Sanhedrin 59a
From Wikinoah English
Revision as of 22:01, 26 February 2007 by Abrahamson (talk | contribs)
Sanhedrin 59a
| But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned? — It is both positive and negative.[1] | והא דינין קום עשה הוא וקא חשיב קום עשה ושב אל תעשה נינהו |
| 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 studies[6] the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.[7] | ואמר ר' יוחנן <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר (דברים לג) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם וליחשבה גבי שבע מצות מ"ד מורשה מיגזל קא גזיל לה מאן דאמר מאורסה דינו כנערה המאורסה דבסקילה מיתיבי היה ר"מ אומר מניין שאפילו <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול שנאמר (ויקרא יח) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים לוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא האדם הא למדת שאפילו <עובד כוכבים> {גוי} ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול התם בשבע מצות דידהו: |
| 'R Hanania b. Gamaliel said: [They were also commanded] not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal.' | ר' חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי: |
| 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] | ת"ר (בראשית ט) אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו זה אבר מן החי רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר אף הדם מן החי מ"ט דרבי חנינא בן גמליאל קרי ביה בשר בנפשו לא תאכל דמו בנפשו לא תאכל ורבנן ההוא למישרי שרצים הוא דאתא כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (דברים יב) רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו' <רק חזק לבלתי אכל הדם זה אבר מן החי כי הדם הוא הנפש זה דם מן החי> ורבנן ההוא לדם הקזה שהנשמה יוצאה בו הוא דאתא |
| 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] | למה לי למיכתב לבני נח ולמה לי למשני בסיני כדר' יוסי בר' חנינא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח ואנו אין לנו אלא גיד הנשה ואליבא דר' יהודה |
| 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. | אמר מר כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונשנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה אדרבה מדנשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח מדאיתני <עבודת כוכבים> {עבודה זרה} בסיני ואשכחן דענש <עובדי כוכבים> {גוים} עילווה ש"מ לזה ולזה נאמרה: |
| '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] | לבני נח ולא נשנית בסיני לישראל נאמרה ולא לבני נח: אדרבה מדלא נישנית בסיני לבני נח נאמרה ולא לישראל ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי <ולעובד כוכבים> {ולגוי} אסור ולא והרי יפת תואר התם משום דלאו בני כיבוש נינהו והרי פחות משוה פרוטה התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו: כל מצוה שנאמרה לבני נח ונישנית בסיני לזה ולזה נאמרה |
| 'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'. |
See Also
References
- ↑ Positive: In dispense justice; negative: to refrain from injustice. But the Sabbath is entirely positive.
- ↑ Deut. XXXIII, 4.
- ↑ This seems a very strong expression. In the J. E. (loc. cit.) it is suggested that R. Johanan feared the knowledge of Gentiles in matters of Jurisprudence, as they would use it against the Jews in their opponents' courts. In support of this it may be observed that the Talmud places R. Johanan's dictum (which, of course, is not to be taken literally) immediately after the passage dealing with the setting up of law courts by Gentiles. It is also possible that R. Johanan's objection was to the studying of Oral Law by Jewish Christians, as the possession of the Oral Law was held to be the distinguishing mark of the Jews. It is significant that it was R. Johanan who also said that God's covenant with Israel was only for the sake of the Oral Law. (Cf. Ex. Rab. 47.)
- ↑ In Pes. 49b two opinions on the reading of this verse are recorded. One view is that it should be read, Moses commanded us a law for an inheritance (morasha [H]), in accordance with the Scriptural text. Another version is Moses commanded us a law for a betrothal (reading me'orasah [H]=[H] i.e., as something betrothed, consecrated to us, from [H]= [H]). On the first view, this prohibition is included in that of robbery; on the second, in that of adultery.
- ↑ Lev. XVIII, 5.
- ↑ Which includes observing.
- ↑ It is meritorious for them to study these; but not laws which do not pertain to them.
- ↑ Gen. IX, 4.
- ↑ V. infra 59b.
- ↑ Deut. XII, 23. Thus, the blood being equated with the life, it may not be eaten whilst 'the life' is with the 'flesh', i.e., whilst the animal is alive.
- ↑ The prohibition of blood is mentioned in the same chapter in connection with the slaughtering of the animal: 15 seq., Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat flesh in all thy gates … Only ye shall not eat the blood. Now, owing to this juxtaposition, I might think that only the blood that gushes forth from the throat when the animal is slaughtered is forbidden. Therefore the second injunction in v. 23 equates the prohibition of blood with that of flesh cut from the living animal. Just as the latter is forbidden in itself, so the former is forbidden irrespective of any connection with slaughtering. In Ker. 22a R. Johanan and Resh Lakish dispute as to what is meant by 'the blood with which life goes out'.
- ↑ R. Judah maintains that this was forbidden to the children of Jacob, who, living before the giving of the Law, are accounted Noachians. But the Rabbis maintain that this was given at Sinai, but that Moses when writing the whole Pentateuch, was commanded to insert it in Gen. XXXII, 33, so as to elucidate its reason.
- ↑ For if it were not so repeated, it would be natural to suppose that its application was a universal one. Hence its repetition would seem to limit it to Israel.
- ↑ V. p. 382, n. 3.
- ↑ The stand point of this objection is that the code promulgated at Sinai to the Israelites should cancel any previous code not given specifically to them.
- ↑ V. supra 57a.
- ↑ I.e., Palestine. For even the Israelites were permitted this only in the course of their conquest of Palestine, but not otherwise.
- ↑ The theft of which is regarded as an offence by heathens but not by Jews. V. supra 57a.
- ↑ Actually, it would be theft in the case of a Jew too, but that Jews are not particular about such a trifle, and readily forgive. Heathens, however, do not forgive, and therefore it is theft in their case.
