From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Religion / New religious movements (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Judaism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tidying up[edit]

The content of this article needs severe tidying-up. Not until section 3 ('The Great Renewal') it is revealed that B'nei Noah is a movement, but not very accurately defined. Is it a congregation of faith or more of a moral association? Still worse, the whole wording is unfocused and utterly subjective, like college students giving a street sermon for a yet undefined religion (maybe that is just what it is?). Please enlighten me. --Sasper 09:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope to work on this article soon. Chavatshimshon 06:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why this shouldn't be merged into noahide laws? Jon513 17:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I would be against a merge. The Noahide Laws are an ancient concept in Judaism while the B'nei Noah is a recent movement. The articles are related but the contents are quite distinct. Robert Brockway 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just done a clean up. Robert Brockway 06:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The section 'High Council of B'nei Noach contained the following statement: A High Council of B’nei Noah was endorsed on January 10, 2006 by the newly formed Sanhedrin in Israel and was set up to represent B'nei Noah communities around the world.', with a source in the footnote. However, this 'Sanhedrin' is by no means widely accepted or recognized, and the source cited is a right-wing religious radio station (Arutz Sheva) which is not exactly the most unbiased or mainstream organization. The new 'Sanhedrin' was set up in October 2004 in Tiberias, Israel, but as an Orthodox Jew I have to say that I don't think it has had much impact or is even known to many Jews, let alone having any authority. I have modified the text to reflect this. Liskeardziz (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC) User: Liskeardziz, 29 November 2007

This is an extremely poorly written article. Honestly. It lacks even basic criteria for understanding the Talmudic understanding of what these people really are.Anuchild (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Content of the laws[edit]

I just noticed that there is a discrepancy between this article and Seven Laws of Noah on the exact wording of the laws, especially laws 4 and 7. For example, this article defines Law 4 on "Sexual Promiscuity" in more concrete and wider terms than the main article, which only has "Prohibition of Sexual Promiscuity: You shall not commit adultery". I'm by no means an expert on Jewish law, so I'm in no position to make amendments. Hope someone else can. Klehti (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. In the main article there's a longer list of prohibitions than here. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I've seen far longer lists than that too. All that 'the book' actually prohibits is: Adultery, Incest, Sodomy, Bestiality, and Intentional Castration. So, for example, pre - and post - marital sex are not specifically mentioned; neither is lesbianism or male-to-male non-penetrative 'outercourse'. As with all 'religion' topics, you will get people chipping in with their own little agendas. Even adultery is defined narrowly as sex between a married woman and a man other than her husband, and (for example) sex between a married man and another unmarried female is not mentioned either :-) MaxieT (talk) 07:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


Does anybody have any idea of the numbers of people involved? I have noticed that Noahides (and the Christian 'backlash') are very 'noisy' on the internet, but I have never met a 'visible' Noahide yet (I am Jewish, by the way, with the emphasis on the 'ish':-). Perhaps it's because I am in the UK, where religion tends to be more of a quiet, internal thing. Is it just yet another American cult with a few hundred vociferous members, or should we Jews all get ready to hide Christians in our attics?. (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think its more of an ideological movement that is more represented by its explicitly-Noahide (as in having B'nei Noah or Noahide in their names) organizations than by particular individuals. AFAIK, its mostly consisting of Chabad and a few evangelicalist Christian groups, with a far greater visibility from Chabad's rabbis; I'll concur that they're a bit more vocal, which makes it all the more interesting. --Toussaint (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe Rav Yoel Schwartz is connected; he is hardly Chabad. And what about Outreach Judaism; he isn't Chabad either.Mzk1 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


Where does the commentary paragraph placed beneath each law come from? It doesn't appear to be referenced, and presents contentious viewpoints and value judgements as facts. Even if referenced, I'm not sure it belongs here, as it appears as a list of personal thoughts and meditations.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, transpires they were added, without an edit summary, by an anonymous editor, user:, during a series of edits on 22 October 2008, and apart from a single edit more than two years previously, constitute the user's entire contribution to Wikipedia. This, along with the lack of sources and entirely unencyclopaedic tone puts these edits in flagrant contravention of WP:SOAP and leads me to removal.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some clarity on the Seven Mitzvot[edit]

  • Shalom! Carefully, the problems with this article must be outlined. I will attempt again, in spite of an overly zealous disruptor who continues to erase my entries here. [By the way, over-zealous, it is you who will be reported for disruption if you continue to monopolize this discussion page. I know you have been contacted about this already. I suggest you heed the advice.]
  • SEVEN LAWS: Nowhere in Genesis is Noah given seven laws. He is directly given four after the Flood, and that is easily vedrifiable at chapter 9. The four are: be fruitful/multiply, repopulate the earth, do not ingest blood, and an almost casual reference to bringing murderers to justice. That's it, that is the extent of laws given to Noah anywhere aside from the commands he received and followed!
  • JEWISH AUTHORITY OVER RIGHTEOUS GENTILES: Gentiles have the freedom to research and study the Torah, to be illuminated as the Lord sees fit, but the Jewish community cannot, by law, exert some sort of imaginary authority over Gentiles. And this is something I see happening, and it is wrong.
  • ORIGINAL LAWS FOR ALL GENTILES: It is valuable to start with Adam Kadmon in Genesis and work one's way forward to ch. 9 to garner all laws that are there. It is for each reader, not some imaginary Jewish authority over Gentiles, to decide what Gentile laws are there.
  • KARAITES: This is a sect of Jews who reject all Jewish teachings except for the written words. They have nothing to do with my discussion/opinions here, and I am not a Karaite.
  • NOTE TO TRUSILVER: This entry and discussion is important, and I expect you'll be watching. Treat other violators equally, please?
It doesn't matter whether Genesis describes Noah receiving seven laws. In the first place, he was only given one additional law. The other six were given initially to Adam. In the second place, the Pentateuch (written Torah) is only one part of the Torah. The primary corpus of law and lore in Judaism is the oral Torah, and it's in this that we learn about the Noachide laws.
You say "but the Jewish community cannot, by law, exert some sort of imaginary authority over Gentiles", but I have no idea what law you're referring to. If you mean Jewish law, you're demonstrably wrong. If you mean secular law, no one is suggesting otherwise.
It is no more for each reader to decide what laws are binding on non-Jews than it is for each reader to decide what laws are binding on Jews. I don't know what your issues are, Antonio, but this is a sourced article, and all you're bringing against it is your personal opinions. WP:OR and WP:POV are not allowed on Wikipedia, so kindly either produce a source for your claims, or leave us alone. -Lisa (talk) 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... an ultimatum.[edit]

  • Lisa, you are exasperating with this subject. If I must be reduced to absolute siplicity, I'm saying that Gentiles do not have to believe what you or I say. Some who are technically Righteous Gentiles do not even believe in the Torah, such as Buddhists, who respect it but do not study or follow it. Nonetheless, they meet with the criteria. Who are you to impose yourself in this way, and to imply that Jewish tradition has to be followed? And where did you study, that you did not know a Jew cannot force a Gentile in religious matters? How about you leave me alone, and let me post what I think can improve Noahidism? Such as honest evaluation of the Seven Laws, for one thing! I never said that laws don't exist, and I never said anything other than what I have clearly said here... and I know you deleted some of it.
  • RevAntonio (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not an ultimatum, Antonia. Go and read WP:OR. Neither your opinions nor mine matter here. If you have a source for what you're saying, well and good. If you don't, why are you wasting our time?
You can talk all you want about "righteous gentiles", but this article is called Noahidism. It's about the following of the Seven Noahide commandments. Popping in and saying, "There's no such thing!" isn't helpful. Certainly when you have no source to back up the claim.
Seriously. Go and read WP:OR. You seem not to understand what original research means. If you think you can go to the verses in Genesis and insert your conclusions into a Wikipedia article, then you really don't understand the rules here at all. -Lisa (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • You do own this page Liso! I was shocked to learn it. Have it then, and enjoy what you choose to believe. You are as much a sham as I am myself. We don't matter, yet we think we are the only holders of truth. By the way, I do love how you skip away from challenges! And yes, keep an eye on the articles, because I will edit them and do so professionally. And you will be reported if you then choose to vandalize what I have edited. Enough of these misleading ideas regarding Noahidism.
  • RevAntonio (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In furtherance of Judaic heritage[edit]

  • It should be pointed out that Noahidism is not a branch, spin-off or sect of Judaism. As such, is it right to impose the Talmud on Gentiles? No! I've been reading one rabbi who says there are at least 66 mitzvot for Gentiles. What next, a Gentile Torah, composed entirely by rabbis? No! This is the sort of thing I say is corrosive to the fundamentals of Noahidism. If you want to be Jewish, then go convert. If I must, I'll quote from the Torah from Adam to Noach and beyond. Because it is plain that for a ben/bat Noach, that is all that matters. And you cannot continue with Karaite references, because Karaites are technically Jews, as are Samaritan Jews. We will have fruitful debate about honesty, not about Jewish Law. For Jewish Law, go to the section on Jews and Judaism. I come from a proud Converso family, and I hate all this manipulation of authority regarding Gentiles. Will we rob them the way my family was robbed centuries ago? Force them to follow Jewish halachah, to obey the Talmud which isn't for them?
  • The saying goes, "The rabbi said, 'Any Gentile who knows the Torah is the equal of the High Priest (Kohain Gadol).' " He, whoever he was, never said a thing about the Talmud or ben Maimon.
  • RevAntonio (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Stop bulleting every paragraph you write, would you? It's annoying. In any case, none of what you say comes with a source, so it's nothing but your personal opinion. Wikipedia requires sources. Not your personal interpretation of sources, but actual, published, legitimate sources. If you can find a book that says what you're saying, you can cite it, so long as it's a notable view. -Lisa (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll bullet as I see fit, and yes, I'm preparing to resource and citation you into next week. It's just I have a life and not as much time as some folk. And Lisa, show your sources or cease your bullying. You're not going to goad me into a counter-attack, and you're not the owner of this discussion page or this topic or this religion (or whatever it is). And I'd advise you not to anger Trusilver, which you are already very close to doing.
  • RevAntonio (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Original Research... not[edit]

  • My suggestions and pointing to the truth about the so-called seven laws are valid and easy for anyone to read. So I'll leave it there... I can't imagine a sane Righteous Gentile would even look at this discussion page. Lisa, how do you justify throwing 'original research' at me? Aren't your empty "sources" also the product of original research? Whereas my sources lie in the Torah. You don't want to give up, and I don't want you to give up... I want truth and accuracy. Ignore me then, but be fair to others who come here and produce your authority/sources! Meanwhile, I'm going over to repair the inaccuracies of the article Noahidism.
  • RevAntonio (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of conspiracy theory-baiting[edit]

I have taken out the few lines at the very end of this entry, referencing conspiracy theories. They do not meet any kind of encyclopedic standard unless there is a reference to an actual conspiracy theory/theories publicized about Noahidism. Anyone reverting the lines will be reported as per regulations of this website. My properly cited addition to that section, for balance, was unjustly removed, therefore I propose that having no documentation at all of any conspiracy theories against the Bene Noach moevement, there should be no such ridiculous section. (talk) 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

OH someone tried to have some dreck conspiracy in the first paragraph! Decapitating people, really. Please.Anuchild (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Change of Date[edit]

The Lubavicher Rebbe's 89th birthday was March 26, 1991, it was this day in 1991 that was designated as "Education Day" (See source for H.J.Res.104[1]) not in 1989. User:jcksnmrvn 10-05-2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

This is a controversial topic[edit]

Added Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies because this is a controversial topic among Jews and Judaism. Only the 7th and last Lubavitcher Rebbe pushed this "campaign" and it's still not carried out really even by Chabad who give it lip service. All other groups are against a public push for this, certainly the non-Orthodox sector does not want it. The discussions on this talk page itself proves the scope and directions of the various controversies surrounding this subject. IZAK (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you bring any sources for any Jewish group against this? --Historian2 (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi Historian: First take a look at what the article itself cites, read the two paragraphs in Seven Laws of Noah#Noahide laws as a basis for secular governance, especially: "Traditionally, Judaism 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 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." It is important to note in this article that most human beings have not heard of this system. In countries with strong Christian populations there are many groups that deny that Christianity is helped by Noahidism, in fact they take offense and oppose it (looks like from earlier editions of this article?) [1],[2] and again Christian criticism [3] : "Christian critics of the Noahide laws contend that insisting upon a basic set of moral laws is contrary to religious pluralism. Some believe that their existence implies that Jews may set up a legal system that would effectively outlaw Christianity." This article also shows the deep problems in Torah scholarship froma Noahide site: Christianity and Noahide Law. Needless to say in Islamic lands, such as Saudi Arabia, there would be beheadings for preaching such an independent doctrine that is not Islam. Among Jews who know about this notion and mitzva, it fell into disfavor when Lubavitch first broached the idea, but then seemed to back off from it. It is still a controversial subject. Even among rabbis there is no universal agreement what this commandment entails in all its deatils, while the 7 general principles are known to Torah scholars. One cannot say that this is universally accepted movement or notion at this time according to anyone. IZAK (talk) 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, this article could do with a little toning-down of all the Chabad Lubavitchers stuff. They have nothing to do with Noachidism or the modern Ben Noach. They like to say they have a sort of authority over the Noachides, but they do NOT. Also, we need to be more pluralistic about Torah authority, such as the above post questioning Noachide Law interpretation/death sentencing. This article has been VASTLY imporved now, but it still leans too much toward the Talmud--which has nothing to do with Gentiles--and too much of the Lubavitcher Sauce for anyone's taste.

