Sanhedrin 56a (נו.) — the Talmud in English

How is one who blasphemes judged?

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korkha said:

Every day,

that is, whenever they are conducting discussion with the witnesses concerning the blasphemer,

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

That is, the witnesses do not mention the blasphemous words spoken by the blasphemer, but testify by means of a euphemism. They testify that he said: “May Yosei strike Yosei” . On the basis of this testimony, the judges would judge the blasphemer as though they had heard the actual blasphemy from the mouths of the witnesses.

However, when

the verdict was finalized,

and the judges agreed to find him liable,

they do not execute him

on the basis of the testimony they gave

using a euphemism,

lest he in fact did not curse God but only the euphemism;

rather, they take everyone outside,

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

they ask the greatest of them,

in the presence of his colleagues,

saying to him: “Say what you heard explicitly!”

And he says

what he heard, mentioning the Divine Name.

And the judges,

when they hear the “blasphemy” of God,

stand on their feet and rend

their garments,

and they do not mend

the rent ever.

The reason will be explained in the Gemara below (60a).

And

the

second

witness does not repeat the first witness’s statement; rather, he only

says: “I too

heard

as he did,” and

likewise, if there were many witnesses in this testimony,

the third says: “I too

heard

as he did.”

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

Gemara:

The Mishna explained that a blasphemer who explicitly pronounces the Divine Name and “blasphemes” it is liable to stoning.

And in a

beraita,

it was 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 matters

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

Shmuel said: For the verse states [Leviticus 24:16]

“

, ‘And one who pronounces the Name

of the Lord shall be put to death; the entire assembly shall stone him; convert and native-born,

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

The Sages derived from the repetition of the expression “one 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 will explain below from where it is derived that “one who pronounces” in the verse cited above, for which one is liable to death, means one who curses.

The Gemara asks:

From where do you know that this term “pronounces” is an expression of “blesses,” meaning curses?

As it is written [Numbers 23:8], in Balaam’s words:

“

How can I curse? God has not cursed.”

He mentioned the term “curse” as an expression of cursing.

And its prohibition is derived from here, [Exodus 22:27]:

“

You shall not curse God.”

The Gemara asks:

But say

that perhaps “pronounces” means

pierces

[to cut and pierce the Name of God written on parchment]

rather than cursing,

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

as it is written [II Kings 12:10]:

“

And he pierced a hole in its door.”

And its prohibition is derived 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 interpreted as derived from “You shall destroy their names; you shall not do so,” and so on.

For we proved above that in order to render one who pronounces the Name liable,

we require

that he curse

one Name with another Name,

and

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

there is none.

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

The Gemara asks:

But say,

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

placing two Names one atop the other

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

, and tearing

[tearing or piercing]

them?

The Gemara answers:

That

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

it is piercing and then piercing again.

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

The Gemara challenges:

But say

that perhaps there is a manner in which he pierces one Name with another, for example,

by engraving a Name on the edge of a knife

[engraving a Name on the knife’s point]

, and tearing

[tearing]

with it

another Name?

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

it is the sharpness of the knife that is tearing

[the knife’s point is what tears].

The Gemara challenges:

Say

that “one who pronounces” does not mean one who curses, but

one who pronounces His Name,

[explaining the Name and uttering it for no purpose] .

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 name,”

and its prohibition is derived from here, [Deuteronomy 6:13],

“

You shall fear the Lord your God,”

and from here there is a prohibition against uttering the Name of Heaven for no purpose?

The Gemara rejects this: It is possible to prove in two ways that “one who pronounces,” who is liable to death, is not one who utters the Name of Heaven for no purpose:

First,

for we proved above that in order to render one who pronounces the Name liable,

we require

that he curse

one Name with another Name,

and

if he merely mentioned the Name of Heaven with his mouth,

there is none.

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

Furthermore,

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

is a positive-command prohibition,

that is, it does not prohibit the act by way of a negative formulation, “You shall not utter the Name of Heaven for no purpose,” but by way of a positive command.

And a prohibition expressed as a positive command is not called a prohibition.

That is, the punishment of death does not apply to a prohibition formulated in this manner. Therefore, it necessarily follows that “one who pronounces,” for which there is a liability of death, is not one who utters the Name of Heaven for no purpose.

And alternatively,

if you wish, here is additional proof that “one who pronounces” means one who curses,

as

the verse states

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

“And the son of the Israelite woman pronounced

the Name

and cursed,” meaning,

the precise wording of the verse teaches us

that “one who pronounces” means cursing.

And

if you say:

Perhaps,

“one who pronounces” and “one who curses” are two separate acts, and the intent of the verse is to say that he is not liable

until he performs both,

that is, until he pronounces and curses?

That cannot enter your mind!

Do not entertain such a possibility!

As it is written,

[there],

“Take out the blasphemer,” and it does not say, “Take out the one who pronounces and the blasphemer”; learn from this that they are one and the same.

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

The Sages taught

in a

beraita: The Torah states [Leviticus 24:15]: “And to the Children of Israel you shall speak, saying: Any man who curses his God shall bear his sin.”

It would seemingly have sufficed for the verse to say

“A

man who curses”;

what is the meaning of the phrase “any man”?

We derive from the extra expression “any man” that it comes

to include gentiles, who are warned concerning the “blessing” of the Name just as Jews are; and

nevertheless,

they are not executed

by stoning, as is a Jew who curses,

but by the sword.

The reason is

that every death penalty stated with regard to the descendants of Noah is only

by the sword.

The Gemara challenges:

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

Is this law learned from here? Did we not learn it from another source?

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

“the Lord”—this refers to the blessing of the Name,

and so it says: “And one who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall be put to death.”

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said:

The exposition of “any man”

is necessary only to include

and render a gentile liable when he did not curse the Explicit Name itself, but

he

used

euphemisms .

And this is in accordance with Rabbi Meir,

whose opinion is cited below.

As it was taught: “Any man who curses his God shall bear his sin.” What is the meaning of this? Was it not already stated: “And one who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall be put to death”?

Rather,

since it is stated, “And one who pronounces the Name shall be put to death,” one might have thought that he is liable only for the Explicit Name. From where is there an inclusion of all the euphemisms?

The verse states: “Any man who curses his God,”

and from here we learn that he is liable

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

And the Sages say: For the Explicit Name

he is punished

with death, while for

the other

euphemisms

there is only

a prohibition.

It follows that according to Rabbi Meir, one who curses is liable even for using a euphemism; and we derive from “any man” that a gentile who curses using a euphemism is also liable.

And this disagrees with Rabbi Meyasha.

That is, Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who says that a gentile who curses using a euphemism is liable only according to Rabbi Meir, disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Meyasha that will be cited below.

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

even

according

to

the Sages is liable

to death.

What is the reason?

For the verse states: “And one who pronounces the Name of the Lord shall be put to death; the entire assembly shall stone him,

like a convert, like a native-born,

when he pronounces the Name he shall be put to death.” And we derive: Only

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

is liable to death

even for using a euphemism.

The Gemara asks:

And Rabbi Meir,

who also renders a Jew who curses using a euphemism liable,

what does he derive from this phrase, “like a convert, like a native-born”?

The Gemara answers: It teaches us that only

a convert and a native-born

are judged

by stoning, but a gentile by the sword.

Had the phrase “like a convert, like a native-born” not been stated,

it might enter your mind

to say

that he should be liable to stoning,

since once he was included, he was included

[that is, although the death of stoning is not mentioned with regard to a descendant of Noah, since concerning the “blessing” of God we derived the law of a descendant of Noah from that of a Jew, one might derive the matter in its entirety, including liability to stoning].

It therefore teaches us

that he is liable only to the sword

.

.

The Gemara challenges:

And

according to

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, in accordance with the opinion of the Sages,

who exempts a gentile who curses using a euphemism,

what does he derive from this phrase, “like a convert, like a native-born”?

The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yitzḥak, we derive from “like a convert, like a native-born” 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.”

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

According to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Sages a gentile who curses using a euphemism is exempt, the difficulty still remains:

Why do I need “any man”?

According to their view, a gentile who curses using the Explicit Name can be rendered liable from “the Lord”—this refers to the blessing of the Name, as stated above.

And it must be said that according to the Sages we derive nothing from “any man,” since

the Torah speaks in the language of human beings,

and there is no superfluous expression here.

Once 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 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 young woman, for which they are liable only if they have intercourse with a married woman. [See below, 57b.]

5.

And bloodshed .

Even if he killed a fetus or one suffering from a terminal condition, as will be explained below [57b].

6.

And robbery,

even if he robbed less than the value of a peruta, as will be explained below [57a].

7.

And a limb from a living creature.

As will be explained below.