does a ben noach have any sort of chiyuv to teach another ben noach the seven mitzvos.

If yes, is it any more of a chiyuv than that which a yid has a chiyuv to teach a ben noach

We learned that regarding a ben noach Meesatan hee azharatan, their execution is their warning. How are they supposed to know their mitzvos? They were never given the Torah. They're not even allowed to learn Torah. Some of them are logical and everyone should know them such as retzicha/murder, geneiva/robbery and giluy arayos/adultery but some are not as clear. Are we mechooyav to teach them?

B'kavod,

Samuel Kosofsky

The RAMBAM (Hilchos Melachim 10:9) states that a Nochri who studies Torah is liable to death. However, he is encouraged to study the seven Mitzvos applicable to him (as is clear from Sanhedrin 59a).

(Indeed, even for other Mitzvos, the Rambam's view is that he is only liable to death bi'Ydei Shamayim, but not by the Beis Din -- see KESEF MISHNEH there to explain the Gemara in Sanhedrin 59a. Others, such as RASHI and RAN, take it more literally and consider a Nochri's learning Torah as theft, etc., punishable by Beis Din.)

In any event, they are supposed to learn about their own Mitzvos and are punished "Mipnei she'Hayah Lo Lilmod v'Lo Lamad," since he was supposed to learn but did not learn (RAMBAM ibid. 10:1). "One who knows that the woman is married to another man, but does not know that adultery is forbidden but deludes himself into believing it is permitted -- and similarly killing without realizing that it is forbidden -- is considered 'Karov l'Mezid' (culpable as reckless negligence) and is liable to death. This is not 'Shegagah' (accidental), because he should have known better." Ignorance of the law is no excuse. A human being is fully responsible for his own behavior and cannot exculpate himself by pleading negligence or thoughtlessness. (A case of Ones, completely accident, by force, would of course be different.))

The Asher la'Melech on this Rambam elaborates on why one is held liable (Karov l'Mezid) for not learning: "For it is upon every person to investigate, as a self-understood principle and natural law, what his obligations are in his world, even if he is not commanded as such. Therefore, one cannot claim that 'Hashem does not come with complaints on His creations,' because He placed in the hearts of all men the inclination and the sense of obligation to investigate, as mentioned above. It is because of this natural inclination to search for one's obligations that a Ben Noach is considered an intentional transgressor...."

This indeed is the rationale for the punishment of Avimelech for taking Sarah, and of Shechem ben Chamor for taking Dinah. See Rambam, Hilchos Melachim 9:14: "And because of this, all of the people of Shechem were liable to death, for Shechem sinned and they saw, they knew, and they did not bring him to judgement."

As to teaching them, logic would dictate that although in the case of the rest of the Torah it is forbidden, as mentioned in Chagigah 13a ("Ein Mosrin Torah la'Akum"), this would be illogical in the case of the seven Mitzvos which they have to keep and are obliged to study. This indeed is clear from our text in Tosfos (DH Ein) in Chagigah there (contra Hagahos ha'Bach #40 there) and so rules RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l (in Igros Moshe YD III 89).

A great deal has been written on the subject of not teaching Torah to Nochrim and why the Halachic authorities omit the above statement from Chagigah 13a (see Maharatz Chayos there and the Teshuvah he quotes, Igros Moshe loc. cit. and 90 at great length).

Even in the seven Mitzvos, according to Maharsha's interpretation of Chagigah 13a which distinguishes between "Mosrin" which is forbidden and "Melamdim" which is permitted, it would be wrong to teach the Nochri the deepest secrets (Ta'am v'Sod), but only the basic outline. He assumes it is obvious that we have to teach them the basics of their obligations, but not the deeper hidden aspects. Rav Moshe Feinstein (YD III 90), however, rejects this distinction as it clearly does not accord with Tosfos either in Chagigah 13a or in Bava Kama 38a (DH Karu). He rules that the distinction is not in the quality or depth of the teaching but in the subject matter.

Incidentally, Rav Moshe also deals there with the whole question of a Nochri who is preparing for conversion as to what Torah he should or should not be taught.

Joseph Pearlman

does a ben noach have any sort of chiyuv to teach another ben noach the seven mitzvos.

If yes, is it any more of a chiyuv than that which a yid has a chiyuv to teach a ben noach