Tuesday, December 13, 2022

The hateful and degrading reasons why under Noahide Law non-Jews may not keep sabbath

  SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS (HERE)

This is the most shocking article I have ever read on Noahide Laws, spread this far and wide. The article is about why non-Jews cannot observe the Sabbath. I cannot summarize all of the absolutely degrading statements about non-Jews in this article but the key idea is that unlike Jews who cease working on sabbath, non-Jews may never stop working, and if they do invent a day of rest, they are killed. Please read this article, it shows just how lowly they think non-Jews are.


https://collive.com/why-cant-a-gentile-keep-shabbos/

Why Can’t a Gentile Keep Shabbos 


November 1, 2019 – 3 Heshvan 5780

Rabbi Aryeh Citron of Miami, Florida, reviews the several reasons given by the commentaries as to why a non-Jew may not observe Shabbos - and why Avraham Avinu was able to.

By Rabbi Aryeh Citron 

In the Torah portion of No’ach, G-d informs No’ach that after the flood he could expect the seasons to resume and continue on a regular basis, as the verse says (Gen. 8:22), “So long as the earth exists, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease

Rashi explains that during the flood, the seasons ceased as all the heavenly bodies stopped moving. G-d was therefore promising that such a cosmic event would never reoccur. Rather, from this point on, the seasons would proceed normally.

According to Midrash Tanchuma, before the flood there were no seasons. The weather was always mild and pleasant. This pleasant lifestyle contributed to the conceit and hedonism of those generations. After the flood, G-d gave additional hardships to man so that he not become pampered and rebel again. Thus the verse can be understood to mean, “[From now on] for as long as the world exists, [there will be] seedtime, harvest… it will not cease.”

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 58b) interprets this verse as a command to all of Noah’s descendants (besides the Jewish people) that just as the seasons do not stop, so too they may not cease working. The Hebrew לאֹ ו ּת ב ֹּֽש ְׁי ִis thus translated to mean “They shall not make Shabbos.” In fact, the Talmud says that a gentile who keeps Shabbos is chayav misa (worthy of death). Ravina adds that this applies even if they observe a “Shabbos” (day of rest) on a different day of the week such as Monday. 

There are several reasons given by the commentaries as to why a non-Jew may not observe Shabbos: 

A Gift to the Jews 

The Midrash[2] compares this matter to a king and queen who are sitting and talking privately and a stranger comes between them and disturbs them. This person would deserve to be punished severely. Similarly, the Shabbos is a private gift that G-d shared with the Jewish people. Therefore, a gentile who comes between the Jewish people and G-d by trying to take this gift for himself is worthy of death. Shabbos is an exclusive gift to the Jewish people as the verse (Exodus 31:17) says, “Between Me and the children of Israel it is forever a sign.”

Even if the gentile observes a “Shabbos” on a Monday he is still detracting from the gift of Shabbos which was given to the Jews as he is proclaiming that the Jews are not unique in receiving this kind of gift. 

Akin to Adultery Similarly, the Zohar (Parshat Pinchas pg. 450) says that the relationship between the Jewish people and the Shabbos is like that of a groom and a bride and thus a gentile observing the Shabbos is akin to adultery. 

·Making Their Own Religion 

The Rambam writes (Laws of Melachim 10:9), “A gentile who rests even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is worthy of death. Needless to say, he is deserving of that punishment if he creates a festival for himself. The general principle governing these matters is that they are not allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or observe their (seven Noahide) statutes without adding or detracting from them.”   

The Rambam seems to be saying that the reason for a gentile not being allowed to observe Shabbos is that it can be viewed as if he is making up his own religion. Certainly, this applies if the gentile makes his day of rest on another day of the week.

Can Be Mistaken for a Jew 

In a similar vein, the Me’iri writes that if a gentile observes Shabbos, Jewish people may mistake him for a Jew and may learn from his (otherwise) idolatrous practices. (It is difficult to understand, according to the Me’iri, how a gentile who observes Shabbos on another day of the week would be mistaken for a Jew. Perhaps he means that the religious practice that he is inventing may be copied by a Jewish person.)  

Time to Sin 

The Mishnah (Avot 4:2) says that it is good to study Torah as well as to work since laboring in both will make one too busy to sin. As such, on Shabbos when a Jew may not work, he must occupy himself with Torah study so that he not be tempted to sin. Non-Jews, however, are prohibited from studying Torah. So if they refrain from working on any day of the week, the free time they have can lead them to commit sins since they don’t have the Torah to temper their evil impulses (Divrei Shaul on the Torah by Rabbi Yosef Sha’ul HaLevi Natanzohn). No Actual Executions 

The Rambam writes, “If a gentile studies the Torah, makes a Sabbath, or creates a religious practice, a Jewish court should… punish him (in ancient times). However, he is not to be executed.”

How did Avraham Keep Shabbos? 

