The Project pt 3: The Divine Code, Fundamentals of the Faith, cont’d

Now before I continue in The Divine Code, I’m gonna deal with a certain objection.

A good friend of mine, one of the few I have, is the closest thing I have to a “study buddy,” someone who loves God and the seven laws and holds a different view to me, someone ready to hold my feet to the fire. He astutely pointed out that when rabbi Weiner inferred his positive from a negative, saying Gentiles are commanded to know God, he did this based on the following.

The commandment to believe in one God and no other is included in the prohibition against serving idols, based on one of the Oral Torah’s Thirteen Rules for exegesis: “from the negative, one can infer the positive.” (footnote 9 about topic 5, chapter 1, part 1, in The Divine Code)

So rabbi Weiner says he’s using an oral law principle to derive the positive command. The challenge to me is whether I’m rejecting the oral law by rejecting rabbi Weiner’s product, his “commandment,” when he says he’s using the oral law to get it.

I think it’s a fair challenge. But I provided the response when explaining my rejection in the previous part. This wasn’t me simply using my own opinions to come to my conclusion. This isn’t David doing things based on the authority of David. I made clear the lens I was using, namely the Talmud and the rabbinical commentaries on it, specifically tractate Sanhedrin 56-60. I talk about the statements I’m using here.

So when rabbi Weiner derives a positive “command” and says it’s part of the seven laws, it’s not David but rather the Talmud that says only prohibitions are included in the seven laws. It’s not David but the Talmud that says the punishment for breaking one of the seven laws is potentially the death penalty in a righteous Gentile court, something that does not include a command to know God. It’s not David but the Talmud that says the law of idolatry includes acts that can get a Jew the death penalty in a Jewish court, which does not include a command to know God.

So the question is not whether I reject the oral tradition because I don’t. My question was whether rabbi Weiner was justified in using the approach he did, whether the oral tradition, something also recorded in the Talmud, gave him room to say the seven laws includes positive commands, with the exception of the law of Justice. I believe I’ve shown, based on the oral tradition, that he neither was justified nor was he given the room.

I know it’s a lot to take, a Gentile, a lone Gentile, contradicting an esteemed rabbi. But I don’t think it’s me contradicting him. Again, I’m only basing my view on a source with greater authority than him. If I didn’t have that, then maybe the objection would have greater force.

Anyway, carrying on.

The section about “Proselytizers and False Prophets” is – what’s a good word? – difficult. It’s not difficult to understand, but…

I’ve said before that much of this section on “Fundamentals of the Faith” is not explaining the seven laws. A good amount of this subsection also shares that issue and therefore cannot have any authority over any Gentile community or its judiciary. This will be an issue when it states certain things. I’ll get to that soon.

Look at this.

If anyone comes to convince individuals or a community – by influencing, or with intellectual arguments, or by demonstrating supernatural powers or the like, or with false claims to be a prophet – to serve idols, or to nullify one of the Seven Noahide Commandments, or to add a commandment (in addition to the Seven Noahide Commandments transmitted by Moses), even if he says that God commanded that this should be done, it is forbidden to listen to him or to accept his words. All are obligated to remove and silence him by any necessary means. (topic 1, chapter 2, part 1, The Divine Code, emphasis mine)

You may know what I’m going to say.

So rabbi Weiner says it’s “forbidden” to listen to this pernicious person, to accept their claims. What does “forbidden” mean? Something that is commanded against, prohibited. If this topic were part of the law of idolatry, then I could ask “is this actually a command from the seven?” But it’s not. It can’t be. Not only did rabbi Weiner place it outside of his chapter on the law about idolatry, but it does not bring about the death penalty by a righteous Gentile court.

To be blunt, it’s not a commandment. It’s not part of the seven laws. So it’s not forbidden per se.

If rabbi Weiner had rephrased it to say “it’s wrong to listen to and accept the words of such people” then that would be acceptable, as there are principles of morality (Torah principles?) outside of the seven laws or linked to them. I couldn’t argue with that. But Weiner again chooses to use the language of “commandment” when it is not one of the seven and he has no authority to command Gentiles in general. Who is doing the commanding? Some will say, “God.” But the guy is not a prophet. I see, at most, at Jewish scholar. And if I’m told he has authority outside of the seven to command a Gentile or Gentiles, I’d need to see compelling evidence of that.

You could say the issue here is one of wording. And wording is important, especially when it contains messages of authority where there is none when it could have instead spoken of morality where there is some.

Here’s an example of the authority issue straight after.

Therefore, even if proselytizers cannot be judged for worshiping idols, the court needs to silence them from their proselytizing and return them to good, and if this is not successful, the court may judge them so that they should not continue to cause the community to err. (ibid.)

Again, what is Weiner doing? Apart from the seven laws, outside of them, it will be the Gentile court thatwill be doing the judging and deciding on issues. Do the Gentile world communities need special permission to judge issues outside of the seven? Of course not. I think it was Nachmanides who taught that judgement and justice is such a basic moral tenet that it doesn’t even need the Torah to command it. And he was commenting on a pre-Sinai historical event.

All I’m saying, again, is that, all of this topic and what follows it is merely advice to a Gentile court, and nothing more.

Some of this section is just part of the law of idolatry, such as a prophet of an idol, so there’s no comment to add there, such as topic 3 and 4.

But again, we get the following.

It is forbidden to arrange a discussion or a debate with one who prophesies in the name of idols (or with one who prophesies in the name of God to serve idols; both have the same status as a false prophet), and he should not be asked to perform a sign or a miracle. If he makes a sign or a miracle on his own, one must not pay attention to it or think about it. Anyone who thinks about these so-called miracles, debating if they are true, is a sinner, since the false prophet obviously denies a foundational principle upon which everything in Torah depends, as it says,… (topic 5, chapter 2, part 1, The Divine Code)

I think I understand the English word “forbidden” more and more because of this book. In this context, to be bidden to do something means to be commanded to do something. The prefix “for-” refers to rejection or prohibition. Interesting.

Anyway, as usual, there’s no basis of authority given to this command. So it’s only advisory. And the religious language of this advice, such as “sinner,” makes it seem like a personal moral principle rather than anything for a court.

Now, since this person would be known to be a false prophet, a prophet of idols, before any debate or discussion. So there should be enough witnesses to build a case against him or her for breaking the law against idolatry. That would be the case if we were living in times where the seven laws were dominant in the land. If not – if we’re in times like today – since a person may be knowledgeable enough to rationally destroy such a prophet with language and rhetoric, a debate with such an erroneous influence may be a good thing. Rather than literally hang, draw and quarter the false prophet, a rhetorical evisceration may be great to destroy a manifestation of idolatry.

You see, parts of this topic are not in the rabbi’s hands to decide. It’s for the particular community and its wise ones to consider, whether there is value in dissecting incorrect thoughts verbally, learning the superiority of true principles over miracles and magic and wonders. And other parts are relative to the intelligence level and learning of the individual. I recently gained an insight about Maimonides, that he was geared towards philosophy, that he pushed the idea that only correct thoughts and beliefs gained a person righteousness, that incorrect beliefs and thoughts uprooted good and decent actions and a moral life and made a person a “sinner.” This topic accords with such a philosophy. I’m not wholesale persuaded. Either way, it’s in an individual’s head and privacy, so that’s between him and God.

Glossing over some more minor points, I do question the notion that Gentile false prophets who claim to prophesy, saying that the true God commissioned them, should be extradited to a Jewish court. The Divine Code says, “the Noahide Code does not include a commandment to judge false prophets” (topic 8, ibid.). And here I meet with a phrase of confusion: “the Noahide code.” In the author’s introduction, it says it was commanded to Adam and Noah. In other parts, it’s equated with the seven laws that Maimonides says should be kept diligently and for certain reasons to get the afterlife. But in other parts, it is something different from the seven laws as can be seen in this footnote.

It appears to the author that even though Rambam uses the words “to compel” only regarding these seven commandments, and does not include other obligations of the Noahide Code (e.g., the prohibitions against cross-mating animals and cross-grafting fruit trees, and observing worthy precepts in which the nations have a rational obligation, such as honoring parents and avoiding deception)… (footnote 52, chapter 3, part 1)

So the Noahide Code is not the seven laws but something much wider. But Adam and Noah were commanded the seven laws, according to the Talmud. So where did this extra stuff come from?

So when Weiner says there is no command under the “Noahide Code” to judge false prophets, he leaves me confused. If he means just the seven laws, he may be right, but it’s then in the community’s hands to decide the fate of such prophets. If he means this wider moral/legal entity, then, since it’s quite a fuzzy thing with no set parameters except rationality, then how is it irrational to judge false prophets?

What makes a Gentile liar who claims to talk on behalf of God all of a sudden become the property of the Jews to judge?

I’ll leave that as a question.

So although there are parts of this section on “Proselytizers and False Prophets” that are covered under Gentile Torah law concerning idolatry, the rest, to me, is only advisory where a foreign scholar is giving his point of view, but it’s ultimately up to the Gentile community and its wise ones to decide.

I guess this is long enough already. I’ll carry on in another part.

Should I mind going this slow if I’m still getting to read and think about Torah and my obligations as a non-Jew? I don’t think so.