View source for Sanhedrin 57b

== Sanhedrin 57b ==
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%">
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">he is executed for his death.<ref>Yet this cannot be regarded as real murder, and hence may be called 'a similar act'. But the sages dispute this, and maintain that he is not executed at all.</ref> </td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big>הרג עליו</div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars'<ref>V. p. 387, n, 7. It may also mean the School of Rab (Bacher. Agad. Bab. Amor. p. 2).</ref>   Book of Aggada:<ref>Aggadah (or Haggadah, from nagad, to declare), means the whole non-legal portion of Jewish learning. Here however, an actual law is cited from the Book of Aggadah. In the T. J. and Midrashim, many statements cited in the T. B. as being from the Book of Aggadah of the schools, are those cited under the name of Noachian precepts. Hence it is possible that the reference is to a collection of laws relating to Gentiles, and in order to distinguish it from specifically Jewish laws, it was called the Book of Aggadah (Weiss, Dor, III, p. 158).</ref>   A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. Whence do we know all this? — Rab Judah answered: The Bible saith, And surely your blood of your lives will I require;<ref>Gen. IX, 5.</ref>   this shows that even one judge [may try a heathen].<ref>The interpretation is based on the use of the singular, 'I' will require</ref>   At the hand of every living thing will I require it: even without an admonition having been given;<ref>This is based on the extending word 'every'.</ref>   And at the hand of man: even on the testimony of one witness;<ref>This is based on the singular.</ref> at the hand of man:<ref>Not the same phrase in Heb. as the preceding one.</ref>   but not at the hand [i.e., on the testimony] of a woman; his brother: teaching that even a relation may testify. On the authority of R. Ishmael it was said: [He is executed] even for the murder of an embryo. What is R. Ishmael's reason? Because it is written, Whoso sheddeth the blood of man within [another] man, shall his blood be shed.<ref>Lit. rendering of Gen. IX, 6.</ref> What is a man within another man? — An embryo in his mother's womb.<ref>This law was directed against the Roman practice of prenatal murder. Weiss, Dor, II, 22.</ref>  But the first Tanna [who excludes the murder of an embryo from capital punishment] is a Tanna of the school of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation. He connects the [second] 'man' with the latter half of the sentence, and interprets thus: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, within man [i.e., within him], shall his blood be shed. Now, how can man's blood be shed, and yet be retained within him? By strangulation.</td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>אשכח ר' יעקב בר אחא דהוה כתיב בספר אגדתא דבי רב בן נח נהרג בדיין א' ובעד אחד שלא בהתראה מפי איש ולא מפי אשה ואפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מנהני מילי אמר רב יהודה דאמר קרא (בראשית ט) אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש אפילו בדיין אחד (בראשית ט) מיד כל חיה אפילו שלא בהתראה (בראשית ט) אדרשנו ומיד האדם אפילו בעד אחד (בראשית ט) מיד איש ולא מיד אשה אחיו אפילו קרוב משום רבי ישמעאל אמרו אף על העוברין מאי טעמיה דרבי ישמעאל דכתיב (בראשית ט) שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך איזהו אדם שהוא באדם הוי אומר זה עובר שבמעי אמו ותנא קמא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דאמר כל מיתה האמורה לבני נח אינו אלא חנק ושדי ליה האי באדם אסיפיה דקרא ודרוש ביה הכי באדם דמו ישפך איזהו שפיכות דמים של אדם שהוא בגופו של אדם הוי אומר זה חנק</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">R. Hamnuna objected: Now, is not a [heathen] woman commanded [to keep the social laws]? Surely it is written, For I know him, that he will command his sons and his household [which includes the womenfolk] after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord to exercise charity, and judgment?<ref>Ibid. XVIII, 19. Why then should a woman's testimony be inadmissible?</ref>  — He raised the objection, and he answered it himself: he would command 'his sons' to exercise judgment; 'his daughters' to perform charity.</td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>מתיב רב המנונא ואשה לא מפקדה והכתיב (בראשית יח) כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה וגו' הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה בניו לדין ביתו לצדקה</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">R. Awia the elder said to R. Papa: Let us say that a heathen woman who committed murder must not be executed, since it is written, at the hand of every man [who committed murder] etc. implying,<ref>According to Rab Judah's exegesis.</ref>  'but not at the hand of woman'? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: Whoso sheddeth man's blood implies whosoever it be [even a woman]. Let us say that a heathen woman who committed adultery is not executed, since it is written, therefore shall a man forsake [his father and mother, and cleave to his wife], implying<ref>According to Rab Judah's exegesis.</ref>  that a man [must cleave], but not a woman? — He replied: Thus did Rab Judah say: The verse, And they shall be as one flesh, reassimilated them to each other [making the law of fidelity applicable to both].</td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>אמר ליה רב אויא סבא לרב פפא אימא בת נח שהרגה לא תיהרג מיד איש ולא מיד אשה כתיב אמר ליה הכי אמר רב יהודה שופך דם האדם מכל מקום אימא בת נח שזינתה לא תיהרג דכתיב (בראשית ב) על כן יעזב איש ולא אשה א"ל הכי אמר רב יהודה (בראשית ב) והיו לבשר אחד הדר ערבינהו קרא</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">Our Rabbis taught: [A man, a man shall not approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness.<ref>Lit. rendering of Lev. XVIII, 6.</ref>  It would have been sufficient to state,] A man shall not approach etc. What is taught by the repetition, A man, a man? — The extension of the law to heathens, that they too are forbidden incest [including adultery]. Now is this deduced from this verse; is it rather not deduced from a different text, viz., [And the lord God commanded…] saying, which refers to adultery?<ref>V. p. 383.</ref>  — The latter text refers to adultery with a woman of their own [i.e., with a heathen married woman]; the former to adultery with one of ours [i.e., a Jewish married woman], for the second clause teaches: If he committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law. With regard to what is this?<ref>Since by the Noachian Law also he is liable to death.</ref>  — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: With regard to an assembly, witnesses and formal admonition.<ref>He must be tried by a full Sanhedrin; he cannot be convicted on the testimony of less than two witnesses, and he must have been formally admonished before committing the offence.</ref>  Is a Jewess then of less account?<ref>I.e., is he dealt with more leniently because his offence was against a Jewess? For when his offence is against a heathen, these are unnecessary.</ref>  But R. Johanan answered thus: It is with regard to a betrothed Jewish maiden,<ref>V. p. 333, n. 3; p. 337, n. 5.</ref>  whose violation by heathen law is not a capital offence;<ref>As they do not regard her as married until the actual consumation of the nuptials.</ref>  hence they are judged by Jewish law.</td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>ת"ר איש מה תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח) איש איש לרבות את הכותים שמוזהרין על העריות כישראל והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא לאמר זה גילוי עריות התם בעריות דידהו והכא בעריות דידן דקתני סיפא בא על עריות ישראל נידון בדיני ישראל למאי הלכתא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה לא נצרכה אלא לעדה ועדים והתראה מגרע גרע אלא א"ר יוחנן לא נצרכה אלא לנערה המאורסה דלדידהו לית להו דדיינינן להו בדינא דידן</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">But if their offence was against a fully married woman, are they judged according to their law? Surely it has been taught: 'If a heathen committed adultery with a [Jewish] betrothed maiden, he is stoned; with a fully married woman, he is strangled.' Now if we judged them according to the law pertaining to them, should he not be decapitated? — R. Nahman b. Isaac answered: By a 'married woman' this Baraitha means one whose huppah ceremony<ref>V. p. 333, n. 3.</ref>  has been performed, but without the marriage being consummated. Since by their law her violation is not a capital offence, they are judged by ours. For R. Hanina taught: They recognise the inviolability of a woman whose union has been consummated, but not if she merely entered the huppah without the union having been consummated. It has been taught in agreement with R. Johanan: All prohibited [sexual] relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens, but those for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death are permitted to heathens; this is R. Meir's view. But the Sages maintain: There are many relationships<ref>The Gaon of Wilna deletes 'many': Maimonides likewise does not include it in his text. Actually, the dispute of the Sages and R. Meir is only in reference to a half sister by one's mother.</ref>  for which a Jewish Beth din does not impose death, which are nevertheless forbidden to a Gentile. If a heathen committed incest with a Jewess, he is judged according to Jewish law; if with a heathen woman, he is judged according to heathen law. The only difference that this makes is with respect to a betrothed maiden.<ref>Tosef. 'A.Z. IX. Since heathen law does not recognise this as a capital offence, he is judged by our law. This statement supports R. Johanan's contention.</ref>  But should not the Tanna include a woman whose huppah ceremony has been performed without the marriage being consummated? — The teacher of this Baraitha is the Tanna of the college of Manasseh, who maintains that every death penalty decreed for the heathens is by strangulation, and by both codes [Jewish and heathen] this last-mentioned offence is punished by strangulation.</td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>אבל אשת איש בדינא דידהו דיינינן להו והתניא בא על נערה המאורסה נידון בסקילה על אשת איש נידון בחנק ואי בדינא דידהו סייף הוא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאי אשת איש דקתני כגון שנכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה דלדידהו לית להו דיינינן להו בדינא דידן דתני ר' חנינא בעולת בעל יש להן נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה אין להן תניא כוותיה דר' יוחנן כל ערוה שב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה בן נח מוזהר עליה אין ב"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה אין בן נח מוזהר עליה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות יש שאין בית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליהן ובן נח מוזהר עליהן בא על עריות ישראל נידון בדיני ישראל בא על עריות בן נח נידון בדיני בן נח ואנו אין לנו אלא נערה המאורסה בלבד ונחשוב נמי נכנסה לחופה ולא נבעלה האי תנא תנא דבי מנשה הוא דאמר כל מיתה האמורה לבני נח אינו אלא חנק אידי ואידי חנק הוא</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">Now, is R. Meir of the opinion that all relationships for which a Jewish Beth din imposes capital punishment are forbidden to heathens? Surely it has been taught: A proselyte, </td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>וסבר רבי מאיר כל ערוה שבית דין של ישראל ממיתין עליה בן נח מוזהר עליה והא תניא גר</big></div></td>
</tr>
</table>

==See Also==
*[[Sanhedrin 58a]]

==References==
<references />