23

Avoda zarah is one of the things prohibited by the Seven Noachide Laws. But what about atheism? I know that the 7 Laws are often taken to include a larger number of halachot from the Torah, so would the prohibition against avoda zarah expand to include kefira as well?

yitznewton
  • 3,393
  • 16
  • 33
Daniel
  • 24,888
  • 3
  • 48
  • 148

5 Answers5

24

Rav Moshe Feinstein, in a t'shuva about allowing children to say a generic prayer in public school (Orach Chayim II #24), refers to the Ramba"m's statement in Mishne Torah that Adam Harishon was given 6 commandments, including belief in God. No'ach and his descendants later got one more, adding up to 7. They both conclude that not only the negative aspect of believing in God is necessary - i.e. not serving other deities - but also the positive affirmation of His creation and provenance over the world, when circumstances call for it. Rav Moshe also uses the inference from the words of Ramba"m explained in @Yishai's answer.

WAF
  • 23,730
  • 4
  • 46
  • 138
17

Given the Rambam's statement:

Anyone who accepts upon himself the fulfillment of these seven mitzvot and is precise in their observance is considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles' and will merit a share in the world to come.

This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses, our teacher, that Noah's descendants had been commanded to fulfill them previously.

However, if he fulfills them out of intellectual conviction, he is not a resident alien, nor of 'the pious among the gentiles,' nor of their wise men.

It would seem that the answer is no, it is not permitted.

Community
  • 1
Yishai
  • 31,937
  • 1
  • 62
  • 130
  • 1
    This may be true, as long as we read the last part as saying "nor of their wise men"(ולא מחכמיהם), as it is in most printed edition, which the translation used in this answer is based on. But if we rely on the majority of Yemenite manuscripts( like here) that have the last part saying "but of their wise men"(אלא מחכמיהם), then one might still ask: What if one accepts the 7 laws out of an intellectual conviction, that does not include recognition of God, is he permitted to be an atheist? – Tamir Evan Sep 07 '13 at 19:13
  • Even according to that version, they still don't merit a share in the world to come (as they are not "of 'the pious among the gentiles'"). – Yishai Sep 08 '13 at 11:50
  • Well, Fred disagreed with me when I made the same claim you are making( see the revision history for my answer there). He makes a good point. Also, see b a's answer, which says a Gentile cannot excuse himself from the 7 Laws, because he can come to know them through intellectual investigation. – Tamir Evan Sep 13 '13 at 06:55
  • @TamirEvan, I don't really follow. Intellectually, someone can figure out there is a Creator, that Moshe was Given the Torah and in it are commandments for non-Jews. I don't see how that point changes the question of atheism. – Yishai Sep 16 '13 at 15:25
  • (1) It does, because once you say there is an obligation to reach the 7 laws through intellectual investigation, and the laws themselves don't include belief in God, why can't one be an atheist( not being of 'the pious among Gentiles' not withstanding)? (2) Just because one "can figure out there is a Creator...", doesn't necessarily mean one has to. – Tamir Evan Sep 22 '13 at 08:43
  • Belief in G-d is foundational to the 7 Mitzvos, it need not be enumerated as one of them, and one can't believe that they were given by G-d and Sinai (also not one of the 7), if one rejects the existence of the Giver. See also the many who object to the Rambam's inclusion of a requirement to believe in G-d as one of the 613 Mitzvos. – Yishai Sep 23 '13 at 18:41
  • (1) Who says "belief in God is foundational to the 7 Mitzvot"? shouldn't the answer to that be[ part of] your answer? (2) My contention is that, based on the source you quoted, one need not accept that the 7 laws were given by God at Sinai in order to accept their obligation to obey them. (3) If you're basing yourself on those who are selective about what of the Rambam's they accept, maybe you should cite or quote them, rather than the Mishneh Torah. – Tamir Evan Sep 24 '13 at 05:10
  • The Rambam. "This applies only when he accepts them and fulfills them because the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through Moses." 2. I don't really argue with that point, just that since such a person has no place in the world to come, it shows that that isn't enough. 3. I bring that to show the thinking: How can there be a commandment to believe in the Commander when you have to accept a Commander before you can accept the commandment? It demonstrates the foundational aspect of the concept.
    • – Yishai Sep 25 '13 at 11:48
  • 1
    (1) As I have said above, one who "fulfills them out of intellectual conviction"( and contrasted with the fist half of the Halakhah, that means not through accepting Torah from Sinai) is not explicitly denied "a share in the world to come". (2) The word "only" in that quote is the translator's. It's not in the original, and in context may only refer to one being "considered one of 'the pious among the gentiles'"( and maybe one's eligibility for becoming a resident alien). – Tamir Evan Oct 01 '13 at 07:53
  • Re: belief in God not needing to be an explicit law: That may be all very well for the 613 Mitzvot we are commanded. Why need that apply to the 7 Noachide laws non-Jews are commanded, that don't command an active relationship with God( like the positive commandments 2 through 9 of ours)? – Tamir Evan Oct 01 '13 at 07:58
  • @TamirEvan, One who fulfills them out of intellectual conviction is not from the rightous of the gentiles. That means he doesn't get the portion in the world to come. There is nothing which says the two aren't linked. It wouldn't even make sense - he gets a portion in the world to come, but isn't allowed to live in Israel? The world "only" is implied in the statement (otherwise it is a non-statement) even if the translator added the word. – Yishai Oct 01 '13 at 16:11
  • Re: belief in G-d, the point is it can't be an explicit law, as it supersedes it. The answers for the Rambam's position focus on the requirement in the law being to believe something more about the Creator than simply His existence. In any event, none of the 7 laws are positive in nature, there may well exist additional positive requirements. – Yishai Oct 01 '13 at 16:13
  • (1) "[N]othing which says the two aren't linked" does not mean they are.( Also, see my second comment above.) (2) Being "allowed to live in Israel" could require accepting "Torah Min ha-Shamayim" as a form of accepting Rabbinical authority( beyond the stated laws), but to get a portion in the world to come it would be enough to just follow the laws( regardless of justification). (3) Without the "only", the statement gives one situation where situation applies, but there may be others( i.e. "this applies when ... [this also also applies when]"). Using "only" excludes any other situation. – Tamir Evan Oct 10 '13 at 08:22
  • Re: belief in God: My point is that without a positive command towards God, we can't imply an underlying requirement to believe in God, like we can for the 613 we are commanded. It could be there is one, but it could be there isn't one. – Tamir Evan Oct 10 '13 at 08:29
  • @Matt, I'm not going to decide the correct version, as this is a well traveled discussion. I don't think the answer changes, whichever version you use, as I wrote – Yishai Jun 23 '14 at 21:48
  • @Yishai I think that the conclusion is correct but this can't be the source. Rav Meir Twersky is convinced (and has convinced me) that the Rambam's opinion cannot possibly be as it is stated here. I'll try to find an online shiur where he goes through his many proofs to this – הנער הזה Jun 23 '14 at 22:08
  • @Yishai See Igros Moshe (OC II §25), who makes the point that this Rambam implies an overarching requirement for non-Jews to believe in HaShem. However, I think the "אלא מחכמיהם" emendation lends more credence to the notion that someone who observes the Seven Laws (possibly even including monotheistic belief) not out of a belief that they were divinely commanded may still be able to earn a share in the World to Come (though, unlike chasidei 'umos ha'olam, they are not automatically guaranteed such a share via the 7 Laws). – Fred Jul 28 '15 at 02:27
  • @Fred, I think אלא מכחמיהם is a thin reed to hang an idea of there being more than חסדי עומות העולם in those qualified for עולם הבא. I don't know that the Rambam indicates such a concept anywhere. – Yishai Jul 28 '15 at 13:54
  • @Yishai I'm not suggesting that they would be in the same category as חסידי עומות העולם, who are entitled to a share by default. Also, I'm not basing this idea mainly on "אלא מכחמיהם". The Mishna's omission of non-Jews (as a class) from those excluded from עוה"ב (a list that includes Bil'am, the people of S'dom, and the dor hamabbul) may suggest this (Sanhedrin 10:2-3). In fact, this is the conclusion of the gemara (Sanhedrin 105a, "מתניתין מני רבי יהושע היא"; see Rashi, s.v. מאי נינהו, who appears to go beyond the Rambam and says the non-wicked among the nations are entitled to עוה"ב). – Fred Jul 28 '15 at 19:38
  • @Fred, those examples would be more compelling if they were after מתן תורה. Even Bil'am is kind of an exception, given his level of prophecy, even if he lived during Mattan Torah. Either way, it doesn't seem that the Rambam agrees with the Rashi you cite. – Yishai Jul 28 '15 at 19:47
  • @Yishai Interestingly, see Rashi (Sanhedrin 96b, s.v. גר תושב), who appears to follow R' Meir ('Avoda Zara 64b) that rejecting 'avoda zara is sufficient to become a ger toshav (unlike the Rambam, Hil M'lachim 8:10, who seems to follow the Chachamim). – Fred Jul 29 '15 at 03:40
  • @Fred Many (most?) Rishonim go like this, including Rambam himself in SHM. – mevaqesh Sep 13 '16 at 03:31