Sanhedrin 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

In that case

he is executed for it

, and this is the equivalent case with regard to bloodshed.

Rabbi Ya'akov bar Aḥa found that it was written [

Rabbi Ya'akov bar Aḥa found that it was written ]

in the book of aggada of the school of Rav:

A gentile is executed

even

by a single judge, and

even

on the testimony of a single witness

, and even

without warning, on the testimony of a man and not on the testimony of a woman

, meaning that a woman is disqualified both from adjudication and from giving testimony

; and even a relative

is deemed credible to judge him and to testify against him.

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: He is also executed for [killing] fetuses

that the gentile caused to be miscarried, as this is included among the prohibitions of bloodshed for a gentile. The Gemara explains the source of the laws stated there:

From where are these matters derived [

From where are all these matters derived ]?

He said

He explained

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: As the verse states

, in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah: “And surely, for your lifeblood I will demand an account; from every beast I will demand it, and from man, from every man’s brother, I will demand an account of human life.” This verse is superfluous, since it is stated immediately afterward: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” Therefore, we expound it to teach the following: “

And

surely, for your lifeblood I will demand an account”:

You shall demand an account for the blood of the murdered person, and

even by a single judge

just as I demand it alone. “

From every beast

I will demand it”: You shall demand it

even without warning

, since “beast” includes even wild animals, and it is impossible to warn an animal. From the fact that Scripture compares the demand made of a human being to that made of an animal, we learn that it is likewise unnecessary to warn a human being. “

I will demand it, and from man”:

Even on the testimony of a single witness

, since if this phrase is not needed with regard to demanding an account for a human’s blood—for it has already been stated, “For your lifeblood I will demand an account”—apply it to the demand for witnesses. And since Scripture expressed it in the singular and did not say, “I will demand it from them,” conclude from this that even a single witness suffices.

The Gemara likewise expounds the 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 aggada of the school of Rav:

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said: He is also executed for [killing] fetuses

: A gentile is executed.

The Gemara asks:

What is Rabbi Yishmael’s rationale?

And we explain:

As 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 Yishmael expounds it: Whoever sheds the blood of a human being within a human being, his blood shall be shed.

And what human being is within

another

human being,

concerning whom the Torah said with regard to 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 further explains the rationale of the first tanna, who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael and does not make one who sheds the blood of fetuses liable to death:

And the first tanna

who disagrees with Rabbi Yishmael

, is the tanna of the school of Menashe, who said: Every death stated with regard to the descendants of Noah is nothing other than strangulation [

unlike the one who disagrees and maintains that his execution is by the sword]. And he expounds the verse in this regard, as follows:

And he places it

the first tanna places

this “

within a human being

” at the end of the verse [

He attaches the word “within a human being” to the continuation of the verse and not to its beginning ],

and expounds it as follows: “

By man shall his blood be shed”—

That is: He does not expound, “Whoever sheds the blood of man within a human being—his blood shall be shed,” but rather, “Whoever sheds the blood of man—within a human being shall his blood be shed.” This implies that his execution is to be carried out by spilling his blood within him, without his blood emerging outside—

And

what is the shedding of a human’s blood that takes place within the body of a human being? You must say: This is strangulation.

Rav Hamnuna raised an objection [

He raised the following difficulty ]

Rav Hamnuna

against what they said: “From the testimony of a man and not from the testimony of a woman,” meaning that a woman is disqualified from adjudicating:

And is a woman

a gentile woman

not commanded [

She is not commanded ] with regard to laws of adjudication!?

But it is written

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

For I have known him

[Abraham],

so that he may command

his children and his household [i.e., the women] after him, and they will keep the way of the Lord, to perform righteousness and justice.” Thus, even the women of the household must administer justice!?

He—

Rav Hamnuna—

raised the objection to him [

He raised this difficulty ] and

he

himself

resolved it [

He answered it ]:

Divide the verse as follows: “

His children”

for justice [

Judgment ], “

his household”

for righteousness.

He said

challenging

Rav Avya the Elder to Rav Pappa, regarding the disqualification of a woman from adjudicating, because it is written “man”:

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

If so,

say

also:

A gentile woman who kills should not be executed!

For it is written: “

From man

his brother I will demand an account of human life,” “

and not from a woman

I will demand an account”—

it is written!?

That is: If you expound “a man and not a woman,” then we too should expound in this verse “a man and not a woman,” and the gentile woman who killed should be exempt from execution!?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Pappa answered Rav Avya the Elder:

This is what Rav Yehuda said:

The verse states: “

Whoever sheds human blood

within a human being, his blood shall be shed,” and we learn: Whoever sheds blood,

in any event

, his blood shall be shed.

Rav Avya the Elder further challenged Rav Pappa:

Say: A gentile woman who commits adultery should not be executed, as it is written

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

Therefore a man shall leave

his father and his mother,” and this is expounded as a prohibition against forbidden sexual relations, as explained in the beraita below, on 58a. And let us expound: “A man shall leave”

and not “shall leave”

a

woman!?

He said

he answered

him

Rav Pappa answered Rav Avya the Elder:

This is what Rav Yehuda said:

It is written: “[Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife,

and they shall become one flesh,”

the verse then combines them

. 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 returns and combines the woman with the man; that is, since the end of the verse refers to the man and the woman together, the beginning of the verse likewise refers to the prohibition applying to both of them

The Sages taught:

It is written [Leviticus 18:6]: “No man, no man shall come near any of his flesh to uncover nakedness”— And it would have sufficed for Scripture to say

“

a man

”;

what is the purpose of saying “

a man, a man”?

To include gentiles, who are warned against forbidden sexual relations as Jews are.

And we challenge this:

And

if

this

[forbidden sexual relations involving a gentile]

is derived from here [

it is learned from this verse ], then

it is derived from there!?

As it is stated:

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

saying”—

this is forbidden sexual relations!?

And we answer:

There—“

saying”—

concerns their forbidden relations [

forbidden relations involving gentile women ]—

whereas here—“

man, man”—

concerns our forbidden relations [

forbidden relations involving Jewish women who are forbidden to a gentile], namely, a married Jewish woman. Therefore, the verse had to teach us the law of forbidden relations involving Jews separately, as

it is taught in the latter clause:

If he has intercourse with a Jewish woman forbidden to him, he is judged according to Jewish law

, whereas when he has intercourse with a gentile woman forbidden to him, he is judged according to the laws of the descendants of Noah.

And we explain:

For what halakhic purpose

, for what matter, is a gentile judged according to Jewish law different from a gentile judged according to the laws of the descendants of Noah?

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said:

It was necessary only with regard to the court [

Sanhedrin ]

and witnesses [

two witnesses ]

and warning

; that is: According to the laws of the descendants of Noah, he is judged by a single judge and a single witness and does not require warning. But one who has intercourse with a Jewish woman forbidden to him, who is judged according to Jewish law, is executed only by a Sanhedrin, on the testimony of two witnesses, and is liable only after warning.

And we challenge this:

Is he diminished

, and is one who has intercourse with a Jewish woman forbidden to him inferior and subject to a lighter penalty than one who has intercourse with a woman forbidden to a descendant of Noah, such that Scripture was lenient with one who has intercourse with a Jewish woman forbidden to him, so that he is executed only according to the stringencies of Jewish law!?

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It was necessary only

for the statement “he is judged according to Jewish law”:

Rather, for

a gentile who has intercourse with a

betrothed maiden

of Israel

, for they do not have

[such a form of] execution, since “betrothed maiden” does not apply to them, and to teach

that we judge them according to our law

, that we judge him according to Jewish law, namely, by stoning.

And we challenge this:

But

a gentile who has intercourse with a

married woman

of Israel, for whom they too have a death penalty, should

we judge him according to their law

[should we judge him according to the laws of the descendants of Noah], because it is not “diminished,” as we said!?

But it was taught in a beraita:

But it was taught:

If

the gentile

has intercourse with a betrothed maiden

of Israel, he is

judged by stoning

according to Jewish law; but if the gentile

has intercourse with a married woman

of Israel, he is

judged by strangulation—

And

now there is a difficulty:

If we judge them according to their law

, then

it is the sword

, whereas the beraita states that he is judged by strangulation, which is according to Jewish law, since a married woman is subject to strangulation!?

He said

in answer,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

What is meant by “

a married woman”

that it is taught

in the beraita?

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

this woman too

they do not have

[the category of a married woman for which they are liable to death], and

we judge them according to our law

, namely, by strangulation and not by the sword—

for

indeed

Rabbi Ḥanina taught:

A gentile woman

who has had intercourse as a married woman is [a category] that they have

among the descendants of Noah; that is, they are prohibited from her and liable to death for her, but a gentile woman who

entered the bridal canopy but did not have intercourse is not [a category] that they have.

A beraita was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan,

who explained the statement “he is judged according to Jewish law” as referring specifically to a case in which he has intercourse with a forbidden relation that the descendants of Noah do not have:

With regard to every forbidden relation for which a Jewish court executes [

“those liable for executions” ],

a descendant of Noah is warned against it and is likewise executed for it.

But with regard to a forbidden relation for which

a Jewish court does not execute

, such as relations for which one is liable to karet: his sister, his paternal aunt, his maternal aunt, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, and his wife’s sister,

a descendant of Noah is not warned against it; these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say:

There are many forbidden relations,

such as those for which one is liable to karet,

for which a Jewish court does not execute

, but nevertheless

a descendant of Noah is warned against them.

And the beraita further adds:

One who has intercourse with an Israelite woman forbidden to him is judged under Israelite law; one who has intercourse with a Noahide woman forbidden to him is judged under Noahide law; and we have no -

forbidden relations for which a gentile is judged under Israelite law -

except for the betrothed maiden alone;

it is therefore explicitly stated in accordance with the words of Rabbi Yohanan: with regard to the other Israelite forbidden relations, for which they too are warned, they are indeed judged under Noahide law, and this is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

And we raise an objection against the beraita:

And let us also count

the beraita's case of "

she entered the marriage canopy but did not have intercourse"!?

For surely one who has intercourse with her is judged under Israelite law, since he is not liable to execution under Noahide law, just as in the case of a betrothed maiden!?

And we answer:

This tanna

of the beraita

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

and therefore

in either case

whether under Israelite law or under Noahide law

it is strangulation,

and it is not appropriate to say that he is judged by strangulation because he is being judged under Israelite law.

We further raise an objection against the beraita:

And

if

Rabbi Meir held: With regard to every forbidden relation for which an Israelite court executes a person, a Noahide is warned against it; but with regard to one for which an Israelite court does not execute a person, a Noahide is not warned against it

!?

But was it not taught

in a manner corresponding neither to the first clause nor to the final clause:

A convert who converted is considered like a newborn child, and thereafter he has no familial relationship, neither on his father's side nor on his mother's side, and by law he should be permitted to marry all his relatives. Nevertheless, the Sages said: Those forbidden relations from which a gentile is also forbidden remain forbidden to him even after he converts, so that people should not say: "The converts have moved from a more stringent sanctity to a less stringent sanctity"; and therefore: