New Noahide Poll - Next Step for Bnei Noach Communities
A new poll is up!
New Noahide Poll - Next Step for Bnei Noach Communities
If you answer “Other,” please comment at the bottom of this post on what “other” ideas you have.
Can’t wait to see the results.
The poll will remain open so new readers can still vote weeks from now.
Loading ...In my opinion, the things that have to be strengthened the most in order to ensure and safeguard that this phenomenon that we’re seeing so boldly and so beautifully in our time now, that it carries into the next generation, we have to see a very serious effort made by the Bnei Noach themselves to ensure that their children have a very very clear feeling of community and of functioning, vibrant religious-life within the family. And each situation is different….this is something that has to be developed…it’s not going to be easy. There’s a lot of challenge there.
- Rabbi Richman, High Council of Bnei Noah
Power to ya Bnei Noach!
Tags: bnai noah, bnei noach, bnei noah, noachide, noahide
Posted
on Thursday, July 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm.
Filed under Noahide Community, Noahide Polls.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You can also
Email This Post
| Print
July 7th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
[...] Poll: Next Step for Bnei Noach Communities [...]
June 14th, 2009 at 9:26 am
From Adam HaReshon to Noach was 10 generations. Why did HaShem cut a brit with Noach? The generations of Adam abandoned and profaned their oath/brit relationship with Heaven. From Noach to Avraham was 10 generations. Why did HaShem cut a brit with Avraham? Did Avraham cease being bnai noach? No! Therefore what does it mean that Avraham would be the father of a multitude of nations? Nations is a translation of the word “goyim”. Jewish logic employs a specific to define the general. The brit of Noach ideally concerned nations/goyim. Israel as a specific goy functions to define the general concept of the Torah brit with the nations! By Avram’s day, the majority of goyim had already abandoned the Oath/brit relationship with heaven. Hence for the same reason that HaShem chose Noach to cut a brit with him, in parallel fashion HaShem chose to cut a brit with Avram! Consequently the name bnai noach I believe is incorrect. When HaShem cut the brit with Noach the goyim ceased being called bnai Adam. In similar fashion the goyim who accept Torah oath/brit obligations: not to do acts of theft, oppression and incest among bnai brit should accept the name: bnai Avram.
June 14th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Dear Rabbi Moshe Kerr,
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity for discussion. However, I respectfully disagree with your idea.
Although the use of prat and klal is clever here, I believe that the Jewish Sages knew far more Torah than any of us may ever know. If they used the term “Bnei Noach,” they did so for very sound, thought out reasons. We should bear that in mind whenever we think something our Sages put in place seems “out of date” or “inaccurate.”
So why did the Sages use the term “Bnei Noach” and not “Bnei Avraham” to describe those Gentiles who accepted Torah and the Mitzvot?
One possible reason may be the importance of maintaining clear unadulterable distinctions between the nation of Israel and the Gentile nations.
Jews are descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, as Jews state in their daily prayers. For Bnei Noach to be relabeled as “Bnei Avraham” would blur that distinction. Especially since Jewish converts are referred to as “Bnei Avraham & Sarah” as you know.
Secondly,
the Jewish logic of klal (general concept) and prat (specific concept) are employed only when the pshat (basic textual reading) is not clear, or has extra-ordinary gramatical patterns that exist for the sake of teaching us more than the pshat would teach us alone, or if we are for some other reason logically forced to deviate from the pshat (including because of mesora).
However, if the pshat is enough, we use the pshat. This is encompassed by what our Sages have said, “Ayn Mikra Yotzei LeYadai Peshuto” - “a verse is not removed from it’s simple meaning.”
With that in mind, I will suggest that the Jewish Sages used the term “Bnei Noach” and not “Bnei Avaraham” for a very simple and logical reason:
Every single human being alive today descends from Noach and his wife. Not every human being descends from Avraham.
Therefore, it is more accurate to label humanity in general as “Bnei Noach” and Jews in particular as “Bnei Yisrael.”
I think the essence of what you’re saying, however, is that the path of a Noahide today more resembles one of the “nefesh asher asu b’charan” - more resembles one of Avraham’s followers, those whom he brought back to Monotheism, to the path of the One God who-spoke-and-the-world-came-into-being. That Noahides today resemble those followers of Avraham, perhaps more than they resemble Noah.
I think there is truth that.
Thank you for the discussion.
Daniel
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:54 am
Daniel,
The entire Talmud employs the different sh’etot of Oral Torah logic. P’shat, wss primarily employed by the reshonim, and they Rashi and Idn Ezra for example, had completely different ideas just what P’shot functionally is. Then you in your own tern immediately attempt a logical argument yourself. But your logic brings no primary sources; this strongly indicates that its a Greek logic as opposed unto Talmudic logic/Oral Torah.
Lastly, appeals to superior authority do not hold up in court. If you want to honestly push off this sh’ita of interpreting the primary sources then you are obliged to bring primary sources; other wise its a “i say he says dog chasing its tail”.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Good morning,
I think you’re missing the point here.
The point is that Chaza”l chose to call Bnei Noach “Children of Noah” and NOT “Children of Avraham.”
I can even think of kabbalistic reasons for this, see Ramchal’s “Derech Hashem.”
But the point is that we both know that the Chachamim knew far better than either of us what they were doing. Pardon me, but I don’t see why you think you have some novelty that the Chachamim didn’t already consider.
They weren’t just “brilliant” sages - we’re talking about people who had access to prophecy, even as late as the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah!
Hence, I really do feel that this discussion has already become, as you said, “a dog chasing it’s tail.”
But I thank you for opening up the discussion in the first place. It certainly was interesting.
Gmar chasima tova!
September 5th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
The Talmud clearly teaches Daniel was NOT a prophet. The Sages of the Talmud were not prophet by the exact same logic. A statement simply made does not make it true. This discussion does not require mystical explorations to prove a point.
This statement: “But the point is that we both know that the Chachamim knew far better than either of us what they were doing.” Negates the entire Torah. Halacha is determined by living sages not dead sages. Dead sages, their opinions serve as legal precident, but each generation has its Poskim. Rashi for example in his commentary on the Chumash declares a statement made by the targum as incorrect. An earlier generation does not have a lock upon logic, ant the Oral Torah revealed unto Moshe at Sinai is LOGIC.
good week to ya!