“You don’t have to listen to rabbis” – Rambam and hashkafa

Rabbi Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg holds that Gentiles have basically no obligation to follow rulings of the Sages in any matter. The author disagrees, and is of the opinion that Gentiles are definitely obligated by the commandment of “dinim” (“laws”) to heed a court of law, and how much more so must they heed the basis of the Torah Law, which is the Oral Torah of the Jewish Sages. (But the author accepts the ruling of Minĥat Ĥinuĥ loc. cit., since in many matters, the Sages did not decree on a matter in regard to its application to Gentiles.)

Footnote 99, topic 35, chapter 3, Part II, The Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner

Here we see a disagreement between rabbi Weiner and another rabbi, namely, rabbi Goldberg. Goldberg says Gentiles don’t have to follow the rulings of rabbis or Sages. Weiner disagrees based on a flawed position that Gentiles are obligated to obey a court of law by our law of Justice/Law.

How is Weiner’s position flawed? He is weak on two points. He makes his claim way too wide, unjustifiably wide. Gentiles are not obligated to heed a court of law, as if they must listen to any court. Our law of Justice says we must set up our own courts. But courts only have jurisdiction over their own people. A court in Iceland will not have international jurisdiction when it makes a ruling. The courts in Zimbabwe don’t have to listen to it. The people of Zimbabwe don’t have to heed the Icelandic court. So, no, Gentiles are not obligated to obey a court. They have to “heed” their own courts. I don’t think this power of courts is universal either. I don’t believe they can make rulings about absolutely anything and therefore must be obeyed.

The second way in which Weiner’s rationale fails is in his usage of the word “ruling.” The word “ruling” means a decision made by a person who can enforce that decision, who can legitimately coerce compliance. The clue is in the word since it comes from the verb “to rule” which, in practical terms, means to exercise coercive, controlling power over others. In the past, Jewish judges did not have any authority to give rulings to Gentiles of and in other lands. They don’t have authority over other lands unconquered. And since rabbis are only “descendants” of these judges, none of them, not even their Sages, have authority over the Gentile world.

So Goldberg is wholly correct: Gentiles do not have to listen to or obey the Sages.

Now I’m of two minds here. I can address how this impacts some of the words of Maimonides or I can deal with an accusation I’ve heard a number of times from Jews and their noahide followers that some Gentiles won’t just tow the line, do as they’re told.

Nah, I’ll go with the latter. Rambam can wait.

Here’s a quote of the view of a Jew I found online. It reflects what I’ve heard before.

The Noahide community has hashkafa issues. The Noahide community has no common agreement on anything and members come to heretical conclusions and begin to be very prideful of themselves and ignore Jews around them. They have a very flawed outlook on Judaism.

This comment arose when a Gentile said that there is no command amongst the seven laws that says a Gentile must acknowledge the existence of God. This Jew vehemently disagreed. Hence, this summary of the “noahide community.”

Now, as certain Jews tend to do, this one writes foreign words in English letters.  What is “hashkafa?” It means outlook, perspective, philosophy or worldview. To quote the bot I used (perplexity.ai), hashkafa is derived from the Hebrew root “sh-k-f,” which means “to look” or “to view.” It represents the lens through which one views and interprets the world, Torah (Jewish scripture), and Jewish law (Halacha). So this Jew complains that “noahides” get the wrong idea, the wrong way of looking at things, and the symptoms of that include becoming prideful and ignoring Jews. Someone else in the same conversation thread opined that this came from Protestant thinking, thinking like a more rebellious form of Christianity.

Now I know from experience what is meant by “ignore.” It is the same way that authoritarians and totalitarians view a person not obeying those they deem to be authority. This is the “pride” the Jew complains of. Gentiles just won’t do as they’re told. And his sympathiser relates this to religious thinking.

But consider the hypocrisy, the sheer hypocrisy.

“The Noahide community has no common agreement on anything …”

This is an overgeneralisation. It can’t be said that this group doesn’t agree on anything. “Noahide” these days means a non-Jewish follower of Orthodox Judaism. In order to be in such a group, there must be agreement on core tenets, in this case the veracity of orthodox Judaism and the seven laws.

Also, the Jew is on no safe grounds to condemn anyone else’s disagreement when the popular proverb exists: two Jews, three opinions. In the article, Korach: “Two Jews, Three Opinions,” produced by outorah.org, Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh Weinreb writes, in relation to that proverb,

We have no trouble believing that Jews tend to be contentious and have to express their disagreements with others, even when stranded alone on a desert island.

So to claim some issue with noahides (I’m only using this term to refer to those who apply this label to themselves as gentile followers of Judaism) with regards to lack of agreement is hypocritical.

“… members come to heretical conclusions …”

And? That happens in any group, even amongst the Jews. Since I hold that there is no true distinction between a person’s religious outlook and secular/worldly expressions (no “separation of church and state”), then “heresy” occurs everywhere. In a field called “science,” people espouse “heretical” views. It’s the same in other arenas in life, be it politics, law, education, business, “heretical” views abound.

“… and begin to be very prideful of themselves and ignore Jews around them.”

These two are linked. But here’s the question: should the Jews be listened to? Is there some automatic right Jews, including rabbis, have to be listened to or obeyed? A reluctance or resistance against obeying rabbis may come, as it does from me, not from “protestant-think,” but rather from a more naturalistic and/or nationalistic sort of thinking. It is where you are a Jew and I’m not a Jew, and I’m not in your country, amongst your people. There is no reason for me to take your word as gospel truth, even if you are a rabbi. I listen and learn and compare the teachings with what has been taught before. That isn’t the remnants of Protestantism. It’s what any thoughtful people would do.

There are a number of chabad listings of the seven laws that I hate because they misrepresent the seven laws. One replaces the prohibition against idol worship with the overly vague, “don’t deny God.” In one of their articles about the Gentile law, they add a positive command to what is only a prohibition. The Talmud teaches, and it is reinforced by later books on the seven laws, that only commands to sit and don’t act (prohibitions) are numbered in the seven laws except the law of Justice which has both an active and prohibitive element (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, 58b-59a). But that chabad listing says, adding to the prohibition against idolatry,

Do not profane G‑d’s Oneness in any way.
Acknowledge that there is a single G-d who cares about what we are doing and desires that we take care of His world.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/62221/jewish/The-7-Noahide-Laws-Universal-Morality.htm

There is no such law in the actual seven laws. There’s no positive command to “acknowledge that there is a single G-d who cares about what we are doing and desires that we take care of His world.” Now that does sound like modern fluff, like that patronising tone a nursery teacher would say to a 4-year-old, “Oooh, God loves you. He cares about you. We should take care of his world, you cute little thing.” The real seven laws are stark and blunt: commit this prohibited act and you’ll be liable to death in a righteous court.

And that’s another point that will lead into how this impacts Maimonides: breaking any of the seven laws brings the liability of death. The Talmud taught this as a conclusion.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak says: Their prohibition is their death penalty. Since the only punishment mentioned in the Torah for transgressing a Noahide mitzva is execution, any descendant of Noah who transgresses is liable to be executed.

Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 57a, https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.57a.12

Even Maimonides taught this.

A non-Jew who violates one Commandments is executed by means of the sword. How is this so? Anyone who worships idols or blasphemed or murdered or had sexual relations with one of those forbidden to him or stole even less than the value of a Prutah or ate any amount from a limb or the flesh of a live animal or saw someone else violate one of these and failed to judge and execute him, is himself executed by means of the sword.

Reuven Brauner’s translation of Laws of Kings and Wars, Chapter 9, topics 17 and 18 (in his edition but topic 14 for all others) from the Mishneh Torah. From https://halakhah.com/rst/kingsandwars.pdf

So Maimonides teaches that breaking one of the seven laws gets the death penalty in a righteous court.

So it should be blatantly obvious that not acknowledging God does NOT bring the death penalty. Hence, it is not one of the seven laws.

Why is this so hard for others to grasp? (I have some idea why since someone I used to know, a noahide, will have the law in front of him, have his rabbi tell him something different, and he’ll side with the rabbi.)

So there is no automatic obligation to listen to the rulings of Jews or their views. If the law states one thing and a rabbi adds to it, then there is no obligation to accept it as true. And on the point of what our law is, chabad.org is dead wrong.

But remember what the Talmud and Rambam clearly taught: if you break one of the seven laws, you’re liable for the death penalty. The only exception is the law of Justice which has a positive element that doesn’t have the death penalty ascribed. As evidence I will quote.

The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. He does not count mitzvot that require one to arise and take action. The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice.

Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, 58b-59a https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.58b.26 and https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.59a.1

Then Nachmanides comments,

And it is also included in this commandment [of Justice] that they appoint judges for each and every city, just as Israel was commanded to do, but if they failed to do so they are free of the death-penalty since this is a positive precept of theirs [and failing to fulfill a positive precept does not incur the death-penalty]. The Rabbis have only said: “For violation of their admonishments there is the death-penalty,” and only a prohibition against doing something is called an “admonishment.” And such is the purport of the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin.

Ramban’s Commentary of the Torah, commenting of Bereshis [Gen.] 34:13, found at https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.34.13?lang=bi&with=Ramban&lang2=bi

So, it should be clear, only prohibitions are counted amongst the seven except the law of Justice which has a positive and prohibitive element, and the prohibitions carry the death penalty. And Maimonides agrees that breaking the seven laws brings the death penalty. So, with the exception of the law of Justice, in order for something to be part of the seven laws, it must be a prohibition and carry the death penalty.

When it comes to the prohibition against idolatry, the Talmud is fairly clear.

Raba objected: Does any scholar maintain that a heathen is liable to punishment for making an idol even if he did not worship it? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish Court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen; but those for which a Jewish Court inflicts no capital penalty on Jewish delinquents are not forbidden to him.

Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 56b, found at https://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_56.html

So acts of idolatry that would get a Jew the death sentence by a Torah-observant Jewish court are forbidden to Gentiles, but those that don’t carry the death sentence are not forbidden. Maimonides seems to agree with this at first, but then he takes a different route.

A Noachide is executed for every type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would consider worthy of capital punishment. However, a Noachide is not executed for a type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would not deem worthy of capital punishment. Nevertheless, even though a Noachide will not be executed for these forms of worship, he is forbidden to engage in all of them.

Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, Chapter 9, topic 2.

Just so you know, the term “Noachide” isn’t the modern religious one I referred to earlier in this article. That’s not how Maimonides is using it. He is using it in the sense of Gentiles on a whole, not just “Gentile followers of Orthodox Judaism.” The old understanding of “sons of Noah” is humanity on a whole. Shall I prove this? I guess I must because of who this article may go out to, if anyone reads it at all.

From sefaria.org, Ramban’s commentary on the Torah, Bereshis [Genesis] 34:13, look at the footnote, which I’ll quote in the text, and the text itself.

The Rabbi (Moshe ben Maimon) answered in his Book of Judges, saying that “sons of Noah” [footnote 147. *Or “a Noachide,” a term denoting the human race. See Seder Bereshith, Note 222] are commanded concerning Laws, and thus they are required to appoint judges in each and every district to give judgment concerning their six commandments which are obligatory upon all mankind.

Ramban’s Commentary of the Torah, commenting of Bereshis [Gen.] 34:13, found at https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.34.13?lang=bi&with=Ramban&lang2=bi

This quote is powerful in terms of what it is doing. It is Nachmanides telling us what Maimonides means by the term “sons of Noah” or “Noachide.” The footnote tells us that the phrase refers to all of the human race, but this is compounded by the text of the commentary itself that says this is a law for all mankind, not just a small group of Gentiles that follow Orthodox Judaism. Do I need more proof than that? Of course, because who would believe me?

According to the William Davidson edition of the Babylonian Talmud, tractate 56a, how is the term “children of Noah” understood? What is it conveyed to mean? A group of Gentiles who follow Orthodox Judaism?

Since the halakhot of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented. The Sages taught in a baraita: The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The mitzva of establishing courts of judgment; and the prohibition against blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God; and the prohibition of idol worship; and the prohibition against forbidden sexual relations; and the prohibition of bloodshed; and the prohibition of robbery; and the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal.

https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.56a.24?lang=en (emphasis mine)

The Soncino edition of the Babylonian Talmud says the following.

These commandments may be regarded as the foundations of all human and moral progress. Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar religious law. But in the latter, it recognises that moral progress and its concomitant Divine love and approval are the privilege and obligation of all mankind. And hence the Talmud lays down the seven Noachian precepts, by the observance of which all mankind may attain spiritual perfection, and without which moral death must inevitably ensue. That perhaps is the idea underlying the assertion (passim) that a heathen is liable to death for the neglect of any of these. The last mentioned is particularly instructive as showing the great importance attached to the humane treatment of animals; so much so, that it is declared to be fundamental to human righteousness.

The Soncino Edition of the Talmud, commenting on the clause quoted above. Found at https://halakhah.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_56.html (emphasis mine)

The Schottenstein Edition of the Talmud says the following.

The Gemara below will discuss the various laws that were given to Adam and his descendants. They are called “Noahide” laws because of all of humanity descended from Noah after the Flood. Indeed, many Scriptural references to these laws are found in God’s communication to Noah after the Flood …

footnote 31, Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 56a, Schottenstein edition, digital edition

All these editions of the Talmud make it plain that “sons of Noah,” sometimes written as “Noahite” or “Noachide,” refers to Gentiles on a whole. And Nachmanides confirms that this is how Maimonides is using the word.

But going back to the point, Maimonides flatly contradicts the tradition spoken of in the Talmud whilst also quoting it. He reshapes the Talmudic tradition to say it only refers to what a Gentile gets executed for, but, according to him, all acts of idol worship, even those which don’t get the death penalty for a Jew are forbidden to Gentiles, contradicting the Talmudically-recounted tradition.

Now there are significant reasons to question or even doubt Maimonides when he says all forms of idol worship are forbidden to Gentiles. The first and obvious reason is that he contradicts the Talmud which plainly says Gentiles are not forbidden acts of idolatry that wouldn’t get a Jew the death penalty in a Jewish court.

The second reason is that, according to Maimonides himself, breaking a law from the seven brings a liability of death. He says that later in the same chapter. It’s a principle that is quite clear according to the Talmud and Nachmanides. Yet Maimonides is claiming something to be forbidden to Gentiles that doesn’t carry the death penalty. Now that on its own makes it that this addition of Maimonides is not part of the seven laws. To be blunt, when Maimonides says that there are things forbidden to Gentiles, as if commanded by God, yet do not carry the death penalty, this is his addition, not part of the seven, based on the criteria of what is part of the seven laws.

Now this puts me in a vulnerable position. Putting everything together that I’ve been writing about in this article, especially the beginning portion from rabbi Goldberg, the question is this: should I listen to Maimonides when he is adding a stipulation that doesn’t meet the criteria of what it takes to be one of the seven laws, even according to his standard? This question … or if I took a position on it saying that he should NOT be listened to, in the sense that this prohibition without death penalty is commanded by God, then I’m sure this would anger some, especially for Jews for whom Maimonides is the most authoritative word on topics. They may think that to reject a word from Maimonides is to reject the Torah itself.

But, again, I agree with rabbi Goldberg. Rabbis don’t have any authority over Gentiles. They can’t make rulings (knowing what that word means in practice) for Gentiles. And this includes Maimonides if he is adding things to the divine commandments.

But some would argue, if I’m throwing out Maimonides, why not just throw out all words of rabbis, including Nachmanides and the Talmud that I refer to. Rabbis have no authority over Gentiles, right? But remember, the seven laws are not supposed to be the authoritative decrees of rabbis over Gentiles. It is not the case that the rabbis got together and said “we now rule the nations of the world, so let’s give them commandments the source of which is ourselves.” If the seven laws are only and merely the dictates of the rabbis, then they do not have to be obeyed by anyone outside of Israel. But that’s not the claim of rabbis. It is not what is hinted at by the Jewish Bible, that there was a moral law given by God upon humanity, where, for example, Avimelech in Bereshis [Gen.] 20 would know, before God, that he’s not to take someone else’s wife. And another example would be the worldwide flood where people were doing crimes that God punished by smashing the world. Another example would be Bereshis 13:13 which says that the men of Sodom were “sinners to God excessively.” Another example is why Nineveh risked destruction in the book of Yonah (Jonah). The claim is that the seven laws are divine laws, not merely rabbinic edicts that hold no weight.

So when someone says “you should throw out all the rabbis, including the Talmud and Nachmanides” they are treating the seven laws as if they are rabbinic dictates. Instead, the rabbis were only relating what God’s commands are for the world, now for Gentiles. So the seven laws with their punishment of death come from God. And anything outside that is not. That includes Maimonides statement about things part of our Gentile law of idolatry that don’t carry the death penalty.

Again, do I have to listen to Rambam? Should I obey him? In one sense, the answer would seem to be no!

But the seeds of Maimonides are fully germinated in rabbi Weiner in the production of the Divine Code, where he claims that all sorts of things are commanded and prohibited for Gentiles, or that religious group of noahides. And this is where my clarifying statement must be outspoken, made clear and repeated, as I have done when I critiqued the Divine Code. If a rabbi is simply giving strong moral advice, not laws of God, to avoid certain acts, or that certain things are encouraged and praiseworthy or necessary, then that is one thing. That can be taken on board. It doesn’t mean I’ll swallow it wholesale without analylsis, but at least it has some weight for what it is: advice! Maimonides’ and Weiner’s problem become evident when they start throwing around the words “commanded,” “forbidden,” or “prohibited” but for things that don’t match the criteria for what it takes to be one of our Gentile divine laws. That’s where I can say definitively, I don’t have to obey and you have no authority to make rulings. And I can say that even concerning Maimonides.

If someone thinks I have that wrong and wants a respectful conversation to put me right, I’m all ears.