Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 11, 2017 | 讻壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Sanhedrin 57

Which commandments are included in the Noachide laws?聽 What is the punishment for one who doesn’t abide by them? Is the punishment the same for all of them? Even though Jews are commanded also to keep the same laws, various details about them are different. The gemara discusses a number of differences.

讚讻转讬讘 讜转砖讞转 讛讗专抓 诇驻谞讬 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 壮讛砖讞转讛壮 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 壮讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜壮 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 壮驻谉 转砖讞转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐壮 讜讙讜壮

as it is written: 鈥淎nd the earth was corrupt before God鈥 (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: 鈥淔or all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12); the word 鈥渨ay鈥 alludes to sexual intercourse. And corruption also refers to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:16).

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 诪讙诇讬

The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna鈥檌m, who do not derive from the verse 鈥淎nd the earth was corrupt before God鈥 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.

砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讗讬讚讱 拽讟诇讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚拽诪讙诇讬

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: 鈥淥ne who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6). The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna鈥檌m 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.

讙讝诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬专拽 注砖讘 谞转转讬 诇讻诐 讗转 讻诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讻讬专拽 注砖讘 讜诇讗 讻讬专拽 讙谞讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讘砖专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The prohibition of robbery is stated, according to the school of Menashe, as it is written: 鈥淓very moving thing that is alive shall be for food for you; like the green herbs I have given you all鈥 (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鈥檚 owner alone. This indicates that robbery is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna鈥檌m interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, that verse comes to permit the consumption of meat.

讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讘砖专 讘谞驻砖讜 讚诪讜 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 砖专爪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is stated in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淥nly flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat鈥 (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鈥檌m 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).

住讬专讜住 讚讻转讬讘 砖专爪讜 讘讗专抓 讜专讘讜 讘讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诇讘专讻讛 讘注诇诪讗

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

讻诇讗讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讛注讜祝 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇爪讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 (讙砖专 住讬诪谉) 注诇 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜注诇 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜注诇 讘专讻转 讛砖诐

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

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讛谞讱 诪谞讗 诇讛讜

Rav Sheshet objects to this statement: Granted, a descendant of Noah is executed for bloodshed, as it is written: 鈥淥ne who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed鈥 (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?

讗讬 讙诪专 诪砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转专讘讗讬 诪讗讬砖 讗讬砖 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转专讘讬 诪讗讬砖 讗讬砖

If they derive it from the punishment for bloodshed by means of an analogy, then descendants of Noah should be executed even if they transgressed any of the other Noahide mitzvot. If they are executed because they are included in the term 鈥渁nyone鈥 and similarly, the term 鈥渘o one鈥 stated with regard to these two prohibitions, as it is stated with regard to cursing the name of God: 鈥淎nyone who curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), and it is stated with regard to forbidden sexual relations: 鈥淣o one shall approach any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6), then gentiles should be executed for idol worship too, as they are included in the term 鈥渁nyone鈥 stated in that context (see Leviticus 20:2).

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 注诇 讗专讘注 诪爪讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙

Rather, Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yosef鈥檚 version should be rejected, and that this is what they say in the study hall: A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing four mitzvot; the three that were listed, and idol worship.

讜注诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛谉 讗讝讛专讛 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讝讛专讛 砖诇讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讬转转谉

The Gemara asks: And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn鈥檛 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Their prohibition is their death penalty. Since the only punishment mentioned in the Torah for transgressing a Noahide mitzva is execution, any descendant of Noah who transgresses is liable to be executed.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讜诇讛讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 注诇 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讞讚讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛讜

Rav Huna, Rav Yehuda, and all of the other students of Rav say: A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing any of the seven Noahide mitzvot; the Merciful One revealed this punishment with regard to one mitzva, the prohibition of bloodshed, and the same is true with regard to all of them.