I myself got my head snapped off by a Lubavitcher rabbi because I emailed him and said the rabbis' interference was wrong. I mentioned the death sentences they can "theoretically" impose on Bene Noach. He told me I did not know what I was talking about...but I DID know. This article is sort of offensive from the viewpoint that the Jewish faith, not Noachidism, is the only faith that matters or can make decisions. The Laws themselves enourage Gentiles to set up their own laws and enforcement! Why do we need Jewish sources to be cited at all for this sort of information? (talk) 17:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the "Noahidism as a basis for secular governance" section in the other article because it is an unsupported political statement. When I spoke to Rav Weinberg, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel about this topic, it certainly did not seem to be his view. So we need sources, and balancing.Mzk1 (talk) 19:15, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is too heavily biased towards Chabad/Lubavitch and doesn't acknowledge other Jewish perspectives or activity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, then somneone needs to add stuff. I don't think that here any of the stuff is necessarily non-notable, just because Lubavich is mentioned. I believe Rabbi Yoel Shwartz and Rabbi Tovia Singer are involved, among notable personalities. Another issue to be explored is that some Noachide groups appear to be somewhat Christian.Mzk1 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This is more than a controversial topic, AND really it meets the criteria for speedy deletion A10, as it is just a repeat in most parts of the Noahide Law page, which is heavily referenced and pretty well written. This page is poorly referenced dreck. There have been attempts to make it into an anti-Semetic rant, and it borders on the absurd as far as any encyclopedic reference. If you want to discuss the modern movements, then discuss the modern movements, but cease and desist with the really poorly written history lesson based not on Talmudic sources, but personal opinion. IZAK is completely correct. Mzkl is also correct in that this is not the basis of a political movement,nor is it representative of any truthful standard. Anuchild (talk) 05:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision and procreation for Noahides[edit]

Circumcision as a Divine commandment was given by G-d specifically to the descendents of Abraham. It is a sign of G-d's covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17). It is also one of the 613 Jewish mitzvot that G-d commanded through Moses at Mount Sinai (Leviticus 12:3).

One should bear in mind that Noahides are not allowed to create additional religious obligations for themselves in the name of Divine commandments beyond their own 7 mitzvot and their details, nor to do additional acts with the intention that they are fulfilling additional Divine commandments.

But a faithful Noahide who desires to perform one the Jewish mitzvot may do so voluntarily for the sake of the benefits it will bring to him, with a few exceptions noted elsewhere:

With this understanding, a Noahide man may voluntarily have himself circumcised, or Noahide parents may voluntarily have a baby son circumcised. They may request this either of an Orthodox Jewish "mohel" (who is certified to perform traditional Jewish circumcisions), or of a trained medical doctor. Once a Noahide makes the decision to do this, he should follow through without delay.

Noahides may also choose male circumcision for the sake of either the benefits which circumcision can bring for a male's physical health, or refinement of personal character. (The extent of the health benefits of male circumcision have become better understood in the past few years: ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that male Gentiles are allowed have themselves circumcised as a spiritual observance, even though it is meant to be a sign in the flesh of a Jew, is not problematic, since many Gentiles practice circumcision for medical purposes, and not in order to add a commandment or a new religion. Furthermore, the Gentile descendants of Keturah [from her sons who were fatherd by Abraham] were commanded to observe circumcision, from which we can conclude that this commandment is not exclusively for the Jews.

Therefore, any Gentile male, who wishes to be circumcised in order to refine himself is permitted to do so. But if he is not [assumed within Torah Law to be] descended from a son of Abraham and Keturah, he should be informed that he has no obligation or commandment to do this, and that he should not do so for the sake of a commandment, but rather only to refine his personality and his body and its desires. [Turkish men are obligated by Torah to be circumcised, since the children of Ishmael were intermingled with the children of Keturah during the time of the Babylonian Empire.])

The above-mentioned rule applies only to Jewish commandments that are not duty-bound by logic (even if they have a logical reason) such as circumcision, or tithes [by which a person limits himself to give specifically 10% of his income to charity]. However, those that are duty-bound by logic, such as honoring one’s parents, and kindness and charity [in general], are obligated to be kept, because such is the correct way for a person to act, as befitting the “image of G-d” in which he was created. However, a Gentile may not keep them because it is a commandment from G-d, but rather because one is obligated to be a good, moral person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In Christianity[edit]

Noah isn't mentioned, but the statement of the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts in the New Testament is somewhat parallel... AnonMoos (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


Has anyone here taken issue with the fact that the title is so blatantly misleading? The title should be simply: Noahides. And the rainbow the common symbol of the Noahides. This is not an "ism" nor will it ever be. I, along with every observant non-Jew I know, goes out of the way to direct people to any article other than this one due to its scathing errors. Can we, at the very least, agree the title needs an update. I pray those who are editing actually are Noahides and not hateful defamers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the title should be changed. I tried making the move but was not able to do so. Maybe because Noahides is a wikipedia category? 238-Gdn (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)