Sanhedrin 56b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Hanania ben Gamliel says: Also concerning blood from a living creature.

Rabbi Hidka says: Also concerning castration.

Rabbi Shimon says: Also concerning sorcery.

Rabbi Yose says:

not only is sorcery forbidden to them, but

a Noahide is warned concerning everything stated in the passage of sorcery,

for example, [Deuteronomy 18:10–12]]:

“There shall not be found among you one who passes his son or daughter through the fire, a soothsayer, an astrologer, an augur, a sorcerer, one who binds magical incantations, or one who consults an ov or a yidoni, or one who inquires of the dead,” and so forth,

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

“And because of these abominations, Hashem your God dispossesses them before you.”

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

And

from the fact that they were punished it is proven that they had been warned concerning them, for

the verse does not punish

the person

unless it first warns.

Rabbi Elazar says: Also concerning mixed species.

But not all mixed species were forbidden to them. Rather,

Noahides are permitted to wear mixed species and to sow mixed species, and they are not

forbidden except with regard to mating animals and grafting trees.

The Gemara explains:

From where are these words derived?

Where were Noahides commanded concerning these mitzvot?

Rabbi Yohanan said: For the verse says [

Genesis 2:16 ]

“And Hashem God commanded the man, saying: From every tree of the garden you may surely eat.”

We expound:

“And He commanded”—these are laws.

And so it says [

Genesis 18:19 ]

, “For I have known him, so that he may command his children

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

,” and so forth.

It follows that the expression “command” refers to performing justice.

“Hashem”—this is cursing the Name.

And so it says, [

Leviticus 24:16 ]

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

“God”—this is idolatry.

That is, we expound “And Hashem God commanded”: He commanded him concerning His divinity, that he should not exchange Him for another.

And so it says, [

Exodus 20:3 ]:

“You shall not have other gods” .

“Concerning the man”—this is bloodshed.

And so it says [

Genesis 9:6 ],

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

“Saying”—this is forbidden sexual relations.

And so it says [

Jeremiah 3:1 ],

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

shall he return to her again? Would that land not be utterly polluted? Yet you have played the harlot with many companions: ”.

.”

Since the verse begins with the expression “saying” in an unusual manner, we expound “saying” like “he performed maamar with her,” that is, an expression of illicit intercourse.

“From every tree of the garden,”

implies that only that which was made ownerless for him is permitted for him to use,

but not robbery.

“You may surely eat,”

implies that only what is designated for eating may you eat,

but not a limb from a living creature ,

for an animal during its lifetime is not intended for eating.

Up to here, 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 words of the tannaim will be brought below, 59a.

When Rabbi Yitzhak came, he taught the opposite: “And He commanded”—this is idolatry.

“God”—this is laws.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Granted, “God”—this is laws, as it is written [

Exodus 22:7 ]:

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

“the judges” are the judges.

But “and He commanded”—this is idolatry; how is this indicated?

Rav Hisda and Rav Yitzhak bar Avdimi,

each gave an answer to this difficulty:

One said:

for 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 expression “command” refers to idolatry.

And one said:

for it is written [Hosea 5:11]:

“Ephraim is oppressed [

by the hand of his enemies ]

crushed in judgment [

crushed by the judgments of the Holy One, blessed is He ]

for he willingly went after a command [

for he consented to follow the commands of the prophets of Baal ] ”.

.”

What difference is there between them ?

The difference between them concerns 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,” it implies that already

from the time of making it, he becomes liable.

But

according to the one who says

who derives it from

“for he willingly went,”

it implies that he is not liable

until he follows after it and worships it [

until he follows after it and worships it ].

Rava said: Is there anyone who says [

that there is one who holds ]

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

But it was taught: With regard to the

prohibition of

idolatry

stated concerning a Noahide,

things for which an Israelite court executes a Noahide, he is warned concerning them,

but things for which

an Israelite court does not execute him, a Noahide is not warned concerning them .

To exclude what?

Is it not 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.

And if so, what is the reason of the one who holds liable a Noahide who made an idol but did not bow to it?

Rav Pappa said: No!

In fact, a Noahide who made an idol but did not bow to it is liable; and although an Israelite is not executed for this transgression, we expound from “and He commanded” that a Noahide is executed for this.

And as for what we learned: “Things for which an Israelite court executes a Noahide, he is warned concerning them; things for which an Israelite court does not execute him, a Noahide is not warned concerning them,” the intention of the beraita is

to exclude embracing and kissing,

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

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

Embracing and kissing what?

If you say it means in its customary manner,

that is, this is the manner of worship of this idolatry, then

he is liable to execution.

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

Rather, to exclude

one who embraced and kissed it

not in its customary manner.

Above we learned the mitzva of laws among the seven mitzvot of Noahides.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Is it that

Noahides were commanded concerning laws?!

But

not

was it taught: Ten mitzvot

were commanded to Israel at Marah: seven that Noahides had accepted upon themselves, and they added to them

laws and Shabbat 69 , and honoring father and mother .

69 , and honoring one’s father and mother .

Laws, as it is written [

Exodus 15:25 ]:

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

Shabbat and honoring father and mother, as it is written [

Deuteronomy 5:12 and 16 ] “

“Observe the day of Shabbat to sanctify it”

“as Hashem your God commanded you,”

and likewise, “Honor your father and your mother, as Hashem your God commanded you,”,

And Rav Yehuda said: “As He commanded you”

implies that He had already commanded it elsewhere; and where?

At Marah.

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

Rav Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha: It was necessary only with regard to a congregation, witnesses, and warning.

That is, indeed Noahides were commanded concerning laws, but at Marah an obligation was added for Israel to judge through a Sanhedrin and on the basis of witnesses and warning. But a gentile is judged on the basis of one witness and one judge.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

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

for they added not laws but judges ?

Rather, Rava said: It was necessary only with regard to the laws of

fines,

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

And

still

it is difficult for us: If so, why was it said “they added laws,” which implies that they added all the laws, whereas if only the laws of fines were added,

it should have said, “and they added within the laws”?

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

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

The Gemara raises an objection:

But were the descendants of Noah not commanded?!

But it was taught in a beraita: “Just as the Israelites were commanded to establish courts of law in every province and every city, so were the descendants of Noah commanded to establish courts of law in every province

and every city ?”

Rather, Rava said: This tanna is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who removes D-Kh

and brings in S-Kh.

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

D

inim, and B

B

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

S

terilization, and

K

ilayim.

For the tanna of the school of Menashe taught: The descendants of Noah were commanded concerning seven mitzvot: idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, bloodshed, robbery, a limb from a living creature, sterilization, and kilayim.

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

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

That is, He commanded the man concerning His divinity.

Rabbi Judah ben Bateira says: Also concerning the blessing of the Name.

That is, from “God” we derive also the prohibition against blessing the Name, as it is written [Exodus 22:27]: “You shall not curse God.”

And some say:

from “God” we learned that he was commanded

also concerning the laws.

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

According to whose view does this statement of Rav Judah in the name of Rav follow: “God am I—do not curse Me; God am I—do not exchange Me; God am I—My awe shall be upon you”?

That is, who expounds from the word “God” the prohibition against blessing the Name, and idolatry, and the obligation of laws?

According to whose view? According to the view of the “some say.”

According to the view of the aforementioned “some say,” who derived these three laws from “God.”

The Gemara asks: According to

the tanna of the school of Menashe,

who did not count the mitzvot of laws and the blessing of the Name among the seven mitzvot of the descendants of Noah,

if he expounds

from

“And He commanded,”

as above,

even these as well,

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

And

if he does not expound “And He commanded,” these,

the seven mitzvot that he counted according to his view,

from where does he derive them?

The Gemara explains:

He never expounds “And He commanded,”

and

these

seven mitzvot

, each one and each one, is written independently.

As follows: