Thursday, February 17, 2022

Only early Genesis applies to Noahides and it is not historical

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

This article is the continuation of why there is no Noahide Law to honor your parents (here) and why there is no sabbath for non-Jews (here). In this final article, Jeff Jaffe of MIT elaborates further on what we discussed in the article on the sabbath, the first eleven books of Genesis are meant for the Noahides, the rest applies to the Jews only. He says almost all the Noahide Laws can be derived from this section of the Torah. However, the status of gentiles seems to always be downplayed as according to Jaffe, the first eleven chapters of Genesis for the gentiles is less historically accurate than the rest of the Torah for Jews.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/why-is-genesis-the-torah-of-all-nations/

Why Is Genesis the Torah of All Nations?

Jeff Jaffe

SEP 4, 2021, 12:41 AM

When we discussed respect for parents , we derived a Noahide imperative of respect from the story of Noah and his sons. When we discussed the Sabbath, we derived a Noahide imperative to respect sanctity from the mention of the sanctity of the Sabbath in Genesis, chapter 2. Why do we keep referring back to the early part of Genesis? The reason is that the first eleven chapters of Genesis may fairly be called the Torah of All Nations, as we proceed to explain.

Jewish tradition does not take the opening chapters of the Torah literally. The most noted commentator on the Torah, Rashi, opens his commentary on Genesis 1:1 by quoting the scholar Rabbi Yitzchak. The opening text of the Torah demonstrates God’s dominion over the world and shows God’s prerogative to choose one nation and deed to it the Holy Land of Israel.

But if we take that one step further, one might conclude that we don’t need all of Genesis to make that point. That leaves us with the question of understanding the purpose of each segment at a finer level – for each vignette, for each chapter, for each word in the opening section of the Torah, what does the Torah want to communicate to us about God’s values and His universe?

There are several differences between the first eleven chapters of Genesis and the rest of the Torah:

• The former has little to do with the Jewish people.
• Rashi implies in his second commentary on Genesis that the first chapter is not a sequential historical narrative. He doesn’t say when the Torah turns to being historical, but based on a modern understanding of world history, it seems plausible that the first eleven chapters are less historically precise than the rest of the Torah. By contrast, there is every reason to believe the historical narrative beginning with Abraham is precise. There is historical evidence of a monotheistic religion in Israel, slavery in Egypt, and the Jewish ascension in Israel.
• There is a surprising demarcation that separates the first eleven chapters of Genesis from the rest of the Torah. Rashi had a text for the Torah in which chapter 11 of Genesis ends with a backwards Hebrew letter nun. In the book of Numbers, verses 10:35–36 are set off from the rest of Numbers with the same backwards nun. The Talmud explains that the purpose of these backwards nuns is to treat the two verses as a separate book of the Torah. That supports the idea of a unique purpose for the first eleven chapters.

So, what is the purpose of these eleven chapters in their totality, considered as an ensemble? Do they form a cohesive whole? Can we describe a purpose for the entire set?

The opening chapters of Genesis represent the Torah of the nations. What does that mean? Let’s explain by making an analogy between the entire Torah and these eleven chapters. The entire Torah is a book of mitzvot. The style of delivering these mitzvot is to embed them in a narrative that provides homiletic messages, that explains God’s relationship to the Jews, that expresses through storytelling what God accepts as proper behavior from Jews and what is not proper.

According to Jewish tradition, God has expectations not only of the Jews, but of all of mankind. Judaism refers to these as the seven Noahide laws. It is only logical that just as God has recorded in the Torah what He expects from Jews (laws, relationships, proper behavior), He would record somewhere what His expectations are for all of mankind. To state it more strongly, it must be the case that God conveys this somewhere in the Torah. After all, He has these expectations, and the Torah is His vehicle to communicate. How can He not set this out somewhere?

The universal precepts can be found in these eleven chapters, from which our Sages derive the seven Noahide laws. They are the prohibitions against idolatry, cursing God, murder, theft, adultery, eating from a live animal, and the requirement to set up a court system.
Further, the Torah surrounds these laws with homiletic stories that convey God’s relationship with mankind and what general expectations of behavior He has of all of mankind. In other words, these eleven chapters are playing the exact role for the nations that the rest of the Torah plays for the Jewish people. Here are some examples.

1. The prohibition on idolatry. There are no explicit commandments forbidding idolatry in these chapters, but the entire subtext of these chapters is God’s greatness and uniqueness. God alone creates the world, interacts with Adam and Eve, ejects them from Paradise, scolds Cain, brings a deluge, and disperses the people of Babylon. There is ample narrative to point out the foolishness of idolatry.
2. The prohibition on cursing God. This prohibition is associated with God’s greatness and uniqueness.
3. The prohibition on murder. The prohibition on murder is reinforced with more than one vignette. Cain kills Abel and is cursed by God. Cain’s concluding statement is the confessional “My sin is too great to bear.” Soon after, when Lemech accidentally kills, he expresses his regrets. After the deluge, God provides an explicit rule that one is not allowed to murder other humans.
4. The prohibition on adultery. The importance of proper relationships in a positive fashion is expressed by the blessing to be fruitful and to multiply. Rashi points out that the statement that man leaves his home to unite with his wife is an allusion to the prohibition on adultery.
5. The prohibition on theft. Most commentaries associate theft with the word chamas in 6:11, one of the key crimes that led to the deluge.
6. The prohibition on eating from a live animal. This is expressly forbidden adjacent to the permission for mankind to eat from dead animals.
7. The mandate to establish courts. While there do not appear to be explicit references to courts, there are several vignettes in these chapters – most notably the deluge and Tower of Babel – which describe the breakdown of society without a court system. Disaster befalls a society without courts.

At a macro level, we have a very clear explanation for the purpose of this unit of eleven chapters. It is filling God’s need to communicate to all mankind what they must do. And it is communicated in the standard style used throughout the Torah: derived from text and surrounded by vignettes.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jeff Jaffe is the author of "Genesis: A Torah for all Nations", published by Gefen Publishing House. He is also Chief Executive Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) at MIT. Previously he served as IBM's Corporate VP of Technology, President of Research and Advanced Technologies at Bell Labs, and EVP/CTO of Novell. Dr. Jaffe holds a doctorate in computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The posts are his opinions only and are not the opinions of W3C or MIT.

Wednesday, February 16, 2022

Actor John Voight is almost a Noahide

SEE TABLE ON CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

According to JewishIsrael . com, actor John Voight is no longer a Christian and has been studying the Noahide Laws for years. Coincidentally, John Voight starred in a movie called "Rainbow Warrior".

https://jewishisrael.com/profiles/blogs/jon-voight-a-righteous-gentile

Jon Voight: A Righteous Gentile

Jewish Israel welcomes righteous gentile Jon Voight to Israel.

What makes Mr. Voight exceptional is his very respectful approach towards Israel and the Jewish people.

Although he may be religiously inspired, Jewish Israel has observed that Voight takes a heartfelt, moral stand with the Jewish state. For those who may be unaware, Jon Voight does not identify himself as a Christian and he has been studying the Noahide laws and learning with rabbis for many years now.

We feel that both Jews and Gentiles currently pursuing Israel-Christian and other interfaith ventures could learn a lot from Mr. Voight's presentation, sincerity, and respect for the lines between faiths.

Anita Tucker, who serves on the board of Jewish Israel as Community Affairs Advisor, is a pioneer and leader of the Gush Katif settlement and agricultural enterprise. She met Jon Voight at a reception this week and had this to say:

"When I approached Voight to speak to him he immediately knew about Gush Katif and expressed sincere pain at the suffering of the people of Gush Katif . He used no theological references in our conversation. He expressed only caring about the jewish people and Israel. He seemed humble, sincere and very approachable to all those who also care about Israel."

Jon Voight's ability to refine and articulate his love for Israel in a thoughtful manner is something Jews across the religious spectrum, in both Israel and the Diaspora, can accept and appreciate.

