Talk:Seven Laws of Noah

"Lightest" punishment?

Why is it mentioned that decapitation is the lightest form of execution here? The other three are not elucidated and it sounds that the author is attempting to fluff up capital punishment and make this system somehow "nice". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.191.84 (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

the 29 enumerations

Looking back on the edit history the listed enumerations seem to be a continuing bone of contention, at the moment including the confusing proscription: "God saw the lawlessness, so He flooded the earth. (Genesis 6:11-13)." The current list is based on one I dredged up over a year ago from http://www.noachide.org.uk/html/30_noahide_laws.html that lists 30 according to Rabbi Shmuel ben Hofni. I think the current format makes it somewhat ambiguous whether the list is simply a catchall or exclusive to Shmuel ben Hofni (in which case there should probably actually be 30, as opposed to 29). Personally, Im not sure we should give preference to Shmuel ben Hofni, and think the article would be best served by doing away with the list all together, instead simply disusing notable features of Rabbinical interpretation (as is the case now anyway). If there is objection to deleting the list as an item please let me know what you think the list should, in fact, refer to so that a header of some type can be put up. Black Platypus (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Islam

I see there is already some existing argument about "Islam" as an "invented practise". Avoiding further discussion of רם-בם, I've just pointed out that Sharia law and the Noahide laws both endorse similar practises. If anyone feels this is badly phrased or incompletely, feel free to change it, but I'd really prefer if Islam remained referenced here. סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 09:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the sort section on Islam, tagged as unsourced for some time. It will need sources that specifically discuss the conection. Misarxist (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Homosexuality

How does: "24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." imply that male homosexuality is not permitted? And if that somehow implies that male homosexuality isn't permitted, doesn't that mean that female homosexuality isn't permitted? It seems people are applying Leviticus to genesis. 207.196.187.140 (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You have a point. I think the article's been changed since then, but I don't really read that part of the Old Testament/Torah as a prohibition of homosexuality, male or female, but it's obviously the traditional viewpoint. It merely says man and wife will become one flesh and not be ashamed. Where is the prohibition? I think it's been interpreted against male homosexuality because it specifically says "a man shall leave his father..." though.98.168.192.162 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The prohibition was introduced in this part, but was fully described to Moses on Sinai. It´s the same principle of idolatry and blasphemy, for instance, that was only fully described to the jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.11.36.39 (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So does the fully described prohibition only apply to Jews, or is it supposed to apply to those who received the abbreviated version via Noah? --99.96.100.176 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

While I don't agree that Gen. 2:24 is to be read as a prohibition of homosexual behaviour, the general answer to your question is "Yes", but it's even more complicated:

[...]the Rabbis laid down the following principle: "Every law that was enjoined upon the Noachidæ and was repeated at Sinai is meant to apply both to Israelites and to non-Israelites; laws that were enjoined upon the Noachidæ and were not repeated at Sinai apply to Israelites only" (Sanh. 59a; R. Jose ben Ḥanina; comp. Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." i. 430 and note) Quoted from: "Laws, Noachian" in: Jewish Encyclopedia, Section "Laws before Sinai" --Teiresia (T) 23:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Maimonides in the Laws of Kings is quite unequivocal that homosexuality is included in this prohibition. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I am headed for Gehenna, then. 70.177.94.136 (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The term sexual intercourse between males would have been more appropriate, because homosexuality does refer also to the tendency which alone doesn't form an offense and furthermore intercourses without this tendency remain well forbidden, it includes also female homosexuality which is not prohibited for non-jews nonwithstanding moral judgements on the matter.--Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Male sexual relations are clearly forbidden in the Torah and called an abomination. Lesbian relations and sex are not forbidden, on the other hand. Some random rabbi may think otherwise, but this is the accepted consensus amongst most rabbis, one of the reasons being that semen must not be spilled in vain. But Lesbians do not spill any semen, nor eggs when playing with each other. Lesbian relations are nevertheless disapproved of, since they do not create kids. But they are not forbidden. By the way: The whole way regular, heterosexual women act may be considered lesbian to some degree, from a male perspective - endless hugging, caressing, sleeping in one bed, going to the loo together, etc. While this may not have sexual implications for them, men wouldn't do it nevertheless, since they would feel extremely "gay" doing it. But for women it's just natural. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Alexy, you are mistaken. Only anal sex between males is called that. As far as your claim about lesbianism, you're grossly mistaken. There is an act forbidden between women. In Hebrew, it's called נשים המסוללות (nashim ha-mesollelot). According to most sources, it is forbidden from the Torah, as a subset of "the deeds of Egypt". - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You people need to stop applying Talmudic and even Jewish Torah interpretations to NOACHIDE Law! Take it word-for-word and leave to Bene Noach to interpret! Why does a Jewish rabbi's opinion matter to a Ben Noach?75.21.119.97 (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The only source for the Noachide laws is Talmudic/Rabbinic law. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia states that: "Only six cases of what would ordinarily be illicit connection are forbidden to the Noachid: (1) with mother; (2) with father's wife, even after the father's death; (3) with a married woman, whether married to a Jew or to a non-Jew; (4) with sister by the same mother; (5) pederasty; (6) bestiality." [1] - Homosexuality is not among them. (And of course Lisas statement above is correct.) --Teiresia (T) 23:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Jewish Encyclopedia replaced "homosexuality", which is in the Rambam's original, with "pederasty", for unclear reasons. I have added back "homosexuality" and included a reference to the source. I'll also add a more modern reference soon. I already saw it, just didn't have the chance to write down the precise reference. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

You cite Isurei Bi'ah 14:10 [2] and Melachim 9:5 [3] to corraborate your standpoint. The former is just a reference to the latter, so it is really just one source. - The Mishneh Torah however is a post-talmudic work and can thus not be considered as universally binding, and indeed the ashkenazim have instead relied on the Shulchan haAruch w/ the commentaries of the Rema, the teachings of the Rosh, and so on, instead, which dissented with the Rambam on many points.

While I can see how Melachim 9:5 would be considered binding by a follower of Chabad and probably by adherents of the sephardic tradition in general, I cannot accept it as binding for all jews, much less for all humanity.

While I am in no way a rabbi or a halachic authority of any kind, I personally find the Rambams interpretation Gen. 2:24 (על־כן יעזב־איש את־אביו ואת־אמו ודבק באשתו והיו לבשר אחד׃) as a prohibitive verse very far fetched, to say the least.

All other passages in the Tanach pertaining to homosexuality that I am aware of (namely Lev.18:22, Lev.20:13 and Deut. 23:17) are specifically directed at the children of Israel, and thus not binding for the noachide.

This is not the first time this particular discussion takes place between the editors of this article, it has been an issue of debate before in January of this year, in 2010, and in all likelihood many more times. Untill now the resolution was to ommit the point "homosexuality" completely, because it is controversial. - Other editors have put it in again, ignoring the previous discussions, because it seems very important to them to have their point of view reflected here. - It appears to me that this kind of behaviour will never stop, possibly resulting in an edit war, unless a resolution is found that includes both points of view.

I think that your point of view should not be omitted from the article since it is well founded within your particular tradition. —­ I think the wording should be changed in a way that reflects that this opinion is not beyond all question. - The best way to achieve this would probably be to change the wording of law 4 to "Do not engage in immoral sexual conduct.", and add a new paragraph somewehre, that defines this further, including the undisputed points and the opinion of the Rambam on noachide male homosexual behaviour, clearly identifying it as such.

What do you think? - Would that be acceptable to you? --Teiresia (T) 21:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I was going to revert on the grounds that that's one view and we need secondary sources to establish that it's a common view. However, the already cited jewishvirtuallibrary.org lists homosexual relationships. However, their source (sorry if this link doesn't work, but it's the entry "Noahide Laws" in the Encyclopedia Judaica) does not list homosexuality.

Looking through the JVL's website more, I suspect that if a Christian parallel to that site was cited in an article on Christian belief, I'd demand a better source, and only allow material from that site to be included where it is supported by other sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The reply to Teiresia and Ian.thomson is one and the same. The Rambam is not a "particular tradition" or "one view". In these laws, his view is basically the only authoritative one. Codifiers like the Tur and Shulchan Aruch have not codified these laws, and can not be expected therefore to express an opinion. By the way, let me just add that when looking over the sources, I noticed that there are other Jewish sages who say the same, but, as I said, none that are as authoritative as he.

I already said that I will add a contemporary source soon, and will make an effort to do this later today.

The question both of you ask, should rather be asked the other way around, namely, on what basis did jewishvirtuallibrary.org change from the clear ruling of the Rambam? Debresser (talk) 10:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Because JVL is a non-primary source, and Wikipedia favors non-primary sources. I'm not entirely satisfied with the other primary sources in the article either. Ideally, primary sources should be used to support non-primary sources, such as verifying quotes. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, which is why I will definitely bring that other source. Yesterday I didn't have a chance to go to the library, but today, I already made a note on my mobile to go there. :)

By the way, it is very common in Judaism-related articles to bring sources like the Rambam, and they are often considered secondary sources, since the (not physically existent) Halakha is the primary source, so to speak. Debresser (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hebrew and english versions

I find it very strang that the hebrew and english versions of this page give a differnet set of laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.111.13.200 (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you clarify which differences you find particularly important to address? JFW | T@lk 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

For starter the 1st law is no to not worship idols, but to worship BibleGawd. Therefor those who are let to live as slave-race are christians and such, not atheists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:5186:F600:D019:2F69:C66A:8462 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Prohibition to eat flesh from a living animal

Dietary Law: Do not eat flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive.

The Genesis text says only "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." This seems to means the same as Leviticus 7:26 "You are not to eat any blood", Deuteronomy 12:23 "Only be sure not to eat the blood", Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only you shall not eat the blood; you are to pour it out on the ground like water." etc., namely a prohibition to consume blood (cf. kosher methods of slaughter and meat preparation). http://bible.cc/genesis/9-4.htm.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I find that this interpretation is in fact found in the Talmud (Sanhedrin), and it is one of the least far-fetched interpretations of the Tanakh that I saw in it (check out the "proof" that Adam and Eve were given 6 commandments!). So I'm removing my objections, but in both of these cases I'm adding the Talmudic reference as a source and clarify that these are the Talmud's interpretations. Providing just the Biblical reference, as the previous editors had done, is very confusing, because no reader would see such content in these quotes, and it is, hmm, not uncontroversial that the content is inherently present in them.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to explain, the quotes aren't necessarily "proofs"; the Talmud will often bring a Biblical quote (called an asmachta) as a sort of way to connect to the Bible something whose source is actually a tradition. One cannot always tell.Mzk1 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

They're the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.188.76 (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Noahides = Gentiles

With superfiscial knowledge one can think Noahides refer to all humans, but that is simply a mistake. It only refers to the gentiles, who have to keep the 7 Noahide laws, but not on Israelites, who have the (Oral and Written) Torah as law. For reference check Sanhedrin Chapter 7. The Soncino edition (= Talmud Bavli) can be found here for example: http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.27.75 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The Jewish law incorporates the 7 Noahide Laws. You are correct that the term "Noahides" does not usually include the Jewish people. Is that a problem? By the way, Come and Hear is hosted by a bunch of rabid anti-Semites, so be careful. JFW | T@lk 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reservations against www.come-and-hear.com are well understood, but it is correct: Noachides are non-Jews who have decided to keep the seven laws. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Warshy I see you've promptly rolled back my change to the lede (from "that is, all of humanity" to "gentiles"). It was made in good faith, as it seems both from the text in the given reference and from this discussion (in which both parties seem to agree on the point) that Noachides are non-Jews. If the laws apply also to Jews because they're incorporated in the Torah I think it should be expressed in a different, more precise way. By the way, the lede of the Hebrew version of this same page states that "The Seven commandments of Noah are commandments that according to the Sages tradition, the Gentiles were commanded, as opposed to the commandments commanded by the Israelites." Udippuy (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

This editor seems to have a point. I would also be interested in an explanation. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not go into the main page of this article and I did not revert the edit by User talk:Udippuy. I have no idea how Wikipedia reverted this edit and then attributed the act to my User ID. I am a little concerned that my ID may have become compromised, and I am checking on it and making sure other actions I did not take get attributed to me. Something like this never happened to me on Wikipedia before. If the mashgiah hayahadut haklali on Wikipedia from the Chabad sect of Judaism thinks the edit is warranted, then apparently it must be. And he can also reinstate it, if he so wishes. I myself have not yet formed an opinion on the issue, and so again, I could not have changed it. Second of all, this discussion should have been added as a new section at the bottom of the page, not on a random section that had last been updated in 2010. But let this also be. Be well, both of you. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I completely agree with your last point, and had that thought myself. Did I detect a certain amount of sarcasm in the second point of your post? Alas. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarcasm? If you read what I wrote and apparently understood it (since you are not asking me any question about it), I would not say sarcasm. I mean what I wrote and I am willing to follow your lead on this particular edit/issue. Thank you. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I just recently added this issue (of Noachide laws) and the pages related to it to my watchlist, and while skimming them a little before adding them I first became aware that this is one of the issues that was taken on by the late Lubavitcher rebbe while he was still alive. I was a little surprised, since as a student of Jewish history my impression of him was never as of him being close to a strong intellectual force in Judaism. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I though that calling me the mashgiah hayahadut haklali was a bit of sarcasm.

By the way, according to my understanding and the understanding of the expert I asked, Chabad does not fit the definition of a sect. Our Wikipedia article calls it "an Orthodox Jewish Hasidic movement".

What would you call a "strong intellectual force in Judaism"? Debresser (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a fitting title, and it describes pretty well what I see you doing around here. There are all sorts of experts and all sorts of definitions. According to some of these it certainly has many characteristics of a separate sect. A sect that separates itself from the community at large, and that has its own set of particular beliefs. I was always more impressed by the intellectual cogency of Isaac ben Abraham of Troki's thinking than that of Menahem Schneerson. Looking at old videos of his live appearances, he always struck me as rather weak and incoherent intellectually. Be well, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, since you, I think, mean this complimentary, or at least not derogatory, I'll take it as a compliment. As a matter of fact, there are many editors who used to be more active on WP:JUDAISM and, in general, Jewish articles, but for the last 4-5 years or so, activity has been low. Those editors were mostly not Chabad, rather Litvish, although 1 or 2 Chabadniks also used to frequent Wikipedia in those days.

Chabad does not separate itself. To the contrary. Some beliefs are stressed more in Chabad than in other Jewish denominations and Hasidic courts, but nothing that would warrant the use of the word "sect", as in its sociological definition.

As one who has studied the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, I am quite impressed. I think you can't compare coherency of somebody who lived about 450 years ago and who wrote one book (if I understand correctly), with somebody who lived in our age and wrote several shelves of books over a 40 years period. Debresser (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, I can't compare a poor karaite thinker of the sixteenth century with a twentieth century rich and powerful king that had a whole court working for him. As for "several shelves of books" I will still need to check that and try to ascertain if any of them was written by his own hand, or they were simply put together by his publishing empire under his name. This was actually an hereditary modern king that ruled over a pretty vast empire all over the world. But like the kings and dynasties that ruled the world until the modern age, how many of them were really talented and intellectually gifted, as opposed to most of them, who just had talented courtiers serving them and administering their empires. warshy ^(¥¥) 17:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Sodomy

according to the definition of this word in the link, it seems a little misleading, because only homosexual sodomy between males is prohibited, so I insist that homosexual intercourse between males is better --Ha-y Gavra (talk) 11:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You should stick to the exact wording and stop trying to insert what is not there. Also as I keep saying, STOP quoting what rabbis interpret for HaLakhah because it is not applicable to Gentiles. Something more polite would be good, there are lots of religious gay people out there, eh? Otherwise you are treading far into conflict of interest territory.75.21.119.97 (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sodomy is a colloquial term for homosexuality. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All sorts of homosexual acts - not only anal or oral intercourse - are forbidden for Noachides. I inserted this into the article, and you can read it here: http://www.noahide.org/article.asp?Level=520&Parent=90 -- Alexey Topol (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sodomy is not a colloquial term for homosexuality. It is a wide and vague term which can be used for homosexuality, but doesn't equate to it. The only prohibition in this area for Noachides is anal sex between men. Your source does not say otherwise, no matter how many times you claim it does. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 04:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Lisa, you reverted the article more than three times already, without ever backing up your ridiculous claims, whereas I did provide a reliable source to prove my point, namely that all male homosexual acts are forbidden to Noachides, not only "anal sex", as you claim. Wikipedia is not about personal opinions, but needs verifiable information. Back up your claims or refrain from editing this page. I gave you lots of prior warnings, I will have to report you for vandalism. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not provided a source for that, Alexey. You provided a source that mentions male homosexuality, which is the common term used by most English language sources for משכב זכור, which is limited, halakhically, to anal sex between men. Furthermore, you listed male homosexuality and sodomy as two different things. Sodomy, according to the article you linked to, can mean heterosexual oral sex. And since Noachides are clearly not forbidden to engage in that act, you need to stop using the term in this article.

