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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 13, 2017 | ื›ืดื‘ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • 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 59

The gemara brings statements saying that non-Jews cannot keep Shabbat or learn Torah. ย What are possible reasons for these prohibitions? ย A rule is brought that says how we know whether a commandment given to sons of Noach originally continued to be for everyone even after Jews received the Torah. ย Additionally, how do we know which ones were meant to be for only for Jews.ย  Exceptions to the rule are brought to question the general rule and are resolved. ย Noach was permitted to eat meat but Adam was not allowed. ย The gemara questions this and through the questions a number of interesting issues are raised including, why did the snake seduce Adam and Chava? ย What is the status of meat that falls from the sky – can it assumed to be pure? ย Perhaps this is an image relating to heavenly voices vs. court rulings as referred to in other contexts in the gemara.

ื•ื”ื ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ืขืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืงื•ื ืขืฉื” ื•ืฉื‘ ืืœ ืชืขืฉื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ ืฉืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืฆื•ื” ืœื ื• ืžืฉื” ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืœื ื• ืžื•ืจืฉื” ื•ืœื ืœื”ื

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: โ€œMoses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacobโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.

ื•ืœื™ื—ืฉื‘ื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืžื™ื’ื–ืœ ืงื ื’ื–ื™ืœ ืœื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืื•ืจืกื” ื“ื™ื ื• ื›ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ื“ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [meโ€™orasa], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [morasha], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืืชื ื”ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ ื‘ื”ืืณ ืณื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื•ื™ื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืืณ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืณื”ืื“ืืณ ื”ื ืœืžื“ืช ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: โ€œYou shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by themโ€ (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: โ€œA man,โ€ which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.

ื”ืชื ื‘ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช ื“ื™ื“ื”ื•

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

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณืืš ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ื“ืžื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœื•ืณ ื–ื” ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™

ยง The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi แธคanina 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: โ€œOnly flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eatโ€ (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžื™ืฉืจื™ ืฉืจืฆื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina 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).

ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืณืจืง ื—ื–ืง ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืื›ืœ ื”ื“ื ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืคืฉืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืณืจืง ื—ื–ืง ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืื›ืœ ื”ื“ืืณ ื–ื” ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืณื›ื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืคืฉืณ ื–ื” ื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™

The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: โ€œOnly be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the fleshโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: โ€œOnly be steadfast in not eating blood,โ€ this is a limb from a living animal; โ€œas the blood is the life,โ€ this is blood from a living animal.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื“ื ื”ืงื–ื” ืฉื”ื ืฉืžื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

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).

ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืฉื ื™ ื‘ืกื™ื ื™

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi แธคanina 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? Arenโ€™t Jews also descendants of Noah?

ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื”

The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: Any mitzva that was first stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews.

ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืœื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืืœื ื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the verse: โ€œTherefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this dayโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื“ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

ยง The Master said in a baraita: Any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah, as if it pertains to the descendants of Noah as well, why repeat it at Sinai? Arenโ€™t the Jewish people are also descendants of Noah?

ืžื“ืื™ืชื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ื•ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืขื ืฉ ื ื›ืจื™ ืขื™ืœื•ื•ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื”

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

ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืœื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื“ืœื ื ื™ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ืขื ื“ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืจื™ ื•ืœื ื›ืจื™ ืืกื•ืจ

It is further stated in the baraita that a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was not repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืจื™ ื™ืคืช ืชื•ืืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ ื ื™ื ื”ื•

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

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ืœื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

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

ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ื ื™ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื”

It is stated in the baraita that any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated both for this group and for that group.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื” ืืช ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจ ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ื™ืžื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the mitzva of circumcision, which was stated with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., Abraham and his descendants, who had the status of descendants of Noah at that time? As it is written that God said to Abraham with regard to the mitzva of circumcision: โ€œAnd as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generationsโ€ (Genesis 17:9). And it was repeated at Sinai for the Jewish people: โ€œAnd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcisedโ€ (Leviticus 12:3), and nevertheless it was stated for the Jewish people alone and not for the descendants of Noah.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžื™ืฉืจื™ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช

The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to permit circumcision on Shabbat. It is derived from the phrase โ€œon the eighth dayโ€ that circumcision must always be performed on the eight day, and this is the halakha even if it falls on Shabbat. Therefore the mitzva is not considered to have been repeated at Mount Sinai.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืคืจื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื ืคืจื• ื•ืจื‘ื• ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉื•ื‘ื• ืœื›ื ืœืื”ืœื™ื›ื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the mitzva of procreation, which was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah? As it is written: โ€œAnd you, be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the land and multiply in itโ€ (Genesis 9:7). And it was repeated at Sinai, in the verse: โ€œGo say to them: Return to your tentsโ€ (Deuteronomy 5:26), when the Jewish men were commanded to resume conjugal relations with their wives after having been commanded to separate from them in preparation for the giving of the Torah. Nevertheless, the mitzva of procreation was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืžื ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ืœื”ืชื™ืจื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

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

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืื™ืชื ื™

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

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื–ื”ืจื” ืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืžื™ืชื ื ื‘ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, 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., โ€œYou shall not murderโ€ฆyou shall not commit adulteryโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืืœื ื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื™ืชื ื™

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

ื”ื ื™ ืื™ืชื ื™ ืœืฉื•ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืชื ื™ ื›ืœืœ

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

ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื™ืœื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœืื‘ืจื”ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžื–ื”ืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืืชื” ืืช ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจ ืืชื” ื•ื–ืจืขืš ืื—ืจื™ืš ืœื“ืจืชื ืืชื” ื•ื–ืจืขืš ืื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื

If you wish, say that there is another explanation for the fact that the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to the descendants of Noah despite the fact that it was repeated for the Jewish people: From the outset, it was Abraham, and not all the descendants of Noah, that the Merciful One commanded to perform this mitzva; as He said to him: โ€œAnd as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generationsโ€ (Genesis 17:9). The Gemara infers: โ€œYou and your offspring,โ€ yes; another person, no.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื™ืงืจื ืœืš ื–ืจืข

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: โ€œFor through Isaac, offspring shall be called yoursโ€ (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmaelโ€™s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham.

ื‘ื ื™ ืขืฉื• ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื™ืฆื—ืง

The Gemara challenges: Granted, Ishmaelโ€™s descendants are not considered the offspring of Abraham, but at least the descendants of Esau, Isaacโ€™s son, should be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara explains: Since the term: โ€œThrough Isaac [beYitzแธฅak],โ€ also means: Of Isaac, it is derived that the mitzva applies to only some of Isaacโ€™s offspring, but not all the descendants of Isaac. This serves to exclude the descendants of Esau.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื ื™ ืงื˜ื•ืจื” ืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืช ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ืคืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ ืงื˜ื•ืจื”

Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abrahamโ€™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 แธคanina who says that the verse: โ€œAnd 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 covenantโ€ (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ืชืจ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื›ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืื›ืœื” ื•ืœื›ืœ ื—ื™ืช ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื™ืช ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื›ื

ยง Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: โ€œAnd 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 soโ€ (Genesis 1:29โ€“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.

ื•ื›ืฉื‘ืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื”ืชื™ืจ ืœื”ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ืจืง ืขืฉื‘ ื ืชืชื™ ืœื›ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื”ื ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืš ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ื“ืžื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ืœืฉืจืฆื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืš

But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: โ€œEvery moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you allโ€ (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: โ€œOnly flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eatโ€ (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 โ€œonly,โ€ a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included.

ื•ืžืื™ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืžื• ืžื™ ืฉื“ืžื• ื—ืœื•ืง ืžื‘ืฉืจื• ื™ืฆืื• ืฉืจืฆื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืžื ื—ืœื•ืง ืžื‘ืฉืจื

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 โ€œits bloodโ€ 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื•ืจื“ื• ื‘ื“ื’ืช ื”ื™ื ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื ืœืžืœืื›ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: โ€œAnd have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the landโ€ (Genesis 1:28). What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesnโ€™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.

ื•ื“ื’ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœืื›ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ื›ื“ืจื—ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ื‘ื” ื”ื ื”ื™ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื–ื ื•ืฉื™ื‘ื•ื˜ื ืžืื™

The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Raแธฅava; as Raแธฅava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Raแธฅavaโ€™s question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื ืœืžืœืื›ื”

Come and hear a proof that it was permitted for Adam to eat meat, from the phrase in the aforementioned verse: โ€œAnd have dominionโ€ฆand over the fowl of the air.โ€ What, is it not stated with regard to consumption? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to labor.

ื•ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœืื›ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืฉ ื‘ืื•ื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืื™

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: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox when it treadsโ€ (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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื‘ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื” ื”ืจืžืฉืช ืขืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื ื—ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

Come and hear a proof from the phrase: โ€œAnd have dominionโ€ฆand over every living thing that creeps upon the land.โ€ 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.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื‘ืœ ืขืœ ืฉืžืฉ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉืื‘ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืืœืžืœื ืœื ื ืชืงืœืœ ื ื—ืฉ ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื™ื• ืžื–ื“ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื ื—ืฉื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื’ืจื• ืœืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื’ืจื• ืœื“ืจื•ื ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืกื ื“ืœื‘ื•ื ื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื‘ื ื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืจื’ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืฉืžืคืฉื™ืœื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ืขื” ืชื—ืช ื–ื ื‘ื• ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ื” ืขืคืจ ืœื’ื ืชื• ื•ืœื—ื•ืจื‘ืชื•

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe over a great attendant that has been lost to the world; as had the snake not been cursed that it should go on its belly, there would have been two fine snakes at the disposal of each and every one of the Jewish people. One he would send to the north, and the other one he would send to the south, to bring him precious sandalbonim, a type of precious stone, and other precious stones and pearls. Moreover, he would attach a strap under his snakeโ€™s tail like a harness to an animal, and use it to take dirt out to his garden and to rebuild his ruin, as he does with other animals. This demonstrates that the snake was capable of performing labor.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ืชื™ืžื ืื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื™ืกื‘ ื‘ื’ืŸ ืขื“ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ื•ื”ื™ื• ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ืฆื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืžืกื ื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ื‘ื• ื ื—ืฉ ื•ืจืื” ื‘ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื•ื ืชืงื ื ื‘ื• ื”ืชื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื

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.

ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœืคืชื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืื•ืจื—ื ืคื’ืขื• ื‘ื• ื”ื ืš ืืจื™ื•ืชื ื“ื”ื•ื• ืงื ื ื”ืžื™ ืœืืคื™ื” ืืžืจ ื”ื›ืคื™ืจื™ื ืฉืื’ื™ื ืœื˜ืจืฃ ื ื—ื™ืชื• ืœื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ืื˜ืžืชื ื—ื“ื ืื›ืœื•ื” ื•ื—ื“ื ืฉื‘ืงื•ื” ืื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ื‘ืขื™ ืขืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ืžื ื”ื•ื ื–ื” ืื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ืžื ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben แธคalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: โ€œThe young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from Godโ€ (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven.

ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื™ืจื“ื” ืœื• ื“ืžื•ืช ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ืืจื•ื“ ื ืืœื ื”ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ืžื ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื

In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [yarud nala]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ื›ื™ืฉื•ืฃ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘

ยง In the baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a), it is stated that Rabbi Shimon says that the descendants of Noah were also commanded concerning the prohibition against engaging in sorcery. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: As it is written:

  • 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 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 59

ื•ื”ื ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ืขืฉื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืงื ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ืงื•ื ืขืฉื” ื•ืฉื‘ ืืœ ืชืขืฉื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

