Circumcision and non-Jews

One of the obstacles of converting to Judaism is for some people the fact that they have to be circumcized. In fact historically it has been the reason why some non-Jews decided to become God-fearers, which could range from occassional synagogue attendance to participation in prayer and study groups. Today a lot of people have chosen to circumcize their children, some for hygienic purposes while others do so because they believe they are commanded in it.

Among Christians there is some confusion and hesistance around this topic due to several of Paul’s remarks against circumcision, such as the following passage:

“Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” Gal. 5:2-6

From what I have read when Paul is referring to circumcision he is mainly arguing against non-Jews converting to Judaism but be that as it may most people take statements like this at face-value and are naturally hesistant if not opposing towards circumcision. Especially when this is done not for hygienic purposes but in order to fulfill a commandment.

Nevertheless there are quite a few non-Jews who want to have their children circumcized not for hygienic purposes but because they believe they are fulfilling a commandment. In Islam its a commandment but even among Christians there are those who hold that its a commandment. And in this post I would like to show a very interesting response to this question by the Rambam, the foremost decisor in the Jewish legal process, on what relationship non-Jews have to cicumcision.

Like I mentioned before, its a requirement for one that aspires to convert but certainly its not an obligation incumbent on non-Jews. Nevertheless absence of obligation does not render fulfillment of commandments impossible and it seems in this case it is no different.

The words of the Rambam are cited in an article (p.2) written by R. Twersky:

“It’s allowed for a Jew to circumcize a non-Jew if the non-Jew wants to cut and remove the foreskin, since any commandment that a non-Jew does he is given reward for, but not [the same reward] as one who is commanded and does [it], and on the condition that he does it while acknowledging the truth of the prophecy of Moses our Teacher, that this commandment [comes] from the mouth of God above, and he believes in this, and he does not do it for another reason or on account of his own insights… as was explained in the Baraita of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and already we wrote this in our work (Hilchot Melachim 8:10). And that which the Baraita said (Avoda Zara 26b): “A Jew can circumcize a non-Jew for the purposes of conversion.” That’s obvious! One who will be converted is [obviously] circumcized and is his corona is uncovered. [So what does it mean "for the purpose of conversion"?] You might have thought that that which it says “for the purpose of conversion” excludes the case of the circumcision of a non-Jew [who does not intend to convert], and if that were the case, then it would be impossible to circumcize him and let him remain in his non-Jewish status as a circumcized non-Jew. [Because of this possible incorrect inference] the Talmud explained that that which it says “for the sake of conversion” was not [stated] to exclude circumcision [generally] but rather to exclude the case of “moranah” which means if the non-Jew had some sickness or parasite on the foreskin, a Jew is not allowed to cut off the foreskin in order to heal him, because this cutting would not involve a mitzvah, rather the non-Jew simply desires to be healed. For this reason, the Talmud explained that the intention of writing “for the sake of conversion” was not to exclude circumcision in general…. and it is irrelevant if the non-Jew comes to be circumcised or for them to complete the circumcision, and there is no difference between an idol-worshipper and any other non-Jew. And anyone who comes to be circumcized for the sake of the commandment we can circumcize him according to the religious rules of how to behave. And [thus] wrote Moshe.” (Translation by a friend)

So it appears that a non-Jew can fulfill the commandment of circumcision and its only for this reason that a Jew would be allowed to circumcize him. Not for health or other reasons. Now lest one think that Jewish law doesnt allow medical treatment of non-Jews, this is not the case. It should be kept in mind that the Rambam was writing in terms of whether the circumcision could be considered a commandment, which only applies when the non-Jew’s motivation is not medical.

The Rambam’s conclusion on this issue is rather the opposite of what I thought at first. I would have thought that a mohel (person trained in circumcision) would only be willing to do it for hygienic reasons if the person is not Jewish. But the Rambam says explicitly that it can only be done if the intention is to fulfill a commandment and not for health reasons. Consistent with his general approach the Rambam allows non-Jews to fulfill commandments that they are not commanded in and even suggests that there is reward in this! Whether Paul would have thought likewise we dont really know, although the majority of Christians conclude from his letters the opposite of the Rambam’s conclusion.

Torah and Non-Jews

Having studied quite a few articles and responsa on how a non-Jew is to relate to the Torah I think it would be nice to present some opinions. Especially since there seems to be quite some confusion on the internet as to a non-Jew’s relationship to the Torah and most discussions omit proper reference to the sources in the Jewish legal tradition. Credit for locating and teaching me all these sources goes to a good friend who is far more knowledgeable than I am.

Alot of halachic questions start with the Rambam and so will this post, specifically Hilchot Melachim Ch. 10:

The Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 10:9 says as following:

עכו”ם שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה. לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצות שלהן בלבד. וכן עכו”ם ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול. אם עשאהו לעצמו כמו שבת חייב מיתה. ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו. כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמן מדעתן. אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצות. או יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע. ואם עסק בתורה. או שבת. או חדש דבר. מכין אותו ועונשין אותו. ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג

“An idol-worshipper that engages in Torah is liable to the death penalty. He should not engage [in the Torah] except for the 7 mitzvot alone. Similarly an idol-worshipper that rests even on a weekday. If he makes it to himself like a Shabbat he is liable to the death penalty. And its not necessary to say [that] if he makes it a festival to himself [it is also prohibited]. The general principle is that we dont allow him to invent religion and to do commandments that he made up. Rather either he becomes a convert and accepts all of the commandments. Or he stands in his Torah and does not add nor subtract. And if he engages in Torah or in Shabbat or invents a new thing, we lash him and punish him, and inform him that he is liable to the death penalty on this account but we dont kill him.”

In Hilchot Melachim 10:10, the very next halacha, he writes:

בן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה כדי לקבל שכר. אין מונעין אותו לעשות כהלכתה. ואם הביא עולה מקבלין ממנו. נתן צדקה מקבלין ממנו. ויראה לי שנותנין אותה לעניי ישראל. הואיל והוא ניזון מישראל ומצוה עליהם להחיותו. אבל העכו”ם שנתן צדקה מקבלין ממנו ונותנין אותה לעניי עכו”ם

“A son of Noah that wants to do a commandment from the rest of the commandments of the Torah (i.e. other than the 7) in order to obtain reward, we dont prevent him to do so according to the halacha. And if he brought a sacrifice we accept it from him. If he gave charity, we accept it from him. And it appears to me that we give it to the poor of Israel. Since he is fed by Israel and we are commanded to sustain him. But an idol-worshipper that gave charity we accept it from him and give it to poor idol-worshippers.”

On these two halachot alot has been written and Ill try to give a glimpse in this post. It needs to be said that these arguments are often quite difficult and only come to their full force when read in their entirety. Hence if you are interested in learning more about this you would do well to look up the sources yourself.

There is an obvious discrepancy between the two halachot, in the one the Rambam seems to forbid any additional commandments while in the other he seems to allow it and even says theres reward for doing them.

The Radbaz, in his commentary to the Rambam solves the discrepancy as following:

ואם רצה לעשות באומרו שנצטוה עליה אין מניחין אותו לעשותה אלא אם עשאה כדי לקבל עליה שכר כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה וכן דקדק רבינו וכתב כדי לקבל שכר. ומ”מ במצות שצריכין קדושה וטהרה כגון תפילין ס”ת ומזוזה אני חוכך להחמיר שלא יניחו אותם לעשותן

“And if he wants to do [the additional commandments] while saying that it was commanded to them we dont allow him to do [them] rather if he does them in order to obtain reward like one who is not commanded but does [we allow it], and thus our master was precise and wrote “in order to obtain reward”. Nevertheless regarding the commandments that require holiness and purity like Tefilin, Torah scrolls and Mezuzah I argue to be stringent that they should not allow them to do them.”

So according to the Radbaz halacha 9 applies to one that thinks he is obligated to do certain additional commandments, while halacha 10 applies to one who realizes he is not obligated to do these additional comandments but nevertheless aspires to them in order to obtain reward.

The Avnei Shoham disagrees with the Radbaz and says this distinction on basis of intention is not found anywhere in halacha, and in addition to this he argues that this distinction could not explain the situation of Avraham Avinu, who is said to have kept the whole Torah but certainly did not act for reward. He reads the Rambam in a different way: halacha 9 refers to a person who does commandments he made up himself while halacha 10 refers to a person who does commandments that are among the 613. This is why the Rambam wrote in halacha 9 “we dont allow him to invent religion and to do commandments that he made up” while in halacha 10 he wrote “a commandment from the rest of the commandments of the Torah”. According to the Avnei Shoham, exceptions to this rule are engaging in Torah, keeping Shabbat and sacrifices other than the burnt offering.

