Talk:Seven Laws of Noah/Archive 1

message: Needs merged w Noachide Laws Sam Spade
:Done. I have removed the links to the Netzarim websites for now. Could anyone who knows more about this explain what they're all about? <BR>JFW | T@lk 22:21, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: From User_talk:203.252.193.19:
Dear user:203.252.193.19, I see you're reintroduced the links on the Noahide Laws page. I was hoping you would explain on the talk page what these pages are really about. The first site has, as you state, a Muslim undertone (which might not actually fall within the good definition of B'nei Noach), while the book site is connected to the Netzarim, who follow Jesus as a teacher—something that possibly disqualifies for Ben Noach status according to many Orthodox Jewish authorities. Please comment. JFW | T@lk 12:25, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

text: For details of how Islam is a bnei noah religion please read Maimonides comments to R Obadiah. Who is this J-man you mention? Are you confusing Ribi Yehoshua Ben Joseph perhaps? Ribi Yehoshua was just a simple human being, nothing extraordinary about him at all. As for Netzarim they are orthodox Jews not Messianic wannabies. There are many orthodox Jewish groups who promote a messiah the Chabadniks for example. The dinstinctive line between legitimate orthodox and fake orthodox is whether they are Torah-observant or not and are part of the legitimate Beth Din System.
Whether Islam is a valid Ben Noah religion is a debate between several Rishonim, and Maimonides' view is complemented by that of Rabbi Nissim of Gerona, who had his reservations on this issue. T@lk 16:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes I am familiar with the debate. It seems those who shared Maimonides view won. 203.252.193.19 05:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Good point I think it would be a good idea for you to edit the Netzarim article with that point in mind. 203.252.193.19 05:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Do they insist? They seem quite difficult to understand and I don't know much about them. From what we have heard here they are not very helpful nor friendly. They will also probably tell you that you have to use their credit card order form (which isn't even on a secure server!) to dish out around 300 dollars for a handfull of photocopied spiral-bound "books" and that you have to get your answers from them. Even Dr. Zed thinks this sounds a bit like a scam. But don't take our word for it, just try writing to them to ask them and see what they say. If you are a Jew you can use this form http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrQlit/CntcQlit.htm but if you are not jewish they will insist that you contact them through this form http://www.netzarim.co.il/MisrKhtz/CntcKhtz.htm make what you want out of that! One of our faculty is a Jew but the rest of us who share the same interests (just a small bunch in the department) thought it was plain racist. :o) 203.252.193.19 05:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, who is this? Tell me if you see meZestauferov 10:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I put the christocracy.org link back in it seems like a good counter argument to the very iconoclastic noahide.com site. What was the islam connection? Zestauferov 10:25, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge etc. 

message: I just found myself reverting edits by User:64.12.113.38, who has been consistently adding material which might or might not be correct, but is heavily POV-larded. For everyone's information: the site http://www.public-action.com publishes articles titled "The American Coup d'Etat And The War For Jewish Supremacy" and the like. Hardly a useful resource without some form of disclaimer ("Warning:conspiracy theory with antisemitic overtones"). JFW | T@lk 22:28, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That site had to be linked to because the Noahide site took all their controversial material down, apparently in order to hide it after people got wise to it. Everything else I've added is accurate. Check it out... Nothing "POV" about the facts, Ma'am. User:64.12.113.38
64.12.113.38, please sign your entries (with a ~~~~, four tildes).<BR>
You haven't defended your additions, which seem to be largely based on the "controversial" material you refer to. Wikipedia is not a weblog, and linking to mirrored sites is entirely unhelpful. You might prefer to create a section titled "criticism" and incorporate all your material without the risk of being reverted.<BR>
Also, you should have awaited my response before reverting to your version again! JFW | T@lk 22:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: My additions are based on this pro-Noahide site: http://www.moshiach.com/action/morality/introduction.php Read the stuff in the "In This Section" area. Breaking the Noahide Laws is punishable by decapitation. It would be criminal to worship Jesus, believe in the Trinity, have images of Mary holding Christ, etc. --  everything I mention. The only reason I linked to the other site is because I'd seen the original Noahide site before it was stripped-down unbeknownst to me, went to look for it, and found it mirrored at the URL in question. I simply wanted the information to be available. My POV is that Christians and others who like Christmas trees ought to know just what Chabad is trying to accomplish. But that aside, the information IS relevant to the topic, which is "The Noahide Laws." 64.12.116.83 23:06, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: It looks nice, yes... good job -- except for the link removal. Maybe I'll mirror the site myself or something to get it away from the site you object to (which I didn't really look at, BTW). I think it's important to link to that information in particular, somehow, because it's so easy to read, "straight-up," and shows the true nature of the Noahide laws -- a nature that is usually masked by intimating they're just "seven wittle laws, no big whoop" when in reality, they entail the criminalization of Christianity. Anyway, can you explain what you mean about "chayav mita" and the prohibition against Torah-reading? I don't speak Hebrew myself, so I'm a tad clueless (OK, I'm a lot clueless!). I am fascinated and stunned by this topic and want to "get it right." (Yup, Apologia is mine; it's pretty Catlick, so be warned! LOL) 64.12.116.83 00:08, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Here is a good source Talmudic Encyclopaedia, 1981, p. 350 & 395-396.Zestauferov 13:26, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: This article needs more sections & sub-sections. There seems to be a confusion between those described as noahide adj. (equivalent to Ger Ha Shaar in the Tanakh) independent from a Beth Din (for whom only 7 laws apply and who may eat carrion) and Noahides n.prop. (Gerim Toshav Areilim) recognised by a Beth Din (for whom the 7 laws are categories) forbidden from eating carrion. It should also be mentioned that the controvercial Chabad movement was the only Beth Din in recent times to recognise Noahides (making them Ger Toshav). The number of Bethei Din now following in their footsteps is not docuented, but the despised Modern-Orthodox Netzarim Beth Din (based in Ra'anana, Israel) is now included among them.193.63.146.184 10:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: I have nothing against Jews, but the sly efforts of Jfdwolff 17:59, 8 Mar 2005 Jfdwolff to sully the catholic reputation are too much to stomach. They are blatently trying to protray all catholics as miso-Judaics on the basis of a page by one out-of-line catholic. As the comments by Zestauferov and Acegikmo1 01:46, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jayjg wikipaedia is not supposed to be a propaganda tool. The man is defacto excommunicatred. I.e. he can no-longer be called a catholic. Would you call a Jew Jewish if he began to believe in Jesus? He would be an apostate and you know it. Anti-semitism makes any catholic an apostate.217.35.76.197 19:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can provide some evidence he is an apostate, that would be great.  Otherwise, I'd prefer to just let him describe himself, rather than trust the excommunication of an IP address. Jayjg (talk) 22:43, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-Catholics

message: By the grace of G-d
Shalom everyone!
The category "Noahide Religions" is extreemly misleading Rambam doesn't say Muslims are Noahide just not idolworshipers.A Noahide (Ben Noah, Chasid Umot haOilam) according to Rambam and others is someone who officialy accepts the 7 Laws and observes them.According to letters of the Rambam Islam is herecy, a false religion started by a false prophet:
Mohammed the False Prophet - Islam the False Religion
I am a Noahide but I would like to use orthodoxy to show how wrong the above statement is. Only the Great Sanhedrein can speak for the majority of the jewish nation and declare whether or not a person is a prophet and whether or not a person is a lying prophet. Since the Great Sanhedrin ceased to exist before making any decree on either Yahyah, `Isa or Mohamed (PBUT) the jury is defacto still out on their status from the Jewish perspective. Anyone who makes a declaration about them is only spouting personal opinion and even though it might be heavily backed up by sources it completely without even the smallest nano-ounce of authority for the orthodox Jewish community. If the person were claiming that s/he speaks for the majority of the orthodox Jewish community that person would clearly be insane or have some kind of messiah complex.
If the declaration was negative like the one above, then it can be summed up as a wreckless attempt to bring unwarrented anger, hate and wrath uagainst the orthodox Jewish community and is on numerous accounts an action not sanctioned by Halakhah therefore such a Jew would either be wholly ignorant of Halakhah and in need of reprimand and education or be an apostate from Halakhah and therefore not really a practicing orthodox Jew. Clearly such a person is off his/her rocker and should be patronised as such. There there now.
Rivka Olenick
:Extraordinary.  If Jews cannot agree on anything without a Great Sanhedrin, how could they have adopted the Talmud, still less the Shulchan Aruch and the other great law codes?  How could they have accepted new laws like observing the Omer as a period of mourning when weddings are not permitted, since the rationale refers to events decades after the destruction of Jerusalem?  How could they have adopted the present Jewish calendar?
: In fact, it is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism that it proceeds by consensus, or at least majority - if there is a consensus among the Rabbinic authorities that something is Jewish law or generally accepted custom, it becomes part of the religion.  RachelBrown 09:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ariel, please avoid jargon. I'm not sure if you are correct. It is a machlokes rishonim whether the trinity is avodah zarah or not. JFW | T@lk 07:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Are Christianity and Islam Noachide?

