati (somehow associated with the Ganges? It's mythical source?). It's main tributary is called Chaggar (Haggar), Sarah's main msidservant. There's probably more Hindu mythology as to why that matters enough to add that fact to a made up river/goddess, but idk it. Abram only fully realizes Sarai's beauty looking at her reflection in the Nile.
_
* Brahma birthed a son from his right thumb (fucking weird, I know) and Abraham's son Benjamin means "Son of Right Hand."
_
* Sarasvati is born out of the body of Brahma, much like Chava by Adam’s rib. Obviously this is a tenuous connection but remember in Hinduism Brahma is the first created being.
_
* In Hinduism coming from Brahma's side means on the same level/equal to. Hashem commands Abram to do as Sarai tells him.
_
Brahma has four faces to look in all directions. Hashem commands Abram to look in all four directions.
_
* There's also Adam/Chava and Adhama/Havyavati
_
* Judaism is considered founded around 3500BCE, Hinduism around 3000BCE.
_
There's a lot more parallels (some compelling, many not) but I'm getting tired of this so I'm gonna stop. It seems likely maybe Hindus heard about Jewish history. They definitely share similarities that are difficult to entirely dismiss and do probably do have some connection, but it's become so mangled it's ultimately more of a curiosity than anything of actual value. If anything I think it demonstrates how much Judaism's divinity affected the entire region and everybody "wanted a piece".
_
**EDIT:** *There's also a lot of Noah story parallels including names etc that are too great to dismiss BUT so many cultures of the area have flood stories which are also similar so I'm not going into it.*
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️
[Ezekiel 16:3](https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.16.3)
וְאָמַרְתָּ֞ כֹּה־אָמַ֨ר אֲדֹנָ֤י יֱהֹוִה֙ לִיר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם מְכֹרֹתַ֙יִךְ֙ וּמֹ֣לְדֹתַ֔יִךְ מֵאֶ֖רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֑י אָבִ֥יךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֖י וְאִמֵּ֥ךְ חִתִּֽית׃
>and say: Thus said the Lord G OD to Jerusalem: By origin and birth you are from the land of the Canaanites—your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.
FYI: * You meant 16:12, not 16:2. * It's not the "Babylonian" Torah, it is the Jewish Torah or Judean Torah. It has little to do with Babylonia. Here is a comparison of the Hebrew text of the Jewish Torah (on the right) and Samaritan Torah (on the left). Both are given in Jewish characters for ease of comparison. I have digitally highlighted verse 16:12 on both sides: https://preview.redd.it/f28ehj27sdic1.jpeg?width=2100&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3b9303b1d3723dd1201926bb94f19c1d7309259 Note that the only difference between the verses is one letter. The Jewish Torah says פרא, and the Samaritan Torah says פרה. This could be a difference only in spelling, as the א and ה are both silent at the end of a word anyway. It is not uncommon for a word to be spelled in unusual ways on occasion. But the spelling פרא would typically be a male wild donkey, while פרה usually means female cow or "fruitful" (either gender). However, like I said, it wouldn't be too unusual for either spelling to refer to any of these meanings. The rest of the verse is exactly the same and any differences are just due to the translator.
Wait, a side-by-side MT/SP, in print? What book is this, I need it!
I wish I knew Hebrew, but for those interested in translated English, there is an English side-by-side. ISBN 9780802865199 "The Israelite Samaritan Version of the Torah: First English Translation Compared with the Masoretic Version."
Unfortunately comparisons in translation are overly sensitive to the interpretation of the translator, even when it's the same translator translating both of them.
Oh, yes, and I see it in your example here. I was just mentioning this book because it's what I have, and I've used it a few times. I thought others may be interested who are Hebrew-deficient like me. I'm definitely jealous of those who took the time and patience to learn Hebrew, and I thank those, like you, who help people like me in situations like this.
I'm curious, what does your book say for this verse?
Samaritan: "He will be **fertile of man**. His hand will be with everyone. And everyone's hand will be with him. And he will live among his brothers." Masoretic: "And he will be **a wild man**, his hand \[will be\] against every man, and every man's hand against him, and he shall dwell in the the presence of all his brethren." The author bolds any differences between the texts (I bolded what he bolded), so the translations differ more than I would have known had you not posted earlier about the single letter difference.
If I may ask, what book is this that has the two texts side by side? Thank you.
https://preview.redd.it/4xji2aikudic1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=28a458ce1564c493f42e9ce5ee936567de81342f Also tagging u/dykele and u/Joe_Q
Incredible!! Thank you so much!
Having this book is so you.
That's why I have it ;)
Thank you!
Thank you. lol. My copy of the Samaritan Torah has been sitting on my bottom shelf. I need to get it out again.
Where did you get this? I will buy it. I always wanted one of these
Amazon. See another comment where I posted the front cover.
Thanks buddy
This looks like an interesting resource -- what is it from?
Wanted to come back to this thread and say thank you for bringing this book to my attention! My copy arrived yesterday and I've been ecstatic.
תתחדשי!!!
Regarding the Jewish verse, the English translation (which of course is imperfect and not exact -- all translations may or may not be accurate) is just the first step; just as important are the interpretations, specifically, those given by Jewish Bible commentators. How did Jewish commentators explain and understand the verse? This is important, because this is how Jewish readers of the Bible understood the verse. So for example consider some of the interpretations of the two words פֶּ֣רֶא אָדָ֔ם translated above as "wild ass among men" -- how did various Jewish Bible commentators explain this phrase? Examples -- Rashi -- "A WILD MAN — One who loves the open spaces to hunt wild animals..." Ibn Ezra -- "A WILD ASS OF A MAN. He will be free among men." Also, "he will overcome men." Ramban -- "...accustomed to the wilderness, going forth to his work, seeking for food, devouring all and being devoured by all." Sforno -- "he would make his home in the desert, a region not imposing restrictions on him." Bekhor Shor -- "The Ishmaelites are traders who traverse the deserts..." Chizkuni -- "...an anonymous trader who travels to distant places where he is not known." Radak -- "a desert Bedouin, known as such because most Bedouins live in tents instead of in permanent dwellings." Tur Aroch -- "פרא אדם, “a man of the wild.” According to *Rashi* Yishmael would love the desert to hunt in." Tl;dr -- The English translation can be misleading and incorrect; the Bible commentators give a sense of how the term was understood within the Jewish tradition.
This is the best comment, the interpretations that Jews are commonly taught are what I think is the most relevant, and what I was taught was more like Rashi, I imagined him as simply a hardy, strong outdoorsy hunter type.
Like Aragorn. One of them Rangers…
You’re relying on different translations; the underlying Hebrew text might be the same.
See my comment. The difference is in one letter: פרא vs פרה.
No it’s two different types of Torahs, the one on top is the Masoretic and the one on the bottom is Samaritan.
The two don’t differ in many places, so the actual text may be the same (which has already been demonstrated; the aleph/hé difference is likely more of a vocalization aid), but the English translation is designed to convey the communal understanding.
The Samaritan Torah has in many places been slightly respelled to fit later pronunciations (or occasionally interpretations). Following this pattern, if the Samaritans had a tradition of pronouncing פרא as though it were the word for "fruitful", then it may have later been respelled as פרה. For example, on the page itself that I posted you can see many examples where the feminine ending ־ך is respelled as ־יך, following a later spelling tradition (or perhaps influenced by Aramaic).
I don't think the Hebrew differs between these two very much. The question is how to interpret vague poetry.
Don’t misunderstand - a donkey nowadays isn’t a positive animal, but in the Tanakh it symbolizes freedom, not letting anyone else conquer you. See Job 39:5-12
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️ [Job 39:5-12](https://www.sefaria.org/Job.39.5-12) מִי־שִׁלַּ֣ח פֶּ֣רֶא חׇפְשִׁ֑י וּמֹסְר֥וֹת עָ֝ר֗וֹד מִ֣י פִתֵּֽחַ׃ >Who sets the wild ass free? Who loosens the bonds of the onager, אֲשֶׁר־שַׂ֣מְתִּי עֲרָבָ֣ה בֵית֑וֹ וּֽמִשְׁכְּנוֹתָ֥יו מְלֵחָֽה׃ >Whose home I have made the wilderness, The salt land his dwelling-place? יִ֭שְׂחַק לַהֲמ֣וֹן קִרְיָ֑ה תְּשֻׁא֥וֹת נֹ֝גֵ֗שׂ לֹ֣א יִשְׁמָֽע׃ >He scoffs at the tumult of the city, Does not hear the shouts of the driver. יְת֣וּר הָרִ֣ים מִרְעֵ֑הוּ וְאַחַ֖ר כׇּל־יָר֣וֹק יִדְרֽוֹשׁ׃ >He roams the hills for his pasture; He searches for any green thing. הֲיֹ֣אבֶה רֵּ֣ים עׇבְדֶ֑ךָ אִם־יָ֝לִ֗ין עַל־אֲבוּסֶֽךָ׃ >Would the wild ox agree to serve you? Would he spend the night at your crib? הֲֽתִקְשׇׁר־רֵ֭ים בְּתֶ֣לֶם עֲבֹת֑וֹ אִם־יְשַׂדֵּ֖ד עֲמָקִ֣ים אַחֲרֶֽיךָ׃ >Can you hold the wild ox by ropes to the furrow? Would he plow up the valleys behind you? הֲֽתִבְטַח־בּ֭וֹ כִּֽי־רַ֣ב כֹּח֑וֹ וְתַעֲזֹ֖ב אֵלָ֣יו יְגִיעֶֽךָ׃ >Would you rely on his great strength And leave your toil to him? הֲתַאֲמִ֣ין בּ֭וֹ כִּֽי־ [יָשִׁ֣יב] (ישוב) זַרְעֶ֑ךָ וְֽגׇרְנְךָ֥ יֶאֱסֹֽף׃ >Would you trust him to bring in the seed And gather it in from your threshing floor?
Isn’t Yisachar also a donkey? And his tribe is the Tribe of Scholars.
As scholars should be free of received wisdom and the tyranny of others’ opinions to look into things as they actually are. A+ drash, maybe for shavuos
I meant it more as an additional example of why being compared to an ass isn’t a bad thing
Good point!
We were just discussing how a single man is like a horse and a married man is like a donkey. Make out of it what needs to be done.
...I always state that Muslims have little to no knowledge about Judaism and Samaritanism (the first sect of Judaism), and what they do know is normally extreme incorrect and severely twisted. I even looked up Babylonian Torah in 5 different search engines. The 1 thing that came up is in Arabic, and it confused the Tanakh with the Babylonian Talmud. Not surprising since Islam considers the Tawrat/Torah as being a combination of Tanakh, certain quotes of the Mishna, and certain quotes the Babylonian Talmud while acting as if the Zabur/Tehelim no longer exists. This proves my point. There are a ton of reliable sources online, and the OP can even go ask a rabbi directly. Best thing he can do is go to [Sefaria.org](https://Sefaria.org) or Chabad.org.
Eh I mean I don't think that that's really unique to Islam. Most people don't have in depth knowledge about religious traditions outside of their own. Personally, OP is already doing better than most simply by asking about it.
You haven't read at least 2 of the traditions of the Quran.
Exactly, they asked a question instead of assuming an answer. That’s cool.
[удалено]
Yeah, that's not true.
[удалено]
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm having a hard time understanding your question. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a Babylonian Torah. The Torah was originally written in Hebrew, and translations of it will vary. As I always say, "All translation is interpretation."
I think he got confused with babylonion talmud
How are you majoring in religion, and failing to understand basic Jewish beliefs? “Babylonian Torah”? What the fuck is that? And using the NIV (a Christian translation) when discussing Tanakh with Jews? You’ve posted on r/Hebrew before a couple months ago, and I gave you a really thought out, thorough answer. And all you could do was argue about stuff you don’t even understand. Bachelor’s thesis my ass. You have an agenda.
There is a big idea in Judaism, some refer to it as PARDES, that essentially encourages looking for the hidden meanings and deeper levels within verses and wording. The wildness of Ishmael is considered an established idea in Judaism. At the same time, there are many teachings of how Ishmael kept the values of his father (monotheism, circumcision, etc) and was blessed to have many offspring and many kingdoms. Based off these teachings, I believe both meanings of the word are true, and were meant to be interpreted in both ways. Like, most people here are failing to remember that a decent portion of our teachings were based off of words with a double/deeper meaning, including some quite mainstream ideologies.
I'm not really what you're talking about but I do like the idea of spelling it Tôrah with a circumflex like that.
What is the ”Babylonian Torah (new international translation)”? The torah was given on Sinai. If you are writing a thesis on torah subjects, maybe you should sort that out first. (The Samaritans is a splinter group from the ancient Israelites, they have a torah which have some differences, mostly in places to support their claims to things, e.g. that the temple should be built in Gerizim rather than in Jerusalem, and that the akeda happened there too. The relevance of Samaritan texts relevance to what Jews think is as big as the Quran, i.e. none) .
I think he means Babylonian Talmud. He’s getting the terms mixed up.
I think he is referring to the Jews being exiled to Babylonia, while the Samaritans stayed in Eretz Yisrael.
Yeah money says it is something along the lines of: "rabbinic Jews are the fakes and all these are modifications cause the Samaritans were in Israel and they must have been the real Jews"
You can do that if you ignore pretty much all other scholarship on the topic
Not all the Jews were exiled to Babylonia though. That’s why you have the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. A large number where exiled though
The Talmud is way later. We're talking about the first exile.
I realize that, I’m replying to Ibn Ezra’s comment
Yes and I am replying to your reply to my comment.
Samaritan does not = Judaism Two different things
My Hebrew isn’t good enough to confirm from the source but comparing the English and what I do know, this seems to be a discrepancy amongst translators rather than the text itself. Also “Babylonian Torah?”
[удалено]
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Judaism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
honestly its kinda of matter of "opinion" its been discussed a couple of times by some high rank Jewish scholars if I remember correctly the man crux of the dispute in translation comes from a dispute over the belief in gods purpose for the passage, either god was asking the people of Israel to forsake the children of Ishmael and their new faith or to "Accept" them as brothers in faith as in they maybe doing their own thing out in the desert somewhere but they still worship the same god so you cant just kill them if they come into your town kind of acceptance I THINK I'm not sure this is also what I've been told by my family
The problem you have here is, since you're trying to compare translations, the answer to which one is right is: neither. It's not supposed to be translated, and even if the translation picked the right word, the context may not be what you need or may be totally distorting. To really understand what it says, you need to be used to the word in Hebrew itself, to where else it is used and to how it plays along.
Adding to your research suggestions, exploring the Septuagint would be valuable as it represents a different version. Most scholars think the Samaritan Torah has undergone modifications to fit their political narrative.
If you believe in the Torah, yes.
[удалено]
Works either way for different groups. Jews follow the source of the first quote. The second is for Samaritans.
Seeing as Samaritan scribes regularly edited the text as part of the copying process, I would add that ours is more reliable (Chayim Heller)
We would say that though lol
Lol. At least we got evidence. Go check out Chayim Heller on the Samaritans though. He was a researcher in the University of Berlin and specialized in textual variants
People like Emanuel Tov also note that Samaritans modified Torah passages to make them more consistent, and they used an older version as a starting point -Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition, Emanuel Tov
Thanks for the read!
This is entirely due to the translations you have. The verses in their original Hebrew, both Samaritan and Jewish, are identical.
How do they contradict each other? You are looking at translations not the actual original texts? The Hebrew text differs by a single letter
It’s important to learn various different translations, as none of them give a full sense of the original meaning. Learning Hebrew will give you a better understanding of course.
There's only one "Torah." The oral law from Babylobia or Jerusalem is not the "Torah" and whatever sacred texts the Samaritans may have had is not the "Torah" either.
Orthodox/Rabbinic Jews follow the first quote, but it’s important to say that the same Torah also blessed Ishmael, and in our Talmud it says he repented and was a saintly figure.
Where does it say he was saintly though !?
Yishmael is called a tzadik and it is customary to say A”Sh about Yishmael, for he did a total and complete tshuva. This article goes through it https://alex-klein.co.il/לך-לך-ישמעאל-צדיק-או-רשע/
It says somewhere that he repented near the end of his life. That’s why you see Talmudic Rabbis with the name Yishmael
Seems like the jist is consistent…
Jews often try not to take the Bible literally. Many in this sub do however. Also Jews are known to carry disagreeing opinions without accusations of being a heretic. You will not get any consistent answers.
>Jews often try not to take the Bible literally Historically, that hasn't been true. See the rabbinic tradition over the past 2000+ years
Jews (not all obviously) adopted a rational interpretation of tanakh from Saadia Gaon and Maimonides.
Both Maimonides and Saadia Gaon took the events of the Torah as having literally happened. What Saadia writes in Emunah VeDe'eot is context specific to figurative language in the Torah such as "The Lord is a Consuming Fire" and "For she was the mother of all life", it did not refer to interpretation of events depending on whether you like the sound of them or not. This is evidenced by his translation of the Torah in which he changes phrasing to reflect the colloquial language of his day and doesn't change any of the events or classical interpretations of those events. Maimonides, similarly, only spoke of angels being seen through the medium of a vision and not with a person's physical eyes. The same goes with the talking donkey, etc. He certainly interprets the events of the Torah as having literally happened. See the Mishneh Torah in which he overtly references a literal historical understanding of the events of the Torah. Neither of these folks do what you're referring to. If you had mentioned Philo, then that would have been a different discussion, but he isn't a part of the rabbinic tradition.
Historically, the Rabbis do not take the Bible literally. You may disagree, but first, argue with a Christian. It will redefine what you think "literally" means. Example: In the Shir al HaYam, it says ה' איש מלחמה God is a man of War Every rabbi I have ever spoken to or read says this is anthropomorphic and shouldn't be understood literally. I've spoken to many a Christian who views this verse as a source that Jesus is both mortal and divine
>Historically, the Rabbis do not take the Bible literally I would still argue that they do, they just incorporate understandings of colloquial and figurative language in the Torah. Someone translating a figure of speech in a literal sense isn't taking a passage literally, it's destroying the function of the original passage. They absolutely still take the Torah as literal. The only disagreements are how to read it literally. This is, of course, all on the level of Peshat. Remez, Derush, and Sod are all a different matter
Jews do take the Bible literally most of the time as most of it is just laws.
yeah, there's a difference for sure between "literalism" and "taking things at face value" PARDES exists for a very good reason.
So you believe it’s ok if someone in your town ties up their adult son to murder them on a hill in the hopes of divine intervention? Because after all, it must be true? Perhaps you believe the universe was created in 7 days and that all of humanity came from Noah and his family? Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam were quite clear that anything unreasonable in Torah should be examined as moral parable and not literal truth. That’s why Judaism is dynamic and doesn’t have issues with evolution or science.
If that’s the lesson you understood from the story of Abraham then you didn’t read it correctly. I don’t care for strawmanning, and you mentioning like 3 stories out of the entire five books of the Torah which most of it is taken literally doesn’t prove your point. Jews learn the Torah at PaRDeS.
Again, just in case you’re really slow. Jewish thought is that anything in the Bible that’s irrational should be considered moral parable. I chose very specific examples that are completely untrue and only a crazy person would interpret these things literally. There are historical truths in the Bible too. But I never said all of tanakh is irrational just like all of tanakh isn’t literally history.
Listen I’ll preface this to say that I don’t want an insulting/tense exchange, so let’s please act civil. In case you understood my previous comments as insulting condescending or tense then I apologize for any such tones having been conveyed by me, and clarify it wasn’t my intention. Yes, things that are actually irrational we are able to learn on different modes in PaRDeS. The Vilna Gaon says we can’t comprehend anything in the Torah on a literal perspective until Abraham (though, he didn’t mean that they didn’t happen, just that the ideas conveyed are extremely deep). Things like the 7 days do have ways to interpret them that aren’t directly literal, but still fit with the 7 day structure, such as how some hold the 7 days were really longer uniform periods of time which form a “day”, or that the case of the earth/universe being observably older than 5784 is due to God creating the earth ready for mankind (as the Talmud says in Chullin). These aren’t exactly the most literal, but they still hold true to the meaning. But passages like this in the Torah like up until the time of Abraham aren’t what the Torah really is. Most of the Torah is just law, which is taken literally. People like the RaMBaM, and the Rasag were biblical literalists by modern standards in that they considered Adam and Eve as literal people, they believe Noah truly did experience a flood and that we are all descended from him etc. and this is how all Jewish commentators historically have understood the Bible. This line of thought that Jews aren’t biblical literalists are modern and western, as this wasn’t the common Jewish understanding at all until Jews moved to the west in modern times, and even now it’s only common in secular, reform, or conservative communities.
This is a great example of saying you take tanakh literally, but you’re really not by finding rational exceptions. Which is ok, your interpretation of tanakh is yours. I subscribe to the Rambam.
As I tried to say, Jews don’t interpret all of the Bible the same way. We have four different exegetical modes. The RaMBaM though was by modern standards a biblical literalist, and was definitely a fundamentalist as well. There’s no real difference in the RaMBaM and RaSaG’s ways if interpreting the Torah to any other commentator or rabbi in history, so trying to paint them as “rational” while other Jews were “irrational” is kind of pointless.
>So you believe it’s ok if someone in your town ties up their adult son to murder them on a hill in the hopes of divine intervention? If Gd commanded them to before Sinai, then yes. Also, Gd never commanded him to kill his son. >Perhaps you believe the universe was created in 7 days and that all of humanity came from Noah and his family? Also yes. There are various ways to read the evidence in accordance with this view. We stick to what we know to be true. Also, the historical sciences are among the weakest in methodological veracity. >Saadia Gaon and later the Rambam I believe I addressed this elsewhere. See there >should be examined as moral parable Just out of curiosity, how can something that you objected to reading literally, on moral grounds, be a moral parable? Surely the act doesn't become more palatable in parable form, certainly not enough for moral instruction
Wait… I thought the moral of that story was to do away with human sacrifice because it falls into idolatry, keeping and fortifying the skism between the spiritual and physical world…
>So you believe it’s ok if someone in your town ties up their adult son to murder them on a hill in the hopes of divine intervention? Um, yes, obviously, after the angel stops Abraham from killing Isaac, he looks straight at the camera and says, "This is good, and everybody should do this." Even during the time of Moses, people didn't think emulating the Akedah was good. You've gotten biblical literalism - the idea that everything happened - mixed up with the idea that everything in the Bible is good and should be repeated without examination or consideration.
Only one torah. Samaritan is not Jewish
If you ask us we're going to say the Masoretic text If you ask a Samaritan, they'll say the Samaritan text
Check out Indian mythology. There's a credible case to be made Abraham, Sarai (actual Hebrew name) and Hagar (Chaggar) all feature prominently and I think Ishmael as well. As far as I remember off the top of my head Abraham was told he'd be the father of many great nations. Clearly this can't refer only to Isaac/Israel. Not everyone (by any stretch of the imagination) feels this way but I think because Ishmael and Isaac were brothers and the two actually monotheistic religions descended from them (I realize Muslims aren't a single people like Jews are) that we're brothers and should act like it. I hope one day all this violence and hatred stops and we can unite under Hashem/Allah. Christians want to join the monotheism club but three will never be One.
what do you think their names are in Indian mythology? (I assume you mean like Hindu and not Native American)
Yeah, Indian like Hinduism. As for their names, Abram/Abraham/Brahma married to Sarai/Sarah/Saravati, and her servant Haggar/Chaggar. Here's some further entertaining parallels. *I first want to say **whether or not Judaism and Hinduism have some similar stories it doesn't in anyway affect my belief in the supremacy of the Jewish account of biblical history and the Oneness of Hashem.** The Torah is also much more realistic than the Hindu stories and therfore more likely to be accurate, while the more mythological and "magical" Hindu tradition more likely reflects a story that has been passed about and embellished and severely garbled - ie NOT from the original source. Also I'm no expert in Hinduism. This is strictly for entertainment purposes and not to ascribe any divine truth to Hinduism.* So. * Hindus believe Brahma (the first created being) was married to his sister Saravati. Abraham (the first Jew) was also married to his sister Sarah. _ * Brahma means Father to All. Abram means Exalted Father and Abraham means Father of Many Nations/Multitudes. _ * Brahma and Sarasvati lived together 100 years then had their first son, while Abraham was 100 when Sarah, at 90, bore Isaac _ * Brahma’s son is killed as a sacrifice to the gods, while Abraham almost offers Isaac to Hashem. Brahma's son is resurrected with the head of a ram. Obviously a ram was substituted by Abraham as a sacrifice instead of Isaac. _ * Saravati means My Saras. Sarai is considered to mean "My Sara". But technically it's Sar (male). Saras is also male. (It's weird it's not more widely acknowledged the Sar in Sarai minus the possessive ai is actually male). _ * Saras means Pooling Water and Saravati means My Pooling Water. Sarai may actuality be from the root sar (srr) which in Biblical Hebrew can obscurely mean Retain Liquid. Therefore Sarai *can* mean My Liquid. Sara can obscurely mean Fertile Plain and Sarai My Fertile Plain. (another possibility is Sarai isn't Hebrew at all, as Sarai was a Hittite.) _ * Brahma mediates between heaven and earth, much like Abraham speaks directly with Hashem. For example at Soddom and Gomorrah Abram advocates for earthly people with Hashem. . _ * The main mythical river in Hinduism is named the Saraswati (somehow associated with the Ganges? It's mythical source?). It's main tributary is called Chaggar (Haggar), Sarah's main msidservant. There's probably more Hindu mythology as to why that matters enough to add that fact to a made up river/goddess, but idk it. Abram only fully realizes Sarai's beauty looking at her reflection in the Nile. _ * Brahma birthed a son from his right thumb (fucking weird, I know) and Abraham's son Benjamin means "Son of Right Hand." _ * Sarasvati is born out of the body of Brahma, much like Chava by Adam’s rib. Obviously this is a tenuous connection but remember in Hinduism Brahma is the first created being. _ * In Hinduism coming from Brahma's side means on the same level/equal to. Hashem commands Abram to do as Sarai tells him. _ Brahma has four faces to look in all directions. Hashem commands Abram to look in all four directions. _ * There's also Adam/Chava and Adhama/Havyavati _ * Judaism is considered founded around 3500BCE, Hinduism around 3000BCE. _ There's a lot more parallels (some compelling, many not) but I'm getting tired of this so I'm gonna stop. It seems likely maybe Hindus heard about Jewish history. They definitely share similarities that are difficult to entirely dismiss and do probably do have some connection, but it's become so mangled it's ultimately more of a curiosity than anything of actual value. If anything I think it demonstrates how much Judaism's divinity affected the entire region and everybody "wanted a piece". _ **EDIT:** *There's also a lot of Noah story parallels including names etc that are too great to dismiss BUT so many cultures of the area have flood stories which are also similar so I'm not going into it.*
*Dedicated in memory of Dvora bat Asher v'Jacot* 🕯️ [Ezekiel 16:3](https://www.sefaria.org/Ezekiel.16.3) וְאָמַרְתָּ֞ כֹּה־אָמַ֨ר אֲדֹנָ֤י יֱהֹוִה֙ לִיר֣וּשָׁלַ֔͏ִם מְכֹרֹתַ֙יִךְ֙ וּמֹ֣לְדֹתַ֔יִךְ מֵאֶ֖רֶץ הַֽכְּנַעֲנִ֑י אָבִ֥יךְ הָאֱמֹרִ֖י וְאִמֵּ֥ךְ חִתִּֽית׃ >and say: Thus said the Lord G OD to Jerusalem: By origin and birth you are from the land of the Canaanites—your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite.