Noach was told to take 7 (or according to some, 7 pairs of ) kosher animals. Rashi explains that we see from the fact that Noach knew which animals were kosher that למדנו שלמד נח תורה, Noach much have learned Torah.
Maharal in Gur Aryeh asks: והא דאמר בפרק ד׳ מיתות (סנהדרין נט.) גוי שלמד תורה חייב מיתה. An aku"m is not allowed to learn Torah?
I was wondering the same thing and thought the simplest answer, which is the answer Maharal gives, is that this issur only kicked in after mattan Torah. The source for the issur is ואמר ר׳ יוחנן נכרי שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם. The Torah is like a an arusah which is betrothed to us. Mattan Torah was that betrothal.
The Levush Orah, however, does not buy it. According to L"O, the only different mattan Torah made is viz a viz what is permitted to a yisrael or what became prohibited. It can't be that mattan Torah is mechadseh a new issur for a ben noach -- viz a viz them, nothing changed.
His solution to the Maharal's question is that noach was mahul, and a ger who is mahul is allowed to learn Torah. What about Avraham who learned Torah even before his milah? L"O answers that this is b'geder sod.
It could be Maharal does not disagree with L"O's premis that mattan Torah is not mechadesh issurim for a ben Noach. The issur was there all along. What was not there was a cheftza shel Torah for the issur to be chal on. There may have been a collection of laws, an understanding of what the ratzon Hashem is, but that is not the same as a cheftza shel Torah.
Hard to understand the LO. The version you quote says that Torah is our Morashah, inheritance (or heritage). That means Hashem gave it to Bnei Yisroel, so a Ben Noach taking it is like stealing. Until we got it, it was hefker, so no stealing. It's like if a someone picks up an object from hefker, at that point, gezel kicks in, not because there is a new issur of gezel, but b/c now there is an owner.
ReplyDelete(I recall the derasha as al tikrei morasha ela m'orasa, betrothed. Same idea, we are married to the Torah, so for anyone else it is adultery. But before that, there is no issur.)
For completeness, the whole kasha is not a kasha. Bnei Noach are permitted to learn Torah for what they need to do. Noach needed to know which animals are kosher for korbanos, so he was allowed to learn that. (The implication here is that a goy, while permitted to EAT non-kosher animals, may only bring kosher ones as a korban. Any sources on that?)
ReplyDeleteI believe the meforshei Rashi do not take this approach because the Torah does not say to take "animals which are kosher for a korban," which a ben noach would understand, but rather it says "tehorah," which is not part of the ben noach lexicon. That terminology would only be introduced later. (see Maharal)
DeleteMishneh lamelech end of MhK
Deleteוהנכרים מותרים להקריב כו'. זה שהותר לנכרים להקריב עולות בכל מקום מותר להקריב בהמה חיה ועוף תמימין ובעלי מומין טהורים ולא טמאים וכן מחוסר אבר אסור לבני נח להקריב. כן מתבאר פ"ד דע"ז (דף נ"א) ובפ' בתרא דזבחים (דף קט"ו) ועיין במ"ש התוס' בפ"ק דע"ז (דף ה') ד"ה מני (א"ה עיין במ"ש הרב בפ"י מה' מלכים הלכה ז' ע"ד התוס' הללו) ובפ"ק דחולין (דף כ"ב) ד"ה והביא יע"ש. ומ"ש רבינו ואסור לסייען. הוא בירושלמי פ"ק דמגילה הלכה י"ג יע"ש:
So acc. to the MLM, they can bring a tehorah even though for a Yisroel it is not used for korbanos. For example, a deer or a chicken. So, in fact, for a nochri, knowing what is "tehorah" is very much halakha le maaseh. Certainly for someone like Noach who was planning on bringing korbanos.
Delete(It would come out, however, that Noach had to collect hundreds of different tahor bird species, since min ha Torah, all but 24 are kosher.)
Right! For birds, two by two was the very small exception. And the picture of two giraffes sticking out of the tzohar is just a halachic gaffe.
DeleteBut! Look at this Chidah:
https://www.sefaria.org/Chomat_Anakh_on_Torah%2C_Genesis.8.20.1?lang=he
If an aku'm can't learn Torah then how did the Avos?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question on the Avos: You have Reb Chaim's idea that even if you hold like Rashi in AZ 3a that they had a din of bnei noach, they were still a cheftza of the am hanivchar. Addresses the usual question about whether on בוכים למשפחותיהם.
ReplyDeleteBut that leaves Noach.
As for the question about Noach, at least it's not a question according to the Beis Halevi in Yitro and the Maharitz Chajes in Chagiga 13, because the simanim of quadrapeds are explicit, and as for birds, you don't need simanim. All you need to know is that this one is not a peres or an azniyah or a yanshuf etc. and then you go basar rov. If you have good Hebrew skills, that would not be a problem.
ReplyDeleteYes, I realize that saying "it's not shver according to..." is a waste of time. We're looking for an answer according to those that apply the issur to TshbK. I just thought it was worth mentioning.