I need to stop using the term sodomy ? I did not introduce it into the article, it was there before I edited anything. Just check the older versions. And oral sex is not forbidden to anybody, be it Jews or gentiles. You're raising another straw man here. But you may keep messing up wikipedia, I'm tired of edit wars. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I reverted 3 times. Not more than 3 times. As did you. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 13:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we just leave this until someone's found a reliable source? Note www.noahide.org as some random website doesn't meet WP:RS, so this is pretty much edit warring over opinions. On another note, it certainly doesn't need mediation yet. Perhaps just rving to what ever it was before this flared up again would be appropriate, until someone finds an RS.--Misarxist 13:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Maimonides in Mishnah Torah Laws of Kings 9:6 says that Noachides are חייב על הזכור. Rabbi Yosef Karo (author of the Shulchan Aruch), in his Kesef Mishnah commentary on Maimonides, notes that this is based on the Talmud in Tractate Sanhedrin 54b (making Maimonides a secondary source). Do you also want a source for the fact that זכור refers solely to anal sex between men?

It's true that more than this is forbidden for Jewish men. But not as part of the arayot. Additional physical intimacy is forbidden as part of the kirva extensions, which apply solely to Jews. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Please state a source for this statement, as least according to those opinions that the secondary prohibitions are Biblical. I don't think anything is obvious regarding Hilchot B'nei Noach.Mzk1 (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

A Shulchan Aruch for Gentiles

This was added to Shulchan Aruch

After the late Rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson started his famous Noahide Campaign in the 1980's, the number of Gentiles, willing to keep the Seven Laws of Noah as described in the Torah is increasing continuously. A codification of the exact obligations of the Gentiles in the spirit of the classical Shulchan Aruch was needed. In 2005 the scholar Rabbi Moshe Weiner of Jerusalem accepted to produce an in-dept codification of the Noahide precepts. The work is called Sefer Sheva Mitzvot HaShem, published 2008/ 2009. As it is approved by both Chief Rabbis of Israel, Rabbi Shlomo Moshe Amar and Rabbi Yonah Metzger, as well as other chassidic- and non-chassidic halachic authorities like Rabbi Zalman Nechemia Goldberg, Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz and Rabbi Jacob Immanuel Schochet, it has an authoritative character.

This might instead be worth adding here. Any comments? JFW | T@lk 11:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to have in the "Further reading" section. If somebody has the book (one part of it is present in my synagogue), it can also be used as a source. Debresser (talk) 11:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Only seven?

One should start with the Talmud, the source for all of this. There should be a statement in the header that these laws are not exclusive, as this is explicitly stated there. Similarly, the concept of 30 laws (the Encyclopedia Tulmidit gives a number of lists) is right out of the Talmud, albeit in Agaddah. The whole section on subdivision is confusing, because it makes it sound like these are later opinions. Also, the header is wrong; there are clearly laws outside the seven.Mzk1 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What laws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.104.188.76 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Not keeping the Sabbath, for starters. However, in deference to lecturer Aaron Lichtenstein's opinion in Seven Laws of Noah, I will admit that one should not make a categorical statement.Mzk1 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mention of specific sexual acts

I undid the specification of a specific sexual act for homosexuality. Another editor undid that, poining out that "kurvah" appears only to apply to Jews. (I do not believe that is clear, either, in the absence of good sources.) My point was that if you stated it there, you should also state it for all other sexual acts, such as incest and adultery, although the definition of shelo k'darka is not clear. (That is, as to whether "sodomy" is included in it.) And this gets into a grey area. Would Judaism condone, say, oral sex between a man and his mother? There should be no difference. I think it should be left general, since there are no clear sources (are there?). At any rate, I did not undo, to avoid edit-warring.Mzk1 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that incest is never misunderstood as meaning desire between forbidden relatives. It means an actual act, and everyone knows that. Because of the common blurring between homosexuality, gay sex, and mishkav zachor, it is appropriate for the act to be specified in this case. And yes, there are sources. בני נח מוזהרים על הזכור. You'd need an explicit source saying that this means more than just mishkav zachor proper. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I don't see where your source proves anything at all, except that men are prohibited to each other. I was thinking of the statement in the Talmud that Abizraihu is prohibited. Aharon Lichenstein(*) in his academic work "Seven Laws of Noah" gets into this, but I haven't seen my copy lately - perhaps you have one? Even regarding other relations we kind of fudge in the arayot article, as it is difficult to determine if, for example, a man would violate a prohibition by giving his sister a ring without any sexual act, as the marriage is invalid.

How about just "sex" as a compromise? Wouldn't it make your basic point?Mzk1 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

(*)For those wondering, it is not the head (one of them) of Yeshivat Har Etzion, but his cousin.Mzk1 (talk) 22:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've never seen a source suggesting that non-Jews are forbidden to engage in non-biah sexual acts of any kind. That would be a pretty major chiddush, in my opinion, and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" would apply. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See above.Mzk1 (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we just go with the Rambam and R. Karo u mentioned above? Then we can just have an end to the intermittent arguments about that law until one of us finds an academic source. (Somehow I can't quite bring myself to claim they're good enough on a wikitechnicality;) Regarding sodomy, no source so it's out and anyway it's a vague and archaic term which won't really help.--Misarxist 14:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Those two are fine, as long as you aren't trying to prove something by omission and you inspect the commentaries on the page. (That's my general method; I consider the commentaries a kind of "peer review".) The Shulchan Aruch in particular does not tell you everything.Mzk1 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is another point I did not mention above - in the "thirty commandments" passage in the Talmud, one of the three commandments not broken by the pagans of the time is that they do not practice "gay marriage" (or possibly, not write a pre-nuptual), more specifically, "they do not write a Ketubah for a male". Now the paasage is not necessarily halachic and it may be that the term "commandments" there is not meant literally - but it is indicative that this claim is not so extraordinary. My point is that if we are unclear, we should fudge, otherwise we are making an unsupported claim to the contrary.Mzk1 (talk) 08:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This is probably the sort of thing we need secondary sources for, rather than our own reasoning from primary sources.--Misarxist 10:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not making a claim; I am saying we should remove a claim. I am saying we can't prove it one way or another, and so the qualification should be removed. I am also saying that it is not an extraordinary thing to say.

Also, I have a secondary / tertiary source that takes this literally, more or less - the Encyclopedia Talmudit entry Bnai Noach.Mzk1 (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I've found a source that does claim that the secondary sexual prohbitions (kirvah, chibuk v'nishuk (hugging and kissing) popularly referred to as negiah) do apply to B'nei Noach. This is Aaron Lichtenstein (the academic, not the Seminary head); this is his opinion, based on the Minchat Chinuch's extension of the Sefer haChinuch, quoted from positive commandment 188. I have not checked the Minchat Chinuch itself.Mzk1 (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

And I'd be happy to look at that source. But first you need to post it. Saying that this man says it is anecdotal. A source is something else. I can't comment on whether what he says is his own opinion without seeing what he actually says. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's from Seven Laws of Noah, pages 50-51, the last item in a list of 10 commandments from the Rambam that correspond to B'nei Noah Illicit Relations. It will take a bit more than this to show that it his opinion, so I will put the quotes together at a future date when I have more time. The footnote (93 in the book) is his reference to the Minchat Chinuch. Take this as a preliminary.Mzk1 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, here's the precise reference, at Lisa's request. Seven Laws of Naoh, Page 50 states, The following among the 613 commands corresponds to Maimonides' version of Illict Intercourse in Noahism:. On the next page, he gives the last of the commandments, number 10, and ends with [That is, petting by persons whose marriage would be illicit.] " Negative 353.. The footnote at the end (93) cites Minchat Chinuch II:93 (positive 188) regarding coveting, stating that he believed the Chinuch's reasoning there would extend negative 353 to Noahites. (As I have said, I have not checked the Minchat Chinuch itself.) Finally, on page 89, at the start of the chapter named Conclusions he gives a summary by law, of sixty-six Imperatives that apply to the Naoahide system as well. Line 4 of the seven-line list:

Illicit Intercourse (several spaces) ten

I included the latter to confirm that this is not just a suggestion.

I hope I have quoted enough of the material. This list is one of the book's main theses. Again, I am not stating that kirvah definitely applies to Gentiles, only that one cannot state categorically that it does not.Mzk1 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Relationships

One user put in a text saying that the institute of the Noah laws says that a relationship between a jew and a gentile is part of the 'sexual immorality' and another user removed it and said it is not in the source. I read the source and it IS there. So I put it back in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.107.225 (talk) 10:30, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not mentioned in any of the classical listings of the 7 Noahide Laws. Of course this institute may have decided that the Jewish law on relationships between Jews and non-Jews should apply to its policies and participants, but it is not part of the 7 Noahide Laws, and as such should certainly not be mentioned in the listing in the introduction. Whether it should be mentioned elsewhere in the article body is open for debate. JFW | T@lk 14:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a tricky issue. JFW is correct, it is not mentioned in the seven Noahide laws. Neither is, I think, "anal sex between men", is it? Perhaps the introduction should just mention the seven laws and then we could talk more in detail about individual laws and their interpretation in the text.

It is, however, a matter of fact that the Institute of Noahide code includes a relationship between a Jew and a non-Jew under their definition of the law concerning sexual immorality. I wish it weren't so, particularly given the grim echoes of the Nuremberg laws that defined similar relationships in similar words, but that's the definition they use. The article gives the Institute of Noahide Code as the very first external link and the Institute seems to be a rather influential Noahide group. According to its website "The Institute of Noahide Code is an educational and research division of Hafatzah/outreach. The Institute was established in April 1989 and is a direct result of the Lubavitcher Rebbe', Rabbi M. M. Schneerson's teachings, which encourage the practice of The Seven Laws of Noah.".

I think it is clear that we should not put this in the introduction, and we should remove other interpretations not explicitly mentioned in the seven laws from the introduction as well, but that we need to address it in the article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Gilui arayot is one of the Noachide prohibitions, and there's no single term in English that reflects that. It includes bestiality, adultery, incest, and male-male intercourse. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 18:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OR / POV quote

Traditionally, Judaism regards the determination of the details of the Noahide Law as something to be left to Jewish rabbis. This, in addition to the teaching of the Jewish law that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes a theoretical death penalty (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a), is a factor in modern opposition to the notion of a Noahide legal system. Jewish scholars respond by noting that Jews today no longer carry out the death penalty, even within the Jewish community. Jewish law, in contemporary practice, sees the death penalty as an indicator of the seriousness of an offense; violators are not actually put to death.

This quote is, for starters, pure OR. The strictures on capital punishment in Jewish law largely do not apply to Gentiles, I know Rabbi Weinberg of Ner Yisroel felt that Gentiles were violating the noachide law if they did not vote to uphold it. I bring this piece of my own OR just an example of why this is POV. I will tell you that I recieved a halachic ruling that I could apply the death penalty to a Jew or Gentile as a member of a jury.Mzk1 (talk) 09:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Bring post-Tanakh, pre-Mishnah material up between the two

I have moved Dead Sea Scrolls and Acts 15 up between Hebrew Bible and Talmud. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

FYI

 – User:JCScaliger has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Pmanderson (blocked for another year for abusive sockpuppetry).

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move Mike Cline (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Seven Laws of Noah → Seven laws of Noah –

WP does not generally upcase laws, theorems, or rules; so the seven laws of Noah mid-sentence. Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 12:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hesitate Tony, agree with WP:CAPS, but some Google Books sources seem to indicate that it is a title of a list, title of a section in a larger list/section?] would this make a difference? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: In ictu is right; this means a specific set of laws; one should no more have this lower case than one would lc the Twelve Tables; a copy-edit to deal with the genuinely superfluous "Noachide Laws" would remove more unnecessary capitalization. (Noachic would be clearer; the point of Noachide - that the laws are binding by descent - will be lost on most readers; since the point is made expressly, we don't have to hint at it.) JCScaliger (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

First usage?

JdWolff, No problem, perhaps the article could state clearly both references where the term first occurs and give dates for both of them? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Dalai lama ding dong (talk · contribs) seems to think that we should mention the exact place in the Talmud in the opening sentence. Apart from horribly distorting the normal flow of the sentence, it is wrong. The first historical mention of the 7NC is in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 9:4. This is the purpose of footnotes. I have no problem with a small discussion further down in the article to the effect that the Tosefta (redacted in such and such a year) is the first source, followed by the Talmud Sanhedrin etc. Ideally such a discussion should be supported by a secondary source. I suggest ISBN 0940118491, page 39. JFW | T@lk 21:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

please do not remove the reference until you have made the change, this is useful information and it should not be removed, until you have placed it elsewhere. I see no consensus for its complete removalDalai lama ding dong (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No, the edit is wrong and the source is already provided in the references. To wit, in footnote number 7 of the current version. It is of very limited relevance to the general reader where exactly in the Talmud these laws are listed. It would not have mattered an iota if they'd been found in the last chapter of Nedarim or tucked away somewhere halfway the second chapter of Tamid.

On a separate note, please have a look at WP:BRD. This is a guideline that states that if your edit is removed, it is your job to take it to the talk page and work out consensus, not mine. JFW | T@lk 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The original edit was not made by me, so the reference to WP:BRD applies to the editor who made the original change which was I believe you. It is not up to a single editor to decide what is of interest to the general reader. As far as I can see it was not until 00:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC) that you stated that the information that you removed was in footnote 7. I have been asking that the info not be removed until it was in the footnotes. I suggest that the lede contain an unambiguous note as to which footnote the source of the NL can be found in. Can you please do this?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Noahide laws. Aervanath (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Seven Laws of Noah → Seven laws of Noah – In the recent previous RM, the only opposition was from User:JCScaliger, now-indef-blocked sock of User:Pmanderson, who was banned from commenting on MOS-related issues and technical aspects of English usage. By using the sock to evade the ban, he corrupted the RM and left it with the wrong result. In response to hesitation by User:In ictu oculi, I note that sources show a distinctly mixed capitalization, not consistent capitalization, which means that WP should not treat these "seven laws" as a proper name, per MOS:CAPS. I apologize that I didn't notice and support the previous RM, which might have made this one unnecessary. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nom. Dicklyon (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hesitate Noahide laws gets 9070 GBhits, Seven laws of Noah (either cap) 3090 GB hits In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

If you're proposing to move to Noahide laws instead, I'm OK with that; see n-grams. This RM is just about the case of "law". Probably we should let this RM close as move and then do another, but if an admin prefers to close it with a shortcut, I don't mind. Dicklyon (talk) 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to Noahide laws. Check out this awesome ngram, showing variations of casing with "Seven Laws", "Noachide", "Noahide", "Code", and "Laws". Each combination shows up to some degree, but "Noahide laws" seems the clear winner. Dohn joe (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support move to Noahide laws. I should learn how to use ngrams. I don't see the need to do another RM as all 3 comments are agreed, but if someone else comes along then probably will be required. (NB. How certain is it than in all refs to "laws of Noah" there are always 7?) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment The capitalization of "laws" is a trivial matter, although we might use "commandments". I would however oppose the term "Noahide", this is an unnecessarily obscure term for the general reader. PatGallacher (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  It's an interesting case. While the words "Noahide" and "Noachide" are certainly obscure when compared to plain "Noah", it's clear that reliable sources - where the general reader is likely to encounter the phrase - much prefer "Noahide" or "Noachide" over "Seven Laws of Noah" (however capitalized). Dohn joe (talk) 21:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Noahide campaign

In closing the above requested move, I noticed that Noahide campaign was supposed to have been merged with this article 3 years (!) ago. I've simply implemented a redirect here. Should there be any information in that article which would still be useful here, look at the most recent version. Cheers,--Aervanath (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

System of justice

I added in the note that the establishment of courts of law is to enforce the NL themselves. Here are some references that state that.

http://www.ahavat-israel.com/am/goyim.php

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/The_Seven_Noahide_Laws.html

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9679-laws-noachian

http://sagavyah.tripod.com/id65.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+future+of+Jewish+values+in+Israel-a020119164

http://www.en.noahideworldcenter.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=57:the-seven-noahide-laws-a-brief-outline&Itemid=8

I would be prepared to discuss a wording that includes the later interpretation that the establishment of law courts are to enforce other laws as well, but the original purpose needs to be there. Comments please before I revert. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

See the last link you provided.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

exactly, so the wording needs to reflect that, do you want to propose a wording?Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 22:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's either both interpretations or the current ambiguous state. Stylistically, I would prefer the latter for the lede and an expansion on both interpretations in the body of the artilce. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I would be happy with either, do you want to propose a ne wording? Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I prefer the current ambiguous state for the lede, so nothing to propose there. If you want to propose wording for the body, I will be happy to provide feedback.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

How about this for the lede, after the text 'The Noachide Laws comprise the six laws which were given to Adam in the Garden of Eden, according to the Talmud's interpretation of Gen 2:16,[8] and a seventh one, which was added after the Flood of Noah.' New text as follows: Religious Jewish sources differ in their claims as to whether the seventh law refers to the establishment of courts of law generally, or in order to administer only the Noahide laws themselves. This can be followed by references showing examples of both if you wishDalai lama ding dong (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Lede Chabad

This sentence is v ambiguous 'While some Jewish organizations, such as Chabad have worked to promote the acceptance of Noachide laws, there are no figures for how many actually do.' Is it intended to mean that there are no figures for how many Jewish organisations proselytise for the NL? That is unlikely, as the number could be found. Or is it intended to mean that there are no numbers for those who 'accept' the NL? This leads to the question as to what is meant by 'acceptance.' Does acceptance really mean follow, or keep? This is not useful, as it does not distinguish between those Gentiles who are declared members of the various NL organisations, (very few) and those who would accept or follow these 'laws' without ever having heard of them. I propose to change the wording to: Some Jewish organizations, such as Chabad work to promote the adoption, by Gentiles, of the Noachide laws. Comments welcome.Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Islam and Christianity accepting the noahide laws

As somebody who is from a Reform Jewish background I have always believed and was always told that Jewish scholars such as Maimonides taught that Christianity and Islam fulfil the requirements of the Noahide laws and the "righteous" of the world to come would include Muslims and Christians. I imagine this would extend to other religions such as Sikhism which also teaches about one god as well, and all of these faiths also fulfil the Noahide laws' requirements.

From a Jewish theological perspective has anyone tried to make any criticisms of the concept the way that Chabad is interpreting it? And should these criticisms be on the page? I would say that they should.

20:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.63.6 (talk)

Edit first section of Noahide Laws. *riteous gentile*

<as currently written> According to religious Judaism, any non-Jew who adheres to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the World to Come (Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous. <the issue> The use of righteous gentile is not correct. That person would be a Ger Toshav, at gate proselyte. <action> Revise the section; replace 'riteous gentile' with 'Ger Toshav' or 'gate proselyte'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudley68 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Christian fundamentalists seem to be targeting this page.

Christian fundamentalists seem to be targeting this page. If you want to make a separate article with criticisms of the Noachide Laws from a Christian perspective with proper citations please do so. I reverted the massive changes done by user Edit 12345. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonney2000 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Heading and Explanation of Each law

The basic explanation on each law is missing. There are some explanations disorganized here and there.

I think we should make a heading for each law explaining and analyzing the law. Caseeart (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Change the term of to on

Change the term of to on, and added a, there being NO absolutism implied in those commandments.

Noahide or Noachide?

The article jumps back and forth between "noahide" and "noachide". If these mean different things could the article please elaborate? If they don't, could the article please standardize on one or the other so as to avoid the implication that they mean different things? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 08:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Standarised as Noahide, which is more frequently used both in the article to date and in wider literature. - BobKilcoyne (talk) 06:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Establish a court

Wiki has a notable burden of constantly deciding which bits to keep. This if we were to follow Noahic law we would need one. That court process however has often resulted in injustices. Wikipedia must effortm bring about bettwr service. Haveing see notable omissions intended to harm this system shoud be developed. This is a new system and it needs new devices to prevent exclusion. That technology exists. But it requires a good fath effort and openness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.241.13 (talk) 16:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

'Do not kill'

The correct wording of the 3rd Law of Noah is the same as one of the 10 Commandments of GOD to Moses, "Do not kill." 69.180.104.60 (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct wording is "Do not murder". I don't know how it is translated at 10 Commandments, but there it also should be "murder". Debresser (talk) 16:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

See Thou shalt not kill, where it says in the first sentence "Thou shalt not kill (LXX; οὐ φονεύσεις), You shall not murder (Hebrew לֹא תִּרְצָח lo tirṣaḥ) or You shall not kill (KJV)". Debresser (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Obedience or order

Even though the source says "obedience", obeying the law is so there should be order, so I think that "order", as the clearer word, can be used here. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that's treading close to WP:Original Research. How about "obedience to the law"? Editor2020, Talk 03:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Just for the record, I see no original research in paraphrasing our sources. To the contrary, that is what we're supposed to do. Debresser (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove section which is repeated elsewhere.

This whole section (see italicised text) should be removed, as it is just a reproduction of material that is contained elsewhere.

Chabad movement Maimonides stated that Moses was commanded by God to compel the world to accept these seven commandments. In 1983, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson urged his followers to actively engage in activities to inform non-Jews about these seven commandments, which had not been done in previous generations. As a result, in 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a proclamation speaking of "the historical tradition of ethical values and principles, which have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws, transmitted through God to Moses on Mount Sinai,"[54] and in 1991, Congress did the same.[55]

The proclamation that is referred to was signed as part of the notification of "Education Day, USA" and this is covered in the section (see bold text)

Public recognition United States Congress The Seven Laws of Noah were recognized by the United States Congress in the preamble to the 1991 bill that established Education Day in honor of the birthday of rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad movement:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded; Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.[58]

The material about Menachem Mendel Schneerson, is repeated in the section Sefer Sheva Mitzvot Hashem (see bold text)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch, started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s

Therefore the whole Chabad movement section is repeated elsewhere, and should be removed.Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as the first part is concerned. Reagan and Congress are not the same. But I would agree that the part about Reagan should be put in the same subsection as the part about Congress, which could be renamed from United States Congress" simply "United States"..

Regarding the second part. It could be shortened. "Menachem Mendel Schneerson, rebbe of Chabad Lubavitch, started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s. A codification..." could become "Since Rabbi Schneerson started started his Noahide Campaign in the 1980s, a codification..."

If you agree, I'd be happy to make the edits. We can always discuss further afterwards. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

My first thought was that everything would go into the second section. The credit to Chabad and MMS could be transferred to that section as well. Reagan and Congress did sign the same proclamation I believe. However I'm happy to look at any proposal. Thanks for offering to do this..Johnmcintyre1959 (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Please look over my edit, as per the above consensus. Debresser (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Restoration of non-encyclopedic content

Debresser Can you explain why you are edit warring to restore this non-encyclopedic content to the article? [4] Chabad.org is not a WP:RS for whether someone is regarded as a "righteous gentile" by God (stated in Wikivoice), at most it is only a reliable source for the sect's opinion, and that is WP:UNDUE for the lede. The entire thing needs to be rewritten for encyclopedic tone. You are an experienced editor, so you should be aware of the standards of enyclopedic writing and perspective for religious articles that are enforced throughout the encyclopedia. And bandying about accusations of removing "well-sourced" sections is non-persuasive. There is no policy based justification for restoring something like is assured of a place in the world to come, stated in Wikivoice, to an article live in mainspace. The entire thing needs to be rewritten or removed, but it can't stay in the article as it is. If you want it in the article, the burden is on you to make sure it meets basic standards for inclusion. I will give you some time to fix it, but if the issues aren't addressed I plan to remove this.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain why you are edit warring to remove something which as you yourself claimed in the edit summary "does not seem neutrally written or adhering to encyclopedic tone"? Issues like that can be tagged with {{POV statement}} and {{Tone}}, however, you can not remove them. Especially since they are sourced.

I asked you twice to specify what you think is not neutrally worded or uses an unencyclopedical tone, yet you have still not done so. Till such time as you do, I can do nothing to improve this paragraph. Referring to me as an "experienced editor" is not going to earn you any cookies in this regard.

1. Chabad is not a sect. 2. Chabad.org is a reliable source for Judaism articles, and is in use on many Wikipedia articles.

You claim that I need to prove anything is bogus. To the contrary, you need to show that there is any basis to your 3 claims (POV, tone, RS), and you have not done so. Debresser (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have. You can not use religious sources to state supernatural things in Wikivoice as though they are well-sourced facts. This includes claims like non-Jews accepting the Ten Commandments are righteous gentiles who will receive the final reward of the righteous. Absolutely not, this is an encyclopedia. This is not a matter for a tag and if it continues, I believe it is grounds for a topic ban. Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

1. Based on what I've seen after googling it you may be referring to Ger toshav - you of course need to attribute this to Chabad, as the State of Israel does not actually grant people any type of resident alien status based whether or not they adhere to these religious rules.
2. I've seen people invoke the phrase "righteous gentile" in political debates when things were not going their way. I've also heard members of the KKK use it sarcastically to describe themselves. I've seen it used in so many loaded contexts that you definitely need to explain it clearly if you are going to use it. Regarded by whom? All it says is "are regarded as righteous gentiles". I truly believe you are capable of seeing this for yourself if you review the content. There is nothing opaque about it. In my opinion this content is so far outside the norms of an encyclopedic style of writing that tagging would not be a suitable resolution.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your objection is not based on any Wikipedia policy. It's perfectly acceptable to describe religious views on different subjects, provided it's properly sourced and attributed. Wikipedia is full of this because an encyclopedia is supposed to be a source of information for the reader, not to make a value judgment or discard ideas that are deemed "religious", "POV" or "supersticious". The concept of Noahide gentiles having a place in the world to come is well-ingrained in Jewish tradition, including Mishneh Torah. I'm sure it also appears in other places such as the Talmud, but Rambam's masterpiece should be enough to justify its inclusion.

I don't understand your comparison with the KKK folks, but I'm sure that's not the kind of gentiles the Rambam had in mind. Their world to come is probably much hotter (and I think most Christians agree with that as well).--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A topic ban? :):):)

In any case, it seems to me that the only thing bothering you is that the paragraph is missing the words "according to Judaism", or something like that. I would have no problem with adding that. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)