Sanhedrin 66a — the Talmud in English

Or if he says to the tax collector who came to collect a tax from him for the king, or the city taxes:

“Do not begin with me”

to collect, because this is a sign of loss for me.

Or if a person was demanding from me that I repay his debt to him, he would say to him:

“It is morning now,”

and I will not begin my day with something that is a loss to me; or he would say:

“It is the New Moon; it is the departure of Shabbat.”

And it is a bad sign for me to begin with an expenditure instead of with an income.

The Sages taught:

Leviticus 19

“You shall not act as an omen-seeker, and you shall not act as an astrologer”—

such as these omen-seekers

when they set out on a journey

, by means of a weasel, birds, and fish,

if they have a good sign for setting out on a journey, or for beginning some undertaking.

Mishna:

Above, on 53a, the Mishna listed all those liable to death by stoning, and one of them is one who desecrates Shabbat.

And now the Mishna explains:

“One who desecrates Shabbat”

is liable to stoning only when he transgressed

with a matter

of work forbidden on Shabbat, [and such as performing a work that is skilled labor, and a matter that involves an act] and when they performed that same act intentionally without warning—

for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision,

And

if he performed the act inadvertently, he brings

for his inadvertence

a sacrifice

of sin-offering.

And only for labors such as these, for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision and for whose inadvertent violation one brings a sin-offering, is one who performs them intentionally and after warning liable to stoning.

However, labors for which there are neither excision nor a sin-offering do not involve stoning [and it will be explained below in the Gemara which labors are meant].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that liability to stoning applies only to a matter for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision and for whose inadvertent violation one brings a sin-offering.

By inference,

from the fact that the Mishna needs to explain that one becomes liable to death by stoning only for a labor for whose intentional violation one is liable to excision and for whose inadvertent violation one brings a sin-offering, we learn

that there is something

there are labors

that are desecration of Shabbat

and are forbidden on Shabbat,

and

even so—

one is liable neither for their inadvertent violation to a sin-offering nor for their intentional violation to excision,

What is it?

What are these labors?

1.

Boundaries!

Going outside the Shabbat boundary of two thousand cubits,

and one who transgresses this intentionally and without warning is not liable to excision. And one who transgresses it inadvertently does not bring a sin-offering.

And consequently, one who transgresses it intentionally and after warning is not liable to stoning.

And

this law

according to Rabbi Akiva

is. For this labor of going outside the Shabbat boundary was expounded by Rabbi Akiva [Sota 27b], and it is not included among the thirty-nine labors of Shabbat. And therefore it does not involve stoning.

2.

Kindling!

The labor of kindling a fire on Shabbat is not included with the other labors. And one who transgresses it intentionally and without warning is not liable to excision. Likewise, one who transgresses it inadvertently does not bring a sin-offering.

And consequently, one who transgresses it intentionally and after warning is not liable to stoning.

And

this law

according to Rabbi Yosei

is. [As will be explained below:]

The Gemara in tractate Shabbat [70a] discusses why the labor of kindling was stated separately and was not included with the other labors. And as it is stated [Exodus 35:2–3]: "

Six days shall work be done, and on the seventh day it shall be holy for you, a Shabbat of complete rest for the Lord; whoever performs work on it shall be put to death. You shall not kindle fire in all your dwelling places on the day of Shabbat."

And Rabbi Yosei holds that the labor of kindling went out from the category of the labors and was stated separately because “it went out for a prohibition.” That is, one is not liable for it to excision and stoning as for the other labors; rather, it is merely a prohibition!

And Rabbi Yosei does not dispute Rabbi Akiva’s statement, and he too holds that one who goes outside the boundary on Shabbat is not liable to excision. Rather, Rabbi Yosei adds also the labor of kindling, for which one is not liable to excision, and consequently is not liable to stoning.

Mishna:

We learned above [53a]: “And one who curses his father and his mother”—he too is included among those liable to stoning.

One who curses his father and his mother is not liable

to stoning unless

he curses them with the Name

the Name!

But if

he curses them with an appellation

that is, he did not curse them with the explicit Name, but with one of its appellations, such as: “Shaddai,” “Hosts,” “Gracious,” “Merciful”—

Rabbi Meir holds liable

even one who curses with an appellation, to stoning,

but the Sages exempt

him from stoning.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If he cursed them with an appellation, Rabbi Meir holds liable and the Sages exempt.

The Gemara asks:

Who are the Sages?

According to whose view was this law stated? -

It is Rabbi Menahem, son of Rabbi Yosei!

For it was taught: Rabbi Menahem, son of Rabbi Yosei, says:

It is stated [Leviticus 24:16]: “And one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; the entire assembly shall surely stone him, stranger and native alike,

when he blasphemes the Name he shall be put to death!”

And the beraita explains:

Why does the verse say “the Name”

at the end of the verse? Is it not already stated at the beginning of the verse, “And one who blasphemes the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death”? It need only have said, “when he blasphemes he shall be put to death”; why, then, was this [additional Name] written?

And the answer is: Since the Name mentioned at the end of the verse has no connection with one who blasphemes the Name, if so—

it taught

that this “Name”

concerning one who curses his father and his mother, that he is not liable until he curses them with a Name.

And it is explained that the Sages in our Mishna are according to the view of Rabbi Menahem, son of Rabbi Yosei.

The Sages taught:

The Sages explain the laws of one who curses:

A.

It is stated in the Torah [Leviticus 20:9]: “For

a man

who curses his father and his mother shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is upon him.”

And we learn from this that a man who curses his father and his mother shall be put to death.

But

why does the verse say “a man, a man”

which is repeated in the verse?

The answer is:

To include a daughter,

so that if she cursed, her law is likewise, and the

tumtum and

the

androgynos.

For although they are not included in “a man,” the Torah includes them, so that their law is like the law of a man.

B.

It is stated in the aforementioned verse:

“Who curses his father and his mother.” I have only

learned from this

but

when he curses

his father and his mother

both together—his law is death. For this is the meaning of the verse, “his father and his mother”: it implies both together.

However, one who curses

his father not

with

his mother,

and likewise one who curses

his mother not

with

his father,

but curses them separately,

from where

does it follow that he is liable to death for this curse?

The verse says:

It is stated at the end of the aforementioned verse:

“He has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is upon him.”

And the derivation is as follows: From the beginning of the verse, which says, “who curses his father and his mother,” we learn the punishment of one who cursed

his father,

whereas from the end of the verse, “he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood is upon him,” we learn the punishment of one who cursed

his mother—

the words of Rabbi Yashya.

Rabbi Yonatan says:

There is no necessity from the beginning of the verse to say that it concerns one who curses his mother and his father together. Even though it is written, “his father and his mother,” with a conjunction between them, nevertheless this has two meanings:

It implies

also that the verse speaks of one who curses

both together, and

also

it implies

that the verse speaks of one who curses each

separately.

And if so, we have no reason to say that the verse speaks of one who curses both of them together; rather,

until the verse specifies for you, “together.”

And just as it specified regarding the prohibition of kilayim (Deuteronomy 22), “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together.” So that you should not say that it is forbidden to plow with an ox alone

and with a donkey alone, and since it is written “together,” we understand that only when they are together are they forbidden in plowing.

c.

It is stated in the aforementioned verse

“He shall surely be put to death.”

And it is necessary to discuss whether

when you say stoning

the curser is to be put to death,

or perhaps he is not

judged

except by one of all the deaths stated in the Torah,

and not specifically by stoning?

And the Gemara expounds:

It is stated here

[regarding the curser], “His blood is upon him,”

and it is stated there

[Leviticus 20:27], “And a man or a woman in whom there is an ov or a yideoni shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones;

their blood is upon them.”

Just as there, it is by stoning,

as it is stated, “They shall stone them with stones,”

so here,

regarding the curser—

by stoning!

Now, after we have learned the punishment of the curser, it must be asked:

We have heard the punishment. But the warning,

that is, the teaching of the prohibition itself that entails this punishment and warns him,

from where?

The verse states:

[Exodus 22:27]

“You shall not curse God,” and so forth.

And the Gemara discusses:

If his father was a judge, he is included in “You shall not curse God.”

[For the meaning of “God” in this matter also includes a judge, whom it is forbidden to curse.] And if so, this is the warning for the punishment of one who curses his father, if his father was a judge.

And if his father was a prince, he is included in

[Exodus 22:27]

“You shall not revile a prince among your people.”

But if his father

is neither a judge nor a prince, from where

do we learn that it is forbidden for a son to curse his father, and that he is liable to death for cursing him?

The Gemara explains the teaching of the warning concerning a son who curses his father:

You say: Behold, you reason

the teaching of this warning by means of

a binyan av

from both of them,

from a prince and a judge:

It is impossible to learn the warning concerning one who curses his father from one of them; rather, only from both of them.

It cannot be taught from a judge alone, because the judge is more stringent than every person, as it is stated concerning him, “And you shall observe to do according to all that they instruct you, and the man who acts presumptuously, not to ...,” and it is explained that the judge is more stringent than all other people, and this warning was stated only concerning him. We therefore cannot learn this warning concerning one who curses his father.

And from a prince alone it is impossible to learn, since people are obligated to observe his commands and not to defy him when he commands something. And as it is stated concerning Joshua, “Every man who defies your word ...”

And since it is impossible to learn the warning concerning one who curses his father from one of them, the Gemara explains how this prohibition is learned by a binyan av from both of them together.

The case of a prince is not like the case of a judge, and the case of a judge is not like the case of a

prince.

That is, the stringent aspect that prohibits cursing a prince is neither similar nor apparent in the stringent aspect that prohibits cursing a judge.

And in what do they differ from one another?

The case of a judge is not like the case of a prince, for you are commanded concerning his instruction,

concerning the laws and halakhot that he instructs you, unlike the case of a prince, concerning whose instruction you are not commanded.

And the case of a prince is not like the case of a judge. For concerning the prince—

you are commanded not to defy him,

for it is forbidden to defy the word of the prince in anything that he commands,

unlike the case of a judge,

concerning whom you are not commanded not to defy him.

And for this reason it is impossible to learn from each one of them separately.

Rather, only by means of

the common aspect among them: that they are among your people

that is, they perform the conduct of your people and behave like all Israel,

and you are warned concerning cursing them; so too I,

the one who learns,

will bring

your

father who is among your people;

he too is included among your people and is similar in this to a judge and a prince.

And

for this reason, you are

warned concerning cursing him.

And we thus learn by this binyan av from the judge and the prince that it is forbidden for a son to curse his father.

However, the Gemara challenges and refutes this teaching:

What is there in the common aspect among them,

from which you learn,

for which their greatness caused them

to be distinguished in this respect, so that it is forbidden to curse them?

But one who does not possess this aspect of greatness does not belong to this prohibition! And if so, concerning his father, who possesses no greatness, from where is the warning against cursing him?

And the Gemara answers:

The verse states

[Leviticus 19]

“You shall not curse the deaf,”

behold, it is

the afflicted

the lowly and unfortunate

among your people of whom the verse speaks,

and it is forbidden to curse even them.

It follows that the prohibition against cursing is not limited only to the great among the people, but applies even to the lowly. And if so, from this we learn that it is also forbidden to curse one’s father!

But the Gemara also refutes this binyan:

What is there in the deaf person, for which his deafness caused him

to be forbidden to curse him, since, being so lowly, the Torah warned concerning him not to disgrace or distress him.

But from this one cannot learn the prohibition against cursing an ordinary person who is neither afflicted nor lowly!

And the Gemara answers:

A prince and a judge prove it,

for they are neither afflicted nor lowly, and nevertheless it is forbidden to curse them; from this we learn that even one who is not lowly is forbidden to curse. And one’s father is included in this, and from here we learn the warning concerning one who curses his father.

And the Gemara refutes:

What is there in a prince and a judge, for which their greatness caused them [to be subject to this prohibition]?

And if so, it is proven from this that it is forbidden to curse only the great.

And it answers:

The deaf person proves it,

for although he is not great, it is forbidden to curse him!

And

if so,

the judgment returns,

that is, the judgment and the reason for assigning the prohibition against cursing to one of the sides return and shift from one side to the other. For if there is a refutation from one side, that refutation is refuted by the other side.

And the result is:

The case of this is not like the case of that,

the stringent aspect that constitutes the reason for singling out one of them, such as a prince and a judge,

like the case of that

of the deaf person, in whom the reason applying to a prince and a judge is absent,

and the case of this is not like the case of that,

the stringent aspect of one of them, such as the deaf person,

like the case of that

of a judge and a prince. \-

The common aspect among them,

in the case of a prince, a judge, and a deaf person, is

that they are among your people, and you are warned concerning cursing them.

And since this is the common aspect among them,

I too will bring

your

father, who is among your people,

and he too is similar to them,

and

as a matter of course—

you are warned concerning cursing him!

And for the present, it emerges that the source for the prohibition and warning concerning one who curses his father is learned from the common aspect of a prince, a judge, and a deaf person, whom it is forbidden to curse.

However, the Gemara also refutes this.

What is there in the common aspect among them—

for they are unusual,

the prince, the judge, and the deaf person are changed and are not like all the other members of the people.

A prince and a judge are changed through greatness, whereas a deaf person is changed through affliction. And this change is what is common and equal among them.

And if so, their common aspect is not similar to one’s father, for he is not different from the rest of the people, and once again we have no source from which to learn the prohibition and warning concerning one who curses his father.

At this stage, the Gemara withdraws from learning the warning concerning one who curses his father by means of a binyan av, and learns it through “if it is not needed for its own matter,” as will be explained below.

Rather, if so,

if the three laws stated in the Torah—A. the prohibition against cursing a judge; B. the prohibition against cursing a prince; C. the prohibition against cursing a deaf person—were stated only for themselves, and the prohibition against one who curses his father is not learned from them,

if so,

let the verse write either “God and deaf person

you shall not curse”

or “prince and deaf person

you shall not curse.”

“God”

you shall not curse—

why do I need it?

Is it not possible to learn the prohibition against cursing a judge by the common aspect from a deaf person and a prince? The case of this is not like the case of that, and the case of that is not like the case of this; the common aspect among them is that they are among your people, and from this we would learn the prohibition against cursing a judge, who too is among your people. And for what purpose was it written?

The Gemara proves from this:

If

the word “God”

is not needed for its own matter,

to learn from it the prohibition against cursing a judge, since that is learned from a prince, as stated,

assign it to the matter of one’s father,

and from this we learn the prohibition and warning concerning one who curses his father and mother.

And the Gemara asks:

That works

this teaching is sound

according to the one who says that “God,”

written in this passage,

is ordinary

and does not mean the Name of Heaven, but means the prohibition against cursing a judge.

But according to the one who says

that “God,” mentioned in this verse,

is holy,

and its intent is one who “blesses” [as a euphemism] the Name, and not the prohibition against cursing a judge,

what can be said?

From where will we learn the warning concerning one who curses his father? For even if we learn the prohibition against cursing a judge from the common aspect of a prince and a deaf person, the word “God” is not superfluous, since from it we learn the prohibition against “blessing” the Name; and once again there is no source from which to learn the warning concerning one who curses his father?

The Gemara brings the source of the discussion concerning the meaning of the word “God.”

For it was taught: “God,”

written in our passage, is

ordinary—

the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: “God” is holy!

And it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: From where is there a warning concerning one who “blesses” the Name?

The verse states: “You shall not curse God”!

And it is explained that the meaning of the verse is the holy meaning, and not the ordinary meaning teaching that it is forbidden to curse a judge.

And if so, the verse is not superfluous, and we have no source from which to learn the warning concerning one who curses his father.

And the Gemara answers:

According to the one who says that “God” is ordinary, he learns

a warning concerning one who “blesses” the Name—

holy—from

the warning against cursing “God,”

ordinary.

That is, a judge.

For certainly, if He warned against cursing a judge, He also warned here against “blessing” the Name of Heaven, since there is no other source for the warning concerning one who “blesses” the Name.

And likewise,

according to the one who says that “God,”

mentioned in the passage, means

“holy,”

also

we learn

from this a warning concerning one who curses the

ordinary,

that is, a judge,

from

the warning concerning one who curses the

holy.

And since the word “God,” stated in the passage, has a dual meaning—both a warning concerning one who “blesses” the Name and a warning concerning one who curses a judge—the warning concerning one who curses a judge is superfluous, since the warning concerning one who curses a judge can be learned from the common aspect of a prince and a deaf person.

And from this superfluous meaning of the warning concerning one who curses a judge, a warning concerning one who curses his father can be learned.

And the Gemara refutes:

It is well according to the one who says that “God” is ordinary

and is a warning not to curse a judge:

he learns

from this

the holy,

that is, a warning concerning one who “blesses” the Name,

from the ordinary.

For if He warned against cursing a judge, He certainly warned likewise against “blessing” the Name.

But according to the one who says that “God” is holy, does he learn the ordinary from the holy?

Perhaps

it is possible that

He warned concerning the holy,

the Torah warned against cursing the holy Name, whereas

He did not warn concerning the ordinary.

It did not warn against cursing a judge.

And from where do we have grounds to compel that the word “God” also contains a warning concerning one who curses a judge?

[And once again it emerges that the warning concerning a judge is not superfluous, and we have no source from which to learn the warning concerning one who curses his father?!]

And the Gemara answers:

If so,

if the word “God” served only as a warning concerning one who “blesses” the Name,

let the verse write, “You shall not slight,”

that is, you shall not slight the honor of the holy, and you shall not curse and disgrace it.