Our Gemara on Amud Beis refers to a certain non-Jewish resident of Israel. Though he is not a member of the tribe, there are still an obligation to still look after his welfare. This is known as a ger toshav, literally a resident stranger. The halachic definition of a ger toshav is subject to a three-way dispute:

Gemara Avodah Zara (64b) reports:

“Anyone who has accepted upon himself before three ḥaverim (i.e., before sages of a certain stature who are committed to the meticulous observance of mitzvos, especially Halachos of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes) not to worship idols, this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

“And the Rabbis say: Anyone who has accepted upon himself observance of the seven mitzvos that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves is a ger toshav.”

“Others say: These have not entered the category of ger toshav. Rather, who is a ger toshav? This is a convert who eats unslaughtered animal carcasses, which are not kosher, but who has accepted upon himself to observe all of the mitzvos that are stated in the Torah except for the prohibition against eating unslaughtered carcasses.”

What is the logic behind these three distinct ways that we determine if this person is fit to dwell in Israel, though he is not Jewish? Perhaps the key is from a verse in Shemos (23:33):

“They shall not remain in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me; for you will serve their gods—and it will prove a snare to you.”

We therefore surmise the criterion or criteria for being allowed to reside in the land of Israel is to be sufficiently observant so that it will not cause others to follow in sinful ways. Rabbi Meir requires a basic minimum of at least not being an idolator, the Rabbis require a commitment to all seven Noachide laws, and the others require even further commitment, almost all the mitzvos except Shabbos, because that is a special covenantal gift to the Jewish people alone.

What is the root of this dispute? Psychologically speaking, it is a discussion and meditation about influence. The most lenient opinion considers it to be sufficient for the person to be monotheistic, while the most strict opinion requires almost parallel observance. This is an important consideration when it comes to parenting and peer groups. Sometimes it is sufficient for the child to know that he belongs to a different group or level of observance, and his peers can be less observant, such as a kiruv family out of town, while still not being influenced so long as the peer and observance levels are acknowledged. In other words, the ger toshav would not necessarily entice his neighbors so long as he has committed to a certain level of observance, and everybody knows that his personal obligations are different and less stringent than those surrounding him. That is one opinion and one philosophy, and that is expressed by the final opinion in the Gemara. The most stringent opinion, meanwhile, is concerned with influence no matter what the intentions are, so long as there’s a disparity in observance level.