User:Nissimnanach/sandbox/sanh56a

sanh 56a line 24
תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי


 * § Since the halakhot of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented.
 * The Sages taught in a baraita: The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven mitzvot:
 * The mitzva of establishing courts of judgment; and the prohibition against blessing (i.e., cursing) the name of God;
 * and the prohibition of idol worship; and the prohibition against '''forbidden sexual relations;
 * and the prohibition of bloodshed; and the prohibition of robbery; and the prohibition against eating a limb from a living''' animal.

56b
רבי חנניה בן (גמלא) אומר אף על הדם מן החי רבי חידקא אומר אף על הסירוס רבי שמעון אומר אף על הכישוף


 * Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamla says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal.
 * Rabbi Ḥideka says: They are also commanded concerning castration, i.e., they are prohibited to castrate any living animal.
 * Rabbi Shimon says: They are also commanded concerning the prohibition against engaging in sorcery.

רבי יוסי אומר כל האמור בפרשת כישוף בן נח מוזהר עליו (דברים יח, י) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש קוסם קסמים מעונן ומנחש ומכשף וחובר חבר ושואל אוב וידעוני ודורש אל המתים וגו' ובגלל התועבות האלה ה' אלהיך מוריש אותם מפניך ולא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר


 * Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to every type of sorcery that is stated in the passage about sorcery, it is prohibited for a descendant of Noah to engage in it.
 * This is derived from the verses:
 * “When you come into the land that the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations.


 * There shall not be found among you one who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, a diviner, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a warlock, or a charmer, or one who consults a necromancer and a sorcerer, or directs inquiries to the dead.
 * For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominations, the Lord your God is driving them out from before you” (Deuteronomy 18:9–12).
 * Evidently, the Canaanites were punished for these practices; and since God would not have punished them for an action unless He first prohibited it, these practices are clearly prohibited to gentiles.

רבי אלעזר אומר אף על הכלאים מותרין בני נח ללבוש כלאים ולזרוע כלאים ואין אסורין אלא בהרבעת בהמה ובהרכבת האילן


 * Rabbi Elazar says: The descendants of Noah were also commanded concerning the prohibition of diverse kinds.
 * Nevertheless, it is permitted for the descendants of Noah to wear diverse kinds of wool and linen and to sow diverse kinds of seeds together,
 * and they are prohibited only with regard to breeding diverse species of animals and grafting diverse species of trees.

מנהני מילי אמר ר' יוחנן דאמר קרא (בראשית ב, טז) ויצו ה' אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכול תאכל


 * § The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, the Noahide mitzvot, derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says:
 * It is from that which the verse states: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat;
 * but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat from it, for on the day that you eat from it, you shall die” (Genesis 2:16–17).

[An acrostic of the above verse: וי"א עלמ"א


 * WYA `ALMA]

ויצו ה' אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכול תאכל


 * Wayyitzaw (And commanded) H' (The Name) Elokim (Master of Powers) `Al-ha'adam (to the man) Leimor (saying): Mikkol `etz-ha'gan (From any tree of the garden), Akhol-tokhel (eating-eat).


 * 1) ויצו
 * ה'
 * 1) אלהים
 * 2) על האדם
 * 3) לאמר
 * 4) מכל עץ הגן
 * 5) אכול תאכל

---

[1] ויצו
 * אלו הדינין וכן הוא אומר (בראשית יח, יט) כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו וגו'


 * The verse is interpreted homiletically as follows:


 * With regard to the term “And…commanded,” these are the courts of '''judgment;
 * and so it states in another verse: “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children''' and his household after him,
 * that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19).

[2] ה'
 * זו ברכת השם וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת


 * With regard to the term “The Lord,” this alludes to blessing the name of God;
 * and so it states in another verse:
 * “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord…shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16).

[3] אלהים
 * זו עבודת כוכבים וכן הוא אומר (שמות כ, ב) לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים


 * “God,” this alludes to '''idol worship; and so it states:
 * “You shall have no other gods''' before Me” (Exodus 20:2).

[4] על האדם
 * זו שפיכות דמים וכן הוא אומר (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם וגו'


 * “To the man,” this alludes to '''bloodshed; and so it states:
 * “One who sheds the blood of man,''' by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6).

[5] לאמר
 * זו גילוי עריות וכן הוא אומר (ירמיהו ג, א) לאמר הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר


 * With regard to the term “saying,” this alludes to forbidden sexual relations; and so it states: “Saying, if a man sends his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s…will that land not be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers” (Jeremiah 3:1).

[6] מכל עץ הגן
 * ולא גזל


 * “Of every tree of the garden” alludes to the fact that one may partake only of items that are permitted to him, as they belong to him, and he may not partake of stolen items.

[7] אכל תאכל
 * ולא אבר מן החי


 * "Eating-eat" alludes to the fact that one may eat fruit, but not a limb from a living animal.

כי אתא רבי יצחק תני איפכא ויצו זו עבודת כוכבים אלהים זו דינין


 * When Rav Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he taught two of the expositions in the opposite order:
 * “And…commanded,” this alludes to idol worship. “God,” this alludes to courts of judgment.

בשלמא אלהים זו דינין דכתיב (שמות כב, ז) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים אלא ויצו זו ע"ז מאי משמע


 * The Gemara asks: Granted, the source for the exposition: “God [Elohim],” this alludes to courts of judgment, is clear; as it is written: “Then the master of the house shall come near the judges [ha’elohim]” (Exodus 22:7). Evidently, judges are called elohim. But with regard to the exposition: “And…commanded,” this alludes to idol worship, from where is this inferred?

רב חסדא ורב יצחק בר אבדימי חד אמר (שמות לב, ח) סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתים עשו להם וגו' וחד אמר (הושע ה, יא) עשוק אפרים רצוץ משפט כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו
 * Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi both give answers to this question. One of them says that it is inferred from the verse: “They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf” (Exodus 32:8). The word “commanded” is mentioned here in the context of idol worship. And the other one says that it is inferred from the verse: “Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in justice, because he willingly went after filth [tzav]” (Hosea 5:11). The word tzav, used in this context in reference to idol worship, is the same Hebrew word used in the phrase: “And…commanded [vaytzav].”

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו עכו"ם שעשה ע"ז ולא השתחוה לה למאן דאמר עשו משעת עשייה מיחייב למאן דאמר כי הואיל הלך עד דאזיל בתרה ופלח לה


 * The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two sources? The Gemara answers: The practical difference between them is in the case of a gentile who fashioned an idol but did not bow to it, i.e., he has not yet worshipped it. According to the one who says that the proof is from the verse: “They have made them a molten calf,” he is rendered liable from the time of fashioning it. According to the one who says that the proof is from the verse: “Because he willingly went after filth,” he is not liable until he goes after it and worships it.

אמר רבא ומי איכא למאן דאמר עכו"ם שעשאה ע"ז ולא השתחוה לה חייב והתניא בעכו"ם דברים שבית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליהן בן נח מוזהר עליהן אין בית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליהן אין בן נח מוזהר עליהן למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי עכו"ם שעשה ע"ז ולא השתחוה לה
 * Rava says: And is there anyone who says that a gentile who fashioned an idol but did not bow to it is liable? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to idol worship, matters, i.e., transgressions, for which a Jewish court executes a Jew who commits one of them, are prohibited to a descendant of Noah. But with regard to transgressions for which a Jewish court does not execute a Jew who commits one of them, a descendant of Noah is not prohibited from doing them. To exclude what transgressions, i.e., to determine that they do not apply to gentiles, is this stated? Is it not to exclude the case of a gentile who fashioned an idol but did not bow to it? Since Jews are not executed for this transgression, gentiles should not be liable for this act either.

אמר רב פפא לא למעוטי גיפוף ונישוק


 * Rav Pappa says: No, it is possible that it is stated to exclude embracing and kissing the idol; neither a Jew nor a gentile who embraces or kisses an idol is liable. No proof can be brought from here with regard to a gentile who fashions an idol but does not worship it.

גיפוף ונישוק דמאי אילימא כדרכה בר קטלא הוא אלא למעוטי שלא כדרכה


 * The Gemara asks:

Embracing and kissing an idol in what manner? If we say that he did so in its standard manner of worship, i.e., that embracing and kissing is the standard method of worshipping this idol, certainly he is liable to receive the death penalty. Rather, it is stated to exclude a case where he did not do so in its standard manner of worship.

דינין בני נח איפקוד והתניא עשר מצות נצטוו ישראל במרה שבע שקיבלו עליהן בני נח והוסיפו עליהן דינין ושבת וכיבוד אב ואם


 * § The Gemara asks with regard to the list of the Noahide mitzvot: Were the descendants of Noah commanded to establish courts of judgment? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The Jewish people were commanded to observe ten mitzvot when they were in Marah: Seven that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves, and God added to them the following mitzvot: Judgment, and Shabbat, and honoring one’s father and mother.

דינין דכתיב (שמות טו, כה) שם שם לו חוק ומשפט שבת וכיבוד אב ואם דכתיב (דברים ה, יא) כאשר צוך ה' אלהיך ואמר רב יהודה כאשר צוך במרה The mitzva of judgment was given at Marah, as it is written with regard to Marah: “There He made for them a statute and an ordinance” (Exodus 15:25). Shabbat and honoring one’s father and mother were given at Marah, as it is written concerning them in the Ten Commandments: “Observe the day of Shabbat to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you” (Deuteronomy 5:11), and similarly: “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). The phrase “as the Lord your God commanded you” indicates that they had already been commanded to observe these mitzvot previously. And Rav Yehuda says: “As the Lord your God commanded you” in Marah. Apparently, the mitzva of establishing courts is not included in the seven Noahide mitzvot.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא נצרכה אלא לעדה ועדים והתראה


 * Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Establishing courts is a Noahide mitzva. The additional mitzva that was given in Marah was necessary only with regard to the details of the halakhot of the justice system, e.g., that a defendant in a capital case is punished only by a full panel of twenty-three judges of the Sanhedrin, and only if there are two witnesses who testify concerning him, and only if he was issued a forewarning before his transgression.

אי הכי מאי והוסיפו עליהן דינין


 * The Gemara asks: If so, and the mitzva given at Marah is a specification of the halakhot of the justice system, what is the meaning of the sentence: And God added to them: Judgment? The details of a preexisting mitzva would not be referred to as an added mitzva.

אלא אמר רבא לא נצרכה אלא לדיני קנסות אכתי והוסיפו בדינין מיבעי ליה

Rather, Rava says: The mitzva given at Marah was necessary only with regard to the halakhot of fines. Since these are not halakhot that pertain to the basic performance of justice, but rather concern an additional fine for the guilty party, they were not given to the descendants of Noah. The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, the language of the baraita is still inaccurate, as it should have stated: And God added to them more halakhot of judgment. אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לא נצרכה אלא להושיב בית דין בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר והא בני נח לא איפקוד והתניא כשם שנצטוו ישראל להושיב בתי דינין בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר כך נצטוו בני נח להושיב בתי דינין בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר
 * Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: It was necessary only for the additional requirement to establish a court in each and every province and in each and every city. The Gemara asks: And were the descendants of Noah not commanded with regard to this matter? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as the Jewish people were commanded to establish courts in each and every province and in each and every city, so too, the descendants of Noah were commanded to establish courts in each and every province and in each and every city?

אלא אמר רבא האי תנא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דמפיק ד"ך ועייל ס"ך
 * Rather, Rava says: This tanna, who holds that the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is not included in the Noahide mitzvot, is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who removes from the list of the Noahide mitzvot two mitzvot whose mnemonic is dalet, kaf, which stands for judgment [dinim] and blessing the name of God [birkat Hashem], and inserts in their place two mitzvot whose mnemonic is samekh, kaf, standing for castration [seirus] and diverse kinds [kilayim].

דתנא דבי מנשה שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח ע"ז וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים גזל ואבר מן החי סירוס וכלאים


 * As the school of Menashe taught: The descendants of Noah were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: The prohibitions of idol worship, and forbidden sexual relations, and blood-shed, and robbery, and eating a limb from a living animal, and castration, and diverse kinds.

רבי יהודה אומר אדם הראשון לא נצטווה אלא על ע"ז בלבד שנאמר ויצו ה' אלהים על האדם רבי יהודה בן בתירה אומר אף על ברכת השם ויש אומרים אף על הדינים
 * Rabbi Yehuda says: Adam, the first man, was commanded only with regard to the prohibition of idol worship, as it is stated: “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He was also commanded concerning blessing the name of God. And some say that he was also commanded concerning establishing courts of judgment.

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אלהים אני לא תקללוני אלהים אני לא תמירוני אלהים אני יהא מוראי עליכם כמאן כיש אומרים
 * The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is that which Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, in interpretation of the aforementioned verse: Since I am “God,” do not curse Me; since I am “God,” do not exchange Me with another god; since I am “God,” My fear shall be upon you? The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with what some say, i.e., that the phrase “and the Lord God commanded the man” includes the prohibitions against cursing God’s name and idol worship, as well as the mitzva of establishing a system of law and justice, so that the fear of God will be upon the people.

תנא דבי מנשה אי דריש ויצו אפילו הנך נמי אי לא דריש ויצו הני מנא ליה


 * The Gemara challenges: If the tanna of the school of Menashe interprets the verse “and the Lord God commanded” homiletically, even these mitzvot, cursing the name of God and establishing courts, should be included. And if he does not interpret the verse “and the Lord God commanded” homiletically, from where does he derive these seven mitzvot in his list?

לעולם לא דריש ויצו הני כל חדא וחדא באפי נפשיה כתיבא ע"ז וגילוי עריות


 * The Gemara answers: Actually, he does not interpret the verse “and the Lord God commanded” homiletically, but with regard to these mitzvot in his list, each and every one of them is written separately in the Torah. The prohibitions of idol worship and forbidden sexual relations are stated,

57a
דכתיב (בראשית ו, יא) ותשחת הארץ לפני האלהים ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בכל מקום שנא' השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודת כוכבים דבר ערוה שנא' (בראשית ו, יב) כי השחית כל בשר את דרכו עבודת כוכבים דכתיב (דברים ד, טז) פן תשחיתון ועשיתם וגו'
 * as it is written: “And the earth was corrupt before God” (Genesis 6:11), presumably referring to a transgression, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption refers to a matter of licentiousness, as it is stated: “For all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse. And corruption also refers to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16).

ואידך אורחייהו דקא מגלי


 * The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna’im, who do not derive from the verse “And the earth was corrupt before God” that the descendants of Noah are prohibited from engaging in idol worship and forbidden sexual relations, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the verse merely exposes the behavior of the generation of Noah.

שפיכות דמים דכתיב (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם וגו' ואידך קטלייהו הוא דקמגלי


 * According to the school of Menashe, the prohibition of bloodshed for the descendants of Noah is stated separately in the Torah, as it is written: “One who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna’im interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, the verse reveals the type of death penalty administered to the descendants of Noah, but it is not the source for the prohibition of bloodshed.

גזל דכתיב (בראשית ט, ג) כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל וא"ר לוי כירק עשב ולא כירק גנה ואידך ההוא למישרי בשר הוא דאתא


 * The prohibition of robbery is stated, according to the school of Menashe, as it is written: “Every moving thing that is alive shall be for food for you; like the green herbs I have given you all” (Genesis 9:3). And Rabbi Levi says: Like the green herbs that sprout all over by themselves and are ownerless, and not like the vegetation of a garden, which belongs to the garden’s owner alone. This indicates that robbery is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna’im interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, that verse comes to permit the consumption of meat.

אבר מן החי דכתיב (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו ואידך ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא


 * The prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is stated in the Torah, as it is written: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4), i.e., it is prohibited to eat flesh while the animal that it comes from is still alive. And how do the other tanna’im interpret this verse? In their opinion, that verse comes to permit eating a limb from living creeping animals; this prohibition does not apply to creeping animals (see 59b).

סירוס דכתיב (בראשית ט, ז) שרצו בארץ ורבו בה ואידך לברכה בעלמא


 * The prohibition of castration that applies to the descendants of Noah is stated, as it is written: “And you be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the earth and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7), indicating that nothing may be done to prevent reproduction. And the other tanna’im hold that this verse is written merely as a blessing, not as a mitzva.

כלאים דכתיב (בראשית ו, כ) מהעוף למינהו ואידך ההוא לצותא בעלמא


 * The prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to the descendants of Noah is stated, as it is written: “Of the fowl after their kind and of the cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind” (Genesis 6:20), indicating that each species must be kept separate, and that crossbreeding is prohibited. And according to the other tanna’im, that verse does not indicate a mitzva; rather, the reason for keeping the species separate in Noah’s Ark was merely for the sake of companionship, as animals are most comfortable in the company of other members of their own species.

אמר רב יוסף אמרי בי רב על שלש מצות בן נח נהרג: גש"ר סימן: על גילוי עריות ועל שפיכות דמים ועל ברכת השם


 * Rav Yosef says: They say in the study hall that a descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing three mitzvot, which are represented by the letters gimmel, shin, reish in a mnemonic device: For forbidden sexual relations, for bloodshed, and for blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God.

מתקיף לה רב ששת בשלמא שפיכות דמים דכתיב (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם וגו' אלא הנך מנא להו


 * Rav Sheshet objects to this statement: Granted, a descendant of Noah is executed for bloodshed, as it is written: “One who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6). But with regard to those other prohibitions, from where do the Sages derive that a descendant of Noah who transgresses them is executed?

אי גמר משפיכות דמים אפילו כולהו נמי אי משום דאיתרבאי מאיש איש עבודת כוכבים נמי איתרבי מאיש איש


 * If they derive it from the punishment for bloodshed by means of an analogy, then descendants of Noah should be executed even if they transgressed any of the other Noahide mitzvot. If they are executed because they are included in the term “anyone” and similarly, the term “no one” stated with regard to these two prohibitions, as it is stated with regard to cursing the name of God: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), and it is stated with regard to forbidden sexual relations: “No one shall approach any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6), then gentiles should be executed for idol worship too, as they are included in the term “anyone” stated in that context (see Leviticus 20:2).

אלא אמר רב ששת אמרי בי רב על ארבע מצות בן נח נהרג
 * Rather, Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yosef’s version should be rejected, and that this is what they say in the study hall: A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing four mitzvot; the three that were listed, and idol worship.

ועל עבודת כוכבים בן נח נהרג והתניא בעבודת כובבים דברים שב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליהן בן נח מוזהר עליהן אזהרה אין מיתה לא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן


 * The Gemara asks: And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes the transgressor are prohibited to a descendant of Noah. The Gemara infers: Yes, there is a prohibition for a descendant of Noah, but there is no death penalty. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Their prohibition is their death penalty. Since the only punishment mentioned in the Torah for transgressing a Noahide mitzva is execution, any descendant of Noah who transgresses is liable to be executed.

רב הונא ורב יהודה וכולהו תלמידי דרב אמרי על שבע מצות בן נח נהרג גלי רחמנא בחדא והוא הדין לכולהו
 * Rav Huna, Rav Yehuda, and all of the other students of Rav say: A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing any of the seven Noahide mitzvot; the Merciful One revealed this punishment with regard to one mitzva, the prohibition of bloodshed, and the same is true with regard to all of them.

ועל הגזל בן נח נהרג והתניא על הגזל גנב וגזל וכן יפת תואר וכן כיוצא בהן כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל אסור וישראל בכותי מותר ואם איתא ניתני חייב


 * The Gemara asks: But is a descendant of Noah executed for robbery? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the following types of robbery: One who steals or robs, and likewise one who engages in intercourse with a married beautiful woman who was taken as a prisoner of war, and likewise all actions similar to these, if they are done by a gentile to another gentile, or by a gentile to a Jew, the action is prohibited; but if a Jew does so to a gentile, it is permitted? The Gemara explains the question: And if it is so that a gentile is liable to be executed for robbery, and it is not merely prohibited to him, let the baraita teach that he is liable to be executed.

משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא ישראל בכותי מותר תנא רישא אסור


 * The Gemara answers: Because the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause that if a Jew does so to a gentile, it is permitted, he taught in the former clause that if a gentile does one of these, it is prohibited. If the baraita were to state that if a gentile does so, he is liable, it would have to state that if a Jew does so to a gentile, he is exempt, because this is the opposite of liable. That would indicate that it is actually prohibited for a Jew to do so to a gentile, and that he is merely exempt from liability, which is not the case. Therefore, the word prohibited is used with regard to a gentile. Therefore, this does not prove that a gentile is exempt from capital punishment.

והא כל היכא דאית ליה חיובא מיתנא קתני דקתני רישא על שפיכות דמים כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל חייב ישראל בכותי פטור


 * The Gemara challenges: But wherever there is liability for capital punishment, this tanna teaches it; as it is taught in the first clause: With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt. Evidently, the term liable is used in the baraita.

התם היכי ליתני ליתני אסור ומותר והתניא כותי ורועי בהמה דקה לא מעלין ולא מורידין


 * The Gemara answers: There, in that case, how should the tanna teach it? Should he teach it using the terms prohibited and permitted, indicating that a Jew may kill a gentile ab initio? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to a gentile, and likewise with regard to Jewish shepherds of small livestock, who were typically robbers, one may not raise them out of a pit into which they fell, and one may not lower them into a pit? In other words, one may not rescue them from danger, but neither may one kill them ab initio. With regard to robbery, the term permitted is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a gentile.

כיוצא בו בגזל מאי היא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לא נצרכה אלא לפועל בכרם


 * The Gemara returns to discuss the details of the prohibition of robbery mentioned in the baraita, which included actions similar to it. The Gemara asks: With regard to robbery, to what actions similar to it is the baraita referring? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of a laborer working in a vineyard who eats from the fruit of the vineyard; his action is similar to robbery, and it is prohibited for a gentile to do so.

פועל בכרם אימת אי בשעת גמר מלאכה התירא הוא אי לאו בשעת גמר מלאכה גזל מעליא הוא


 * The Gemara asks: When does this laborer in a vineyard eat from the fruit? If he does so at the time of the completion of the work, i.e., while he is harvesting the fruit, it is permitted for him to do so, just as a Jew working for another Jew is allowed to do so. If it is not at the time of the completion of its work, eating the fruit is full-fledged robbery, and there is no novel element to this case.

אלא אמר רב פפא לא נצרכה אלא לפחות משוה פרוטה אי הכי כותי בישראל אסור הא בר מחילה הוא נהי דבתר הכי מחיל ליה צערא בשעתיה מי לית ליה
 * Rather, Rav Pappa says that the mention in the baraita of actions similar to robbery is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who robs another of less than the value of one peruta. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the baraita state that it is prohibited for a gentile to do so to a Jew? Isn’t a Jew apt to forgive such a tiny debt? Why is this considered robbery? The Gemara answers: Although afterward the owner forgives him, does he not incur distress at the time of the robbery? Consequently, at the time of the robbery the robber commits a transgression and is liable to be punished for it.

כותי בכותי כיוצא בהן כיון דלאו בני מחילה נינהו גזל מעליא הוא


 * The Gemara challenges: If the mention of actions similar to robbery is referring to the robbery of less than the value of one peruta, what is the novel element in the case of a gentile who robs a gentile? Since they are not apt to grant forgiveness, robbing a gentile of even a minuscule amount is considered full-fledged robbery, and not merely similar to robbery.

אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא לא נצרכה אלא לכובש שכר שכיר כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל אסור ישראל בכותי מותר
 * Rather, Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says that there is a different explanation: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted. This case is less obvious than other types of robbery, as instead of taking an item from the victim, the robber withholds money that is due to the victim.

כיוצא ביפת תואר מאי היא כי אתא רב דימי א"ר אלעזר א"ר חנינא בן נח שייחד שפחה לעבדו ובא עליה נהרג עליה


 * The Gemara clarifies further: What is the action that is similar to engaging in intercourse with a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war, to which the baraita is referring? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of a descendant of Noah who designated a maidservant as a mate for his slave, and then he himself engaged in intercourse with her, he is executed on her account. Although the maidservant is his property and is not the slave’s full-fledged wife, nevertheless, he is guilty of adultery.