It is well known that Avraham Avinu (and the other Patriarchs) kept the entire Torah including observing the Shabbos. Since the Torah had not yet been given, it would seem that the patriarchs were considered Noahides. As such, we need to understand how they were allowed to keep Shabbos in light of the above teaching that a non-Jew may not keep Shabbos. The commentaries offer many explanations. Here are some of them: (See Pardes Yosef and the Metivta Shas for several other explanations.) 

Not a New Religion 

According to the Rambam (as quoted above), the reason a gentile may not observe Shabbos is so that they not start their own religion. The status of the patriarchs, and indeed all of the Jewish people before the Torah was given, was that they were a separate nation – a Jewish nation – but that the Torah was not yet mandatory. As such, observing the Shabbos was not considered to be an invention of a new religion since they were the nation that  would eventually accept the Torah.[3]


 This Content Was Published at https://collive.com/why-cant-a-gentile-keep-shabbos/

Not a Secular Day 

Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz (in Panim Yafot and HaMakneh on Kiddushin 37b on Tosfot D.H. Mimochorat) explains that until the Torah was given, the day began with the daytime and ended with the nighttime. It was only after the giving of the Torah that each day begins with the nighttime and the daytime follows. At that time it was only forbidden to observe Shabbos if one began in the day and continued into the that in (night and֥ יֹום dָ וַ֖לְיָלה ֹ֥לא ִי ְׁש ֹּֽב ת ּו says verse the as, night following order) you shall not observe Shabbos. Since Avraham observed Shabbos the way we do today, beginning with Friday night and ending with nightfall on Shabbos afternoon, this was not a violation of the above rule.

He Wore Tzitzit 

Some explain[5] that Avraham was able to keep Shabbos as a Jew while simultaneously violating it in terms of the laws that apply to gentiles because he wore tzitzit. When a Jew wears tzitzit, they are considered adornments since he is fulfilling a mitzvah by wearing them. As such, he is not considered to be “carrying” his tzitzit strings but rather “wearing” them. If a gentile wears tzitzit, on the other hand, since for him it is not a mitzvah, it is considered as if he is “carrying” them rather than “wearing” them. As such Avraham was not keeping Shabbos as defined by the halachot relevant to non-Jews since he was wearing tzitzit which, by those standards, is considered carrying.[6]

· Defining Work 

The definition of work on Shabbos for a Jew is to do one of the 39 forbidden types of labor (G-d forbid). Whereas for a gentile, the definition is to perform hard, arduous tasks. As such, it is possible that the patriarchs “worked” on Shabbos by moving heavy objects and similar activities and thus did not transgress any forbidden labor on Shabbos. Nor did they “rest” on Shabbos since they were busy with other types of work.[7] 

For a Convert 

When non-Jews are preparing for conversion to Judasim, they are encouraged to observe the mitzvot for the sake of practice. Nevertheless, they should not observe a Shabbos fully until after they convert.[8]

If a man has already had a brit milah for the sake of conversion but has not yet immersed in the mikvah, he may (and should) observe Shabbos. [9] Several reasons are given for this: · Since he has the covenant of the brit, he should observe the covenant of the Shabbos. · Our forefathers in the desert began observing Shabbos before they had immersed in the mikvah but after they had already had their brit milah. · The brit milah has already cleansed him from the impurity of the gentiles although he doesn’t yet have the holiness of a Jew. Must do Teshuvah Before Shabbos.

The holy Sefarim write that one should do Teshuvah on Fridays, before Shabbos. The Gerrer Rebbe (Imrei HaRim Gen. 2:3) explained that the sins that we have transgressed are like a foreign (non-Jewish) entity within ourselves. As such, we must get rid of this entity before Shabbos so that we don’t have a gentile (within us) keeping Shabbos.

SOURCES: 

[2] Devarim Rabbah 1:21 and Shenot Rabbah 25:11 

[3] Reb Chaim Brisker in Chidushei HaGrach Siman 436. He proves that the “Hebrews” already had the status of being Jewish before the giving of the Torah from the fact that the Talmud (Sanhedrin ibid) says that Moshe killed the Egyptian taskmaster because he had hit a Jew. And a 2 COMMENTS Fascinating!  November 2, 2019 4:10 pm I’d like to see more articles like this! 3 0 Reply       gentile who hits a Jew deserves to die. Thus we see that the Jews had the status of being Jewish at that time although they had not yet received the Torah. 

[4] The Pardes Yosef questions this based on the refrain in the was it evening was Itַ וְיִהי. ֶעֶרב. ַוְיִהי. ֹבֶקר. יֹום. ֶאָחד” Genesis of beginning morning, day…” which seems to mean that each day is comprised of evening then morning. But see Rashbam on Gen. 1:5 (this commentary of the Rashbam on the first several portions of the Torah was omitted in some printings) who interprets the verse to mean “the sun set and then the morning began and the day was completed.” I.e., at the beginning of creation each day began with the daytime and ended at the end of the nighttime (just when the next day was breaking). 

[5] See sources brought in Pardes Yosef and the Metivta Shas on Sanhedrin ibid. 

[6] Reb Chaim Brisker questions this since Avraham was, in fact, keeping the mitzvot as a stringency. So, even if he was, technically, a gentile, the tzitzit would still be considered an ornament since they aid his spiritual growth. 

[7] Rabbi Yakov Ettinger in Responsa Binyan Tziyon, 91 

[8] The Shevet HaLevi 7:162 quotes the Tosfot Yeshanim that a gentile who is training to convert may already observe the Shabbos. But this is not the accepted halacha. 

[9] Binyan Tziyon ibid and many other sources quoted in Margaliyot HaYam on Sanhedrin To sponsor or subscribe, please email rabbicitron@hotmail.com 

 


Friday, December 9, 2022

Jew admits that under Noahide Law non-Jews are easier to try and convict than Jews: Book Review, Rainbow Covenant

  SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS (HERE)


Maybe now where else is it more obvious that Jews are given superior status over non-Jews under Noahide Laws than when it comes to trial, testimony, and conviction. Unlike a Jew, a non-Jew can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, they can be testified against by a single witness (Jews need 2-3 witnesses), they can also be testified against by relatives who could be unreliable witnesses. Michael Dallen who wrote the Rainbow Covenant even says that these lax rules for trial and conviction will lead Noahide courts to try and execute innocent people. 

Where Israel's Torah courts must follow certain extremely stringent rules of criminal procedure,^ Noahide courts have more freedom. In contrast to the Torah courts, a Noahide court may convict a criminal defendant based solely upon circumstantial evidence, or the accused's own self-incriminating statements, or testimony from his near relatives — even though these relatives may not be the most reliable of witnesses. A Noahide court may also convict upon the testimony of only a single witness. So it's possible — indeed, probable, given time — that the court will mistakenly convict and execute an innocent person. (Dallen, 2003, pp. 199)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  

Thursday, December 8, 2022

Under Noahide, non-Jews can be killed for causing a woman to lose her fetus, but never a Jew: Book Review, Rainbow Covenant

While either a Jew or a non-Jew can be punished for deliberately injuring a woman to the point that she loses her unborn child, a non-Jew can recieve the capital punishment for this while a Jew cannot. 

"Where the Noahide law and Israel's law in the matter seem to diverge most strongly is in an area, oddly, of clear Scriptural instruction. God declares to Israel, for Israel, in the Written Torah, that the murder of a living human constitutes a capital crime, but that feticide does not.

If a Gentile deliberately injures a pregnant woman, intentionally causing the fetus within her to die, is he guilty of murder? The Torah provides that a Jew guilty of the same act cannot be held liable by any Torah court for murder, but only for assaulting the woman. This is true even though he has killed the mother's unborn child by causing her to miscarry.


Possibly, as most Torah authorities believe, the Jew in this case will later inevitably be punished by "death at the hands of Heaven." But no Torah court could find him guilty of the unborn child's murder.

By God's will, a Torah court has only one — a capital — penalty for murder. Before it can impose that sentence the court must find, among other things, that the killer's victim was a genuine living person. A fetus is only potentially a living person. Noahide courts, on the other hand, have not just the right but the obligation to treat any such deliberate feticide as a criminal act — as an abomination that they have an obligation to forbid.

Everyone who studies the Noahide law must eventually agree on that point. But this doesn't mean that Noahides must treat every wrongful feticide as murder — that is, as the most despicable and destructive of all felonies. Neither does it suggest that Jews possess any right that Gentiles lack, either to perform abortions or to have them performed.

Noahides must determine the details of their own laws for themselves, including enforcement schemes, and schedules of penalties. Without punishing feticide as murder, they have the power to delegirimize it. So do the Jews. Feticide is a form of homicide that cheapens human life; it isn't ll that distantly related to plain murder. The absence, in Scripture, of a specific legal penalty for feticide doesn't mean that Israel must tolerate wholesale fetus-slaughter in its midst. It just means that Jews, like Noahides, have the freedom to legislate their own enforcement schemes against it. It also means that Israel's Torah courts, unlike Noahide courts, lack even the hypothetical power to impose any capital penalty for feticide." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 196-197)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  


Wednesday, August 24, 2022

Noahide Law allows abortion up to the first 40 days: Book Review, The Rainbow Covenant

While the Noahide movement tries to use the abortion issue to league with Christians and Muslims, they forget to tell their friends that under Noahide Law, abortion is legal up until the first 40 days of pregnancy 

 This is a far more difficult and complicated subject than most commentaries suggest. Abortion, or feticide, is commonly regarded as "shedding the blood of man in man," and tantamount to "shedding the blood of man by man." So it violates the Rainbow Covenant law against murder. However, up to forty (40) days — not quite six weeks — after conception a human fetus is considered to be "mere water," "mere tissue," or really little more than a hairy egg. It may be destroyed without the imposition of any legal penalty. (Dallen, 2003, p. 194)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  

Friday, August 19, 2022

Euthanasia and assisted suicide illegal under Noahide:Book Review, The Rainbow Covenant

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

The featured image to this post comes from The Rainbow Covenant by Michael Dallen. As usual, Dallen dehumanizes anyone who disagrees with him, like pagans and Christians. Here the doctor is unplugging a patient from life support, and of course he is supposed to look like a fiendish quack. Assisted suicide is illegal under Noahide, that is the point he is trying to make.

 

"Mercy-Killing," Euthanasia,
and Physician-Assisted Suicide

All the above are just pretty names for murder. It isn't for human beings to assess the comparative current value of any human life. Even the life of a suffering person has infinite value to God. Human beings are not like the lesser animals, to be "put down" wheneverlife becomes unhappy or inconvenient.

A dying person is considered, for all intents and purposes, to be alive. Therefore, no positive, material action may be taken to hasten his death. One may pray for his speedy end. One may
remove an impediment to death, such as an annoying noise, or other irritant, which might be artificially prolonging his demise. But one may not touch him, directly or indirectly, as by removing
or rearranging a pillow or bedclothes, solely in order to hasten death.

Every human life, including the life of one who is terminally ill, is sacred. God created man not just for pursuit of animal pleasure and avoidance of animal discomfort, but to serve Him. We serve Him by living life to the very last moment until He takes it. Our lives are not whole otherwise; no one has a right to diminish a human life by encroaching on His Divine prerogatives.

Human beings may take animal life, in the exercise of human dominion, but our dominion doesn't extend to our fellow men — only God may take a human life. And our deaths, Israel is told, have unfathomable value. To die in His time and at His command brings man blessing — i.e., atonement. Yet one need not be conscious in order to die, and our Maker certainly doesn't prevent us from administering drugs, or other appropriate therapies, to relieve pain and suffering.

We don't serve Him with our pain but with our lives. Nothing may be done to shorten them. (Dallen, 2003, pp. 191-192)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  

 








Hawaii proclamation asserts role of Noahide Law in education



On April 12, 2022, Hawaii Governor David Y. Ige signed a proclamation asserting that the Noahide Laws should be taught in public schools


https://governor.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/04.12.22-Education-Day_PDF.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3EeRqmBUso7eqJAWjXEg6_V4veZk0EqXK5zD8oeelLDLDMS6PYw33ftcA

Proclamation

WHEREAS, a quality education is one of the ·significant foundations for the continuing success of our state, our country, and our society at large; and in the state of Hawai'i we strive for the betterment of all of our citizens through an increased focus on education and sharing; and

WHEREAS, through providing the possibility of an excellent education for all, especially keiki, with which to gain knowledge through rigorous study, we can create hope for a brighter, kinder, and more united and prosperous future in the lives of so many; and

WHEREAS, the educational system must also focus on building character by emphasizing the cultivation of universal moral and ethical values that have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, including the values known as the Seven Noahide Laws; and

WHEREAS, one of the leading global advocates for the advancement of education, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, of righteous memory, stressed the importance of moral and ethical education as the bedrock of humanity and the hallmark of a healthy society, and strongly urged that education be reinforced by the inculcation of strong moral values; and

WHEREAS, in recognition of the Rebbe's outstanding and lasting contributions toward improvements in world education, morality, and acts of charity, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal, and the United States Congress has established his birthdate as a national day to raise awareness and strengthen the education of our children; and

WHEREAS, we presently battle a global pandemic which has disrupted traditional models of education across our nation, while concurrently motivating a focus on the stronger core values we wish to impart to children and adults, beyond academic achievement; and

WHEREAS, we can nurture the unity of diverse peoples through encouraging increased acts of goodness and kindness, imbued with awareness that even a single positive act of an individual can make a major impact in this world;

THEREFORE I, DAVID Y. IGE, Governor of the State of Hawai'i, do hereby proclaim April 12, 2022 as

"EDUCATION DAY"

in Hawai'i and ask the people of the Aloha State to join me in recognizing the importance of education and preparing our keiki for a better, brighter, and more hopeful future.

Done at State Capitol in the Executive Chambers, Honolulu, State of Hawai'i, this twelfth day of April 2022.

Friday, August 12, 2022

Surgical sterilization is illegal under Noahide and female contraception is preferred over male contraception: Book Review, the Rainbow Covenant

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

Under Noahide Law, sterilization surgeries are forbidden, and female birth control is preferred over condoms or spermicide as it is preferred the male ejaculate inside the woman without interruption and that she and her body neutralize the sperm. 

Surgical intervention, such as tuballigation, in the case of a woman, or castration or even vasectomy in the case of a man, is never permitted as a contraceptive technique. It constitutes bodily mutilation — the mutilation, in other words, or maiming of God's property — merely to keep the body from fulfilling its God-given purpose.

As the Bible's story of Er and Onan suggests, our Creator condemns the practice of coitus interruptus — of the man's withdrawal just before fully consummating the sex act. Neither that nor anything that might amount to casting semen in vain — that is, deliberately wasting it, as though man's reproductive seed were a useless poison — can be countenanced as a legitimate contraceptive method. The sex act is not complete unless the man's seed enters the woman's body. So a (Jewish) man may not wear a condom as a contraceptive device. In fact, he may never personally employ any nullifying or blocking technique against his own seed.

Feminine contraceptive implants or oral contraceptives, such as the birth control pill, are preferred over chemical spermicides, which are preferred over physical barriers, such as an absorbent internal pad or diaphragm or an internal female condom. While the male's seed must enter the female, she may, if she has to, use such methods to neutralize or block it once he has made his way inside her. (Dallen, 2003, pp. 174)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  

Rabbi publishes Noahide book because Jews are "obligated" to teach non-Jews the code

TABLE OF CONTENTS  


A new book and organization has sprung up to preach the Noahide Laws, because Jews are "obligated" to teach the non-Jews the Noahide Laws, obligated to turn on each other. I encourage everyone to visit the website and email the email below. 

https://collive.com/shliach-publishes-small-booklet-of-big-ideas/

Shliach Publishes Small Booklet of Big Ideas

July 4, 2021 – 24 Tammuz 5781

 This Content Was Published at https://collive.com/shliach-publishes-small-booklet-of-big-ideas/

Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubov of Chabad Wimbledon published a small booklet available in 7 seven languages presenting the Noahide code as a set of universal laws and common moral denominator.

Have you ever looked for a small booklet that one can give to non-Jews that contains the Sheva Mitzvos Bnai Noach in the form of a universal code? 

Rabbi Nissan Dovid Dubov of Chabad Wimbledon is delighted to announce the launch of a new project – One Universal Code. This is a small booklet now available in 7 seven languages which presents the Noahide code as a set of universal laws and common moral denominator for all people. Take a look at the website – www.oneuniversalcode.org.

“The Rambam says that as Jews we have an obligation to teach the nonJewish world about the Sheva Mitzvos and this was one of the Rebbe’s campaigns to prepare the world for Moshiach. The booklet is an excellent resource for this, and can be given out to all ages and backgrounds,” Rabbi Dubov said. 

The booklet is available now to download as an ebook on www.oneuniversalcode.org. It is available currently in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, and Russian, Arabic and Chinese will soon be available. 

The book is available in the UK in print, and will soon be available in the USA. If you wish to print the book in your location contact oneuniversalcode@gmail.com. 

Together let’s make a better world.  

Friday, August 5, 2022

Just flirtation comes with corporal punishment under Noahide Law: Book Review, The Rainbow Covenant

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

Simply flirting can bring you corporal punishment under Noahide law

"Philandering, or flirtatious or erotic conduct between people whose actual union would be illegitimate. The Torah forbids it, subjecting those who transgress to judicial, corporal penalties, as well as further Heavenly punishment. Not merely intercourse — "lying" with someone subject to the incest ban, or with a menstruant, or with a woman engaged or married to another —but merely seductively "approaching" such a person romantically is forbidden."  (Dallen, 2003, pp. 172)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  

Thursday, August 4, 2022

Noahide Brochure and app set to hit all federal prisons in America

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS 


SIGN THE PETITION 

Chabad-Lubavitch is teaming up with Aleph institute to bring a noahide brochure and app to all USA federal prisons. 

https://collive.com/sheva-mitzvos-campaign-joins-aleph-to-help-inmates/

Sheva Mitzvos Campaign Joins Aleph to Help Inmates
March 2, 2022 – 29 Adar I 5782 

By COLlive Reporter

A beautiful brochure of the Rebbe’s Sheva Mitzvos campaign will now be available to all inmates, Jewish and gentile, at all Federal Prisons around the country. 

As reported a few weeks back, Chabad Lubavitch of Montana printed a beautiful brochure to enable Shluchim and Anash bring the Rebbe’s Sheva Mitzvos campaign to a world in desperate need for these eternal Noahide Laws. Many Shluchim have ordered their own customized brochures at www.SpotlightXpress.com. 

Now, working closely with Rabbi Mendy Katz of Aleph Institute, Rabbi Chaim Bruk, who published the brochure, has arranged for the brochure to be available to all inmates, Jewish and gentile, at all Federal Prisons around the country. It has been submitted and hopefully will be on their prison tablets in the next weeks as a Sheva Mitzvos App. Shea Schneider, who is one of the prime backers of this initiative, insisted that this happens. “People who have landed in a prison cell for one reason or another, could benefit so much from learning about the Sheva Mitzvos; it can inspire them to make G-dly changes in their life and, for many of them, help guide them to a better life when they are freed,” said Schneider.

 In addition, Bruk will be having 14,000 copies of the brochure delivered directly to Montana homes via local newspapers in the next few weeks, bringing this into countless living rooms and workplaces around Big Sky Country. “We can’t be asleep at the wheel; the Aibershter wants a world living this way and the Rebbe demanded that we spread the word” said Rabbi Bruk. You could partner with Chabad Lubavitch of Montana to cover the costs of this expensive campaign at www.JewishMontana.com/ShevaMitzvosRevolution



Transvestism is not a crime for non-Jews under Noahide, it is just "revolting": Book Review, The Rainbow Covenant

 TABLE OF CONTENTS


Male homosexuality is a crime under Noahide Law, lesbianism however is not (here). Here we learn that transvestism is not a crime for non-Jews (but possible for Jews) but is considered "revolting" to god

Cross-Dressing "A woman shall not wear that which pertains to a man; neither shall a man put on a woman's garment.” Humanity isn't unisexual: the conventional outward distinguishing marks between women and men shouldn't be blurred.

Human beings are the only earthly beings to make and wear clothes — or need to. So fashion is a uniquely human thing that can be used either in the service of sexual modesty or immodesty. Cross-dressing is modesty's opposite: the look that's adopted is a look that's erotically charged. "The interchange of dress begets lust and leads to immorality." It blurs modesty's distinction between the masculine and feminine by offering up the cross-dresser — literally, the transvestite — as a new erotic ideal: a woman with the sexual availability and openness of a man, or a man with the feminine allure of a woman. It promotes — at least it partakes — of the extreme gender-confusion of homosexuality.

The licentious age early. — Talmud

Naturally, fashions change, and every society has its own styles. Adornments like long hair, earrings, kilts or pants or neckties don't belong intrinsically to any one sex. But when the members of a community associate any such adornment with one particular sex, those who choose to wear the fashions of the other sex cross an important moral line.

God makes cross-dressing a crime, though not a capital crime, for Israel. Other peoples may approach the problem differently. Because it isn't one of the minimal prohibitions of the Univeral Law, they have no obligation to make such a prohibition part of their law. Yet they should be aware that, in the Lord's words, "whoever" commits this act, of cross-dressing, or transvestism, "is revolting to God." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 168-169)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  


Saturday, July 30, 2022

Jews are commanded to convince non-Jews to follow Noahide Law

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Noahide apologists always try to deflect from Noahide Law by saying Jews are not obligated to "force" non-Jews to follow Noahide Law. No, however, Jews are obligated to convince non-Jews to "force" the Noahide Laws upon themselves and others. This is indirect tyranny. 


https://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/united-states-of-moral-decline/2022/07/03/

United STATE(s) of MORAL DECLINE

 

Under Noahide, polyandry is illegal, but not polygyny, and men need not be married to their partners: Book Review, The Rainbow Covenant


Noahide Law is obviously sexist in that it allows men to have more than one wife and even sex partners he is not married to while a woman is never allowed to have more than one husband. 

"Beyond this the marriage laws of different nations may differ in their details. But the God of the Universe universally forbids polyandry — the combination of a woman with more than one man.

This prohibition reflects our species' nature. A man needs his mate to be exclusive to him; most women, apparently, can at least function if their mates are only devoted to them. Local cultural expectations aside, it follows that polygamy — meaning in this case polygyny, the combination of a man with more than one (eligible) woman, in or out of a marriage relationship — is not universally forbidden." (Dallen, 2003, pp. 167-168)

SOURCE: Dallen, Michael E. (2003). The Rainbow Covenant. Light Catcher Books & The Rainbow Covenant Foundation.  

Friday, July 29, 2022

Disgusting! Under Noahide Law, only non-Jews are punished for abortion, not Jews


Since Roe v Wade was overturned, Jews have been using this as a way to talk about the Noahide Laws (here & here). Here we learn that according to Jewish law, only a non-Jew is put to death for an abortion, Abortion is technically illegal for a Jew, but there is no punishment. Rabbi Schneerson says this is because the fetus of a non-Jew belongs to Jews, but the adult Jew is more important than a Jewish fetus (here)


https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/abortion-in-the-mishnah/

Abortion in the Mishnah

Miri Weismman 

JUN 28, 2022, 


Following the US Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe vs. Wade, I found it hard to cope and feel very empathetic towards American women who will no doubt suffer as a result of this new reality. As an orthodox Jew, I found it crucial to restudy the Torah’s outlook on abortion. 

From what I’ve read, there are only three sources that deal with abortion in the Mishnah. Here, I will attempt to study each one and reveal modern insights.

The first is found in Mishnah Bava Kamma 5:4

שׁוֹר שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, פָּטוּר מִדְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. וְאָדָם שֶׁהָיָה מִתְכַּוֵּן לַחֲבֵרוֹ וְהִכָּה אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ, מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת. כֵּיצַד מְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי וְלָדוֹת, שָׁמִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה כַּמָּה הִיא יָפָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָלְדָה וְכַמָּה הִיא יָפָה מִשֶּׁיָּלָדָה. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם כֵּן, מִשֶּׁהָאִשָּׁה יוֹלֶדֶת, מַשְׁבַּחַת. אֶלָּא שָׁמִין אֶת הַוְּלָדוֹת כַּמָּה הֵן יָפִין, וְנוֹתֵן לַבַּעַל. וְאִם אֵין לָהּ בַּעַל, נוֹתֵן לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. הָיְתָה שִׁפְחָה וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, אוֹ גִיּוֹרֶת, פָּטוּר 

Translation from Neusner: “An ox which was intending to gore its fellow, but hit a woman, and her offspring came forth as a miscarriage– the owner of the ox is exempt from paying compensation for the offspring. And a man who was intending to hit his fellow man but hit a woman, and her offspring came forth, pays compensation for the offspring. How does one assess compensation for the offspring? They make an estimate of the woman’s value before she gave birth, and how much she is worth now. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel, ‘if so, once a woman gives birth, she should gain in value!’ ‘But: They make an estimate of the offspring’s value.’ And one pays the husband. But if she does not have a husband, the owner of the ox pays the husband’s heirs. If she was a slave girl who was freed, or a convert, the man is exempt from paying compensation.”

How is the miscarriage compensated for? 

The woman is assessed — how much she is worth on the slave market before giving birth and how much after giving birth and she will get paid the difference. However, R. Shimon b. Gamliel says that she is actually worth more after giving birth because her life is no longer at risk. Therefore, she is not compensated. Rather, she is compensated for what could have been, the value of the child, but the husband gets the money. The payment for the damages to the woman herself is a payment to the woman and the payment for the loss of the offspring is a payment to her husband. (This could be because the man is responsible for the family so a loss in the family directly affects his role in providing. It could also be because the offspring carries on the legacy of the father and his family name, not the mother, so the heir is more valuable to the father than to the mother.)

Why can a miscarriage be paid off but a murder cannot?

According to the Torah, usually a person who accidentally kills another person cannot pay in order to atone for his crime, rather he is exiled to a refuge city. However, in the case described in this verse the person did not kill an independent human being but rather he caused a miscarriage. Therefore, the Torah allows him to make financial compensation for the loss of the fetus/baby. 

This source raises questions of what is considered a life, if you can compensate a miscarriage with money. One could potentially argue from this verse that according to the Torah, a fetus is not equal to a born human being. However, an exemption from murder charges for one who accidentally causes a miscarriage is not necessarily an approval for abortion.

Let’s explore another source. This is the most famous source on abortion and it is found in Mishnah Ohalot 7:6:

הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִיא מַקְשָׁה לֵילֵד, מְחַתְּכִין אֶת הַוָּלָד בְּמֵעֶיהָ וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתוֹ אֵבָרִים אֵבָרִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁחַיֶּיהָ קוֹדְמִין לְחַיָּיו. יָצָא רֻבּוֹ, אֵין נוֹגְעִין בּוֹ, שֶׁאֵין דּוֹחִין נֶפֶשׁ מִפְּנֵי נָפֶשׁ:

Translation from Neusner: “The woman who is in hard labor– they chop up the child in her womb and they remove it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over his life. If its greater part has gone forth, they do not touch him, for they do not set aside one life on account of another life.”

When can the baby be aborted to save the mother? 

While still in the womb, the mother’s life takes precedence over the fetus’s. Therefore, the doctors may abort the fetus in order to save the mother. Rashi on Sanhedrin 72b:14 “as the entire time that it has not gone out into the air of the world, it is not [considered] a soul, and [so] it is possible to kill it and to save its mother. (Translation from Artscroll) Indeed, one might even go so far as to not call it a life, because it is still in the womb. Maimonides explains that the fetus is considered a life, but it is also considered a “rodef” (a killer chasing a person) and therefore, one must still kill it. 

When can the baby not be aborted to save the mother?

Once most of the child has emerged, it is forbidden to do anything to harm the child because it is forbidden to take one life in order to save another. The child is considered to be a “life” once most of it has emerged from the womb. Rashi on Sanhedrin 72b:14 “But when its head comes out, we cannot touch it to kill it, as it is like a born [baby]; and we do not push off one soul for the sake of another.” (Translation from Artscroll)

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 72b:14 answers: “With regard to the woman giving birth, since she is being pursued by Heaven. Since the fetus is not acting of his own volition and endangering his mother of his own will, his life may not be taken in order to save his mother.” In this scenario, where the baby is half out, both mother and baby are each other’s Rodef and have equal claim to live. (One can now follow up and ask on rambam, why only when it’s partially out is the baby considered an atypical rodef and therefore can’t be killed, while when it’s still inside it is considered a real rodef and can be killed? There is no recorded answer.)

This is only outright source that allows abortion. It raises questions of when a fetus is considered a life if one can abort a fully formed baby because at that moment it is still in the womb. Allowing an abortion up until the last moments before birth is radically liberal compared to contemporary opinions that decide based on the stages of pregnancy and fetus formation. 

Let’s look at the last source, found in Gemara Sanhedrin 57b, which quotes from earlier times: Rabbi Ishmael, who was a Taana in the time of the Mishnah, is quoted in the book of Aggadah from the Academy of Rav.

אשכח ר’ יעקב בר אחא דהוה כתיב בספר אגדתא דבי רב בן נח נהרג בדיין א’ ובעד אחד שלא בהתראה מפי איש ולא מפי אשה ואפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין

Translation from Artscroll: “Rav Yaakov bar Acha found that in the book of Aggadah in the academy of Rav was written: A Noahide is executed by one judge on the basis of one witness without warning. From the mouth of a man, but not from the mouth of a woman: and even a relative. In the name of R’ Yishmael they said: ‘Even for fetuses.’”

What is the source in question? 

שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם׃ (Bereshit 9:6) “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed for in the image of God, was humankind made.” The simple meaning is “Whoever sheds a man’s blood, through another man’s testimony, his (the murderer’s) blood shall be shed.” A kills B, C testifies against A to get A killed. Through C’s testimony, A is killed. Rabbi Yishmael understands the verse as, “whoever sheds the blood of a man in a man, his blood shall be shed.” A human in a human is a fetus. Meaning, abortion is punishable by death for a Noahide. 

Does the term ‘Noahides’ come to teach that this only applies to non-Jews? 

According to Sanhedrin 59aליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור “There is nothing that for a Jew is permissible and for a non-Jew is prohibited.” When Hashem commanded Noah, He meant to include Jews as well. Tosofot derives from here that there must be a prohibition for Jews against abortion, one that is akin to murder. Just because a Jew does not get the death penalty does not mean that the abortion is permissible for Jews. 

In the times of the Mishnah, Romans killed fetuses of unwanted pregnancies, so Rabbi Yishmael understands the pasuk this way to tell the non-Jews of his time that abortion is a major sin and is punishable by death (Weiss in Dor Dor V’Dor Shav.) It is not explicitly written that this also applies to Jews, and that could be because Jews at that time did not find themselves in situations of unwanted pregnancies because there was less adultery and rape in Jewish communities. 

This source teaches that killing a fetus is considered murder and therefore punishable by death for non-Jews. Through the commentaries we understand it is also forbidden to Jews, however, a Jew would not receive capital punishment. 

Conclusion about abortion in the Mishnah:

It was common for Roman women to abort unwanted pregnancies, which shows that Romans viewed fetuses as property that can be aborted. Conversely, Rabbis of the Mishnah believed it is a life or, at least, a potential for life and the removal of it will come at a cost, either monetary loss or punishment. They believed that the fetus could only be aborted if the mother was in danger, and even then, the Rabbis believed that a fetus holds unalienable rights equal to a human being if the fetus is already halfway out. Jewish women terminating unwanted pregnancies doesn’t seem to have been a common occurrence because it is not discussed in the sources. If a Jewess were to find herself in this situation at that time, one can guess that it would also be prohibited, because the Torah values life, in and of itself, and forbids murder, derived from the verse, “You shall not murder” (Shemot 20:13). However, we don’t know if it would be punishable by death like it is for non-Jews.

The first two sources raise many interesting questions of what is considered a life and when is it considered a life, which can lead us to many possible conclusions and opinions on unwanted pregnancies and modern-day abortions. They also seem to reflect what would now be deemed as ‘very liberal views,’ in terms of how late a fetus is still not considered a life. The second source seems to suggest that it is not considered a life until the majority of it has emerged. The last source, however, is less gray and seems to tell modern society that abortion is not allowed at all. We do not know the Torah’s stance on abortion after rape or abortion due to unfit mothers, as it is never mentioned. 

Today, there are a myriad of opinions. Rav Moshe Feinstein holds that abortion is murder, plain and simple. He argues that abortion is only moral where the life of the mother is directly at stake, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Rav Jonathon Sacks holds that abortion is not murder, rather it is taking away the potential of a life. Rav Ya’akov Kamenetsky calls abortion a form of murder after 40 days from inception. The Rabbanut Authority in Israel, grants abortion on a case by case ruling. Unmarried women or women under the age of 18 almost always have access to abortion in Israel. (Obviously, in life threatening  situations, abortion is always legal.) There are many more opinions across the spectrum of Judaism and vary based on the specific scenarios in question. The main takeaway is that it is not a simple answer. I believe Israel is correct in dealing with abortion case-by-case. This way, the right to abortion is not abused, and those that need an abortion are protected by that right. 

Inspirational Quote

“By now, abortion should be obsolete. And I – and probably a lot of other feminists – wish it were obsolete, because abortion, in itself, is not a value – it is simply the right to chose, which is an essential value.”  — Betty Freidan

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Hello! My name is Miri Weissman. I'm originally from New Jersey and I made Aliyah in 2020. For my national service, I worked as a tour guide at Mount Herzl and a social media manager for The Herzl Center. I'm currently studying Political Science and Communications in Bar Ilan University with the hopes of becoming a journalist. I'm extremely passionate about Zionism and Judaism, and I plan to use this platform to convey that on a range of topics. You can expect to see posts about Israeli and Jewish history, Judaic texts and insights, and my personal experiences as a new olah. Each post will conclude with a meaningful quote :)