My view of what Gentile judges should do with books on the seven laws

So this is a mixture of influences coming together to create another opinion piece by myself.

One influence is a video by a pleasant lady who has a YouTube channel called “my noahide family.” Although I detest some of what she says, she has a wonderfully nice manner about her, as if she is from polite royalty. She was sharing her view that there are two extremes to the Gentile path in relation to the seven laws and Jewish ritual law. In my words, one extreme is minimalist, only the seven laws, the laws that can bring capital punishment in a righteous Gentile court of justice, and the other extreme being one that adopts much of the Jewish laws that were not enjoined upon Gentiles. She spoke of a middle path between the two extremes which she prefers and she believed that middle path is reflected in the teachings of the book, The Divine Code.

The other influence is, of course, the Talmudic statements that seven laws were given to humanity, that breaking them can lead to the death penalty in a righteous Gentile court, and that they are all prohibitions, although the law of Justice has an additional positive aspect. She’d call this the minimalist path. I call it the basic bedrock.

Then we have all the books created in the past 30 years or so from rabbis and Jews attempting to teach Gentiles the seven laws.

Now, in case you don’t know, the law of Justice from amongst the seven laws partly teaches that courts should judge according to the seven laws. By the seven laws, I’m not referring to the Jewish books produced in the past 30 years, including The Divine Code. I mean the seven laws as taught in the Talmud, the minimal.

It’s my personal belief that, should society change and accept the seven laws enjoined upon humanity, the judges of the Gentile lands should first learn the basic minimum law . The law . That excludes Jewish blessings over food, prayers, animal cruelty (yes, I went there!), sabbaths, etc. They should only learn the seven laws minimally. First and foremost, what we are actually commanded should be known by the judges to share amongst the people.

On that foundation, they can then take a look at the books created by Jews about the seven laws, including The Divine Code, and judge them critically through Gentile eyes. Having learnt the basics, they will see what is truly divine law, what is God moral teachings everyone should know, the views of a rabbi that is simply advice and not law, and teachings that must simply be excised or removed from the Gentile education system.

I personally believe there are things in all these books, including The Divine Code, that should never have been put in the same volume as the seven laws. The proximity of extraneous waffle to the actual seven laws only gives the mask of authority to the waffle. Ok, maybe not “waffle.” Perhaps, “teachings for personal improvement rather than community/international law” is a better term. To see that teachings about eating shellfish or blessings over meals or marriage advice can be set next to or along with the law of idolatry or the law about forbidden partners,… It just seems degrading to actual divine law to give such things such emphasis.

But the judges would probably have a good amount of shredded paper after going through these modern books.

But… Well the thing is… This is all speculation, wishful thinking. There are no such judges. And I’m the only seven law “minimalist” I know. Hmmm… So maybe I can start a little project. Well, maybe not little, but…

So what if I go through all the books I’ve learned the seven laws from and do exactly what I think those hypothetical judges should do? To use the Talmudic basics as a lens to see that is law, what is useful, and what can be scrapped. It’ll be a useful way for me to go over the seven again from differing points of view but using one lens. I’ve got a feeling that I’d probably end up keeping more of the purist disciples of Maimonides and less of the Chabad inspired books.

Hmmm… Sounds like a useful project.