Author Topic: The Divine Code Daily Dose (Read 203020 times)

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #450 on:** December 05, 2019, 07:59:24 PM »

However, if a Gentile observes any of the Jewish commandments from the Torah as a religious obligation (even if he does so from a desire to receive a spiritual reward), this is forbidden based on the prohibition of adding a commandment, and there is no spiritual reward to be derived from this.⁶⁴

⁶⁴ Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe Yoreh De'ah vol. 2, ch.7 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 61).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #451 on:** December 08, 2019, 09:48:33 PM »

Gentiles are especially forbidden to perform commandments that require the holiness of a Jew, such as writing a scroll of the Torah or a mezuzah or phylacteries (tefillin in Hebrew).

The general rule is that any Jewish mitzvah between man and man, or between man and G-d, which has a reason and a logical benefit for a person or society, is permitted for Gentiles to perform. But this does not apply for any commandment that does not have a logical, natural benefit, but instead is a sign for the Jews (e.g., wearing ritual fringes [tzitzit] or phylacteries, or affixing a mezuzah on a doorpost),⁶⁵ or is a Godly statute for Jews without reason or benefit understood to a person.

⁶⁵ Radvaz on Hilhot Melahim, ch. 10 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 61-62).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #452 on:** December 12, 2019, 12:59:52 AM »

See Rambam, Laws of Tzitzit 3:9 and Shulhan Aruh Orah Hayim ch. 20, that it is forbidden for a Jew to give or sell a Gentile tzitzit, so the ritual garment will not come to be used by a Gentile for the purpose of disguising himself as a Jew. Rema writes in Yoreh De'ah ch. 291, in the name of Maharil, that a Jew should not give a mezuzah scroll to a Gentile for the same reason. It appears that beyond this, there is a general reason that Gentiles should not be compared completely to Jews. Therefore, they should not perform uniquely commanded Jewish signs, such as those (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 61).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #453 on:** December 15, 2019, 03:20:16 AM »

See the Ginat Veradim Orah Hayim Rule 2, ch. 28, which explains that Rebbi (Rabbi Yehudah the Prince) gave a mezuzah scroll to Artavon (a Roman Gentile) only to own, but not to be affixed to his door, for a Gentile has no purpose for this at all. A Gentile should be prevented from performing such commandments and should be taught that it is improper for him to observe them (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 62).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #454 on:** December 18, 2019, 10:23:21 AM »

It is not problematic that male Gentiles are allowed to have themselves circumcised as a spiritual observance (although it is meant to be a sign in the flesh of a Jew), since many Gentiles are circumcised for medical purposes, and not to add a commandment or a new religion. Thus, a male Gentile who wishes to be circumcised in order to refine his personality and his body and its desires may do so. But if he is not descended from Keturah, he should not do so as a commandment (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 62).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #455 on:** December 22, 2019, 11:46:51 AM »

See Likkutei Sihot vol. 10, p. 139. Rabbeinu Bahyai writes (on Gen. 17:13) that circumcision is comparable to offering a desirable sacrifice from one's body to G-d, and it can also accomplish a weakening of one's carnal desires (Guide for the Perplexed, Part III, ch. 49). These reasons are upright for every man for the purpose of controlling his nature, and likewise as a sacrificial offering, which righteous Gentiles are permitted to do. Therefore, if a Gentile wishes to have a circumcision for these reasons, and not as an obligation of observing a commandment, this is praiseworthy (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 62).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #456 on:** December 26, 2019, 06:28:10 PM »

A Gentile may perform a Jewish commandment for a practical benefit, even if it is only indirectly - such as tithing for charity, which benefits society by supporting the poor and is a logical necessity; or returning a lost object, which helps to establish camaraderie; or sending away a mother bird before taking its young, which is having pity on animals. Since these actions have a benefit for him personally or for his society, they have practical justification, and he receives reward for performing them - both the practical benefit, and a reward from Heaven for doing a correct and good deed (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 62).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #457 on:** December 30, 2019, 02:31:43 PM »

However, a Jewish commandment that has no physical effect on a person or society (such as tzitzit) accomplishes nothing for a Gentile. It follows that a Gentile would do this only because he desires to do a Godly commandment that he was not commanded, and thus he is adding a religion. He therefore receives no reward for this, and on the contrary, he would be committing a transgression that carries liability to punishment by the Hand of Heaven (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 62).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #458 on:** January 04, 2020, 02:35:50 AM »

