Sanhedrin Daf 56 - Megadeif, Sheva Mitzvos
Summary
- The shiur outlines the Mishnah’s courtroom procedures for a blasphemer, derives that “נוקב שם” denotes cursing rather than piercing or explicating, and compares liability for a Yisrael and a Ben Noach regarding blasphemy and kinuyim, including punishments and the role of כגר כאזרח and איש איש. It enumerates the שבע מצוות בני נח with proposed additions (דם מן החי, סירוס, כישוף/כל האמור בפרשת כישוף, כלאים), limits a Ben Noach’s כלאים prohibitions to הרבעת בהמה and הרכבת אילן, and derives the seven from ויצו ה' אלקים על האדם לאמר מכל עץ הגן אכול תאכל with an alternate mapping that yields a nafka mina about liability for fashioning עבודה זרה without worship. It reconciles דינים appearing both among the seven and as added at מרה with four resolutions or by adopting תנא דבי מנשה’s list that excludes דינים, and it addresses which mitzvos applied to אדם הראשון, recording Rambam, Rashi, and Tosafos on אבר מן החי and whether the derivations are דרשה גמורה or אסמכתא.
- The Mishnah rules that a *megadef* is liable only if he explicitly states the Shem Hashem. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha states that throughout the proceedings the עדים testify with a *kinuy*, saying יכה יוסי את יוסי, and after *gmar din* the court is cleared, the greatest witness states explicitly what he heard, the *dayanim* stand and tear their garments and do not mend them, and the other witnesses affirm אף אני כמוהו. The Mishnah involves even a third witness to maintain the halachic unit of witnesses for rules such as שנים או שלשה עדים and עד זומם/פסול dynamics.
- # Must the Witness Utter the Explicit Curse?
- # Interpreting “נוקב שם”: Curse, Pierce, or Explicate?
- # Yisrael and Ben Noach: Liability, Kinuyim, and Punishments
- Rabbi Meir holds that a Yisrael is liable to death even for *kinuyim*, as learned from איש כי יקלל אלוקיו... ונשא חטאו alongside ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת; the Chachamim hold that a Yisrael receives מיתה only for the *shem meyuchad* and *kinuyim* are only under an אזהרה. According to Rabbi Moshe, the Chachamim still hold that a Ben Noach who curses with *kinuyim* is liable to death, learned from כגר כאזרח juxtaposed with ונוקב שם; according to Rabbi Meir, כגר כאזרח teaches that a Yisrael receives סקילה while a נוכרי receives סייף. According to Rabbi Yitzchak Nafcha within the Chachamim, כגר כאזרח teaches that a Yisrael requires *shem b’shem* for liability, while a Ben Noach does not, and איש איש is דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם.
- The ברייתא lists דינים, וברכת השם, עבודה זרה, גילוי עריות, שפיכות דמים, גזל, ואבר מן החי. Rabbi Chananya ben Gamla (or ben Gamliel) adds אף על הדם מן החי, Rabbi Chidka adds אף על הסירוס, Rabbi Shimon adds אף על הכישוף, and Rabbi Yosi states כל האמור בפרשת כישוף בן נח מוזהר עליו, citing the Torah’s punishment of the nations for those תועבות. Rabbi Elazar adds אף על הכלאים, but permits בני נח to wear שעטנז and plant כלאים, forbidding only הרבעת בהמה and הרכבת אילן.
- # Deriving the Seven from ויצו ה' אלקים על האדם לאמר...
- Rabbi Yitzchak flips two mappings: ויצו = עבודה זרה and אלקים = דינים, supported by ונקרב בעל הבית אל האלהים; his proofs for ויצו → עבודה זרה (סרו מהר מן הדרך אשר צויתים... עשו; or כי הואיל הלך אחרי צו) yield a nafka mina whether a גוי is liable for creating an idol absent worship. According to the source “עשו,” liability begins at fashioning; according to “כי הואיל הלך,” liability requires worship. Rava cites a baraita limiting Ben Noach liability to matters for which Beit Din of Israel executes and excludes hugging/kissing שלא כדרכה, and not necessarily fashioning an idol; Aruch LaNer reconciles Rambam’s ruling that a Ben Noach is מוזהר even where Israel’s courts do not execute by treating the asiyat ע"ז case as an unresolved dispute, forbidding it מספק yet not executing.
- A baraita states that ten mitzvos were given at מרה—seven already accepted by בני נח and three added: דינין, שבת, וכיבוד אב ואם—creating tension since דינים are among the seven. Rav Nachman in Rav Safra’s name limits מרה’s addition to עדה, עדים, והתראה; Rava limits it to דיני קנסות; Rav Acha bar Yaakov makes it the requirement to establish courts in every province and city. The challenge that בני נח also must establish courts everywhere is resolved by identifying the baraita with תנא דבי מנשה, who excludes דינים from the seven and instead lists סירוס and כלאים (דח ואייל סח), thus accounting for דינין being “added” at מרה.
- Rambam (Melachim 9) holds that Adam was commanded in six of the seven, excluding *eiver min ha-chai*; Kesef Mishneh explains that since Adam was forbidden to eat meat at all, *eiver min ha-chai* was unnecessary. Rashi and Tosafos assume Adam was prohibited in *eiver min ha-chai*, understanding the meat ban as להמית ולאכול while permitting meat that died naturally, necessitating a prohibition of removing a limb. Kesef Mishneh suggests the derivations from ויצו ה' אלקים על האדם are אסמכתא to avoid imposing all seven on Adam, whereas Zera Yitzchak argues that the Gemara’s use of that verse treats it as a true דרשה; a possible reconciliation is that a received kabbalah fixes the obligations and the verse supports them.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions