Sanhedrin 112

רבי חנניה בן (גמלא) אומר אף על הדם מן החי רבי חידקא אומר אף על הסירוס רבי שמעון אומר אף על הכישוף

Whence do we know this? — R. Johanan answered: The Writ saith: <i>And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. II, 16. ');">³</span>

רבי יוסי אומר כל האמור בפרשת כישוף בן נח מוזהר עליו (דברים יח, י) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש קוסם קסמים מעונן ומנחש ומכשף וחובר חבר ושואל אוב וידעוני ודורש אל המתים וגו' ובגלל התועבות האלה ה' אלהיך מוריש אותם מפניך ולא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר

<i>And [He] commanded</i>, refers to [the observance of] social laws, and thus it is written, <i>For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment.</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XVIII, 19. Thus 'command' relates to justice and judgment. ');">⁴</span>

רבי אלעזר אומר אף על הכלאים מותרין בני נח ללבוש כלאים ולזרוע כלאים ואין אסורין אלא בהרבעת בהמה ובהרכבת האילן

<i>The Lord</i> — is [a prohibition against] blasphemy, and thus it is written, <i>and he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 16 — 'The Lord' being used in connection with blasphemy. ');">⁵</span></i>

מנהני מילי אמר ר' יוחנן דאמר קרא (בראשית ב, טז) ויצו ה' אלהים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכול תאכל

God — is [an injunction against] idolatry, and thus it is written, <i>Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XX, 3. ');">⁶</span></i>

ויצו אלו הדינין וכן הוא אומר (בראשית יח, יט) כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו וגו'

The man — refers to bloodshed [murder], and thus it is written, <i>Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. IX, 6. ');">⁷</span></i>

ה' זו ברכת השם וכן הוא אומר (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת אלהים זו עבודת כוכבים וכן הוא אומר (שמות כ, ב) לא יהיה לך אלהים אחרים על האדם זו שפיכות דמים וכן הוא אומר (בראשית ט, ו) שופך דם האדם וגו'

Saying — refers to adultery, and thus it is written, <i>They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and became another man's.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. III, 1. Thus 'saying' is used in connection with adultery. ');">⁸</span></i>

לאמר זו גילוי עריות וכן הוא אומר (ירמיהו ג, א) לאמר הן ישלח איש את אשתו והלכה מאתו והיתה לאיש אחר מכל עץ הגן ולא גזל אכל תאכל ולא אבר מן החי

Of every tree of the garden — but not of robbery.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was necessary to authorize Adam to eat of the trees of the garden, it follows that without such authorisation — i.e., when something belongs to another — it is forbidden. ');">⁹</span>

כי אתא רבי יצחק תני איפכא ויצו זו עבודת כוכבים אלהים זו דינין

<i>Thou mayest freely eat</i> — but not flesh cut from a living animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By interpreting thus: Thou mayest eat that which is now ready for eating, but not whilst the animal is alive. It is perhaps remarkable that a verse, the literal meaning of which is obviously permission to enjoy, should be interpreted as a series of prohibitions. Yet it is quite in keeping with the character of the Talmud: freedom to enjoy must be limited by moral and social considerations, and indeed only attains its highest value when so limited. Cf. Ab. VI, 2: No man is free but he who labours in the Torah. ');">¹⁰</span>

בשלמא אלהים זו דינין דכתיב (שמות כב, ז) ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים אלא ויצו זו ע"ז מאי משמע

When R. Isaac came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 361, n. 5. ');">¹¹</span>

רב חסדא ורב יצחק בר אבדימי חד אמר (שמות לב, ח) סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתים עשו להם וגו' וחד אמר (הושע ה, יא) עשוק אפרים רצוץ משפט כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו

he taught a reversed interpretation. And He commanded — refers to idolatry; God [Heb. <i>elohim</i>] to social law. Now 'God' may rightly refer to social laws, as it is written, And the master of the house shall be brought unto <i>elohim</i> [i.e., the judges].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 7. The root idea of 'elohim' is power, majesty. ');">¹²</span>

מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו עכו"ם שעשה ע"ז ולא השתחוה לה למאן דאמר עשו משעת עשייה מיחייב למאן דאמר כי הואיל הלך עד דאזיל בתרה ופלח לה

But how can 'and He commanded' connote a prohibition of idolatry? — R. Hisda and R. Isaac b. Abdimi-one cited the verse, They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXXII, 8. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא ומי איכא למאן דאמר עכו"ם שעשאה ע"ז ולא השתחוה לה חייב והתניא בעכו"ם דברים שבית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליהן בן נח מוזהר עליהן אין בית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליהן אין בן נח מוזהר עליהן למעוטי מאי לאו למעוטי עכו"ם שעשה ע"ז ולא השתחוה לה

And the other cited, Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment, because he willingly walked after the commandment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hos. V, 11, referring to idolatry; thus in both cases 'command' is used in connection with idolatry. ');">¹⁴</span>

אמר רב פפא לא למעוטי גיפוף ונישוק

Wherein do they differ? — In respect of a heathen who made an idol but did not worship it: On the view [that the prohibition of idolatry is derived from] they have made them a molten calf, guilt is incurred as soon as the idol is made [even before it is worshipped]; but according to the opinion that it is from, because he willingly walked after the commandment, there is no liability until the heathen actually follows and worships it. Raba objected: Does any scholar maintain that a heathen is liable to punishment for making an idol even if he did not worship it? Surely it has been taught: With respect to idolatry, such acts for which a Jewish Court decrees sentence of death [on Jewish delinquents] are forbidden to the heathen; but those for which a Jewish Court inflicts no capital penalty on Jewish delinquents are not forbidden to him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah 60b. ');">¹⁵</span>

גיפוף ונישוק דמאי אילימא כדרכה בר קטלא הוא אלא למעוטי שלא כדרכה

Now what does this exclude? Presumably the case of a heathen who made an idol without worshipping it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which a Jew is not punished by death. ');">¹⁶</span>

דינין בני נח איפקוד והתניא עשר מצות נצטוו ישראל במרה שבע שקיבלו עליהן בני נח והוסיפו עליהן דינין ושבת וכיבוד אב ואם

R. Papa answered: No. It excludes the embracing and kissing of idols.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that these are not punishable. ');">¹⁷</span>

דינין דכתיב (שמות טו, כה) שם שם לו חוק ומשפט שבת וכיבוד אב ואם דכתיב (דברים ה, יא) כאשר צוך ה' אלהיך ואמר רב יהודה כאשר צוך במרה

Of which idols do you say this? Is it of those whose normal worship is in this manner; but in that case he is surely liable to death? — Hence it excludes the embracing and kissing of idols which are not usually worshipped thus.

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא נצרכה אלא לעדה ועדים והתראה

'Social laws.' Were then the children of Noah bidden to observe these? Surely it has been taught: The Israelites were given ten precepts at Marah, seven of which had already been accepted by the children of Noah, to which were added at Marah social laws, the Sabbath, and honouring one's parents; 'Social laws,' for it is written, There [sc. at Marah] he made for them a statute and an ordinance;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XV, 25. Ordinance (Heb. mishpat) refers to social law. ');">¹⁸</span>

אי הכי מאי והוסיפו עליהן דינין

'the Sabbath and honouring one's parents'. for it is written, As the Lord thy God commanded thee!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. V, 16. This occurs in the fifth commandment of the second Decalogue. Similar words are used in the fourth commandment: therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. In both cases then there is a reference to some previous event, shewn by the use of the past tense: commanded thee. Now the second Decalogue, though spoken by Moses towards the end of his life in the plains of Moab many years after the first at Sinai, was nevertheless a repetition thereof. Therefore this reference back must have been made in the first promulgation also, and can only relate to Marah, where, as stated above, 'he made for them a statute and an ordinance', i.e., gave certain laws to the the Israelites. ');">¹⁹</span>

אלא אמר רבא לא נצרכה אלא לדיני קנסות אכתי והוסיפו בדינין מיבעי ליה

— R. Nahman replied in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: The addition at Marah was only in respect of an assembly, witnesses, and formal admonition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that Justice should be meted out by an 'assembly'. viz., a Sanhedrin; that an accusation was to be attested by at least two witnesses, and that a formal warning or admonition was to be given to the accused before he committed his offence, as otherwise he was not liable to the prescribed penalty. But the sons of Noah, though bidden to observe civil laws, were not bound by these regulations. ');">²⁰</span>

אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לא נצרכה אלא להושיב בית דין בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר והא בני נח לא איפקוד והתניא כשם שנצטוו ישראל להושיב בתי דינין בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר כך נצטוו בני נח להושיב בתי דינין בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר

If so, why say 'to which were added social laws'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the addition was only in the method of procedure, but not in actual content. ');">²¹</span>

אלא אמר רבא האי תנא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דמפיק ד"ך ועייל ס"ך

— But Raba replied thus: The addition was only in respect of the laws of fines.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., Deut. XXII, 19, 29, where a slanderer of a woman's honour is ordered to pay 100 silver shekels to her father, and a seducer of a virgin 50 silver shekels. These payments are not regarded as equitable indemnifications against loss sustained, but as fines for reprehensible acts. These laws were wanting in the civil code of the sons of Noah, and only these commands added at Marah. ');">²²</span>

דתנא דבי מנשה שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח ע"ז וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים גזל ואבר מן החי סירוס וכלאים

But even so, should it not have been said, 'additions were made in the social laws'? — But R. Aha b. Jacob answered thus: The Baraitha informs us that they were commanded to set up law courts in every district and town. But were not the sons of Noah likewise commanded to do this? Surely it has been taught: Just as the Israelites were ordered to set up law courts in every district and town, so were the sons of Noah likewise enjoined to set up law courts in every district and town! — But Raba answered thus: The author of this Baraitha [which states that social laws were added at Marah] is a Tanna of the School of Manasseh, who omitted social laws and blasphemy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text employs abbreviations for these commands. ');">²³</span>

רבי יהודה אומר אדם הראשון לא נצטווה אלא על ע"ז בלבד שנאמר ויצו ה' אלהים על האדם רבי יהודה בן בתירה אומר אף על ברכת השם ויש אומרים אף על הדינים

[from the list of Noachian precepts] and substituted emasculation and the forbidden mixture [in plants, ploughing. etc.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The text employs abbreviations for these commands. ');">²³</span>

כמאן אזלא הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אלהים אני לא תקללוני אלהים אני לא תמירוני אלהים אני יהא מוראי עליכם כמאן כיש אומרים

For a Tanna of the School of Manasseh taught: The sons of Noah were given seven precepts. viz., [prohibition of] idolatry, adultery, murder, robbery, flesh cut from a living animal, emasculation and forbidden mixtures. R. Judah said: Adam was prohibited idolatry only, for it is written, And the Lord God commanded Adam.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which means that He commanded him to remember His Godhead, and not to reject it for a different deity. ');">²⁴</span>

תנא דבי מנשה אי דריש ויצו אפילו הנך נמי אי לא דריש ויצו הני מנא ליה

R. Judah b. Bathyra maintained: He was forbidden blasphemy too. Some add social laws. With whom does the following statement of Rab Judah in the name of Rab agree: viz., [God said to Adam,] I am God, do not curse Me; I am God, do not exchange Me for another; I am God, let My fear be upon you?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Let my fear be upon you' is an exhortation to dispense justice uprightly, without fear of man. ');">²⁵</span>

לעולם לא דריש ויצו הני כל חדא וחדא באפי נפשיה כתיבא ע"ז וגילוי עריות

— This agrees with the last mentioned [who adds social laws to the list]. Now, what is the standpoint of the Tanna of the School of Manasseh? If he interprets the verse, And the Lord God commanded etc. [as interpreted above], he should include these two [social laws and blasphemy] also, and if he does not, whence does he derive the prohibition of the rest? — In truth, he does not accept the interpretation of the verse, 'And the Lord God commanded etc., but maintains that each of these [which he includes] is separately stated: Idolatry and adultery.