 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
I remember the days when I wished that I could one day afford to buy The Encyclopedia Judaicia and several years ago that day finally arrived; after all Jesus was Jewish and I wanted to understand not only him but his faith as accurately as possible. That could only be done by examining things from a Jewish perspective; that again was reemphasized repeatedly by my Seminary training which viewed everything as if Rome was the source of all knowledge. That was a terrific mistake as anyone knows who spends any time at all looking as the Jewish roots of Christianity.
That being the case I decided to make this information available to you as I find it superior to most information on any given topic from non-Jewish sources; the Jewish scholars I have found are the best when it comes to teaching on those things given to them by God and usually secondary information not only lacks so much but is often colored by "theological agendas" of the Gentiles. What comes next is the entirety of the article on the Laws and Covenant of Noah as taken from the Jewish Encyclopedia.
Noachide Laws, the seven laws considered by rabbinic tradition as the minimal moral duties enjoined by the Bible on all men (Sanh. 56–60; Yad, Melakhim, 8:10, 10:12). Jews are obligated to observe the whole Torah, while every non-Jew is a "son of the covenant of Noah" (see Gen. 9), and he who accepts its obligations is a ger-toshav ("resident-stranger" or even "semi-convert"; see Av. Zar. 64b; Maim. Yad, Melakhim 8:10). Maimonides equates the "righteous man (hasid) of the [gentile] nations" who has a share in the world to come even without becoming a Jew with the gentile who keeps these laws. Such a man is entitled to full material support from the Jewish community (see ET, 6 (1954), col. 289 s.v. ger toshav) and to the highest earthly honors (Sefer Hasidim (1957), 358). The seven Noachide laws as traditionally enumerated are:
Except for the last, all are negative, and the last itself is usually interpreted as commanding the enforcement of the others (Maim. Yad, Melakhim, 9:1). They are derived exegetically from divine demands addressed to Adam (Gen. 2:16) and Noah (see Gen. R. 34; Sanh. 59b), i.e., the progenitors of all mankind, and these Laws of Noah are thus regarded as universal. The prohibition of idolatry provides that, to ensure social stability and personal salvation, the non-Jew does not have to "know God" but must recant false gods (Meg. 13a; Kid. 40a; Maim. Yad, Melakhim, 10:2ff.). This law refers only to actual idolatrous acts, and not to theoretical principles and, unlike Jews, Noachides are not required to suffer martyrdom rather than break this law (Sanh. 74a; TJ, Shev. 4:2). They are, however, required to choose martyrdom rather than shed human blood (Pes. 25b and Rashi).
In view of the strict monotheism of Islam, Muslims were considered as Noachides (cf. ET, loc. cit., col. 291, n. 17), whereas the status of Christians was a matter of debate due to the idolatry that exists within Gentile Christianity. Since the later Middle Ages, however, Christianity too has come to be regarded as Noachide, on the ground that shittuf ("associationism"—this was the Jewish interpretation of Trinitarianism) is not forbidden to non-Jews (see YD 151). Under the prohibitions of blasphemy, murder, and theft Noachides are subject to greater legal restrictions than Jews because non-Jewish society is held to be more prone to these sins (Rashi to Sanh. 57a).
The prohibition of theft covers many types of acts, e.g., military conquest (ibid., 59a) and dishonesty in economic life (ibid., 57a; Yad, Melakhim, 9:9). A number of other Noachide prescriptions are listed in the sources (see Sanh. 57b; Mid. Ps. 21; Yad, Melakhim, 10:6), e.g., prohibitions of sorcery, castration, mixed seeds, blemished sacrifices, injunctions to practice charity, procreate, and to honor the Torah (Hul. 92a). These are best understood as subheadings of "the seven laws."
Noachides may also freely choose to practice certain other Jewish commandments (Yad, Melakhim, 10:9–10). Jews are obligated to try to establish the Noachide Code wherever they can (ibid., 8:10). Maimonides held that Noachides must not only accept "the seven laws" on their own merit, but they must accept them as divinely revealed. This follows from the thesis that all ethics are not ultimately "natural," but require a theological framework (see Schwarzschild, in: JQR, 52 (1962), 302; Fauer, in: Tarbiz, 38 (1968), 43–53).
The Noachide covenant plays an important part in both Jewish history and historiography. Modern Jewish thinkers like Moses Mendelssohn and Hermann Cohen emphasized the Noachide conception as the common rational, ethical ground of Israel and mankind (see H. Cohen, Religion der Vernunft (1929), 135–48, 381–8), and see Noah as the symbol of the unity and perpetuity of mankind (ibid., 293). Views differ as to whether the ultimate stage of humanity will comprise both Judaism and Noachidism, or whether Noachidism is only the penultimate level before the universalization of all of the Torah (see TJ, Av. Zar. 2:1). Aimee Pallilre, at the suggestion of his teacher Rabbi E. Benamozegh, adopted the Noachide Laws and never formally converted to Judaism. [Steven S. Schwarzschild] In Jewish Law. While in the amoraic period the above-mentioned list of seven precepts is clearly accepted as the framework of the Noachide Laws, a variety of tannaitic sources indicate lack of complete agreement as to the number of such laws, as well as to the specific norms to be included.
The Tosefta (Av. Zar. 8:6) records four possible additional prohibitions against
The Talmud records a position which would add:
Non-rabbinic sources of the tannaitic period indicate even greater divergence.
The Book of Jubilees (7:20ff.) records a substantially different list of six commandments given by Noah to his sons:
Acts (15:20) refers to four commandments addressed to non-Jews, "
This latter list is the only one that bears any systematic relationship to the set of religious laws which the Pentateuch makes obligatory upon resident aliens (the ger ha-gar and ezrah).
There are indications that even during the talmudic period itself there was divergence of opinion as to whether the Noachide Laws constituted a formulation of natural law or were intended solely to govern the behavior of the non-Jewish resident living under Jewish jurisdiction. The natural law position is expressed most clearly by the assertion, as to five of the seven laws, that they would have been made mandatory even had they not been revealed (Yoma 67b; Sifra Aharei Mot, 13:10). Similarly, the rabbinic insistence that six of the seven Noachide Laws were actually revealed to Adam partakes of a clearly universalistic thrust (Gen. R. 16:6, 24:5). The seventh law, against the eating of flesh torn from a living animal, could have been revealed at the earliest to Noah, since prior to the flood the eating of flesh was prohibited altogether. The very fact that these laws were denominated as the "seven laws of the sons of Noah" constitutes further indication of this trend since the term "sons of Noah" is, in rabbinic usage, a technical term including all human beings except those whom Jewish law defines as being Jews. Nor was there a lack of technical terminology available specifically to describe the resident alien. On the other hand, the entire context of the talmudic discussion of the Noachide Laws is that of actual enforcement by rabbinic courts. To that end, not only is the punishment for each crime enumerated, but standards of procedure and evidence are discussed as well (Sanh. 56a–59a). This presumption of the jurisdiction of Jewish courts is most comprehensible if the laws themselves are intended to apply to non-Jews resident in areas of Jewish sovereignty. Of a similar nature is the position of Yose that the parameters of the proscription against magical practices by Noachides is the verse in Deuteronomy (18:10) which begins, "There shall not be found among you..." (Sanh. 56b). The attempt of Finkelstein (op. cit.) to date the formulation of the seven Noachide commandments during the Hasmonean era would also suggest a rabbinic concern with the actual legal status of the non-Jew in a sovereign Jewish state. It might even be the case that the substitution by the tanna of the school of Manasseh of emasculation and forbidden mixtures of plants for the establishment of a judicial system and blasphemy (Sanh. 56b) itself reflects a concern with the regulation of the life of the resident alien already under the jurisdiction of Jewish courts. Of course, the seven commandments themselves are subject to either interpretation; e.g., the establishment of courts of justice can mean either an independent non-Jewish judiciary and legal system or can simply bring the non-Jew under the rubric of Jewish civil law and its judicial system.
A question related to the above is that of the basis of authority of these laws over the non-Jew. Talmudic texts seem constantly to alternate between two terms, reflecting contradictory assumptions as to the basis of authority, namely seven precepts "which were commanded" (she-niztavvu) to the Noachides, and seven precepts "which the Noachides accepted upon themselves" (she-kibbelu aleihem; BK 38a; TJ, Av. Zar. 2:1; Hul. 92ab; Hor. 8b; Sanh. 56b). This disparity between authority based on revelation as opposed to consent reaches a climax when Maimonides asserts that the only proper basis for acceptance of the Noachide laws by a non-Jew is divine authority and revelation to Moses, and that "... if he observed them due to intellectual conviction [i.e., consent] such a one is not a resident alien, nor of the righteous of the nations of the world, nor of their wise men" (Yad, Melakhim 8:11; the possibility that the final "ve-lo" ("nor") is a scribal error for "ella" ("but rather") while very appealing, is not borne out by any manuscript evidence). Of course, this same conflict between revelation and consent as basis of authority appears with regard to the binding authority of Torah over the Jew, in the form of "we will do and obey" (Ex. 24:7) as opposed to "He (God) suspended the mountain upon them like a cask, and said to them, 'If ye accept the Torah, 'tis well; if not, there shall be your burial'" (Shab. 88a).
The amoraim, having received a clear tradition of seven Noachide Laws, had difficulty in explaining why other pre-Sinaitic laws were not included, such as procreation, circumcision, and the law of the sinew. They propounded two somewhat strained principles to explain the anomalies. The absence of circumcision and the sinew is explained through the assertion that any pre-Sinaitic law which was not repeated at Sinai was thenceforth applicable solely to Israelites (Sanh. 59a), whence procreation, while indeed obligatory on non-Jews according to Johanan (Yev. 62a) would nevertheless not to be listed (cf. Tos. to Yev. 62a s.v. benei; Tos. to Hag. 2b s.v. lo).
While committed to the principle that "There is nothing permitted to an Israelite yet forbidden to a heathen" (Sanh. 59a), the seven Noachide Laws were not as extensive as the parallel prohibitions applicable to Jews, and there are indeed situations in which a non-Jew would be liable for committing an act for which a Jew would not be liable. As to the latter point, as a general rule, the Noachide is criminally liable for violation of any of his seven laws even though technical definitional limitations would prevent liability by a Jew performing the same act. Thus a non-Jew is liable for blasphemy—even if only with one of the divine attributes; murder—even of a fetus; robbery—even of less than a perutah; and the eating of flesh torn from a living animal—even of a quantity less than the size of an olive. In all these cases a Jew would not be liable (Sanh. 56a–59b; Yad, Melakhim, ch. 9, 10). One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws subjects the Noachide to capital punishment by decapitation (Sanh. 57a). [Saul Berman]