Our Gemara on amud aleph discusses the wage payment obligation toward a Ger Toshav, which is often defined as a gentile that commits to follow the Seven Noachide Laws. 

גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב יֵשׁ בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״בְּיוֹמוֹ תִּתֵּן שְׂכָרוֹ״, וְאֵין בּוֹ מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תָלִין פְּעוּלַּת שָׂכִיר אִתְּךָ עַד בֹּקֶר״.

One who hires a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvos [ger toshav] is subject to the prohibition of: “On the same day you shall give him his wages,” but is not subject to the negative mitzvah of: “The wages of a hired laborer shall not remain with you all night until the morning.”

Notably, Rashi here defines the Ger Toshav as one who commits to abstain from idolatry.  Rashi does not mention the other six Noachide Laws. Did Rashi just choose the main  Noahide Law, but really meant the others too, or was Rashi specifically and exclusively defining the Ger Toshav by this one law?  Rashi is careful with his words, so the latter is likely. But if so, why?

The Ger Toshav righteous gentile benefits from some Torah protections, while he does not benefit from others. For example, one may still charge him interest (Bava Metzia 70b), as well as that he does not benefit from consumer protections such as certain laws against overcharging (Bechoros 13b).  But we still find that there is a special mitzvah to support such gentiles financially, by gifting them animals that were not successfully slaughtered (Chullin 114b), and allowing them to purchase land and live in Israel (Pesachim 21b).  Yet, the gentile who is still an idolator is afforded none of these protections, and even is subject to a degree of loss due to their money being made “hefker” as a result of them not keeping basic laws of civilization, such as if a Jew’s ox gores his ox (though outright theft is still forbidden, see Bava Kamma 38a and Tosafos “Amad”.)

How do we understand these distinctions?  The Maharal (Be'er hagolah

Be’er 7, Mishnah 4) explains that the gentile who commits to serve Hashem, while not part of a brotherhood of Jews, is still respected. Therefore, one may argue that in regard to laws such as pertaining to overcharging or interest, which are extra consumer protections, the moral burden is on the buyer or the borrower, and they have been de facto waived. The Jew has no obligation to go above and beyond for a non-brother. Yet, when it comes to helping this gentile live peacefully in the land of Israel, we are supportive and provide certain benefits. The full convert receives all the legal benefits as he is now considered a full citizen and therefore is part of the brotherhood.  The idolator on the other hand, has lost almost all civic rights, as without a fealty to God, all bets are off.

Why does the Torah take such a hard line on the idolator?  Idolatry is not a sin to be compared to other sins.  It is a break with basic morality, as how can one be held accountable to a moral authority and master if there is more than one voice and power?  Monotheism was not just a religious revolution but a psychological one as well, because Man began to contend with the idea that there is a unified structure, a wholeness that comes from order and consistency, instead of chaotic warring forces.  

In recent times, especially, we have seen the failure of so-called moral and rational people to behave morally and rationally without divine Torah law. How else could one explain “Queers for Palestine?”, which would seem to be the equivalent as “Elephants for Ivory Tusk Industry” or “Mice for kitten rights”.  

(While technically we can find moral atheists in the world, the Torah does not deal with isolated situations, but basic trends in human nature which are statistically true. For more on this, see Rambam in the Guide for the Perplexed (III:34) where he explains that the reasons for the commandments are basically one of three purposes: To promote physical health, spiritual health or the smooth running of society. He compares the commandments to Nature (also designed by G-d). Just as the general welfare and survival is provided for by natural processes, yet individuals may have diseases or defects that nature does not protect them from, so too the Torah is designed for the welfare of the majority.  Torah law, like civil law, is designed to promote the greatest good and common welfare, as a legal system aside from a spiritual system.) 

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)