Sanhedrin 57b — the Talmud in English

This one is

executed for it

, and this is the “like it” of bloodshed.

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa found

Rabbi Yaakov bar Aḥa found that it was written]

in the book of aggadic teachings of the house of Rav:

A descendant of Noah is executed

even

by one judge, and

even

by one witness

, and even

without a warning, from the mouth of a man and not from the mouth of a woman

, meaning, a woman is disqualified both for judgment and for testimony

; and even a relative

is trusted to judge him and to testify against him.

In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said: Even for fetuses

that the gentile caused to be miscarried, he is executed, and among a gentile this is included in bloodshed.

The Gemara explains the source of the laws stated there:

From where are these matters derived

From where are all these derived]?

He said

explained

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: For the verse says: In the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah: “But your blood, for your lives, I will require [I will require the blood of a person from the one who shed it]: from every living creature I will require it [from every living thing], and from man, from each man’s brother, I will require the life of man.” And behold, the verse is superfluous, for immediately afterward it says, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed”; therefore we expound it to teach: “

And

but your blood, for your lives, I will require”:

You shall require the blood of the murdered person yourselves, and

even by one judge

as I require it alone. “

From every living creature

I will require it”: You shall require it

even without a warning

, for “living creature” implies even wild animals, and warning it is not applicable; and from the fact that Scripture compared the requiring of man’s blood to that of an animal, we learn that a person too need not be warned. “

I will require it, and from man”:

Even by one witness

, for if it does not refer to requiring the blood of man—for it has already said, “I will require your blood”—apply it to requiring witnesses; and since Scripture expressed it in the singular and did not say, “I will require them,” infer from it that it is even by one witness.

And the Gemara likewise expounds the entire continuation of the verse with regard to witnesses: “

From man”:

And not from a woman. “

From man,

his brother”:

And even a relative.

We learned in the book of aggadic teachings of the house of Rav:

In the name of Rabbi Ishmael they said: Even for fetuses

a descendant of Noah is executed:

The Gemara asks:

What is Rabbi Ishmael’s reason?

And we explain:

For it is written

in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah: “

Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,”

and Rabbi Ishmael expounds it: Whoever sheds the blood of a man within a man, his blood shall be shed; and

what is a man who is in

the midst of

a man

concerning which the Torah said about the one who sheds his blood, “His blood shall be shed”?

You must say: This is a fetus in its mother’s womb.

The Gemara adds to explain the reasoning of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael and does not make one who sheds the blood of fetuses liable to death:

And the first tanna

who disagrees with Rabbi Ishmael,

is the tanna of the school of Manasseh, who said: Every death stated with regard to descendants of Noah is only strangulation

, [not like the one who disagrees and holds that his death is only by the sword], and he expounds the verse with regard to this matter. How?

And he attaches

the first tanna this

“in”

“man”

to the end of the verse

the word “in man” he assigns to the continuation of the verse and not to its beginning],

and expounds it thus: “

In man his blood shall be shed”—

That is to say: He does not expound “Whoever sheds the blood of man in man—his blood shall be shed,” but rather, “Whoever sheds the blood of man—in man his blood shall be shed,” and the implication is: his death shall be through the shedding of his blood within him, so that his blood does not emerge outside—

and

what is the bloodshed of a man that is in the body of a man? You must say: This is strangulation.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection

He challenged]

Rav Hamnuna

to what they said: “From the mouth of a man and not from the mouth of a woman,” meaning that a woman is disqualified from judging:

And a woman

descendant of Noah

is not commanded

is not commanded] concerning laws!?

But is it written

in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, concerning Abraham: “

For I have known him”

concerning Abraham], “

so that he may command

his sons and his household [that is, the women] after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to perform righteousness and justice”—behold, even the household of women must perform justice!?

He—

Rav Hamnuna—

raised it

raised this difficulty]

and he

himself

resolved it

resolved it]:

Divide the verse in this manner: “

His sons”

for judgment

judgment], “

his household”

for righteousness.

He said

he raised a difficulty

to him, Rav Avya the Elder, to Rav Pappa

concerning the fact that they disqualified a woman from judging, because it is written “man”:

If so,

say

also:

A woman descendant of Noah who killed should not be executed!?

For

“from man

his brother I will require the life of man”

and not from a woman

I will require it”

is written!?

That is to say, if you expound “a man and not a woman,” then let us too expound in this verse “a man and not a woman,” and the gentile woman who killed will be exempt from death!?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Pappa to Rav Avya the Elder:

Thus said Rav Yehuda:

The verse says, “

Whoever sheds the blood of man

in man his blood shall be shed,” and we learn: Whoever sheds

in any case

his blood shall be shed.

Rav Avya the Elder again raised a difficulty to Rav Pappa:

Say: A woman descendant of Noah who committed adultery should not be executed, for it is written

with regard to Adam the first man, when a woman was given to him: “

Therefore a man shall leave

his father and his mother,” and it is expounded as a prohibition of forbidden sexual relations, as explained in the beraita below, 58a; and let us expound “a man shall leave”

and not “

you shall leave,

woman”!?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Pappa to Rav Avya the Elder:

Thus said Rav Yehuda:

It is written, “[and therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife,]

and they shall be one flesh”;

the verse then included them together

. Since the end of the verse refers to the man and the woman together, the beginning of the verse also refers to the prohibition concerning both of them.

the verse returned and included the woman together with the man], that is to say, since the end of the verse refers to the man and woman together, the beginning of the verse too refers to the prohibition of both of them.

The Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 18:6]: “A man, a man, to any of his near flesh you shall not approach to uncover nakedness”—

And it should have said

“a man”;

what does

“a man, a man”

a man, a man”?

come to teach? To include the gentiles, who are warned concerning forbidden sexual relations like Israelites.

And we challenge this:

And

if

this [

forbidden sexual relations among a gentile]

is derived from here

it is learned from this verse], but

it is derived from there as well!?

As it is stated:

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying,” and we expounded above, 56b: “

saying”

this is forbidden sexual relations!?

And we answer:

There—“

saying”—

concerns their forbidden sexual relations [

gentile women who are forbidden sexual relations]—

And here—“

a man, a man”—

concerns our forbidden sexual relations [

Israelite women who are forbidden sexual relations to a gentile], namely, a married Israelite woman. And therefore the verse had to teach us the law of the forbidden sexual relations of Israelites separately, as

the latter clause teaches:

If he had intercourse with the forbidden sexual relations of Israelites, he is judged according to the laws of Israelites,

whereas when he has intercourse with gentile forbidden sexual relations, he is judged according to the laws of descendants of Noah.

And we explain:

For what halakhic purpose,

for what matter is the gentile judged according to the laws of Israelites different from the gentile judged according to the laws of a descendant of Noah?

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha:

It was necessary only for an assembly [

the Sanhedrin]

and witnesses [

two witnesses]

and a warning;

that is to say: According to the laws of a descendant of Noah, he is judged by one judge and one witness and does not require a warning, whereas one who has intercourse with the forbidden sexual relations of Israelites, who is judged according to the laws of Israelites, is executed only by a Sanhedrin, on the basis of two witnesses, and becomes liable only following a warning.

And we challenge this:

Is it inferior

, and is one who has intercourse with the forbidden sexual relations of Israelites inferior and less serious than one who has intercourse with the forbidden sexual relations of a descendant of Noah, so that Scripture was lenient concerning one who has intercourse with the forbidden sexual relations of Israelites, so that he is executed only according to the stringencies of Israelites!?

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was necessary

what they said, “he is judged according to the laws of Israelites”:

Rather for

a gentile who has intercourse with

a betrothed maiden

of Israel,

for according to their law they do not have [

they do not have such a death], because “a betrothed maiden” does not apply to them, and to teach

that we judge them according to our law,

he is judged according to the laws of Israelites, namely, by stoning.

And we challenge:

But

a gentile who has intercourse with

a married woman

of Israel, for they too have a death penalty for a married woman—do

we judge them according to their law

—that is, according to the laws applying to descendants of Noah—because this case is not less severe, as you said!?

and do we judge him according to the laws of descendants of Noah], because it is not “inferior,” as we said!?

But it was taught:

If

the gentile

has intercourse with a betrothed maiden

of Israel, this one is

judged by stoning

according to the laws of Israelites; and if the gentile has intercourse

with a married woman

of Israel, this one is

judged by strangulation—

And

now the difficulty is:

If according to their law

we judge them, then

it is the sword,

whereas the beraita explains that we judge him by strangulation, and this is according to the laws of Israelites, for a married woman is subject to strangulation!?

He said

he answered

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

What

“a married woman”

does it teach

in the beraita?

For example, she entered the wedding canopy but did not have intercourse, for

even this one

according to their law they do not have

such a category

they do not have a married woman of this kind for which they are liable to death], and

we judge them according to our law, namely, by strangulation and not by the sword—

for

behold,

Rabbi Ḥanina taught:

A gentile woman

possessed as a wife they have

among descendants of Noah, that is to say, they are forbidden and liable for her, but a gentile woman who

entered the wedding canopy but did not have intercourse, they do not have.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who explained what they said, “he is judged according to the laws of Israelites,” as referring specifically to when he has intercourse with forbidden sexual relations that descendants of Noah do not have:

Every forbidden sexual relation for which the court of Israelites executes [“

those liable for death”],

a descendant of Noah is warned concerning it

and is also executed.

But a forbidden sexual relation for which

the court of Israelites does not execute

—such as those liable for excision: his sister, his father’s sister, his mother’s sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, and his wife’s sister—

a descendant of Noah is not warned concerning it, the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

There are many forbidden sexual relations

such as “those liable for excision,”

for which the court of Israelites does not execute,

but nevertheless

a descendant of Noah is warned concerning them.

And the beraita further adds:

One who had intercourse with forbidden Israelite relations is judged under Israelite laws; one who had intercourse with forbidden Noahide relations is judged under Noahide laws; and we have no -

forbidden relations for which the gentile is judged under Israelite laws -

except for a betrothed maiden only;

Here it is elucidated in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan: that with regard to the other forbidden Israelite relations, against which they too are warned, they too are indeed judged under Noahide laws, and in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

And we raise an objection against the beraita:

And let us also count

the beraita "

entered the wedding canopy and was not penetrated"!?

For after all, one who had intercourse with her is judged under Israelite laws, since she is not subject to the death penalty under Noahide laws, and it is like a betrothed maiden!?

And we answer:

This tanna

of the beraita

is the tanna of the house of Menashe, who said: Every death penalty stated with regard to Noahides is only strangulation,

and if so,

both one and the other [

both under Israelite laws and under Noahide laws ]

is strangulation,

and it is not applicable to say that he is judged by strangulation because he is judged under Israelite laws.

Again we raise an objection against the beraita:

And

because

Rabbi Meir holds: Every forbidden relation for which an Israelite court puts [one] to death, a Noahide is warned against;

but with regard to one for which an Israelite court does not put [one] to death, a Noahide is not warned against it!?

But it was taught

not like the beginning and not like the end:

A convert who converted is deemed like a newborn child, and thereafter he has no kinship neither from the side of the father nor from the side of the mother, and by law he should be permitted [to marry] all his relatives; nevertheless, the Sages said: Those forbidden relations that a gentile is also forbidden to [have], he remains forbidden to [have] even after he converted, so that people should not say: “Converts come from a stricter sanctity to a lesser sanctity”; and therefore: