Lot's Daughters: Midrash and Aggadah

by Tamar Kadari

According to the Rabbis, Lot had four daughters, two of whom were married, and two betrothed. The two married daughters and their husbands, along with the two future bridegrooms, remained in Sodom and perished, leaving Lot with only two daughters after the destruction of the city (Gen. Rabbah 50:9; Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, ed. Higger chap. 25).

In their depiction of the impregnation of Lot’s daughters by their father, the Rabbis draw a distinction between the father and his daughters. The Biblical story presents the daughters as the initiators and the active perpetrators of this act of incest: they ply their father with wine and lie with him, while their intoxicated father does not know when they lay down with him or when they rose. We would expect the Rabbis to condemn the daughters’ actions and defend Lot, but the opposite is the case. The Rabbis portray the daughters in a favorable light, while Lot is indicted.

According to the A type of non-halakhic literary activitiy of the Rabbis for interpreting non-legal material according to special principles of interpretation (hermeneutical rules).midrash (Tanhuma, Vayera 12), Lot, from the outset, decided to dwell in Sodom because he wanted to engage in the licentious behavior of its inhabitants. His negative behavior comes to the fore when the townspeople mill about his door, demanding that he hand over the angels, and he instead offers his daughters to the mob. The Rabbis observe that a man usually allows himself to be killed in order to save his wife and children, while Lot was willing to allow the townspeople to abuse his daughters. In response to this, the Holy One, blessed be He, says to Lot: By your life, the improper act that you intended to be done to your daughters will indeed be committed, but to you. This midrash sharply focuses the reversal between these two episodes. In the first event, in Sodom, Lot was ready to force his daughters, against their will, to engage in sexual relations with the townspeople. In contrast, in the second episode, which takes place after the upheaval of Sodom, Lot’s daughters engage in relations with their unwitting father. Consequently, these acts of incest are Lot’s punishment for his unseemly behavior.

Another midrash (Aggadat Bereshit [ed. Buber] 25:1) regards the daughters’ act as punishment for their father’s own sexual promiscuity. Lot thought that if he were to dwell in Sodom, he could engage in licentious behavior without anyone’s knowledge. He accordingly was punished by his daughters engaging in intercourse with him; this episode became common knowledge and is read each year during the public Torah she-bi-khetav: Lit. "the written Torah." The Bible; the Pentateuch; Tanakh (the Pentateuch, Prophets and Hagiographia)Torah reading of the verse: “Thus the two daughters of Lot came to be with child by their father” (Gen. 19:36). R. Nahman adds: “Whoever is driven by his hunger for transgression will eventually be fed from his own flesh” (Tanhuma, Vayera 12). Lot was eager to engage in promiscuity; in the end, his daughters played the harlot with him.

Another Rabbinic view was that Lot secretly lusted after his daughters. He was intoxicated when the elder sister lay with him, but he was sober when she rose, as is indicated in the Torah by the dot over the word u-ve-komah (“when she rose”). Despite his knowledge of what had transpired, he did not refrain from drinking wine the next night as well, and lying with his younger daughter (Gen. Rabbah 51:8–9).

Lot’s daughters, in contrast, are treated sympathetically. The midrash observes that, by strict law, the daughters deserve to be burnt by fire for having lain with their father (Aggadat Bereshit [ed. Buber] 25:1), but the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows man’s thoughts, judges them by their thoughts and not their deed. The daughters’ true intent was not to lie with their father, on whom they had no sexual designs, but to save the world from total devastation. The daughters thought that the entire world had been laid waste, as had happened during the Flood, since they saw no living souls wherever they went; they did not know that only Sodom had been destroyed. They said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, has rescued us so that the world will exist through us, so that the human race shall continue.” The Holy One, blessed be He, knew their honest minds and good thoughts and rewarded them for their actions. Accordingly, when he commanded “no Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted into the congregation of the Lord” (Deut. 23:4), this prohibition against intermarriage applies only to the males, and not to the females (Pesikta Rabbati 42).

The underlying reason for the sympathetic treatment of the daughters of Lot apparently stems from Ruth the Moabite’s tracing her lineage to them and the subsequent descent of King David and, eventually, of the Messiah, from Ruth’s marriage to Boaz. According to the midrashic account, when Lot was commanded to rescue his two daughters from the destruction the angels already foresaw that Ruth the Moabite and Na’amah the Ammonite would descend from them (Gen. Rabbah 50:10). In addition, when Scripture tells of the incestuous act by the daughters of Lot, who say: “that we may preserve seed from our father” (Gen. 19:34), it uses the word zera (“seed,” or “offspring” in a more general sense), and not “son,” since the intent of the Holy One, blessed be He, was related to the Messiah (Gen. Rabbah 51:8). Thus, from a historical perspective, this act was essential for the future advent of the Messiah. This also explains the midrash (Gen. Rabbah, loc. cit.) that Lot’s daughters had no wine; a miracle was performed for them, and the cave in which they lived became a portent of the World to Come, dripping with wine, as in the depiction of the World to Come: “And in that day, the mountains shall drip with wine” (Joel 4:18). An additional wonder: a virgin does not become pregnant from her first intercourse, while Lot’s daughters, who were virgins, did become pregnant from this initial act (Gen. Rabbah 51:9). This midrash reiterates the purity of their intentions, since they lay with their father only a single time, to ensure the continuity of the world. Just as Ruth acted for an ideal when she went down at night to the threshing floor of Boaz, so, too, the daughters of Lot acted altruistically (Gen. Rabbah 51:10).


Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

No matter how explanation may be addressing Lot's drama would be,what is clear is the fact that Lot was hospitable,not hostile,like the people in Sodom,wich made him to be "saved". But he was an alcoholic. His daughters knew there are MEN in Zoar,their Daddy bought the wine... Wonder how he payed for...What happened to his flock,and workers out of Sodome city?... At any cost... He preferred to keep a low profile,so he would enjoy a sweet ,harmonious,incestuous life in secret(like all cases of incest). He categorycaly raped his daughters!!! Ther's no such thing as dripping wine from the caves' walls.What proof? That cave could have beenn invaded many times over...by MEN... Under"influence" one can do irrational acts.But we forget the real TRUTH (which often we prefer to ignore). It is irrelevant from what glorious or NOT! kings David,etc lineage is.THAT story,along with all Rabbis explanations holds a lota WINE but "No water"...!!!

The reality that transpired is: Lot's future sonos-in-law thaught that he was kiddin when he told them to leave,escaping the perishes of Sodom. So Lot was NOT a credible man... Where from those two daughters got the wine? Did their daddy carried it while running for his own life,and only His!(had not ben mentioned,a anyody's else in tat narration..., What a "loving father:Saint Lot!!!". And last: in what medical sciences any drunk in the state of ignorant stupor (as had ben described)could be explained to be possible that a man could have an errection, none the less an ejaculation???... Plus those girls were Virgines!Inexperienced! THAT is how this " story helps us think logically, moraly, and truthfully? It holds a lot of wine but NO water... Tank You.

How do we know for sure exactly what happened in the cave, once an inebriated in ignorant stuper he could NOT "impregnate" virgin naive,inexperensed,ADOLESCENT daugthers.Lot was an alcoholic, who provided the wine.In Zoar were people!!!left,He had a flock...But he couldn't show his face to them nor to Abraham,so he could continue his promiscuous behavior. And now,blame the "women" so he gets the glory...His wife knew what he was worth,but a second thought,she rather die then continue her life with him!!!

Well that is refreshing. To say that homosexuality is wrong is ridiculous. Guess its ok for a father to prostitute his daughters out rather than protect them. People don't choose to be gay. I mean why would they choose to be something that is sooooo hated by so many people and judged( get your Bible out people). Incest is wrong and so is pedophilia.

Lot pleaded with the angels to go to Zoar... Were there not human living there? Didn't the daughters of Lot have knowledge about Abraham?
How could the daughters of Lot think God destroyed the whole world

Well researched and documented. Full of wisdom..

Lot must have known as to how his became pregnant, there was no other men around and virgen births are not that common in humans. 



very good reading really enjoyed!!!!!!


Why is anyone questioning why any of this happened. You should not question God's wisdom. God's ways are not our ways. God rescued Lot because he had a plan. And that was to have his daughters get him drunk and sleep with him. He could have intervened at any time like he had in Sodom and Gomorrah, or when he spoke to Abraham. But he didn't. It was all part of his greater plan.

If you believe in God's ultimate plan then you must also believe that he wanted Lot to sleep with his daughters. You can say that people have free will, but we do nothing unless it is also part of God's perfect plan. His many interventions prove that without doubt. Just like any atrocity that we see around us in the world, from incest to genocide, God chooses to let it happen and we should not question it, because to do so is questioning God's Wisdom!

In reply to by Joseph

Not "everything" just because it was the case in something as significant as God breeding the house of David in order to get Jesus. It doesn't automatically follow that every trivial evil by every trivial person is the equivalent.

In reply to by medunischken

You just need to get light of truth and seek and study other sculptures do not just stick to your bible

In reply to by Joseph

It is foolish to say that just because something happened, that it was God's initial intent or what God wanted. God never wanted Adam to sin. God never wanted the earth to be destroyed by a flood. God did not want Lot to commit incest with his daughters. God never wanted any evil to befall the human race. Evil follows man's wicked desires not God's intentions. God is just, but also merciful. He changed His mind multiple times throughout scripture due to this. And God is able to make all things work for good, even things that start out wicked, such in the case of Lot and his daughters.

In reply to by Tameika

Tamika absolutely you are right God not play evil stuff it’s never happened. With a lot PBUH and his daughters. god protect all the blessed prophet from Shaista and sins

In reply to by Tameika


The  daughters stayed with Lot in Zoar for a short while before heading to the mountains; therefore, it’s impossible for them to have believed there were no suitors in Zoar. They made the choice, good or bad, to lie with their father.  Second, under what theory can a virgin not get pregnant the first time? Many women have conceived the first time they had sex. ;


In reply to by Annemarie

I was wondering the same thing—— who says a virgin cannot get pregnant during their first intercourse experience? A woman who is ovulating can get pregnant. Virgins do ovulate.

In reply to by Michelle



In reply to by Dalya

Chinese and Japanese

What nation came from lit and his daughters?

In reply to by Dalya

Of course the Japanese is Ammon, Chinese is Moab.

In reply to by Anonymous

may respectfully I ask where in the text of God says that, im doing research on that topic. Thanks

Sorry somehow my previous post was duplicated.

When Lot's daughters said there were no more men left for them to procreate with (Gen 19:31) they must have surely known there were other cities with people. Where they actually meaning any men in general or specifically men from Sodom and Gomorrah? Wasn't Sodom and Gomorrah mainly inhabited by Canaanites? Why all the many curses for Moab and Ammon, Jeremiah 48, Jer 25:21, 28, Isaiah 15-16, Ezekiel 25:8-11, Zephaniah 2:8-10, Amos 2:1-3, Psalm 83:6-7? Just because they were the result of incest (Deu 23:3) or was it because Moabites and Ammonites carried certain type of seed in them which is why King David upon conquering Moab laid the Moabites down to measure them and those that proved to be giants were killed, 2 Samuel 8:2...

Ruth was not an ethnic Moabite; she was a resident or citizen of what continued to be known as the fields or plains of Moab. Ruben, Gad and Manasseh had the area from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon for hundreds of years. Why on earth would the Moabites who hated Israel so much allow a Jewish family to dwell among them? Naomi and her family went to the fertile plains or fields of Moab, an area that remained with that name for a long time.  Ruth the "Moabite" was an Israelite (Ruben?) resident of that area who, like many Israelites did, embraced the local pagan deities. To her credit she did teshuva returning to the Elohim of her ancestors but Ruth was as much a Moabite as Moses was an Egyptian.Ruth was not an ethnic Moabite; she was a resident or citizen of what continued to be known as the fields or plains of Moab. Ruben, Gad and Manasseh had the area from the River Arnon to Mount Hermon for hundreds of years. Why on earth would the Moabites who hated Israel so much allow a Jewish family to dwell among them? Naomi and her family went to the fertile plains or fields of Moab, an area that remained with that name for a long time.  Ruth the "Moabite" was an Israelite (Ruben?) resident of that area who, like many Israelites did, embraced the local pagan deities. To her credit she did teshuva returning to the Elohim of her ancestors but Ruth was as much a Moabite as Moses was an Egyptian. 

In reply to by Shoshana

She (Ruth) married an israelite and they became 1. She then took on Thier laws and Covenant. The israelite nation was taking on "strange wives" of other nations. That was one of the sins to this day. Being that you are whatever your father is (because he carries the seed), any children born from israelite father's are Israelites, and any other nations dwelling with them must follow the laws, statues and commandments.

Could Lot have sex while he was intoxicated? 

The bible stated that he wasn't in the know when his daughters lied with him and when they got up? But anatomy tells us the man must ejaculate in order to make the woman pregnant.

I cannot reconcile this story

Wow... how many errors could those rabbis fit into their analyses?

"The Rabbis observe that a man usually allows himself to be killed in order to save his wife and children, while Lot was willing to allow the townspeople to abuse his daughters."

Genesis 19:6 says "Lot went outside to meet [the Sodomite rape gang] and shut the door behind him. [emphasis mine]" If anyone was going to get gang-raped and murdered that night, Lot would surely have been the Sodomites' first victim, since he was standing between them and his guests and his daughters with the door shut behind him. Sounds to me like those rabbis owe Lot an apology for their unduly harsh assessment of his character; he didn't offer up his daughters to the would-be rapists without implicitly offering up his own life first.

"Lot thought that if he were to dwell in Sodom, he could engage in licentious behavior without anyone’s knowledge."

Pure speculation, and not a word of valid reasoning or canonical basis for it. Considering that the Sodomites practiced their licentious behavior pretty brazenly in trying to gang-rape Lot's guests, I dare say a whole lot of them would surely have known if he was doing anything licentious. When he pleaded with them not to attack his guests, they didn't say "You've had plenty of fun with our women; now we want our turn with your men." Instead, Genesis 19:9 tells us they said "Get out of our way! This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them." Also, the only reason for Lot's decision to live near Sodom given in the actual Torah is (according to Genesis 13:10) that the plain of the Jordan where the cities stood had lots of water and vegetation for his animals; Scripture accuses Lot of no sin other than the sloth of complacency. To make up wild accusations of the kind these rabbis did is to libel him without cause, and for that they again owe Lot an apology.

"Another Rabbinic view was that Lot secretly lusted after his daughters. He was intoxicated when the elder sister lay with him, but he was sober when she rose, as is indicated in the Torah by the dot over the word u-ve-komah (“when she rose”)."

Rubbish. Genesis 19:33 clearly states "He was not aware of it when [his older daughter] lay down or when she got up [emphasis mine]." Genesis 19:35 likewise clearly states "Again he was not aware of it when [his younger daughter] lay down or when she got up [emphasis mine]." While one might wonder what bizarre dreams he was having in his drunken delerium to be able to perform for his daughters while they were raping him, it's clear he didn't do it of his own free will. The only wrong he committed was letting them repeatedly get him drunk, and since he didn't know what they were doing to him while he was drunk, he may simply have thought they were spending those nights drowning their sorrows in wine the same way he was drowning his. Once again, the rabbis' accusations against Lot are pure speculation with neither any sound logic nor any canonical basis for them whatsoever.

"The daughters’ true intent was not to lie with their father, on whom they had no sexual designs, but to save the world from total devastation. The daughters thought that the entire world had been laid waste, as had happened during the Flood, since they saw no living souls wherever they went; they did not know that only Sodom had been destroyed."

Wrong on all counts: while it's entirely plausible that the daughters were acting out of deemed necessity rather than from lust, they could not have thought all the people of all the world destroyed, since Genesis 19:30 clearly states they had lately emigrated from the little town of Zoar; they must have been aware that other people still lived in civilization's remnants, though Lot's being afraid to stay in Zoar suggests they justifiably believed these other people were hostile to them. Genesis 19:24-29 states that God destroyed not only Sodom, but Gomorrah, and all the cities of the plain. While the devastation of that fiery deluge on the land certainly would remind them of the watery deluge in Noah's time, the daughters were surely aware that there were other survivors later on too, though they wanted nothing to do with them; as the older daughter states in Genesis 19:31, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth [emphasis mine]."

What they most likely feared was specifically the end of their family line: with their only other prospects for having children (specifically sons to protect them and provide for them) being the apparently hostile people of Zoar and maybe a few desert raiders who'd prefer to use them for sex slaves, the daughters figured they'd have to get their children from the only non-hostile and non-predatory male to be had, namely their father Lot.

"This also explains the midrash... that Lot’s daughters had no wine."

Considering that Abraham and Lot had both been able to procure food and drink for themselves before, there's no reason to believe Lot and his daughters hadn't continued to do so, though the destruction of so much of their wealth along with Sodom and Gomorrah and all the cities of the plain had surely impoverished them. Still, with vegetation (including wine grapes) immediately springing up in the rich plains of the Jordan (recently fertilized with ash) and people being able to round up the occasional surviving stray animals now drifting ownerless in the aftermath of the apocalypse, the suggestion that Lot and his daughters needed some miraculous source for their wine (or anything else) is pure fanciful speculation and nothing more.

"An additional wonder: a virgin does not become pregnant from her first intercourse, while Lot’s daughters, who were virgins, did become pregnant from this initial act..."

Oh, come on! Even the most prudish cultures have always known that nothing magically protects a girl from getting pregnant her first time, much as she might wish something did. I'm starting to think these rabbis must be pulling our legs. If anything, my suspicion is that Lot's daughters had figured out how their fertility cycles worked and simply used an inversion of the Catholics' beloved rhythm method to ensure that they were inseminated on their most fertile days.

That's assuming each of them really did only rape their father one time apiece. While Genesis 19:33-35 certainly only mentions the one time, it's entirely possible it's simply indicating how their scheme typically went by telling us about the first time they pulled it and then leaving us to figure (without having to have it all described to us again) that they took turns with their father in the same manner every time they pulled this same scheme after that until they were both certain they were pregnant.

As to their legacy, it's true that Ruth the Moabite later did go on to sire David's line with Boaz (and through that lineage, ultimately the Messiah). However, the Israelites' prescribed enmity with the Ammonites and Moabites did pretty much continue with everybody else in those nations. If anything, Ruth's reconciliation to God through marrying Boaz merely demonstrates that God was already working toward the abolition of collective historical culpability for ancestral sins: as prophesied in Jeremiah 31:28-30 and Ezekiel 18:1-3, Ruth was no longer going to be held responsible for the sins of Lot's daughters with their father (nor, for that matter, for the other sins the nation of Moab had committed against Israel in chapters 22-25 of Numbers).

All these wild digressions from Biblical canon and the sheer absurdity of some of these speculations are one reason why the rabbinical writings of the Talmud will never rank much higher in my estimation than (rather poorly written) fan fiction. While it's worthwhile to know what ancient Israelites thought about various odd passages of Scripture, honoring these fanciful scribblings as anything more than the dubious opinions of fallible men would be subordinating the Scriptures to mere human traditions as God warned us against doing in Isaiah 29:13.

So, let's just talk about the incest when the worst act here is the pedophilia. Why is that always skirted around?

In reply to by injoyd325

That would be because there wasn't any. The gals were betrothed to be married when they had to flee Sodom, which can only mean they must already have been of a marriageable age; by the standards of the time, that would place them in their early teens at the youngest and it's more likely (considering that they took a while to get to their mountain dwelling and the daughters stated that they had to act soon if they wanted to have any offspring because their father was old enough that he wasn't going to be around much longer) that they were in their later teens or even twenties. Young teens were a lot more mature emotionally as well as physically in those days, since they had to grow up fast in order to survive, and everyone considered them adults back then; even in our time, fetishistic attraction to post-pubescent adolescents is known not as pedophilia (which is such an attraction to pre-pubescent children), but as hebephilia (younger adolescents) or ephebophilia (older adolescents).

In short, the parental incest is the issue at hand here. While God's laws against incest weren't in effect until Moses brought Leviticus and Deuteronomy to his people, it does remain that everybody else having children with a close relative (such as Abraham with his half-sister Sarah) was married to a peer, whereas these were unmarried gals were raping their much older father. Even before incest was outlawed, that was an awfully cruel betrayal of Lot's paternal trust and violation of their familial bonds to him.

In reply to by Pinto

(Pinto) You have a very adept understanding of scripture (including original jewish scripture! I have never had anyone, not priests, pastors, anyone explain reasoning behind biblical scripture, like you did as the first commenter! Also, to explain in a way, that I actually find common sense, understanding and agree with! Would you be willing to take my information and look me up on facebook or some other site, just so that I could ask you questions and gain understanding about some of the scriptures or all of them? My name is Chrissy Lynn Castro (Letson) on facebook, if you happen to come back to this site and read this, please reach out to me. I have no other intentions, than to truly gain more wisdom. Wisdom and understanding, you clearly have and demonstrate eloquently without twisting and adding your own interpretation of scripture. My email is chrissyfollowerofchrist@gmail.com and I pray, you read my message because I have so many questions I feel you could settle for me about the words God meant. God Bless and thank you for your enlightenment in your truthfull words!

Chapter 19 of Sefer Ha Yashar indicates there was 5th Daughter... One who was executed just before these events. One which was performing acts of chesed to the poor which was against the law in that land (As it becoming in our own). It was her cry that got the attention of Elohim and cause the two angels to come into that land and validate... And they found the situation worse than what they had heard... In fact the cities were destroyed in a manner similar to how Paltith was executed... by fire...

Just to answer the bit about Lot's 4 daughters. The bible does not specifically say that Lot had 4 daughters,but we can infer from the scriptures that he had at least 4 daughters. Here we go. Genesis 19:14 states that Lot went to his sons-in-law that had married his daughters . So we can infer that he had at least two married daughters. Then in Genesis 19:8 he had two unmarried daughters. Based on this, we know for sure that Lot had at least 4 daughters.

In reply to by Patrick

No. Sons-in-law in this instance refers to the men to whom his daughters were betrothed. By the standards of the day, even though they had not consumated the marriage, they were legally married, and would have to get a divorce (which is what Joseph planned to quietly do when he found out Mary was pregnant) in order to end the betrothal.

Where in the bible does it says that Lot had four daughters ? Let's be careful not to add to the word of God because it is a curse to do so.Many people come up with thoughts that are not written this is why people get confused and say that the bible is contradictory. The bible is not contradictory some just choose to add to it. God in his infinite wisdom inspired his servants to write it and through time man tried to change it. Let's let what is written stay written and live by it ,and learn from it,and stop adding to it so as to not confuse people.Jesus never tried to change the word whosoever asked him a question he started by saying it is written, so if he used what was written we to must use what is written.

Lot was not a good person

In reply to by Guest

lol thats not a debate thats a statement with no source

In reply to by Myhealthapedia Asher

2 Peter 2:7 "...and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked..."

In reply to by Guest

Astaghfarillah aLot was blessed only bible is crouptted

What I find most incredible is the Islamic objection to the Biblical narrative as it is. From what I can understand, Lot is not considered a prophet in Christian theology, and I don't believe in Jewish either, but he is considered a prophet by Islam, and prophets just don't behave like Lot. Well, neither do righteous men, unless they have just lost most of their family, get drunk, and lose track of themselves. The Islamic view is that Lot offered his daughters in marriage, the Judeo-Christian view: for other reasons. End result of the incest are the Moabites and Ammonites, but also Ruth, in the lineage of David the King, and therefore the Messiah. I don't seem to find it incredible that people make mistakes, including those who we call "righteous," or is it only misperception on my part?

In reply to by Hugh Irwin

Muslims believe that Lot was a Prophet .He did no such thing as raping or incest. The Torah and Bible were changed over time due to corruption in religion and for a meager sum of money, the rabbis changed the original story to tarnish the character of Prophets and change the word of God who is the Almighty and Who is the only One.

In reply to by Sarah Alfred

why would the Jews wish to tarnish their own reputation? If I were the Rabbis I would've erased all the character flaws of the prophets, erased all the flaws of the Israelites (their are many mentioned in the Bible), made Judaism patrilineal instead of matrilineal (thus giving men access to a wide range of girls), not made so many difficult laws (the law against eating pork makes sense in middle east... the law against eating camel not so much)... Suffice to say if the Jewish people had gone out to change the Bible, it certainly wouldn't be the book that we have today.

