We see in the Torah that there are two kinds of "Gerim" (converts).The "Righteous", or Full Convert, who becomes a Jew in every way, and the Ger Toshav (Resident Alien) who has the right to dwell among us, even in the Land of Israel, and who is to be supported by the Jewish community (where necessary).Although this is not spelled out, it is obvious from the use of the word "Ger", denoting in some contexts an equality with the Jews (there shall be one law for you and the Ger), and in others clearly indicating a Ger not bound by Torah (the Torah commands that animals that have not been properly slaughtered, are to be given to the Ger to eat) (Deuteronomy 14:21) It is pointed out that the Torah says "give", rather than "sell", as is commanded in the case of a Nochri (Gentile), implying an obligation to support. We have a term in the Talmud "Chasidei Umot HaOlam" (The Pious of the Nations of the World) for those who accept the Seven Noachide laws. The word "Noachide" (Ben Noah) in the Talmud simply means a Gentile. The use of the term "Noachide" to mean one who has accepted the Seven Laws is recent, but means the same as the Talmudic "Chasidei Umot HaOlam". Now we are faced with the question, are the terms "Chasidei Umot HaOlam" and Ger Toshav" one in the same? Here, I must again editorialize. There is a widespread, but by no means universal, idea that once a great person says something, he is ALWAYS right, and his words become a "source". It was only when I got to classes of advanced learning, did I hear the terms "right" or "wrong" applied to the ideas of great rabbis. I had always heard "we do not rule in accordance with that view" used. Only later did I find out that among "big" rabbis, that was merely a euphemism, so as not to lower a great rabbi's stature among the unlearned. It should be abundantly clear by now that I view RAMBAM's approach to halachah as light years ahead of his closest competitors. His clear and concise use of Talmudic sources, leaves everyone else in the dust. However, when he leaves the realm of halachah, and deals with ideology, philosophy, theology, or personal opinion, we must see him as opinion, rather than fully accepted doctrine. This is not only my view, but a very widespread idea among rabbis. In the case at hand, RAMBAM's assertions are primarily his own theories, lacking Talmudic basis. He says that a Ger Toshav is one who accepts the Noachide laws before three scholars (rabbis). Otherwise, he is deemed to simply be of the Chasidei Umot HaOlam. But this distinction is not found in Talmud, where the two are synonymous. In his Issurei Biah (forbidden sexual conduct) 14:8, he states that there is no such thing as a Ger Toshav today, as this status existed only while Jubilee was in effect, which ceased with the exile of the Northern Tribes. I have searched in vain for a Talmudic source for this statement. Also, his assertion that a Ger Toshav must accept his status in front of a Beit Din of three, reflects a single minority view in Talmud. (Avodah Zarah 64b)
Rabbi Meir maintains that a Ger Toshav is a Nochri (stranger) who accepts upon himself, in front of three scholars rabbis) , not to worship idols.
The Sages say that a Ger Toshav is a Gentile who accepts upon himself to observe the seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach.
"Others" (a dissenting minority) maintain that the above opinions are incorrect, and that a Ger Toshav is a Nochri who accepts all of the Mitzvos except for not eating Neveilot (animals that were not slaughtered properly).
The accepted view of most post Talmudic scholars is that we rule like the majority opinion, which makes a Ger Toshav identical with the Naochide. Moreover, we do not find in the Talmud that he must accept this becasue of the Torah (as RAMBAM asserts). If a Gentile came to understand that idolatry is wrong, and living an ethical life is essential, he should be considered a Ger Toshav. Many medieval rabbis asserted that this would be true even if he is a member of another religion. All the discussions in online Torah lectures center around interpreting the views of RAMBAM in this area. I have yet to see someone questioning if these views are well founded. Can we ignore a view of RAMBAM? Suffice it to say, that not a single person reading this keeps kosher in accordance with the views of RAMBAM. Certain opinions of his are dismissed by later authorities. Why in the area of kashrut is he not seen as infallible, but in areas of ideology he is? In his introduction to his halachic magnum opus, the Mishneh Torah, he writes that no one after the Talmud is accepted at face value, and must be judged by other rabbis as to logic and proper interpretation of Talmudic sources. I think we need to do just that. In my opinion, this approach would make us infinitely more inclusive of our fellow humans, and make Torah accessible to virtually all. In my next post, I will deal with the issue if Christianity is or isn't monotheistic. Can a Christian be a Noachide?