I
We have a tradition that ducks are kosher birds, just as are chicken and quail and doves.
There are many subspecies of ducks that vary in appearance and behavior. Some subspecies are reproductively isolated, meaning that although they can produce live offspring when mated with related subspecies, their offspring is infertile, as is the case with horses and donkeys producing mules.
Among the subspecies of ducks is the Muscovy duck, a tree-perching, sharp-taloned breed. My first introduction to the Muscovy was when a classmate in law school told me that his family raises Muscovy ducks in northern Wisconsin, and that they are malodorous, aggressive and voracious. Most poskim and Kashrus organizations in the United States hold that the Muscovy duck is not kosher, that it is an Ohf Tamei. Most poskim and all kashrus organizations in Israel hold that it is an Ohf Tahor, that it is kosher. The opinion of the American poskim is based on physical and behavioral differences between the common Pekin duck and the Muscovy. A little internet research will yield a great deal of shrill argument and table-pounding on the topic, which, unfortunately, is more heat than light. But the fact remains that many poskim outside of Israel prohibit eating Muscovy duck, and only the type that advocates renunciation of minhag Kitniyos would deny the seriousness of the halachic stance of those who follow the osrim.
Last year, I visited Israel, and ate at one of the highest rated restaurants in Jerusalem. It has the most respected hechsher, or did when I was there. They served wonderful things, including something called Moulard. What is Moulard, I asked the waiter? Duck, answered the waiter. He said that it was just a kind of duck, but that before I ordered it, I should be aware that it had a kind of gamey flavor.
Recently, I was doing some reading on the Muscovy issue, and I found out an interesting thing. Moulard, the Mule duck, is actually a sterile cross between the Muscovy (male) and the Pekin duck (female). It is called Mulard, or Moulard, as a combination of the words mule and mallard. For me, that means that Moulard is a cross between the Muscovy-treif-as-a-pig duck and the Pekin-kosher duck.
I've eaten in restaurants in Israel with top notch hechsheirim where mechallel Shabbos or Arab wait-staff poured non-mevushal wine. In fact, the Mashgiach at one such restaurant came over with a bottle of non-mevushal that was being served there, asking that I write a letter to complain to the Rabbanut, because all of his entreaties had yielded nothing but silence. That's a shame, but many poskim are mattir the stam yeinam of a mechallel Shabbos (see Igros Moshe 5:37 part 8), and at worst it is an issur derabanan. This doesn't come to the level of negligence and indifference to a respected shittas haposkim shown by serving Moulard to Americans without any warning.
I know there are families that do not eat turkey. Someone in their past paskened that Turkey is not kosher. There is the Frankel family, and the Mann family, some Kaminetzkies, and others. Some have a mesora that Reb Shlomo Kluger or the Noda BiYehuda saw turkey being Doreis. This does not matter. Almost all of Klal Yisrael accepts turkey as kosher, and those who do not can easily recognize turkey and avoid it. That is not the case with Muscovy duck and certainly not with Moulard.
Same for Pate de Foie Gras. Some do not eat birds that have been force-fed because of a concern for a tear in the esophagus, which renders the bird a neveila. But everyone who avoids mefutamim knows not to eat Pate de Foie Gras, because it comes from force-fed geese. That is not the case with Muscovy duck and certainly not with Moulard. (And here's another surprise: most PDFG no longer comes from geese; it comes from Moulard Drakes, something you ought to know if you want to eat Pate de Foie Gras.)
And here's the worse part: Why should I complain about the restaurant, when at least they were honest and identified the dish as Moulard? Other hotels and restaurants that serve duck identify them generically- 'Duck." Are they Pekin or Muscovy? I've read that the Moulard was originally bred in Israel. While I don't know whether Muscovies or Moulards are common or predominant in Israeli poultry farms, there is certainly no umde'na or chezkas kashrus. (I remember being at a hotel buffet on Shabbos, and seeing a steam table tray of duck. I was surprised they would serve such an expensive dish at the buffet; I was also surprised that it didn't taste like any duck I had ever eaten. In retrospect, I realize it was probably Moulard, which is much cheaper to produce, since it grows to three times the weight and twice as quickly as our common duck.) So if you're offered duck in Israel, think very carefully before saying yes. בִּין תָּבִין אֶת אֲשֶׁר לְפָנֶיךָ,
וְשַׂמְתָּ שַׂכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה
The issue of keilim also should be addressed, but pales in comparison to the issue discussed here.
Note: For those that will defend this practice by saying that if the local poskim hold it's muttar, then they have no legal or moral obligation to warn off those that hold (or think or are noheig) that it is assur, please see here where I show conclusively that that to do so is both morally and legally wrong, perhaps even included in Arur Mashgeh Iver Baderech and the issur de'oraysa of Lifnei Iver.
NOTE/UPDATE: A Kashrus professional mentioned to me that any Israeli visiting the US that eats donuts with sprinkles is encountering a similar problem. In the US, Kashrus organizations allow resinous glaze. In Israel, it is considered assur. I respond by saying that the chumra against resinous glaze is a chumra, neither a kezayis nor an issur de'oraysa.
On the other hand, there is indeed an issue for Sfardim eating where an Ashkenazi gave a hechsher, because they are much more stringent regarding Bishul Akum. Our kula of being mattir when a Jew simply turned on the fire does not work for them. So is it assur for Sefardim to eat in most restaurants, or to rely on the OU? Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Da'as 5:54) allows Sefardim to eat in Ashkenazi restaurants on the basis of sfeik sfeika; still, it is a problem they need to be aware of.
II
On the topic of things that look like a duck but are not ducks:
Is it a good thing for gentiles to wear Tztizis? I mention Tzitzis only as an example. The question is more general: We know that women, who are not obligated to do some mitzvos, are rewarded when they choose to do them. Does the same apply to gentiles who choose to do mitzvos?
There are cases where the answer is obviously "No!" Those are Shabbos and Milah (and maybe Sukka and Gid Hanasheh). In the case of Shabbos, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 58b) says עכו'ם ששבת חייב מיתה, so it's clearly not a good idea. In the case of Milah, Milah is a covenant between Hashem and the Jews. Only the party to the covenant can wear the badge of identification. If a non-party wears such a badge, he's just a fool.
But what of other mitzvos?
The immediate reaction from any ben torah should be "Mitzvos for Goyim is like a bicycle for a fish." The mitzvos are for Klal Yisrael alone, and are utterly meaningless for non-Jews. A woman is in the parsha of mitzvos with a p'tur of Zman Grama. A goy is entirely outside of the parsha.
In fact, however, the question was clearly addressed by the Ramban in Kiddushin 31. Unfortunately, the clear answer is either "absolutely yes" or "absolutely not."
The Gemara there talks of the schar of a person who does a mitzva by choice, even though he was not obligated to do the mitzva, for example, a blind person if you hold suma pattur, or a woman that does Zman Grama. The Ramban asks, but what of the Yerushalmi that says כל הפטור מן הדבר ועושהו נקרא הדיוט, that one who is not obligated to do a thing and does it is called a simpleton? According to the Birkei Yosef, (YD 333:1), the Ramban answers
But the truth is, I would bet that either the Chida just let his pen write faster than he intended, or that he meant to write "ועבדים", not ועכו״ם . But it's interesting anyway. And the Sdei Chemed (3:81) does bring down this Birkei Yosef without commenting on the extreme chidush.
UPDATE: I checked a modern Ramban, from Mechon Ma'arovo (Yerushalayim, nun hei), and their girsa is **[כגון נשים [וגוים . (The boxes are theirs, not mine, and they're squares, not parenthesis.) They claim that their edition is based on numerous kisvei yad. This girsa, for what it's worth, seriously undermines my suggestion that the Birkei Yosef, or his edition of the Ramban, just miswrote 'akum' in place of 'avadim'.
(Please note: The Magen Avraham 304:24 (cited by the Biur Halacha at the end of that siman) says that a Geir Toshav can be mekabel Shabbos along with other mitzvos; he can accept upon himself whichever mitzvos he chooses, up to 612 mitzvos. He will remain a ger toshav, but he will be obligated to fulfill the mitzvos he accepted, including Shabbos. But I'm not talking about a Ger Toshav that made a formal kabbala in front of a Beis Din. I'm talking about a 100% normal non-ger toshav Goy Gomur who wants to do mitzvos. Still, there might be an underlying connection between the two ideas: L'maiseh, this Ger Toshav who was mekabel mitzvas Tzitzis is a non-Jew who is doing the mitzvah. If that makes sense, then it might make sense for a stam goy, too.)
So there you have it. You can be served duck in a kosher restaurant with top notch hechsheirim, and the waiter who's pouring the wine might be wearing Tzitzis with tcheiles, and it turns out that you're eating Chazir and drinking Yayin Nesech, and the waiter is a goy, and the hechsher is just a certificate of azus meitzach. Anything can happen on Torah Avenue. Baruch Hashem for American Kashrus organizations.
UPDATE:
I just got a copy of the new Igros which has the sixth Orach Chaim, and I saw that in teshuva 2 Reb Moshe says unequivocally and very emphatically that a non-Jew that does mitzvos has absolutely no schar, it means nothing at all, and the Rambam is only talking about Korban Olah.
IV
Unfortunately, the last section, that used to be right here, was lost in the Blogger outage. I don't have the patience to reconstruct it with the marei makom, but here's the outline.
Tal Benschar sent me to the Rambam in 10 Melachim halachos 9 and 10. I'm sorry I missed the offeneh Rambam, and grateful he wrote. Thank you.
The Rambam seems to say that a non-Jew can do most mitzvos in order to receive schar, just like the Birkei Yosef's Ramban. There are many issues in reading the Rambam, such as the distinction he clearly intends through his use of the terms Akum and Ben Noach.
Halacha 9:
עכו"ם שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה. לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצות שלהן בלבד. וכן עכו"ם ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול. אם עשאהו לעצמו כמו שבת חייב מיתה. ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו. כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמן מדעתן. אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצות. או יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע. ואם עסק בתורה. או שבת. או חדש דבר. מכין אותו ועונשין אותו. ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג:
Halacha 10:
בן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה כדי לקבל שכר. אין מונעין אותו לעשות כהלכתה
I found this perplexing, as indicated above. But, in a victory for the value of seichel hayashar, I found that Reb Moshe (YD 1) strongly states that the Rambam cannot mean what it might seem to mean. The Rambam only means is that while an akum that does Shabbos or learns Torah is doing a great sin, one who does other mitzvos- thinking that he'll be rewarded for doing them- is not sinning at all. But, Reb Moshe says, in fact, he certainly will not be rewarded for doing those mitzvos.
I wrote that a good comparison would be a person that keeps Shmita in Nebraska. Does he get schar? Of course not. It's a mitzva hatluya ba'aretz, and meaningless outside of Eretz Yisrael. Tzitzis, and all the mitzvos, are a chovas gavra, whether the gavra is doing or the gavra is done upon, and the gavra is a Yisrael. For an akum to do them is like keeping Shmita in Nebraska. It is utterly meaningless. So the Ramban's alleged words about ein HKBH mekapei'ach don't help things at all. Would you say Ein Me'kapei'ach on the guy in Nebraska?
A Rabbi Shtzepansky wrote in to argue, and cited the Meiri in Bava Kamma contrary to Reb Moshe. Reb Moshe (YD 2) answered that the Meiri must be a ta'us sofer, because it just doesn't make sense. Reb Moshe also notes that Reb Yosef, even in the hava amina, could not have thought that an Akum that keeps mitzvos gets greater schar than a Yisrael. That would be muktzeh min hada'as.
Also, in another teshuva (OC 5), he writes that he also disagrees with the Magen Avraham I cited above who holds that a Ger Toshav can be mekabeil as many mitzvos as he wants. I was happy with that because I also had written above that if you hold like the Magen Avraham, then the alleged Ramban would be defensible.
Again, as I mentioned above, in OC 6 Reb Moshe reiterates his opinion about Akum that does eino metzuva.
The last thing I wrote was a short discussion about the logic of reward for an Eino Metzuveh, and how it depends on whether mitzvos are inherently good or only good because we do them to fulfill Hashem's will, and that schar eino metzuva only makes sense according to the former. I ended by saying that having crossed the line from proof to philosophy, my work has come to an end.
IF ANYONE PRINTED OUT OR COPIED WHAT I USED TO HAVE HERE, I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE GETTING IT IN MY MAIL AT ELIEZERE@AOL.COM
kashe atiki, and I would rather have what I had written in the first place.
Update:
See Rambam Peirush HaMishnayos Terumos 3:9, where he says that gentiles have schar ktzas, but on that halacha see in the Yad Terumos 4:9 where he says that it's totally miderabanan.
