ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 59
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(b) The only case that this latter principle incorporates is - Gid
2. ... but were not repeated at Sinai - apply to Yisrael only.
(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.
(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'.
(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
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.
(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).
(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).
2. ... the B'nei Eisav - because we extrapolate "be'Yitzchak", 've'Lo Kol
(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.
(b) He learns that Sheratzim are not subject to Eiver min ha'Chai - from the
word "Ach", which always comes to exclude.
2. ... "ke'Yerek Eisev Nasati Lachem es Kol" - that No'ach was permitted to
3. ... "(Ach) Basar be'Nafsho Damo Lo Socheilu" - that the concession did
not include 'Eiver min ha'Chai'.
(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.
(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.
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
(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
(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
(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
(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