that the term “his father” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to the term “his mother,” and “his mother” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to “his father.” You find such an interpretation only with regard to sisterhood, i.e., “his father” is referring to his father’s sister, and “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister.

And Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to interpret the term “his father” as referring to his father’s wife, who is referred to as his father’s nakedness in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8), to the exclusion of his father’s sister, who is referred to as his father’s kin in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s kin” (Leviticus 18:12), and who is not referred to as his father’s nakedness.

Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva from the verse: “And Amram took Jochebed his aunt as a wife” (Exodus 6:20). What, was she not his maternal aunt? Presumably, Jochebed was the sister of Kohath, Amram’s father, from both of Kohath’s parents, and not from his father alone. Evidently, a descendant of Noah may marry his father’s sister.

The Gemara rejects this proof: No, she was his paternal aunt, Kohath’s half sister. Since she was not Kohath’s sister from his mother’s side, she was not forbidden to Amram.

Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer from what Abraham said to Abimelech with regard to Sarah: “And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife” (Genesis 20:12). By inference, the daughter of the mother of a descendant of Noah is forbidden to him.

The Gemara rejects this proof: But how can you understand that Sarah was Abraham’s sister? She was his brother’s daughter. By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran’s daughter Iscah. And since that was so, there is no difference whether they were paternal relatives, and there is no difference whether they were maternal relatives; in any event she was permitted to him, even according to the halakha of Jews. Rather, this is what Abraham was saying to Abimelech there: She is related to me like a sister, as the daughter of my brother is like a sister, and our relationship is from the side of my father but not from the side of my mother.

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: For what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? So that Cain would marry his sister and they would procreate immediately, as it is stated: “For I have said: The world shall be built on kindness [ḥesed]” (Psalms 89:3). This verse alludes to the fact that at the beginning of the world’s existence it was permitted for men to marry their sisters, which was later forbidden in the verse: “And if a man shall take his sister…it is a shameful thing [ḥesed]” (Leviticus 20:17). The Gemara infers: If it had not been so, if God had not specially permitted Cain to marry his sister, she would have been forbidden to him. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who deems it permitted for a gentile to marry his sister.

The Gemara rejects this proof: Once it was permitted for Cain to marry his sister, it was permitted for all descendants of Noah to do so, and it was forbidden only to Jews.

Rav Huna says: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter. And if you say, for what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? It was so that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”

And there are those who say that Rav Huna did not say this; rather, Rav Huna says: A gentile is prohibited from marrying his daughter. Know that this is the halakha, as Adam did not marry his daughter. The Gemara rejects this statement: But that is not so, as there, this is the reason Adam did not marry his daughter: So that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”

§ Rav Ḥisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of a descendant of Noah who designated a maidservant as a mate for his slave, and then he himself engaged in intercourse with her, he is executed for adultery on her account.

The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave’s mate? Rav Naḥman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so’s girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him.

Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with his wife in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, is liable for engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as it is stated: “And shall cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24), an expression that indicates natural intercourse, but not intercourse in an atypical manner.

Rava says: Is there any action for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a gentile is deemed liable for performing it? A Jew is not liable for engaging in anal intercourse with his wife.

Rather, Rava says that the verse is to be understood as follows: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with the wife of another man in an atypical manner is exempt. What is the reason? The verse states: “And shall cleave to his wife,” but not to the wife of another. With regard to this prohibition, the verse states: “And shall cleave,” indicating vaginal intercourse, and not intercourse in an atypical manner.

Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).

And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo’a] of the Holy One.

The Gemara states a mnemonic for the upcoming statements of Reish Lakish: Raises, his slave, Shabbat. Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: Why did you strike, is not stated, but rather: “Why should you strike,” indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately did not strike him, is called wicked.

Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force” (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: “And the sin of the youths was very great” (I Samuel 2:17).

Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: “And the high arm shall be broken” (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others.

Rabbi Elazar says: Such a violent person has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: “And as a mighty man [ve’ish zero’a], who has the earth” (Job 22:8). The expression ish zero’a literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried.

And Rabbi Elazar states a different interpretation of that verse: The land is given only to mighty men who can protect themselves from all enemies; as it is stated: “And as a mighty man, who has the earth.”

And in connection with that statement, the Gemara notes that Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “One who works [oved] his land shall have plenty of bread” (Proverbs 12:11)? If a person makes himself like a slave [ke’eved] to the land, devoting his efforts to it, he will have plenty of bread, but if not, he will not have plenty of bread.

And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable.

The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. He does not count mitzvot that require one to arise and take action.