Our Gemara on Amud Aleph references a well-known Talmudic legal principle: Jewish law does not employ a kal v’chomer (a fortiori argument). A kal v’chomer is a method of deriving a law based on logic, where if a certain stringency applies to a less severe situation, it should certainly apply to a more severe one. For example, if one is ticketed for running a yellow light, surely one should be ticketed for running a red light. However, due to the great care the rabbis took to avoid capital punishment except in the most egregious cases, they built in an additional leniency, ensuring that the kal v’chomer logic could not be used to derive extra punishments. Rather, the Torah must explicitly state them.
The Gemara (Bava Kama 38a-b) presents a dialogue between Moshe and God regarding whether military action should be taken against the Moabites. The verse states: “And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle” (Devarim 2:9). Did it really enter Moses’s mind to wage war with the Moabites without permission? The answer is that Moses reasoned an a fortiori inference by himself, saying: “If the Midianites, who came only to aid the Moabites in their attempt to harm the Jewish people (see Bamidbar, chapter 22), were to be attacked, surely the Moabites themselves, who directly opposed the Jews, should also be attacked.” In response, God told him: “That which has entered your mind has not entered Mine, for I have two virtuous women to emerge from the Moabites: Ruth, the ancestor of King David, and Naamah, the wife of King Solomon. For the sake of these women, the Moabites must not be destroyed.”
The Parashas Derachim (10:17) raises an important question: Why would Moshe use a kal v’chomer in his reasoning, given that it violates the principle that capital punishment cannot be derived through this method? The Parashas Derachim suggests two possibilities: either this Midrash follows the opinion of Rav Shimon, who disagrees with the restriction against using a kal v’chomer for capital punishment, or perhaps the prohibition does not apply to gentiles. Why the distinction? Jewish capital cases include an extra directive to the judges to advocate for the defendant’s innocence, as described in Mishna Sanhedrin (4:1). In contrast, the legal process for gentiles, while fair, is not designed with mercy in mind. The Gemara (Sanhedrin 57b) states: “Contrary to the halacha with regard to a Jew, a descendant of Noah is executed based on the verdict of even one judge, with the testimony of even one witness, and without forewarning.”
Since other leniencies are not applied in gentile capital cases, the Parashas Derachim suggests that the principle against using a kal v’chomer also does not apply to them.
Whenever there is a disparity between how Torah law treats Jews and gentiles, it is crucial to understand it deeply. It is ideologically and morally unacceptable to discriminate in the realm of justice, as inconsistently applied law is, by definition, an injustice. However, the assumptions behind these differences must be clarified in order to resolve the apparent inequity. I believe that the Noachide laws are intended primarily for societal order and survival, functioning as a civil legal system. Torah laws, while also civil and societal, are covenantal. This means the Torah does not simply provide logical and fair legal mechanisms but also represents a form of service to God and governs our relationship with Him. Since Torah law includes the covenant and relationship with God, the function of its punishments is not merely to ensure social order, but to awaken repentance and strengthen our connection to God. This relational aspect allows for mercy as well. In contrast, the legal process for gentiles is concerned strictly with law and order, without the relational component.
Thus, it is not that Jews and gentiles have completely different laws. In a strictly legal sense, they may share similar laws. However, the Jewish legal process, which enforces the fulfillment of Torah law, has aims beyond mere compliance and social order. Its decisions are based on what best promotes the relationship between Man and God. While every human being can reach out to God and surely God would respond to sincere prayer, this relational function is not expressed in the gentile legal process because there is no covenant with them.
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation 
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families as well male sexual health. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com