Avodat Kochavim - Chapter Ten

In this instance, we have chosen to depart from the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah and adopt the text found in the Oxford manuscript (the manuscript checked over and signed by the Rambam himself).
The standard text forbids making a covenant with “the seven [Canaanite] nations,” i.e., “the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Girgashites, Perizzites, Chivites, and Jebusites (Deuteronomy 7:1).” The Rambam changed his mind concerning the question of whether this prohibition applies only to these seven nations or to all idolaters. In Sefer HaMitzvot, he states that the mitzvah applies only to the seven Canaanite nations. When listing the mitzvot at the beginning of these halachot, however, he mentions “idolaters.” The phrasing of the halachah supports the opinion that all idolatrous nations are implied, because the laws regarding the saving of lives apply to other gentiles and not to the Canaanites alone.
[Since the opinion mentioned by the standard text has a basis in the Rambam’s works, we will continue to refer to it throughout our notes to this halachah.]

Hilchot Melachim 6:1 relates that when the Jews declare war against another nation, they must offer them a peaceful settlement. This settlement must involve that nation’s acceptance of a) the seven universal commandments given to Noah and his descendants (see Halachah 6), and b) subjugation and the payment of tribute to the Jews. [Hilchot Melachim 6:4-5 relates that such a settlement was also offered to (but not accepted by) the Canaanites.]

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 48) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 93) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.
It must be noted that this proof-text [and the continuation of the verse mentioned below] support the contention that these mitzvot apply only to the seven Canaanite nations. The Biblical passage from which they are quoted concerns these nations alone. Nevertheless, the adherents of the other view refer to Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:1, which states that the prohibition against intermarriage applies to all gentile nations, even though it is taken from this passage. Similarly, these two mitzvot refer not only to the Canaanites, but to all gentiles.
The Rambam maintains that even if the Canaanites convert, it is forbidden to establish a covenant with them. Therefore, it was forbidden to establish a contract with the Givonites (Hilchot Melachim 6:5). The Ramban (Deuteronomy 20:11) disagrees and maintains that once they accepted Judaism, it was permitted to establish a covenant with them. The narrative in Joshua, Chapter 9, appears to support the Rambam’s view. The Jews’ first reply to the Givonites, “Perhaps you dwell among us. If so, how shall we make a covenant with you,” appears to reinforce the position that any covenant with such nations is forbidden.

And accept the remainder of the seven universal laws given to Noah and his descendants.

Hilchot Melachim 8:10 states that any gentile who does not accept the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants should be slain.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 50) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 426) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. (Further particulars regarding this commandment are mentioned in Halachah 4.)

These laws apply only to an idolater who does not belong to the seven nations. It is a mitzvah to slay a Canaanite, as mentioned above.

Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 26b, note that our Sages declared, “Kill even the best of the gentiles.” Similarly, as mentioned above, the Rambam states in Hilchot Melachim 8:10 that any gentile who does not accept the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants should be slain. These directives, however, can be interpreted to apply only in a time of war or in a time when the Jews have control over the gentiles. When the Jews are in exile or must take into consideration the dictates of gentile authorities, an idolater cannot be slain merely because of the sin of idol worship.

Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 26b, note that our Sages declared, “Kill even the best of the gentiles.” Similarly, as mentioned above, the Rambam states in Hilchot Melachim 8:10 that any gentile who does not accept the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants should be slain. These directives, however, can be interpreted to apply only in a time of war or in a time when the Jews have control over the gentiles. When the Jews are in exile or must take into consideration the dictates of gentile authorities, an idolater cannot be slain merely because of the sin of idol worship.

Significantly, the Rambam does not use the term idolaters. Note, however, the laws mentioning a ger toshav in Halachot 2 and 6 and notes.

This refers to a person who betrays either Jewish lives or Jewish property to gentiles, (a moseir).

See the notes to Chapter 2, Halachah 5, for a definition of these terms. (See also Hilchot Teshuvah 3:7-8.)

See Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat HaNefesh 4:10, which states that: If one has the potential to slay them with a sword in public, one should. If not, one should trick them into a situation where one can kill them.

The continuation of the halachah was omitted from the standard published text because of censorship. Hence, we have placed it in brackets.

An example of a min.

Examples of apikorsim. In his commentary to Avot 1:3, the Rambam writes that Tzadok and Baithos were students of Antigonus of Socho. When they heard their teacher declare, “Do not serve the master for the sake of receiving a reward,” they were upset, since they thought that he was implying that no reward would be given for the performance of mitzvot. They spoke about the matter between themselves and decided to reject the Torah. They began splinter groups which rejected the core of Jewish practice and coveted material wealth. They found that they could not convince the majority of the people to reject the Torah entirely, so they adopted a different tactic. They claimed that they were true to Torah, but the only Torah that was Divine was the written law. The oral law was merely a human invention. This thesis was only a ruse to sway the people from the performance of the mitzvot. Accordingly, the Sages would frequently refer to all those who deny the Torah and its tradition as Sadducees (“followers of Tzadok”) or Baithosees (“followers of Baithos”).

The Rambam’s phraseology implies that there is no explicit source for the law which follows, but that it can be derived from the previous law regarding saving an idolater’s life (Kessef Mishneh).

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 158:1) states that one may treat gentiles in order to gain expertise that will enable one to treat Jews better.

The gentile may cause the doctor personal harm.

Between Jews and gentiles in general.

The Rama (ibid.) states that a doctor should demand reimbursement. If pressed, however, he may treat gentiles without a fee.

A gentile who accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants.

See Leviticus 25:35. Avodah Zarah 65a states that Jews must support such a gentile from their charitable funds.

The K’nesset HaGedolah states that the prohibitions mentioned above apply only to idol worshipers, but gentiles who do not worship idols (apparently, even those who are not meticulous in their observance of the other six commandments given to Noah) may be given medical treatment for a fee, even if there is no threat of danger or ill-feeling.
See also the Darchei Teshuvah (158:3), who relates that since, at present, a doctor would have much difficulty if he refused to treat gentiles, leniency should be shown in this regard.
From the above, it would appear that a doctor who operates a medical practice today would have no difficulty treating gentile patients. Indeed, throughout the ages, many great Rabbinic authorities, including the Rambam himself, served as doctors to gentiles.

The rationale for this prohibition is mentioned in the following halachah. See also Chapter 7, Halachah 1, which puts a special emphasis on ridding Eretz Yisrael of idol worship.
In Hilchot Terumot 1:7, the Rambam defines the original boundaries of Eretz Yisrael as follows:
[The southern border runs] from Rekem in the east... to the Mediterranean Sea. [The western border] is the Mediterranean Sea from Ashkelon, in the south... to Akko in the north. From Akko, one proceeds [northeastward] to Kziv. The area to one’s right, on the east, can generally be assumed to be of the Diaspora unless it is specifically known that it is part of Eretz Yisrael. The area to one’s left, on the west, can generally be assumed to be of Eretz Yisrael unless it is specifically known that it is part of the Diaspora....
From the Umenum mountains inward, the land is part of Eretz Yisrael, ...outward, it is part of the Diaspora.
In Halachah 8 of that chapter, the Rambam states that in the Second Temple period, the coastal area was not settled by the Jews. Hence, as the Rambam explains in Halachah 5 of that chapter, it is not considered as part of Eretz Yisrael.

In Hilchot Terumot 1:3-4, the Rambam describes the lands which the Sages labeled as Syria: The lands which David conquered outside of the land of Canaan... Why were they given a lesser status than Eretz Yisrael, because David conquered them before he conquered all of Eretz Yisrael.... In Halachah 9 of that chapter, the Rambam defines Syria as the area between Eretz Yisrael and the Euphrates River.

Since it is not actually Eretz Yisrael.

For the reasons mentioned below.

Rav Kapach notes that Avodah Zarah 21a, the source for this halachah, refers to the sale of houses in Syria. Also, since the license is granted only to rent homes as storehouses, it is not appropriate to refer to these as a neighborhood. Hence, he suggests that the Rambam also intended this clause to refer to the sale of homes in Syria, and it was placed here because of a printer’s error.

Where the prohibitions are less stringent.

And thus, removes a source of support for the priests and the needy and prevents the mitzvot associated with the produce of Eretz Yisrael from being observed.

Which, as explained in the following halachah, is included in the Biblical prohibition against being gracious to gentiles.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 151:9 (based on the Tur), prohibits the sale of three houses to gentiles in a Jewish neighborhood, seemingly applying the prohibition to the Diaspora as well. The commentaries explain that such a sale is forbidden lest the gentiles harm the Jews. This prohibition has been mentioned by contemporary authorities to try to prevent Jews from moving away en masse from Jewish neighborhoods in metropolitan areas which are in the process of cultural transformation.

The Rambam is quoting his source, Avodah Zarah 1:9, exactly. In his commentary to that mishnah, he states that, according to the halachah, the word “even” is out of place.

In Eretz Yisrael or in the Diaspora (Beit Yosef, Yoreh De’ah 151). Note the opinion of Tosafot and Rabbenu Nissim quoted by the Siftei Cohen (Yoreh De’ah 151:16), which states that this prohibition applies only in Eretz Yisrael.

The Beit Yosef (loc. cit.) explains that in the Diaspora there is no prohibition against selling a house to an idolater (but not to a false deity itself). Once the house is no longer the property of a Jew, he is not responsible for what transpires in those premises.

The Rama (Yoreh De’ah 151:10) states that in the present era, there is no prohibition against renting homes to gentiles, because it is not customary for them to bring idols into their homes.
The Siftei Cohen (loc. cit.) takes issue with the Rama, noting that in his community, it was customary for the gentiles to bring idols into homes. The Siftei Cohen does not, however, dismiss the Rama’s view and quotes a number of authorities who allow the Rama ‘s decision to be followed

Note the use of this prooftext in Chapter 7, Halachah 2, for another purpose.

