Sheva Mitzvot HaShem takes the position that the akum/goy who is shomer sheva mitzvot is now "kosher bnei Noach".

This becomes very confusing. Not only that, but bring in terms like Chasidei Umot haOlam and ger toshav, etc. and it becomes even more confusing. It seems both works, Sheva Mitzvot haShem and The Divine Code are written for the akum/goy.

Sheva Mitzvot haShem says that Hilchot Melachim 10:9, that the akum/goy should not study is for the akum/goy and not for the kosher bnei Noach. This is found on page 66-67 of volume I. What's also interesting is that this is left out of the English translation, the Divine Code, which then goes on to make no distinction between the two. The Divine Code then goes on to mention only one type of non-Jew, then gentile, which seems to hold the halachah for the akum/goy and not the kosher bnei Noach.

Also, using the reasoning that goy is inclusive, then where does that inclusion end? The ger toshav? The ger tzedek? How does that Hilchot Melachim 10:9 then relate to 10:10? If goy is inclusive, then what's to stop bnei Israel being included, since they are also referred to as goy a few times in Tanach?

I'll keep track of your chat and refer to them as I find more and make more notes. I really appreciate you explaining your views and concerns.

Oh, I just realized I can reply directly to your chat "sentence" containers. I'll try to do that.

@Yishai It's my opinion, the reason for this is that bnei Noach do not have the mitzvah to properly shecht and therefore they have to wait. However, for bnei Yisrael who have the commandment and do it, they will know a proper shecht and will not have to wait for the animal to stop convulsing. I believe Sheva Mitzvot haShem brings this down from somewhere. I don't have the book on hand at the moment.

@Yishai Do you think this might be related to the non-Jewish ger Shabbat of Krisos 9a?

@Yishai I think because Krisos 9a says there is a non-Jewish Shabbat. Also, there is an understanding from Nedarim 31a, that's it's not so much exceptions to the rule concerning peoples and they're commandments, but rather the generally accepted view of a people; for instance gentiles are not circumcised. Yes, some are, but it's not the general rule and therefore they're not circumcised. That's what Nedarim 31a is about in this instance. I think Jeremiah is used in Hilchot Nedarim 9:20.

In other words, Nedarim 31a is brought in because oaths are objective outward statements one makes toward a group of people already understood in a certain way. Exceptions are not counted. However, someone reading Torah or keeping shabbat is a personal, subjective thing and not an objective outward expression toward an abstract understanding of a group of people.

And when it is expressed outwardly, it's not mekablin/accepted: the ger toshav is not mekablin today(to denote the outward, objective acceptance). It's not that he doesn't exist, or that he can't do it, it's just that it's not accepted. The community cannot discern if this goy is the akum or the kosher bnei noach.

@EhevuTov What I mean by Goi is inclusive, is that means all non-Jews, the vast majority of which are not bnei-Noach. There has to be such a term, and I suspect the Rambam chose that one.

@EhevuTov Right, the Chasam Sofer says the same thing as the standard understanding of why a non-Jew cannot eat meat that is convlusing. However, the Rambam holds that non-Jews can Shecht. So he attempts to build a completely different answer.

@Yishai Oh, I see what you're saying! From 10:10 right? ha, that's exciting. That just blew my mind.

@EhevuTov I agree that Nedarim is not indicative one way or another as it is about the meaning people associate with their language. My surprise is at the Chasam Sofer for saying it means something in this discussion.

I was completely miskavin to the Chasam Sofer and I didn't know it. I never read this from him and then you said something on that Q/A. I did some research that very night and also on that very night, I came across it while studying Divine Code and Sheva Mitzvot haShem. Really crazy and exciting things going on in the bnei Noach world right now.

Here's the gist: We have thousands of bnei Noach reading books like the Divine Code, Sheva Mitzvot haShem, etc. but those books are mainly written for the goy/akum, and apparently from pg 66 Vol 1 of Sheva Mitzvot haShem, not written really for the kosher bnei Noach either. Rather it helps him become kosher bnei Noach. The problem, is that most bnei Noach who are really into it, are already beyond the akum.

@EhevuTov Cool. Regarding Kerisos 9a, yes the idea that non-Jews cannot keep Shabbos is not unanimous in the Talmud. The whole idea of a Ger Toshev was so theoretical then, it generate a lot of opinions as there was no practice for centuries prior. However, the Halacha is like the last opinion in that list that very clearly lumps all together equally. That doesn't address permission to do it, just that there is no requirement to do it. Permission is a different Sugia.

So, we have a lot of bnei Noach that are really like a ger, but not yet, or want to be right now, the mekablin ger tzedek

@Yishai I tell my Rabbi, I'm pretty sure I'm like a ger. He says I'd be first in line to be accepted as a ger toshav. I know though however he can't accept me as a ger toshav, so it's kind of a sad but funny joke. B"H we'll have the yovel year and everything that it entails and we can have non-idolators accepted and the geula. I feel the geula happening when I study with my Rabbi. The ben Noach/ger(self declared I guess) studying with a Rabbi is the fulfillment of Hilchot Melachim 12, IMO.

@Yishai Yes, I agree. I think the last sentence of Hilchot Maachalot Assurot 11:8 where he says the "goy" stam, is the akum in the Kepach edition, anyways. I would then apply this to the goy of Hilchot Melachim 10:9, however.

@EhevuTov Yeah, that is how the Chasam Sofer would read it. I think that Maachalot Assurot is talking in the context of those Halachos. I realize he doesn't go and repeat that it is only concerning this matter when talking about the word Goy, but I still think that is the implication.

@Yishai I respect that opinion as I'm also finding that's the opinion of others I've talked about it with, but what gives you the impression that he's talking about just those halachos?

@EhevuTov The immediately preceeding statement. The full quote is (using Chabad.org's translation): Whenever it is stated that wine is forbidden in this context, if the gentile who causes the wine to be forbidden worships false deities, it is forbidden to benefit from it. If he does not worship false deities, it is merely forbidden to drink it. Whenever we refer to a gentile without any further description, we mean one who worships false deities.

At first he says in this context

He doesn't repeat that in the second clause, but that seems to be the implication. It would be kind of pedantic to repeat it, and not necessarily in keeping with the Rambam's preference for terseness.

@Yishai Right, ok. Great, I'll read that and try to get what you're saying. I appreciate it.