R. Moshe Feinstein explains the Rambam in a very different way; he says a non-Jew has no possibility to do any additional commandments at all (except for bringing certain sacrifices and giving charity) and thus theres no reward either. In his opinion by saying “in order to obtain reward” the Rambam is not conceding that non-Jews get reward on additional commandments but is just explaining the intention of the non-Jew (which is false). Interestingly in another teshuva of his on whether non-Jews are commanded in prayer he does seem to agree with the Radbaz’s reading and says non-Jews can voluntarily pray when not in distress (which is optional to them) and get reward for it like one who is not commanded but does.

The Chatam Sofer comes to a very different conclusion, he says:

ועיין רמב”ם פ׳ יוד ממלכים ה׳ ט׳ וה׳ יוד שנראה שמחלק בין עכו״ם לבן נח שאותו קיבל עליו שלא לעע״ז וזה מותר לשבות ולקיים המצות שירצה ומזה מקבלים קרבנות ומלמדים לו תורה ומקבלים ממש צדקה והשתא לק״מ מגוי ששבת מי איכא מידי דהרי גם גוי אם אינו עע״ז מותר לשבות

“And see the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 10:9 and :10, that it appears that he distinguishes between an idol-worshipper and a son of Noah, that one accepted on himself not to worship idols and to this one its permitted to rest (keep Shabbat) and to fulfill the commandments that he desires and from him we accept sacrifices and we teach him Torah and accept literally from him charity and now there is no question at all from the case of a non-Jew that rests on Shabbat — is there any problem? — since behold also a non-Jew, if he does not worship idols is allowed to rest on Shabbat.”

So the Chatam Sofer thinks the discrepancy can be solved by focusing on the word that is used by the Rambam in referring to non-Jews. In halacha 9 its ‘idol-worshipper’ while in halacha 10 its ‘son of Noah’. To be sure the Rambam is careful with his wording so this might be the solution, however R. Twersky notes that in the Rambam’s teshuva regarding whether a Jew can circumcize a non-Jew he does not distinguish between idol-worshipper or son of Noah

It is quite striking though that the Chatam Sofer goes as far as saying that a non-Jew that accepts the 7 commandments can perform any additional commandment he desires

Arriving at a similar conclusion from a very different angle is the Chemdat Yisrael, who explains the prohibition of Shabbat observance for non-Jews in the following way: in Rabbinic literature we find the idea that there is no astrological influence on Israel but there is on the nations. The Abarbanel explains this as the reason why Jews are not allowed to ascribe power to any other thing than God (as He is the only influence in their lives). Therefore since Jews are exclusively devoted to God, and since God rests on Shabbat, they are required to rest as well. Non-Jews however, are allowed to ascribe influence to other beings in addition to God since they are under the influence of the stars/spheres. These stars/spheres are however in continual movement, therefore non-Jews are not allowed to rest either. If you are already as uncomfortable as I am was when reading this, bear with the Chemdat Yisrael a bit more: if a non-Jew were to commit himself exclusively to God, and ascribe influence to Him alone, it would be allowed and even fitting (!) for him to rest on Shabbat like his Maker does.

As with anything in Judaism, there are more opinions on the matter but I think this gives a nice glimpse into how several poskim (jewish legal decisors) have dealt with our topic. I think this also provides a good reminder not to take answers limited to ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at face value, theres a whole chain of thought linked to these answers which if omitted will certainly yield the wrong impression. Like I said before, this blogpost should only be a glimpse of this process but the serious student will take this is as a springboard into greater study.

I also think this shows that there is real room for non-Jews to relate to the God of Israel beyond the mere bones of the 7 categories, though there is no pressure in doing so. Furthermore, an understanding of these provisions yields in my opinion a picture of great inclusiveness and sensitivity to the needs and abilities of mankind who is created in the image of God.

Prayer and Non-Jews

A cursory look at the 7 laws of Noah may lead one to think that its not very comprehensive and can in a sense be kept by any civilized person. Over the course of my studies I have however learned that theres much to depth to these categories of laws and the obligations of a son of Noah in halacha are much larger than would appear at face value.