Update September 2019:
Here is a section from a sefer Avodah Berura, Rav Mitnick, Yerushalayim, Avodah Zarah vol I. Very good review, quotes a Sfas Emes like Reb Moshe, says they both missed the boat. I believe that they will learn the Rambam as similar to the Magen Avraham's case. The Rambam says clearly that he's talking when the Goy does it because of the Tzivui Hashem. How is that different than the Magen Avraham? It is not.
We have a tradition that ducks are kosher birds, just as are chicken and quail and doves.
There are many subspecies of ducks that vary in appearance and behavior. Some subspecies are reproductively isolated, meaning that although they can produce live offspring when mated with related subspecies, their offspring is infertile, as is the case with horses and donkeys producing mules.
Among the subspecies of ducks is the Muscovy duck, a tree-perching, sharp-taloned breed. My first introduction to the Muscovy was when a classmate in law school told me that his family raises Muscovy ducks in northern Wisconsin, and that they are malodorous, aggressive and voracious. Most poskim and Kashrus organizations in the United States hold that the Muscovy duck is not kosher, that it is an Ohf Tamei. Most poskim and all kashrus organizations in Israel hold that it is an Ohf Tahor, that it is kosher. The opinion of the American poskim is based on physical and behavioral differences between the common Pekin duck and the Muscovy. A little internet research will yield a great deal of shrill argument and table-pounding on the topic, which, unfortunately, is more heat than light. But the fact remains that many poskim outside of Israel prohibit eating Muscovy duck, and only the type that advocates renunciation of minhag Kitniyos would deny the seriousness of the halachic stance of those who follow the osrim.
Last year, I visited Israel, and ate at one of the highest rated restaurants in Jerusalem. It has the most respected hechsher, or did when I was there. They served wonderful things, including something called Moulard. What is Moulard, I asked the waiter? Duck, answered the waiter. He said that it was just a kind of duck, but that before I ordered it, I should be aware that it had a kind of gamey flavor.
Recently, I was doing some reading on the Muscovy issue, and I found out an interesting thing. Moulard, the Mule duck, is actually a sterile cross between the Muscovy (male) and the Pekin duck (female). It is called Mulard, or Moulard, as a combination of the words mule and mallard. For me, that means that Moulard is a cross between the Muscovy-treif-as-a-pig duck and the Pekin-kosher duck.
I've eaten in restaurants in Israel with top notch hechsheirim where mechallel Shabbos or Arab wait-staff poured non-mevushal wine. In fact, the Mashgiach at one such restaurant came over with a bottle of non-mevushal that was being served there, asking that I write a letter to complain to the Rabbanut, because all of his entreaties had yielded nothing but silence. That's a shame, but many poskim are mattir the stam yeinam of a mechallel Shabbos (see Igros Moshe 5:37 part 8), and at worst it is an issur derabanan. This doesn't come to the level of negligence and indifference to a respected shittas haposkim shown by serving Moulard to Americans without any warning.
I know there are families that do not eat turkey. Someone in their past paskened that Turkey is not kosher. There is the Frankel family, and the Mann family, some Kaminetzkies, and others. Some have a mesora that Reb Shlomo Kluger or the Noda BiYehuda saw turkey being Doreis. This does not matter. Almost all of Klal Yisrael accepts turkey as kosher, and those who do not can easily recognize turkey and avoid it. That is not the case with Muscovy duck and certainly not with Moulard.
Same for Pate de Foie Gras. Some do not eat birds that have been force-fed because of a concern for a tear in the esophagus, which renders the bird a neveila. But everyone who avoids mefutamim knows not to eat Pate de Foie Gras, because it comes from force-fed geese. That is not the case with Muscovy duck and certainly not with Moulard. (And here's another surprise: most PDFG no longer comes from geese; it comes from Moulard Drakes, something you ought to know if you want to eat Pate de Foie Gras.)
And here's the worse part: Why should I complain about the restaurant, when at least they were honest and identified the dish as Moulard? Other hotels and restaurants that serve duck identify them generically- 'Duck." Are they Pekin or Muscovy? I've read that the Moulard was originally bred in Israel. While I don't know whether Muscovies or Moulards are common or predominant in Israeli poultry farms, there is certainly no umde'na or chezkas kashrus. (I remember being at a hotel buffet on Shabbos, and seeing a steam table tray of duck. I was surprised they would serve such an expensive dish at the buffet; I was also surprised that it didn't taste like any duck I had ever eaten. In retrospect, I realize it was probably Moulard, which is much cheaper to produce, since it grows to three times the weight and twice as quickly as our common duck.) So if you're offered duck in Israel, think very carefully before saying yes. בִּין תָּבִין אֶת אֲשֶׁר לְפָנֶיךָ,
וְשַׂמְתָּ שַׂכִּין בְּלֹעֶךָ אִם בַּעַל נֶפֶשׁ אָתָּה
The issue of keilim also should be addressed, but pales in comparison to the issue discussed here.
Note: For those that will defend this practice by saying that if the local poskim hold it's muttar, then they have no legal or moral obligation to warn off those that hold (or think or are noheig) that it is assur, please see here where I show conclusively that that to do so is both morally and legally wrong, perhaps even included in Arur Mashgeh Iver Baderech and the issur de'oraysa of Lifnei Iver.
NOTE/UPDATE: A Kashrus professional mentioned to me that any Israeli visiting the US that eats donuts with sprinkles is encountering a similar problem. In the US, Kashrus organizations allow resinous glaze. In Israel, it is considered assur. I respond by saying that the chumra against resinous glaze is a chumra, neither a kezayis nor an issur de'oraysa.
On the other hand, there is indeed an issue for Sfardim eating where an Ashkenazi gave a hechsher, because they are much more stringent regarding Bishul Akum. Our kula of being mattir when a Jew simply turned on the fire does not work for them. So is it assur for Sefardim to eat in most restaurants, or to rely on the OU? Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yechaveh Da'as 5:54) allows Sefardim to eat in Ashkenazi restaurants on the basis of sfeik sfeika; still, it is a problem they need to be aware of.
II
On the topic of things that look like a duck but are not ducks:
Is it a good thing for gentiles to wear Tztizis? I mention Tzitzis only as an example. The question is more general: We know that women, who are not obligated to do some mitzvos, are rewarded when they choose to do them. Does the same apply to gentiles who choose to do mitzvos?
There are cases where the answer is obviously "No!" Those are Shabbos and Milah (and maybe Sukka and Gid Hanasheh). In the case of Shabbos, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 58b) says עכו'ם ששבת חייב מיתה, so it's clearly not a good idea. In the case of Milah, Milah is a covenant between Hashem and the Jews. Only the party to the covenant can wear the badge of identification. If a non-party wears such a badge, he's just a fool.
But what of other mitzvos?
The immediate reaction from any ben torah should be "Mitzvos for Goyim is like a bicycle for a fish." The mitzvos are for Klal Yisrael alone, and are utterly meaningless for non-Jews. A woman is in the parsha of mitzvos with a p'tur of Zman Grama. A goy is entirely outside of the parsha.
In fact, however, the question was clearly addressed by the Ramban in Kiddushin 31. Unfortunately, the clear answer is either "absolutely yes" or "absolutely not."
The Gemara there talks of the schar of a person who does a mitzva by choice, even though he was not obligated to do the mitzva, for example, a blind person if you hold suma pattur, or a woman that does Zman Grama. The Ramban asks, but what of the Yerushalmi that says כל הפטור מן הדבר ועושהו נקרא הדיוט, that one who is not obligated to do a thing and does it is called a simpleton? According to the Birkei Yosef, (YD 333:1), the Ramban answers
אי קשיא והא אמרינן בירושלמי כל העושה דבר שאינו מצווה בו נקרא הדיוט התם שעושה דבר שאינו מצווה מן התורה כלל שהוא מוסיף על התורה אבל מי שעושה מצוות התורה כתקנן אף שלא נצטוה הוא בהם כגון נשים ועכו״ם מקבלים עליהם שכר שכל דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום
So you see that the Birkei Yosef's Ramban says ועכו״ם. Guess what? My Ramban, does not say ועכו״ם. It stops at Nashim. Now that's a big difference. But the truth is, I would bet that either the Chida just let his pen write faster than he intended, or that he meant to write "ועבדים", not ועכו״ם . But it's interesting anyway. And the Sdei Chemed (3:81) does bring down this Birkei Yosef without commenting on the extreme chidush.
UPDATE: I checked a modern Ramban, from Mechon Ma'arovo (Yerushalayim, nun hei), and their girsa is **[כגון נשים [וגוים . (The boxes are theirs, not mine, and they're squares, not parenthesis.) They claim that their edition is based on numerous kisvei yad. This girsa, for what it's worth, seriously undermines my suggestion that the Birkei Yosef, or his edition of the Ramban, just miswrote 'akum' in place of 'avadim'.
