SEVEN MITSVOT OF BENE NOAH (#7): Judges and Courts of Law

The Seventh Law of Bene Noah is a positive commandment: to appoint judges and officers of the law.
This is the language of Maimonides on this matter.
How should the descendants of Noah fulfill the mandate to establish courts of justice? They are obliged to appoint judges and magistrates in each major city, to judge according to the aforementioned six laws and to warn people about their compliance. If a Ben Noah breaks one of these laws he is sentenced with capital punishment … And this is the reason why the inhabitants of Shekhem deserved death penalty … because when Hamor kidnapped [Dina the daughter of Ya’aqob ] the inhabitants of the city witnessed this and knew what Hamor had done, but they did not judge him [and thus, they became accomplices of this crime]… Ben Noah can be found guilty based on the testimony of a single witness. And the verdict [even if it is the capital sentence can be issued] by a single judge. There is no requirement for prior warning in order to be found guilty …
Maimonides, Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14
There are some important differences between the Mosaic Law and the Noahic Law in this field In the Noahic law, theft, for example, carries the maximum penalty. In the Mosaic Law, capital punishment for theft is reserved for extreme cases such as kidnapping or human trafficking. In Mosaic law, two witnesses are needed to sentence the guilty party. The witnesses cannot be relatives, etc.
As the reader can see Noahic law is stricter. The fact that a person accused of a crime could be executed by the testimony of a single witness or a relative is a good example of the harsher nature of this law.
All of these stringencies in Noahic law are consistent with the idea that we have expressed previously. That the great numerical difference of laws (Mosaic 613 vs. Noahic 7) is somehow compensated with an aggravated punishment for each one of them, i.e., capital punishment.
Let’s see some examples of the details of the law that requires the establishment of legal courts.
In Noahic law, the judge must treat the litigants with equality and objectivity.
The judge must diligently investigate the testimony of the witnesses.
The judge cannot accept a bribe or a gift from a litigant.
The judge cannot show gestures of honor towards one of the litigants.
The judge cannot act or judge for fear of the threat of one of the litigants.
The judge also cannot unfairly judge one of the litigants with favoritism, even out of pity or compassion.
The judge cannot discriminate against a litigant because in the past he was a sinner, etc.
The judge cannot hear a litigant in the absence of the other.
The judge cannot sentence an individual based on circumstantial evidence.
The court cannot assign a judge who lacks the knowledge of the law.
The court has to punish the individual who takes the law into his or her own hands.
All these laws are identical in Jewish law except in the type of sentence that applies to the criminal or sinner.


7 LAWS OF NOAH (#6): Do not eat meat…while the animal is still alive

תניא ר‘ אומר עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר
The Creator told the first man that his diet should consist of plants, seeds and fruits. I quote the words of Ribbi Menashe ben Israel (1604-1657) on this topic. Two Talmudic Sages, Rabbi Yohanan and Rab, agreed that at the beginning … “Adam was not allowed to take animals as food […] God blessed Adam and made him supreme over all the animals, but although he had dominion over them, he was not their absolute master [allowed to take the life of animals] … God had already designated the food through which every living being should be kept: as He told them ‘I have given you every herb that gives seed … and every tree that has fruit that gives seed; for you it will be for food’ ». (Genesis 1:29)
Ten generations after Adam, however, God granted Noah the right to eat animal flesh:
Genesis 9: 2 … the birds, the wild beasts, the animals that crawl on the ground, and the fish of the sea. All will be under your domain. 9:3 Everything that moves and has life in it will be, like the plants, that I gave them to you as food.
Why this change?
There are several opinions on this matter, which deserve to be analyzed one by one and in depth. But our subject is “The Seven Laws of the Descendants of Noah,” so I’m only going to mention a couple of opinions without exploring them.
1. When Noah leaves the ark, the first thing he does is offering a sacrifice to God, as a sign of gratitude. This was an animal sacrifice, and it consisted of roasted meat, whose smoke/smell rose towards the sky. Some biblical scholars indicated. with my own words, that Noah was projecting what he himself wished to be granted. In other words, an offering, a gift, usually represents something that the person who offers it, appreciates, values and subliminally, wants it. The fact that Noah offered roasted meat to the Creator manifests his subconscious desire to consume animal flesh.
2. The license to eat animal flesh might have a positive effect in terms of suppressing the desire to shed human blood and murder. Which, as we saw in Genesis chapter 6, was the cause of the destruction of human society and what brought the flood.
Returning to the Seven Laws of Noah, although Noah was allowed to eat meat of any kind of animal, God established one limitation:
Genesis 9: 4:
[You can eat animal flesh] … however, you shall not eat the animal’s flesh, while the animal is alive.
This is known as eber min hahai, that is, when an animal is mutilated and its flesh eaten, while the animal is still alive. This is a common phenomenon in the animal world, where many animals suffer a slow and unimaginable painful death while being eaten alive by their predators. The minimum required of human beings is to avoid this type of suffering to animals.
As we can see, the Noahic laws of meat consumption are significantly less strict than the Mosaic laws of Cashrut.
A brief comparison:
1.There are more than 1,000,000 animal species in the world. Animals, birds and fish allowed by the Mosaic law, I estimate, should not exceed a few hundred species. For Noahic Law, all animals are allowed.
2. Mosaic Law requires that animals and birds be slaughtered in a special way called in Hebrew shehita (yugulation). This method minimizes the suffering of the animal at the time of death. In the Noahic law the way to sacrifice animals is not regulated.
3. Mosaic law prohibits the consumption of the blood of birds and animals. Noahic Law, according to most opinions, does not prohibit it.
4. Mosaic Law has a much more extensive regulation to minimize animal suffering in general, a biblical prohibition to cause any unnecessary suffering to any animal (tsa’ar ba’alé hayim), even, or especially, outside the act of consumption.
5. Finally, and although it is not a formal prohibition, the Gemara (Pesahim 49b) indicates that a Jewish person who does not have the minimum basic instruction (‘am haarets) has no right to consume meat.


SEVEN LAWS OF BENE NOAH (#5): Theft vs. Labor

מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל
Theft, in all its forms, is condemned in the Noahic law. As is customary, Rabbi Benamozegh begins his exposition of this law mentioning its source. The sources of the Noahic laws, which are universal, are obviously pre-Mosaic, and in the opinion of many classical Tora commentators, these were the laws that regulated the lives of our ancestors Abraham, Itsjak and Yaaqob, that is, before the giving of the Tora.
Let’s take a look at the sources in Genesis that produced, directly or indirectly, the idea of ​​possession, acquisition, private property and theft.
First, for the Tora work, labor, is associated with acquisition (qiniyán). It is when you “work”, modify an object, or when you work and care for the land that you take possession of it. This foundational Biblical idea was transmitted to the first man, as the Tora says (Genesis 2:15): “HaShem, God, took man and put him in the garden of Eden to work and take care of it.” Labor gave man the right of possession of the land in which God established him (this land did not belong to any other man!). Theft is a crime that also undermines this idea: that “acquisition” is the result of labor, effort and work and not of an act of violence.
Secondly, when God establishes Adam in paradise, he says: (Genesis 2:16) “You may eat [the fruits] of all the trees in this garden, but you will not be allowed to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of right and wrong”. The rabbis indicated that the first part of this verse teaches the prohibition of theft, since God had to explicitly authorize man to eat the fruits of the trees. In other words, benefiting from a “natural” element is not an innate right of man. The first human being was instructed to know that all what is created belongs naturally to the Creator. He could not take it, use it or enjoy any element of Creation if he does not have God’s permission to do it.
In the treatise of Berachot the Talmud refers to a very similar concept when it speaks of the blessings we say before eating. In principle, the Sages explain, we must understand that everything belongs to God, because He is the Creator. When we say a blessing before eating we are not thanking God (“we thank Him” when we pronounce the blessing after eating), rather, we are recognizing and declaring Him as Creator, and in this way we are grabted a Divine permission to benefit from Creation. Therefore, if a person does not say a blessing before eating, it is as if he had stolen from God (מעילה).
The prohibition to steal includes all types of theft. Active, as assault or robbery, or passive as refusing to pay the employee his or her salary. The employee must also respect the time he works for the employer and his private property: a worker who collects fruit, for example, can not eat from his employer’s fruits without his explicit permission. Kidnapping, slavery and any type of human trafficking is also included in this prohibition.
As in other laws, for the Noahic law theft is more serious than for the Mosaic law, because theft was more common in the pagan world, and it needed to be eradicated. This is particularly reflected in the punishment applied to this transgression: capital punishment. Rabbi Benamozegh quotes the famous Montesquieu (1689-1755) who said: “When private property rights are not respected, there may be reasons to apply the maximum penalty.” This reminds us once again that to build and educate a society where private property is meticulously respected.


SEVEN LAWS OF BENE NOAH (#4): Marriage, Polygamy, Incest, etc.

