Introductory Remarks - Noahide
Ger vs Noahide; Ger or Noahide; Ger and
Noahide; which is it? Many people watching the discussions seem confused. Quite
frankly I think many Ger people are also confused as to the relationship
between Ger and Noahide. We certainly read many different views from disgust to
kinship. I would like to define what ‘Noahide’ has come to mean to those who
call themselves that; then why ‘Ger’ is not a good title for any movement, and
especially how it is developing today.
To discuss this we need to first look at
some important historical events that have led us to the situation we are now
in. Everyone knows that 50 years ago there was no Noahide movement nor ‘Ger’ nor
anything else. Discussions of what the Halacha is had real world implications,
but with no one following these decisions. Occasionally a non-Jew would have a
friendship with a Jew and would find out about the laws, but this was rare.
Jews did not seek out non-Jews to teach them the laws. One of the reasons was
that Jews were living in lands that had abandoned idol worship; respected and
worshipped what they thought was the same god as the Jewish people. This meant,
ignoring shituff, that they were essentially following the laws except for
making a new religion. (We will discuss Shituff in the next article.) Also
non-Jewish interest in Judaism usually led to conversion.
In the early 1980s the late Rebbe of
Lubavitch ZT’L gave a call to his Chassidim to turn their attention to
influencing the non-Jewish world to follow the 7 mitzvos. That was a total
break from what Jews had done until then. In fact it was quite controversial
then (and still is.) In a famous Sichah for parshas Yisro in 1983 he set out
the justification for this campaign. (This Sichah is found in volume 26 and we
will be referring to it a number of times in these articles. He also submitted
to the journal HaPardes May 1985, the same ides in a more formal format.) One
of the main implied principles (which all agreed to) was that following these
laws was an individual activity. The idea of a ‘movement’ or structure of any
kind, was unthinkable. (This has been confirmed to me by people in Lubavitch.)
As time went on many events occurred that
effected the path this ‘Noahide’ movement would take. I think one incident
exemplifies what happened. Rabbi Tovia Singer, a well-known counter missionary,
was approached by a whole church in Texas that wanted to leave Christianity. He
taught them the 7 laws and they continued in that path; making it a ‘Noahide
church’. Many similar evens have occurred.
As time went on more and more non-Jews
were attracted to the 7 laws, whether from Chabad; their leaving Christianity
or the internet. This led to a serious problem: How do we deal with something
that is not meant to be a ‘movement’ or organized group when it is becoming
one? This led to private study groups and eventually to organizations of the
new followers of the 7 laws.
As a group identification stated to grow,
a name was needed. Bnei Noach would maybe be a good one, but it has a few
problems. 1. It is Hebrew. Non-Jewish non-Hebrew speaking people using a Hebrew
name could be problematic. This was a common thing among missionaries and no
one wanted them to be associated with or mistaken for missionaries. 2. The name
itself in Jewish literature is ambiguous. Sometimes it can mean all of
humanity, sometimes all non-Jews, and other times non-Jews who keep the 7 laws.
3. Even when Bnei Noach refers to non-Jews keeping the law, as the Lubavitcher
Rebbe ZT’L says in that Sichah it does not mean that they do it BECAUSE of
belief in the Torah and Jewish Rabbinic traditions. These new followers wanted
a name that would indicate their attachment/relationship to Torah Judaism and
the one true God..
From this was born the name of Noahide.
Noahide means a non-Jew who has taken upon himself or herself to follow the 7
mitzvos specifically because of a belief in HaShem and Torah including the Rabbinic
traditions. All the organizations and people who call themselves Noahides are
Noahides because they believe in the truth of Torah Judaism and worship HaShem
only.
From this we see one of the main claims
against the ‘Noahides’ that they are really akum (believe in Shituff) is just
false. Because of their approach where they follow the 7 laws because of Torah
and Rabbinic tradition, they do not believe in Shituff. (In the next article I
will discuss Shituff and what Rabbis are saying about it and Bnei Noach.)
Another complaint also falls away from
the above. A Biblical (or Rabbinic) term could not be used, because in
fundamental ways the modern Noahide is different from what appears in seforim
and the Torah. Even the ‘god fearers’ of 2000 years ago were not the same; they
were individuals who frequented the local synagogues. While Noahides do go to
synagogues, they are loosely associated with others like them, which does not
seem to be the case with the ’god fearers’. (God fearers itself is a
non-Biblical term.)
So what is wrong with calling themselves
‘Ger’? It is clearly an ambiguous term in Judaism. What does ‘Ger’ mean? We
know of Ger Tzedik (converts to all the mitzvos of the Torah) and also Ger
Toshiv. Those calling themselves ‘Ger’ are not Ger Tzedik, and there is no Ger
Toshiv today. Much of the confusion this movement makes with regards to verses
in the Tenach is based on these ambiguities and misrepresenting Rabbinic
tradition as to the meaning. (This will all be discussed in depth in later
articles,)
The best way to see the problem is to
give an illustration. Let’s say Bob who considers himself a ‘Ger’ travels to
New York to see what a community with thousands of religious Jews living there
looks like. He goes to one of the many very Orthodox synagogues. When there
someone notices that a person is there that does not seem to fit in. This
person comes up to him and asks him about himself. So he says he is ‘Ger’. It’s
Monday so he wants to give this visitor an Aliya. What happens next? He can try
taking an Aliyah violating the law. If he gives a Jewish sounding name and gets
found out, how do you think they will react? Not very well. He could end up in
jail. If he says he is a ‘Ger’ not a Ger Tzedik they will see him as a nut job.
They will not even be interested in hearing anything. The only thing that will
happen is that he will be seen as a non-Jew who for some reason is trying to
deceive Jews, and may in actuality be a missionary.
Now let’s say Bob calls himself a
Noahide. Same story. He visits that synagogue, and when asked says he is a
Noahide. Most likely the guy will say he doesn’t even know what that means. So
Bob can explain to him, that he is a non-Jew who believes in the Torah and the
G-d of Israel. This fellow may have seen a recent article in Ami Magazine about
just such a person and becomes interested in Bob. This leads to a long and
friendly discussion.
Which is the best way? Which way better
accords with Torah? Obviously the one where Bob says he is a Noahide.
Having read many posts from people who
call themselves ‘Ger’ I think some of them will answer like this: ‘I don’t care
what they think, what G-d thinks is more important’. This actually represents a
very serious problem with many Noahides, but even more with those calling
themselves ‘Ger’ because it represents non-Jewish thought patterns.
Most of the Noahides or Ger come from
Christianity which they rejected. But just because they have rejected the
idolatry of Christianity does not mean they have rid themselves of the
falseness of non-Jewish ideas, or have adopted a Torah world outlook. Non-Jewish
hashkofas are rampant in the Ger movement and no one there addresses it, nor
are the members of the Ger movement even aware of it. Non acceptance by
Orthodoxy of the ‘Ger’ (as opposed to the Noahide) should be a cause for
concern. It indicates they have yet to fully understand what the Torah requires
and how foreign they are to Judaism. The idea that they can make a new movement
and that somehow the rest of Orthodox Judaism will have to accept then, is a
fantasy, which can only lead to heartbreak and disaster.
Let me give another example of the
problem. There are a lot of barbs being directed to the eight signers of
letters about the Ger movement. A bit of resistance and attempts to minimize
its meaning is understandable. But the total lack of introspection is telling.
What is interesting is that those six represent totally different parts of
Orthodoxy, and in many point they actually have strong disagreements among
themselves. I can’t imagine all six of us sitting at the same table for
anything. And yet they are united in the belief that there is something wrong
with ‘Ger’. Why is that? Why have the Ger people not considered it?
Consider this; Rabbi Wiener wrote what now
is probably the classic work on the subject of the Noahide Laws. Any work
written after that looks into what he has said to either agree or disagree, but
it cannot be ignored by any serious student of the subject. But what is being
hidden from those in the ‘Ger’ movement is that his views come straight from
the late Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT’L. One need only look at his notes to see that it
is strongly based on the Sichos of the late Rebbe. It is the best
representation of what he taught, and what is held in Lubavitch as the Halacha
for non-Jews. It would not seem to me prudent to attack the only group within
Orthodoxy who believes in active outreach to non-Jews with regards to the 7
mitzvos. Those people who are theoretically the most accepting of them. Everyone
else either ignores it or is involved in passive outreach.
On the other hand I represent that part
of Chassidic/Chereidi Judaism that is not Lubavitch. And each of us is another
community. When taken as a whole we represent the views of the overwhelming
majority of Orthodoxy, and I am certain that were we to discuss with anyone
left out there would not be much support for ‘Ger’. While this may not seem
much to those who call themselves ‘Ger’ because they are so unfamiliar with the
Orthodox world, it should be sending red lights off in your heads.
Let me give another example. There is a
fellow who is strongly involved with ‘Ger’. He is really a sweet guy, and seems
to me very sincere in his desire to do what is right. But he gives classes in
Kabballah, which I have heard a little of and had to laugh at. It’s not enough
we have to have Madonna and the Kabbalah center cult, we now have him?
There has long been a prohibition of
teaching non-Jews Kabbalah and of them learning it, and restrictions in the
learning of Kabbalah for Jews. There are restrictions as to from whom to learn
it and how and which works one may learn. All this from past experience. (Look
up Shabbtzei Tzvi if you need one example.) But learning Kabbalah is encouraged
by the ‘Ger’ movement, EXPLICITLY. This will not bring the geulah, but push it
off.
If we really think about it part of the
work involved with teaching the 7 laws to non-Jews is to help them to
understand and be able to relate to Jews as those ancient god-fearers did. I
think in some ways those of us who have been teaching the 7 laws have ignored
that the goal is that the non-Jew who keeps the 7 should be looked upon as ‘normal’
and be acceptable to Orthodox society in general.
There are many things we are doing that
hinders this goal. It is not just ‘Ger’ that is a problem in this sense, even
though they are an extreme example. I see it as a problem that we, because of
our training in yeshiva and post yeshiva, look at ourselves ONLY as teachers of
Halacha and not also as guiders of people’s lives to make them better people
living in accord with Torah and HaShem’s will. We need to be both. The one will
not work without the other. I am going to try and point this out in future
articles, but let me mention one serious area which needs to be taken in
consideration when we teach and interact with Noahides.
Noahides (Ger) come out of a non-Jewish
world, which has hashkofos foreign to Judaism. Most come out of Christianity
where they have certain views of what they think should be the truth, and ways
of looking at Torah and religion that they think are correct, but are in fact
wrong and inconsistent with Judaism. We will see this many times in these
articles, but it is important for us as teachers to have it in mind, and of
course for Noahides (Ger) to be aware of them.
One concept is that as Christians they
believed in a doctrine called ‘Sola Scriptura’. That basically said: that true
doctrine is arrived by the INDIVIDUALS looking into the Bible and seeing what
it says. Judaism has no such doctrine, and in fact does not support such a
doctrine. In true Torah Judaism our understanding of what the Torah says comes
to us through a tradition. We don’t make things up based on what we read, but
based on what we have received as the truth. When an argument occurs as to the
meaning of any passage or Halacha, it is not what I say or you say that means
anything, but what the person meant based on tradition.
Also there is egalitarianism. The Torah
is not egalitarian. Not all Jews are equal some have more rules and privileges
than others. That is true of the human race as a whole. But many non-Jews don’t
get that. Someone who is a learned Jew
is not the same as a non-Jew in having a right to an opinion. This needs to be
understood. Someone without formal training is not the same as someone who was
formally trained and learned for 20 30 or more years.
A good example of these two is the
sincere non-Jew I mentioned who for some reason was learning kabbalah seforim; clearly
in English. He had it in his head that he actually knew what he was talking
about (even more than I did.) But everyone knows that one can only learn this
subject in the original languages and under the direct guidance of a qualified
teacher who learned likewise, otherwise there is grave danger of spiritual
damage. And even more to teach any subject in Torah one needs to have learned
for many years from qualified teachers.
Similarly non-Jews seem to think the
title of ‘Rabbi’ means something it does not. The Chofetz Chaim got his smichah
a few years before he died, even though his halachic works and rulings were
known and accepted long before that. The Chazon Ish never did. Lots of ‘Rabbis’
on the internet wouldn’t know ‘the blessing for a radish’. What is important is
KNOWLEDGE. Do you really know what you are talking about? This comes from years
of learning in addition to abilities that HaShem gives us.
Non-Jews can’t understand that differing
views on Halacha are valid and that they can both be acceptable and that only
views that are inconsistent or not based on the tradition are invalid. For
example our argument with the ‘Ger’ leaders is not that we disagree on every
and all points they say. I am sure in this series of articles people will see points
of agreement. The problem is that their approach to Halacha and Judaism is just
flat out wrong-headed. It is based on misunderstandings of texts, and at times
just plain ignoring things said when they disagree with the desired conclusions.
For example, in a recent post on Facebook
a view from Rabbi Avigdor Neventzahl that Ruth when she married the son of
Elimelech was a Ger toshiv was mentioned. (I will not go into the problems with
this view as they are not relevant, and the Rabbi also agrees that it has no
effect on Halacha l’maasah.) But what is left out is that at the end of this
discussion he states explicitly that there is no Ger toshiv today!!! Again no
‘GER’ today.
There are many more things I could add to
this subject. In conclusion, it is clear that ‘Noahide’ is a valid term to be
used, and in a real sense those who consider themselves ‘Noahide’ are closer to
the true teachings of Torah than those calling themselves ‘Ger’. It is less of
a problem then ‘Ger’. In fact the term ‘Ger’ will lead to discord with the
majority of religious Jewish people.
In the next article I will deal with the
issue of Shituff as I move into some of the texts and issues underlying the
opposition to the ‘Ger’ movement. Again, I welcome any comments or questions.
However personal attacks will be deleted. Unfortunately I cannot edit any
comments, so if you place a personal attack in the middle of a long comment,
all of it will need to be deleted. Please show respect. Thank you.
Thanx for the article. U make many good points.
ReplyDeleteOne point i'd like to add:
Many people yearn for deeper explanations about biblical concepts, both jews and gentiles. If someone teaches such explanations and calls it 'kaballah'..., it doesnt automatically make it 'forbidden' for non-jews😃
It might not even BE 'kabballah😐
I will be discussing the laws dealing with what non-Jews can learn or not. This is an important issue. I will discuss solutions to this.
DeleteThere's a lot that I agree with in the article. Thanks for taking your precious time to write it.
ReplyDeleteIn the article you said:
"Noahide means a non-Jew who has taken upon himself or herself to follow the 7 mitzvos specifically because of a belief in HaShem and Torah including the Rabbinic traditions."
You said "means" in the present tense. But in the previous paragraph, you said about the Hebrew term for "children of Noah":
"The name itself in Jewish literature is ambiguous. Sometimes it can mean all of humanity, sometimes all non-Jews, and other times non-Jews who keep the 7 laws. "
I would put it to you that the English word "noahide" is not so singular in its meaning as you have suggested. In books and articles it is just as ambiguous as the Hebrew term, maybe even more so. I have a commentary in English of Ramban from artscroll that will tell you that Noa(c)hide refers to all non-Jews. This is reflected in the way other writings have translated "child of Noah" like in the Soncino edition where it is translated as "heathen" which, in those days, would just mean a non-Jew, a foreigner. Yet there are many places online where "noahide" as become another religion, so you can be a noahide if you are an atheist or a Buddhist or a christian. There are some people who use it as you defined it. Even in the past, Elijah Benamozegh used it in the religious sense even equating it to "foreigner in your gates" in the word "The Unknown Sanctuary." But in another online article, rabbi Michael J. Broyde would equate the term "noa(c)hide" with the Hebrew term for "children of Noahide" in definition.
You may know it or not, but I (possibly alone) hate to put that label "noahide" on myself because of its messy nature or usage. Yet I have a friend who will use it to simply speak of Gentile or non-Jew.
So again, I believe there are valid grounds to disagree with your singular definition of the English word "Noahide." I don't know if it's enough for you to reconsider putting one definition on the word as you did in this article, but at least I put the case forward.
Also, based on this article, I can see you have a mastery or handle on the language of English. So you mention something called "hashkofas." You've shared this article to pages where the main audience is not Jewish. I'm not Jewish. I personally think English is more accessible. But I may be wrong. What are you talking about when you write this transliterated term? And is it so untranslatable that there is no English word that has a similar enough meaning since the rest of your article is in English apart from terms that you actually explain (and have an English translation, e.g., bnei Noach and children/descendants of Noah)?
Again, thanks for the great article.
Thank you for your comments. My point with Noahide is only that it was chosen by those who wanted to distinguish themselves and is pretty clear in meaning.
DeleteIn the end some term needs to be used, a Hebrew term would be more of a problem, no matter which one we choose. 'Ger' is basically incorrect, and Bnei Noach can be halachically confusing. Noahide, being English, has no previous history in halcha to cause a problem. It's like 'chassidim'. Whatever ambiguity exists (and there certainly is) when adopted by a group, since there are no halachic problems with the name, it can be used and eventually accepted to mean what we want it to mean. 'Ger' will always have problems. as it already has a clear meaning in halacha. In fact, from what I have read, this meaning is actually being distorted and used that way by Katz and co.
As to hashkofah, I know of no word in any language that is the equivalent of it. It means one's world outlook based ones religious/philosophical beliefs. Since I know of no English word to fit, I have used that. I hope this clarification helps.
Hi there.
DeleteI understand that people wish to distinguish themselves, but that it is clear is meaning is the dispute I have, giving your various sources or resources that define the word differently to you, thereby showing clearly that it is not clear but ambiguous in meaning. Did you acknowledge the evidence that I gave of the ambiguity? Do you acknowledge the existence of the ambiguity? If so, it is therefore inaccurate to state that it means the one definition that you stated. It may be one of the meanings, but not the meaning.
When you defined that Hebrew word as "world outlook based on one's religious/philosophical beliefs" and then said that you knew of no English word to fit it, based on the words you used, I was confused. The English terms "worldview," "religious outlook," "perspective" seem like valid alternatives. Since the Hebrew word points to looking over a certain area, English words dealing with such semantics would seem to overlap enough of the meaning. And since you talking about religion and philosophy, even the word "philosophy" (having a meaning of "outlook or viewpoint") would be valid.
But these are just suggestions. You, as the author, will do what you deem fit and maybe what you're accustomed to. And, although I may have a different opinion, I have no right to dictate to you how to write. I will just offer suggestions and step back. I hope you will see my suggestions only as that, just ideas that I'm sharing.
Keep up the good work!
Among those who follow the 7 it is not ambiguous. For those who don't it is but it is also easy to say what it is since those who call themselves Noahide are pretty consistent.
DeleteAs t the words to use, only if I use all the words together does it come close to the meaning of the Hebrew. Each one alone does not capture the meaning.
"among those who follow the seven ..." I'm among those who keep the seven, unless you'_e found just cause to exclude me. And I see it as ambiguous. The sources I refer to show the ambiguity. I guess you must interact with different circles to me. And therefore your statement about "among those who follow the seven" would have to be limited to "among those I've been in contact with who follow the seven, with exceptions, it seems consistent."
DeleteAgain, I won't force my opinion about your choice to speak hebrew to the english. Maybe I'll do some searching to see how long this inability to communicate such matters in other languages has hindered or affected the Jew. Or maybe it's just an individual thing.
It may be you are correct I should say that among those I have encountered, but I have been involved for over 20 years and encountered many.
DeleteThank you for your excellent articles. I call myself a Noahide (a follower of the 7 laws per Torah and HaShem). Unless someone comes up with another name (which would cause even more confusion at this point), I believe we should stick with "Noahide". There will always be differing points of view but I'm fairly certain the majority of Noahides have no problem with this description. Just my two cents since I'm not a scholar by any means, just a regular gentile.
Delete> But learning Kabbalah is encouraged by the ‘Ger’ movement, EXPLICITLY.
ReplyDeleteGentiles do not have a commandment to learn Torah. We have an obligation to learn the 7 commandments. Learning other parts of Torah is a waste of time.
> Non-Jews can’t understand that differing views on Halacha are valid and that they can both be acceptable and that only views that are inconsistent or not based on the tradition are invalid.
I assure you there are many non-Jews who understand that there are acceptable differences of opinion within Torah Law. The real problem is when someone violates the prohibition of creating a new religion.
> Someone who is a learned Jew is not the same as a non-Jew in having a right to an opinion. This needs to be understood. Someone without formal training is not the same as someone who was formally trained and learned for 20 30 or more years.
I am a non-Jew. I have a formal education in the Torah Law for Gentiles. If a Jew learns the 613 commandments for 30 years, this does not mean that he is an expert in the 7 commandments.
Best wishes,
Hrvatski Noahid
It is true that if one learns he 613 for 30 years he might not know all he needs to instruct a non-Jew on the 7, However, someone who has been learning 30 years will have the tools to be able to learn the 7 in the correct manner.
Deletemaybe we are complicating things too much
ReplyDeleteI agree that some things could be made simpler. But that is the job of teachers to present their material in a way that is complete and simple. I know Rav Schwartz believes that the laws for a non-Jew should presented in simple form.
DeleteMy purpose in these articles is to present the problems with Ger for the non-Jew who doesn't really have the background that someone like myself has, and also for those who do have a background of learning. especially or Katz and others.
Once again, thank you for your dedication and time spent to delve into the several issues here. You have very clearly expressed the reasons for concern. I would like to call to your attention that, even in the book "Laws of Ger Toshav" it reads, "And they have the status of a Ger Toshav in some respects, but they are not complete Gerei Toshav...." (Pg. 20, paragraph 1).
ReplyDeleteIt's possible there's more agreement than not, and that the main disagreement is what title is used. I don't think anyone wants to identify as an "incomplete ger" or "semi-ger," and Noahide has worked fine for decades.
Miriam, I have yet to go into what appears there. As to that issue, it is ambiguous as to whether or not the leaders of Ger do or do not believe that they are halchically 'Ger Toshivim' or something like that. Either you are a Ger Toshiv or your are not. One's legal status is like being pregnant, you are or you are not. I believe that the fourth article on this subject will cover 'Ger Toshiv' today. I will clarify there a little more. However by using the term 'Ger' for the movement it is in a way purposefully deceptive. Which is one of the reasons why the open letter was needed.
DeleteI have a question. It may be in the article, and I missed it. But would you clarify, is a Ger Toshav one who lives in the land of Israel?
ReplyDeleteOriginally a GT was someone living in the Land of Israel.
Delete