Here is why the sabbath does not apply to non-Jews under Noahide Law

SEE TABLE ON CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

The Noahide Laws are a two-tier system, one law for Jews who have more rights and privileges, and one law for non-Jews. Similarly, there is a division in scripture among Noahides and Jews. According to Jewish scholars, if a non-Jews reads anything other than the Noahide Laws in the Talmud they are to be put to death (here), this is because the Jews don't want non-Jews knowing their "reasons and secrets" (here). According to Jews, the only part of the bible that applies to Noahides is Genesis up until the story of Noah, all the rest belongs to the Jews. Since the ten commandments only came after Noah, the ten commandments only apply to Jews. So Jews inserted the Seven Noahide Laws into the Noah story to make a subservient religion for gentiles, this came from rabbinical commentary and the Talmud. As with the Seven Noahide Laws, rabbinical commentary also explains further why some Christians are wrong in thinking they need to observe the Sabbath because it was sanctified as holy in Genesis, before Noah. According to Jewish reasoning, the seventh day was only made a sabbath when the Jewish god set one day aside when mana would not fall from the sky to feed the Israelites in the desert. And so non-Jews are not to follow the Sabbath, and those non-Jews who do adhere to the Sabbath are to be put to death (here).

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-noahide-laws-and-the-sabbath/

The Noahide laws and the Sabbath

Jeff Jaffe

AUG 8, 2021, 10:36 PM

We have been discussing why the seven Noahide laws do not include all of the themes of the Ten Commandments. After all, if these are the most significant commandments, shouldn’t all people be so obligated?

This is especially puzzling because the second chapter of Genesis talks about God “sanctifying” the seventh day. This happens prior to the existence of the Jewish people. Why is the Sabbath not a universal law? And if it is not a universal law, why is it discussed in Genesis?

To appreciate why this is not a Noahide universal law, it is important to see how the Sages interpreted the appearance of the seventh day in the Genesis narrative. It is not the place where God provides the commandments related to the Sabbath – that comes later in Exodus.

According to traditional Jewish commentaries, the “sanctification” of the seventh day did not occur at creation. The commentator Rashi does not see anything that indicates that God sanctified the Sabbath at the time of creation, on the seventh day. He addresses an unstated question: When did God sanctify the Sabbath? His amazing answer is that it happened when God stopped the manna from falling on the seventh day. Thus the mention of sanctification in Genesis refers to a future event. The sanctification actually took place in chapter 16 of Exodus!

If sanctification took place in Exodus, why do the two words “sanctified it” appear in Genesis? The creation story is about the incredible power of God. God is the Creator. From nothing He fashions the universe. This chapter is the picture of His awesome strength. It is about His power and authority not religious notions of sanctity.

The word va’yekadesh (He sanctified) is also not a common word in Genesis. In Exodus 19:6, the Jewish people are referred to as mamlechet kohanim v’goy kadosh (a kingdom of priests and a holy [i.e., sanctified] nation). In Leviticus, we are taught about the holiness of priests, sacrifices, etc. But throughout Genesis, sanctity is not a common theme.

There is also a textual indication that the seventh day is not sanctified during the creation week. In our vernacular and in the rest of the Torah, the seventh day of the week is not called “Day 7”; its name is “Sabbath.” But in Genesis chapter 2 it is not referred to by this name. It is not yet the Sabbath. It is not yet the holy day. Genesis calls this day “the seventh day.” It is a secular term.

We see that at creation, God did not establish a Noahide law of “Sabbath”. That leaves us with two questions. Why isn’t the Sabbath – one of the Ten Commandments – included in the Noahide laws? And, if sanctity does not occur in Genesis, why is it there?

For the first question, let’s recall that the Jewish concept of the Sabbath is not a simple matter of taking a day off from work. God sanctified the day as part of building His relationship with the Jewish people – a double portion of manna on Friday and a day of rest on the Sabbath. In exchange, the mitzvah of Sabbath observance involves very tight restrictions on behavior. The Jewish concept of the sanctity of Sabbath includes refraining from all sorts of creative activities – from planting one’s field, to writing, tying knots, or lighting a fire. It is a day dedicated to study and prayer.