One of the basic needs of a religious life would seem to be prayer, at least in Islam it is counted as one of the five pillars of its religious requirements and I am sure no serious Christian would dispute the obligatory nature of prayer. This basic need seems however to be absent among the 7 laws of Noah.

Fortunately the question whether non-Jews are commanded in prayer has already been asked by someone and answered by the great Rav Moshe Feinstein in his Igros Moshe (OH 2:25). What follows is a summary of some of the points he makes but no subsitution for the full force of his response.

He starts out by saying that its clearly not numbered among the 7 commandments of the sons of Noah and neither mentioned by the Rambam when he details the obligations for the sons of Noah in the ninth chapter of the Laws of Kings (note: he says obligations, he is of course aware of what the Rambam accords to Adam and the Patriarchs). But, he notes, we find in the Tanach the statement: “my house, shall be called a house of prayer to all nations”, which would seem to yield a connection between non-Jews and prayer. And to be clear, this does not refer to converts as Rashi adds: “and not to Israel alone”.

So it seems to be that even though non-Jews are exempted from prayer, when praying to God they fufill a mitzvah nonetheless and get reward for this. Reward like one who is not commanded but does (i.e. lesser reward than one who is commanded and does). He squares this with the prohibition for a non-Jew to invent a commandment or to act like he is commanded in something with the words of the Radbaz who says that a non-Jew is allowed to do additional commandments as long as he comes as one who is not commanded (i.e. realizes that he is not obligated).

Does this mean that non-Jews are exempt from any requirement to pray? According to Rav Moshe this exemption refers only to fixed prayers but not to prayers that are formed in a time of need or distress; when one is sick (or for a sick person) or for sustenance, these he says, are obligatory for non-Jews as well.

The reason that this is not counted among the 7 laws is because it is a principle of faith in God; to pray to Him and expect all from Him. Belief in God is also not counted among the 7 but the Rambam says explicitly that one who does not believe the commandments derive from God (which requires one to believe in Him first), is not among the pious of the nations and when doing any of the 7 is not counted as having fulfilled them.

So even though it appears not to feature among the 7 laws of Noah, there is an obligation for non-Jews to pray to God in times of distress or need and to expect everything from Him. When doing so they are rewarded like one who is commanded and does. Regarding fixed prayers, these are allowed as long as the person realizes that he is not obligated in them and the reward is like one who is not commanded but does.

Rationale for observing commandments other than the 7

Those who read my blog know that I have been looking for some time for a way to explain my wish to observe commandments I havent been commanded in. The whole notion of voluntarily observing a commandment seems kind of a contradiction. Most people perform commandments because they are: commanded in it, expect some kind of reward/punishment, or because its a custom of their community. In my case the first and last definitely not apply, and being punished for not observing something you have not been asked to do seems kind of harsh.

Alot of questions related to observing mitzvot (commandments) other than the 7 that are obligatory I have tried to find answers to, through the internet or talks with other people. But most of the Jewish websites I frequented gave very incomplete answers and the pragmatic approach by others was often very inconsistent.

A good friend of mine however has over the last couple of months guided me through the relevant sources that deal with these topics. It has been truly amazing, to see how the great halachists (Jewish law decisors) deal with questions like mine and a great delight to be able, with help, to read these myself.

One of the first texts we studied was an article by R. Mayer Twersky titled “On the matter of the sons of Noah fulfilling the 613 commandments” which can be found overhere.

One of his paragraphs was very enlightening and expressed something that I have been feeling for quite some time but did not know how to put to words. His comments are specifically referring to the Rambam in Hilchot Melachim 8:11 who wrote:

כל המקבל שבע מצות ונזהר לעשותן הרי זה מחסידי אומות העולם. ויש לו חלק לעולם הבא. והוא שיקבל אותן ויעשה אותן מפני שצוה בהן הקב”ה בתורה והודיענו על ידי משה רבינו שבני נח מקודם נצטוו בהן

“Anyone who accepts the 7 commandments and is careful to do them, behold he is from the pious of the nations. And he has a place in the world to come. And this is one who accepts them and does them because the Holy One blessed be He commanded them in the Torah and made them known by Moses our master that the sons of Noah were before commanded in them.”

