סנהדרין נו

סנהדרין נו

בְּכׇל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִינּוּי, ״יַכֶּה יוֹסִי אֶת יוֹסִי״.

On every day of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges judge the witnesses, i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.

נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא [הָיוּ] הוֹרְגִין בְּכִינּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִין כׇּל אָדָם לַחוּץ. שׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבֵּינֵיהֶן וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״אֱמוֹר מַה שֶׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵירוּשׁ״. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּינִין עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין, וְלֹא מְאַחִין.

When the judgment is over, and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, they do not sentence him to death based on the testimony of the witnesses in which they used an appellation for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. Rather, they remove all the people who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges interrogate the eldest of the witnesses, and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says exactly what he heard. And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. And they do not ever fully stitch it back together again.

וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר: ״אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ״, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר: ״אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ״.

And the second witness says: I too heard as he did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. And the third witness, in the event that there is one, says: I too heard as he did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: עַד שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ שֵׁם בְּשֵׁם.

GEMARA: The Sage taught in a baraita: A blasphemer is not liable unless he blesses, a euphemism for curses, the name of God with the name of God, e.g., by saying: Let such and such a name strike such and such a name.

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְנוֹקֵב שֵׁם וְגוֹ׳ בְּנׇקְבוֹ שֵׁם יוּמָת״.

The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Shmuel says: It is derived from that which the verse states: “And he who blasphemes [venokev] the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, when he blasphemes [benokvo] the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). It is derived from the repetition of the phrase “blasphemes the name” that the reference is to cursing the name of God with the name of God.

מִמַּאי דְּהַאי ״נוֹקֵב״ לִישָּׁנָא דְּבָרוֹכֵי הוּא? דִּכְתִיב: ״מָה אֶקֹּב לֹא קַבֹּה אֵל״. וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְּקַלֵּל״.

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

וְאֵימָא: מִיבְרַז הוּא, דִּכְתִיב ״וַיִּקֹּב חֹר בְּדַלְתּוֹ״, וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם… לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״?

The Gemara asks: But say that perhaps the meaning of nokev is not cursing, but rather making a hole, as it is written: “And made a hole [vayyikkov] in its lid” (II Kings 12:10). According to this, the word nokev is referring to one who makes a hole and damages the written name of God. And the prohibition against doing so is derived from here: “And you shall destroy their name out of that place. You shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).

בָּעֵינָא שֵׁם בְּשֵׁם, וְלֵיכָּא.

The Gemara answers: It is derived from the repetition of nokev that for one to be liable, it is necessary that his transgression involve the name of God with the name of God, and such a transgression is not possible if the reference is to making a hole.

וְאֵימָא דְּמַנַּח שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת אַהֲדָדֵי, וּבָזַע לְהוּ? הַהוּא נוֹקֵב וְחוֹזֵר וְנוֹקֵב הוּא. וְאֵימָא דְּחָיֵיק שֵׁם אַפּוּמָּא דְסַכִּינָא, וּבָזַע בַּהּ? הַהוּא חוּרְפָּא דְסַכִּינָא הוּא דְּקָא בָזַע.

The Gemara challenges: But say that such a transgression is possible, as one can place two written names of God, one on top of the other, and tear through them at once. The Gemara explains: That would be defined as making a hole and again making a hole, not making a hole in one name by means of another name. The Gemara asks: But say that one can etch the name of God on the point of a knife and cut through another name with it. The Gemara answers: In that case, it is the point of the knife that is cutting, not the name of God.

אֵימָא: פָּרוֹשֵׁי שְׁמֵיהּ הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמוֹת״. וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא״.

The Gemara asks: Say that nokev means the utterance of the ineffable name of God. As it is written: “And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out [nikkevu] by name” (Numbers 1:17). And the prohibition to do so is derived from here: “You shall fear the Lord, your God” (Deuteronomy 6:13).

חֲדָא, דְּבָעֵינָא שֵׁם בְּשֵׁם וְלֵיכָּא. וְעוֹד, הָוְיָא לֵיהּ אַזְהָרַת עֲשֵׂה, וְאַזְהָרַת עֲשֵׂה לָא שְׁמַהּ אַזְהָרָה.

The Gemara answers: One answer is that for one to be liable, it is necessary that his transgression involve the name of God with the name of God, and such a transgression is not possible if the reference is to uttering the ineffable name of God. Furthermore, the prohibition derived from the verse “You shall fear the Lord, your God” is a prohibition stated as a positive mitzva, and a prohibition stated as a positive mitzva is not considered a prohibition.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אָמַר קְרָא ״וַיִּקֹּב… וַיְקַלֵּל״, לְמֵימְרָא דְּנוֹקֵב קְלָלָה הוּא.

The Gemara presents an alternative proof that nokev is referring to cursing: And if you wish, say instead that the verse states: “And the son of the Israelite woman blasphemed [vayyikkov] the name and cursed” (Leviticus 24:11). That is to say that the meaning of nokev is to curse.

וְדִילְמָא עַד דְּעָבֵד תַּרְוַיְיהוּ? לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״הוֹצֵא אֶת הַמְקַלֵּל״, וְלָא כְּתִיב: ״הוֹצֵא אֶת הַנֹּקֵב וְהַמְקַלֵּל״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ חֲדָא הִיא.

The Gemara asks: But perhaps this verse does not prove that the meaning of nokev is to curse; rather, it indicates that one is not liable to be executed unless he does both, i.e., both nokev and cursing God? The Gemara answers: This shall not enter your mind, as it is written: “Bring forth the one who cursed…and stone him” (Leviticus 24:14), and it is not written: Bring forth the nokev and one who cursed. Conclude from it that it is one act and not two.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַגּוֹיִם, שֶׁמּוּזְהָרִין עַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. וְאֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין אֶלָּא בְּסַיִיף, שֶׁכׇּל מִיתָה הָאֲמוּרָה בִּבְנֵי נֹחַ אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא בְּסַיִיף.

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

וְהָא מֵהָכָא נָפְקָא? מֵהָתָם נָפְקָא: ״ה׳״ – זוֹ בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם.

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

אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַכִּינּוּיִין, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

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

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם ה׳ מוֹת יוּמָת״! לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם מוֹת יוּמָת״, יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד בִּלְבַד? מִנַּיִין לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַכִּינּוּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִישׁ כִּי יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

As it is taught in a baraita: Why must the verse state: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin”? But isn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16)? Rather, since it is stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death,” one might have thought that one will be liable only for cursing the ineffable name of God. From where is it derived that the verse includes one who curses any of the appellations as well? The verse states: “Anyone who curses his God,” to indicate that one is liable to be executed in any case. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַל שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד בְּמִיתָה, וְעַל הַכִּינּוּיִין בְּאַזְהָרָה.

And the Rabbis say: For cursing the ineffable name of God, one is punished by death, and for cursing the appellations, one is liable to receive lashes for violating a prohibition.

וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי מְיָישָׁא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי מְיָישָׁא: בֶּן נֹחַ שֶׁבֵּירַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּכִינּוּי, לְרַבָּנַן חַיָּיב.

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

מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח״. גֵּר וְאֶזְרָח הוּא דְּבָעֵינַן ״בְּנׇקְבוֹ שֵׁם״, אֲבָל גּוֹי – אֲפִילּוּ בְּכִינּוּי.

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

וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, הַאי ״כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? גֵּר וְאֶזְרָח בִּסְקִילָה, אֲבָל גּוֹי בְּסַיִיף. סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתְרַבּוֹ, אִיתְרַבּוֹ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״כַּגֵּר כָּאֶזְרָח״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? גֵּר וְאֶזְרָח הוּא דְּבָעֵינַן שֵׁם בְּשֵׁם, אֲבָל גּוֹי לָא בָּעֵינַן שֵׁם בְּשֵׁם.

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

״אִישׁ אִישׁ״ – לְמָה לִי? דִּיבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ – דִּינִין, וּבִרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם, עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְגָזֵל, וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי.

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

רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלָא אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַדָּם מִן הַחַי. רַבִּי חִידְקָא אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַסֵּירוּס. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַכִּישּׁוּף.

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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָאָמוּר בְּפָרָשַׁת כִּישּׁוּף – בֶּן נֹחַ מוּזְהָר עָלָיו. ״לֹא יִמָּצֵא בְךָ מַעֲבִיר בְּנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ בָּאֵשׁ קֹסֵם קְסָמִים מְעוֹנֵן וּמְנַחֵשׁ וּמְכַשֵּׁף. וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל הַמֵּתִים וְגוֹ׳. וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ״. וְלֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

Rabbi Yosei says: With regard to every type of sorcery that is stated in the passage about sorcery, it is prohibited for a descendant of Noah to engage in it. This is derived from the verses: “When you come into the land that the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do like the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you one who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, a diviner, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a warlock, or a charmer, or one who consults a necromancer and a sorcerer, or directs inquiries to the dead. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord; and because of these abominations, the Lord your God is driving them out from before you” (Deuteronomy 18:9–12). Evidently, the Canaanites were punished for these practices; and since God would not have punished them for an action unless He first prohibited it, these practices are clearly prohibited to gentiles.

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַכִּלְאַיִם. מוּתָּרִין בְּנֵי נֹחַ לִלְבּוֹשׁ כִּלְאַיִם וְלִזְרוֹעַ כִּלְאַיִם, וְאֵין אֲסוּרִין אֶלָּא בְּהַרְבָּעַת בְּהֵמָה וּבְהַרְכָּבַת הָאִילָן.

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

מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״וַיְצַו ה׳ אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָדָם לֵאמֹר מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל״.

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

״וַיְצַו״ – אֵלּוּ הַדִּינִין, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי יְדַעְתִּיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יְצַוֶּה אֶת בָּנָיו וְגוֹ׳״.

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

״ה׳״ – זוֹ בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְנֹקֵב שֵׁם ה׳ מוֹת יוּמָת״. ״אֱלֹהִים״ – זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא יִהְיֶה לְךָ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים״. ״עַל הָאָדָם״ – זוֹ שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״שֹׁפֵךְ דַּם הָאָדָם וְגוֹ׳״.

With regard to the term “the Lord,” this alludes to blessing the name of God; and so it states in another verse: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord…shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16). “God,” this alludes to idol worship; and so it states: “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2). “The man,” this alludes to bloodshed; and so it states: “One who sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6).

״לֵאמֹר״ – זוֹ גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֵאמֹר הֵן יְשַׁלַּח אִישׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָלְכָה מֵאִתּוֹ וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ אַחֵר״. ״מִכֹּל עֵץ הַגָּן״ – וְלֹא גָּזֵל. ״אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל״ – וְלֹא אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי.

With regard to the term “saying,” this alludes to forbidden sexual relations; and so it states: “Saying, if a man sends his wife, and she goes from him and becomes another man’s…will that land not be greatly polluted? But you have played the harlot with many lovers” (Jeremiah 3:1). “Of every tree of the garden” alludes to the fact that one may partake only of items that are permitted to him, as they belong to him, and he may not partake of stolen items. “You may freely eat” alludes to the fact that one may eat fruit, but not a limb from a living animal.

כִּי אֲתָא רַבִּי יִצְחָק, תָּנֵי אִיפְּכָא: ״וַיְצַו״ – זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, ״אֱלֹהִים״ – זוֹ דִּינִין.

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

בִּשְׁלָמָא ״אֱלֹהִים״ – זוֹ דִּינִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים״. אֶלָּא ״וַיְצַו״ – זוֹ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, מַאי מַשְׁמַע?

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

רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: חַד אָמַר, ״סָרוּ מַהֵר מִן הַדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִם עָשׂוּ לָהֶם וְגוֹ׳״, וְחַד אָמַר, ״עָשׁוּק אֶפְרַיִם רְצוּץ מִשְׁפָּט כִּי הוֹאִיל הָלַךְ אַחֲרֵי צָו״.

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi both give answers to this question. One of them says that it is inferred from the verse: “They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them; they have made them a molten calf” (Exodus 32:8). The word “commanded” is mentioned here in the context of idol worship. And the other one says that it is inferred from the verse: “Ephraim is oppressed, crushed in justice, because he willingly went after filth [tzav]” (Hosea 5:11). The word tzav, used in this context in reference to idol worship, is the same Hebrew word used in the phrase: “And…commanded [vaytzav].”

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ: גּוֹי שֶׁעָשָׂה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״עָשׂוּ״ – מִשְּׁעַת עֲשִׂיָּיה מְחַיֵּיב. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״כִּי הוֹאִיל הָלַךְ״ – עַד דְּאָזֵיל בָּתְרַהּ וּפָלַח לַהּ.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר גּוֹי שֶׁעָשָׂה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ – חַיָּיב? וְהָתַנְיָא: בַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְמִיתִין עֲלֵיהֶן – בֶּן נֹחַ מוּזְהָר עֲלֵיהֶן; אֵין בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְמִיתִין עֲלֵיהֶן – אֵין בֶּן נֹחַ מוּזְהָר עֲלֵיהֶן. לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי גּוֹי שֶׁעָשָׂה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְלֹא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה לָהּ?

Rava says: And is there anyone who says that a gentile who fashioned an idol but did not bow to it is liable? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to idol worship, matters, i.e., transgressions, for which a Jewish court executes a Jew who commits one of them, are prohibited to a descendant of Noah. But with regard to transgressions for which a Jewish court does not execute a Jew who commits one of them, a descendant of Noah is not prohibited from doing them. To exclude what transgressions, i.e., to determine that they do not apply to gentiles, is this stated? Is it not to exclude the case of a gentile who fashioned an idol but did not bow to it? Since Jews are not executed for this transgression, gentiles should not be liable for this act either.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לָא, לְמַעוֹטֵי גִּיפּוּף וְנִישּׁוּק.

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

גִּיפּוּף וְנִישּׁוּק דְּמַאי? אִילֵּימָא כְּדַרְכָּהּ – בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא! אֶלָּא, לְמַעוֹטֵי שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

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

דִּינִין בְּנֵי נֹחַ אִיפְּקוּד? וְהָתַנְיָא: עֶשֶׂר מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּמָרָה, שֶׁבַע שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בְּנֵי נֹחַ, וְהוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן דִּינִין וְשַׁבָּת וְכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם.

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

דִּינִין, דִּכְתִיב: ״שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט״. שַׁבָּת וְכִיבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, דִּכְתִיב: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוְּךָ״ – בְּמָרָה.

The mitzva of judgment was given at Marah, as it is written with regard to Marah: “There He made for them a statute and an ordinance” (Exodus 15:25). Shabbat and honoring one’s father and mother were given at Marah, as it is written concerning them in the Ten Commandments: “Observe the day of Shabbat to keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you” (Deuteronomy 5:12), and similarly: “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you” (Deuteronomy 5:16). The phrase “as the Lord your God commanded you” indicates that they had already been commanded to observe these mitzvot previously. And Rav Yehuda says: “As the Lord your God commanded you” in Marah. Apparently, the mitzva of establishing courts is not included in the seven Noahide mitzvot.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לָעֵדָה, וְעֵדִים, וְהַתְרָאָה.

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

אִי הָכִי, מַאי ״וְהוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן דִּינִין״?

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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְדִינֵי קְנָסוֹת. אַכַּתִּי, ״וְהוֹסִיפוּ בְּדִינִין״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

Rather, Rava says: The mitzva given at Marah was necessary only with regard to the halakhot of fines. Since these are not halakhot that pertain to the basic performance of justice, but rather concern an additional fine for the guilty party, they were not given to the descendants of Noah. The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, the language of the baraita is still inaccurate, as it should have stated: And God added to them more halakhot of judgment.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לְהוֹשִׁיב בֵּית דִּין בְּכׇל פֶּלֶךְ וָפֶלֶךְ, וּבְכׇל עִיר וָעִיר. וְהָא בְּנֵי נֹחַ לָא אִיפְּקוּד? וְהָתַנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנִּצְטַוּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהוֹשִׁיב בָּתֵּי דִינִין בְּכׇל פֶּלֶךְ וָפֶלֶךְ וּבְכׇל עִיר וָעִיר, כָּךְ נִצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ לְהוֹשִׁיב בָּתֵּי דִינִין בְּכׇל פֶּלֶךְ וָפֶלֶךְ וּבְכׇל עִיר וָעִיר.

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: It was necessary only for the additional requirement to establish a court in each and every province and in each and every city. The Gemara asks: And were the descendants of Noah not commanded with regard to this matter? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Just as the Jewish people were commanded to establish courts in each and every province and in each and every city, so too, the descendants of Noah were commanded to establish courts in each and every province and in each and every city?

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי תַּנָּא תַּנָּא דְבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה הוּא, דְּמַפֵּיק דַּ״ךְ וְעָיֵיל סַ״ךְ.

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

דְּתַנָּא דְבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ – עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, גָּזֵל, וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, סֵירוּס, וְכִלְאַיִם.

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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לֹא נִצְטַוָּוה אֶלָּא עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיְצַו ה׳ אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָדָם״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף עַל הַדִּינִים.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Adam, the first man, was commanded only with regard to the prohibition of idol worship, as it is stated: “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16). Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: He was also commanded concerning blessing the name of God. And some say that he was also commanded concerning establishing courts of judgment.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי״ – לֹא תְּקַלְּלוּנִי, ״אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי״ – לֹא תְּמִירוּנִי, ״אֱלֹהִים אֲנִי״ – יְהֵא מוֹרָאִי עֲלֵיכֶם? כְּמַאן? כְּיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים.

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

וְתַנָּא דְבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: אִי דָּרֵישׁ ״וַיְצַו״ – אֲפִילּוּ הָנָךְ נָמֵי, אִי לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״וַיְצַו״ – הָנֵי מְנָא לֵיהּ?

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

לְעוֹלָם לָא דָּרֵישׁ ״וַיְצַו״. הָנֵי, כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא בְּאַפֵּי נַפְשַׁהּ כְּתִיבָא: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת –

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