The Hidden Noah

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it.  And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person.  Whoever sheds human blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made mankind.  Genesis 9:4-6  NASB

With its life – “The nations of the world are charged with keeping only seven mitzvos, which are designed to preserve order in the world and keep society functioning smoothly.  The Jewish people, on the other hand, are given many more mitzvos to follow, a responsibility that distinguishes them from the nations of the world.”[1]  Rabbi Freedman’s comment is based on the rabbinic teaching of the so-called Noahide Laws.  According to this teaching, non-Jews are not required to follow the instructions of the Torah except for seven commands.  Those commands are:

1. the positive injunction to set up courts that justly enforce social laws
2. the prohibition of blasphemy, i.e. intolerance of worshipping the one God of the universe
3. the prohibition of idolatry 
4. the prohibitions of grave sexual immorality, such as incest and adultery
5. the prohibition of murder
6. the prohibition of theft
7. the prohibition of eating the limb of a live animal, which is a paradigm for cruelty[2]

This idea comes directly from the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a), but it is often mistakenly treated as if it were taken directly from the Bible.  Scholars point out this error:

The Bible presents a predominantly binary picture of humanity, with the Jewish people in covenant with God on one side, and the idolatrous nations of the world on the other. However rabbis of the talmudic period-approximately 200 to 600 CE-seized upon one aspect of the biblical narrative that does not fit into this neat binary universe. While the Bible portrays the stranger as isolated individuals in Jewish society, the Talmud expanded the idea of the stranger and conceptualized it into a broad legal and moral category. Based on the post-diluvean covenant God makes with Noah and his descendants (Gen. 9:8-17), the Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 64b) interpreted the stranger to be all gentiles who accept the seven Noahide commandments constituting the basic laws of morality:[3]

Although these Noahide laws have been part of rabbinic thinking for two thousand years, they have taken on a much more central role in the last century.  This teaching, however useful for societal structure, creates a significant theological problem.  It suggests that God has two distinct ethical systems; one for Jews and one for the rest of the world.  Under this view, it is possible to enter into the olam ha’ba as a non-Jew without being Torah observant.  That allows the Christian Church to claim acceptance before God while denying the necessity of Torah.  In fact, if the Noahide laws are the code of conduct for non-Jews, then Christianity has a legitimate biblical foundation.  The Jewish part of the Bible is no longer relevant.

This requires some further investigation.  In a web article from a Jewish site, we read the following:[4]

The Talmud, in Sanhedrin 56a-b, gives the Noahide laws, applicable to all mankind:

Our Rabbis taught: Seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: To establish courts of justice; and refrain from blasphemy, idolatry, adultery, murder, stealing, and eating the flesh of live animals.

It then explains that these laws are derived from a single line in Genesis:

And the Lord God commanded the man saying, ‘of every tree of the garden you may freely eat’. [Gen. 2:16]

Here is how:

-“Establish courts of justice” is derived from “And the Lord God commanded”, because “command” relates to justice and judgment.

-“No blasphemy” is derived from the words “The Lord”, which are used in connection with blasphemy in Leviticus: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.” [Lev. 24:16]

-“No idolatry” is derived from the word “God”, because the word “God” is used in that context in Exodus: “You shall have no other gods before Me. “[Ex. 20:3]

-“No murder” is derived from “the man”, because the word “man” is used in that context in Genesis: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” [Gen. 9:6]

-“No adultery” is derived from the word “saying”, because it used in that context in Jeremiah: “They say, ‘If a man puts away his wife, and she go from him, and became another man’s…’”[Jer. 3:1]

-“No stealing” is derived from “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat”. Since it was necessary to authorize Adam to eat of the trees of the garden, it follows that without such authorization it was forbidden, since the trees did not belong to him.

-“No eating flesh from live animals” is derived from “You may freely eat”, because it implies “You may eat only what is ready for eating, which is not the case while the animal is alive.”

But even Jewish thinkers recognize the difficulties with this “contrived” exegesis.  The same website offers rabbinic answers to this criticism:

See R. Yehuda Halevi’s Kuzari (3:73) where he writes:

The Rabbi: Let us rather assume two other possibilities. Either they employ secret methods of interpretation which we are unable to discern, and which were handed down to them, together with the method of the ‘Thirteen Rules of Interpretation,’ or they use Biblical verses as a kind of fulcrum of interpretation in a method called Asmakhtā, and make them a sort of hall mark of tradition. An instance is given in the following verse: ‘And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat’ (Gen. ii. 16 sq.). It forms the basis of the ‘seven Noahide laws’ in the following manner:

[‘He] commanded’ refers to jurisdiction. ‘The Lord’ refers to prohibition of blasphemy. ‘God’ refers to prohibition of idolatry. ‘The man’ refers to prohibition of murder. ‘Saying’ refers to prohibition of incest. ‘Of every tree of the garden,’ prohibition of rape. ‘Thou mayest surely eat,’ a prohibition of flesh from the living animal.

There is a wide difference between these injunctions and the verse. The people, however, accepted these seven laws as tradition, connecting them with the verse as aid to memory.

The Hebrew translation is clearer in stating that this verse is not the actual source for the laws:

כמה רחוק בין אלו העניינים ובין הפסוק הזה, אך אצל העם קבלה משבע המצוות האלה, סומכין אותה בפסוק הזה בסימן שמיקל עליהם זכרם.

The Rambam (Hil. Melachim 9:1) also does not refer to this source (ויצו). Instead he writes:

עַל שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נִצְטַוָּה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן. עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וְעַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם. וְעַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים. וְעַל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת. וְעַל הַגֵּזֶל. וְעַל הַדִּינִים. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן הֵן קַבָּלָה בְּיָדֵינוּ מִמּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ. וְהַדַּעַת נוֹטָה לָהֶן. מִכְּלַל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה יֵרָאֶה שֶׁעַל אֵלּוּ נִצְטַוָּה.

Are you saying this is an asmachta, a mnemonic device to help us remember a teaching from tradition, and not a derivation? How does one know which is which, then? Is the rule “If the logic satisfies you, it’s a derivation; if the logic does not satisfy you, call it just a mnemonic device”? That’s the essence of my question.

No, there are no sources for it in the Bible. Surprising as it may sound, the Bible does not mention these commands, known as the Seven Noahide Laws, which the rabbis later wrote down around 200 C.E.. In fact, these laws would practically go unnoticed in Jewish literature until the third century C.E.

Although there is no source for this, these laws are explicable in nature and could be considered the basic laws of humanity, applicable to all human beings. The seven Noahide commandments are mentioned in the Tosefta, as in the Mishnah and Midrashim, as part of the “Oral Torah,” the unwritten parts of the Torah and in some instances reflect the halakhah. Interestingly, Professor Shamma Friedman has proven that Tosefta predates the Mishnah.[5]

According to rabbinic Judaism, the Oral Law was given to Moses at the same time as the Written Law.  Therefore, these seven Noahide laws are as authoritative as any part of the Torah, even if the derivation from verses in the Torah seems, at best, a real stretch.  But this doesn’t resolve our real problem, for if Judaism holds that non-Jews do not need to follow Torah but only the seven Noahide regulations, then the God of Israel has two ethical systems which apply only on the basis of ethnic identity.  And in so doing, rabbinic Judaism gives validity to Christianity.

A few further remarks:  “In respect to Talmud, in Sanhedrin 56a-b, I think it is as the Talmud often states, hanging by a thread. Indeed, the Talmud states that many of its laws are like ‘mountains hanging by a thread’ (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 5a). The Talmud, in this instance, is using the popular form of derash, or a kind of derasha, which is reading something into the text that is not there or explicit. Something that actually runs contrary to the plain meaning of the text. Thus, this is a perfect example of post-biblical laws with no real basis in the Torah, they are, as the Talmud says, hanging on it by a thread.”

“The first explicit presentation of the Noahide laws is found in the Tosefta, a work dated to the late second century.”

Such theological manipulation (even if defensive) seems completely contrary to God’s explicit intention that Israel act as an attraction for the nations in order that the nations might embrace Israel’s God and His instructions for living. Apparently rabbinic Judaism makes this unnecessary.  All that is really required is to live in a way that provides societal order; an order that could just as easily have been instituted by men.  A strange twist of fate for sure.

Oh, yes.  There’s just one additional caveat.  Take a closer look at Rules number 2 and 3.  Just how are these rules to be applicable to all nations if there is no necessity to connect to Torah of the God of Israel?  How are the nations supposed to adopt these rules if they don’t adopt the whole Torah?

Topical Index:  Noahide Laws, Genesis 9:4-6

[1] Rabbi Shraga Freedman, Living Kiddush Hashem: Sanctifying Hashem in everything we do (Artscroll, 2014), p. 321.

[2]https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/sourcebook/Noahide_covenant.htm#:~:text=Text&text=The%20descendants%20of%20Noah%20were,blood%20of%20a%20living%20animal.

[3] Ibid.

[4] https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/111441/source-of-the-noahide-laws

[5] Ibid.