We are exploring the Seven Mitsvot of the Sons of Noah, that is, the 7 Divine commandments that according to Judaism should be followed by non-Jews when living in Israel, and ideally, throughout the non-Jewish society.
Previously, we explained the prohibition of idolatry, blasphemy and murder. Today we will see the laws of marriage for the gentile society .
The first thing Rabbi Benamozegh explains is the source (the pasuq or biblical verse) from which the laws of marriage for the Noahic society are derived.
על כן יעזוב איש את אביו ואת אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד
Genesis 2:24 Therefore, a man will leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and become one flesh.
Rabbi Benamozegh mentions the Gemara that explains the possessive “his” (in “his wife”) and quotes the Sages: the man “will be united to his wife, and not to the neighbor’s wife”. The first universal principle in marriage, then, is the exclusivity of marriage, and the prohibition of adultery. The physical / sexual union that makes man and woman “one flesh” is forbidden when it comes to someone else’s wife.
Rabbi Benamozegh also mentions that since adultery is prohibited, and must be sentenced by the courts that penalize the violation of the Noahic laws, it follows that marriage cannot be a private act , based solely on consensus, but must have a public nature. Only in this way —when the union is formal, official and public— adultery could be identified and sentenced.
Rabbi Benamozegh also explains that the laws that regulate the sanctity (that is, exclusivity) of marriage, override any other legal consideration, for example, the “possession” of slaves. In the the relatively recent past, slaves were considered the “property” of their master. And masters could use their slaves as they wished. In that culture and society, marriage between slaves was irrelevant, since the slave remained the property of the employer. According to the Noahic law, marriage, even among slaves, should be respected. And if the master abuses a married female slave, he was guilty of adultery and should be sentenced to death. Rabbi Benamozegh points out that this law was absolutely revolutionary for its time, and it demonstrates once again the greatness of the Tora, which considers that matrimonial rights are sacred and inalienable, without distinction of social level.
The other topics related to marriage are polygamy, incest and unnatural relationships (sexual relationships which in their gender cannot result in procreation).
Polygamy, although permitted under exceptional circumstances –mainly in cases associated with fertility–is not the ideal of Noahic or Mosaic (=Jewish) marriage.
The Noahic laws of incest are less extensive than the Mosaic laws —daughter, sister, mother, mother-in-law— but they were absolutely necessary for many societies of antiquity. Rabbi Benamozegh mentions for example the Tartars who tolerated the marriage of fathers with their daughters, or the Inca monarchs, who only married their sisters.
The Noahic law bans bestiality, very common in ancient societies.
In the Noahic law homosexuality is also forbidden, and contradicts the essence of biblical marriage, as the verse in Genesis 2:24 says: a man will…cling to his wife, and become one flesh. Rabbi Benamozegh quotes Michelet (French philosopher, 1798-1894): “The essence of marriage –and no society in the future will be able to find a truer formulation than this– is this: an individual comes to the fullness of his individuality only when he triples, that is, when he becomes a unit of: man, woman, child “.


SEVEN MITSVOT OF BENE NOAH (#3): Abortion and Homicide?

שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אלֹקים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם.
We explained previously the third of the Seven Noahic Precepts: homicide. We said that the categorization of murder is stricter for the Noahic law than for the Mosaic law. For the Noahic law, for example, instigation to homicide, commission of homicide, homicide by abandonment, etc., all qualify as homicide. Today we will see that, unlike the Mosaic law, for the Noahic law, abortion is also considered homicide.
First we must understand what is the source of this consideration, which is not arbitrary but textual.
שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אלֹקים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם
God said to Noah: “Whoever sheds the blood of man within a man, his blood shall be shed; because in the image of God, man was made. (Genesis 9: 5) “
As the reader will appreciate, we translate the Hebrew word ba-adam, not as “by another man,” as we did before, alluding to “agency”, but “within a man.” Both translations are faithful to the literal meaning of this phrase (preposition + noun), and both interpretations are applied by the Jewish tradition to define “homicide” in the Noahic law. The phrase a man within a man (“man” not as “male” but in the broad sense of a human being) can refer exclusively to the fetus in the mother’s womb. In the Noahic law, therefore, abortion is condemned with capital punishment.
Abortion is also prohibited in Jewish law, but it is not classified as homicide. Let’s explain this a little better. The classic case of abortion discussed in the Talmud deals with a situation in which the life of the mother, who is about to give birth, is in danger. And the only way to save the mother’s life is by sacrificing the unborn baby. In this case, the rabbinic sources (Mishna Aholot, 7: 6) unambiguously state that the fetus must be sacrificed in order to save the life of the mother. The Mishna implies that in this situation the unborn baby is considered, from a legal point of view “a potential (obviously involuntary) murderer” with respect to his mother. Therefore the principle of the right of “self-defense” is applied here (habba lehorgeja hashkem lehorgo,Sanhedrin 72a).
But the sages of the Talmud also wondered what happens if the baby is already in the process of his or her birth. For example, if the baby has already his head out, and at that time the doctors state that the mother’s life is in danger, do we still apply the same criteria of self-defense, and we sacrifice the life of the baby to save the life of the mother? The Sages understood that this is a different situation, because although the baby continues to threaten the life of the mother, now mother and baby are in an equal status in terms of their rights. Once the baby is born, or even when his head or most of her body is already out, his life cannot be sacrificed and doctors must do everything possible to save both lives.
From here it is clearly seen that before being born, the legal rights of the baby are “less” than those of the mother, since the unborn baby is not yet classified as a legal “person”. And therefore, although non-therapeutic abortion is prohibited, it is not classified as homicide. This is not a philosophical question (when does life begin, etc …) but legal: at what point the baby is considered to be a person, with absolutely full rights, including the right of self-defense.
For Jewish law, therefore, the prohibition of abortion is framed within the category of personal injury or mutilation (חבלה), not murder (רצח, although there are some contemporary rabbis who disagree on this point). Because before being born the individual is considered yerekh imo, that is, a dependent limb of the mother, without legal rights of his own.
However (and I am aware that what I am writing now will seem a bit confusing) according to the Jewish tradition, abortion IS considered homicide for a non-Jew, that is, for the Noahic Law (curiously, but for different reasons,Jewish tradition coincides at this point with the ecclesiastical opinion, which considers abortion as homicide for its followers).
The million-dollar question is: Why does Jewish law determine that for the Gentile society, abortion is considered homicide, while for the Mosaic (Jewish) law , abortion is considered as bodily harm or mutilation?
In this and other similar cases in which the law for Gentiles is stricter than Mosaic law, Rabbi Benamozegh suggests that we need to see the socio-cultural context of these laws. Abortion was very common and accepted in the non Jewish society of antiquity. Rabbi Benamozegh q quotes as examples the testimonies of Aristotle and Juvenal, which described the licentiousness with which Greek and Roman societies tolerated abortion (and infanticide). In Jewish society, however, abortion was virtually non-existent.
In this way, by maximizing abortion’s punishment—with capital punishment by viewing it as homicide—the strictest Noahic law aims to extirpate this terrible practice of the Gentile society and create a new consciousness and revaluation of the sanctity of a human life.


SEVEN MITSVOT OF BENE NOAH (#3): What Constitutes Homicide?

שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם בָּאָדָם דָּמוֹ יִשָּׁפֵךְ כִּי בְּצֶלֶם אלֹקים עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם.
In this series, we are exploring the Seven Mitsvot that correspond to the descendants of Noah. The Seven Noahide precepts are not the same as the 613 Mosaic precepts (= the Tora). They are the societal and individual laws the Tora prescribes for non-Jews.
It is not only that the Tora contains many more precepts applicable to Jews than to Noah’s descendants. Rather, the elements of each of the Seven Noahide precepts are different from the 613 Mitsvot in their definition and mostly in their application. The third Noahide precept is the prohibition of “homicide”. This is perhaps where the differences with the Mosaic commandments are most clearly seen.
For the Mosaic law, the prohibition of homicide is conveyed in the Sixth of the Ten Commandments, “YOU SHALL NOT MURDER” (Exodus 20:13 ) , while the similar Noahide precept has its own source: a verse in Genesis 9:6 that describes what God commanded to Noah: “One who sheds the blood of man, by a man, his own blood shall be shed; as in the image of God, man was made.”
At first glance, this verse is saying the same as “YOU SHALL NOT MURDER”, in two respects: that a murderer deserves the capital punishment and that man, unlike animals, was created in the image of God.
The Sages of the Talmud, however, focused on a very important element that appears in the verse told to Noah, and not in the Ten Commandments. The Hebrew word of “באדם”, which I translated “by a man”, could also be translated “within a man”. The Sages decided, then, that Noahide homicide also includes two novel applications: indirect homicide, and abortion.
Let’s start with the first.
HOMICIDE BY PROXY
In Jewish law, the agent in a crime cannot use as a defense the argument that a third person told him to do so (אין שליח לדבר עבירה), since the agent is himself subject to the Law, and should have opted to obey the word of God, the ultimate Law Giver, rather than the word of any other person. The agent in a murder is considered guilty of the crime committed, and deserves capital punishment. Capital punishment, however, is not applied to the “principal” who directed the agent to commit the crime. (There are a few exceptions. For example, if the agent is a minor or a person with a mental deficiency, etc.)
Now, in Noahide law, directing someone to commit homicide also qualifies as homicide. The principal who asked the agent to commit the murder is himself guilty of “homicide” and deserves the maximum penalty. The Sages interpreted the above verse as saying: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, even by another man, his blood shall be shed.…”
OTHER CASES OF INDIRECT HOMICIDE
Under Noahide Law, indirect homicide also includes homicide by omission or abandonment. For example, when a person is abandoned and left to die of hunger (Rabbi Benamozegh also mentions within this category a case similar to passive euthanasia, but I have decided not to address this delicate theme here) or to expose an individual to wild animals.
Noahide law also includes a more complex case of indirect homicide: an individual who, in self-defense when attacked, uses lethal force when he could have used non-lethal force. This case is also considered by Noahide law as homicide and carries the maximum penalty (all these cases can be found in Maimonides, MT, Melakhim, 9: 4).
Another important difference is that in the case for Noahide law, ignorance of the law is not an absolving excuse, as is the case in Mosaic law (מזיד, התראה.) Rabbi Benamozegh suggests that the reason Noahide law is stricter than Jewish Law in the case of ignorance of the law is because it consists of only 7 precepts, compared to the 613 Jewish Mitsvot; and also because Noahide commandments are more readily understood intuitively (what some call Natural Law) than precepts we follow because they are the Law, first and foremost (what is called Positive Law). Therefore, the responsibility to know the law is greater, and ignorance cannot be an excuse.


Rabbi Benamozegh and Judaism for Non-Jews

I believe that one of Rabbi Benamozegh’s greatest contributions to modern Judaism was his approach toward conversion to Judaism. At that time, from the middle to the end of the 19th century, there were not many non-Jews interested in converting to Judaism. On the contrary, many European Jews sought baptism to be accepted into Christian society.
Being Jewish then did not carry any privilege. There was no State of Israel that would welcome and protect the Jews, as we have today. In Europe, being Jewish was also dangerous. Remember that between 1881 and 1905 there were more than 200 progroms in Kiev, Warsaw, Odessa, etc. and thousands of Jews were massacred.
However, there were always individual cases, people very well educated in their own faith, who understood that Judaism is the “original religion”, the first, only and last Covenant of God with a People.These few individuals were willing to take the unpopular and dangerous decision to convert to Moshe’s religion.
One of the most famous cases of this willingness to convert to Judaism was that of Aime Palliere. Born in Lyon, France in 1868, Aime Palliere grew up in a devout Catholic family and from an early age he showed a great inclination for religion. First it was for Catholicism and then for Protestantism. But his inquisitive studies and doubts about the doctrine of the trinity (1 God = 3 gods?) and a visit to the Synagogue of Lyon on Yom Kippur, inspired him to seek conversion to Judaism. And that’s how he decided to communicate, first by mail, with Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh.
Palliere eventually traveled to Livorno, Italy, met with the elderly Rab Benamozegh in person, and manifested his willingness to convert. Rabbi Benamozegh, faithful to the non-missionary tradition of Judaism, dissuaded Palliere from the idea of ​​conversion. And he explained that if a non-Jewish individual believes in the truth of the Tora, and his or her desire is to do the will of God, he should observe the seven Mitsvot of Bene Noah, that is, “Seven Universal Commandments” . Rabbi Benamozegh, who knew very well other religions’ doctrines, explained to the young Palliere in his own language that by following these laws a non-Jew obtains what is called in other confessions “salvation” (what in Hebrew is haye haolam haba, life in the world to come).
For Palliere the words of Rabbi Benamozegh made a lot of sense. Palliere, on the one hand, did not believe in the biblical religions that claim exist to “replace Judaism”, as if the original Judaism, that of the Five Books of Moshe, no longer existed! But on the other side, he was deeply attached to his mother and his relatives and friends. How could he separate from them all by converting to Judaism?
The words of Rabbi Benamozegh —that according to the law of Moses, when a non-Jewish person wishes to do the will of the God of Israel, he must adopt the “covenant”, the “covenant” of God with humanity – he had absolute sense, in philosophical and practical terms
Palliere had never heard of a religion that offered “salvation” to those who were not part of it. In other religions this alternative is NOT conceived. To attain “salvation” one must necessarily turn completely to that religion, and be a part of it. Palliere realized that only the Jewish faith possessed the self confidence and conviction in its own truth, to offer that alternative. Rabbi Benamozegh also told him that “the future of the human race lies in this formula [the Seven Noahide Laws]. If you come to be convinced of it, you will be much more precious to Israel than if you submit [convert] to the Tora of Israel. You will be the instrument of the Divine Providence to all mankind.”
The simple solution provided by Rabbi Benamozegh is extremely important. Especially in our times where so many non-Jewish people discover that despite all the enormous efforts that other religions have done for centuries to eliminate Judaism and the Jews, in order to JUSTIFY THEIR REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY, the original biblical covenant actually, It has never been replaced! And that they were our ancestors who paid with their lives (persecutions, progroms and holocausts) to maintain this truth.
Aime Palliere, thus, became a Ben Noah, a non-Jewish observant of humankind’s Jewish laws.
What are these seven laws of Noah? B’H next time.


Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh (1822-1900) and Conversion to Judaism

Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh was born in Livorno (Leghorn), Italy. The Jewish community of Livorno is one of the youngest in Italy. The first records of the arrival of Jews to that city date back to the late 16th century, when Ferdinand I de Medici (1549-1609), the Duke of Tuscany, granted the Jews of Livorno the right to freely exercise their religion, something that was uncommon at that time. The original Jewish population of Livorno was of Sefaradim who were expelled from Spain and lived in the Balkans, or of those converted to Christianity by force (anusim) that moved to Livorno from Spain or Portugal to openly practice their religion.
When Rabbi Benamozegh was born, Livorno had a Jewish population of between 7,000 and 10,000 members. There were synagogues, Jewish schools, charitable institutions, etc. and a very important Hebrew printing company founded in 1650.
The parents of Rabbi Benamozegh came from Fez, Morocco. His father Abraham, married Clara Coriat at 70 years old (sic.) And he died when Eliyahu was only 4 years old. Rabbi Eliyahu was educated in Tora by his uncle and received his semikha, rabbinic ordination at thew age of 18. He spoke and wrote Italian, French, Spanish, English and, of course, Hebrew.
Rabbi Benamozegh dedicated his life to teaching and defending the Tora.
An example.
In those times, around 1840, the ideas of the first Jewish reformists spread from Germany to all of Europe. The message was that traditional Judaism was out of fashion and represented a huge impediment to the integration (assimilation) of European Jews into modern Christian society. The call of the day was to modernize Judaism. How? Leaving only its universal message, and eliminating all its ritual (Mitsvot) such as circumcision, Shabbat, Kashrut,Tefillin, etc. As we know most of the leaders of the Reform Movement , or their children, ended up completely abandoning Judaism, and many, converting to Christianity.
Much of Ribbi Eliyahu Benamozegh’s work focuses on demonstrating the preeminence of Judaism, and that the is eternal. One of Rabbi Benamozegh’s most important books is called “Morale Juive et Morale Chrétienne …” (“Jewish morality and Christian morality, a comparative examination, followed by some reflections on the principles of Islam”). This book was published in Paris, 1867.
In this book Rabbi Benamozegh explains that although Christianity and Islam were based on Jewish ethics, they ended up deviating from it. Rabbi Benamozegh criticizes that these religions, which supposedly came to replace Judaism, fail to see (or decided to ignore) that original Judaism still exists. And on top of that, to justify the existence of their new religions, its leaders have dedicated themselves to fighting Jewish religion and persecuting, destroying or converting Jews to these new religions.
A short quote: “Christianity has always been a fragmented Hebraism, devoid of the elements that link it to practical aspect of life in this world … Muhammad formulated and designed the world to come [hell and paradise in Islam YB] as a reflection of what he saw in this world. He projected the pains, desires and whims of this world, its materialism and the pleasures of the flesh, into the muslim life after life. … Islam adopted from Judaism mainly its social and political side, while Christianity preferred to adopt its spiritual and metaphysical aspect [and put aside its practical and political aspect YB]”
In other words: while the reforming Jews of Germany struggled to prove that Judaism was outdated, and while they went out of their way to be accepted by the Gentile society, Rabbi Benamozegh proved that Judaism was the true religion. The first, last and only “covenant” that God made with a people, He made it with the people of Israel.
It should be noticed that in the past it was inconceivable that a Jew would dare to “defend” his religious ideas, let alone dare to suggest that other “biblical” religions were merely fragmentary imitations of the Tora.
Rabbi Eliyahu Benamozegh is one more example of those Forgotten Giants , Hakhamim Sepharadim who have contributed so much to modern Jewish thought, and have been completely ignored and forgotten …
I have not yet begun to write about Rabbi Benamozegh’s position on conversion to Judaism … I will leave this BH for tomorrow.


JERUSALEM: If I ever forget you, Yerushalayim! (586-516 BCE)

וְאַף-גַּם-זֹאת בִּהְיוֹתָם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיהֶם לֹא-מְאַסְתִּים וְלֹא-גְעַלְתִּים לְכַלֹּתָם – לְהָפֵר בְּרִיתִי אִתָּם כִּי אֲנִי ה’אֱלֹקיהֶם. .
Vayiqra, Leviticus, 26:44.

In 586 BCE, the Bet HaMiqdash and the city of Yerushalayim were destroyed, and the Jewish people were exiled to Babylon. Typically, judging by what happened to ALL the neighboring peoples of Israel who lived through the destruction of their kingdoms and exile, the end of Yerushalayim would have brought the end of Israel.

The historian Sebag Montefiore says that once defeated, peoples of antiquity abandoned their gods and adopted the gods of the victorious people. That was the most logical reaction to the most significant national tragedy. Why? Because the defeat of a people meant that their gods had been defeated by other gods who were more powerful than them. It was the right time to adopt and worship new gods and a new king. And, of course, once in exile, no people of antiquity would have conceived the ridiculous idea that one day they would return to their kingdom. They lost their lands, had no weapons, no gods, and no king. They must make a great effort to forget the past, adapt, and survive to the new reality.

But how come Jews did not forget their kingdom? After their defeat, where did we get the outrageous idea that they should continue to remember their land and their God?

The key is in the book of Vayiqra. There, at the end of chapter 26, the Tora speaks of the covenant ברית between God and the Jewish people. The Jewish people must fulfill their mission, following the divine laws and serving a single and invisible God. The Tora predicts that the Jewish people will not be left without enemies who want their land or who seek to destroy them. HaShem then offers the Jewish people a covenant: if the people follow His laws, they will have His blessing and protection. According to this agreement, one part of that protection is “conditional” and the other “unconditional”.

The unconditional clause is that HaShem guarantees that the Jewish people will never disappear and that regardless of what the people do or do not do, “the Pact” will never be canceled (or replaced, as Christians claim!)!

The conditional clause, on the other hand, is the permanence of the Jews in the land of Israel. If, despite the punishments and the warnings, the Jewish people abandon God, He will withdraw His protection; the enemy will prevail; the cities will be destroyed, and the people will be exiled. 26:14 “If you do not obey me and do not obey these commandments … 26:15 if you despise My laws and My precepts … in violation of My covenant … 26:31 your cities will become ruins and your sanctuaries will be desolate … 26:33 and I will scatter you among the nations [of the earth] …

The pagan gods considered themselves invincible and never contemplated their cities’ destruction or their followers’ exile. That is why the defeat of their people meant their gods were powerless. The Tora, however, announces explicitly that the permanence of the people of Israel in the land of Israel is conditional upon the observance of Israel’s law. And if the people would leave HaShem, they will be banished. The exile of the Jewish people, then, is NOT proof that HaShem lied to us when He promised us His protection or that the pact was repealed. ON THE CONTRARY! Exile was the best proof that the pact was real! The Babylonian exile was a punishment “contemplated in the covenant”. It was not HaShem who abandoned us; it was us who abandoned HaShem. Ironically, in the Babylonian exile, the Jewish people finally understood that what the Tora had warned 1000 years ago was true, and what was happening to them now had to happen, according to the covenant with HaShem!

Now, if the pact remained firm, we would also survive “as a people in exile” (another incredible anomaly!). 26:44 … and despite all this, when they [the Jewish people] are in the land of their enemies, I will not abandon or despise them, nor let them be destroyed, breaking My covenant … because I am HaShem their God …

In Babylon, our first exile, we learned the lesson. There, in exile, we did what we did not do when we lived in our land. In Babylon, we refused to forget our God, and we promised ourselves NOT to forget Yerushalayim, His Kingdom.
What the survivors of the destruction of Jerusalem felt and decided is recorded explicitly in Psalm 137 of Tehillim: “By the rivers of Babylon … we sat down to mourn and remember Zion (Yerushalayim) … and [although] we had hung our harps in the willows, our masters asked us to sing for them the famous songs of Zion … [and we refused], saying, how could we sing the songs of HaShem in a strange land? Yerushalayim! If I ever forgot about you, let my right hand paralyzed … let my tongue [dry], and get stuck to my palate, if I would not bring you to my memory in the moments of my greatest joy … “.

And this is how our return began.

 



10 of TEBET: Why was Jerusalem destroyed? (589-586 BCE)

Tomorrow we will observe the fast of the 10 of Tebet, that reminds us of the beginning of the siege of Yerushalayim (Jerusalem). This was the first step that led to the destruction of our Temple, the Bet haMiqdash.
For years, the prophet Yirmiyahu had warned the people about corruption, idolatry, desecration of Shabbat and the abandonment of the Tora. Yirmiyahu made the most serious warning. “If you do not repent,” he told them, “the Bet-haMiqdash will be destroyed.” When Yirmiyahu announced this in the Bet-haMiqdash, the Priests and religious leaders wanted to execute him for blasphemy. How dare a Jew imply that HaShem, Almighty God, would allow His House to be destroyed?
The Yehudim knew that the empire of Nebukhadnetsar, Babylon, was ravaging all the Jewish cities around Yerushalayim. But as Yirmiyahu said, instead of trusting in HaShem and renewing their covenant with Him, they put all their faith in a military treaty they had made with Egypt.
On the 10th of Tebet of 589AEC, Nebukhadnetsar started the siege of Yerushalayim. The situation was very serious because the lack of food, the first natural consequence of a siege, was aggravated by a tremendous drought. People ate dry grass, infested with worms, which caused plague and diseases. Only then, King Tsidqiyahu and the people woke up from their lethargy and decided to do something about it.
All the Jewish leaders met at the Bet haMiqdash and made a “covenant” with HaShem. They said: “We are going to free the Hebrew slaves, and you, please, free us from the captivity of Babylon.” The Hebrew slaves were poor individuals who had become indebted to the aristocracy of Yerushalayim because they could not pay their debts, because of the drought or the war, and now they or their children were paying their debts with slavery. According to the Tora, the seventh year, regardless of whether the debt was or was not paid, the slaves had to be freed. But the Yehudim were not fulfilling this Mitsva and kept the slaves permanently, as did all the other peoples. But now they repented and declared that their slaves are free to go, hoping that HaShem would free them from Nebukhadnetsar.
And the miracle happened!
This is what Yirmiyahu tells us in chapter 37, Pasuq 5: “Pharaoh’s army departed from Egypt [to Jerusalem], and when the Babylonians, who were besieging Jerusalem, heard the news about them, they ended the siege of Jerusalem [and went to fight against the Egyptians]. “
Yerushalayim was celebrating the great miracle! HaShem’s sentence had been canceled! Yirmiyahu’s pessimistic prophecies had not been fulfilled. Yerushalayim was free and saved!
What happened next is hard to believe (or perhaps not!).
I will begin by giving my own interpretation of the facts. This is what I believe the Yehudim thought: “We were saved. True! But who saved us from the Babylonians? HaShem? NO! It was our allies, the Egyptians, who saved us. “  And this lack of gratitude to God, this huge mistake of attribution, made them forget HaShem and the covenant they had made with Him.
What did the Jews do? When the Babylonians left Jerusalem, all the slave-owners went after their salves and took them back by force, betraying the covenant they had made a few days ago to HaShem. This events are narrated in chapter 34 of Yirmiyahu, where this episode is presented as the straw that broke the camel’s back…
15 Recently,  you repented and did the right thing in My sight: each of you proclaimed freedom to your enslaved brothers. You even made a covenant before Me in the house that bears My name [the Bet haMiqdash]. 16 But now you have repented [from your repentance] and you have profaned My Name: each one of you has recaptured the … men and women he had liberated … and forced them to become their slaves again. 17 Therefore, this is what HaShem says: You have betrayed me; you have not granted freedom to your brothers [as you promised]. And now the sword, the plagues and the famine will be free [to pursue you and reach you] …
Soon, the Egyptians were defeated. And Nebukhadnetsar returned to besiege Yerushalayim for a year and. half. Famine, plagues and death seized Yerushalayim again. The destruction of the Bet haMiqdash was now inevitable.
This is what we will remember tomorrow in the fast of the 10th of Tebet.
Who is exempted from fasting
on the 10th of Tebet?
On the 10th of Tebet there are only two restrictions: eating and drinking. NO additional limitations apply, such as the prohibition of wearing leather shoes, working, driving, washing the body, etc.
*Most contemporary Rabbis (for example Rab O. Yosef z”l, or Rab E. Melamed) authorize to wash one’s mouth or brush one’s teeth in this fast day if needed, provided you are careful to lower your head, avoiding swallowing water unintentionally.
*Minors: boys under 13 and girls under 12 years old are completely exempted from fasting.
*Nursing women: According to the Sephardic tradition after giving birth women are exempted from fasting for 24 months, even if they are not actually nursing their baby. Rab Obadia Yosef says that this applies when the nursing mom feels weak. Otherwise, if she is not nursing her baby, she should fast.
*Pregnant women, especially after the first 3 months, are exempted from fasting.
*A person who feels sick–for example, flu or fever– or one who has a chronic disease–for example diabetes– should not fast.
*Elders should consult with their physicians if the fast will not affect their health. If it will, they are exempted (and in some cases, prohibited) from fasting.
What happened on the 8 of Tebet? What happened on the 9 of Tebet?