Even in taking testimony during the trial of a blasphemer, the witnesses who heard the blasphemy were not permitted to repeat the very words, but an arbitrary phrase was adopted to indicate the blasphemy. Thus, R. Joshua ben Karhah said: "Throughout the examination of the witnesses, 'Yose' should be used, and they should say, 'Yose shall strike Yose,' to indicate the blasphemy".<ref>Mishnah Sanh. ib.</ref> At the conclusion of the trial sentence of death could not be passed by such testimony only, and it thus became necessary for one of the witnesses to use once the very words which they had heard. The court directed all persons not immediately concerned in the trial to be removed, and the chief witness was then addressed thus: "State literally what you heard" - and when he repeated the blasphemous words the judges stooi up and rent their garments, that being the common sign of mourning. And the rents were not sewed up again, indicating the profound degree of the mourning. After the first witness had thus testified, the second and the following witnesses were not called on to repeat the identical words; but were obliged to say, "I also heard it thus".<ref>Mishnah Sanh. ib.</ref>

The text of the law in Leviticus provides that the stranger, as well as the native born, is liable to punishment for blasphemy. Talmudic tradition states that blasphemy was one of the seven crimes prohibited to the Noahides<ref>Sanh. 56a</ref>, i.e., according to [[natural law]]...

The Talmud bases the custom of rending the garments in such cases upon the Biblical precedent in 11 Kings xviii. 37, where Eliakim and others rent their garments when they heard the blasphemy of Rab-shakeh: and in order to bring this view into harmony with the practise requiring the rending of garments only on hearing a blasphemy by a Jew, the Talmud states that Rab-shakeh was an apostate Jew.<ref>Sanh. 60a</ref>

There may be a profound reason for the stress on the don'ts in Noahism; no attempt at fathoming it need be made here. Whatever its reason, it is sufficient for the purposes of the problem at hand to note that the Talmud attests to that singular peculiarity in its codification of the Noahic law wherein the statutes are organized around a number of dont's. This, then, solves the problem raised above: the area which regulates man's theistic affairs in his relationship with G-d is not grouped around the belief in G-d because this would give the area a do title. Instead, the area is grouped around "don't blaspheme", which proscribes the extreme among the unacceptable modes of conduct relating to G-d.

~~Further~~ ===Rabbi Menahern Azariah da Fano=== Rabbi Aaron Lichtenstein says further substantiation for Margolioth's broad conception of Blasphemy is found in Da Fano's treatment of the enigmatic "thirty laws of the Noahites." The phrase, "thirty laws of the Noahites," is mentioned but once in the Babylonian Talmud, Hullin 92, and only three of the thirty are disclosed there. Da Fano seeks to demonstrate that the seven law idea is not necessarily at variance with the thirty law idea. He begins by compiling a list totaling thirty laws which the Noahites must uphold - many of which the Talmud relegated to minority opinion. Then Da Fano proceeds to distribute these thirty among the seven basic Noahic areas and indicates thereby that the thirty constitute specific bylaws, offshoots of the larger seven. Under Blasphemy, Da Fano lists the following two bylaws: (a) to study the Torah (meaning the Noahic Law); (b) to honor the Torah (meaning to respect scholars and teachers of Torah).

That Noahites are obligated to show respect for the scholar, Da Fano obviously derives from the mention of this obligation among the three of the thirty, discussed in Hullin 92. The relevant lines read, ". . . and one of these laws [which the Noahites do observe] is that they show respect for the Torah." That Noahites are required to study their laws, Da Fano apparently derives from the following Talmudic discourse:

But irrespective of these sources, it is noteworthy that Da Fano designates Blasphemy as the heading under which those two requirements belong. In so doing, Da Fano like Margolioth views Blasphemy as covering the broader aspects of the G-d/man relationship. The fear of G-d is such an aspect; and, by extension,, the study of G-d's will (i.e., the law) is such an aspect; and by further extension, the veneration of those who teach G-d's will is such an aspect.

~~Another precept that should be discussed as part of this broad conception of Blasphemy is martyrdom. Martyrdom has reference to two commandments:~~

~~1. "...to sanctify G-d's name [in face of death, where appropriate]." Positive 9.~~

~~2. "...against desecrating G-d's name [even in the face of death, when appropriate].- Negative 63.~~

In effect, these two precepts obligate a man to accept death rather than violate the law, with respect to certain laws and under certain conditions. (just what these circumstances are is the subject of dispute among major legalists.) Does the Noahic code feature a directive on martyrdom? The Talmud raises this very question:

:Rav Ami was asked: Are Noahites obligated to sanctify the Name, or are they not obligated to sanctify the Name? Abaia remarked: We were taught, "The children of Noah were given seven laws . . .," but if you were to obligate them in this matter, would there not be eight?

~~:Rova answered him: Those seven and all their offshoots. What then is the solution to the problem before us?~~

:Rav Ada bar Ahava noted in the name of the House of Rav: It is stated (11 Kings 5) "May G-d but forgive your humble servant for this thing: when my master enters the Temple of Rimon for to kneel there - and he is on my arm - and I kneel." Then it states, "Said [Elisha] to him: Go in peace." Now, if Noahites were obligated to sanctify the Name, would Elisha have responded in such a tone?

~~:Yes, since there it occurred in private, but here we refer to occurrences in public.~~

This rendition follows Rashi's text and interpretation. Just what answer does it give to the question of whether Noahites are expected to sanctify the Name? The Tosafists say that according to the reading of Rashi the problem is left unresolved. The Tosafists themselves prefer a different reading however, according to which Noahites are definitely free from any obligations under martyrdom. Nisirn ben Reuben, in Hidushei HaRan, agrees with the text and the decision of the Tosafists, but he does not agree with the inconclusiveness that they attribute to Rashi's rendition. Instead, Nisim ben Reuben writes, "According to the textual reading of Rashi it would appear that the final conclusion of the Talmud is that a Noahite must submit to martyrdom.

~~Nahmanides supports the text of Rashi, together with Nisim ben Reuben's reading of it. Nahmanides writes:~~

:Concerning the resident stranger's martyrdom, in private he should transgress and not permit himself to be killed, even in cases involving Idolatry and Illicit Intercourse, because the Torah does not here distinguish Idolatry and Illicit Intercourse from their other precepts .... But as for martyrdom in public, it is required of them, even for their other precepts. This, then, is the import of the Talmud's phrase, "there it occurred in private, but here we refer to occurrences in public."

~~Maimonides disagrees and sides with those writers who decide for freeing Noahites from having to sanctify the Name.~~

:The above is a rundown of the varying decisions that emerge in wake of the Talmud's discussion. Disregarding for the moment what the final position is, one must ask how the Talmud envisioned fitting martyrdom into the scheme of the Seven Laws. For the Talmud views the tentative requirement of martyrdom as being an integral part of the Seven Laws when it responds that martyrdom is not an eighth category but an offshoot of the existing seven. Which one? Surely not Theft, Justice, Homicide, Illicit Intercourse, Limb of a Living Creature, or Idolatry' The only possibility is Blasphemy, understood as the category devoted to regulating man's theistic affairs in his relationship with G-d. Conversely, it may be noted, that the proposition that Noahites are required to sanctify G-d's Name, implies that they must believe in G-d. This realization provides a talmudic basis for obligating Noahites in the belief in G-d, and consequently tends to support the larger conception of Blasphemy being developed here. In addition, when martyrdom is cast in the guise of its Negative Command it comes strikingly close, in both letter and spirit, to the law against blaspherning G-d's name: against desecrating G-d's name.

Before leaving this point, we must contend with yet another possible treatment of how martyrdom can be integrated into Noahism. That possibility is to see the obligation to accept death, rather than transgress, as stemming from whichever of the seven laws the particular Noahite is under compulsion to transgress at any particular time. In other words, whenever a Noahite is compelled to worship an idol, Idolatry is the legal wellspring of the prescribed martyrdom; whenever a Noahite is compelled to murder, Homicide is the legal wellspring of the prescribed martyrdom; and so forth. If in fact this were so, then Sanctification of the Name should be construed as an illustration of the principle that no judicial cognizance is taken of whether or not a crime is perpetrated under duress. But quite the opposite is true, according to Maimonides at least, who writes:

Where one who is enjoined to suffer death rather than transgress commits a transgression and so escapes death, he has profaned the name of G-d. If the transgression was committed in the presence of ten Israelites, he has profaned the name of G-d - and violated a negative precept - not to profane His Name. Still, as the transgression was committed under duress, he is not punished with stripes and, needless to add, he is not sentenced by a court to be put to death, even if, under duress, he committed murder. For the penalty of death or stripes is only inflicted on one who transgresses of his own free will, in the presence of witnesses and after due warning. This rule is based on the text concerning one who has given of his seed to Molech. "And I will set my face against that man" (Leviticus 20:3). The demonstrative "that" has been traditionally interpreted as exempting from punishment one who transgresses under compulsion, in ignorance or in error. Now, if in the case of Idolatry which is the gravest of offences, the (divine) penalty of Excision and, needless, to add, the judicial penalty of death are not incurred by one who worships an idol under compulsion, then how much more is this in regard to the violation of the other precepts of the Torah. So too, in connection with offences against chastity, it is expressly stated, "But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing" (Deut. 22:26).

It appears from the above that a criminal statute is basically powerless when it addresses itself to an individual under duress. It is at this juncture that the statutes on martyrdom come into play, these being designed for just that situation in which criminal statutes lose force. Neither is there reason to suspect that these considerations are different for Noahism, especially in view of the sweeping logical tenor in the words of Maimonides quoted above .

~~In all likelihood, then, martyrdom does belong together with the belief in G-d, of which it is an extension, under the mast of Blasphemy.~~

===Chaim Clorfene and Yakov Rogalsky===

In Rabbis Clorfene and Rogalsky's work "The Path of the Righteous Gentile" they state:<ref>http://moshiach.com/action/morality/blasphemy.php</ref> Blasphemy is the act of cursing the Creator. It is a deed so indescribably heinous that the Talmud, whenever referring to blasphemy, calls it by the euphemistic term "blessing G-d," to avoid directly expressing the idea of cursing G-d, the Father of all.

2. Blasphemy is the only means by which one transgresses the Seven Universal Commandments through the faculty of speech alone.

6. Striving to go beyond, the letter of the law has no limit, for the commandments of G-d are as deep as the ocean and as wide as the sky.<ref>Job 11:9</ref> Since everything in creation reflects the hand of the Creator, a truly pious person withholds himself from speaking negatively against anything. There are times, however, when it is appropriate and even mandatory to speak out against someone. For instance, when someone is engaged in wicked pursuits and it appears that others will follow his lead, then it becomes a great kindness and even an obligation to speak in condemnation of the transgressor.<ref>Horev, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch, chapter 90, notes 582‑584</ref> But in the main, gossip, calumny, and tale‑bearing, even when the statements are true, will stand in the way of the individual's spiritual and moral growth.m<ref>Ibid., chapter 53, notes 386‑392</ref>

==Rabbi Yoel Schwartz (Jerusalem Court for Bnei Noah)==

[[Image:BDBN.gif|right]]

1. The prohibition against cursing G-d by His name or by any other substitute for His name.

2. The prohibition against denouncing G-d or his Torah;

3. The prohibition against asking philosophical questions about what occurred before the creation of the world.

We should only contemplate what has occurred since the creation (and not before). This is so that we can try to realize and grasp the greatness of the one true G-d as we have already previously mentioned;

4. It is prohibited to interbreed animals or plants that are not of the same species.

5. It is prohibited to take on or initiate a new religion. But Noahides, fulfilling the seven commandments (mitzvot), are not taking on a new religion since these seven commandments are mentioned in the Torah. Noahides may perform commandments that were given specifically to the Jews in the hope that they will be rewarded for them, provided that they don’t consider these actions obligatory. It is also important to note that according to some opinions there are some commandments that Noahides should not fulfill because they are connected with holiness and given specifically to Israel. These are the commandments of Tefillin and mezuzah. All agree that the child of Noah should not observe the seventh day of the week, Saturday, as Shabbat, as given to Israel as a day of rest, but it is appropriate for him to inculcate the message of the Shabbat, as will be explained further on. It is important to study the laws of the Torah that apply to Noahides. However they are prohibited from studying those parts of the Torah that don’t apply to them. This refers mainly to the oral law (Talmud, Rambam etc.) but also when reading the Bible it is better to skip those laws that don’t apply to them.<ref>[http://www.jewishanswers.org/ask-the-rabbi-1806/seven-noahide-laws/ Noahide Commandments by Rabbi Yoel Schwartz, Translated by Yitzhak A. Oked Sechter, Reviewed and corrected by Yechiel Sitzman in consultation with Rabbi Yoel Schwartz]</ref>

==Blasphemy in Noahide Law==

Christians in Pakistan protested Dan Brown's novel ''The Da Vinci Code'' as blasphemous, with support of Muslims as well. On 3 June, 2006, Pakistan banned the film.

==See Also==

* [[Martyrdom under Noahide Law]]

* [[Prayer under Noahide Law]]

==References==

[[Category:Jerusalem Court for Bnei Noah]]

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:103) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Changes - Wikinoah English