7, 10, 30, 613, 620 Noahide Laws…

7, 10, 30, 613, 620 Noahide Laws. This is far worse than having Shariah Law in my opinion. And I haven’t even brought up Halal yet.

“The “seven” mitzvot can be viewed as seven general principles or categories of commandments, in the same way as the Ten Commandments include all 613 of the mitzvot that the Jews were commanded to observe.”

This may be a good to to bring this back again. Read this.

Most people just think that the Moahide Laws established from Kabbalah are only 7 commandments. This seems to be appealing to Christians who want “more” from “Judaism” but don’t want to be labeled a heretic or someone who is under the law. The Noahide laws aren’t just made up of 7 laws. There is debate that these are actually 7 categories made up of 66 laws or 620 laws. It is the same belief system that the 10 commandments are categories for the 613 commandments in the Law. In actuality, Noahide Laws from Kabbalah have 7 more laws than what Jews yoke themselves under. Those who follow the Noahides have put such a heavy burden on themselves and have essentially yoked them to a ball and chain that is much heavier than they carried when they were Hebrew Roots or Torah Observant “Christians”. The Jews know this and this is why they push this on the the Gentiles.

“Various rabbinic sources have different positions on the way the seven laws are to be subdivided in categories, but the general consensus is that the seven laws are broad categories containing within them many subdivisions and further divided into specific laws.”

“In Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein’s opinion it is possible to defines all seven laws with the view towards establishing the extent to which they, severally, correspond to the Jewish law directed at Jews. His study seeks to resolve the question raised in the correspondence as to the categorization of the Laws of Noah. He sought to prove that the earliest sources on Noahism, and the writers who deal with these sources conscientiously, view the seven categories as subject heads for a mass of legal dicta. Similarly it weeks to prove that the volume of Noahide Law is greater – when compared to the volume of Israelite Law – than a ratio of 7 to 613 would indicate. The following chapters, then, will demonstrate the breadth of Noahic legislation.”

“Whatever the number of the Noahide precepts, it is certain that each represents not just a single commandment, but a unit of similar obligations.”

“The statement of Aaron HaLevi of Barcelona on how a considerable number of the 613 commandments are integrated into the Seven Laws. In view of the sixty-six commandments which have been identified as belonging to Noahide Law, his explanation achieves its full significance:

Make no mistake about the enumeration of the Seven Laws of the Sons of Noah – these being well known and recorded in the Talmud – for they are but categories and they contain many particulars. Thus, you find that the prohibitions relative to sexual relations are grouped into one command, which has, however, a number of specifics, such as the prohibition concerning one’s mother, or a mother’s sister, or a married woman, or a father’s wife, or homosexuality, or bestiality. Similarly, in the realm of Idolatry they have but one command which has many parts, for they are like Israelites in this realm.”

“The structural arrangement by which some sixty-six laws are grouped around seven title laws is a conceptualization that seems basic in Jewish legal thought, for it has an exact parallel in the literature of the Gaonites, the immediate heirs to the talmudic learning.”

“At this point it may be useful to explain that the sixty-six Commandments which were cited as having application for Noahide Law are clearly not to be thought of as biblical Commandments, as such, functioning in Noahism.”

“There is one jarring note, amid the amoraic harmony, sounded in tractate Hullin with the mention of “the thirty laws of the Noahites. ” Which thirty laws are being referred to goes undisclosed and the phrase “the thirty laws of the Noahites” has no apparent basis in the earlier, tanaitic sources.”


Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: