Sanhedrin 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: Also for [eating] blood from a living animal.

Rabbi Ḥidka says: Also for castration .

Rabbi Shimon says: Also for sorcery.

Rabbi Yosei says:

not only is sorcery forbidden to them, but

they are cautioned concerning everything stated in the passage dealing with sorcery as it applies to a Noahide,

for example, [Deuteronomy 18:10–12]:

“There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through fire, one who practices divination, an astrologer, one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who binds with incantations, or one who consults an ov or a yideoni, or one who inquires of the dead,” and so on,

for concerning all these acts it is stated [there]:

“And because of these abominations the Lord your God is dispossessing them before you.”

It follows that the peoples of Canaan were punished for all of these practices.

And

the fact that they were punished proves that they had been cautioned concerning them, since

Scripture does not punish

a person

unless it first cautions him.

Rabbi Elazar says: Also for diverse kinds.

But not all forms of diverse kinds were forbidden to them. Rather,

Noahides are permitted to wear diverse kinds and to sow diverse kinds, and they are

forbidden only to mate animals of different species and to graft different species of trees.

The Gemara explains:

From where are these matters

derived? Where were Noahides commanded concerning these mitzvot?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the verse states [Genesis 2:16]:

Genesis 2:16 ]

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying: Of every tree of the garden you may eat, you shall surely eat.”

We interpret it as follows:

“And He commanded”—this refers to laws.

And so it says [Genesis 18:19]:

Genesis 18:19 ]

, “For I have known him, to the end that he may command his children

and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to perform righteousness and justice

,” and so on.

It follows that the language of “command” relates to the administration of justice .

“The Lord”—this refers to blessing the Name.

And so it says, [Leviticus 24:16]:

Leviticus 24:16 ]

“And one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.”

“God”—this refers to idolatry.

That is, we interpret “And the Lord God commanded”: He commanded him concerning His divinity, that he should not replace Him with another.

And so it says, [Exodus 20:3]:

Exodus 20:3 ]:

“You shall have no other gods” .

“The man”—this refers to bloodshed.

And so it says [Genesis 9:6]:

Genesis 9:6 ],

“Whoever sheds the blood of man,” and so on.

“Saying”—this refers to forbidden sexual relations.

And so it says [Jeremiah 3:1]:

Jeremiah 3:1 ],

“Saying: If a man sends away his wife, and she leaves him and becomes another man’s,

will he return to her again? Would not that land be utterly defiled? Yet you have played the harlot with many lovers

.”

Since the verse begins with the unusual expression “saying,” we interpret “saying” as analogous to “he performed ma'amar with her,” that is, language referring to an adulterous sexual act .

“Of every tree of the garden,”

implies that only that which was made ownerless for him may be used,

but not stolen property.

“You may eat, you shall surely eat,”

implies that only that which is designated for eating may be eaten,

but not a limb from a living animal ,

since an animal during its lifetime is not considered destined to be eaten.

Thus far, we have found a source for the seven mitzvot mentioned at the beginning of the beraita above. The source for the other mitzvot mentioned there in the statements of the tanna'im will be brought below, on 59a.

When Rabbi Yitzḥak came, he taught the opposite: “And He commanded”—this refers to idolatry.

“God”—this refers to laws.

The Gemara challenges this:

Granted, “God”—this refers to laws, as it is written [Exodus 22:7]:

Exodus 22:7 ]:

“And the master of the house shall approach the judges,”

where “the judges” refers to the judges.

But “And He commanded”—this refers to idolatry; from where is this inferred?

Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi,

each offered an answer to this difficulty:

One said,

as it is written [Exodus 32:8]:

“They have quickly turned aside from the way that I commanded them; they have made for themselves

a molten image

.”

It follows that the language of “command” relates to idolatry.

And one said,

as it is written [Hosea 5:11]:

“Ephraim is oppressed

by his enemies

and crushed in judgment,

crushed by the judgment of the Holy One, blessed be He

because he willingly followed the command

of the prophets of the Baal

.”

What is the practical difference between them ?

The practical difference between them is in the case of a gentile who made an idol but did not bow to it.

According to the one who says

who derives it from

“They have made

for themselves a molten image,” this implies that already

from the time of its making he is liable.

But

according to the one who says

who derives it from

“Because he willingly followed,”

this implies that he is not liable

until he follows it and worships it

[until he follows it and worships it].

Rava said: Is there indeed one who says

[that is, is there anyone who maintains]

, that a gentile who made an idol but did not bow to it is liable?!

But it was taught in

the prohibition of

idolatry

stated with regard to a Noahide:

A Noahide is cautioned concerning matters for which an Israelite court executes a Noahide,

but concerning matters for which

an Israelite court does not execute a person, a Noahide is not cautioned .

What does this exclude?

Is it not intended to exclude a gentile who made an idol but did not bow to it?!

For an Israelite is not executed for making an idol if he did not bow to it.

If so, what is the reasoning of the one who holds that a Noahide who made an idol but did not bow to it is liable?

Rav Pappa said: No!

Actually, a Noahide who made an idol but did not bow to it is liable. Although an Israelite is not executed for this transgression, we derive from “And He commanded” that a Noahide is executed for it.

And as for what we learned: “A Noahide is cautioned concerning matters for which an Israelite court executes a Noahide; concerning matters for which an Israelite court does not execute a person, a Noahide is not cautioned”—the intention of the beraita is

to exclude embracing and kissing

the idol, for which he is not liable, just as an Israelite is not executed for them.

The Gemara challenges this:

Embracing and kissing what?

If you say in the ordinary manner,

that is, if this is the manner in which this idolatry is worshipped, then

he is liable for execution.

An Israelite is also executed for this, as explained in the Mishna [below, on 60b].

Rather, to exclude

embracing and kissing

not in the ordinary manner.

Earlier we learned that the mitzva of laws is among the seven mitzvot of Noahides.

The Gemara challenges this: Is it indeed the case that

Noahides were commanded concerning laws?!

But

was it

not taught: Israel was commanded concerning ten mitzvot

at Marah: The seven that the Noahides had accepted upon themselves, and they added to them

laws, and Shabbat

69 , and honoring one’s father and mother .

Laws, as it is written [Exodus 15:25]:

Exodus 15:25 ]:

“There He established for them a statute and a law.”

Shabbat and honoring one’s father and mother, as it is written [Deuteronomy 5:12, 16]: “

Deuteronomy 5:12 and 16 ] “

Observe the day of Shabbat to sanctify it

as the Lord your God commanded you,”

and likewise, “Honor your father and your mother as the Lord your God commanded you.”

And Rav Yehuda said: “As the Lord your God commanded you,”

implies that He had already commanded this elsewhere. And where was this?

At Marah.

In any event, this implies that Noahides were not commanded concerning laws?

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said: It was necessary only with regard to a congregation, witnesses, and forewarning.

That is, Noahides were indeed commanded concerning laws, but at Marah an additional obligation was imposed upon Israel to adjudicate through a Sanhedrin and on the basis of witnesses and forewarning. A gentile, however, is judged on the basis of one witness and one judge.

The Gemara challenges this:

If so, what is the meaning of “and they added laws,”

when they added not laws but judges ?

Rather, Rava said: It was necessary only for monetary laws of

fines,

concerning which Israel was commanded at Marah, whereas Noahides were not commanded.

And

still

the difficulty remains: If so, why does it say “they added laws,” which implies that they added all the laws, when only the laws of fines were added?

It should have said: “And they added within the laws”!

Rather, Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: It was necessary only to establish a court in every district and every city .

That is, the Children of Israel were commanded to establish judges in every province and district, whereas the Noahides were commanded only in one place.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But were the Noahides not commanded [to establish courts at all]?

But it was taught in a beraita: “Just as the Israelites were commanded to establish courts in every district and in every city, so too the Noahides were commanded to establish courts in every district

and in every city ?”

Rather, Rava said: This tanna is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who omits D-K

and includes S-K.

That is, he did not count among the seven mitzvot of the Noahides the mitzva of

d

inim and the blessing of Hashem, and in their place he counted the prohibition of

B

lessing of the Name, but in their place he counted the prohibition of

s

irus, and

k

ilayim.

For the tanna of the school of Menashe taught: The Noahides were commanded concerning seven mitzvot: idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed, robbery, a limb from a living animal, castration, and diverse kinds.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Adam the first man was commanded only concerning idolatry .

As it is stated: “And Hashem God commanded the man.”

That is, He commanded the man concerning His divinity.

Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Also concerning the blessing of the Name.

That is, from the word “God” we derive also the prohibition against blessing Hashem, as it is written: “You shall not curse God.”

And some say,

from the word “God” we learn that he was commanded

also concerning the laws.

That His divinity should be upon you, so that awe of Him should be upon you and in your heart, and not the fear of flesh and blood, leading you to pervert judgment, for judgment belongs to God.

In accordance with whose opinion is this statement of Rav Yehuda, who said in the name of Rav: “I am God; you shall not curse Me. I am God; you shall not exchange Me. I am God; My awe shall be upon you”?

That is, who derives from the word “God” the prohibition against blessing Hashem, the prohibition of idolatry, and the obligation to establish courts?

In accordance with whose opinion? In accordance with the opinion of the one who says so.

In accordance with the opinion of the aforementioned “some say,” who derived these three laws from the word “God.”

The Gemara asks: According to

the tanna of the school of Menashe,

who did not count the mitzvot of establishing courts and blessing Hashem among the seven mitzvot of the Noahides,

if he expounds

from

“And He commanded,”

as above,

even these as well,

that is, why did he not count these mitzvot too, which were derived above from “And He commanded”?

And

if he does not expound “And He commanded,”

these seven mitzvot that he counts according to his opinion,

from where does he derive them?

The Gemara explains:

Actually, he does not expound “And He commanded,”

and

these

seven mitzvot are

each written independently.

As follows: