Rabbi Soloveichik is Not Alone...

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)    

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.