(Please note: The Magen Avraham 304:24 (cited by the Biur Halacha at the end of that siman) says that a Geir Toshav can be mekabel Shabbos along with other mitzvos; he can accept upon himself whichever mitzvos he chooses, up to 612 mitzvos. He will remain a ger toshav, but he will be obligated to fulfill the mitzvos he accepted, including Shabbos. But I'm not talking about a Ger Toshav that made a formal kabbala in front of a Beis Din. I'm talking about a 100% normal non-ger toshav Goy Gomur who wants to do mitzvos. Still, there might be an underlying connection between the two ideas: L'maiseh, this Ger Toshav who was mekabel mitzvas Tzitzis is a non-Jew who is doing the mitzvah. If that makes sense, then it might make sense for a stam goy, too.)
So there you have it. You can be served duck in a kosher restaurant with top notch hechsheirim, and the waiter who's pouring the wine might be wearing Tzitzis with tcheiles, and it turns out that you're eating Chazir and drinking Yayin Nesech, and the waiter is a goy, and the hechsher is just a certificate of azus meitzach. Anything can happen on Torah Avenue. Baruch Hashem for American Kashrus organizations.
UPDATE:
I just got a copy of the new Igros which has the sixth Orach Chaim, and I saw that in teshuva 2 Reb Moshe says unequivocally and very emphatically that a non-Jew that does mitzvos has absolutely no schar, it means nothing at all, and the Rambam is only talking about Korban Olah.
IV
Unfortunately, the last section, that used to be right here, was lost in the Blogger outage. I don't have the patience to reconstruct it with the marei makom, but here's the outline.
Tal Benschar sent me to the Rambam in 10 Melachim halachos 9 and 10. I'm sorry I missed the offeneh Rambam, and grateful he wrote. Thank you.
The Rambam seems to say that a non-Jew can do most mitzvos in order to receive schar, just like the Birkei Yosef's Ramban. There are many issues in reading the Rambam, such as the distinction he clearly intends through his use of the terms Akum and Ben Noach.
Halacha 9:
עכו"ם שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה. לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצות שלהן בלבד. וכן עכו"ם ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול. אם עשאהו לעצמו כמו שבת חייב מיתה. ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו. כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמן מדעתן. אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצות. או יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע. ואם עסק בתורה. או שבת. או חדש דבר. מכין אותו ועונשין אותו. ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג:
Halacha 10:
בן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה כדי לקבל שכר. אין מונעין אותו לעשות כהלכתה
I found this perplexing, as indicated above. But, in a victory for the value of seichel hayashar, I found that Reb Moshe (YD 1) strongly states that the Rambam cannot mean what it might seem to mean. The Rambam only means is that while an akum that does Shabbos or learns Torah is doing a great sin, one who does other mitzvos- thinking that he'll be rewarded for doing them- is not sinning at all. But, Reb Moshe says, in fact, he certainly will not be rewarded for doing those mitzvos.
I wrote that a good comparison would be a person that keeps Shmita in Nebraska. Does he get schar? Of course not. It's a mitzva hatluya ba'aretz, and meaningless outside of Eretz Yisrael. Tzitzis, and all the mitzvos, are a chovas gavra, whether the gavra is doing or the gavra is done upon, and the gavra is a Yisrael. For an akum to do them is like keeping Shmita in Nebraska. It is utterly meaningless. So the Ramban's alleged words about ein HKBH mekapei'ach don't help things at all. Would you say Ein Me'kapei'ach on the guy in Nebraska?
A Rabbi Shtzepansky wrote in to argue, and cited the Meiri in Bava Kamma contrary to Reb Moshe. Reb Moshe (YD 2) answered that the Meiri must be a ta'us sofer, because it just doesn't make sense. Reb Moshe also notes that Reb Yosef, even in the hava amina, could not have thought that an Akum that keeps mitzvos gets greater schar than a Yisrael. That would be muktzeh min hada'as.
Also, in another teshuva (OC 5), he writes that he also disagrees with the Magen Avraham I cited above who holds that a Ger Toshav can be mekabeil as many mitzvos as he wants. I was happy with that because I also had written above that if you hold like the Magen Avraham, then the alleged Ramban would be defensible.
Again, as I mentioned above, in OC 6 Reb Moshe reiterates his opinion about Akum that does eino metzuva.
The last thing I wrote was a short discussion about the logic of reward for an Eino Metzuveh, and how it depends on whether mitzvos are inherently good or only good because we do them to fulfill Hashem's will, and that schar eino metzuva only makes sense according to the former. I ended by saying that having crossed the line from proof to philosophy, my work has come to an end.
IF ANYONE PRINTED OUT OR COPIED WHAT I USED TO HAVE HERE, I WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE GETTING IT IN MY MAIL AT ELIEZERE@AOL.COM
kashe atiki, and I would rather have what I had written in the first place.
Update:
See Rambam Peirush HaMishnayos Terumos 3:9, where he says that gentiles have schar ktzas, but on that halacha see in the Yad Terumos 4:9 where he says that it's totally miderabanan.
Update September 2019:
Here is a section from a sefer Avodah Berura, Rav Mitnick, Yerushalayim, Avodah Zarah vol I. Very good review, quotes a Sfas Emes like Reb Moshe, says they both missed the boat. I believe that they will learn the Rambam as similar to the Magen Avraham's case. The Rambam says clearly that he's talking when the Goy does it because of the Tzivui Hashem. How is that different than the Magen Avraham? It is not.
עבודה זרה ג. שאפילו עיבד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה וכו' אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם
לכאורה מקרא זה מדבר על קיום המצות ולאו דוקא על לימוד התורה וא"ב יש לו שכר על שאר מצות שאינם משבע מצות כאינו מצווה ועושה אולם בפשטות נראה שלא אמרו כן אלא בעוסק בתורה וכלשון הגמ' ועוסק בתורה ונחלקו הראשונים בזה וכמה שיטות בדבר
א) ז"ל המאירי סנהדרין עמוד כל שהגוי עוסק בעקרי שבע מצות ובפרטיהם ובמה שיוצא מהם אע"פ שרוב גופי תורה נכללים בהם מבבדין אותו וכו' וכל שכן אם חקירתו לדעת לבוא עד תכלית שלמות תורתינו עד שאם ימצאנה שלמה יחזור ויתגייר וכל שכן אם עוסק ומקיים עקרי מצותיה לשמה אף בשאר חלקים שבה שלא משבע מצות עכ"ל דעתו דגם שאר מצות יכול לקיימו ומקבל שכר על זה וע' באבי עזרי קמא ת"ת א' י"ג שכתב כן בפשיטות מדעת עצמו דליכא חילוק בגוי בין ת"ת לשאר מצות דבכולם יש לו שכר כאינו מצווה ועושה
ב) ז"ל הרמב"ם פ"י מהלכות מלכים ה"ט אין מניחים לנכרים לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמם מדעתם אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל עליו כל המצות או יעמוד בתורתו שבע מצות ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע עכ"ל וצ"ע דבהלכה י' כתב בן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה כדי לקבל שכר אין מונעין אותו לעשותה כהלכתה עכ"ל והרי כתב קודם דאין מניחים להם לעשות מצות לעצמם ותירץ הרדב"ז דאיכא חילוק בין כשמקיים בתורת דת ומצוה דאז אסור ובין כשמקיים בתורת אינו מצווה אלא לקבל שכר דאז מותר
ובתשובת הרמב"ם סימן קמ"ח כתב ג"כ דאפשר לגוי לקיים מצות מילה בתורת אינו מצווה ועושה וז"ל מותר לישראל למול הגוי אם רוצה הגוי לכרות הערלה ולהסירה לפי שכל מצוה שהגוי עושה נותנין לו עליה שכר אבל אינו כמי שהוא מצווה ועושה ובלבד שיעשנה כשהוא מודה בנבואת משה רבינו וכו' ובכל עת שיבוא אלינו שנמול אותו לשם מילה מותר לנו למולו אע"פ שהוא נשאר בגיותו
וכ"כ הרמב"ם בהלכות מילה פ"ג ה"ז וז"ל עכו"ם שצריך לחתך ערלתו מפני מכה אסור לישראל לחתוך לו אותה שהעכו"ם אין מעלים אותם מידי מיתה אע"פ שנעשית מצוה ברפואה זו דגם עכו"ם שמל שלא לשם גירות מקיים מצות מילה שהרי לא נתכוון למצוה לפיכך אם נתכוון העכו"ם לנמצות מילה מותר לישראל למול אותו
[אבל באגרות משה יו"ד ח"ב סימן ז' כתב דאין כוונת הרמב"ם בהלכות מילה דנתכוון לקיים מצות מילה וז"ל מה שכתבת שכוונת הרמב"ם לקיום מצות מילה ולא לגירות וכן מפרש המשיג במאירי סנהדרין נט בשם אביו הגר"ש סופר מערלוי הוא הבל שכוונת הרמב"ם בנתכוון למול לגירות ע"ש בארוכה]
וע' בשפ"א לך לך תרמ"ח ד"ה במדרש שכתב בפשיטות דכמו דגוי ששבת חייב מיתה ה"ה גוי שמל חייב מיתה וע' בפסקי תשובה בהקדמה שכתב הסבר לזה וכנראה דאישתמיטיה לפי שעה תשובת הרמב"ם הנ"ל
וביוסף דעת העיר מהא דאיתא בבראשית רבה פרשה מ"ו אות י' מעשה במונבז המלך ובזוטוס בניו של תלמי המלך שהיו יושבין וקורין ספר בראשית כיון שהגיעו לפסוק ונמלתם את בשר ערלתכם הפך זה פניו לכותל והתחיל בוכה וזה הפך פניו לכותל והתחיל בוכה הלכו שניהם ונימולו וכו' מה פרע לו הקב"ה אמר רבי פנחס בשעה שיצא למלחמה וכו' ירד מלאך והצילו ע"כ הרי דמקבל שכר על מילה ואפי' אם נדחק ולומר דהם היו מבני קטורה אבל נחלקו הראשונים אם בני קטורה לדורות חייבין במילה דרש"י סנהדרין נט ד"ה לרבות סובר דרק ששה בני קטורה שנולדו לאברהם נתחייבו במילה ולא זרעם אחריהם ולא כשיטת הרמב"ם פ"י מהלכות מלכים. וראה בדברינו לקמן דף י ד"ה על רישא דעורלתיה קטעה.
ג) האבני נזר חו"מ סימן פ"ז ד"ה דהנה כתב דרק על תורה מקבל שכר ולא על שאר מצות וכ"כ באגרות משה יו"ד ח"א סימן ג' והאריך בזה בח"ב סימן ז' והוכיח דגם הרמב"ם סובר כן וז"ל ברור שרק על מצות כצדקה וקרבנות וכדומה שמצינו בבלק שקיבל שכר על הקרבנות שהביא ובצדקה מפורש בנבוכדנצר שקיבל שכר וכן בעניני מצות כהא דשכר שיחה נאה דהצעירה בבנות לוט וכהא דכבוד ה' בשלש פסיעות דנבוכדנצר רק על זה מקבל שכר אבל בשמירת שבת ויו"ט והנחת תפילין וציצית וסוכה ולולב ושופר ואכילת כשרות וזהירה משעטנז וכדומה אין להם שום שכר על זה דאין שייכין כלל למצות אלו כיון דליתנהו בקבלת התורה ואינם מצות לדידהו כלל וכו' ומה שכתב הרמב"ם בה"י דבן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה כדי לקבל שכר אין מונעין אותו מלעשותה כהלכתה הוא רק היתר כפשטות לשונו באם הוא רק במקרה ולא בקביעות אבל לא יקבל שכר על זה ומה שכתב כדי לקבל שכר הוא מחשבת הבן נח ולרבותא נקט שאף שהוא לכוונת מצוה אין מונעין אותו והוא מוכרח דאם היה מקבל שכר איך שייך לחדש שלא ימנעו אותו דכיון דהשי"ת רוצה בזה ונותן לו שכר איך נמנעהו מזה והול"ל דבן נח שרצה לעשות מצוה משאר מצות התורה יש לו קיבול שכר וממילא היינו יודעין שאין מונעין אותו ולכן ברור שסובר שאין לו שכר רק שלא נאסר מזה ואין מונעין אותו מלעשותה וכו' ומה שכתב המאירי שם וכל שכן אם עוסק ומקיים עיקרי מצותיה לשמה אף בשאר חלקים שבה שלא משבע מצות כיון שביארתי שזה לא אפשר מוכרחין לומר שאיזה טעות סופר יש שם