כיוצא בו דשפיכות דמים לא תניא אמר אביי אי משכחת דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל


 * The Gemara comments: The baraita does not teach that a descendant of Noah is liable for actions similar to bloodshed. Abaye says: If you find a baraita that teaches this, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says: If a person pursues another to kill him, and the one being pursued can save himself by injuring one of the limbs of the pursuer, but he does not save himself in this manner and instead kills the pursuer,

57b
נהרג עליו he is executed for killing him even though he acted in self-defense, and a descendant of Noah is also killed for this.

אשכח ר' יעקב בר אחא דהוה כתיב בספר אגדתא דבי רב בן נח נהרג בדיין א' ובעד אחד שלא בהתראה מפי איש ולא מפי אשה ואפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין § Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa found that it was written in a book of Aggadot in the study hall of Rav: Contrary to the halakha with regard to a Jew, a descendant of Noah is executed on the basis of the verdict of even one judge, and by the testimony of even one witness, and without being given forewarning before committing the transgression. He can be judged or testified against only by the mouth of a man and not by the mouth of a woman; but even a relative may judge his case or testify against him. The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael that a descendant of Noah is executed even for killing fetuses.

מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (בראשית ט, ה) אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש אפילו בדיין אחד The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says: They are derived from that which the verse states: “And your blood of your lives I will require; at the hand of every animal I will require it; and at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man’s brother, I will require the life of man” (Genesis 9:5). It is derived from the term “I will require,” which is stated in the singular, that a descendant of Noah is executed on the basis of the verdict of even one judge.

(בראשית ט, ה) מיד כל חיה אפילו שלא בהתראה (בראשית ט, ה) אדרשנו ומיד האדם אפילו בעד אחד (בראשית ט, ה) מיד איש ולא מיד אשה אחיו אפילו קרוב It is derived from the phrase “at the hand of every animal” that one is executed even without forewarning, as an animal certainly cannot forewarn someone. It is derived from the phrase “I will require it; and at the hand of man,” with “I” stated in the singular, that the sentence is issued on the basis of the testimony of even one witness. It is derived from the phrase “at the hand of every man,” that the judgment and testimony must be at the hand of a man, but not at the hand of a woman. It is derived from the term “his brother” that the testimony of the witness is accepted even if he is a relative of the defendant.

משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מאי טעמיה דרבי ישמעאל דכתיב (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך איזהו אדם שהוא באדם הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אמו It is stated in that book of Aggadot that the Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: A descendant of Noah is executed even for killing fetuses. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael? The Gemara answers: It is derived from that which is written: “One who sheds the blood of a person, by a person [ba’adam] his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6). The word ba’adam literally means: In a person, and is interpreted homiletically: '''What is a person that is in a person? You must say: This is a fetus that is in its mother’s womb.''' Accordingly, a descendant of Noah is liable for killing a fetus.

ותנא קמא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דאמר כל מיתה האמורה לבני נח אינו אלא חנק ושדי ליה האי באדם אסיפיה דקרא ודרוש ביה הכי באדם דמו ישפך איזהו שפיכות דמים של אדם שהוא בגופו של אדם הוי אומר זה חנק The Gemara comments: And the first tanna, who does not derive the halakha concerning fetuses, is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who says that all death penalties stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are referring to '''nothing other than strangulation. And he interprets this verse as follows: Cast, i.e., redirect, this term: “In a person,” and explain it with regard to the latter part of the verse, and interpret it homiletically like this: “In a person, his blood shall be shed.” In what manner is a person’s blood shed while it is in the person’s body,''' without external bleeding? You must say that this is strangulation. It is therefore derived that the execution of a descendant of Noah is by strangulation.

מתיב רב המנונא ואשה לא מפקדה והכתיב (בראשית יח, יט) כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה וגו' Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the statement in the book of Aggadot that a descendant of Noah can be judged or testified against only by a man and not by a woman: And is a woman who is a descendant of Noah not commanded to establish courts of judgment? But isn’t it written with regard to Abraham, who at that point had the status of a descendant of Noah: “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his sons and his household after him, that they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19). The word “household” is referring to the women, indicating that they are also commanded to execute justice.

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בניו לדין ביתו לצדקה He raises the objection and he resolves it: Abraham commanded his sons to carry out justice, whereas his household, the women in his family, he commanded to give charity; the Hebrew word for righteousness [tzedek] can also mean charity [tzedaka].

אמר ליה רב אויא סבא לרב פפא אימא בת נח שהרגה לא תיהרג מיד איש ולא מיד אשה כתיב אמר ליה הכי אמר רב יהודה שופך דם האדם מכל מקום Rav Avya the Elder said to Rav Pappa: Why not say that a female descendant of Noah who killed someone should not be executed; as it is written: “At the hand of every man,” and not “at the hand of every woman”? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what Rav Yehuda says: It is derived from the phrase “one who sheds the blood of a person” that one who murders is liable to be executed in any case, whether that person is male or female.

אימא בת נח שזינתה לא תיהרג דכתיב (בראשית ב, כד) על כן יעזב איש ולא אשה א"ל הכי אמר רב יהודה (בראשית ב, כד) והיו לבשר אחד הדר ערבינהו קרא Rav Avya asked further: Why not say that a female descendant of Noah who committed adultery should not be executed, as it is written: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24); a man, but not a woman? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what Rav Yehuda says: At the end of the verse it states: “And they shall be one flesh.” The verse then combines men and women, indicating that the same halakha applies to both.

ת"ר איש מה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח, ו) איש איש לרבות את הכותים שמוזהרין על העריות כישראל § The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “No one [ish ish] shall approach any that is kin to him, to uncover their nakedness” (Leviticus 18:6): The verse could have stated: One [ish] shall not approach. Why must the verse state “no one”? It is to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from engaging in forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא לאמר זה גילוי עריות The Gemara asks: '''But is it derived from here? It is derived from there, from the verse that was already interpreted as teaching this halakha: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying” (Genesis 2:16), this alludes to forbidden sexual relations''' (see 56b).

התם בעריות דידהו והכא בעריות דידן דקתני סיפא בא על עריות ישראל נידון בדיני ישראל The Gemara answers: There, the verse is referring to their women, gentiles, '''with whom relations are forbidden. And here it is referring to our women, Jews, with whom relations are forbidden.''' In other words, a gentile who engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman is liable. As it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: If a gentile engages in intercourse with those Jewish women with whom relations are forbidden, i.e., a married Jewish woman, he is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews.

למאי הלכתא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא נצרכה אלא לעדה ועדים והתראה The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this gentile judged according to the halakhot of the Jews? Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The statement of the baraita is necessary only to teach these halakhot: That he must be judged by a Sanhedrin, and that he is punished only if two witnesses testify concerning him, and only if he was issued a forewarning before his transgression.

מגרע גרע The Gemara asks: Should the halakha of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a forbidden Jewish woman be less stringent than that of a gentile who engaged in intercourse with a forbidden gentile woman, in which case these conditions do not apply?

אלא א"ר יוחנן לא נצרכה אלא לנערה המאורסה דלדידהו לית להו דדיינינן להו בדינא דידן Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The statement of the baraita is necessary only to teach the halakha in the case of a gentile who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, which does not apply to gentiles. By halakha, only marriage applies to gentiles, not betrothal. Therefore, we judge them according to our halakha in that case.

אבל אשת איש בדינא דידהו דיינינן להו והתניא בא על נערה המאורסה נידון בסקילה על אשת איש נידון בחנק ואי בדינא דידהו סייף הוא The Gemara asks: And with regard to gentiles who engage in intercourse with a married Jewish 'woman, do we judge them according to their halakha''? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: If a gentile engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, he is punished by stoning; if he engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman he is punished by strangulation? The Gemara explains its question: And if they are judged according to their halakha, he would be executed by the sword.'''

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי אשת איש דקתני כגון שנכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה דלדידהו לית להו דיינינן להו בדינא דידן Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: What is the meaning of the phrase: A married woman, which the tanna teaches? It is referring to a case where the woman had entered the wedding canopy but had not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband, in which case she is considered married according to the halakhot that apply to Jews but not according to the halakhot that apply to gentiles. Since with regard to gentiles, marriage has not yet taken effect, we judge them according to our halakhot. Therefore, a gentile who engages in intercourse with such a Jewish woman is executed by strangulation.

דתני ר' חנינא בעולת בעל יש להן נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה אין להן As Rabbi Ḥanina teaches: Gentiles can have the status of a married woman who has engaged in intercourse with her husband, i.e., such a woman is considered married according to their laws, but they cannot have the status of a married woman who has entered the wedding canopy but has not engaged in intercourse with her husband.

תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן כל ערוה שב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה בן נח מוזהר עליה אין ב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה אין בן נח מוזהר עליה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות יש שאין בית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליהן ובן נח מוזהר עליהן It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Any forbidden sexual relations for which a Jewish court administers capital punishment are prohibited to a descendant of Noah, and any forbidden sexual relations for which a Jewish court does not administer capital punishment are not prohibited to a descendant of Noah; this is '''the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: There are many types of forbidden sexual relations for which a Jewish court does not administer capital punishment and are nevertheless prohibited to a descendant of Noah.'''

בא על עריות ישראל נידון בדיני ישראל בא על עריות בן נח נידון בדיני בן נח ואנו אין לנו אלא נערה המאורסה בלבד If a gentile engages in intercourse with those Jews with whom relations are forbidden, he is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews. If he 'engages in intercourse with those descendants of Noah with whom relations are forbidden, he is judged according to the halakhot'' of the descendants of Noah. And we have only the case of a betrothed young woman' as a case where a gentile is judged according to the halakhot'' of the Jews, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

ונחשוב נמי נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה האי תנא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דאמר כל מיתה האמורה לבני נח אינו אלא חנק אידי ואידי חנק הוא The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna also count the case of a woman who had entered the wedding canopy but had not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband. The Gemara explains: This tanna is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who says that all death penalties stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are referring to nothing other than strangulation, and since the punishment in Jewish halakha for engaging in intercourse with a married woman is also strangulation, both this punishment and that punishment are strangulation; there is no difference between the halakha for Jews and the halakha for gentiles in such a case. וסבר רבי מאיר כל ערוה שבית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליה בן נח מוזהר עליה והא תניא גר With regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir stated in the first clause of the baraita, the Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir hold that '''any forbidden sexual relations for which a Jewish court administers capital punishment is prohibited to a descendant of Noah? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert'''

58a
שהיתה הורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה יש לו שאר האם ואין לו שאר האב who was not conceived in sanctity, as his parents were still gentiles, but his birth was in sanctity, as his mother converted before his birth, he has maternal kinship, i.e., his relationship to his mother’s relatives is recognized, but he does not have paternal kinship.

הא כיצד נשא אחותו מן האם יוציא מן האב יקיים אחות האב מן האם יוציא מן האב יקיים How so? If he married his maternal half sister, who was born before him and converted, he must divorce her. Although by Torah law they are considered unrelated, as a convert is considered to be reborn and all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha, the Sages prohibited their marriage, lest he think that as a Jew it is permitted for him to engage in behaviors that were previously forbidden to him. If she is his paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife, as it is permitted for a gentile to marry his paternal half sister. If he married his father’s maternal half sister, he must divorce her. If he married his father’s paternal half sister, he may maintain her as his wife.

אחות האם מן האם יוציא אחות האם מן האב ר"מ אומר יוציא וחכ"א יקיים שהיה ר"מ אומר כל ערוה שהיא משום שאר אם יוציא משום שאר האב יקיים If she is his mother’s maternal half sister, he must divorce her. If she is his mother’s paternal half sister, Rabbi Meir says he must divorce her, and the Rabbis say he may maintain her as his wife. As Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any forbidden relative who is forbidden due to maternal kinship, whether the woman is his paternal relative, e.g., his father’s maternal half sister, or his maternal relative, he must divorce her; whereas if she is forbidden due to paternal kinship, he may maintain her as his wife.

ומותר באשת אחיו ובאשת אחי אביו ושאר כל עריות מותרות לו לאתויי אשת אביו And according to all opinions, he is permitted to marry his brother’s wife and his father’s brother’s wife, and all other relatives with whom relations are forbidden in the case of born Jew are also permitted to him. The expression: And all other relatives with whom relations are forbidden, is added to include his father’s wife, who is permitted to him if she was widowed or divorced from his father.

נשא אשה ובתה כונס אחת ומוציא אחת ולכתחילה לא יכנוס מתה אשתו מותר בחמותו ואיכא דאמרי אסור בחמותו With regard to a gentile who married a woman and her daughter and they all converted, he may marry one but must divorce the other one; and he should not marry the second of them ab initio. If his wife, the daughter, died, he is permitted to maintain his mother-in-law as his wife. And some say that he is prohibited from maintaining his mother-in-law. In any event, Rabbi Meir clearly holds that several forbidden relationships for which a Jew is not liable to receive capital punishment, but only karet, are forbidden to descendants of Noah as well, namely, intercourse with one’s sister or one’s parent’s sister.

אמר רב יהודה לא קשיא הא ר"מ אליבא דר' אליעזר והא ר"מ אליבא דר"ע Rav Yehuda says: This is not difficult; this baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that previously mentioned baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

דתניא (בראשית ב, כד) על כן יעזב איש את אביו ואת אמו רבי אליעזר אומר אביו אחות אביו אמו אחות אמו ר"ע אומר אביו אשת אביו אמו אמו ממש As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24), that Rabbi Eliezer says: “His father” is referring to his father’s sister, i.e., one must abandon the possibility of marrying his father’s sister and marry someone else. “His mother” is referring to his mother’s sister. Rabbi Akiva says: “His father” is referring to his father’s wife; “his mother” is referring to his mother, literally.

(בראשית ב, כד) ודבק ולא בזכר (בראשית ב, כד) באשתו ולא באשת חבירו (בראשית ב, כד) והיו לבשר אחד מי שנעשים בשר אחד יצאו בהמה וחיה שאין נעשין בשר אחד “And shall cleave to his wife,” but not to a male; such a relationship is not defined as cleaving. “To his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. “And they shall be one flesh” indicates that he should marry one of those with whom he can become one flesh, i.e., they can bear children together. This excludes domesticated and undomesticated animals, with which one is prohibited from engaging in bestiality, as they do not become one flesh. All these are forbidden to the descendants of Noah.

אמר מר רבי אליעזר אומר אביו אחות אביו אימא אביו ממש היינו ודבק ולא בזכר § The Master said in this baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: “His father” is referring to his father’s sister. The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is referring to his father, literally, prohibiting homosexual intercourse with one’s father? The Gemara answers: This prohibition is derived from another phrase in the verse: “And shall cleave to his wife,” but not to a male; this includes his father.

אימא אשת אביו היינו באשתו ולא באשת חבירו אימא לאחר מיתה דומיא דאמו מה אמו דלאו אישות אף אביו דלאו אישות The Gemara asks: Why not say that “his father” is referring to his father’s wife? The Gemara answers: This prohibition is derived from the term “to his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is referring to his father’s wife after his father’s death, when she is no longer a married woman? The Gemara answers: The term “his father” is interpreted in a way that is similar to the interpretation of the term “his mother.” Just as his mother is not forbidden due to her marriage to his father, but rather due to her relationship to him, so too, the term “his father” is not referring to a relative who is forbidden to him due to her marriage.

אמו אחות אמו ואימא אמו ממש היינו באשתו ולא באשת חברו ואימא לאחר מיתה דומיא דאביו מה אביו דלאו ממש אף אמו דלאו ממש Rabbi Eliezer says that “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister. The Gemara asks: But why not say that it is referring to his mother, literally? The Gemara answers: This prohibition is derived from the term “to his wife,” but not to the wife of another man; and his mother is his father’s wife. The Gemara asks: But why not say that it is referring to his mother after his father’s death, when she is no longer married? The Gemara answers: The term “his mother” is interpreted in a way that is similar to the interpretation of the term “his father.” Just as the term “his father” is not interpreted literally, so too, the term “his mother” is not interpreted literally.

רע"א אביו אשת אביו ואימא אביו ממש היינו ודבק ולא בזכר א"ה אשת אביו נמי היינו באשתו ולא באשת חברו לאחר מיתה Rabbi Akiva says: “His father” is referring to his father’s wife. The Gemara asks: But why not say it is referring to his father, literally? The Gemara answers: That prohibition is derived from the term “and shall cleave to his wife,” but not to a male. The Gemara challenges: If so, the prohibition of his father’s wife is also derived from another term: “To his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. The Gemara explains: The term “to his wife” is referring to his father’s wife after his father’s death, when she is no longer married.

אמו אמו ממש היינו באשתו ולא באשת חברו אמו מאנוסתו Rabbi Akiva says: “His mother” is referring to his mother, literally. The Gemara challenges: That prohibition is derived from the term “to his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, the term “his mother” is referring to his mother whom his father raped, i.e., she was never his father’s wife. במאי קא מיפלגי ר"א סבר With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree? Rabbi Eliezer holds

58b
אביו דומיא דאמו ואמו דומיא דאביו לא משכחת לה אלא באחווה that the term “his father” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to the term “his mother,” and “his mother” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to “his father.” You find such an interpretation only with regard to sisterhood, i.e., “his father” is referring to his father’s sister, and “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister.

ורבי עקיבא מוטב לאוקמיה באשת אביו דאיקרי ערות אביו לאפוקי אחות אביו דשאר אביו איקרי ערות אביו לא איקרי And Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to interpret the term “his father” as referring to his father’s wife, who is referred to as his father’s nakedness in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8), to the exclusion of his father’s sister, who is referred to as his father’s kin in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s kin” (Leviticus 18:12), and who is not referred to as his father’s nakedness.

ת"ש (שמות ו, כ) ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו מאי לאו דודתו מן האם Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva from the verse: “And Amram took Jochebed his aunt as a wife” (Exodus 6:20). What, was she not his maternal aunt? Presumably, Jochebed was the sister of Kohath, Amram’s father, from both of Kohath’s parents, and not from his father alone. Evidently, a descendant of Noah may marry his father’s sister.

לא דודתו מן האב The Gemara rejects this proof: No, she was his paternal aunt, Kohath’s half sister. Since she was not Kohath’s sister from his mother’s side, she was not forbidden to Amram.

ת"ש (בראשית כ, יב) וגם אמנה אחותי בת אבי היא אך לא בת אמי מכלל דבת האם אסורה Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer from what Abraham said to Abimelech with regard to Sarah: “And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife” (Genesis 20:12). By inference, the daughter of the mother of a descendant of Noah is forbidden to him.

ותסברא אחותו הואי בת אחיו הואי וכיון דהכי הוא לא שנא מן האב ולא שנא מן האם שריא אלא התם הכי קאמר ליה קורבא דאחות אית לי בהדה מאבא ולא מאמא The Gemara rejects this proof: But how can you understand that Sarah was Abraham’s '''sister? She was his brother’s daughter.''' By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran’s daughter Iscah. And since that was so, there is no difference whether they were paternal relatives, and there is no difference whether they were maternal relatives; in any event she was permitted to him, even according to the halakha of Jews. Rather, this is what Abraham was saying to Abimelech there: She is related to me like a sister, as the daughter of my brother is like a sister, and our relationship is from the side of my father but not from the side of my mother.

ת"ש מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו שנאמר (תהלים פט, ג) כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה הא לאו הכי אסירא Come and hear a proof from a baraita: For what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? So that Cain would marry his sister and they would procreate immediately, as it is stated: “For I have said: The world shall be built on kindness [ḥesed]” (Psalms 89:3). This verse alludes to the fact that at the beginning of the world’s existence it was permitted for men to marry their sisters, which was later forbidden in the verse: “And if a man shall take his sister…it is a shameful thing [ḥesed]” (Leviticus 20:17). The Gemara infers: If it had not been so, if God had not specially permitted Cain to marry his sister, she would have been forbidden to him. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who deems it permitted for a gentile to marry his sister.

כיון דאשתרי אשתרי The Gemara rejects this proof: Once it was permitted for Cain to marry his sister, it was permitted for all descendants of Noah to do so, and it was forbidden only to Jews.

אמר רב הונא כותי מותר בבתו וא"ת מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום עולם חסד יבנה Rav Huna says: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter. And if you say, for what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? It was so that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”

ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא כותי אסור בבתו תדע שלא נשא אדם את בתו ולא היא התם היינו טעמא כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום דעולם חסד יבנה And there are those who say that Rav Huna did not say this; rather, Rav Huna says: A gentile is prohibited from marrying '''his daughter. Know that this is the halakha, as Adam did not marry his daughter. The Gemara rejects this statement: But that is not so, as there, this is the reason Adam did not marry his daughter: So that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”'''

אמר רב חסדא עבד מותר באמו ומותר בבתו יצא מכלל כותי ולכלל ישראל לא בא § Rav Ḥisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' חנינא בן נח שייחד שפחה לעבדו ובא עליה נהרג עליה When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of a descendant of Noah who designated a maidservant as a mate for his slave, and then he himself engaged in intercourse with her, he is executed for adultery on her account.

מאימת אמר רב נחמן מדקראו לה רביתא דפלניא מאימת התרתה אמר רב הונא משפרעה ראשה בשוק The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave’s mate? Rav Naḥman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so’s girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him.

א"ר אלעזר א"ר חנינא בן נח שבא על אשתו שלא כדרכה חייב שנאמר (בראשית ב, כד) ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with his wife in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, is liable for engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as it is stated: “And shall cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24), an expression that indicates natural intercourse, but not intercourse in an atypical manner.

אמר רבא מי איכא מידי דישראל לא מיחייב וכותי מיחייב Rava says: Is there any action for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a gentile is deemed liable for performing it? A Jew is not liable for engaging in anal intercourse with his wife.

אלא אמר רבא בן נח שבא על אשת חבירו שלא כדרכה פטור מאי טעמא באשתו ולא באשת חבירו ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה Rather, Rava says that the verse is to be understood as follows: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with the wife of another man '''in an atypical manner is exempt. What is the reason? The verse states: “And shall cleave to his wife,” but not to the wife of another. With regard to this prohibition, the verse states: “And shall cleave,” indicating vaginal intercourse, and not intercourse in an atypical manner.'''

א"ר חנינא עובד כוכבים שהכה את ישראל חייב מיתה שנאמר (שמות ב, יב) ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש [ויך את המצרי] וגו' Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).

וא"ר חנינא הסוטר לועו של ישראל כאילו סוטר לועו של שכינה שנאמר (משלי כ, כה) מוקש אדם ילע קודש: And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo’a] of the Holy One.

מגביה עבדו שבת סימן: אמר ריש לקיש המגביה ידו על חבירו אע"פ שלא הכהו נקרא רשע שנאמר (שמות ב, יג) ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך למה הכית לא נאמר אלא למה תכה אף על פי שלא הכהו נקרא רשע The Gemara states a mnemonic for the upcoming statements of Reish Lakish: Raises, his slave, Shabbat. Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: Why did you strike, is not stated, but rather: “Why should you strike,” indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately did not strike him, is called wicked.

(אמר) זעירי א"ר חנינא נקרא חוטא שנאמר (שמואל א ב, טז) ואם לא לקחתי בחזקה וכתיב (שמואל א ב, יז) ותהי חטאת הנערים גדולה מאד Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force” (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: “And the sin of the youths was very great” (I Samuel 2:17).

רב הונא אמר תיקצץ ידו שנאמר (איוב לח, טו) וזרוע רמה תשבר רב הונא קץ ידא Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: “And the high arm shall be broken” (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others.

ר"א אומר אין לו תקנה אלא קבורה: שנאמר (איוב כב, ח) ואיש זרוע לו הארץ Rabbi Elazar says: Such a violent person has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: “And as a mighty man [ve’ish zero’a], who has the earth” (Job 22:8). The expression ish zero’a literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried.

וא"ר אלעזר לא נתנה קרקע אלא לבעלי זרועות שנאמר ואיש זרוע לו הארץ And Rabbi Elazar states a different interpretation of that verse: The land is given only to mighty men who can protect themselves from all enemies; as it is stated: “And as a mighty man, who has the earth.”

ואר"ל מאי דכתיב (משלי יב, יא) עובד אדמתו ישבע לחם אם עושה אדם עצמו כעבד לאדמה ישבע לחם ואם לאו לא ישבע לחם And in connection with that statement, the Gemara notes that Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “One who works [oved] his land shall have plenty of bread” (Proverbs 12:11)? If a person makes himself like a slave [ke’eved] to the land, devoting his efforts to it, he will have plenty of bread, but if not, he will not have plenty of bread.

ואר"ל עובד כוכבים ששבת חייב מיתה שנא' (בראשית ח, כב) ויום ולילה לא ישבותו ואמר מר אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן אמר רבינא אפי' שני בשבת And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable. וליחשבה גבי ז' מצות כי קא חשיב שב ואל תעשה קום עשה לא קא חשיב The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. He does not count mitzvot that require one to arise and take action.

59a
והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice.

ואמר ר' יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.

וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [me’orasa], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [morasha], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning.

מיתיבי היה ר"מ אומר מניין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול שנאמר (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: “A man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.

התם בשבע מצות דידהו: The Gemara answers: There, in the baraita, the reference is to a gentile who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot. It is a mitzva for a gentile to study the halakhot that pertain to the seven Noahide mitzvot, and when he does so he is highly regarded.

ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: ת"ר (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי § The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse.

מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: He reads into the verse: Flesh with its life you shall not eat; blood with its life you shall not eat. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the mention of blood in this verse? After all, in their opinion, blood from a living animal is not forbidden. The Gemara answers: That comes to permit eating limbs from living creeping animals. The verse indicates that the prohibition does not apply to creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh (see 59b).

כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב, כג) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' (רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי) The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: “Only be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: “Only be steadfast in not eating blood,” this is a limb from a living animal; “as the blood is the life,” this is blood from a living animal.

ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis, who hold that there is no specific prohibition with regard to blood from a living animal, interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach the prohibition against consuming blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, as this is blood through which the soul departs (see Karetot 20b).

למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the Torah to write this halakha with regard to descendants of Noah, and why do I need the Torah to repeat it at Sinai with regard to Jews? Aren’t Jews also descendants of Noah?

כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Any mitzva that was first stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews.

לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people '''was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda,''' who holds that the verse: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day” (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah.

אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח § The Master said in a baraita: Any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah, as if it pertains to the descendants of Noah as well, why repeat it at Sinai? Aren’t the Jewish people are also descendants of Noah?

מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה: The Gemara answers: From the fact that the prohibition of idol worship was repeated at Sinai, and we find that God punished gentiles for it, conclude from it that any mitzva that was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, and not only for the Jewish people.

לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור It is further stated in the baraita that a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was not repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile.

ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו The Gemara asks: And is there '''not? But isn’t there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman,''' who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a gentile to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason gentiles are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for gentiles to wage wars of conquest, and the halakha of marrying a beautiful woman is stated only with regard to a war of conquest. Therefore the fact that a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war is permitted only to a Jew and not to a gentile does not indicate that gentiles have a higher degree of sanctity.

והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו: The Gemara asks: But isn’t stealing less than the value of one peruta prohibited to a gentile and permitted to a Jew? The Gemara answers: There it is because gentiles are not apt to grant forgiveness of debts, even of less than the value of one peruta. Therefore, for a gentile to take even such a minuscule amount is considered robbery. Jews normally forgive such small amounts.

כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה It is stated in the baraita that any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated both for this group and for that group.

59b
והרי מילה שנאמרה לבני נח דכתיב (בראשית יז, ט) ואתה את בריתי תשמור ונשנית בסיני (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the mitzva of circumcision, which was stated with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., Abraham and his descendants, who had the status of descendants of Noah at that time? As it is written that God said to Abraham with regard to the mitzva of circumcision: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). And it was repeated at Sinai for the Jewish people: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), and nevertheless it was stated for the Jewish people alone and not for the descendants of Noah.

ההוא למישרי שבת הוא דאתא ביום ואפילו בשבת The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to permit circumcision on Shabbat. It is derived from the phrase “on the eighth day” that circumcision must always be performed on the eight day, and this is the halakha even if it falls on Shabbat. Therefore the mitzva is not considered to have been repeated at Mount Sinai.

והרי פריה ורביה שנאמרה לבני נח דכתיב (בראשית ט, ז) ואתם פרו ורבו ונשנית בסיני (דברים ה, כו) לך אמור להם שובו לכם לאהליכם לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the mitzva of '''procreation, which was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah? As it is written: “And you, be fruitful and multiply,''' swarm in the land and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). And it was repeated at Sinai, in the verse: “Go say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:26), when the Jewish men were commanded to resume conjugal relations with their wives after having been commanded to separate from them in preparation for the giving of the Torah. Nevertheless, the mitzva of procreation was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah.

ההוא לכל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו הוא דאתא The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to teach another halakha: That any matter that was prohibited by an official vote of the Sanhedrin requires another vote to permit it. Even if a rabbinic prohibition is no longer relevant, it is not automatically canceled, but rather a special ruling is required to cancel it. This is derived from the fact that it was necessary for God to issue a declaration (Deuteronomy 5:26) specifically canceling the prohibition that had been issued before the giving of the Torah.

אי הכי כל חדא וחדא נמי נימא משום מילתא איתני The Gemara asks: If so, let us say with regard to each and every one of the seven Noahide mitzvot that it was repeated because of an additional matter the Torah teaches, and the descendants of Noah are exempt from them all.

הכי קאמר אזהרה מיהדר ומיתנא בה למה לי The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, is saying: After stating a prohibition with regard to the descendants of Noah, why do I need the Torah to then repeat the prohibition itself for the Jewish people? If the only purpose is to teach an additional halakha, it is unnecessary to repeat it in the form of a prohibition, e.g., “You shall not murder…you shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13). Therefore, it is derived from the fact that the entire prohibition is repeated, and not just the new details, that it applies both to Jews and to descendants of Noah.

ואין לנו אלא גיד הנשה בלבד ואליבא דר' יהודה הני נמי לא איתני It is stated in the baraita: And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara asks: But these aforementioned mitzvot also, procreation and circumcision, were not repeated at Sinai in order to teach that they apply to the descendants of Noah as well as to the Jewish people, but rather were mentioned for other purposes, and therefore, they apply only to the Jewish people, similar to the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve.

הני איתני לשום מילתא בעלמא הא לא איתני כלל The Gemara answers: These mitzvot were repeated for the sake of teaching some other matter. By contrast, this prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve was not repeated at all; it is mentioned only in Genesis. Therefore, circumcision and procreation are not included in the category of mitzvot that were given to the descendants of Noah and were not repeated at Sinai.

אי בעית אימא מילה מעיקר' לאברהם הוא דקא מזהר ליה רחמנא ואתה את בריתי תשמור אתה וזרעך אחריך לדורותם אתה וזרעך אין איניש אחרינא לא If you wish, say that there is another explanation for the fact that the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to the descendants of Noah despite the fact that it was repeated for the Jewish people: From the outset, it was Abraham, and not all the descendants of Noah, that the Merciful One commanded to perform this mitzva; as He said to him: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). The Gemara infers: “You and your offspring,” yes; another person, no.

אלא מעתה בני ישמעאל לחייבו (בראשית כא, יב) כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע The Gemara challenges: If that is so, the descendants of Ishmael should also be obligated to observe circumcision, as they are also the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “For through Isaac, offspring shall be called yours” (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmael’s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham.

בני עשו לחייבו ביצחק ולא כל יצחק The Gemara challenges: Granted, Ishmael’s descendants are not considered the offspring of Abraham, but at least the descendants of Esau, Isaac’s son, should be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara explains: Since the term: “Through Isaac [beYitzḥak],” also means: Of Isaac, it is derived that the mitzva applies to only some of Isaac’s offspring, but not all the descendants of Isaac. This serves to exclude the descendants of Esau.

