סנהדרין נט

סנהדרין נט

וְהָא דִּינִין קוּם עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְקָא חָשֵׁיב? קוּם עֲשֵׂה וְשֵׁב אַל תַּעֲשֶׂה נִינְהוּ.

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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: גּוֹי שֶׁעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה״, לָנוּ מוֹרָשָׁה וְלֹא לָהֶם.

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

וְלִיחְשְׁבַהּ גַּבֵּי שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת? מַאן דְּאָמַר ״מוֹרָשָׁה״ – מִיגְזָל קָא גָזֵיל לַהּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְאוֹרָסָה״ – דִּינוֹ כְּנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, דְּבִסְקִילָה.

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 [me’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.

מֵיתִיבִי, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִין שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁהוּא כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם״. ״כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״הָאָדָם״. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ גּוֹי וְעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.

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

הָתָם, בְּשֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת דִּידְהוּ.

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.

רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַדָּם מִן הַחַי. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַדָּם מִן הַחַי.

§ The baraita that lists the Noahide mitzvot (56a) teaches that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The descendants of Noah are also commanded concerning the prohibition against consuming the blood from a living animal. The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4), this is the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: The blood from a living animal is also prohibited in this verse.

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? קְרִי בֵּיהּ: ״בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לֹא תֹּאכֵל״, ״דָּמוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ לֹא תֹּאכֵל״. וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא לְמִישְׁרֵי שְׁרָצִים הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning behind the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: He reads into the verse: Flesh with its life you shall not eat; blood with its life you shall not eat. The Gemara asks: And how do the Rabbis explain the mention of blood in this verse? After all, in their opinion, blood from a living animal is not forbidden. The Gemara answers: That comes to permit eating limbs from living creeping animals. The verse indicates that the prohibition does not apply to creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh (see 59b).

כְּיוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״. ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם״ – זֶה אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ״ – זֶה דָּם מִן הַחַי.

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

וְרַבָּנַן, הַהוּא לְדַם הַקָּזָה שֶׁהַנְּשָׁמָה יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

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).

לְמָה לִי לְמִיכְתַּב לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וּלְמָה לִי לְמִשְׁנֵי בְּסִינַי?

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the Torah to write this halakha with regard to descendants of Noah, and why do I need the Torah to repeat it at Sinai with regard to Jews? Aren’t Jews also descendants of Noah?

כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ וְנִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי – לָזֶה וְלָזֶה נֶאֶמְרָה.

The Gemara answers that it is to be understood in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina; as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Any 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.

לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וְלֹא נִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶמְרָה וְלֹא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ. וְאָנוּ אֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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: “Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sciatic nerve, which is on the hollow of the thigh, until this day” (Genesis 32:32), is referring to the sons of Jacob, who were commanded to observe this prohibition even though they had the status of descendants of Noah.

אָמַר מָר: כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ וְנִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי, לָזֶה וְלָזֶה נֶאֶמְרָה. אַדְּרַבָּה, מִדְּנִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶמְרָה וְלֹא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ!

§ 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? Aren’t the Jewish people also descendants of Noah?

מִדְּאִיתְּנַי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בְּסִינַי, וְאַשְׁכְּחַן דַּעֲנַשׁ גּוֹיִם עִילָּוַוהּ, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לָזֶה וְלָזֶה נֶאֶמְרָה.

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.

לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, וְלֹא נִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶמְרָה וְלֹא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ. אַדְּרַבָּה, מִדְּלֹא נִישְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי – לִבְנֵי נֹחַ נֶאֶמְרָה וְלָא לְיִשְׂרָאֵל! לֵיכָּא מִידַּעַם דִּלְיִשְׂרָאֵל שְׁרֵי וּלְגוֹי אֲסִיר.

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.

וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי יְפַת תּוֹאַר! הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו בְּנֵי כִיבּוּשׁ נִינְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: And is there not? But isn’t there the permission for a Jew to take a married beautiful woman, who was taken as a prisoner of war, to be his wife? For a 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.

וַהֲרֵי פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו בְּנֵי מְחִילָה נִינְהוּ.

The Gemara asks: But isn’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.

כׇּל מִצְוָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ וְנִישְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי, לָזֶה וְלָזֶה נֶאֶמְרָה.

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.

וַהֲרֵי מִילָה, שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר״, וְנִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי: ״וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי יִמּוֹל״ – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶמְרָה וְלֹא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ.

The Gemara asks: But isn’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: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). And it was repeated at Sinai for the Jewish people: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), and nevertheless it was stated for the Jewish people alone and not for the descendants of Noah.

הָהוּא לְמִישְׁרֵי שַׁבָּת הוּא דַּאֲתָא, ״בַּיּוֹם״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּשַׁבָּת.

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 “on the eighth day” that circumcision must always be performed on the eight day, and this is the halakha even if it falls on Shabbat. Therefore the mitzva is not considered to have been repeated at Mount Sinai.

וַהֲרֵי פְּרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לִבְנֵי נֹחַ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאַתֶּם פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ״, וְנִשְׁנֵית בְּסִינַי: ״לֵךְ אֱמֹר לָהֶם שׁוּבוּ לָכֶם לְאׇהֳלֵיכֶם״ – לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נֶאֶמְרָה וְלֹא לִבְנֵי נֹחַ!

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the mitzva of procreation, which was stated with regard to the descendants of Noah? As it is written: “And you, be fruitful and multiply, swarm in the land and multiply in it” (Genesis 9:7). And it was repeated at Sinai, in the verse: “Go say to them: Return to your tents” (Deuteronomy 5:27), 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.

הָהוּא, לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן צָרִיךְ מִנְיָן אַחֵר לְהַתִּירוֹ הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

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.

אִי הָכִי, כֹּל חֲדָא וַחֲדָא נָמֵי נֵימָא מִשּׁוּם מִילְּתָא אִיתְּנַי?

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.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אַזְהָרָה מִיהְדָּר וּמִיתְנָא בַּהּ, לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara answers that this is what Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, is saying: After stating a prohibition with regard to the descendants of Noah, why do I need the Torah to then repeat the prohibition itself for the Jewish people? If the only purpose is to teach an additional halakha, it is unnecessary to repeat it in the form of a prohibition, e.g., “You shall not murder…you shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13). Therefore, it is derived from the fact that the entire prohibition is repeated, and not just the new details, that it applies both to Jews and to descendants of Noah.

וְאֵין לָנוּ אֶלָּא גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה בִּלְבַד, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. הָנֵי נָמֵי לָא אִיתְּנַי.

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.

הָנֵי אִיתְּנַי לְשׁוּם מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא, הָא לָא אִיתְּנַי כְּלָל.

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.

אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִילָה מֵעִיקָּרָא לְאַבְרָהָם הוּא דְּקָא מַזְהַר לֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, ״וְאַתָּה אֶת בְּרִיתִי תִשְׁמֹר אַתָּה וְזַרְעֲךָ אַחֲרֶיךָ לְדֹרֹתָם״. ״אַתָּה וְזַרְעֲךָ״ – אִין, אִינִישׁ אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.

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: “And as for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations” (Genesis 17:9). The Gemara infers: “You and your offspring,” yes; another person, no.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּנֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לִחַיְּיבוּ? ״כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע״.

The Gemara challenges: If that is so, the descendants of Ishmael should also be obligated to observe circumcision, as they are also the offspring of Abraham. The Gemara explains: The verse states: “For through Isaac, offspring shall be called yours” (Genesis 21:12), which means that Ishmael’s descendants are not called the offspring of Abraham.

בְּנֵי עֵשָׂו לִחַיְּיבוּ. ״בְּיִצְחָק״ – וְלֹא כׇּל יִצְחָק.

The Gemara challenges: Granted, Ishmael’s descendants are not considered the offspring of Abraham, but at least the descendants of Esau, Isaac’s son, should be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara explains: Since the term: “Through Isaac [beYitzḥak],” also means: Of Isaac, it is derived that the mitzva applies to only some of Isaac’s offspring, but not all the descendants of Isaac. This serves to exclude the descendants of Esau.

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה לָא לִחַיְּיבוּ? הָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: ״אֶת בְּרִיתִי הֵפַר״ – לְרַבּוֹת בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה.

Rav Oshaya objects to this: If that is so, the descendants of Keturah, Abraham’s second wife, should not be obligated to observe circumcision. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yosei bar Avin says, and some say that it is Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina who says that the verse: “And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:14) is stated to include the descendants of Keturah in the obligation to observe circumcision.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לֹא הוּתַּר לוֹ בָּשָׂר לַאֲכִילָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לָכֶם יִהְיֶה לְאׇכְלָה וּלְכׇל חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ״, וְלֹא חַיַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם.

§ Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Meat was not permitted to Adam, the first man, for consumption, as it is written: “And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb that brings forth seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree that gives forth seed; for you it shall be for food, and for every animal of the earth, and for every fowl of the air, and for everything that creeps upon the earth, in which there is a living soul, every green herb for food. And it was so” (Genesis 1:29–30). It is derived God told Adam: Eating vegetation is permitted to people and animals, but eating the animals of the earth is not permitted to you.

וּכְשֶׁבָּאוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ, הִתִּיר לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי נוֹהֵג בּוֹ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ״. יָכוֹל אַף לִשְׁרָצִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אַךְ״.

But when the children of Noah came, God permitted them to eat meat; as it is stated: “Every moving thing that lives shall be for food for you; as the green herb I have given you all” (Genesis 9:3). One might have thought that accordingly, even the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal does not apply to the descendants of Noah; therefore the verse states: “Only flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat” (Genesis 9:4). One might have thought that the prohibition against eating a limb from a living animal applies even to creeping animals; therefore the verse states “only,” a term used for exclusion, indicating that creeping animals are not included.

וּמַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: ״דָּמוֹ״ – מִי שֶׁדָּמוֹ חָלוּק מִבְּשָׂרוֹ, יָצְאוּ שְׁרָצִים שֶׁאֵין דָּמָם חָלוּק מִבְּשֶׁרָם.

The Gemara asks: And what is the derivation? What is the proof that it is creeping animals that are excluded from this prohibition and not another type of animal? Rav Huna says: The term “its blood” indicates that the prohibition pertains to animals whose blood is halakhically considered separate from their flesh. This excludes creeping animals, whose blood is not considered separate from their flesh.

מֵיתִיבִי: ״וּרְדוּ בִּדְגַת הַיָּם״, מַאי לָאו, לַאֲכִילָה? לֹא, לִמְלָאכָה.

The Gemara raises an objection to the assertion that eating meat was prohibited to Adam, from the verse: “And have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creeps upon the land” (Genesis 1:28). What, is it not stated with regard to consumption, i.e., doesn’t this verse mean that people may eat the meat of animals? The Gemara answers: No, the verse is referring to using animals for labor.

וְדָגִים בְּנֵי מְלָאכָה נִינְהוּ? אִין, כִּדְרַחֲבָה. דְּבָעֵי רַחֲבָה: הִנְהִיג בְּעִיזָּא וְשִׁיבּוּטָא – מַאי?

The Gemara asks: But are fish capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, in accordance with the statement of Raḥava; as Raḥava 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, Raḥava’s question indicates that there is a way, albeit far-fetched, for a fish to perform labor.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם״, מַאי לָאו, לַאֲכִילָה? לָא, לִמְלָאכָה.

Come and hear a proof that it was permitted for Adam to eat meat, from the phrase in the aforementioned verse: “And have dominion…and over the fowl of the air.” What, is it not stated with regard to consumption? The Gemara answers: No, it is referring to labor.

וְעוֹפוֹת בְּנֵי מְלָאכָה נִינְהוּ? אִין, כִּדְבָעֵי רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: דָּשׁ בַּאֲוָוזִין וְתַרְנְגוֹלִין לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַאי?

