Difference between revisions of "Sanhedrin 59a"
From Wikinoah English
Abrahamson (talk | contribs) |
Abrahamson (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%"> | <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%"> | ||
<tr> | <tr> | ||
| − | <td valign="top" width="50%"></td> | + | <td valign="top" width="50%">But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned? — It is both positive and negative.1 </td> |
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance;2 it is our inheritance, not theirs.3 Then why is this not included in the Noachian laws? — On the reading morasha [an inheritance] he steals it; on the reading me'orasah [betrothed], he is guilty as one who violates a betrothed maiden, who is stoned.4 An objection is raised: R. Meir used to say. Whence do we know that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest? From the verse, [Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments:] which, if man do, he shall live in them.5 Priests, Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but men: hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies6 the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.7 </td> | ||
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">'R Hanania b. Gamaliel said: [They were also commanded] not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal.' </td> | ||
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">Our Rabbis taught: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat,8 this prohibits flesh cut from the living animal. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living animal. What is his reason? — He reads the verse thus: flesh with the life thereof [shall ye not eat]: blood with the life thereof shall ye not eat. But the Rabbis maintain that this reading teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is permitted.9 Similarly it is said, Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life,' and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.10 But the Rabbis maintain that the verse teaches that the blood of arteries, with which life goes out, [is also forbidden as blood].11</td> | ||
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">Why was it first enjoined upon the sons of Noah, and then repeated at Sinai? — As the dictum, of R. Jose b. Hanina. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [heathens and Israelites]; that which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens. Now, the only law thus commanded to the children of Noah and not repeated at Sinai was the prohibition of the sinew that shrank [nervous ischiadicus], and in accordance with R. Judah's view.12</td> | ||
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">The Master said: 'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'. On the contrary, since it was repeated at Sinai, should we not assume it to be meant for Israel only?13 — Since idolatry was repeated as Sinai, and we find that the Noachides were punished for practising it,14 we must conclude that it was meant for both.</td> | ||
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">'That which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens.' On the contrary, since it was not repeated at Sinai, should we not assume that it was meant for the Noachides and not for Israel?15 — There is nothing permitted to an Israelite yet forbidden to a heathen. Is there not? But what of a beautiful woman?16 — There it is because the heathens were not authorised to conquer.17 But what of a thing worth less than a Perutah?18 — There it is because the heathens do not forgive.19</td> | ||
| + | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
| + | </tr> | ||
| + | <tr> | ||
| + | <td valign="top" width="50%">'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'.</td> | ||
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | <td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td> | ||
</tr> | </tr> | ||
Revision as of 14:53, 26 February 2007
Sanhedrin 59a
| But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned? — It is both positive and negative.1 | |
| R. Johanan said: A heathen who studies the Torah deserves death, for it is written, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance;2 it is our inheritance, not theirs.3 Then why is this not included in the Noachian laws? — On the reading morasha [an inheritance] he steals it; on the reading me'orasah [betrothed], he is guilty as one who violates a betrothed maiden, who is stoned.4 An objection is raised: R. Meir used to say. Whence do we know that even a heathen who studies the Torah is as a High Priest? From the verse, [Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments:] which, if man do, he shall live in them.5 Priests, Levites, and Israelites are not mentioned, but men: hence thou mayest learn that even a heathen who studies6 the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.7 | |
| 'R Hanania b. Gamaliel said: [They were also commanded] not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal.' | |
| Our Rabbis taught: But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat,8 this prohibits flesh cut from the living animal. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: It also prohibits blood drawn from a living animal. What is his reason? — He reads the verse thus: flesh with the life thereof [shall ye not eat]: blood with the life thereof shall ye not eat. But the Rabbis maintain that this reading teaches that flesh cut from live reptiles is permitted.9 Similarly it is said, Only be sure that thou eat not the blood: for the blood is the life,' and thou mayest not eat the life with the flesh.10 But the Rabbis maintain that the verse teaches that the blood of arteries, with which life goes out, [is also forbidden as blood].11 | |
| Why was it first enjoined upon the sons of Noah, and then repeated at Sinai? — As the dictum, of R. Jose b. Hanina. For R. Jose b. Hanina said: Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [heathens and Israelites]; that which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens. Now, the only law thus commanded to the children of Noah and not repeated at Sinai was the prohibition of the sinew that shrank [nervous ischiadicus], and in accordance with R. Judah's view.12 | |
| The Master said: 'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'. On the contrary, since it was repeated at Sinai, should we not assume it to be meant for Israel only?13 — Since idolatry was repeated as Sinai, and we find that the Noachides were punished for practising it,14 we must conclude that it was meant for both. | |
| 'That which was given to the sons of Noah but not repeated at Sinai was meant for the Israelites, but not for the heathens.' On the contrary, since it was not repeated at Sinai, should we not assume that it was meant for the Noachides and not for Israel?15 — There is nothing permitted to an Israelite yet forbidden to a heathen. Is there not? But what of a beautiful woman?16 — There it is because the heathens were not authorised to conquer.17 But what of a thing worth less than a Perutah?18 — There it is because the heathens do not forgive.19 | |
| 'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'. |