In reply to by Sarah Alfred

there are many profits like Belam who was an evil man to be a profit and righteous is not the same thing thats the common misunderstanding.... and you should know words like profit, masheyah(masia) is defined by the old testament.. all religions(note jews i consider a nation) based on the old testament and jewish prophets but have changed the criteria of what is a profit and ended up worshiping them at the most at the least they believed that they were all righteous

In reply to by Myhealthapedia Asher

sorry Auto correction was on *Prophet *know

In reply to by Sarah Alfred

And there is no proof of this historically and the Koran even says Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

Torah--"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1

Psalms--"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).

Gospel--"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

We see that the Qu'ran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. So if it is true what the Muslims -- claim that the Bible is corrupted2015-10-24T23:01:45Z and full of contradictions -- then it would seem they do not believe the Qu'ran since the Qu'ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered:

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).

"For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).

When Muhammed (570-632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time the Bible, which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is: "When and where was the Bible corrupted since the Qu'ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah's words cannot be changed?"

In reply to by Timothée

in reference to your Quote Torah--"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1
you should look in the original old testament for the quote its in the book of exodus google it it says that they received the original 3 commandments of god and asked moshe to receive the rest on their behalf for they where overwhelmed by god
there is many proofs if you would like to know more google Rabbie MIZRAHI on tora and science

I believe it tells us a picture far differently then that of what the Rabbi`s have stated. Otherwise the word wouldn`t say Lot was a righteous man. If lot was thinking of incest with his two daughters; why would it say Lot was a righteous man. A righteous man would not think such wicked thoughts.

In reply to by stella

*I think* Lot was righteous in comparison to the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Sort of the way the Arabs were kind to the Jews in comparison to the Europeans, which is to say the Arabs were cruel... but the Europeans were worse...

In reply to by Noblebird02

i hear what you saying and agree with the arab statement but i disagree about lot.. he was a very righteous man the problem was he was to afraid of god he believed that if he stayed next to a man as holy as abraham he would be judged as evil if compered to abraham so he chose to live among bad people just so god would look at him as wow he such a great man.... even came down to the fact he moved into a cave... even tho his daughters believed the world was over there father i think knew it wast but he was not safe

In reply to by stella

where did you read that it says lot was thinking about it??? read it carefully the cites all around him were he lived and went to after before the cave were destroyed. the daughters thought that the whole world has ended as it has before they thought there father was the only man... the daughters decided to get there father drunk and went out cold they laid with there father as it says he dident know that it even happened. ( you could ask hey when there present what would the father think don't worry many people before then claimed to have a virgin birth) now there is a jewish opinion the source i think is the midrash ( if you care i can find it for you) that he did not know of the oldest daughter but when they did the same thing the second night getting him drunk but this time the younger sister laid with him it says that he knew what was happening.. either way he was a rightious man as he was tested by god and he passed (not getting into the test way to complex and my grammar sucks)

no matter how u brake it even if he knew that about the second daughter he did not plan this there intention was pure in heart

btw there is something called a gemara (google it) speaks a story of a rabbi who spoke bad about the daughters he suffered because of it... not that u should be scared as this only happened to him because he was a holy man and his mocking was offensive to there souls... we today are like puppies barking at a person the person doesn't get mad at the puppy...

please people stop debating the bible from a movie you saw... true or not the debate should be based on the original document hence the jewish old testament..

In reply to by stella

there are all types of righteous man Noah was said to be righteous specifically in his generation as he would not be compared to others and would fall under wicked in other generations.
btw that is one of the reasons why Lot moved away from Abraham for he felt that next to him he was evil and moved into a place where even at his worst he was still righteous compared to the Sedom people. best thing i say is people when arguing biblical laws please use similar definitions what you consider righteous and what the bible or other people even might be different but according to the context of debating biblically do research what makes a person righteous biblically

How to cite this page

Kadari, Tamar. "Lot's Daughters: Midrash and Aggadah." Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on August 11, 2020) <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/lots-daughters-midrash-and-aggadah>.


Help us elevate the voices of Jewish women.

donate now

Get JWA in your inbox