Rob, i was just about to post a reply to david, when i decided to read your reply and thought you stated some of what i was going to raise better
quote:
Originally posted by rob:
quote:
A Jewish woman who makes an abortion upon her unborn fetus, though she has done wrong, goes unpunished by the Courts - unless that infant had first put forth his head from the matrix of the womb. A non-Jew who performs an abortion upon an unborn child is guilty by the act, and is punished by the Court.
Shalom David:
Your words here seem to be a little inconcistant with a halachic description I recently read signed in the name of Fred Rosner MD, Rabbi Moshe Tendler, and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, which also included psychiatric risks in the valid reasons for which a therapeutic termination of pregnancy would be permissible under the general theme of when necessary for the mother's life.
Your words here seem to give an overly broad view that there exists no medical termination of pregnancy to a gentile which would not be punished by the earthly court, and similarly, none by a Jew which would not be punished by the Heavenly Court.
Posts: 38 | Location: Australia | Registered: January 05, 2006
Could it be that those laws lacking in the hallacha towards non-jews are already covered by the non-jews own laws, therefore - laws for non-jews in hallacha in respect to these situations are cancelled out - for truely in the current legal system, one has a right to, whether jew, or non-jew to protect their life.
It is true, hallacha is meant for jews - therefore non-jews do not need to follow the breadth of the hallacha, as it pertains to them, as long as they follow the system of law they have set up and the seven noahide laws(in g_ds eyes, as i do not belief that a jew has the right to kill a non-jew for not professing the seven noahide laws, or transgressing halacha?
quote:
Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips: As I understand it, the Din of "Rodeif" being able to kill a pursuer does not apply to a non-Jew.
Posts: 38 | Location: Australia | Registered: January 05, 2006
unless of course, the non-jew, or non-jewish laws threatened the jews life - we all have a right to defend ourselves
quote:
Originally posted by Katja: Could it be that those laws lacking in the hallacha towards non-jews are already covered by the non-jews own laws, therefore - laws for non-jews in hallacha in respect to these situations are cancelled out - for truely in the current legal system, one has a right to, whether jew, or non-jew to protect their life.
It is true, hallacha is meant for jews - therefore non-jews do not need to follow the breadth of the hallacha, as it pertains to them, as long as they follow the system of law they have set up and the seven noahide laws(in g_ds eyes, as i do not belief that a jew has the right to kill a non-jew for not professing the seven noahide laws, or transgressing halacha?
quote:
Originally posted by Yisroel Phillips: As I understand it, the Din of "Rodeif" being able to kill a pursuer does not apply to a non-Jew.
Posts: 38 | Location: Australia | Registered: January 05, 2006
Quote "As I understand it, the Din of "Rodeif" being able to kill a pursuer does not apply to a non-Jew."
I never heard of that. Do you have a source for this? Misvara (from logic) I don’t see any difference (unless if it was referring to a Jew Roidef after a Goy But a Goy after another Goy, why wouldn’t you kill the guilty party to save the innocent?)
The language of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 425:1 and the Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach uShemras Nefesh 1:6) is that "any Jew" is commanded to kill the rodeif. Since this is based on pesukim addressed to Klal Yisroel only, the sevora is that it doesn't include non-Jews.
Then you can say another sevora. If you see someone attemting to kill someone else, who says you have the right to choose to kill the rodeif rather than letting the victim die? (That, by the way, is I believe the reason that Catholics don't allow abortions. They say that it is not up to us to decide whose life is more worth saving, the mother's or the baby's.) That decision is up to the Ribono shel Olam. But it is a g'zeiras hakasuv [a law based on a verse in the Torah] that we may make such a decision. We can make it, but a non-Jew isn't.
Posts: 318 | Location: London, England | Registered: June 10, 2005
There needs to be a clarification regarding Noachide Laws. Rav Chaim and I went through a pretty interesting but friendly diatribe on this about a month ago. Noachide Laws are under the auspices of a Jewish beit din, namely, they acquire their authority from the Beit Din HaGadol of Israel. When we think of the Noachide Laws as being only 7, they actually translate to about 66, I believe. We have 613 but they translate to thousands. So, in reality, there is no such thing as a Noachide beit din divorced from rabbinic authority. This is the reason why the Noachides are so anxious to get recognized by the newly created Beit Din HaGadol. This is a tradition and responsibility of ours (Jews) in being a light unto the Goyim, that was lost millenia ago.
So when we try to understand the Noachide Laws it should be in that context. The 7 laws are at least 66 .... and that will address many of the questions raised here.
Posts: 385 | Location: Galut | Registered: October 20, 2005
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 57a), as the Jerusalem Talmud, says that a son of Noah is made liable to the death penalty for transgressing any of the seven commandments. It explains there that G-d only revealed unto us the punishment for trangressing one of the seven, but from it we learn about the others. (Like a "prototype" of sorts).
In the same sugiya, we also find an opinion that the first man, Adam, was commanded to establish a court of justice (Heb. "dinim"). This was inferred by G-d having simply made Himself known to Adam. That is, Adam's acute awareness of G-d's omnipresence made it incumbent upon him to be ever conscience of that Presence in his daily actions: meaning, for all practical purposes, not to curse Him; not to exchange Him for some other god; that His fear be upon us (i.e. the establishment of courts).
In another teaching there, it says that the establishment of Courts (Heb. "dinim") is rather learned from the word ויצו, ("and [G-d] commanded"), used in connection with Adam being prohibited to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Meaning, since G-d limited what he could and could not do, Adam inferred thereby that there had to be a system of regulations that would govern men in their relations one with another.
Finally, we also learn in that same sugiya about other differences between Jews and non-Jews in their performance of these "sheva' mitzvoth," and how that, generally, G-d is more severe and strict with the non-Jew than what He is with the Jew. For example: If a non-Jew kills another non-Jew, or kills a Jew, he is guilty by the act, and is made to stand trial. On the other hand, if a Jew kills a Jew, he is guilty of the act, and is made to stand trial. Yet is he exempt from punishment by the Court if he had killed a non-Jew.
Sincerely, David Ben-Abraham
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 57a), as the Jerusalem Talmud, says that a son of Noah is made liable to the death penalty for transgressing any of the seven commandments.
I thought the only consequence of the gentiles not following the 7 Noachide Laws was that they were not permitted to dwell among us?
Is this death penalty only when they are dwelling among us? And the penalty is not expulsion, but death?
In their own idolatrous lands, who does the gemara say would administer this death penalty?
Posts: 271 | Location: USA | Registered: May 30, 2004
What you have said is a teaching brought down in Halachoth Gedoloth, viz., that it is forbidden to sustain non-Jews in the land of Israel who have not taken upon themselves the seven mitzvot given to the sons of Noah. Even then, those non-Jews were only to be sustained in the land of Israel for a period not to exceed one year, at which time they were obliged to convert to Judaism.
I am not authorized to comment upon such statements, but it would seem (in my most humble opinion) that the Rabbis there were talking about a case where Israel had the upper hand among the nations, and the entire society of Jews were living in accordance with the instruction given in the divine Law. Still, this would not take away from the fact that any non-Jew living, today, in Israel or outside of Israel, and who had abdicated from one or several of those seven principles, that he would make himself liable to the death penalty.
Sincerely, David Ben-Abraham
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
One more thing. Being "liable" to the death penalty, and "carrying out" the death penalty, are two different things. Just because one has not been punished doesn't mean that he doesn't have it coming to him. In ideal situations, the Talmud it seems has spoken about cases where their courts (i.e. the non-Jewish courts of law) would meet out judgment where it was necessary. By the way, the Talmud says that all capital punishment made in non-Jewish courts of law are to be only death by the sword. (No lethal injections, hangings, shootings, etc.)
Sincerely, David
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
uh oh - does that mean I might be liable for some speeding fines even if I wasn't caught???
Oh, wait, I know this: the laws of the goyim don't apply to us.... but it might not be wise to try to explain this to a police officer at such a time since:
that would likely be teaching Torah to a gentile
that would be foolish, and the rabbis say that the Torah says we should not do foolish things
Actually these and more _were_ some of the reasons I had the privilege to say directly to a beloved Rosh Yeshiva (who is no longer with us) shortly after he asked why I had a radar detector.
The best reason to have a radar detector:
In case a Jew were to pass me on the road, so I could warn him.
Posts: 271 | Location: USA | Registered: May 30, 2004
Originally posted by MosheYisraeli: Noachide Laws are under the auspices of a Jewish beit din, namely, they acquire their authority from the Beit Din HaGadol of Israel. When we think of the Noachide Laws as being only 7, they actually translate to about 66, I believe. We have 613 but they translate to thousands. So, in reality, there is no such thing as a Noachide beit din divorced from rabbinic authority.
Dear "John of all Faith,"
Someone on the "Global Yeshiva" communications wrote: "Noachide Laws are under the auspices of a Jewish Beit Din (Court), namely, they acquire their authority from the Beit Din HaGadol of Israel. When we think of the Noachide Laws as being only 7, they actually translate to about 66, I believe. We (Jews) have 613 but they translate to thousands. So, in reality, there is no such thing as a Noachide Beit Din divorced from rabbinic authority."
This statement is basically true, considering that the observance of these laws must be similar, in most cases, to the way we, as Jews, perform them. Although some of the seven laws should or to ought to be inherently understood by ALL men, even without instruction. That is, given that all men agree that there is a G-d in heaven who created all things, and that He is ever present, translated in our daily lives this would mean we could not curse Him, nor could we exchange Him for some other god, and the fear of Him would be enforced upon all men, i.e. the establishment of courts of law in order to maintain justice. But then again, there are other things that simply could not be learned without instruction. And since the very source of these teachings is found in the first book of the Law of Moses, and that book was committed unto the Jews, it seems only logical that the Jews would be qualified to instruct in the observance of these laws. For example, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, which same prohibition is derived from the teaching which also prohibits the eating of blood in animals. Now the Rabbis teach us that the blood of fishes is permitted. This could not be understood without prior instruction. And the way Jews prepare their meats before eating, in order to rid all meats from the residue of blood, is the same way Noachides would be required to practice. (i.e. By rinsing the meat thoroughly in water, and sprinkling rock salt over the meat on all of its sides, and leaving it in that state for at least 30 minutes to an hour before rinsing it again and cooking it.) These things cannot be known without prior instruction. Some Jews (the Jews from Yemen and from the Caucasus) will throw the meat afterwards into a pot of boiling water just long enough to whiten the outer layer of the meat before cooking it in its proper manner. Salt helps to absorb the blood from meats, while boiling helps to constrict the blood which is locked within the meat. These things cannot be known without prior instruction.
Sincerely, David Ben-Abraham
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
B"H Sorry fellows, but I could not edit my previous post. I had inadvertently pasted it when it included the name of a correspondant on a different forum who had asked me about a similar question carried here. David
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
Quote "The language of the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 425:1 and the Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach uShemras Nefesh 1:6) is that "any Jew" is commanded to kill the rodeif."
I think that there are two separate things here. 1) The obligation to kill the rodeif 2) the permission to kill the Roideif. The Jew is the only one who's commanded, i.e. has the obligation, to save the Nirdaf through killing the Rodeif. A non Jew doesn't have this obligation, so he may pass the scene without getting involved.
But the 2nd point, does the non Jew allowed to save the person, I would like to say he has the right. I'd like to give 2 reasons for it. 1) because this Mitzvah is not like taking a Luluv, where the Torah is mainly concerned for the action of the Mitzvah to be done, but rather the main thrust is the result, which is the saving of an innocent person. So through his actions it would bring the result that the Torah wanted, then it would be permitted. These types of Mitzvos is what the Rambam had in mind in Hilchus Milachim 10:10 so it shouldn't conflict with #9.
2) Since the Roideif is considered a "Bar Katla" (someone that is dead, since someone at this point can kill him) so why can't a Goy kill him, he's killing a Halachicly dead person.
Also, see TOsfos Sanhedrin 59a D"H Leika, that it's possible that a Goy can kill the fetus to save the mother's life.
Posts: 874 | Location: Michigan | Registered: June 25, 2004
Also, see TOsfos Sanhedrin 59a D"H Leika, that it's possible that a Goy can kill the fetus to save the mother's life.
Interesting. Thank you for drawing our attention to that, although Tosefos says " ואפשר דאפילו בעובד כוכבים שרי" only that it is possible that even for a non-Jew it is permitted.
Posts: 318 | Location: London, England | Registered: June 10, 2005
Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham: "...For example, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, which same prohibition is derived from the teaching which also prohibits the eating of blood in animals. Now the Rabbis teach us that the blood of fishes is permitted. This could not be understood without prior instruction. And the way Jews prepare their meats before eating, in order to rid all meats from the residue of blood, is the same way Noachides would be required to practice."
A small clarification:
Some have inferred from Maimonides' words in Hilkoth Melakhim 9:10 that it is permitted unto non-Jews to eat blood from a living animal. However, upon careful consideration of this subject, Maimonides does not say that he can "eat" the blood, but rather, the blood of a living animal is "permitted" unto them. It would seem that the sense here is in making use of the blood of a living animal in order to dye a piece of cloth, just as we find it stated explicitly in Hullin 28a that blood may be taken from a living animal in order to dye therewith clothes.
Sincerely, David Ben-Abraham
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
B"H The matter about blood, and whether or not gentiles are permitted to eat it, still isn't so clear to me. A certain scholar, when I asked him about this, pointed out to me that Maimonides in Hilkoth Melakhim 9:10 ruled in accordance with the Hachamim (sages) of Sanhedrin 59a, who spoke about their being permitted to eat blood, in defiance of Rabbi Chanina, the son of Gamliel, who disapproved of their eating it. They were both expounding on the verse in Beraishis 9:4 : אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו
Sincerely, David
Posts: 210 | Location: Israel | Registered: December 05, 2005
David, What do you mean by "eating blood"? Surely Torah allows the goyim to eat hunted meat....even treif that has died on its own. So they are allowed to eat blood. Now, if you mean the actual consumption of blood as the Masai do (draining it out of a living behema without even killing it ....and doing it repeatedly...and mingling it with milk), that's a different scenario altogether. I believe the latter is what they were prohibited from doing.
Posts: 385 | Location: Galut | Registered: October 20, 2005
accept in a country where you must obey the laws of that land...also in israel - as israel has a set of laws that the halacha operates from within
quote:
Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham: B"H Further clarifications:
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 57a), as the Jerusalem Talmud, says that a son of Noah is made liable to the death penalty for transgressing any of the seven commandments. It explains there that G-d only revealed unto us the punishment for trangressing one of the seven, but from it we learn about the others. (Like a "prototype" of sorts).
In the same sugiya, we also find an opinion that the first man, Adam, was commanded to establish a court of justice (Heb. "dinim"). This was inferred by G-d having simply made Himself known to Adam. That is, Adam's acute awareness of G-d's omnipresence made it incumbent upon him to be ever conscience of that Presence in his daily actions: meaning, for all practical purposes, not to curse Him; not to exchange Him for some other god; that His fear be upon us (i.e. the establishment of courts).
In another teaching there, it says that the establishment of Courts (Heb. "dinim") is rather learned from the word ויצו, ("and [G-d] commanded"), used in connection with Adam being prohibited to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Meaning, since G-d limited what he could and could not do, Adam inferred thereby that there had to be a system of regulations that would govern men in their relations one with another.
Finally, we also learn in that same sugiya about other differences between Jews and non-Jews in their performance of these "sheva' mitzvoth," and how that, generally, G-d is more severe and strict with the non-Jew than what He is with the Jew. For example: If a non-Jew kills another non-Jew, or kills a Jew, he is guilty by the act, and is made to stand trial. On the other hand, if a Jew kills a Jew, he is guilty of the act, and is made to stand trial. Yet is he exempt from punishment by the Court if he had killed a non-Jew.
Sincerely, David Ben-Abraham
Posts: 38 | Location: Australia | Registered: January 05, 2006
actually, i doubt that there is such a place on earth, where you are allowed to kill a fellow jew, or even a non-jew and get away with it
quote:
Originally posted by David Ben-Abraham:
quote:
Originally posted by MosheYisraeli: Noachide Laws are under the auspices of a Jewish beit din, namely, they acquire their authority from the Beit Din HaGadol of Israel. When we think of the Noachide Laws as being only 7, they actually translate to about 66, I believe. We have 613 but they translate to thousands. So, in reality, there is no such thing as a Noachide beit din divorced from rabbinic authority.
Dear "John of all Faith,"
Someone on the "Global Yeshiva" communications wrote: "Noachide Laws are under the auspices of a Jewish Beit Din (Court), namely, they acquire their authority from the Beit Din HaGadol of Israel. When we think of the Noachide Laws as being only 7, they actually translate to about 66, I believe. We (Jews) have 613 but they translate to thousands. So, in reality, there is no such thing as a Noachide Beit Din divorced from rabbinic authority."
This statement is basically true, considering that the observance of these laws must be similar, in most cases, to the way we, as Jews, perform them. Although some of the seven laws should or to ought to be inherently understood by ALL men, even without instruction. That is, given that all men agree that there is a G-d in heaven who created all things, and that He is ever present, translated in our daily lives this would mean we could not curse Him, nor could we exchange Him for some other god, and the fear of Him would be enforced upon all men, i.e. the establishment of courts of law in order to maintain justice. But then again, there are other things that simply could not be learned without instruction. And since the very source of these teachings is found in the first book of the Law of Moses, and that book was committed unto the Jews, it seems only logical that the Jews would be qualified to instruct in the observance of these laws. For example, the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, which same prohibition is derived from the teaching which also prohibits the eating of blood in animals. Now the Rabbis teach us that the blood of fishes is permitted. This could not be understood without prior instruction. And the way Jews prepare their meats before eating, in order to rid all meats from the residue of blood, is the same way Noachides would be required to practice. (i.e. By rinsing the meat thoroughly in water, and sprinkling rock salt over the meat on all of its sides, and leaving it in that state for at least 30 minutes to an hour before rinsing it again and cooking it.) These things cannot be known without prior instruction. Some Jews (the Jews from Yemen and from the Caucasus) will throw the meat afterwards into a pot of boiling water just long enough to whiten the outer layer of the meat before cooking it in its proper manner. Salt helps to absorb the blood from meats, while boiling helps to constrict the blood which is locked within the meat. These things cannot be known without prior instruction.
Sincerely, David Ben-Abraham
Posts: 38 | Location: Australia | Registered: January 05, 2006
