Me’ore or (Luminescence of Light)

Since the theme of the Noachide commandments has arisen for consideration, I shall mention here what I presented before the assembly of rabbis in the great city [Paris] in the year 5567 [1807], and it was very pleasing to them, since, in the majority of instances of the words of the Sages in the Talmud, they employ the expression akum to refer to those nations in ancient times who denied the existence of a Creator, or, in certain cases, where they did believe in a Creator, but denied Divine Providence; there was in addition a sect of Boethusians and Sadducees who denied the validity of the Oral Torah, which is fundamental, as the Sages of blessed memory have expounded, citing the Pentateuchal verse: “Through the mouthing of these words have I made a covenant with you” and this is equivalent to that which we have learnt in a Mishnah: “Moses received the Torah on Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders,” etc. Surely, was not the whole of the Pentateuch written down and delivered over to the entire nation? Hence the statement must be referring to the Oral Torah. It is, moreover, stated in the Pentateuch: “If any matter be too hard for you, between plea and plea, or between blood and blood,” then you must go up and consult the supreme ecclesiastical court—and liability is imposed in that very same passage upon a rebellious elder for not listening to the priest. Also, in the Pentateuchal weekly portion [Ve-zot] ha-berakhah: “They shall teach Your judgments unto Jacob and Your Torah unto Israel”—this must necessarily refer to the Oral Torah. Further, we have the exposition, in the first chapter of tractate Berakhot: “which I have written to instruct them” whereon the Sages observe: “This refers to Gemara. It teaches us that they were all given at Sinai.” But how do we know that the verse is to be expounded in such a manner? It is, quite simply, that the expression “to instruct them” is superfluous, because it is obvious that the Torah was not written in order to be placed obscurely in a corner; furthermore, if it were the case, it would mean that instruction and teaching is to be given in respect of what has been written down, which is already manifestly clear to every young child—hence we must conclude that the reference is to the Oral Torah; and seemingly superfluous phrases or expressions are given a special interpretation throughout the rest of scripture. I have explained this above, in the latest, amended edition of my glosses to tractate Megillah 17, and each matter likewise in its appropriate place; I have also discussed Noah taking into the ark those animals that were ritually pure, and Judah performing levirate marriage, and the textual rendition of one sage, in tractate Zevaḥim 115: “Of those animals that were subsequently going to be declared ritually pure”—because the righteous men of ancient times voluntarily observed every one of the Divine precepts ordained later, at Sinai, as they were acquainted with the steps needed to be taken to perfect the worlds—for all this is symbolized by the 248 limbs [contained in the human body]—symbolizing the perfection of the 248 positive commandments, and the 365 sinews symbolizing the perfection of the 365 negative commandments; and they knew the specific details of them all—what each limb and each sinew represented, as these spiritual pathways were clear to them to the same degree as they were well-versed in the hermeneutical principles of general propositions and specific particulars.

It is written in the Pentateuch: “You shall not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand or to the left”—and the meaning of “left” here is: “even if what the Sages tell you appears to you to be ‘left’” [i.e., incorrect or unnatural]; or, alternatively, it is possible that the underlying objective of the positive commandments is “doing good,” which is symbolized by the “right hand,” whereas the underlying objective of the negative commandments is symbolized by the “left hand”—namely, separating oneself from evil. Moreover, the preacher in Ecclesiastes has declared: “That which is written is upright, words of truth”—thereby alluding to the Written Torah; and “The words of the wise are like goads,” he is alluding to the Oral Torah, comparable to a goad that guides us in plowing—how to understand the interpretation of scripture in the manner traditionally accepted by the Sages; and when he continues: “and like nails well-fastened are the words of the masters of assemblies”— these refer to the boundaries and fences that were erected by the wise men of the former generations at the assemblies of mutual friends. These too are included within the scope of the Pentateuchal exhortation: “You shall not turn aside,” since it is written: “And you shall keep My charge”—whereby we are exhorted not to go so far as to erect “a fence as a protection for the fence”; and this is further explained there, in the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. The meaning of the preacher’s admonition: “As regards more than these, be warned!” is: “More than what? More than what one has been commanded”—this can only refer to the Oral Torah, which may be compared to waters that have no end, insofar as its profundity of wisdom and analytical dialectics are concerned—“its breasts will nourish you at all times”— and, as Ecclesiastes has already observed: “it involves much study and is a weariness of the flesh.” But the study of the Written Torah is not such a wearisome exercise, and this is likewise the case with the Targum [Onkelos]—and accordingly, the preacher in Ecclesiastes employed the phrase: “of making many books there is no end,” as there is indeed no end to the wisdom embedded within the Oral Torah and to the expositions of the inner meanings of the Torah. However, in the “siege” and the dire straits of the Exile, the Sages were compelled to make a portion of the text of the Talmud into a system of analytical dialectics in order that the operative precepts might become familiar; and while they revealed a handbreadth, they concealed two handbreadths of the words of the Sages and their enigmatic statements within the Talmud’s homiletical sections, incorporating profound wisdom, and several of them concerning prohibited matters and forbidden sexual relationships. From a strictly legal perspective, it is prohibited to write down any part of the traditional lore, since as the Pentateuch itself states: “For it is exclusively through the mouthing of these words” that God has made a covenant with Israel; but it became permissible to do so by virtue of the Sages’ realization that “it is now high time to labor for the Almighty!”

But now that the gentiles are most scrupulous concerning such matters, they are to be treated as favorably as Israel, as Rabbenu Nissim [Ran] has written in his glosses to Avodah Zarah, ad loc., that the contemporary gentiles sit in judgment upon the perpetrators of these abominations, and deal stringently with them, and accordingly, as for those individuals who have not been stringent about refraining from murder, theft, and adultery, their punishment is that we are to make no effort to save their lives, measure for measure. One view is that it is also permissible to take such a person’s material possessions for oneself, while the opposing view holds that since we are not permitted to take positive steps to destroy him, so too are we forbidden to take his material possessions. However, as for the gentiles among whom we live, all the authorities admit that we are duty-bound to save their lives, and their material possessions are prohibited to us, just like those of a Jew.

In any event, it is demonstrable that a gentile falls within the scope of the expression “your fellow man” just as a Jew does; for if he is to be considered a wicked man, is not an offering made by the wicked an abomination? Furthermore, [it is stated] in chapter four of (tractate) Bava Kamma: “The expression ‘your fellow man’ is utilized by the Torah so as to exclude that which has been designated for sacred purposes.” In the preface to the first section, I have noted that the meaning of the word nokhri [lit., an alien], where it appears without qualification, is an individual who totally denies the existence of the Almighty; the identical conclusion is implicit from the beginning of chapter five of Bava Metzi‘a, where the Gemara asks: “We do not need to have separate prohibitions, against robbery and against the taking of interest, since charging interest is rob-bery”—but this is amazing, for it is accepted law by us that it is forbidden to rob a gentile, while to charge him interest is permitted, for, as scripture states: “In respect of an alien you may charge interest”! Accordingly, concludes the Gemara, the permission to charge interest must apply only to a gentile who actually denies the existence of the Almighty; and also, the taking of interest from a believing gentile is permissible only to the extent that it is permissible under the law of the land, and it is also permissible to take interest from a Jew through the device of the special permission accorded to business partnerships, where duly documented in a deed indicative of the existence of a business venture as between the lender and the borrower. We ought to add a supplement to this by reference to that which is stated in scripture: “I advise you: keep the king’s command, and that in regard to an oath made to God!”—which means, we should observe the royal command not to take interest from the gentiles at a rate higher than is allowed by order of the local earthly ruler, and as for the practice to be adopted vis-à-vis another Jew, we should observe the oath which we swore at Mt. Sinai concerning interest—namely, that we are not to charge interest at all.