(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Sanhedrin 57



(a) Tana de'Bei Menasheh learns two of the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach from the Pasuk in No'ach "*va'Tishaches* ha'Aretz Lifnei ha'Elokim", based on a statement by Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who explains that wherever the word *Hashchasah*" appears - it refers to Giluy Arayos and Avodah-Zarah.

(b) Tana de'Bei Menasheh learns murder from "Shofech Dam ha'Adam, ba'Adam Damo Yishafech". According to the earlier Tana (who learns from "va'Yetzav"), the Torah finds it necessary to write the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Shofech Dam ha'Adam ... " - to teach us that a Nochri who transgresses is put to death by the sword (as we shall see later).
2. ... "va'Tishaches ha'Aretz Lifnei ha'Elokim" - to teach us why the Dor ha'Mabul were punished.
(c) According to Tana de'Bei Menasheh, we learn from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ke'Yerek Eisev (implying the grazing-ground in a public meadow) Nasati Lachem es Kol" - that Gezel is forbidden (to B'nei No'ach).
2. ... "Ach Basar be'Nafsho Lo Socheilu" - that Eiver min ha'Chai is forbidden.
3. ... "Shirtzu ba'Aretz u'Revu Vah" - that castrating an animal is forbidden.
4. ... "me'ha'Of le'Mineihu" - that Kil'ayim is forbidden.
(d) According to the earlier Tana, the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ke'Yerek Eisev Nasati Lachem es Kol" - teaches us that meat, which was forbidden to Adam completely, was now permitted to eat.
2. ... "Ach Basar be'Nafsho Lo Socheilu" - teaches us that Nochrim were now permitted to eat insects, even alive.
3. ... "Shirtzu ba'Aretz u'Revu Vah" - is written as a B'rachah (and not as a command).
4. ... "me'ha'Of le'Mineihu" - was intended for the convenience of the animals, who would be happier among their own kind.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, only three of the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach are subject to the death-sentence - Giluy Arayos, Shefichas Damim and Birchas Hashem.

(b) Of these, the only one that is written explicitly in the Pasuk, is - Shefichas Damim ("Shofech Dam ha'Adam ... ").

(c) Shefichas Damim cannot be the Binyan Av from we learn the other two - because if it were, then we would learn the other four from it too.

(d) The problem with saying that the source of the other two is because the Torah writes by each one "Ish" "Ish" is - that the Torah also writes "Ish Ish" by Avodah-Zarah, in which case, Rav Yehudah ought to have listed four Mitzvos that are subject to the death-sentence, and not just three?

(a) To resolve the current She'eilah, we amend Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement to read - (not three Mitzvos, but) four, as we just explained.

(b) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rav Yehudah Amar Rav with the Beraisa, which writes that a Nochri is warned on things for which a Yisrael is killed (implying that a Nochri is warned, but not put to death) - with the principle 'Azharasan Zu Hi Miysasan', negating the above implication.

(c) According to Rav Huna, Rav Yehudah and all the Talmidim of Rav, a Nochri is sentenced to death for all his seven Mitzvos. And they learn this - from Shefuchas Damim (which serves as a Binyan-Av for all the others.

(d) We reconcile this ruling with the Beraisa 'al ha'Gezel ... Kuti be'Kuti, ve'Kuti be'Yisrael Asur, ve'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar', implying that the Kuti in the Reisha is Asur, but not Chayav - by attributing the Lashon 'Asur' to the need to balance the Seifa, which rules 've'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar' (since the opposite of Mutar is Asur and not Chayav).

(a) The problem with the Reisha 'al Shefichas Damim Kuti be'Kuti be'Kuti ve'Yisrael Chayav, Yisrael be'Kuti Patur' is - that according to what we just said, the Tana ought to have said 'Asur' and 'Mutar', like it does in the Seifa?

(b) And we answer - that here the Tana could not have said 'Mutar' in the Seifa of the Beraisa, as we shall now see.

(c) The Beraisa states that, on the one hand, one is not obligated to rescue Kutim and shepherds who fell into a deep pit - whereas on the other, one is not permitted to throw them into it to begin with.

(d) The reason for this ruling with regard to shepherds - because they would allow their sheep to graze in other people's fields (rendering them Ganavim, like Kutim [which throughout the Sugya, refers to Nochrim]).

(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov tries to establish 'ke'Yotze Bahen' (with regard to Gezel) by a worker eating the grapes in the vineyard where he is working. We reject this explanation however, on the grounds of 'Mah Nafshach', if he ate whilst he was working, he would be permitted to eat Lechatchilah (even a Kuti, because of the S'vara that whatever is permitted to a Yisrael is certainly permitted to a Nochri); whereas if he ate whilst he was not working, that would be real Gezel (which we already learned in the Reisha).

(b) So Rav Papa establishes it by someone who steals less than the Shiur (i.e. the value of a Perutah). Nevertheless, 'Kuti be'Yisrael Asur' (and we do not rely on the automatic Mechilah of the owner to permit it even Lechatchilah) - seeing as at the time when he stole it, he caused the Yisrael distress, and the Mechilah, which came only afterwards, cannot absolve him from his Chiyuv.

(c) We nevertheless repudiate this interpretation of 'ke'Yotze Bahen' completely - due to the case of Kuti be'Kuti, which would then not be 'ke'Yotzei Bahen', but real Gezel, seeing as a Kuti is not Mochel.

(d) We finally establish the case of 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Gezel - by someone who holds back the wages of an employee, which has the same Din as Gezel (in this regard), but is not real Gezel, seeing as the culprit did not take anything away from the claimant.

(a) Next, we discuss 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Y'fas To'ar. We do not even attempt to explain it by Ganav - because we know at the outset, that there is no case that is *similar* to Geneivah (either it is Geneivah or it isn't).

(b) A Nochri who designates a Shifchah for his Eved and then has relations with her, is sentenced to death - on the basis of Geneivah (not Z'nus, since there is no such thing as 'Be'ulas Ba'al by an Eved).

(c) The equivalent case with regard to ...

1. ... Kuti be'Yisrael, who is also Chayav - is where the Yisrael designated a Shifchah for his Eved Ivri (see Maharsha), and a Kuti then had relations with her.
2. ... Yisrael be'Kuti is - when a Nochri designated a Shifchah for his Eved, and a Yisrael then captured her in war. She is permitted Lechatchilah, no less than the Nochri's wife would be.
(a) We initially think that the Tana did not insert a case of 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Shefichas Damim - because every case is either Chayav or is Mutar (such as Reuven who is being chased by Shimon and who is permitted to kill him).

(b) The reason that we do not establish 'ke'Yotze Bo' by a case of someone who killed be'Shogeg is - because someone who kills be'Shogeg is a murderer like a Meizid (only the Torah generally has pity on a Shogeg and exempts him from Miysah [see Aruch le'Ner]). Consequently, the term 'ke'Yotze Bo' would not apply there.

(a) Abaye concludes however, that it is possible to insert 'ke'Yotze Bo' even by Shefichas Damim, according to Rebbi Yonasan ben Shaul - who rules that if Shimon could have saved himself from Reuven who is chasing after him to kill him, by severing one of his limbs, but did not do so (and killed him instead), he is Chayav Miysah.

(b) Consequently, it is appropriate for the Tana to say 'Yisrael be'Kuti Patur'.

(c) This will not work according to the Rabbanan, who permit Shimon to kill Reuven even if he is able to save himself by severing one of his limbs. In that case, the Tana ought to have said 'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar' (rather than Patur - see Aruch le'Ner DH 'be'Rashi Neherag').




(a) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Acha found a scroll of Agadta de'Bei Rebbi, on which was written 'ben No'ach Neherag be'Dayan Echad, be'Eid Echad she'Lo be'Hasra'ah - The Tana goes on to disqualify a woman from testifying (or judging), but validates a relative.

(b) Based on a statement quoted there in the name of Rebbi Yishmael, the difference between a Din of a Yisrael and that of a Nochri, as regards killing a fetus is - that the former is Chayav, the latter, Patur.

(c) The entire Beraisa is based on a Pasuk in No'ach. We learn from ...

1. ... "Ach es Dimchem le'Nafshoseichem Edrosh" - that even one judge will suffice to judge a ben No'ach.
2. ... "mi'Yad Kol Chayah" - that no warning is necessary.
3. ... "Edreshenu u'mi'Yad ha'Adam" - that one witness will suffice (but not it seems, circumstantial evidence).
4. ... "mi'Yad Ish" - 've'Lo mi'Yad Ishah'.
5. ... "Achiv" - 'Afilu Karov'.
(a) Rebbi Yishmael derives his Din from the Pasuk there "Shofech Dam ha'Adam ba'Adam Damo Yishafech" - which implies that he is Chayav for killing a person within a person (i.e. a fetus).

(b) The Tana Kama (Tana de'Bei Menasheh), who disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael, explains "ba'Adam Damo Yishafech" to mean - that a ben No'ach is put to death by Chenek (where the blood remains inside the body).

(c) Rebbi Yishmael holds - that a ben No'ach is sentenced to death by the sword.

(d) In light of Tana de'Bei Menasheh, who disqualifies a bas No'ach from testifying or judging, Rav Hamnuna explains the Pasuk "Lema'an Asher Yetzaveh es Banav ve'es Beiso Acharav ... La'asos Tzedakah u'Mishpat" to mean - that Avraham would command his sons to perform Din, and his daughters (Beiso), to be charitable.

(a) Rav Ivya the elder asked Rav Papa whether, in light of the Pasuk "mi'Yad Ish", a bas No'ach who murdered, is not punishable. Rav Papa's reply was based on a statement of Rav Yehudah, who Darshened - that "Shofech Dam ha'Adam" (the very next Pasuk) incorporates women too.

(b) He also asked him whether, based on the Pasuk "Al Kein Ya'azov Ish es Aviv ve'es Imo", a bas No'ach is not punishable for adultery. This time, he cited him the end of the same Pasuk "ve'Hayu le'Basar Echad" - which equates man and woman in this regard.

(c) Having already learned Giluy Arayos by the B'nei No'ach from "Leimor", the Tana of the Beraisa nevertheless needs to learn it from the Pasuk in Acharei- Mos "Ish Ish" - to include the Arayos Yisrael which do not pertain to B'nei No'ach (which will be explained shortly).

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa, which we bring as proof of the previous ruling, adds 'Ba al Arayos Yisrael, Nidon be'Diynei Yisrael'. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains this to mean that for Arayos Yisrael, a ben No'ach is judged like a Yisrael - meaning that he requires twenty-three judges, two witnesses, and that he must have been warned.

(b) We reject Rav Nachman's explanation however - because it is illogical to deal with a ben Nochri who commits adultery with a bas Yisrael more leniently than one who commits adultery with a bas No'ach.

(c) Rebbi Yochanan therefore explains the Seifa of the Beraisa to mean - that for committing adultery with a Jewish Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (a concept which does not exist by the B'nei No'ach), a ben No'ach receives Sekilah (instead of Sayaf).

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's second statement 'Aval Eishes Ish, be'Diyna Didhu Dayninan Leih' with the Beraisa, which supports his first statement, but which adds 'al Eishes Ish (bas Yisrael), Nidon be'Chenek' - by establishing 'Eishes Ish' by a woman who has made Chupah but who has not yet consummated her marriage (since this concept does not exist by B'nei No'ach either).

(a) The Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Chanina, learns that, by the B'nei No'ach, Chupah is not considered Eishes Ish - from the Pasuk (said by Hashem to Avimelech concerning Sarah) "ve'Hi Be'ulas Ba'al" (and not " ... Eishes Ish").

(b) In the Beraisa that we cite as proof for Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling, when Rebbi Meir says that any Ervah that is not subject by Diynei Yisrael to the death penalty, is not forbidden to the B'nei No'ach - he is referring to the Arayos for which one is only Chayav Kareis (i.e. all the cases involving the term 'sister').

(a) According to the Chachamim however - there are many cases of Arayos (see Hagahos ha'G'ra) where a ben No'ach is warned, even though a Yisrael is not Chayav Miysah.

(b) 'Ba al Arayos Yisrael' they say - 'Nidon ke'Yisrael' (a proof for Rebbi Yochanan), but they list only the case of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

(c) They do not list the case of 'Nichnesah le'Chupah ve'Lo Niv'alah' - because the author of this Beraisa happens to be Tana de'Bei Menasheh, who holds that a ben No'ach always receives Chenek.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,