The Ra’avad notes that even this leniency is limited. One cannot rent one’s home as a storehouse for wine used for pagan libations (נסך יין). The commentaries explain that the Rambam also would accept such a decision, but includes it in his statements in Hilchot Ma’achalot Asurot, Chapter 13, where he explains that any benefit derived from יין נסך is forbidden.

Such a sale ensures that the gentile will remain in Eretz Yisrael until after the harvest has been completed.

They need not, however, be harvested immediately after the sale (Siftei Cohen 151:14).

תְחָנֵּם, is also related to the word חֲנָיָה, which means “dwelling place.”

Avodah Zarah 20a mentions this and the other two laws derived from the exegesis of this verse. From the Rambam’s statements in Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 50), it would appear that he regards these laws as essential elements of the Torah’s commandment, and not as concepts added by the later Rabbis.

As the Rambam emphasizes in Halachah 6, even the temporary presence of idolaters in Eretz Yisrael is undesirable.

One may, however, praise God for making such a beautiful creation (Kessef Mishneh; Shulchan Aruch, loc. cit., 151:14, Orach Chayim 225:10). Thus, the Jerusalem Talmud (Berachot 9:1) relates that after seeing a beautiful gentile woman, Rabban Gamliel recited a blessing, praising God for creating her.

Which prohibits graciousness in our relations with idolaters.

See Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 426), which explains how our speech and actions influence our behavior.

The Siftei Cohen (loc. cit., 151:18) states that this applies to all gentiles, even Moslems who do not worship idols.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 151:11) states that this prohibition applies only when one does not know the gentile. Otherwise, the gift can be considered as having been given in anticipation or in reciprocation for favors from the gentile.

A gentile who accepts the seven universal laws commanded to Noah and his descendants, as explained in Halachah 6.

An animal which dies without being slaughtered properly.

Ger in Hebrew.

Even idolaters.

Some authorities place emphasis on the word “together,” explaining that it is permitted to give to gentiles only when they come together with the Jewish poor. If they come by themselves, however, one is not allowed to give them. The later authorities (see Turei Zahav, Yoreh De’ah 151:9; Siftei Cohen 151:19) do not accept this conclusion, and allow giving them gifts even when they come alone.

Tosafot (Gittin 61a) explains that since giving these donations establishes peace, granting them is not forbidden by the prohibition against giving gifts to gentiles mentioned in the previous halachah.

The stalks of grain which fall during the harvest. (See Leviticus 23:22; Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, Chapter 4.)

A sheaf which is forgotten in the field. (See Deuteronomy 24:19, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, Chapter 5.)

The ends of the field which the owner is forbidden to reap. (See Leviticus, loc. cit.; Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, Chapters 2 and 3.)

According to Scriptural Law, gentiles are not entitled to benefit from these gifts. Nevertheless, the Rabbis granted them permission to do so to prevent strife from arising between the Jews and their gentile neighbors.

When doing so might lead them to give thanks to their false deity.

The Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De’ah 151:12, states that we may also visit their sick, bury their dead, and comfort their mourners.

Even on a day other than one of their holidays (Gittin 62a).

Since wishing them well once is sufficient to prevent ill-feelings from being established (Rashi, Gittin, ibid.).

We have translated this phrase loosely, without dealing with the issue of whether the word shalom is included in the blessing as well. There are, however, authorities who maintain that this is the essential question at hand. Shalom is one of the names of God and should not be mentioned in a gentile’s house on a day when he is involved in the worship of a false deity. According to this opinion, it is permitted to extend good wishes to a gentile, so long as this term is not used (Siftei Cohen, Yoreh De’ah 148:7).
The Siftei Cohen, ibid. and 148:12, states that even according to the opinions (see the introduction to Chapter 9) that state that many of these laws do not apply in the present age, this law must be observed.

So that no ill-feelings are aroused.

So that the gentile will not be so happy that he desires to give thanks to his false deity.

And has no control over Eretz Yisrael.

Although the Jews are living in Eretz Yisrael.

And it is impossible for the Jews to undertake unilateral decisions as to the future of the holy land.

In our land. Obviously, no such prohibitions would apply in the Diaspora, even where the Jewish community has established a certain degree of autonomy.

The Rambam discusses these laws at length in Hilchot Melachim, Chapters 8-10.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 51) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 94) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The verse continues, “lest they cause you to sin against Me.” If the gentiles accept these seven universal laws, they will not lead the Jews to sin.

The Ra’avad objects to the Rambam’s decision, exclaiming that such restrictions were never enforced or mentioned throughout our nation’s history. He explains that the proof-text quoted by the Rambam applies to the seven Canaanite nations alone.
The Kessef Mishneh and others substantiate the Rambam’s position from an abstract perspective, explaining that since the verse gives as a reason, “lest they cause you to sin,” we may postulate that it applies to any gentile whose behavior can have a negative influence of this nature.

Literally, a “resident alien.”

The Jubilee must be observed only when the entire Jewish people are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael.

The Rambam discusses the laws governing conversion (as well as further particulars regarding a ger toshav) in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah, Chapters 13 and 14.