Article of the Week
A MISGUIDED POLICY
by Dr. Charles Barouh Abraham
Founder and Director
K.K. Beth ha-Midrash Benamozegh
San Antonio, Texas
A sincere question has arisen with broad applications and profound implications. I feel this question must be addressed forthrightly.
A practice widely shared by hasidic dynasties and Lithuanian yeshivot, as well as other Orthodox communities, must needs be reconsidered within the framework of Modern Orthodoxy.
In principle, we respect these regional or dynastic practices. Minhag avoteinu be-yadeinu. They must follow the minhagim of their families and communities, yes, but it is ethically and halakhically questionable to point an accusatory finger at those who follow legitimate minhagim or legitimate halakhic interpretations differing from their own.
The practice in question relates to proselytes and to Noahides who wish to observe certain mitsvot before completion of their conversion process. This question often arises when, in burning love for the mitsvot, the prospective proselyte wishes to observe Shabbat as best they know how or, for example, to affix a mezuzah, or to observe similar mitsvot serving as external sacramenta, signs of belongingness to the Jewish people. The practice in question demands that the proselyte in no way observe such mitsvot. They are, in fact, instructed that they are forbidden to observe these mitsvot until completion of their conversion, and even instructed to publically strike a match on Shabbat.
Halacha 9
A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot.
Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die. Needless to say, he is obligated for that punishment if he creates a festival for himself.
The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them.
If a gentile studies the Torah, makes a Sabbath, or creates a religious practice, a Jewish court should beat him, punish him, and inform him that he is obligated to die. However, he is not to be executed.
Halacha 10
We should not prevent a gentile 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.
If a gentile 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 gentile 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.
Rambam, z"l, writes the following in Mishneh Torah, Sefer Shofetim, Melakhim u-Milhamot, Chapter 10, Halakhot 9 and 10:
Halacha 9
A gentile who studies the Torah is obligated to die. They should only be involved in the study of their seven mitzvot.
Similarly, a gentile who rests, even on a weekday, observing that day as a Sabbath, is obligated to die. Needless to say, he is obligated for that punishment if he creates a festival for himself.
The general principle governing these matters is: They are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create mitzvot for themselves based on their own decisions. They may either become righteous converts and accept all the mitzvot or retain their statutes without adding or detracting from them.
If a gentile studies the Torah, makes a Sabbath, or creates a religious practice, a Jewish court should beat him, punish him, and inform him that he is obligated to die. However, he is not to be executed.
Halacha 10
We should not prevent a gentile 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.
If a gentile 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 gentile may derive his sustenance from the Jews and they are commanded to support him if necessary".
Thus, Rambam, z"l, distinguishes between ovedei kokhavim and proselytes and Noahides: "We should not prevent a gentile who desires to perform one of the Torah's mitzvot in order to receive reward from doing so, provided he performs it as required".
We must ask: Is the current practice of withholding the performance of a mitsvah from a proselyte or Noahide not bad education? A priori, the context of the statement in Sanhedrin related to non-Jews who lived among Jews in the land of Israel (or perhaps other densely populated Jewish areas).The author of the statement feared that if non-Jews kept Shabbat, the Jews would look upon them as being Jewish, and the boundaries would be blurred. Also, if the non-Jewish shomer Shabbat would do some things not in accord with halakha, Jews might follow that practice, assuming that the person was indeed a shomer shabbat. These concerns surely do not apply to a person who is in the process of converting to Judaism.
It is to be noted, on the other hand, and entirely at self-contradictory cross purposes, that an Orthodox rabbi or rebbetsin will, nevertheless take great pains to ensure that the proselyte's kitchen is kasher well before conversion. The mitsvot of kashrut are, of course, major not minor matters of our observant life. Every bite of kosher food is a mitsvah ethically chosen over forbidden items. A simple meal of kosher food is filled to over-brimming with mitsvot, bite by bite.
In considering this question, there are two broad categories to bear in mind:
1. Hovah, a MUST;
2. Reshut, a MAY.
Noahides, for example, have a hovah to observe the seven mitsvot Benei Noah, but they have a reshut to observe all others which they may wish to adopt. It is taught that Jews have a hovah to observe the 613 mitsvot. Still, it must be borne in mind that since the destruction of the Beit ha-Mikdash all but some 248 are "on the back burner". Moreover, were it not the case that the mitsvot relative to the Temple are in abeyance, not even all these would be practicable outside the precincts of the Temple, or outside Jerusalem, or outside the Land of Israel, including Aram Soba and Padan Aram (regions of Syria also halakhically reckoned as belonging to Erets Yisrael. Then again of those relative to the Temple precinct some are a hovah only for Leviyim - and Isreelim, ordinary Jews, are forbidden to perform them - some are a hovah only for Kohanim - and Leviyim and Yisreelim are forbidden to perform them - some are a hovah only for the Kohen Gadol - and all others are forbidden to observe them - and some are a hovah only for the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kippur, and at no other time of the year. Yet all of them are counted and included in the traditional number of 613 mitsvot. A conflagration occurs here between three declarations:
1. There are 613 mitsvot;
2. Jews have a hovah to observe the mitsvot;
3. Therefore, Jews have a hovah to observe all 613 mitsvot, a patent misunderstanding or oversimplification.
How does the erroneous idea arise that proselytes or Noahides are forbidden to observe mitsvot?
It is through a misunderstanding of the taamei ha-mitsvot, "reasons for the mitsvot".
1. A Talmudic aggadah (non-halakhic statement, and it is indeed a minhag klal Yisrael (a minhag binding on all Israel) that we may not derive legal rulings from an aggadah - stringently reads the oft-cited pasuk al pi ha-peshat (literally) "... Beini u-vein Benei Yisrael, ot hi le-olam..."...Between Me and the Children of Israel it is a sign forever...". Another aggadah states that a non-Jew who observes the Shabbat is worthy of death, clearly an example of guzma, a rabbinical exaggeration.
2. The 613 mitsvot are to be understood as the terms of the contract (brit) between ha-Shem and His people, Israel. Only Jews are parties to this contract. Again, it is to be noted that the legal formula is: If you will observe My mitsvot, then I will be your G-d. It is not stated: If you will observe ALL My mitsvot, then I will be your G-d. Indeed, the mitsvah of the Yovel, the Jubilee Year, can only be performed when all Israelites return "to their place". With the loss of the 10 tribes of Israel, this mitsvah will only be observable in the kets ha-yamim, the end of days when all will be restored. It is unthinkable, then, that G-d in His omniscience would have "set up" His people with a situation wherein they would be unable to comply with their contractual terms and therefore find themselves excluded from the love of their heavenly Father and, therefore, liable to fordeiture of His protection, and guidance. Rather, it means that if one walks with integrity of heart, to observe the 613 mitsvot possible and, in the intensity and purity of his/her kavanah, earnestly strives to live a life of hesed, generosity and altruism, following all those mitsvot that one can indeed observe to do, then ha-Shem will be one's G-d.
Therefore, unequivocally, if proselytes or Noahides desire to perform mitsvot that they are under no compulsion to do, they should do so with the awareness that they will be observing them only as a voluntary act simply reflecting their love and deep appreciation of the hallowed Ways of Israel. They must clearly understand that only once their conversion is complete will they have the hovah of observing these mitsvot, but at all times will they retain the reshut to do so.
Contrary to the declared wide-spread parctice, they are to be most highly praised for their love and devotion to the Jewish people, to the profound wisdom of the Torah, and to the Eternal G-d of Israel.
A PRACTICAL CONCERN
1. It should be noted that the mitsvot in question are all mitsvot mi-de-orayta (biblical commandments), but that the berakhah (blessing) that precedes their performance is itself mi-de-rabbanan (a rabbinical enactment).
2.. It is a rabbinical tradition that equated the name Ad-nai with the Shem ha-Meforash, theTetragrammaton, the topic of the commandment "not to take the Name of the Eternal your G-d in vain". The name Ad-nai does not do this, but as an added precaution, the rabbis taught that it should be treated as such.
3. Consequently, lest there occur a berakhah le-vatalah mi-de-rabbanan, when a proselyte or Noahide does make the personal, ethical decision to observe any of the mitsvot in question, he/she should adhere to the mitsvot mi-de-rabbanan and not make a blessing on it at all. They should simply do it, and perhaps assign to its performance a personal symbolism, such as:
3.1.When laying tephillin, one might say to oneself "I hereby take upon myself this voluntary act of binding tephillin and in so doing, I bind myself to the destiny and well-being of the Jewish people";
3.2. When affixing a mezuzah, one might say to oneself," I hereby affix this mezuzah as an outward sign of commitment to the value system of the Jewish people and in so doing, I commit myself to the practice of the Torah value system within this dwelling, as I do in daily life". A Jew should not recite the blessing for the proselyte or Noahide unless he actually lives in the dwelling himself;
3.3. When putting on the talit katan (fringes), he might say, "May these tsitsit serve to guide me in the ethical decisions to be made in my daily life." Note: As we know, the mitsvah binding upon Jews is to wear the tsitsit whenever donning a four-cornered garment, but there is no commandment to don a four-cornered garment. Thus, a four-cornered Mexican poncho requires the tsitsit to be attached. If a proselyte wishes to wear any four-cornered garment and attach the tsitsit, he should keep in mind that this is a personal ethical decision, and should not serve to deceive others into the wrong impression that the individual is an Orthodox Jew.
4. 2. The rabbinical blessings that end ...ASHER KIDDESHANU BE-MITSVOTAV VE-TSIVANU... ("who has sanctified with His commandments and has commanded us to...") relate to the Jewish people and to the contract with ha-Shem. The proselyte or Noahide is not (yet) a party to this national contract, but does establish an individual contract between that individual and G-d, as Isaiah makes clear.
"Let not the foreigner say, who has attached himself to the L-rd, 'The L-rd will keep me apart from His people';...
"As for the foreigners who attach themselves to the L-rd, to minister to Him, and to love the name of the L-rd to be His servants-- ALL WHO KEEP THE SABBATH and do not profane it, and who hold fast to My covenant-- I will bring them to My sacred mount and let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be welcome on My altar; for My House shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples." Thus declares the L-rd G-d, Who gathers the dispersed of Israel: "I will gather still more to those already gathered."