Noahide Laws? Or Noahide Flaws?

"Looking for Love in All the Wrong Places"

Of the many fantasies that the Rabbis have conjured over the centuries, the Seven Noahide Laws are perhaps the most pretentious and Biblically unsound of them all. It is one thing for Rabbis to make rules for their fellow Jews, to instruct Jews in those rules, and to adapt or expand those rules when the situation warrants such action. Yet, these same rabbis find that it isn’t enough to be shoving superstition down the throats of their fellow Jews, it has become popular to even tell the gentiles (goyim) how they should be living their lives also. We Jews have always resented being evangelized or preached to by other religions, yet have no difficulty in demanding a very specific standard of ethics and morality from our gentile neighbors. The assumption is that the world is divided into 2 groups, Jews who have the Torah, and Gentiles who have always known of these 7 laws, these Laws being considered universally known to all mankind through the family of Noah. How the rabbis knew this is beyond me. There is NO corroborating evidence of this from any archaeological or historical sources. Of course, lack of evidence never stopped the Rabbis before. Why should it now?

The Noahide Laws are as follows:

1) Avodah Zarah: Prohibition on idolatry.
2) Birchat HaShem: Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing the Name of G-d.
3) Shefichat Damim: Prohibition on murder.
4) Gezel: Prohibition on robbery and theft.
5) Gilui Arayot: Prohibition on immorality and forbidden sexual relations.
6) Ever Min HaChay: Prohibition on removing and eating a limb from a live animal.
7) Dinim: Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law to enforce the other 6 laws.

Men and women are equal in their responsibility to observe the Seven Universal Laws. NO exceptions, and those who refuse are to be executed. Ignorance of the law, just like with the IRS, is no excuse. Maimonides in Hilchos Melachim (9:1-19) enumerates the culpabilities of a Gentile who violates any of the Seven Laws. The punishment, even for theft of very little value, is death, when the same acts committed by a Jew would be completely permissible.

What is the biblical source for the Noahide Laws? I don’t find these laws stated or alluded to in Genesis, and despite lengthy debates and halachic responsa on the matter, I have yet to locate chapter and verse as a specific Torah source for the Noahide laws or the premise behind those laws. (See below for details.) There are other general references to law and order from Ecclesiastes and Proverbs, but outside of those, I see no basis for Noahide law and/or claim of universal knowledge of them. This is important since Jewish Law is based first and foremost on the Five Books, not the Prophets or Writings. They may be used anecdotally to support Torah law and for moral or historic purposes, but not for the establishment of laws. Even if in this instance it were proven to be an exception, one would still have show chapter and verse as to the details involved. Like much rabbinic blathering and over-imaginative exegesis, the Noahide laws, too, are the result of wishful thinking projected beyond the scope of Judaism without any basis in Torah itself.

So the question remains, if the Torah doesn’t say it, then how do we know it to be so? If God says what He means and means what He says, it follows that what God doesn’t say is as important as what He does. The Torah clearly states (Deut. 4:2 & 13:1),
that one should not deviate one iota from the word of the Torah, meaning that the Word tells everything we need to know in reference to it, and reading our own desires and wishes into it is strictly forbidden. If it is the Divinely inspired word of an All-Knowing super-psychic God, then our additions/subtractions obfuscate the true intention and inevitably blind us from its true meaning.

So, dear Rabbis, where’s the Noahide “beef?”

One of the standard responses of the rabbis is to say that God never punishes anyone without warning or without first making the prohibition well known, therefore God could only have punished the world after He let them know the rules. This seems fair enough at first glance. No rules, no Flood. Yet, this is backward logic. We are more or less HOPING that God doesn’t operate that way, since that would violate our own human sensitivities, but there is no Biblical premise to assume that God considers sensitivities at all. God never considers the emotional state of a transgressor. (A woman who cheats on her husband cannot claim that love is a powerful need lacking in the marriage or domestic abuse as a cause for her infidelity; those variables are completely irrelevant in determining her fate.) So too, without a direct verse to support the claim, how can we be sure that our inference of this universal knowledge of Noahide Law is, in fact, accurate?

The application of Noahide Law itself supports this. Ignorance is no excuse to the rabbis, and a gentile who is unaware of the Noahide Laws is just as guilty as one who violates them intentionally (every offense gets the death penalty.) So the Aboriginal or the Pygmy is as guilty as the Frenchman, without ever having been exposed to Bibles, rabbis, and Noahide Laws (O, how I envy them). So the assumption which serves as a basis for Noahide laws (the specifics still lacking), falls apart under the practical application of those very same principles. On one hand, they claim the law is a Universal and natural understanding, and yet say it is possible to NOT know about them!

To answer the questions of culpability without cognizance, some rabbis offer an esoteric excuse by claiming that Noahide laws are written into the genetic code from the Creation, and that this knowledge is innate or subconscious, meaning that on a biological/unconscious level, we ARE fully aware of these rules (whether or not we are aware that we are cognizant.) This doesn’t make sense to me either.

Firstly, if this knowledge is genetically passed to us from God, then how are we able to violate it? Or to forget about it? It is tantamount to saying that a bird can somehow forget that it is bird, ignore its own wings, and then refuse to fly! It would mean that something could willfully violate its own physics. If the God-given code of bird is inviolate to the bird, then why assume anything different for the human, if one claims genetic/mental or spiritual predisposition?

At this point the rabbis throw out the “free will” card. This is kind of like Monopoly’s “get out of jail free” card for theology and metaphysics. It means that anything goes for humans, and no matter how innate, supernatural, or powerful the influence, we humans can, somehow or someway, manage to ignore what is claimed to be the very basis of our being, either spiritually or physically. If God creates you a certain way, then don’t worry; you can always ignore your molecular structure.

The rabbis also point to the almost universal prohibition against for incest as a support for this theory. In Nature, we do not see brothers and sisters, as a rule and under normal circumstances, procreating. (There are evolutionary/biological reasons for that.) Ok. Then someone please tell me who Cain and Abel made babies with. There wasn’t anyone else around, according to the Torah. The rabbis answer that question with the proposition that Cain and Abel were born with twin sisters, with whom they began having children. WHAT? Am I hearing this right? A minute ago some rabbi was telling me that Noahide Law was an innate predisposition passed to us from Creation (which would preclude one from engaging in incest), and now, right from the get-go that same guy is telling us that the very first people on the planet had to violate it?

One obvious question arises from the actions of the Biblical characters themselves. If the Noahide laws and their consequences were well known to everyone, then how did Judah (Gen. 38:1-30) manage to solicit a prostitute, have it turn out to be his own daughter-in-law, and not only not suffer any consequence for his action, but be rewarded with sons from her to carry on his lineage, and eventually become the kings of Israel? In light of the assumed Noahide laws, the stature of a man like Judah, the clear and blatant violation of those Laws would have to end in horrible punishment, not unlike the generation of the Flood, but it seems the REVERSE was true.

Even before Judah’s adulterous tryst with Tamar, we have the little story about Jacob‘s daughter Dinah (Gen. 34:1-31) It turns out that Dinah was seduced and perhaps date-raped by a local prince. Shimon and Levi were upset about that and perhaps rightly so. They came up with a plan to kill everyone in the town. The rabbis tell us that the men of the town deserved to be killed as punishment for the action of their leader, since he violated one of the Noahide laws and they, by refusing to prosecute him for it, violated another Noahide law themselves. Now, if the Noahide Laws were universally known, then why did Jacob get so upset when he found out that his sons punished the townsmen? Jacob should have been pleased that his boys were enforcing the universally accepted moral code, but he wasn’t. Jacob was more worried about disenfranchising himself from the other locals who would view him and his family as bullies. (This seems reminiscent of the American invasion of Iraq.) The question remains, why would Jacob worry about what anyone else thought if he was just doing what God wanted? What God expected to be done? And why would the other locals be upset by Jacob’ sons doing what they must have known, according to their knowledge of Noahide Law, to be a correct and proper response? Maybe the knowledge of Noahide Law wasn’t quite as universal as the rabbis would lead us to believe. (The RamBam says that the men of Shechem were killed for their leaders kidnapping of Dinah.)

Refutation 1

Let us restate again the problem here. The Noahide Credo is not claimed to be a product of rabbinical wisdom, philosophy, or analogy. These seven laws are (according to the rabbinists) commandments that were commanded by God, first to Adam, and then through Noah to all humanity, and these commandments are found in the Torah. My purpose here is to refute that claim. I showed (above) the unlikelihood of there being such laws in the first place. This portion speaks directly to the Torah verse the RamBam sites as the Scriptural source for the Noahide laws, and how laws are derived.

Maimonides in Hilchos Melachim, is perhaps the clearest source we have for the rabbinic ideas of the Noahide Laws, and the Messianic Age. Let’s not forget that the RamBam was a powerful intellectual and philosopher and, agree or not, his Mishneh Torah was a tremendous accomplishment. One can also see Sanhedrin 57a for the Talmudic discussions of the Noahide Laws. The verse is offered there, and that is where Maimonides gets the idea.

Genesis 2:16 “And God of the powers commanded upon the man saying; from all the trees of the garden you may eat.” This is a rough translation, but to the point. This is the verse the Rambam sites as proof positive of the Noahide Credo being given to Adam. Whatever the RamBam was smoking that day is either against US law or not yet approved by the FDA. Either way, I’d like some of that smoke.

The Rambam also rules in (Hilchos Melachim 8:13): "Moshe Rabeinu commanded from the mouth of G-d to convince all the inhabitants of the world to observe the commandments given to the Children of Noach”, but we find no place in Torah where Moshe was actually commanded to do so, and we are forced to take it on faith that this relayed to Moshe from God. 8:13 continues and says “Anyone who refuses to accept the Noahide commands is to be executed.”

To the normal person reading the Biblical account, this verse means what it says and says what it means in its context. God is preparing to give Adam his very first and perhaps only restriction, and prefaces that by reassuring Adam that even if restricted from eating from the one tree, he will still have a wide range of vegetation in the garden left to consume. 2:16 and 2:17 are one idea, the word “laymor” (saying) refers to God relating to Adam the entire warning, that verb connecting the two verses as one. It doesn’t make much sense otherwise. Immediately thereafter, God shifts gears and decides that Adam needs a wife. (I wish I’d gotten to Adam first to warn him, he might have declined the offer, generous as it sounded.) So far, not too complicated.

The rabbis believe the Torah comes in layers, kind of like an onion, and they call this the Pardes (garden), an acronym for Peshat (simple meaning), Remez (hints & allegory), Drush (derived explanations), and Sod (mysticism/esoteric.) They also propose various methods for these interpretations based on anything from word-associations, to numerology, to juxtaposition. The rules for these are laid out in the Oral Laws, handed down as the Mesorah to Moses directly from God and then passed to the Elders, and so forth. So they claim.

Now, who in his right mind, without being told, would think to look for the Noahide Laws in Genesis 2:16? It seems like a Herculean stretch of the imagination to make such an assumption. Remember, we are not dealing with Shakespeare, Ovid, or the New York Times here, but the inviolate word of God. A God who says what He means, and means what He says. Now, the question is, how did the rabbis know that 2:16 referred somehow to six or seven universal commands of morality, justice, and faith? To us, it’s just talking about trees!

To understand how this happens, let’s break 2:16 down word by word and then add the rabbis interpretational method.

‘vayetzav’…the root here is TZAV (command) and this is also the root of the word mitzvah (commandment.) The rabbis claim that TZAV here takes on the same meaning the word TZAV in Hosea 5:11, where the word TZAV refers to the orders of tyrants and despots who order/command peoples to worship idols. So, the Rabbis conclude, this verse must, since it uses the word TZAV, also refer to idol worship, and here God was not only warning Adam about trees, but also instructing him and his descendents not to worship idols. The rabbis seem to be saying here that since God was already giving out orders to Adam about one thing, He might as well throw in everything along with it. Why waste the opportunity?

This brings up some obvious questions.

1) Does this mean that every time we find the word TZAV throughout the Torah, we can say those verses also refer to a prohibition of worshipping idols? Let’s test out this theory. The most prominent example would be in Leviticus 6:2. Could Leviticus 6:2 be referring to idol worship? The verse is about Moses commanding Aaron (TZAV) in the details of the daily burnt offering in the Tabernacle. I hardly find it feasible to conclude in any way that TZAV here and TZAV in Hosea 5:11 have any connection at all, unless you would say that Moses was teaching Aaron how to perform idol worship! Strike One.

2) What exactly leads the rabbis to derive the meaning of Genesis 2:16 from Hosea 5:11? The Torah comes first, not only in time, but in authority, since events closer to the Creation and/or Sinai are considered of greater weight. So then, why isn’t this the other way around? We should be interpreting Hosea 5:11 from Genesis 2:16! The very first time the word TZAV is used in Genesis 2:16 and by the rabbis logic, Genesis 2:16 should set the precedent for every other instance in which we use the word TZAV or a form thereof. So, following the likely rabbinical method here, Hosea 5:11 (and every other verse like it) must be really talking about trees! We end up having no way of knowing how to relate one instance of TZAV to another. Strike Two.

3) Hosea prophecized from 760-720 BCE, which means that Hosea 5:11 didn’t exist when God told Adam about the trees. In fact, Hosea 5:11 didn’t exist, either in concept or context until right up to about 761 BCE, which means that no one before that time could have known what Genesis 2:16 meant without it. Now, if no one knew what it meant (outside of its obvious intent), then how did anyone know, until the time of Hosea, that there were really any Noahide Laws passed to Adam at all? Strike Three.

This same method is used for the remaining part of Genesis 2:16, only with other verses from the Tanach. If you take this rabbinic logic to its illogical end, you will end up creating a huge interpretational mess. They seem to ignore time, space, context, and plain meaning at a whim, and the slightest bit of critical thinking exposes their fraud instantly.

There is no reason to take the word TZAV out of its own meaning, as a verb attached to a particular noun in a given context. There are similarities that can be drawn form words in the Torah, since the Torah is language specific, and word-association has its place. Words have roots and derivatives that can shed light on deeper understandings without radical distortions of the plain and obvious context.

Refutation 2

The Midrash says that God went to each of the 70 Gentile nations and offered them the Torah. Each nation asked some general questions about what the Torah demanded, and each declined due to some particular reason. One asked about stealing, another about murder, and yet another about adultery. Each nation was informed that such acts were strictly forbidden, and then each nation of the 70, feeling that these crimes/activities were integral to their lifestyles or cultures, decided that the Torah was not for them. All this was to have transpired at some time before the revelation at Mt. Sinai.

Every yeshiva boy/girl or Hebrew school kid learns this Midrash. It is commonly used to answer the age-old question of “why us?” and to give “chizuk” (encouragement) by making us feel special and unique for having the Torah. This might give us bit of a superiority complex, too, but I can live with that. Sometimes though, the same rabbis leave out the Midrash about God holding the mountain over our heads and FORCING us into accepting it. This notion is derived from the verse that says the Jews were camped “tachas hahar”, meaning literally “under the mountain.” I’m not here to debate the Midrash, as I think its rubbish anyhow, but to point out yet another glaring inconsistency of the Rabbis, based on the above mentioned Midrash together with the suggested notion of Noahide Laws.

Ok. Lets look at the time-line again to get the rabbinic story straight (if that’s possible.)

First: God gives a code of universal law and morality to Adam. That Code is updated after the Mabul (Flood) with one additional law. This law is universally accepted and transmitted from Noah to the subsequent generations.
Then: God goes around to all the 70 gentile nations and offers them an opportunity to accept the Torah. Each of those 70 refused, based on their own cultural preferences and morality, unacceptable as that may be seem.
Then: God tells Moshe at Mt. Sinai to force all the Gentiles to keep the Noahide Laws, laws which they should have already known about, yet, such a monumental undertaking somehow escapes mention in the Tanach until 10 centuries later.

In light of our discussion on Noahide Law, this Midrash becomes problematic. Here goes. Follow carefully.

The assumption is that Pre-Sinai all of humanity knew about the Noahide Laws. So, if they already had this wonderful moral code to live by, then why did God offer them a Torah? They would have already been fulfilling everything that was required of them and would be, in any case, considered as righteous Gentiles. So what would the Torah have added for them, if they were already righteous in the eyes of God? And if they weren't fulfilling even the Seven Noahide Laws, then why would God expect them to accept and keep the 613?

In addition, the Midrash states the questions and concerns offered by the 70 nations, and lo and behold, among them are stealing, murder, and adultery! Three of the seven Noahide Laws! The Gentiles could have simply answered “Oh. We have those already. Remember?” And if God already knew about the Noahide laws (seeing as He’s the one who gave them), why when asked what the Torah contained, did God respond with stealing, murder, and adultery? He perhaps should have mentioned tefillin, shatnez, or kashrut! It seems that God was asking them to do something they never heard of before, from the plain fact that they seemed rather surprised when they heard of it. What this entire scenario implies, if we are to take the Midrash at face value, is that there was no long-standing Noahidic tradition, since it seems that neither God nor the 70 nations He surveyed seemed to be aware of it!

Mis-Nagid made a very good point on his weblog that I had planned to touch upon in respect to the humanistic value of such laws and the danger they pose to freedom and free thinking. On the surface, these laws seem rather innocuous, but once one begins to extract the details and follow their implementation to a logical conclusion, the results are very disturbing.

If you have a theory about why the Rabbis would need to come up with such a claim, please let me know. I think it was another layer of lies to cover their tracks when holes began to show up in their alleged Mesorah.