[[Image:LegalSystemsOfTheWorldMap.png|thumb|right|300px|World distribution of major legal traditions]]
The Imperative of Legal System for Noahides includes the requirement to set up courts of Justice, and to refrain from any action that would lead to an unjust court decision. Just what are the implications of the Noahide imperative on Justice (Dinim) is the subject of dispute among major authors. On the one hand, authorities like [[Maimonides]] says: "They are obligated to set up judges and magistrates in every major city to judge according to the above six laws, to warn the nation [regarding their observance]"<ref>Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 9:14</ref> which seems to imply that the courts need only uphold the first six laws. Other authorities like [[Nachmanides]] disagree, and envision an entire legal system. Still other authorities give the national courts complete freedom to legislate anything as long as it doesn't contradict the seven laws, see Rabbi Yaakov Anatoli below.
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. That these two aspects are involved derives from the Talmudic remark to the effect that justice has reference to both (a) required acts of commission and (b) prohibited acts.
The consensus of halacha today is not like [[Maimonides]], but that the non-Jews are free to set up their own system of laws as long as they don't disagree with the [[Seven Laws|seven basic laws]]. The consensus of halacha today is that the existing national court systems are at least in part Noahide courts; that failing to uphold all seven noahide laws does not invalidate the national court as a Noahide court; that Noahides can fulfill their requirement of the [[Imperative of Legal System]] through these courts. The major disagreement among ''poskim'' today is if there is any value to the judgments of these national courts beyond their utilitarian value.
Noahide Law is a legal system that encompasses, and is the root of all proper religion and society. Noahide Law does not recognize a distinction between [[religion and state]] in terms of law, but contains them both. Most national courts have broken, to various degrees, with any sense of divine sanction for Law, and any attempt to approximate of Divine Law. This is slowly being replaced with a utilitarian, popular law, where legality is defined by majority vote of the population.
The legal systems of the world can be divided into three major systems or approaches. They consist of [[civil law]], [[common law]] and [[religious law]]. However, each country ==Legal System in Jewish Law (see [[state law]]for Noahides) often develops variations on each system or incorporates many other features into the system. Despite the usefulness of different classifications, every legal system has its own individual identity.==
==Legal System Most rabbinic authorities consider the Seven Noahide Laws a parallel system of general categories of commandments, each containing many components and details. * Some rabbinic opinion regards the determination of the details of the Noahide Law as something to be left to Jewish rabbis. This, in addition to the teaching of the Jewish Law law that punishment for violating one of the seven Noahide Laws includes a theoretical death penalty (Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a), is a factor in modern opposition to the notion of a Noahide legal system. Jewish scholars respond by noting that Jews today no longer carry out the death penalty, even within the Jewish community. Jewish law, in contemporary practice, sees the [[death penalty]] as an indicator of the seriousness of an offense; violators are not actually put to death. * Other rabbinic opinion holds that penalties are a detail of the Noahide Laws and that Noahides themselves must determine the details of their own laws for themselves. According to this school of thought - see N. Rakover, ''Law and the Noahides'' (1998); M. Dallen, ''The Rainbow Covenant'' (2003)==- the Noahide Laws offer mankind a set of absolute values and a framework for righteousness and justice, while the detailed laws that are currently on the books of the world's states and nations are presumptively valid.
===Rabbi Yaakov Anatoli (1194-1256)===
: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 following imperatives from among 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 Mosaic 613 are implicit in the absence of the other." Negative 281.13. ". . . against appointing a judge who lacks knowledge these two aspects 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. Noahic law on justice:
18:1. ". . . against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill appoint judges and officers in each and every community." Positive 176.<ref>Tosefta, Avoda Zara, chapter 9: "Just as Israelites must establish a court in each city and town, so the perpetrator of Noahites must establish a capital crimecourt in each city and town." Negative 292. </ref>
19:2. ". . . to testify in courttreat the litigants equally before the law." Positive 178177.
20:3. against testifying falsely"...to inquire diligently into the testimony of a witness." Negative 285Positive 179.
Thus, twenty from among the Mosaic 613 have application for the Noahite under Justice:4. According to Maimonides – and most writers probably would side with him - Justice purports nothing more than the spirit of these twenty items". However, Nahmanides (Ramban) objects. He views justice as signifying much more. Nahmanides begins his statement of view by quoting a comment by Maimonides concerning against the destruction wanton miscarriage of the city of Shechern justice 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:court." Negative 273.
The Master [Maimonides] explains in his volume on judges [Code, :5. "Laws for Kings...against the judge accepting a bribe or gift from a litigant." 9:14], 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 justiceNegative 274.
I do not think this explanation is correct:6. For if so, then their father, Jacob, should have been under obligation to assume a leading role in "...against the executions; and if he was afraid why did he wax angry at his sons judge showing marks of honor to the extent that long after he cursed their fury, he punished them, and he scattered thembut one litigant." Negative 275. Had they not done a good thing, having had faith in the Lord and He granted them success?
Anyway, to my mind, this justice which is enumerated among the Seven Laws of Noah is not limited to the establishment of courts:7. "... Rather, it charges against the Noahites with laws on stealing, overcharging, withholding salaries, the liability judge acting in fear 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 anothera litigant'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 Israelitesthreats. However, if they neglect to do this they are not to be executed, because this derives from a positive imperative, and the rule of "Their prohibition [when violated, constitutes grounds for] their execution," applies only for the negative imperatives . . . Negative 276.
In Some leniency is extended to the Noahide judge in this connection according to Nahmanides, Pirush al HaTorah (Commentary on the abovePentateuch), Nahmanides ascribes on Genesis 34:13, who quotes the Jerusalemite Talmud as saying: "Under Israelite law, you may not decline to justice serve as a compilation of statutes which directs the 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 making any event." Nonetheless, Negative 276 is listed here as having Noahide import because the appropriate talmudic quote seems to refer only to the initial refusal to hear a case due to fear of threats, whereas Negative 276 is also addressed at a judge who is already presiding, and who is tempted to render an unjust decision in every case face of "stealing personal danger.The latter surely constitutes a miscarriage of justice.. rape ... bodily injury ... business transactionsThus, and the like." In other wordsit seems probable that when Nahmanicles, the Noahic category of justice alludes in reference to Negative 276, writes, - 'Fear no man (in judgment]' is an actual code added feature of Mosaic [not Noahide] law" (ibid.) he means to give a Noahite more latitude in refusing to hand down a decision, but probably he does not mean to sanction an unjust decision.
Most of the statutes to which Nahmanides refers are designated Positive 236 through Positive 246. Would NahmanidesPossibly, then, have us add Positive 236 - Positive 246 (and similar statutes) to this extra latitude for the twenty listed above? No, for Noahite judge finds expression in a situation such as described in the following reasonhalakha: "When Nahmanides writes "similar two litigants - a mild one and a vicious one - approach you with their dispute you may say to them 'I refuse to the laws with which the Israelite are chargedjudge your case," he does ' as long as you have not mean that the Noahide laws here are the same as yet heard their arguments or, even having heard their arguments, as long as you do not know who is the corresponding Israelite laws. He cannot mean this because more likely to win, lest the talmudic sources specifically differentiate between Noahic vicious litigant lose and Mosaic law in the very cases Nahmanides enumeratestry to kill you. What Nahmanides must mean But once you have heard their arguments and know who is that just as the Israelite code has a definite ruling for each civil disputemore likely to win, "similarly" the Noahide tradition has a definite – but you may not necessarily an identical - ruling. That is say 'I refuse to sayjudge your case,' because of the dictum, 'Fear no man'…" (Imperative 415, Noahide justice does not leave it for each judge or government Sefer HaHinnuch). Nahmanides may mean to develop original principles sanction the withdrawal of equity; rather, a set of such principles are part and parcel of NoahismNoahite judge even after he knows which litigant is likely to emerge victorious. See Joseph Babad, under JusticeMinhat Hinnuch. This idea is further developedNew York: Saphrograph, 1950, and extendedPart 111, by Moses Isserles page 76 (circa 1500Imperative 415) who reads : "I think Noahites, too, are implicated in this very issue into a talmudic argument:'Do not fear' according to Nahmanides…"
... Rabbi JohananAlso see Rashi, [in Sanhedrin 56blast line: "The fear of Me shall be upon you,] maintains that Noahites are compelled, under 'implies but not the requirements fear of justicemen, merely to uphold the national customsas in Deuteronomy 5, and to judge between man and 'Fear no man fairly. But Noahites are not compelled to be in consonance with Israel's law, bequeathed by for judgment is of the hands of Moses at SinaiLord, because Noahic law ' that is purely a law , justice [of social accord ... the statutes of Israel are one thing and the statutes of Noah are anotherSeven Laws]."
However, Rabbi Isaac has a different approach. He maintains [ibid:8.] that Noahic Justice involves the very law which Jews were bequeathed at Sinai "... and it seems to me that against the opinion judge, out of Rabbi Isaac prevailscompassion, because . . favoring a poor litigant. " Negative 277.
Here again caution should be exercised not to misread Isserles to mean that all Noahic and Sinaitic laws are identical, and Isserles himself goes on to make mention of some aspects wherein the two systems differ:9. "... Still Isserles, more so than is apparent from against the words of Nahmanides, sees judge discriminating against the two systems as having litigant because he is a great deal in commonsinner. For according to Isserles, the civil laws of the two systems differ only where the Talmudic sources explicitly note the dissimilarity, "but otherwise one should not presume to exclude the Noahite from Mosaic principlesNegative 278."
Maimonides would not necessarily dispute Nahmanides' assertion that Noahide Justice has reference to an actual tradition of specific rulings:10. ".. Isserles surely sees it this way, for in his essay he quotes Maimonides extensively in search of support for the thesis that justice embodies an actual code. Where Maimonides does differ with Nahmanides is that against the latter maintains that it is justice which alludes to a compilation judge, out of all Noahide regulationssoftness, whereas Maimonides simply sees in each of putting aside the Seven Laws an implicit expression penalty of that part of the Noahide law with which it is concerneda mauler or killer. That is, the laws on homicide are implicit in the category of Homicide; the laws on stealing - which are what Nahmanides largely deals with there - are implicit in Theft, not justice" Negative 279.
Surely Maimonides' position is a logical one:11. Furthermore, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all the laws, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of the various sections? A second question that Nahmanides would have to answer is: if justice "charges ...against the Noahites with laws on stealingjudge discriminating against a stranger or an orphan." etcNegative 280., why is the category of Theft required at all?
In The idea here is to require equal treatment for those who are weak or meek for lack of relatives and friends. However, "stranger" in the view of these questionsIsraelite statute, may refer strictly to "proselyte, " in which case only "orphan" would have significance for the statement and position of Nahmanides are best understood as follows:Noahide law here.
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:12. ".. 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 judge hearing one of all the Seven Laws calls for punitive action, 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 litigant in the students of Rav say, 'For each absence of the Seven Laws a Noahite may be executedother.' " 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 281.
It is this difficulty which Nahmanides is intent upon eluding when he designates the primary aspect of justice a code, an entity, :13. "...against appointing a body judge who lacks knowledge of statutes, and consequently neither acts of commission nor acts of omissionthe Law. 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 284.
This then is the answer to the first question raised aboveCf. Joseph Babad, Minhat Hinnuch. (NamelyNew York: Saphrograph, 1950, what significant difference does Nahmanides see between theoretically considering justice the depository of all the lawsPart III, and theoretically considering these laws as implicit within each of page 76 (Imperative 414): "Perhaps the various sections?) Nahmanides attaches no significance to Noahites too are included in this theoretical difference prohibition, and he disputes Maimonides in this connection must appoint only a man who is erudite in Torah with regard to the effort to defend his main argument: laws that neglect pertain to bring the Noahites." Also see remark of Aaron HaLevi, there, who considers Negative 284 a wrongdoer to natural component of the pursuit of justice is not a punishable offensewhen he writes: ". . . an untutored judge will acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent. The two issues dovetail, as seen aboverationale behind this command should be clear to all."
Nahmanides may have felt especially secure in this view because the word Dinim - which in keeping with accepted usage is translated here as justice - is markedly unlike the other six terms which the Talmud has coined:14. 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 against the substitution of Dinim for Mishpatcourt killing an innocent man. However in Nahmanides' view Dinim is just that: a group of laws" Negative 289.
Turning now to the second question which was directed at Nahmanides (namely, why after justice is Theft needed at all?) one achieves the following understanding:15. "...against incrimination by circumstantial evidence." Negative 290.
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:16. 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 .against punishing for a different dimension however. It instructs society, as represented by the court, on how to regulate and process any breach of these standardscrime committed under duress. In other words, Dinim is procedural law, while Theft is substantive Iaw" Negative 294.
One additional point should be granted so as to put our understanding of Nahmanides on solid groundCf. Nahmanides considers Dinim the procedural law of all the Maimonides, Code, "Laws of Noahon Kings" 10:2, not only of Theft. Of course, this assumption may seem strange "A Noahite who is forced - because all the examples of procedural law mentioned by Nahmanides pertain to Theft. Still, Nahmanides might have limited his examples life is in danger - to Theft because the case under discussion there - the abduction transgress any of Dinah - pertains his laws is permitted to Thefttransgress. " At any ratethis point it should be noted that the threats in Negative 276 (against a judge acting in fear of a litigant's threats, if one does ) are not grant such threats that Dinim for Nahmanides contains constitute a clear and present danger to the whole life of Noahic procedural lawthe judge, one or he would probably be putting Nahmanides permitted to misjudge in the position of having order 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 togethersave his own life. 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…"
In sum, :17. "...that the court is to administer the Nahmanides argument, as expressed in death penalty by the paragraph quoted earliersword [i.e., runs as followsdecapitation]." Positive 226. ::See [[Capital Punishment in Noahide law]]
Anyway, to my mind, this justice :18. "... is not limited against anyone taking the law into his own hands to kill the establishment perpetrator of courtsa capital crime." Negative 292.
Maimonides thinks that in the category Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin, Haarnek Shaela (Commentary on Sheiltoth of Justice Ahai Gaon). Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1961, volume 1, page 16 (section 2:3). The discussion there can be punishment centers on how justice may have application for a crime of omission 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, 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 :19."...to testify in court." Positive 178.
JusticeThus, says Nahmanides, is a complete code another example of law, which how each citizen is directed at the court, and which has expected to participate in it everything the court must know in the realm of civil law ("loansquest for justice is when he is called as a material witness. That Noahites are so implicated can be derived from Sanhedrin 57b, business transactions, and the likeas follows: "), in A Noahite can be condemned on the realm testimony of criminal law ("stealinga man, overcharging, withholding salaries") which spill over from but not on a woman's ... Rav Hamnuna raised the area of Theftfollowing question here, and in the realm of the other criminal areas: Homicide'You say that a woman is not obligated to pursue Justice? Notice that because a woman is ineligible to testify, Illicit IntercourseRav Hamnuna concluded that she is under no obligation with regard to Justice. Apparently, Blasphemy, Idolatry, and Limb when a Noahite testifies in court he is fulfilling one of a Living Creaturehis obligations under justice.
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:20. It is this same Law that also obligates them to appoint judges …"...against testifying falsely." Negative 285.
Having stated that justice embodies all Noahic procedural lawIf, Nahmanides reasons as follows: Whenever in Positive 178 above, a Noahite is under obligation to enlighten the court undertakes punitive action against a citizenwith his testimony, it makes no difference whether one may safely conclude that the action stems from a violation of Theft ("stealing, cheating") or a violation of justice ("appoint judges") as far as basic procedure is concerned, because all Noahic procedure Noahite has a single sourcenot met this obligation when his testimony leaves the truth unsaid. Cf. Philip Biberfeld, JusticeDas Noachidische Urrecht. Consequently, it would be incomprehensible to proceed for a crime of omission under justiceFrankfurt, when it is clear that one does not proceed for a crime of omission under Theft or Blasphemy1937, etcpage 64. Thus Nahmanicles concludes:
HoweverThus, if they neglect to do this [twenty from among the Mosaic 613 have application for the Noahite under Justice. According to appoint judges] they are not to be executed .Maimonides – and most writers probably would side with him - Justice purports nothing more than the spirit of these twenty items.However, Nahmanides (Ramban) objects.He views justice as signifying much more.
Before leaving the text of Nahmanides, note should be taken that all the following were considered instances of Theft: "stealing, 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 goes on ascribes to assume that the consent of justice a minor is disregarded and that the father has control over the property rights compilation of his underage daughter, this being statutes which directs the case judge in Jewish law. In mentioning burning down another's silo or injuring him, Nahmanides reasons that under Theft it is not essential for the thief to take the property unto himself, but that making the essential element appropriate decision in Theft lies in depriving the owner every case of his property"stealing ... rape ... bodily injury . Note that of the four categories of torts listed in the first Mishna. of Baba Kama as the Goring Ox, the Pit, the Eating Animal, and the Fire, Nahmanides singles out the Fire and makes no mention of the remaining three. Seeminglybusiness transactions, the remaining three were left out intentionally and for this reason: The Fire may conceivably be grouped under Theft because the setting of the fire may be considered a criminal actlike. The " In other three, howeverwords, may not be grouped under Theft because here the liability accrues from the mere neglect Noahic category of justice alludes to act in preventing the public's property and one's own destructive property from coming into contact. And while such neglect gives a plaintiff sufficient grounds for filing a civil suit to recover damages, it does not render the defendant a criminal under Theft, there not being the required commission an actual code of a criminal act. Thus, in singling out the Fire, Nahmanides is reiterating his central contention in the dispute with Maimonicles, namely, that the neglect to appoint judges does not invite criminal punishment, for one can technically become a criminal only by committing a definite actlaw.
That Justice should be thought Most 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, 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 referring 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 Sanhedrin 56b there are no punitive fines (dine qenasot) in Noahic legislation. Another example: on the question of whether the conclusion of a thorough going system containing points business transaction comes at the time of payment (kesef) or at the time of lawdelivery (meshikha), as Nahmanides the Talmud designates one for Jews and Isserles see the other one ;or non-Jews even before it, is denied by at least one early author. Jacob Anatoli clear which applies to whom (1194-1256Bechorot 13s) expresses the view. Also, in his Hamelamedsee 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 feature leave it for each judge or government to develop original principles of equity; rather, a comprehensive code set of such principles are part and parcel of standard regulations Noahism, under Justice. Anatoli writes:This idea is further developed, and extended, by Moses Isserles (circa 1500) who reads this very issue into a talmudic argument.
