6

Will A Non Jew who did not keep the Noachide Laws be Held Accountable on yom hadin?

After all, he can claim he didn't know anything about them.

Maybe there is a difference between a gentile in China where there are almost zero Jews and a gentile in New york.

The question can also be asked for a Jew who was brought up non religiously, although maybe there, there's more grounds for a claim

msh210
  • 73,729
  • 12
  • 120
  • 359
ray
  • 21,206
  • 2
  • 45
  • 103
  • 3
    I thought Noachide laws were discoverable through intrinsic human logic (there's a source for this somewhere). If that's the case, G-d imbued all of humanity with knowledge of these laws and one cannot claim to not know of them. – Charles Koppelman Oct 03 '12 at 17:25
  • Very similar to and possibly a duplicate of http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/29878. – msh210 Jul 11 '13 at 20:24
  • Related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/77787 – msh210 Nov 24 '16 at 14:14

2 Answers2

10

A non-Jew is accountable because he should have learned the laws and he didn't (Bava Kama 92a; Rambam, Melachim 10:1).

Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman (Kovetz Maamarim, Maamar Al Emunah; available in the preview here and partially translated to English online here) explains that a person naturally should think about the purpose of life, and even a drunkard shouldn't remain under the impression that the purpose of life is to drink beer. An unbiased investigation should eventually come to the conclusion to look for G-d's instructions given in the Torah, and follow them.

b a
  • 24,685
  • 2
  • 54
  • 112
  • 3
    ok. but most non jews intuitively do believe in a higher power - Gd. but how would they make that jump to believing in Judaism, especially since many will never even be exposed to Jews – ray Oct 03 '12 at 21:58
  • 1
    @Raymond, i think that all the 7 Noahide laws are things that a person with sense can come to. Perhaps eating a live animal is hard to understand, but even that perhaps one can understand that it is a cruel thing to do. – Yehuda Oct 27 '12 at 18:45
  • 5
    @yehuda wont help since the Rambam says that a nonjew must fulfill the noahide laws thru belief in the torah, not out of logic. – ray Jul 09 '13 at 19:36
  • @ray Rambam merely says, that in order to be guaranteed a share in the world to come, he must fulfill them because of belief in the Torah. However that is not to say that he would be held culpable even though he NEVER transgressed any his obligations out of intellectual conviction. – IsraelReader Jan 20 '19 at 13:52
  • @ray I agree that he doesn't explain that part well. He writes only about belief in God until the very last paragraph in which he proves in a few sentences both the necessity of believing in the Torah and the Messiah. Maybe someone who knows Rabbi Wasserman's writings better than I do can answer how he sees those beliefs as logical conclusions of belief in God. – b a Jan 20 '19 at 14:23
3

According to the Mishneh Torah, only a Ben Noach (one who has accepted the 7 Noahide Laws) is to be held accountable for violating his laws, whether he is aware that he violated a specific law, or not (Melachim uMilchamot 10:1).

A non-Jew who has not accepted the Noahide Laws upon himself, especially if unaware of them, would not be culpable for their violation. On the other hand, one who fulfills them out of intellectual conviction is not guaranteed a share in the world to come, either (ibid. 8:11).

Tamir Evan
  • 2,429
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 6
    Can you bring a source for "ben noach" referring only to someone who accepted them upon himself? – b a Oct 03 '12 at 21:59
  • 2
    I don't think you accurately represented the Rambam. He writes that someone who fulfills the laws out of good sense is not guaranteed a portion in the world to come as is someone who abides by those laws specifically for the sake of serving God. That does not mean that the can't obtain a portion in the world to come. – Fred Oct 03 '12 at 22:16
  • @b if the Halakhah refers to all non-Jews, Why not say Nokhri, Goy, or some other word to denote Gentiles in general? – Tamir Evan Oct 03 '12 at 22:35
  • @Fred if I understand you correctly, you're right! I've edited my answer to reflect that. – Tamir Evan Oct 03 '12 at 22:46
  • 3
    @TamirEvan all people are children of Noah. – Charles Koppelman Oct 03 '12 at 22:52
  • @CharlesKoppelman so are Jews, but the Halakhot for a Ben Noach do not necessarily apply to Jews( for examle, Melachim uMilchamot 9:3). – Tamir Evan Oct 04 '12 at 07:48
  • @TamirEvan but these halakhot are for sanctification - so maybe when talking about halakha for them, we elevate non-Jews to the greatest of their ancestors. – Charles Koppelman Oct 04 '12 at 21:57
  • @TamirEvan What I wrote was completely independent of Charles Koppelman's reason. The reason why it chose "ben noach" seems simple to me: Because it's speaking about the non-Jew's obligation vis-a-vis his obligations as a descendant of Noach – b a Oct 16 '12 at 05:15
  • @ba O.K., then why does Melakhim u-Milchamot 10:10 differentiates between a Ben Noach and a Goy, as to who receives the charity they give? As it's not talking about his obligations as a descendant of Noach, why does it call him( at the beginning of the Halakhah) a Ben Noach? – Tamir Evan Oct 16 '12 at 19:18
  • @TamirEvan He refers there to an "akum," an idol-worshiper – b a Oct 17 '12 at 00:09
  • 1
    @ba Then, does that mean that idol-worshipers are not Benei Noach, and exempt from the Noahide Laws? Also: here, here and here it is Goy. To the best of my knowledge, it is the censored editions that use עכו"ם instead of גוי( I don't have the Farnkel edition with me, to confirm it). – Tamir Evan Oct 18 '12 at 04:51
  • 1
    @TamirEvan It would mean that the law applies specifically to idol-worshipers. It's that not all bnei noach are idol worshipers, not that not all idol worshipers aren't bnei noach. I don't know about the censorship, and if you're right that the original is "goy," I would probably have no response. But still, I've never heard that a "ben noach" is only someone who accepted the commandments upon himself (בן נח אע"פ שחטא בן נח הוא?) – b a Oct 18 '12 at 04:54
  • @TamirEvan Looking at this again, you seem to be right about Melachim 10:10 differentiating between a ben noach and akum/goy. The words הואיל והוא ניזון מישראל ומצוה עליהם להחיותו made me think he is using ben noach as a synonym for ger toshav (אבל לגר תושב בין במכירה בין בנתינה מפני שאתה מצווה להחיותו Zechiya Umatana 3:11). I reread the chapter and found בן נח שנתגייר ומל וטבל ואחר כך רצה לחזור מאחרי ה' ולהיות גר תושב בלבד כשהיה מקודם (Melachim 10:3). So now I think you're right about the Rambam's use of the term (maybe you can add details to your answer so it can stand alone). – b a Jan 20 '19 at 14:47