That is the reason that the Sabbath day is not included in the Noahide laws. These rigorous restrictions are confined to the Jewish mitzvot.

For the second question about why sanctity is mentioned, let’s deepen that question. Every Torah-observant Jew ushers in the Sabbath with the recitation of the passage at the beginning of chapter 2 of Genesis. The recitation is called Kiddush (the sanctification ceremony), because of those same two words (“VaYekadesh Oto” or “sanctified it”) that don’t seem to belong in Genesis! The term, Kiddush, is so commonplace that no one feels these two words are out of place. Because we recite them outside of the Genesis narrative – as three standalone verses – we have the intuition that their purpose is sanctification. But when we transport these verses back to their source in Genesis, it is clear that sanctification does not belong.

I would suggest a reason for these two words that aligns with the purpose of the first eleven chapters of Genesis. We know that God included the message about sanctity in chapter 2 of Genesis. We know that there is little discussion in Genesis in general about sanctity. There is no mitzvah – not for Jews and not for non-Jews – about sanctity that is derived from these verses. This section of the Torah does not express mitzvot for Jews. It is God providing His worldview to all of mankind.

Putting that together, the explanation that follows is that God wanted all nations of the world to understand the concept of sanctity. It is important that everyone appreciate that some things are sacred and some are profane; added respect must be given to that which is sacred. That’s why it is included here.

What is the practical application? What is expected from non-Jews? There is no formal Noahide law to keep the Sabbath sacred by refraining from a long list of activities. What are non-Jews supposed to do with the information that God has imparted sanctity into the world? After all, isn’t it strange that the concept of sanctity is introduced about the Sabbath – a day whose strict observance is reserved for the Jews?

But as we have argued in earlier blog posts, God’s expectations exceed the limited bounds of the seven laws. The seven Noahide laws are a stripped-down set of laws. God expects humans to be good – even if not explicitly commanded as one of the Noahide laws. Thus the reference to sanctity is simply that people should be aware that there are things that are sacred. There is an imperative that the sacred be treated with respect. There is no specific formalism how to do that – hence it is not a mitzvah; rather the Torah is setting out expectations of proper behavior.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tuesday, February 15, 2022

Here is why the Noahide Laws don't include "honor your parents"

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

This post is a double edge sword. Every once in a while I come across an article that is hard to publish because it brings credence to the Noahide Laws in some way. Many people became very angry when I exposed that Isaac Newton supported the Noahide Laws (here, here, here, here, here). One Christian argument against the Noahide Laws is that, unlike the ten commandments, Noahide Law does not include a commandment to "honor your parents". Unfortunately, Jews and Noahides have an answer for this. You see, the first part of genesis up until the story of Noah is seen as like a mini-bible for Noahides. According to Jeff Jaffe of MIT, the story of Noah being humiliated by his son Ham who saw him drunk and naked and then Noah cursed him; this is supposed to be an allegory for being respectful to your parents. The hard part is that some Christians will be intrigued by this additional rule. Publishing this runs the risk of turning a Christian into a Noahide, but Christians and others should also be aware of the tactics that are being used against everyone.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-ten-commandments-and-the-noahide-laws/?fbclid=IwAR2QA-iNlFT45wuWGpBOMGE-rVvjCyqCjqreFqh-SlmXt9o-voiIlCM4-X0

The Ten Commandments and the Noahide Laws

Jeff Jaffe

July, 21, 2021

Christians revere the Jewish Bible and refer to it as the Old Testament. Primary reverence is provided to the Ten Commandments – God’s direct revelation to the Jews at Mount Sinai in the book of Exodus. The reverence is so great that many state houses in the US are adorned with the Ten Commandments.

Given the primacy attributed to the Ten Commandments, it might be viewed as an oddity that the Jewish formulation of the seven Noahide laws (discussed in Genesis: A Torah for All Nations) omits some of the Ten Commandments. Aren’t these the most important commandments?

