Hello,
When I first saw the gemara that says that Hakadosh Baruch Hu was mevater that the nochrim don't have to keep the zayin mitzvos I was very surprised and I thought that maybe this is only going in the Hava Amina of the gemara. However, in the answer of Mar b'rei D'ravina which seems to be the maskana of the gemara it seems that it doesn't change and Hakadosh Baruch Hu was actually mevater it and they aren't mechuyav. I also don't think that the gemara is chozer after that because I understood this gemara that the gemara is asking on Mar B'rei D'ravina and is saying that he didn't mean they don't get any s'char rather they get less s'char however the answer of Mar B'rei D'ravina still stands. Also, the first rashi on the amud starts off by saying "this exemption is not for their good", it seems he actually learns it as an exemption. I therefore wanted to know, is this how it really comes out that they have no chiyuvim of mitzvos at all?
I did see that someone else asked this question however, I didn't understand why you felt that this is only the hava amina of the gemara and I don't understand how to read the gemara like that. If you don't mind to get back to me I would be very appreciative. Also, if you don't mind, I rather my name not be posted if this question is posted.
Thanks a lot!
Yehoshua, United States
The way I understand the Gemara, it is not saying that the Nochrim don't have to keep them, but that they will not merit the reward of one who is commanded to keep them, since they did not accept these commandments in the way that Am Yisrael received the Torah. This does not mean that they are not punished for them, because then the Gemara's rhetorical question will return -- "sinners have benefited and gained?" The Gemara's answer is that they lost the chance to get rewarded as Metzuveh v'Oseh but this does not mean that they will not be punished.
This is also the premise for Lifnei Iver regarding a Nochri. We cannot sell Avodah Zarah to them as we are causing them to sin and be punished. Rashi (6a, DH Lifnei Iver) says explicitly that the Gemara concludes only that they are not rewarded like those who are commanded, but they are definitely punished for their actions regarding the Seven Mitzvos according to the Maskana. Rashi says the same thing in Bava Kama 38a: they won't get rewarded like those who are commanded (but will be rewarded as people without a command), but will definitely get punished for abrogating these Mitzvos.
Yoel Domb
Thank you very much for responding! I did see that rashi in avodah zarah (Daf Vav amud alef) that you mentioned which states that they will get punished for not doing the zayin mitzvos. However, I still don't understand how to read the gemara, because the gemara was never chozer from the fact that HKB"H was mevater on their chiyuv. The gemara asks if he was mevater on their chiyuv then they gain from that? So the gemara answers that since he was mevater now even if they do follow the mitzvos they get less schar like one who is not commanded to do them. Rashi on the top of the amud explains this answer of the gemara how I said that it's not being chozer from the fact that he was mevater just that "This acception is not for their benefit." However it seems that it is still an acception, or a hatara.
Also, the rashi that you mentioned on Daf Vav (divrei Hamaschil Velifnei Iver) is also mashma that there is still an acception. He says they are commanded in the issur of avodah zara and if you want to ask that we said before that HKB"H was mevater the chiyuv, still they will get punishment for not doing the zayin mitzvos. It sounds like they get punishment even though there is no chiyuv which doesn't really make sense, he must mean they are mechuyav and therefore receive punishment. However, if there is really a chiyuv, rashi could've said and if you want to ask that we said... no, because it doesn't mean that they actually don't have to keep them. Why did he have to say instead that they receive punishment, if that meant that they still are commanded, rashi should just say it doen't mean that they are actually patur!
Also, from the fact that rashi asked this question, it would seem that he understood it that they are actually patur, because if he understood it that it just means they get less schar then why did he ask this?
I am sorry for bothering you with a question not pertaining to the current mesechta.
Thank you so much!
The Gemara in its answer does not explicitly change from the Havah Amina, but it is implicit in the word "Lomar" which means that what was said before, that Hash-m was Matir, meant (like "K'lomar") that he would not reward them. The Gemara is saying: "Do not read the words 'Hitir Lahem' as a Heter to act wrongly, read them as "releasing" -- meaning releasing Hash-m from His obligation to reward them for the Mitzvos.
However, I found that the Brisker Rav (Chidushei ha'Griz Al ha'Rambam, Hilchos Melachim) maintains that indeed Hash-m released the Nochrim from the seven Mitzvos regarding the original Chiyuv from the Mabul, and therefore Nochrim who keep the Mitzvos would be obligated only due to the Torah and not due to the original agreement after the Mabul, since that was terminated when they did not keep the Mitzvos.
Thus, if a Nochri does not accept the Torah he is not obligated to observe the Seven Mitzvos, and if he becomes a Ger Toshav he must accept to observe because the Torah obligates him and not because Hash-m obligated all of the Nochrim at the time of the Mabul.
This will obviously raise the question of why they should be punished for them if they are not obligated. However, possibly we could answer by quoting Rabeinu Nisim in his preface to the Talmud who says that mankind is obligated by common logic to Mitzvos even without the Torah, and this is how Hash-m could bring a Mabul and punish Sedom due to their not performing Mitzvos even though He had not commanded them, since there is a basic requirement of humanity to behave properly irrespective of whether they have accepted upon themselves certain moral guidelines.
This would also answer your question about the Rashi. Indeed, they are not obligated, but despite this they will be punished for not acting at the most basic level like human beings which is what is required of them.
The Noda b'Yehudah (Tinyana, Yoreh Deah 164) says that even a Jewish minor who understands that something is implicitly wrong will be punished for his actions even though he has not reached the age of obligation.
Yoel Domb