 |
| Sacks called Rabinovitch "One of the great Maimonidean scholars of our time, [who] he taught us, his students, that Torah leadership demands the highest intellectual and moral courage. He did this in the best way possible: by personal example. The following thoughts, which are his, are a small indication of what I learned from him – not least that Torah is, among other things, a refusal to give easy answers to difficult questions." |
SHU”T Siach Nachum
Rabbi
Nachum Eliezer Rabinovitch
Translated by Rabbi David Katz (rough draft)
Translated by Rabbi David Katz (rough draft)
93. Ger
Toshav of Today
Question:
What is the opinion of the Rav about the proper treatment of individuals from the Umot HaOlam (Nations of the World) who are [currently] peaceful with us? Is there [a din of] ‘Ger Toshav’ today?
Answer:
In the complex
matter of Ger Toshav, look at what I wrote about this in relation to medical
treatment for Nochri on Shabbat in [my] Shaylot and Teshuvot ‘M’Lumdei
Milchama’ (Siman 43). Whereas the words of the Rambam stand to support him in
this complex matter of the categorical Ger Toshav of our time, we will discuss
below his opinion.
א.
Distinguishing between the terms ‘Ger
Toshav’ and ‘Chasid Umot HaOlam’
The Rambam wrote
in Hilchos Melachim (9:1): “Adam HaRishon was commanded on six things:
1) Avodah Zara
2) Birkas Hashem
3) Murder
4) Immorality
5) Stealing
6) Dinim
To Noah was
added, ‘eating the limb of a living animal’, as it says, ‘Thus the flesh with
its soul in its blood, you shall not eat’ (Genesis 9:4); it turns out that
there are seven commandments”.
Above
there (8:11) Rabbeinu established: ‘All who accept the seven commandments, and
are careful to keep them – behold, this [shows that one is] ‘From the
Chasidei Umot HaOlam’ and dually has a portion of the World to Come’.
However, before this, he established (8:10): ‘And the one that accepts them –
is called Ger Toshav in every place, and needs to accept them upon one’s self
before three men’.
Are the concepts Ger
Toshav and Chasid…the same, or is there a difference between them? And if
so, what is the difference between them? The matter comes out clear from the
continuation of his words concerning Chasidei…, and this is what he said
(8:11): Behold, this [is from] the Chasidei…and he who accepts them and is
careful to perform them as Hashem commanded in the Torah as made known through
Moshe Rabbeinu [the same as] the Bnei Noach were originally commanded in them.
But if they perform them from self-determination – this is not Ger Toshav, nor
are they [from the] Chasidei…, rather they are from their ‘intellectuals’. Behold,
there are clearly three types/terms:
1) Ger Toshav
2) Chasid Umot HaOlam
3) Intellectuals from the Nations of the
World
Ostensibly it
would have occurred to us that perhaps Ger Toshav is one who has accepted upon
himself the commandments alone, but still has not performed them, and when he
actually performs them he merits the level ‘Chasid…’, that behold, the Chasid
is categorized as such: ‘All who accept the seven laws and are careful to
do them in contrast to Ger Toshav, there [by Ger Toshav] it mentions only ‘the
one who accepts them’. However if this is so, it is possible that if he
merely performed them [based off of] intellectually, would his kabbalah
(personal acceptance) before three men be nullified; would he be a Ger Toshav?
And it should be considered that after he took kabbalah before three men
according to Jewish Faith and Torah Law and was made Ger Toshav, would that
nullify his giur since he did not have a proper kavannah at the time of
fulfilling his commandments? On this I wondered!
Clearly therefore
that the distinction between Ger Toshav and Chasid…needs an explanation.
Additionally to this there is an additional problem. In many places Rabbeinu
established: ‘We do not accept (mekablin) Ger Toshav except in a time of Yovel
Noheg, but when it is not a time of Yovel, we only accept Ger Tzedek alone’. It
appears in the continuation that there are basically many contradictions in
this halacha. In the midst of clarifying and settling these contradictions, one
will reach a full category of Ger Toshav, which will also solve the first
problem, which is to distinguish between Ger Toshav and Chasid…
ב.
Is there a Ger Toshav Today?
First we need to
discuss the contradictions that determine [the conditions of the precept]: ‘not
to accept Ger Toshav today’.