Most of the Ten Commandments are included in some way in the Noahide formulation. Several are direct matches to the Noahide laws – the prohibitions on idolatry, illicit relationships, murder, and theft, for example. Others are not direct matches but are related (the prohibitions on using God’s name in vain, bearing false witness, and coveting).

But there are two that are worthy of further discussion. Here we discuss the fifth commandment – honoring one’s parents. Why is that not included in the Noahide laws? The fourth commandment – to keep the Sabbath day holy – will be discussed in the next post. That topic deserves its own attention since the source for the sanctity of the Sabbath is the creation story.

The omission of honoring one’s parents is hard to understand. Of course people should honor their parents! It is the most natural and intuitive thing. A parent brings a child into the world, nurtures the child, and ultimately brings the child to a level of independence. How can there not be a law to honor one’s parents?

In the inaugural blog post in this series, we already explained why there is no Noahide law per se to honor one’s parents. It is for technical reasons. The seven Noahide mitzvot are prohibitions, whereas the 613 Jewish mitzvot include both prohibitions and positive actions. It’s the same word – mitzvah – but it is used differently in the two different contexts.

But if we can understand that honoring parents is not included as a technicality, we should still understand: Doesn’t God expect that all of humanity respect their parents?

One of the themes of Genesis: A Torah for All Nations is that the messages for humanity found in Genesis are not limited to the seven Noahide laws. The entire first eleven chapters of Genesis provide a rich tapestry of guidance. We use the word “imperative” to refer to a behavior that God expects, without making it into a formal law – Genesis provide vignettes to model proper behavior.

The fact that a particular behavior is not canonized as a Noahide law does not mean that the behavior is not expected by God. It also does not mean that God does not communicate His expectations. Quite the contrary.

In the case of the fifth commandment, this imperative is so central that it would have been impossible to write the first eleven chapters of Genesis without a vignette that makes clear and evident that all people must honor their parents. This is provided in Genesis chapter 9. It’s a short story. Noah gets drunk. His youngest son Cham sees him naked and physically attacks him in some way. Noah’s older two sons – Shem and Yefet – cover their naked father, carefully preserving his dignity by not looking at him in his naked and mutilated form. Noah curses Cham and/or his son Canaan and blesses his other two sons.

What is the simple message? Cham did not respect his father and was cursed. The other two brothers respected their father and were blessed. A very simple story. The generalization is extremely clear. People must respect their parents. This is not a formal Noahide law, so the Torah does not communicate it in the form of a direct statement, such as the fifth commandment. The Torah uses its narrative style to communicate the imperative.
Interestingly, the Talmud attempts to find the world’s best role model for the behavior of honoring one’s parent. It settles on Dama the son of Netinah, who happens not to be Jewish. The Talmud relates that Dama refused to disturb his father’s sleep despite a potentially profitable business deal. The Talmud relates that for this action, God gave a great reward to Dama. Evidently, honoring his parent was an important behavior – even if it was not a formal Noahide law.

The first eleven chapters of Genesis have many such messages for humanity. The stories appear to be a narrative about the ancient history of the world and its first citizens. But for thousands of years, the Jewish Sages interpreted the stories as homiletic metaphors for proper behavior. The story of Noah and his sons is a great example. Was it really important to record in the Torah that Noah once got drunk and was mistreated by his son? Probably not fundamental enough to include the Torah. But as a story-telling technique to communicate the imperative to respect one’s parents, the story is priceless.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Monday, November 22, 2021

Here is how Noahides subvert religions

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

Noahides are those non-Jews who have accepted the Noahide Laws upon themselves, these are the people, that when the time arrives, will be doing the decapitations. On their own site WikiNoah, they detail their plan as to how they subvert religions. They take your religion, remove all non-Noahide compliant elements, but leave behind many of their nostalgic elements. Then they get community leaders of that religion to endorse their teachings.

It is an attempt to review each of the largest faiths held by the Seventy nations. Following a description and brief summary of the religion, an attempt is made to identify which parts of that faith are incompatible with the Seven Laws of Noach. There are two goals in this effort: First, for believers who are currently belong to these faiths to become aware of what the Noachide Laws require of all humanity. Second, to try to isolate, identify and retain the national character of the faith so that a Noachide is left with a deep and fulfilling expression of his faith.
For each of the largest faiths, we include:

Description of the faith.
Documentation of which practices are not allowed according to the Jewish law
Relationship to the Jewish Scriptures
Relationship to authentic Jewish interpretation of Scripture
Religious Council / Creed, as the defining interpretation of the faith
Quote and teachings from leaders of this faith which confirm the above

This approach assumes that there is some relationship between religion, national faith, and Noachide nation. This needs to be explained further.

SOURCE: Noahide Hindu. WikiNoah. Retrieved 11/22/2021 from: http://www.wikinoah.org/en/index.php/Noahide_Hindu

Sunday, October 17, 2021

Noahide Law allows non-Jews, but not Jews, to clone

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

In this article we learn that non-Jews, but not Jews, are allowed to clone under Noahide Law.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40914656

Cloning and the Noahide Legal Code

MICHAEL J. BROYDE

The Torah U-Madda Journal

Vol. 9 (2000), pp. 207-210 (4 pages)

Published By: Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, an affiliate of Yeshiva University

The Noahide code was intended to be a practical legal code, and to form a system that satisfied the social, legal and religious needs of peoples outside the framework of Judaism.1 Jewish law is not the ideal legal code for all—only for Jews. This point is frequently overlooked in discussions of bioethics and Jewish law. Some Jewish legal doctrines concerning bioethics—as well as other areas of Halakhah—might be relevant only to Jews. Consider, for example, the remarks of Rabbi Judah Loewe of Prague (Maharal) concerning the halakhic prohibition of crossbreeding in animals. He states:

The creativity of people is greater than nature. When God created in the six days of creation the laws of nature, the simple and complex, and finished creating the world, there remained additional power to create anew, just as people can create new animal species through inter-species breeding. . . . People bring to fruition things that are not found in nature; nonetheless, since these are activities that occur through nature, it is as if it entered the world to be created. . . . There are those who are aghast at the interbreeding of two species. Certainly, this is contrary to Jewish law which God gave the Jews, which prohibits inter-species mixing. Nonetheless, Adam (the First Person) did this. Indeed, the world was created with many species that are prohibited to be eaten. Inter-species breeding was not prohibited because of prohibited sexuality or immorality. . . . Rather it is because Jews should not combine the various species together, as this is the way of Jewish law. As we already noted, the ways of the Jewish law, and the [permissive] ways of the world are distinct. . . . Just as the donkey has within it to be created . . . but was left to people to create it [and was not created by God]. Even those forms of creativity which Jewish law prohibits for Jews, are not by definition bad. Some are simply prohibited to Jews.2

What flows most clearly from this passage is that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with crossbreeding, even though it violates Jewish law; indeed, Rabbi Loewe nearly states that such conduct by Gentiles is good. It was prohibited by Jewish law because it was not part of the Divine mission for the Jewish people. Jewish law is not a general ethical category governing the conduct of all. Its scope and application is limited to Jews, not merely jurisdictionally, but even theologically. This point of view would seem apparent from the general attitude that the Jewish tradition takes to a number of issues pertaining to proselytizing

The same may be said to be true of cloning: even if one were to flesh out a valid Jewish law doctrine that prohibited cloning, such a doctrine would not affect the propriety of 99.999% of the world from engaging in cloning, as such a doctrine would not have, for sure, any foundation in the Noahide code; and, as Rabbi Loewe notes, many things prohibited through Jewish law to Jews are perfectly acceptable to Gentiles.

I do not feel, however, that Jewish law itself prohibits cloning to Jews. I have addressed the general issues related to cloning at some length in three different articles.3 I suggest that three separate and distinct areas of analysis are needed to understand cloning: (1) Is cloning an intrinsically good, bad or neutral activity? (2) Is the clone human, and who are his or her relatives? (3) Will cloning lead down the slippery slope towards other ethical violations, and if so, what are they? I shall propose some tentative responses to these issues.

