Universal quotes from the

Berakoth 17a was wont to say: One must always be shrewd and utilize every strategy in order to achieve fear of Heaven and performance of commandments. One must fulfill the verse: “A soft answer turns away wrath” (Proverbs 15:1) and take steps to increase peace with one’s brethren and with one’s relatives, and with all people, even with a non- jew in the marketplace, despite the fact that he is of no importance to him and does not know him at all (Me’iri), so that he will be loved above in God’s eyes, pleasant below in the eyes of the people, and acceptable to all of God’s creatures.

מרגלא בפומיה דאביי לעולם יהא אדם ערום ביראה מענה רך משיב חמה ומרבה שלום עם אחיו ועם קרוביו ועם כל אדם ואפילו עם גוי בשוק כדי שיהא אהוב למעלה ונחמד למטה ויהא מקובל על הבריות

Tangentially, the Gemara mentions that they said about Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai that no one ever preceded him in issuing a greeting, not even a non-jew in the marketplace, as Rabban Yoḥanan would always greet him first.

אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הקדימו אדם שלום מעולם ואפילו גוי בשוק

Shabbat 88b With regard to the revelation at Sinai, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “The Lord gives the word; the women that proclaim the tidings are a great host” (Psalms 68:12)? It means that each and every utterance that emerged from the mouth of the Almighty divided into seventy languages, a great host. And, similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught with regard to the verse: “Behold, is My word not like fire, declares

the Lord, and like a hammer that shatters a rock?” ( 23:29). Just as this hammer breaks a stone into several fragments, so too, each and every utterance that emerged from the mouth of the Holy One, Blessed be He, divided into seventy languages. The Gemara continues in praise of the Torah. Rav Ḥananel bar Pappa said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Listen, for I will speak royal things, and my lips will open with upright statements” (Proverbs 8:6)? Why are matters of Torah likened to a king? To teach you that just as this king has the power to kill and to grant life, so too, matters of Torah have the power to kill and to grant life.

אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב ה׳ יתן אמר המבשרות צבא רב כל דיבור ודיבור שיצא מפי הגבורה נחלק לשבעים לשונות תני דבי רבי ישמעאל וכפטיש יפצץ סלע מה פטיש זה נחלק לכמה ניצוצות אף כל דיבור ודיבור שיצא מפי הקדוש ברוך הוא נחלק לשבעים לשונות אמר רב חננאל בר פפא מאי דכתיב שמעו כי נגידים אדבר למה נמשלו דברי תורה כנגיד לומר לך מה נגיד זה יש בו להמית ולהחיות אף דברי תורה יש בם להמית ולהחיות

Pesachim 22b The Gemara further challenges Rabbi ’s opinion: And yet there is the prohibition against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as it is written: “Only be steadfast in not eating the blood; for the blood is the life; and you shall not eat the life with the flesh” (Deuteronomy 12:23). And it was taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that a person may not offer a cup of wine to a nazirite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, and that he may not offer a limb cut from a living animal to a descendant of Noah, who is prohibited by The Laws of the Sons of Noah from eating a limb from a living animal? The verse states: “You shall not put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). Causing another person to sin is like placing a stumbling block before a blind person; one who does so violates this prohibition. The prohibition of giving a limb from a living animal to a non-jew is apparently due only to the prohibition of placing a stumbling block. However, it is permitted for one to throw it to dogs. Therefore, despite the fact that the verse says: “You shall not eat it,” apparently there is no prohibition against benefiting from this prohibited item. This challenges Rabbi Abbahu’s principle.

והרי אבר מן החי דכתיב לא תאכל הנפש עם הבשר ותניא רבי נתן אומר מנין שלא יושיט אדם כוס יין לנזיר ואבר מן החי לבני נח תלמוד לומר ולפני עור לא תתן מכשל הא לכלבים שרי

The Gemara asks: And according to Ḥizkiya, in order to teach what halakha is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal juxtaposed to the prohibition against eating blood? The Gemara answers: He could have said to you that the juxtaposition comes to teach the opposite. It is blood that is juxtaposed to a limb from a living animal to teach the following: Just as a limb from a living animal is prohibited, so too, blood of a living being is prohibited. And to which blood is this referring? This is referring to blood spilled in the process of bloodletting, through which the soul departs. That is considered to be blood from a living being, and even the descendants of Noah are prohibited from eating it (Rabbeinu Ḥananel).

ולחזקיה למאי הלכתא איתקש אבר מן החי לדם אמר לך דם הוא דאיתקש לאבר מן החי מה אבר מן החי אסור אף דם מן החי אסור ואי זה זה דם הקזה שהנפש יוצאה בו

Rosh Hashanah 16b And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A man is judged only according to his deeds at the time of his judgment, and not according to his future deeds, as it is stated with regard to Ishmael: “For God has heard the voice of the lad where he is” (Genesis 21:17). Although Ishmael and his descendants would act wickedly in the future, his prayer was heard and answered because he was innocent at the time.

וא"ר יצחק אין דנין את האדם אלא לפי מעשיו של אותה שעה שנאמר )בראשית כא, יז( כי שמע אלהים אל קול הנער באשר הוא שם

And Rabbi Yitzḥak said: A person’s sentence is torn up on account of four types of actions. These are: Giving charity, crying out in prayer, a change of one’s name, and a change of one’s deeds for the better. An allusion may be found in Scripture for all of them: Giving charity, as it is written: “And charity delivers from death” (Proverbs 10:2); crying out in prayer, as it is written: “Then they cry to the Lord in their trouble, and He brings them out of their distresses” (Psalms 107:28); a change of one’s name, as it is written: “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be” (Genesis 17:15), and it is written there: “And I will bless her, and I will also give you a son from her” (Genesis 17:16); a change of one’s deeds for the better, as it is written: “And God saw their deeds” (Jonah 3:10), and it is written there: “And God repented of the evil, which He had said He would do to them, and He did not do it” (Jonah 3:10).

וא"ר יצחק ד' דברים מקרעין גזר דינו של אדם אלו הן צדקה צעקה שינוי השם ושינוי מעשה צדקה דכתיב )משלי י, ב( וצדקה תציל ממות צעקה דכתיב )תהלים קז, כח( ויצעקו אל ה' בצר להם וממצוקותיהם יוציאם שינוי השם דכתיב )בראשית יז, טו( שרי אשתך לא תקרא את שמה שרי כי שרה שמה וכתיב וברכתי אותה וגם נתתי ממנה לך בן שינוי מעשה דכתיב )יונה ג, י( וירא האלהים את מעשיהם וכתיב )יונה ג, י( וינחם האלהים על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות להם ולא עשה

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement for their sins,

תניא ב"ש אומרים ג 'כתות הן ליום הדין אחת של צדיקים גמורין ואחת של רשעים גמורין ואחת של בינוניים צדיקים גמורין נכתבין ונחתמין לאלתר לחיי עולם רשעים גמורין נכתבין ונחתמין לאלתר לגיהנם שנאמר )דניאל יב ,ב (ורבים מישני אדמת עפר יקיצו אלה לחיי עולם ואלה לחרפות לדראון עולם בינוניים יורדין לגיהנם

Rosh Hashana 17a The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies and also the rebellious people of the nations of the world who have sinned with their bodies descend to Gehenna and are judged there for twelve months. After twelve months, their bodies are consumed, their souls are burned, and a wind scatters them under the soles of the feet of the righteous, as it is stated: “And you shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet” (Malachi 3:21).

פושעי ישראל בגופן ופושעי אומות העולם בגופן יורדין לגיהנם ונידונין בה י"ב חדש לאחר י"ב חדש גופן כלה ונשמתן נשרפת ורוח מפזרתן תחת כפות רגלי צדיקים שנא' )מלאכי ג, כא( ועסותם רשעים כי יהיו אפר תחת כפות רגליכם

The Gemara asks: The rebellious Jews who have sinned with their bodies, who are they? Rav said: This is referring to the skull that did not ever don phylacteries. The Gemara asks further: The rebellious ones of the nations of the world who sin with their bodies, who are they? Rav said: They are those who engage in the sin, i.e., forbidden sexual relations.

פושעי ישראל בגופן מאי ניהו אמר רב קרקפתא דלא מנח תפלין פושעי אומות העולם בגופן אמר רב בע בירה

Yoma 28b Apropos the previous statement, the Gemara cites that Rav said: Abraham our Patriarch fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given, as it is stated: “Because [ekev] Abraham hearkened to My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes and My Torahs” (Genesis 26:5). Rav Shimi bar Ḥiyya said to Rav: And say that the verse means that he fulfilled only the Commandments of the Sons of Noah and not the entire Torah. The Gemara asks: But isn’t there also circumcision that Abraham clearly observed, which is not one of the Laws of the Sons of Noah? Apparently, Abraham fulfilled more than just those seven. The Gemara asks: And say that he fulfilled only the seven commandments and circumcision. Rav said to him: If so, why do I need the continuation of the verse, that Abraham kept: My commandments and my Torah? That is a clear indication that he fulfilled commandments beyond the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, and apparently fulfilled the entire Torah.

אמר רב קיים אברהם אבינו כל התורה כולה שנאמר )בראשית כו, ה( עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וגו' א"ל רב שימי בר חייא לרב ואימא שבע מצות הא איכא נמי מילה ואימא שבע מצות ומילה א"ל א"כ מצותי ותורותי למה לי

Sukka 55b

Rabbi Elazar said: These seventy bulls that are sacrificed as additional offerings over the course of the seven days of Sukkot, to what do they correspond? They correspond to the seventy nations of the world, and are brought to atone for their sins and to hasten world peace. Why is a single bull sacrificed on the Eighth Day of Assembly? It corresponds to the singular nation, Israel.

א"ר אליעזר הני שבעים פרים כנגד מי כנגד שבעים אומות פר יחידי למה כנגד אומה יחידה

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Woe unto the nations of the world that lost something and do not know what they lost. When the Temple is standing, the seventy bulls sacrificed on the altar during the festival of Sukkot atones for them. And now that the Temple is destroyed, who atones for them?

א"ר יוחנן אוי להם לעובדי כוכבים שאבדו ואין יודעין מה שאבדו בזמן שבהמ"ק קיים מזבח מכפר עליהן ועכשיו מי מכפר עליהן :

Ta'anith 8a Reish Lakish said that this principle is derived from here: “You took him away who joyfully performed righteousness, those who remembered You in Your ways, behold You were wroth, and we sinned, upon them have we stayed of old, that we might be saved” (Isaiah 64:4). This verse also teaches that God displays wrath specifically due to the transgressions of those who are accustomed to acting righteously. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said concerning the same verse: Whoever is joyful in the suffering that comes upon him brings salvation to the world [olam], as it is stated: “Upon them have we stayed of old [olam], that we might be saved.”

ריש לקיש אמר מהכא )ישעיהו סד, ד( פגעת את שש ועושה צדק בדרכיך יזכרוך הן אתה קצפת ונחטא בהם עולם ונושע אמר ריב"ל כל השמח ביסורין שבאין עליו מביא ישועה לעולם שנאמר בהם עולם ונושע

Chagigah 11b The Gemara answers: Rather, those instances of the double expression: Man, man, are required for him, the tanna, in order to include non-jews, who are commanded with regard to blessing, a euphemism for cursing, God, and with regard to idol worship just as Jews are commanded.

אלא הנהו מיבעי ליה לרבות את הנכרים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם ועל ע"ז כישראל

But if so, this mention of “man, man” in the case of forbidden relations is also required for him to include non- jews, who are commanded with regard to forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

האי נמי מיבעי ליה לרבות את הנכרים שמוזהרין על העריות כישראל

Yevamoth 48b It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Ḥananya, son of Rabban Gamliel, says: For what reason are converts at the present time tormented and hardships come upon them? It is because when they were non-jews they did not observe the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. Rabbi Yosei says: They would not be punished for their deeds prior to their conversion because a convert who just converted is like a child just born in that he retains no connection to his past life. Rather, for what reason are they tormented? It is because they are not as well-versed in the intricacies of the commandments as a born Jew, and consequently they often inadvertently transgress commandments. Abba Ḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Elazar: It is because they observe commandments not out of love of God, but only out of fear of the punishments for failing to observe them.

תניא רבי חנניא בנו של רבן גמליאל אומר מפני מה גרים בזמן הזה מעונין ויסורין באין עליהן מפני שלא קיימו שבע מצות בני נח רבי יוסי אומר גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי אלא מפני מה מעונין לפי שאין בקיאין בדקדוקי מצות כישראל אבא חנן אומר משום ר' אלעזר לפי שאין עושין מאהבה אלא מיראה

Nedarim 31a

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And is a Jew excluded from the category of the descendants of Noah? They are also descendants of Noah. The Gemara answers: Since Abraham was sanctified and designated to possess a unique role in the world, all his descendants are called by his name and are no longer termed the descendants of Noah.

גמ׳ וישראל מי נפיק מכלל בני נח כיוון דאיקדש אברהם איתקרו על שמיה

Kiddushin 30b And so too, the equating of one’s attitude toward his parents to his attitude toward God is a logical derivation, as the three of them are partners in his creation. As the Sages taught: There are three partners in the forming of a person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, who provides the soul, and his father and his mother. When a person honors his father and mother, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says: I ascribe credit to them as if I dwelt between them and they honor Me as well.

וכן בדין ששלשתן שותפין בו ת"ר שלשה שותפין הן באדם הקב"ה ואביו ואמו בזמן שאדם מכבד את אביו ואת אמו אמר הקב"ה מעלה אני עליהם כאילו דרתי ביניהם וכבדוני

Baba Kamma 38a Rabbi Abbahu said that the reason for this ruling is that the verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [vayyatter]” (Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God saw the seven commandments that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves to fulfill, and since they did not fulfill them, He arose and permitted [vehittir] their money to the Jewish people, so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to non-jews.

א"ר אבהו אמר קרא )חבקוק ג, ו( עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח כיון שלא קיימו עמד והתיר ממונן לישראל

The Gemara explains that this is how the baraita is to be understood: And if you would say that this verse: “He stood and shook the earth” is necessary to express that which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosef derived from the verse, come and hear another source: “He appeared from Mount Paran,” meaning: From Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’s exposition? It is as Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven commandments that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill, and He arose and exiled them from their land on account of their transgressions.

וכי תימא האי עמד וימודד ארץ מבעי' ליה לכדרב מתנה וכדרב יוסף ת"ש הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונן לישראל מאי דרב מתנה דא"ר מתנה עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שנצטוו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והגלה אותם מעל אדמתם

What is Rav Yosef’s exposition? It is as Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven commandments that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill, so He arose and permitted their prohibitions to them.

מאי דרב יוסף דא"ר יוסף עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והתירן להם

The Gemara asks: Did they thereby profit, in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? If so, we have found a transgressor who is rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says: This is not to say that for them to transgress their commandments is no longer a sin; rather, it is to say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward for fulfilling them.

איתגורי אתגר א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אמר מר בריה דרבנא לומר שאפילו מקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהן שכר

The Gemara asks: But do they not receive reward for fulfilling those commandments? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that even a non-jew who engages in Torah is considered like a High Priest? The verse states with regard to the commandments: “Which if a person does, he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Which if priests and Levites and Israelites do, they shall live by them, but rather: A person, indicating that all people are included. You have therefore learned that even a non-jew who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.

ולא והתניא ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול ת"ל )ויקרא יח, ה( אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים ולוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא אדם הא למדת שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול

Baba Kamma 38b Having mentioned the Moabites and Ammonites, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deprive any creature of its reward. He rewards every person for his good deeds, and provides reward even for using pleasant speech by using euphemisms.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הקב"ה מקפח שכר כל בריה אפילו שכר שיחה נאה

Baba Kamma 92a MISHNA: Despite the fact that the assailant who caused damage gives to the victim all of the required payments for the injury, his transgression is not forgiven for him in the heavenly court until he requests forgiveness from the victim, as it is stated that God told Abimelech after he had taken Sarah from Abraham: “Now therefore restore the wife of the man; for he is a prophet, and he shall pray for you, and you shall live” (Genesis 20:7). And from where is it derived that if the victim does not forgive him that he is cruel? As it is stated: “And Abraham prayed to God; and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bore children” (Genesis 20:17).

מתני׳ אע"פ שהוא נותן לו אין נמחל לו עד שיבקש ממנו שנאמר )בראשית כ, ז( ועתה השב אשת וגו' ומנין שאם לא מחל לו שהוא אכזרי שנאמר )בראשית כ, יז( ויתפלל אברהם אל האלהים וירפא אלהים את אבימלך וגו '

The Gemara answers. Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This is how the verse should be understood: “Restore the wife of the man” in any case, since she is his wife. And with regard to that which you, Abimelech, said: “Will you slay even a righteous nation? Did he not say himself to me: She is my sister, and she, even she herself, said: He is my brother?” (Genesis 20:4–5), the answer is that you, Abimelech, are not so righteous, since the reason Abraham said that Sarah was his sister is that he is a prophet, and he already learned how to conduct himself based on your behavior. As with regard to a guest [akhsenai] who comes to town, does one ask him about matters concerning eating and drinking, or does one ask him about matters concerning his wife? Does one ask a guest: Is she your wife? Is she your sister? Abimelech was to be blamed, since Abraham thought that he intended to steal his wife.

אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן השב אשת האיש מכל מקום ודקא אמרת )בראשית כ, ד( הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג הלא הוא אמר לי אחותי היא והיא גם היא אמרה אחי הוא נביא הוא וכבר לימד אכסנאי שבא לעיר על עסקי אכילה ושתיה שואלין אותו או על עסקי אשתו שואלין אותו אשתך היא אחותך היא

The Gemara remarks: From here it can be derived that a non-jew is executed for having transgressed a prohibition without awareness that the act was prohibited, since he should have learned and he did not learn.

מכאן לבן נח שנהרג שהיה לו ללמוד ולא למד:

The Gemara cites a series of questions that asked Rabba bar Mari, the first one being related to the previous topic of discussion. Rava said to Rabba bar Mari: From where is this matter derived whereby the Sages stated: Anyone who asks for compassion from Heaven on behalf of another, and he requires compassion from Heaven concerning that same matter, he is answered first? Rabba bar Mari said to him that the source for this is as it is written: “And the Lord changed the fortune of Job, when he prayed for his friends” (Job 42:10).

א"ל רבא לרבה בר מרי מנא הא מילתא דאמור רבנן כל המבקש רחמים על חבירו והוא צריך לאותו דבר הוא נענה תחילה א"ל דכתיב )איוב מב, י( וה' שב את שבות איוב בהתפללו בעד רעהו

Baba Metzia 90b said: This provides no conclusive proof, as the inhabitants of the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, who are the ones who raised this question, hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥideka, who says: The descendants of Noah are commanded with regard to castration. They too are prohibited from performing this practice. And consequently, those Jews who cause them to do it transgress the prohibition of: “Nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14).

אמר רב פפא בני מערבא סברי לה כר' חידקא דאמר בני נח מצווין על הסירוס וקא עברי משום )ויקרא יט, יד( ולפני עור לא תתן מכשול

Baba Bathra 15b The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita means that the duration of Job’s life lasted as long as from when Israel entered Egypt until when they left, but not that he lived during that specific time frame.

אימא כמשעה שנכנסו ישראל למצרים ועד ]שעה[ שיצאו

The Gemara raises an objection from another baraita against the notion that Job was a Jew: Seven prophets prophesied to the nations of the world, and they are: Balaam and his father Beor, and Job, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Elihu ben Barachel the Buzite, which indicates that Job was not Jewish. He said to him: And according to your reasoning that Job could not have been Jewish because he prophesied to the nations of the world, was Elihu ben Barachel not a Jew? Is it not written: “Of the family of Ram” (Job 32:2), meaning Abraham?

מיתיבי שבעה נביאים נתנבאו לאומות העולם ואלו הן בלעם ואביו ואיוב אליפז התימני ובלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ואליהוא בן ברכאל הבוזי )א"ל( וליטעמיך אליהוא בן ברכאל לאו מישראל הוה והא כתיב ממשפחת רם

Rather, one must explain that Elihu is included in this list because he prophesied to the nations of the world; and so too it may be maintained that Job is included in this list, even though he is Jewish, because he prophesied to the nations of the world. The Gemara asks: But did not all the other prophets also prophesy to the nations of the world? Why then are only these seven mentioned? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to the other prophets, their main prophecies were directed to Israel, whereas here, with regard to these seven prophets, their main prophecies were directed to the nations of the world.

אלא אינבוי אינבי לאומות העולם ה"נ איוב אינבוי אינבי ]לאומות העולם[ אטו כולהו נביאי מי לא אינבוי לאומות העולם התם עיקר נביאותייהו לישראל הכא עיקר נביאותייהו לאומות העולם

The Gemara raises an objection from what is taught in a different baraita: There was a certain pious man among the nations of the world and his name was Job, and he came into the world only to receive his reward. The Holy One, Blessed be He, brought afflictions upon him, and he began to blaspheme and curse. The Holy One, Blessed be He, doubled his reward in this world in order to expel him from the World-to-Come. This baraita states that Job was not a Jew, but rather a non-jew.

מיתיבי חסיד היה באומות העולם ואיוב שמו ולא בא לעולם אלא כדי לקבל שכרו הביא הקב"ה עליו יסורין התחיל מחרף ומגדף כפל לו הקב"ה שכרו בעוה"ז ]כדי[ לטרדו מן העולם הבא

The Gemara responds: The matter of whether or not Job was Jewish is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the period during which Job lived: Rabbi Elazar says: Job lived in the days of the judging of the Judges, as it is stated in connection with Job: “Behold, all you yourselves have seen it; why then have you become altogether vain?” (Job 27:12). Which generation was completely vain? You must say it was the generation of the judging of the Judges, when the people judged the Judges, as will be explained shortly.

תנאי היא דתניא רבי אלעזר אומר איוב בימי שפוט השופטים היה שנאמר )איוב כז, יב( הן אתם כולכם חזיתם ולמה זה הבל תהבלו איזה דור שכולו הבל הוי אומר זה דורו של שפוט השופטים

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: Job lived in the days of Ahasuerus, as it is stated: “And in all the world were no women found so beautiful as the daughters of Job” (Job 42:15). In which generation were beautiful women sought? You must say it was the generation of Ahasuerus (Esther, chapter 2). The Gemara asks: But why not say it was in the days of David, as it is written: “And they sought a beautiful maiden” (I Kings 1:3)? The Gemara answers: There, in the time of David, they searched “throughout the territory of Israel” (I Kings 1:3), whereas here, in the time of Ahasuerus, they searched throughout the world, as is similarly stated with regard to Job’s daughters.

רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר איוב בימי אחשורוש היה שנאמר )איוב מב, טו( ולא נמצא נשים יפות כבנות איוב בכל הארץ איזהו דור שנתבקשו בו נשים יפות הוי אומר זה דורו של אחשורוש ואימא בימי דוד דכתיב )מלכים א א, ג( ויבקשו נערה יפה התם בכל גבול ישראל הכא בכל הארץ

Rabbi Natan says: Job lived in the days of the kingdom of Sheba, as it is stated: “And Sheba fell upon them, and took them away” (Job 1:15). And the Rabbis say: Job lived in the days of the kingdom of the Chaldeans in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, as it is stated: “The Chaldeans formed three bands” (Job 1:17). And some say that Job lived in the days of Jacob and that he married Dina, the daughter of Jacob. As it is written here: “You speak as one of the loathsome women speaks” (Job 2:10), and it is written there in the account of the incident involving Dina: “He has done a loathsome act in Israel” (Genesis 34:7). This concludes the text of the baraita. The Gemara comments: And all these tanna’im hold that Job was a Jew except for the opinion introduced with the phrase: And some say, according to which Job lived in the time of Jacob, and he was certainly not one of Jacob’s sons.

רבי נתן אומר איוב בימי מלכות שבא היה שנאמר )איוב א, טו( ותפל שבא ותקחם וחכמים אומרים איוב בימי כשדים היה שנאמר )איוב א, יז( כשדים שמו שלשה ראשים ויש אומרים איוב בימי יעקב היה ודינה בת יעקב נשא כתיב הכא )איוב ב, י( כדבר אחת הנבלות תדברי וכתיב התם )בראשית לד, ז( כי נבלה עשה בישראל וכולהו תנאי סבירא להו דאיוב מישראל הוה לבר מיש אומרים

And what is the proof that all these tanna’im maintain that Job was Jewish? As if it should enter your mind to say that he came from the nations of the world, there is a difficulty: After Moses died, did the Divine Presence rest any longer on the nations of the world? But doesn’t the Master say: Moses requested that the Divine Presence not rest again on the nations of the world, and his request was granted to him, as it is stated: “That we shall be differentiated, I and Your people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth” (Exodus 33:16), and it is stated there that God acceded to his request.

דאי ס"ד מאומות העולם הוה בתר דשכיב משה מי שריא שכינה על עובדי כוכבים והא אמר מר בקש משה שלא תשרה שכינה על עובדי כוכבים ונתן לו שנאמר )שמות לג, טז( ונפלינו אני ועמך

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The generation of Job was awash in licentiousness, as it is stated: “Behold, all of you yourselves have seen [ḥazitem] it; why then have you become altogether vain?” (Job 27:12), and it is written: “Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look [veneḥeze] upon you” (Song of Songs 7:1), which teaches that the phrase “you have seen it” connotes a licentious gaze. The Gemara asks: But say that the phrase “you yourselves have seen it” signifies prophecy, as it is written: “The vision [ḥazon] of Isaiah ben Amoz” (Isaiah 1:1). The Gemara answers: If so, why do I need the words: “Why then have you become altogether vain”? Rather, the reference must be to inappropriate licentious gazing.

א"ר יוחנן דורו של איוב שטוף בזמה היה שנאמר הן אתם כולכם חזיתם ולמה זה הבל תהבלו וכתיב )שיר השירים ז, א( שובי שובי השולמית שובי שובי ונחזה בך אימא בנבואה דכתיב )ישעיהו א, א( חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ א"כ למה זה הבל תהבלו למה לי

Having mentioned the book of Job, the Gemara addresses several matters relating to it. It is stated: “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and the Satan came also among them. And the Lord said to the Satan: From where do you come? And the Satan answered the Lord, and said: From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking through it” (Job 1:6–7). The Satan said to God: Master of the Universe, I have gone to and fro throughout the entire world and I have not found anyone as faithful as Your servant Abraham, to whom You said: “Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it to you” (Genesis 13:17). And even so, when he did not find a place to bury Sarah before he purchased a burial site for four hundred silver shekels, he did not find fault with Your ways or complain about the fact that you had failed to fulfill Your promise.

(איוב א, ו( ויהי היום ויבאו בני האלהים להתיצב על ה' ויבא גם השטן בתוכם ויאמר ה' אל השטן מאין תבא ויען השטן וגו' אמר לפניו רבש"ע שטתי בכל העולם כולו ולא מצאתי נאמן כעבדך אברהם שאמרת לו )בראשית יג, יז( קום התהלך בארץ לארכה ולרחבה כי לך אתננה ואפילו הכי בשעה שלא מצא מקום לקבור את שרה ]עד שקנה בד' מאות שקל כסף[ לא הרהר אחר מדותיך

“And the Lord said to the Satan: Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on earth, a perfect and upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil?” (Job 1:8). About this Rabbi Yoḥanan

says: That which is stated about Job is greater than that which is stated about Abraham. As with regard to Abraham it is written: “For now I know that you fear God” (Genesis 22:12), with regard to Job it is written: “A perfect and an upright man, one who fears God and turns away from evil” (Job 1:8).

ויאמר ה' אל השטן השמת לבך אל עבדי איוב כי אין כמוהו בארץ וגו' א"ר יוחנן גדול הנאמר באיוב יותר ממה

שנאמר באברהם דאילו באברהם כתיב )בראשית כב, יב( כי עתה ידעתי כי ירא אלהים אתה ובאיוב כתיב )איוב א,

ח( איש תם וישר ירא אלהים ]וסר מרע [

The Gemara clarifies the meaning of the aforementioned verse: What is meant by “and turns away from evil”? Rabbi Abba bar Shmuel says: Job was forgiving with his money. It is the way of the world that one pays the storekeeper for even half-peruta of merchandise purchased from him. But if somebody bought an item of such little value from Job, he would forgive him his half-peruta.

מאי וסר מרע א"ר אבא בר שמואל איוב וותרן בממונו היה מנהגו של עולם נותן חצי פרוטה לחנוני איוב ויתרה משלו

The Gemara continues to clarify the verses concerning Job. “Then the Satan answered the Lord, and said: Does Job fear God for naught? Have You not made a hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his cattle is increased in the land” (Job 1:9–10). What is meant by: “You have blessed the work of his hands”? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says: Anyone who took a peruta from Job was blessed. Not only was Job’s own handiwork blessed, but anybody who received anything from him was also blessed.

(איוב א, ט( ויען השטן את ה' ויאמר החנם ירא איוב אלהים הלא אתה סכת בעדו ובעד ביתו וגו' מאי מעשה ידיו ברכת א"ר שמואל בר רב יצחק כל הנוטל פרוטה מאיוב מתברך

The Gemara continues with its explication of these verses. What is meant by: “And his livestock is increased [paratz] in the land” (Job 1:10)? Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: Job’s livestock breached [paretzu] the order of the world. It is the way of the world that wolves kill goats, but in the case of Job’s livestock, the goats killed the wolves.

מאי )איוב א, י( ומקנהו פרץ בארץ א"ר יוסי בר חנינא מקנהו של איוב פרצו גדרו של עולם מנהגו של עולם זאבים הורגים העזים מקנהו של איוב עזים הורגים את הזאבים

The Gemara continues to relate the Satan’s challenge to God: “But now put forth Your hand, and touch all that he has, and he will curse You to Your face. And the Lord said to the Satan: Behold, all that he has is in your power; only upon himself do not put forth your hand. And the Satan went out from the presence of the Lord” (Job 1:11– 12). The verses relate what then occurred: “Now there was a day when his sons and his daughters were eating and drinking wine in their eldest brother’s house, and there came a messenger to Job, and said: The oxen were plowing, and the asses were feeding beside them” (Job 1:13–14). The Gemara asks: What is meant by: “The oxen were plowing and the asses were feeding beside them”? Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, gave Job a taste

(איוב א, יא( ואולם שלח נא ידך וגע בכל אשר לו אם לא על פניך יברכך )איוב א, יב( ויאמר ה' אל השטן הנה כל אשר לו בידך רק אליו אל תשלח ידך וגו' )איוב א, יג( ויהי היום ובניו ובנותיו אוכלים ושותים יין בבית אחיהם הבכור ומלאך בא אל איוב ויאמר הבקר היו חורשות וגו' מאי הבקר היו חורשות והאתונות רועות על ידיהם א"ר יוחנן מלמד שהטעימו הקב"ה לאיוב

Sanhedrin 56a The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that this word nokev is a term for blessing, i.e., cursing? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the statement of Balaam, who was sent by Balak to curse the Jewish people: “How shall I curse [ekkov] whom God has not cursed?” (Numbers 23:8). And the prohibition against cursing God is derived from here: “You shall not curse God” (Exodus 22:27).

ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי הוא דכתיב )במדבר כג, ח( מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא )שמות כב, כז( אלהים לא תקלל

§ The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), that the verse could have stated: One [ish] who curses his God. Why must the verse state: “Anyone [ish ish]”? It is to include the non-jews, who are prohibited from blessing, i.e., cursing, the name of God, just like Jews are. And they are executed for this transgression by the sword alone, as all death penalties stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone.

תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף

The Gemara asks: But is this halakha derived from here? Rather, it is derived from there: “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), as is stated in a baraita that will soon be quoted at length: “The Lord,” this is referring to the blessing, i.e., cursing, of the name of God. This verse concerns Adam, the first man, and is therefore binding on all of humanity.

והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה' זו ברכת השם

Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: The verse “anyone who curses his God” is necessary only to include non-jews who curse God using the appellations for the name of God, rather than mentioning the ineffable name, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

אמר ר' יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר

The Gemara comments: And Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis, non-jews are not liable for cursing appellations for the name of God, disagrees with the opinion of Rav Meyasha. As Rav Meyasha says: A descendant of Noah who blessed God by one of the appellations is liable to be executed even according to the opinion of the Rabbis.

ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב

What is the reason? It is because the verse states: “The convert as well as the homeborn, when he blasphemes the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16), from which it is derived that it is only in the case of a convert or a homeborn Jew that we require the condition: “When he blasphemes the name,” i.e., he is liable to be executed only if he curses the ineffable name. But a non-jew is liable to be executed even due to merely cursing an appellation.

מאי טעמא דאמר קרא )ויקרא כד, טז( כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל עובד כוכבים אפילו בכינוי

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Meir do with this part of the verse: “The convert as well as the homeborn”? What does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir derives that a convert or a homeborn Jew is liable to be executed by stoning for this transgression, but a non-jew is executed by the sword. This exclusion is necessary as otherwise it might enter your mind to say that since non-jews are included in the halakhot of this verse, they are included in all the halakhot of blasphemy. Therefore the verse teaches us that they are not stoned.

ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל עובד כוכבים בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל

The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa do with this part of the verse: “The convert as well as the homeborn,” according to the opinion of the Rabbis, since Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa holds that the Rabbis do not deem either a Jew or a non-jew liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: He derives that it is specifically with regard to a convert and a homeborn Jew that we require the condition that he curse a name of God by a name of God; but with regard to a non-jew, we do not require that he curse a name of God by a name of God in order for him to be liable.

ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל עובד כוכבים לא בעינן שם בשם

The Gemara asks: Why do I need the inclusive term “anyone who curses his God,” according to the opinions that do not derive from it that a non-jew is liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: No halakha is derived from it; it is not a superfluous term, as the Torah spoke in the language of people.

איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

§ Since the halakhot of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Commandments of the Sons of Noah is presented. The Sages taught in a baraita: The descendants of Noah, i.e., all of humanity, were commanded to observe seven commandments: The commandment 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.

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

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

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 non-jews.

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 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.

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

§ The Gemara asks: From where are these matters the Commandments of the Sons of Noah, 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).

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

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).

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

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

ה' זו ברכת השם וכן הוא אומר )ויקרא כד, טז( ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת אלהים זו עבודת כוכבים וכן הוא אומר )שמות כ, ב( לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על האדם זו שפיכות דמים וכן הוא אומר )בראשית ט, ו( שופך דם האדם וגו '

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). “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. “You may freely eat” alludes to the fact that one may eat fruit, but not a limb from a living animal.

לאמר זו גילוי עריות וכן הוא אומר )ירמיהו ג, א( לאמר הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר מכל עץ הגן ולא גזל אכל תאכל ולא אבר מן החי

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.

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

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?

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

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].”

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

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 non-jew 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.

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

Rava says: And is there anyone who says that a non-jew 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 non-

jews, is this stated? Is it not to exclude the case of a non-jew who fashioned an idol but did not bow to it? Since Jews are not executed for this transgression, non-jews should not be liable for this act either.

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

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

אמר רב פפא לא למעוטי גיפוף ונישוק

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.

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

§ The Gemara asks with regard to the list of the Commandments of the Sons of Noah: 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 commandments when they were in Marah: Seven that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves, and God added to them the following commandments: Judgment, and , and honoring one’s father and mother.

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

The commandment 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 commandments previously. And Rav Yehuda says: “As the Lord your God commanded you” in Marah. Apparently, the commandment of establishing courts is not included in the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah.

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

Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Establishing courts is a commandment of the Sons of Noah. The additional commandment 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.

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

The Gemara asks: If so, and the commandment 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 commandment would not be referred to as an added commandment.

אי הכי מאי והוסיפו עליהן דינין

Rather, Rava says: The commandment 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 רבא לא נצרכה אלא לדיני קנסות אכתי והוסיפו בדינין מיבעי ליה

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 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, Rava says: This tanna, who holds that the commandment of establishing courts of judgment is not included in the Commandments of the Sons of Noah, is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who removes from the list of the Commandments of the Sons of Noah two commandments whose mnemonic is dalet, kaf, which stands for judgment [dinim] and blessing the name of God [birkat Hashem], and inserts in their place two commandments whose mnemonic is samekh, kaf, standing for castration [seirus] and diverse kinds [kilayim].

אלא אמר רבא האי תנא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דמפיק ד"ך ועייל ס"ך

As the school of Menashe taught: The descendants of Noah were commanded to observe seven commandments: 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.

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

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.

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

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 commandment of establishing a system of law and justice, so that the fear of God will be upon the people.

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 challenges: If the tanna of the school of Menashe interprets the verse “and the Lord God commanded” homiletically, even these commandments, 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 commandments in his list?

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

The Gemara answers: Actually, he does not interpret the verse “and the Lord God commanded” homiletically, but with regard to these commandments 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,

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

Sanhedrin 57a 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).

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 '

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.

ואידך אורחייהו דקא מגלי

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 does 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.

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

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.

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 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).

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

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 commandment.

סירוס דכתיב )בראשית ט, ז( שרצו בארץ ורבו בה ואידך לברכה 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 commandment; 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.

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

Rav Yosef says: They say in the study hall that a descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing three commandments, 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.

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 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?

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

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 Commandments of the Sons of Noah. 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 non-jews should be executed for idol worship too, as they are included in the term “anyone” stated in that context (see Leviticus 20:2).

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

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 commandments; the three that were listed, and idol worship.

אלא אמר רב ששת אמרי בי רב על ארבע מצות בן נח נהרג

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 commandment of the Sons of Noah is execution, any descendant of Noah who transgresses is liable to be executed.

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

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 Commandments of the Sons of Noah; the Merciful One revealed this punishment with regard to one commandment, the prohibition of bloodshed, and the same is true with regard to all of them.

רב הונא ורב יהודה וכולהו תלמידי דרב אמרי על שבע מצות בן נח נהרג גלי רחמנא בחדא והוא הדין לכולהו

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 non-jew to another non-jew, or by a non-jew to a Jew, the action is prohibited; but if a Jew does so to a non-jew, it is permitted? The Gemara explains the question: And if it is so that a non-jew 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.

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 answers: Because the tanna wanted to teach in the latter clause that if a Jew does so to a non-jew, it is permitted, he taught in the former clause that if a non-jew does one of these, it is prohibited. If the baraita were to state that if a non-jew does so, he is liable, it would have to state that if a Jew does so to a non-jew, 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 non- jew, and that he is merely exempt from liability, which is not the case. Therefore, the word prohibited is used with regard to a non-jew. Therefore, this does not prove that a non-jew is exempt from capital punishment.

משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא ישראל בכותי מותר תנא רישא אסור

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 non-jew murders another non-jew, or a non-jew murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a non-jew, he is exempt. Evidently, the term liable is used in the baraita.

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

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 non-jew ab initio? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that with regard to a non-jew, 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 non-jew.

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

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 non-jew to do so.

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

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 non-jew 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.

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

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 non-jew who robs a non-jew? Since they are not apt to grant forgiveness, robbing a non-jew of even a minuscule amount is considered full-fledged robbery, and not merely similar to robbery.

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

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 non-jew to do so to another non-jew and for a non-jew to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a non-jew 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.

אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא לא נצרכה אלא לכובש שכר שכיר כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל אסור ישראל בכותי מותר

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 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 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 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,

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

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

נהרג עליו

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.

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

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.

מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא )בראשית ט, ה( אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש אפילו בדיין אחד

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.

(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 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.

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

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.

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

Rav 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.

מתיב רב המנונא ואשה לא מפקדה והכתיב )בראשית יח, יט( כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה וגו '

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].

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בניו לדין ביתו לצדקה

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.

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בניו לדין ביתו לצדקה

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.

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

§ 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 non-jews, who are prohibited from engaging in forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

ת"ר איש מה תלמוד לומר )ויקרא יח, ו( איש איש לרבות את הכותים שמוזהרין על העריות כישראל

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.

והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא לאמר זה גילוי עריות

The Gemara answers: There, the verse is referring to their women, non-jews, with whom relations are forbidden. And here it is referring to our women, Jews, with whom relations are forbidden. In other words, a non-jew who engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman is liable. As it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: If a non-jew 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.

התם בעריות דידהו והכא בעריות דידן דקתני סיפא בא על עריות ישראל נידון בדיני ישראל

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this non-jew 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.

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

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

מגרע גרע

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The statement of the baraita is necessary only to teach the halakha in the case of a non-jew who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, which does not apply to non-jews. By halakha, only marriage applies to non-jews, not betrothal. Therefore, we judge them according to our halakha in that case.

אלא א"ר יוחנן לא נצרכה אלא לנערה המאורסה דלדידהו לית להו דדיינינן להו בדינא דידן

The Gemara asks: And with regard to non-jews 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 non-jew 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.

אבל אשת איש בדינא דידהו דיינינן להו והתניא בא על נערה המאורסה נידון בסקילה על אשת איש נידון בחנק ואי בדינא דידהו סייף הוא

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 non-jews. Since with regard to non-jews, marriage has not yet taken effect, we judge them according to our halakhot. Therefore, a non-jew who engages in intercourse with such a Jewish woman is executed by strangulation.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי אשת איש דקתני כגון שנכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה דלדידהו לית להו דיינינן להו בדינא דידן

As Rabbi Ḥanina teaches: Non-jews 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.

דתני ר' חנינא בעולת בעל יש להן נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה אין להן

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.

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

If a non-jew 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 non-jew is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

בא על עריות ישראל נידון בדיני ישראל בא על עריות בן נח נידון בדיני בן נח ואנו אין לנו אלא נערה המאורסה בלבד

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 non-jews in such a case.

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

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

וסבר רבי מאיר כל ערוה שבית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליה בן נח מוזהר עליה והא תניא גר

Sanhedrin 58b 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.

ת"ש )שמות ו, כ( ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו מאי לאו דודתו מן האם

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.

לא דודתו מן האב

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.

ת"ש )בראשית כ, יב( וגם אמנה אחותי בת אבי היא אך לא בת אמי מכלל דבת האם אסורה

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.

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

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 non-jew to marry his sister.

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

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.

כיון דאשתרי אשתרי

Rav Huna says: A non-jew 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.”

אמר רב הונא כותי מותר בבתו וא"ת מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום עולם חסד יבנה

And there are those who say that Rav Huna did not say this; rather, Rav Huna says: A non-jew 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.”

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

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.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' חנינא בן נח שייחד שפחה לעבדו ובא עליה נהרג עליה

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 non-jews, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him.

מאימת אמר רב נחמן מדקראו לה רביתא דפלניא מאימת התרתה אמר רב הונא משפרעה ראשה בשוק

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.

א"ר אלעזר א"ר חנינא בן נח שבא על אשתו שלא כדרכה חייב שנאמר )בראשית ב, כד( ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה

Rava says: Is there any action for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a non-jew is deemed liable for performing it? A Jew is not liable for engaging in anal intercourse with his wife.

אמר רבא מי איכא מידי דישראל לא מיחייב וכותי מיחייב

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.

אלא אמר רבא בן נח שבא על אשת חבירו שלא כדרכה פטור מאי טעמא באשתו ולא באשת חבירו ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה

And Reish Lakish says: A non-jew 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.

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

The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven commandments, 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 commandments that require one to arise and take action.

וליחשבה גבי ז' מצות כי קא חשיב שב ואל תעשה קום עשה לא קא חשיב

Sanhedrin 59a The Gemara challenges: But the commandment of establishing courts of judgment is a commandment to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven commandments. The Gemara answers: This commandment 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.

והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A non-jew 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.

ואמר ר' יוחנן עובד כוכבים שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר )דברים לג, ד( תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם

The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah. 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 non-jew 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 non-jew who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning.

וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה

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 non-jew 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 non-jew who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.

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 answers: There, in the baraita, the reference is to a non-jew who engages in the study of their seven commandments. It is a commandment for a non-jew to study the halakhot that pertain to the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah, and when he does so he is highly regarded.

התם בשבע מצות דידהו :

§The baraita that lists the Commandments of the Sons of Noah (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.

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 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).

מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא

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.

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 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).

ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא

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?

למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני

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 commandment 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 non-jews and Jews.

כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה

But a commandment that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the commandments 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.

לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה

§ The Master said in a baraita: Any commandment 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?

אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח

The Gemara answers: From the fact that the prohibition of idol worship was repeated at Sinai, and we find that God punished non-jews for it, conclude from it that any commandment that was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, and not only for the Jewish people.

מדאיתני עבודת כוכבים בסיני ואשכחן דענש עובדי כוכבים עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה :

It is further stated in the baraita that a commandment 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 non-jew.

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

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 non-jew to do so is forbidden. The Gemara answers: There, the reason non-jews are prohibited from doing so is because they are not authorized to conquer. It is not permitted for non-jews 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 non-jew does not indicate that non-jews have a higher degree of sanctity.

ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו

The Gemara asks: But isn’t stealing less than the value of one peruta prohibited to a non-jew and permitted to a Jew? The Gemara answers: There it is because non-jews are not apt to grant forgiveness of debts, even of less than the value of one peruta. Therefore, for a non-jew to take even such a minuscule amount is considered robbery. Jews normally forgive such small amounts.

והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו :

It is stated in the baraita that any commandment 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.

כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה

Sanhedrin 59b The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the commandment 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 commandment 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.

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 answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the commandment 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 commandment is not considered to have been repeated at Mount Sinai.

ההוא למישרי שבת הוא דאתא ביום ואפילו בשבת

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the commandment 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 commandment of procreation was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah.

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 answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the commandment 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.

ההוא לכל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו הוא דאתא

The Gemara asks: If so, let us say with regard to each and every one of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah that it was repeated because of an additional matter the Torah teaches, and the descendants of Noah are exempt from them all.

אי הכי כל חדא וחדא נמי נימא משום מילתא איתני

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.

הכי קאמר אזהרה מיהדר ומיתנא בה למה לי

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 commandments 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.

ואין לנו אלא גיד הנשה בלבד ואליבא דר' יהודה הני נמי לא איתני

The Gemara answers: These commandments 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 commandments that were given to the descendants of Noah and were not repeated at Sinai.

הני איתני לשום מילתא בעלמא הא לא איתני כלל

If you wish, say that there is another explanation for the fact that the commandment 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 commandment; 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.

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

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.

אלא מעתה בני ישמעאל לחייבו )בראשית כא, יב( כי ביצחק יקרא לך זרע

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 commandment applies to only some of Isaac’s offspring, but not all the descendants of Isaac. This serves to exclude the descendants of Esau.

בני עשו לחייבו ביצחק ולא כל יצחק

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

ומאי תלמודא א"ר הונא דמו מי שדמו חלוק מבשרו יצאו שרצים שאין דמם חלוק מבשרם

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.

מיתיבי )בראשית א, כו( ורדו בדגת הים 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.

ת"ש )בראשית א, כו( ובעוף השמים מאי לאו לאכילה לא למלאכה

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.

ועופות בני מלאכה נינהו אין כדבעי רבה בר רב הונא דש באווזין ותרנגולין לר' יוסי ברבי יהודה מאי

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.

תא שמע )בראשית א, כח( ובכל חיה הרומשת על הארץ ההוא לאתויי נחש הוא דאתא

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.

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

§ In the baraita that lists the Commandments of the Sons of Noah (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:

ר"ש אומר אף על הכישוף: מ"ט דר"ש דכתיב

Sanhedrin 60a “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 non-jews, is included in the command: “You shall not allow a witch to live.”

(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 :

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., commandments 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.”

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 Gemara derives the details of this prohibition from the verse: Just as the prohibition of the Sons of Noah 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 prohibition of the Sons of Noah in your field applies with regard to grafting one species onto another, which is equivalent to breeding, but it is not prohibited for non-jews to sow different seeds together. Furthermore, just as the prohibition of the Sons of Noah against breeding your animal applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, so too, the prohibition of the Sons of Noah against grafting diverse kinds in your field applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

מה בהמתך בהרבעה אף שדך בהרכבה מה בהמתך בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ אף שדך בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the term “My statutes” is understood as referring to commandments 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.

אלא מעתה )ויקרא יח, ה( ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי חקים שחקקתי לך כבר

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.

התם ושמרתם את חקותי דהשתא הכא את חקותי תשמרו חקים דמעיקרא תשמרו : § 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. It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa said that during a blasphemer’s trial, the judges ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, they would use the sentence: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, like the Tetragrammaton.

א"ר יהושע בן קרחה כו ':

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the judges must stand? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ami says: It is derived from that which the verse states about Eglon: “And Ehud came to him, and he was sitting by himself alone in his cool upper chamber. And Ehud said: I have a message from God [Elohim] to you. And he arose out of his seat” (Judges 3:20). And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if Eglon, king of Moab, who was a non-jew and knew the name of God only by an appellation, stood in honor, all the more so must a Jew stand if he hears the ineffable name.

עומדין מנלן א"ר יצחק בר אמי דאמר קרא )שופטים ג, כ( ואהוד בא אליו והוא יושב בעליית המקרה אשר לו לבדו ויאמר אהוד דבר אלהים לי אליך ויקם מעל הכסא והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה עגלון מלך מואב שהוא נכרי ולא ידע אלא בכינוי עמד ישראל ושם המפורש על אחת כמה וכמה

The Gemara clarifies: From whom does one hear these mentions of God’s name about which Rabbi Ḥiyya says that one’s entire garment would be full of tears? If we say that he hears from it a Jew, are Jews irreverent to such an extent that they demean the name of God? Rather, it is obvious that Rabbi Ḥiyya is referring to hearing it from a non-jew. And if you say that the reference is to cursing the ineffable name, have the non-jews learned it? They have no knowledge of his name. Rather, is it not referring to cursing by an appellation of God’s name?

ממאן אילימא מישראל מי פקירי כולי האי אלא פשיטא מעובד כוכבים ואי שם המיוחד מי גמירי אלא לאו בכינוי

Sanhedrin 74b The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer from what Rav Yannai, the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, teaches in a baraita: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word “among” written with regard to the sanctification of God’s name, and the word “among” written with regard to Korah and his assembly. Here, with regard to the sanctification of God’s name, it is written: “And I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,” and there, with regard to Korah, it is written: “Separate yourselves from among this congregation” (Numbers 16:21). The meaning of the word “congregation” written with regard to Korah is derived by means of a verbal analogy to the word “congregation” written with regard to the spies sent out by Moses to scout the land: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation” (Numbers 14:27). Just as there, the congregation of spies numbered ten, and all were Jews, so too here, concerning the sanctification of God, there must be ten, all of them being Jews.

תא שמע דתני רב ינאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם )במדבר טז, כא( הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה וכולהו ישראל אף כאן עשרה וכולהו ישראל

§ The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: Is a descendant of Noah, who is commanded to refrain from idol worship, also commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, or is he not commanded about the sanctification of God’s name?

בעו מיניה מר' אמי בן נח מצווה על קדושת השם או אין מצווה על קדושת השם

Abaye says: Come and hear an answer to this question from a baraita in which it was taught: Descendants of Noah were commanded to observe seven commandments: To establish courts of law, to refrain from cursing God, idol worship, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and from eating the limb of a living animal. And if it is so that they are commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, then there would be eight commandments in which they are commanded. Rava said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the baraita speaks of seven commandments it means the seven commandments themselves with all their associated [avzaraihu] obligations. The commandment to sanctify God’s name can be understood as a detail of the prohibition of idolatry.

אמר אביי ת"ש שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח ואם איתא תמני הויין א"ל רבא אינהו וכל אבזרייהו

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Adda bar Ahava says that they say in the school of Rav: It is written that Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, said to the prophet Elisha: “For this matter may the Lord pardon your servant, that when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to bow down there and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself down in the house of Rimmon” (II Kings 5:18). That is, he was forced to bow down before an idol out of fear of his master, the king of Aram. And it is written in the following verse: “And he said to him: Go in peace,” indicating that Elisha did not criticize him for acting in this manner.

מאי הוי עלה אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמרי בי רב כתיב )מלכים ב ה, יח( לדבר הזה יסלח ה' לעבדך בבא אדני בית רמון להשתחות שמה והוא נשען על ידי והשתחויתי וכתיב )מלכים ב ה, יט( ויאמר לו לך לשלום

Sanhedrin 105a who comes from the tribe of Judah. “Moab is My washing pot”; this is referring to Gehazi, who was afflicted with leprosy over matters of washing, as he took money from Naaman, who he instructed to immerse in the Jordan River. “Over Edom I will cast My shoe”; this is referring to Doeg the Edomite. “Philistia, cry aloud [hitroa’i] because of Me”; this is referring to the fact that the ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, if David, who killed the Philistine and bequeathed the city of Gath to your sons, will come and complain that You gave a share in the World-to-Come to his enemies Doeg and Ahithophel, what will You do concerning him? Will you accept his complaint? God said to the ministering angels: It is upon me to render David and his enemies friends [re’im] with each other, and even David will agree.

דקאתי מיהודה מואב סיר רחצי זה גחזי שלקה על עסקי רחיצה על אדום אשליך נעלי זה דואג האדומי עלי פלשת התרועעי אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע אם יבא דוד שהרג את הפלשתי והוריש את בניך גת מה אתה עושה לו אמר להן עלי לעשותן ריעים זה לזה

With regard to the verse: “And what comes into your mind shall never come to be, that you say: We will be like the nations, like the families of the countries, to serve wood and stone. As I live, says the Lord God, surely with a mighty hand, and an outstretched arm, and with wrath poured out, will I rule over you” (Ezekiel 20:32–33), Rav Naḥman says: Let the Merciful One become wrathful at us with all that wrath, and redeem us.

)יחזקאל כ, לב( והעולה על רוחכם היה לא תהיה אשר אתם אומרים נהיה כגוים כמשפחות הארצות לשרת עץ ואבן חי אני נאם ה' אלהים אם לא ביד חזקה ובזרוע נטויה ובחימה שפוכה אמלוך עליכם אמר רב נחמן כל כי האי ריתחא לירתח רחמנא עלן ולפרוקינן

§ The mishna teaches that four prominent commoners, Balaam, Doeg, Ahithophel, and Gehazi, have no share in the World-to-Come. The Gemara elaborates: The name Balaam is interpreted as a contraction of: Without a nation [belo am], or one who has no share in the World-to-Come with the Jewish nation. Alternatively, the name Balaam is interpreted as one who wore down the Jewish people [bila am]. He is the son of Beor, one who engaged in bestiality [be’ir].

ארבעה הדיוטות בלעם ודואג ואחיתופל וגחזי: בלעם בלא עם דבר אחר בלעם שבלה עם בן בעור שבא על בעיר

It was taught in a baraita: He is Beor, father of Balaam, he is Cushan-Rishathaim, he is Laban the Aramean. He was called Beor because he engaged in bestiality. He was called Cushan-Rishathaim because he performed two evil deeds [rishiyyot] to the Jewish people, one during the time of Jacob, when he pursued him intending to kill him, and one during the time when the judges judged. And what was his actual name? His name was Laban the Aramean.

תנא הוא בעור הוא כושן רשעתים הוא לבן הארמי בעור שבא על בעיר כושן רשעתים דעבד שתי רשעיות בישראל אחת בימי יעקב ואחת בימי שפוט השופטים ומה שמו לבן הארמי שמו

It is written: “Son of Beor” (Numbers 22:5), and it is written elsewhere: “His son Beor” (Numbers 24:3). Rabbi Yoḥanan says in resolving the apparent contradiction: Balaam’s father was his son in terms of prophecy, as Balaam was a much greater prophet.

כתיב )במדבר כב, ה( בן בעור וכתיב )במדבר כד, ג( בנו בעור אמר רבי יוחנן אביו בנו הוא לו בנביאות

The Gemara infers from the mishna: Balaam is the one who does not come into the World-to-Come; but other non- jews come into the World-to-Come. Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna?

בלעם הוא דלא אתי לעלמא דאתי הא אחריני אתו מתניתין מני

It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is written: “The wicked shall be turned back to the netherworld, all that nations that forget God” (Psalms 9:18). “The wicked shall be turned back to the netherworld”; these are the sinners of the Jewish people, as only the sinners are sentenced to the netherworld. “All the non-jews that forget God”; these are the sinners of the non-jews. From the fact that it is written: “All the non-jews,” it is apparent that none of the non-jews have a share in the World-to-Come. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But is it stated in the verse that the sinners of the Jewish people will be like all of the non-jews? It is stated only: “All the non-jews that forget God.” Rather, the wicked shall be turned back to the netherworld, and who are they? They are all the non-jews that forget God. Non-jews who fear God do have a share in the World-to-Come.

רבי יהושע היא דתניא ר"א אומר )תהלים ט, יח( ישובו רשעים לשאולה כל גוים שכחי אלהים ישובו רשעים לשאולה אלו פושעי ישראל כל גוים שכחי אלהים אלו פושעי עובדי כוכבים דברי ר"א אמר לו ר' יהושע וכי נאמר בכל גוים והלא לא נאמר אלא כל גוים שכחי אלהים אלא ישובו רשעים לשאולה מאן נינהו כל גוים שכחי אלהים

And that wicked person, Balaam, also provided a sign with regard to himself. He said: “Let me die the death of the righteous, and let my end be like his” (Numbers 23:10). If I die the death of the righteous, by natural causes, my end will be like his, i.e., I will receive a share in the World-to-Come like the Jewish people. And if I do not die by natural causes: “I will go to my people” (Numbers 24:14), i.e., my fate will be that of the rest of the wicked people in my generation, who have no share in the World-to-Come.

ואף אותו רשע נתן סימן בעצמו אמר )במדבר כג, י( תמות נפשי מות ישרים אם תמות נפשי מות ישרים תהא אחריתי כמוהו ואם לאו הנני הולך לעמי

It is written: “And the princes of Moab stayed with Balaam” (Numbers 22:8). The Gemara asks: And to where did the princes of Midian who accompanied the princes of Moab go? The Gemara answers: Once Balaam said to them: “Lodge here this night, and I will bring you word when the Lord speaks to me” (Numbers 22:8), the elders of Midian said: If he seeks permission from the Lord, he will not join us, as is there any father who hates his son? Certainly the Lord will help the Jewish people.

(במדבר כב, ח( וישבו שרי מואב עם בלעם ושרי מדין להיכן אזול כיון דאמר להו )במדבר כב, ח( לינו פה הלילה והשבותי אתכם דבר אמרו כלום יש אב ששונא את בנו

Rav Naḥman says: Impudence is effective even toward Heaven. How so? Initially, it is written that God said to Balaam: “You shall not go with them” (Numbers 22:12), and ultimately after Balaam persisted and asked, it is written: “Rise up and go with them” (Numbers 22:20). Rav Sheshet says: Impudence is monarchy without a crown, as it is an assertion of leadership and lacks only the official coronation as king, as it is written: “And I am this day

weak, though anointed king; and these men the sons of Zeruiah are too hard for me” (II Samuel 3:39). The sons of Zeruiah, due to their impudence, were as formidable as David himself.

אמר רב נחמן חוצפא אפילו כלפי שמיא מהני מעיקרא כתיב לא תלך עמהם ולבסוף כתיב קום לך אתם אמר רב ששת חוצפא מלכותא בלא תאגא היא דכתיב )שמואל ב ג, לט( ואנכי היום רך ומשוח מלך והאנשים האלה בני צרויה קשים ממני וגו '

Avodah Zarah 2b with their scholars, as it is stated: “And let the peoples [le’umim] be assembled” (Isaiah 43:9); and the term le’om means nothing other than kingdom, as it is stated: “And the one kingdom [ule’om] shall be stronger than the other kingdom [mile’om]” (Genesis 25:23). The Gemara asks: But is it possible for there to be intermingling before the Holy One, Blessed be He, that it should be necessary for each nation to stand and be addressed separately? Rather, the nations are instructed to stand separately so that they will not become intermingled with each other in order that they will each hear what He says to them.

וסופריה שנאמר )ישעיהו מג, ט( ויאספו לאומים ואין לאום אלא מלכות שנאמר )בראשית כה, כג( ולאום מלאום יאמץ ומי איכא ערבוביא קמי הקב"ה אלא כי היכי דלא ליערבבו אינהו ]בהדי הדדי[ דלישמעו מאי דאמר להו

Immediately, the Roman Empire enters first before Him. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Roman Empire enters first? It is because the Roman Empire is the most important of all of the nations. And from where do we derive that it is the most important? As it is written in the book of Daniel with regard to the fourth empire that will rule over the world: “And it shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces” (Daniel 7:23), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This empire that will devour the earth is the wicked Roman Empire, whose name spread throughout the world.

] מיד[ נכנסה לפניו מלכות רומי תחלה מ"ט משום דחשיבא ומנלן דחשיבא דכתי' )דניאל ז, כג( ותאכל כל ארעא ותדושינה ותדוקינה אמר רבי יוחנן זו רומי חייבת שטבעה יצא בכל העולם

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that whoever is more important enters first? This is in accordance with a statement of Rav Ḥisda, as Rav Ḥisda says: When a king and a community are brought before God for judgment, the king enters for judgment first, as it is stated: “That He make the judgment of His servant and the judgment of His people Israel, as every day shall require” (I Kings 8:59). And what is the reason that it is important for the king to enter first? If you wish, say that it is not proper conduct for the king to stand outside and wait for the trial of his subjects to end. And if you wish, say instead that the king is brought in first so that he may be judged before God’s anger intensifies due to the sins of the community.

ומנא לן דמאן דחשיב עייל ברישא כדרב חסדא דאמר רב חסדא מלך וצבור מלך נכנס תחלה לדין שנאמר )מלכים א ח, נט( לעשות משפט עבדו ומשפט עמו ישראל ]וגו'[ וטעמא מאי איבעית אימא לאו אורח ארעא למיתב מלכא מאבראי ואיבעית אימא מקמי דליפוש חרון אף

The Gemara returns to its narration of the future judgment. First, the members of the Roman Empire enter. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: With what did you occupy yourselves? They say before Him in response: Master of the Universe, we have established many marketplaces, we have built many bathhouses, and we have increased much silver and gold. And we did all of this only for the sake of the Jewish people, so that they would be free to engage in Torah study.

אמר להם הקב"ה במאי עסקתם אומרים לפניו רבש"ע הרבה שווקים תקנינו הרבה מרחצאות עשינו הרבה כסף וזהב הרבינו וכולם לא עשינו אלא בשביל ישראל כדי שיתעסקו בתורה

The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: Fools of the world! Are you attempting to deceive Me? Everything that you did, you did for your own needs. You established marketplaces to place prostitutes in them; you built bathhouses for your own enjoyment; and as for the silver and gold that you claim to have increased, it is Mine, as it is stated: “Mine is the silver, and Mine the gold, said the Lord of hosts” (Haggai 2:8).

אמר להם הקב"ה שוטים שבעולם כל מה שעשיתם לצורך עצמכם עשיתם תקנתם שווקים להושיב בהן זונות מרחצאות לעדן בהן עצמכם כסף וזהב שלי הוא שנאמר )חגי ב, ח( לי הכסף ולי הזהב נאם ה' צבאות

Is there no one among you who can declare that they have studied this Torah? This is the meaning of the continuation of the verse from Isaiah, as it is stated: “Who among them can declare this?” (Isaiah 43:9). And “this” is referring to nothing other than the Torah, as it is stated: “And this is the Torah that Moses set before the children of Israel” (Deuteronomy 4:44), and whoever did not engage in its study does not receive reward. Immediately, the members of the Roman Empire leave disappointed.

כלום יש בכם מגיד זאת שנאמר מי בכם יגיד זאת ואין זאת אלא תורה שנאמר )דברים ד, מד( וזאת התורה אשר שם משה מיד יצאו בפחי נפש

The Roman Empire leaves, and the Persian Empire enters after it. What is the reason that the Persian Empire enters second? The reason is that after the Roman Empire it is the next most important. And from where do we derive this? As it is written in Daniel’s vision: “And behold another beast, a second, like a bear” (Daniel 7:5). And Rav Yosef teaches: These are the Persians, who are compared to a bear, as they eat and drink copious amounts as does a bear, and they are fleshy like a bear, and they grow their hair long as does a bear, and they never rest, like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another.

יצאת מלכות רומי ונכנסה מלכות פרס אחריה מ"ט דהא חשיבא בתרה ומנלן דכתיב )דניאל ז, ה( וארו חיוא אחרי תנינא דמיא לדוב ותני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין ]בשר[ כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב

The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: With what did you occupy yourselves? They say before Him in response: Master of the Universe, we have built many bridges, we have conquered many cities, and we have fought many wars. And we did all of this only for the sake of the Jewish people, so that they would engage in Torah study.

אמר להם הקב"ה במאי עסקתם אומרים לפניו רבש"ע הרבה גשרים גשרנו הרבה כרכים כבשנו הרבה מלחמות עשינו וכולם לא עשינו אלא בשביל ישראל כדי שיתעסקו בתורה

The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: Everything that you did, you did for your own needs. You established bridges to collect taxes from all who pass over them. You conquered cities to use their residents for forced labor [angareya]; and with regard to fighting the wars, I wage wars, and your success is from Me, as it is stated: “The Lord is a man of war” (Exodus 15:3). Is there no one among you who can declare that they have studied this Torah? As it is stated: “Who among them can declare this” (Isaiah 43:9), and “this” is referring to nothing other than the Torah, as it is stated: “And this is the Torah that Moses set” (Deuteronomy 4:44). Immediately, the members of the Persian Empire leave from before Him disappointed.

אמר להם הקב"ה כל מה שעשיתם לצורך עצמכם עשיתם תקנתם גשרים ליטול מהם מכס כרכים לעשות בהם אנגריא מלחמות אני עשיתי שנאמר )שמות טו, ג( ה' איש מלחמה כלום יש בכם מגיד זאת שנאמר )ישעיהו מג, ט( מי בכם יגיד זאת ואין זאת אלא תורה שנאמר וזאת התורה אשר שם משה מיד יצאו מלפניו בפחי נפש

The Gemara asks: But once the Persian Empire sees that everything said by the Roman Empire is completely ineffective, what is the reason that they come forward? The Gemara answers: They believe that their claims will be more effective, as they say: The Romans destroyed the Second Temple, and we had built it, as the Second Temple was constructed under the auspices and with the encouragement of Cyrus, the king of Persia. The Gemara adds: And likewise, a similar exchange occurred with each and every nation.

וכי מאחר דחזית מלכות פרס למלכות רומי דלא מהניא ולא מידי מאי טעמא עיילא אמרי אינהו סתרי בית המקדש ואנן בנינן וכן לכל אומה ואומה

The Gemara asks: But once the other nations see that every-thing said by the first ones, Rome and Persia, is completely ineffective, what is the reason that they come forward? The Gemara answers that they think: Those Empires subjugated the Jewish people, but we did not subjugate the Jewish people. The Gemara further asks: What is different about these, Rome and Persia, which were singled out explicitly, and what is different about those other empires that come afterward, which were not singled out and mentioned by name? It is because with regard to these, Rome and Persia, their kingship extends until the coming of the Messiah.

וכי מאחר דחזו לקמאי דלא מהני ולא מידי מ"ט עיילי סברי הנך אישתעבדו בהו בישראל ואנן לא שעבדנו בישראל מאי שנא הני דחשיבי ומאי שנא הני דלא חשיבי להו משום דהנך משכי במלכותייהו עד דאתי משיחא

The nations will say before God: Master of the Universe, did You give us the Torah and we did not accept it? Since we never received the Torah, why are we being judged for not fulfilling its commandments? The Gemara asks: And can one say that they were never offered the Torah? But isn’t it written in the description of the giving of the Torah: “And he said: The Lord came from Sinai, and rose from Seir unto them” (Deuteronomy 33:2), and it is written: “God comes from Teman, and the Holy One from mount Paran” (Habakkuk 3:3). And the Sages asked: What did God require in Seir and what did He require in Paran? The Torah was not given in those locations.

אומרים לפניו רבש"ע כלום נתת לנו ולא קיבלנוה ומי מצי למימר הכי והכתי' )דברים לג, ב( ויאמר ה' מסיני בא וזרח משעיר למו וכתיב )חבקוק ג, ג( אלוה מתימן יבוא וגו' מאי בעי בשעיר ומאי בעי בפארן

And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, took the Torah around to every nation and those who speak every language, such as the Edomites in Seir and the Ishmaelites in Paran, but they did not accept it, until He came to the Jewish people and they accepted it. If the other nations all rejected the Torah, how can they excuse themselves by claiming that it was never offered to them?

א"ר יוחנן מלמד שהחזירה הקב"ה על כל אומה ולשון ולא קבלוה עד שבא אצל ישראל וקבלוה

Rather, this is what they say: Did we accept the Torah and then not fulfill its commandments? The Gemara asks: But this itself serves as the refutation of their own claim, as one can respond: Why didn’t you accept it? Rather, this is what the nations of the world say before Him: Master of the Universe, did You overturn the mountain above us like a basin, and we still did not accept the Torah, as You did for the Jewish people?

אלא הכי אמרי כלום קיבלנוה ולא קיימנוה ועל דא תברתהון אמאי לא קבלתוה אלא כך אומרים לפניו רבש"ע כלום כפית עלינו הר כגיגית ולא קבלנוה כמו שעשית לישראל

The Gemara provides the background for this claim: As it is written: “And they stood at the nether part of the mount” (Exodus 19:17), and Rav Dimi bar Ḥama says: The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, overturned the mountain, i.e., Mount Sinai, above the Jews like a basin, and He said to them: If you accept the Torah, excellent, and if not, there, under the mountain, will be your burial. The nations of the world will claim that they too could have been coerced to accept the Torah.

דכתיב )שמות יט, יז( ויתיצבו בתחתית ההר ואמר רב דימי בר חמא מלמד שכפה הקב"ה הר כגיגית על ישראל ואמר להם אם אתם מקבלין את התורה מוטב ואם לאו שם תהא קבורתכם

Immediately, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them: The first commandments will let us hear the truth, as it is stated in the continuation of the same verse under discussion: “And announce to us the first things” (Isaiah 43:9). With regard to the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah that preceded the giving of the Torah that even you accepted, where is the proof that you fulfilled them?

מיד אומר להם הקב"ה הראשונות ישמיעונו שנא' )ישעיהו מג, ט( וראשונות ישמיענו שבע מצות שקיבלתם היכן קיימתם

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that they did not fulfill them? As Rav Yosef teaches in explanation of the verse: “He stands, and shakes the earth, He sees, and makes the nations tremble [vayater]” (Habakkuk 3:6): What did God see? He saw the seven commandments that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves, and He saw that they did not fulfill them. Since they did not fulfill them, He arose and nullified for them [vehitiran] the command to heed these commandments. The Gemara asks: Do they gain from not obeying, as they are now released from the obligation to fulfill these commandments? If so, we find that a sinner profits from his transgression.

ומנלן דלא קיימום דתני רב יוסף )חבקוק ג, ו( עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים מאי ראה ראה ז' מצות שקבלו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום כיון שלא קיימום עמד והתירן להן איתגורי איתגור א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר

Avodah Zarah 3a This serves to say that even if they fulfill the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah they do not receive a reward for their fulfilment.

לומר שאף על פי שמקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהם שכר

The Gemara asks: And are they not rewarded for fulfilling those commandments? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a non-jew who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? The verse states: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a person do, and shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is not stated: Priests, Levites, and Israelites, but rather the general term “person.” From here you learn that even a non-jew who engages in the study of Torah is like a High Priest. This demonstrates that non-jews are rewarded for fulfilling commandments, despite the fact that they are not commanded to do so.

ולא והתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר מנין שאפילו עובד כוכבים ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול תלמוד לומר )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

Rather, the verse serves to tell you that they do not receive as great a reward for their fulfillment as one who is commanded and performs a commandment. Rather, they receive a lesser reward, like that of one who is not commanded and still performs a commandment. As Rabbi Ḥanina says: Greater is one who is commanded to do a commandment and performs it than one who is not commanded and performs it.

אלא לומר לך שאין מקבלין עליהם שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דאמר ר' חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר משאינו מצווה ועושה

The Gemara returns to the discussion between God and the nations of the world, whose claims are rejected with the rebuttal that they did not receive the Torah because they did not fulfill the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah that were incumbent upon them. Rather, this is what the non-jews say before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, as for the Jewish people who accepted the Torah, where is the evidence that they fulfilled its commandments?

אלא כך אומרים העובדי כוכבים לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע ישראל שקיבלוה היכן קיימוה

The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them in response: I will testify about the Jewish people that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. The nations say before Him: Master of the Universe, is there a father who can testify about his son? As it is written: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22). Since God is considered the Father of the Jewish people, He is disqualified from testifying on their behalf. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: Heaven and earth will testify about them that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety.

אמר להם הקב"ה אני מעיד בהם שקיימו את התורה כולה אומרים לפניו רבש"ע כלום יש אב שמעיד על בנו דכתיב )שמות ד, כב( בני בכורי ישראל אמר להם הקב"ה שמים וארץ יעידו בהם שקיימו את התורה כולה

The nations say before Him: Master of the Universe, in this matter the testimony of heaven and earth is tainted by a conflict of interest, as it is stated: “If My covenant be not with day and night, I would not have appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). And concerning this verse, Rabbi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31)? This teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, established a condition with the acts of Creation, and said: If the Jewish people accept My Torah at the revelation at Sinai, all is well, but if they do not accept it, I will return you to the primordial state of chaos and disorder.

אומרים לפניו רבש"ע שמים וארץ נוגעין בעדותן שנאמ' )ירמיהו לג, כה( אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי )דאר"ש( ]ואר"ש[ בן לקיש מאי דכתיב )בראשית א, לא( ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום הששי מלמד שהתנה הקב"ה עם מעשה בראשית ואמר אם ישראל מקבלין את תורתי מוטב ואם לאו אני אחזיר אתכם לתוהו ובוהו

And this is similar to that which Ḥizkiyya says with regard to a different matter: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You caused sentence to be heard from heaven; the earth feared, and was silent” (Psalms 76:9)? If the earth feared, why was it silent, and if it was silent, why did it fear? One who is afraid does not stay silent, and one who remains silent thereby demonstrates that he is not afraid. Rather, this is the meaning of the verse: At first, when God came to give the Torah to the Jewish people, the earth feared that they might not accept it, and it would

be destroyed. This is alluded to by the phrase “You caused sentence to be heard.” But ultimately, when the Jews accepted the Torah, the earth was silent. Consequently, heaven and earth are interested parties and cannot testify about the Jewish people’s commitment to the Torah.

והיינו דאמר חזקיה מאי דכתיב )תהלים עו, ט( משמים השמעת דין ארץ יראה ושקטה אם יראה למה שקטה ואם שקטה למה יראה אלא בתחלה יראה ולבסוף שקטה

Instead, the Holy One, Blessed be He, says to the nations: Let the witnesses come from among you and testify that the Jewish people fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. Let Nimrod come and testify about Abraham that he did not engage in idol worship. Let Laban come and testify about Jacob that he is not suspect with regard to robbery (see Genesis 31:36–42). Let the wife of Potiphar come and testify about Joseph that he is not suspect with regard to the sin of adultery (see Genesis 39:7–12).

אמר להם הקב"ה מכם יבאו ויעידו בהן בישראל שקיימו את התורה כולה יבא נמרוד ויעיד באברהם שלא עבד עבודת כוכבים יבא לבן ויעיד ביעקב שלא נחשד על הגזל תבא אשת פוטיפרע ותעיד ביוסף שלא נחשד על העבירה

Let Nebuchadnezzar come and testify about Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah that they did not prostrate themselves before a graven image. Let Darius come and testify about Daniel that he did not neglect his prayer (see Daniel 6). Let Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite, and Eliphaz the Temanite, and Elihu, son of Barachel, the Buzite, friends of Job (see Job 2:11 and 32:2) come and testify about the Jewish people that they fulfilled the Torah in its entirety. As it is stated: “All the nations are gathered together…let them bring their witnesses, that they may be justified” (Isaiah 43:9), i.e., the gathered non-jews will submit testimony on behalf of the Jewish people and demonstrate the Jews’ righteousness.

יבא נבוכד נצר ויעיד בחנניה מישאל ועזריה שלא השתחוו לצלם יבא דריוש ויעיד בדניאל שלא ביטל את התפלה יבא בלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ואליפז התימני ואליהו בן ברכאל הבוזי ויעידו בהם בישראל שקיימו את כל התורה כולה שנאמר )ישעיהו מג, ט( יתנו עידיהם ויצדקו

The non-jews say before Him: Master of the Universe, give us the Torah afresh and we will perform its commandments. The Holy One, Blessed be He, says to them in response: Fools of the world! Do you think you can request this? One who takes pains on Shabbat eve will eat on Shabbat, but one who did not take pains on Shabbat eve, from where will he eat on Shabbat? The opportunity for performing commandments has already passed, and it is now too late to ask to perform them. But even so, I have an easy commandment to fulfill, and its name is sukka; go and perform it.

אמרו לפניו רבש"ע תנה לנו מראש ונעשנה אמר להן הקב"ה שוטים שבעולם מי שטרח בערב שבת יאכל בשבת מי שלא טרח בערב שבת מהיכן יאכל בשבת אלא אף על פי כן מצוה קלה יש לי וסוכה שמה לכו ועשו אותה

The Gemara asks: And how can you say so, that it is possible to perform a commandment after the end of this world? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “You shall therefore keep the commandment, and the statutes, and the ordinances, which I command you this day, to do them” (Deuteronomy 7:11)? This verse teaches that today, in this world, is the time to do them, but tomorrow, in the World-to-Come, is not the time to do them. Furthermore, today is the time to do them, but today is not the time to receive one’s reward, which is granted in the World-to-Come.

ומי מצית אמרת הכי והא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב )דברים ז, יא( אשר אנכי מצוך היום היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא היום ליטול שכר

The Gemara explains: But even so, God gave the nations an opportunity to perform a commandment, as The Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically [beteruneya] with His creations, but wants them to feel that they have been judged fairly. The Gemara asks: And why does God call the commandment of sukka an easy commandment to fulfill? Because performing the commandment involves no monetary loss.

אלא שאין הקב"ה בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו ואמאי קרי ליה מצוה קלה משום דלית ביה חסרון כיס

Immediately, each and every non-jew will take materials and go and construct a sukka on top of his roof. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, will set upon them the heat [makdir] of the sun in the season of Tammuz, i.e., the

summer, and each and every one who is sitting in his sukka will be unable to stand the heat, and he will kick his sukka and leave, as it is stated: “Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us” (Psalms 2:3). The Gemara asks: Why does God heat the sun over them? But didn’t you say that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not deal tyrannically with His creations? The Gemara answers: This is not considered dealing tyrannically with the non-jews, because for the Jewish people as well, there are times

מיד כל אחד ]ואחד[ נוטל והולך ועושה סוכה בראש גגו והקדוש ברוך הוא מקדיר עליהם חמה בתקופת תמוז וכל אחד ואחד מבעט בסוכתו ויוצא שנאמר )תהלים ב, ג( ננתקה את מוסרותימו ונשליכה ממנו עבותימו מקדיר והא אמרת אין הקדוש ברוך הוא בא בטרוניא עם בריותיו משום דישראל נמי זימני

Avodah Zarah 64b This is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement, that a convert and a non-jew are permitted to divide up common property that includes objects of idol worship, said? This is said with regard to property that they inherited; but if they were partners, it is prohibited.

תניא נמי הכי בד"א שירשו אבל נשתתפו אסור

§ The Gemara mentions another discussion among Rav Naḥman, , Avimi bar Pappi, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami. They were sitting again and a dilemma was raised before them: With regard to a non-jew who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah [ger toshav], including the prohibition against engaging in idol worship, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that he can revoke the status of objects of idol worship? Is it the case that one who worships idols can revoke the status of one, but one who does not worship them cannot revoke the status of one? Or perhaps should it be reasoned that anyone who is of the same kind as idol worshippers, i.e., a non-jew, can revoke its status, and a ger toshav is of the same kind as idol worshippers?

הדור יתבו וקמיבעיא להו גר תושב מהו שיבטל עבודת כוכבים דפלח מבטיל דלא פלח לא מבטיל או דלמא כל דבר מיני' מבטיל והאי בר מיניה הוא

Rav Naḥman said to them: It stands to reason that one who worships idols can revoke the status of one, but one who does not worship them cannot revoke the status of one.

אמר להו רב נחמן מסתברא דפלח מבטיל דלא פלח לא מבטיל

The Gemara raises an objection to this ruling from a baraita: In the case of a Jew who found an object of idol worship in the marketplace, as long as it has not yet come into his possession, he can tell a non-jew, and the non- jew can revoke its idolatrous status. Once it has come into his possession, he cannot tell a non-jew and have the non-jew revoke its status. This applies to any non-jew, because the Sages said: A non-jew can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship or that of another non-jew, whether he worships it or whether he does not worship it.

מיתיבי ישראל שמצא עבודת כוכבים בשוק עד שלא באתה לידו אומר לעובד כוכבים ומבטלה משבאתה לידו אינו אומר לעובד כוכבים ומבטלה מפני שאמרו עובד כוכבים מבטל עבודת כוכבים שלו ושל חבירו בין עובדה ובין שאין עובדה

What is meant by the phrase: Worships it, and what is meant by the phrase: Does not worship it? If we say both this and that are referring to a non-jew, this is the same as the previous statement in the baraita, that a non-jew can revoke the status of his own object of idol worship or that of another non-jew, i.e., an object that he worships or one that another non-jew worships. Rather, isn’t it to be understood that the phrase: Worships it, is referring to a non-jew? And what is the meaning of the phrase: Does not worship it? It is referring to a ger toshav, who does not worship any idols. And learn from it that a ger toshav can also revoke the status of objects of idol worship.

מאי עובדה ומאי שאינו עובדה אילימא אידי ואידי עובד כוכבים היינו שלו ושל חבירו אלא לאו עובדה עובד כוכבים ומאי שאינו עובדה גר תושב וש"מ גר תושב נמי מבטל

The Gemara rejects this explanation. No, actually, I will say to you that this phrase and that phrase are both referring to a non-jew, and with regard to that which you say, that this is the same as the statement concerning his

object of idol worship or that of another non-jew, it can be explained as follows: The first clause is referring to a case where both non-jews worship the same idol, e.g., this one and that one both worship Peor, or this one and that one both worship Mercury, and the baraita is teaching that one can revoke the status of an idol that belongs to the other. The latter clause, which distinguishes between one who worships it and one who does not worship it, is referring to a case where this one worships Peor and that one worships Mercury, indicating that an idolater can revoke the status of an idol that he does not worship at all, but only if he is himself an idolater, as opposed to a ger toshav.

לא לעולם אימא לך אידי ואידי עובד כוכבים ודקאמרת היינו שלו ושל חבירו רישא זה וזה לפעור וזה וזה למרקוליס סיפא זה לפעור וזה למרקוליס

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Who is a ger toshav? It is anyone who has accepted upon himself before three ḥaverim, i.e., people devoted to the meticulous observance of commandments, especially halakhot of ritual purity, teruma, and tithes, not to worship idols. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

מיתיבי איזהו גר תושב כל שקיבל עליו בפני ג' חברים שלא לעבוד עבודת כוכבים דברי ר"מ

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

וחכ"א כל שקיבל עליו שבע מצות שקבלו עליהם בני נח

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 commandments that are stated in the Torah except for the prohibition against eating unslaughtered carcasses.

אחרים אומרים אלו לא באו לכלל גר תושב אלא איזהו גר תושב זה גר אוכל נבילות שקבל עליו לקיים כל מצות האמורות בתורה חוץ מאיסור נבילות

The baraita continues: Whatever the definition of a ger toshav, the following halakhot apply to him: One may leave him alone with wine briefly without Jewish supervision with no concern that he might use it for a libation, thereby rendering it forbidden to Jews, as he is not an idol worshipper. But one may not deposit wine with him for an extended period of time, lest he exchange it with the wine of a non-jew, which is forbidden. And this applies even in a town that has a Jewish majority. But one may leave him alone with wine briefly without Jewish supervision even in a town with a majority of non-jews. His oil is treated like his wine in terms of its permissibility.

מייחדין אצלו יין ואין מפקידין אצלו יין ואפי' בעיר שרובה ישראל אבל מייחדין אצלו יין ואפי' בעיר שרובה עובדי כוכבים שמנו כיינו

The Gemara interjects: His oil is like his wine? Can this enter your mind? Does the oil of a non-jew become, i.e., assume the status of, wine used for a libation? Rather, the baraita should be emended as follows: His wine is like his oil. It is permitted to derive benefit from it, but not to consume it.

שמנו כיינו ס"ד שמן מי קא הוי יין נסך אלא יינו כשמנו

The baraita continues: And with regard to all other matters, a ger toshav is treated like a non-jew. Rabban Shimon says: His wine is treated like wine used for a libation. And some say he says: Even drinking it is permitted.

ולשאר כל דבר הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים רבן שמעון אומר יינו יין נסך ואמרי לה מותר בשתיה

The Gemara comments on the baraita: In any event, the baraita teaches: And with regard to all other matters, a ger toshav is treated like a non-jew. With regard to what halakha is this stated? Is it not teaching that he can revoke the status of an object of idol worship as a non-jew can? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: No, it is stated with regard to giving away rights in a domain or renouncing rights in a domain in the context of the halakhot of joining houses in courtyards for Shabbat.

קתני מיהא ולשאר כל דבריו הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים למאי הלכתא לאו דמבטל עבודת כוכבים כעובד כוכבים אר"נ בר יצחק לא ליתן רשות ולבטל רשות

Makkot 9b This Gemara questions that response. Is it the wife of a prophet that is returned, and the wife of one who is not a prophet is not returned?

אשת נביא הוא דתיהדר דלאו נביא לא תיהדר

Rather, the explanation is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This is what God is saying to Abimelech: “And now, restore the man’s wife” (Genesis 20:7), in any case, whether or not he is a prophet. And as for that which you said: “Will You even slay a righteous nation? Didn’t he say to me: She is my sister” (Genesis 20:4–5), claiming that you are a victim of circumstances beyond your control and exempt from punishment, that is not a valid claim. He is a prophet and it is from you that he learned to conduct himself in that manner. With regard to a stranger [akhsenai] who comes to the city, one asks him about matters of eating and drinking, e.g., whether he is hungry or thirsty. Does one ask him: Is that your wife? Is that your sister? Abraham understood from this line of questioning that you are suspect with regard to abducting women, and that is the reason that he introduced Sarah as his sister. Therefore, you are liable to be executed for her abduction.

אלא כדאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן הכי קאמר ליה )בראשית כ, ז( ועתה השב )את( אשת האיש מכל מקום ודקאמרת הגוי גם צדיק תהרוג הלא הוא אמר לי אחותי היא וגו' נביא הוא וממך למד אכסנאי הוא שבא לעיר על עסקי אכילה ושתייה שואלין אותו כלום שואלין אותו אשתך זו אחותך זו

The Gemara comments: From here it is derived that a descendant of Noah, i.e., a non-jew, is executed for a capital offense even if he says that it is permitted, as he should have learned that it is prohibited and he did not learn.

מכאן שבן נח נהרג שהיה לו ללמוד ולא למד :

Makkot 23b The Gemara cites a somewhat similar statement. Rabbi Elazar says: In three places the Divine Spirit appeared before all to affirm that the action taken was appropriate: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel the Ramathite, and in the court of Solomon. The Gemara elaborates: This occurred in the court of Shem, as it is written in the context of the episode of Judah and Tamar: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]” (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamar’s assertion that she was bearing his child was correct? Perhaps, just as he went to her and hired her as a prostitute, another person went to her and hired her as well, and he is not the father. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: It is from Me [mimmenni] that these secrets emerged. God affirmed that her assertion was correct and that it was His divine plan that Judah would father a child from Tamar.

א"ר אלעזר בג' מקומות הופיע רוח הקודש בבית דינו של שם ובבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי ובבית דינו של שלמה בבית דינו של שם דכתיב )בראשית לח, כו( ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני מנא ידע דלמא כי היכי דאזל איהו לגבה אזל נמי אינש אחרינא ]לגבה[ יצאת בת קול ואמרה ממני יצאו כבושים :

Avot 3 He used to say: Beloved is man for he was created in the image [of God]. Especially beloved is he for it was made known to him that he had been created in the image [of God], as it is said: “for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Beloved are Israel in that they were called children to the All-Present. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that they are called children of the All-Present, as it is said: “your are children to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 14:1). Beloved are Israel in that a precious vessel was given to them. Especially beloved are they for it was made known to them that the desirable instrument, with which the world had been created, was given to them, as it is said: “for I give you good instruction; forsake not my teaching” (Proverbs 4:2).

הּואהָיָה אֹומֵר, חָבִיב ָאדָם שֶׁנִבְרָ א בְצֶׁלֶׁם. חִבָה יְתֵרָ ה נֹודַעַת לֹו שֶׁנִבְרָ אבְצֶׁלֶׁם, שֶׁ נֶׁאֱמַר )בראשית ט( כִי בְצֶׁלֶׁם אֱֹלהִים העָשָ אֶׁתהָָאדָם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְרָ אֵל שֶׁ נִקְרְאּו בָנִים לַמָקֹום. חִבָה יְתֵרָ ה נֹודַעַת לָהֶׁם שֶׁ נִקְרְ אּובָנִים לַמָקֹום, שֶׁ נֶׁאֱמַר )דברים

יד( בָנִים אַתֶׁםלַה' אֱֹלהֵיכֶׁם. חֲבִיבִין יִשְרָ אֵלשֶׁ נִתַן לָהֶׁם כְלִי חֶׁמְדָה.חִבָה יְתֵרָ ה נֹודַעַתלָהֶׁם שֶׁ נִתַ ןלָהֶׁם כְלִי חֶׁמְדָה שֶׁ בֹו נִבְרָא הָעֹולָם, שֶׁ נֶׁאֱמַר )משלי ד( כִי לֶׁקַח טֹוב נָתַתִ י לָכֶׁם,תֹורָ תִ יַאל תַעֲזֹבּו :

Everything is foreseen yet freedom of choice is granted, and the world is judged with goodness; And everything is in accordance with the preponderance of works.

הַכֹל צָפּוי, וְהָרְ שּותנְתּונָה, ּובְטֹוב הָעֹולָםנִדֹון. וְהַכֹל לְפִי רֹב הַמַעֲשֶׁ ה :

He used to say: everything is given against a pledge, and a net is spread out over all the living; the store is open and the storekeeper allows credit, but the ledger is open and the hand writes, and whoever wishes to borrow may come and borrow; but the collectors go round regularly every day and exact dues from man, either with his consent or without his consent, and they have that on which they [can] rely [in their claims], seeing that the judgment is a righteous judgment, and everything is prepared for the banquet.

הּואהָיָה אֹומֵר, הַכֹלנָתּון בְעֵרָ בֹון, ּומְצּודָה פְרּוסָה עַל כָל הַחַיִים. הַחֲנּות פְתּוחָה, וְהַחֶׁנְוָנִי מֵקִיף, וְהַפִנְקָס פָתּוחַ, וְהַיָד כֹותֶׁבֶׁת, וְכָל הָרֹוצֶׁהלִלְוֹות יָבֹא וְיִלְוֶׁה, וְהַגַבָאִיםמַחֲזִירִ ים תָדִיר בְכָל יֹום, וְנִפְרָ עִין מִן הָָאדָםמִדַעְתֹו וְשֶׁ ֹּלא מִדַעְתֹו, וְיֵש לָהֶׁם עַל מַה שֶׁ יִסְמֹכּו, וְהַדִין דִין אֱמֶׁת, וְהַכֹל מְתֻקָן לַסְעּודָה :

Chullin 13b The Master said in the mishna: Slaughter performed by a non-jew renders the animal an unslaughtered carcass. The Gemara challenges this: And let us be concerned that perhaps he is a heretic who is a devout idolater and deriving benefit from his slaughter is prohibited. Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are no such heretics among the nations of the world.

אמר מר שחיטת עובד כוכבים נבלה וניחוש שמא מין הוא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אין מינין באומות עובדי כוכבים

The Gemara asks: But don’t we see that there are? The Gemara answers: Say the majority of the people of the nations of the world are not heretics, and with regard to slaughter one follows the majority. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar Avuh holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The status of non-jews outside of Eretz Yisrael is not that of idol worshippers, as their worship is not motivated by faith and devotion. Rather, it is a traditional custom of their ancestors that was transmitted to them.

והא קאחזינן דאיכא אימא אין רוב עובדי כוכבים מינין סבר לה כי הא דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן נכרים שבחוצה לארץ לאו עובדי עבודת כוכבים הן אלא מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן

Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Naḥman says: There are no heretics among the nations of the world, i.e., non-jew heretics do not have the halakhic status of actual heretics. The Gemara asks: With regard to what matter did Rav Naḥman state the halakha? If we say that it is with regard to slaughter, now that you said the slaughter of a Jewish heretic is forbidden, is it necessary to say the slaughter of a non-jew heretic is forbidden? Rather, it is with regard to the halakha that one lowers them into a pit, i.e., one may kill a heretic, and Rav Naḥman holds that one may not kill them. But this too is difficult, as now if one lowers a Jewish heretic into a pit, is it necessary to say that one lowers a non-jew heretic?

אמר רב יוסף בר מניומי אמר רב נחמן אין מינין באומות עובדי כוכבים למאי אילימא לשחיטה השתא שחיטת מין דישראל אמרת אסירא דעובד כוכבים מבעיא אלא למורידין השתא דישראל מורידין דעובדי כוכבים מבעיא

Rav Ukva bar Ḥama said: It is stated with regard to accepting an offering from them, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “When any person of you shall bring an offering” (Leviticus 1:2): The verse states: “Of you,” and not: Of all of you, to exclude the Jewish transgressor who regularly violates a prohibition. Furthermore, God states: “Of you,” to mean that among you, the Jews, I distinguished between a transgressor and other Jews, but not among the nations. One accepts an offering from all non-jews, even a heretic.

אמר רב עוקבא בר חמא לקבל מהן קרבן דתניא )ויקרא א, ב( מכם ולא כולכם להוציא את המומר מכם בכם חלקתי ולא בעובדי כוכבים

The Gemara asks: From where do you draw that conclusion? Perhaps this is what the verse is saying: With regard to offerings from Jews, from righteous Jews accept the offering and from wicked Jews do not accept the offering; but with regard to the nations of the world, do not accept their offerings at all. The Gemara rejects that possibility: That should not enter your mind, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Any man [ish ish] from the house of Israel…who shall sacrifice his offering” (Leviticus 22:18): Since it would have been sufficient to write: A man [ish], what is the meaning when the verse states: “Any man [ish ish]”? It serves to include the non-jews, who may vow to bring vow offerings and gift offerings like a Jew.

ממאי דלמא הכי קאמר מישראל מצדיקי קבל מרשיעי לא תקבל אבל בעובדי כוכבים כלל כלל לא לא ס"ד דתניא איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות העובדי כוכבים שנודרים נדרים ונדבות כישראל:

§ The mishna states with regard to an animal slaughtered by a non-jew: And the carcass imparts ritual impurity through carrying. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? Since it is considered an unslaughtered carcass it imparts ritual impurity through carrying. Rava said that this is what the tanna is teaching: This slaughtered animal imparts ritual impurity through carrying, and you have another animal that imparts impurity even in a tent, i.e., if one is beneath the same roof with this animal he becomes impure even though he neither touched it nor carried it. And which animal is that? That animal is an idolatrous offering, and this statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira cited below.

ומטמאה במשא: פשיטא כיון דנבלה היא מטמאה במשא אמר רבא הכי קתני זו מטמאה במשא ויש לך אחרת שהיא מטמאה אפילו באהל ואיזו זו תקרובת עבודת כוכבים וכרבי יהודה בן בתירא :

Chullin 91a And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, also said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the steward of his house: Bring the men into the house, and slaughter the animals, and prepare the meat; for the men shall dine with me at noon” (Genesis 43:16)? Joseph commanded his steward: Expose the place of the slaughter on the neck of the animal to them so that the brothers will know that it is being slaughtered correctly. “And prepare” teaches that Joseph instructed the steward to remove the sciatic nerve in their presence so that the brothers would know that it had been fully removed. The Gemara comments that this opinion is according to the one who said that the sciatic nerve was forbidden to the children of Jacob even before the Torah was given, when they still had the status of descendants of Noah.

ואמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא מאי דכתיב )בראשית מג, טז( וטבוח טבח והכן פרע להן בית השחיטה והכן טול גיד הנשה בפניהם כמ"ד גיד הנשה נאסר לבני נח

The Gemara returns to the verse of Jacob wrestling with the angel. The verse states: “And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day” (Genesis 32:25). Rabbi Elazar says: The reason Jacob remained alone was that he remained to collect some small pitchers that had been left behind. From here it is derived that the possessions of the righteous are dearer to them than their bodies. And why do they care so much about their possessions? It is because they do not stretch out their hands to partake of stolen property.

(בראשית לב, כה( ויותר יעקב לבדו אמר רבי אלעזר שנשתייר על פכין קטנים מכאן לצדיקים שחביב עליהם ממונם יותר מגופם וכל כך למה לפי שאין פושטין ידיהן בגזל

Chullin 92a Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But is a person shown in a dream what was in the past? Isn’t it true that one is shown only what will be in the future? Since the patriarchs, matriarchs, and sons of Jacob were all born prior to this dream, the dream was not alluding to them. Rather, the verse should be interpreted as follows: “Vine”; this is a reference to the Torah. “Three branches”; these are Moses, Aaron, and Miriam. “And as it was budding, its blossoms shot forth”; these are the members of the Sanhedrin. “And its clusters brought forth ripe grapes”; these are the righteous people who live in each and every generation.

אמר לו רבי יהושע וכי מראין לו לאדם מה שהיה והלא אין מראין לו לאדם אלא מה שעתיד להיות אלא גפן זה תורה שלשה שריגים אלו משה ואהרן ומרים והיא כפורחת עלתה נצה אלו סנהדרין הבשילו אשכלותיה ענבים אלו הצדיקים שבכל דור ודור

And this is as Rava said: Why are there three cups stated with regard to Egypt in the dream of Pharaoh’s butler (see Genesis 40:11)? They are an allusion to three cups of misfortune that would later befall Egypt: One that Egypt drank in the days of Moses during the ten plagues and the Exodus; one that Egypt drank in the days of Pharaoh Nekho, the king of Egypt defeated by Nebuchadnezzar; and one that Egypt will drink in the future with all the other nations, when they are punished in the time of the Messiah.

והיינו דאמר רבא שלשה כוסות האמורות במצרים למה אחד ששתה בימי משה ואחד ששתה בימי פרעה נכה ואחד שעתידה לשתות עם כל העובדי כוכבים

Rabbi Yehuda says: These are the thirty righteous individuals among the nations of the world, in whose merit the nations of the world continue to exist. Ulla says: These are the thirty commandments that the descendants of Noah initially accepted upon themselves; but they fulfill only three of them. One of these three commandments is

רבי יהודה אומר אלו שלשים צדיקי אומות העולם שאומות העולם מתקיימים עליהם עולא אמר אלו שלשים מצות שקבלו עליהם בני נח ואין מקיימין אלא שלשה אחת

Chullin 92b that they do not write a marriage contract for a wedding between two males; although they violate the prohibition against engaging in homosexuality, they are not so brazen as to write a marriage contract as for a regular marriage. And one of the three commandments is that although they are suspected of eating human beings, they do not weigh the flesh of the dead in butcher shops [bemakkulin] and sell it publicly; and one is that they honor the Torah.

שאין כותבין כתובה לזכרים ואחת שאין שוקלין בשר המת במקולין ואחת שמכבדין את התורה :

Chullin 102a The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that a prohibition takes effect upon an already existing, less stringent prohibition, why does he need to derive this from a verse? Let the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal come and take effect on the prohibition of eating meat from a non-kosher animal, as it is more stringent since its prohibition applies also to descendants of Noah, i.e., non-jews.

ור' יהודה למה ליה קרא ליתי איסור אבר ליחול על איסור טומאה שכן איסורו נוהג בבני נח

Rav Giddel says that Rav says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Eliezer about whether the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living animal applies with regard to non-kosher species is only with regard to Jews. But with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., non-jews, everyone agrees that they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living non-kosher species of animal just like they are prohibited from eating a limb from a living kosher species.

אמר רב גידל אמר רב מחלוקת בישראל אבל בבן נח דברי הכל מוזהר על הטמאין כטהורין

The Gemara comments that this is also taught in a baraita: A descendant of Noah is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal from non-kosher species just as from kosher species. But a Jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living animal of kosher species only.

תניא נמי הכי אבר מן החי בן נח מוזהר עליו על הטמאים כטהורים וישראל אינו מוזהר אלא על הטהורין בלבד

Rav Sheizvi said: We learn in the mishna as well that a non-jew is prohibited from eating a limb from a living being even with regard to non-kosher species (Teharot 1:3): If one ate a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, he does not incur forty lashes, and slaughter does not purify it, i.e., cause it to become permitted for consumption.

אמר רב שיזבי אף אנן נמי תנינא אכל אבר מן החי ממנה אינו סופג ארבעים ואין שחיטה מטהרתה

Rav Sheizvi clarifies: With regard to what case does the mishna issue this ruling? If we say that it is referring to a Jew who ate the limb, it is obvious that slaughter does not purify it, because it is a non-kosher species and cannot

be made kosher. Rather is it not referring to descendants of Noah and teaching that even after the bird is slaughtered the limb severed while it was alive remains forbidden? By inference, it is clear from the mishna that it is prohibited for a non-jew to eat a limb severed from a living being even from a non-kosher species.

במאי אילימא בישראל פשיטא דאין שחיטה מטהרתה אלא לאו בבני נח מכלל דאסור

Rabbi Mani bar Pattish raises a contradiction between the first clause of that mishna, which states that one does not receive lashes for eating a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird, and the latter clause of the mishna, which states that a limb severed from a living non-kosher bird remains forbidden after the bird is slaughtered. The first clause indicates that the prohibition of eating a limb severed from a living creature applies only to kosher species, while the latter clause indicates that it applies also to non-kosher species. And he answers this contradiction by explaining that the first clause is referring to a Jew and the latter clause is referring to a descendant of Noah.

רבי מני בר פטיש רמי רישא אסיפא ומשני רישא בישראל וסיפא בבן נח

Chullin 103a And if you wish, say instead that everyone agrees that during its life an animal does not stand to be divided into limbs, and they disagree with regard to whether the prohibition of a limb from a living animal comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of a tereifa. One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal, which applies to non-jews as well as to Jews, comes and takes effect upon the already existing prohibition of eating a tereifa. And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, holds that the prohibition of eating a limb from a living animal does not come and take effect upon the already existing prohibition of eating a tereifa.

ואיבעית אימא דכ"ע בהמה בחייה לאו לאברים עומדת ובמיתי איסור אבר מיחל אאיסור טרפה קא מיפלגי מר סבר אתי איסור אבר חייל אאיסור טרפה ומר סבר לא אתי איסור אבר חייל אאיסור טרפה

Glossary

Gemara: Popularly applied to the Babylonian Talmud as a whole, to discussions by rabbinic teachers on Mishnah, and to decisions reached in these discussions. In a more restricted sense, the work of the generations of the in “completing” Mishnah to produce the Talmud.

Mishnah: The first compilation of the oral law, authored by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi (approx. 200 C.E.); the germinal statements of law elucidated by the Gemara, together with which they constitute the Talmud; also, a single statement of law from this work.

Talmud: the basic compendium of Jewish law and thought; its tractates mainly comprise the discussions collectively known as the Gemara, which elucidate the germinal statements of law (mishnayot) collectively known as the Mishnah; when unspecified refers to the Talmud Bavli, the edition developed in Babylonia, and edited at the end of the fifth century C.E.; the Talmud Yerushalmi is the edition compiled in the Land of Israel at the end of the fourth century C.E.