The Project pt 5: The Divine Code, Fundamentals of the Faith, cont’d

The next section of “Fundamentals of the Faith” is called “Torah Study for Gentiles.” In certain ways, this section is useful. In another way, there are some oddities in this chapter that I’ll consider here.

I’ll share my belief. I believe there should be a strong separation between Gentiles and Jews to avoid the possibilty of Gentiles trying to keep Jewish laws. I think this chapter only goes some ways to dealing with this, but some parts of it still leaves way open the possibility of the misuse of the Jewish Law by Gentiles.

Let me show you some foundational Talmudic and RaMBaMic statements to give context to an issue I see in this chapter.

.,. hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws. (folio 59a, tractate Sanhedrin, Babylonian Talmud, Soncine edition, found at halakhah.com)

A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot. (law 9, chapter 10, Laws of Kings and Wars, Mishneh Torah, found at chabad.org)

It’s quite clear. We non-Jews, we Gentiles, are supposed to be involved in the study of our seven laws, our Seven Commandments, not Jewish law.

But look what Weiner puts in his book.

Rambam’s statement (ibid. 10:9) about Torah study, “They may not delve into anything other than their… Noahide Commandments,” means that within the broad Noahide Code , a pious Gentile may (and should) study deeply, including even in penetrating investigative learning, as will be explained. (footnote 87, chapter 5, part 1, The Divine Code)

As I showed in previous section, rabbi Weiner’s “Noahide Code” is not the Seven Commandments. It may contain the seven laws but includes things not part of the seven commandments. So in the Talmud and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, our study is limited to our Seven Commandments. But rabbi Weiner inevitably widens it to his bigger “Noahide Code,” which is more than just the seven commandments. Now his commentary may justify his own moral construct (the Code), but it doesn’t find justification in the words of the Talmud or Maimonides.

Again, to be clear, Maimonides and the Talmud only authorises the Gentile to study the seven commandments. Rabbi Weiner authorises not only the seven commandments but his additional commandments, obligations and requirements that make up “the Noahide Code.” The only thing is that Weiner then looks back at Maimonides when he only authorises the seven commandments and says, “he meant my larger code too,” even though Maimonides did not write this.

I know the rebuttal.

David, maybe rabbi Weiner is sharing the traditional understanding of Maimonides. Don’t you know how many commentaries there are of the Mishneh Torah?

I would not be surprised that there are commentaries of the Mishneh Torah. I’m not surprised that people speak of extra-textual teaching of Maimonides. My question is, what did Maimonides write about his own book?

41 For this reason, I, Moshe son of Ribbi Maimon the Sephardi, found that the current situation is unbearable; and so, relying on the help of the Rock blessed be He, I intently studied all these books, for I saw fit to write what can be determined from all of these works in regard to what is forbidden and permitted, and unclean and clean, and the other rules of the Torah: Everything in clear language and terse style, so that the whole Oral Law would become thoroughly known to all, without bringing problems and solutions or differences of view, but rather clear, convincing, and correct statements in accordance with the law drawn from all of these works and commentaries that have appeared from the time of Our Holy Teacher to the present. 42 This is so that all the rules should be accessible to the small and to the great in the rules of each and every commandment and in the rules of the legislations of the sages and prophets: in short, so that a person should need no other work in the World in the rules of any of the laws of Israel; but that this work would collect the entire Oral Law, including the positive legislations, the customs, and the negative legislations enacted from the time of Moshe Our Teacher until the writing of the Talmud, as the Geonim interpreted it for us in all of the works of commentary they wrote after the Talmud. Thus, I have called this work the [Complete] Restatement of the [Oral] Law (Mishneh Torah), for a person reads the Written Law first and then reads this work, and knows from it the entire Oral Law, without needing to read any other book between them. (Preface to the Mishneh Torah, by Maimonides, found at http://mechon-mamre.org/e/e0000.htm, emphasis mine)

It’s odd, isn’t it? So many say “Maimonides needs such and such a commentary.” What did Maimonides say? A person should be able to read his book and his book alone. His book is supposed to suffice. Did he fail?

Look, I believe that when the Talmud and Maimonides says we Gentiles can delve into “[our] seven laws,” it means the seven commandments the Talmud and Maimonides sets out, not some code that only includes the seven commandments (the breaking of which brings the death penalty) but is a wider body of “law,” more properly “advice.” Gentiles do not have permission to delve outside of the seven commandments.

But Weiner speaks of possible reasons for Gentiles to go abroad, outside of the seven.

