Nissan 11, 5758

The 7 Noahide Laws

Idolatry is forbidden. Man is commanded to believe in the One G-d alone and worship only Him.

Incestuous and adulterous relations are forbidden. Human beings are not sexual objects, nor is pleasure the ultimate goal of life.

Murder is forbidden. The life of a human being, formed in G-d's image, is sacred.

Cursing the name of G-d is forbidden. Besides honoring and respecting G-d, we learn from this precept that our speech must be sanctified, as that is the distinctive sign which separated man from the animals.

Theft is forbidden. The world is not ours to do with as we please.

Eating the flesh of a living animal is forbidden. This teaches us to be sensitive to cruelty to animals. (This was commanded to Noah for the first time along with the permission of eating meat. The rest were already given to Adam in the Garden of Eden.)

Mankind is commanded to establish courts of justice and a just social order to enforce the first six laws and enact any other useful laws or customs.

Do we follow the Talmud? Here is some Talmud..

Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 56a

THE WHOLE DAY [OF THE TRIAL] THE WITNESSES ARE EXAMINED BY MEANS OF A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE DIVINE NAME, THUS, MAY JOSE SMITE JOSE.1 WHEN THE TRIAL WAS FINISHED, THE ACCUSED WAS NOT EXECUTED ON THIS EVIDENCE, BUT ALL PERSONS WERE REMOVED [FROM COURT], AND THE CHIEF WITNESS WAS TOLD, ‘STATE LITERALLY WHAT YOU HEARD. THEREUPON HE DID SO, [USING THE DIVINE NAME]. THE JUDGES THEN AROSE AND RENT THEIR GARMENTS, WHICH RENT WAS NOT TO BE RESEWN. THE SECOND WITNESS STATED; I TOO HAVE HEARD THUS [BUT NOT UTTERING THE DIVINE NAME], AND THE THIRD SAYS: I TOO HEARD THUS.

GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he blesses the Name, by the Name2 . Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord . . . when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.3 How do you know that the word nokeb 4 [used in the Hebrew] means a blessing? From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]5 whom God hath not cursed;6 whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.7 But perhaps it means to pierce,8 as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]9 a hole in the lid of it,10 the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?11 The Name must be blessed by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? In that case one Name is pierced after the other.12 But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]13 by their names;14 the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?15 Firstly, the Name must be blessed by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.16 An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob 17 [ and cursed],18 proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?19 You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,20 and not ‘him that hath blasphemed and cursed’, proving that one offence only is alluded to.

Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.21 It would have been sufficient to say], A man, etc: What is taught by the expression any man?22 The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.23

Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the blessing of the Divine Name.24 R. Isaac the smith25 replied; This phrase [any man] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name26 , and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.27 Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?28 Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God-shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].

This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death].29 This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only . But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, ‘as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land? It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated . For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, on the view of the Rabbis?30 — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?31 The Torah employed normal human speech.32

Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;33 to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.34

____________________

(1) The witnesses, in giving testimony, do not state that they heard the accused say, May He slay himself, uttering the actual divine name, but use the word ‘Jose’ as a substitute for the divine name. Jose is chosen as a substitute, because it contains four letters, like the actual Tetragrammaton, which must have been used by the blasphemer for him to be punished. Moreover, the numerical value of Jose is the same as of Elohim (81). According to Levy, s.v. hubhf, the first Jose hxuh stands for Jesus (**, son), and the second is an abbreviation of ;xuh, Joseph, the Father, by which, however, God was to be understood. The witnesses were accordingly asked whether the accused in his blasphemy had set Jesus above God. (R. Joshua b. Karha, the author of this saying, lived at a time when Judeo-Christians ascribed more power to Jesus than to God.)

(2) As in the Mishnah, Jose strike Jose. Bless is here a euphemism for curse, and is so in the whole of the ensuing discussion.

(3) Lev. XXIV, 16. The repetition shows that the Divine Name must be cursed by the Divine Name.

(4) ceb

(5) cet

(6) Num. XXIII, 8.

(7) Ex. XXII, 27.

(8) I.e., it is a capital offence to pierce the Divine Name, written on a slip of parchment, and thus destroy it.

(9) cehu

(10) II Kings XII, 10.

(11) Deut. XII, 3f. The interpretation is based on the juxtaposition of the two verses; v. Mak. 22a.

(12) The knife passes successively from one slip to the other, but one Name does not pierce the other.

(13) uceb

(14) Num. 1, 17.

(15) Deut. VI, 13, which is interpreted as a prohibition against the unnecessary utterance of His Name.

(16) The statement, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, though implying abstention from something, is nevertheless given as a positive command, but punishment is imposed for the violation only of a direct negative precept.

(17) cehu

(18) Lev. XXIV, 11.

(19) I.e., only he who both blasphemes, that is, utters the ineffable Name, and curses it, is executed.

(20) Ibid. XXIV, 14.

(21) Ibid. XXIV, 15.

(22) Lit., ‘A man, a man’, heb.ish ish, aht aht

(23) The only place where death is explicitly decreed for non-Israelites is in Gen. IX, 6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. It is a general law, applicable to all, having been given in the pre-Abrahamic era; his blood shall be shed must refer to the sword, the only death whereby blood is shed.

(24) V. infra 56b. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. Gen. II, 16. Every word or phrase in this verse is separately interpreted, the Lord teaching the prohibition of blasphemy to a Noachide.

(25) In the Talmudic period the Rabbi was an honorary official; consequently, he had to have a private occupation e.g., R. Joshua, who came into conflict with R. Gamaliel, was a blacksmith, (Ber. 28a.) others translate, charcoal-burner.

(26) I.e., even if only a substitute was employed in blasphemy, the death penalty is incurred.

(27) Lev. XXIV, 15

(28) Ibid. 16.

(29) Ibid.

(30) That a heathen too must use the ineffable Name for incurring punishment.

(31) This is a difficulty For R. Isaac and R. Miyasha, as they explain the opinions of the Sages. They both maintain that the culpability of a heathen is deduced from And the Lord (God commanded etc.) When employing substitutes, his culpability, in the view of R. Miyasha is deduced from as well the stranger etc.; Whilst R. Isaac denies that it is punishable at all. Hence the difficulty, why the repetition ish ish, a man, a man?

(32) I.e., no particular significance attaches to the repetition, it being the usual idiom.

(33) I.e., to establish courts of justice, or, perhaps, to observe social justice (Nahmanides on Gen. XXXIV, 13): Hast. Dict. (s.v. Noachian precepts) translates ‘obedience to authority’.

(34) 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 Jew was given 613 commandments (mitzvot), according
to the Talmud, which contain 248 positive commands and 365 negative ones