Sanhedrin 58b — the Talmud in English

“His father” and “his mother” imply the same matter, and

“his father”

in the likeness of

“his mother,”

and

“his mother”

in the likeness of

“his father”

cannot be found [

you do not find it]

except among

their relatives through

brotherhood,

that is, his father’s sister and his mother’s sister.

And because, if you come to compare them and say: “His father” means his actual father, and likewise “his mother” means his actual mother, this is impossible, for although “his mother” can be explained as [a woman] after the death of his father, and thus she would not be “his fellow’s wife,” nevertheless you cannot say “his father” means his actual father, for if so, this would be “and not with a male”—

And if you come to compare them and say that both are through marriage, this too is impossible, for through marriage it is possible to explain only “his father’s wife”; and if you explain “his father” in this way, you cannot explain “his mother” in this way; and necessarily, if you come to compare them, you can explain them only through brotherhood, that is, his father’s sister and his mother’s sister, as Rabbi Eliezer explained it.

And Rabbi Akiva—

who explains “his father” to mean his father’s wife, and “his mother” to mean his actual mother, and was not concerned that they should be alike and concern the same matter—held:

It is preferable to establish

“his father”

as his father’s wife, for

she indeed

is called [

is called]

“the nakedness of his father,” [

as it is written concerning Israel—Leviticus 18:8—“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness,” and the expression “a man shall leave his father” applies to her]—

to exclude [

that is, from explaining it as]

his father’s sister,

and because

his father’s sister

is called

“the kin of his father,”

is called [

as it is written—Leviticus 18:12—“You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s kin”], but

“the nakedness of his father”

is not called,

and the expression “a man shall leave his father” does not apply to her.

And since it is impossible to explain “his father” except as “his father’s wife,” it is therefore impossible for “his mother” to be in the likeness of “his father,” for through marriage it is impossible to explain “his mother” and say that this means “his father’s wife,” since she has already been prohibited under “his father”; and since in any event they are not alike, “his mother” is automatically explained as his actual mother, and as a mother from his father’s rape, who is not his father’s wife.

Come and hear

an objection to Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibited a son of Noah from marrying his father’s sister through the mother!?

For it is written [Exodus 6:20]:

“And Amram took

[Moses’ father]

Jochebed, his aunt

[his father Kohath’s sister], as his wife”—

What, is it not

the case that Jochebed was

the aunt

of Amram

through the mother,

and if so, it is proven that his father’s sister, even through the mother, is permitted to a son of Noah, and this is an objection to Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibited a son of Noah from marrying his father’s sister!?

And we answer:

No,

Jochebed was not his aunt through the mother, but

his aunt through the father

alone; she was Kohath’s sister through the father and not through the mother. And his father’s sister through the father—even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that she is not prohibited to a son of Noah.

Come and hear:

It is written [Genesis 20]: “And Abraham said of Sarah his wife, ‘She is my sister’; and Abimelech king of Gerar sent and took Sarah... And Abimelech said to Abraham, ‘What did you see that you did this thing?’ And Abraham said, ‘Because I said, surely there is no fear of God in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife

; and indeed

[like “however”]

she is my sister, my father’s daughter, but not my mother’s daughter,

and she became my wife”—

And it implies that Abraham said as follows: For this reason I took her as my wife, although she is my sister, because she is my father’s daughter and not my mother’s daughter, and a sister through the father is permitted—

By implication,

his sister

through the mother

is

prohibited;

and this is satisfactory according to Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibited even his father’s sister and his mother’s sister; all the more so, he prohibited his sister, at least when she is his sister through the mother. But according to Rabbi Akiva, only those liable for the death penalties of Israel were prohibited to a son of Noah, and not his sister, who is among those liable for karet!?

And we answer:

And can you understand it so?

Do you indeed think that Abraham’s intention, when he said “but not my mother’s daughter,” was to say: Had she been my mother’s daughter, she would have been prohibited to me!?

And was Sarah indeed

his sister

of Abraham

she?

so that we could say that his intention was to refer to a prohibition!? For

she was his brother’s daughter,

as Sarah was the daughter of Haran, Abraham’s brother,

and since this is so,

that she was only his brother’s daughter,

it makes no difference

whether his brother was

through the father, and it makes no difference

whether his brother was

through the mother: his daughter is permitted

[permitted] to him, and necessarily Abraham did not intend to say that she would have been prohibited to him had she been his mother’s daughter—

Rather, this is what he said to him there

Abraham to Abimelech:

For this reason I called her “my sister,” because

I have the relationship of a sister with her

[I have a relationship with her by way of brotherhood], for she is my brother’s daughter, and she is called “my sister,” because she is the daughter of my father’s son’s brother, and “grandchildren are like children,” and it is as though she were my father’s daughter, which would make her my sister.

And this relationship

through the father

is

and not through the mother,

for Haran was Abraham’s brother through his father Terah and not through his mother; and it was not because, had she been my relative through my mother, she would have been prohibited to me, but this was simply the circumstance.

Come and hear

an objection to Rabbi Akiva, who permitted a sister, even through the mother, to a son of Noah, from what we learned in a beraita:

“For what reason did the first Adam not marry

his

daughter?”

“So that Cain would marry his sister, because

‘the world shall be built through kindness.’”

[The beginning of the world was built through kindness].

It therefore implies:

If not for this

[if not for the kindness]

she would have been prohibited,

and the sister would have been prohibited from marrying Cain; it therefore implies that his sister is prohibited to a son of Noah, and this is an objection to Rabbi Akiva, who did not prohibit a sister to a son of Noah!?

And we answer:

Since the sister was permitted

to Cain because “the world shall be built through kindness,”

she was permitted

for all time.

Rav Huna said: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter—

And if you say:

If so,

for what reason did Adam not marry his daughter,

for she was permitted to him!?

Your answer is:

“So that Cain would marry his sister, because

‘the world shall be built through kindness.’”

And some say:

thus

Rav Huna said:

A gentile is prohibited to marry his daughter; know this, for Adam did not marry his daughter!

The Gemara rejects Rav Huna’s words:

It is not so; there—

concerning Adam, who did not marry his daughter—

the reason was that Cain should marry his sister.

Rav Hisda said:

A slave

a Canaanite slave of an Israelite who circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavery: he is

permitted to marry his mother, and permitted to marry his daughter.

For

he left

the slave

the category of a gentile, but did not enter the category of Israel.

That is: it is established for us that a convert who converts is considered like a newborn, and according to the basic law he is permitted to marry his relatives; but the Sages decreed that he be prohibited from those forbidden relations that a gentile is also prohibited from, so that people should not say, “They are coming from a more stringent sanctity to a lesser sanctity,” as explained in the beraita on folio a. Nevertheless, a slave who circumcised and immersed for the sake of slavery, although he has the status of “a convert who converts is considered like a newborn,” is nevertheless not a fully-fledged Israelite, and the Sages did not decree concerning him as they decreed concerning an Israelite, because of “lest they say”; therefore he is permitted to marry his relatives, even those prohibited to a gentile.

When Rav Dimi came

[when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel],

Rabbi Eleazar said in the name of Rabbi Hanina: A son of Noah who designated a maidservant

to be a wife

for his slave, and the master came

upon

her,

he is

executed for her.

The Gemara asks:

From when

[from when] is she considered designated for him?

He said,

explained

Rav Naḥman:

They are accustomed to calling her "

so-and-so's girl,"

from the time the women of the city are accustomed to calling her "the daughter of so-and-so the slave."

And

from when is she permitted [

from when is she permitted to everyone]?

Rav Huna said: From when she uncovers her head in the marketplace,

for it was the practice of married gentile women to cover their heads, and this one, who uncovered her head in the marketplace, revealed by herself that she was no longer the slave's wife.

Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Hanina:

A gentile who has intercourse with his wife

unnaturally is liable; as it is stated: "

And he shall cling

to his wife," and it implies a manner of clinging, in which both derive pleasure,

but not unnaturally,

in which the woman does not derive pleasure.

Rava

wondered

and objected

to this law:

Is there anything that is permitted to an Israelite

but prohibited to a gentile [

and is there something that is permitted to an Israelite and prohibited only to a gentile? Intercourse unnaturally was not prohibited to an Israelite, and it is impossible that it should be prohibited only to a gentile]!?

Rather, Rava said:

A gentile who has intercourse with another's wife unnaturally,

this one is

exempt

from the law of a married woman.

What is the reason?

For the source of the prohibition of a married woman for a gentile is surely because it is written: "And he shall cling

to his wife"

and not to another's wife,

and Scripture preceded this by saying "and he shall cling," and it implies:

and he shall cling, but not unnaturally,

that is: Scripture prohibited a gentile from [having intercourse with] another's wife only in the manner of clinging, but not unnaturally.

Rabbi Hanina said:

A gentile who strikes an Israelite is liable to death.

As it is stated

with regard to Moses in Egypt: "

And Moses grew up and went out to his brothers and saw their burdens, and he saw an Egyptian man striking a Hebrew man, one of his brothers.

And he turned this way and that, and saw that there was no man, and he struck the Egyptian

and buried him in the sand"; thus the Egyptian became liable to death for striking an Israelite man.

And

further

Rabbi Hanina said:

One who slaps [

strikes]

the jaw of an Israelite, it is as though he slaps

he

the jaw of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: "

One who ensnares a man swallows holiness,"

and we expound it: one who strikes a person—that is, an Israelite, who is called "man"

—

it is as though he swallows holiness, that is: it is as though he slapped the jaw of the Divine Presence. The mnemonic is: “raises, his field, Shabbat”

for the following statements of Reish Lakish:

Raises:

Reish Lakish said: One who raises his hand against his fellow,

even though he did not strike him,

this one is

called "

wicked,"

as it is stated

with regard to Moses in Egypt: "

And [Moses] went out on the second day, and behold, two Hebrew men were quarrelling,

and he said to the wicked one, ‘Why would you strike your fellow?’"

and behold: "

‘Why did you strike'"

was not said, but rather "

‘Why would you strike,'"

and nevertheless Moses called him "wicked"; thus we have learned:

Even though he did not strike him, he is called wicked.

Zeiri said

in the name of

Rabbi Hanina:

One who raises his hand against his fellow

is called "

a sinner,"

as it is stated: "

Even before they burned the fat [of the sacred offerings on the altar, to permit the meat for eating], the priest's attendant would come and say to the man slaughtering, ‘Give [now] meat to roast for the priest...’ And the man would say to him, ‘Let them burn the fat today, and [then] take for yourself as your soul desires,’ and he would say to him [the priest's attendant: Not so, but rather], ‘For now you shall give

and if not [

you give]

I will take by force [

I will take from you by force of hand"; and this threat that they uttered is like raising one's hand against one's fellow.

And it is written

about this in the following verse: "

And the sin

of the young men was very great."

Rav Huna said:

His hand should be severed

of one who raises his hand against his fellow,

as it is stated: "

And the arm of the haughty"—

one who is accustomed to raising his hand against his fellow—"

shall be broken."

Rav Huna would sever a hand [

he severed the hand of a person who was accustomed to striking his fellow.

Rabbi Elazar says:

He has no remedy—

for one who raises his hand against his fellow—

except burial,

that is: he ought to be killed and buried,

as it is stated:

And the man of the arm [

a man who swings his arm]

the earth is his [

prepared for burial].

And

further

Rabbi Elazar said:

Land was given only to those possessing strength,

that is: it is fitting to purchase land only for people of strength, because strife is frequent on account of land: animals come and cause damage, and thieves come and steal, and one must be strong in order to stand against them.

As it is stated: "

And the man of the arm"—

the earth is his [

for him it is fitting to purchase the land].

His field:

And

further

Reish Lakish said:

What is [the meaning of] that which is written "

One who works his land will be satisfied with bread,"

to teach you:

If a person makes himself like a slave to the soil,

to be constantly occupied with it in plowing, watering, weeding, and hoeing, then

he will be satisfied with bread, but if not, he will not be satisfied with bread.

Shabbat:

And

further

Reish Lakish said:

A gentile who observes Shabbat

from labor for an entire day, this one is

liable to death, as it is stated: "

And day and night they shall not rest,"

and we expound it with regard to human beings: that they should not rest for an entire day and night—

And

since the gentiles were warned concerning this, they are liable to death if they transgress it, for

the Master said:

Their warning [

of the gentiles]

is their death,

that is: the warning with which the Torah warned them suffices for them to die, and it is unnecessary that it be explicitly written that they are liable to death for it.

Ravina said:

As for this that the Torah prohibited a gentile from observing cessation, do not say that this applies specifically when he ceased labor for the sake of an obligation, such as when he ceased labor on Shabbat, which is a day of cessation for Israel, or when he ceased labor on Sunday, which is a day of cessation that the gentiles made for themselves; rather,

even

if he ceased labor on

Monday

he is liable to death, for the Torah prohibited them from refraining from labor.

And we raise an objection: Did we not learn in the beraita above, 56a: "The gentiles were commanded seven mitzvot..."? And if it is as Reish Lakish said, that this too is a mitzva for them—

Let the tan####nay count it

the prohibition of cessation for gentiles

among the seven mitzvot

that were said to the gentiles, and there will be eight mitzvot!?

And we answer:

When the tan####nay counts

the mitzvot that are

“sit and refrain from action,”

which the Holy One, blessed is He, prohibited them from performing some action, but mitzvot that are

“rise and perform” \-

such as this mitzva, that they are obligated to work—

he does not count.