The Gemara asks: But are birds capable of performing labor? The Gemara answers: Yes, they are capable, as Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma: If one threshed with geese and chickens, what is the halakha according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, derives from the verse: “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads” (Deuteronomy 25:4), that a laborer in a field is entitled to eat from the produce during his work only if his work involves both his hands and his feet, like an ox, which treads with its forelegs as well as its hind legs. Rabba bar Rav Huna raises a dilemma as to whether the prohibition against muzzling an animal while it is being used for labor in the field applies to geese and chickens, which have only two feet. In any event, it is indicated in that dilemma that birds can perform labor.

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וּבְכׇל חַיָּה הָרֹמֶשֶׂת עַל הָאָרֶץ״. הָהוּא לְאֵתוֹיֵי נָחָשׁ הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

Come and hear a proof from the phrase: “And have dominion…and over every living thing that creeps upon the land.” Creeping animals certainly cannot be used for labor. Apparently, the verse is referring to eating them. The Gemara answers: That phrase comes to include the snake, which was capable of performing labor when it was created.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: חֲבָל עַל שַׁמָּשׁ גָּדוֹל שֶׁאָבַד מִן הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁאִלְמָלֵא לֹא נִתְקַלֵּל נָחָשׁ, כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל הָיוּ מִזְדַּמְּנִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי נְחָשִׁים טוֹבִים – אֶחָד מְשַׁגְּרוֹ לַצָּפוֹן וְאֶחָד מְשַׁגְּרוֹ לַדָּרוֹם, לְהָבִיא לוֹ סַנְדַּלְבּוֹנִים טוֹבִים וַאֲבָנִים טוֹבוֹת וּמַרְגָּלִיּוֹת. וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּפְשִׁילִין רְצוּעָה תַּחַת זְנָבוֹ וּמוֹצִיא בָּהּ עָפָר לְגִנָּתוֹ וּלְחוּרְבָּתוֹ.

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 snake’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.

מֵיתִיבִי, הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן תֵּימָא אוֹמֵר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מֵיסֵב בְּגַן עֵדֶן הָיָה, וְהָיוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת צוֹלִין לוֹ בָּשָׂר וּמְסַנְּנִין לוֹ יַיִן. הֵצִיץ בּוֹ נָחָשׁ וְרָאָה בִּכְבוֹדוֹ, וְנִתְקַנֵּא בּוֹ. הָתָם בְּבָשָׂר הַיּוֹרֵד מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.

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.

מִי אִיכָּא בָּשָׂר הַיּוֹרֵד מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם? אִין, כִּי הָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא הֲוָה קָאָזֵיל בְּאוֹרְחָא, פְּגַעוּ בֵּיהּ הָנָךְ אַרְיָוָתָא דַּהֲווֹ קָא נָהֲמִי לְאַפֵּיהּ. אֲמַר: ״הַכְּפִירִים שֹׁאֲגִים לַטָּרֶף״. נְחִיתוּ לֵיהּ תַּרְתֵּי אַטְמָתָא. חֲדָא אַכְלוּהָ וַחֲדָא שַׁבְקוּהָ. אַיְתְיַהּ וַאֲתָא לְבֵי מִדְרְשָׁא, בָּעֵי עֲלַהּ: דָּבָר טָמֵא הוּא זֶה אוֹ דָּבָר טָהוֹר? אֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: אֵין דָּבָר טָמֵא יוֹרֵד מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.

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 Ḥalafta was walking along the way, he encountered those lions that were roaring at him, intending to eat him. He said: “The young lions roar after their prey, and seek their food from God” (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.

בָּעֵי מִינֵּיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא מֵרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: יָרְדָה לוֹ דְּמוּת חֲמוֹר, מַהוּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָארוּד נָאלָא! הָא אָמְרִי לֵיהּ: אֵין דָּבָר טָמֵא יוֹרֵד מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם.

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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַכִּישּׁוּף. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב:

§ 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: