Sanhedrin 59b — the Talmud in English

And yet

the mitzva of

circumcision, which was stated to the descendants of Noah, as it is written

in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Abraham [Genesis 17:9]: “And God said to Abraham,

And you shall keep My covenant,”

and it was repeated at Sinai

as it is written [Leviticus 12:3]]: “

And on the eighth day he shall be circumcised

the flesh of his foreskin,” -

And nevertheless

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

for if it was stated to all, why was this mitzva not mentioned together with the seven mitzvot of the descendants of Noah!?

And we answer:

That—

the fact that Scripture repeated circumcision for Israel was not in order to make known to us the mitzva of circumcision for Israel that Scripture repeated it, but rather

to permit

it is that it came to permit circumcision on Shabbat

[Scripture came to permit circumcision on Shabbat], for

“on the day”

teaches:

even on Shabbat.

For it could have said: “And on the eighth he shall circumcise the flesh of his foreskin,” and we would know that he shall circumcise on the eighth day, since above it says: “And she shall be impure seven days, as in the days of the impurity of her menstruation she shall be impure. And on the eighth day…,” but Scripture came to make known to us: even on Shabbat he shall circumcise.

We further raise a difficulty against Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

And yet

the mitzva of

being fruitful and multiplying, which was stated to the descendants of Noah, as it is written

in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah [Genesis 9:7]]: “

And you, be fruitful and multiply”—

and it was repeated

this mitzva

at Sinai,

in the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses [Deuteronomy 5:27]]: “

Go, say to them [

to the Children of Israel]

Return to your tents,”

that is, to your wives, because Israel were commanded at the revelation at Sinai to separate from their wives for three days before the speech at Sinai, and at the end it was said to them: “Return to your tents”—

And nevertheless

it was stated to Israel

the mitzva of being fruitful and multiplying,

and not to the descendants of Noah!?

And we answer:

That “

Return to your tents,”

for “

every matter that”

was prohibited

by the count

of the court,

requires another count to permit it”

is what it came for

[it came to teach]; that is:

This mitzva was not repeated at Sinai, except because intercourse had been prohibited to them for three days before the giving of the Torah, and after three days it was necessary to permit it to them; and although it is implied by itself that they were permitted after three days, since initially it was prohibited to them only for three days, and they had passed—

Scripture made known that every matter prohibited by the count of the court, even though they set a time for the matter, requires being counted again to permit it when the time has passed. And we raise a difficulty against this:

If so—

as you say: circumcision and being fruitful and multiplying, since they were repeated in order to introduce some matter concerning them, are therefore included among mitzvot that were stated but not repeated—

each and every one

of the seven mitzvot

too, let us say: It was repeated because of some matter

[it was repeated only because of something newly introduced]; that is:

With regard to all seven mitzvot that were repeated at Sinai, it could be said concerning each and every one that it needed to be repeated because of some matter that was newly presented, such as the prohibition of idolatry: it was said that Scripture needed to repeat it in order to explain the death penalty and the forms of worship prohibited by it; and forbidden sexual relations were repeated in order to explain the punishments. And it could be said that all of them too are included in “was not repeated,” for Scripture repeated them in order to introduce these laws, and consequently they were prohibited to Israel and not to the descendants of Noah, just as you say concerning circumcision and being fruitful and multiplying, that since they were needed in order to introduce something, they are consequently not included among mitzvot that were stated and repeated, and were stated to Israel and not to the descendants of Noah.

And we answer:

This is what he is saying: Why was the warning repeated and stated

concerning it

[why did Scripture need to repeat the warning in all the mitzvot] if not in order to say that it was stated to both this one and that one.

That is: The other mitzvot are not similar to circumcision and being fruitful and multiplying, for in these it was necessary for Scripture to state everything that it repeated at Sinai, and therefore it is not called a mitzva that was stated and repeated; but in the other mitzvot, Scripture could have introduced only the laws that were newly introduced, and it would not have needed to repeat the essence of the warning. Since Scripture repeated even the warning, this is a mitzva that was stated and repeated.

And we still raise a difficulty against this from what Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina said:

And we have no—

mitzva that was stated but not repeated—

except the sinew of the thigh, according to Rabbi Yehuda;

and yet:

These

mitzvot—circumcision and being fruitful and multiplying—

were also not repeated

[these too were not repeated], that is: These mitzvot too are included among mitzvot that were stated but not repeated, since He needed to repeat them!?

And we answer:

These

mitzvot

were repeated for some incidental matter

[they were repeated, but only for some need], whereas

this—

the mitzva of the sinew of the thigh—

was not repeated at all

[was not repeated at all]. Therefore Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina mentioned only this mitzva, but in fact these mitzvot too are included in “a mitzva that was stated but not repeated,” which was stated to the Children of Israel and not to the descendants of Noah.

And

if you wish to say,

in fact circumcision was repeated at Sinai for the essence of its mitzva, and not only in order to introduce circumcision on Shabbat; and concerning what is difficult for you: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina said, “Every mitzva that was stated to the descendants of Noah and repeated at Sinai was stated to both this one and that one,” and why was this mitzva not repeated among the mitzvot of the descendants of Noah? Do not raise it:

For

circumcision, at the outset for Abraham

and his offspring alone

was the Merciful One warning him

[the Torah warned Abraham and his offspring alone concerning circumcision], as it is said: “

And you shall keep My covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations,”

and it implies: “

You and your offspring”

yes,

indeed you are commanded to keep it, but

another person

[another man]

no;

and since at the outset it was not stated to the descendants of Noah, even though it was repeated at Sinai, the descendants of Noah will not be obligated by it.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

But from now on,

since you say: In fact this mitzva was stated and repeated, and the reason the other descendants of Noah are not obligated by it is only that they were not commanded concerning it initially—then it is still difficult:

The descendants of Ishmael,

who are included in “you and your offspring” and were obligated by it initially,

should be obligated

by this mitzva today, for since it was initially stated even to them, and was repeated at Sinai for Israel, it was “stated to both this one and that one,” that is, to the one who was commanded initially and to Israel, and the descendants of Ishmael should be obligated in the mitzva of circumcision!?

And we answer: They too were not commanded concerning it initially, for Scripture said: “

For in Isaac shall your offspring be called,”

and if so, “you and your offspring” includes only the descendants of Isaac, and not the descendants of Ishmael.

And we still raise a difficulty:

The descendants of Esau,

who are included in “you and your offspring,” for the descendants of Isaac are the offspring of Abraham,

should be obligated

in the mitzva of circumcision today, since the mitzva was not removed from them, for it was “stated to both this one and that one”!?

And we answer: Scripture said: “For

in Isaac

shall your offspring be called,” and it implies:

and not all

[the descendants of]

Isaac,

to exclude the descendants of Esau, who were not obligated by it initially.

Rabbi Oshaya raised an objection against him:

But from now on,

since you say: Initially only Isaac and his offspring were commanded concerning circumcision,

should the descendants of Keturah not be obligated,

that is: Were the six sons that Abraham had from Keturah not obligated in circumcision then, and did Abraham not circumcise all his offspring—astonishing!?

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Avin said, and some say Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

Scripture said concerning the mitzva of circumcision stated to Abraham: “

He who violates My covenant”

to include

the six

sons of Keturah

themselves, to obligate them concerning their circumcision; and indeed Abraham circumcised all his offspring. Nevertheless, today only Israel are obligated by it, for even the sons of Abraham from Keturah were obligated only themselves and not their offspring.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: The first man—

flesh was not permitted to him for eating .

For it is written: “And God said: Behold, I have given you every herb, etc.

For you it shall be for food, and for every beast of the earth

and every green herb, etc.”

It implies that Scripture said as follows: The food given to you [every green herb and the fruit of the tree] was given also to every beast of the earth.

But the beast of the earth

was not given

to you

for food.

And when the descendants of Noah came—

the Holy One, blessed be He, permitted them

to eat flesh.

It is stated: “As the green herb I have given you all.”

It implies: Just as I initially gave man permission to eat green herb, so now I gave him permission to eat everything, including domestic animal and wild animal.

One might have thought

[perhaps]

there would not be

a prohibition of

a limb from a living creature applicable to it?

Scripture states: “But flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat.”

That is, do not eat flesh in which its life is still present.

One might have thought even for creeping creatures

there would be a prohibition of a limb from a living creature?

Scripture states: “But

flesh with its life, etc.” “But” -

is an expression of limitation. That is, creeping creatures were excluded from the prohibition of a limb from a living creature.

And what is the proof?

That is: Indeed, the expression “but” comes to exclude. But from where do we know that specifically creeping creatures were excluded? Perhaps domestic animals and wild animals were excluded from the prohibition of a limb from a living creature?

Rav Huna said:

It is written in the earlier verse: “But flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat.” And the word

“its blood” -

is superfluous, for it could have written: “But flesh with its life you shall not eat.” That is, while its life is in it, you shall not eat its flesh.

And they expound from the superfluity of the verse that specifically

one whose blood is distinct from its flesh

[whose blood is not part of the flesh, but has a name of its own], whose blood is called life and whose flesh is called flesh, is prohibited as a limb from a living creature.

Creeping creatures are excluded, for their blood is not distinct from their flesh,

for their blood is not called blood. When Israel were warned concerning the prohibition of eating blood, they were not warned concerning the blood of creeping creatures. It is prohibited to eat their blood only because of eating the flesh of a creeping creature.

He raised an objection:

It was already said to the first man:

“And rule over the fish of the sea”—what, is it not

intended that the fish of the sea were permitted to him

for eating?

It follows that eating flesh was permitted to him!

And we reject this:

No.

The fish of the sea were permitted to him to use

for work.

And we are astonished:

And fish—

are they creatures fit for work?

Can one use fish for any work?!

And we explain:

Yes.

Indeed, it is possible to do work with the aid of fish, and

as

is proven from

the

words of

Raḥava.

For Raḥava asked:

If a person

drove

a

goat and a shibuta,

that is, he tied a wagon to a shibuta fish in the sea and to a goat that walked on the seashore, and drove them together to move the wagon—

what?

Is he flogged because of driving in a mixture of diverse species, or not?

In any event, it is proven that it is possible to use a fish for work.

Come and hear

from what is said later in the earlier verse:

“And over the birds of the heavens.” What, is it not for eating

[is it not intended that the first man was permitted to eat the birds of the heavens]?

And we reject this:

No,

the birds of the heavens were permitted to him

for work.

And we are astonished:

And birds—

are they creatures fit for work?

For what work can one use birds?

And we explain:

Yes,

it is indeed possible.

As Rabba son of Rav Huna asked

concerning the prohibition “You shall not muzzle an ox when it threshes”: If a person

threshed

his grain

with geese and chickens, according to

the method of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda,

who holds that the one threshing eats only if he performs work with his hands and feet [that is, like an ox, which threshes with all four of its feet]

what?

Do they too eat from the threshing, or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does it specifically require that he perform [the work] with his hands and feet, and since geese and chickens have only feet, he does not transgress concerning them because of “You shall not muzzle,”

or does it not mean that he must specifically perform [the work] with hands and feet, but rather that he must work with all his strength? And all the strength of geese and chickens for threshing is in their feet, and if so, he transgresses because of “You shall not muzzle.”

In any event, we find that it is possible to do work with birds.

Come and hear

from what is said later in the earlier verse:

“And over every animal that creeps upon the earth.”

And if it is not intended with regard to eating, what use can an animal make for man?

And we reject this:

That,

what the Holy One, blessed be He, said to man, that he should rule over every animal upon the earth,

it came to include the serpent

[Scripture came to include the serpent], that it should serve man.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Woe for a great attendant ,

who could have served us,

who was lost from the world

because of the sin.

That had the serpent not been cursed

to go on its belly,

each and every Israelite would have had two good serpents come to him; one he would send to the

north,

and one he would send to the

south,

to bring him good sandalbonim [

a type of precious stones ],

and precious stones and pearls.

And not only that, but they would insert a strap beneath the serpent’s tail

of the serpent,

and with it remove earth for his garden and his ruin

of the man.

But the serpent was cursed to go on its belly, and thereafter it could no longer serve man.

He raises an objection: Rabbi Judah ben Teima would say: The first man was reclining in the Garden of Eden, and the ministering angels were roasting meat for him and straining wine for him. The serpent glanced at him and saw his honor, and became jealous of him.

This shows that the first man ate meat! And we answer: In truth, the first man was not permitted to eat the meat of domesticated animals and wild animals.

There,

what we find—that he ate meat in the Garden of Eden—was

meat that descended from heaven.

And we wonder:

Is there meat that descends from heaven?

And we say:

Yes.

Indeed, so it is.

As in the case [

as we find ]

that Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta was walking on the road [

he was traveling on the road ].

The lions encountered him, which were roaring toward him [

lions encountered him, roaring toward him because they wanted to eat him ].

He said: “The young lions roar for prey” .

Two portions descended for him [

two haunches of meat descended for him from heaven ].

One,

one haunch,

they ate

the lions.

And one they left [

and one they left and did not eat ].

He took it [

Rabbi Shimon ben Halafta took that haunch ],

and came to the beit-midrash [

and came with it to the beit-midrash ].

He inquired about it [

Rabbi Shimon asked the members of the beit-midrash about that haunch ]:

“Is this an impure thing or a pure thing?”

They said to him: “No impure thing descends from heaven.”

Rabbi Zeira asked Rabbi Abbahu: “If the form of a donkey descended for him

from heaven,

what is [the ruling]?

Is it to be said that this is certainly an impure thing—and is forbidden—or perhaps, indeed, no impure thing ever descends from heaven, and therefore, although the meat is in the form of a donkey, it is permitted?

He said to him: “You foolish yarud” [

a foolish dragon ]!

Did they not say to him [

for they said to him ]:

“No impure thing descends from heaven!”

And if so, one of two things: either the form of a donkey and the like will never descend from heaven, since it is an impure thing; or, even if such a thing descended, it would be pure.

We learned in a beraita above [56a], concerning the seven mitzvot of the descendants of Noah:

Rabbi Shimon says: They were also commanded concerning sorcery

.

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason?