[Avodah] The 7 mitzvos of Bnei Noach

[Micha Berger]

On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 6:11pm (Israel time), R Marty Bluke wrote:
> The chizkuni (Bereishis 7:21) asked how could hashem punish the dor hamabul
> when they weren't chayav in anything? He answered that gezel is a mitzvah
> that they should have known without any chiyuv. The obvious question on the
> chizkuni is when did they become chayav in the 7 mitzvos especially things
> like eiver min hachai which are not something you could figure out?

This Chizquni would answer your question about what is the mechuyav for
the 7MBN with an implied "Lamah li qera? Sevara hi!"

I was less surprised by the Chizquni assuming eiver min hachai is
something a person can figure out on their own than the two mitzvos bein
adam laMaqom -- issurim of AZ and "birkhas hasheim" (or is it "Hashem"?).

Shades of Rav Elchanan Wasserman saying that the existence of a Borei
would be obvious were people not plagued with negi'os providing motive
to convince ourselves otherwise.

Shortly before that post (at 5:55pm), RMB replied to me something
related. I argued that a Jewish state would an civil law beyond the
requirements explicit in black-letter halakhah. One point I raised was:
>> And if it's one of the 7 Mitzvos Benei Noach, wouldn't we be obligated too?

> You mentioned the 7 mitzvos of Bnei Noach with regards to dinim. That also
> is a very difficult area. There are no guidelines at all given in the Torah
> to what is dinim. How are the non Jews supposed to figure out what kind of
> justice system to create?

Maybe the mitzvah doesn't require a specific kind of law. Perhaps it's
just a general prohibition against anarchy. And they are yotzei as long
as they put something in place to have an ordered society. Something
sufficient to address R Chananiah Segan haKohanim's concern, "pray for
the welfare of the government, for without yir'ah of it, people would
swallow eachother alive." (Avos 3:2)

And that would be intuitive, not requiring a tzivui.

However, the Rambam (Hil Melakhim 9:14) says that the courts have
a specific role, "ladun nesheish mitzvos eilu". Such that the courts
aren't about enacting and enforcing civil law.

That said, I assumed the position of the Rama (teshuvah #20), Rashi,
Meiri, the Lekhem Mishnah, I think it's also the conclusion of the
Ramban's discussion of Shim'on and Levi in Shechem, the Chasam Sofer
(tehuvah 6:14),... In short, enough sources that I just took it for
granted "we" don't hold like the Rambam.

> The Mishne Lamekech (melachim 10:8 at the very end) quotes a question from
> the yefe toar. How could Rav Yitzchak say that the Torah should have
> started from hachodesh hazeh, if so we wouldn't know what the 7 mitzvos
> are? He answers that Torah is just for the Jewish people and not for the
> non Jews. But it begs the question, so how do the non Jews know what the 7
> mitzvos are?

Jews : Torah   ::  Nakhriim : Jews (qua Mamlekhes Kohaim)

(If you don't recall from SATs, O levels, Bogrut, that reads:
the relationship between the Jews and the Torah is the same as the
relationship between Narkhriim and us. Hashem gives us the Torah telling
us that it's thereby our job to be kohanim spreading these truths.

Maybe the YT and ML are saying that the Torah is only *directly* for us,
because everyone else has us as teachers?

Also not that this highlights an important point about how they (and many
contemporary sermons) understand R Yitzchaq. The Torah doesn't start with
Bereishis to convince Nakhriim that we have a right to EY. He is saying
that when they shake our own confidence, we have something to point to --
thereby reassuring ourselves! (After all, it's all there for us!)

--- ad kan my reply ---


To continue with an even further tangent:

Despite what you may have been told when you first learned this Rashi,
the R Yitzchaq isn't Rashi's father. Not that your post assumed it was.
I said this bit wasn't in reply...

First, because the Yalqut Shim'oni (#187) also quotes R Yitzchaq, meaning
R Shimon (or whomever redacted the liqut) had reason to believe it was
a medrash. Far older.

Second, because it's unclear whether "Yitzchaqi" is actually synonymous
with "ben Yitzchaq". It would raise the question of why Rashi's patronymic
is unique. And in Sefer Bamidvar, the "-i" suffix was for a Beis Av. So
that R Shelomo Yitzchaqi would be more like "R Shelomo Isaacson" --
there was a Yitzchaq somewhere in the ancestry. (Although you need my
"first" to rule out Rashi quoting that ancestor.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 There's only one corner of the universe
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   you can be certain of improving,
Author: Widen Your Tent      and that's your own self.
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    	    - Aldous Huxley