מתקיף לה רב אושעיא אלא מעתה בני קטורה לא לחייבו האמר ר' יוסי בר אבין ואיתימא ר' יוסי בר חנינא (בראשית יז, יד) את בריתי הפר לרבות בני קטורה Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham’s second wife, should not be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says, and some say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina who says that the verse: “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision.

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אדם הראשון לא הותר לו בשר לאכילה דכתיב (בראשית א, כט) לכם יהיה לאכלה ולכל חית הארץ ולא חית הארץ לכם § Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: “And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb that brings forth seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree that gives forth seed; for you it shall be for food, and for every animal of the earth, and for every fowl of the air, and for everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so” (Genesis 1:29–30). It is derived God told Adam: Eating vegetation is permitted to people and animals, but eating the animals of the earth is not permitted to you.

וכשבאו בני נח התיר להם שנאמר (בראשית ט, ג) כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל יכול לא יהא אבר מן החי נוהג בו ת"ל (בראשית ט, ד) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו יכול אף לשרצים ת"ל אך But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: “Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all” (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states “only,” a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included.

ומאי תלמודא א"ר הונא דמו מי שדמו חלוק מבשרו יצאו שרצים שאין דמם חלוק מבשרם The Gemara asks: And what is the derivation? What is the proof that it is creeping animals that are excluded from this prohibition and not another type of animal? Rav Huna says: The term “its blood” indicates that the prohibition pertains to animals whose blood is halakhically considered separate from their flesh. This excludes creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh.

מיתיבי (בראשית א, כו) ורדו בדגת הים מאי לאו לאכילה לא למלאכה The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: “And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the land” (Genesis 1:28). What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesn’t this verse mean that people may eat the meat of animals? The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to using animals for labor.

ודגים בני מלאכה נינהו אין כדרחבה דבעי רחבה הנהיג בעיזא ושיבוטא מאי The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Raḥava; as Raḥava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Raḥava’s question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor.

ת"ש (בראשית א, כו) ובעוף השמים מאי לאו לאכילה לא למלאכה Come and hear a proof that it was permitted for Adam to eat meat, from the phrase in the aforementioned verse: “And have dominion…and over the fowl of the air.” What, is it not stated with regard to consumption? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to labor.

ועופות בני מלאכה נינהו אין כדבעי רבה בר רב הונא דש באווזין ותרנגולין לר' יוסי ברבי יהודה מאי The Gemara asks: But are birds capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, as Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derives from the verse: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads” (Deuteronomy 25:4), that a laborer in a field is entitled to eat from the produce during his work only if his work involves both his hands and his feet, like an ox, which treads with its forelegs as well as its hind legs. Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma as to whether the prohibition against muzzling an animal while it is being used for labor in the field applies to geese and chickens, which have only two feet. In any event, it is indicated in that dilemma that birds can perform labor.

תא שמע (בראשית א, כח) ובכל חיה הרומשת על הארץ ההוא לאתויי נחש הוא דאתא Come and hear a proof from the phrase: “And have dominion…and over every living thing that creeps upon the land.” Creeping animals certainly cannot be used for labor. Apparently, the verse is referring to eating them. The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to include the snake, which was capable of performing labor when it was created.

דתניא ר"ש בן מנסיא אומר חבל על שמש גדול שאבד מן העולם שאלמלא (לא) נתקלל נחש כל אחד ואחד מישראל היו מזדמנין לו שני נחשים טובים אחד משגרו לצפון ואחד משגרו לדרום להביא לו סנדלבונים טובים ואבנים טובות ומרגליות ולא עוד אלא שמפשילין רצועה תחת זנבו ומוציא בה עפר לגנתו ולחורבתו As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe over a great attendant that has been lost to the world; as had the snake not been cursed that it should go on its belly, there would have been two fine snakes at the disposal of each and every one of the Jewish people. One he would send to the north, and the other one he would send to the south, to bring him precious sandalbonim, a type of precious stone, and other precious stones and pearls. Moreover, he would attach a strap under his snake’s tail like a harness to an animal, and use it to take dirt out to his garden and to rebuild his ruin, as he does with other animals. This demonstrates that the snake was capable of performing labor.

מיתיבי היה ר' יהודה בן תימא אומר אדם הראשון מיסב בגן עדן היה והיו מלאכי השרת צולין לו בשר ומסננין לו יין הציץ בו נחש וראה בכבודו ונתקנא בו התם בבשר היורד מן השמים The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam: Rabbi Yehuda ben Teima would say: Adam, the first man, '''would dine in the Garden of Eden, and the ministering angels would roast meat for him and strain wine for him. The snake glanced at him and saw his glory, and was jealous of him,''' and for that reason the snake incited him to sin and caused his banishment from the Garden. According to this, evidently Adam would eat meat. The Gemara answers: There the reference is to meat that descended from heaven, which was created by a miracle and was not the meat of animals at all.

מי איכא בשר היורד מן השמים אין כי הא דר"ש בן חלפתא הוה קאזיל באורחא פגעו בו הנך אריותא דהוו קא נהמי לאפיה אמר (תהלים קד, כא) הכפירים שואגים לטרף נחיתו ליה תרתי אטמתא חדא אכלוה וחדא שבקוה אייתיה ואתא לבי מדרשא בעי עלה דבר טמא הוא זה או דבר טהור א"ל אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben Ḥalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God” (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other '''one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven.'''

בעי מיניה ר' זירא מר' אבהו ירדה לו דמות חמור מהו א"ל יארוד נאלא הא אמרי ליה אין דבר טמא יורד מן השמים: In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [yarud nala]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher.

ר"ש אומר אף על הכישוף: מ"ט דר"ש דכתיב § In the baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a), it is stated that Rabbi Shimon says that the descendants of Noah were also commanded concerning the prohibition against engaging in sorcery. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: As it is written:

60a
(שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה וכתיב (שמות כב, יח) כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת כל שישנו בכלל כל שוכב עם בהמה ישנו בכלל מכשפה לא תחיה: “You shall not allow a witch to live” (Exodus 22:17), and it is written in the following verse: “Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). It is derived from here that anyone who is included in the prohibition of: “Whoever lies with an animal,” including gentiles, is included in the command: “You shall not allow a witch to live.”

ר"א אומר אף הכלאים: מנה"מ אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יט) את חקתי תשמרו חוקים שחקקתי לך כבר (ויקרא יט, יט) בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים ושדך לא תזרע כלאים The baraita teaches that Rabbi Elazar says that descendants of Noah were also commanded about the prohibition of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Shmuel says: They are derived from that which the verse states: “My statutes you shall keep. You shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (Leviticus 19:19). God is saying: Keep the statutes that I have already instituted for you, i.e., mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, namely, “you shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed.”

מה בהמתך בהרבעה אף שדך בהרכבה מה בהמתך בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ אף שדך בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ The Gemara derives the details of this prohibition from the verse: Just as the Noahide prohibition concerning your animal applies with regard to breeding animals of different species, and not with regard to plowing with animals of two different species working together, which is prohibited only for Jews, so too, the Noahide prohibition in your field applies with regard to grafting one species onto another, which is equivalent to breeding, but it is not prohibited for gentiles to sow different seeds together. Furthermore, just as the Noahide prohibition against breeding your animal applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, so too, the Noahide prohibition against grafting diverse kinds in your field applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

אלא מעתה (ויקרא יח, ה) ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי חקים שחקקתי לך כבר The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the term “My statutes” is understood as referring to mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, then the verse: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances” (Leviticus 18:5), referring to the entire Torah, should also obligate the descendants of Noah, as it would be referring to: Statutes that I have already instituted for you.

התם ושמרתם את חקותי דהשתא הכא את חקותי תשמרו חקים דמעיקרא תשמרו: The Gemara answers: There the verse states: “You shall therefore keep My statutes,” indicating only those statutes that I am giving you now, whereas here, in the verse concerning diverse kinds, the wording is “My statutes you shall keep,” meaning statutes that obligate you from the outset you shall keep in the future. [/topics/rabbi-yehoshua-b-korha א"ר יהושע בן קרחה] כו': § After clarifying the halakhot of the descendants of Noah, the Gemara returns to the halakhot stated in the mishna with regard to one who blasphemes.

60a line 6