Tana de'bei Menasheh learns two of the Sheva Mitzvos b'nei No'ach from the word "va'Tishaches" (in the Pasuk in No'ach "va'Tishaches ha'Aretz lifnei ha'Elokim"), based on a statement by Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who explains that wherever the word 'Hashchasah' or any of its derivatives appears - it refers to Giluy Arayos and Avodah-Zarah.

Tana de'bei Menasheh learns murder from "Shofech Dam ha'Adam, ba'Adam Damo Yishafech". According to the earlier Tana (who learns from "va'Yetzav"), the Torah finds it necessary to write the Pasuk ...

... "Shofech Dam ha'Adam ... " to teach us that - the standard death-sentence of a Nochri who transgresses is death by the sword (as we shall see later).

... "va'Tishaches ha'Aretz lifnei ha'Elokim" - to teach us why the Dor ha'Mabul were punished.

According to the same Tana, the Pasuk, we learn from the Pasuk ...

... "ke'Yerek Eisev (implying the grazing-ground in a public meadow) Nasati lachem es Kol" that - Gezel is forbidden to the b'nei No'ach ...

... "Ach Basar be'Nafsho Lo Socheilu" - the prohibition of Eiver min ha'Chai.

... "Shirtzu ba'Aretz u'Revu vah" that - castrating an animal is forbidden, too.

... "me'ha'Of le'Mineihu" that - Kil'ayim is also included in the prohibition.

According to the earlier Tana, the Pasuk ...

... "ke'Yerek Eisev Nasati lachem es Kol" teaches us that - meat, which was forbidden to Adam, now became permitted to No'ach ...

... "Ach Basar be'Nafsho Lo Socheilu" that - the concession incorporates insects, even live ones.

... "Shirtzu ba'Aretz u'Revu vah" - is a B'rachah (and not a command).

... "me'ha'Of le'Mineihu" - is merely intended for the convenience of the animals, who are happier among their own species ('Birds of a feather ... ').

According to Rav Yosef Amar Rav, only three of the Sheva Mitzvos b'nei No'ach are subject to the death-sentence - Giluy Arayos, Sh'fichas Damim and Birchas Hash-m.

Of these, the only one that is written explicitly in the Pasuk, is - Sh'fichas Damim ("Shofech Dam ha'Adam ... ").

Sh'fichas Damim cannot be the Binyan Av from which we learn the other two - because if it were, then we would learn the remaining four from it as well.

The problem with saying that the source of the other two is because the Torah writes by each one "Ish" "Ish" is - that the Torah also writes "Ish Ish" by Avodah-Zarah, in which case, Rav Yosef ought to have listed four Mitzvos that are subject to the death-sentence, and not just three.

To resolve the problem of the source of the three Mitzvos, we amend Rav Yosef Amar Rav's statement to read - (not three Mitzvos, but) four, as we just explained.

Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rav Yosef Amar Rav with the Beraisa, which writes that a Nochri is warned on things for which a Yisrael is killed (implying that a Nochri is warned, but not put to death) - with the principle 'Azharasan Zu Hi Misasan' ('Their warning is their death-sentence', but not necessarily that all his Mitzvos are subject to Misah).

According to Rav Huna, Rav Yehudah and all the Talmidim of Rav, a Nochri is sentenced to death for all his seven Mitzvos. And they learn this - from Shefichas Damim, which serves as a Binyan-Av for all the others.

We reconcile this ruling with the Beraisa 'al ha'Gezel ... Kuti be'Kuti, ve'Kuti be'Yisrael Asur, ve'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar', implying that the Kuti in the Reisha is Asur, but not Chayav - by attributing the Lashon 'Asur' to the need to balance the Seifa, which rules 've'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar' (since the opposite of 'Mutar' is 'Asur' and not 'Chayav'), even though in fact, he is Chayav as well.

The problem with the Reisha 'al Sh'fichas Damim Kuti be'Kuti be'Kuti ve'Yisrael Chayav, Yisrael be'Kuti Patur' is that - according to what we just said, the Tana ought to have said 'Asur' and 'Mutar', like it does in the Seifa.

And we answer that - the Tana could not have said 'Mutar' in the Seifa of the Beraisa, as we shall now see.

The Beraisa states that, on the one hand, one is not obligated to rescue Kutim and shepherds who have fallen into a deep pit - whereas on the other, one is not permitted to throw them into it.

The reason for this ruling with regard to the latter is - because they allow their sheep to graze in other people's fields (rendering them Gazlanim, like Kutim [which throughout the Sugya, refers to Nochrim]).

Rav Acha bar Ya'akov tries to establish 'ke'Yotze bahen' (with regard to Gezel) by a worker eating the grapes in the vineyard where he is working. We reject this explanation however, on the grounds that - 'Mah Nafshach', if he eats whilst he is working, he is permitted to eat Lechatchilah (even a Kuti, because of the S'vara that whatever is permitted to a Yisrael is certainly permitted to a Nochri); whereas if he eats whilst he is not working, that is real Gezel (which we already learned in the Reisha).

So Rav Papa establishes it by someone who steals less than the Shi'ur (the value of a P'rutah). Nevertheless, 'Kuti be'Yisrael Asur' (and we do not rely on the automatic Mechilah of the owner to permit it even Lechatchilah) - seeing as at the time when he steals it, he causes the Yisrael distress, and the Mechilah, which comes only afterwards, cannot absolve him from his Chiyuv.

We refute this interpretation of 'ke'Yotze bahen' completely however - due to the case of Kuti be'Kuti, which would then not be 'ke'Yotzei bahen', but real Gezel, seeing as a Kuti does not tend to be Mochel.

Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika finally establishes the case of 'ke'Yotze bo' by Gezel - by an employer who holds back the wages of an employee, which has the same Din as Gezel (in this regard), but is not real Gezel, seeing as the he did not take anything from the claimant.

Next, we discuss 'ke'Yotze bo' by Y'fas To'ar. We do not even attempt to explain it by Gazlan - because we know at the outset, that there is no case that is similar to Gezeilah (either it is Gezeilah or it isn't).

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, citing Rebbi ... Chanina, he established the case by a Nochri who designated a Shifchah for his Eved and then had relations with her, who is sentenced to death - on the basis of Gezeilah (not Z'nus [adultery]), since there is no such thing as 'Be'ulas Ba'al (the status of marriage) by an Eved.

The equivalent case with regard to ...

... Kuti be'Yisrael, who is also Chayav - is where the Yisrael designated a Shifchah for his Eved Ivri (see Maharsha), and a Kuti then had relations with her.

... Yisrael be'Kuti is - where a Nochri designated a Shifchah for his Eved, and a Yisrael then captured her in war ...

... who is permitted Lechatchilah, in the same way as the wife of a Nochri is.

We initially think that the Tana did not insert a case of 'ke'Yotze bo' by Sh'fichas Damim - because every case is either Chayav or Mutar Lechatchilah (such as Reuven who is being chased by Shimon and who is permitted to kill him).

The reason that we do not establish the case by a case of someone who killed be'Shogeg is - because someone who kills be'Shogeg is a murderer like a Meizid (only the Torah generally has pity on a Shogeg and exempts him from Misah [see Aruch le'Ner]). Consequently, the term 'ke'Yotze bo' would not apply there.

Abaye concludes however, that it is possible to insert 'ke'Yotze Bo' even by Sh'fichas Damim, according to Rebbi Yonasan ben Shaul in a Beraisa who rules that - if Shimon could have saved himself from Reuven who is chasing him to kill him, by severing one of his limbs, but did not do so (and killed him instead), he is Chayav Misah.

In such a case therefore - it is appropriate for the Tana to say 'Yisrael be'Kuti Patur'.

This will not work according to the Rabbanan, who permit Shimon to kill Reuven even if he is able to save himself by severing one of his limbs. In that case, the Tana ought to have said 'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar' (rather than Patur - see Aruch le'Ner on Rashi DH 'Neherag alav').

Rebbi Ya'akov bar Acha found a scroll of Agadta de'Bei Rebbi, on which was written 'ben No'ach Neherag be'Dayan Echad, be'Eid Echad she'Lo be'Hasra'ah. The Tana goes on - to disqualify a woman from testifying (or judging), but validates a relative.

Based on a statement quoted there in the name of Rebbi Yishmael, the difference between a Din of a Yisrael and that of a Nochri, as regards killing a fetus is that - the former is Chayav, the latter, Patur.

The entire Beraisa is based on a Pasuk in No'ach. We learn from ...

... "Ach es Dimchem le'Nafshoseichem Edrosh" that - even one judge will suffice to judge a ben No'ach.

... "mi'Yad Kol Chayah" that - no warning is necessary.

... "Edreshenu u'mi'Yad ha'Adam" that - one witness will suffice.

... "mi'Yad Ish" - 've'Lo mi'Yad Ishah'.

... "Achiv" - even if he is a relative.

Rebbi Yishmael learns his Din from the Pasuk there "Shofech Dam ha'Adam, ba'Adam Damo Yishafech" - which implies that he is Chayav for killing a person within a person (a fetus).

The Tana Kama - (Tana de'bei Menasheh), who disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael, explains "ba'Adam Damo Yishafech" to mean that - a ben No'ach is put to death by Chenek (where the blood remains inside the body).

Rebbi Yishmael holds that - a ben No'ach is sentenced to death by the sword.

In light of Tana de'bei Menasheh, who disqualifies a bas No'ach from testifying or judging, Rav Hamnuna explains the Pasuk in Vayeira "Lema'an asher Yetzaveh es Banav ve'es Beiso Acharav ... La'asos Tzedakah u'Mishpat" to mean that - Avraham would command his sons to perform Din, and his daughters (Beiso), to be charitable.

Rav Ivya the elder asked Rav Papa whether, in light of the Pasuk "mi'Yad Ish", a bas No'ach who murdered, is not punishable. The latter's answer is based on a statement of Rav Yehudah, who Darshened - that "Shofech Dam ha'Adam" (the next Pasuk) incorporates women too.

He also asked him whether, based on the Pasuk (in Bereishis, in connection with the relationship between husband and wife) "Al kein Ya'azov Ish es Aviv ve'es Imo", a bas No'ach is not punishable for adultery. This time, he cited him the end of the same Pasuk "ve'Hayu le'Basar Echad" - which equates a woman with a man in this regard.

In spite of having already learned Giluy Arayos by the B'nei No'ach from "Leimor", the Tana of the Beraisa nevertheless needs to learn it from the Pasuk in Acharei- Mos "Ish Ish" - to include the Arayos of a Yisrael which do not pertain to b'nei No'ach (which will be explained shortly).

The Seifa of the Beraisa, which we cite as proof of the previous ruling, adds 'Ba al Arayos Yisrael, Nidon be'Dinei Yisrael'. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains this to mean that for Arayos Yisrael, a ben No'ach is judged like a Yisrael - meaning that he requires twenty-three judges, two witnesses, and warning.

We reject Rav Nachman's explanation however - because it is illogical to deal with a ben Nochri who commits adultery with a bas Yisrael more leniently than one who commits adultery with a bas No'ach.

Rebbi Yochanan therefore explains the Seifa of the Beraisa to mean that - for committing adultery with a Jewish Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (a concept which does not exist by the b'nei No'ach), a ben No'ach is sentenced to S'kilah (instead of Sayaf).

Rebbi Yochanan then issues a second ruling 'Aval Eishes Ish, be'Dina Didhu Dayninan leih', by which he means that - if a ben No'ach commits adultery with a bas Yisrael who is married, he is sentenced to the usual Sayaf.

To reconcile that with the Seifa of the Beraisa 'al Eishes Ish, Nidon be'Chenek', Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Eishes Ish of Rebbi Yochanan by a woman who has made Chupah but who has not yet consummated her marriage (since this concept does not exist by a ben No'ach either).

The Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Chanina, learns that, by the b'nei No'ach, Chupah is not considered Eishes Ish - from the Pasuk (said by Hash-m to Avimelech concerning Sarah) "ve'Hi Be'ulas Ba'al" ('Be'ulas Ba'al' Yesh lahem, 'Eishes Ish Ein lahem).

In the Beraisa that we cited as proof for Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling, when Rebbi Meir says that any Ervah that is not subject by Dinei Yisrael to the death penalty, is not forbidden to the b'nei No'ach - he is referring to the Arayos for which one is only Chayav Kareis (all the cases involving the term 'sister').

According to the Chachamim however - there are many cases of Arayos (see Hagahos ha'G'ra) where a ben No'ach is warned, even though a Yisrael is not Chayav Misah.

'Ba al Arayos Yisrael' they say - 'Nidon ke'Yisrael' (a proof for Rebbi Yochanan), but they list only the case of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

They do not list the case of 'Nichnesah le'Chupah ve'Lo Niv'alah' - because the author of this Beraisa happens to be Tana de'bei Menasheh, who holds that a ben No'ach always receives Chenek.