The abovementioned rule applies only to Jewish commandments that are not duty-bound by logic (even if they have a logical reason) such as circumcision or tithes. However, those that are duty-bound by logic, such as honoring one's parents, and kindness and charity, are obligated to be kept, because such is the correct way for a person to act, as befitting the image of G-d in which he was created. However, a Gentile may not keep them because it is a commandment from G-d, but rather because one is obligated to be a good, moral person (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 62-63).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #459 on:** January 08, 2020, 04:32:19 AM »

See Likkutei Sihot vol. 5, p. 154; it is possible that honoring parents is an intellectual obligation on a Gentile just like charity, which is necessary for the establishment of a proper society and proper laws (dinim). However, it is obvious that a Gentile is forbidden to embarrass his parents, since it is against logical human respect, as we can see from the story of Ham (Genesis 9:22), who disgraced his father Noah. See Pirkei Rebbe Eliezer ch. 23 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 63).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #460 on:** January 10, 2020, 03:16:22 PM »

See Rokei'ah 366, that also seems to say Gentiles are obligated to escort guests when they leave (referring to inviting guests also) as it is a logical obligation. One's charitable donations should not go to fund activities that support idolatry, or drawing Jews or Gentiles away from faith in the Torah of Moses (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 63).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #461 on:** January 14, 2020, 03:09:09 PM »

Many prohibitions that are commanded upon Jews are obligations for Gentiles to observe based on logic, such as the prohibitions against hating others, taking revenge or bearing a grudge. A Gentile should observe these prohibitions out of human decency, and not as Divine commandments of their own. This duty is an absolute obligation upon Gentiles, and they are liable to be punished for transgressing these obligations and for acting against moral and logical practices as the Generation of the Flood was punished in the days of Noah.⁶⁹

⁶⁹ According to Ramban on Genesis 6:2 and 6:13, and Hiskuni there, 7:21 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 63).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #462 on:** January 16, 2020, 09:00:55 PM »

Gentiles are obligated to give charity, and whether as an individual or a community, they are obligated to be concerned about help for the poor and needy, to help them appropriately in any way possible. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed only on account of their refusal to uphold and help the destitute, and their outlawing of any charity or help for the poor; for this, G-d judged them to deserve annihilation.⁷⁰

⁷⁰ Genesis ch. 19; Tractate Sanhedrin 104b; Likkutei Sihot vol. 5, p. 155 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 63).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #463 on:** January 21, 2020, 06:53:09 PM »

Gentiles are permitted to add any prohibitions in order to guard themselves against transgression, or to establish a correct and orderly society. This is desirous as a part of observing the obligations of the Noahide commandment to establish courts of law and develop proper societies in the world. Examples are societal restrictions against harassing women and children, and punishments set for transgressing such laws.⁷¹ The prohibition of adding a religion or a commandment does not apply to this, because it is part of keeping the Noahide obligations of establishing courts and laws, and proper societies in the world.

⁷¹ Rashi on Genesis 34:7. See Likkutei Sihot vol. 5, p. 190 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 63-64).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #464 on:** January 26, 2020, 06:23:48 AM »

This only applies to restrictions Gentiles accept upon each other as communities, to avoid damages. But it is prohibited to add communal restrictions as if they were those commanded by G-d (for example, if a Gentile community would establish a law against eating meat from an unslaughtered animal carcass, as if it was a religious transgression like eating meat that was severed from a living mammal or bird), because that would be instituting a new religion (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 64).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #465 on:** January 28, 2020, 02:40:01 PM »

That is to say, they wish to restrict the community in this additional manner as a religious precept. Similar to this would be a law against eating pork, which is permitted for Gentiles (and the same applies for an individual, if he adds it for himself as a religious precept). However, if a person wishes to restrict himself from eating meat from an unslaughtered carcass for the purpose of guarding his health, or from eating any pork or shellfish or any other food if he is disgusted by it (or for medical benefits), this is permitted (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 64).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #466 on:** January 31, 2020, 07:02:42 AM »

An individual is allowed to additionally restrict himself for a religious purpose, if it is not in the manner of adding a new commandment. For example, a Gentile may restrict himself from eating any livestock or poultry meat, as a complete safeguard against the prohibition of eating meat that was severed from a living animal; or he may do this as a way to overcome a strong lust for fresh butchered meat, if he feels he will make himself more pleasing to G-d through this self-refinement (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 64).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #467 on:** February 03, 2020, 07:06:28 PM »

The difference between the community and an individual is that an individual may set his mind and conviction to a specific personal purpose, but adding an unnecessary restriction upon the community is equivalent to instituting a decree with no logical purpose. From this we can conclude that a private person may choose to become a vegetarian, since this can be explained as a rationalization or an emotional desire, based on a personal aversion to the killing of living creatures for his food - which means that it is not based on a religious conviction. But to impose such a restriction on an entire community is definitely forbidden, because it amounts to adding a man-made decree that is unnecessary from a practical standpoint (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 64).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #468 on:** February 09, 2020, 01:09:03 AM »

However, if an individual wishes to accept a restriction in order to gain a practical personal benefit or to refine his personality, then he is not establishing the restriction as if it were a prohibition for him that is commanded from G-d, and it is permitted. Otherwise, it is prohibited (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 64).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #469 on:** February 16, 2020, 03:18:37 AM »

There are some essential aspects of the Noahide Commandments that carry liability as capital sins if they are transgressed, as a Divine decree. "Their warning is considered their liability," meaning that from the time an adult becomes aware that one of these particular actions is prohibited, if he later willfully transgresses it, he will be liable to death in the judgment of G-d⁷³ (until he repents). The exact actions these are will be explained in each section. There are also many prohibitions in the Noahide Code that are not explicitly warned about, and one is not liable to death for transgressing them.⁷⁴ Both men and women are equally obligated to keep these commandments.⁷⁵

⁷³ Rambam, Laws of Kings 9:14.

⁷⁴ This is clear from Rambam, Laws of Kings 10:6, in regard to cross-grafting different species of fruit trees or cross-mating different species of animals.

⁷⁵ Tractate Sanhedrin 57b (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 65).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #470 on:** February 16, 2020, 03:20:49 AM »

I apologize for my tardiness in posting. My workload has been crushing. I will try to post more regularly.

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #471 on:** February 18, 2020, 05:23:37 AM »

A Gentile is not liable to death unless he willfully commits one of the actions that is a capital sin. However, if he errs without intention to transgress, he is not liable (for example, if a man enters a dark room and has relations with his neighbor's wife, thinking that she is his wife, or if one eats meat that was severed from a living animal, while mistakenly thinking that the animal had been killed) (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 65).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #472 on:** February 22, 2020, 04:51:51 PM »

However, if he errs in judging his known action as permissible, this is not considered as erring without intention. Rather, it is close to being a willful sin, and he is liable, since he should have learned the major stringencies of the Noahide Commandments and failed to do so⁷⁶ (for example, one who knows he is having relations with another man's wife but thinks that she is permitted to him, for he does not know the prohibition against adultery; or one who knowingly eats meat that was severed from a living animal, but does not know that it is forbidden).

⁷⁶ Rambam, Laws of Kings 10:1 (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 65).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #473 on:** March 01, 2020, 05:22:34 PM »

Likewise, if he erred because he did not check well enough to know if his action would make him liable or not, this is not considered erring without intention. Rather it is close to a willful sin, since he should have checked and he did not. (For example, one who knows the prohibition against adultery, but he had relations for the sake of marriage without knowing that the woman was already married to another man. He should have checked carefully to find out if she was married or single, before having marital relations with her) (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 65-66).

Hrvatski Noahid · « **Reply #474 on:** March 05, 2020, 11:34:16 PM »

See Tractate Makot 9a and Rashi there (according to Rava's opinion). It appears that this is the case for adultery, since many women are married, and therefore a man is obligated to investigate whether the woman is single or married (this applies likewise for an action which might be idol worship or stealing). But in regard to the prohibition against eating meat from a living animal, a person may eat regular meat even if he does not inquire as to where it came from, since most food meat is not severed from a living animal. Since forbidden meat is uncommon, it appears that in this case one is considered faultless, since he is not obligated to be concerned with a small probability (the Divine Code by Rabbi Moshe Weiner, Ask Noah International, 2018, p 66).