Do the Noahide Laws really protect us from theft? (Code Blue)

See Home Page
SevenColorsMinistry@gmail.com

 This article is "Code Blue": Theft

Do the Noahide Laws protect us from theft? Just like with murder, the answer is: not exactly. In regard to the Noahide Laws in the Talmudic folios of Sanhedrin 56a–57b (which reference Baba Kamma 37b), a non-Jew ("Cuthean" [Goy]) is liable for the death penalty for stealing from a non-Jew as well as a Jew, but if a Jew steals from a non-Jew, there is no penalty. Read the Talmudic passages below, follow all the footnotes, and review the Baba Kamma folio provided. Jews excuse themselves on this based on the principle of reciprocity; it is assumed a non-Jew would not protect a Jew from theft or property damage, and so a Jew is under no obligation to be punished for stealing from a non-Jew. Jews will tell you it is not legal to steal from non-Jews, but there is no punishment. Also, there is inequality before the law; a non-Jew who steals even the smallest denomination of coin is beheaded, while a Jew must steal a much larger amount to face punishment. The Noahide Laws do not protect non-Jews from theft. 

NON-JEWS ARE BEHEADED FOR STEALING THE SMALLEST DENOMINATION OF COIN, BUT A JEW MUST STEAL MORE TO BE EXECUTED

The Noachid is punished with decapitation for all kinds of robbery, whether from a Jew or from a non-Jew, even though the article stolen is worth less than a peruṭah (the smallest Palestinian coin, for less than which no case can be instituted against an Israelite).

- Laws Noachian, 1906 Jewish Encylopedia, https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9679-laws-noachian

TALMUD - JEWS MY ROB AND STEAL FROM NON-JEWS (GOYS/CUTHEANS) WITHOUT PENALTY

Has it not been taught: ‘With respect to robbery — if one stole or robbed[30]  or [seized] a beautiful woman,[31]  or [committed] similar offences,[32] if [these were perpetrated] by one Cuthean (Goy)[33]  against another, [the theft, etc.] must not be kept, and likewise [the theft] of an Israelite by a Cuthean, but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained‘?[34]  But if robbery is a capital offence, should not the Tanna have taught: He incurs a penalty? — Because the second clause wishes to state, ‘but that of a Cuthean by an Israelite may be retained,’ therefore the former clause reads, ‘[theft of an Israelite by a Cuthean] must not be kept.’[35]   – 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57a

FOOTNOTES:

30. Stole (ganab) refers to secret stealing, robbed (gazal), to stealing by open violence.

31. In war, v. Deut. XXI, 10-14 — a species of robbery. [This is the only possible and correct rendering of the text, contra Goldschmidt. Cf. Tosef A.Z.]

32. Acts which are not actual robbery, but partake of its nature.

33. ‘Cuthean’ (Samaritan) was here substituted by the censor for the original goy (heathen).

34. [I.e., though it is forbidden to rob the heathen (v. Yad, Genebah I, 2; VI, 8), the offence was non-actionable. For reason, v. B. K. (Baba Kamma Sonc. ed.) note on Mishnah 37b.]

35. But actually it is punishable too. [This is merely a survival of old Semitic tribal law that regarded theft and robbery as a crime against the state, and consequently punishable by death. V. Muller, D. H., Hammurabi, 88]

Baba Kamma 37B
(Referenced In The Sanhedrin Footnote 34 Above)

“THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY”

MISHNAH. IN THE CASE OF PRIVATE OWNER’S[9]  CATTLE[10]  GORING AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE, OR CONSECRATED CATTLE GORING A PRIVATE OX, THERE IS NO LIABILITY, FOR IT IS STATED: THE OX OF HIS NEIGHBOUR,[11]  NOT [THAT IS TO SAY] AN OX CONSECRATED TO THE TEMPLE. WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE HAS GORED AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE, THERE IS NO LIABILITY,[12] WHEREAS WHERE AN OX BELONGING TO A CANAANITE GORES AN OX BELONGING TO AN ISRAELITE, WHETHER WHILE TAM OR MU’AD,[13]  THE COMPENSATION IS TO BE MADE IN FULL.[14]- 1962 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 37b

FOOTNOTES

9. [Mishnah text: 'of an Israelite'.]

10. Lit., ‘ox’.

11. Ex. XXI, 35.

12. As Canaanites did not recognise the laws of social justice, they did not impose any liability for damage done by cattle. They could consequently not claim to be protected by a law they neither recognised nor respected, cf. J. T. a.l. and Maim. Yad, Niz. Mam. VIII, 5. [In ancient Israel as in the modern state the legislation regulating the protection of life and property of the stranger was, as Guttmann. M. (HUCA. III 1 ff.) has shown, on the basis of reciprocity. Where such reciprocity was not recognised, the stranger could not claim to enjoy the same protection of the law as the citizen.]

13. I.e., the ox that did the damage.

14. So that they should guard their cattle from doing damage. (Maim. loc. cit.)