By offering the
din of Ger Tzedek who regrets this, Rabbeinu ruled in Hilchos Melachim (10:3)
as such: ‘a Ben Noach who is Nisgaire and is circumcised and has gone to the
mikveh, and afterward wants to renege on going in the way of God and to be Ger
Toshav alone as he was before, we are not to listen to him. And if he was a
child when he went to the mikveh through Beit Din then he is able to renege at
the time of his maturity, and be Ger Toshav alone. And since he did not renege
at that time, he may no longer protest; rather he is a Ger Tzedek’.
The first part of
this halacha is basically without understanding. If it is speaking about a
unique situation of a Ben Noach who was first made a Ger Toshav and afterward
he was made into a Ger Tzedek, and therefore he possibly wants to return to
being a Ger Toshav alone as he was before? If so, behold, the din is not
possible unless it is a time of Yovel Noheg; how did we not feel this
limitation? And how is the continuation in regard to a child that received
mikveh from the Beit Din, and it wasn’t explained that there is a fundamental
and essential difference in the din based on when there is a time that is Yovel
Noheg and today? However, if we say that these matters are as they are simply
stated, that this halacha is also appropriate for today, surely this will
produce a ‘Chiddush Gadol’ that it is possible that at first he was a Ger
Toshav and in the end he was a Ger Tzedek, and how could this be?
However the end part
of this halacha also offers a possibility of how there is also a Ger Toshav
today. A youth who converts through Beit Din and grows up only to renege, – he is
a Ger Toshav alone. This din also needs an explanation. How is this
possible today? Also one must consider that per force there is no kabbalah at
play, for he was a child, and thus no kabbalah could be considered as kabbalah,
and in his maturity, it does not mention that he needs any kabbalah at all. On
the other hand there is no reason to assume that the first part of the halacha
speaks about the same scenario as the last part, which is to explain the case
as such: a youth who received a mikveh through Beit Din and reneged when he
reach maturity and was consequently made a Ger Toshav, and later decided to
convert, and after that regretted it and wanted to return to be a Ger Toshav.
If this is the appropriate explanation, then we need to consider the din of the
last part of the halacha first and only after that continue with the din of the
first part. But the order but that things appear proves that we are speaking of
two unique things, which is to say that there are two possibilities that there
would be a Ger Toshav today.
There is also a
third way, and it is even more interesting, from a historical standpoint.
In the days of
the Rambam there were still Canaanite Slaves, and in the Tshuvot of the Gaonim
there are many rulings about interacting with slaves like these. Fundamentally,
one who acquires an Eved Canaani – needs to circumcise him, and through this he
enters slightly into Kedushat Yisrael, and this obligates in certain clear
commandments. But there is a slave who refuses circumcision – what is his din?
This is explained in Hilchos Avadim (8:12):
‘One who
purchases an Eved Canaani from a stam goy and he doesn’t want to circumcise or
to accept the commandments appropriated for slaves, you are to keep with him
for twelve months. If he still doesn’t want to do these after the allotted
timeframe, then you are to sell him to goyim or send him out of The Land. If
you stipulated with the slave beforehand that he would not circumcise, behold
it is allowed to keep him all the time that he stands fundamentally as a
complete goy, or you can sell him to a goyim or send him out of The Land.
Is this halacha
practical [for today]? Since Rabbeinu didn’t indicate otherwise, it appears
that this din is constant after all. However, there is a difficulty: ‘If the
slave stipulated at first that he would not circumcise, behold it is allowed to
keep him all the time he wants as he stands as a complete goy’. What
does it mean ‘as he stands as a complete goy’? Is the kavannah that he retains
his idolatrous ways? And is it allowed for a Jew to keep him in his home if he
is an idolater [practicing idolatry]?
Basically, what
is missing here is an explanation from Hilchos Mila (1:6):
‘One who takes a
grown slave from the goyim and he doesn’t want to circumcise – stay with him
for twelve months. Any longer, and it is forbidden to keep him as he stands
uncircumcised; rather he should sell him to goyim. And if he stipulates this at
first, and he stands by his master as a goy, in that he still does not have
circumcision, it is allowed to keep him as he stands uncircumcised, and only
that he accepts upon himself (kabbalah) the seven laws, and he will be like a
Ger Toshav… and we don’t accept (mekablin) Ger Toshav accept in a time of
Yovel Noheg’.
If it says in
Hilchos Avadim as it says in Hilchos Mila, and what isn’t explained there is
explained here, and in Hilchos Avadim we can rely on what was written in
Hilchos Mila that behold, they appeared earlier? If so, it turns out that the
slave stipulated first that he would refuse circumcision, in which case it is
allowed to keep him, but only if he accepted the seven laws. Basically, it
seems that this din is only possible in a time of Yovel Noheg, and thus this is
how the halacha in Hilchos Mila ends. But if this is so, this only raises more
questions. In Hilchos Avadim, which is the ikkar of this halcha, there isn’t
even a hint of this din that this is only applicable in a time of Yovel, and
there it is implied from the mysterious language that this din stands forever.
However there is a huge misconception from this; was this halacha in its
details practical in the days of Rabbeinu?
However, one can
see that that there are further details in his language of these halachot. If
we assume that these two halachot are the exact same, it turns out that what
was written in Hilchos Avadim: ‘it is allowed to keep him…as he stands as a
complete goy’ is parallel to what is said in Hilchos Mila: ‘it is allowed
to keep him…and only if he accepts the seven laws and will be like a Ger
Toshav’. If it is understood that also a Ger Toshav is called a goy, then
basically this would lower the matter to what was explained in Hilchos Yayin
Nesach (Hilchos M’Achlos Assuros 11:8): ‘In every place it says ‘stam goy’
behold, this is an idolater’.
The solution to
these difficulties reveals with comparison the accepted halacha in Issurei Biah
(14:9):
A slave taken
from the goyim, we do not say to him: ‘Why did you come?’ This we say to them:
‘It is your desire into the category of a slave of Israel, and are you of the
kosher ones, or not?’ If he desires, you will let him know of the fundamentals
of faith, and give him a mikveh to become like a Ger.
And if he does
not want to accept, then stay with him for twelve months and sell him to goyim,
for it is forbidden to keep him more than this. And if he stipulated with him
first to not circumcise or take a mikveh, rather to be like a Ger Toshav – you
are allowed to keep him in his servitude when he is Ger Toshav, and we don’t
keep a slave like this, except in a time of Yovel.
This proves that
the din that is said in Hilchos Issurei Biah isn’t the same as the din said in
Hilchos Avadim.
In Hilchos
Issurei Biah it is speaking about a goy who is the son of free people, as it
came from his own desire and will to sell himself to Israel. But a slave taken
from goyim – is explained as a slave taken from the goyim, and not that his
master is a goy who sold him. It is this last point that I wondered more about
the language in Hilchos Avadim – ‘One who purchases a slave from the goy’. In
Hilchos Issurei Biah is explained as: ‘We do not say to him – why did you
come?’ – If it was speaking about a slave purchased from a goy [as his master],
how will it occur to you to ask him a strange question like this, since by
himself he came? Surely his master sold him!
Rather, it is clear that the din
in Hilchos Issurei Biah is endorsed on the goy who sold himself, and who
conditioned upon himself that he is obligated in the seven laws, and not like
slaves of Israel who are obligated in many more commandments.
This din is a
straight continuation from what was said in the preceding halacha about a
regular Ger Toshav. First Rabbeinu brought the din of a goy who is the son of
free people who wanted to be a Ger Toshav – he is from completely free people,
and after that the din is of a goy who wants to be a Ger Toshav who is
subordinate to Israel. On this he concludes: That we don’t keep a slave like
this except in a time of Yovel, just like we don’t accept (mekablin) today a
Ger Toshav who wants to stay free, thus we don’t accept Ger Toshav even if he
wants to be a slave.
However in
Hilchos Avadim as mentioned he writes explicitly: ‘One who purchases a slave’.
This slave has no free will, and not by himself did he come to Israel; his
master, a goy, sold him to Israel against the will of the slave. Rather that in
this, the din of the slave is that he is able to stipulate at the time of his
sale that he forego his circumcision, and ‘if he the slave stipulated first
that he should not circumcise, behold, it is allowed to keep him. However the
Torah maintains that also if you purchase a Jewish slave from the goy, you may
not retain him in a Jewish household if he practices idolatry; therefore the
slave needs to accept upon himself the seven laws.
But in Hilchos
Mila we find two situations. Therefore it begins with the language that can
explain both of them – if one takes a grown slave from the goyim, this
is said of the slave himself – he who is from the goyim, and it is possible
that he sold himself or his master, a goy, sold him.
And it returns to
write that the din is accustomed only when he is bought from his master, a goy
alone. And it is explicitly saying this: ‘And if he conditioned upon himself at
first, and he was by his master, a goy…it is allowed to keep him…and
only if he accepts upon himself seven laws and he will be like a Ger Toshav’.
This condition helps only if he stipulated at the time of his sale all while he
was still by his master, but after the sale it is impossible to further
stipulate. If the stipulation was while he was still by his master, a goy, he
will be like a Ger Toshav, but not a total/real Ger Toshav, that behold,
a real Ger Toshav is only one who arouses himself and comes to ‘l’heetgaire’,
which is not so with this slave who was purchased from the goy, not from his
own self did he come, and thus he is not a Ger Toshav. Rather since it is
prohibited for a Yisrael to keep him in his home, one who has not accepted the
seven laws, we can’t entertain this unless he accepts upon himself that he will
be just like a Ger Toshav in the manner of the laws.
Even also this
that he is like a Ger Toshav only that while he is in the house of a Jew, but
if he is sold by the Jew to a new master who is a goy, it is possible that he
will return to the idolatry of his master. And if there is no proof to this
matter, please consider Naaman, as it is said, “May Hashem forgive your servant
for this one thing, however; When my master comes to the temple of Rimmon to
bow down there, he leans on my arm, so I must bow in the temple of Rimmon…” –
the general rule is that a slave like this has not accepted upon himself
commandments ‘because they were commanded by God in the Torah and made known by
Moshe Rabbeinu, that the Bnei Noach were commanded in them from before (Hilchos
Melachim 8:11). His entire acceptance is because his Israelite master forced it
upon him, and behold, by him, these commandments are an aspect of servitude,
and therefore he is only like a Ger Toshav, rather than a real Ger Toshav. And
this is to say that it is written in Hilchos Avadim ‘as he stands as a goy’,
that this slave is only a ‘goy who doesn’t serve idols’ but he still has
not left the status of goy completely.
Rather it still
remains necessary to clarify why it helps this condition, only ion a slave that
one purchases from a goy, and not a goy who sold himself? Surely the first part
of this halacha speaks about both of them! Therefore Rabbeinu continues to
explain that today we can only keep a slave that is like a Ger Toshav,
because such as this we can accept (mekablin) him, in fact to the contrary,
behold we can force him into slavery. This matter is similar to what was ruled
in Hilchos Melachim (10:3) with the youth who took a mikveh through Beit Din:
‘He is able to renege at the time of his maturity, and be Ger Toshav
only’. But if he came to us in that we should accept him and that he
would then be Ger Toshav, whether as a son of free people or as a subordinate
to Israel, we can only accept one like this in a time of Yovel.
It comes out that
also while it is not a time of Yovel, there is a category similar to Ger Toshav
– which is to say a slave that is like a Ger Toshav, with the addition of these
two examples that were brought above concerning the real Ger Toshav today (Hilchos Melachim 9:1 & 10:3). However in the case of this youth that took a
mikveh through the guidance of the Beit Din which is similar in complete
understanding to that of the slave, even if this youth was made into a real Ger
Toshav, because the reason for their status is that they do not need us to
accept them, that behold, their status is forced upon them. But it remains for
us to clarify the first case that still hasn’t been explained.
ג.
Ger Toshav as a transitional stage to
Ger Tzedek
We see proof from
the language from Rabbeinu in Hilchos Melachim (10:3) where he speaks about Ger
Tzedek – that it speaks about what he was beforehand, Ger Toshav. In order to
illuminate this complex matter, there is to look in Hilchos Issurei Biah
(13:14) the place of commentaries of Hilchos Geirus in their categories:
When a Ger or
Giuress comes convert – we check after them, lest they are coming for the sake
of financial gain, or because they will merit a high ranking position, or
because of fear – have they come to enter into the Jewish Faith…and if we don’t
find any trespassing in them, we inform them of the weight of the yoke of Torah
and the burden of doing it carried out by the simpletons/peoples of the world,
as it is explained. If they accept it and do not turn away from it, and we see
that they accepted it out of love – accept them.
Thus are his
words brought in the continuation of the halachot (ibid. 14:1):
How do we
accept Gerei Tzedek? When they come to convert we check after them and if
we don’t find any type of trespass, we say to them: ‘What did you see that you
came to convert? Don’t you know that Israel today is very low and has
pressured, swept up, pursued, and bothered situations coming on to them?
[Should he say] I know and I am not worthy – except him immediately’.
What is the
meaning of the language ‘we accept him immediately’? It is clear that it means
we accept him to be stood up for conversion, and not that he was already made a
Ger, that behold Rabbeinu continues (ibid. 2-4): ‘and we inform him of the
fundamentals of Jewish Faith…and we inform him of the punishment of the
commandments…if he returns and says I do not want to accept, he goes on his
way, and if he does accept, we do not make him wait, rather we circumcise him
immediately…and after that he enters the mikveh’.
Behold we explain
that before he enters into the Covenant, which is circumcision and mikveh, that
with them, Kedushat Yisrael falls onto him - he is to stand with Geirut Tzedek.
And in order to stand under Geirus – he needs to be accepted by Beit Din. It
should not come to mind that Beit Din will accept someone who isn’t careful
with the rest of the commandments that were commanded to the Bnei Noach, that
behold, if he wasn’t careful in the commandments that he was obligated in from
before, how will he fulfill many additional commandments?
This is what
Rabbeinu wrote that Beit Din ‘checks after them’ and if they ‘see that he
returned from Love’ they ‘accept him’. This means, if they see that they want
to commandments from Love, they are fit to stand for Geirus. It is clear that
one who isn’t careful in the seven laws – it is not possible to say upon him
that he returned to Jewish Faith from Love! However, if it is clear that
he was/is careful in the seven laws – and wants to add to them, we accept him
as he stands.
And what happens
if during his Giur he is cutoff in the middle of the process? And behold, the
ruling is if he returned on it and didn’t want to accept all of the
commandments – ‘he goes on his way’; Is it possible that he will leave it to go
to idolatry? And what will his standing be if he doesn’t convert fully?
This is hinted to
us by Rabbeinu in Hilchos Melachim, that every Ger Tzedek passes through the
first category, Ger Toshav. Also today we accept his standing as a complete
Geirus, we accept this like one who is accepted as a Ger Toshav. Rather, since
today we don’t accept one who wants to Ger Toshav alone, therefore this kabbalah
(acceptance) is limited to one who declares that he wants to be Ger Tzedek in
the end. Therefore we accept him , and his first category is Ger Toshav, and we
move him along in order that he should be Ger Tzedek, but if for whatever
reason he doesn’t reach this, he will remain a Ger Toshav. But if he passes
through the Giur and was already circumcised and has taken mikveh, and after
that he wants to return from Hashem’s ways and to be a Ger Toshav alone as
he was before, ignore him.
ד.
The Difference between Chasid Umot HaOlam and
Gerim Toshavim
We see that one
who comes to convert - we check after them if they came from Love, and this
includes if he already keeps the Laws of Noach. This matter is explained in the
words of Rabbeinu, even concerning one who comes to be Ger Toshav alone, thus
are his words in Issurei Biah (14:7): ‘Who is a Ger Toshav? This is a goy who
accepts upon himself not to serve idols with the rest of the commandments
commanded to the Sons of Noach, and was not circumcised nor has taken a mikveh,
behold, this will cause him to be accepted, and he is a Chasid from the Umot
HaOlam’.
It is explained
that he has already accepted upon himself to keep the seven laws before Beit
Din has accepted him. However, basically, why do we need Beit Din to accept
him? Perhaps you can say, that we need a Beit Din of three men that he will
accept the commandments in front of them, to keep the commandments as explained
in Hilchos Melachim (8:10): ‘And he needs to accept them before three men’.
However, certainly Beit Din can serve also for this function, but on this it is
not possible to say that they are going to accept him. Rather
that the explained matter is in the continuation of the halacha mentioned above
(Hilchos Issurei Biah 14:7-8): ‘And why do we call him ‘Toshav?’ Because it is
allowed for us to allow him to settle among us in the Land of Israel, just like
we explained in Hilchos Avodah Zara. And we don’t accept Ger Toshav except in a
time of Yovel Noheg. But today, even if he accepted the entire Torah, except
for one detail – we do not accept him.’
It comes out that
we stand up an appropriate Ger Toshav only one who requests permission to enter
into the Land of Israel. Like this will mandate an acceptance of commandments
before three, and even this needs Beit Din to accept him. But most goyim don’t
have a specific desire to enter into the Land, and are not commanded to be
Gerim Toshavim. However, they are commanded on seven laws of Noach, and if they
accept them and do them because God commanded them in the Torah – behold, they
are Chasidei HaUmot.
Behold Rabbeinu
ruled in the complex matter of war in Hilchos Melachim (6:1): ‘We don’t make
war with Man of the World until we call out to them in Peace…If they accept the
Peace and accept the seven laws of Noach upon themselves – we don’t kill even
one soul of theirs. Clearly this does not mean that each one of them needs to
accept before three men, therefore a matter like this needs an explicit
explanation. The matter is explained in
the continuation of his words in the complex matter of the covenant of Joshua
with the Gibeonites. There it is clear that only their messengers accepted by
name, and even though this is so, it is considered as a kabbalah for all of
them, and not only this, but it also allowed them to remain in the Land. It
turns out that they stood as real Gerim Toshavim. Basically how can we
understand that this stood, after there wasn’t a kabbalah before three men?
Rather it appears
just like as I explained above, that one who doesn’t request to dwell in the
Land of Israel doesn’t need [Beit Din] to be Ger Toshav, and all who accept
upon themselves the customs of the Nation to keep the seven laws, this is
enough, and all those who fulfill them – behold they are Chasidei Umot HaOlam,
and anything short of this is considered to be merely from their wise men; and
these that don’t fulfill them, they are judged by their peers, that behold one
of the seven laws is dinim. That the Gibeonites , even though they didn’t
request to remain in the Land, this is because they were already there. All
those who were already in the Land and keeps the seven laws - they cannot be
taken out, and behold their din is to be Gerim Toshavim, also without kabbalah
before three men and also without appearing before Beit Din.
It is interesting
that in Hilchos Beit HaBechirah (7:14): Rabbeinu rules that in Jerusalem ‘we
are not to place in it Ger Toshav’. Why doesn’t it just simply say ‘don’t
place in it Ger Toshav?’ However, this
would contradict what it says in the tractate Avodah Zara (24b): that Aravnah
the Jebusite – was a Ger Toshav, and behold, he was in Jerusalem. This halacha
is based on what was commanded: ‘He dwell with you in your midst; in a place
that He will choose (Devarim 23:17), and it is explained in Sifri: ‘to include
Ger Toshav’, rather it means that Sifri explains ‘in one of your gates’ – in
your gates, this is Jerusalem’. This means that we are obligated to give Ger
Toshav a place among us. After we accept them, this kabbalah obligates us to
settle them in the Land. But this obligation is said of the rest of the Land,
and not in Jerusalem, which is to say, as the Rambam stresses: ‘we are not to
give the Ger Toshav a place. We are not to give them explicitly, but if
he was already there, for example Aravnah the Jebusite, then certainly it is
forbidden to remove him from there and we are to leave him there.
It should be
mentioned regarding the Yerushalmi Peah (8:5):
“The Antebila
Family was in Jerusalem and was related to Aravna the Jebusite. One time the sages
ruled on them 600 kikarei of gold that was not to be taken out of Jerusalem,
for they learned ‘in your gates’ ‘in your gates’ – to include Jerusalem.”
The Pnei Moshe
explains: The sages learned two meanings of ‘in your gates’ that was written by
the ger: ‘And you will be joyous by Hashem your God…and the Levite that is in
your gate and the ger (Devarim 16:11), and below it is written: ‘and you will
be joyous in your holiday…and the ger and the orphan and the widow that is in
your gate (Devarim 16:14), and to include Jerusalem that those who dwelled in
its midst should not be taken out, and there you will give them a living…’
Behold, it speaks
about later generations of families that would come out of Aravnah the Jebusite
that still kept themselves like Gerim Toshavim, and since they were needy, the
sages gave them plentiful support in order that they would be able to continue
to dwell in the Holy City.
ה.
The Obligation to Sustain Gerim
Toshavim
Is there another
aspect between the Chasidei…and the Ger Toshav besides dwelling in the Land? In
Hilchos Avodah Zara (10:2) Rabbeinu mentions in a passing manner: ‘And Ger
Toshav we are commanded to sustain them – to give them free healthcare, and
these matters are expanded in Hilchos Melachim (10:12): ‘that we are accustomed
with Ger Toshav with Derech Eretz and Kind Deeds like Israel…’ and the source
is what is written in Vayikra (25:35): And you will strengthen Ger and Toshav
and he will he will live with you’.
The Ramban
already established this concept in his Sefer HaMitzvot (Mitzvas Aseh 16) that
there was to Rabbeinu to count this commandment like an additional commandment:
‘to sustain Ger Toshav, that if he was drowning in a river or if heavy heap of
ruins fell on top of him that it would take all of our strength to save him,
and if he is sick we must involve ourselves with his medical recovery…even to
the extent that if it is pikuach nefesh we must push off Shabbat’.
The Ramban suggests that perhaps that Rabbeinu
already included it within the commandment of Tzedaka (Aseh 195). How would
this be, it appears that according to the opinion of the Rambam this obligation
to sustain them falls only on one who is found among us, for example, one who
has permission to dwell in the Land, or a youth who grew up in a Jewish
household and was converted through Beit Din and the like.; that behold, it
should not rise on one’s mind that Israel is obligated to seek out to each of
the world’s ends in order to sustain all of the Chasidei…in each and every
place. However certainly, if they were accepted and permission was given to
them to enter into the Land, just like we are commanded to give them a place to
settle – then we are obligated to sustain them, that behold, they are your
brother, since they also fulfill the seven laws. From now on it appears that
all who stand as Ger Toshav, and even today – you are ‘commanded to sustain
them’.
However what is
the din of those who keep the seven laws from the power of their own wisdom,
and don’t believe in the Creator of the World? In the teaching of Rabbi Eliezer
Parasha Vav it explains: ‘if they keep seven laws, and then they say…from their
own intellect, this means that it was from their own intellect, or that they
still believe in shituf…they only take their reward in this world’. Behold,
this means that it reaches them in this world specifically – which is to say,
we need to associate them with honor and moral support.
It is worthwhile
to expound a little bit about these matters concerning the seven laws regarding
‘from one’s own intellect’. The Rambam explains in many places that there is
for every man a natural sense of justice.
Thus it says in
Moreh Nevuchim 3:17:
‘…That the
righteous is obligated and it is necessary that God will be exalted. That is to
say, that he is willing to obey all his good and honest deeds, even if they
weren’t commanded on them through the medium of a prophet, and when he is
punished over every evil deed that a man does, even if it is not forbidden to
him through a prophet, for this is forbidden to him by his born nature my intention is the prohibition of oppression
and injustice.’
And above ibid.
1:29:
‘Regarding the
rebellion of the generation of the flood, it does not appear in the Torah that
a prophetic messenger was sent onto them in that time, and nothing was forbidden
onto them, and they were not threatened to be exterminated, it was said, about
God that He was angry toward the people in His heart.’
Also the Generation
of the Flood searched for meaning by themselves to avoid corruption. Seven Laws
of Noach are the lower limit of natural morality that every man seeks out,
because these prohibitions are placed into the hearts of the just in order to
feel them with one’s intellect. However there are many, many levels in the
strength of Man’s intellect. Also the Nations of the World can possibly find
the Higher Wisdom even without recognizing the Torah at all, since every man
was created in the Image of God and he is able to reach a high moral level. And
thus wrote the Rambam in the end of Hilchos Shmittah and Yovel:
‘Each and every
man from the population of the World that has a noble spirit in him, and
understands from his own intellect how to separate and stand tall before Hashem
to minister to Him and to serve Him and
to Know Hashem, going in a straight way just like God made him, and to remove
from his neck the yoke of many calculations that sons of man request – behold,
this will sanctify him as Holy of Holies, and Hashem will be his portion and
his inheritance forever, and ever and ever.’
It is basically
clear that even one who is careful in the seven laws because of natural
morality, and all the more so one who carries himself with a high level of
morality and excellence until he goes in the just way, as God created him –
certainly this is a great merit, such that he deserves to be saved on Shabbat.
And because it is possible to consider that one who is sanctified as Holy of
Holies, could it be forbidden to desecrate the Shabbat to sustain him?
The Rambam
already wrote this in Hilchos Shabbos (2:3): ‘…The Laws of the Torah were not
established in this world, except for the sake of mercy and kindness and peace
in the world. And if the heretics will say that this is a desecration of the
Shabbat and is forbidden - upon them it is written and says: ‘And also I gave
to them Statutes that were not Good and Laws that they could not live by’
(Ezekiel 20:25).
However even
those who serve idolatry, and those who are called by the language of the
Rambam ‘goyim’ even upon them the Rambam ruled (Hilchos Melachim 10:12): ‘even
goyim, God commanded to visit their sick, and to bury their dead with the dead
of Israel, and to give livelihood to their poor – included with the poor of
Israel, because of Darkei Shalom. Behold it is said, ‘Her ways are comely ways
and all of her paths are peaceful (Mishlei 3:17).’ And it does not need to be
said that in a place one suspects his enemy and a hatred of Israel, the sages
have already established (Hullin 13:2): Nochrim that are outside the Land are
not idolaters, rather, they handle the customs of their forefathers.’ And since
then, many of the peoples of the world have progressed a lot.
ו.
Conclusions based on the conclusions of the Rambam,
and a brief discourse of the practical halacha:
1) All who fulfill the seven laws of
Noach because God commanded them in Torah…Behold he is from the Chasidei Umot
HaOlam. There is no need to check each and every one of them if in truth he
accepted (kabbalah) upon himself the seven laws, rather since he belongs to the
group, just like the Gibeonites, that their custom was
to be obligated in the seven laws and to keep their dinim as fit – all of them
have the din of kosher Bnei Noach from the Chasidei Umot HaOlam. And the Gaon
Rabbi Moshe David Polsky in his sefer
Chemdas Yisrael b’kuntros Sheva Mitzvos: ‘One who governs himself from the day
he is obligated in the commandments of Ger Toshav…Behold, he is categorically
considered among Gerim Toshavim. Since he has not sinned – he does not need a
new kabbalah.’ And it is written further from HaRav Moshe Tzvi Chayot in his
Maamer Tiferet Yisrael ‘Notzrim that believe in Jewish Faith and in Torah from
Heaven and the Reality of God and Reward in the World to Come…without doubt
their judgment by us is to be like Ger Toshav.’ And it is written by GR”I
Heinkin TZ”L: However also applicable to the nations of the world , if they
call to Hashem God [of God’s] it is written as a mention for the good. And it
is already written that the Bnei Noach are not commanded against shituf, and
simply the writings are as such, and only in a time when they settle in the
Land of Israel must they separate completely from idolatry…and it is on us to
seek out their peace. And it is beloved the Man who was created in God’s image,
and this is even of an idolater. And all the more so of the nations of the
world of our times who don’t serveidols. And all of the earlier generations,
who uprooted idolatry from their hearts (and even those who bow to idols
perhaps in our times by them it is a monument; this needs looked into). And it
appears this is the reason that the law became easier and easier regarding the
laws of Nochrim in the complex matter of renting houses and selling animals and
benefitting from wine, etc. And even if there are idolaters among them, the
vast majority of them in my opinion are categorically Gerei Toshav.
2) Those that keep the seven laws from
the power of their own wisdom, they aren’t believers that God created the
world, and upon them it is said, ‘beloved is the man who was created in the
divine image’, and we must develop a peaceful relationship with them, and at
the very least we need to fulfill with them what the sages have said: ‘that
which is hateful to you, to another, do not do’ (Shabbos 31a).
3) Even those who are idolaters, and
those who are called ‘goyim’ even on them the Rambam ruled (Hilchos Melachim
10:12) ‘Even goyim, the Sages commanded to visit their sick, bury their dead
with the dead of Israel, and to provide livelihood for their poor alongside the
poor of Israel, because of Darkei Shalom. Behold it is said,: ‘Her ways are
comely ways and all her pathways are of Peace’ (Mishlei 3:17) And it need not
be said in a place that there is fear of an enemy or a hatred of Israel.
4) Chasid Umot HaOlam that accepts upon
himself to keep the commandments before three, that they form a Beit Din, and
they accept him and they expand for him permission to enter the Land – behold,
this is Ger Toshav.
5) In general, we do not accept Ger
Toshav accept in a time of Yovel Noheg. The reason is simple, because we are
obligated to give them space to settle and all the while Israel isn’t
established on its own soil, each one in his inheritance, how do we give according
to the obligation to settle others?
6) In what matters are we talking about
when we say, ‘that we don’t accept Ger Toshav today’? With one whose needs that
we have accepted, this is its meaning; one who still isn’t established in the
Land. But one who is already living in the Land, even in Jerusalem, if they
only keep the seven laws - they have the din of Ger Toshav, and there are many
like this. And look at what I’ve explained in the SHU”T M’Lomdei Milchama (43).
7) One who has already been accepted to
stand with full Geirus, even outside the Land, but did not finish his Geirus –
he remains Ger Toshav even today, that behold, we have obligated him since he
was accepted to stand for Geirus Tzedek.
8) Thus the din of the youth that
received Mikveh for Ger Tzedek through
Beit Din, when he matures - he is able to
choose to remain Ger Toshav also today. Also here the reason is because we have
obligated him just like we wanted to convert him through the guidance of the
Beit Din.