message: Hi. Can't quite follow the whole past discussion. But it strikes me that the "Christian critics" section needs some reworking. Can someone provide a reference to verify these critics?
Also, I find it POV to put a Jewish rebuttal to each possible criticism in the same paragraph. Better to list/clarify the criticisms, with the sources/authors, and then a rebuttal paragraph. Otherwise, it doesn't sound like we are giving the critics their due.
Finally, the paragraph about the 10 commandments is somewhat POV. By far most of the weight is on a Jewish explanation, not on the Christian critique or concern. (Which is what? That the Noahide are redundant w/the 10? Pretty weak critique to justify such a long rebuttal!)
Maybe rename subsection, eg "Christian and Jewish disagreements about the Noahide approach"?
Thanks.
HG 06:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More mainstream Christian responses would be better. As for the point-rebuttal format, it seems to be commonly used in controversial Wikipedia articles. Jayjg (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian critics section -- verify? rework? 

message: If this is inappropriate procedure within Wikipedia, I apologize. Feel free to delete if it's bad ettiquette or takes up too much space. 
HG 19:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography via ATLA database 

message: I referred to a Ger Toshav as "he or she". Do the Noachide laws apply to women in the same way they do to men? Can a woman be a Ger Toshav? Isn't Ger a masculine word? Babajobu 19:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the Noahide laws apply to both sexes. I do not know at what age one becomes liable. Methinks it is at 20 (but don't put this in the article). JFW | T@lk 19:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is it correct or incorrect to refer to a hypothetical Ger Toshav as "he or she"? Is Ger a masculine word? Babajobu 19:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Well, a female Ger is typically called a giyoret, but to make this distinction time and time again would just clutter the article. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so we'll just go with "he or she" in reference to Ger Toshav. Babajobu 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender-neutral language in describing Gerim Toshavim?

message: Now the trollery seems to have ceased for the moment, could I propose a tidy-up of the "Christian criticisms" section?  I suspect this was inserted, or has become inflated, in an attempt to keep one or two very persistent and not very balanced critics at bay.  Personally, speaking as a Christian, I have never heard much if any of this critique expressed, and I have serious doubts whether it represents any notable body of opinion.  But I don't want to go ahead and delete chunks if there is a real debate out there - can anyone document one, either from a Christian or a Jewish perspective?  Is this a discussion that serious students of the subject find themselves getting into?  If not, I suggest we retitle this section, and boil it down to a discussion of the relation between the Noahide Laws (which most Christians have never heard of) and the Ten Commandments (which most Christians would consider themselves to be bound by, and to obey). 
Oh, and would it be a good idea to archive a whole chunk of the discussion above now?
seglea 20:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All excellent ideas; I trust you to do a bang-up job. Jayjg (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a tidy-up?

message: Noahide law is that part of Halakhah which deals with the types of Nochrim that Jews are allowed to either do business with or otherwise have nothing to do with unless it be as in the case of the Canaanites to act as the Fist of G-d against or to enslave with the aim of de-paganising them into a kind of Gerim (since all slaves should be given the option at some point in their lives to become Meshuchrarim -fully fledged Israelites).
Noahide Laws are a varied list of laws which different Rabbonim have proposed as being included in consideration of Noahide Law and the definition of a Noachide.
A Noahide is the type of Nochri which Halakhah permits Jews to have dealings with. 
Judaism has never been concerned with what defines Nochri salvation, we have enough to deal with among ourselves first. At least this aspect of Halakhah allows us to say that Noachide Nochrim are not so bad as other Areilim.
Any other opinions are not from unadulterated Orthodox Judaism. The article should clearly define all these aspects together for a start, and if there are any other opinions the type of opinion should be clearly categorized in sub-topic appendicies to the main article.
Shalom (unsigned post by )
:Hmmm... this post is a real doozy. One thing that piqued my interest here was the repeated usage of the term "Nochri", as well as reference to rabbis as "Rabbonim" (a specifically "Yeshivish/Charedi" spelling). Interestingly, "Halakha" was spelled here with a "kh", a very un-Charedi spelling. Substantially, when I read about "nothing to do with," "Fist of God," "enslave," and so on, I realized what was going on here. The above post was written by some one who is vaguely familiar with Orthodox Judaism (perhaps he/she even attended an Orthodox elementary school), yet possesses a distorted and hostile view of both the religion and its adherents. The only thing accurate about the above post is that "Noahide law" could theoretically be an appropriate term to describe the laws that pertain ritually to interaction between Jews and non-Jews (or for those that, for some unfathomable reason, think that the term "Gentile" is less ethnocentric (!), "Jews and Gentiles"). Only problem is, those laws are nothing like what the anon above implies. They're more like something you read out of a fiction novel by Noam Chomsky. "...Noachide Nochrim are not so bad as other Areilim." How absurd! Just to top off the Haredi stereo-typing, here's the grand finale: "Any other opinions are not from unadulterated Orthodox Judaism." Ahh... Oh, yes - ending a Wikipedia post with "Shalom" is the final nail in the coffin here. It's not (perhaps paradoxically so) a typical English signature to posts and letters written by Orthodox Jews (excepting, perhaps, pulpit rabbis at synagogues with some marginally affiliated members); among religious English speakers, the "Shalom" greeting is usually primarily limited to greeting someone one hasn't seen in a long time (there's no particular reason for this, but those are the social dynamics). P.S. Would such a "close-minded fanatic" have edited the other articles that you find in this anon's contribs? HKT talk</font> 03:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The poster looked a lot more like a Christian Noahide to me; aside from the spelling of halakha, look at the focus on "salvation". Jayjg (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but the anti-Judaism crazies also get a kick out of comparing "Ultra-Orthodox" Judaism to Christian fundamentalism, referring to it as "Jewish fundamentalism." The "salvation" thing may have been an attempt at just such a comparison. HKT talk</font> 23:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Noachide Law

message: :"Islam is a Noahide religion, although the Medieval sage Nissim of Gerona disagrees"
Could whoever put this point about the Ran in please elaborate on the source and exactly what his problem with islam was. Thanks 86.138.188.62 10:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, this is a minority view. All authorities since him agree that Islam is actually the most desirable religion for non-Jews. I would not be opposed to its removal. JFW | T@lk 11:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're kidding right? Seriously? Can you give any examples? Ger Or Toshav? 17:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no access to the Ran's statement at the moment. As for examples, this is well known. JFW | T@lk 18:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to know the Ran's statement, but it would be nice if you could give just one "well known" example following the Rambam since I have not come accross them and there are none indicated in the article so such an example would be useful for readers like me.Ger Or Toshav? 23:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crikey, this should indeed be referenced properly. I'll need to get access to the CD-ROM version of the Rambam, so I can search for it :-). JFW | T@lk 15:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I reverted because all sources refer to "Sheva Mitzvot", which means "seven commandments". The subdivision is not agreed upon by all authorities. To state that there are seven "categories" is an interpretation. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Ran's problem with Islam

message: This was added to Shulchan Aruch
:After the late Rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson started his famous Noahide Campaign in the 1980's, the number of Gentiles, willing to keep the Seven Laws of Noah as described in the Torah is increasing continuously. A codification of the exact obligations of the Gentiles in the spirit of the classical Shulchan Aruch was needed. In 2005 the scholar Rabbi Moshe Weiner of Jerusalem accepted to produce an in-dept codification of the Noahide precepts.The Divine Code, R. Moshe Weiner, Ed. Dr. Michael Schulman Ph.D., Vol, I., p. 21, 2008, publ. Ask Noah International  The work is called Sefer Sheva Mitzvot HaShem, published 2008/ 2009. As it is approved by both Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar and Rabbi Yonah Metzger, as well as other chassidic- and non-chassidic halachic authorities like Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz and Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet, it has an authoritative character.
This might instead be worth adding here. Any comments? JFW | T@lk 11:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to have in the "Further reading" section. If somebody has the book (one part of it is present in my synagogue), it can also be used as a source. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: A Shulchan Aruch for Gentiles

message: I see there is already some existing argument about "Islam" as an "invented practise". Avoiding further discussion of רם-בם, I've just pointed out that Sharia law and the Noahide laws both endorse similar practises. If anyone feels this is badly phrased or incompletely, feel free to change it, but I'd really prefer if Islam remained referenced here.
סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted the sort section on Islam, tagged as unsourced for some time. It will need sources that specifically discuss the conection. Misarxist (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam