Difference between revisions of "Sanhedrin 60a"

From Wikinoah English
Jump to: navigation, search
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%">But circumcision, which was given to the Sons of Noah, for it is written, Thou shalt keep my covenant,1  and repeated at Sinai, And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised,yet was meant for Israel, and not for the Noachides? — That repetition was inserted to permit circumcision on the Sabbath, by interpreting, on the day [whichever it is], and even on the Sabbath.3</td>
+
<td valign="top" width="50%">Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;1  and this is followed by, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death:thus, all who are included in the second prohibition are included in the first.3 </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>
 
<tr>
 
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">But procreation, which was enjoined upon the Noachides, for it is written, And you be ye fruitful and multiply.and repeated at Sinai, as it is written, Go say to them, get you in to your tents again,was nevertheless commanded to Israel but not to the heathens? — That repetition was to teach that whatever has been constitutionally forbidden by a majority vote requires another majority vote to abrogate it.6  If so, may we not say of each [of the Noachian laws] that it was repeated for a definite purpose?7  — He means this: why should the prohibition be repeated?8</td>
+
<td valign="top" width="50%">'R. Eleazar said; They were also enjoined against the forbidden mixtures.' Whence do we derive this? — Samuel replied: Because Scripture saith, My statutes ye shall keep,4  implying the statutes which I have already decreed:viz., Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.6 This teaches: just as in the case of animal life, the prohibition is against hybridization, so in plant life, the injunction is against grafting;7 and just as the former holds good both within the land [sc. Palestine] and without,8 so the latter holds good both within and without Palestine. But if so, does the verse, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes9 also imply the statutes which I imposed long ago?10 There the verse reads, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes which I [now] command you: but here it reads, My statutes ye shall keep, implying the statutes decreed from of old shall ye keep.11</td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">'Now the only law [thus commanded to the children of Israel and not repeated at Sinai] was the prohibition of the sinew that shrank [nervus ischiadicus], and in accordance with R. Judah's view.' But these9  too were not repeated.10  — These two were repeated, though for a purpose, but this was not repeated at all.</td>
 
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">An alternative answer is this:11 Circumcision was from the very first commanded to Abraham only [and not to the Noachides in general]: Thou shalt keep my covenant, therefore, thou and thy seed after thee in their generations,12  meaning, thou and thy seed are to keep it, but no others. If so, should it not be incumbent upon the children of Ishmael [Abraham's son]? — For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.13 Then should not the children of Esau be bound to practise it? — In Isaac,14  but not all Isaac. R. Oshaia objected: If so, the children of Keturah should have been exempt!15  — Did not R. Jose b. Abin, or as others say, R. Jose b. Hanina, state: [And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people;] he hath broken my covenant16 — this extends the precept [of circumcision] to the children of Keturah?17</td>
 
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">Rab Judah said in Rab's name: Adam was not permitted to eat flesh, for it is written, [Behold I have given you all the herbs, etc.] to you it shall be for food, and to all the beasts of the earth,18 implying, but the beasts of the earth shall not be for you.19  But with the advent of the sons of Noah, it was permitted, for it is said, [Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you;] even as the green herb have I given you all things.20  Now one might think that the prohibition of flesh cut from the living animal does not apply to them [sc. the Noachides]: therefore the Writ teacheth, But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.21  One might think that this prohibition applies even to reptiles; therefore it is stated — but.22 How is this implied? — R. Huna said [But flesh with the life thereof, which is] the blood thereof: this shews that the prohibition applies only to those creatures whose flesh is distinct from their blood [in its prohibition]; excluding reptiles, whose flesh is not distinct from their blood.23 </td>
 
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">An objection is raised: And rule over the fish of the sea;24  surely that means that they should serve as food?25 No. It refers to toil.26  But can fish be made to work? — Yes, even as Rahabah propounded: What if one drove [a waggon] with a goat and a shibbuta?27  Come and hear: and over the foul of the heaven.28  Surely this is in respect of food? — No. It refers to toil. But can fowl be made to work? — Yes, even as Rabbah, son of R. Huna propounded: According to the ruling of R. Jose b. R. Judah, what if one threshed [corn] with geese or cocks?29</td>
 
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">Come and hear: And over every living creature that moveth upon the earth!30  — That refers to the serpent. For it has been taught: — R. Simeon b. Manassia said: Woe for the loss of a great servant. For had not the serpent been cursed, every Israelite would have had two valuable serpents, sending one to the north and one to the south to bring him costly gems, precious stones and pearls.31  Moreover, one would have fastened a thong under its tail, with which it would bring forth earth for his garden and waste land.32 </td>
 
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">A [further] objection is raised: R. Judah b. Tema said: Adam reclined in the Garden of Eden, whilst the ministering angels roasted flesh and strained wine for him. Thereupon the serpent looked in, saw his glory, and became envious of him?33  — The reference there is to flesh that descended from heaven. But does flesh descend from heaven? — Yes; as in the story of R. Simeon b. Halafta, who was walking on the road, when lions met him and roared at him. Thereupon he quoted: The young lions roar after their prey;34  and two lumps of flesh descended [from heaven]. They ate one and left the other. This he brought to the schoolhouse and propounded: Is this clean [fit for food] or not? — They [sc. the scholars] answered: Nothing unclean descends from heaven. R. Zera asked R. Abbahu: What if something in the shape of an ass were to descend? — He replied: Thou howling yorod:35  did they not answer him that no unclean thing descends from heaven?36</td>
 
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big></big></div></td>
 
</tr>
 
<tr>
 
<td valign="top" width="50%">'R. Simeon said, They were also forbidden to practice sorcery.' What is R. Simeon's reason? — Because it is written,</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 14:58, 26 February 2007

Sanhedrin 60a

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live;1 and this is followed by, Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death:2 thus, all who are included in the second prohibition are included in the first.3
'R. Eleazar said; They were also enjoined against the forbidden mixtures.' Whence do we derive this? — Samuel replied: Because Scripture saith, My statutes ye shall keep,4 implying the statutes which I have already decreed:5 viz., Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed.6 This teaches: just as in the case of animal life, the prohibition is against hybridization, so in plant life, the injunction is against grafting;7 and just as the former holds good both within the land [sc. Palestine] and without,8 so the latter holds good both within and without Palestine. But if so, does the verse, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes9 also imply the statutes which I imposed long ago?10 — There the verse reads, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes which I [now] command you: but here it reads, My statutes ye shall keep, implying the statutes decreed from of old shall ye keep.11

See Also

References