Talk:Seven Laws of Noah

Hebrew and english versions

I find it very strang that the hebrew and english versions of this page give a differnet set of laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify which differences you find particularly important to address? JFW | T@lk 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

For starter the 1st law is no to not worship idols, but to worship BibleGawd. Therefor those who are let to live as slave-race are christians and such, not atheists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:D019:2F69:C66A:8462 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have recent-ish statements of rabbis, eg. Yosef Mitzrahi, who claim that Christianity counts as idol worshipping, and thus, Christians quote "have no right to live", just as any other religionists, who are neither Jewish nor muslim. The muslims are going to be the slaves, according to those laws, because Islam is not idol worshipping from a Jewish perspective. Everyone else is just going to die, if the Jews can have their way. 2A02:C7C:399B:9700:77F6:96ED:55D3:23BB (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Conversion to Judaism

The article says that people are not "obligated" to convert to Judaism. This is pretty much a contortion of facts, as Judaism does not only not "obligate" people to convert, but rather by and large even discourages conversion, except for a very small sect of "messianic Jews" who try to prosetylize, and who are not recognized as proper Jews. 2A02:C7C:399B:9700:77F6:96ED:55D3:23BB (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Noahides = Gentiles

With superfiscial knowledge one can think Noahides refer to all humans, but that is simply a mistake. It only refers to the gentiles, who have to keep the 7 Noahide laws, but not on Israelites, who have the (Oral and Written) Torah as law. For reference check Sanhedrin Chapter 7. The Soncino edition (= Talmud Bavli) can be found here for example: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.27.75 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish law incorporates the 7 Noahide Laws. You are correct that the term "Noahides" does not usually include the Jewish people. Is that a problem? By the way, Come and Hear is hosted by a bunch of rabid anti-Semites, so be careful. JFW | T@lk 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reservations against www.come-and-hear.com are well understood, but it is correct: Noachides are non-Jews who have decided to keep the seven laws. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Warshy I see you've promptly rolled back my change to the lede (from "that is, all of humanity" to "gentiles"). It was made in good faith, as it seems both from the text in the given reference and from this discussion (in which both parties seem to agree on the point) that Noachides are non-Jews. If the laws apply also to Jews because they're incorporated in the Torah I think it should be expressed in a different, more precise way. By the way, the lede of the Hebrew version of this same page states that "The Seven commandments of Noah are commandments that according to the Sages tradition, the Gentiles were commanded, as opposed to the commandments commanded by the Israelites." Udippuy (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a point. I would also be interested in an explanation. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not go into the main page of this article and I did not revert the edit by User talk:Udippuy. I have no idea how Wikipedia reverted this edit and then attributed the act to my User ID. I am a little concerned that my ID may have become compromised, and I am checking on it and making sure other actions I did not take get attributed to me. Something like this never happened to me on Wikipedia before. If the mashgiah hayahadut haklali on Wikipedia from the Chabad sect of Judaism thinks the edit is warranted, then apparently it must be. And he can also reinstate it, if he so wishes. I myself have not yet formed an opinion on the issue, and so again, I could not have changed it. Second of all, this discussion should have been added as a new section at the bottom of the page, not on a random section that had last been updated in 2010. But let this also be. Be well, both of you. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with your last point, and had that thought myself. Did I detect a certain amount of sarcasm in the second point of your post? Alas. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm? If you read what I wrote and apparently understood it (since you are not asking me any question about it), I would not say sarcasm. I mean what I wrote and I am willing to follow your lead on this particular edit/issue. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I just recently added this issue (of Noachide laws) and the pages related to it to my watchlist, and while skimming them a little before adding them I first became aware that this is one of the issues that was taken on by the late Lubavitcher rebbe while he was still alive. I was a little surprised, since as a student of Jewish history my impression of him was never as of him being close to a strong intellectual force in Judaism. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I though that calling me the mashgiah hayahadut haklali was a bit of sarcasm.

By the way, according to my understanding and the understanding of the expert I asked, Chabad does not fit the definition of a sect. Our Wikipedia article calls it "an Orthodox Jewish Hasidic movement".

