1) סנהדרין דף נט-תוספות asks that פרו ורבו is an עשה so why does the גמ' think it should be included in the שבע מצוות?
The מהרש"ל asks - why doesn't תוס ask about מילה also? He answers that since there is כרת there is also an אזהרה therefore it is called a לא תעשה - either to not מל on time or to מל too early before 8 days.
One question is that The חינוך brings the (בראשית יז,י) פסוק of זאת בריתי אשר תשמרו and the גמ' brings the previous posuk - ואתה את-בריתי תשמור which both have the לשון of תשמר. So why is it not considered a לא תעשה?
Is that because it has the צורה of an עשה so by definition it can't be a לא תעשה? But according to the מהרש"ל it also has the צורה of a 'לא תעשה, לכא'?
2) Also, in the first לשון of the גמ' it says והרי מילה שנאמרה לבני נח... - which sounds like that there was a מצוה of מילה on all בני נח until מתן תורה. This seems כנגד the פסוקים (like the גמ' mentions in the 2nd לשון) that it was for Avraham and his children?
Thank you
Chaim Harpaz
Chaim Harpaz, United States
Hi Chaim,
Thank you for these great questions.
I'll try to answer them.
1. We see that the Maharshal needs the fact that Mila has a Kares punishment to consider Mila as a Lo Taase. He did not use the Loshon 'Tishmor' for this. The Gemara says in a few places that the Lushon השמר פן is a Lo Taase. There is a discussion wether the Gemara means only the Lushoon Heshamer together with Pen, or each one apart. The Gemara seems to say that each one is a Lav, even without the other one. Now, is only the form השמר a Lav, or any word from the root שמר also a Lav. The Gemara Rosh ha'Shana 6a, says that Tishmor is also a Lav. On the other hand, the Gemara Menachos 36b it seems to be a Machlokes. It seems like the Sugya here will go with the Amora who says there השמר דעשה, עשה. If we have a עשה and the Torah says שמירה on that Mitzvah, it is not a Lo Taase.
2. You are right that the Lushon of the Gemara sounds like all Bnei Noach were commanded to do Mila, but in the Rishonim we see their version was והרי מילה שנצטווה אברה שהיה מבני נח. We can say also according to our version, that the Gemara means that the rule that a Mitzvah that was repeated is meant also for Bnei Noach, since we see that Mila breaks the rule, even if it was said to part of Bnei Noach, because although is was not given to all Bnei Noach, Avraham is still considered a Ben Noach, as far as the rule concerns.
I hope this helps,
Aharon Steiner