Sanhedrin 56a — the Talmud in English

How is the blasphemer judged?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said: ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

Every day,

that is, as long as they debate with the witnesses concerning the blasphemer,

they judge the witnesses by means of a euphemism: “May Yosi strike Yosi.”

That is, the witnesses do not mention the words of blasphemy that the blasphemer said, but [mention them] by way of a euphemism. And they testify concerning him that he said, “May Yosi strike Yosi” . And on the basis of this testimony the judges would judge the blasphemer, as though they had heard the blasphemy itself from the mouths of the witnesses.

However, when

the judgment is concluded,

and the judges have agreed to convict him,

they do not execute

on the basis of the testimony that they testified

by means of a euphemism,

lest in truth he did not curse God, but only [uttered] a euphemism,

but they take everyone outside,

so that the “blessing” of God will not be heard publicly, and

they ask the greatest of them,

in the presence of his colleagues,

and say to him: “Say what you heard explicitly!”

And he says

what he heard, with the mention of the Name.

And the judges,

when they hear the “blessing” of God,

stand on their feet and tear

their garments,

and do not mend

the tear ever.

And the reason will be explained in the Gemara [below, 60a].

And

the

second

witness does not repeat the words of the first, but only

says, “I too

heard

like him,” and

so, if there were many witnesses in this testimony,

the third says, “I too

heard

like him.”

And so on . And on the basis of this testimony they execute the blasphemer.

Gemara:

It was explained in the Mishna that the blasphemer who explicitly pronounces the Name and “blesses” it is liable to stoning.

And in a

beraita,

the tanna taught that he is not liable

until he “blesses” one Name with another Name.

That is, until he says, “May such-and-such a Name curse such-and-such a Name” .

The Gemara explains:

From where are these words?

From where did we learn that he is liable only when he “blesses” one Name with another Name?

Shmuel said: For the verse says

[Leviticus 24:16]

, “And he who pronounces the Name

of the Lord shall surely be put to death; the entire assembly shall surely stone him, whether a convert or a native-born,

when he pronounces the Name, he shall be put to death,”

The Sages expounded from the repetition of the expression “he who pronounces the Name” and “when he pronounces the Name” that he is not liable until he curses one Name with another Name.

The Gemara below will explain from where it is known that “he who pronounces” mentioned in the above verse, who is liable to death, means one who curses.

The Gemara asks:

From where [do you know] that this “pronouncing” is an expression of “blessing”?

As it is written

in Balaam’s words [Numbers 23:8]:

“How can I curse whom God has not cursed?”

He mentioned “curse” in the language of cursing.

And its prohibition is from here,

[Exodus 22:27]

“You shall not curse God.”

The Gemara asks:

And say

that perhaps “pronouncing” means

piercing

[cutting and piercing the Name, the Name of God, written on parchment]

is,

as we find in the Prophets that the root “pierce” means making a hole,

as it is written

[II Kings 12:10],

“And he pierced a hole in its door,”

and its prohibition is from here

[Deuteronomy 12:3–4]

, “And you shall destroy their names

from that place:

you shall not do so to the Lord your God,”

and from here there is a prohibition against piercing parchment on which the Name of God is written? The Gemara rejects this: The prohibition of one who pierces cannot be explained from “And you shall destroy their names; you shall not do so,” and so on,

for we proved above that in order to make one who pronounces liable,

we require

that he curse

one Name with another Name,

and

if, when he pierced or tore parchment on which the Name of God was written,

there is not.

There is no “one Name with another Name” here.

The Gemara asks:

And say,

perhaps there is a manner in which he pierces one Name with another, by

placing two Names one upon the other

[placing two pieces of parchment on which the Name of God is written]

, and tearing

[tearing, piercing]

them?

The Gemara answers:

That case,

if he tears two Names at once, this is not “one Name with another Name,” but

he is piercing and then piercing again.

That is, there are here two separate transgressions of tearing the Name of God, but “one Name with another Name” means that through one Name he pierces the other Name.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And say,

perhaps there is a manner in which he pierces one Name with another, such as

engraving a Name on the mouth of a knife

[engraving a Name on the point of the knife]

, and tearing

[and tearing]

with it

another Name?

The Gemara rejects: Here too, the one Name does not tear the other Name; rather,

that sharpness of the knife is what tears

[the point of the knife is what tears].

The Gemara raises an objection:

Say, “pronouncing” does not mean cursing, but

“pronouncing” means

expounding His Name,

[explaining the Name and uttering it needlessly] .

As we find in the Torah that the root “pronounce” means mentioning the Name:

as it is written

[Numbers 1:17],

“And Moses and Aaron took these men who were designated by names,”

and its prohibition is from here,

[Deuteronomy 6:13],

“You shall fear the Lord your God,”

from here [we derive] a prohibition against uttering the Name of Heaven needlessly?

The Gemara rejects: It is possible to prove in two ways that “he who pronounces,” who is liable to death, is not one who utters the Name of Heaven needlessly:

one,

for we proved above that in order to make one who pronounces liable,

we require

that he curse

one Name with another Name,

and

if he uttered the Name of Heaven with his mouth,

there is not.

There is no “one Name with another Name” here.

And furthermore,

the verse brought above, “You shall fear the Lord your God,”

is a positive-command prohibition,

that is, this is not a prohibition by way of negation, “Do not utter the Name of Heaven needlessly,” but by way of a positive command.

And a positive-command prohibition is not called a prohibition.

That is, there is no death penalty for a prohibition stated in this manner. If so, necessarily “he who pronounces” who is liable to death is not one who utters the Name of Heaven needlessly.

And if you wish, say

that there is an additional proof that “he who pronounces” means one who curses, for

the verse says

in the section concerning the blasphemer [Leviticus 24:11]

“And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced

the Name

and cursed,” to say,

that is, the precision of the language of the verse teaches us

that “he who pronounces” means cursing.

And

if you say,

perhaps,

“pronouncing” and “cursing” are two separate things, and the intent of the verse is to say that he is not liable

until he performs both of them,

that is, until he pierces and curses?

It cannot enter your mind!

Do not entertain such a possibility!

As it is written,

[there, verse 14],

“Bring out the one who cursed,” and it does not say, “Bring out the one who pronounced and cursed”; learn from this that it is one thing.

The Gemara below discusses a gentile who “blessed” God.

The Sages taught

in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 24:15], “And to the children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Any man who curses his God shall bear his sin.”

And apparently it would have sufficed for it to say,

“A man

who curses”:

Why do I need ‘any man’?

And we expound from the extra “any” that

it includes gentiles, who are warned concerning the “blessing” of the Name like Israelites, and

nevertheless

they are not executed

by stoning, like an Israelite who cursed,

but by the sword.

Since

every death penalty stated concerning the descendants of Noah is only

by the sword.

by the sword.

As it is stated [Genesis 9:6]: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.” And no other death penalty was stated concerning them.

The Gemara raises an objection:

But is this derived from here?! It is derived from there!

Is this law learned from here? Surely we learned it from another place!

For it is written [Genesis 2:16], “And the Lord God commanded the man,” and we expound: “commanded”—these are the laws. And so it says, “For I have known him, so that he may command his children,” and so on;

“the Lord”—this is the blessing of the Name,

and so it says, “And he who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.”

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa said,

the exposition of “any man”

is needed only to include

and make the gentile liable if he did not curse with the actual Name, but

he

used

euphemisms .

And according to Rabbi Meir,

whose view is brought below.

For it was taught: “Any man who curses his God shall bear his sin”—why is this stated? Is it not already stated, ‘And he who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death’?

Rather,

since it is stated, “And he who pronounces the Name shall surely be put to death,” one might have thought that he is liable only for the special Name; from where [do we derive] the inclusion of all the euphemisms?

The verse says, “A man who curses his God,”

and from here we learn that he is liable

in every case. These are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: For the special Name

his punishment is

death, but for

the other

euphemisms

it is only

a prohibition.

It follows that according to Rabbi Meir, the one who curses is liable even for a euphemism, and we expound “any man” to make a gentile who cursed with a euphemism liable as well.

And it disagrees with Rabbi Meyasha.

That is, Rav Yitzhak Nappaḥa, who says that a gentile who cursed with a euphemism is liable only according to Rabbi Meir, disagrees with the words of Rav Meyasha, which will be brought below.

For Rabbi Meyasha said: A descendant of Noah who “blessed” the Name with euphemisms,

even

according

to

the Rabbis is liable

to death.

What is the reason?

For the verse says, “And he who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; the entire assembly shall surely stone him,

like a convert, like a native-born,

whether a convert or a native-born,

when he pronounces the Name, he shall be put to death,” and we expound: Only

a convert and a native-born require ‘when he pronounces the Name,’ but a gentile

is liable to death

even for a euphemism.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And Rabbi Meir,

who also makes an Israelite who cursed with a euphemism liable,

what does he do with this “whether a convert or a native-born”?

The Gemara answers: To teach us that only

a convert and a native-born

are judged

by stoning, but a gentile by the sword.

And had “whether a convert or a native-born” not been stated,

it might enter your mind

to say

that he should be made liable to stoning,

since he was included, he was included. [That is, even though the death of stoning was not mentioned concerning a descendant of Noah, nevertheless, since concerning the “blessing” of God we learned the law of a descendant of Noah from an Israelite, we might learn it entirely, even to make him liable to stoning.]

It therefore teaches us

It teaches us

that he is liable only to the sword.

.

The Gemara raises an objection:

And

according to

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa, according to the Rabbis,

who exempts a gentile who cursed with a euphemism,

what does he do with this “whether a convert or a native-born”?

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yitzhak, we expound “whether a convert or a native-born” to teach that only

a convert and a native-born require

that he curse

“one Name with another Name,” but a gentile does not require “one Name with another Name.”

And even if he did not curse one Name with another Name, he is executed.

And it still remains difficult according to Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis a gentile who cursed with a euphemism is exempt:

Why do I need “any man”?

For according to their view, one can make a gentile who cursed with the special Name liable from “the Lord”—this is the blessing of the Name, as above.

And it must be said that indeed, according to the Rabbis, we do not expound anything from “any man,” since

“the Torah spoke in the language of human beings,”

and there is no extra expression here.

Since the law of a gentile who “blesses” God was mentioned, the other laws of the descendants of Noah were brought:

The Sages taught: The descendants of Noah were commanded seven mitzvot .

And these are they:

1.

Laws.

To establish judges in every district and every district, to judge the other six mitzvot, and to warn the people .

2.

And the “blessing” of the Name.

In the ways explained above.

3.

Idolatry.

In the ways that will be explained below.

4.

Forbidden sexual relations .

All the forbidden relations stated in the Torah, except for a betrothed maiden, for they are liable only if they had intercourse with a married woman. [See below, 57b.]

5.

And bloodshed .

Even if he killed a fetus or one mortally injured, as below [57b].

6.

And robbery,

even robbery of less than the value of a pruta. As below [57a].

7.

And a limb from a living animal.

As below.