What would you call a "strong intellectual force in Judaism"? Debresser (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a fitting title, and it describes pretty well what I see you doing around here. There are all sorts of experts and all sorts of definitions. According to some of these it certainly has many characteristics of a separate sect. A sect that separates itself from the community at large, and that has its own set of particular beliefs. I was always more impressed by the intellectual cogency of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki's thinking than that of Menahem Schneerson. Looking at old videos of his live appearances, he always struck me as rather weak and incoherent intellectually. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you, I think, mean this complimentary, or at least not derogatory, I'll take it as a compliment. As a matter of fact, there are many editors who used to be more active on WP:JUDAISM and, in general, Jewish articles, but for the last 4-5 years or so, activity has been low. Those editors were mostly not Chabad, rather Litvish, although 1 or 2 Chabadniks also used to frequent Wikipedia in those days.

Chabad does not separate itself. To the contrary. Some beliefs are stressed more in Chabad than in other Jewish denominations and Hasidic courts, but nothing that would warrant the use of the word "sect", as in its sociological definition.

As one who has studied the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I am quite impressed. I think you can't compare coherency of somebody who lived about 450 years ago and who wrote one book (if I understand correctly), with somebody who lived in our age and wrote several shelves of books over a 40 years period. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I can't compare a poor karaite thinker of the sixteenth century with a twentieth century rich and powerful king that had a whole court working for him. As for "several shelves of books" I will still need to check that and try to ascertain if any of them was written by his own hand, or they were simply put together by his publishing empire under his name. This was actually an hereditary modern king that ruled over a pretty vast empire all over the world. But like the kings and dynasties that ruled the world until the modern age, how many of them were really talented and intellectually gifted, as opposed to most of them, who just had talented courtiers serving them and administering their empires. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

PS - I was also thinking. Among the Litvish editors that used to be active in the Judaism area of WP and have not been any more for the past 4 or 5 years, I believe you might be referring to User:Shirulashem, whose last edit here appears to have been in 2015. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of those shelves are not literally his words, but based on his words and close to them. I detect a certain animosity in your words today and yesterday regarding the Lubavitcher Rebbe, which surprises me.

And others, like User:IZAK, User:Avraham, User:Chesdovi. And then there were User:Lisa, User:In ictu oculi, User:Ravpapa, User:Slrubenshtein, User:Mzk1 and others.

Animosity? I witnessed his claims when he was alive, and I've witnessed the claims of his followers when he was alive and after he died. Besides these claims to greatness and to a monopoly on the only correct and acceptable way of practicing the Jewish religion, this leader and his sect of followers also had considerable economic and political power, power that manifested itself in national and international events in Russia and in Eastern Europe, in the US, and in Israel. Such powerful historical agents and actors cannot expect to be only admired by followers. They also need to be judged on the historical consequences and on the validity of their actions and religious dogmas. I was only trying to hint at some of these neutral historical and intellectual analyses that still need to be developed regarding the Rebbe and the Chabad movement. Thanks for the quite extensive list of editors in the Judaism area on WP. Be well. warshy ^(¥¥) 01:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Change the term of to on

Change the term of to on, and added a, there being NO absolutism implied in those commandments.

Noahide or Noachide?

The article jumps back and forth between "noahide" and "noachide". If these mean different things could the article please elaborate? If they don't, could the article please standardize on one or the other so as to avoid the implication that they mean different things? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Standarised as Noahide, which is more frequently used both in the article to date and in wider literature. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of non-encyclopedic content

Debresser Can you explain why you are edit warring to restore this non-encyclopedic content to the article? [1] Chabad.org is not a WP:RS for whether someone is regarded as a "righteous gentile" by God (stated in Wikivoice), at most it is only a reliable source for the sect's opinion, and that is WP:UNDUE for the lede. The entire thing needs to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone. You are an experienced editor, so you should be aware of the standards of enyclopedic writing and perspective for religious articles that are enforced throughout the encyclopedia. And bandying about accusations of removing "well-sourced" sections is non-persuasive. There is no policy based justification for restoring something like is assured of a place in the world to come, stated in Wikivoice, to an article live in mainspace. The entire thing needs to be rewritten or removed, but it can't stay in the article as it is. If you want it in the article, the burden is on you to make sure it meets basic standards for inclusion. I will give you some time to fix it, but if the issues aren't addressed I plan to remove this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are edit warring to remove something which as you yourself claimed in the edit summary "does not seem neutrally written or adhering to encyclopedic tone"? Issues like that can be tagged with {{POV statement}} and {{Tone}}, however, you can not remove them. Especially since they are sourced.

I asked you twice to specify what you think is not neutrally worded or uses an unencyclopedical tone, yet you have still not done so. Till such time as you do, I can do nothing to improve this paragraph. Referring to me as an "experienced editor" is not going to earn you any cookies in this regard.

1. Chabad is not a sect. 2. Chabad.org is a reliable source for Judaism articles, and is in use on many Wikipedia articles.

You claim that I need to prove anything is bogus. To the contrary, you need to show that there is any basis to your 3 claims (POV, tone, RS), and you have not done so. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have. You can not use religious sources to state supernatural things in Wikivoice as though they are well-sourced facts. This includes claims like non-Jews accepting the Ten Commandments are righteous gentiles who will receive the final reward of the righteous. Absolutely not, this is an encyclopedia. This is not a matter for a tag and if it continues, I believe it is grounds for a topic ban. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Based on what I've seen after googling it you may be referring to Ger toshav - you of course need to attribute this to Chabad, as the State of Israel does not actually grant people any type of resident alien status based whether or not they adhere to these religious rules.
2. I've seen people invoke the phrase "righteous gentile" in political debates when things were not going their way. I've also heard members of the KKK use it sarcastically to describe themselves. I've seen it used in so many loaded contexts that you definitely need to explain it clearly if you are going to use it. Regarded by whom? All it says is "are regarded as righteous gentiles". I truly believe you are capable of seeing this for yourself if you review the content. There is nothing opaque about it. In my opinion this content is so far outside the norms of an encyclopedic style of writing that tagging would not be a suitable resolution.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your objection is not based on any Wikipedia policy. It's perfectly acceptable to describe religious views on different subjects, provided it's properly sourced and attributed. Wikipedia is full of this because an encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of information for the reader, not to make a value judgment or discard ideas that are deemed "religious", "POV" or "supersticious". The concept of Noahide gentiles having a place in the world to come is well-ingrained in Jewish tradition, including Mishneh Torah. I'm sure it also appears in other places such as the Talmud, but Rambam's masterpiece should be enough to justify its inclusion.

I don't understand your comparison with the KKK folks, but I'm sure that's not the kind of gentiles the Rambam had in mind. Their world to come is probably much hotter (and I think most Christians agree with that as well).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban? :):):)

In any case, it seems to me that the only thing bothering you is that the paragraph is missing the words "according to Judaism", or something like that. I would have no problem with adding that. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: a mention, in the article's text, of the Ten Commandments, and an explanation of how they relate to the Seven Laws of Noah. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Do they? Relate, I mean. Debresser (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is a source saying that the 10 commandments, excluding Shabbat, are the same as the 7. I don't know exactly what to do with this source though, except to put it in the lead, which seems excessive, given the relative unimportance of this connection and the lack of authoritativeness of the source. Ar2332 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Even in the article itself the claim is made hesitantly. Not convincing. Nor would I consider it much of a reliable source. I'd just leave it out. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Some of this seems contradictory...

"The sons of Noah are to be executed by decapitation for most crimes,[31]... In Jewish law, the only form of blasphemy which is punishable by death is blaspheming the Ineffable Name (Leviticus 24:16).[30]"

I'm just confused, are people to be executed for most crimes, or is the only crime punishable by death blaspheming the Ineffable Name? 73.142.138.237 (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is badly worded. Reading the source linked, I believe this is what is being referred to:

Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin. It would have been

sufficient to say], ‘A man, etc:’ What is taught by the expression any man? The inclusion of

heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.

- Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 56a

In other words, the sentence should not read, "Noahides are to be executed by decapitation for most crimes", but rather something along the lines of "According to the Talmud, for Noahides convicted of a capital crime, the only sanctioned method of execution is decapitation" 80.193.47.222 (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Punishment

In Punishment there is nothing in the RS that refers to this claim In practice, Jewish law makes it very difficult to apply the death penalty. It seems to be OR, and needs other sources.Pngeditor (talk)# Pngeditor (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Karaic Jews

Does anyone know if the Karaic jews view the 7 laws in the same way as the rabbinical (Thanaic) jews? 46.117.125.199 (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2022 (UTC)