Primary Source on Interactions with Non-Jews

(1) And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. (2) And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all wherewith the ground teemeth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered. (3) Every moving thing that liveth shall be for food for you; as the green herb have I given you all. (4) Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (5) And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, will I require the life of man. (6) Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man. (7) And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; swarm in the earth, and multiply therein.’ . (8) And God spoke unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying: (9) ’As for Me, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you; (10) and with every living creature that is with you, the fowl, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. (11) And I will establish My covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.’ (12) And God said: ‘This is the token of the covenant which I make between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: (13) I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth. (14) And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the bow is seen in the cloud, (15) that I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. (16) And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.’ (17) And God said unto Noah: ‘This is the token of the covenant which I have established between Me and all flesh that is upon the earth.’

We learn in a Braitta The verse could have said, "Men." So what is the Torah teaching us by saying "Any man?" It's to include worshipers of stars, that they can't curse Hashem's name either. We cannot execute the worshipers of stars except by the sword because all executions of the sons of Noah are done by the sword. Is this really where we learn that they cannot curse Hashem? Don't we learn it from here?: "Hashem" - this is teaching that they cannot curse Hashem. Rabbi Yitzchak Nephacha says We need the verse that says "Any man" to teach us that they can't curse names of Hashem besides Y-H-W-H Our Rabbis Taught: The Children of Noah were commanded regarding seven mitzvot: (1) Justice, (2) Blasphemy, (3) Idol Worship, (4) Major Sexual Violations (5) Murder, (6) Robbery (7) Eating the limb of a living animal. Rabbi Chaninah ben (Gamla) said: Also regarding [eating] the blood of a living animal. Rabbi Chidka said: Also regarding castration. Rabbi Shimon said: Also regarding sorcery. Rabbi Yossi said: All that is said in the [Biblical] passage of sorcery, a Noahide is enjoined about — (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) "There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer... and because of these abominations the LORD thy God is driving them out from before thee." — and they could not be punished unless they had been enjoined. Rabbi Elazar said: Also regarding kilayim [hybridization]. Noahides are permitted to wear kilayim [i.e. mixed wool and linen], and to plant kilayim [i.e. specific combinations of plants], and are only forbidden from breeding [mixed species of] domesticated animal and grafting trees. How do we know this? Rabbi Yochanan said: The Torah says, (Genesis 2:16) "And the Lord God commanded the man saying, 'You may certainly eat of every tree of the garden.'" "And he commanded" means establishing justice. For it says (Genesis 18:19): "For I know concerning him that he will command his children after him." "Hashem" that is a reference to the prohibition against blasphemy. As it says (Leviticus 24:16), "Anyone who curses the name of the Lord shall be certainly killed." "God" is a reference to idol worship as it says (Exodus 20:2), "There shall not be for you any other gods." "Upon Man" this is the prohibition against bloodshed. And so it says (Genesis 9:6), "One who spills human blood etc...." "Saying" this is a reference to sexual transgressions. As it says (Jeremiah 3:1) "Saying, a man sends away his wife and she goes to live with another man." "From any tree in the garden" - but not something stolen. "You shall eat" but don't eat a limb from a living animal. When Rabbi Yitzchak came, he taught it differently. "And he commanded" is a reference to idol worship. "Elohim" is a reference to establishing justice. I understand why he thinks the word "Elohim" is a reference to justice since the Torah says (Exodus 22:7), and the litigants shall approach the judges (Elohim). But, "and he commanded" why does that suggest the prohibition against idol worship? Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avidimi answered that question. One said: (Exodus 32:8) "They have quickly turned from the path that they have been commanded to follow and have made themselves [a golden calf]." The other one said: (Hosea 5:11), "Ephraim is defrauded, robbed of justice, because he has witlessly gone after futility." What is the difference? Here is the difference: Someone non-Jewish who made an idol and didn't worship it. The one says "they have made" thinks the problem is the moment when the idol is made. The one who says, "he has witlessly gone after" the prohibition does not start until he goes and worships the idol. A baraita teaches: Just as Israel was commanded to establish courts in every single town and every single city. So too the Children of Noah are commanded to establish courts in every single town and every single city. The school of Menace taught: There are seven mitzvot that were commanded to the Children of Noah: (1)Idol worship, (2) Sexual transgressions, (3) Bloodshed, (4) Theft, (5) Eating the limb of an living animal, (6) castration, (7) mixing two species together. Rabbi Yehudah says: The first man was commanded only against idol worship, as it says, "and the Lord God commanded the man." Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He was also commanded against blasphemy and also to establish courts.

(11) All who accept the seven commandments and are careful to observe them are part of the world's righteous gentiles. And that person has a share in the world to come. This applies to one who accepts them and does them because the Holy One, Blessed Be He, commanded them in the Torah and informed us through our teacher Moses that the children of Noah were previously commanded to do them. But if he observes these commandments from a knowledgeable resolve, this person is not a foreign resident and not one of the world's righteous gentiles and not one of their sages.

(1) Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother. (2) And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him. (3) And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself.

The question was asked: Did R. Simeon b. Eleazar say this [with regard to things found in places] where the majority of the people are heathens,⁸ but not where the majority are Israelites, or [did he say this] also [with regard to things found in places] where the majority are Israelites? And if you come to the conclusion that [he said this] also where the majority are Israelites do the Rabbis differ from him or not? And if you come to the conclusion that they differ from him — they would certainly differ where the majority are Israelites — do they differ where the majority are heathens, or not?⁹ And if you come to the conclusion that they differ even where the majority are heathens, is the law in accordance with his view or not? And if you come to the conclusion that the law is in accordance with his view, does this apply only to the case where the majority are heathens, or also to the case where the majority are Israelites? — Come and hear: If one finds money in a Synagogue or a house of study, or in any other place where crowds are frequent, it belongs to the finder, because the owner has given it up.¹⁰ Now, who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the majority¹¹ if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that [he applies this principle] also to a case where the majority are Israelites!¹² — Here we deal with [a case where the money found was] scattered.¹³ But if [the money was] scattered, why refer to places where crowds are frequent? It would apply also to places where crowds are not frequent!¹⁴ — Admittedly, therefore, [the reference is to money found] in bundles,¹⁵ but we deal here with Synagogues¹⁶ of heathens. But how can this be applied to 'houses of study'?¹⁷ — [The reference is to] our houses of study in which heathens stay.¹⁸ Now that you have arrived at this conclusion [the reference to] 'Synagogues' [can] also [be explained as meaning] our Synagogues in which heathens stay.

Come and hear: If one finds therein¹⁹ a lost object, then if the majority are Israelites it has to be announced, but if the majority are heathens it has not to be announced.²⁰ Now who is the authority that lays it down that we go according to the majority if not R. Simeon b. Eleazar? You must therefore conclude that R. Simeon b. Eleazar says this only where the majority are heathens, but not where the majority are Israelites! — [No.] This is the view of the Rabbis. But then you could conclude therefrom that the Rabbis accept R. Simeon b. Eleazar's view in the case where the majority are heathens! — Admittedly, therefore, this²¹ represents the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, and his ruling applies also to a case where the majority are Israelites, but here²¹ we deal [with a case where the money was] concealed.²² But if it was concealed, what has [the finder] to do with it? Have we not learnt: 'if one finds a vessel in a dungheap, if covered up he may not touch it; but if uncovered he must take it and announce it'?²³ — As R. papa explained:²⁴ [The reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away — so here also [the reference is] to a dungheap which is not regularly cleared away, and which [the owner] unexpectedly decided to clear away.²⁵

Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files

1. Regarding which a scholar may refuse to give correct information in order not to embarrass his host by inducing others to come and seek the latter's hospitality.
2. [MS.M. omits 'from him'. The cup belonged accordingly to the hospice. (V. Rashi.) This version is supported by the fact that Mar Zutra acted in the case in a judicial capacity, and it is unlikely that he would act thus in a case affecting his own interests. V. Chajes. Z.H. Notes a.l.]
3. Poles into which needles are stuck (Rashi). Some authorities leave out the word 'poles' and read 'needles' alone. Others regard the word 'poles' as separate from the word 'needles' (not as a construct but as an absolute plural form) and translate 'poles, needles,' etc.
4. To be kept by the finder.
5. [H] the singular of [H] (poles).
6. [So according to many texts; cur. edd., 'as we learnt' is evidently a copyist's error, as the passage cited (Suk. 44b) is not Mishnaic but Amoraic.]
7. A.Z. 43a.
8. [Heathens do not return lost articles (v. infra p. 152, n. 3), and consequently do not come within the provision of the law relating to the announcement of finds. Moreover, according to Tosaf., even if it were certain that the article belonged to an Israelite, there would be no need to return it because the owner, presuming that a heathen found it, would despair of recovering it. v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 666.]
9. [In view of the principle that we do not follow the majority in money matters.]
10. Cf. supra 21b.
11. I.e., that in the question whether a found article is to be returned depends on considerations relating to the majority of the people that frequent the place where the article is found.
12. As the majority of those congregating in a Synagogue are Israelites.
13. In such a case the Rabbis also hold that the money belongs to the finder, as stated in the Mishnah, supra 21a.
14. Scattered money has no identification mark and is given up by the owner as soon as it is lost, even if crowds do not frequent the place where it has been dropped.
15. Which present an identification mark and are only given up when lost in a place which is frequented by crowds.
16. [H], lit., 'houses of assembly', or 'meeting places,' not Jewish houses of prayer. It is in this sense that the term is used here.
17. Even if the term 'Synagogues' could be interpreted as meaning secular meeting places used by Gentiles, how could the term [H] applied only to Colleges where Jewish law is studied and expounded, mean anything but Jewish Colleges frequented by Jews?
18. Jewish Colleges situated outside the Jewish quarters and guarded by Gentile watchmen placed there for the purpose.
19. In a city inhabited by Jews and heathens.
20. Mak. II, 8.
21. This cited Mishnah.
22. In which case it was not lost at all, and if the majority were Israelites the finder would have to announce it.
23. As the article may have been thrown on the dungheap accidentally (Mishnah, infra 25b).
24. Ibid.
25. In which case the finder must take the article away and announce it. (Cf. infra 25b.) Had the owner of the dungheap been in the habit of clearing it away regularly the person who placed the article there could not have claimed it, as the 'loss' would have been a deliberate one.

26. And if you wish I will say: Admittedly this is the view of the Rabbis,1 but is it stated. 'They belong to the finder'? — It [merely] says 'He has not to announce them' [meaning that] he lets it lie,2 and when an Israelite comes and indicates an identification mark in it he receives it. Come and hear: R. Assi said: If one finds a barrel of wine in a town where the majority are heathens he is permitted [to keep it] as a find but he is forbidden to derive any benefit from it.3 If an Israelite comes and indicates an identification mark in it the finder is permitted to drink it.4 Now this is obviously in accordance with the view of R. Simeon b. Eleazar.5 It therefore follows that R. Simeon b. Eleazar only Says this where the majority are heathens, but not where the majority are Israelites! — [No.] In reality, I will tell you. R. Simeon b. Eleazar says this also where the majority are Israelites, but R. Assi agrees with him in the one case6 but differs from him in the other case.7 But if [the finder] is forbidden to derive any benefit [from the barrel of wine], what purpose does the law serve [by permitting him to keep it]? — R. Ashi answered: In regard to the vessel.8 A certain man once found four zuz which had been tied up in a cloth and thrown into the river Biran. When he appeared before Rab Judah the latter said to him, 'Go and announce it.' But is not this [like retrieving an object from] the tide of the sea? — The river Biran is different. As it contains obstacles9 the owner does not give up hope.10 But does not the majority11 consist of heathens? Hence it must be concluded that the halachah is not in accordance with R. Simeon b. Eleazar even where the majority are heathens! — [The position in regard to] the river Biran is different. For Israelites dam it up12 and Israelites dredge it: As Israelites dam it up it may be assumed that an Israelite dropped [the coins], and as Israelites dredge it, [the loser] did not give them up.13 Rab Judah once followed Mar Samuel into a street of wholemeal vendors,14 and he asked him: What if one found here a purse?15 — [Mar Samuel] answered: It would belong to the finder. What if an Israelite came and indicated an identification mark? — [Mar Samuel] answered: He would have to return it. Both?16 — [Mar Samuel] answered: [He should go] beyond the requirements of the law.17 Thus the father of Samuel found some asses in a desert, and he returned them to their owner after a year of twelve months: [he went] beyond the requirements of the law. Raba once followed R. Nahman into a street of skinners18 — some say into a street of scholars — and he asked him: What if one found here a purse? — [R. Nahman] answered: It would belong to the finder. What if an Israelite came and indicated its identification mark? — [R. Nahman] answered: It would [still] belong to the finder. But that one keeps protesting! — It is as if one protested against his house collapsing or against his ship sinking in the sea. Once a vulture seized a piece of meat in the market and dropped it among the palm-trees belonging to Bar Marion. When the latter appeared before Abaye he19 said to him: Go and take it for yourself. Now, the majority [in that case] consisted of Israelites. Hence it must be concluded that the halachah is in accordance with R. Simeon b. Eleazar even where the majority are Israelites! — [The position in regard to] a vulture is different — for it is like the tide of the sea.20 But did not Rab say that meat which has disappeared from sight is forbidden?21 — He22 stood by and watched it.23 R. Hanina once found a slaughtered kid between Tiberias and Sepphoris, and he was permitted [to appropriate] it. R. Ammi said: He was permitted [to appropriate] it as a find, according to R. Simeon b. Eleazar, and as regards the method of slaughter24 — [it was deemed proper.] according to R. Hanania, the son of R. Jose the Galilean. For it has been taught25 'If one lost his kids or chickens and subsequently found them slaughtered — R. Judah forbids them, and R. Hanania the son of R. Jose the Galilean, permits them [to be eaten]. Rabbi said: The words of R. Judah seem right in a case where [the lost kids or chickens] were found on a dungheap while the words of R. Hanania, the son of R. Jose the Galilean seem right when they were found in a house.26 Now, seeing that they were permitted in regard to the method of slaughter, the majority must have consisted of Israelites.27 Hence it must be concluded that the halachah is according to R. Simeon b. Eleazar even where the majority are Israelites! — Raba replied: [That was a case where] the majority [of the inhabitants were] heathens, and the majority of the slaughterers [were] Israelites.28 R. Ammi once found some slaughtered pigeons between Tiberias and Sepphoris. When he appeared before R. Assi — some say, before R. Johanan; others again say, in the house of study — he was told: 'Go and take them for yourself.' R. Isaac the blacksmith once found some balls of string which were used for making nets. When he appeared before R. Johanan — some say. in the house of study — he was told: 'Go and take them for yourself.' * - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files And it is not a case where the money was concealed. It is wrong, however, to conclude from this that the Rabbis agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar where the majority are heathens, as their decision does not mean that the article belongs to the finder. [I.e., he retains it in his possession till an Israelite comes. V. Strashun a.l.] The fact that the majority are heathens does not, according to the Rabbis, entitle the finder to appropriate the article, v. supra. p. 151, n. 9. As the wine may have been used in connection with idol-worship and thus become [H] i.e., forbidden not only to be drunk by Jews but also to be utilised in any way that might yield profit or pleasure. As the owner proves to be a Jew the prohibition relating to wine used in connection with idol-worship does not arise, and as the majority of the inhabitants of the place are heathens who do not return lost articles, the owner must be assumed to have abandoned the hope of recovering the lost goods. Who maintains that in such a case the majority must be considered in deciding whether the finder is entitled to appropriate the article or not. Where the majority are heathens. Where the majority are Israelites. He may use the vessel in which the wine is contained, although he is forbidden to use the wine. Various kinds of network intended to catch the fish. As the network is likely to hold up the article floating in the river the owner hopes that the article will ultimately be recovered. Of the inhabitants of the territory through which the river Biran flows. By placing the network therein for the purpose of catching fish. He depended on the Israelites recovering the article during dredging operations and returning it to him. Where crowds congregate. Would he be entitled to keep it? Do not the two views contradict each other? I.e., in saying 'he would have to return it' R. Simeon b. Eleazar did not give a legal decision but indicated what he would regard as the proper action to take on the ground of morality. The term used ([H]) means literally 'within the line of justice,' i.e. performing a good action even if one is not compelled to do so legally. Cf. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 584, n. 2. Persons who deal in skins, leather and leather goods. Abaye. The owner is sure to have given up the hope of recovering the loss. As it may have been exchanged for, or replaced by, meat taken from an unclean animal or be otherwise unfit to be eaten by Jews. Bar Marion. From the time the vulture seized it until it dropped it. I.e., as regards the assumption that the kid had been slaughtered in accordance with the Jewish ritual and was therefore 'Kasher', or fit to be eaten by Jews. V. Hul. 12a. Which would show that they were unfit to be eaten. As otherwise it could not be assumed that the Jewish method of slaughter had been used. It could therefore be assumed that the Jewish method of slaughter was used, although the majority of the inhabitants were heathens. * The translation from here to the end of the tractate is by Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman. Which usually has some identification mark by which the owner may recognise it. Which also has an identification mark. Heaps of fruit or money also have identification marks, as explained in the Gemara below. Tractate List / Glossary / Search / Bible Reference

(8) These are the things they said [i.e., enacted] due to "ways of peace:" A Kohen should read [the Torah] first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite due to "ways of peace;" we place the eruv [halachic merging of separate domains by means of setting aside an amount of food in a designated place] in an old house, due to "ways of peace"; the well nearest to the water-course must be filled first, due to "ways of peace." [With regard to] traps for wild animals, birds or fish or traps are included in the laws of theft, due to "ways of peace." Rabbi Yossi says, "It is actual theft." What a deaf person, a person who exhibits signs indicating severe mental incompetence, or a minor finds [is his own], and [stealing from him] is included in the laws of theft. due to "ways of peace." Rabbi Yossi says, "It is actual theft." In the case of a poor person beating down olives from the top of a tree, that which is under him is included in the laws of theft. Rabbi Yossi says, "It is actual theft." We do not prevent non-Jewish poor from gathering leket[that which is dropped in the course of harvesting, which is reserved for the poor] the forgotten [grain], and the produce of the corner of the field [reserved for the poor], due to "ways of peace."

The Recitation [of the exodus story]

The leader uncovers the matsot, raises the Seder plate, and says out loud:

This is the bread of destitution that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. Anyone who is famished should come and eat, anyone who is in need should come and partake of the Pesach sacrifice. Now we are here, next year we will be in the land of Israel; this year we are slaves, next year we will be free people.

It is forbidden for Israel to take Tzedaka from an idol worshiper in public. And if it's not possible to live without this Tzedaka, and it's not possible to take from idol worshiper in private, it is allowed. A king or a minister who is an idol worshipper, that sends money as Tzedaka, we do not return it for the sake of peace. Rather we take from it and use it for the poor gentiles in a discreet manner, so the king is not aware.

Some say that you do what the governor ordered you to do. What is this about? Money that was given as Tzedaka, but if the govenor sends goods for a synagogue you take it, but not from those who converted.