Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that a Nochri is Chayav Miysah for keeping Shabbos. Rebbi Yochanan also declares - Torah-study outside the domain of a Nochri (which he is also Chayav Miysah for usurping).

(b) This is based on the Pasuk - "Torah Tzivah Lanu Moshe, Morashah Kehilas Ya'akov".

(c) This Mitzvah is not specifically included in the Sheva Mitzvos, because assuming we read the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Morashah Kehilas Ya'akov" (as indeed it is written) - it is already included in Gezel.
2. ... "Me'orasah Kehilas Ya'akov" - it is included in Giluy Arayos (since, as we learned above, a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah of a Yisrael is forbidden to him).

(a) The Pasuk "Asher Ya'aseh Osam ha'Adam va'Chai Bahem" - refers to everybody, Nochrim and all.

(b) Even though we learned earlier that "Adam" is confined to Yisrael, and does not pertain to Nochrim - that is the opinion of Rebbi Shimon in Yevamos, whereas this Sugya follows the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who disagrees (see also Tosfos DH 'Ela').

(c) And we reconcile Rebbi Yochanan with this Pasuk - by establishing the Pasuk with regard to the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach (which a Nochri is obligated to study), whereas Rebbi Yochanan is referring to the study of the other Mitzvos.

(a) Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel learns from the word "Damo" in the Pasuk "Ach Basar be'Nafsho, Damo Lo Sochelu" - that Dam min ha'Chai is included in the 'Sheva' Mitzvos B'nei No'ach.

(b) The Rabbanan, who do not forbid Dam min ha'Chai, learn from "Damo" - to exclude Eiver min ha'Chai of Sheratzim from the prohibition.

(c) The author of the continuation of the Beraisa, which comments 'ke'Yotzei ba'Davar Atah Omer' "Rak Chazak le'Vilti Achol ha'Dam, Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nafesh" - is Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel,, who is saying that there is a separate La'av for Dam min ha'Chai (by Diynei Yisrael, too).

(a) The Rabbanan learn from this Pasuk that Dam Hakazah is forbidden - because previously, the Torah places the prohibition of Dam in the Parshah of Shechitah, implying that the Isur of blood is confined to Dam Shechitah.

(b) The difference between Dam min ha'Chai and Dam Hakazah is - that the former is not called blood (because it does not cause the animal's death) and is not therefore subject to Kareis, whereas the latter, (which causes the animal's death, if it is not tended to properly), is called blood, which is why the Chachamim include it in the Chiyuv Kareis.

(c) We ask why, having already issued the Mitzvah of Eiver min ha'Chai to the B'nei No'ach, the Torah finds it necessary to repeat it at Sinai. We do not ask the same Kashya with regard to Avodas-Kochavim and Giluy-Arayos (see Aruch la'Ner) - because the Torah needs to write them, to teach us the punishments (and the various details that do not pertain to B'nei No'ach).

(a) To answer the Kashya, we cite Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina, who rules that Mitzvos that were said to the B'nei No'ach ...

1. ... and were repeated at Sinai (incorporating all the Sheva Mitzvos) - apply to the B'nei No'ach too.
2. ... but were not repeated at Sinai - apply to Yisrael only.

(b) The only case that this latter principle incorporates is - Gid ha'Nasheh.

(c) We establish this specifically like Rebbi Yehudah - because he learns that Gid ha'Nasheh was said to Ya'akov Avinu in Parshas Vayishlach; whereas according to the Chachamim, it was first said at Sinai, only Moshe inserted it in Vayishlach, to teach us its origins.

(d) Logically, we would expect whatever is repeated at Sinai to pertain exclusively to Yisrael. What causes Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina to say that it pertains to Nochrim, too - is the fact that the Torah castigates the seven nations for transgressing Avodah-Zarah and Giluy-Arayos, even after the Torah was given at Sinai.

(a) Initially, we would attribute the Torah's need to repeat the Mitzvos that pertain to the B'nei No'ach at Sinai to the fact that we would otherwise learn them from Gid ha'Nasheh, which is not repeated at Sinai, and which is permitted to the B'nei No'ach. What is wrong with this theory - is that it is a fallacy to assume that we could learn the Sheva Mitzvos from Gid ha'Nasheh, since the Torah writes there specifically "al-Kein Lo Yochlu *B'nei Yisrael*"(whereas the seven Mitzvos were said to the B'nei No'ach).

(b) It repeats them - because we would otherwise learn from Avodah-Zarah (as we just explained), which the Torah repeats, that whatever is not repeated, no longer applies to the B'nei No'ach.

(c) Logically, we would expect whatever is not repeated at Sinai to pertain exclusively to B'nei No'ach. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says the opposite - because of the principle 'Leka Mida'am ... ' (there is nothing that is permitted to a Yisrael and forbidden to a Nochri).

(d) The fact that a ben No'ach is ...

1. ... forbidden to take a Y'fas To'ar, whereas a Yisrael is permitted - is due to the S'vara that the Heter is directly due to the Mitzvah of conquering Eretz Yisrael, which does not pertain to a ben No'ach.
2. ... Chayav for stealing less than a Shaveh P'rutah, even though a Yisrael is Patur - is due to the S'vara that a Yisrael tends to be Mochel such small amounts, whereas a Nochri does not.

7)

(a) We ask on Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina's principle from the Mitzvos of Milah ("u'va'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol"), and P'ru u'Revu ("Lech Emor Lahem Shuvu Lachem le'Oholechem") - both of which pertain to Yisrael exclusively (see Tosfos DH 've'Ha'), despite the fact that they were both repeated at Sinai.

(b) We answer that the Torah repeats the Mitzvah of ...

1. ... Milah - because the Torah only repeats it to teach us "u'va'Yom ha'Shemini", 'va'Afilu be'Shabbos'.
2. ... P'ru u'Revu - to teach us that whatever is forbidden by a Beis-Din, requires a Beis-Din to repeal, even though they only placed the prohibition for a fixed period of time.

(c) We cannot apply the same principle to all the seven Mitzvos (in which case they will only pertain to Yisrael, but not to B'nei No'ach) - because there, it is the actual La'av which is repeated (independent of the punishment), which teaches us that the B'nei Nochrim are included in the command.

(d) In spite of the fact that the Torah does not issue an independent command by Milah and Piryah ve'Rivyah, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina listed the only Mitzvah which is not repeated at Sinai as Gid ha'Nasheh, according to Rebbi Yehudah - because when all's said and done, they *are* mentioned there, even if it is to teach us a Chidush (whereas Gid ha'Nasheh is not mentioned at all).

(a) Alternatively, we ascribe Milah having been given exclusively to Yisrael (in spite of the fact that it was repeated at Sinai) - to the fact that it was initially given specifically to Avraham and his children (as the Torah indicates in Lech-Lecha), and not to the rest of the B'nei No'ach.

(b) Nevertheless, we know that the Mitzvah does not also apply to ...

1. ... the Bnei Yishmael - because the Torah writes in Vayeira "Ki be'Yitzchak Yikarei Lecha Zara" (specifically precluding Yishmael).
2. ... the B'nei Eisav - because we extrapolate "be'Yitzchak", 've'Lo Kol Yitzchak'.

(c) Rebbi Yossi bar Avin (or Rebbi Yossi bar Chanina) learns from the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha "es B'risi Heifar" - to include the six sons of Keturah (alias Hagar, after Avraham remarried her) in the Mitzvah of Milah (see Maharsha).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Lachem Yihyeh le'Ochlah u'le'Chol Chayas ha'Aretz" - that Adam was forbidden to eat meat.
2. ... "ke'Yerek Eisev Nasati Lachem es Kol" - that No'ach was permitted to do so.
3. ... "(Ach) Basar be'Nafsho Damo Lo Socheilu" - that the concession did not include 'Eiver min ha'Chai'.

(b) He learns that Sheratzim are not subject to Eiver min ha'Chai - from the word "Ach", which always comes to exclude.

(c) Rav Huna explains the fact that Rav precludes Sheratzim from there and not animals - because the word "Damo" confines the Isur to animals, whose blood is separate from their flesh (as opposed to insects, whose flesh and blood are one entity).

(a) Adam was indeed forbidden to eat the flesh of any animal, and when Hashem ordered him to "rule over ...

1. ... the fish of the sea", he meant - for his own personal use, and we cite Rachbah, who asked whether hitching a goat and a Shivuta (a type of fish) to a wagon and driving it along the river-bank is considered Kil'ayim.
2. ... the birds", he meant - to thresh corn, like Rabah bar Rav Huna, who asked whether one is permitted to muzzle chickens and geese whilst they thresh the corn, according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah.
3. ... and over all the living creatures ... ", he was referring to the snake, which before the sin, walked upright on two legs, and could speak and understand.

(b) We added 'according to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, in our answer to the Kashya on the birds - because he is the one who requires an ox to use all four legs before it becomes subject to "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho", and according to whom the She'eilah regarding birds (which do not have four legs) is therefore relevant.

(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah bemoaned the world's loss as a result of the curse of the snake'. Hashem would otherwise have given each Jew - two snakes to serve him, one of which would have traveled to the north, and the other, to the south (see Agados Maharsha), to bring him a variety of precious stones.

(d) The purpose of the rope that they have would have placed under its tail was - to produce earth in his gardens and yards.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah ben Teima in a Beraisa, describes - how Adam ha'Rishon was reclining in Gan Eden and how the angels were roasting him meat and straining him wine.

(b) When the snake saw that - he was jealous.

(c) We reconcile this with the prohibition of eating the flesh of animals - by establishing the meat as having come down from heaven.

(d) We ...

1. ... relate the episode with Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta and the lions - where Hashem sent flesh from heaven to feed the hungry lions, to prove that such things do happen.
2. ... quote the Pasuk "ha'Kefirim Sho'agim la'Taref" - because that was the Pasuk quoted by Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta (though he was really referring to the continuation of the Pasuk "u'le'Vakesh me'Keil Ochlam", see Agados Maharsha).

(a) The lions ate one of the thighs of flesh that came down from Heaven, the other they left for Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta.

(b) When Rebbi Shimon ben Chalafta asked in the Beis-Hamedrash whether it meat was Kasher, the Chachamim replied - that whatever comes from Heaven is Kasher.

(c) Rebbi Zeira asked Rebbi Avahu - what the Din would be if it had the shape of a donkey.

(d) Referring to him as 'a foolish Tanin' (a type of bird), Rebbi Avahu replied - that he had already answered his question. It simply could not happen, and even if it did, the flesh might look Tereifah, but it was nevertheless Kasher.