Here is a translation of Tractate Sandhedrin Folio 59a (the tractate cited in your first 'quote') of the Babylonian Talmud, which will give some idea of its complexity, and its resemblance to an SI thread in terms of the varying opinions expressed. IOW, it's Liberty Hall for anyone of bad faith looking for nasty quotes, just as this thread would be:
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Sanhedrin
Folio 59a
But the precept of observing social laws is a positive one, yet it is reckoned? — It is both positive and negative.1
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 studies6 the Torah is as a High Priest! — That refers to their own seven laws.7
'R Hanania b. Gamaliel said: [They were also commanded] not to partake of the blood drawn from a living animal.'
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
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
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.
'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
'Every precept which was given to the sons of Noah and repeated at Sinai was meant for both [Noachides and Israelites]'.
To Part b
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files
Dilling discussion of highlighted text
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.
come-and-hear.com |