Not only is it permissible for a Gentile to learn about the Noahide commandments, but regarding anything he is obligated to do (e.g., things that are intellectually obligatory, like giving charity or honoring parents), he is allowed to learn Torah sources that will help him know how to fulfill and understand his obligation in a practical and even outstanding way. And even for Torah precepts that he is not obligated in it at all but he is permitted to perform, it is permissible for him to learn the Torah laws that deal with those precepts. (topic 1, chapter 5, Part 1, The Divine Code)

So Weiner widens the scope of what a Gentile can learn from. But he gives certain caveats and limitations. He says that to delve into the Jewish commandments means to study those laws for their own sake, not for reward or a practical or personal benefit, but simply to learn and gain Torah knowledge. He also says that “to delve” means to search the inner reasons and facets of the Jewish commands, to study the laws in a deep or penetrative, investigative way. But as the book itself says, if a person has another motive other than “for its own sake,” then such study is allowed.

But then Weiner adds this.

… for any Torah commandment that has a reason and benefit for a Gentile to perform, it is permitted for him to do (and therefore he may also learn the details of its performance), and if it is a purely spiritual Jewish precept, it is prohibited for Gentiles to do. (topic 2, ibid)

So you can’t learn, but you can, but you can’t, but you can. I mean you can learn this stuff, but not that, but if you have the right motives … Not too deep?

And topic 3 states that a Gentile can’t delve into the written Torah, but he can read it all on a simple level with some surface level commentaries.

Look at this.

It is obvious that it is permissible for a Gentile to recite verses from the Hebrew Bible as prayer, particularly the verses of Psalms. (topic 3, ibid.)

Ok. But why? Is Psalms or the Bible a prayer book? For Gentiles? I know some would jump up instantaneously and shout out, “of course it is.” I remember finding a “noahide” page where there were psalms put forward for daily prayers, others for birthday, others for special occasions. Some time ago, a “prayer book” was promoted by another noahide website which also used Psalms as prayers. But why?

“Well, the priests used them in the temple.”

So?

“Well, they are such holy and sublime words.”

So are the books in the five books of Moses. And?

“Well, David just encapsulates such universal feeling.”

And at times he does not. You’re not making a valid point.

“My rabbi told me …”

Stop! Just … just stop!

How about this? For the most, people in the Bible prayed their own words to God. They didn’t just mimic someone else’s words to pray to God. So whose example are you following by copying the psalmist? A group amongst the Jews? Chabad?

For the Gentile, there is no law or moral imperative about how many prayers should be said in a day, about the way a prayer should be constructed. A person who is not articulate can use few words and a person who is articulate can be more wordy. One person can pray once a day, and another a few times. Each person does what they want. And to be frightfully honest, there is no command on a Gentile to pray to God at all. Once a person knows enough about God to feel moved to pray, that’s on him or her. But this just isn’t the place for a Gentile justice system to have any say (unless idolatry comes into play). Prayer is not part of the seven commandments! This paragraph was based very loosely on the first part of chapter 1 of The Laws about Prayer and the Blessing of Priests in the Mishneh Torah.

“Well, the Jews have prayer books called siddurs.”

And Gentiles don’t. You understand you’ve made no concrete point … What the hell is this doing in a book about the Seven La… Oh, wait. It’s not a book simply about the Seven Commandments, but rather about rabbi Weiner’s “Code.”

Hmmm… The amount of times I’ve already complained about or highlighted the distinction between the Seven Commandments and “the Code the Weiner built,” it’s tempting to stop calling the book “The Divine Code,” to stop calling his code “The Noahide Code,” but simply call both “The Weiner Code” or “Weiner’s Code.” This should make no difference to those who have already accepted rabbi Weiner as their rabbi and authority since his very name is authoritative to them. But it may encourage others to think critically about the contents of this book.

Anyway, although this can all be put down to Gentile freedom, the more times I’ve read this chapter, the more it is clear why this is set in a section apart from the Seven Commandments, in a section primarily about religion. Rather than simply saying what parts of the Torah are permissible or not, I’m getting prayer tips. And this ain’t even the section dealing with prayer. Yes, there is a section of this book devoted to prayer. *Sigh*

Although this chapter has some useful information, it sacrifices the clarity of Maimonides, of even the Talmud, to give permission mixed with caveat ad nauseum mixed with irrelevance. And some may claim it’s a complicated issue, but the writings of other rabbis contradicts this stance.

Look how Weiner adds to the confusion.

If the Gentile is one of the “pious of the nations of the world” who keep the Seven Noahide Commandments as their part in the Torah of Moses because he is commanded to do them, and he is careful in their proper observance according to the Noahide Code, and he is involved in learning the parts of Torah that relate to these seven commandments , he is indeed considered before God as being as honorable as a proper Jewish High Priest who served in the Holy Temple. A hint to this is that Shem, the son of Noah was completely righteous, and he was involved in Torah study. Thus the verse praises him, saying, “he was a ‘priest’ … to God on High.” 7. But a Gentile who does not observe his seven commandments, even if he learns about them but not for the sake of fulfilling them, is indeed sinful, and he will be punished by the Hand of Heaven for this Torah learning . If he serves idols (or follows other paths of heresy), and nevertheless involves himself in Torah learning, he is liable for capital punishment by the Hand of Heaven. (topic 6-7, chapter 5, Part 1, The Weiner C… I mean, The Divine Code, emphasis mine)

A friend of mine understood this as meaning that a Gentile who doesn’t keep the seven commandments is actually guilty or wrong or “sinning” by learning the seven laws. Again, the bad act is not simply that he does not live by the seven laws. The forbidden act is studying the seven laws whilst not keeping them. I don’t think this conclusion is hard to reach when the term “Torah” in “Torah learning” can become ambiguous. Is Weiner talking about the Jewish Commandments on a whole when he says “ this Torah learning?” Is he talking about the Jewish Commandments related to the Seven Commandments as he expressed in my quote? Is he referring to the Seven Commandments?

The word “Torah” may not be ambiguous to you. But for me in my discussions and arguments with Gentile and Jew, it has been a slippery irritation. There are times when “Torah” and the Seven Commandments are distinct. There are times when the Seven Commandments are part of “Torah.” There are times when the Seven Laws are called “Torah”. There are times when “Torah” refers to just the 613 laws that belong to the Jews, or it may mean the 5 books of Moses, or the whole Jewish Bible, or to both the written and oral tradition or just the oral tradition, or the Talmud, or what Maimonides or another ancient rabbi may say. One time, a Jew told me that “Torah is a project.”

So when a rabbi simply says “Torah” or uses it as an adjective to describe another term, such as “Torah learning,” then I should not be surprised when there is confusion. So it’s great when the speaker leaves the ambiguity to make sure the reader can more easily understand what is being spoken of.

If you look at topic 7 in my previous quote, it talks of a person not observing the seven laws, but he learns about them, he will be punished for this Torah learning . I can see why a person would see this and think, “a person who doesn’t keep the seven laws should not learn them.” This person can find evidence in one of the footnotes of this section which states the following.

From the wording of Tractate Sanhedrin 59a, “An idol worshipper who is involved in Torah study is liable for death.” (footnote 109, ibid.)

The interpretation one gets from Weiner and the quote depends on the understanding of what the word “Torah” means. And if one is stuck in the Divine Code alone and not checking the context of these quotes, from Maimonides, from the Talmud, it’s easy to get such ideas from Weiner’s book, that it is a sin for seven-laws-breakers to study the seven laws.

The actual contexts of Sanhedrin 59a and Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, 10:9, can make the whole thing a lot more clearer than the mixed permissional-caveats and caveated-permissions of Weiner. Sanhedrin 59a first says that an “idolator” who studies Torah is liable. The context lets you know the term “idolator” refers to all Gentiles and that “Torah” refers to that which was given to the Jewish people, their law. Then the Talmud a little further on says that an “idolator” that studies Torah is as a high priest. Again, “idolator” is contextually seen to be Gentiles on a whole, and the Talmud explicitly defines this particular use of “Torah” to refer to our seven laws. Relatively easy. The Jewish law, the 613, is the “Torah” for the Jews; and the Gentile law, the Seven Laws, are the “Torah” for the Gentiles. We all just keep to and study our separate bodies of law and then, happy times!

Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 10:9 is also relatively simple. The Divine Code uses the censored texts to say that “the idolator that studies the Torah is liable.” But the uncensored version uses the word that just means “non-Jew” or “Gentile.” Also, even the censored text is translated by notable Jewish translations as “the Gentile or non-Jew who studies Torah is liable.” But what “Torah” is Maimonides referring to?

A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven commandments. The general principle governing these matters is: … He [the non-Jew] may either become a naturalised Jew and accept all the commandments or stay in his [own] Torah/law without adding or detracting from them. (Laws of Kings, 10:9)

So here, the “Torah” is distinct from the seven commandments. And a gentile must become a Jew to keep this “Torah” with all its commandments. Therefore we’re talking about the Jewish commandments. But Gentiles are to keep our “Torah,” the seven laws, without adding or subtracting from them. So once again, the “Torah” of the Jews is the Jewish Commandments, the 613 laws, and the “Torah” of the Gentile is the Seven Laws.

With that clarity, we Gentiles study our own laws and the Jews study theirs. And there’s no need to separate out the “idolator” and say “it’s wrong for you alone of all Gentiles to study Torah,” or even for that misunderstanding to exist. There’s no need to use “idolator” as an analogy for a Gentile that breaks any of the seven laws including those who never committed idolatry. The study of the seven laws is for any Gentile, and those that don’t keep the seven laws can be prosecuted for that actual action as opposed to being smeared with the ill-fitting “idolator,” legally speaking.

What about this? Let’s see how this adds to the confusion.

If a question in Torah Law arises for a Gentile and the verdict is not explicit and clearly explained in the permitted sources, he does not have the ability or power to identify the correct ruling. Rather, he must ask a reliable and observant Jewish Torah scholar, for only they have permission to explain the Torah and decide what the correct Torah-law ruling is in any particular situation. (topic 4, ibid.)

And its footnote, 97.

This is concerning a questionable situation that requires a Torah-law decision, and deciding on an answer is equivalent to delving deeply into the Torah. More so, a Gentile may not be ordained to teach and expound the Torah, because that is solely the spiritual assignment of the Jews – to be deeply involved in Torah, and to delve into it for the purpose of deciding practical rulings on a Torah-law basis. This task is only given to observant Jewish Torah scholars who are trusted in their explanations of Oral Torah. However, if a matter is easily understandable from learning about the Noahide Code and the conclusion is obvious, it appears clear that a Gentile is allowed to decide upon it for matters of personal practical observance. But it is essentially difficult to decide an exact conclusion for Torah law in general, and laypersons do not have the objectivity and breadth of Torah knowledge to be certain that they are making the correct ruling. (footnote 97, ibid)

Now, again, how is “Torah” being used here?

If “Torah” is being used to talk about Jewish Law, the law for the Jews, why would it come up amongst Gentiles? If it has to do with the rational laws of the Jews, then they still are not commands on Gentiles. If a community chooses to take up a rational law, such as the prohibition against tale-bearing, there’s no obligation to keep it as the Jews do. The Gentile community learns what it wants and applies it however it chooses. It’s not religious law. It’s not God-given law for Gentiles. The Gentile community simply learns a moral principle, want to give it a law-like force, and apply it to their community.

But if they choose to rifle deeply in the Jewish sense of that moral principle, sure, it’s best to ask the knowledgeable Jew.

But, if, by “Torah,” the author means the Seven Commandments, then once the community, especially its judges and wise men, has learned the Seven Commandments – yes, from the Jews – then the Jew can go back to focusing on his own people and that Gentile community makes its own judgements about the Seven Laws. That means people who allegedly break the Seven go to a Gentile court to be tried and the non-Jewish judges make the rulings. When a person wants to learn about the seven laws, it’ll be part of the non-Jewish educational system. If he has a question, he’ll go to his Gentile teacher who may have access to Gentile experts in the seven. Gentile judges too may confer with the experts. It’s only if the experts and the judges reach a place where they really don’t know how to judge a case to do with the seven commandments, then they may choose – yes, choose – to contact a Jewish expert on the seven laws.

That’s in a scenario where the nations accept the Seven Laws.

But even now, a Gentile should not simply go to the Jew only for answers if he has access to seven-laws-learned Gentiles. If he or she can only find a Jew, it’s understandable to ask them. But there are differences between the Seven Commandments and the laws of the Jews, and it is needful for us Gentiles to know those differences for ourselves and for those who may ask. If a Gentile is sufficiently learned in the seven laws, there is no crime, no wrong and no sin with answering the questions of fellow Gentiles.

The sooner we Gentiles take responsibility for our laws, rather than being subservient vassals of Jews, the better! I, for one, am sick of the double standard I see, where a Jew can be nationalistic, not wanting to be ruled by another nation, and then teaching Gentiles from many nations to, in effect, be ruled by the Jew. The fact is that the Jews have no rulership rights or jurisdiction over Gentiles. That’s even more evidence for the fact that we Gentiles need to take up these laws for ourselves. A Jew’s “ruling” has no authority over Gentiles. If he’s only describing what the seven laws teach, then, yes, he has divine authority. But he’s not a judge of Gentiles like the judges in our own courts. In that scenario, he’s an outsider.

What about how my imaginary Gentile court should view this chapter? Is there anything for the justice system to enforce? Is there anything to push out to whatever educational system exists? This chapter speaks more of divine punishment for going against it than any court. If someone witnesses a person delving into the Jewish law and tells a justice official, should any action be done?

I personally would put this chapter in the “Advisory” or “In need of significant revision/rewriting.” As it is, I don’t believe it’s structured for easy understanding, and I think easier understanding is possible. I think the section of community justice dealing with “creating new religions” could investigate and see if anything can be done to educate the person one way or another, to either go away to the Jews and become one, or take up deeper seven laws courses or do community work.

Once again, a long one, and for one chapter in the Weiner Code. I don’t mind though. I’m not complaining. I still learn a lot from this.