讜注诇 讛讙讝诇 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讜讛转谞讬讗 注诇 讛讙讝诇 讙谞讘 讜讙讝诇 讜讻谉 讬驻转 转讜讗专 讜讻谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讜谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讜讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 讞讬讬讘

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

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 诪讜转专 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讜专

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

讜讛讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讬讜讘讗 诪讬转谞讗 拽转谞讬 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 注诇 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讜谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 驻讟讜专

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

讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 诇讬转谞讬 讗住讜专 讜诪讜转专 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讻专讬 讜专讜注讬 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讗 诪注诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

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

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘讙讝诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讜注诇 讘讻专诐

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of a laborer working in a vineyard who eats from the fruit of the vineyard; his action is similar to robbery, and it is prohibited for a gentile to do so.

驻讜注诇 讘讻专诐 讗讬诪转 讗讬 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讛转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讙讝诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

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

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讛讗 讘专 诪讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讛讬 讚讘转专 讛讻讬 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 爪注专讗 讘砖注转讬讛 诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛

Rather, Rav Pappa says that the mention in the baraita of actions similar to robbery is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who robs another of less than the value of one peruta. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the baraita state that it is prohibited for a gentile to do so to a Jew? Isn鈥檛 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.

谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪讞讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讝诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

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

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讜谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 诪讜转专

Rather, Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says that there is a different explanation: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted. This case is less obvious than other types of robbery, as instead of taking an item from the victim, the robber withholds money that is due to the victim.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讬驻转 转讜讗专 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 谞讞 砖讬讬讞讚 砖驻讞讛 诇注讘讚讜 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 谞讛专讙 注诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies further: What is the action that is similar to engaging in intercourse with a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war, to which the baraita is referring? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina 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鈥檚 full-fledged wife, nevertheless, he is guilty of adultery.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讚砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜诇讗 讛爪讬诇

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,

谞讛专讙 注诇讬讜

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

讗砖讻讞 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讞讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 讗讙讚转讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讘讚讬讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讘注讚 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讘讛转专讗讛 诪驻讬 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪驻讬 讗砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讜讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讗祝 注诇 讛注讜讘专讬谉

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar A岣 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.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讱 讗转 讚诪讻诐 诇谞驻砖转讬讻诐 讗讚专砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬讬谉 讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says: They are derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 brother, I will require the life of man鈥 (Genesis 9:5). It is derived from the term 鈥淚 will require,鈥 which is stated in the singular, that a descendant of Noah is executed on the basis of the verdict of even one judge.

诪讬讚 讻诇 讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讛转专讗讛 讗讚专砖谞讜 讜诪讬讚 讛讗讚诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚 诪讬讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚 讗砖讛 讗讞讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讜讘

It is derived from the phrase 鈥渁t the hand of every animal鈥 that one is executed even without forewarning, as an animal certainly cannot forewarn someone. It is derived from the phrase 鈥淚 will require it; and at the hand of man,鈥 with 鈥淚鈥 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 鈥渁t the hand of every man,鈥 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 鈥渉is brother鈥 that the testimony of the witness is accepted even if he is a relative of the defendant.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讗祝 注诇 讛注讜讘专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讻转讬讘 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讘讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬 讗诪讜

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: 鈥淥ne who sheds the blood of a person, by a person [ba鈥檃dam] his blood shall be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6). The word ba鈥檃dam 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鈥檚 womb. Accordingly, a descendant of Noah is liable for killing a fetus.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞谞拽 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讘讗讚诐 讗住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讚专讜砖 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱 讗讬讝讛讜 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 讗讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞谞拽

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: 鈥淚n a person,鈥 and explain it with regard to the latter part of the verse, and interpret it homiletically like this: 鈥淚n a person, his blood shall be shed.鈥 In what manner is a person鈥檚 blood shed while it is in the person鈥檚 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讗砖讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讚注转讬讜 诇诪注谉 讗砖专 讬爪讜讛 讜讙讜壮

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the statement in the book of Aggadot that a descendant of Noah can be judged or testified against only by a man and not by a woman: And is a woman who is a descendant of Noah not commanded to establish courts of judgment? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to Abraham, who at that point had the status of a descendant of Noah: 鈥淔or 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鈥 (Genesis 18:19). The word 鈥渉ousehold鈥 is referring to the women, indicating that they are also commanded to execute justice.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘谞讬讜 诇讚讬谉 讘讬转讜 诇爪讚拽讛

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].

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 讘转 谞讞 砖讛专讙讛 诇讗 转讬讛专讙 诪讬讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚 讗砖讛 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淎t the hand of every man,鈥 and not 鈥渁t the hand of every woman鈥? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what Rav Yehuda says: It is derived from the phrase 鈥渙ne who sheds the blood of a person鈥 that one who murders is liable to be executed in any case, whether that person is male or female.

讗讬诪讗 讘转 谞讞 砖讝讬谞转讛 诇讗 转讬讛专讙 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 讬注讝讘 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讬讜 诇讘砖专 讗讞讚 讛讚专 注专讘讬谞讛讜 拽专讗

Rav Avya asked further: Why not say that a female descendant of Noah who committed adultery should not be executed, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall be one flesh.鈥 The verse then combines men and women, indicating that the same halakha applies to both.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬诐 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淣o one [ish ish] shall approach any that is kin to him, to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6): The verse could have stated: One [ish] shall not approach. Why must the verse state 鈥渘o one鈥? It is to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from engaging in forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讗诪专 讝讛 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转

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: 鈥淎nd the Lord God commanded the man, saying鈥 (Genesis 2:16), this alludes to forbidden sexual relations (see 56b).

讛转诐 讘注专讬讜转 讚讬讚讛讜 讜讛讻讗 讘注专讬讜转 讚讬讚谉 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘讗 注诇 注专讬讜转 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: There, the verse is referring to their women, gentiles, with whom relations are forbidden. And here it is referring to our women, Jews, with whom relations are forbidden. In other words, a gentile who engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman is liable. As it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: If a gentile engages in intercourse with those Jewish women with whom relations are forbidden, i.e., a married Jewish woman, he is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇注讚讛 讜注讚讬诐 讜讛转专讗讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this gentile judged according to the halakhot of the Jews? Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讙专注 讙专注

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

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讚诇讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚谉

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The statement of the baraita is necessary only to teach the halakha in the case of a gentile who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, which does not apply to gentiles. By halakha, only marriage applies to gentiles, not betrothal. Therefore, we judge them according to our halakha in that case.

讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讗 注诇 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞谞拽 讜讗讬 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 住讬讬祝 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to gentiles who engage in intercourse with a married Jewish woman, do we judge them according to their halakha? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a gentile engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, he is punished by stoning; if he engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman he is punished by strangulation? The Gemara explains its question: And if they are judged according to their halakha, he would be executed by the sword.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讚拽转谞讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讚诇讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: What is the meaning of the phrase: A married woman, which the tanna teaches? It is referring to a case where the woman had entered the wedding canopy but had not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband, in which case she is considered married according to the halakhot that apply to Jews but not according to the halakhot that apply to gentiles. Since with regard to gentiles, marriage has not yet taken effect, we judge them according to our halakhot. Therefore, a gentile who engages in intercourse with such a Jewish woman is executed by strangulation.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘注讜诇转 讘注诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉

As Rabbi 岣nina teaches: Gentiles can have the status of a married woman who has engaged in intercourse with her husband, i.e., such a woman is considered married according to their laws, but they cannot have the status of a married woman who has entered the wedding canopy but has not engaged in intercourse with her husband.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 注专讜讛 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讘讛 注专讬讜转 讬砖 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讘讗 注诇 注专讬讜转 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗 注诇 注专讬讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讘谉 谞讞 讜讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讘诇讘讚

If a gentile engages in intercourse with those Jews with whom relations are forbidden, he is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews. If he engages in intercourse with those descendants of Noah with whom relations are forbidden, he is judged according to the halakhot of the descendants of Noah. And we have only the case of a betrothed young woman as a case where a gentile is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞谞拽 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞谞拽 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna also count the case of a woman who had entered the wedding canopy but had not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband. The Gemara explains: This tanna is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who says that all death penalties stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are referring to nothing other than strangulation, and since the punishment in Jewish halakha for engaging in intercourse with a married woman is also strangulation, both this punishment and that punishment are strangulation; there is no difference between the halakha for Jews and the halakha for gentiles in such a case.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 注专讜讛 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讙专

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 57

讚讻转讬讘 讜转砖讞转 讛讗专抓 诇驻谞讬 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 壮讛砖讞转讛壮 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 砖谞讗诪专 壮讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜壮 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 壮驻谉 转砖讞转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐壮 讜讙讜壮

as it is written: 鈥淎nd the earth was corrupt before God鈥 (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: 鈥淔or all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12); the word 鈥渨ay鈥 alludes to sexual intercourse. And corruption also refers to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly, and make you a graven image鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:16).

讜讗讬讚讱 讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讚拽讗 诪讙诇讬

The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna鈥檌m, who do not derive from the verse 鈥淎nd the earth was corrupt before God鈥 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.

砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 讜讗讬讚讱 拽讟诇讬讬讛讜 讛讜讗 讚拽诪讙诇讬

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: 鈥淥ne who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6). The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna鈥檌m 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.

讙讝诇 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬专拽 注砖讘 谞转转讬 诇讻诐 讗转 讻诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讜讬 讻讬专拽 注砖讘 讜诇讗 讻讬专拽 讙谞讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 讘砖专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The prohibition of robbery is stated, according to the school of Menashe, as it is written: 鈥淓very moving thing that is alive shall be for food for you; like the green herbs I have given you all鈥 (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鈥檚 owner alone. This indicates that robbery is prohibited. The Gemara asks: And how do the other tanna鈥檌m interpret this verse? The Gemara answers: In their opinion, that verse comes to permit the consumption of meat.

讗讘专 诪谉 讛讞讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讘砖专 讘谞驻砖讜 讚诪讜 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇诪讬砖专讬 砖专爪讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal is stated in the Torah, as it is written: 鈥淥nly flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat鈥 (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鈥檌m 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).

住讬专讜住 讚讻转讬讘 砖专爪讜 讘讗专抓 讜专讘讜 讘讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诇讘专讻讛 讘注诇诪讗

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

讻诇讗讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 诪讛注讜祝 诇诪讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇爪讜转讗 讘注诇诪讗

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

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 注诇 砖诇砖 诪爪讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 (讙砖专 住讬诪谉) 注诇 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜注诇 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讜注诇 讘专讻转 讛砖诐

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

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖砖转 讘砖诇诪讗 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讜讙讜壮 讗诇讗 讛谞讱 诪谞讗 诇讛讜

Rav Sheshet objects to this statement: Granted, a descendant of Noah is executed for bloodshed, as it is written: 鈥淥ne who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed鈥 (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?

讗讬 讙诪专 诪砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇讛讜 谞诪讬 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬转专讘讗讬 诪讗讬砖 讗讬砖 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 讗讬转专讘讬 诪讗讬砖 讗讬砖

If they derive it from the punishment for bloodshed by means of an analogy, then descendants of Noah should be executed even if they transgressed any of the other Noahide mitzvot. If they are executed because they are included in the term 鈥渁nyone鈥 and similarly, the term 鈥渘o one鈥 stated with regard to these two prohibitions, as it is stated with regard to cursing the name of God: 鈥淎nyone who curses his God shall bear his sin鈥 (Leviticus 24:15), and it is stated with regard to forbidden sexual relations: 鈥淣o one shall approach any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6), then gentiles should be executed for idol worship too, as they are included in the term 鈥渁nyone鈥 stated in that context (see Leviticus 20:2).

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 注诇 讗专讘注 诪爪讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙

Rather, Rav Sheshet says that Rav Yosef鈥檚 version should be rejected, and that this is what they say in the study hall: A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing four mitzvot; the three that were listed, and idol worship.

讜注诇 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛谉 讗讝讛专讛 讗讬谉 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗讝讛专讛 砖诇讛谉 讝讜 讛讬讗 诪讬转转谉

The Gemara asks: And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn鈥檛 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 Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: Their prohibition is their death penalty. Since the only punishment mentioned in the Torah for transgressing a Noahide mitzva is execution, any descendant of Noah who transgresses is liable to be executed.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讻讜诇讛讜 转诇诪讬讚讬 讚专讘 讗诪专讬 注诇 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讙诇讬 专讞诪谞讗 讘讞讚讗 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讻讜诇讛讜

Rav Huna, Rav Yehuda, and all of the other students of Rav say: A descendant of Noah is executed for transgressing any of the seven Noahide mitzvot; the Merciful One revealed this punishment with regard to one mitzva, the prohibition of bloodshed, and the same is true with regard to all of them.

讜注诇 讛讙讝诇 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讜讛转谞讬讗 注诇 讛讙讝诇 讙谞讘 讜讙讝诇 讜讻谉 讬驻转 转讜讗专 讜讻谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讜谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讜讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 诪讜转专 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 讞讬讬讘

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

诪砖讜诐 讚拽讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 诪讜转专 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗住讜专

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

讜讛讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讞讬讜讘讗 诪讬转谞讗 拽转谞讬 讚拽转谞讬 专讬砖讗 注诇 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讜谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 驻讟讜专

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

讛转诐 讛讬讻讬 诇讬转谞讬 诇讬转谞讬 讗住讜专 讜诪讜转专 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讻专讬 讜专讜注讬 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 诇讗 诪注诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜专讬讚讬谉

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

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘讙讝诇 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讜注诇 讘讻专诐

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of a laborer working in a vineyard who eats from the fruit of the vineyard; his action is similar to robbery, and it is prohibited for a gentile to do so.

驻讜注诇 讘讻专诐 讗讬诪转 讗讬 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讛转讬专讗 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖注转 讙诪专 诪诇讗讻讛 讙讝诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

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

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讛讗 讘专 诪讞讬诇讛 讛讜讗 谞讛讬 讚讘转专 讛讻讬 诪讞讬诇 诇讬讛 爪注专讗 讘砖注转讬讛 诪讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛

Rather, Rav Pappa says that the mention in the baraita of actions similar to robbery is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who robs another of less than the value of one peruta. The Gemara asks: If so, why does the baraita state that it is prohibited for a gentile to do so to a Jew? Isn鈥檛 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.

谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪讞讬诇讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讝诇 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗

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

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇讻讜讘砖 砖讻专 砖讻讬专 谞讻专讬 讘谞讻专讬 讜谞讻专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗住讜专 讬砖专讗诇 讘谞讻专讬 诪讜转专

Rather, Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, says that there is a different explanation: It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted. This case is less obvious than other types of robbery, as instead of taking an item from the victim, the robber withholds money that is due to the victim.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讬驻转 转讜讗专 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 谞讞 砖讬讬讞讚 砖驻讞讛 诇注讘讚讜 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 谞讛专讙 注诇讬讛

The Gemara clarifies further: What is the action that is similar to engaging in intercourse with a beautiful woman who is a prisoner of war, to which the baraita is referring? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi 岣nina 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鈥檚 full-fledged wife, nevertheless, he is guilty of adultery.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讚砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诪砖讻讞转 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜诇讗 讛爪讬诇

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,

谞讛专讙 注诇讬讜

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

讗砖讻讞 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讞讗 讚讛讜讛 讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 讗讙讚转讗 讚讘讬 专讘 讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 讘讚讬讬谉 讗讞讚 讜讘注讚 讗讞讚 砖诇讗 讘讛转专讗讛 诪驻讬 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪驻讬 讗砖讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讜讘 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讗祝 注诇 讛注讜讘专讬谉

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov bar A岣 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.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讱 讗转 讚诪讻诐 诇谞驻砖转讬讻诐 讗讚专砖 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讬讬谉 讗讞讚

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Yehuda says: They are derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd 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鈥檚 brother, I will require the life of man鈥 (Genesis 9:5). It is derived from the term 鈥淚 will require,鈥 which is stated in the singular, that a descendant of Noah is executed on the basis of the verdict of even one judge.

诪讬讚 讻诇 讞讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讛转专讗讛 讗讚专砖谞讜 讜诪讬讚 讛讗讚诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚 诪讬讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚 讗砖讛 讗讞讬讜 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讜讘

It is derived from the phrase 鈥渁t the hand of every animal鈥 that one is executed even without forewarning, as an animal certainly cannot forewarn someone. It is derived from the phrase 鈥淚 will require it; and at the hand of man,鈥 with 鈥淚鈥 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 鈥渁t the hand of every man,鈥 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 鈥渉is brother鈥 that the testimony of the witness is accepted even if he is a relative of the defendant.

诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专讜 讗祝 注诇 讛注讜讘专讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讻转讬讘 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱 讗讬讝讛讜 讗讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讘讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 注讜讘专 砖讘诪注讬 讗诪讜

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: 鈥淥ne who sheds the blood of a person, by a person [ba鈥檃dam] his blood shall be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6). The word ba鈥檃dam 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鈥檚 womb. Accordingly, a descendant of Noah is liable for killing a fetus.

讜转谞讗 拽诪讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞谞拽 讜砖讚讬 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讘讗讚诐 讗住讬驻讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讚专讜砖 讘讬讛 讛讻讬 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱 讗讬讝讛讜 砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 砖诇 讗讚诐 砖讛讜讗 讘讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讞谞拽

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: 鈥淚n a person,鈥 and explain it with regard to the latter part of the verse, and interpret it homiletically like this: 鈥淚n a person, his blood shall be shed.鈥 In what manner is a person鈥檚 blood shed while it is in the person鈥檚 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讜讗砖讛 诇讗 诪驻拽讚讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻讬 讬讚注转讬讜 诇诪注谉 讗砖专 讬爪讜讛 讜讙讜壮

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to the statement in the book of Aggadot that a descendant of Noah can be judged or testified against only by a man and not by a woman: And is a woman who is a descendant of Noah not commanded to establish courts of judgment? But isn鈥檛 it written with regard to Abraham, who at that point had the status of a descendant of Noah: 鈥淔or 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鈥 (Genesis 18:19). The word 鈥渉ousehold鈥 is referring to the women, indicating that they are also commanded to execute justice.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘谞讬讜 诇讚讬谉 讘讬转讜 诇爪讚拽讛

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].

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讜讬讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬诪讗 讘转 谞讞 砖讛专讙讛 诇讗 转讬讛专讙 诪讬讚 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 诪讬讚 讗砖讛 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

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: 鈥淎t the hand of every man,鈥 and not 鈥渁t the hand of every woman鈥? Rav Pappa said to him: This is what Rav Yehuda says: It is derived from the phrase 鈥渙ne who sheds the blood of a person鈥 that one who murders is liable to be executed in any case, whether that person is male or female.

讗讬诪讗 讘转 谞讞 砖讝讬谞转讛 诇讗 转讬讛专讙 讚讻转讬讘 注诇 讻谉 讬注讝讘 讗讬砖 讜诇讗 讗砖讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讛讬讜 诇讘砖专 讗讞讚 讛讚专 注专讘讬谞讛讜 拽专讗

Rav Avya asked further: Why not say that a female descendant of Noah who committed adultery should not be executed, as it is written: 鈥淭herefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd they shall be one flesh.鈥 The verse then combines men and women, indicating that the same halakha applies to both.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讬砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讬砖 讗讬砖 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讙讜讬讬诐 砖诪讜讝讛专讬谉 注诇 讛注专讬讜转 讻讬砖专讗诇

The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淣o one [ish ish] shall approach any that is kin to him, to uncover their nakedness鈥 (Leviticus 18:6): The verse could have stated: One [ish] shall not approach. Why must the verse state 鈥渘o one鈥? It is to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from engaging in forbidden sexual relations, as Jews are.

讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诇讗诪专 讝讛 讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转

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: 鈥淎nd the Lord God commanded the man, saying鈥 (Genesis 2:16), this alludes to forbidden sexual relations (see 56b).

讛转诐 讘注专讬讜转 讚讬讚讛讜 讜讛讻讗 讘注专讬讜转 讚讬讚谉 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讘讗 注诇 注专讬讜转 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: There, the verse is referring to their women, gentiles, with whom relations are forbidden. And here it is referring to our women, Jews, with whom relations are forbidden. In other words, a gentile who engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman is liable. As it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: If a gentile engages in intercourse with those Jewish women with whom relations are forbidden, i.e., a married Jewish woman, he is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews.

诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇注讚讛 讜注讚讬诐 讜讛转专讗讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this gentile judged according to the halakhot of the Jews? Rav Na岣an 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.

诪讙专注 讙专注

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

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 谞爪专讻讛 讗诇讗 诇谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讚诇讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚谉

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The statement of the baraita is necessary only to teach the halakha in the case of a gentile who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, which does not apply to gentiles. By halakha, only marriage applies to gentiles, not betrothal. Therefore, we judge them according to our halakha in that case.

讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 讘讗 注诇 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 谞讬讚讜谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讞谞拽 讜讗讬 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚讛讜 住讬讬祝 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And with regard to gentiles who engage in intercourse with a married Jewish woman, do we judge them according to their halakha? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If a gentile engages in intercourse with a betrothed young Jewish woman, he is punished by stoning; if he engages in intercourse with a married Jewish woman he is punished by strangulation? The Gemara explains its question: And if they are judged according to their halakha, he would be executed by the sword.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讗讬 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讚拽转谞讬 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讚诇讚讬讚讛讜 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讚讬讬谞讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讘讚讬谞讗 讚讬讚谉

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: What is the meaning of the phrase: A married woman, which the tanna teaches? It is referring to a case where the woman had entered the wedding canopy but had not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband, in which case she is considered married according to the halakhot that apply to Jews but not according to the halakhot that apply to gentiles. Since with regard to gentiles, marriage has not yet taken effect, we judge them according to our halakhot. Therefore, a gentile who engages in intercourse with such a Jewish woman is executed by strangulation.

讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘注讜诇转 讘注诇 讬砖 诇讛谉 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讛谉

As Rabbi 岣nina teaches: Gentiles can have the status of a married woman who has engaged in intercourse with her husband, i.e., such a woman is considered married according to their laws, but they cannot have the status of a married woman who has entered the wedding canopy but has not engaged in intercourse with her husband.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 注专讜讛 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专讘讛 注专讬讜转 讬砖 砖讗讬谉 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 讜讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛谉

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讘讗 注诇 注专讬讜转 讬砖专讗诇 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘讗 注诇 注专讬讜转 讘谉 谞讞 谞讬讚讜谉 讘讚讬谞讬 讘谉 谞讞 讜讗谞讜 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讘诇讘讚

If a gentile engages in intercourse with those Jews with whom relations are forbidden, he is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews. If he engages in intercourse with those descendants of Noah with whom relations are forbidden, he is judged according to the halakhot of the descendants of Noah. And we have only the case of a betrothed young woman as a case where a gentile is judged according to the halakhot of the Jews, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜谞讞砖讜讘 谞诪讬 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诪谞砖讛 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 诇讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讞谞拽 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讞谞拽 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: And let the tanna also count the case of a woman who had entered the wedding canopy but had not yet engaged in intercourse with her husband. The Gemara explains: This tanna is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who says that all death penalties stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are referring to nothing other than strangulation, and since the punishment in Jewish halakha for engaging in intercourse with a married woman is also strangulation, both this punishment and that punishment are strangulation; there is no difference between the halakha for Jews and the halakha for gentiles in such a case.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讻诇 注专讜讛 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬转讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘谉 谞讞 诪讜讝讛专 注诇讬讛 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讙专

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert

Scroll To Top