Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 10

In contrast, a Jew is obligated to bring a sin offering for the inadvertent violation of a negative command.
Makkot 9a, b derives the exemption of a gentile from Avimelech’s dialogue with God after he took Sarah (Genesis 20:3-7). God told Avimelech that he was liable to die. Avimelech protested that he did not know she was married and hence, had acted inadvertently. God replied that generally, an inadvertent offence is pardoned. However, in this instance, Avimelech would be held responsible. If his servants had not pressured Abraham concerning Sarah, he would never have said she was his sister.

In such an instance, a Jew is exiled to a city of refuge (See Hilchot Rotzeach, Chapter 5).

A relative of the deceased who desires to avenge his death.

However, he is not obligated to do so (see Hilchot Rotzeach 5:10).

The Lechem Mishneh notes that this applies to a gentile who has not formally accepted the responsibilities of a resident alien. In regard to a resident alien himself, Hilchot Rotzeach 5:4 explains that he is executed for inadvertently slaying a Jew. However, if’ he inadvertently kills another resident alien, he may seek asylum in a city of refuge as Numbers 35:15 states: “These six cities will be a place of refuge for the Israelite, converts, and residents among them” (ibid. 5:3).

In such an instance, the gentile has no intent to violate God’s will. The commentaries explain that he is only freed of liability if he was misled concerning the identity of the woman with whom he engaged in relations. Otherwise, he is responsible to check to make sure no prohibition is involved.

Certainly, one should realize that relations with another person’s wife are not permitted.

Makkot 9a relates that, in a similar circumstance, a Jew is not allowed to seek asylum in a city of refuge. Though he is not executed by the court, he must always live in dread of the redeemer of the blood (Hilchot Rotzeach 6:5).

As mentioned at the conclusion of Chapter 8, all the seven mitzvot are concepts that can and should be intellectuality comprehended. Every individual should appreciate these basic statutes or, at the very least, realize the need for rules within a society and seek guidance from others.

In contrast, a Jew is obligated to sacrifice his life rather than transgress three sins: idol worship, murder, and illicit sexual relations. Furthermore, when the gentiles attempt to stamp out Jewish practice, we are obligated to sacrifice our lives for the performance of other mitzvot (See Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:1-4).
Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 5:6 relates that similar principles apply with regard to remedies. If a person is ill and can be healed by the violation of one of the Torah’s commands, e.g. eating non-kosher food, he may violate that command in order to save his life or health. In this instance as well, a differentiation is made regarding the three sins mentioned above. Even if a Jew is deathly ill, he may not violate these commands.
The commentaries question whether a gentile may heal himself through the violation of the seven mitzvot. The wording used by the Rambam “be forced by another person” might imply that only under such circumstances may a gentile violate the seven commands. License is granted because he is not acting voluntarily. In contrast, the willful transgression of a command, even for the sake of a remedy, is not permitted.
However, this differentiation is not accepted by all opinions. Many explain that even in this instance, a gentile may violate a command to save his life.

II Kings, Chapter 5 relates how Elisha, the prophet, cured Naaman, commander of the Syrian forces, of leprosy. After his miraculous cure, Naaman exclaimed “Now, I know that there is no God in all the earth except in Israel.”
Naaman willingly accepted the seven commandments. However, he made one provision: “May God pardon his servant when my master goes down to the house of Rimon and prostrates himself there. For my master leans on my hand and I also prostrate myself.” Elisha made no comment, seemingly indicating that his behavior was acceptable (Sanhderin 75a).

The commandment to sanctify God’s name states (Leviticus 22:32): “I shall be sanctified in the midst of Israel;” implying that it only applies to Jews (Jerusalem Talmud, Sh’vi’it 4:3).

For they are not capable of taking responsibility for their conduct.

According to Torah law, Jewish children are not obligated to perform any mitzvot. Nevertheless, our Sages required their parents to train them in the observance of Torah and mitzvot. The commentaries question if gentiles are also obligated to train their offspring regarding their mitzvot.

Conversion requires these three steps (Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:4).

Judaism is not a faith which is merely intellectually accepted. Rather, it constitutes an essential part of one’s being and defines one's very essence. Therefore, a Jew can never leave his faith. Regardless of his behavior, he will always remain a Jew.
The same principles apply to a convert. With his acceptance of Judaism and performance of the conversion rites, he becomes a full Jew. In this regard, no distinction can be made between him and a native-born Israelite. Thus, a return to his previous status is impossible.

Ketubot l la relates that a court has the right to take this step on the child’s behalf for it is to his advantage to become part of the Jewish faith. It must be emphasized that the court need not seek potential converts. However, if a gentile minor seeks to convert or a child’s parents who have themselves converted wish their children to share their new faith, then, the court may take this step. Similarly, if the court feels that it is in the child’s best interest to convert, they may convert him (Kessef Mishneh).

A convert must willingly accept Judaism. Since a child is not responsible for his actions, his acceptance as a minor is not significant and he is given this choice when he attains majority.

The Ran (Ketubot, ibid.) questions when this objection must be made. No attention is paid to the objection if it is made when the child is a minor or after he attains majority. To require the statement to be made at the precise moment when the child reaches majority is difficult.
Thus, he concludes that the child. must repudiate his conversion before attaining majority. Afterwards, if he does not resume Jewish practice before attaining majority, it is considered as if he never converted.

As will be explained, this applies whether they engaged in relations within or outside the context of marriage.

As part of the conversion process.

In the event the man marries her. The marriage contract includes a provision for a sum to be given the woman in the event of death or divorce.

Deuteronomy 22:29 requires a person who rapes a virgin girl to pay 50 silver shekels as a fine.

Exodus 22:15 obligates a similar fine to be paid for seducing a virgin girl. Ketubot, ibid., specifies that these fines are only paid if the girl converts before the age of three.

Nevertheless, as soon as the obligation is incurred, the money is given to the court. Thus, in the case of divorce, the convert’s husband will not think that he will be freed of the obligation of a ketubah and the rapist or seducer will have to take responsibility for his acts immediately.

The same law applies to a gentile who converts after eating flesh from a living animal, stealing, or ignoring his responsibility to judge his colleagues. However, since a Jew is not given the death penalty for these sins, the Rambam did not feel it necessary to mention them.

Rashi (Sanhderin 71b) explains that he is exempt from punishment because, as a Jew, the process by which he is to be judged has changed (he must be warned, two witnesses must observe him, etc.) and his sentence is changed. He receives a more severe death penalty (for cursing God or idol worship) or no penalty at all (for killing or engaging in relations with a gentile).
Most commentaries agree that this law applies even if a gentile converted after being sentenced to death. However, some authorities maintain that in such an instance, the death sentence remains in force. They base their opinion on Hilchot Mamrim 7:9 which explains that a rebellious son is only executed before he attains the age of thirteen and three months. However, if he is sentenced to death before that time and flees, he is executed even after he reaches that age.

As a gentile, he would receive the same punishment.

Though the process by which he is to be judged has changed, the sentence remains the same or is lighter. Hence, he is still held responsible for his deeds.

As a gentile, he would receive the same punishment.

As a gentile, this deed would be punished by decapitation, a more severe form of execution.

See Lechem Mishneh.
A gentile who converted after stealing from a Jew must restore the stolen property. However, according to most authorities, a gentile who converted after eating flesh from a living animal is not punished by lashes as a Jew would be.

See Chapter 9, Halachah 14, Chapter 3, Halachah 8.

In the Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah, the word “or” is omitted. Thus, the phrase reads “a consecrated maiden married to a Jew.” This version is preferable because relations with a married Jewess are punished by decapitation as explained in Chapter 9, Halachah 7.

This law is also mentioned in Chapter 9, Halachah 7. Indeed, the entire halachah is redundant. However, it is included to summarize the laws regarding a gentile’s execution. Until now, all the sins mentioned carried the penalty of execution by the court. In contrast, though some of the violations mentioned in the following halachot are punishable by death by the hand of God, an earthly court administers no retribution.

Sanhderin 56b.

These prohibitions are included in the category of kilayim. Jews are also forbidden to grow different species of crops in the same field and wear garments that combine linen and wool. See Leviticus 19:19.

Sanhderin 57a considers it an accepted tradition that gentiles are only executed for the violation of seven sins.

By the hand of God.

Sanhderin 58b explains that Moses killed an Egyptian taskmaster (Exodus 2:11) for violating this prohibition.

The Maharshah (Sanhderin, ibid.) states that, as above, the Sages accepted the tradition that only seven mitzvot are punishable by death. Based on that decision, he explains that Moses’ act was an exception. With prophetic intuition, Moses saw that no good would ever come from this Egyptian and therefore, slew him.

Sanhderin 59a, b relates that any mitzvah which was given before Sinai and repeated at Sinai is incumbent on both Jews and gentiles. However, circumcision is not governed by this principle for, as obvious from the verse quoted, it was specifically given only to Abraham and his descendants.
This halachah is included because the Rambam wanted to contrast the obligation of the descendants of Keturah mentioned in the following halachah with the obligation of the gentiles to keep their seven mitzvot. This halachah is a necessary preface to that law.

The verse implies that only Isaac is considered Abraham’s spiritual progeny and it is through him, that he will attain posterity. Hence, his descendants and not those of Ishmael are obligated in circumcision.

Yalkut Shimoni, Toldot, relates that Esau circumcised his descendants as long as Isaac was alive.

Sanhderin 59b derives the exclusion of Esau from Genesis 21:12. The expression “through Isaac,” biYitzchak, can also be rendered as “in Isaac,” implying “not all of Isaac.” It is curious why the Rambam quotes another source when an explicit Talmudic reference exists.

Sanhderin 59b.

Genesis 25:1 mentions that after Sarah’s death, Abraham married another woman, Keturah. She bore him six sons.

Since they were born after God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his descendants, they are obligated to be circumcised.

Both settled in the Arabian desert.

Because of the doubt involved in their lineage.

As the Jews are. Ishmael was born before Abraham’s circumcision and was circumcised at the age of thirteen. Many Arabs follow the custom of circumcising their children at that age.
In Jewish law, circumcision is a two staged process involving milah - cutting the foreskin, and priyah - ripping open the thin membrane covering the crown of the penus. Tosafot (Yevamot 71b) states that Abraham (and thus, the descendants of Keturah) were not required to perform priyah. However, the Rambam does not make this distinction.

The commentaries ask a general question concerning this halachah: As explained in the notes to Chapter 5, Halachah 4, Sannecherib, king of Assyria conquered many countries and engaged in mass population transfers, thus, obliterating the national identity of most of Israel’s neighbors. If so, why was the status of Keturah’s descendants left unaffected?

Other than their seven mitzvot.

At the hand of God. Sanhderin 59a comments: Deuteronomy 33:4 states: “The Torah which Moses commanded us is the heritage of the children of Israel.” “It is our heritage and not theirs.” The passage continues, noting the connection between the word morashah, “heritage” and meurasah, “consecrated” and explains that a gentile’s study of Torah is equivalent to adultery.

As mentioned in Halachah 8:10, the Jews have an obligation to instruct the gentiles in the performance of their seven mitzvot.
A gentile who is well versed in the particular laws involved in the observance of his seven mitzvot is worthy of more respect than a unlearned High Priest (Sanhderin, loc. cit.).
The seven mitzvot are by no means a narrow field of study. The Meiri (Sanhderin, loc.cit.) states that most elements of the Torah are included within them. For example, to observe the prohibition against the worship of false Gods correctly, one must become aware of God’s unity with creation. Accordingly, a number of contemporary Sages have suggested the translation of certain basic Chassidic and Kabbalistic texts into English with the intent that they be studied by gentiles.

Genesis 8:22 records God’s promise to Noah “As long as the earth lasts... day and night shall not cease.” Yishbotu translated as “cease,” can also be interpreted as “rest.” Thus, Sanhderin 58b interprets the verse as a command prohibiting Noah’s descendants from resting “day and night.”

Rashi (Sanhderin, ibid.) explains that not only is a gentile is forbidden to fix a day as a day of rest, he is prohibited against taking a day off from work even to relax. In contrast, the Meiri maintains that the prohibition involves establishing a day of rest. However, a gentile is not prohibited against taking a vacation. The Rambam appears to follow the latter opinion.

The observance of a festival generally implies a religious content in addition to being a day of rest. Thus, it is surely forbidden.

At the conclusion of Chapter 11, the Rambam notes that Christianity and Islam have certain redeeming factors for they abolished paganism and “paved the way for the coming of the Mashiach.” Nevertheless, in themselves, these faiths are forbidden and may not be observed even by a gentile.

As mentioned in Halachah 8:10, the Jews are obligated to compel the gentiles to observe their mitzvot. When we had undisputed rule over Eretz Yisrael, we were able to enforce these mitzvot by administering corporal, and, when required, capital punishment. Even when we no longer have this potential, we are obligated to do whatever possible to make sure the gentiles observe the statutes the Torah established for them.

I.e., take economic sanctions against him.

By the hand of God.

I.e., one of the 613 mitzvot commanded to the Jews aside from Torah study and the Sabbath.

A person who is not commanded to fulfill a mitzvah receives less reward from God for its observance than one who is commanded. Nevertheless, even in the latter instance, God acknowledges the person’s deeds and grants him blessing.
A gentile may only fulfill mitzvot for the sake of reward. He is forbidden to accept them as obligations incumbent upon him. Thus, his intent must be the very opposite of a Jew’s who serves God for His sake and not for his own.
The commentaries question the source for the Rambam’s statements. Some point to the statements of Kohelet Rabbah, Chapter 1: In the Messianic age, God will proclaim: “Whoever has never eaten pork, come and receive a reward.” Many gentiles will respond and come to receive their reward.

He must perform the mitzvah in all of its particulars as required by Jewish law. The Radbaz explains that mitzvot which require holiness and purity, for example, tefillin or mezuzah, should be withheld from gentiles.

The only sacrifice a gentile is allowed to bring is a burnt offering (korban olah) A peace offering or meal offering is not accepted from them. Even the libations which accompany the burnt offering may not be brought by the gentile and are purchased with communal funds (Hilchot Ma’aseh HaKorbonot 3:2,5).

Leviticus 25:35 states “When your brother becomes impoverished... come to his aid. Help him survive, whether he is an alien or a native [Israelite]” (see Halachah 12). Since such a gentile may benefit from Jewish generosity, charity given by him may be used for the Jewish poor.

Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 8:9 states that if a gentile king or official gives charity to the Jews, we should accept it for the sake of peace. However, if no threat of harming our relations with them is involved, it is not proper to receive charity from them (Lechem Mishneh).

Without publicizing the manner so that the gentile donor will not find out.
Two reasons are given why charity should not be accepted from gentiles: a) The merit of their generosity will prolong their rule over the Jews (Bava Batra 10b). b) The fact that Jews feel it necessay to receive charity from gentiles causes Chillul HaShem, the desecration of God’s name, (Rashi, Sanhderin 26b).

The Radbaz emphasizes that this obligation only applies if the gentiles do not establish their own court system first.

The commentaries do not cite the source for this law. It is possible that it is derived from the obligation to compel the gentiles to accept the seven mitzvot mentioned in Halachah 8:10.

In contrast to resident aliens.

Though the gentiles are not obligated to follow Torah law, they may willingly accept it.

Preferring to be judged according to the civil laws established by gentile society.

There are a number of differences between Jewish business law and secular law. For example, Torah law requires two witnesses and does not accept circumstantial evidence. Similarly, the formal acts of transfer through which property is acquired differ.

Bava Kama 113a, the source for this statement, continues:
“If there is no way to vindicate the Jew, try to trick the gentile,” these are the words. of Rabbi Yishmael.
Rabbi Akiva states: “We should not try to trick him lest it cause the desecration of God’s name.”
Rabbi Akiva’s opinion is accepted as halachah.

As mentioned above, the Rambam uses the expression “it appears to me” when he has no explicit proof for his statements in Talmudic sources. Since we are commanded to sustain a resident alien, it is logical to assume that he is judged according to a single standard even though the outcome will not necessarily benefit a fellow Jew.

The verse concludes “or sell it to a foreigner.” Pesachim 21b comments that it is preferable to give the animal to a resident alien (a gentile who observes the seven mitzvot) than sell it to “a foreigner” (one who does not).
There is a slight problem with the Rambam’s statements. The Talmud makes the above statements on the basis of Leviticus 25:35 which states: “When your brother becomes impoverished... come to his aid. Help him survive, whether he is an alien or a native [Israelite].”
On the surface, it would be preferable to quote that verse for it directly commands us to help a resident alien. However, there is an advantage to the verse quoted by the Rambam. It clearly distinguishes between a resident alien and an idolater.

For the sake of peace, we are even allowed to greet idolaters. However, it is improper to show them the honor of repeating the greeting (Gittin 61a).

And comfort their mourners (Hilchot Evel 14:12).

Rashi (Gittin 61a) emphasizes that the gentiles should not be buried in the same cemetery. See Sanhderin 47a.

The Radbaz (Hilchot Matanot Aniyim 1:9) stresses that gentiles are only given charity when they come together with the Jewish poor. If gentiles alone ask for alms, they may be refused. Other commentaries maintain that enmity may be aroused even under such circumstances and hence, suggest giving them charity at all times.

The above apply only in the Diaspora or when the Jews do not have undisputed power over Eretz Yisrael. However, when the Jews have such power, we are not permitted to allow an idolater to dwell among us even temporarily (Hilchot Avodat Kochavin 10:6).