Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 10

Sugya Map

The Rambam, in Hilchot Melachim U'Milchamot, dedicates significant space to the status and obligations of Bnei Noach (Noachides). Chapter 10 delves into their halachic standing concerning mitzvah performance, punishment for transgressions, conversion, and judicial interactions. Our particular focus is on the nuances of a Noachide performing mitzvot for reward and the halachic treatment of their charitable donations and offerings.

• Issue: The halachic principle of a Noachide performing mitzvot beyond the Seven Noachide Commandments "לשם שכר" (for reward), and the specific distinctions in accepting and distributing their korbanot (offerings) and tzedakah (charity).
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • Whether a Jewish court should accept korbanot from Noachides.
  • The appropriate destination for tzedakah given by a Noachide who observes the Seven Commandments (a Ger Toshav-like status) versus an Akum (idolater).
  • The underlying halachic reasoning for these distinctions, particularly concerning the Noachide obligation in tzedakah and the principle of "לא מעלין ולא מורידין" (not elevating or lowering [idolaters]).
• Primary Sources: Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 10:10-12; Sanhedrin 57a, 59a; Chullin 5a, 13b; Menachot 73b; Sifra on Acharei Mot.

Text Snapshot

The core of our sugya lies in the Rambam's halachot concerning a Noachide's voluntary mitzvah performance:

Kings and Wars 10:10

"אין מונעין בן נח מלעשות שאר מצות מן התורה כדי לקבל שכר, אם הביא עולה מקבלין ממנו." "We should not prevent a Noachide who desires to perform one of the Torah's mitzvot in order to receive reward from doing so, provided he performs it as required. If he brings an animal to be sacrificed as a burnt offering, we should receive it."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "שאר מצות מן התורה" (other mitzvot from the Torah) implies mitzvot beyond the Seven Noachide Commandments, but excludes those explicitly forbidden to them (like Shabbat observance or Torah study, as stated later in the chapter). The explicit mention of korban olah (burnt offering) sets a precedent for accepting certain religious acts from them.

Kings and Wars 10:11

"בן נח המקיים שבע מצות כשנתן צדקה מקבלין ממנו, ויראה לי שנותנין אותה לעניי ישראל, הואיל וניזון מישראל ומצווין אנו להחיותו אם היה צריך. אבל העכו"ם שנתן צדקה מקבלין ממנו, ונותנין לעניי עכו"ם." "If a Noachide who observes the seven mitzvot gives charity, we should accept it from him. It appears to me that it should be given to the Jewish poor, for the Noachide may derive his sustenance from the Jews and they are commanded to support him if necessary. In contrast, if an idolater gives charity, we should accept it from him and give it to the gentile poor."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The Rambam first refers to "בן נח המקיים שבע מצות" (a Noachide who observes the seven mitzvot), which is commonly understood as a Ger Toshav. He then contrasts this with "העכו"ם" (the idolater). This precise linguistic distinction is central to the Teshuvah MeYirah's critique, as the Rambam seemingly conflates categories and applies different halachot based on the giver's religious status. The phrase "ויראה לי" ("it appears to me") indicates this is a personal psak or deduction by the Rambam, often a point of contention for later Acharonim.

Readings

1. Teshuvah MeYirah on Kings and Wars 10:11

The Teshuvah MeYirah (Rabbi Yisrael Yaakov Algazi, 18th Century) raises several penetrating kushyot on the Rambam's halacha in 10:11, particularly regarding tzedakah.

• Chiddush: The Teshuvah MeYirah challenges the Rambam's distinction between tzedakah from a "בן נח המקיים שבע מצוות" (which goes to Jewish poor) and an "עכו"ם" (which goes to gentile poor), while simultaneously accepting korbanot from even an Akum (as stated in 10:10 and elsewhere).
  • First Kushya: He points out that the Rambam's own psak in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:3, and the Gemara in Chullin 5a, 13b, and Menachot 73b, explicitly state that korbanot are accepted from a complete Akum. Why, then, the distinction for tzedakah? The Rambam's wording here ("בן נח... אבל העכו"ם") implies a distinction not found regarding korbanot.
  • Second Kushya: More fundamentally, the Teshuvah MeYirah argues that the Rambam's text implies Bnei Noach are not obligated in tzedakah at all, by juxtaposing it with korbanot and framing it as a voluntary act "כדי לקבל שכר." This directly contradicts Sanhedrin 57a, which derives from Bereishit 18:19 ("למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט") that Bnei Noach are commanded in dinim (laws) and tzedakah. The Maharsha on Sanhedrin 56b (commenting on Rashi) also confirms their obligation in tzedakah.
  • Third Kushya: He notes the problematic shift in terminology: starting with "בן נח" in 10:10, then "בן נח המקיים שבע מצוות" (implying Ger Toshav) in 10:11, and finally "עכו"ם." This lack of consistent terminology across related halachot (and even within the same halacha) creates interpretive difficulties.

2. Ohr Sameach on Kings and Wars 10:1

While not directly on our halacha, the Ohr Sameach (Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk) provides crucial background on the halachic status of Bnei Noach and their mitzvot.

• Chiddush: The Ohr Sameach explains the Rambam's view in 10:1 regarding which mitzvot Bnei Noach are executed for. He posits a distinction: they are executed only for mitzvot that were commanded to them through their own prophets before the giving of the Torah to Moses at Sinai, and which Moses later re-transmitted as an eternal law. For mitzvot that were not commanded to their prophets but only revealed via the Torah given to Moses, they are warned but not executed.
  • This distinction is crucial for understanding the weight of different Noachide mitzvot. For example, Shabbat observance and Torah study are explicitly forbidden to them, and they are chayav mitah for violating these, not because they were originally commanded to Noachides, but because they are unique to Israel.
  • Regarding tzedakah, the Ohr Sameach's framework could inform why, even if Bnei Noach are commanded in tzedakah (as per Sanhedrin 57a), it might not carry the same halachic gravity (e.g., capital punishment) as the core Seven Commandments transmitted via prior prophets. This helps understand the Teshuvah MeYirah's suggestion that "קום ועשה לא חייבין" might apply to tzedakah for Bnei Noach – they are commanded to do it, but perhaps not with the same chiyuv as the capital offenses.

Friction

The most potent friction arises from the Teshuvah MeYirah's central kushya regarding the Rambam's stance on Noachide tzedakah in Kings and Wars 10:11.

The Strongest Kushya

The Rambam's statement that "בן נח המקיים שבע מצוות" gives tzedakah to Jewish poor, while an "עכו"ם" gives to gentile poor, and his apparent implication that Bnei Noach are not obligated in tzedakah (by presenting it as a voluntary act for reward, similar to a korban), creates a significant tension.

1. Contradiction with Gemara: The Gemara in Sanhedrin 57a explicitly states that Bnei Noach are commanded in tzedakah, deriving this from Bereishit 18:19 ("למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו ושמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט"). If they are commanded, why does the Rambam present it as a supererogatory act "כדי לקבל שכר" (for reward), and why does he distinguish its allocation based on the giver's status?
2. Inconsistency with Korbanot: As the Teshuvah MeYirah notes, the Rambam himself rules that korbanot are accepted even from an Akum (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 3:3, based on Chullin 5a, 13b, Menachot 73b). Why is there a different standard for tzedakah? If an Akum's korban can be accepted for the Temple, why can't their tzedakah be given to Jewish poor?

The Best Terutz (or two)

A robust terutz must address both the Gemara's obligation and the distinction from korbanot.

1. Reconciling with Sanhedrin 57a: One terutz (suggested by some Acharonim, though not explicitly in the given commentary) is that while Bnei Noach are indeed commanded in tzedakah as a general principle of justice and human compassion (midat hadin and midat harachamim), their obligation might not be identical in scope or enforcement to that of Jews. The Teshuvah MeYirah himself quotes the Ran on Sanhedrin 56b who suggests that for Bnei Noach, "קום ועשה לא חייבין" (they are not obligated in an active command in the same way). This means they are commanded to ensure justice and compassion, but perhaps without a fixed chiyuv (e.g., a specific percentage, or court enforcement as with Jews). Thus, when a Noachide does give tzedakah, it is a mitzvah, and they receive reward for it. The Rambam is not denying their obligation, but rather discussing the voluntary performance of tzedakah beyond a minimal "לא תעמוד על דם רעך" type of obligation, or how Jews should receive it.

2. Distinction between Korbanot and Tzedakah: This is where the Teshuvah MeYirah's own proposed terutz comes into play, utilizing the principle of "לא מעלין ולא מורידין" for Akum.

   • Korbanot: An Akum's korban is accepted in the Beit Hamikdash primarily for Kiddush Hashem – demonstrating the universal appeal of God's worship. While it might have some spiritual benefit for the giver, its primary function is within the sacred system of the Temple, and it doesn't represent a direct "elevation" of the Akum in Jewish society. As the Teshuvah MeYirah explains, "בנכרים הקרבן אינו כלל לכפר עליהם ואינו מגין עליו מיסורים, דאין להם עונש יסורים בגיותם, רק כשמתגיירים." Thus, accepting it doesn't violate the "לא מעלין" principle concerning their spiritual standing as Akum.
   • Tzedakah: Tzedakah, however, particularly when given to Jewish poor, could be seen as directly benefiting the Akum in a societal or even spiritual sense (e.g., kapparah, as Tzedakah Tatzil Mimavet). The Teshuvah MeYirah argues that for an Akum, where "אנו אין חייבים להיטיב עם עובדי ע"ז... ואסור לנו לעשות טובה להם," accepting tzedakah that provides them kapparah or societal benefit by giving it to Jewish poor would constitute "מעלין אותו" (elevating him), which is forbidden. Therefore, their tzedakah should go to gentile poor, fulfilling darkei shalom without "elevating" them beyond their status.
   • Ger Toshav: For a "בן נח המקיים שבע מצוות" (i.e., a Ger Toshav), the situation is different. We are commanded "להחיותו" (to sustain him), as the Rambam states ("הואיל וניזון מישראל ומצווין אנו להחיותו"). Therefore, accepting his tzedakah and directing it to Jewish poor is permissible, as it allows him to perform a mitzvah for which he receives reward, and we are not violating "לא מעלין" as we are actively commanded to support him. The Teshuvah MeYirah clarifies that the Ger Toshav's intent for Jewish poor is respected, and we are not obligated to give it to gentile poor.

This terutz effectively distinguishes between the nature and purpose of korbanot and tzedakah and applies the halachic principle of lo ma'alin v'lo moridin in a nuanced way to reconcile the Rambam's apparent contradictions.

Intertext

1. Sanhedrin 59a: Noachide Torah Study and Shabbat

"בן נח שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה, שנאמר תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהילת יעקב - להם מורשה, ולא לגוים. בן נח ששבת חייב מיתה, שנאמר ויום ולילה לא ישבותו, ואמר רב יוסף: אזהרה לשבת." "A Noachide who engages in Torah study is liable to death, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 33:4), 'Torah, Moses commanded us, an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob' – an inheritance for them, but not for gentiles. A Noachide who rests [on Shabbat] is liable to death, as it is stated (Genesis 8:22), 'Day and night shall not cease,' and Rav Yosef said: this is a warning against resting [observing Shabbat]."

• Relevance: This Gemara establishes specific mitzvot that are forbidden for Bnei Noach. The Rambam (10:9) echoes this, stating a Noachide who studies Torah or observes Shabbat is "חייב מיתה." This context is crucial for understanding the Rambam's statement in 10:10 that "אין מונעין בן נח מלעשות שאר מצות מן התורה." The term "שאר מצות" (other mitzvot) explicitly excludes these forbidden acts, highlighting that the allowance to perform mitzvot for reward is not universal but subject to halachic constraints unique to their status.

2. Sifra on Acharei Mot, Parasha 13:12: "Goy Oseh Mitzvah"

"הגוי שעושה מצוה אינו מקבל שכר כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה." "A gentile who performs a mitzvah does not receive reward like one who is commanded and performs it."

• Relevance: This Sifra (and its elaboration in Avodah Zarah 3a) is the foundational source for the concept of "גדול המצוה ועושה ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה" (greater is one who is commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs). The Rambam's phrase "כדי לקבל שכר" (in order to receive reward) in 10:10 directly ties into this concept. While a Noachide is rewarded for mitzvot (provided they are not forbidden to them), their reward is qualitatively different from that of a Jew who is commanded in that mitzvah. This underscores the distinct covenantal relationship.

Psak/Practice

The Rambam's psak in these halachot provides a comprehensive framework for how Am Yisrael interacts with Bnei Noach and Akum in a religious context.

1. Acceptance of Noachide Mitzvah Performance: The general principle is that Bnei Noach are encouraged to perform mitzvot for reward, as long as these mitzvot are not exclusively for Jews (like Torah study or Shabbat) or otherwise forbidden. This is a fundamental aspect of Kiddush Hashem and universal morality. Thus, their korbanot are accepted. This reflects a meta-psak heuristic that the Torah system, while unique to Israel, has universal moral and spiritual echoes.
2. Distinction in Tzedakah Distribution: While tzedakah is accepted from both Ger Toshav and Akum, its distribution differs.
   • From a Ger Toshav (בן נח המקיים שבע מצוות): Given to Jewish poor. The rationale is that we are commanded to sustain the Ger Toshav, and accepting their tzedakah to benefit Jewish poor fulfills their mitzvah while aligning with our obligations to them and our own poor.
   • From an Akum (עכו"ם): Given to gentile poor. This distinction is maintained due to the principle of "לא מעלין ולא מורידין." While we engage in darkei shalom (ways of peace) by accepting their charity, we do not wish to provide them with spiritual or societal "elevation" (e.g., kapparah or special status within Jewish society) by directing their funds to Jewish institutions or poor. This pragmatic approach balances outreach with maintaining distinct communal boundaries.

The Teshuvah MeYirah's kushyot highlight the interpretive challenges within the Rambam's nuanced categories, but the overall psak remains the standard: welcome Bnei Noach in their mitzvah performance, but carefully delineate the halachic implications based on their specific status and the nature of the mitzvah.

Takeaway

The Rambam meticulously charts the halachic boundaries of Noachide religious life, affirming their capacity for reward in mitzvot while rigorously maintaining the distinct covenantal obligations of Israel and the careful balance of interaction with Akum through the lens of darkei shalom and "לא מעלין ולא מורידין." This complex interplay reveals a nuanced vision of universal morality and particularistic covenant.