Sanhedrin 59a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection against it:

But

the mitzva of

civil laws

is a positive commandment,

to administer justice,

and

in any event

the tannai counts

it among the seven mitzvot!?

And we answer: For this reason the tannai taught “civil laws,” because they are

a positive commandment,

and

also

“sit”

and

“do not act”

they are, because the Torah commanded them to administer justice, and it further commanded that they sit and not render an unjust judgment.

ведь Тора повелела им вершить суд, а также повелела им воздерживаться и не судить неправедно.

And Rabbi Yohanan said:

A gentile who engages in Torah,

behold, he is

liable to death, as it is stated:

“The Torah that Moses commanded us is an inheritance

of the congregation of Jacob,” and the amoraim disputed this matter:

There is one who expounds “inheritance” in the sense of inheritance, and there is one who expounds “inheritance” as though the Torah had said “betrothed”; and in either case,

inheritance

it is

for us and not for them;

and it will be explained in the Gemara below why they are liable to death for taking that which is not their inheritance.

And we raise an objection against it:

Let the tannai count

a gentile who engages in Torah

among the seven mitzvot!?

And we answer: According to

the one who says

“inheritance”

in its plain sense, and in the sense of inheritance, when he engages in Torah

he is stealing it

from Israel, for it is their inheritance, and if so, it is included in the mitzva of theft.

And according to

the one who says

“inheritance” in the sense of

“betrothed,”

then consequently

his law is like that of a betrothed maiden, for she is subject to stoning,

and it is included in forbidden sexual relations.

Meytivi

against Rabbi Yohanan’s words, who prohibits a gentile from engaging in Torah, from what we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Meir would say:

Rabbi Meir would say:

From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah is like a High Priest, as it is stated [

Leviticus 18:5]:

“You shall observe My statutes and My laws

which a person shall perform and live by them,”

“which they shall perform

priests, Levites, and Israelites”—

which implies Israelites only—

it was not stated, but rather

“which he shall perform

the person,”

and included in this are all human beings,

you have learned: Even a gentile who engages in Torah is therefore like a High Priest.

And this beraita is difficult against Rabbi Yohanan, who said “a gentile who engages in Torah is liable to death”!?

And we answer:

There—

in the beraita that considered a gentile who engages in Torah like a High Priest—it is referring to a gentile who engages

in their seven mitzvot

[of the descendants of Noah]; but when he engages in the rest of the Torah, he is liable to death.

Here the Gemara returns to explain the earlier beraita, 56a: The Sages taught: The descendants of Noah were commanded seven mitzvot: civil laws... and a limb from a living animal,

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: Also blood from a living animal:

The Sages taught:

It is written in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah:

“But flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat”—

this is a limb from a living animal,

for thus the verse said: As long as its soul is in it, you shall not eat the flesh.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: Also blood from a living animal

is included in the verse, and it is prohibited to the descendants of Noah.

The Gemara interrupts Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel’s words and explains his reason:

What is the reason of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel?

Read in it

“flesh with its soul you shall not eat,”

“its blood with its soul you shall not eat.”

But the Rabbis,

what will they do with the word “its blood”!?

And we explain:

That “its blood”

“its blood”

comes to permit

a limb from a living animal, because

it comes for creeping things

[the verse comes to permit a limb from a living creeping thing].

Here the Gemara returns and brings the continuation of Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel’s words in the beraita:

In a similar manner you say,

that is, just as the descendants of Noah were warned concerning blood from a living animal as concerning a limb from a living animal, so Israel were warned concerning blood from a living animal because it is “from the living,” and as it is stated:

“Only be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul,”

[this is the prohibition of blood],

“and you shall not eat the soul with the flesh”

[this is the prohibition of a limb from a living animal], and therefore these mitzvot were juxtaposed, to say: You shall not eat the blood mentioned at the beginning of the verse while the soul is with the flesh, and to prohibit “blood from a living animal.”

But the Rabbis,

how will they explain this juxtaposition!?

And we explain their view:

That

verse, “and you shall not eat the soul with the flesh”—

comes for blood from which the soul departs—

That is: To teach concerning the prohibition of blood, lest you say: Since the prohibition of blood was compared to “You shall sacrifice from your cattle and from your flocks,” therefore only blood of slaughter is prohibited as blood, but blood that is let from an animal is not blood for which one is liable on account of blood. It teaches us that it too is prohibited on account of blood, for this is why the Torah compared it to a limb from a living animal: Just as a limb from a living animal contains a prohibition, so blood from a living animal contains a prohibition. Yet each is prohibited on account of its own prohibition: this because it is “from the living,” and this because it is blood, provided that the blood is “the blood of the soul”

—and as the verse says, “But flesh with its soul, its blood, you shall not eat”—and this is the blood from which the soul departs.

And we raise an objection concerning the essence of the matter of a limb from a living animal for a descendant of Noah and for an Israelite:

Why was it necessary to write

the prohibition of a limb from a living animal

for the descendants of Noah, and why was it necessary to repeat it at Sinai!?

That is: Why did the Torah have to repeat and say to the Israelites, “and you shall not eat the soul with the flesh,” which is the prohibition of a limb from a living animal? For once the Torah wrote this prohibition for the descendants of Noah, Israelites are automatically obligated in it, since it certainly does not stand to reason that Israel, upon accepting the Torah, departed from the category of the first mitzvot in which they had been obligated!?

And we answer:

For the teaching of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina,

that is: Because of the words of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, who said: A mitzva that was not repeated at Sinai, thereafter only Israelites are commanded in it—

For Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina said:

Every mitzva that was stated

at first

to the descendants of Noah, and was repeated

to Israel

at Sinai,

then:

It was stated for both the one and the other,

that is: From then on, both the descendants of Noah and the Israelites are obligated in it.

And every mitzva that was stated at first

to the descendants of Noah and

subsequently

was not repeated at Sinai,

then:

It was stated to Israel and not to the descendants of Noah,

that is, the mitzva was transferred, from the occasion of Mount Sinai onward, from the descendants of Noah, and thereafter only Israel are commanded in it because of the mitzva stated at Sinai.

Rabbi Judah and the Sages disputed in Hullin [100b] the interpretation of what the Torah wrote in the portion of Vayishlah, concerning Jacob, who struggled with the angel, and he struck the socket of Jacob’s thigh in his struggle with him: “Therefore the children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic sinew”:

Rabbi Judah holds: At that time the children of Jacob were prohibited from eating the sciatic sinew.

And the Sages say: “It was stated at Sinai, but it was written in its place,” that is: Until Sinai they were not warned, but it was written in its place, after it was stated at Sinai and Moses wrote and arranged the Torah, he wrote this verse concerning the event: “Therefore afterward the children of Israel were warned not to eat the sciatic sinew”; Rashi.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, adds and says:

And we have none,

that is: There is no mitzva that was stated to the descendants of Noah and was not repeated at Sinai

except

the mitzva of

the sciatic sinew, and only according to Rabbi Judah,

who holds: This mitzva was prohibited to the Israelites while they were still descendants of Noah.

The master said: Every mitzva that was stated to the descendants of Noah and repeated at Sinai was stated for both the one and the other:

And we raise an objection against it:

On the contrary,

we ought to say the opposite:

Since it was repeated at Sinai—

necessarily

it was stated to Israel and not to the descendants of Noah,

for if it had been stated for both of them, it would have been enough for Scripture to remain silent, and Israel would automatically have become obligated in the mitzva by virtue of the first mitzva that was stated to everyone, including Israel!?

And we answer:

Since it was repeated

[since it was repeated] the prohibition of

idolatry at Sinai, and we find that He punished gentiles for it

[and we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, punished the gentiles—even after the occasion of Mount Sinai], if so, they are warned concerning idolatry;

learn from this:

Even all mitzvot that were stated and repeated

were stated for both the one and the other.

The master said:

“For the descendants of Noah, and it was not repeated at Sinai, it was stated for Israel and not for the descendants of Noah.”

And we have only the sciatic nerve, and according to Rabbi Judah. And we object:

On the contrary,

we ought to say the opposite:

Since it was not repeated

the sciatic nerve for Israel

at Sinai,

among the other mitzvot, if so, indeed they are no longer commanded in it, and

“it was stated for the descendants of Noah and not for Israel,”

that is: the “Children of Israel” were not commanded in it [as the verse states: “Therefore the Children of Israel shall not eat the sciatic nerve”], but only until they came to Sinai; however, once they came to Sinai, this mitzva ceased from them!?

And we answer: It is impossible that one of the mitzvot should be removed from Israel and remain with the descendants of Noah, because

“there is no matter that is permitted to Israel and forbidden to the descendants of Noah”

there is no matter in which Israel are permitted and the gentiles are forbidden.

And we object to this principle:

But not

is there indeed nothing that is permitted to Israel and forbidden to the descendants of Noah!?

For behold,

a married woman,

a beautiful woman,

has this law: she is permitted to Israel in war, but forbidden to gentiles on account of robbery!?

And we answer:

There,

with regard to a beautiful woman—for this reason she was not permitted to a gentile—

because they are not people of conquest,

the Land was given to be conquered only to Israel; and even for Israel, a beautiful woman was permitted only in war, through conquest.

And we still object to this principle:

For behold,

robbery

of less than the value of a peruta,

which is forbidden to a gentile, whereas an Israelite is permitted it even when he robs an Israelite!?

And we answer:

There,

with regard to a gentile, who is forbidden robbery even of less than the value of a peruta,

because

the gentiles

are not people who waive,

for they are cruel and do not waive, unlike Israel. Here the Gemara returns to the principal words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, who said:

“Every mitzva that was stated for the descendants of Noah and repeated at Sinai was stated for both;”

and we object to it: