Israel and Humanity - Content of Noachism

From Hareidi English
Jump to: navigation, search

V.

Contents Noachism.

§ 1.

Whatever the number of precepts Noachides, it is certain that each of them represents not a single command, but a group of similar obligations. It was natural indeed distribute any law of Noah under general headings, by analogy with that of Moses in which each of the commandments, and they are much more specialized, contains a more or less specific provisions [1].

We also know that the Jewish courts were sometimes responsible for law enforcement Noachide it was necessary for there to have a court decision that the sentence could be based, not opinion or arbitrary passengers of any judge, but on a set of factors that would determine the entire face of the legislation in a sustainable manner, for a while at least. The Talmud, moreover decide formally on this issue. It discusses [2] the question of sanctification of God's name, that is to say, the obligation to expose himself to martyrdom for confessing the true religion. The Noachide is it held? It argues that in this case the number [3] Noachides precepts will be eight, while the tradition that speaks of only seven. The answer is that the precepts include everything that goes with a gloss [4] that the sanctification of God's name it is understood, for if the Noachide, summoning him to violate these commandments, or to suffer death, do not confess their faith, it would be under the necessity of violating the law to which submits its conscience and therefore the obligation to faithfully execute implies all duties under the circumstances.


We already mentioned an important Talmudic decision on which we should return here is that the Noachide, regardless of its particular law, can observe such and such precepts mosaics of my choice. "If he wants to fulfill any of the other commandments of the Law, says Maimonides, it does not prevent to observe its rules according [5]" The Law of Moses, whole is therefore open to the Noachide he can take what he pleases, so that his personal law, while consisting of a minimum obligation than he is allowed to decrease Under no circumstances may at its option augmenting various observances mosaics he also wishes to practice. It is true that he found in the commentary of Maimonides another provision which seems to contradict it, is when the Doctor lays down the general rule that there is no medium for the Gentile from the simple law Noachide and the full observance of the Mosaic, and it is allowed to accept one part by denying another. But we have previously suggested that, in our opinion, the contradiction does not exist. It is indeed, in this final rule, an automatic acceptance of a portion of the Mosaic law entail a perpetual obligation and therefore a modification of this law at the same time as the Noachism itself in a word the formation of a new religion. Thus the Israelite Mosaic can add to as required some practice, if it is meritorious, [6] the rabbis demanding that it be carefully distinguished as supererogatory adherence to it has much the appearance of an addition to the Torah. [7] The harmony of all these legal provisions is admirable. The situation is made Noachide since the promulgation of the Law of Moses is exactly the same as the patriarchs of Israel before the advent of the great legislator. These, in fact, according to the testimony of Scripture and Tradition, subjecting itself freely to some practices that are now found in Judaism and that their voluntary time are required to come- since their inclusion in the Mosaic law. What was originally the rules of perfection for a few good men is now the religion of a people, but these rules still retain their original character for all those who by birth or voluntary affiliation do not belong to the same religion.

It follows from the foregoing that the Noachism, while it is independent from the Mosaic Law, however, can borrow some of its observances. But here is another statement of the Talmud, without specifying the number of precepts Noachides, however, illuminates the issue. The doctors say that in the list of seven commandments, this is only the negative precepts, the precepts positive remaining completely outside this list [8] .

In another passage, he spoke of thirty commandments and the Talmud adds that number as soon as the Gentiles do have observed that three. [9]. It is not irrelevant to how we explained the fidelity of the pagans to three precepts in question. First of all, we are told, [10] they do not write a marriage contract for the male, and secondly, they do not not put on the scales of human flesh in butcher shops last they honor the law of Moses.

If we did not consider that our morals and our current ideas, it is tempting to see in the first observation that a well-deserved satire. But in fact the pagan world exhibited a spectacle of such excesses and vice to which he is alluding here to the point had invaded all classes of society that had yet to be welcomed that the law did not devote marriages as legitimate such unions. If one recalls the depravity and the depravity of Nero Greek printed [11] of the men most illustrious a spot where the divine Plato himself can not be washed completely, we agree that the rabbis, instead of slandering the Graeco-Roman, have rather flattered that fact [12]

The second observation of the Talmud has a color joke even more pronounced. How fierce custom means we talk here? Obviously, it is contemplated cannibalism and it is a virtue to the pagans not to publicly sell human flesh, which is a roundabout way of saying they eat and their manners are so barbaric that they must be grateful not to shamelessly display their savagery. But this is another point on which the doctors have reduced the terrible decadence of the pagan world, because what could be seen neither the Greeks nor the Romans was common in other countries, and we can cite in which it was customary to give in times of famine, death to the elderly to make their bodies food-bodied men, and even pets [13]


The third point of the rabbis, we do not quite understand how they think the Greco-Roman society, they have a special view in this passage, paid homage to the law of Moses. You can probably think of a few isolated individuals who have spoken highly of the religion of Israel or even the science of Jewish proselytism in that same environment, but these two explanations are not satisfactory, and in particular in relation to the proselyte, it is clear that he does more to honor the Mosaic Law, it takes practice and observation [14] However, the text of the Talmud suggests that one of the duties of Noachide is professing great respect for the law of Moses and watch it as divine.

§ 2.

The rabbis have a lot of discussion on additions to the seven precepts of the Noachism which we discuss later in [15] detail. R. Hananiah, son of Gamaliel, said the defense of using the blood of the living animal, R. Hidka, the prohibition of castration, R. Simon, of witchcraft and R. Jose extends the prohibition to all practices included in the section of the Mosaic law that addresses this latter issue, that is to say human sacrifice, divination, omens and the oracles and removal of dead [16] All of these practices in the passage of the Pentateuch which is [17], are in fact charged with Canaanite tribes that the Jews were expelled from the country as punishment for superstitions which they engaged. However, as there is no punishment without notice [18], we must admit that these prohibitions are, also, the Noachism, which convinces us once again that the precepts of this Act are summary in nature, all the defenses we have enumerated being included under the term of witchcraft, and that the number seven commandments, which prevailed in Tradition, is far from exhausting all Noachism, since Scripture itself imposes other precepts.

R. Eleazar [19] Noachides forbids the mixing of two different species of trees and animals and Maimonides, while accepting the number seven precepts makes them an obligation to observation of this dual recommendation. Finally, the duty of procreation and circumcision has been added by some authors, one of them takes care, however, warn us that these two commandments which weighed upon the Gentiles until the time of Sinai no longer mandatory for Israel since [20]. Whatever the merits of the arguments which it supports this view, it is certain that serious reasons have prevented the Talmudic doctors to understand these two precepts in Noachism. This does not mean that the former has at least not a universal value, unless you hear the words of Scripture: "Be fruitful and multiply," not as a command but a blessing, which Moreover, still expresses a desire for God, so that it will always be a virtue for the man but to comply.

Friedenthal said the seven precepts of the law of Noah the Sabbath [21] it is written: "Thou shalt not do any work ... nor the alien within your gates; cessation Work on Yom Kippur because of the words of Leviticus: "You shall do no work, neither the native or stranger who dwells among you, and the defense of blood, the prohibition of all incestuous unions listed in the Pentateuch and that led to the expulsion of the Canaanites, they constitute clear evidence for them as much prevarication, the prohibition to make any sacrifices on altars private [22] This article appears in direct conflict with this principle in the Talmud and received according to which it is possible not only to the Gentiles to raise an altar or private Bama but the Israelites instruct and assist them in their worship [23]


Among the differences about the rabbinical precepts Noachides, can I report the views that reduce their number as there are for the increase? It seems at first so be it. R. Jehouda said [24] The first Adam has received another command that the defense of polytheism. R. Jehouda, son of Betera, said: The defense also blasphemy. He was still, the doctors add, laws (civil and criminal). With regard to the opinion of R. Jehouda, one can not help but be moved closer to that of R. Meir we have quoted above and from which it suffices to abjure idolatry to be considered gher thoschab or proselyte of the gate. This common doctrine that it excludes the seven basic tenets? We think not. R. Jehouda speaks with Adam and it is not without intention that it does not mention the name of Noah. So only the personal law of Adam that question, which does not contradict the later establishment of a law more comprehensive and called Noachide the opinion of R. Meir, who does the gher thoschab than the first, simply means that the observation seems to him sufficient to give the hospitality Gentile in Palestine. The two principles, we believe, are explained, and complement each other, for it is just because Adam has not received any other command than that of monotheism that he does that for the admission of gher toschab and is, secondly, because [25] this single precept has been imposed that Adam R. Meir, in requiring the Gentile allowed to reside in the Holy Land, does not intend to deny the existence hence the seven commandments of the Noachism. Also, we have seen that does not ask: "What is Noachide? "But:" What is gher thoschab ? "

Let us add, to complete this preliminary study of the contents of Noachism few comments on proposed additions by the Rabbis. By R. Hananiah, son of Gamaliel, on the prohibition of blood of the living animal should not be confused with the general defense of the blood as it is imposed on Israel. Scripture simply says: 'You will not eat flesh with its soul (blood) [26] and the Talmud meant is the living flesh whose life is in the blood and more so the blood itself, if it comes from the animal alive. However it is easy to see in the text as a general prohibition has done precisely the Council of Antioch, the whole Mosaic law, was imposed on Gentiles that this precept with a few others. But there is a distinction to be watching the very use of the meat. For the Israelites, and perhaps even some pious men in the patriarchal period, it was necessary for the animal could be used for food, he was strangled by the rite of the Gentiles, it was sufficient that it was death or by the hand of man or otherwise, since we see the Israelites asked to donate the Gentile Noachide of the beast that had died naturally. [27] As for the one requirement was that the blood be shed, for others it was only that the animal was killed.

The defense added castration R. Hildka [28] is based, it seems, on a deduction. The Scripture says: "You will agree to any of these foreign victims (mutilated) to offer it as food of your God, for they are maimed, they have flaws, they will not be approved [29]. It was concluded that, since the animals in question could not be accepted as victims of the Gentiles, that it is forbidden to them to practice castration. [30] R. Simeon includes among Noachides bans the practice of magic and R. Jose, the sacrifice of children to Moloch. In fact, the Book of Deuteronomy that Israel defends these practices adds these decisive words to the question before us: "Whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before you [31] and the legislature began by saying: "When you come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to imitate the abominations of those nations where [32] ". This is sufficient to bring the Talmud derives the conclusion that since there can be no punishment without pre-prohibition, it is necessary that all its defenses are also included among the laws Noachides [33] The Doctors who do not fall in this review have probably felt that the sacrifices of children were already prohibited by law against murder, as the practice of magic by those who are formally condemns idolatry.


References

  1. Maimonides Sepher amisvot
  2. Sanhedrin 74. 6.
  3. Page 622
  4. French door everything
  5. Sanhedrin, X, 13
  6. Deut. xiii, 1.
  7. Page 623
  8. Sanhedrin 48 b
  9. Houllin 92 <super> a </super>
  10. 92 Ibid <super> b </super>
  11. Page 624
  12. V. Tacitus, Annals XV, 37. Havet, Christianity and its origins, P. 247.
  13. Basevi, mental faculties of animals, I 83, II 34, 35.
  14. the Talmud reminds us of this custom followed in Rome for several centuries, after which it required Jews to appear before the pope with the books of Moses that the pontiff received and honored as divine books. When a new pope took possession of the papal throne, the Jews also offered him the roll of the Act.
  15. Page 625
  16. Sanhedrin 56 b.
  17. Deut, xviii, 12.
  18. Raschi , in Sanhedrin 56 b.
  19. Sanhedrin , 56b.
  20. Misna lammelech, Melachim, X, 7.
  21. Page 626
  22. addat Yesod, P. 121.
  23. R. Obada in Zebehini , XIV, 4; Maimonides, accorbanot Maas, sub fine.
  24. Sanhedrin , 56 <super> b </super>.
  25. Page 627
  26. Genesis IX, 4.
  27. Deut. xiv. 21.
  28. Sanhedrin , 56 <super> b </super>
  29. Leviticus , XXII, 25.
  30. Page 628
  31. Deuteronomy xviii, 52.
  32. Ibid. worms. 9
  33. Sanhedrin 56b , Raschi, in loco.