Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 10-12

Sugya Map

• Issue: The extent of Noachide liability for unintentional transgressions, the permissibility and reward for Bnei Noach performing Mitzvot beyond the foundational seven, and the nuanced halakhic distinction in accepting charity from different categories of non-Jews.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The severity of punishment for various Noachide transgressions, particularly for inadvertent killing (שׁוֹגֵג).
  • The conditions under which a Ben Noach may perform Mitzvot and the nature of their reward ("מצוה שאין העושה אותה מצווה ועושה").
  • The distinction between a Ger Toshav and an idolater regarding the acceptance and distribution of tzedaka.
  • The implications for the prohibition against a Ben Noach studying Torah or observing Shabbat.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamot 10:1-2, 10:9-12.
  • Sanhedrin 57a, 58b, 59a.
  • Bava Kamma 38a.
  • Chullin 5a, 13b.
  • Menachot 73b.
  • Kohelet Rabbah 1:9 (cited in Tziunei Maharan).
  • Avodah Zarah 20a.
  • Bava Batra 4a, 10b.

Text Snapshot

The Rambam, in Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamot, presents a complex legal framework for Bnei Noach. We focus on two key areas: inadvertent transgression and the performance of Mitzvot beyond their seven.

Inadvertent Transgression (10:1-2)

בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁעָבַר עַל אַחַת מִמִּצְוֹתָיו בִּשְׁגָגָה פָּטוּר מִכְּלוּם. חוּץ מֵרוֹצֵחַ בִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁאִם הֲרָגוֹ גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם אֵינוֹ נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו וְאֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט אֶלָּא בֵּית דִּין אֵינוֹ הוֹרְגוֹ: מֵאֵימָתַי אֲמוּרִים דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ כְּשֶׁעָבַר בִּשְׁגָגָה גְּמוּרָה. כְּגוֹן בָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ וְסָבוּר שֶׁהִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ אוֹ פְּנוּיָה: אֲבָל אִם יָדַע שֶׁהִיא אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁהִיא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעָלָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ שֶׁמֻּתָּר לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר זֶה אוֹ שֶׁהָרַג וְלֹא יָדַע שֶׁאֲסוּרָה הֲרִיגָה הֲרֵי זֶה קָרוֹב לְמֵזִיד וְנֶהֱרָג. וְאֵין זֶה שׁוֹגֵג גָּמוּר. שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לִלְמֹד וְלֹא לָמַד:

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Rambam employs a graduated scale of culpability for shogeg. "פטור מכלום" (exempt from everything) is the baseline for most inadvertent violations. The exception for a rotzeiach b'shogeg is striking: while Beit Din does not execute him, he is not protected by arei miklat (cities of refuge) and go'el ha'dam (blood avenger) is exempt if he kills him. This signifies a unique, quasi-intentional status. The distinction between "שגגה גמורה" (complete inadvertence) and "קרוב למזיד" (close to intentional) hinges on knowledge of the prohibition itself. Ignorance of the law ("לא ידע שאסורה") is not a defense, as "שהיה לו ללמוד ולא למד" (he should have learned and did not) renders it close to intentional.

Performing Additional Mitzvot & Charity (10:10-12)

אֵין מְנִיחִין בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁרָצָה לַעֲשׂוֹת מִצְוָה מִשְּׁאָר מִצְוֹת הַתּוֹרָה כְּדֵי לְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר מִלַּעֲשׂוֹתָהּ כְּתִקּוּנָהּ. וְאִם הֵבִיא עוֹלָה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ: וְאִם נָתַן בֶּן נֹחַ הַשּׁוֹמֵר שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת צְדָקָה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ. וְיִרְאֶה לִי שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין אוֹתָהּ לַעֲנִיֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל הוֹאִיל וְנִזּוֹן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּמְצֻוִּין אָנוּ לְהַחֲיוֹתוֹ אִם הָיָה צָרִיךְ. אֲבָל עוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים שֶׁנָּתַן צְדָקָה מְקַבְּלִין אוֹתָהּ מִמֶּנּוּ וְנוֹתְנִין לַעֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם:

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrasing "אין מניחין... מלעשותה" (we do not prevent him from doing it) is not an encouragement, but a statement of non-interference, implying a passive acceptance rather than active promotion. The Rambam draws a crucial distinction between a "בן נח השומר שבע מצוות" (a Noachide who observes the seven commandments, effectively a Ger Toshav) and a generic "עובד כוכבים" (idolater) regarding the distribution of tzedaka. For the former, the charity goes to Jewish poor, justified by the mutual obligation of sustenance ("הואיל וניזון מישראל ומצווין אנו להחייותו"). For the latter, it goes to gentile poor. This differentiation is pivotal for later commentators.

Readings

Ohr Sameach (R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, d. 1926)

The Ohr Sameach embarks on an expansive analysis, primarily on 10:1:1 and 10:10:1, probing the underlying principles of Noachide law. His chiddush on 10:1:1 is to explain the Rambam's system of capital punishment for Bnei Noach based on the source of the commandment. He suggests that Bnei Noach are only executed for those Mitzvot that were commanded to their prophets prior to Matan Torah, and later reiterated by Moshe. Mitzvot that were only revealed through Moshe's Torah, even if Bnei Noach are now commanded in them, do not carry the death penalty for them, but merely a warning (אזהרה גרידא). He applies this to yom v'layla lo yishbotu (constant work, i.e., not observing Shabbat), limud Torah, harkavat ilan (grafting trees), and harba'at behema (cross-breeding animals) – all of which are mentioned by Rambam as not incurring capital punishment, even if forbidden. He connects this to the idea that the mitzvah of Brit Milah for Bnei Keturah might have incurred capital punishment, but for their intermingling with Bnei Yishmael, which diluted their lineage. He further distinguishes between Israel, whose Mitzvot derive solely from Moshe, and Bnei Noach, whose Mitzvot were given via their prophets, with Moshe merely informing them of these pre-existing commands. On 10:10:1, the Ohr Sameach directly addresses the Rambam's distinction regarding charity. He struggles with the Rambam's reasoning for giving a Ger Toshav's charity to Jewish poor ("הואיל וניזון מישראל"). He wonders why the donor's intent shouldn't dictate the recipient, and if the Ger Toshav intends for gentile poor, why should we divert it? He suggests that perhaps the Rambam implies that an idolater's charity, if given to Jewish poor, would be considered "מעלין" (elevating) him spiritually, which we are forbidden to do for idolaters. However, for a Ger Toshav, whom we are commanded to sustain, this concern is mitigated. This hints at a deeper tension regarding the spiritual efficacy of tzedaka for Bnei Noach.

Teshuvah MeYirah (R. Yisrael Yitzchak Piekarski, 20th cent.)

The Teshuvah MeYirah, building on the Ohr Sameach, sharply questions the Rambam's wording and underlying assumptions regarding charity. His primary chiddush is highlighting a glaring inconsistency in Rambam's presentation of Noachide charity. He notes that Rambam begins with "בן נח שרוצה לעשות מצוה" (a Ben Noach who wants to perform a mitzvah), then segues to "גר תושב" (resident alien) in the context of charity, and concludes with "עובד כוכבים" (idolater). He finds it perplexing that Rambam distinguishes so starkly, especially since the acceptance of olah from even a full idolater is explicitly permitted in Chullin 5a, 13b, and Menachot 73b, and Rambam himself rules this in Hilchot Maaseh HaKorbanot 3. This suggests Rambam implies tzedaka is not a mitzvah for Bnei Noach in the same way olah is. The Teshuvah MeYirah then raises a powerful kushya from Sanhedrin 57a: the Gemara clearly states "בניו לדין ביתו לצדקה" (his sons for judgment, his household for charity), deriving from Bereishit 18:19. This implies Bnei Noach are commanded in tzedaka. If so, why does Rambam seem to treat it as an optional act, and why the complex distinction in distribution? He further cites the case of Daniel being punished for advising Nevuchadnetzar to give tzedaka (Bava Batra 4a). If tzedaka is a mitzvah for Bnei Noach, why would Daniel be punished for encouraging it? He reconciles this by suggesting that perhaps the mitzvah for Bnei Noach isn't as potent or doesn't confer as much merit as for Jews, or that Daniel was punished for advising Nevuchadnetzar for the latter's own benefit, not for the sake of the mitzvah. He concludes by proposing that the Rambam's distinction hinges on whether the charity atones for the donor. If it does, and we are forbidden to "מעלין" an idolater, then we cannot accept it for Jewish poor. For a Ger Toshav, whom we are commanded to sustain, this issue is different.

Tziunei Maharan (R. Nachum Rabinowitz, 20th cent.)

The Tziunei Maharan provides a direct textual source for Rambam's assertion that a Ben Noach performing a mitzvah receives reward. His chiddush is pinpointing the midrashic basis for this principle. He cites Kohelet Rabbah (1:9), which recounts that in the future, God will announce a reward for those who never ate pig, and many gentiles will come to claim it. This midrash directly supports the idea that Bnei Noach receive schar (reward) for observing Mitzvot, even those not explicitly commanded to them, provided they perform them "כתיקונה" (as prescribed). This validates the Rambam's premise in 10:10:1 that "אין מונעין אותו" (we do not prevent him) from performing such Mitzvot "כדי לקבל שכר" (in order to receive reward).

Friction

The Kushya: Noachide Obligation in Tzedaka

The most potent friction arises from the Rambam's treatment of tzedaka in Hilchot Melachim 10:10:2, which seems to imply that Bnei Noach are not fundamentally obligated in tzedaka. He states that if a Ben Noach (specifically a Ger Toshav) gives charity, it should go to Jewish poor "הואיל וניזון מישראל". For an idolater, it goes to gentile poor. The very act of distinguishing and providing a rationale for the Ger Toshav suggests that tzedaka is not a universal Noachide mitzvah with a clear, inherent recipient. This stands in stark contrast to the Gemara in Sanhedrin 57a: "בניו לדין, ביתו לצדקה." The Gemara derives from "למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו" (Bereishit 18:19) that Bnei Noach are commanded in dinim (laws/judgments) and tzedaka. If tzedaka is a commandment for them, why the need for the Rambam's nuanced rules of acceptance and distribution, especially the rationale of "הואיל וניזון מישראל"? Furthermore, why would Daniel be punished for advising Nevuchadnetzar to give tzedaka (Bava Batra 4a) if it's a mitzvah for Bnei Noach?

The Terutz: Reconciling the Rambam with Sanhedrin

Several approaches attempt to reconcile the Rambam with the Gemara:

1. Distinction in Obligation (Ohr Sameach/Teshuvah MeYirah): The Gemara in Sanhedrin 57a indeed establishes tzedaka as a Noachide mitzvah. However, its nature might differ. As the Ran (Sanhedrin 56b, cited by Teshuvah MeYirah) suggests, the mitzvah of tzedaka for Bnei Noach might be a "קום ועשה" (an active positive command) but not one that carries the death penalty if violated. The Rambam's discussion focuses on the legal framework (punishment, acceptance by Jewish courts), and while the act itself is meritorious, it might not be a chiyuv (binding obligation) in the same way the seven capital Mitzvot are. The Rambam's silence on tzedaka as a capital mitzvah is consistent with the Ohr Sameach's general principle (on 10:1:1) that only certain Mitzvot (those commanded via their prophets) carry capital punishment.

2. Spiritual Efficacy and "לא מעלין" (Teshuvah MeYirah): The Teshuvah MeYirah posits that the Rambam's distinction regarding distribution (Jewish poor for Ger Toshav, gentile poor for idolater) stems from the halakhic principle of "לא מעלין ולא מורידין" (we do not elevate or bring down) for idolaters. Giving an idolater's charity to Jewish poor might be seen as benefiting him spiritually or physically in a way we are not commanded to, or even forbidden from. Tzedaka can atone, and performing Mitzvot brings reward. We are generally forbidden to "מעלין" idolaters by facilitating their Mitzvot that provide atonement or spiritual elevation. However, a Ger Toshav is different; we are commanded to sustain him, creating a reciprocal relationship that allows for accepting his charity for Jewish poor, as it aligns with our obligation to him. The Rambam's phrase "הואיל וניזון מישראל" (since he is sustained by Israel) suggests this reciprocal relationship, where accepting his charity and directing it to Jewish poor is part of the larger framework of interaction, not merely an act of tzedaka on his part. This also explains Daniel's punishment: advising Nevuchadnetzar to give tzedaka was "מעלין" him, which is forbidden.

3. The Nature of "Ben Noach" in Rambam's Context: In 10:10:2, when Rambam says "בן נח השומר שבע מצוות," he is effectively referring to a Ger Toshav (as noted by Steinsaltz ad loc.). His initial phrase "בן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה" in 10:10:1 applies to any Ben Noach. The specific rules for tzedaka (10:10:2) introduce the distinction between a committed Noachide (Ger Toshav) and a generic idolater. This precision implies that while any Ben Noach can perform Mitzvot for reward, the rules of engagement for Jewish courts accepting and distributing their charity depend on their status and our obligations towards them.

Intertext

Sanhedrin 59a: The Prohibition of Torah Study for Bnei Noach

בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁעָסַק בַּתּוֹרָה חַיָּב מִיתָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לג, ד) "תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב" – מוֹרָשָׁה לָנוּ וְלֹא לָהֶם.

This foundational gemara directly informs Rambam's ruling in Hilchot Melachim 10:9:1, "A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot." The derasha (exegetical derivation) from "מורשה קהילת יעקב" (an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob) establishes that the Torah, in its entirety, is a unique legacy of Israel. This prohibition is crucial for understanding the limited scope of permissible Mitzvah performance for Bnei Noach. While they can perform Mitzvot to receive reward (10:10:1), they cannot engage in the study of Torah (beyond their own seven laws) or initiate new religious practices, as these are seen as attempts to appropriate Israel's unique covenantal role.

Bava Kamma 38a & Tosafot s.v. "דלא תהוי מורשה": Exceptions and Rationale

אמר רבי יוחנן: עובד כוכבים שהכה ישראל, חייב מיתה, שנאמר: (שמות ב, יב) "וירא כי אין איש" – אין איש מגיד. תוספות, בבא קמא לח ע"א, ד"ה דלא תהוי מורשה: פירוש, דלימוד תורה לבן נח אסור משום דלא תהוי מורשה לכולם. ואיכא למימר דהאי לימוד שאסור לבן נח הוא דוקא לימוד של תורה שבעל פה, אבל לימוד שבע מצוות שלהם מותר.

This gemara and Tosafot's comment further elucidate the nature of the prohibition on Torah study. The gemara discusses a gentile striking a Jew, and Tosafot, in a tangential discussion, clarifies that the forbidden Torah study for Bnei Noach is specifically Torah Sheba'al Peh (Oral Law) or general Torah study that extends beyond their seven Mitzvot. Study of their own seven Mitzvot is not only permitted but necessary for their observance. This demonstrates the careful balance in halakha: Bnei Noach must know their obligations, but they cannot delve into the broader corpus of Jewish law, which would infringe upon the "מורשה" given to Israel. This supports Rambam's assertion in 10:9:1: "They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot."

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's rulings in Hilchot Melachim 10-12, particularly concerning Bnei Noach, remain foundational for halakhic discourse on the subject.

1. Limited Enforcement of Noachide Law: The distinction between "שגגה גמורה" and "קרוב למזיד" (10:1-2) highlights that the enforcement of Noachide law by a Beit Din (even a Jewish one, as per 10:11) is primarily for intentional, known transgressions. This underscores a meta-psak heuristic: Noachide law is fundamentally about establishing a just and moral society, with a strong emphasis on preventing societal decay ("שלא יהא העולם שמם" - 10:11:4), rather than a rigorous system of reward/punishment akin to Jewish law. The leniency for inadvertent transgressions (except for homicide) reinforces this.

2. Acceptance of Mitzvot for Reward: The principle that Bnei Noach are not prevented from performing Mitzvot (beyond Torah study and Shabbat) for the sake of reward (10:10:1) is widely accepted. This forms the basis for accepting korbanot (sacrifices) from non-Jews, as codified in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 284:2 (regarding tzedaka) and Orach Chaim 207:3 (regarding bracha on mitzvot). The reward they receive is "כאינו מצווה ועושה" (like one who performs a mitzvah without being commanded), which is less than "מצווה ועושה" (one who performs a mitzvah while commanded), yet still significant (Bava Kamma 38a).

3. Distinction in Charity: The Rambam's nuanced approach to accepting and distributing tzedaka from a Ger Toshav versus an idolater (10:10:2) is generally followed. While the Geonim and some Rishonim held that tzedaka from any gentile could be given to Jewish poor, Rambam's view, emphasizing the "לא מעלין ולא מורידין" principle for idolaters and the reciprocal obligation for a Ger Toshav, gained significant traction. Practically, this means that while charity from non-Jews is accepted, its distribution may depend on the donor's status and intent, and our obligations to them.

Takeaway

The Rambam meticulously delineates the unique, yet distinct, spiritual and legal status of Bnei Noach, emphasizing their limited but significant role within the divine scheme. While they are not to innovate religion or usurp the Torah's inheritance, they are encouraged to perform Mitzvot for reward, contributing to the world's moral order and their own spiritual elevation.