R. Twersky writes on this:

ההודאה בנבואת מרע”ה ובצווי הקב”ה אינו בגדר תנאי קודם למעשה, אלא מגוף קיום המצוה. קיום המצוה
מתבצע בזה שמקבל עליו עול מצוות, מודה בצווי ה’ ע”י מרע”ה, ועושה כדברי הצווי. כלומר, עצם הקיום הוא ההודאה בצווי הקב”ה ע”י מרע”ה, והעשיה כדברי הצווי ההוא

“[...] the acceptance of the prophecy of Moses our master, peace be upon him, and the command of the Holy One blessed be He, is not in the category of a condition before the action, rather it is the essence of the fulfillment of the commandment. The fulfillment of the commandment is accomplished in this; that he accepts on himself the yoke of the commandments, accepting the command of Hashem by means of Moses our master, peace be upon him, and he does like the words of the command.” p. 3

So he says that a one who is not obligated in a certain commandment, but wants to perform it can still fulfill it, in this case there is no object of the commandment, but rather the deed is in itself the acceptance of the God of Israel. He notes further that this is the main difference with one who is obligated and fulfills the commandment, in which case there is an object of the commandment, and the fulfillment is the doing of that object.

Feathers of a living creature

I saw on the news today that IKEA has stopped buying feathers for their pillows from certain suppliers as these suppliers pluck the feathers from gooses and ducks while they are alive. It was reported in a certain documentary that in China some sellers pluck these animals about three times before they slaughter them.

Now you would think, whats the big deal, we are shearing sheep as well but apparently plucking feathers hurts about as much as plucking hair from human beings and is forbidden when it comes to these animals.

One of the seven laws of Noah (the laws that are encumbent on all mankind) is prohibiting the consumption of a limb of a living creature. And while this is of course not the same as severing a limb I think the practice would fall under this prohibition as these seven laws of Noah are better reckoned as categories of commandments than single commandments.

Limb of a Living Creature

The prohibition for the Sons of Noah to consume the limb of living creature, Ive always found a bit weird, as I couldnt really think of anytime I had done such a thing or seen others do so. I had heard of people eating some things while they were still alive but never of someone cutting off a limb and eating it while the animal was still alive.

So I was quite suprised when talking to a friend of mine who had gone on exchange to South-Korea, who told me that besides the dogs he had eaten, he had eaten the arms of an Octopus while it was still alive. He told me, that you had to eat the arm very fast as it was till moving and could suck itself to your neck!?

I was horrified when I heard that, not only because it was cruel but also because it just sounded disgusting to eat Octopus especially if it was still moving.

It is indeed very cruel and think I understand why this was codified as a prohibition, as Aaron HaLevi says:

[...] there is no greater example of heartlessness than for one to rip a limb or some meat off animal that stands before him alive and to eat therefrom. [1]

And as such, as also Lichtenstein in his book on the seven laws of Noah, points out, this prohibition encapsulates all cruelty against animals, which in some parts of the world seems necessary.

———————————————————-

[1] Aaron HaLevi, Sefer HaHinnuch (edited by Charles B. Chavel) (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1960), p.587

Quote on Noachidism

What follows is a quote from the introduction to a book that Im reading, its an excerpt of a letter written by a Rabbi to a Christian that wanted to convert to Judaism but was turned to Noachidism.

There is no doubt that the Bible, aside from the universalistic passion of the prophets, gives the impression that in the carrying out of the compact made with the fathers, G’d was chiefly concerned with the chosen people, to the exclusion of other peoples. Hence, the accusation leveled against Judaism that it could never rise in its entirety above the conception of a national G’d. But, can it be imagined for a single moment that after having concerned himself so much with the descendants of Noah, which means with all humanity according to Genesis, G’d after long centuries of waiting would give a special law to the Israelites appointed to be the priests of humanity, and would not have troubled himself in any way about the rest of the human race, rejecting it, until the appearance of Christianity, leaving it totally abandoned, without revelation and without law? And again is it reasonable to conceive that in abolishing the Noachide Covenant of Genesis – and where is that abolition to be found – would G’d during all this long interval leave no other resource to man than the help of this poor reason? This would have been unreasonable, unjust, imprudent, unworthy even of a mortal, for it would entirely undermine the faith in the necessity of Revelation.

No, no; all this is impossible, and consequently not only has the Noachide law never ceased to be in force but even Israel, with its special code, Mosaism, was created for it, to safeguard it, to teach it, to spread it. The Jews thus exercised, I repeat, the function of priests of humanity, and found themselves subject in this way to the priestly rules which concern them exclusively: the law of Moses.[1]

———————————————————————

[1] Aaron Lichtenstein, The Seven Laws of Noah, (New York: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press, 1995), pp.7-8

Troubles ahead?

“You are gonna get into trouble if you continue like this”

These words were spoken to me by a man at the Kotel who had seen me several nights in a row studying at the Kotel (after 23:00, the Kotel is great, a bit of a breeze and not too many people, and of course Rav Zicherman’s Daf Yomi shiur which is very interesting to see, unfortunately only seeing as I cant understand what he’s saying:P).

I had asked him several questions the night before on the parts I was studying, mainly words I couldnt translate and this night when he saw me again, he came over.

We talked a bit and I told him at the start of the conversation that I was not Jewish, so as to avoid confusion. You see, although there was no reason, outwardly to expect me to be Jewish, I mean, I did not wear a Kippah, just a cap, and no tzitzit, I think he still expected me to be Jewish, because in all honesty, who would expect a non-Jew to be studying Ibn Ezra at 11pm at the Kotel

So he said to me, “youre gonna get yourself into trouble”, I was kind of suprised, I mean a comment like, go study the laws of Noah, I would understand, but the idea of me getting into trouble for studying Tanakh I never heard of (Im glad I left my Mishnayot at home:P). So I kindly asked him with whom I would get into trouble, to which he replied “with G’d”.

He said “you cant study Torah, the only thing you can study is the 7 laws of Noah and the Scriptures that precede it”. He made a remark which I found quite amusing “ever heard of doctor saying he wants to be a paratrooper?” He said “you just cant do that”.

I responded “Im aware of the prohibtion on observing more laws than the 7 given to Noah but I think the Rambam somewhere said that its permissible to teach Christians Tanakh as they hold it to be divine”. He wasnt aware of such a statement by the Rambam but told me he would look into it.

Meanwhile I went to the computer to find the specific passage of the Rambam and found it. For those interested here it is:

[לז] שו”ת הרמב”ם סימן קמט ד”ה התשובה היא

ומותר ללמד המצות  לנוצרים ולמשכם אל דתנו, ואינו מותר דבר מזה לישמעאלים, לפי מה שידוע לכם על אמונתם, שתורה זו אינה מן השמים,  וכאשר ילמדום דבר מן כתוביה (וימצאוהו) מתנגד למה שבדו הם מלבם לפי ערבוב הסיפורים ובלבול העניינים אשר  באו להם  . . . אבל  הערלים +ר”ל הנוצרים+ מאמינים בנוסח התורה שלא נשתנה, ורק מגלים בה פנים בפרושם המופסד ומפרשים זאת  בפירושים, שהם ידועים בהם, ואם יעמידום על הפרוש הנכון, אפשר שיחזרו למוטב, ואפילו לא יחזרו, כשרוצים  שיחזרו, לא יבוא לנו מזה מכשול ולא ימצאו בכתוביהם דבר שונה מכתובינו.

[37], Responsa, The Rambam, 149

And its permitted to teach the commandments to the Christians and to draw them closer to our religion, and it is not permitted to speak from these [i.e. teach these] to the Muslims, for what is known to your of their beliefs, that this Torah is not from heaven, and when they learn from the Scriptures (and they find) opposing to what is in their hearts, [they say] this is because the stories are mixed up and the ideas that came to them… but the uncircumcised, i.e. the Christians, believe in the text of the Torah that its not changed and only מגלים בה פנים בפרושם המופסד ומפרשים זאת  בפירושים, שהם ידועים בהם but if they are יעמידום on the correct interpretation, it is possible that they turn to the better, and even [if] they dont return, כשרוצים  שיחזרו this will not come as an obstacle to us and they wont find their Sciptures to be different from our Sciptures.

I gave the man a call and he said “ok you won, I talked to some people and they say its allowed”, I then gave him the teshuva of the Rambam as a confirmation, and continued my learning*

 

*I doubt it if the Rambam’s dissapproval would have stopped me from learning Tanakh, but still his approval makes it easier as it enables me to ask questions to my Jewish friends on Scripture.