Mixing
What are the parameters of the prohibition against a non-Jew learning Torah?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 58a) declared that a non-Jew is liable to death for learning Torah (at least the parts not relevant to him practically). If you read the passuk תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה literally, “The Torah did Moshe command us as an inheritance,†then if a non-Jew learns Torah, he’s in violation of theft; if you expound מורשה as מ×Âורשה, then you get “The Torah did Moshe command us as a wife,†and then the non-Jew is in violation of adultery.
In practice, what should one’s response be if and when a non-Jew approaches him asking about some area of Halacha? Should the Jew explain it to him, perhaps as simply as possible without all the esoteric details, or should he not explain it at all, politely explaining why (while not quoting the above Gemara, as that would also be teaching him Torah)?
halacha gentiles torah-study maseches-sanhedrin
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 58a) declared that a non-Jew is liable to death for learning Torah (at least the parts not relevant to him practically). If you read the passuk תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה literally, “The Torah did Moshe command us as an inheritance,†then if a non-Jew learns Torah, he’s in violation of theft; if you expound מורשה as מ×Âורשה, then you get “The Torah did Moshe command us as a wife,†and then the non-Jew is in violation of adultery.
In practice, what should one’s response be if and when a non-Jew approaches him asking about some area of Halacha? Should the Jew explain it to him, perhaps as simply as possible without all the esoteric details, or should he not explain it at all, politely explaining why (while not quoting the above Gemara, as that would also be teaching him Torah)?
halacha gentiles torah-study maseches-sanhedrin
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59704. This is not a dupe; you can look at this question as asking regarding the premise of that question, if you wish, but it’s certainly not asking that question itself.
– DonielF
5 hours ago
I can't imagine that there is a problem explaining the general parameters of the halacha to a Gentile. There are numerous practical examples where that would be necessary. E.g. - Numerous kosher stores hire Gentile workers to handle the food. It would be necessary to explain some general rules such as don't mix the meat with the dairy. Sometimes at work, a Jew needs to explain why he needs to leave early on Friday afternoons.
– DanF
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 58a) declared that a non-Jew is liable to death for learning Torah (at least the parts not relevant to him practically). If you read the passuk תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה literally, “The Torah did Moshe command us as an inheritance,†then if a non-Jew learns Torah, he’s in violation of theft; if you expound מורשה as מ×Âורשה, then you get “The Torah did Moshe command us as a wife,†and then the non-Jew is in violation of adultery.
In practice, what should one’s response be if and when a non-Jew approaches him asking about some area of Halacha? Should the Jew explain it to him, perhaps as simply as possible without all the esoteric details, or should he not explain it at all, politely explaining why (while not quoting the above Gemara, as that would also be teaching him Torah)?
halacha gentiles torah-study maseches-sanhedrin
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 58a) declared that a non-Jew is liable to death for learning Torah (at least the parts not relevant to him practically). If you read the passuk תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה literally, “The Torah did Moshe command us as an inheritance,†then if a non-Jew learns Torah, he’s in violation of theft; if you expound מורשה as מ×Âורשה, then you get “The Torah did Moshe command us as a wife,†and then the non-Jew is in violation of adultery.
In practice, what should one’s response be if and when a non-Jew approaches him asking about some area of Halacha? Should the Jew explain it to him, perhaps as simply as possible without all the esoteric details, or should he not explain it at all, politely explaining why (while not quoting the above Gemara, as that would also be teaching him Torah)?
halacha gentiles torah-study maseches-sanhedrin
halacha gentiles torah-study maseches-sanhedrin
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
edited 15 mins ago
Isaac Moses♦
30.7k1274244
30.7k1274244
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
asked 5 hours ago
DonielF
11.5k11860
11.5k11860
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59704. This is not a dupe; you can look at this question as asking regarding the premise of that question, if you wish, but it’s certainly not asking that question itself.
– DonielF
5 hours ago
I can't imagine that there is a problem explaining the general parameters of the halacha to a Gentile. There are numerous practical examples where that would be necessary. E.g. - Numerous kosher stores hire Gentile workers to handle the food. It would be necessary to explain some general rules such as don't mix the meat with the dairy. Sometimes at work, a Jew needs to explain why he needs to leave early on Friday afternoons.
– DanF
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59704. This is not a dupe; you can look at this question as asking regarding the premise of that question, if you wish, but it’s certainly not asking that question itself.
– DonielF
5 hours ago
I can't imagine that there is a problem explaining the general parameters of the halacha to a Gentile. There are numerous practical examples where that would be necessary. E.g. - Numerous kosher stores hire Gentile workers to handle the food. It would be necessary to explain some general rules such as don't mix the meat with the dairy. Sometimes at work, a Jew needs to explain why he needs to leave early on Friday afternoons.
– DanF
1 hour ago
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59704. This is not a dupe; you can look at this question as asking regarding the premise of that question, if you wish, but it’s certainly not asking that question itself.
– DonielF
5 hours ago
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59704. This is not a dupe; you can look at this question as asking regarding the premise of that question, if you wish, but it’s certainly not asking that question itself.
– DonielF
5 hours ago
I can't imagine that there is a problem explaining the general parameters of the halacha to a Gentile. There are numerous practical examples where that would be necessary. E.g. - Numerous kosher stores hire Gentile workers to handle the food. It would be necessary to explain some general rules such as don't mix the meat with the dairy. Sometimes at work, a Jew needs to explain why he needs to leave early on Friday afternoons.
– DanF
1 hour ago
I can't imagine that there is a problem explaining the general parameters of the halacha to a Gentile. There are numerous practical examples where that would be necessary. E.g. - Numerous kosher stores hire Gentile workers to handle the food. It would be necessary to explain some general rules such as don't mix the meat with the dairy. Sometimes at work, a Jew needs to explain why he needs to leave early on Friday afternoons.
– DanF
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg has a responsum that deals with this question. It is a lengthy responsum (and you should read it in it's entirety if you can) but one key point is what he derives from Rambam's wording of this rule:
Shu"t Seridei Eish 2:90 (Mosad Harav Kook edition)
יוצנמדבריו שה×Âיסור הונרק בעושה לשנמצוה ומתכוון לחדש דת ×Âבל ל×Â
בלומד מ×Âהבת חכמה ×Âו להכיר תורתנשל ישר×Âל וכמו בשבת ש×Âנישב בטל ×Âינו
עובר ×Âלנרק בקבע יונלשביתה כמו שכתב שנ×Âנעש×Âהו לעצמו כמו שבת
(ועיין ברדב"ז שנשכתב כן) כן הדבר בתורה שה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנקבע ×Âת
הלימוד לשנמצוה והרי הוסיף בזה על שבע מצותיו וחידש ×Âת דתנשלנכפי
המצווה עליו
It comes out from his words that the prohibition is only when [the
non-Jew] does it for the sake of the mitzvah and intends to
originate religion, but not if he learns out of love of wisdom or to
recognize the Torah of Israel. And just like with Shabbat where if
[the non-Jew] sat doing nothing he does not violate [the prohibition
of a non-Jew observing Shabbat] unless he designates the day for
resting, as he writes there "if he made it for himself as Shabbat"
(and see Radvaz there who writes this), so too it is with Torah – the
prohibition is only if he designates the learning for the sake of the
mitzvah, by which he is adding to the seven mitzvot and originating religion not in accordance with what was commanded to him.
He reiterates this later as well:
מכל מקונה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנהונקובע הלימוד בתור מצוה ונוהג בעצמו מנהג
ישר×Âל וכן בשבת ×Âנקובע יונמיוחד לשביתה כנ"ל מש×Â"כ ×Âנהוניושב בטל
מתוך עצלות ×Âו לומד תורה מתוך ×Âהבת חכמה כמו שלומדינש×Âר חכמות ×Âו מתוך
רצון גרידנלהכיר תורתן של ישר×Âל ×Âז ×Âין שונ×Âיסור לנעל העכו"נולנעל
ישר×Âל המלמדו
Nevertheless, the prohibition is only if [the non-Jew] designates the
learning as a manifestation of a mitzvah, and acts with himself
[according to] the custom of Israel. And so too with Shabbat, if he
designates a specific day for resting, as mentioned earlier. As
opposed to if he just sits doing nothing out of laziness, or he learns
Torah out of love of wisdom like learning other branches of wisdom or
out of simple desire to recognize the Torah of Israel, the there is no
prohibition – not on the non-Jew, nor on the Jew who teaches him.
He also adds that even in a situation where it is forbidden for the non-Jew to learn, it is probably not forbidden for the Jew to teach him:
ולפי דעתי ×Âין ×Âיסור על המלמד ×Âפילו במקונשמתכוון העכו"נלשנמצוה ש×Âין
זה דומה לנתינת יין לנזיר דהתנהיין הונהמכשול מש×Â"כ הכנ×Âין התורה
המכשול ×Âלנהקביעות והכוונה לחדש דת ויש לפלפל בזה
And in my opinion there is no prohibition on the teacher even in a
situation where the non-Jew intends it for the sake of the mitzvah,
for this is not comparable to giving wine to a nazir where the wine
[itself] is the stumbling block, whereas here it it is not the Torah
that is the stumbling block but the designation and intent to
originate religion [that is the stumbling block]. And there is what to
discuss about this.
So in sum, according to R. Weinberg's understanding of Rambam there would be no problem with a non-Jew asking a Jew to explain some area of halacha, unless the non-Jew is doing it because he wants to fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah, and even then there would probably be no problem for the Jew to provide the explanation because by teaching him Torah he is not providing him with the forbidden object, as the forbidden object in this case is the non-Jew's intent.
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Learning Torah is manifested in two parts:
Knowing it, remembering it and fulfilling it in practice. This is not different from any other profession or science - one studies it to know it and to implement the knowledge in his life.
Enjoying the process of studying the Torah as a mean to get close to G-d (some sort of metaphorical intimate relations between G-d and the Jews). This part is solely intended for the Jewish people and a Non-Jew that would study it in this way would be liable to the death penalty as one that would have relations with a Jewish woman.
Therefore Gentiles are not only permitted to study the Torah extensively in the first way, but, according to the Gemmorah in Kiddushin and Rambam in Hichot Talmud Torah, they are rewarded for that as ones that are not commanded but still perform the commandment. So any Gentile that wants to KNOW more is welcomed.
There are, however, parts of the Jewish tradition called the "Sod", like the "intimate parts of the Torah" that are forbidden to be taught to the Gentiles. This does not include any practical Halachot.
It seems that the same reasoning applies to [the Sugya of] women and the study of the Torah.
PS. Not many people understand this distinction as the [common] Litvakes approach is almost exclusively intellectual, based on the meticulous study. On the contrary, the Chassidic approach is "כיוון שחסידינהנתורתן משתמרת", as he stories about BaSH"T go.
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
6
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg has a responsum that deals with this question. It is a lengthy responsum (and you should read it in it's entirety if you can) but one key point is what he derives from Rambam's wording of this rule:
Shu"t Seridei Eish 2:90 (Mosad Harav Kook edition)
יוצנמדבריו שה×Âיסור הונרק בעושה לשנמצוה ומתכוון לחדש דת ×Âבל ל×Â
בלומד מ×Âהבת חכמה ×Âו להכיר תורתנשל ישר×Âל וכמו בשבת ש×Âנישב בטל ×Âינו
עובר ×Âלנרק בקבע יונלשביתה כמו שכתב שנ×Âנעש×Âהו לעצמו כמו שבת
(ועיין ברדב"ז שנשכתב כן) כן הדבר בתורה שה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנקבע ×Âת
הלימוד לשנמצוה והרי הוסיף בזה על שבע מצותיו וחידש ×Âת דתנשלנכפי
המצווה עליו
It comes out from his words that the prohibition is only when [the
non-Jew] does it for the sake of the mitzvah and intends to
originate religion, but not if he learns out of love of wisdom or to
recognize the Torah of Israel. And just like with Shabbat where if
[the non-Jew] sat doing nothing he does not violate [the prohibition
of a non-Jew observing Shabbat] unless he designates the day for
resting, as he writes there "if he made it for himself as Shabbat"
(and see Radvaz there who writes this), so too it is with Torah – the
prohibition is only if he designates the learning for the sake of the
mitzvah, by which he is adding to the seven mitzvot and originating religion not in accordance with what was commanded to him.
He reiterates this later as well:
מכל מקונה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנהונקובע הלימוד בתור מצוה ונוהג בעצמו מנהג
ישר×Âל וכן בשבת ×Âנקובע יונמיוחד לשביתה כנ"ל מש×Â"כ ×Âנהוניושב בטל
מתוך עצלות ×Âו לומד תורה מתוך ×Âהבת חכמה כמו שלומדינש×Âר חכמות ×Âו מתוך
רצון גרידנלהכיר תורתן של ישר×Âל ×Âז ×Âין שונ×Âיסור לנעל העכו"נולנעל
ישר×Âל המלמדו
Nevertheless, the prohibition is only if [the non-Jew] designates the
learning as a manifestation of a mitzvah, and acts with himself
[according to] the custom of Israel. And so too with Shabbat, if he
designates a specific day for resting, as mentioned earlier. As
opposed to if he just sits doing nothing out of laziness, or he learns
Torah out of love of wisdom like learning other branches of wisdom or
out of simple desire to recognize the Torah of Israel, the there is no
prohibition – not on the non-Jew, nor on the Jew who teaches him.
He also adds that even in a situation where it is forbidden for the non-Jew to learn, it is probably not forbidden for the Jew to teach him:
ולפי דעתי ×Âין ×Âיסור על המלמד ×Âפילו במקונשמתכוון העכו"נלשנמצוה ש×Âין
זה דומה לנתינת יין לנזיר דהתנהיין הונהמכשול מש×Â"כ הכנ×Âין התורה
המכשול ×Âלנהקביעות והכוונה לחדש דת ויש לפלפל בזה
And in my opinion there is no prohibition on the teacher even in a
situation where the non-Jew intends it for the sake of the mitzvah,
for this is not comparable to giving wine to a nazir where the wine
[itself] is the stumbling block, whereas here it it is not the Torah
that is the stumbling block but the designation and intent to
originate religion [that is the stumbling block]. And there is what to
discuss about this.
So in sum, according to R. Weinberg's understanding of Rambam there would be no problem with a non-Jew asking a Jew to explain some area of halacha, unless the non-Jew is doing it because he wants to fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah, and even then there would probably be no problem for the Jew to provide the explanation because by teaching him Torah he is not providing him with the forbidden object, as the forbidden object in this case is the non-Jew's intent.
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg has a responsum that deals with this question. It is a lengthy responsum (and you should read it in it's entirety if you can) but one key point is what he derives from Rambam's wording of this rule:
Shu"t Seridei Eish 2:90 (Mosad Harav Kook edition)
יוצנמדבריו שה×Âיסור הונרק בעושה לשנמצוה ומתכוון לחדש דת ×Âבל ל×Â
בלומד מ×Âהבת חכמה ×Âו להכיר תורתנשל ישר×Âל וכמו בשבת ש×Âנישב בטל ×Âינו
עובר ×Âלנרק בקבע יונלשביתה כמו שכתב שנ×Âנעש×Âהו לעצמו כמו שבת
(ועיין ברדב"ז שנשכתב כן) כן הדבר בתורה שה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנקבע ×Âת
הלימוד לשנמצוה והרי הוסיף בזה על שבע מצותיו וחידש ×Âת דתנשלנכפי
המצווה עליו
It comes out from his words that the prohibition is only when [the
non-Jew] does it for the sake of the mitzvah and intends to
originate religion, but not if he learns out of love of wisdom or to
recognize the Torah of Israel. And just like with Shabbat where if
[the non-Jew] sat doing nothing he does not violate [the prohibition
of a non-Jew observing Shabbat] unless he designates the day for
resting, as he writes there "if he made it for himself as Shabbat"
(and see Radvaz there who writes this), so too it is with Torah – the
prohibition is only if he designates the learning for the sake of the
mitzvah, by which he is adding to the seven mitzvot and originating religion not in accordance with what was commanded to him.