When the Noahites were enjoined concerning JusticeHere again caution should be exercised not to misread Isserles to mean that all Noahic and Sinaitic laws are identical, they were put under obligation to create legal arrangements .... It is incumbent and Isserles himself goes on the judges to draw up rules make mention of equity that shall be appropriate for that particular country, as exemplified by the manner in which this matter is handled currently by some aspects wherein the nations, severallytwo systems differ. LikewiseStill Isserles, it more so than is incumbent upon merchants and upon apparent from the members words of Nahmanides, sees the trades to establish regulations for themselves... and whatever emerges as the law in this manner is law, as much two systems as that which is written having a great deal in the Biblecommon. FurthermoreFor according to Isserles, anyone violating this law violates Scripture, because Scripture commands the individual to accept the decisions civil laws of the contemporary jurists. The dictum, "The law of two systems differ only where the land is Talmudic sources explicitly note the Lawdissimilarity," relates but otherwise one should not presume to this conceptexclude the Noahite from Mosaic principles."<ref>Moses Isserles, Sheilot U'Teshuvot Rarno, Sudylkow; Isaac Madpis, printer, 1835, page 7, Responsum 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. Nonetheless, Anatoli could agree to the inclusion of the twenty imperatives which are listed above as features of Noahide Justice. For these twenty are but manifestations of those two aspects by which the talmudic sources define Justice, (a) that courts shall be established and (b) that any act which contributes to an unjust decision be prohibited.
===Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky===
According to Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky in the "Path of the Righteous Gentile"<ref>* Clorfene, Chaim and Yaakov Rogalsky ''[http://moshiach.com/action/morality/introduction.php The Path of the Righteous Gentile: An Introduction to the Seven Laws of the Children of Noah]''. New York: Phillip Feldheim, 1987</ref> the Children of Noah are commanded to establish courts of law that will carry out justice and maintain human righteousness and morality in accord with the Seven Universal Laws.<ref>Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings, chapter 9, law 14</ref> A court system that perverts justice by handing down rulings in conflict with the Seven Universal Laws is an instrument for driving God's blessings out of the world. Anyone who fails to establish a court system, that is, who lives in a community or city in which there are no courts, and who does nothing to correct the situation, is punishable by death. One who establishes or maintains courts of law that operate contrary to the Seven Universal Laws is similarly liable.
In the Book of Genesis (34:25), we learn that two of Jacob's sons, Simeon and Levi, slew every male in the city of Shechem. The prince of the community, Shechem, son of Hamor, had raped their sister, Dinah, and the city failed to execute justice by bringing him to a court of law. The city was therefore guilty of transgressing this seventh of the Seven Universal Laws, and every citizen was liable for punishment.
Although the Noahide courts are responsibile for only the Seven Universal Laws, not the 613 laws of the Torah, there is an opinion that each decision of the Noahide courts must follow its counterpart in Jewish Law. The accepted opinion, however, is that Noahide judges and courts of law are to render legal decisions according to their own laws and principles of law.
7. [[Arbitration ]] and mediation or any other means of finding an amicable settlement or compromise, thereby avoiding a court trial, is desirable, and, more than that, it is a commandment to seek compromise.
8. Circumstantial evidence is admissible in the Noahide courts of law.
===Civil law===
Civil law is the most widespread system of [[law]] in the world. It is also known as <em>'''European Continental law</em>'''. The central source of law that is recognised as authoritative are [[codification]]s codifications in a [[constitution]] or [[statute]] passed by government, to amend a code. Civil law systems mainly derive from the [[Roman Empire]], and more particularly, the ''[[Corpus Juris Civilis]]'' issued by the Emperor [[Justinian]] ca. 529AD. This was an extensive reform of the law in the [[Eastern Empire]], bringing it together into codified documents. Civil law today, in theory, is interpreted rather than developed or made by judges. Only [[legislature|legislative]] enactments (rather than [[judiciary|judicial]] [[precedent|precedents]]) are considered legally binding. However, in reality courts do pay attention to previous decisions, especially from higher courts.
Scholars of [[comparative law]] and economists promoting the [[legal origins theory]] usually subdivide civil law into three distinct groups:
[[Category:Legal Rulings]]
[[Category:Jerusalem Court for Bnei Noah]]
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) 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:103) 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:103) 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:103) 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:103) 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:103) 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:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