The first issue—is cloning an intrinsically good, bad or neutral activity?—would seem to be part of the general debate about assisted reproductive technology. There are a host of such activities that manipulate the normal reproductive process. They vary from simple artificial insemination of the husband’s sperm (which was done 2,000 years ago) to surrogate motherhood and its close cousins zygote intrafallopian transfer (ZIFT) and gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT). While some religious and ethical traditions, most notably Roman Catholicism, view all tampering with nature in the reproductive area as wrong, that is by no means true of most religious or ethical traditions, and is not true of Judaism in particular. Many traditions view all assisted reproductive technologies, when modestly performed in cases of infertility, as a proper way for people to seek to “be fruitful and multiply,” and to enjoy parenthood, all of which are good acts. Indeed, one is hard-pressed to find a religiously neutral reason why cloning would be intrinsically bad in cases where other means of treating infertility would not work. Indeed, consider what is most likely to be the first use of this new technology, the donation of an oocyte to a woman who has a mitochondrial disease, where her embryo is transplanted into a disease-free oocyte, thus eliminating the mitochondrial disease from the fetus. Why should that be opposed?

The second issue—is the clone “human” and who are his or her relatives—is the one that attracts the most interest, but in fact has the least substance to it. Clones would be born from an ovum/egg that was stimulated to divide after its DNA was removed and replaced with another’s DNA. This egg would then be implanted into a woman’s womb and be carried to term like any child. This child would have a birth mother, and would bear no resemblance to the artificial people some are writing about, who we are afraid would be used for spare parts or slave labor. Clones would be human—born from a human mother—and entitled to the same rights as humans to which we all are. Of course, we must all resist the temptation to label some people as “less human” than others, since terrible immorality can issue from that posture. However, as this century has taught us, that danger is not unique to cloning. Just as the animal named Dolly was a sheep—a cloned sheep, but really just a sheep—so too cloned humans are humans too, and there is no basis for thinking they are not.

The question of who would be the clone’s mother/father/sister brother is a good one. One could view the gestational mother as the mother, and the gene donor—when he is a man and not a woman—as the father. One could view the gene donor as the mother, when she is a woman, and label the gestational mother as of no significance. Indeed, I suppose one could consider the gene donor a sibling, if one wanted to stretch a bit. All of these are possible, and at least within the Jewish law tradition that I am most familiar with, all except the last theory have their adherents. However, the fact one is not sure exactly what the family tree looks like is no reason to stop the process in its tracks. Surrogate motherhood also has its uncertainties about who is the mother, yet it serves a valuable role in allowing those unable to reproduce naturally to have children. Cloning will serve the same function and should not be prohibited because of this uncertainty.

Finally, some worry about the ethical slippery slope. Cloning, the argument goes, is not a problem, but it could lead to other problems. Notwithstanding the Luddite character of this type of reasoning, the unknown should cause all ethical people to stop, pause and examine what potential slopes our society—ethically and religiously fragmented as it is—might slip down. However, once we recognize that clones are full humans—not organ farms, not slave labor, not automatons—we also recognize that cloning is no more likely to lead down the ethical slippery slope than is any other assisted reproductive technology, which we generally permit to treat infertility. Does that mean full speed ahead? The answer is that with appropriate supervision, cloning can be proper and should not be banned.

Indeed, even the most common “nightmare” scenarios advanced by those hostile to cloning are really quite good. Consider the case of a person dying of leukemia and in need of a bone marrow transplant, with no donor available. The decision to clone the sick person, so that there will now be two people (one donor and one recipient of bone marrow) alive—each, to quote the biblical verse, in God’s image—seems to be ethically speaking vastly superior to the alternative that existed before cloning: that one will die and the other will never be born. Indeed, Jewish tradition might regard this procedure as involving two good deeds: having a child and saving a life.

In sum, cloning, like artificial insemination and surrogacy, has narcissistic possibilities. In reality, however, it will most frequently be used as a treatment for drastic infertility, and like all forms of assisted reproductive technologies has its place in one of the central missions of humanity: to make the world a better place for its inhabitants.

Notes

1. For more on this, see my “Public Policy and Religious Law: Assisting in a Deliberate Violation of Noahide Law that is Permitted by Secular Law,” Jewish Law Association Studies VIII: The Jerusalem 1994 Conference Volume (Atlanta, 1996), 11-20, and my “Jewish Law and the Obligation to Enforce Secular Law,” in Tikkun Olam: Social Responsibility in Jewish Thought and Law, ed. David Shatz, Chaim I. Waxman, and Nathan J. Diament (Northvale, NJ, 1997), 103-43.

2. Judah Loewe of Prague (Maharal), Be’er ha-Golah (Jerusalem 5731), 38-39.

3. “Cloning People: A Jewish View,” Connecticut Law Review 30 (1998): 503- 535; “Cloning People and Jewish Law: A Preliminary Analysis,” Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society No. 35 (1997): 27-65; and “The Cloning Controversy,” Emunah Magazine (Spring 1998): 15-17. Some of the material in this essay is drawn from those earlier studies.

Sunday, October 3, 2021

Freemason magazine publishes "Noachide laws largely fits within the moral teachings of Freemasonry"

SEE TABLE ON CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk

The following article about Noahidism in Freemasonry states that "this discussion of the Noachide laws largely fits within the moral teachings of Freemasonry".

https://aasr-indy.org/assets/documents/DoubleEagle-51-5.pdf?fbclid=IwAR11zuwHgZlDlej1Y8TliMJ82YbXFnL9yAz8k0ZgKLKtGvgO2gRX_tUpfx0

What's a 'Noachite'?

By William K. Bissey Editor, Indiana Freemason

The names of the degrees of the Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite (Northern Masonic Jurisdiction) of which the Valley of Indianapolis is a part, seem to some Brethren as quite different and to other Brethren, the names appear to be quite exotic.

The name of the 21st degree, Patriarch Noachite, was one that especially intrigued me. What is a Patriarch Noachite was what does he or it have to do with Freemasonry? It should be noted that Noachite has various spellings, among them: Noahide, Noahchite, Noachidae, and Noachida. So, how does this fit into Freemasonry?

T he earliest known reference is in a 1735 letter from the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of England to the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Calcutta. It is the fourth paragraph of the letter that is pertinent to this discussion. “Providence has fixed your Lodge near those learn’d Indians that affect to be called Noachidae…”

The earliest wide usage of Noachite, or in this case Noachida, is found in the first charge of the second or 1738 edition of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England written by the Rev. James Anderson.

“A Mason is obliged by his Tenure to observe the Moral Law, as a true Noachida...” The second paragraph has the following sentence, “…For they all agree in the 3 great Articles of Noah, enough to preserve the Cement of the Lodge.”

What did the Rev. Anderson mean by his use of Noachida in the revised First Charge?

The Encyclopaedia Judaica provides an answer. Noachide laws are “…the seven laws considered by rabbinic tradition as the minimal moral duties enjoined by the Bible on all men. The seven Noachide laws as traditionally enumerated are: prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins, theft, and eating from a living animal, as well as the injunction to establish a legal system.” The Noachide laws “…are derived from the divine commands addressed to Adam and Noah, the progenitors of all mankind, and are thus regarded as universal.”

This discussion of the Noachide laws largely fits within the moral teachings of Freemasonry. And it is probably why the Rev. Anderson saw fit to include the reference to them in the 1738 edition of the Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of England.

But, there are seven Noachide Laws and Anderson alludes to only three. Which three did he mean? The good Reverend did not elaborate, but several Masonic scholars have speculated what he meant. One theory is Anderson meant the Masonic triad of Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth. Perhaps the most likely explanation is that Rev. Anderson was referring to Genesis Chapter 6, verse 9. “These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.”