The Gemara challenges: But the mitzva of establishing courts of judgment is a mitzva to stand up and take action, and nevertheless he counts it among the seven mitzvot. The Gemara answers: This mitzva contains a requirement to stand up and take action, i.e., the obligation to establish courts and carry out justice, and it also contains a requirement to sit and refrain from action, i.e., the prohibition against doing injustice.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื ื›ืจื™ ืฉืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื™ืชื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืฆื•ื” ืœื ื• ืžืฉื” ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืœื ื• ืžื•ืจืฉื” ื•ืœื ืœื”ื

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: A gentile who engages in Torah study is liable to receive the death penalty; as it is stated: โ€œMoses commanded us a law [torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacobโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for us, and not for them.

ื•ืœื™ื—ืฉื‘ื” ื’ื‘ื™ ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืžื™ื’ื–ืœ ืงื ื’ื–ื™ืœ ืœื” ืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืื•ืจืกื” ื“ื™ื ื• ื›ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ื“ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื”

The Gemara challenges: But if so, let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as an inheritance, this prohibition is included in the prohibition of robbery, as a gentile who studies Torah robs the Jewish people of it. According to the one who says that the verse is referring to the Torah as betrothed, as the spelling of the Hebrew word for betrothed [meโ€™orasa], is similar to that of the word for inheritance [morasha], the punishment of a gentile who studies Torah is like that of one who engages in intercourse with a betrothed young woman, which is execution by stoning.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืณืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืืชื ื”ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ ื‘ื”ืืณ ืณื›ื”ื ื™ื ืœื•ื™ื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืจืืœื™ืืณ ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืณื”ืื“ืืณ ื”ื ืœืžื“ืช ืฉืืคื™ืœื• ื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืขื•ืกืง ื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ

The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: โ€œYou shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by themโ€ (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: โ€œA man,โ€ which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest.

ื”ืชื ื‘ืฉื‘ืข ืžืฆื•ืช ื“ื™ื“ื”ื•

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

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืณืืš ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ื“ืžื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœื•ืณ ื–ื” ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื”ื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™

ยง The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi แธคanina 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: โ€œOnly flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eatโ€ (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi แธคanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse.

ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžื™ืฉืจื™ ืฉืจืฆื™ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina 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).

ื›ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืณืจืง ื—ื–ืง ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืื›ืœ ื”ื“ื ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืคืฉืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืณืจืง ื—ื–ืง ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืื›ืœ ื”ื“ืืณ ื–ื” ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ืณื›ื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืคืฉืณ ื–ื” ื“ื ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™

The baraita continues: Similarly, you can say that according to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina, blood from a living animal is also forbidden to the Jewish people in particular; as it is stated: โ€œOnly be steadfast in not eating blood, as the blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the fleshโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:23). With regard to the statements: โ€œOnly be steadfast in not eating blood,โ€ this is a limb from a living animal; โ€œas the blood is the life,โ€ this is blood from a living animal.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื“ื ื”ืงื–ื” ืฉื”ื ืฉืžื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ื‘ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

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).

ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ื›ืชื‘ ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืฉื ื™ ื‘ืกื™ื ื™

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi แธคanina 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? Arenโ€™t Jews also descendants of Noah?

ื›ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื”

The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: Any mitzva that was first stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group, i.e., it applies to both gentiles and Jews.

ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืœื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืื ื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืืœื ื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

But a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai among the mitzvot given to the Jewish people was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. And we have only the prohibition against eating the sciatic nerve to which this classification applies, and this is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that the verse: โ€œTherefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this dayโ€ (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.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื“ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

ยง The Master said in a baraita: Any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated for this group and for that group. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah, as if it pertains to the descendants of Noah as well, why repeat it at Sinai? Arenโ€™t the Jewish people are also descendants of Noah?

ืžื“ืื™ืชื ื™ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ื•ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื“ืขื ืฉ ื ื›ืจื™ ืขื™ืœื•ื•ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื”

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

ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ืœื ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ืื“ืจื‘ื” ืžื“ืœื ื ื™ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ืขื ื“ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืจื™ ื•ืœื ื›ืจื™ ืืกื•ืจ

It is further stated in the baraita that a mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah. The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, from the fact that it was not repeated at Sinai, clearly it can be derived that it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for the Jewish people. The Gemara answers: There is nothing that is permitted to a Jew and forbidden to a gentile.

ื•ืœื ื•ื”ืจื™ ื™ืคืช ืชื•ืืจ ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื›ื™ื‘ื•ืฉ ื ื™ื ื”ื•

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

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ื”ืชื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืžื—ื™ืœื” ื ื™ื ื”ื•

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

ื›ืœ ืžืฆื•ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื•ื ื™ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื–ื” ื ืืžืจื”

It is stated in the baraita that any mitzva that was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah and was repeated at Sinai was stated both for this group and for that group.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืžื™ืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื” ืืช ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจ ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื™ ื™ืžื•ืœ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the mitzva of circumcision, which was stated with regard to descendants of Noah, i.e., Abraham and his descendants, who had the status of descendants of Noah at that time? As it is written that God said to Abraham with regard to the mitzva of circumcision: โ€œAnd as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generationsโ€ (Genesis 17:9). And it was repeated at Sinai for the Jewish people: โ€œAnd on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcisedโ€ (Leviticus 12:3), and nevertheless it was stated for the Jewish people alone and not for the descendants of Noah.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžื™ืฉืจื™ ืฉื‘ืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืฉื‘ืช

The Gemara answers: That verse stated at Sinai is not necessary for the mitzva itself, but rather it comes to permit circumcision on Shabbat. It is derived from the phrase โ€œon the eighth dayโ€ that circumcision must always be performed on the eight day, and this is the halakha even if it falls on Shabbat. Therefore the mitzva is not considered to have been repeated at Mount Sinai.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืคืจื™ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ื” ืฉื ืืžืจื” ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืชื ืคืจื• ื•ืจื‘ื• ื•ื ืฉื ื™ืช ื‘ืกื™ื ื™ ืœืš ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืฉื•ื‘ื• ืœื›ื ืœืื”ืœื™ื›ื ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืืžืจื” ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื™ ื ื—

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t there the mitzva of procreation, which was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah? As it is written: โ€œAnd you, be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the land and multiply in itโ€ (Genesis 9:7). And it was repeated at Sinai, in the verse: โ€œGo say to them: Return to your tentsโ€ (Deuteronomy 5:26), when the Jewish men were commanded to resume conjugal relations with their wives after having been commanded to separate from them in preparation for the giving of the Torah. Nevertheless, the mitzva of procreation was stated for the Jewish people and not for the descendants of Noah.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื‘ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืžื ื™ืŸ ืื—ืจ ืœื”ืชื™ืจื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

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

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืœ ื—ื“ื ื•ื—ื“ื ื ืžื™ ื ื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ืžื™ืœืชื ืื™ืชื ื™

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

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื–ื”ืจื” ืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ื•ืžื™ืชื ื ื‘ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, 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., โ€œYou shall not murderโ€ฆyou shall not commit adulteryโ€ (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.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื ื• ืืœื ื’ื™ื“ ื”ื ืฉื” ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืื™ืชื ื™

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

ื”ื ื™ ืื™ืชื ื™ ืœืฉื•ื ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืชื ื™ ื›ืœืœ

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

ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื™ืœื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืœืื‘ืจื”ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ืžื–ื”ืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื—ืžื ื ื•ืืชื” ืืช ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจ ืืชื” ื•ื–ืจืขืš ืื—ืจื™ืš ืœื“ืจืชื ืืชื” ื•ื–ืจืขืš ืื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื™ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื ืœื

If you wish, say that there is another explanation for the fact that the mitzva of circumcision does not apply to the descendants of Noah despite the fact that it was repeated for the Jewish people: From the outset, it was Abraham, and not all the descendants of Noah, that the Merciful One commanded to perform this mitzva; as He said to him: โ€œAnd as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generationsโ€ (Genesis 17:9). The Gemara infers: โ€œYou and your offspring,โ€ yes; another person, no.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื›ื™ ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื™ืงืจื ืœืš ื–ืจืข

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: โ€œFor through Isaac, offspring shall be called yoursโ€ (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmaelโ€™s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham.

ื‘ื ื™ ืขืฉื• ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ืœื ื›ืœ ื™ืฆื—ืง

The Gemara challenges: Granted, Ishmaelโ€™s descendants are not considered the offspring of Abraham, but at least the descendants of Esau, Isaacโ€™s son, should be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara explains: Since the term: โ€œThrough Isaac [beYitzแธฅak],โ€ also means: Of Isaac, it is derived that the mitzva applies to only some of Isaacโ€™s offspring, but not all the descendants of Isaac. This serves to exclude the descendants of Esau.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื‘ื ื™ ืงื˜ื•ืจื” ืœื ืœื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืช ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ื”ืคืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ ืงื˜ื•ืจื”

Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abrahamโ€™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 แธคanina who says that the verse: โ€œAnd 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 covenantโ€ (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ืชืจ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื›ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœืื›ืœื” ื•ืœื›ืœ ื—ื™ืช ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืœื ื—ื™ืช ื”ืืจืฅ ืœื›ื

ยง Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: โ€œAnd 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 soโ€ (Genesis 1:29โ€“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.

ื•ื›ืฉื‘ืื• ื‘ื ื™ ื ื— ื”ืชื™ืจ ืœื”ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ืจืง ืขืฉื‘ ื ืชืชื™ ืœื›ื ืืช ื›ืœ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื”ื ืื‘ืจ ืžืŸ ื”ื—ื™ ื ื•ื”ื’ ื‘ื• ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืš ื‘ืฉืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื• ื“ืžื• ืœื ืชืื›ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืืฃ ืœืฉืจืฆื™ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืš

But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: โ€œEvery moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you allโ€ (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: โ€œOnly flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eatโ€ (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 โ€œonly,โ€ a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included.

ื•ืžืื™ ืชืœืžื•ื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืžื• ืžื™ ืฉื“ืžื• ื—ืœื•ืง ืžื‘ืฉืจื• ื™ืฆืื• ืฉืจืฆื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื“ืžื ื—ืœื•ืง ืžื‘ืฉืจื

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 โ€œits bloodโ€ 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.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื•ืจื“ื• ื‘ื“ื’ืช ื”ื™ื ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื ืœืžืœืื›ื”

The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: โ€œAnd have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the landโ€ (Genesis 1:28). What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesnโ€™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.

ื•ื“ื’ื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœืื›ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ื›ื“ืจื—ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื—ื‘ื” ื”ื ื”ื™ื’ ื‘ืขื™ื–ื ื•ืฉื™ื‘ื•ื˜ื ืžืื™

The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Raแธฅava; as Raแธฅava asked the following question: If one drove a wagon to which a goat and a shibbuta fish were harnessed together, what is the halakha? Has he violated the prohibition of diverse kinds, in the same way that one does when plowing with an ox and a donkey together? In any event, Raแธฅavaโ€™s question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื‘ืขื•ืฃ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื ืœืžืœืื›ื”

Come and hear a proof that it was permitted for Adam to eat meat, from the phrase in the aforementioned verse: โ€œAnd have dominionโ€ฆand over the fowl of the air.โ€ What, is it not stated with regard to consumption? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to labor.

ื•ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื‘ื ื™ ืžืœืื›ื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืื™ืŸ ื›ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืฉ ื‘ืื•ื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืชืจื ื’ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืื™

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: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox when it treadsโ€ (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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ื‘ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื” ื”ืจืžืฉืช ืขืœ ื”ืืจืฅ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืืชื•ื™ื™ ื ื—ืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืืชื

Come and hear a proof from the phrase: โ€œAnd have dominionโ€ฆand over every living thing that creeps upon the land.โ€ 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.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืžื ืกื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื‘ืœ ืขืœ ืฉืžืฉ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉืื‘ื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉืืœืžืœื ืœื ื ืชืงืœืœ ื ื—ืฉ ื›ืœ ืื—ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ื”ื™ื• ืžื–ื“ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื ื™ ื ื—ืฉื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื’ืจื• ืœืฆืคื•ืŸ ื•ืื—ื“ ืžืฉื’ืจื• ืœื“ืจื•ื ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ืกื ื“ืœื‘ื•ื ื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื‘ื ื™ื ื˜ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื•ืžืจื’ืœื™ื•ืช ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืฉืžืคืฉื™ืœื™ืŸ ืจืฆื•ืขื” ืชื—ืช ื–ื ื‘ื• ื•ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื‘ื” ืขืคืจ ืœื’ื ืชื• ื•ืœื—ื•ืจื‘ืชื•

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe over a great attendant that has been lost to the world; as had the snake not been cursed that it should go on its belly, there would have been two fine snakes at the disposal of each and every one of the Jewish people. One he would send to the north, and the other one he would send to the south, to bring him precious sandalbonim, a type of precious stone, and other precious stones and pearls. Moreover, he would attach a strap under his snakeโ€™s tail like a harness to an animal, and use it to take dirt out to his garden and to rebuild his ruin, as he does with other animals. This demonstrates that the snake was capable of performing labor.

ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืŸ ืชื™ืžื ืื•ืžืจ ืื“ื ื”ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื™ืกื‘ ื‘ื’ืŸ ืขื“ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ื•ื”ื™ื• ืžืœืื›ื™ ื”ืฉืจืช ืฆื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืจ ื•ืžืกื ื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืฆื™ืฅ ื‘ื• ื ื—ืฉ ื•ืจืื” ื‘ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื• ื•ื ืชืงื ื ื‘ื• ื”ืชื ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื

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.

ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœืคืชื ื”ื•ื” ืงืื–ื™ืœ ื‘ืื•ืจื—ื ืคื’ืขื• ื‘ื• ื”ื ืš ืืจื™ื•ืชื ื“ื”ื•ื• ืงื ื ื”ืžื™ ืœืืคื™ื” ืืžืจ ื”ื›ืคื™ืจื™ื ืฉืื’ื™ื ืœื˜ืจืฃ ื ื—ื™ืชื• ืœื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ืื˜ืžืชื ื—ื“ื ืื›ืœื•ื” ื•ื—ื“ื ืฉื‘ืงื•ื” ืื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืœื‘ื™ ืžื“ืจืฉื ื‘ืขื™ ืขืœื” ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ืžื ื”ื•ื ื–ื” ืื• ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ืืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ืžื ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara asks: Is there such a thing as meat that descends from heaven? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is like this incident: As Rabbi Shimon ben แธคalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: โ€œThe young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from Godโ€ (Psalms 104:21), and they deserve to receive food. Two thighs of an animal descended from heaven for him. The lions ate one of these thighs, and they left the other one. He took it and entered the study hall, and inquired about it: Is this thigh a kosher item or a non-kosher item? The Sages said to him: Certainly it is kosher, as a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven.

ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ื™ืจื“ื” ืœื• ื“ืžื•ืช ื—ืžื•ืจ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื™ืืจื•ื“ ื ืืœื ื”ื ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื˜ืžื ื™ื•ืจื“ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื

In connection to that story, it is related that Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: If the likeness of a donkey had descended for him, what would the halakha have been? Would it have been permitted? Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Foolish bird [yarud nala]. The Sages already said to him that a non-kosher item does not descend from heaven; therefore, it must be kosher.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ื›ื™ืฉื•ืฃ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘

ยง In the baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a), it is stated that Rabbi Shimon says that the descendants of Noah were also commanded concerning the prohibition against engaging in sorcery. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? The Gemara answers: As it is written:

Scroll To Top