He reiterates this later as well:
מכל מקונה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנהונקובע הלימוד בתור מצוה ונוהג בעצמו מנהג
ישר×Âל וכן בשבת ×Âנקובע יונמיוחד לשביתה כנ"ל מש×Â"כ ×Âנהוניושב בטל
מתוך עצלות ×Âו לומד תורה מתוך ×Âהבת חכמה כמו שלומדינש×Âר חכמות ×Âו מתוך
רצון גרידנלהכיר תורתן של ישר×Âל ×Âז ×Âין שונ×Âיסור לנעל העכו"נולנעל
ישר×Âל המלמדו
Nevertheless, the prohibition is only if [the non-Jew] designates the
learning as a manifestation of a mitzvah, and acts with himself
[according to] the custom of Israel. And so too with Shabbat, if he
designates a specific day for resting, as mentioned earlier. As
opposed to if he just sits doing nothing out of laziness, or he learns
Torah out of love of wisdom like learning other branches of wisdom or
out of simple desire to recognize the Torah of Israel, the there is no
prohibition – not on the non-Jew, nor on the Jew who teaches him.
He also adds that even in a situation where it is forbidden for the non-Jew to learn, it is probably not forbidden for the Jew to teach him:
ולפי דעתי ×Âין ×Âיסור על המלמד ×Âפילו במקונשמתכוון העכו"נלשנמצוה ש×Âין
זה דומה לנתינת יין לנזיר דהתנהיין הונהמכשול מש×Â"כ הכנ×Âין התורה
המכשול ×Âלנהקביעות והכוונה לחדש דת ויש לפלפל בזה
And in my opinion there is no prohibition on the teacher even in a
situation where the non-Jew intends it for the sake of the mitzvah,
for this is not comparable to giving wine to a nazir where the wine
[itself] is the stumbling block, whereas here it it is not the Torah
that is the stumbling block but the designation and intent to
originate religion [that is the stumbling block]. And there is what to
discuss about this.
So in sum, according to R. Weinberg's understanding of Rambam there would be no problem with a non-Jew asking a Jew to explain some area of halacha, unless the non-Jew is doing it because he wants to fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah, and even then there would probably be no problem for the Jew to provide the explanation because by teaching him Torah he is not providing him with the forbidden object, as the forbidden object in this case is the non-Jew's intent.
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg has a responsum that deals with this question. It is a lengthy responsum (and you should read it in it's entirety if you can) but one key point is what he derives from Rambam's wording of this rule:
Shu"t Seridei Eish 2:90 (Mosad Harav Kook edition)
יוצנמדבריו שה×Âיסור הונרק בעושה לשנמצוה ומתכוון לחדש דת ×Âבל ל×Â
בלומד מ×Âהבת חכמה ×Âו להכיר תורתנשל ישר×Âל וכמו בשבת ש×Âנישב בטל ×Âינו
עובר ×Âלנרק בקבע יונלשביתה כמו שכתב שנ×Âנעש×Âהו לעצמו כמו שבת
(ועיין ברדב"ז שנשכתב כן) כן הדבר בתורה שה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנקבע ×Âת
הלימוד לשנמצוה והרי הוסיף בזה על שבע מצותיו וחידש ×Âת דתנשלנכפי
המצווה עליו
It comes out from his words that the prohibition is only when [the
non-Jew] does it for the sake of the mitzvah and intends to
originate religion, but not if he learns out of love of wisdom or to
recognize the Torah of Israel. And just like with Shabbat where if
[the non-Jew] sat doing nothing he does not violate [the prohibition
of a non-Jew observing Shabbat] unless he designates the day for
resting, as he writes there "if he made it for himself as Shabbat"
(and see Radvaz there who writes this), so too it is with Torah – the
prohibition is only if he designates the learning for the sake of the
mitzvah, by which he is adding to the seven mitzvot and originating religion not in accordance with what was commanded to him.
He reiterates this later as well:
מכל מקונה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנהונקובע הלימוד בתור מצוה ונוהג בעצמו מנהג
ישר×Âל וכן בשבת ×Âנקובע יונמיוחד לשביתה כנ"ל מש×Â"כ ×Âנהוניושב בטל
מתוך עצלות ×Âו לומד תורה מתוך ×Âהבת חכמה כמו שלומדינש×Âר חכמות ×Âו מתוך
רצון גרידנלהכיר תורתן של ישר×Âל ×Âז ×Âין שונ×Âיסור לנעל העכו"נולנעל
ישר×Âל המלמדו
Nevertheless, the prohibition is only if [the non-Jew] designates the
learning as a manifestation of a mitzvah, and acts with himself
[according to] the custom of Israel. And so too with Shabbat, if he
designates a specific day for resting, as mentioned earlier. As
opposed to if he just sits doing nothing out of laziness, or he learns
Torah out of love of wisdom like learning other branches of wisdom or
out of simple desire to recognize the Torah of Israel, the there is no
prohibition – not on the non-Jew, nor on the Jew who teaches him.
He also adds that even in a situation where it is forbidden for the non-Jew to learn, it is probably not forbidden for the Jew to teach him:
ולפי דעתי ×Âין ×Âיסור על המלמד ×Âפילו במקונשמתכוון העכו"נלשנמצוה ש×Âין
זה דומה לנתינת יין לנזיר דהתנהיין הונהמכשול מש×Â"כ הכנ×Âין התורה
המכשול ×Âלנהקביעות והכוונה לחדש דת ויש לפלפל בזה
And in my opinion there is no prohibition on the teacher even in a
situation where the non-Jew intends it for the sake of the mitzvah,
for this is not comparable to giving wine to a nazir where the wine
[itself] is the stumbling block, whereas here it it is not the Torah
that is the stumbling block but the designation and intent to
originate religion [that is the stumbling block]. And there is what to
discuss about this.
So in sum, according to R. Weinberg's understanding of Rambam there would be no problem with a non-Jew asking a Jew to explain some area of halacha, unless the non-Jew is doing it because he wants to fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah, and even then there would probably be no problem for the Jew to provide the explanation because by teaching him Torah he is not providing him with the forbidden object, as the forbidden object in this case is the non-Jew's intent.
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
R. Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg has a responsum that deals with this question. It is a lengthy responsum (and you should read it in it's entirety if you can) but one key point is what he derives from Rambam's wording of this rule:
Shu"t Seridei Eish 2:90 (Mosad Harav Kook edition)
יוצנמדבריו שה×Âיסור הונרק בעושה לשנמצוה ומתכוון לחדש דת ×Âבל ל×Â
בלומד מ×Âהבת חכמה ×Âו להכיר תורתנשל ישר×Âל וכמו בשבת ש×Âנישב בטל ×Âינו
עובר ×Âלנרק בקבע יונלשביתה כמו שכתב שנ×Âנעש×Âהו לעצמו כמו שבת
(ועיין ברדב"ז שנשכתב כן) כן הדבר בתורה שה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנקבע ×Âת
הלימוד לשנמצוה והרי הוסיף בזה על שבע מצותיו וחידש ×Âת דתנשלנכפי
המצווה עליו
It comes out from his words that the prohibition is only when [the
non-Jew] does it for the sake of the mitzvah and intends to
originate religion, but not if he learns out of love of wisdom or to
recognize the Torah of Israel. And just like with Shabbat where if
[the non-Jew] sat doing nothing he does not violate [the prohibition
of a non-Jew observing Shabbat] unless he designates the day for
resting, as he writes there "if he made it for himself as Shabbat"
(and see Radvaz there who writes this), so too it is with Torah – the
prohibition is only if he designates the learning for the sake of the
mitzvah, by which he is adding to the seven mitzvot and originating religion not in accordance with what was commanded to him.
He reiterates this later as well:
מכל מקונה×Âיסור הונרק ×Âנהונקובע הלימוד בתור מצוה ונוהג בעצמו מנהג
ישר×Âל וכן בשבת ×Âנקובע יונמיוחד לשביתה כנ"ל מש×Â"כ ×Âנהוניושב בטל
מתוך עצלות ×Âו לומד תורה מתוך ×Âהבת חכמה כמו שלומדינש×Âר חכמות ×Âו מתוך
רצון גרידנלהכיר תורתן של ישר×Âל ×Âז ×Âין שונ×Âיסור לנעל העכו"נולנעל
ישר×Âל המלמדו
Nevertheless, the prohibition is only if [the non-Jew] designates the
learning as a manifestation of a mitzvah, and acts with himself
[according to] the custom of Israel. And so too with Shabbat, if he
designates a specific day for resting, as mentioned earlier. As
opposed to if he just sits doing nothing out of laziness, or he learns
Torah out of love of wisdom like learning other branches of wisdom or
out of simple desire to recognize the Torah of Israel, the there is no
prohibition – not on the non-Jew, nor on the Jew who teaches him.
He also adds that even in a situation where it is forbidden for the non-Jew to learn, it is probably not forbidden for the Jew to teach him:
ולפי דעתי ×Âין ×Âיסור על המלמד ×Âפילו במקונשמתכוון העכו"נלשנמצוה ש×Âין
זה דומה לנתינת יין לנזיר דהתנהיין הונהמכשול מש×Â"כ הכנ×Âין התורה
המכשול ×Âלנהקביעות והכוונה לחדש דת ויש לפלפל בזה
And in my opinion there is no prohibition on the teacher even in a
situation where the non-Jew intends it for the sake of the mitzvah,
for this is not comparable to giving wine to a nazir where the wine
[itself] is the stumbling block, whereas here it it is not the Torah
that is the stumbling block but the designation and intent to
originate religion [that is the stumbling block]. And there is what to
discuss about this.
So in sum, according to R. Weinberg's understanding of Rambam there would be no problem with a non-Jew asking a Jew to explain some area of halacha, unless the non-Jew is doing it because he wants to fulfill the mitzvah of learning Torah, and even then there would probably be no problem for the Jew to provide the explanation because by teaching him Torah he is not providing him with the forbidden object, as the forbidden object in this case is the non-Jew's intent.
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
edited 46 mins ago
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
answered 52 mins ago
Alex
14.8k3377
14.8k3377
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
You're great at finding sources, but frankly - from this source - is it clear for you why and what Talmud Torah a Goy is capitally liable for? How a Goy can intend for a Mitzvah if he admits he's not commanded? But otherwise, he repeats my answer, which I think states it more clearly.
– Al Berko
31 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
BTW, what he calls "מצווה" is #2 on my list, as I said a Goy can not intend to perform a Mitzvah but can intend to get in close relations to G-d which G-d forbids (unless he converts).
– Al Berko
23 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Learning Torah is manifested in two parts:
Knowing it, remembering it and fulfilling it in practice. This is not different from any other profession or science - one studies it to know it and to implement the knowledge in his life.
Enjoying the process of studying the Torah as a mean to get close to G-d (some sort of metaphorical intimate relations between G-d and the Jews). This part is solely intended for the Jewish people and a Non-Jew that would study it in this way would be liable to the death penalty as one that would have relations with a Jewish woman.
Therefore Gentiles are not only permitted to study the Torah extensively in the first way, but, according to the Gemmorah in Kiddushin and Rambam in Hichot Talmud Torah, they are rewarded for that as ones that are not commanded but still perform the commandment. So any Gentile that wants to KNOW more is welcomed.
There are, however, parts of the Jewish tradition called the "Sod", like the "intimate parts of the Torah" that are forbidden to be taught to the Gentiles. This does not include any practical Halachot.
It seems that the same reasoning applies to [the Sugya of] women and the study of the Torah.
PS. Not many people understand this distinction as the [common] Litvakes approach is almost exclusively intellectual, based on the meticulous study. On the contrary, the Chassidic approach is "כיוון שחסידינהנתורתן משתמרת", as he stories about BaSH"T go.
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
6
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
Learning Torah is manifested in two parts:
Knowing it, remembering it and fulfilling it in practice. This is not different from any other profession or science - one studies it to know it and to implement the knowledge in his life.
Enjoying the process of studying the Torah as a mean to get close to G-d (some sort of metaphorical intimate relations between G-d and the Jews). This part is solely intended for the Jewish people and a Non-Jew that would study it in this way would be liable to the death penalty as one that would have relations with a Jewish woman.
Therefore Gentiles are not only permitted to study the Torah extensively in the first way, but, according to the Gemmorah in Kiddushin and Rambam in Hichot Talmud Torah, they are rewarded for that as ones that are not commanded but still perform the commandment. So any Gentile that wants to KNOW more is welcomed.
