:When the Noahites were enjoined concerning Justice, they were put under obligation to create legal arrangements .... It is incumbent on the judges to draw up rules of equity that shall be appropriate for that particular country, as exemplified by the manner in which this matter is handled currently by the nations, severally. Likewise, it is incumbent upon merchants and upon the members of the trades to establish regulations for themselves... and whatever emerges as the law in this manner is law, as much as that which is written in the Bible. Furthermore, anyone violating this law violates Scripture, because Scripture commands the individual to accept the decisions of the contemporary jurists. The dictum, "The law of the land is the Law," relates to this concept.<ref>Quoted by Reuben Margolioth, Margolioth Hayarn. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1958, volume 11, page 20. (Sanhedrin 56b, section 9.)</ref>
===Rabbi Aaron LictensteinNahmanides===
After discussing Nahmanides begins his statement of view by quoting a comment by Maimonides concerning the [[Seven Laws as Categories]], Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein attempts define which destruction of the 613 laws, based on Maimonides' Book city of Shechern by Simon and Levi in retaliation for the rape of Divine Commandments, would fall under their sister at the Noahide Imperative hands of Legal System and therefore apply to Noahidesthe city's favorite son, he writes:<ref>[[Aaron Lichtenstein|Lichtenstein, Aaron]]. "The Seven Laws in the 34th chapter of Noah". New YorkGenesis: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press and Z. Berman Books, 2d ed. 1986</ref>
Just what are the implications of the Noahide imperative :The Master [Maimonides] explains in his volume on Justice (Dinim) is the subject of dispute among major authors. All agree however judges [Code, "Laws for Kings" 9:14], that the following two aspects since Noahites are implied: (a) charged with upholding justice - meaning that courts shall be established they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws in each and every town - and (b) that , furthermore, since a Noahite who violates any act which contributes one of his laws is to an unjust court decision shall be prohibited. That these two aspects are involved derives from executed by the Talmudic remark sword, therefore all citizens of Shechern were fit to die, because Shechern [the effect that son] stole and they all saw and knew it but they did not bring him to justice has reference to both (a) required acts of commission and (b) prohibited acts.
The following imperatives from among :I do not think this explanation is correct. For if so, then their father, Jacob, should have been under obligation to assume a leading role in the executions; and if he was afraid why did he wax angry at his sons to the Mosaic 613 are implicit extent that long after he cursed their fury, he punished them, and he scattered them. Had they not done a good thing, having had faith in these two aspects of the Noahic law on justice:Lord and He granted them success?
1. ":Anyway, to my mind, this justice which is enumerated among the Seven Laws of Noah is not limited to the establishment of courts. Rather, it charges the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability of watchmen, rape, seduction, damages, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like, similar to the laws with which the Israelites are charged. Thus, they place themselves under threat of execution by stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the like. It is this same law that also obligates them to appoint judges and officers in each town, like the Israelites. However, if they neglect to do this they are not to be executed, because this derives from a positive imperative, and every communitythe rule of "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes grounds for] their execution," applies only for the negative imperatives.." Positive 176. <ref>Nahmanides, Pirush al HaTorah (Commentary on the Pentateuch). Edited and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959, volume 1, page 191.</ref>
2. ''. . . to treat the litigants equally before the law." Positive 177.===Rabbi Moses Isserles (circa 1500)===
3. ". . . Noahide justice does not leave it for each judge or government to inquire diligently into the testimony develop original principles of equity; rather, a witness." Positive 179set of such principles are part and parcel of Noahism, under Justice.This idea is further developed, and extended, by Moses Isserles (circa 1500) who reads this very issue into a talmudic argument:
4:. ". . . against Rabbi Johanan, [in Sanhedrin 56b,] maintains that Noahites are compelled, under the wanton miscarriage requirements of justice , merely to uphold the national customs, and to judge between man and man fairly. But Noahites are not compelled to be in consonance with Israel's law, bequeathed by the courthands of Moses at Sinai, because Noahic law is purely a law of social accord ." Negative 273.. the statutes of Israel are one thing and the statutes of Noah are another.
5:However, Rabbi Isaac has a different approach. He maintains [ibid. "] that Noahic Justice involves the very law which Jews were bequeathed at Sinai . . . against and it seems to me that the judge accepting a bribe or gift from a litigantopinion of Rabbi Isaac prevails, because..." Negative 274<ref>Moses Isserles, Sheilot U'Teshuvot Rarno, Sudylkow; Isaac Madpis, printer, 1835, page 7, Responsum 10.</ref>
6. ". . . against the judge showing marks of honor to but one litigant." Negative 275.===Rabbi Aaron Lictenstein===
7. ". . . against After discussing the judge acting in fear [[Seven Laws as Categories]], Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein attempts define which of a litigantthe 613 laws, based on Maimonides's threatsBook of Divine Commandments, would fall under the Noahide Imperative of Legal System and therefore apply to Noahides, he writes:<ref>[[Aaron Lichtenstein|Lichtenstein, Aaron]]." Negative 276The Seven Laws of Noah". New York: The Rabbi Jacob Joseph School Press and Z. Berman Books, 2d ed. 1986</ref>
8Just what are the implications of the Noahide imperative on Justice (Dinim) is the subject of dispute among major authors. "All agree however that the following two aspects are implied: (a) that courts shall be established and (b) that any act which contributes to an unjust court decision shall be prohibited. . . against That these two aspects are involved derives from the Talmudic remark to the judge, out effect that justice has reference to both (a) required acts of compassion, favoring a poor litigantcommission and (b) prohibited acts.<ref>Sanhedrin 59a: "Qum v'ase v'shev v'al t'ase." Negative 277- See Rashi's marginal comment, ad locum.</ref>
9. ". . . against the judge discriminating against the litigant because he is a sinner." Negative 278.10. ". . . against the judge, out of softness, putting aside the penalty of a mauler or killer." Negative 279.11. ". . . against the judge discriminating against a stranger or an orphan." Negative 280. 12. ". . . against the judge hearing one litigant in the absence of the other." Negative 281.13. ". . . against appointing a judge who lacks knowledge of the Law." Negative 284. 14. ". . . against the court killing an innocent man." Negative 289.15. ". . . against incrimination by circumstantial evidence." Negative 290. 16. ". . . against punishing for a crime committed under duress." Negative 294. 17. ". . . that the court is to administer the death penalty by the sword [i.e., decapitation]." Positive 226. 18. ". . . against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill the perpetrator of a capital crime." Negative 292. 19. ". . . to testify in court." Positive 178. 20. against testifying falsely." Negative 285. Thus, twenty The following imperatives from among the Mosaic 613 have application for the Noahite under Justice. According to Maimonides – and most writers probably would side with him - Justice purports nothing more than the spirit of are implicit in these twenty items. However, Nahmanides (Ramban) objects. He views justice as signifying much more. Nahmanides begins his statement two aspects of view by quoting a comment by Maimonides concerning the destruction of the city of Shechern by Simon and Levi in retaliation for the rape of their sister at the hands of the city's favorite son, in the 34th chapter of Genesis:The Master [Maimonides] explains in his volume Noahic law on judges [Code, "Laws for Kings" 9justice:14], that since Noahites are charged with upholding justice - meaning that they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws in each and every town - and, furthermore, since a Noahite who violates any one of his laws is to be executed by the sword, therefore all citizens of Shechern were fit to die, because Shechern [the son] stole and they all saw and knew it but they did not bring him to justice.
I do not think this explanation is correct:1. For if so"...to appoint judges and officers in each and every community." Positive 176.<ref>Tosefta, then their fatherAvoda Zara, Jacob, should have been under obligation to assume chapter 9: "Just as Israelites must establish a leading role court in the executions; each city and if he was afraid why did he wax angry at his sons to town, so the extent that long after he cursed their fury, he punished them, and he scattered them. Had they not done Noahites must establish a good thing, having had faith court in the Lord each city and He granted them success?town. "</ref>
Anyway, to my mind, this justice which is enumerated among the Seven Laws of Noah is not limited to the establishment of courts:2. Rather, it charges the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability of watchmen, rape, seduction, damages, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like, similar to the laws with which the Israelites are charged". Thus, they place themselves under threat of execution by stealing, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the like. It is this same law that also obligates them to appoint judges in each town, like the Israelites. However, if they neglect to do this they are not to be executed, because this derives from a positive imperative, and treat the rule of "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes grounds for] their execution," applies only for litigants equally before the negative imperatives . . law. " Positive 177.
In the above, Nahmanides ascribes to justice a compilation of statutes which directs the judge in making the appropriate decision in every case of :3. "stealing ... rape ... bodily injury ... business transactions, and to inquire diligently into the liketestimony of a witness." In other words, the Noahic category of justice alludes to an actual code of lawPositive 179.
Most of the statutes to which Nahmanides refers are designated Positive 236 through Positive 246:4. Would Nahmanides, then, have us add Positive 236 - Positive 246 (and similar statutes) to the twenty listed above? No, for the following reason: When Nahmanides writes "similar to the laws with which the Israelite are charged," he does not mean that the Noahide laws here are the same as the corresponding Israelite laws. He cannot mean this because ..against the talmudic sources specifically differentiate between Noahic and Mosaic law in wanton miscarriage of justice by the very cases Nahmanides enumeratescourt. What Nahmanides must mean is that just as the Israelite code has a definite ruling for each civil dispute, "similarly" the Noahide tradition has a definite – but not necessarily an identical - rulingNegative 273. That is to say, Noahide justice does not leave it for each judge or government to develop original principles of equity; rather, a set of such principles are part and parcel of Noahism, under Justice. This idea is further developed, and extended, by Moses Isserles (circa 1500) who reads this very issue into a talmudic argument:
:5.".. Rabbi Johanan, [in Sanhedrin 56b,] maintains that Noahites are compelled, under .against the requirements of justice, merely to uphold the national customs, and to judge between man and man fairly. But Noahites are not compelled to be in consonance with Israel's law, bequeathed by the hands of Moses at Sinai, because Noahic law is purely accepting a bribe or gift from a law of social accord litigant... the statutes of Israel are one thing and the statutes of Noah are another" Negative 274.
However, Rabbi Isaac has a different approach:6. He maintains [ibid".] that Noahic Justice involves the very law which Jews were bequeathed at Sinai ... and it seems to me that against the opinion judge showing marks of Rabbi Isaac prevails, because . . honor to but one litigant. " Negative 275.
Here again caution should be exercised not :7. "...against the judge acting in fear of a litigant's threats." Negative 276. Some leniency is extended to misread Isserles the Noahide judge in this connection according to mean that all Noahic and Sinaitic laws are identicalNahmanides, Pirush al HaTorah (Commentary on the Pentateuch), and Isserles himself goes on Genesis 34:13, who quotes the Jerusalemite Talmud as saying: "Under Israelite law, you may not decline to make mention of some aspects wherein the two systems differserve as a judge as long as you are safe from repercussions, but you may decline when you are not safe from repercussions. However, under Noahic law you may decline in any event. Still Isserles" Nonetheless, more so than Negative 276 is apparent from listed here as having Noahide import because the talmudic quote seems to refer only to the words initial refusal to hear a case due to fear of Nahmanidesthreats, sees the two systems as having whereas Negative 276 is also addressed at a great deal judge who is already presiding, and who is tempted to render an unjust decision in commonface of personal danger. For according The latter surely constitutes a miscarriage of justice. Thus, it seems probable that when Nahmanicles, in reference to IsserlesNegative 276, the civil laws writes, - 'Fear no man (in judgment]' is an added feature of the two systems differ only where the Talmudic sources explicitly note the dissimilarityMosaic [not Noahide] law" (ibid.) he means to give a Noahite more latitude in refusing to hand down a decision, "but otherwise one should probably he does not presume mean to exclude the Noahite from Mosaic principlessanction an unjust decision."
Maimonides would not necessarily dispute Nahmanides' assertion that Noahide Justice has reference to an actual tradition of specific rulings. Isserles surely sees it :Possibly, this way, extra latitude for the Noahite judge finds expression in his essay he quotes Maimonides extensively a situation such as described in search of support for the thesis that justice embodies an actual code. Where Maimonides does differ following halakha: "When two litigants - a mild one and a vicious one - approach you with Nahmanides their dispute you may say to them 'I refuse to judge your case,' as long as you have not as yet heard their arguments or, even having heard their arguments, as long as you do not know who is that the latter maintains that it more likely to win, lest the vicious litigant lose and try to kill you. But once you have heard their arguments and know who is justice which alludes the more likely to win, you may not say 'I refuse to a compilation judge your case,' because of all Noahide regulationsthe dictum, whereas Maimonides simply sees in each of 'Fear no man'…" (Imperative 415, Sefer HaHinnuch). Nahmanides may mean to sanction the Seven Laws an implicit expression withdrawal of that part of the Noahide law with a Noahite judge even after he knows which it litigant is concernedlikely to emerge victorious. That isSee Joseph Babad, Minhat Hinnuch. New York: Saphrograph, 1950, Part 111, page 76 (Imperative 415): "I think Noahites, too, the laws on homicide are implicit implicated in the category of Homicide; the laws on stealing - which are what Nahmanides largely deals with there - are implicit in Theft, this 'Do not justice.fear' according to Nahmanides…"
Surely Maimonides:Also see Rashi, Sanhedrin 56b last line: "The fear of Me shall be upon you,' position is a logical one. Furthermore, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice implies but not the depository fear of all the lawsmen, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each in Deuteronomy 5,'Fear no man, for judgment is of the various sections? A second question Lord,' that Nahmanides would have to answer is: if , justice "charges [of the Noahites with laws on stealingSeven Laws]." etc., why is the category of Theft required at all?
In :8. "...against the view judge, out of these questionscompassion, the statement and position of Nahmanides are best understood as follows:favoring a poor litigant." Negative 277.
The one part of Maimonides' statement to which Nahmanides objects strongly is the assertion that there can be prosecution by the court for neglect to bring a wrongdoer to justice:9. ".. Nahmanides argues that such neglect - it being a crime of omission - does not invite punitive action. And yet, Nahmanides is hard put to explain away against the implication that each one of all judge discriminating against the Seven Laws calls for punitive action, litigant because the Talmud makes no distinctions when it states, "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes sufficient grounds for] their execution. Rav Huna and Rav Judah and all the students of Rav say, 'For each of the Seven Laws he is a Noahite may be executedsinner.' " And while Nahmanides might defend himself by noting that when justice is violated via an act of commission – such as when a judge accepts a bribe - punitive action does properly apply, still Nahmanides would have to take into account that this case (the transgression of justice via an act of commission) is conceived by the Talmud as being but a concomitant of justice and not its primary aspectNegative 278.
It is this difficulty which Nahmanides is intent upon eluding when he designates :10. "...against the primary aspect of justice a code, an entityjudge, a body out of statutessoftness, and consequently neither acts putting aside the penalty of commission nor acts of omissiona mauler or killer. Instead, these positive and negative aspects are outgrowths of the code and are equally basic; therefore it is not strange that the Talmud ascribes court penalties to all the Seven Laws, Justice included" Negative 279.
This then :11. "...against the judge discriminating against a stranger or an orphan." Negative 280. The idea here is the answer to the first question raised aboverequire equal treatment for those who are weak or meek for lack of relatives and friends. (NamelyHowever, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all "stranger" in the lawsIsraelite statute, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of the various sections?) Nahmanides attaches no significance may refer strictly to this theoretical difference and he disputes Maimonides "proselyte," in this connection which case only in "orphan" would have significance for the effort to defend his main argument: that neglect to bring a wrongdoer to justice is not a punishable offense. The two issues dovetail, as seen aboveNoahide law here.
Nahmanides may have felt especially secure in this view because :12. "...against the word Dinim - which judge hearing one litigant in keeping with accepted usage is translated here as justice - is markedly unlike the other six terms which absence of the Talmud has coined. The other six conjure up an activity, such as theft, illicit relations, blasphemy, etc., and evidently the point is to tag each activity either desirable or immoral. But the term Dinim translated precisely is "Laws"; whereas pursuing justice is best denoted by the term Mishpat. So that Maimonides would be under obligation to explain the substitution of Dinim for Mishpat. However in Nahmanides' view Dinim is just that: a group of lawsNegative 281.
Turning now to :13. "...against appointing a judge who lacks knowledge of the second question which was directed at Nahmanides Law." Negative 284. Cf. Joseph Babad, Minhat Hinnuch. New York: Saphrograph, 1950, Part III, page 76 (namelyImperative 414): "Perhaps the Noahites too are included in this prohibition, why after justice and must appoint only a man who is Theft needed at all?) one achieves erudite in Torah with regard to the laws that pertain to the Noahites." Also see remark of Aaron HaLevi, there, who considers Negative 284 a natural component of the following understandingpursuit of justice when he writes:". . . an untutored judge will acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent. The rationale behind this command should be clear to all."
Theft serves to tag stealing as being immoral, so that every man of -honor will avoid it, even when the theft will never come to light and no charges will be pressed:14. This parallels the remaining five Noahic laws which are designed to, inform the individual of the evil inherent in those acts". (In religious terms, these acts are thereby proclaimed to be sins.) The seventh law, Dinim, features a different dimension however. It instructs society, as represented by against the court, on how to regulate and process any breach of these standardskilling an innocent man. In other words, Dinim is procedural law, while Theft is substantive Iaw" Negative 289.
One additional point should be granted so as to put our understanding of Nahmanides on solid ground:15. Nahmanides considers Dinim the procedural law of all the Laws of Noah, not only of Theft". Of course, this assumption may seem strange because all the examples of procedural law mentioned by Nahmanides pertain to Theft. Still, Nahmanides might have limited his examples to Theft because the case under discussion there - the abduction of Dinah - pertains to Theft. At any rate, if one does not grant that Dinim for Nahmanides contains the whole of Noahic procedural law, one would be putting Nahmanides in the position of having to explain away why the substantive and the procedural aspects of Theft were given separate categories, whereas each of the remaining laws have their procedural and substantive aspects grouped togetheragainst incrimination by circumstantial evidence. For no one can doubt that there are procedural aspects to the remaining five laws, and Nahmanides clearly accepts the initial statement of Maimonides that "Noahites are charged with upholding justice - meaning that they must appoint judges who are to rule on their [remaining] six laws…"Negative 290.
In sum:16. "...against punishing for a crime committed under duress." Negative 294. Cf. Maimonides, Code, "Laws on Kings" 10:2, "A Noahite who is forced - because his life is in danger - to transgress any of his laws is permitted to transgress." At this point it should be noted that the Nahmanides argumentthreats in Negative 276 (against a judge acting in fear of a litigant's threats, as expressed in ) are not such threats that constitute a clear and present danger to the life of the paragraph quoted earlierjudge, runs as follows:or he would probably be permitted to misjudge in order to save his own life.
Anyway, to my mind, this justice :17. "... that the court is not limited to administer the death penalty by the establishment of courtssword [i.e., decapitation]." Positive 226.::See [[Capital Punishment in Noahide law]]
Maimonides thinks that in :18. "...against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill the category perpetrator of Justice there can be punishment for a capital crime ." Negative 292. Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin, Haarnek Shaela (Commentary on Sheiltoth of omission Ahai Gaon). Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1961, volume 1, page 16 (section 2:3). The discussion there centers on how justice may have application for the Noahide lay citizen - although he surely agrees that this would not be possible for in the other six categories or in Mosaic law - because he thinks main justice seems directed at the presiding jurists. N.Z.J. Berlin concludes that justice each Noahite "is essentially a requirement compelled to establish courts and therefore desist from enforcement of the remaining six laws except via the punishable violation of this requirement is necessarily an act of omissioncourt. Nahmanides however thinks justice That is essentially , a witness to a murder may not execute the murderer, but must wait for the trial…" However, another thingwriter disagrees: Babad, in Minhat Hinnuch, Part 111, page 72 (Imperative 409) writes:"The Noahites are not restricted in this way [Negative 2921 but may judge singly and at once." Babad repeats this remark on page 73, ibid.
Rather:19. "...to testify in court." Positive 178. Thus, it charges another example of how each citizen is expected to participate in the quest for justice is when he is called as a material witness. That Noahites with laws are so implicated can be derived from Sanhedrin 57b, as follows: "A Noahite can be condemned on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability testimony of watchmena man, rapebut not on a woman's ... Rav Hamnuna raised the following question here, seduction'You say that a woman is not obligated to pursue Justice? Notice that because a woman is ineligible to testify, damagesRav Hamnuna concluded that she is under no obligation with regard to Justice. Apparently, bodily injury, loans, business transactions, and the like ...when a Noahite testifies in court he is fulfilling one of his obligations under justice.
Justice:20. "...against testifying falsely." Negative 285. If, says Nahmanidesas in Positive 178 above, is a complete code of law, which Noahite is directed at under obligation to enlighten the courtwith his testimony, and which one may safely conclude that the Noahite has in it everything the court must know in not met this obligation when his testimony leaves the realm of civil law ("loanstruth unsaid. Cf. Philip Biberfeld, business transactionsDas Noachidische Urrecht. Frankfurt, and the like")1937, in the realm of criminal law ("stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries") which spill over from the area of Theft, and in the realm of the other criminal areas: Homicide, Illicit Intercourse, Blasphemy, Idolatry, and Limb of a Living Creaturepage 64.
Thus, they place themselves twenty from among the Mosaic 613 have application for the Noahite under threat Justice. According to Maimonides – and most writers probably would side with him - Justice purports nothing more than the spirit of execution by stealingthese twenty items. However, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him, and the likeNahmanides (Ramban) objects. He views justice as signifying much more. It is this same Law that also obligates them to appoint judges …
Having stated that Nahmanides ascribes to justice embodies all Noahic procedural law, Nahmanides reasons as follows: Whenever a compilation of statutes which directs the court undertakes punitive action against a citizen, it makes no difference whether judge in making the action stems from a violation appropriate decision in every case of Theft ("stealing... rape ... bodily injury ... business transactions, cheating") or a violation of justice (and the like."appoint judges") as far as basic procedure is concernedIn other words, because all the Noahic procedure has a single source, Justice. Consequently, it would be incomprehensible to proceed for a crime category of omission under justice, when it is clear that one does not proceed for a crime alludes to an actual code of omission under Theft or Blasphemy, etclaw. Thus Nahmanicles concludes:
HoweverMost of the statutes to which Nahmanides refers are designated Positive 236 through Positive 246. Would Nahmanides, then, have us add Positive 236 - Positive 246 (and similar statutes) to the twenty listed above? No, if they neglect for the following reason: When Nahmanides writes "similar to do the laws with which the Israelite are charged," he does not mean that the Noahide laws here are the same as the corresponding Israelite laws. He cannot mean this [because the talmudic sources specifically differentiate between Noahic and Mosaic law in the very cases Nahmanides enumerates.<ref> For example, for the seduction of a virgin biblical law exacts a punitive fine of fifty shekalim (Exodus 22:15), but according to appoint judges] they Sanhedrin 56b there are not no punitive fines (dine qenasot) in Noahic legislation. Another example: on the question of whether the conclusion of a business transaction comes at the time of payment (kesef) or at the time of delivery (meshikha), the Talmud designates one for Jews and the other one ;or non-Jews even before it is clear which applies to be executed whom (Bechorot 13s). Also, see Note 56 above, for an example of how Nahmanides himself differentiates between Noahide and biblical procedure.</ref> What Nahmanides must mean is that just as the Israelite code has a definite ruling for each civil dispute, "similarly" the Noahide tradition has a definite – but not necessarily an identical - ruling.That is to say, Noahide justice does not leave it for each judge or government to develop original principles of equity; rather, a set of such principles are part and parcel of Noahism, under Justice.This idea is further developed, and extended, by Moses Isserles (circa 1500) who reads this very issue into a talmudic argument.
Before leaving the text of Nahmanides, note Here again caution should be taken exercised not to misread Isserles to mean that all the following were considered instances of Theft: "stealingNoahic and Sinaitic laws are identical, or cheating, or raping, or seducing another's daughter, or burning down another's silo, or injuring him…" Rape, where no violation of Illicit Intercourse is involved, is still Theft in that the use of a person's body is his prerogative as much as is the use of his property. In including seducing another's daughter, Nahmanides and Isserles himself goes on to assume that the consent make mention of a minor is disregarded and that some aspects wherein the father has control over the property rights of his underage daughter, this being the case in Jewish lawtwo systems differ. In mentioning burning down another's silo or injuring himStill Isserles, Nahmanides reasons that under Theft it more so than is not essential for apparent from the thief to take the property unto himselfwords of Nahmanides, but that sees the essential element two systems as having a great deal in Theft lies in depriving the owner of his propertycommon. Note that of the four categories of torts listed in the first Mishna. of Baba Kama as the Goring OxFor according to Isserles, the Pit, the Eating Animal, and the Fire, Nahmanides singles out the Fire and makes no mention civil laws of the remaining three. Seemingly, two systems differ only where the remaining three were left out intentionally and for this reason: The Fire may conceivably be grouped under Theft because the setting of Talmudic sources explicitly note the fire may be considered a criminal act. The other threedissimilarity, however, may "but otherwise one should not be grouped under Theft because here the liability accrues from the mere neglect presume to act in preventing exclude the public's property and one's own destructive property Noahite from coming into contactMosaic principles. And while such neglect gives a plaintiff sufficient grounds for filing a civil suit to recover damages"<ref>Moses Isserles, it does not render the defendant a criminal under TheftSheilot U'Teshuvot Rarno, there not being the required commission of a criminal act. ThusSudylkow; Isaac Madpis, in singling out the Fire, Nahmanides is reiterating his central contention in the dispute with Maimoniclesprinter, namely1835, that the neglect to appoint judges does not invite criminal punishmentpage 7, for one can technically become a criminal only by committing a definite actResponsum 10.</ref>
That Justice should be thought of as referring to a thorough going system containing points of law, as Nahmanides and Isserles see it, is denied by at least one early author. Jacob Anatoli (1194-1256) expresses the view, in his Hamelamed, that the Noahide tradition does not feature a comprehensive code of standard regulations under Justice. Anatoli writes:
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42 Changes - Wikinoah English
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:98) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
