(R. Yochanan): A Nochri who learns Torah is Chayav Misah. "Torah... Morashah Kehilas Yakov", it is an inheritance for Yisrael, but not for Nochrim.

Question: Why isn't this included among his seven Mitzvos?

Answer #1: It is included in theft;

Answer #2: According to the opinion that expounds it is as if said Me'orasah (Torah is the Arusah of Yisrael), it is included in Arayos.

Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): If a Nochri engages in Torah, he receives reward like a Kohen Gadol - "Asher Ya'aseh Osam ha'Adam va'Chai";

It does not say that Yisraelim will live through the Mitzvos, rather, Adam. This teaches that if a Nochri engages in Torah, he is rewarded like a Kohen Gadol.

Answer: He is rewarded for learning his seven Mitzvos (but liable for anything else).

(Beraisa - R. Chanina ben Gamliel): A Nochri is liable even for eating blood of a living animal.

(Beraisa): "Ach Basar b'Nafsho Damo Lo Sochelu" refers to Ever Min ha'Chai;

R. Chanina ben Gamliel says, this also includes blood of a living animal.

Question: What is his reason?

Answer: We expound the verse as if it said 'Basar b'Nafsho Lo Sochelu, Damo b'Nafsho Lo Sochelu';

Chachamim say, this comes to permit (limbs of living) Sheratzim (this will be explained).

(R. Chanina ben Gamliel): Similarly, blood of a living animal is forbidden to Yisrael - "... l'Vilti Achol ha'Dam Ki ha'Dam Hu ha'Nefesh" (do not eat blood while it is connected to the soul, i.e. while the animal is alive).

Chachamim say, this forbids Dam ha'Nefesh of bloodletting (i.e. as long as it is flowing).

Question: Why does the Torah forbid blood of a living animal to Bnei Noach, and again to Yisrael?

Answer: This is like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina taught, that any Mitzvah said to Bnei Noach (it appears in the Torah before Ma'amad Har Sinai) that is repeated at (or after) Sinai, applies to Bnei Noach and Yisrael;

Any Mitzvah said to Bnei Noach that is not repeated at Sinai, applies only to Yisrael;

The only example we have is Gid ha'Nasheh, according to R. Yehudah.

Question: R. Yosi's first law is illogical!

(Had it not been repeated, we would say that it applies to Bnei Noach and to Yisrael. Presumably, we just received more Mitzvos at Sinai, but we did not lose Mitzvos). Since the Mitzvah was repeated, this should teach that it applies only to Yisrael!

Answer: We find that Nochrim were punished for idolatry (surely, they were commanded), and idolatry was repeated at Sinai. This teaches that such Mitzvos apply to Nochrim and Yisrael.

Question: Why did R. Yosi say that a Mitzvah said to Bnei Noach and not repeated at Sinai applies only to Yisrael? This should indicate that it applies only to Nochrim!

Answer: We never find something permitted to a Yisrael, but forbidden to a Nochri.

Question: Yafes To'ar is permitted to a Yisrael, but forbidden to a Nochri!

Answer: This is only because it does not apply to them;

(Yafes To'ar applies only during conquest.) This does not apply to Nochrim. (The Ya'avetz, Rashash and Chasam Sofer ask, we find that Nochrim can conquer land and take slaves (Gitin 38a)! Margoliyos ha'Yam (32) answers that they acquire a slave only for labor, but do not acquire the person himself (Ran 57a), and this is not enough for Yefas To'ar.)

Question: Nochrim are killed for stealing less than the value of a Perutah. A Yisrael is exempt for this!

Answer: Yisraelim are commanded about theft like Nochrim are;

Nochrim are liable because they do not pardon such an amount. Yisraelim are exempt because they pardon it.

Question: We said that a Mitzvah said to Bnei Noach and repeated applies to both. Milah was said before Sinai ("v'Atah Es Brisi Tishmor") and after ("uva'Yom ha'Shemini Yimol"), yet it applies only to Yisrael!

Answer #1: The latter verse is needed to permit Milah on Shabbos.

Question: The Mitzvah to have children was said before Sinai ("Peru u'Rvu") and after ("Shuvu Lachem l'Ohaleichem"), yet it applies only to Yisrael!

Answer: The latter verse is needed to teach that something forbidden by a vote of Beis Din is not permitted until Beis Din votes to permit it (even if they forbade for a limited time, similar to the Isur of Bi'ah that Hash-m imposed before Ma'amad Har Sinai, and He needed to permit it).

Question: If so, we can say that every Mitzvah repeated after Sinai was repeated for a certain Chidush (and applies only to Yisrael)!

Answer: When the warning not to transgress is repeated, this shows that it applies to Bnei Noach and Yisrael.

Question: R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina said that the only Mitzvah (said to Bnei Noach that is not repeated) is Gid ha'Nasheh, according to R. Yehudah;

(It is as if) also Milah and Peru u'Rvu were not repeated!

Answer: They were repeated, but to teach a different matters (like we said);

Only Gid ha'Nasheh was not repeated at all.

Answer #2 (to Question (k)): Milah was never given to all Bnei Noach, only to Avraham - "v'Atah Es Brisi Tishmor Atah v'Zar'acha Acharecha."

Question: If so, also Bnei Yishmael should be commanded about Milah. Also they descend from Avraham!

Answer: "Ki v'Yitzchak Yikarei Lecha Zara" (only Yitzchak's descendants are considered Avraham's seed).

Question: Bnei Esav should be commanded about Milah, they also descend from Yitzchak!

Answer: It says "v'Yitzchak" (in, i.e.) part of Yitzchak (i.e. only descendants of Yakov).

Question (R. Oshaya): If so, Bnei Keturah (Avraham's children after he remarried Hagar) should not be commanded about Milah, for they do not descend from Yitzchak;

Answer: R. Yosi bar Avin taught that "Es Brisi Hefar" comes to include Bnei Keturah.

(Rav Yehudah): Adam ha'Rishon was not allowed to (kill animals to) eat meat. "(All vegetation) Lachem Yihyeh l'Ochlah ul'Chol Chayas ha'Sadeh" - the animals are not Lachem (for man to eat);

After the flood, it was permitted - "k'Yerek Esev Nosati Lachem Es Kol."

Suggestion: Perhaps even a limb of a living animal was permitted!

Rejection: "Ach Basar b'Nafsho Damo Lo Sochelu."

Suggestion: Perhaps even limbs of living Sheratzim are forbidden!

Rejection: "Ach" always excludes.

Question: How does this teach that Sheratzim are excluded?

Answer (Rav Huna): (The verse needlessly says) "Damo". This alludes to something whose blood is distinguished (in Halachah) from the flesh (i.e. animals. Blood of Sheratzim is has the same law as the flesh.)

Question: "U'Rdu (be master over) bi'Dgas ha'Yam" authorized man to eat fish!

Answer: No, it authorized him to force fish to work for him.

Question: Can fish work?

Answer: Yes! Rachbah's question proves this.

Question (Rachbah): If one harnessed a fish and a goat to pull a wagon together, is he liable (for Kilai Behemah)?

Question: "(U'Rdu...) uv'Of ha'Shamayim" authorized man to eat birds!

Answer: No, it authorized him to force birds to work for him.

Question: Can birds work?

Answer: Yes! Rabah bar Rav Huna's question proves this.

Question (Rabah bar Rav Huna): According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah (who says that a worker's right to eat (and the Isur to muzzle an animal) is only when he (or it) works with his feet and hands (forelegs), if one threshes with geese and chickens, what is the law? (Does the right to eat depend on working with four limbs, or that none of the four limbs are idle?)

Question: "(U'Rdu...) uv'Chol Chayah ha'Romeses Al ha'Aretz." (Surely, this authorized man to eat Chayos. One cannot use them to work!)

Answer: No, it authorized him to force snakes to work for him.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Menasya): Had the snake not been cursed (and lost its legs), it would have been a great servant. Every Yisrael would have had two, to find gems for him, and to fertilize his field.

Question (Beraisa - R. Yehudah ben Teima): In Gan Eden, angels were roasting meat and straining wine for Adam ha'Rishon to eat and drink. The snake saw Adam's honor and became jealous.

Answer: They brought him meat that fell from Shamayim.

Question: Does meat fall from Shamayim?!

Answer: Yes! R. Shimon ben Chalafta encountered lions. They roared at him (they wanted to eat him). He said "ha'Kefirim Sho'agim la'Taref" - two pieces of meat came down (from Shamayim). The lions ate one. He took the other to the Beis Medrash, and asked if it was Tahor or Tamei.

Rabanan: Tamei things do not descend from Shamayim.

Question (R. Zeira): If an animal resembling a donkey descended from Shamayim, what is the law?

Rabanan: We already said that Tamei things do not descend from Shamayim. (Surely, such an animal would not fall. If it did, it would be Tahor.)