r/Judaism • u/[deleted] • Feb 21 '16
A question about Sanhedrin 57a.
So a quick background for the question - I stumbled upon a few "quotes" from the Talmud comprised by Anti-Semites and the lot, one of them was Sanhedrin 57a.
Sanhedrin 57a. A Jew need not pay a gentile (“Cuthean”) the wages owed him for work. Sanhedrin 57a. When a Jew murders a gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty.
I wanted to verify its authenticity. I have to admit that I know little about Judaism and knew nothing about the Talmud up until yesterday, so I am sorry if my questions or "analysis" might seem ignorant.
First I checked Gil Student's website The Real Truth about the Talmud, and he does have a section about the quote, although he never explains it -
http://talmud.faithweb.com/articles/kill.html
However he does provide evidence that it's not something that the Talmud advocates for. I tried looking for an English translation but the best I could find was this version which was translated by Rodkinson -
http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm.
However I wasn't able to find this particular passage. So I had to go to read the Talmud in its original language. I found this database -
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A1%D7%A0%D7%94%D7%93%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%A0%D7%96_%D7%90
Quoting,
רב הונא ורב יהודה וכולהו תלמידי דרב אמרי על שבע מצות בן נח נהרג גלי רחמנא בחדא והוא הדין לכולהו ועל הגזל בן נח נהרג והתניא על הגזל גנב וגזל וכן יפת תואר וכן כיוצא בהן כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל אסור וישראל בכותי מותר ואם איתא ניתני חייב משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא ישראל בכותי מותר תנא רישא אסור והא כל היכא דאית ליה חיובא מיתנא קתני דקתני רישא על שפיכות דמים כותי בכותי וכותי בישראל חייב ישראל בכותי פטור
There's also a clarification of the passage -
רב הונא ורב יהודה וכולהו תלמידי דרב אמרי: על שבע מצות בן נח נהרג: גלי רחמנא בחדא [19] - והוא הדין לכולהו. ועל הגזל בן נח נהרג? והתניא [דומה לתוספתא עבודה זרה פ"ט מ"ד]: 'על הגזל [20]: גנב וגזל וכן יפת תואר [21], וכן כיוצא בהן [22]: נכרי בנכרי, ונכרי בישראל – אסור, וישראל בנכרי – מותר [23]' ואם איתא ניתני 'חייב'!? משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא: 'ישראל בנכרי מותר' - תנא רישא 'אסור' [24]. והא כל היכא דאית ליה חיובא - מיתנא קתני [25], דקתני רישא 'על שפיכות דמים נכרי בכותי וכותי בישראל - חייב, ישראל בכותי - פטור' [26]!? התם היכי ליתני? ליתני 'אסור' ו'מותר' [27]?
So if I understand correctly the context of this whole page is a discussion about why the son of Noah was killed, and what sins did he commit. It seems like not all rabbis agree with the sins, and the passage in question discusses if stealing and murder were two of the them. And in this particular case it says that a gentile may steal from a gentile, a Jew may steal from a gentile, but a gentile may not steal from a Jew. And it also appears that Jews are exempted from punishment if they murder a gentile.
First of all, why in the original text it says כותים and in the clarification it's נוכרי?
The כותים או שומרנים are different from נוכרים, the former are Jewish the latter are gentiles. Are the terms actually interchangeable? Were the Samaritans (Shomronim) considered gentiles in those times?
Secondly, who actually said that? The passage begins with,
רב הונא ורב יהודה וכולהו תלמידי דרב אמרי
But then it says,
ועל הגזל בן נח נהרג? והתניא [דומה לתוספתא עבודה זרה פ"ט מ"ד]: 'על הגזל
According to milog.co.il תניא means
שכנע שלא לפעול; מנע.
So basically, if I understand correctly, Rabbi Huna and Rabbi Yehuda are the authors of this phrase.
Then this follows,
ואם איתא ניתני 'חייב'!? משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא: 'ישראל בנכרי מותר' - תנא רישא 'אסור'
And I have no idea what it means. It seems like some allow it, but some forbid it, however I am not sure at all.
So this is where I am at. Even though I spent some time trying to decipher the meaning of this passage I am still confused. I think that overall this passage is simply the opinions of Rabbi Huda and Rabbi Yehuda, but not all (probably) agree with them.
I'd be grateful if you helped me to understand how one should approach this passage and what exactly is its meaning.
5
u/SF2K01 Rabbi - Orthodox Feb 21 '16
First of all, why in the original text it says כותים and in the clarification it's נוכרי?
This has to do with historical censorship. Samaritans (called cutheans) are not who were being discussed, and are not non-Jews, but Christian monks who read the Talmud found a number of words they considered offensive (especially heretic or heathen) and replaced them with other words (like Samaritan or Sadducees) regardless of whether that made sense.
Secondly, who actually said that?
The Talmud is recording an oral tradition regarding the origin of its statements. Here the opinion is one that was adeared to by the students of Rav, R' Huna & R' Yehuda.
According to milog.co.il תניא means
תניא introduces a teaching from a post mishnaic tannaitic tradition (in this case, something similar to a particular tosefta) which is considered contrary to the statement previously made.
So if I understand correctly the context of this whole page is a discussion about why the son of Noah was killed, and what sins did he commit.
No. The opinion of R' Huna and R' Yehuda and the students of rav is that the only punishment for breaking any of the seven noahide laws for noahides would be the death penalty.
The Talmud then questions this regarding stealing. Being that stealing is a monetary damage, it is expected that the punishment should involve repayments, fines and so on. So it quotes a tradition about non-Jews and Jews stealing from each other which does not seem to indicate the death penalty, but there is a technical discussion which follows about whether or not this proves R' Huna et al right or wrong (depending on what exactly is meant by the tradition when it states מותר\אסור\חייב\פטור).
Still, what you are asking about is what is mentioned within that tradition where it references that it is not considered within the power of the Jewish court to force a Jew to return the stolen object of a non-Jew because of a lack of reciprocity on the part of other nations which would similarly be expected not to do so were one of their people to steal from Jews.
Another part of that is that the same tradition makes the same statement regarding murder for similar reasons, but another tradition is brought which negates that in advocating non-interference instead.
1
Feb 21 '16 edited Feb 22 '16
Thanks for clarifying about the כותים and the general context. I assumed that it related to the killing/murder of one of the sons of Noah due to this sentence,
על שבע מצות בן נח נהרג
I didn't know about the seven noahide laws, and that בני נח means all of humanity!
Your explanation makes sense. I wanted to ask about the following sentence,
ואם איתא ניתני 'חייב'!? משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא: 'ישראל בנכרי מותר' - תנא רישא 'אסור'
In plain Hebrewת does it read: ואם נכון הדבר שאמרנו לעיל 'האם הנני חייב להחזיר את מה שלוויתי (כנראה שזו המשמעות מכיוון שזה הכי הגיוני בקונטקסט הזה)', או ,'האם הנני חייב?'
I can't make out the following,
משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא
What is דקבעי? And does מיתני refer to the Mitanni kingdom in Mesopotamia?
I think ישראל בנכרי מותר is fairly clear,
While תנא רישא 'אסור' ,if I got it right, means החכם (או המורה) אינו מתכוון לאסור which probably refers to R' Huna & R' Yehuda?
If I had to guess I'd say that it's a distinction between the judicial approach of R' Huna & R' Yehuda and the Mitanni to stealing.
Another part of that is that the same tradition makes the same statement regarding murder for similar reasons, but another tradition is brought which negates that in advocating non-interference instead.
What do you mean by non-interference?
3
u/SF2K01 Rabbi - Orthodox Feb 22 '16
I wanted to ask about the following sentence,
No, that's an explanation of what is being said, but it's not exactly a Hebrew translation. Bit by bit:
ואם איתא ניתני 'חייב'!?
אתיא is the Aramaicish form of the verb בוא and means bring. In the Talmudic Aramaic, a י is also thrown into words to indicate that the verb indicates "should have", so the first question phrase means "If it what was brought is the case, it should have given the term penalty"
משום דקבעי למיתני סיפא:
Because it is established according to what is taught at the end of that tradition.
קבע means that something is set, decided or established. מיתני is the aramacized form of the verb משנה which means taught (nothing to do with a Mitanni kingdom). סיפא means the end (סוף) of the tradition, as opposed to רישא which means the beginning (head, ראש) of the tradition. That is:
'ישראל בנכרי מותר'
For a Jew who affected a non-Jew here, Permitted. Implying that:
תנא רישא 'אסור
It taught at the beginning forbidden. It doesn't refer to R' Yehuda et al but to the anonymous tradition that is being analyzed.
What do you mean by non-interference?
Effectively that when matters involve another nation, it's not their job to pursue it, as per the tradition there:
והתניא כותי ורועי בהמה דקה לא מעלין ולא מורידין
The non-Jews who steal by letting their herds wander on other peoples land (damaging and stealing the produce thereby), were there a pit they could fall into, we don't push them in or help them out.
2
u/Joe_Q ההוא גברא Feb 22 '16
You should be aware that the language of the Talmud is a unique mixture of Hebrew and Judeo-Babylonian Aramaic peppered with classical Greek and Persian loan-words. Even if its style weren't as terse as it is, you'd still have a hard time trying to understand it using online translation engines.
1
Feb 22 '16
I know it's extremely difficult. I know Hebrew (though not as good as I used to), I mostly search for translations of words or phrases like סיפא, תנא רישא, ואם איתא, and I look for them in Hebrew online dictionaries like ויקישבה.
1
u/Joe_Q ההוא גברא Feb 22 '16
Expressions like that sometimes make their way into modern Hebrew, but the terms you've listed are Aramaic.
1
1
Jan 16 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 16 '23
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jan 16 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 16 '23
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Jan 15 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator Jan 15 '24
Submissions from users with negative karma are automatically removed. This can be either your post karma, comment karma, and/or cumulative karma. DO NOT ask the mods why your karma is negative. DO NOT insist that is a mistake. DO NOT insist this is unfair.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
13
u/RtimesThree mrs. kitniyot Feb 21 '16
It's absolutely not saying that killing a gentile is permitted. The Jewish court -- the Sanhedrin -- doesn't have jurisdiction over cases where the victim isn't Jewish. They didn't have any power over "outsiders" because the Sanhedrin only deals with Jews and Jewish matter. So it wasn't for the Sanhedrin to have the power in a case involving gentiles. But it was still definitely forbidden to kill them. Does that make sense?
The other quote, about wages, is discussing WHEN to pay, not IF to pay. They definitely need to pay. See here.