Sanhedrin 58

Sanhedrin 58

שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה – יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁאֵר הָאֵם, וְאֵין לוֹ שְׁאֵר הָאָב.

who was not conceived in sanctity, as his parents were still gentiles, but his birth was in sanctity, as his mother converted before his birth, he has maternal kinship, i.e., his relationship to his mother’s relatives is recognized, but he does not have paternal kinship.

הָא כֵּיצַד? נָשָׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מִן הָאֵם – יוֹצִיא, מִן הָאָב – יְקַיֵּים. אֲחוֹת הָאָב מִן הָאֵם – יוֹצִיא, מִן הָאָב – יְקַיֵּים.

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

אֲחוֹת הָאֵם מִן הָאֵם – יוֹצִיא. אֲחוֹת הָאֵם מִן הָאָב, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצִיא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יְקַיֵּים. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עֶרְוָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵר אֵם – יוֹצִיא, מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵר הָאָב – יְקַיֵּים.

If she is his mother’s maternal half sister, he must divorce her. If she is his mother’s paternal half sister, Rabbi Meir says he must divorce her, and the Rabbis say he may maintain her as his wife. As Rabbi Meir would say: With regard to any forbidden relative who is forbidden due to maternal kinship, whether the woman is his paternal relative, e.g., his father’s maternal half sister, or his maternal relative, he must divorce her; whereas if she is forbidden due to paternal kinship, he may maintain her as his wife.

וּמוּתָּר בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וּבְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת לוֹ. לְאֵתוֹיֵי אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו.

And according to all opinions, he is permitted to marry his brother’s wife and his father’s brother’s wife, and all other relatives with whom relations are forbidden in the case of born Jew are also permitted to him. The expression: And all other relatives with whom relations are forbidden, is added to include his father’s wife, who is permitted to him if she was widowed or divorced from his father.

נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וּבִתָּהּ, כּוֹנֵס אַחַת וּמוֹצִיא אַחַת. וּלְכַתְּחִילָּה לֹא יִכְנוֹס. מֵתָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, מוּתָּר בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָסוּר בַּחֲמוֹתוֹ.

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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וְהָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

Rav Yehuda says: This is not difficult; this baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and that previously mentioned baraita cites the statement of Rabbi Meir according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל כֵּן יַעֲזׇב אִישׁ אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ״. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״אָבִיו״ – אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, ״אִמּוֹ״ – אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אָבִיו״ – אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו, ״אִמּוֹ״ – אִמּוֹ מַמָּשׁ.

As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24), that Rabbi Eliezer says: “His father” is referring to his father’s sister, i.e., one must abandon the possibility of marrying his father’s sister and marry someone else. “His mother” is referring to his mother’s sister. Rabbi Akiva says: “His father” is referring to his father’s wife; “his mother” is referring to his mother, literally.

״וְדָבַק״ – וְלֹא בְּזָכָר. ״בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ״ – וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ. ״וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד״ – מִי שֶׁנַּעֲשִׂים בָּשָׂר אֶחָד, יָצְאוּ בְּהֵמָה וְחַיָּה שֶׁאֵין נַעֲשִׂין בָּשָׂר אֶחָד.

“And shall cleave to his wife,” but not to a male; such a relationship is not defined as cleaving. “To his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. “And they shall be one flesh” indicates that he should marry one of those with whom he can become one flesh, i.e., they can bear children together. This excludes domesticated and undomesticated animals, with which one is prohibited from engaging in bestiality, as they do not become one flesh. All these are forbidden to the descendants of Noah.

אָמַר מָר: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר ״אָבִיו״ – אֲחוֹת אָבִיו. אֵימָא: אָבִיו מַמָּשׁ? הַיְינוּ ״וְדָבַק״, וְלֹא בְּזָכָר.

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

אֵימָא: אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו? הַיְינוּ ״בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ. אֵימָא: לְאַחַר מִיתָה? דּוּמְיָא דְּאִמּוֹ: מָה אִמּוֹ דְּלָאו אִישׁוּת, אַף אָבִיו דְּלָאו אִישׁוּת.

The Gemara asks: Why not say that “his father” is referring to his father’s wife? The Gemara answers: This prohibition is derived from the term “to his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. The Gemara asks: Why not say that it is referring to his father’s wife after his father’s death, when she is no longer a married woman? The Gemara answers: The term “his father” is interpreted in a way that is similar to the interpretation of the term “his mother.” Just as his mother is not forbidden due to her marriage to his father, but rather due to her relationship to him, so too, the term “his father” is not referring to a relative who is forbidden to him due to her marriage.

״אִמּוֹ״ – אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ. וְאֵימָא אִמּוֹ מַמָּשׁ? הַיְינוּ בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ. וְאֵימָא לְאַחַר מִיתָה? דּוּמְיָא דְּאָבִיו: מָה אָבִיו דְּלָאו מַמָּשׁ, אַף אִמּוֹ דְּלָאו מַמָּשׁ.

Rabbi Eliezer says that “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister. The Gemara asks: But why not say that it is referring to his mother, literally? The Gemara answers: This prohibition is derived from the term “to his wife,” but not to the wife of another man; and his mother is his father’s wife. The Gemara asks: But why not say that it is referring to his mother after his father’s death, when she is no longer married? The Gemara answers: The term “his mother” is interpreted in a way that is similar to the interpretation of the term “his father.” Just as the term “his father” is not interpreted literally, so too, the term “his mother” is not interpreted literally.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אָבִיו״ – אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו. וְאֵימָא: אָבִיו מַמָּשׁ? הַיְינוּ ״וְדָבַק״ – וְלֹא בְּזָכָר. אִי הָכִי, אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו נָמֵי הַיְינוּ ״בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ! לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

Rabbi Akiva says: “His father” is referring to his father’s wife. The Gemara asks: But why not say it is referring to his father, literally? The Gemara answers: That prohibition is derived from the term “and shall cleave to his wife,” but not to a male. The Gemara challenges: If so, the prohibition of his father’s wife is also derived from another term: “To his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. The Gemara explains: The term “to his wife” is referring to his father’s wife after his father’s death, when she is no longer married.

״אִמּוֹ״ – אִמּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. הַיְינוּ ״בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ״ וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵרוֹ! אִמּוֹ מֵאֲנוּסָתוֹ.

Rabbi Akiva says: “His mother” is referring to his mother, literally. The Gemara challenges: That prohibition is derived from the term “to his wife,” but not to the wife of another man. The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, the term “his mother” is referring to his mother whom his father raped, i.e., she was never his father’s wife.

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר:

With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree? Rabbi Eliezer holds

אָבִיו דּוּמְיָא דְּאִמּוֹ, וְאִמּוֹ דּוּמְיָא דְּאָבִיו. לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אֶלָּא בְּאַחְוָוה.

that the term “his father” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to the term “his mother,” and “his mother” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to “his father.” You find such an interpretation only with regard to sisterhood, i.e., “his father” is referring to his father’s sister, and “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister.

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מוּטָב לְאוֹקְמֵיהּ בְּאֵשֶׁת אָבִיו, דְּאִיקְּרַי ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיו״, לְאַפּוֹקֵי אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, דִּ״שְׁאֵר אָבִיו״ אִיקְּרַי, ״עֶרְוַת אָבִיו״ לָא אִיקְּרַי.

And Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to interpret the term “his father” as referring to his father’s wife, who is referred to as his father’s nakedness in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8), to the exclusion of his father’s sister, who is referred to as his father’s kin in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s kin” (Leviticus 18:12), and who is not referred to as his father’s nakedness.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וַיִּקַּח עַמְרָם אֶת יוֹכֶבֶד דֹּדָתוֹ״. מַאי לָאו, דּוֹדָתוֹ מִן הָאֵם?

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.

לֹא, דּוֹדָתוֹ מִן הָאָב.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְגַם אׇמְנָה אֲחֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִיא אַךְ לֹא בַת אִמִּי״ – מִכְּלָל דְּבַת הָאֵם אֲסוּרָה.

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.

וְתִסְבְּרָא אֲחוֹתוֹ הֲוַאי? בַּת אָחִיו הֲוַאי! וְכֵיוָן דְּהָכִי הוּא, לָא שְׁנָא מִן הָאָב וְלָא שְׁנָא מִן הָאֵם – שַׁרְיָא. אֶלָּא הָתָם הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: קוּרְבָּא דְּאָחוֹת אִית לִי בַּהֲדַהּ, מֵאַבָּא וְלָא מֵאִמָּא.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נָשָׂא אָדָם אֶת בִּתּוֹ? כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא קַיִן אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה״. הָא לָאו הָכִי – אֲסִירָא.

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: For what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? So that Cain would marry his sister and they would procreate immediately, as it is stated: “For I have said: The world shall be built on kindness [ḥesed]” (Psalms 89:3). This verse alludes to the fact that at the beginning of the world’s existence it was permitted for men to marry their sisters, which was later forbidden in the verse: “And if a man shall take his sister…it is a shameful thing [ḥesed]” (Leviticus 20:17). The Gemara infers: If it had not been so, if God had not specially permitted Cain to marry his sister, she would have been forbidden to him. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who deems it permitted for a gentile to marry his sister.

כֵּיוָן דְּאִשְׁתְּרַי, אִשְׁתְּרַי.

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.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גּוֹי מוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ. וְאֵם תֹּאמַר: מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא נָשָׂא אָדָם אֶת בִּתּוֹ? כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא קַיִן אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם ״עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה״.

Rav Huna says: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter. And if you say, for what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? It was so that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”

וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, גּוֹי אָסוּר בְּבִתּוֹ. תִּדַּע, שֶׁלֹּא נָשָׂא אָדָם אֶת בִּתּוֹ. וְלָא הִיא, הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּשָּׂא קַיִן אֶת אֲחוֹתוֹ, מִשּׁוּם דְּ״עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה״.

And there are those who say that Rav Huna did not say this; rather, Rav Huna says: A gentile is prohibited from marrying his daughter. Know that this is the halakha, as Adam did not marry his daughter. The Gemara rejects this statement: But that is not so, as there, this is the reason Adam did not marry his daughter: So that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: עֶבֶד מוּתָּר בְּאִמּוֹ, וּמוּתָּר בְּבִתּוֹ. יָצָא מִכְּלַל גּוֹי, וְלִכְלַל יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא בָּא.

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

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁיִּיחֵד שִׁפְחָה לְעַבְדּוֹ, וּבָא עָלֶיהָ – נֶהֱרָג עָלֶיהָ.

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.

מֵאֵימַת? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִדְּקָרְאוּ לַהּ ״רְבִיתָא דִּפְלָנְיָא״. מֵאֵימַת הַתָּרָתָהּ? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מִשֶּׁפָּרְעָה רֹאשָׁהּ בַּשּׁוּק.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁבָּא עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדָבַק״, וְלֹא שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לָא מִחַיַּיב, וְנׇכְרִי מִחַיַּיב?

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ״ – וְלֹא בְּאֵשֶׁת חֲבֵירוֹ; ״וְדָבַק״ – וְלָא שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ [וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמִּצְרִי] וְגוֹ׳״.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַסּוֹטֵר לוֹעוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּאִילּוּ סוֹטֵר לוֹעוֹ שֶׁל שְׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קֹדֶשׁ״.

And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo’a] of the Holy One.

מַגְבִּיהַּ, עַבְדּוֹ, שָׁבַת – סִימָן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכָּהוּ, נִקְרָא רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָרָשָׁע לָמָּה תַכֶּה רֵעֶךָ״. ״לָמָּה הִכִּיתָ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לָמָּה תַכֶּה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכָּהוּ נִקְרָא רָשָׁע.

The Gemara states a mnemonic for the upcoming statements of Reish Lakish: Raises, his slave, Shabbat. Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: Why did you strike, is not stated, but rather: “Why should you strike,” indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately did not strike him, is called wicked.

אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם לֹא לָקַחְתִּי בְחׇזְקָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַתְּהִי חַטַּאת הַנְּעָרִים גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד״.

Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force” (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: “And the sin of the youths was very great” (I Samuel 2:17).

רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: תִּיקָּצֵץ יָדוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּזְרוֹעַ רָמָה תִּשָּׁבֵר״. רַב הוּנָא קַץ יְדָא.

Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: “And the high arm shall be broken” (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא קְבוּרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ זְרוֹעַ לוֹ הָאָרֶץ״.

Rabbi Elazar says: Such a violent person has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: “And as a mighty man [ve’ish zero’a], who has the earth” (Job 22:8). The expression ish zero’a literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא נִתְּנָה קַרְקַע אֶלָּא לְבַעֲלֵי זְרוֹעוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִישׁ זְרוֹעַ לוֹ הָאָרֶץ״.

And Rabbi Elazar states a different interpretation of that verse: The land is given only to mighty men who can protect themselves from all enemies; as it is stated: “And as a mighty man, who has the earth.”

וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״עֹבֵד אַדְמָתוֹ יִשְׂבַּע לָחֶם״? אִם עוֹשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹ כְּעֶבֶד לָאֲדָמָה – יִשְׂבַּע לֶחֶם, וְאִם לָאו – לֹא יִשְׂבַּע לֶחֶם.

And in connection with that statement, the Gemara notes that Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “One who works [oved] his land shall have plenty of bread” (Proverbs 12:11)? If a person makes himself like a slave [ke’eved] to the land, devoting his efforts to it, he will have plenty of bread, but if not, he will not have plenty of bread.

וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: נׇכְרִי שֶׁשָּׁבַת חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ״. וְאָמַר מָר: אַזְהָרָה שֶׁלָּהֶן זוֹ הִיא מִיתָתָן. אָמַר רָבִינָא: אֲפִילּוּ שֵׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת.

And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable.

וְלִיחְשְׁבַהּ גַּבֵּי שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת? כִּי קָא חָשֵׁיב – שֵׁב וְאַל תַּעֲשֶׂה, קוּם עֲשֵׂה לָא קָא חָשֵׁיב.

The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. He does not count mitzvot that require one to arise and take action.