There are, however, parts of the Jewish tradition called the "Sod", like the "intimate parts of the Torah" that are forbidden to be taught to the Gentiles. This does not include any practical Halachot.
It seems that the same reasoning applies to [the Sugya of] women and the study of the Torah.
PS. Not many people understand this distinction as the [common] Litvakes approach is almost exclusively intellectual, based on the meticulous study. On the contrary, the Chassidic approach is "כיוון שחסידינהנתורתן משתמרת", as he stories about BaSH"T go.
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
6
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-1
down vote
up vote
-1
down vote
Learning Torah is manifested in two parts:
Knowing it, remembering it and fulfilling it in practice. This is not different from any other profession or science - one studies it to know it and to implement the knowledge in his life.
Enjoying the process of studying the Torah as a mean to get close to G-d (some sort of metaphorical intimate relations between G-d and the Jews). This part is solely intended for the Jewish people and a Non-Jew that would study it in this way would be liable to the death penalty as one that would have relations with a Jewish woman.
Therefore Gentiles are not only permitted to study the Torah extensively in the first way, but, according to the Gemmorah in Kiddushin and Rambam in Hichot Talmud Torah, they are rewarded for that as ones that are not commanded but still perform the commandment. So any Gentile that wants to KNOW more is welcomed.
There are, however, parts of the Jewish tradition called the "Sod", like the "intimate parts of the Torah" that are forbidden to be taught to the Gentiles. This does not include any practical Halachot.
It seems that the same reasoning applies to [the Sugya of] women and the study of the Torah.
PS. Not many people understand this distinction as the [common] Litvakes approach is almost exclusively intellectual, based on the meticulous study. On the contrary, the Chassidic approach is "כיוון שחסידינהנתורתן משתמרת", as he stories about BaSH"T go.
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
Learning Torah is manifested in two parts:
Knowing it, remembering it and fulfilling it in practice. This is not different from any other profession or science - one studies it to know it and to implement the knowledge in his life.
Enjoying the process of studying the Torah as a mean to get close to G-d (some sort of metaphorical intimate relations between G-d and the Jews). This part is solely intended for the Jewish people and a Non-Jew that would study it in this way would be liable to the death penalty as one that would have relations with a Jewish woman.
Therefore Gentiles are not only permitted to study the Torah extensively in the first way, but, according to the Gemmorah in Kiddushin and Rambam in Hichot Talmud Torah, they are rewarded for that as ones that are not commanded but still perform the commandment. So any Gentile that wants to KNOW more is welcomed.
There are, however, parts of the Jewish tradition called the "Sod", like the "intimate parts of the Torah" that are forbidden to be taught to the Gentiles. This does not include any practical Halachot.
It seems that the same reasoning applies to [the Sugya of] women and the study of the Torah.
PS. Not many people understand this distinction as the [common] Litvakes approach is almost exclusively intellectual, based on the meticulous study. On the contrary, the Chassidic approach is "כיוון שחסידינהנתורתן משתמרת", as he stories about BaSH"T go.
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
answered 1 hour ago
Al Berko
2,854422
2,854422
6
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
6
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
6
6
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
This answer would be a great deal more valuable if any of its assertions were backed up with sources.
– Isaac Moses♦
1 hour ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
– Isaac Moses♦
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
@IsaacMoses Why don't we discuss the very idea instead of discussing the credentials. Do you agree with it? I tried to be as clear as possible.
– Al Berko
25 mins ago
add a comment |Â
Related: judaism.stackexchange.com/q/59704. This is not a dupe; you can look at this question as asking regarding the premise of that question, if you wish, but it’s certainly not asking that question itself.
– DonielF
5 hours ago
I can't imagine that there is a problem explaining the general parameters of the halacha to a Gentile. There are numerous practical examples where that would be necessary. E.g. - Numerous kosher stores hire Gentile workers to handle the food. It would be necessary to explain some general rules such as don't mix the meat with the dairy. Sometimes at work, a Jew needs to explain why he needs to leave early on Friday afternoons.
– DanF
1 hour ago