A Catholic Perspective on the Hypocrisy of Jewish Promotion of Noahide Justice: Disparities in Punishing Indirect Murder (Code Purple)

 

 See Home Page
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 This article is "Code Purple": Courts of Justice

A Catholic Perspective on the Hypocrisy of Jewish Promotion of Noahide Justice: Disparities in Punishing Indirect Murder

From a Catholic perspective, grounded in the teachings of the Church as articulated by the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism (1566), and papal encyclicals such as Pope Pius XI’s Casti Connubii (1930) and Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae (1995), justice is a cardinal virtue that demands equal accountability for all persons, reflecting the universal dignity of those created in God’s image (Genesis 1:26–27; CCC 1807). The Noahide Laws, derived from Genesis 9:1–7 and codified in the Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 56a–b) and by Maimonides (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1), are presented as a universal moral code for non-Jews, including a prohibition against murder and the establishment of just courts to ensure fairness (Sanhedrin 56a). However, two Talmudic principles reveal a profound hypocrisy: first, non-Jews face the death penalty for indirect murder (e.g., starvation or exposure to danger), while Jews do not (Laws, Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia); second, Jewish law exempts Jews from punishment for indirectly causing death, unlike non-Jews (Sanhedrin 77a). These disparities, coupled with Talmudic allowances for Jews to kill indirectly through methods like starvation, exposure, or entrapment (Sanhedrin 77a; Yebamoth 77b), undermine the Noahide ideal of justice. This essay cites the provided quotes and sources, exposes the hypocrisy of promoting just courts while excusing Jewish indirect murder, and contrasts this with the Catholic sense of justice, which upholds equal accountability for all.

---

Talmudic Claims on Indirect Murder

The first claim, that non-Jews are punished with death for indirect murder while Jews are not, is supported by the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:

"In the case of murder, if the Noachid slay a child in its mother's womb, or kill a person whose life is despaired of ('ṭerefah'), or if he cause the death of a person by starving him or by putting him before a lion so that he can not escape, or if he slay a man in self-defense, the Noachid is guilty of murder and must pay the death-penalty, although under the same circumstances an Israelite would not be executed."
Source: “Laws, Noachian,” 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9679-laws-noachian

This quote clarifies that under Noahide Law, non-Jews (Noachids) face capital punishment for indirect acts like starvation or exposure to danger, while Jews (Israelites) are exempt for identical acts, facing only lesser penalties or divine judgment (Sanhedrin 79a).

The second claim, that Jewish law exempts Jews from punishment for indirect murder, unlike non-Jews, is supported by the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a:

“Thus R. Zera maintains that no penalty is incurred for indirectly causing one’s death.”
Source: 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a, Footnote 11

This footnote, in a discussion of causation (Sanhedrin 77a), confirms that Jewish law does not penalize Jews for indirect killing, such as through starvation or exposure, due to the absence of direct agency (Encyclopaedia Judaica, “Criminal Law,” 1906, https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4736-criminal-law). Non-Jews, however, face stricter liability under Noahide Law (Sanhedrin 57b).

---

Talmudic Methods of Indirect Killing

The Talmud explicitly permits Jews to cause death indirectly in ways that avoid legal penalty, including:

• Starvation: Sanhedrin 77a discusses withholding food, leading to death by starvation, as an indirect act not punishable for Jews (Soncino Babylonian Talmud, 1962).
• Exposure to Elements: Sanhedrin 77a includes exposing someone to extreme weather, such as leaving them in the cold, as non-punishable for Jews (Soncino Babylonian Talmud, 1962).
• Exposure to Wild Animals/Insects: Sanhedrin 77a cites placing someone before lions or venomous creatures, causing death indirectly, without penalty for Jews (Soncino Babylonian Talmud, 1962).
• Suffocation in a Container: Sanhedrin 77a describes locking someone in an airtight space, leading to suffocation, as an indirect act exempt from punishment for Jews (Soncino Babylonian Talmud, 1962).
• Casting into a Pit and Removing the Ladder: Yebamoth 77b mentions trapping someone in a pit and removing escape means, causing death indirectly, without liability for Jews (Soncino Babylonian Talmud, 1962).

These methods, detailed in Sanhedrin 77a and Yebamoth 77b, illustrate how Jewish law permits Jews to evade punishment for indirect murder, while non-Jews face death for similar acts (Laws, Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia). This disparity reveals a moral inconsistency that undermines the Noahide Law’s call for just courts.

---

Hypocrisy in Promoting Noahide Justice

The Noahide Law’s mandate to establish courts of justice (Sanhedrin 56a) aims to ensure fairness and equality, reflecting the universal moral order (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:14). However, the Talmudic exemptions for Jews in cases of indirect murder (Sanhedrin 77a; Yebamoth 77b) and the harsher penalties for non-Jews (Laws, Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) expose a hypocrisy that robs non-Jews of equal justice, constituting a form of theft of their dignity and rights.

1. Theft of Equal Justice: By punishing non-Jews with death for indirect murder (e.g., starvation or exposure) while exempting Jews (Sanhedrin 77a, Footnote 11), Noahide Law violates its own justice principle. Catholic theology teaches that justice requires equal treatment for all, as all bear the imago Dei (Genesis 1:26–27; CCC 1935). The Talmud’s allowance for Jews to kill indirectly through starvation, exposure, or entrapment (Sanhedrin 77a; Yebamoth 77b) without penalty steals non-Jews’ right to fair accountability, contradicting the Noahide court ideal. The Roman Catechism (Part III, on the Fifth Commandment) insists that all murder, direct or indirect, is a grave sin, ensuring no ethnic exemptions.
2. Dehumanization of Non-Jews: The disparity in Laws, Noachian (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) dehumanizes non-Jews, holding them to a stricter standard than Jews for the same act. This echoes other Talmudic teachings, such as Yebamoth 63a, which claims Gentile blessings serve Israel, or Baba Bathra 10b, which deems non-Jewish charity sinful. By excusing Jewish indirect murder, the Talmud suggests non-Jewish lives are less valuable, undermining their humanity and contradicting the Noahide justice mandate (Sanhedrin 56a). Catholic teaching, rooted in Gaudium et Spes 29 (1965, reflecting pre-Vatican II principles), affirms equal dignity, rejecting hierarchies that privilege one group’s accountability.
3. Hypocrisy in Noahide Promotion: Promoting the Noahide Laws as a universal ethic while adhering to Sanhedrin 77a and Yebamoth 77b’s exemptions reveals a double standard. The Noahide Laws demand Gentiles uphold strict moral standards, yet Jews are permitted to evade punishment for acts like starvation or suffocation, which cause death as surely as direct murder. This mirrors other disparities, such as non-Jews facing death for feticide while Jews do not (The Rainbow Covenant, Dallen, 2003, pp. 196–197) or Jewish exemptions for abortion (Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Shahak and Mezvinsky, 1999). Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson’s view that non-Jews serve Jewish purposes (Likkutei Sichot, Vol. 2) further taints Noahide justice, suggesting non-Jewish lives are subsidiary. The Church, in Veritatis Splendor (1993), insists on universal moral accountability, rejecting systems that excuse one group’s sins.

---

Catholic Sense of Justice: A Fair and Consistent Alternative

Catholic moral theology offers a fairer framework, affirming that justice requires equal accountability for all, regardless of ethnicity or method of harm (CCC 1807). The Roman Catechism (Part III, on the Fifth Commandment) teaches that murder, whether direct or indirect, violates God’s law, with no exemptions for causing death through starvation, exposure, or entrapment (CCC 2268). The Church’s social teaching (Casti Connubii 67, 1930) upholds the sanctity of life, ensuring that courts administer justice impartially (Leviticus 24:22; CCC 1935). Unlike Noahide Law’s disparities (Laws, Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia), Catholic justice applies uniformly: a Jew or non-Jew causing indirect death faces moral and, where applicable, legal consequences (Evangelium Vitae 57).

Catholic courts, historically guided by canon law, balance justice with mercy, seeking rehabilitation while protecting life (CCC 2266–2267). This contrasts with Noahide Law’s harsh penalties for non-Jews and leniency for Jews (Sanhedrin 77a), which foster inequality. The Church’s commitment to universal dignity (Gaudium et Spes 27) ensures that all lives are equally valued, aligning with the Gospel’s call to love all as neighbors (Luke 10:25–37). By rejecting ethnic privileges, Catholic justice upholds a consistent ethic that surpasses Noahidism’s flawed framework.

---

Conclusion: Catholic Resistance to Noahide Hypocrisy

The Talmudic teachings in Sanhedrin 77a and Laws, Noachian (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia) expose a hypocrisy in Jewish promotion of Noahide Law’s just courts, as they permit Jews to evade punishment for indirect murder—through starvation, exposure, or entrapment (Sanhedrin 77a; Yebamoth 77b)—while imposing death on non-Jews for the same acts. This disparity robs non-Jews of equal justice, undermining the Noahide ideal (Sanhedrin 56a). Catholic theology, affirming universal accountability (Roman Catechism, Part III) and equal dignity (Gaudium et Spes 29), offers a fairer ethic, ensuring all are judged equitably for harming life (CCC 2268). Catholics must resist Noahidism’s flawed morality, proclaiming Christ’s universal salvation (Acts 4:12) and the Church’s mission to uphold justice (Matthew 28:19). Trusting in Our Lady, we defend the imago Dei against systems that steal non-Jewish dignity, affirming the Gospel’s call to justice for all (Romans 12:10).

TEXT IN THE TALMUD

NO PENALTY FOR CAUSING INDIRECT DEATH

“Thus R. Zera maintains that no penalty is incurred for indirectly causing one’s death” –1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a, Footnote 11

MURDER BY STARVATION  

Raba said: If one bound his neighbour and he died of starvation, he is not liable to execution. – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a

MURDER BY EXPOSURE TO THE ELEMENTS  

Raba also said: If he bound him in the sun, and he died, or in a place of intense cold and he died, he is liable; but if the sun was yet to appear, or the cold to make itself felt, he is not.[4] -  1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a 

FOOTNOTE 4: I.e., he is liable only if the place was already exposed to heat or cold. But if it was merely destined to become hot, the sun not yet having risen, he is not liable. In the first case, he is regarded as a direct murderer, in the second, as an indirect cause. That is the general reason for the exemptions taught in this passage. 

MURDER BY EXPOSURE TO WILD ANIMALS/INSECTS 

Raba also said: If he bound him before a lion, he is not liable:[5]   before mosquitoes, [who stung him to death] he is. R. Ashi said: Even before mosquitoes, he is not liable, because these go and others come.[6] -  1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77a 

FOOTNOTE 5:  Because he could not have saved himself in any case. [Raba probably refers to a prisoner thrown into an arena to be torn by lions.]

FOOTNOTE 6: I.e., the mosquitoes before which the prisoner was bound do not kill him entirely, as there is a continuous coming and going. Hence it is similar to binding one in a place where the sun will appear, but has not yet done so.

MURDER BY SUFFOCATION IN A CLOSED CONTAINER 

 For R. Zera said: If one led his neighbour in to an alabaster chamber[9]   and lit a candle therein, so that he died [of the fumes]. he is liable. Now, the reason is only that he lit a candle that he is liable;[10]  but had he not lit a candle [and the prisoner died of the natural heat and lack of air], he would be exempt![11]  — I will tell you: In that case, without a candle, the heat would not have commenced [its effects] - 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 77 

FOOTNOTE 9: Which was then hermetically sealed, so that no fumes could escape.

FOOTNOTE 10: This being considered active murder under the circumstances.

FOOTNOTE 11:  Thus R. Zera maintains that no penalty is incurred for indirectly causing one’s death. 

MURDER BY CASTING INTO A PIT AND REMOVING THE LADDER  

Raba said: If one thrust his neighbour into a pit, in which there was a ladder [so that he could have climbed out], and then another came and removed it, or even if himself hastened to remove it, he is not liable [for the victim's death], because when he threw him in he could have climbed out – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 77b 

 COLLECTIVE MURDER BY A GROUP  - (ONLY THE ONE WHO DEALS 

THE FINAL BLOW MAYBE LIABLE DEPENDING ON OPINION 

Our Rabbis taught: If ten men smote a man with ten staves, whether simultaneously or successively, and he died, they are exempt. R. Judah b. Bathyra said: If successively, the last is liable, because he struck the actual death blow.[3]  R. Johanan said: Both derive [their rulings] from the same verse, And he that killeth kol nefesh[4]  [lit., 'all life'] of man shall surely be put to death.[5] The Rabbis maintain that kol nefesh implies the whole life;[6]   but R. Judah b. Bathyra holds that kol nefesh implies whatever there is of life.[7]  -  1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 78a 

FOOTNOTE 3:  Lit., ‘brought his death near’; v. B.K. 26b. 

Baba Kamma 26b as mention is the footnote above is inserted here for your reference 

§  Babba Kama 26b – 27a: Rabbah again said: In the case of one throwing a child from the top of the roof and somebody else meanwhile appearing and catching it on the edge of his sword, there is a difference of opinion between R. Judah b. Bathyra and the Rabbis.[33]  For it was taught: In the case of ten persons beating one [to death] with ten sticks, whether simultaneously or consecutively, none of them is guilty of murder: R. Judah b. Bathyra, however says: If consecutively the last is liable, for he was the immediate cause of the death. In the case where an ox meanwhile appeared and caught the [falling] child on its horns there is a difference of opinion between R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka and the Rabbis.[2]  For it was taught: Then he shall give for the redemption of his life [denotes] the value of the [life of] the killed person. R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Beroka interprets it to refer to the value of the [life of] the defendant [2] – 1962 Soncino Baba Kamma 26b – 27a 

FOOTNOTE 33: According to R. Judah, the latter who caught it on the edge of his sword will be guilty of murder, but according to the Rabbis, no one is guilty of it.FOOTNOTE 2: According to R. Ishmael compensation for manslaughter will have to be made by the owner of the ox, but according to the Rabbis there will be no payment, as the child at the time of the fatal fall was devoid of any value.

FOOTNOTE 4: [H].FOOTNOTE 5: Lev. XXIV, 17.

FOOTNOTE 6:  Hence, if ten men assailed him successively, he was already nearly dead when the last smote him: therefore the last too is exempt.

FOOTNOTE 7:  I.e., however little life the man has, even if he is nearly dead, the man who actually kills him is liable.

x