Book Review: “The Divine Code” by Rabbi Moshe Weiner

 

the-divine-code-cover

This is a review of The Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner. In this attempt to write a Shulchan Aruch for Bnai Noah, Rabbi Weiner bases his book on Maimonides’s Mishneh Torah (a subject I covered in an earlier blog on a similarly-themed book HERE.) Because of this limited format, The Divine Code can be viewed as a greatly expanded version of Rabbis Clorfene and Rodalsky’s The Path of the Righteous Gentile written nearly three decades earlier. Since The Divine Code is a project of the Chabad Ask Noah International, and Rabbi Weiner is himself a Chabad rabbi, the book is infused with Chabad doctrine.

After the obligatory haskama letters, there is an editor’s Preface. Here is a quote from the preface:

Thus, the world’s population at this time, when the Noahide Code is finally being presented openly for all mankind, is surely more than able to contain the reincarnated souls of all good and deserving Gentiles who have lived in the past.

In the Introduction, the author states that:

We can understand the words of Rambam in Laws of Kings 8:11, that “wise ones” of the Gentiles may be found who are keeping aspects of the Noahide mitzvot according to their intellect and their knowledge…if a Gentile observes these only from an intellectual standpoint, but not because of God’s command to Moses, he will receive reward for his good deeds; but he has not earned a part in the ultimate spiritual reward of the future eternal World to Come.

This is the concept of justification by faith, the “salvation” of the soul.  

The Divine Code starts out with the first chapter titled Fundamentals of the Faith, an unfortunate title since it seems to designate faith as a component of Noahide Law. I wish to stress here that this is not to disparage faith. The problem is that, halakhically speaking, belief in God is not commanded to Noahides. There is no prohibition against atheism for the non-Jew as there is for the Jew. This is not to say that faith is bad or wrong; it simply means that it is not a part of the Noahide Code. The mitzvah of idolatry is a prohibition against the worship of any other gods; there is no positive commandment to believe. This is one of the great differences between Noahide law and Jewish law; the Noahide Law is all-inclusive. It is for all peoples, all nations. Halakhically speaking, an atheist can be an observant Noahide, one of the “wise of the nations.” Faith is of no consequence to the atheist, and the author’s statement that, “Any Gentile who accepts these Seven Noahide Commandments, and is careful to observe them, is truly a pious individual of the nations of the world, and merits an eternal portion in the future World to Come. (And with this merit, the person will be included in the Resurrection of the Dead). However, if one fulfills the commandments of the Noahide Code only out of intellectual conviction (because his logic dictates them), he is forbidden by Torah Law to settle in the land of Israel, and he is not considered among the pious individuals of the nations of the world.” exhibits a lack of understanding of the nature of the Noahide law. This is not to say that this viewpoint is wrong; it simply means that belief in God is not, and should not be, a prerequisite for keeping the Seven Laws as so many claim. The Noahide Code is a moral and legal code, not a religious one.

The author goes on to say that, “If there are deviant believers, scorners or deniers…who publicize their views that they do not believe in God or that they deny that the Torah is from God (yet they do not actually transgress any one of the Noahide Commandments in practice because of fear of the government, or based on their concepts of morality or the like), a court does not judge them, since no physical transgression has been done.” The nature of the Noahide law is a legal one, and an atheist cannot be brought before a Noahide beis din. 

Later, the author states, It is also prohibited for a Jew to teach Torah to Gentiles in the canonized Hebrew or Aramaic text [cf. Tractate Hagigah 13], either because of the inherent holiness of the Torah’s Hebrew letters and its precise wording, or because they may cause others to err if they know how to read the original text and as a result go on to give their own explanations and interpretations of the Written or Oral Torah. However, here we are mainly speaking about a sincere and pious Gentile who wants to learn Torah on his own in translated books. We can add that after the Torah was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, it is permitted to learn Torah in one’s own language from a proper translation.”

What the author is doing here is taking the primary texts of the Torah out of the hands of the Gentiles. I have encountered this opinion often among Chabad rabbis; I even had one Chabad rabbi tell me I was not allowed to read the Written Torah in English.

Now we come to Chapter Six of Part One: Prayer and Grace After Meals.

“Prayer, blessings and praise to God, even though they are not strictly required for Gentiles because they were not commanded explicitly in the Noahide Code to observe these things, are nevertheless an intellectual obligation.” The author then lists all different sorts of blessings for plant products, foods and beverages, blessings for the start of a meal, blessings for different foods without bread, etc. “For example, when beginning to eat mixed salad, first say the blessing over avocado, then tomato, then cheese.”

The problem with this section is that prayer and blessings are not in the Noahide Code whatsoever. I am not making a judgment call on this, merely pointing out that this has absolutely nothing to do with the Noahide Code, yet it is included in this book.

The book goes on; you have a special blessing for smelling sweet spices such as cinnamon or cloves, or for hearing good news. Then there are Daytime Prayers, Evening Prayers, all sorts of Psalms, a prayer for livelihood and a prayer for travelers.

Then, after all that, we come to Chapter Seven: Sacrificial Offerings. “It is permitted for a Gentile to offer sacrifices, meaning to build an altar and offer upon it a kosher animal or bird which he owns as a sacrifice.” Again, this has nothing to do with the Seven Laws.

“A person should direct his heart and the totality of his behavior to one goal, which is becoming aware of God, and searching to be close to Him.” Tell me this doesn’t sound like religion to you.

And finally, a chapter on Repentance. This rounds out the first part of The Divine Code.

And now, after 130 pages of rabbinic teachings that are not part of the Noahide Code, we come to the actual Noahide Laws. The first one, naturally, is the prohibition of idolatry. The Divine Code goes through the usual things such as not listening to idolatrous music or smelling fragrant idols. But then we come to a certain part:

“It is prohibited to engage in debates about matters of faith with deviant believers (those specifically mentioned in Part 1, topic 1:7) and apostates (those who only go after the thoughts of their own heart and mind, and who don’t take upon themselves the obligation to both recognize the Creator and accept the observance of His commandments for the Gentiles). It is also prohibited to listen to their heresies or argue with them at all about the true faith, because in general their thoughts are still bound up with idol worship or atheism, respectively.”

Here’s the problem. Under Noahide Law, we non-Jews are commanded to set up, not only courts, but organized legal systems (cf. Ramban, Bereishis 34:13). Our government, our courts, our legal system should be designed to prohibit idolatry (as opposed to what we have now, which makes idolatry legal). Jews are prohibited from attacking idolatrous religions outside of Eretz Yisrael; Noahides are not. In fact, it is our Torah-bound duty to eliminate idolatry from our society. Noahides are also forbidden to have any sort of organized religion (which the author explains in Chapter Six), so it makes sense that we need to get rid of the idolatrous religions which permeate our culture, particularly the largest—Christianity. It stands to reason that, if we got rid of Christianity and other organized religions, the vast majority of our problems with idolatry would disappear. Sadly, this is exactly what the rabbis do not want us to do, attack and destroy idolatrous religions. They are afraid of the blowback, which is why they tell Noahides not to attack, debate, or even play poker with idolaters. However, it is our necks on the line, not theirs, and no amount of prayers or mezuzahs on your doorposts are going to help you if you fail to pursue the elimination of idol worship.

Another problem is the bit about atheists. Yes, atheism is prohibited under Jewish law, but as I mentioned above, not so for Noahides. We should engage atheists in debate if necessary. However, coming at them with religion, as the author does, will not work. You must approach an atheist with logic and reason, not faith and religion.

Chapter Four of Part II is about The Service of Moleh, an extinct religion which centered around human sacrifice. Since Moleh worship hasn’t been around for millennia, it seems as though it would have been more prudent and practical to discuss an idolatrous religion that does center around human sacrifice, namely Christianity. As I mentioned above, the rabbis are extremely reluctant to do this, the Jews being halakhically forbidden to attack other religions outside of Israel being the main reason. Noahides, on the other hand, have no such prohibition, despite the author’s claims.

Part Three, Blasphemy, is fairly straightforward; don’t curse God, use His name to curse, make vows in His Name you can’t keep, etc. But again, we have a Constitution that gives people the freedom to blaspheme, and that should be the focus of our endeavors. After all, you cannot prosecute someone for blasphemy if it is legal to blaspheme. Although the author is halakhically correct in his examples, he misses the focus of what Noahide Law is all about, namely, to set up a legal system which forbids blasphemy.

Chapter Four covers the “Limb of the Living,” the prohibition against eating meat from a live animal. the author does a good job explaining the details of this law, although, since few of us butcher our own meat, the focus should be on our legal system that allows prohibitions of Noahide Law to go unchecked.

Chapter Seven covers Restrictions on Causing Suffering to a Living Creature. This chapter doesn’t even scratch the surface of environmental concerns, although it does mention that, “Hunting merely for the sake of sport is not permitted.” This applies to “sport fishing” as well.

Part Five, The Prohibition of Murder and Injury is an admirable section covering some hot topics such as abortion and euthanasia. Many problems in our legal system, such as the “Stand your Ground” law, need to be analyzed according to Torah law. Likewise Chapter Six of this section, The Prohibition of Causing Personal Injury or Damage has many implications with the failure of our current legal system and its inconsistent rulings and punishments.

Part Six, The Prohibition of Forbidden Relations is another hot topic, particularly today with the legalization of homosexual “marriage” as well as concepts such as modesty. I don’t think I have to explain how far our society has gotten from the Torah ideal.

Part Seven only covers half of the Prohibition of Theft. This is no surprise since this is a major topic in the Torah not only for individuals but for society, covering not only robbery but subjects such as rape, wages and corporate business practices. The rest of this chapter is supposed to be in a second volume which has yet to be published.

Part Eight, alluded to in the Table of Contents, is Establishment of Laws and Courts. There are, in this volume, no chapters. This isn’t a surprise since the Rambam in the Mishna Torah devotes very little to this section, only a few sparse sentences about establishing courts in every city (along with the moral characteristics of a judge and witnesses). This is the major problem with Rambam’s Mishna Torah; the de-emphasis on the law of Dinim, or Social Justice. Instead of being the most important of the Seven Laws, it is usually relegated to being the least important. The implications of Ramban’s commentary (and many others) are no less than an overhaul of not only our Constitution but our entire legal system.

Despite some excellent parts, particularly at the end of the book, the problem with The Divine Code is its focus. Since Noahide Law is to be neither as exact nor as strict as Jewish Law, having a book of detailed laws with no clear explanation on how to implement them into our society misses the mark. And since Noahide Law is neither as strict nor as exact as Jewish law, there is flexibility in how the laws and punishments are implemented and enforced among the nations and their different cultures. The Divine Code fails to address this flexibility. Adding to this is the first part of the book, which lays the foundation for the Noahide Law to be viewed in a strictly religious framework.

To sum it up: The Divine Code is a comprehensive book of Jewish Law for Noahides. What it is not is a book of Noahide Law. I therefore give it one and one-half out of five matzos on my Noahide Rating Scale.

matzah  half matzah  matza gone  matza gone  matza gone

Advertisements
Standard

13 thoughts on “Book Review: “The Divine Code” by Rabbi Moshe Weiner

  1. I don’t fully agree with your conclusion. I think you missed a lot but i understand there may be reasons for that. A lot of pros and cons were missed. But I like the review.

  2. Ger chossid says:

    Lol that book is not infused with chabad doctrine. The haskamos in the beginning are not even by chabad rabbanim. Do some real research.

  3. Hrvatski Noahid says:

    The Divine Code is the most authoritative codification of the 7 Commandments. The fully authoritative viewpoint shows that the Noahide Commandments have negative and positive aspects. The prohibition of idolatry has a negative aspect not to worship idols and a positive aspect to believe in G-d, know G-d, love G-d and eliminate idol worship. The prohibition of blasphemy has a negative aspect not to blaspheme G-d and a positive aspect to fear G-d. The prohibition of meat from a living animal has a negative aspect not to eat meat taken from a living animal and a positive aspect to show mercy to created beings. The prohibition of murder and injury has a negative aspect not to murder and injure and a positive aspect to save a person’s life. The prohibition of forbidden relations has a negative aspect not to do sexual sins and a positive aspect to follow ways of modesty. The prohibition of theft has a negative aspect not to steal and a positive aspect to return stolen money and objects. I do not have volume 2. So I do not know the actual Law of Laws and Courts. You mentioned primary sources. I think you mean the Talmud. Learning the Talmud is impractical for most Gentiles. On the other hand, I think the Divine Code is very helpful and practical. Furthermore, I need not mention the Rabbis who reviewed and approved it. Best wishes, robert

    • The “most authoritative” according to whom? Chabad? The Divine Code is based on Rambam’s Mishna Torah, and there are other “most authoritative” sources that disagree with him (Ramban, S. R. Hirsch, Sefer haHinnuch). The Divine Code is only as authoritative as you let it be. As far as the Talmud goes, have you read Sanhedrin 56a-60a? Not to grasp halakha, but to understand exactly what the Noahide Code is about? It’s not about positive this and negative that. It simply a dialectic among the Tannaim as to which mitzvot a Ben Noah can be tried for in a beis din.

      • Hrvatski Noahid says:

        The most authoritative according to the Rabbis who reviewed and approved it. Can you name a book which has as many authoritative approbations? The Divine Code is not based only on Mishna Torah. It is based on hundreds of sources. You can always find sources which disagree. Yes, I read those parts of the Talmud. I see where you are coming from. This comes down to whether you accept the Divine Code as fully authoritative. I understand you do not. But I note that using your logic all codes of Torah Law are needless. Jews do not need the Mishna Torah. We do not need the Divine Code. You think we can derive the actual Torah Law from the Talmud itself. Right?

      • Wrong.
        First, let me quote from page 24 of The Divine Code: “For the sake of determining the Torah Law for Gentiles more comprehensively, Rabbi Weiner used the rulings in Rambam’s Mishneh Torah as the main foundation.”
        Second, why should I consider The Divine Code authoritative? I am not a Jew. This book teaches Jewish Law, not Noahide Law. There is a difference in content, details and approach. So rabbis approved it. Lots of xian theologians approved the NIV New Testament, too. Does that make it authoritative as well?
        Third, you presume to “use my logic.” Have you read my books? How do you know what I think? Obviously, you do not.

  4. Hrvatski Noahid says:

    I judge what you think based on what you write. Your article mentions primary texts. The Talmud is a primary text. I assumed logically that you give the Talmud more weight than any other source. So both Chief Rabbis of Israel who reviewed the Divine Code do not understand the difference between Jewish Law and Noahide Law? Well, you have your own opinion. I have mine. I suggest we leave it at that.

  5. kfir says:

    Greetings and Blessings,
    I think your review entirely missed the mark as to what this book is about.
    I cannot speak from erudition, so I defer to your knowledge there. However, from my limited experience during mitzoim (outreach) I think I understand a little bit from the perspective of Gentiles.
    My limited teaching has been that the domain is the gashmiyus (physicality) is unto the goyim (Gentiles) and ruchniyus (spirituality) to yidden (Jews). Insofar as Noachide laws being purely moral, it would kind of make sense at first. But clearly such logic fails. Is anything absent of Hashem? Is there such a thing as morality without religion? I believe that’s the literal definition of moral relativism.
    So, from the start, it appears that this review is confusing religion for cultus. In it’s classical sense, a cult originally is defined as “Established or accepted religious rites or customs of worship; state of religious development[,]” whereas religion in it’s purest sense is “The belief in and worship of a supernatural controlling power[…][.]” Wiktionary. Faith is not a commandment specifically because it transcends commandments. I don’t see faith in the list of 613. In the Gemara, Makkos 24a, faith is listed as a mitzva (command), but this is not in Rambam’s list. Emuna (faith) is merely the channel to get to a higher level of consciousness to prevent moral relativism, if I am not overstepping my logical reasoning. If one doesn’t believe in any sort of laws that (s)he is propounding, then what has been accomplished? That person would just be a parrot repeating dogma. Without even minute conviction, why would one adhere to any tenet? It’s simply unconscionable and non sequitur.
    On a practical level, most Gentiles are happy having a card with the Noachide laws. No one gets left behind. But for those who do want to know more, or take their spirituality to the next level, it’s good to know that there is a prayer book or, for those who want to go even further, a book of halachos (laws).
    Another thing the author of the review fails to answer is what he would consider a book of Noachide laws? I took a few minutes to peruse this website but have returned empty handed. I understand if there’s some skepticism to the Maimonidean system, but other commentators like Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofni, Gaon,
    Rabbi Menachem Azaria de Fano (each of whom delineated 30 such commands), Rav Saadiah Gaon, Rav Nissim Gaon, Ran and Rama also had nearly the exact same commands. http://www.noachide.org.uk. All of the other such Noachide website are agreement with this website being the sole exception. To this, I am taka interested to see what the author defines as Noachide. As this is a burgeoning field, all such input is surely needed. As it stands, Noachide laws are well frankly ubiquitously universal across the board.
    But, obviously, strictly from a utilitarian, pragmatic perspective, not even Jews can perform all the Taryag (613 commandments) for clear reasons, so kol v’chomer (a fortiori) it should not be devolved upon Gentiles to adhere to every single law all at once.
    What is a commandment? This is a serious error in dialectics, when people fail to define their terms. Simply put, a mitzvah comes from the word tzav (to bind, connect). A commandment, thusly, is a vehicle for anyone to connect closer with Hashem. Or for Atheists, to moral absolutism. Interestingly, in my opinion, Atheists keep the law of shunning idolatry better than most religious folk. Because of the confusion of Atheism with humanism, naturalism, or scientism, I will avoid taking on this debate. I acknowledge that it is wholly beyond my knowledge, but just as a passing remark I will add something to what I stated in the prior paragraph. This is not an all or nothing constitution where if you keep most of the local state laws but break a few of them you’ll still be punished for them. Ultimately that is the goal, but it is something to strive towards. Practically speaking, this is a new concept and most people need a grace period to read and study up on it. America legalized one type of forbidden marriage, yet polygamy is still a crime under the Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882. The same goes down the line; what kind of measuring stick is America b’emes (in truth)? Compliance, if you will, comes later. I can’t imagine that someone could be punished for a law they no nothing about. But with that said, even for a Noachide to keep one commandment today and try to keep more later, this is progress. We need goals and checkpoints, otherwise our spiritual journey becomes stagnant. Again, this is entirely my own opinion and doesn’t necessary reflect any particular book. From a cursory google search, i find “R. Moshe Shternbach. He writes in Teshuvos Vehanhagos 3:264 and 3:317 that non-Jews are not obligated in believing in God, as this is only obligated for (and perhaps the only difference between them and) geirei toshav.” It is a matter of debate for another day.
    Inasmuch as blaspheming goes, just because a country legalizes it doesn’t change the essential nature of it. Some countries have legalized what other countries have a death penalty for, so what law does a traveler follow? Like the popular slogan goes, we answer to a higher authority. Just because it is legal to blaspheme does not mean that one has to blaspheme to be American. It’s healthy to have some restraint, even if it temperance rather than abstinence.
    Even, arguendo, that the code is purely logically, it is still a monumental source for atheistic or agnostic debates as to any one particular avenue of morality. Ultimately, in the grand scheme of things, it’s hard for me to see how it would make a difference to the eventual outcome of Geula (redemption). If a Jew gave a homeless person $100 or an Atheism, would the homeless person really care?
    The world is in a terrible state. Most of the wars being fought and waged now are ideological, whether intellectual or religiously is beside the point. As such, the only way to win such a war is by having a superior ideology. As has been proven from history, most wars that were won when the victor had a considerably smaller or less armed military can be chalked up to having a better ideology. This was at least the idea of a prior president who said “This broader challenge of countering extremism is not simply a military effort. Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they are defeated by better ideas.” I believe there is some truth to it, but it will not happen if everybody (Jews, Gentiles, intelligentsia, et al.) are at odd ends with varied opinions on what is right or wrong.
    True, we are going to continue debating the particulars of any particular command, but as long as we are circling around them we unite. It’s only with division that we fall apart. In time ambiguities will be worked out. That is wholly beyond the scope of this book as it not meant to be an exhaustive list. In any event, it would defeat the entire purpose of having some sort of wholesome global consciousness if we leave anyone behind, from Catholics to cannibals. This is a law for all mankind.
    With that being said, it should be easy now to understand why the entire review is fundamentally flawed.
    First, while it’s supported by Chabad, this review fails to cite even one reference to Chabad philosophy. I’ll admit, I have not finished the book, but the majority of references are to the Tannayim and Rambam – neither of whom are Chabadniks to my knowledge. The chief Sefardi Rabbi of Yisrael is not either, although he did visit our Rebbe. I am unable to ascertain Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, but being a Litvak I don’t think he leans toward any specific hassidic group. I don’t think I need to waste anymore time on this point.
    As far as the language issue, even for Jews, I don’t believe it is issur (prohibited) to learn in anything but Hebrew:
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/806311/jewish/Must-I-pray-in-Hebrew.htm
    You are probably right that prayer and blessings are not halachically commanded for Noachides, but why would anyone not want to give thanks to Hashem? I’m unsure if Noachides require a specific formula (unlike Jews and the Amidah) but it’s nice to have at least a basic skeletal format or layout to refer to. I know for myself, I am not a great orator so I love reading prayers pre-written prayers. They express my feelings a lot better than I can. Although not my Rebbe, Reb Noson wrote Likutey Tefilot for a similar purpose: “There are times when we yearn to communicate with God but don’t know what to say. Yet in the expressive and eloquent prayers of Reb Noson, everyone can find himself.” Like I said passim, it is nice having some guidance if you want to take your spiritual life to the next level.
    It appears that this review has a very limited constricted definition on what the Noachide laws are and what they apply to. Using a reductio ad absurdum, it would seem that what ever the literal black and white words say are what Gentiles are obliged to carry out and whatever else exists in the world they are free to carry out. What sense would that? Jews ask the same questions to many ancient as well as modern questions, what would Moshe do (for lack of a better reference)? Even if this Code is purely moral, it transcends our limited logic and understanding by having a universe blueprint of eternal truths. I found a reference to many of the same teachings going back to the Apocrypha book of Jubilees as quoted from Wikipedia: “And in the twenty-eighth jubilee Noah began to enjoin upon his sons’ sons the ordinances and commandments, and all the judgments that he knew, and he exhorted his sons to observe righteousness, and to cover the shame of their flesh, and to bless their Creator, and honour father and mother, and love their neighbour, and guard their souls from fornication and uncleanness and all iniquity. For owing to these three things came the flood upon the earth … For whoso sheddeth man’s blood, and whoso eateth the blood of any flesh, shall all be destroyed from the earth.” 7:20–28. It follows, then, that any subsequent questions that arise would necessarily fall within those confines. And as such, concerning sacrifices, e.g., are Noachides allowed to bring sacrifices? Why should this question be left unanswered? Or any question? People want answers, not uncertainty. This book is a light in the darkness. And even a little bit of light dispels a lot of darkness. Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi.
    As far as prior religious adherents, it’s understandable that they are not going to be willing to switch off their deeply held beliefs in one fell swoop. But seeing as we are all involved in rectifying the world (tikkun olam), I think there is bigger issues.
    My personal understanding is quite unique, but goes back to ancient sources.
    Out of all the commandments, the greatest one is loving your fellow man (since we are all humans). Taken from a random website: “The Talmud tells a story of Rabbi Hillel, who lived around the time of Jesus. A pagan came to him saying that he would convert to Judaism if Hillel could teach him the whole of the Torah in the time he could stand on one foot. Rabbi Hillel replied, “What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. Go and study it.” (Talmud Shabbat 31a).[…]. It is a common-sense application of the Torah commandment to love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18), which Rabbi Akiba described as the essence of the Torah (according to Rashi’s commentary on the verse). Strange, huh? Isn’t the nature of Kings to be revered?
    Hashem is omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful, and yet loving one another is takes precedence. Is this not humanism?
    I find this fascinating, yet perplexing at the same time. Yet, the answer came to me in a semi-drunken stupor which I ranted to my room mate, all truth be told. From what little I remember, it would appear that we all have to live in this world together. For the Jews, we are told to rectify, correct, whatever fancy word like beirurim you want to call it, the spiritual and for the Gentiles the physical. Are they two exclusive realms, can one exist without the other? It would only make sense if the two were inextricably intertwined.
    It is equally remarkable that Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights, United States Bill of Rights, United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, et seq., are very similar. This is not coincidence. This goes back to Noach, when he got off the ark follow the deluge. According to our teaching, the flood specifically happened because “Everyone thought only of his own welfare and recognized only the laws that were in his own favor. Mutual respect and cooperation had given way to violence and sin.” Sound familiar?
    I cannot exactly recall what else I said, but through the haze if we are going to bring about the Redemption or at least assuage some of the world suffering we need to come together on some common ground. These universe laws provide the corner stone for gmar tikkun ( the final stage in fixing the world) by enlightening the precise proper interactions between man and his fellow man. I don’t see how there can be any other stream of thought.
    All my other thoughts are reflected in the other comments.

    • And…we have another clueless Jew who doesn’t understand what the Noahide Code is all about. The Noahide Law is NOT Jewish Law. It’s not about “belief,” it’s not about spirituality, it’s not about religion, it’s not about Judaism.

      • Yet, according to wikipedia, citing the sources of the Noachide Code, it is all that:

        Law: “set of imperatives which, according to the Talmud, were given by God [1] as a binding set of laws for the “children of Noah” – that is, all of humanity.[2][3]”
        Belief:”Accordingly, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws because they were given by Moses[4] is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Hebrew: עולם הבא‎‎ Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[5][6]”
        Religion:”Thus Maimonides wants to emphasis that a truly Righteous Gentile follows the seven laws because they are divinely revealed and thus are followed out of obedience to God.[47][48]”
        Spirituality:”In January 2004, Sheikh Mowafak Tarif, the spiritual leader of Israeli Druze, signed a declaration, which called on non-Jews living in Israel to observe the Noahide Laws. He was joined by the mayor of Shefa-‘Amr.[57]” (from the link:”includes the commitment to make a better ‘humane world based on the Seven Noachide Commandments and the values they represent commanded by the Creator to all mankind through Moses on Mount Sinai.’”)
        Judiasm:”The Talmud expands the scope of the seven laws to cover about 100 of the 613 mitzvoth.[20]: 18″ (in other words, it’s what mitzvos of Judaism are incumbent upon non-Jews).
        If it is none and Wikipedia is 100% wrong, then I am doubly curious now to know what it is.

  6. In reply to the posts by Kfir Shlomohalevi:

    Relying on wikipedia? What a trashy reply!

    The law part is fine.

    But the belief part is not part of the seven laws. Obedience to the seven makes a person righteous, not belief.

    The religion part is wrong because Rambam never calls the seven laws a religion. “religion” is a non-Torah concept. It’s nowhere in the written Torah and there wasn’t even a hebrew word for it properly.

    The bit you wrote about spirituality says nothing about spirituality.

    The Talmud isn’t Judaism. In fact, in the Torah worldview, “Judaism” doesn’t even exist. There is just the nation of Israel that is meant to be governed by the Jewish Torah and the other nations that are meant to be governed by the seven laws. This notion of a Jewish religion called Judaism is a non-Torah idea. And in a similar vein, attempting to make the seven laws into a religion just dilutes what they are.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s