Informers

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 58b says:

עובד כוכבים ששבת חייב מיתה שנא’ ויום ולילה לא ישבותו

A non-Jew that keeps Shabbat is liable to the death penalty as it is written “day and night he shall not rest”.

This seems quite radical and I think its good to remind oneself that when saying death penalty its likely to be an exaggerated form of speech, its not like they had the power to carry out such sentences.

Nonetheless it remains surprising, what is so bad about a non-Jew keeping Shabbat?

A Midrash has this Gemara in a slightly different fashion:

עובד כוכבים ששמר את השבת עד שלא קבל עליו את המילה חייב מיתה

A non-Jew that keeps the Shabbat is liable to the death penalty until the point that he accepts circumcision.

The addition is quite significant though, does this mean they should be converted first? The continuation of the Midrash however implies that this is not referring to conversion because it asks: “Why? They arent commanded on it?”

Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg read a very interesting explanation of this midrash which he relates in his piece titled: “Whether its permissable to give a lecture on the judgements (laws) of Israel in front of a non-Jewish audience”.

He says:

ראיתי  לפני שלשים שנה ויותר בספר אחד שכתב בשם חכם אחד כי המאמרים בסנהדרין על עכו”ם ששבת ועל העוסק בתורה נאמרו נגד כת הנוצרים הראשונים שפרקו מעליהם ברית מילה אבל קיימו את השבת וגם עסקו בתורה והיו מזדווגן לבנ”י בשבת ומועד ושמעו כל דבריהם ואח”כ הלכו והלשינו עליהם בפני הרשות

More than 30 years ago I saw in a book written by a certain Rabbi that what they say in Sanhedrin on a non-Jew that keeps Shabbat and engages in Torah (that he is liable to the death penalty) was said regarding a sect of early Christians who cast off from themselves [the commandment] of circumcision, but fulfilled the Shabbat and also engaged in Torah, and they joined together with the Jews on Shabbat and holidays and they heard all of their words and afterwards went and tattled/informed on them with the government.

So according to this author the Gemara was reacting towards a particular series of events that took place in synagogue(s). This group of early Christians that were to some extent observing Torah were joining them – perhaps every once in a while or continually – on Shabbat and some day told the government about what the Jews were discussing, presumably phrased in ways that the government would be less pleased with.

Thats why the Midrash adds “until the point that he accepts circumcision” because that ensures the Gemara’s statement is restricted to that sect of early Christians and not to all non-Jews that desire to keep Shabbat. The obstacle is however quite significant, which ensures at the same time that it is accessible only to those that are very dedicated or those that are lucky to be circumcized by their parents already (though Im not sure this was common in the time of the Gemara like it is today).

I seem to recall this also the other way around, where the Jews were at a certain point in time distancing themselves from the early Christians before the government which was not appreciated by the early Christians. Perhaps someone recalls the event Im referring to. I think this is a rather interesting example also of the relatively late parting of the ways between Christianity and Judaism. Im not sure whether it can be imagined that (dedicated) Jews were attending the meetings of early Christians (in whatever fashion these took place) but the other way around seems certainly to have been the case even if it ended in this particular instance in a negative way.

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.

Receiving reward for not eating pig?

קהלת רבה פ”א, ט: רבנן אמרין לעתיד לבא הקב”ה מוציא כרוז ומכריז ואומר כל מי שלא אכל בשר חזיר מימיו יבא ויטול שכרו, והרבה מאומות העולם שלא אכלו בשר חזיר מימיהם והם באים ליטול שכרן

Kohelet Rabba 1,9: The Rabbi’s said: in the future the Holy One Blessed be He will bring forth an announcer announcing and he will say “all who did not eat pig in his days will come and take his reward”, and many from the nations of the world who did not eat pig in their days, they will come and receive their reward.

In Search of an Explanation I

The article on the right reads: “Children malnourished by Biblical diets”

It was sent to me, kind of as a joke, by a person very dear to me, pointing out that she wasnt the only one who thought keeping dietary laws didnt make sense.

The article she sent contained some of the findings of Nathan MacDonald, theologian at the University of St. Andrews who has concluded on basis of archeological research that the diet of the ancient Israelites did contain enough calories but was lacking in essential vitamines and minerals. He says they did not eat enough meat, and neither vegetables or fruit which led to iron deficiency.

The person who sent me this, did so because I once passed on the rabbit she had prepared, and at that time said that I was reading about the laws in Leviticus 11. It was one of the most uncomfortable dinners I ever had but luckily they didnt make a big deal out of it. Though it was memorable enough to make them send me this newspaper article after at least two years

At that time I was under the impression that it was a sin for me to eat rabbit because it said so in the Torah. My views have changed and I no longer think that if I, as a non-Jew, would eat rabbit, it would be a sin. But I still do not want to eat it and even though now I would perhaps have eaten it to avoid causing anguish to my host (which is a Torah commandment that is applicable to me), if I have the chance, I will pass on certain animals.

It falls miles short of keeping kosher because that entails a whole lot more than simply refraining from the animals listed in Leviticus 11. But in some ways is an attempt to do so.

The question is of course why I do it, if I dont consider it to be a sin to do otherwise…

Its a good question and one that I am still trying to work out. I think seeing Christians as taking a position between God-fearers and converts, might be helpful. As its obvious from the NT that those communities did not consider non-Jewish followers of Jesus on the same level as plain God-fearers.

God-fearers were free to come and go, could join the Synagogue services, observe the Shabbat, Kashrut, and there was no requirement for them to deny their own gods. But for non-Jewish followers of Jesus there was only to be one God; the Father and one Rabbi; Yeshua. This is actually much closer to the convert to Judaism, who also needed to believe in one God and deny any other gods, but falls short in that the non-Jewish follower was not required to take on the full yoke of the Torah as decided by the Jerusalem council, whereas the convert has to take on the full yoke of the Torah and is legally liable when transgressing.

It seems then that a non-Jewish follower of Rabbi Yeshua would fall between the basic God-fearer and the full-fledged convert to Judaism. Though this does not quite solve it as when it comes to participation and communal standing, it seems, at least in Paul, that non-Jewish followers are treated equally and as part of the community, in a sense, like a convert.

It might then be more accurate to suggest that when it came to communal standing, the non-Jewish follower of Yeshua was like the convert to Judaism but when it came to liability of the Torah, he or she was like the God-fearer, free to take on commandments and perhaps even encouraged to do so, but not obligated and thus not liable.

Hence given the idea that a non-Jewish follower of Yeshua falls between a God-fearer and and a convert to Judaism, it makes sense to exhibit some Torah observance on the part of this follower, minimal as it may be. And I think this is the background to why I, as a Christian, try to incorporate some of the laws of the Torah into my life, knowing that I am not liable when transgressing, but am able to sanctify different realms of my existence to the one God of Israel in pursuit of his Messiah, my Rabbi Yeshua.

NB There are still problems with this explanation but Ill leave that for the next post

Means for reaching a higher standard

I was listening to a lecture by Paula Fredriksen titled: “Sin: The Early History of an Idea“, in which she explained the development of the idea of sin. I actually googled her because of a book (From Jesus to Christ) I have been meaning to read and after the lecture am convinced I should:)

She made some comments about the development of sin and atonement via the sacrificial system and related this to the grander attitude of Jews towards non-Jews. This was all quite familiar but became more interesting when she related this to Paul; hence my blogpost.

General attitude

In general, during the second temple period, the idea was held that Jews were to observe the Torah, that consisted of the 613 commandments and non-Jews were not meant to observe those rules. What they were to observe wasnt really codified as it is today (cf. seven laws of Noah) but in general there were some ‘natural’ commandments that they were to observe (in my opinion the three cardinal sins at the very least and perhaps more that later came to be recognized as the seven laws of Noah).

These laws werent really meant to reach some kind of holiness or high standard but more to prevent society from turning into chaos. The non-Jews did not need to attain any high standard, though they werent prevented from doing so neither. In fact there were non-Jews that were attracted to this higher standard and took on more commandments than the minimum, these were called God-fearers. This was lauded but it does not look like an active outreach took place to encourage this.

A different attitude

Paul however had a different view, he held the non-Jews to a higher standard, he expected them too to aim for attaining levels of holiness and went beyond the sins that were most evident. Paula Fredriksen relates that in antiquity the sins that were mostly commented on by Jewish writers on non-Jews were fornication (sexual activity without marriage) and idolatry, but Paul started to include many more sins and in a sense erased the difference in level he expected from Jew and non-Jew.

The problem with this was that Jews had an instrument or  a means of attaining this holiness, the Torah, which commandments when observed set a person apart. The non-Jews however did not have this kind of measure and as a result had two options; 1. invent their own system of laws that would lead to holiness 2. use the measure of the Jews (i.e. the Torah).

Problems

Paul however made it even more difficult:) he re-interpreted the Torah and its commandments in a way that to this day theres no real certainty about what he believed should be observed and by who it should be observed. But lets for a moment assume he believed in the ongoing validity of the Torah (the case made by for example Mark Nanos)

In that case, the choice seems fairly simple, the non-Jews should be using the measure that was inspired by the Divine and developed in subsequent generations as this would be much more ‘biblical’ than a secular based system. But were this to happen, these non-Jews would virtually turn into Jews, which apparently didnt sit well with him either.

So perhaps some adapted form was called for, but how does one adapt a law that from its foundation knows only two classes; the Jew and non-Jew. Is it even possible to divide these laws into Jewish laws and more universalistic laws?

Invitation-based?

Im very much aware and have indeed myself some year ago come to the idea (through Flusser & vd Sandt) that it could be more in the style of an invitation based approach where a minimum is set and one is invited to take on more commandments, but the halachic system of the Torah knows of no such invitation. It knows only of either taking on the whole yoke of the Torah or not!

There is no such thing (in theory) as a gradual taking on of commandments. In fact the very nature of something being a commandment seems to disolve when its based on an invitation, as compelling as this invitation may be.

So we are left with a problem, on the one hand Paul exhorts non-Jews to attain higher standards than before but how this is to take place is not clear at all. He may say “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” but how one is to do that, he seems not to specify…

What are your thoughts on this? Assuming non-Jewish disciples of Jesus were expected to attain a higher standard than before, how were they to do this?

Our forefathers?

As I was learning Chumash & Rashi last week I came across the following comment of Rashi:

Its on Deut 26:11

And you shall rejoice in all the good that the Lord your God has given to you and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the sojourner who is among you.

Rashi says:

And the convert who is in your midst – He brings but does not recite for he is unable to say “to our forefathers”. [1]

I remember once someone told me at the Kotel that I was allowed to pray the whole Amidah, save for the phrase ואלקי אבותינו, אלקי אברהם, אלקי יצחק, ואלקי יעקב

and G’d of our forefathers, G’d of Abraham, G’d of Isaac and G’d of Jacob

This seems like a reasonable charge as Im not Jewish.

But some would argue that this is possible as a believer in Jesus and reference especially Paul for this.

For example while addressing a largely non-Jewish congregation Paul says: 

For I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink

And thus they induce from this that non-Jewish believers in Jesus can also call the Patriarchs their fathers. 

Im not sure if this is rightfully so, at least not on the basis of this phrase, as even though he says our fathers, this does not necessarily mean he includes his audience in ‘our’, he could simply be using this phrase as he is teaching from within the Jewish camp. And this is not a stretch, think of a business presentation, it would be unlikely to hear a representative talk in the singular. Similarly the position he takes in his letter could be reflecting the Jewish believers in Jesus teaching a largely non-Jewish congregation, who they see as brothers albeit in a different way than their ethnic brothers.

When it comes to considering the possibility to call Abraham as their father, in a spiritual sense, I would have to concur on the basis of Paul’s writings, for he says:

That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all

But as for Isaac and Jacob, Im not sure…

 

Feel free to drop in your comments.

[1] R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007), p.272