Noahide News

Part 454

April 25 , 2006 AD of Our LORD Jesus the Christ the Creator

Talmudic Dragon Moon Calendar  Nissan 27, 5766 ,   their Babylonian times of their  Babylonian Sumerian Doctrine and laws 5766


Ps:118:24: This is the day which the LORD hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.



of Iniquity unto desolation for them who Deny the Christ, Jesus the Lord.

mason seal

Extra Extra

When this Picture first appeared at it made NO MENTION of being a spoof. There are NO Other "Spoofs" in the Archives of Pics. It was not until Texe Marrs began broadcasting the PIC, when they were alerted, they added the "Word" Spoof, to deceive the masses. Too Late, he is REVEALED as a Talmudic Hassidic jew


Megillah Plus!

© Michoel Muchnik
© Michoel Muchnik

Megillat Esther, "The Scroll of Esther," is a first-hand account of the events of Purim, written by the heroes themselves--Esther and Mordechai. By special request of Esther to the Sanhedrin, the Megillah was included as one of the 24 books of the Biblical canon.

The Megillah is read twice in the course of the festival: on the eve of Purim (this year, after nightfall on March 13, 2006), and during Purim day (March 14, 2006). It should be read in the original Hebrew from a parchment scroll written by a specially trained scribe

Click here for a highly readable English translation of the full text of the Megillah. We have also provided you with the original Megillah text accompanied with a running commentary, culled from the Talmud and Midrash, the great Torah commentators, and the Chassidic masters. See the text come alive with explanatory notes, insightful observations, and vibrant applications to contemporary life.



 King Bushahasuerus and his staff of jews and Perpetual Purim murder

Top White House posts go to Jews

After appointing Joshua Bolten to be the White House chief of staff, US President George W. Bush nominated another Jewish staffer, Joel Kaplan, to serve as Bolten's deputy, putting him in charge of the daily policy planning.

The fact that White House policy is now in the hands of two Jews is not seen as significant by activists in the American Jewish community.

"He is simply appointing the best people for the job," said Nathan Diament, who heads the Washington office of the Orthodox Union. (Chabad Lubavitch)  Another Jewish activist added that he "wouldn't read too much into it."

Bolten, who first served as head of the Office of Management and Budget, was the first Jewish member of Bush's cabinet. Ever since Bush took office, there has been a custom of opening cabinet meetings with a brief prayer (to the Talmudic dragon) and so, before his first cabinet meeting, Bolten's assistant contacted Diament and asked for help in finding a Jewish prayer for the security and well-being of the cabinet members. The Orthodox Union (Chabad Lubavitch provided him with the text in English and in Hebrew and Bolten read it aloud at the next cabinet meeting. (inculcation of satan and state)

Bolten and Kaplan will probably be the most prominent Jewish members of the Bush administration, but not the only ones. Apart from Bolten, there is another Jewish cabinet member, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, (devilson) and there are other Jewish senior staff members, including Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and White House staffer Jay Lefkowitz.

In the past year, several Jews who were holding senior posts in the administration have left, among them deputy secretary of defense Paul Wolfowitz, undersecretary of defense Doug Feith, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby and political adviser Ken Mehlman, who now heads the Republican National Committee.

Yet the policy of the administration has little to do with the religious beliefs of the staffers. "The president sets the policy goals and it is now the job of Josh [Bolten] and Joel [Kaplan] to help achieve these goals," said Noam Neusner, who served as the liaison to the Jewish community in Bush's White House from 2002-2005.

Other Jewish activists, both Republican and Democrat, agree that the nomination of Bolten and Kaplan have no affect on policy.

For Republicans, there is still a feeling that Bush does not receive the credit he deserves from the Jewish community. "We have Israel's best friend and it still hasn't changed the way the Jewish community sees him," said Fred Zeidman, a close friend of Bush and chairman of the National Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington. "I keep hoping that one day our community will see the light and support President Bush."

Aholibah is weary of Aholah Dan

Neusner recalled that in the Bush White House there was always great respect for religious practices of the staffers and predicted that this policy would remain now that Bolten is running its daily operations.

One tradition likely to go on is the reading of the Purim megilla led by Chabad Rabbi Levi Shemtov, which attracts many of the Jewish staffers.

The relatively small number of Jews in Bush's cabinet became an issue largely due to the comparison with his predecessor, Bill Clinton. The former administration had such Jewish cabinet members as Robert Reich, Robert Rubin, Sandy Berger, Lawrence Summers and Madeline Albright and State Department officials Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk and Aaron Miller.

"I don't support this idea of bean counting," said Jay Footlik, who was Clinton's liaison to the Jewish community. He sees the fact that the former administration had many Jewish members as significant to the policy the president had in regard to the Jewish community. According to him, the reason Jews were so visible in Clinton's administration was merely a result of the community being "drawn to public involvement and political activity."


merely for their Hoodlum haha shem sham of shame


Bow down, Goyim, for behold, they say in their Talmudic laws that they are gods

Bush declares Jewish heritage month

President Bush proclaimed May as Jewish heritage month.

“As a nation of immigrants, the United States is better and stronger because Jewish people from all over the world have chosen to become American citizens,” Bush said in his proclamation Friday.

Better than the Goyim, Bushwhacker of Treason and murder and Blasphemy?

“Since arriving in 1654, Jewish Americans have achieved great success, strengthened our country and helped shape our way of life. 

Saying  the Christ believers contributed nothing to the Nation?

Through their deep commitment to faith, family and community, Jewish Americans remind us of a basic belief that guided the founding of this nation: That there is an Almighty who watches over the affairs of men and values every life

The greed, envy, thefts, lust, mammonizing, porno, hatred, worship of Satan?

Where will your god be on the Great and terrible Day of the LORD's Wrath?




One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America


Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it


    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Sold out to the anti-Christ Talmudic Satan worshippers by TREASON and of Blasphemy Amaraka the Apostate

Jewish Law - Commentary/Opinion

Enslavement of all mankind who dwell upon the earth whose names are not written in the Book of life of the Lamb Slain from the foundation of the World, who are the Saints set free at Calvary

The Obligation of Jews to Seek Observance of Noachide[1] Laws by Gentiles: A Theoretical Review

by Rabbi Michael J. Broyde[*]

Table of Contents

II. The Noachide Laws
          1. Preliminary Issues
          2. The Content of Noachide Laws
III. The Obligation of "Laws" or "Justice"
IV. The Obligation to Teach or Judge Noachides
          1. The Obligation to Compel Observance
                    A. Maimonides' Approach
                    B. The Approach of Ravad, Nachmanides, Tosafot and others
          2. When a Noachide will Certainly Violate the Law, May Jews Assist in the Violation?
          3. The Responsa of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson
V. Conclusion
VI. Postscript


This paper addresses the scope of
Jewish law's mandate upon Jews to enforce the Seven Noachide commandments, as well as any other rules Jewish law mandates that Gentiles should keep. Part One of this article outlines what are the Noachide commandments, and their place in a halachic system. Part Two discusses the obligation of both Jews and Noachides under the rubric of the commandment called dinim (literally: "laws" or "justice"). Part Three reviews the various opinions on the obligation of Jews to enforce the Noachide commandments. Part Three will consider not only whether enforcement must be sought, but in situations where enforcement is not possible, whether Jewish law mandates Jews to seek to persuade Noachides to obey their commandments. It will also consider whether -- when such persuasion fails -- Jewish law, at the minimum, requires that one may not assist a Gentile in violating the Noachide commandments.

This article concludes that notwithstanding a minority opinion to the contrary, Jewish law accepts that Gentiles are obligated to keep the Noachide laws, and they are obligated even for unintentional violations

So too, Jewish law recognizes that Gentiles are obligated to create a system of laws designed to -- at the minimum -- enforce the Noachide laws.

Forced Satan worship of the Dragon of Sanhedrin

 Finally, while Maimonides appears to accept that Jews as well as Noachides are obligated to enforce the Noachide laws, many authorities, early and late, reject this rule of Maimonides and deny that there is a halachic obligation on individual Jews to compel Noachides to observe their laws. Finally this article noted that whether there is (or is not) a halachic obligation to affirmatively enforce the Noachide laws, it is nonetheless still biblically prohibited to enable or entice a Noachide to violate the Noachide laws (if absent a Jew's assistance, the law would not be violated). However, in a situation where the Noachide is able to violate the law without the assistance of any Jew, many authorities rule that there is no obligation to prevent a Noachide from sinning and thus one may even assist the Noachide in sin.


This paper will address the scope of halacha's mandate upon Jews to enforce the Seven[2] Noachide commandments, as well as any other rules Jewish law mandates that Gentiles should keep. It will do so from a purely theoretical perspective, without any attempt to apply the
rules developed to America in the 1990's or any other particular (factual) setting.[3] Rather, the purpose of this article is to determine which options concerning enforcement are halachically acceptable. In the field of "Jewish public policy" the first question that must be asked is which (if any) of the theoretical options are, in fact, prohibited by Jewish law. After that question is answered, then one can consider which of the remaining options most closely accomplishes whatever Jewish goal is sought.[4]

BY TREASON is your Blasphemous anti-Christ Law, and by the JUDGMENT of GOD you are sent into eternal Damnation for your Blasphemy and your murders and your thefts against Mankind, BEWARE Talmudic Jews, the Great Day of the LORDS wrath is soon, and you will have no place to "Hide" then it is you who are become the "NOHIDES"

Part One of this article outlines what are the Noachide commandments, and their place in a halachic system. Part Two discusses the obligation of both Jews and Noachides under the rubric of the commandment called dinim (literally: "laws" or "justice"). 

The Law of Satan's SynaGOG-ue of MURDERing wonderfully

Part Three reviews the various opinions on the obligation of Jews to enforce the Noachide commandments. Part Three will consider not only whether enforcement must be sought, but in situations where enforcement is not possible, whether Jewish law mandates Jews to seek to persuade Noachides to obey their commandments. It will also consider whether -- when such persuasion fails -- Jewish law, at the minimum, requires that one may not assist a Gentile in violating the Noachide commandments.


1. Preliminary Issues   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Before one can explore the obligation upon Jews to enforce Noachide law, it is necessary to determine if Jewish law accepts that these commandments are still binding on Noachides. The
talmud recounts, as one possible resolution of an unrelated tort law problem, that:

God observed the Gentiles of the land -- What did He see? He saw that the seven commandments He gave the Noachides were not observed and thus He permitted these seven commandments to them.[5]

The God of Talmud Bavli which is the tradition of the jews which makes the Word of God of none effect unto them, is NO GOD the Father in Heaven. The Word is GOD and was made flesh. The talmud states the WORD, who is Jesus, who is the Redeemer from the beginning was "Replaced" by the Satanic theology of these Hassidic Pharisaic Talmudic son's of Satan's shemmyGOG of Dan the Sofiet RED of Sanhedrin, Dragon worshippers. This Dragon was transformed from Darkness into Illuminated false Phosphourus light, Lucifer is his Son of Perdition, false King of Babylon, whom they seek to "REVEAL" very very soon.

Based on this assertion, Bach,[6] Rabbi Chaim Abulafia,[7] Penai Yehoshua,[8] Maharit[9] (and perhaps Chatam Sofer[10] and a version of Tosafot[11] ) all indicate that Gentiles are no longer legally obligated even to keep the Noachide commandments and those who do keep them would be in the status of one "not obligated and observing."[12] This can perhaps be inferred from the comments of Rashi, as well.[13] As noted by Penai Yehoshua, if these commandments are no longer binding on Noachides, the problems associated with assisting a violation or not encouraging observance would greatly decrease, and indeed Penai Yehoshua rules that the only thing that would still be prohibited would be actually enticing them to do something that Noachides cannot do without the assistance of a Jew.[14]

Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah (Moshiach of Satan) comes every Jew
will have 2800 slaves."

Most authorities reject this insight and accept that the Noachide commandments are fully binding.[15] 

Yes indeedy doo, the CONGRESS of the United Stated of Jewrisdiction Eretz ITSREALHELL and the Treasonous Talmudic Man O Dan the "Talmudic War President" the MURDERER


They argue that it is difficult to accept that all of the talmudic discussions concerning Noachide law are predicated on the unstated assumption of the abrogation of the Noachide obligation or even the abrogation of the biblical obligation.[16] 

These satan worshipping laws have no PLace in the WORD of GOD but are fables of the Talmudic Hassidim of the Dragon's Talmud of Babylon unto their Babylonian false king, Moshiach ben wannabe of HELL and death the Covenant they have made and now Judeo-Churchinsanity have embraced, and they will indeed have their Covenant they have made, and they will indeed have their king over them, For Amaraka while you gloated, you deserve your Just reward

Indeed, this position appears to be rejected by every single one of the early authorities (rishonim) who codified the Noachide laws[17] and the numerous later authorities (achronim) who did so.[18] Thus, it is safe to state that Jewish law treats the Noachide laws as binding

Matthew 24:

3: And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
4: And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5: For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
6: And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.
7: For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.
8: All these are the beginning of sorrows.
9: Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.



.[19] Indeed, there are numerous discussions within the Shulchan Aruch and its commentaries which simply assume that the Noachide laws are fully binding.[20]

See Russian Nationalist fighting  these same shemborg collective and their Shulchan Aruch filthy Satanic Perverted laws

Russian Paper Prints Expose Of Talmudic Basis Of Israel The ...
By specifically citing the Shulchan Aruch, the Russian authors undercut the standard disinformation ploy used by rabbis and their apologists when responding ...
NCSJ - Russian Prosecutors Target Jewish Grp.
... religious groups in Russia that work according to “the morals of Shulchan Aruch,” a ... which published a Russian translation of Kitzur Shulchan Aruch,
PDS Russia Religion News July 2005
... in 1999 to publish the book "Shulchan Aruch" in the Russian language. ... In "Shulchan Aruch" are collected legal standards and norms for conduct;

Defense of Jewish law book

Novoe vremia, 30 June 2005

The expert analysis of the contents of "Shulchan Aruch" which has been started by the Moscow prosecutor's office has evoked dismay in Israel. [See "Criminal case against Moscow Jewish organization"] As "Kommersant" wrote on Wednesday, when the foreign ministry of Israel learned about the interrogation of Rabbi Zinovy Kogan it immediately demanded an explanation from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 23 June at the Basman district prosecutor's office of Moscow, the leader of Congress of Jewish Religious Associations and Organizations of Russia, Rabbi Zinovy Kogan, was questioned. As the rabbi describes it, at the prosecutor's office he was given one question: why was it decided in 1999 to publish the book "Shulchan Aruch" in the Russian language. "By that time, we had opened in Moscow two new yeshivas (Talmudic religious educational institutions) and we needed literature in the Russian language, so the book was published," the rabbi answered consistently.

The interrogation immediately became known in Jerusalem.  "Such a thing has not happened for many decades, either in Russia or other countries with which Israel maintains diplomatic relations," a newspaper quotes the words of a source in the Israeli government who wished to remain anonymous. The Israeli foreign ministry immediately demanded an explanation, although it did not receive any answer.

According to information of the publication, the first vice-premier of Israel, Ehud Olmert, on Monday had a long conversation with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who "was extremely concerned about what is happening." The prime minister instructed him to clarify how it could happen that a sacred book of the Jews has fallen under suspicion in Russia as inflamatory. Mr. Olmert stated that Israel views this as "an unprecedented manifestation of antisemitism."

Direct from the Anti-Christ of the Earth, who are of their father the murderer from the beginning

Thus the question of antisemitism in Russia has become the main item in conversations of the vice-premier with Prime Minister Fradkov. 

All because they oppose the shem sham of Everlasting anti-Christ shame of the Dragon that Old serpent and Satan


The Israeli vice-premier stated at the meeting that Israel awaits from Russia concrete steps and a clear assessment of the actions of the Moscow prosecutor's office. In reply, the Moscow prosecutor's office announced on Tuesday that criminal cases would not be opened with regard to the publication of the book "Shulchan Aruch," nor with regard to the authors of the appeal to the Prosecutor General's office.

Coowner of the "MENATEP" group, Leonid Nevzlin, assessed the actions of the prosecutor in these cases as a manifestation of state antisemitism. In an interview with he named antisemites in Putin's inner circle.

"It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not — they "will be killed." Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg

Mikhail Chlenov, general secretary of the Eurasian Jewish Congress:  "Every religion, every developed religion, I stress especially, each of the three Abrahamic religions, that is, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, contains within it a serious element of obscurantism, that is, closed mindedness.

Christ is the ONLY RELIGION of Abraham, for he BELIEVED the WORD of GOD and was counted unto Righteousness, the Righteousness of Jesus who is the ONLY righteous, who they the seed of Satan so Hate

  And this, it seems to me, is very important to stress: it is everywhere.. Moreover, among the followers of these religions we see everywhere, in all countries, including Russia, a group of people who have been attracted to religion precisely by obscurantism.

Now, just what is this book "Shulchan Aruch" to which these men are appealing? Without a doubt, this book is not a Christian book and there is no sympathy for Christianity in it. We can say that directly and frankly. And there should not be. Indeed, this book is not Christian and moreover it is a book which actually defines the life of a person who is living amidst people of other faiths. Which is how Jews lived up until the creation of the state of Israel, and even now they live that way to a substantial degree.

Now with respect to the specific questions. I have selected an example. A Jewish woman does not assist in childbirth.  I am not talking about the fact that the most famous maternity clinic in Moscow, to which everybody is rushing, so to speak, was founded by a Jew. Yes, Grauerman, was a Jew and not, let's say, a Tamil or Chinese. The quote which they cite enunciates this: "A Jewish woman must not aid a non-Jewish woman in childbirth, other than in the event that she is known as a midwife. In that case she is permitted to do it, so as not to evoke hostility toward us, and only for pay and on a weekday." Now these are religious laws that have differing strictness for orthodox and nonorthodox Jews. Naturally, a Jewish woman who is not a midwife ought not to be assisting in childbirth. Why? It's clear. If, God forbid, something happened, then back in those conditions when this book was written, not only this woman will be accused but also the whole community to which she belonged. They will say "O, this was done specifically so that the Christian child would die and then they will take its blood." We could cite many other examples. These quotes are partly distorted and partly taken out of context.

How can it be Partly taken out of context?

We should not have to justify ourselves for something that is written in the sacred (Perverted satanic) books just as Christians should not have to justify themselves for, let's say, Christ's statement "I will not bring peace, but a sword," or, for example, for his statement to the Samaritan woman that "I will not give this to dogs; go away, I was sent only to save the lost sheep of Israel" (I am speaking from memory and not quoting). 

The sword is upon you own that Day of the LORDS wrath, a two edged sword, of truth,........ Satan

Christ seeks for you to Have Life abundantly, but you have chosen your Talmudic Covenant with Death and hell, and the LORD said he will not disanull it. Your murders are recorded even from Abel to the Last Saint of Christ


And I am not going to say anything about the Quran. It is simple enough to find, for every humane person, an Osama bin Laden. That's a peculiarity of this culture, these religions, in which we live. In this regard Judaism is more restrained, much more modest, because for every such apparently xenophobic point there is an explanation, a commentary in the books, but in addition, a rabbi, according to Jewish law, and this is very important, has the right to interpret and to change the law. Religious law is a constantly changing system.

Radio Liberty, 13 February 2005

Resolution concerning refusal to open a criminal case with regard to the appeal to the Prosecutor General's office demanding prohibition of Jewish organizations.

From the letter to the prosecutor general regarding prohibition of Jewish organizations.

Do the sharply negative assessments of Judaism by Russian patriots correspond to the truth? If they do correspond, then such assessments are justified and, regardless of the emotionality, they cannot be considered as derogatory or inciting strife, and so forth.

Deputies who signed the antisemitic letter to the prosecutor general: from "Rodina" fraction, Sergei Glotov, Anatoly Greshnevikov, Sergei Grigoriev, Alexander Krutov, Nikolai Leonov, Oleg Mashchenko, Vladimir Nikitin, Nikolai Pavlov, Igor Rodionov, Andrei Savaliev, Yury Savaliev, Irina Savelieva, Ivan Kharchenko, Alexander Chuev; from fraction of communist party, Nikolai Ezersky, Vladimir Kashin, Nikolai Kondratenko, Albert Makashov, Petr Svechnikov, Sergei Sobko.

Appeal to the prosecutor general regarding prohibition of national and religious Jewish Organizations:  We, both to protect our fatherland and for personal self-defense, are forced to appeal to you, Mr. Prosecutor General, with an insistent request to investigate as soon as possible the salient facts and, if they are confirmed, to officially open a case for prohibiting in our country all religious and national Jewish associations as extremist.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch

"Shulchan Aruch" is a hallachic (that is, religious law) code of the sixteenth century, citing books written more than a thousand years before it. "Shulchan Aruch" (literally "covered table") was composed by Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488-1575). It was first published in 1565 in Venice.

Has NOTHING to do with GOD, but a filthy perverted rib-eye of Talmud Bavli of Blasphemy and MURDER

In "Shulchan Aruch" are collected legal standards and norms for conduct; each is accompanied by a commentary in which conditions for its application are discussed. 

Mishnah and Gemara

Some of them, such as, for example, the prohibition of murder or love for one's neighbor, are, from the point of view of Judaism, unchangeable; 

ONLY toward their fellow Talmudic brethren of the serpents brood, the "collective"

others are connected with specific social situations and lose force when they change. Many standards contained in these books relate to times when Judaism was persecuted and Jewish communities lived on the verge of extinction.

and In apostate Amaraka, they are now the LAW of the MURDERING Land of Dan

"Kitzur Shulchan Aruch," that is, an abridged "Shulchan Aruch" was compiled by Rabbi Shlomo Gantsfried (1800-1886) in Hungary. It was first published in 1864. It has the same rules given in pure form, without commentaries, which permitted the reduction of the huge four-volume book to one book, which still, to be sure, has half a thousand pages. In the intention of the composer, "Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" was supposed to be for people who for one or another reason did not engage in profound study of the laws of Torah.


However, the rules contained in this book cannot be understood correctly by themselves, without the commentaries. 

see "lowestpit"

"Kitzur Shulchan Aruch" presupposed knowledge of "Shulchan Aruch," and the ability to use it. This requires years of study.  (tr. by PDS, posted 4 July 2005)

Russian original posted on site, 30 June 2005

Russia Religion News Current News Items


Back to the Amarakan "Noahide enforcement of the Talmudic Satanic "War and MURDER President, Bushwhacker

A second preliminary issue is whether the unintentional violation of one of the Noachide commandments leads to legal culpability in Jewish law. Based on a statement of Maimonides,[21] Minchat Chinuch rules:

When is it prohibited to hand a Noachide something forbidden to him? This is only when he knows that it is prohibited; but when he does not know that it is prohibited, there is no prohibition, since in this case there is complete un-intentionality (lit: shegaga gemorah) and a Noachide violates no rule when his violation is completely unintentional.[22]

But if he refuses to Stand fast in Faith of Jesus the Christ the LORD, then he will be decapitated by their "Love Law" purged, sacrificed, for his own good

If this Minchat Chinuch is correct, a case could be made that Noachides are, in fact, better served by not teaching them laws.[23]

I agree whole heartedly

Many authorities disagree with the Minchat Chinuch and limit the permissive ruling to a situation where the Noachide recognizes the category of activity as prohibited, but merely does not recognize this particular action as in violation.[24] However, when the Noachide does not recognize the whole category of activity as prohibited, his actions still rise to the level of legal culpability.[25] Others simply reject the whole insight of the Minchat Chinuch and base their view on an explicit Tosafot[26] that appears to do the same.[27] These authorities rule that Noachides are always obligated to obey the law and culpability is thus always present. Thus, it is well established that Gentiles benefit from being taught the Noachide laws.

Thus they inculcate your children in their "No Child Left Behind" from Satan, Education and Shearing Day USA HJR 104, PL 102-14

2. The Content of Noachide Laws   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Having established that the Noachide commandments are binding on Gentiles, and that lack of knowledge does not excuse obligation, it is necessary to explore what the commandments are. The talmud[28] recounts seven categories of prohibition: idol worship, taking God's name in vain, (Their non god the tetragrammaton of Hell) murder, prohibited sexual activity, theft, eating flesh from a living animal, and the obligation to enforce laws. As is obvious from this list, these seven commandments are generalities which contain within them many specifications -- thus, for example, the single categorical prohibition of sexual promiscuity includes both adultery and the various forms of incest.[29] As has been noted already, these Noachide laws appear to encompass nearly 60 of the 613 biblical commandments incumbent on Jews, which is nearly one in four of those biblical commandments generally applicable in post-temple times.


Matthew 23

1: Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
2: Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

3: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

If you say you will accept their Noahide Laws, then do it into eternal shame

But if you Say NO, then DO it in Faith of eternal Salvation, there are no in betweens

4: For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.
5: But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,
6: And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7: And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
8: But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
9: And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
10: Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
11: But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.
12: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13: But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16: Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
17: Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

Jesus the Temple torn down and Raise on the Third Day and is the Temple of the Kingdom of Sion, God's Holy Mountain in heaven

18: And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
19: Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
20: Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
21: And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
22: And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
23: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24: Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26: Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28: Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30: And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32: Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

33: Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34: Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
38: Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
39: For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.



[30] What might make the practical application of the Noachide laws sometimes difficult is the frequently wide divergence of opinion found within the various Jewish authorities concerning details of many Noachide laws. A simple example illustrates this:

The Jerusalem Talmud recounts that there is no formal divorce according to Noachide law.[31] The rishonim understand this in three completely different ways. Some claim that this means that divorce is legally impossible for a Gentile and once married there is no way to end the marriage.[32] Others maintain that the
Talmudic passage means that there is no formal process of divorce, and either spouse can end the marriage by simply leaving the family unit.[33] 

Matthew 19:

1: And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;
2: And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.
3: The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4: And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6: Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7: They say unto him,
Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8: He saith unto them,
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10: His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11: But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given

By their Damnable laws they have caused much Fornication, we were deceived by these Hassidic Blasphemous Vipers to accept DIVORCE, and I am also Guilty, but am cleansed by the Lamb by his OWN BLOOD, and ALL who by faith in HIM and eternal Salvation are cleansed, Let us never do it again in the Name of Christ the LORD


Yet other authorities insist that in Noachide law a man may never divorce his wife -- but she may divorce him at will.[34] Similar disputes touch many core areas of Noachide law, leaving the resolution of many hard cases very difficult to determine.

And every Law these Hassidic Pharisees the Vipers of Hell make are absolutely "CONTRARY" unto the Creator GOD, IF you have chosen to abode in the lowestrooms of hell, then you can Justify the NEW Treasonous Murderous Blasphemous Laws of the Bushwhacker of Dan Bloody anti-Christ ad-menstruation, BUT, I assure you, you will not like the outcome

[35] Indeed, before one seeks to apply the details of Noachide law to issues in current society, it is necessary to determine what precisely is the Noachide obligation.[36]

However, disputes about the details should not be overstated to undermine the clarity of the general principles. The application of Noachide law to many general areas is relatively clear. Homosexuality is forbidden,[37] as is adultery[38] and bestiality.[39] Murder is prohibited, and subsumed in the prohibition of murder is abortion.[40] So too, most forms of theft are prohibited, as is eating the flesh of a living animal.[41] Indeed, the general Noachide laws share a common base of "ethics" that most religious peoples would share.[42]

Which are the LAW that GOD put into Man's Heart, the "Catch, is that they DENY the Creator GOD from the Beginning, and if you say that Jesus is GOD ALMIGHTY come in the flesh, crucified, Raised and ascended in a Glorified Body, then you are breaking their anti-Christ laws of their "Replacement Theology" their "replacement god who is no GOD, but is the DRAGON they serve and force mankind to bow and Worship

III. The Obligation of "Laws" or "Justice"[43]   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

The final commandment in the Noachide code is dinim, commonly translated as "laws" or "justice". Two vastly different interpretations of this commandment are found among the early authorities. Maimonides rules that the obligations of dinim require only that the enumerated Noachide laws be enforced in practice. Maimonides states:

How are [Noachides] obligated by dinim?. They must create courts and appoint judges in every provence to enforce these six commandments . . for this reason the inhabitants of Shechem [the city] were liable to be killed[44] since Shechem [the person] stole[45] [Dina], and the inhabitants saw and knew this and did nothing.[46]

And now once again the White House of Mystery Babylon serves Esther, Easter, Isis, Ashatar, Ishatar, the Queen of heaven, Lucifer the son of the morning, the male/female Shekinak non gods of Polytheism of the Pharisees, That Old Devil the Dragon and satan

According to Maimonides it is logical to assume that other types of regulations that society might make are subsumed under the rubric of either "laws of the land" or "laws of the king." Their binding authority is quite different.[47]

Nachmanides argues with this formulation and understands the obligations of dinim to be much broader. It encompasses not only the obligations of society to enforce rules, but it also obligates society to create general rules of law governing such cases as fraud, overcharging, repayment of debts and the like.

They have set up their Talmudic Bankruptcy Law to enslave Mankind as Bond servants to the Talmudic Jewish Elite Banking global system

[48] Within the opinion of Nachmanides there is a secondary dispute as to what substantive laws Noachides are supposed to adopt. Rama, writing in his responsa,[49] states that according to Nachmanides in those areas of dinim where Gentiles are supposed to create laws, they are obligated to incorporate Jewish law into Noachide law unless it is clear contextually that it is inappropriate. Most authorities reject this interpretation and accept either Maimonides ruling or that according to Nachmanides those rules created under the rubric of dinim need only be generally fair, and need not be identical to Jewish law.[50] This author cannot find even a single rishon who accepts the ruling of Rama, and one can find many who explicitly disagree.[51]

The dispute concerning the nature of the commandment called dinim is extremely relevant to explaining the obligation of Jews to provide guidance and seek enforcement of the Noachide laws. It would appear to this author that Maimonides accepts that the biblical commandment of dinim (or some Noachide cognate of it) compels enforcement by all -- Jews as well as Gentiles -- of these seven laws, perhaps because Jews too are bound by them.

and jews are bound to Satan and are anti-Christ of the earth, Now their Proselytes the Judeo-Churchinsanity have gloatingly joined them in unbelief.


Gawd Bliss Amaraka

Your Treasonous Blasphemous Government of these United States which is Now Jewrisdicition of Eretz ITSREALHELL, under authority of the Unconstitutional "Dictator" George W. Bush, the Noahide enforcer "War President, have sold you out Amaraka, and seeks to enslave you by the Talmudic Jews who run Washington DC, by the Treasonous "Homeland Security Department of the Talmudic jew Chertoff, which means devilson in the Russian language



[52] Maimonides in his explanation of the laws of dinim does not appear to limit them to Noachides only. Indeed, writing much more recently, Rabbi Yoseph Engel,[53] Rabbi Meir Simcha MeDivinsk, Rabbi Yecheil Yakov Weinberg, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach,[54] and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein[55] all seem to indicate that there is some residual jurisdictional impact upon Jews from their Noachide obligation. For example, Rabbi Meir Simcha recounts that if a Jewish child who is not yet bar or bat mitzva, and thus not an adult according to Jewish law, comprehends the nature of right and wrong,[56] he or she[57] is obligated according to torah law in the Noachide commandments, since according to Noachide law he is an adult.[58] In a similar vein, Rabbi Weinberg states that a marriage entered into between two Jews which is technically invalid according to Jewish law still creates a Noachide marriage between the couple.[59]

The opposite claim could be made according to Nachmanides (as interpreted by those who disagree with Rama). Since the obligation to create dinim according to Nachmanides includes in it other obligations clearly not applicable to Jews (such as the creation of a general civil or secular law system governing all other than Jewish) it would appear that Nachmanides could not accept a Jewish obligation to participate in dinim.[60] 

Dinim = secular zion of Aholibah, Kadima

That is not to say that Jews need not obey dinim or other aspects of the Noachide code according to Nachmanides. Indeed, it is clear that a number of authorities find some connection between the obligation of dinim and the halachic mandate of dina demalchuta dina, the obligation of Jews to obey the secular law.[61] If Noachides are obligated in the creation of general secular law and not only the enforcement of these six specified commandments, it would seem logical that Jews must too obey these dinim, at least in interactions with Noachides.[62] However, a crucial observation must be made. Merely because Jewish law rules that one is obligated to obey Noachide law does not mean that one is necessarily obligated to assist in its enforcement.[63] The two are not necessarily interrelated.[64]

have their cake and eat it too

Indeed, as noted by Chazon Ish, Jewish law requires respect of the Noachide legal pronouncements even in a situation where the Noachide judges themselves do not fully observe Noachide law.[65] 

Hypocrites of Hell

Chazon Ish was asked concerning the obligation to accept legal pronouncements from a Noachide court that does not generally observe (or enforce) all of the seven commandments, but "observes the law concerning sanctity of life and theft of property." Chazon Ish replies that if they are enforcing even a section of the Noachide laws properly, it is halachically necessary to respect those pronouncements.[66] However, respect does not necessarily mean that full participation is mandatory.

above the law of the "Goyim"

In sum, there certainly is an obligation upon Noachides -- at the minimum -- to create a legal system designed to enforce Noachide law. 

And the Talmudic Bush family of Treason surely have along with Congress

"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched."   President George H.W. Bush, quoted by Sarah McClendon
(White House Reporter) in her June 1992 Newsletter.


Jews have an obligation to recognize and respect this system, even if it is incomplete in its observance of Noachide law. According to many, there would appear to be a residual impact of Noachide law in Jewish law.[67]

IV. The Obligation to Teach or Judge Noachides   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Gen:49:16: Dan shall judge his people, as one of the tribes of Israel.


Maimonides states:

Moses, our teacher, only willed Torah and mitzvot to the Jewish people, since it states "An inheritance to the community of Jacob."[68] . . . One [who is not Jewish] who does not wish to, we do not compel to accept Jewish law. So too, Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel the commandments to the Noachides. All who do not accept are killed. One who accepts them [voluntarily] is called a ger toshav [literally: resident alien]. . .[69]

"It is our duty to force all mankind to accept the seven Noahide laws, and if not — they will be killed." Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg

See Bushwhackers, Illegal Immigrants, Ger Toshav...influx of Catholicos anti-Christ, resident aliens

So, too, Maimonides recounts that:
A Jewish court [beit din] is obligated to appoint judges for ger toshaves [literally: resident alien] to judge them in order that the world not be destroyed. If the Jewish court wishes to appoint judges from within their midst, it may; if it wishes to appoint judges from the Jews, it may.[70]

Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.  ...  Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary.  Jewish courts ... will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. 

The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha....  ....  And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law. — Committee for Israeli Victory

Yes people, call it what you want to, but in every form it is TREASON, and anti-Christ Blasphemy. Conspiracy Theory, go tell that to the Whitehouse full of their anti-Christ Conspiracy theories that the War in Iraq was because of their CIA operative Ben Laden, the saints of God do not want to hear your gobbly gook and pitiful comments. You are to obey the Law of the land you say, then we say go, join the "Other Anti-Christ yiddiots in the lowestroom forum, or go ask a rib-eye


Finally, Maimonides rules that:
One who takes an adult slave from an idol worshiper, and the slave does not wish to be circumcised one may delay up to twelve months . . If one agreed concerning this slave with his previous owner not to circumcise him, it is permitted to keep the slave uncircumcised; however, the slave must keep the seven commandments obligatory on Noachides and if not, he is killed immediately.[71]

Yes by their Bankruptcy law, they have made you a Noahide slave, so the question is will you accept the Mark of the beast?

Rv:20:4: And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

This article will address three basic issues that flow from the formulation of Maimonides. They are:
(1) Is there an obligation upon each individual Jew to coerce compliance; or is the obligation only on beit din and if so, which court; or perhaps classical halacha rejects this ruling of Maimonides.[72]
(2) When a Noachide will violate these rules no matter what posture Jews take, may Jews assist in the sin or at the least must a Jew decline to assist in a violation of Noachide laws.
(3) Is there an obligation to induce or persuade a Noachide to comply with the Noachide laws, or even to teach Noachides about their obligations, or (if there is an obligation) is it limited to the obligation to coerce (lekof).
Indeed, the answer to each of these three inter-related questions is in dispute, and each of these disputes is quite central to many of the issues raised in this paper.

1. The Obligation to Compel Observance   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

A. Maimonides' Approach   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

A simple reading of the rules of Maimonides' would indicate that Jews or a Jewish court are obligated in (at the minimum) coercing Noachides to observe their laws. Such is not the only way, however, to interpret Maimonides' statements. Maharatz Chayut in his responsa[73] seems to adopt a formulation of Maimonides ruling that makes this law a mere historical recounting of facts. He states (quoting the Rashbash[74]):
Sanhedren 56b recounts that the Jews were commanded in ten commandments at Marah[75]; these ten commandments were the seven laws of Noah, the Sabbath laws, dinim, and respect for one's parents. Why did the Jews need to be commanded again [on the seven Noachide laws] since Jews were already commanded from the time of Adam and Noah...Since we conclude that commandments that were given prior to Sinai to Noachides, and not repeated at Sinai, are obligatory only for Jews, the seven commandments had to be repeated at Sinai to obligate Noachides.

Titus 1:

10: For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12: One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The
Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13: This witness is true.
Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15: Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
16: They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.


[76] Based on this Rashbash, the assertion of Maimonides that "Moses, our teacher, only willed Torah and mitzvot to the Jewish people, since it states 'An inheritance to the community of Jacob.'"

Jn:5:46: For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.


 ...[77] and his assertion that 'Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel the commandments obligatory to the children of Noah' appear logical.

Mk:7:9: And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.

Mk:7:13: Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 Why was Moses also the messenger to the rest of the world to compel observance of the seven commandments, perhaps they are obligated by Adam or Noach? Rather we see that Moses being commanded at Marah on the seven Noachide commandments, even though Gentiles were already commanded, was done to make Noachides obligated in the mitzvot even now.

Thus, according to Maharatz Chayut, there is no obligation for any specific Jew, in any circumstance to compel observance by a Noachide. Rather Maimonides is merely explaining the jurisprudential basis for the obligation of Noachides to their seven commandments -- absent Moses' re-commandment at Sinai, only Jews would have been obligated in Noachide law. The most that one could claim according to Maharatz Chayut is that perhaps Moses himself was obligated to compel observance of the Noachide laws; Jews currently are not -- apparently neither in the context of a beit din nor in the context of any specific individual. Maharatz Chayut would then limit Maimonides' rule obligating Jews to establish courts and appoint judges to those Noachides who formally accept the obligations of a ger toshav (resident alien) and who live in the Jewish community and who are dependent on it for law and order "lest the world be destroyed".[78] 

Hjr 104, PL 102-14

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Treason and Blasphemy

Certainly in the diaspora there are few such communities of Noachides;[79] although if there were, and they could not see fit to enforce the law themselves, a Jew should guide them.[80] Similar claims that Maimonides' rules do not create a practical legal obligation can be found in Aruch Hashulchan,[81] the writings of Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni,[82] Rabbi Shaul Yisrali[83] and Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher,[84] the author of Torah Shelama, all of whom assert that the opinion of Maimonides itself is to be understood as limited to yemot hamashe'ach (or perhaps less ideally, full Jewish law in Israel).

However, all of these explanations of Maimonides' ruling are difficult and the simple understanding of Maimonides is that (at the least) a person that is capable of forcing compliance, must. Indeed, while Rabbi Karo does appear to limit the application of Maimonides somewhat, he clearly understands Maimonides as requiring compulsion whenever possible, even by an individual.[85] This is similarly understood to be the opinion of Maimonides by Tzafnach Panaich, in his lengthy discussion on this topic.[86] A ruling similar to Maimonides' is found in Chinuch 192, where it states:

The rule is as follows: In all that the nations are commanded, any time they are under our jurisdiction, it is incumbent upon us to judge them when they violate the commandments.

B. The Approach of Ravad, Nachmanides, Tosafot and others   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

A large number of rishonim appear simply to disagree with the opinion of Maimonides, and rule that there is no obligation upon an individual Jew to impose Noachide rules on Gentiles. Included in this group is at least Ravad, Nachmanides, Tosafot and perhaps Rashi and Rashba. Ravad, in disagreeing with the rulings of Maimonides that a slave who refuses to accept one of the seven commandments ought to be killed states[87] "the slave should be sold. We cannot, now, kill a person." While one could understand this assertion as merely practical,[88] it is more likely that Ravad is limiting the juridical power of the Jewish community in punishing Noachides for violations of the Noachide code.[89] Under this analysis, it would, according to Ravad, take an authorized beit din (Jewish court) of 23 functioning when the Sanhedren is legally empowered to impose capital punishment, to kill for violations of the Noachide code.[90] 

The Beit Din is set up now in jerusalem and under the Sanhedrin of the seventy

Mt:10:17: But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

Mk:13:9: But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

Thus Ravad disagrees with Maimonides, and at least limits the obligation of Jews to impose law on Noachides to situations that do not now (and will not in the pre-messianic era) exist.

Not until the ten kings of the seventy ancients of abomination "reveal" their Moshiach ben satan

THE VILNA GA'ON (ibid.) supports Rashi's interpretation. He explains that when Sanhedrin sat, ten (of the most important members) sat in the middle of the group, and they were surrounded by the other sixty. These are the "sixty mighty men *around* the bed of Shlomo. (The ten in the middle correspond to the seven "Ro'ei Pnei ha'Melech" and three "Shomrei ha'Saf," who are closest to the king, in a king's court -- and in the king of king's court -- see Megilah 23a. The verse in II Melachem 25:19, which associates these authoritative members of the king's court with sixty other men, is discussing the members of the Sanhedrin.

Proof that this is in fact the approach of Ravad can be derived from his ruling in Malachim 6:1 which allows the
subjugation of Noachides to a Jewish nation in war time without the imposition of observance of the Noachide commandments, as Maimonides requires.[91] This would make the positions of Maimonides and Ravad, in their writings in Milah and Malachim consistent on this issue.

Bush their "War Perpetual Purim, President"

Similarly, Nachmanides agrees with Ravad and does not require the imposition of the Noachide commandments as part of a negotiated peace between Israel and its Noachide neighbors.[92]
He indicates that it is the military goals alone which determine whether peace terms are acceptable. According to Nachmanides, Jewish law would compel the "victor" to accept peace terms which include all of the victors' demands except the imposition of Noachide law on the defeated society; Maimonides would reject that rule and permit war in those circumstances purely to impose these laws on a Gentile society

Iraq, Iran, Syria and any who oppose the shem sham of everlasting Shame, at the hands of this generations MURDERER, Bushitler

This indicates that Nachmanides too does not require the imposition of Noachide law by a Jewish government.[93]

Tosafot[94] also concurs with the rulings of Ravad and Nachmanides and deny that there is any obligation upon even a Jewish government to impose the Noachide commandments on nations under their control.[95] No systemic obligation is present. Rashi, too, perhaps appears to side with Ravad on this issue.[96] Rashba in his responsa also appears to agree.[97]

A similar approach is found in Hagaot Ashrei, which state:

A Noachide, even though he violates the seven Noachide commandments, and his warning is his execution and he does not need formal witnesses and warning, nonetheless every moment prior to his conviction in beit din, he is not liable for the death penalty and it is prohibited to kill him.[98]
This source clearly disagrees with the opinion of Maimonides discussed above and limits the obligation to punish Noachides to beit din.[99] Indeed, it would seem logical that the beit din needed for this punishment is the same type of beit din needed to execute Jews, which has not been extant since prior to the destruction of the Second Temple. This approach would make the comments of Hagaot Ashrei identical with Ravad. Even if this opinion is not accepted, and any regular beit din can function in this role, it is clear that no obligation is imposed upon individual Jews to punish Noachides for violations.

In the two areas where this issue is codified into the halacha, the obligation for Jews to compel observance by Noachides is clearly left out. In the laws relating to keeping slaves, there is an intricate discussion of the rules relating to the circumstances in which a
Jew may keep a Gentile slave who does not undergo (partial) conversion. This matter is fraught with disagreement beyond the scope of this paper.[100] However, one thing is clear: neither Tur, nor Rama[101] nor any of the classical commentaries on Shulchan Aruch[102] quote the obligation to impose Noachide law upon Gentiles living -- either as a conditional slave[103] or as an employee -- in the house of a Jew (and over whom presumably one could have considerable influence).[104] This is true even though the whole area is generally subject to codification,[105] and Tur and Rama do quote and agree with the various other assertions of Maimonides found in Milah 1:6, but yet do not cite this one. Indeed, the notes to Rama clearly indicate that he accepts the rulings of Ravad on this matter.[106] The fact that Maimonides quotes an obligation to compel observance by Noachide slaves which is deleted by the later authorities is indicative that his opinion is not considered binding according to halacha.

[107] So too, in both Tur and Shulchan Aruch[108] when discussing the obligation to save Gentiles who do not observe the Noachide laws from life-threatening dangers, indicate that there is no obligation to punish violators of Noachide rules. For example, Beit Yosef[109] states that there is no obligation (mitzvah) to kill Gentiles who do not obey the Noachide laws; similar sentiments can be found in Tur,[110] Bach[111] and Drisha.[112] (Maimonides, in the sources cited above, clearly rejects this.) Rama, in Darchai Moshe He'Aruch adopts this posture also.[113]
Shulchan Aruch explicitly incorporates this rule.[114] 

See Talmudic Russian ruling against the prosecutor

So too, Shach states "There is no obligation [mitzvah] to kill Gentiles even if they violate the Noachide laws"[115] and Taz agrees with this assertion.[116] This ruling -- not mandating the punishment of Gentiles for violating Noachide law -- stands in clear contrast to the assertion in Shulchan Aruch encouraging and certainly permitting the punishment (and even killing) of one who (is Jewish and) intentionally defies Jewish law.[117] It is thus clear that Shulchan Aruch and the other various commentaries rule (contrary to Maimonides' assertion) that Gentiles need not be punished by Jews for violating Noachide law according to Jewish law.[118] There is no obligation or duty to compel observance of Noachide law by Gentiles.

On the other hand, even these authorities who reject the obligation could accept the assertion of Sefer Ha
Chasidim,[119] that it is a meritorious thing to do which imitates God's conduct towards the Noachides at Ninveh. Absent other factors, it seems obvious that it is laudatory to instruct a Noachide of his obligations, both for reasons mentioned by Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid, for those mentioned by Maimonides in Malachim 10:11 and for those discussed in the Postscript.

Thus, while Maimonides is relatively clear that when possible Jews must impose Noachide law, one could reasonably conclude that the weight of the rishonim and codifiers disagrees with that conclusion and assert that there is no obligation for any individual Jew to compel a Noachide to cease violating the Noachide commandments or that the obligation is limited to messianic
(Moshiach ben satan) 
times or to resident aliens.

2. When a Noachide will Certainly Violate the Law, May Jews Assist in the Violation?   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

In a situation where, no matter what a Jew or the Jewish tradition says or does, the Gentile will nonetheless perform an action which violates the Noachide code, is there an obligation to withdraw oneself from the situation? If there is an obligation to separate a Noachide from sin -- as mandated by a broad reading of Malachim 8:10 and Milah 1:6 -- certainly one cannot assist him in sin.

Pesachim 22b quotes the following statement of R. Natan:

R. Natan said from where do we know that one may not extend a cup of wine to a Nazir ( of the Nazarene)  nor a limb of a live animal to a ben Noach? The source is from the verse "before a blind person thou shall not put a stumbling block."
Thus it is clear that one may not enable a Noachide to sin. If absent the assistance of a Jew[120] no violation could or would take place, it is a biblical violation of lifnei iver for a Jew to assist a Noachide in violating his law.

However, Avoda Zara 6b quotes R. Natan's statement and limits its application to an instance of trei ibra d'nahara (literally "two sides of a river"). Thus only when the Noachide is on one side of a river and flesh of a living animal is on the other side so that he cannot obtain it on his own, is the one who extends it to him in violation of lifnei iver. On the other hand, if the Noachide and the flesh are on the same side of the river (chad ibra d'nahara), so that he could procure the meat on his own, then the person who gives it to him is not in violation of lifnei iver. The assumption is that the prohibition will be violated in any case and the assistance does not enable the sin.

How they will snare any who oppose them and their shemsham

This discussion relates only to the biblical prohibition called lifnei iver; however, is there a rabbinic prohibition to assist a Noachide in violating his seven commandments even when he can violate them independent of the helper? This issue is a crucial one, for it addresses whether there is a general obligation to separate a Noachide from sin (lehafresh ben noach ma'issur). It is impossible to accept Maimonides' opinion that Jews must compel observance of the Noachide laws and simultaneously rule that one need not separate a Noachide from sin.[121]

Two schools of thought seem to exist. The first position is taken by Tosafot, Mordechai, Rama and Shach each of whom accepts that when one is not in a "two sides of the river" situation, there is no prohibition associated with assisting a Noachide who sins.[122] Rama states that there are those who rule that it is only prohibited to sell Noachides supplies used for their idol worship when others will not supply them; however, when others can supply them, there is no prohibition. He concludes by adding "The tradition is in accordance with this opinion; pious people (literally: spiritual people) should conduct themselves in accordance with the stricter opinion".

Shach states this even more clearly:

In my humble opinion, all authorities agree with the opinion of Tosafot and Mordechai that it is permissible to aid a Noachide ... [All those] who argue are discussing the case of a Jew whom one is obligated to separate from sin . . Such is not the case for a Noachide ...[123] whom we are not obligated to separate from sin.[124]
This ruling has a significant impact on the issue of the Jew's obligation to prevent a Noachide from violating his seven commandments. Essentially, this school of thought accepts that once one cannot actually prevent the violation from occurring, there is no obligation to dissuade or convince a Noachide from violating the law. Indeed, one may actively assist him by providing him with things that he can otherwise acquire on his own.

This approach -- which rules that there is no obligation to prevent sinning by a Noachide or convince a Noachide to cease sinning -- is accepted by nearly all authorities, including Magen Avraham,[125] Gra,[126] Levush,[127] Beit Shmuel,[128] Machatsit HaShekel,[129] Dagul Merevavah,[130] and Berchai Yosef.[131] Indeed, it is important to realize that a number of authorities reach the conclusion that it is permitted to assist a Noachide while prohibited to assist an unobservant Jew. This is based on their observation that there is no obligation to separate a Noachide from sinning.[132] (The precise rationale to distinguish between an unobservant Jew and a Noachide is beyond the scope of this paper.)[133]

While this author has seen no authority explicitly attempt to harmonize these rulings with Maimonides' ruling cited above,[134] one could easily do so by limiting Maimonides' ruling to a situation where one literally can compel observance of the law, which would then make the situation a "two side of the river case." That would argue that the word "to compel" (lekof) used by Maimonides should be limited to just that situation.[135] Equally interesting, many of those rishonim who clearly argue with Maimonides concerning the obligation to enforce Noachide law discussed in section III, also clearly aver that there is no obligation to separate a Noachide from sin.[136] Their position too is consistent. Indeed, this author would note that any authority who rules that a Jew may assist a Noachide in a violation of the Noachide rules (when the Noachide can do the violation without the Jew's assistance) must rule that there is no obligation upon any particular Jew to convince a Noachide to obey the commandments.[137]

it will bring about a jews accusation against any who oppose him, by this method of false witness of their snare

The second position is taken by Rabennu Nissim ("RaN"). RaN states that there is a separate rabbinic prohibition, called mesaya yedai overai averah (literally: "aiding the hand of those who sin") to assist a person -- Jew or Noachide -- in sin even in situations where the person can do the sin without the help of another.[138] While many authorities accept the opinion of the RaN concerning a Jew who is generally not observant,[139] as noted above this opinion essentially is rejected in Jewish law[140] concerning a Noachide -- the classical exception being a lone Tashbetz who rules that it is halachically prohibited to assist a Noachide in sin, since Jews are obligated to separate Noachides from sin.[141]

According to RaN's approach, Maimonides' ruling, cited above, could be understood in two different ways. In situations where a Jew can literally compel observance of the law, that would be a biblical
(Babylical of Babble)
obligation. In situations where compulsion would not work, there would be a rabbinic obligation at least not to assist. This position is neutral on the proper understanding of Malachim 8:10 (which appears to compel observance), as even if there is no obligation to compel observance, one could readily imagine the Sages prohibiting actually assisting in a violation, even if there is no obligation to deter the sin. If one accepts Maimonides in Malachim 8:10, one must at the minimum accept RaN's rule.

Maimonides, himself, however appears to be completely consistent. Maimonides appears to rule that one may never aid a person who is attempting to violate the law -- Jew or Noachide -- even if, when one declines to aid him, another will do so. This is true whether or not the next person who aids him is also obligated to observe the law. Thus, his position rejects the approach taken in Avoda Zara 6b and makes no distinction between one or two sides of the river.[142] Maimonides' position is thus completely consistent. He prohibits assisting another in sin in all situations, and compels both Jews and Noachides actively to prevent others from violating Noachide law.[143]

3. The Responsa of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson   [RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS]

Here is the Talmudic Responsa of TREASON TREASON TREASON



One Hundred Second Congress of the United States of America


Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January,

one thousand nine hundred and ninety-one

Joint Resolution

To designate March 26, 1991, as `Education Day, U.S.A.'.

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded;

Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws;

Whereas without these ethical values and principles the edifice of civilization stands in serious peril of returning to chaos;

Whereas society is profoundly concerned with the recent weakening of these principles that has resulted in crises that beleaguer and threaten the fabric of civilized society;

Whereas the justified preoccupation with these crises must not let the citizens of this Nation lose sight of their responsibility to transmit these historical ethical values from our distinguished past to the generations of the future;

Whereas the Lubavitch movement has fostered and promoted these ethical values and principles throughout the world;

Whereas Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, leader of the Lubavitch movement, is universally respected and revered and his eighty-ninth birthday falls on March 26, 1991;

Whereas in tribute to this great spiritual leader, `the rebbe', this, his ninetieth year will be seen as one of `education and giving', the year in which we turn to education and charity to return the world to the moral and ethical values contained in the Seven Noahide Laws; and

Whereas this will be reflected in an international scroll of honor signed by the President of the United States and other heads of state: Now, therefore, be it


    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That March 26, 1991, the start of the ninetieth year of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of the worldwide Lubavitch movement, is designated as `Education Day, U.S.A.'. The President is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.


When a Jew contemplates violating Jewish law, there is an obligation upon Jews not only to prevent him (physically if necessary and possible) from violating the law, but also there are obligations to teach him or her about the law and to induce or persuade compliance.[144] Indeed, in a post-emancipation society, limiting Jewish sinning rarely is done with coercion and force, and is typically done through persuasion and teaching. As noted above, in this author's opinion, the halacha as generally understood by most authorities rules that there is no obligation to persuade and teach Noachides about the Noachide law. None of the classical commandments designed to deter sinning by Jews (except the biblical prohibition of lifnei iver, which was discussed in part 2 of this section)[145] is generally thought to applicable to Noachides. Thus, there is no obligation of tochacha (to rebuke) a Noachide who sins,[146] there is no notion of arvout (cooperative activity) that compels collective responsibility,[147] and no obligation to separate a Noachide from sin.

One modern responsa stands out as advocating an approach completely different from that generally accepted by Jewish law. The strongest case that a Jew is obligated to teach and persuade a Gentiles to keep the seven commandments is found in the writings of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson of Lubavitch, in one of his classical responsa.[148] After quoting Maimonides, Malachim 8:10 discussed in part one, Rabbi Schneerson states:

It is obvious that this obligation [found in Maimonides, Malachim 8:10] is not limited only to a Jewish court, since this commandment is unrelated to the presence of a ger toshav (resident alien), and thus what is the need of a beit din. . . . Thus, this obligation is in place in all eras, even the present, when no gera toshav can be accepted and it is obligatory on all individuals who can work towards this goal. So too, this commandment is not limited to using force -- where, in a situation we cannot use force, we could be excused from our obligation -- 

But the Treasonous Congress and the "War presidents" have allowed the use of "FORCE" of their god of forces

since the essence of the obligation is to do all that is in our power to ensure that the seven Noachide commandments are kept; if such can be done through force, or through other means of pleasantness and peace, which means to explain [to Noachides] that they should accept the wishes of God who commanded them in this rules. This is obviously what is intended by Maimonides.

and by your representative, Apostate Amaraka you have accepted the beast and his MARK 

* * *

In Responsa Tashbetz (3:133) it states that even in a case where there is no prohibition of lifnei iver, such as two sides of the river, still it is prohibited to assist Noachides who wish to sin, since "we are obligated to separate them from sin." In reality, we have no source for the obligation to separate a Noachide from sin, if it is not derived from the remarks of Maimonides discussed above [Malachim 8:10] that we are obligated to coerce them into accepting commandments, and thus, of course, we may not assist them in violating them.

Rabbi Schneerson concludes by stating:
From all of the above, it is clear that anyone who has in his ability to influence, in any way, a Noachide to keep the seven commandments, the obligation rests on him to do so, since that was commanded to Moses (Not the Moses of God, but a fabled Talmudic moses) our teacher. Certainly, one who has connections with Noachides in areas of commerce and the like, it is proper for him to sustain the connection in order to convince and explain to that person, in a way that will reach that persons heart that God commanded Noachides to keep the seven commandments...[149]

the god of their mammonizing

In this author's review of the literature, the weight of halachic authority is contrary to this analysis, although it certainly is morally laudatory (all other things being equal) to convince Noachides to keep and observe the Noachide laws. Three proofs can be adduced which indicate that the ruling of Rabbi Schneerson is not accepted by most authorities.[150] First of all, as he himself notes, his position assumes that there is an obligation to separate a Noachide from sin.


The Rebbe’s Revolution In 5762

Ten years passed. On the one hand, world-wide terror increased. On the other hand, the world continued to progress towards the time of the Rebbe Mendel Menachem Schneerson's revelation. Somehow, the Rebbe arranged it so that Bush’s son would become president too and complete what his father left unfinished.

By Rabbi Naftali Estulin



As noted in detail in part 2 of this section, nearly all authorities reject that assertion. Second of all, it assumes the halachic correctness of the opinion of Maimonides concerning the general obligation to compel observance by Noachides; this author suspects that the normative halacha is codified in favor of those who disagree with Maimonides and thus rejects the rulings found in Maimonides 8:10.[151] Finally, it assumes that even within the position of Maimonides the obligation to compel observance includes within it the obligation to persuade. No support is advanced to that proposition, and by analogy, one could easily assert that merely because compulsion is mandatory (when possible) to prevent a violation, persuasion need not also be mandatory.[152] In addition, proof that there is no obligation upon any individual Jew to teach Noachides their laws can be found in the many responsa that permit the teaching of Noachides about their laws: these many responsa all permit this activity -- but none rule it obligatory or compulsory.[153]

In addition, this author believes that systemic jurisprudential concerns within halacha for reciprocity (which are constantly present and which are beyond the scope of this paper) mandate symmetry of obligation between Noachide and Jew. Jewish law certainly does not compel Noachides to enforce their legal system on Jews and certainly does not authorize Noachides to punish Jews for violations of Jewish law.[154] To impose an un-reciprocal obligation upon Jews would violate jurisprudential norms found in Jewish law, where systemic obligations to act for the benefit of others is typically only imposed when those others are obligated to do the same were the situation reversed. Noachides are not obligated to enforce Jewish law; Jews thus are not obligated to enforce Noachide law.[155]


This article started by reviewing the halachic obligation of Gentiles to obey the Noachide commandments, and concluded that notwithstanding a minority opinion to the contrary, halacha accepts that Gentiles are obligated to keep the Noachide laws, and they are obligated even for unintentional violations. So too, halacha recognizes that Gentiles are obligated to create a system of laws designed to -- at the minimum[156] -- enforce the Noachide laws and punish Noachide[157] violators[158]

and that is exactly what the TREASONOUS Bushwhacker and Chabad Lubavitch cabinet do. What about the oil? they already control the global economy

This article then continued by noting that Maimonides appears to accept that Jews as well as Noachides are obligated to enforce the Noachide laws; however, many authorities, early and late, including Rama, reject this rule of Maimonides and deny that there is a halachic obligation on individual Jews to compel Noachides to observe their laws. Indeed, Rabbi J. David Bleich states without any equivocations "Jews as individuals are not required to secure compliance with the Noachide Code on the part of non-Jews."[159]

Finally this article noted that whether there is (or is not) a halachic obligation to affirmatively enforce the Noachide laws, it is nonetheless still biblically prohibited to enable a Noachide to violate the Noachide laws (if absent a Jew's[160] assistance, the law would not be violated). However, in a situation where the Noachide is able to violate the law without the assistance of any Jew, nearly all authorities rule that there is no obligation to prevent a Noachide from sinning and thus one may even assist the Noachide in sin. Clearly then, classical halacha does not compel a Jew to persuade or entice a Noachide to observe the law. Rama rules that one may assist, but pious people should abstain from this activity. Shach indicates that even pious people need not abstain from this activity. Rama's assertion that pious people should abstain from this activity can be supported both as a minority opinion within halacha, and as the ethical direction of Sefer Hachasidim with which this paper opened.


It is the conclusion of this paper that generally halacha sees no technical obligation in most situations -- even as it is morally laudatory -- to insure that Noachides obey their laws. Two observations need to be made.

Initially, as with all issues, the outer parameters of that which is halachically permissible do not establish that which is morally laudatory (or perhaps even halachically encouraged). Thus the words of Perkai Avot need to be quoted:

[Rabbi Akiva] used to say, Humanity is precious since people were created in God's image.

That is not what Akiva of Van Impe Industries has to say, he said MAN which is only jews, for the "Goyim are as lesser animals, and their gawd has given "man" dominion over the lesser animals

The remarks of Tosafot Yom Tov are also relevant. He states:
Rabbi Akiva is speaking about the value of all people...He wished to benefit all people including Noachides...Rabbi Akiva seeks to elevate all inhabitants of the world...
as are the remarks of Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid, with which this paper opened.[161] Indeed, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik continues the theme of Sefer Hachasidim concerning Ninveh when he states:
There may be an additional reason for Jonah's association with Yom Kippur ... Ninveh was the capital city of pagan Assyria ... It was a country which would later, under Sennacherib in 722 B.C.E. besiege Jerusalem and exile the ten tribes. Yet God's compassion embraces all of humanity ... It is, therefore characteristic of the universal embrace of our faith that as the shadows of dusk descend on Yom Kippur day ... the Jew is alerted ... that all of humanity are God's children. We need to restate the Universal dimension of our faith, especially when we are sorely persecuted and are apt to regard the world in purely confrontational terms.[162]

By force of their non god of forces and no free will

In a similar vein are the remarks of the Kuzari, which indicates that the moral relationship of the Jews to the nations of the world is similar to that of the heart to the rest of the body.[163]

Thus, there are many theological or halachic reasons why it might be proper to teach Noachide laws generally, and indeed, a claim can be made that halacha obligates a truthful response to an honest query from a Noachide concerning his obligation under the Noachide code.[164]

Secondly, this paper has left unexplored many other rationales for seeking enforcement of Noachide law. The words of Maharam Schick should be quoted:
[I]t appears that any situation that involves judging violators, even if they are Noachides, is a Jewish people's concern, for others will learn from any wrong done in public and will follow suit and, in the least, the sight of evil is harmful to the soul. Thus, it is our concern. In any case, it is inconceivable that any person living among the residents of a given city be beyond the jurisdiction of the court.[165]

otherwise they have set themselves up to be as gods even as they did at the tower of Babble of their coveted Babylon proper, Eretz ITSREALHELL, from the Nile to the Euphrates and all the Noahide Nations of their dragon the god of this world, SATAN 

Rabbi Bleich puts it a little differently. He states:
Despite the absence of a specific obligation to influence non-Jews to abide by the provisions of the Noachide Code, the attempt to do so is entirely legitimate. Apart from our universal concern, fear lest "the world become corrupt," as Maimonides puts it, it is also very much a matter of Jewish concern and self-interest. Disintegration of the moral fabric of society affects everyone. Particularly in our age we cannot insulate ourselves against the pervasive cultural forces which mold human conduct. Jews have every interest in promoting a positive moral climate.[166]

Thus you have it, the anti-Christ and Mystery Babylon Mother Harlot of the earth is upon you, what will you do? Obey Jesus or men?

Thus, there might be many practical reasons why it is a wise idea to teach vigorously the Noachide code, or selective parts of it,[167] to Gentiles.

On the other hand, the apparent absence of a general halachic obligation upon Jews to increase observance of the Noachide code by Gentiles
allows for a balancing of Jewish interests to occur. The possibility that there might be circumstances where the unfettered teaching of the Noachide code in the United States, where distinctions based on religious affiliation cannot be governmentally defended, could be deleterious to the observance of halacha by Jews is not to be dismissed.[168] So too, the possibility that a clearly Jewish attempt to seek enforcement of Noachide laws could result in vast antagonism and backlash toward Judaism from those groups whose conduct is categorically prohibited by Noachide law is not to be dismissed.[169] Long term damage to broad Jewish interests might occur.

and IT will, for it is Written, also.......

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. It forbids laws that:

All of the concerns -- on both sides of the issue -- are real. How to weigh the likelihood of each of these scenarios and there consequences, is beyond the scope of this paper and perhaps varies from issue to issue and case to case -- although once it is established that no technical halachic obligation is present, a broad variety of realpolitik factors comes into play, each attempting to evaluate what will be in the long term best interest of the Jewish people. These political factors are much less relevant when technical halachic prohibitions are on the line, but are certainly significant when discussing the advisability of undertaking
discretionary conduct.




*           Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law, Atlanta GA 30322. Telephone: 404 727-7546; Fax 404 727-3374; Email; Rabbi Howard Jachter commented on a version of this article, and his comments were appreciated.

For excellent works surveying issues concerning Noachide law generally, see Rabbi J. David Bleich, "Mishpat Mavet Bedenai Benai Noach," Jubilee Volume in Honor of Rabbi Joseph D. Soloveitchik 1:193-208 (5754); Rabbi J. David Bleich, "Hasgarat Posh'a Yehudi sheBarach LeEretz Yisrael", Or Hamizrach 35:247- 269 (5747); Professor Nahum Rakover, "Jewish Law and the Noahide Obligation to Preserve Social Order", Cardozo L.Rev. 12:1073-xxxx (1991); Professor Nachum Rakover, "Hamishpat Kerech Universali: Dinim Bebnai Noach" 15-57 (5748); Encyclopedia Talmudit, "Ben Noach" 3:348-362; Professor Aaron Lichtenstein, The Seven Laws of Noah (2nd Ed., 1986). (As a general matter, this article will attempt to provide citations, to both English and Hebrew versions of works when both exist for the convenience of some readers.)

This body of this paper will not address the merits of alternative rationales for enforcing the Noachide commandments, such as, for example, to teach and direct the Jewish community. It is a famous story, often recounted, that Rabbi Yisrael Salanter favored the translation of the Talmud into German and its introduction in the curriculum of German Universities; when asked to explain his support, he replied that if the Gentiles think talmud study is important, maybe the Jews will study it also! For a detailed discussion of this issue, see Dov Katz, Tenuat HaMussar 1:22-25 and Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems 2:319-320. So too, that rationale could be advanced to support enforcement of the seven commandments. See also the Postscript for more on this issue. This article was previously published in "Jewish Law and the Obligation to Enforce Secular Law," in The Orthodox Forum Proceedings VI: Jewish Responsibilities to Society, (D. Shatz & C. Waxman eds.) 103-143 (1997).
  1. The term "Noachide" is used in the rabbinic literature to denote anyone who is not Jewish. See generally Rashi, Nedarim 31a and R. Aaron Kirshenbaum "The Covenant with Noachides Compared to the Sinai Covenant" Dinai Israel 6:31-48 (5735). More specifically, as noted by Ritva Makot 9a, "noachide" denotes a gentile who keeps the Noachide commandments, "ger toshav" denotes a gentile who formally accepts the commandments, and "gentile" denotes one who has done neither. An eved kenani is generally not thought to be a Noachide; see Rashi, Sanhedren 58b. See also Rabbenu Gershom, Keritut 9b and Meiri 48a both of whom appear to classify a ger toshav as a partial convert; see also Rabbi Howard Jachter, "Kedushat Yisrael Lechatazin" Beit Yitchak 24:425-428 (5752).

  2. As noted by Sefer HaChinuch 416, although classically referred to as "seven" commandments in the talmudic literature (see Tosephta A.Z. 9:4 and Sanhedren 56a), these commandments include far more than seven obligations. As noted in The Seven Laws of Noah supra note *, at 90-91, these seven commandments correspond to nearly sixty of the 613 mitzvot given to the Jews, or one in four of those obligations practical since the destruction of the Temple and exile from the land.

    Even the Talmud readily acknowledges this fact; see Chulin 92a. In this author's opinion, there is a dispute on how to understand this talmudic section. Are the thirty obligations mentioned there explanations and elaborations on the seven, or are they additional commandments not included in the seven? Rabbi Menachem Azaria Mepano, Asara Mamaorot, Mamar Chokar Din 3:21 clearly understands them as mere explanations. On the other hand, Shmuel ben Chofni Gaon seems to understand them as additional commandments; see his commentary on Genesis 34:12; see also Jerusalem Talmud, Avoda Zara 2:1 which states "These thirty commandments Noachides will accept upon themselves in the future." This distinction leads to certain very practical differences; see Rabbi J. David Bleich, "Divine Unity in Maimonides, the Tosafists and Meiri" in Neoplatonism and Jewish Thought, Len E. Goodmann, ed. (1992) pp.237-254 who uses the opinion of Shmuel Ben Chofni to explain an insight of Meiri which has practical ramifications.

  3. As with any specific halachic ruling, but even more so in this one, that application requires evaluation of the impact on society at large. Thus, there might be no halachic obligation to seek enforcement when it is clear that there is no possibility of success (however defined), or that profound harm would befall the Jewish community if enforcement was sought; for more on this, see infra at Postscript. For a discussion of this issue in the context of enforcement of Jewish law within a Jewish community, see Techumin 7:107-144 (articles by Rav Moshe Malka, Rav Yitzchak Zilberstein, Rav Simcha Kook, and Rav Yisrael Rosen).

  4. For more on this issue, see Postscript.

  5. Bava Kama 38a. For a use of this talmudic text in a different context, see Responsa of Rabbi Hildesheimer YD 259.

  6. Hagaot HaBach, Chagiga 13a. The reference in Bach to Ein Yakov is to the version of Tosafot printed in Ein Yakov on Chagiga 13a. See also Responsa Rama Mepano 30.

  7. Sefer Etz Chaim, beginning of Genesis chapter 37 quoting Maharash Algazi from Ahavat Olam.

  8. Responsa Penai Yehoshua, YD 1:3 and EH 2:43.

  9. Quoted in Makrai Kodesh 63a. For a discussion of the opinions of Rabbi Chaim Abulafia, Penai Yehoshua and Maharit, See Yabia Omer YD 3:17(10).

  10. Commentary on OC 39; but see Chatam Sofer CM 185 where he indicates that he does not, in fact, accept this theory as correct.

  11. Tosafot on Chagiga 13a quoted in Ein Yakov on Chaggiga 13a. This author has no explanation for the differences between the Tosafot on Chagiga 13a in Ein Yakov and the version of Tosafot in all of the various talmudic sources. The version of Tosafot found in Ein Yakov is not found in the other alternative versions of Tosafot commonly consulted.

  12. See Kiddushin 29b-30b for a discussion of this status.

  13. Avoda Zara 6a.

  14. He understands even this only a as rabbinic prohibition; but see page 20 of this article which indicates that it is normally considered a biblical prohibition.

  15. Responsa Beit Yehuda YD 17; Sedai Chemed 6:26:22 (in the name of numerous authorities); Yabia Omer YD 2:17(10); Yad Eliyahu 48 and many others.

  16. Whether there could be any Noachide obligation based on a rabbinic commandment is subject to some debate; see Sedai Chemed 2:32-33. To this author it would seem logical that there can be no rabbinic obligation on Gentiles to keep the Noachide laws, as there is no obligation on Gentiles to keep rabbinic rules. That does not, however mean that there can be no rabbinic decrees ever governing Noachides; see id. However, the central obligation to observe cannot be rabbinic; Rashi, Sanhedren 58b (veleklal yisrael lo ba) clearly indicates that a rabbinic decree cannot govern one who is not Jewish. This issue is perhaps related to the question of whether Noachides must follow majority rule. Compare Pri Megadim, YD, Shaar HaTarovet 1:1(3) with Nodah Beiyehuda, Tanyana, Even haEzer 42 with Hatam Sofer, YD 70 and Maharam Shick, OC 104.

  17. See e.g. Maimonides, Malachim Chapters 7-9 and various other rishonim discussed in part II-V of this article who refer to the seven commandments in a way which indicates that they are biblical in origin.

  18. See e.g. Aruch HaShulchan He'Atid Malachim 78 and the numerous achronim cited in parts II-V of this article all of whom discuss the issue of Noachide obligation assuming that it is biblical in nature.

  19. This author would be inclined to read the authorities cited in notes 6 to 10 (and the related talmudic text) as perhaps standing for a lesser proposition -- Noachides are only obligated to obey the seven commandments based on logic or Natural law, and that they are released from adhering to them solely because of a divine revelation. This perhaps can be implied from Tosafot Chagiga 13a (which seems to indicate that observance of the seven commandments is possible independent of the study of torah), Rabbenu Nissim Gaon in his introduction to Talmud (printed as the preface to Berachot) (which discusses the obligations upon all people to obey logical rules) and Maimonides, Malachim 8:11 (which discuss whether Noachides who rationally observes the commandments are meritoriously acting assuming the text is changed from velo to ela, as indicated by Maharam Alshich). Supporting this alternative reading of Maimonides, Rakover, supra note *, at footnote 28, states in part:
    The reading, "of their wise men," ("ela mehakhmeihem") is to be found only in manuscripts and not in printed editions of Maimonides' Code. The same reading may be found at Y. ben Moshe, Introduction to Ma'aseh haEfod (1403) (Rabbi Yitzhak ben Moshe is also known as Profiat Duran haLevi of Catalonia); and at Y. ben R. Shem Tov, Kevod Elokim 29:1 (1556). See also Z. Hayyot, [1 Kol Sifrei Maharatz Hayyot 61], at 66; Maharatz Hayyot, 2 Kol Sifrei Maharatz Hayyot 1035 . . .; A. Kook, Iggrot Re'iyah, Iggeret no. 89, 100.

  20. See, for example, Rama OC 156:1; Shulchan Aruch YD 169; EH 5:14 (and comments of Chelkat Mechokek). Many such citations could be brought.

  21. See Malachim 10:1 which states "a Noachide who unintentionally violates one of the mitzvot is excused from them all."

  22. Kometz HaMincha 232 (reprinted as part of the text in the new Minchat Chinuch 232).

  23. See also Pri Megadim OC 443:5 and 444:6 which is argued with by Drisha YD 297(1-2).

  24. For example, it would be permissible for a Noachide to eat a piece of flesh from a living animal in a situation where he did not know that this meat comes from a living animal, but knows that if it had, he would not be allowed to eat it.

  25. For example, it would be prohibited for a Noachide to eat a piece of flesh from a living animal in a situation where he knows that this meat comes from a living animal, but is unaware that such flesh is prohibited.

  26. See Tosafot, Bava Kama 79a.

  27. See Avnai Meluim EH 5; Seda Chemed 5:26:13; Terumat Hadeshen 299; Aruch HaShulchan YD 62:6; Responsa Rav Betzalael Askenazi 3 (in the name of Radvaz also).

  28. Sanhedren 56a. Indeed, the source for these laws plays a role in their interpretation. As noted by Rama, Responsa 10 (to be discussed infra) if the source for these rules is biblical verses directed at Adam or Noach, they then are to be interpreted independent of the subsequent revelation at Sinai. Rama states:
    It is recounted in Sanhedren 56b. Rabbi Yochanan states that the seven Noachide laws were given based on the verse 'God commanded Adam stating: from all the trees in the garden you may eat' [Genesis 2:16]. "veyetzav" is the source for dinim since it states . . .; "elokeim" is the source for berchat hashem, since it states .... Contrary to this is the opinion of Rabbi Yitzchak who states that "veyetzav" is the source for the prohibition of idol worship; "elokeim" is the source for the dinim....
    Rama continues:
    Rabbi Yochanan, who learns dinim from "veyetzav" understands that Noachide law only obligates observing the customs of the community and judging people . . . However, Rabbi Yitzchak has a completely different approach and he learns dinim from "elokeim" as a gezera shaveh from the verse "and the litigant shall approach the judge ("elokeim") [Ex. 20:3]. He rules that Noachide laws are the same as those laws commanded to the Jews at Sinai, and thus he learns them from a verse announced at Sinai.

  29. According to Shmuel ben Hofni, 30 specific commandments are included; see generally appendix to Encyclopedia Talmudic 3:394-396 and supra note 2.

  30. See The Seven Laws of Noah, supra note *, at 90-91.

  31. Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1:1; see generally Malachim 2:16.

  32. See Chedushai haRaN Sanhedren 58b; see also Penai Yehoshua, Kiddushin 13b who insists that this applies even after the death of the spouse.

  33. Maimonides, Ishut 1:1-2 and Malachim 9:8

  34. Opinion of Rabbi Yochanan, Bereshit Rabbah 18:5 and see also commentary of Rashi on id for an elaboration on this.

  35. For example, the nature of the monotheistic obligation and its application to contemporary religions; see Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 350-351 or the obligation of dinim discussed in part III; whether Noachides are prohibited to perform castrations or grow kelaim; Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 356-357, and many others.

  36. This paper is not the place to address the details of the Noachide laws. For such an analysis, see The Laws of Noah, supra note *.

  37. Encyclopedia Talmudic, supra note 1, at 353-354.

  38. Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at 353-354.

  39. Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at 354.

  40. Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at pages 351. As noted by Rabbi Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer 9:51 (page 239), what flows from this assertion is that if a Jewish woman is permitted to have an abortion according to Jewish law, it is preferable that the doctor performing the abortion be Jewish and not a Noachide.

  41. Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note 1, at pages 354-55.

  42. However, many things that are considered general wrongs by both Jewish law and the general western legal codes, are not always considered violations of the Noachide code. For example, various forms of incest considered wrong by most western legal systems and Jewish law are permitted in the Noachide code; see Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 351-2.

  43. For an excellent review of the Noachide commandment of dinim, see Rakover, supra note * (both articles).

  44. See Genesis Chapter 34.

  45. As to why Maimonides uses the word "stole" see Sanhedren 55a and Chatam Sofer YD 19.

  46. Malachim 10:14.

  47. See generally Teshuvot Chachmai Provance 48 which clearly distinguishes between regulations based on the Noachide laws and regulations based on the law of the land or the law of the king. For more on this distinction, see Arnold Enker, "Aspects of Interaction Between the Torah Law, the King's Law, and the Noahide Law in Jewish Criminal Law", Cardozo L. Rev. 12:1137-xxxx (1991).

  48. Commentary of Nachmanides, Geneses 34:14.

  49. Responsa of Rama 10. His ruling is also accepted by Chatam Sofer CM 91 and R. Yakov Linderbaum (melisa), Responsa Nachalat Yakov 2:3.

  50. See Rabbi Y. Elchanan Spector, Nachal Yitzchak CM 91; R. Abraham Issaih Karelitz, Chazon Eish on Hilchot Malachim 10:10 and Bava Kama 10:3; R. Isser Zalman Meltzar, Even HaAzel, Chovel Umazek 8:5; R. Yecheil Michael Epstein, Aruch HaShulchan He'Atid, Law of Kings 79:15; R. Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Haamek Shealah 2:3; R. Abraham Kook, Etz Hadar 38, 184; R. Tzvi Pesach Frank, Har Tzvi, OC II, Kuntres Mili de Berachot 2:1; R. Ovadia Yosef, Yechaveh Daat 4:65; R. Yitzchak Yakov Weiss, Minchat Yitzchak 4:52:3. For a more complete analysis of this issue see N. Rakover, Jewish Law ..., supra note * at 1098-1118, and App. I & II.

  51. Most authorities do not accept Nachmanides' opinion; see e.g. Maimonides, Hilchot Malachim 10:10; R. Yom Tov Ashvealli (Ritva), Responsa 14 (quoted in Beit Yosef CM 66:18); Tosafot, Eruvin 62a ("Ben Noach"). The comments of Albo are also worth citing:
    One finds although torah law and Noachide law differ in the details, the principles used are the same, since they derive from the same source. Moreover, the two systems exist concurrently: while Jews have torah law, the other peoples abide by the Noachide code.
    Sefer Haikarim 1:25.

  52. Maimonides asserts in his commentary on the Mishnah (Chulin 7:6) that the reason why these seven commandments are obligatory is because God commanded these seven laws as part of the divine revelation at Sinai. Based on this, the Bal HaTurim notes that 620 commandments were revealed at Sinai which he remarks is hinted at by the 620 letters in the Ten Commandments. Interestingly, Machzor Vitri notes that only 606 commandments were given to the Jews at Sinai, since the Jews were already commanded in the Noachide laws prior to that; this is also noted by Gra as derived from the word "Ruth", whose value is 606, which Gra asserts is the additional commandments she became obligated in. See also Maimonides's Sefer Hamitzvot Aseh 176-177. For a general discussion of the Noachide laws and the counting of commandments, see Noami Cohen, "Taryag and the Noahide Commandments", Journal of Jewish Studies, 43:46-57 (Spring 1992).

  53. See Rabbi Yosef Engel, Beit Otzar Marechet 1-1: '7, 9. "The seven Noachide commandments are still obligatory to Jews, and their authority derives from their pre-Sinai obligation. The Torah . . . merely added to Noachide laws . . ."

  54. Rabbi Pinhas Hayyim Sheinman "Teshuva be-inyan yeladimn mefagrim legabe hinukh u-mitsvot" Moria 11:(9-10) pp 51-65 (1982). (This article contains an appendix written by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach).

  55. Iggrot Moshe YD 1:6. Rabbi Feinstein there discusses whether one who is legally excused from observance of commandments generally because of blindness (according to one opinion) is nonetheless obligated in the Noachide laws.

  56. Is a bar deah (understands right and wrong).

  57. Although this goes almost without saying, there is no general difference in level of obligation in Noachide law between men and women; see Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at page 348.

  58. Or Samach, Issurai Beah 3:2. This presupposes the correctness of the Minchat Chinuch famous assertion (Minchat Chinuch 190; also found in Chatam Sofer YD 317) that Noachides become adults -- and thus obligated in obedience of the law -- not when they reach any particular age, but then they reach intellectual maturity. It is likely that the correctness of this assertion is itself in dispute between Rosh and Rashi; compare Teshuvot HaRosh 16:1 and Rashi commenting on Perkai Avot 5:21. See also Yabia Omer YD 2:17.

    See also Sefer Hamikaneh 1:8(5) which states "for violations of the seven commandments Jews certainly are to be punished . . ." Perhaps similar sentiments are expressed by Rav Kook when he states "in our time, when Torah is not upheld . . . still it seems that the principles of fairness applied by force of torah law of dinim to Noachides applies, since we are no worse than they" Etz Hadar page 42.

  59. Seredai Eish 3:22; Rabbi Menashe Klein, Mishnah Halachot 9:278 also agrees with this.

  60. This author has found no authority who explicitly notes this in the name of Nachmanides. However, it would appear logical to this author that there is no obligation to participate in the creation of a legal system that is not binding on one who creates it. Other factors, such as lifnei ever or its analogs, would be in place according to Nachmanides to prevent Jews from enticing Noachides to violate; indeed, even dina demalchulta might be such rule.

  61. See Rashi, Gitten 9b and Rabbi Bleich, Jewish Law and the State's . . . , supra note *, at 856.

  62. See for example, Rashi commenting Gitten 9b. Rabbi Issar Zalman Meltzar Even HaAzel, Nizkai Mamon 8:5 freely mixes as near synonyms the terms dina demalchuta, din melech, benai noach metzuve al hadinim in a discussion about why a Jew must return property lost by another when such is required by secular law and not halacha. See also Rabbi Meir Dan Polachi, Chemdat Yisrael, Ner Mitzvah 72 Mitzvah 288. See also the discussion in section IV:3 of the position of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson on this issue.

  63. This article does not address one very significant issue -- the scope of a Gentile's obligation (both as an individual and as a society) to enforce Noachide law. As is clear from Maimonides' formulation (cited in text accompanying note 46), Gentiles are obligated not only in formulating a legal system, but also in actually enforcing it; after all the inhabitant od Shechem were punished because they declined to enforce the law. On the other hand, as noted by many authorities (see sources cited in notes 90 and 158 and more generally the sources cited in notes 90 to 99) it is clear that Noachides need not punish all violations with death. Indeed, a claim can be made that a Noachide system of law fulfills it's mandate as a system of justice (dinim) even if it were to occasionally decline to criminally punish a clear violation of Noachide law (such as theft of a nickel). So too, it is reasonable to suppose that Maimonides's formulation of the difference between the obligations of an individual to enforce law and the obligation of society to enforce law (see Rotzeach 1:5) has some place in the Noachide system also. This is even more so apparent according to the approach of Nachmanides that incorporates vast amounts of general law into Noachide law. Clearly not every violation of this general law requires death or even criminal punishment. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assert that the Noachide obligation is not fulfill merely by legislative action without any enforcement activity. What is missing from this discussion is the halachic parameters of the discretion, and that task shall be left to another time.

  64. This was first noted in a different context by Rabbi Bleich, who was commenting on the permissibility to assist in the punishment of criminals. He states:
    Nevertheless, one point requires clarification. Punishment of malfeasors may be a royal prerogative. That, however, does not establish an obligation [for Jews] to assist the king in exercising that prerogative. . . . Reason demands that a murderer be brought to justice and punished. Reason similarly demands that punishment be carried out only in accordance with legal procedures and only by duly constituted authorities because the alternative would similarly lead to a breakdown of the social order. Just as reason forbids a person to take the law into his own hands, it also mandates that there be no interference with the administration of justice by properly constituted authorities.
    Rabbi Bleich, supra note 61, at 856.

  65. Something that would be completely unacceptable in a Jewish court, where complete observance is mandated for service as a judge; See generally, Choshen Mishpat 35-37 for a list of disqualifications.

  66. Chazon Ish Bava Kama 10:15. A similar situation is also discussed in halacha: Does Jewish law recognize the right of the Noachide government to punish Jewish violators of the Noachide code. Two distinctly different approaches have been taken by the authorities on the permissibility of a Jew aiding the secular government in criminally punishing Jews; For an excellent analysis of this issue, see Rabbi J. David Bleich, Hasgarat Posh'a . . , supra note *. The dispute revolves around the proper understanding of Bava Metzia 83b-84a which states in part:
    R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon met a police officer. R. Eleazar said to him, "How can you detect the thieves . . .? Perhaps you take the innocent and leave behind the guilty." The officer replied "And what shall I do? It is the king's command." [R. Eleazar then advised this policeman how to determine who was a thief and who was not] . . . A report was heard in the royal court. They said, "Let the reader of the letter become the messenger." R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon was brought to the court and he proceeded to apprehend thieves. R. Joshua son of Karchah, sent word to him, "Vinegar, son of wine! How long will you deliver the people of our God for slaughter?" R. Eleazar sent the reply, "I eradicate thorns from the vineyard." R. Joshua responded, "Let the owner of the vineyard come and eradicate his thorns."
    Rabbi Eliezer was rebuked for assisting the government in the prosecution of criminals, thus indicating that this conduct is not proper or at least the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Joshua.

    A number of commentaries advance an explanation for this reprimand which changes its focus. Rabbi Tom Tov Ashvelli (RiTVA quoted in Sheta Mekubetzet on id.) states that even Rabbi Joshua admits that it is only scholars and rabbis of the caliber of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yishmael who should not assist the government as prosecutors or police officers -- and even for these individuals such conduct was not prohibited, but only frowned upon. Many authorities agree with this explanation; See RaN, commenting on Sanhedren 46a; Rabbi Shimon ben Adret, Teshuvot Rashba 3:29; Rabbi J. Karo, Beit Yosef, CM 388; Taz, YD 157:7-8; R. Tzvi Hirsh Eisenstadt, Darchai Teshuva, commenting on YD 157:1; R. Simcha Medivinsk, Or Sameach, Malachim 3:10; R. Moshe Shick, Teshuvot Maharam Shick, YD 50. According to this analysis, it is only the pious who should not engage in this type of work as it is undignified for scholars also to be government agents -- but all others may, since the secular government has "jurisdiction" over Jewish violators of its laws. Additionally, Rashi, commenting on the Talmud, seems to argue that any action which the secular government may take within the scope of the rule of dina demalchuta dina (the law of the land is the law) which is binding on Jews, the government may enforce; See e.g. Rashi commenting on Gittin 9b (dinim). Keeping law and order is unquestionably one such function. A proof to this proposition can perhaps be found in Rabbi Feinstein's decision allowing one to be a tax auditor for the government in a situation where the audit might result in the criminal prosecution of Jews for evading taxes; Iggrot Moshe, CM 1:92.

    The second approach rejects the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, and states that Rabbi Joshua, who rebuked Rabbi Eleazar, represents the normative opinion which prohibits this conduct; Such an approach can be found in Meiri, Bava Metzia 83b and can be implied from Maimonides, Hilchot Rotzeach 2:4 and Tosafot, Sanhedren 20b; R. Moshe Sofer, Chatam Sofer Likkutim responsa no. 14. If Rabbi Joshua's opinion is the one accepted by Jewish law, then the only time it would be permitted to assist the secular government in criminal prosecutions is when the criminal poses a threat to the community through his conduct. This is based upon the rules of rodef (pursuer); see R. Shimon Duran, Tashbetz 3:168 and Rabbi Isserless, (Rama), CM 388:12. Obviously where the criminal poses a threat to the community through his conduct, it is proper to apprise the secular authorities of his activities; see e.g., R. Shmuel DeMidina, Responsa Maharashdam, CM 55:6; Rabbi Moshe Sternbach, Teshuvot VeHanhagot 1:850. This threat need not be limited to the possibility that the criminal will actually harm another, but includes such factors as the possibility that in response to a Jew being apprehended committing a crime, other Jews will be injured or anti-semitism will be promoted; see Rama commenting on Shulchan Aruch, CM 388:12, 425:1. According to this approach it is only when there is a likelihood that the lack of punishment of this criminal will lead to other crimes, that the secular authorities should be informed. One authority has argued that on a functional level there is no difference between the two approaches because disobedience of the law generally will surely lead to anarchy and crime, and thus all significant violations of the law can be punished under the pursuer rationale. Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chayes (Maharatz Chayes) Torat Neviem Chap. 7.

  67. Perhaps among the most significant impacts is whether Noachides are valid witnesses as a matter of biblical law or not; for more on this, see "Goy", Encyclopedia Talmudit 5:337-343.

  68. Devarim 33:4.

  69. Maimonides, Malachim 8:10. In explaining the source for this ruling of Maimonides, Rabbi Karo states in Kesef Mishnah Mila 1:6 that "Rabbenu learned this rule from what is stated in Sanhedren 57a;" see also Yevamot 48a. The dispute between Maimonides and others revolve around the talmudic statement (Sanhedren 57a) that "on seven commandments Noachides are killed." Maimonides understands this as not limited to judaical punishment in a court of 23 when the Sanhedren is functioning (as is required to execute a Jew for a violation) but includes "extra-judaical" activity. Those who argue (see section 2) limit this statement to judicially sanctioned executions.

  70. Maimonides, Malachim 10:11. As noted by Radvaz, commenting on Malachim 10:14, ab initio it is preferable that Noachides serve as judges on there own tribunals. It is only be'devad that Jews should seek such roles. I would suggest that the rationale for that assertion is that it is generally better that a mitzvah be done by the principle and not through an agent. In this case the mitzvah is dinim, the Noachide is the principal, and the Jew is the agent.
    It is worth noting that Maimonides explicitly adopts a universalistic formulation of the obligation to love our Maker in his Sefer Hamitzvot, Aseh 3.

  71. Maimonides, Mila 1:6. Ravad notes "Nowadays we cannot kill a person." See part IV:1:B for a discussion of Ravad's assertion.

  72. It is clear that once a person is actually a full ger toshav (resident alien) there is an obligation to judge that person (at least in Israel). Most likely, no such people exist in the United States. This paper will limit its discussion to Noachides. For a discussion of who is a ger toshav, see Rabbi Berel Wein, Chekrai Halachot 5-45 (Mossad Harav Kook, 5748 and Aruch HaShulchan He'atid Yovel 49.

  73. Responsa 2.

  74. Rabbi Shlomo Ben Shimon Duran, Rashbash 543.

  75. See "Dinim" Encyclopedia Talmudit 7:396-397 for a discussion of this issue.

  76. The general rule is that commandments apparently directed to all recounted in the bible prior to revelation at Sinai are binding only on Jews; commandments recounted twice in the bible, one before revelation and once after are binding on all; see generally Encyclopedia Talmudit, supra note *, at 359-360.

  77. Ellipses are by Maharatz Chayut.

  78. Maimonides Malachim 10:11.

  79. Although some Noachide communities do exist. See e.g., "Ex-Christians Drawn to Noah's Law," San Jose Mercury News, Saturday January 26, 1991 Page:11D. The article reads in part:
    Some are former Christian clergymen who no longer consider themselves Christians. They use many Jewish practices, but don't convert to Judaism. About 250 of them met in Athens, Tenn., recently, reports Ecumenical Press Service. James D. Tabor, member of an advisory council, says members tend to be "disenfranchised former Christians" who "do not denounce belief in Jesus" but the "most they would say is that he was a great teacher." Tabor says members want to identify with the "ethical monotheism" of Judaism without converting to it. He says they uphold the "laws of Noah," such as those against idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins and theft.
    It is worth noting that these communities do seek rabbinic guidance; see "Tennessee Church Studies Judaism" Sun Sentinel, Friday May 31, 1991 Page: 5E discussing involvement of local orthodox rabbi.

  80. Whether such is obligatory is dependent on issues discussed infra in this paper and the additional issue of whether such communities have the status of ger toshav communities or merely Noachide communities. This is a classical dispute between Maimonides, Ravad and many others. For a lengthy discourse on many details of ger toshav, see Rabbi Berel Wein, Chekrai Halachot 9-46 and particularly pages 44-46 which discuss whether such a status can currently exist.

  81. YD 267:12-13. For more on the context in which Aruch Hashulchan is speaking, see infra, text accompanying notes 100 to 107. There is some tension between the remarks found in Aruch HaShulchan He'atid Yovel 49:1-3, Malachim 78:10-11 and YD 367:12-13. This author would be inclined to assume that the remarks found in Aruch HaShulchan He'atid are not intended for current practical use, and while that is not stated explicitly in them, that flows logically from the nature of the work generally. (Although even that rule is not without exception, as teruma and maser rules are found in He'atid, notwithstanding their clear relevance even in the life of the writer.)

  82. Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni (Mishpatai Melucha 2d ed. pages 232-234) also understands Maimonides' rule so as to impose no real obligation. He understands the force of the relevant rules as designed to limit what a Jewish court can do, and not to expand on it. He understands Maimonides as ruling that Noachides are commanded from Moses only in these seven laws, and a Jewish court, while it might think that it can impose on Noachides additional obligations or portions of the remaining 613 commandments, it cannot. He argues that Maimonides' statement ("So too, Moses our teacher was commanded by God to compel [only] the commandments obligatory to the children of Noah") should be understood as a limitation on that power. The same he states is true for the second example ("A Jewish court is obligated to appoint judges to ger toshaves (resident alien) to judge them for these laws ..."). This interpretation is quite novel and original to him.

  83. Amud Yemini 12:1:12. Rabbi Yisraeli posits that Maimonides cannot possibly mean that there is a general obligation to compel observance of the Noachide laws everywhere in the world as "where do we see that in the writing of the Sages." Rather he argues that Maimonides' rule must be limited to the land of Israel itself, where there is a halachic imperative to prevent violations of the Noachide law. Thus according to him, Maimonides' rule is inapplicable in the diaspora.

  84. Torah Shelama 17:220. The most fascinating explanation for the opinion of Maimonides is found in Responsa Maharam Shick, where he avers that the primary motivation for this ruling is that if Noachides are allowed to sin unpunished, impropriety will occur in the Jewish community also; Maharam Shick OC 144. Indeed, Maharam Shick indicates that the basis for this rule is that society cannot stand if the justice system cannot regulate a portion of the community. Similar insights are made by Rabbi Bleich in Hasgarat Posh'a . . ., supra note *. See also Postscript.

  85. Kesef Mishnah Mila 1:6. Similar sentiments as to the opinion of Maimonides can be found in Lechem Mishna commenting on Avodah Zarah 10:1

  86. Rabbi Joseph Rosen, Tzafnach Paneach, Maimonides, Milah 1:6.

  87. Maimonides, Milah, 1:6.

  88. As Kesef Mishnah does; see Kesef Mishnah Milah 1:6.

  89. For an understanding of why that approach is "more likely", see Tzafnach Paneach on Mila 1:6, Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, "On Noachides", Beit Yitzchak 19:335-338 (5747) and Rabbi J. David Bleich "Mishpat Mavet . . ., supra note *.

  90. See Rabbi Aharon Soloveitchik, "On Noachides" supra note 89. Of course, a person who violates the Noachide laws and thus poses a danger to others could be killed using the pursuer rationale; Indeed, even a Jew could be punished under that rationale. However, a violation of the purely theological components of the Noachide law cannot result in punishment according to this rationale.

    So too, it is likely that Jewish law recognizes as proper a Noachide law which provides a sanction for violations other than the death penalty. Noachide law is authorized even to execute. It is not, however, obligated to execute for all violations. See generally, Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik cited above and Rabbi Bleich, Mishpat Mavet ..., supra note *. See also Chelkat Yoav Tanyana 14. In particular this must flow logically from the opinion of Nachmanides that dinim incorporates the obligation to create a system of financial law.

  91. See Comments of Ravad on Malachim 6:1 and Issura Beah 12:7-8.

  92. Commentary of Nachmanides on Deuteronomy 20:(1) and (11). While Nachmanides does mention subsequent adoption of Noachide laws by these nations, it is in the context of self incorporation of these rules by these nations and not through compulsion.

  93. Except, as noted above, upon those who are garai toshav.

  94. Tosafot, "velo moredim," Avoda Zara 26b. This can also be re-enforced from the assertion of Tosafot, Shabbat 3a that there is no obligation to separate Noachides from sin. For more on this, see IV:2.

  95. For a general discussion of this, see R. Yehuda Gershuni Mishpatai Melucha, 165-167.

  96. Commenting on Deuteronomy 20:1,11 which cites only the obligation of taxation, and deletes the obligation of observance of the Noachide commandments. This is also in harmony with Rashi's opinion (Yevamot 48a) that does not appear to require observance of Noachide laws by Noachide slaves of Jews. This too is consistent with Rashi's broad conception of dina demalchuta noted in Gitten 9b (see notes 61 to 64). Merely because there is an obligation to obey does not mean that there is an obligation to assist in enforcement. It is logical to infer that that concept is present in Noachide law also according to those who accept Nachmanides' general framework; see Nachmanides on Genesis 34:11.

  97. Responsa of Rashba 1:59; see also comments of Rashba to Yevamot 48b. In this responsa Rashba discusses at some length the status of slaves that do not observe Noachide law without giving any indication that ownership of these slaves is prohibited, thus indicating agreement with Ravad (for reasons that will become apparent once the next paragraph is read).

  98. Hagaot Ashrei, Avodah Zara 64b. This sources was refereed to me by Rabbi Yehuda Herzel Henkin of Jerusalem, in his comments on a draft of this paper.

  99. See note supra 90 and sources cited therein.

  100. See generally Aruch HaShulchan YD 267 for a review of this area.

  101. The opinion of Shulchan Aruch itself is unclear, In YD 276:4 Rabbi Karo appears to simply disallow any temporary slavery absent circumcision, and thus he does not even discuss the imposition of Noachide law. In Beit Yosef 267 (beginning with the words veharambam) R. Karo appears to accept the approach of Maimonides. However, in Bedek Habayit (on id.) he appears to retract this ruling and condition this whole issue on the presence of a ger toshav (resident alien), something which is impossible currently in the opinion of R. Karo. Thus, the situation appears to be that Kesef Mishna and Beit Yosef rule in accordance with Maimonides that these rules are applicable currently, whereas Bedek Habayit rules that (at the least) Maimonides opinion is inapplicable currently or the halacha is not in accordance with Maimonides. Shulchan Aruch is unclear. See generally Chikrai Lev 2:53 and Sedai Chemed 9:16 for a discussion of these types of situations in the writings of Rabbi Karo. Particularly given the discussion found in text accompanying notes 108-117, one is inclined to understand Shulchan Aruch as in agreement with Rama.

  102. Maimonides and Rama are both discussing a simple relevant case: May one employ household help that violates one of the Noachide commandments or must one terminate the help (perhaps either by terminating the help or terminating the employment). This issue is relevant even in the 1990's. Rama and the latter authorities indicate that there is no obligation upon a Jewish employer to compel observance of the Noachide laws by employees. It is difficult to assert that Rama left this law out as there was nothing they could do to compel observance, since certainly, even in those times, one had the right to fire such employees/slaves, if not more than that. Rather, Rama thought that there was no halachic obligation to compel Noachides to observe the Noachide commandments.

  103. A slave acquired with the explicit condition that conversion not be done and whom Maimonides explicitly required to observe the Noachide laws. See Milah 1:6 for a description of this status.

  104. Given the secular law relating to servitude, indentured servants and slave found in Europe until the emancipation, it is difficult to claim that Jewish law declined to address this issue because it was not relevant. On the contrary, this issue is quite relevant and employees/owners had considerable latitude in regulating the conduct of employees/slaves even in issues unrelated to their work; see generally Jonathan Bush, "Free to Enslave: The Foundations of Colonial American Slave Law" Yale J.L. & Humanities 5:417 (1993).

  105. Unlike those rules found in Malachim chapters 8-11.

  106. Shulchan Aruch YD 267:4. The notes to Rama were not written by Rama. A close read of Iggrot Moshe YD 3:103 (particularly the second-to-last paragraph) indicates that Rabbi Feinstein agrees with Rama on this issue.

  107. Further proof that Jewish law did not perceive an obligation to compel observance by Noachides (absent Messianic times) can be found in part 2 of this section, where once again, the approach of Maimonides is a minority opinion.

  108. Tur and Shulchan Aruch YD 158:1. Portions of this can be found in repetition in CM 425.

  109. YD 158 s.v. rebenu umekol makom. For more on this, see the uncensored version of Beit Yosef CM 425 that has recently been incorporated into various editions of the Tur (and is forthcoming in the new Machon HaTur).

  110. YD 158:1 (new Tur numbers).

  111. YD 158 s.v. umekol makom.

  112. YD 158:1. Similar sentiments can be found in Sema CM 425:15-19 in his attempts to distinguish Gentiles from heretics.

  113. YD 158 s.v. ain moredim. For a long discussion of this topic which reenforces this understanding of the halacha, see the commentary of Aruch Meshar on Darchai Moshe.

  114. Shulchan Aruch 158:1.

  115. Shach YD 158:2. It is worth noting that he cites Yam Shel Shlomo's commentary on Semag mitzvah 48 as in agreement with that. Nikudat HaKesef on id. is equally clear on this issue.

  116. Taz YD 158:1. For a discussion of this issue, see Responsa Beit Yehuda Yehuda YD 4.

  117. YD 158:2.

  118. See also, for a recent reformulation, Rabbi Yitzchok Blau, Pitchai Choshen 5:2(18).

  119. See note ).

  120. The Mishnah LaMelech (Malveh ve'loveh 4:2) states (perhaps reflecting his understanding of the Maimonides) that in order for the action to become permissible according to Torah law, it has to be doable by a non-Jew, or a person otherwise not obligated in this commandment of lifnei iver generally, rather than be able to be done by any person. The Mishnah LaMelech's approach is based upon his understanding of Tosafot (Chagiga 13a, ein mosrim) that chad ibra d'nahara ("one side of the river") means when the principal can do it on his own or through the assistance of a non-Jew. This makes sense only within the conceptual framework of Tosafot and the RaN (which will be explained below), as it seems irrelevant that others can aid in the prohibited act if they too are obligated not to do so.

  121. The reverse (which is not the contra-positive) is not true. See the discussion relating to the opinion of RaN, infra.

  122. Tosafot, Avoda Zara 6b, s.v. minayin; Mordechai, Avoda Zara 6b; Rama YD 151:4; Shach, YD 151:6.

  123. The ellipses in this paragraph all refer to the case of a mumar, apostate, and assisting him in sin. That topic is beyond the scope of this paper; For more on that topic, see Broyde and Hertzberg, "Enabling a Jew to Sin: The Parameters", Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society 19:5 (1990).

  124. Shach id..

  125. OC 347:4. Magen Avraham rules that it is prohibited to assist an unobservant Jews to sin even when he can do it without assistance; however, he clearly permits one to assist a Noachide in sinning.

  126. YD 151:8. Gra rules that it is prohibited to assist an unobservant Jews to sin even when he can do it without assistance; however, he clearly permits one to assist a Noachide in sinning.

  127. YD 151:3.

  128. EH 5:18.

  129. OC 163:2.

  130. YD 151.

  131. YD 151. Rabbi Feinstein, Iggrot Moshe 3:90 states that this is obvious, "proper and true."

  132. And the harmonization of apparently inconsistent talmudic texts using this Nochide/mumar distinction to separate the various cases; see comments of Gra and Magen Avraham cited in notes 125 to 126.

  133. For a discussion of that issue, see "Enabling a Jew ...", supra note 123.

  134. It is worth noting that Shach (YD 151:6), in his list of authorities who he feels agree with his assertion that there is no obligation to separate a Noachide from sin, leaves out Maimonides.

  135. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson unambiguously rejects this reading of Maimonides and accepts that Maimonides means that one should do anything in one's power, to encourage or compel observance. For more on his position, see infra Section IV:3.

  136. Thus for example, Tosafot Shabbat 3a clearly indicates that to be his rule, as does Nachmanides, cited by Ran in AZ 7a.

  137. This is analogous to the tension between the obligation of tochacha (rebuke) to an unobservant Jew and the permissibility to assist him in sin (according to Shach and Dagul Merevavah). As noted by many, once one is permitted to assist a Jew in sin it is logical to assume that there is no obligation also to rebuke him.

  138. See RaN, Avoda Zara 6b (1a in Rif pages). This author finds very difficult the assertion of Shach that even Ran would agree that even for a Noachide there is no obligation him from sin, as Ran explicitly asserts this rabbinic obligation in the case of a Noachide. Most likely Shach is referring to the opinion of Nachmanides cited in Ran, Rif pages 7a. This opinion of Nachmanides is consistent with the opinion of Nachmanides cited in Section III:1:B. Tosafot too is consistent on this issue.

  139. Among the commentaries, see Magen Avraham, OC 347:4 and Gra, YD 151:8. Among the responsa, see R. Yakov Ettlinger, Binyan Zion 1:15; R. Naphtali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Meshiv Davar 2:32, R. Aharon Kotler, Mishnat Rav Aharon 1:6

  140. See sources cited in notes 125 to 131. Perhaps one could claim that the opinion is accepted by Rabbi Karo himself writing in YD 151:1, although as noted by Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (Yabia Omer OC 2:15(8-9)) this is difficult to prove.

  141. Tashbetz 3:133. It is worth noting that even Rabbi Ovadia Yosef cites no later authorities in agreement with Tashbetz on this issue. He too perceives him as standing alone; Yabia Omer OC 2:15(2-10). Perhaps a claim could be made that Tosafot Yom Tov, Perkai Avot 3:14 agrees with Tashbetz (see postscript). This author is more inclined to read his remarks in the same light as those of Sefer Hachasidim cited in note ) and also note 146.

  142. Maimonides would maintain that the statements by R. Natan in Avoda Zara 6b represent only R. Natan's opinion, and are not accepted by most of the Amoraim; to support this he would cite the fact that this limitation on R. Natan is not quoted in the Talmud in any other place.

    Although Maimonides does not state so explicitly, this position can be inferred from a number of his comments. First, in Sefer HaMitzvot, negative commandment 299, Maimonides does not limit the scope of the prohibition of lifnei iver to situations where others cannot help. Secondly, he never quotes this limitation in any of the instances he deals with lifnei iver in his primary work, the Mishnah Torah. In addition, this understanding of Maimonides is found in Minchat Chinuch, Negative Commandment 232;3, and Melamed LeHoil 1:34.

  143. See also Chavat Yair 137 who appears to adopt the opinion of Maimonides.

  144. For a general discussion of the parameters of this obligation, see R. Yehuda Moreal, Bederech Tovim 124-129 and Moshe Weinberger, Jewish Outreach: Halakhic Perspectives.

  145. In generally, lifnei iver is a different type of obligation, since it discusses assisting or enabling sin, which logic would indicate is more restricted than merely not preventing sin. Thus, merely because one is under no obligation to teach a person that murder is wrong, does not mean that one can sell the person a gun to commit a murder or provide directions to the victim's house.

  146. See generally Sanhedren 75a and Rashi on id. (excluding even a resident alien). It has been claimed that Rashi, according to an alternative version not found in our text, maintains that there is an obligation of rebuke applicable to a Jew when a Noachide sins. See Minchat Yitzchak 4:79(4), who relates this to the sources cited in note ). This author would be more inclined to understand the ruling of Sefer HaChasidim as imposing an extra-halachic moral duty; but see notes of Rabbi Meir Arik to Sefer Hachasidim, supra note ), which cross-references this to Maimonides, Malachim 8:10.

  147. For a long discussion of this issue, see R. Aaron Kirshenbaum, "'Covenant' with Noachides Compared with Covenant at Sinai" Dinai Israel 6:31-48 n.37 (Hebrew).

  148. Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson Sheva Mitzvot Shel Benai Noach, Hapardes 59:9 7-11 (5745). This responsa has been reprinted in a number of places; see e.g. Responsa Shavit 7:1. For Rabbi Stern's reply, see Responsa Shavit 8:3 (asserting that Maimonides' ruling is limited to enforcing acceptance, rather than observance). In this author's opinion, Rabbi Stern's distinction is difficult to accept as Maimonides, in the three sources cited above, appears to be speaking about observance as well as acceptance. Any other reading leaves Maimonides internally inconsistent and not based logically on the talmudic source found in Sanhedren 57a, as Kesef Mishna states he is.

  149. However, even Rabbi Schneerson concedes that the obligation to induce compliance is limited to situations where "no financial loss is caused, even the loss of future profits." This limitations is itself a little difficult, as halacha does not recognize "loss of profit" generally as a claim.

  150. Of course, Rabbi Schneerson -- himself a preeminent authority of Jewish law -- is quite within his purview to argue with the overwhelming weight of authorities.

  151. See Section IV:1:B.

  152. For example, in the area of lifnei iver, if one's actions are needed to allow another to sin, there is a biblical prohibition in doing the activity; that is analogous to compulsion. On the other hand, if the sinner can sin without assistance, it is at best a rabbinic violation to assist the sinner; it might even be permissible. That would be analogous to persuasion.

  153. See for example, Melamed LeHoil YD 77; Yabia Omer YD 17; Seredai Ash 2:92; Teshuvot Maharil 199 and Zekan Aharon 2:71. For a survey of this issue, see Rabbi Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, ("Teaching Torah to non-Jews") 2:315-316.

    Indeed, even Maimonides, who permits the teaching of scripture to Christians based on the rationale that they accept the divinity of the Bible, merely rules that one may teach them the proper commandments, and not that one must; Teshuvot HaRambam 1:149 (Blau).

  154. See generally Rashbatz, 1:158-162, 59-61. See also Shmuel Shiloh, Dina Demalchuta Dina 422-32 (1974).

  155. This idea is a paper in and of itself; see Broyde and Hecht "The Gentile and Returning Lost Property According to Jewish Law: A Theory of Reciprocity" forthcoming in the Jewish Law Annual.

  156. Perhaps even to create a general legal system, according to Nachmanides.

  157. See note 66.

  158. It is important to note that the overwhelming consensus of halachic scholars accept that there is no obligation upon Noachides to execute every violator of the law. Within the rubric of dinim is the right to create a hierarchical system of law which invokes punishments other than death for violations; See Rabbi Bleich, supra note *, and Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik, "On Noachides", Beit Yitzchak 19:335 (5747).

  159. Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems ("Teaching Torah to non-Jews") 2:338.

  160. Or perhaps even any fellow Jew. See note 120.

  161. "When one sees a Noachide sinning, if one can correct him, one should, since God sent Jonah to Ninveh to return them to his path"; Sefer HaChasidim '1124.

  162. Reflections of the Rav:Man of Faith in the Modern World (adaptions of the lectures of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik) by Abraham Besdin, pages 142-144

  163. Kuzari, 2:36; see also Kuzari 1:47 and 1:57 for similar insights. It is based on this Kuzari that Rabbi Yakov Kamenestsky indicated that Torah Umessorah should close its various yeshivot on the day of President John F. Kennedy's funeral in 1963. (After citing the Kuzari, he stated "it is the role of the Jews to teach morality to the nations, and thus, whenever some terrible wrong occurs, we should feel implicated for not having completed our mission;") Yonason Rosenblum, Reb Yakov, pp. 182-183. Rabbi Howard Jachter pointed out this source to this author. Similar thoughts can also be found in Moreh Nevuchim 3:51 concerning the role of the Jewish forefathers.

  164. Support for this proposition can be found in Seforno, commenting on Exodus 19:6 which clearly indicates that Jews must answer such questions from Noachides. See generally comments of Maimonides, Maseh Karbanot 19:16 and Meiri 59a. Rabbi Bleich states:
    It seems to this writer that while there exists no obligation to volunteer information (although it may well be laudable to do so), there is an obligation to respond to requests for information. Jews are commanded to disseminate Torah as widely as possible among their fellow Jews, but there is no obligation to seize the initiative in teaching the Seven Commandments to Noachides. Nevertheless, when information or advice is solicited there is a definite obligation to respond. When a non-Jew takes the initiative in posing a query, the Jew must respond to the best of his ability.
    Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems 2:339.
    Limiting the obligation to respond to sincere solicitations relating to personal conduct (as I suspect Rabbi Bleich intended), this can also perhaps be inferred from Pri Megadim OC 443:5 and 444:6 whose assertion as to the obligation to remove passive obstacles might rise to the level of a "one side of the river" case when a particular Jew is asked by a Noachide what his law requires of him. This raises the question of whether lifnei iver can be violated through passivity; for more on that see Enabling Jews to Sin, supra note 123.

  165. Maharam Shick OC 144. An example of this can also be found in the letter of Rav Moshe Feinstein sent to the New York State governor favoring the implementation of the death penalty for certain crimes; Iggrot Moshe, CM 2:68.

    So too, the mandate of tikkun olam might provide some direction; see generally See R. Nissim, Derashot haRan, Number Eleven, (which uses the term tikkun siddur hamedini to refer to Noachide activity.) For a brief discussion of this issue, see Suzanne Last Stone, "Sinaitic and Noahide Law: Legal Pluralism in Jewish Law", Cardozo L.R. 12:1157 (1990). On the use of tikun olam, it is also important to examine the way that term is used by Maimonides, in Malachim 11:4 in the uncensored versions of his text (for example, see Rambam Le'am). This issue is quite crucial, as Maimonides image of tikkun olam seems to be directed at the reason for religions other than Judaism; see also Responsa Kol Mevasser 1:47 and Hechail Yitzchak OC 38.

    Additionally, there is the issue of chillul hashem, desecration of God's name. It is possible that there could be situations where public institutional silence by Jewish groups as to the propriety of a particular activity by Government or other groups, perhaps particularly when other religious groups are protesting this activity as immoral, could lead to desecrations of God's name. On the other hand, the more clearly known it is that governmental policy is areligious in nature and that Jewish law imposes no obligation on Jews to protest, the less serious an issue this becomes.

    Finally, there is the philosophical mandate to be a "light onto the nations of the world." As noted by Radak commenting on the words or legoyim (Isaiah 42:6) "because of the influence of the Jews, the Gentiles will observe the seven commandments and follow the right path." While this concept is beyond the scope of this paper, and deserving one of its own, a brief review of the use of the term "light onto the nations" indicates that it is normally used to mean that the Jews should behave in an exemplary manner such that Gentiles will wish to imitate Jews, and not as a mandate to proselytize observance. This is exemplified by Issiah 60:3; for examples of that in rabbinic literature, see Bava Batra 75a; Midrash Rabbah Esther 7:11; Midrash Berashit 59:7 and Midrash Tehilim (Bubar) 36:6. For a sample of its use in the responsa literature, see Tzitz Eliezer 10:1(74); Yavetz 1:168 and particularly Chatam Sofer 6:84; see also Responsa of Rosh 4:40 which is also cited in Tur OC 59. None of these authorities use the citation in a legal context to direct Jewish participation in Gentile activities -- all of the citation are homolitical (Maharit EH 2:18 does appear to use it in a legal context concerning an inter-Jewish dispute; however upon further examination one sees that not to be so). This concept plays yet a more prominent note in cabalistic literature; see Sefer Rasesai Layla, '57 s.v. techlat and vezehu. For a defense of this beacon-like (i.e., Jews behave properly and this illuminates the world) understanding of the verse as the proper understanding of the literal meaning of the bible itself, see Harry Orlinsky, "A Light onto the Nations: A Problem in Biblical Theology" in Neuman & Zeitlin, The Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Volume of the Jewish Quarterly Review (1967) pages 409-428. For an indication as to why Radak might use both the phrase "observe the seven commandments" and the phrase "follow the right path," see Iggrot Moshe YD 2:130 who indicates that the two are separate concepts.

  166. Rabbi J. David Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems ("Teaching Torah to Non-Jews") 2:339. See also material cited in supra note 164.

  167. See Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni, Kol Tzofech (unnumbered pages in the back of the book, seven pages after numbering ends) (2nd ed. 5740) where he discusses the possibility of selective teaching of the Noachide laws.

  168. For example, the promulgation of an abortion law in the United States consistent only with the Noachide code would cause situations to arise where halacha's mandates could not be fulfilled.

  169. For a discussion of such a case see this author's "Bullets that Kill on the Rebound: Discrimination against Homosexuals and Orthodox Public Policy" Jewish Action 54(1):52 and the reply to it by Rabbis Goldberg, Stolper and Angel in Jewish Action 54(1):53.




You asked for it apostate Amaraka, and Now you have it, and it ain't toyota



Sanhedrin is in full they think...temporarily

Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist

Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor

NOTE: Under massive pressure from the Orthodox rabbinic crime syndicate,
the Israeli Hasidic ("Haredi") Judaic
who admitted to killing his
disabled infant son has been released to house arrest because "he no
longer poses a threat to anyone," i.e. because the 3 month old murder
victim is already dead and the Hasidic killer's co-religionists have
been rioting against any court except the bet din (rabbinic tribunal)
having jurisdiction over him.

An Afterword follows this report from Haaretz.


By Yuval Yoaz, Yair Ettinger and Jonathan Lis

Haaretz | April 25, 2006

Jerusalem District Court on Tuesday ordered that Yisrael Vales, the
19-year-old ultra-Orthodox man accused of killing his three-month-old
son a month ago be released to house arrest.

Vales must remain in his grandparents' Jerusalem home under their
supervision or the supervision of his parents.  He will not be required
to wear an electronic cuff but will not be permitted to attend prayer

and bow to the murderer from the beginning, weaving and bobbing back and forth with long prayer

Vales is also forbidden from leaving Israel and is required to
post NIS 50,000 bail.

His release to house arrest was made following the recommendation of the
parole review board and with the agreement of the state prosecution.

Vales was indicted two weeks ago on manslaughter charges. The
indictment, which initially included charges of abusing a minor,
assaulting a minor, and causing grievous bodily harm, was amended after
the baby died of wounds at Hadassah University Hospital, Ein Karem.

Just hours after he was arrested at the hospital, Vales admitted to
ongoing abuse of his baby son, Yitzhak Shmuel. The baby was rushed to
the hospital at the beginning of this month unconscious and suffering
from cerebral and eye hemorrhages, and died several days later.

Vales gave interrogators three reasons for the abuse: the baby's
ceaseless crying, anger at his wife for working nights at a clothing
store and disgust at his son's congenital muscular torticollis, a
deformity of the neck.

every reason to justify Killing and infant then being set "Free" yep that is Talmudic Law of Satan at it's best

Vales detailed the abuse in a written police statement made public
Monday on Channel 10 news. He admitted to bashing the baby against the
wall, punching and slapping him, pinching his neck and chest, and biting
him on the neck.

one sick puppy, but he is set free, not a menace

Vales said he began abusing the baby about two weeks before the final
incident. He denied any abuse of his wife, but admitted that he slapped
her occasionally.

But not a menace

After Vales' arrest, ultra-Orthodox groups mounted violent
demonstrations in Jerusalem
in an effort to secure his release.

for neither are these hassidim a menace to man kind

Jerusalem District Attorney Eli Abarbanel met with ultra-Orthodox
representatives Sunday to discuss the matter.

A previously scheduled meeting was canceled due to the violent protests.

for the fear of the talmudic jew was upon them

The prosecution stressed there were no negotiations over Vales' release,
and the purpose of the meeting was simply to listen to the Haredi
representatives who had requested it.

Ocean front property in Arizona anyone?

An ultra-Orthodox group Monday evening demonstrated opposite the Russian
Compound police facility in Jerusalem, where Vales is being held.

The demonstration's organizers, members of the Atra Kadisha
organization, protested the intention to release Vales under certain
restrictions, demanding that all proceedings against him be dropped.

Vales' family said in response that "the demonstration is superfluous."
According to understandings reached prior to today's court hearing,
Vales would remain under house arrest at his grandmother's home in the
Mea She'arim neighborhood.

Vales was visited in jail Monday by his wife's brother-in-law, Zvi
Eisenstein, who has been serving as spokesman for the family.
Eisenstein said that Vales requested that there be no celebrations in
the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Mea She'arim after his release
Monday, because he and his wife are still in mourning for their son.

after he murdered their son

(End quote)


It is true that Vales release poses no apparent threat to any individual
- but his release does pose a threat to society as a whole. Vales
clearly viewed his infant son as not fully human. If the Judaic baby had
not been disabled, few, if any, Hasidic rabbis would be supporting

But because the baby was disabled, and because the baby's future as a
Talmud scholar did not appear to be bright (or perhaps not even
possible), the father's crime is cheapened in the eyes of the Orthodox
rabbis and infanticide is tolerated as a venial transgression.

A Judaic man who admits to murdering his own defenseless Judaic infant,
especially an infant whose disability "disgusted" the murderer, should
not walk free. Yet it appears Vales will be released to the comfort of
his grandmother's home. Today is "Holocaust" Remembrance Day ("Yom
HaShoah"). Like the rabbis, Hitler was said to be antagonistic toward
"defective" people - like the Vales infant. Yisroel Vales should not
walk free.


Upon seizing the reins of government, the new Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.  ...  Full support will be given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance offered where necessary.  Jewish courts ... will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country, who will no longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts. 

The pre-existing Noachide judges and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha....  ....  And law and order will be fully restored through the establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with Torah law. — Committee for Israeli Victory

Former Def.Min. Moshe Arens: "Northern Gaza Must be Recaptured"
17:17 Apr 25, '06 / 27 Nisan 5766
by Hillel Fendel

  "I fear that the government is refraining from sending IDF troops into Gaza to stop the Kassam rockets because it doesn't want to admit its mistake in withdrawing from Gaza in the first place."

So said Prof. Moshe Arens today, speaking with Arutz-7's Uzi Baruch. Prof. Arens served as Defense Minister in four different Israeli governments and Foreign Minister in one.

Arens said that a military ground operation is necessary because the "IDF's artillery barrage on northern Gaza is totally futile, as the terrorists fire the rockets from densely populated areas while Israel shells empty areas."

and those empty area's somehow produce a whole lot of very dead Palestinians

"The security establishment must not forget," Arens exhorted, "that the Kassams being fired on Ashkelon are being fired from areas that were abandoned as part of the Disengagement. The army must therefore return and conquer these areas, and only in this way will we be able to stop the rockets from being fired at us."

Arens had tough words to say about the withdrawal and the uprooting of the Jews of Gush Katif and northern Shomron. "To forcibly uproot [nearly 9,000 Jews] from their homes, and to use the IDF to do it, was a barbaric act," he said.

for he is of Aholah Dan against the secular government of the whore sister Aholibah, Judah of the south

On the day the Disengagement began last summer, Arens spoke on IsraelNationalRadio and called the disengagement a “self-inflicted wound” and “the biggest internal crisis that Israel has ever faced. It will leave some serious scars behind. It’s going to be very bad, and I’m sorry I can’t be more optimistic.”

Arens is supportive of the appointment of a non-general such as Labor Chairman Amir Peretz to the position of Defense Minister. "It's truly not good for a Defense Minister to be an army man," Arens said, "because then he comes with preconceptions that make it hard for him to work."


Noahide News Part 455



Romans 10:9

9: That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10: For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

11: For
the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12: For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.


Please purchase a Notonoahide baseball cap to get the Word out

No to Noahide

We need help alerting the World who will listen. If you are a complacent apathetic Apostate Amarakan fence sitter, I highly recommend that you go into the Lowestroom of arrogant pride and return to the Vomit of Noahide Law, where they worship the Dragon. Are you one who comes here to understand, Day by Day, and yet you refuse to tell others? We have told you before, these hats and shirts are for one purpose and one purpose alone, and that is to get the word out regarding the Noahide Satanic laws of the Hassidim Vipers and them who agree with them the proselytes of that Old Dragon and the serpent and satan, who say that he is GOD.

If you disagree, then move on to another site which fits your fits of fancy.....................and "adios" to them who say "It aint gonna happen"r fits of fancy.....................and "adios" to them who say "It aint gonna happen"


hahahhahaahahhahahahah whooooooey


The Last Deception

Section 2

  section 3   

section 4 

  section 5  

section 6  

section 7 

  section 8 

section  9     

section 10  

section 11  

section 12  

section 13 

section 14 "The Protocols of the Illuminated Elders of Tzion"

  section 15 

      section 16 "The Beast Has Risen" 

 section 16-B

 section 17  

  section 17-B  

  section 17-C   

section 17-D

  section 18    

section 18-B

section 19    

section 19-B

section 20  

 section 20-B 

  section 20-C 

  section 20-D 

  section 20-E

section 21 

  section 22  

section 23

section 24

section 25

Daniel's Seventy Weeks

Was Peter a Jew?

The Two Witnesses

"The Whore of Babylon"

Mystery Babylon

 Are the " Ael-ians coming"

Ael-ians II

Wall Street " The Mark" is Here

Wall Street II

Wall Street III

It has happened "War Declared upon and in America"

Declared section Part II


"All you ever need to know about their god and Qabalah"

Qabalah Part II

Qabalah Part III

National Identification Card

 ADDED Material 3-25-2004 Prophecy Unfolding

A Sincere Request to  "Rapture" Teachers

"Seventh Trumpet"

Compulsory Constitutional Cremation

Homeland Security, "The Police State"

"The Fourth Beast"

The Babylonian Talmudic Mystical Qabalah

The Scribes of Baal

How will they do it- " The false-christ"

False Christ Part II

The Word

Baal's food Tax

"The Changing of the Guards"

"Summation" The beginning of sorrows has begun

"Moshiach ben Lucifer"

Satan's Tales "Wagging the Global Dog"

"Satan's Plan", Protocols of Zion ( of course they will dispute it's authenticity)

I Witch, New One World Order Seal

Satan's Enforcers of Quaballah

Satan's Enforcers Part 2

Satan's Enforcers Part 3

Satan's Enforcers Part 4

The Seed of God or the Seed of Satan, Your choice by faith

Pledge of Allegiance Part Two

I AM, the Revelation of Jesus Christ

King of the Noachides

"Beware the Mark"

"Beware the Mark" part two

"Beware the Mark" Part 3

"Beware the Mark" Part Four

"Beware the Mark" Part Five

 Harvest of Fear

"Harvest of Fear" Part Two

"Harvest of Fear" Part Three

National Organization Against Hasidic International Talmudic Enforcement

Where's Da Plane Boss, wheres da plane?

The Tarot Card Killer of Olam Ha Ba

The "Lessor Jew"

Temporary Coup d' Etat

The Federal Reserve, Fed up with the Fed?

The Protocols Today. Dispute this, Liars !

Protocols Today Part Two

Letter to a friend "It's not the Jews Dummy"

Identity of the Illuminati

The "Son's of the Synagogue of Satan"Chabad Lubavitch

Chabad Satan Part 1A

Chabad Satan Part 2

Chabad Satan Part 2A

Chabad Satan Part 2B

Chabad Satan Part 3

Chabad Satan Part 3A

Chabad Satan Part 4

Chabad Satan Part 4A

Chabad Satan Part 4B

Chabad Satan Part 4C

Chabad Satan Part 5

Chabad satan Part 5A

Chabad Satan Part 5B

Chabad Satan Part 5C

Chabad Satan Part 6

Chabad Satan Part 6B

Chabad Satan Part 6C

Chabad Satan Part 6D

Chabad Satan Part 7

Chabad Satan Part 7A

Chabad Satan Part 7B

Chabad Satan Part 7C

Chabad Satan Part 8

Chabad Satan Part 8A

Chabad Satan Part 8B

Chabad Satan Part 8C

Chabad Satan Part 8D

Chabad Satan Part 9

Chabad Satan Part 9A

Chabad Satan Part 9B

Chabad Satan Part 9C

Chabad Satan Part 9D

Chabad Satan Part 10

Chabad Satan Part 10A

Chabad Satan Part 10B

Chabad Satan Part 10C

Chabad Satan Part 10D

Chabad Satan Part 11

The Chabad Satan Wall of Destruction

Chabad Wall Part 2

Chabad Wall Part 3

Chabad Wall Part 4

The Chabad Phoenix is Rising

Columbia "The Queen of Heaven"

Patriot Akt II, Comrad 

The Infiltration of the leaven "Jerusalem Council"

Satan's One World Religion

OWR Part 2

OWR Part 3

OWR Part 4

One World Religion Part 5

One World Religion Part 6

One World Religion Part 7 Religion Part 7

Re the god of Talmud Bavli

Perpetual Purim

"The Raiser of Taxes"

Jewish Persecution

Obedient Ishmael Kislev 19, 5764

The Final Nazi

Nazi Part 2

Nazi Part 3

Nazi Part 4

The Lord of the Ring, the Return of the Talmudic king

Changing the Time and the Laws

The Leaven of the Chabad Lubavitch Chassidim Pharisees

Exod-U.S the coming Geula 


Who murdered Jesus the Christ

"Replacement Theology" of Judaic Talmudism

Eating Rainbow Stew with a Silver Spoon, underneath a Noahide Sky

the gods

"The Two Whores"

Noahide News

Noahide News 2

Noahide News Part 3

Noahide News Part 4

Noahide News Part 5

Noahide News Part 6

Noahide News Part 7

Noahide News Part 8

Noahide News Part 9

Noahide News Part 10

Noahide News Part 11

Noahide News Part 12

Noahide News Part 13

Noahide News Part 14

Noahide News Part 15

Noahide News Part 16

Noahide News Part 17

Noahide News Part 18

Noahide News Part 19

Noahide News Part 20

Noahide News Part 21

Noahide News part 22

Noahide News Part 23

Noahide News part 24

Noahide News Part 25

Noahide News Part 26

Noahide News part 27

Noahide News Part 28

Noahide News Part 29

Noahide News Part 30

Noahide News Part 31

Noahide News Part 32

Noahide News Part 33

Noahide News Part 34

Noahide News Part 35

Noahide News Part 36

Noahide News Part 37

Noahide News Part 38

Noahide News Part 39

Noahide News Part 40

Noahide News Part 41

Noahide News Part 42

Noahide News Part 43

Noahide News Part 44

Noahide News Part 45

Noahide News Part 46

Noahide News Part 47

Noahide News Part 48

Noahide News Part 49

Noahide News Part 50

Noahide News Part 51

Noahide News Part 52

Noahide News Part 53

Noahide News Part 54

Noahide News Part 55

Noahide NewsPart 56

Noahide News Part 57

Noahide News Part 58

Noahide News Part 59

Noahide News Part 60

Noahide News Part 61

Noahide News Part 62

Noahide News Part 63

Noahide News Part 64 

Noahide News Part 65

Noahide News Part 66

Noahide News Part 67

Noahide News Part 68

Noahide News Part 69

Letter to Bob Jones and President Bush and all televangelist

Noahide News Part 70

Noahide News Part 71

Noahide News Part 72

Noahide News Part 73

Noahide News Part 74

Noahide News Part 75

Noahide News Part 76

Noahide News Part 77

Noahide News Part 78

Noahide News Part 79

Noahide News Part 80

Noahide News Part 81

Noahide News Part 82

Noahide News Part 83 ALERT ALERT ALERT

Noahide News Part 84

Noahide News Part 85

Noahide News Part 86

Noahide News Part 87

Noahide News Part 88

Noahide News Part 89

Noahide News part 90

Noahide News Part 91

Noahide News Part 92

Noahide News Part 93

Noahide News Part 94

Noahide News Part 95

Noahide News Part 96

Noahide News Part 97

Noahide News Part 98

Noahide News Part 99

Noahide News Part 100

Noahide News Part 101

Noahide News Part 102

Noahide News Part 103

Noahide News Part 104

Noahide News Part 105

Noahide News Part 106

Noahide News Part 107

Noahide News Part 108

Noahide News Part 109

Noahide News Part 110

Noahide News Part 111

Noahide News Part 112

Noahide News Part 113

Noahide News Part 114

Noahide Naws Part 115

Noahide News Part 116

Noahide News Part 117

Noahide News Part 118

Noahide News Part 119

Noahide News Part 120

Noahide News Part 121

Noahide News Part 122

Noahide News Part 123

Noahide News Part 124

Noahide News part 125

Noahide News Part 126

Noahide News Part 127

Noahide News Part 128

Noahide News Part 129

The Revelation of Jesus the Christ the LORD God and His Father

Noahide News Part 130

Noahide news Part 131

Noahide News Part 132

Noahide News Part 133

Noahide News Part 134

Noahide News Part 135

Noahide news Part 136

Noahide News Part 137

Noahide News Part 138

Noahide News Part 139

Noahide News Part 140

Noahide News Part 141

Noahide News Part 142

Noahide News Part 143 THE JEWISH RELIGION Its InfluenceToday

Noahide News Part 144

Noahide News Part 145

Noahide News Part 146

Noahide news Part 147

Noahide News Part 148

Noahide News Part 149

Noahide News Part 150

Noahide News Part 151

Noahide News Part 152

Noahide News Part 153

Noahide News Part 154

NoahideNews Part 155

Noahide News Part 156

Noahide News Part 157

Noahide News Part 158

Noahide News Part 159

Noahide News Part 160

Noahide News Part 161

Noahide News Part 162

Noahide News Part 163

Noahide News Part 164

Noahide News Part 165

Noahide News part 166

Noahide News Part 167

Noahide News Part 168

Alert ! Noahide News Part 169 Alert ! Alert ! false Elijah cometh?

Noahide News Part 170

Noahide News Part 171

Noahide News Part 172

Noahide News Part 173

Noahide News Part 174 

Noahide News Part 175

Noahide News Part 176

Noahide News Part 177

Noahide News Part 178

Noahide News Part 179

Noahide News Part 180

Noahide News Part 181

Noahide News Part 182

Noahide News Part 183

Noahide News Part 184

Noahide News Part 185

Noahide News part 186

Noahide News Part 187

Noahide News Part 188

Noahide News Part 189

Noahide News Part 190 Alert ! Alert! Alert!

Noahide News part 191

Noahide News part 192

Noahide News Part 193

Noahide News Part 194

Noahide News Part 195

Noahide News Part 196

Noahide News Part 197 Alert Alert Alert !

Noahide News part 198

Noahide News Part 199

Noahide News Part 200

Noahide News Part 201

Noahide News Part 202

Noahide News Part 203Alert Alert Alert !

Noahide News Part 204 Alert ! Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 205

Noahide news Part 206

Noahide News Part 207

Noahide News Part 208

Noahide News Part 209

Noahide News Part 210

Noahide News Part 211

Noahide News Part 212

Noahide News Part 213

Noahide News Part 214

Noahide News Part 215

Noahide News Part 216

Noahide News Part 217

Noahide News Part 218

Noahide News Part 219

Noahide News Part 220 Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 221

Noahide News Part 222 Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 223

Noahide News Part 224 Alert! Alert!

Noahide News part 225

Noahide News Part 226

Noahide News Part 227

Noahide News Part 228 Alert! Alert! Alert!

Noahide News Part 229

Noahide News Part 230 Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 231

Noahide News Part 232

Noahide News Part 233

Noahide News Part 234

Noahide News part 235

Noahide News Part 236

Noahide News part 237

Noahide News Part 238

Noahide News Part 239

Noahide News Part 240

Noahide News Part 241 Alert ! Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 242

Noahide News Part 243

Noahide News Part 244

Noahide News Part 245

Noahide News Part 246

Noahide News Part 247

Noahide News Part 248

Noahide News Part 249

"Left Behind"

Noahide News Part 250

Noahide News Part 251

Noahide News Part 252

Noahide News Part 253

Noahide News Part 254

Noahide News Part 255

Noahide News Part 256

Noahide News part 257

Noahide News Part 258

Noahide News Part 259

Noahide News Part 260

Noahide News Part 261

Noahide News Part 262

Noahide News Part 263

Noahide News Part 264

Noahide News Part 265

Noahide News Part 266

Noahide News Part 267

Noahide News Part 268

Noahide News Part 269

Noahide News Part 270

Noahide News Part 271

Noahide News Part 272

Noahide News Part 273

Noahide News Part 274

Noahide News Part 275

Noahide News Part 276

Noahide News Part 277

Noahide News Part 278

Noahide News Part 279

Noahide News Part 280

Noahide News Part 281

Noahide News Part 282

Noahide News Part 283

Noahide News Part 284

Noahide News Part 285

Saints of the Living God

Noahide News Part 286

Noahhide News Part 287

Noahide News Part 288

Noahide News Part 289 Terminated page

Noahide News Part 290

Noahide News Part 291

Noahide News Part 292

Noahide News Part 293

Noahide News Part 294

Noahide News Part 295 Alert ! Alert!

Noahide News Part 296

Noahide News Part 297

Noahide News Part 298

Noahide News Part 299

Noahide News Part 300

Noahide News Part 301

Noahide News Part 302

Noahide News Part 303  

Noahide News Part 304

Noahide News Part 305

Noahide News Part 306

Noahide News Part 307

Noahide News Part 308

Noahide News Part 309

Noahide News Part 310

Noahide News Part 311

Noahide News Part 312

The Revelation of Jesus the Christ the LORD God and His Father

Noahide News part 313

Noahide News Part 314

Noahide News part 315

Noahide News Part 316

Noahide News Part 317

Noahide News Part 318

Noahide News Part 319

Noahide News Part 320

Noahide News Part 321 Sanhedrin Alert !

Noahide News Part 322

Noahide News Part 323

Noahide News Part 324

Noahide News Part 325

Noahide News Part 326

Noahide News Part 327

Noahide News Part 328

Noahide News Part 329

Noahide News Part 330

Noahide News Part 331

Noahide News Part 332

Noahide News Part 333

Noahide News Part 334

Noahide News Part 335

Noahide News Pat 336

Noahide News Part 337

Noahide News Part 338

Noahide News Part 339

Noahide News Part 340

Noahide News Part 341

Noahide News Part 342

Noahide News Part 343

Noahide News Part 344

Noahide News Part 345

Noahide News Part 346

Noahide News Part 347

Noahide News Part 348

Noahide News Part 349

Noahide News Part 350

Noahide News Part 351

Jesus said No to Noahide

Noahide News Part 352

Noahide News Part 353

Noahide News Part 354

Noahide News Part 355

Noahide News Part 356

Noahide News Part 357

Noahide News Part 358

Noahide News Part 359

Noahide News Part 360

Noahide News Part 361

Noahide News Part 362

Noahide News Part 363

Noahide News Part 364

Noahide News Part 365

Noahide News Part 366

Noahide News Part 367

Noahide News Part 368

Noahide News Part 369

Noahide News Part 370

Noahide News Part 371

Noahide News Part 372

Noahide News Part 373

Noahide News Part 374

Noahide News Part 375

Noahide News Part 376

Noahide News Part 377

Noahide News Part 378

Noahide News Part 379

Noahide News Part 380

Noahide News Part 381

Noahide News Part 382

Noahide News Part 383

Noahide News Part 384

Noahide News Part 385

Noahide News Part 386

Noahide News Part 387

Noahide News Part 388

Noahide News Part 389

Noahide News Part 390

Noahide News Part 391

Noahide News Part 392

Noahide News Part 393

Noahide News Part 394

Noahide News Part 395

Noahide News Part 396

Noahide News Part 397

Noahide News Part 398

Noahide News Part 399

Noahide News Part 400

Noahide News Part 401

Noahide News Part 402

Noahide News Part 403

Noahide News Part 404

Noahide News Part 405

Noahide News Part 406

Noahide News Part 407

Noahide News Part 408

Noahide News Part 409

Noahide News Part 410

Noahide News Part 411

Noahide News Part 412

Noahide News Part 413

Noahide News Part 414

Noahide News Part 415

Noahide News Part 416

Noahide News Part 417

Noahide News Part 418

Noahide News Part 419

Noahide News Part 420

Noahide News Part 421

Noahide News Part 422

Noahide News Part 423

Noahide News Part 424

Noahide News Part 425

Noahide News Part 426

Noahide News Part 427

Noahide News Part 428

Noahide News Part 429

Noahide News Part 430

Noahide News Part 431

Noahide News Part 432

Noahide News Part 433

Noahide News Part 434

Noahide News Part 435

Noahide News Part 436

Noahide News Part 438

      Noahide News Part 439     

 Noahide News Part 440

Noahide News Part 441

Noahide News Part 442

Noahide News Part 443

Noahide News Part 444

Noahide News Part 445

Noahide News Part 446

Noahide News Part 447

Noahide News Part 448

Noahide News Part 449

Noahide News Part 450

Noahide News Part 451

 Noahide News Part 452

Noahide News Part 453

Noahide News Part 454

Noahide News Part 455