24

Say you have a Christian* or a Muslim (or a member of any other monotheistic religion) who accepts the Seven Noachide Laws, and (as per Mishneh Torah, Hil. Melachim 8:11) does so because he believes that G-d (re)gave them through Moshe.

However, he also continues to believe ideas from his own religion that are against the Torah or even inimical to it, such as that most of the mitzvos are no longer applicable (for anyone, Jews or non-Jews) after the crucifixion, or that the Torah as we have it is corrupt and that the Koran is the true revelation of G-d's word, etc.

Would such a person still be considered a righteous gentile? True that Rambam says (ibid. 10:9) that "we are not to allow [gerei toshav] to innovate a religion and come up with their own mitzvos" - but perhaps that refers specifically to rituals and ceremonies, not ideology. On the other hand, one could argue that such beliefs make the acceptance of the Seven Laws incomplete.

* That is, according to the views that shittuf is permissible for non-Jews.

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    +1, nice question. But re "he believes that G-d (re)gave them through Moshe": that may perhaps be too strong. The Rambam says "והודיענו על ידי משה רבינו שבני נח מקודם נצטוו בהן" which, if I understand it correctly (I haven't checked the nos'e kelim), means merely that he believes God gave them (viz earlier) and mentioned, through Moshe, having done so. No?
    – msh210 ♦
    Commented Nov 14, 2011 at 21:17
  • 1
    @msh: you're right, that does seem to be the obvious understanding of what Rambam says. Still, though, to salvage what I wrote, I see where Korban Chagigah by R. Moshe Galante (linked there) seems to understand Rambam as actually requiring the ben Noach to be aware of both facts: that Hashem commanded them in the Torah given to Moshe, and that Moshe informed us that they were previously obligated in these mitzvos (דצריך שבן נח ידע שה' צוה הז' מצוות בתורה ע"י משה... שעוד ידע שהודיענו ע"י משה שבני נח נצטוו בהן מקודם).
    – Alex
    Commented Nov 14, 2011 at 23:38
  • 1
    I don't see anyone on the linked page who says believing in a shittuf-God(s) is permitted for a non-Jew.
    – Double AA ♦
    Commented Jan 18, 2013 at 21:48
  • 1
    The only source I see in the linked page stating that shittuf is permitted is user Alex. This seems circular.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 21:01
  • 1
    @mevaqesh it can be thought to stem from the law to establish courts. Gentile courts derive their authority from being subservient to the sanhedrin. The sanhedrin is authoritative because the Torah. Furthermore, acceptance of the noahide law requires accepting the oral law more generally because the noahide law exists only orally.
    – Yoel Fievel Ben Avram
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 22:33

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
16

The Midrash Mishnat R. Eliezer (which is the source of the term חסידי אומות העולם, and for the Rambam's controversial definition thereof) says about this:

חסידי אומות העולם, כיון שהן עושין שבע מצוות שנצטוו בני נח עליהן, הן וכל דקדוקיהן, הן נקראים חסידים. בד"א כשעושין אותן ואומרין, מכח שצוה אותנו אבינו נח מפי הגבורה אנו עושין, ...אבל אם עשו שבע מצוות ואמרו מפי פלוני שמענו או מדעת עצמן, שכך הדעת מכרעת, או ששיתפו שם ע"ז, אם עשו כל התורה כולה, אין לוקחין שכרן אלא בעולם הזה

R. Abba Mari ha-Yarhi, in his ספר הירח, פרק יד says that we cannot hold Aristotle accountable for not believing in creation, because after all that is not one of the ‏7 מצוות בני נח:

על כן אני אומר על ארסטו כי עינו הטעתו בראותו עולם כמנהגו נוהג גזר ואמר כי כל חלוף דבר מטבע נמנע והביא ראיות על הקדמות ואין לענשו על כך כי אין זה מכלל ז' מצות שנצטוו בני נח

This is also the implication of the תשובת הרשב"א ח"א סי' ט, in which he says he does not fault the philosophers for believing things against the Torah because they have no prophecy or tradition about these things:

ואני איני מאשים אחד מן הפלוסופים בבטלם הענינים האלו כלם לפי שלא יכריחם דבר נבואי ולא קבלת חכם מחכמיהם

According to some acharonim, e.g., Pri Megadim, and R. Refael Hamburger (ושב הכהן סימן לח) even though שיתוף is permissible for a Noahide, it is not for a גר תושב.

R. Mayer Twersky also wrote an article on this subject in which he cites the Chazon Ish who has a ספק about this. At the end of the article (pp. 530-531), R. Twersky claims that according to the Rambam, בני נח would have to accept the 13 עיקרים. However, he admits what he is saying is a chiddush, and it does go against the Rishonim cited above.

Improve this answer
6
  • Your last line is not so accurate, as R. Twersky believes that though he might be going against a Sefer hachinuch, he doesn't quote the Rashba or R. Abba Mari
    – הנער הזה
    Commented Jun 16, 2015 at 0:40
  • @Matt I meant that R. Twersky admits it's a chiddush, and (I'm saying) it does go against those rishonim
    – wfb
    Commented Jun 16, 2015 at 1:52
  • Note that R. Dovid Cohen in his האמונה הנאמנה also assumes (like R. Twersky) that a Noahide is obligated to believe in the principles of faith
    – wfb
    Commented Jun 16, 2015 at 1:53
  • I am not sure what eternity of the universe has to do with whether a non-Jew must believe that the Torah was not tampered with. After all, there have been Jewish sages who believed in an eternal universe without resorting to claims of tampering with the Torah. This seems instead an answer to this: judaism.stackexchange.com/a/48952/5083 if you accept that creation ex nihilo is fundamental to Judaism.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented May 31, 2016 at 21:06
  • 1
    @mevaqesh Is believing that the Torah wasn't tampered with one of the 7 mitzvot? B/c that is the reason R. Abba Mari gives for why non-Jews do not need to believe in creation.
    – wfb
    Commented Jun 1, 2016 at 20:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .