<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">MISHNA. The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name, thus, 'may jose smite jose.'<ref>The witnesses, in giving testimony, do not state that they heard the accused say, 'May He slay himself', uttering the actual divine name, but use the word 'Jose' as a substitute for the divine name. 'Jose' is chosen as a substitute, because it contains four letters, like the actual Tetragrammaton, which must have been used by the blasphemer for him to be punished. Moreover, the numerical value of 'Jose' is the same as of Elohim [81]. According to Levy, s.v. [H], the first Jose [H] stands for Jesus ([H], son), and the second is an abbreviation of [H], Joseph, the Father, by which, however, God was to be understood. The witnesses were accordingly asked whether the accused in his blasphemy had set Jesus above God. (R. Joshua b. Karha, the author of this saying, lived at a time when Judeo-Christians ascribed more power to Jesus than to God.)</ref> when the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, 'state literally what you heard. Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and rent their garments, which rent was not to be resewn. The second witness stated; i too have heard thus' [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: 'I too heard thus'. </td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>משנה בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו:</big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name.<ref>As in the Mishnah, 'Jose strike Jose'. 'Bless' is here a euphemism for curse, and is so in the whole of the ensuing discussion.</ref> Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord … when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.<ref>Lev. XXIV, 16. The repetition shows that the Divine Name must be cursed by the Divine Name.</ref> How do you know that the word nokeb<ref>[H]</ref> [used in the Hebrew] means a 'blessing'? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]<ref>[H]</ref> whom God hath not cursed;<ref>Num. XXIII, 8.</ref> whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.<ref>Ex. XXII, 27.</ref> But perhaps it means 'to pierce,'<ref>I.e., it is a capital offence to pierce the Divine Name, written on a slip of parchment, and thus destroy it.</ref> as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]<ref>[H]</ref> a hole in the lid of it,<ref>II Kings XII, 10.</ref> the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?<ref>Deut. XII, 3f. The interpretation is based on the juxtaposition of the two verses; v. Mak. 22a.</ref> — The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other.<ref>The knife passes successively from one slip to the other, but one Name does not pierce the other.</ref> But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]<ref>[H]</ref> by their names;<ref>Num. 1, 17.</ref> the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?<ref>Deut. VI, 13, which is interpreted as a prohibition against the unnecessary utterance of His Name.</ref> — Firstly, the Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.<ref>The statement, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, though implying abstention from something, is nevertheless given as a positive command, but punishment is imposed for the violation only of a direct negative precept.</ref> An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob<ref>[H]</ref> [and cursed],<ref>Lev. XXIV, 11.</ref> proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?<ref>I.e., only he who both blasphemes, that is, utters the ineffable Name, and curses it, is executed.</ref> You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,<ref>Ibid. XXIV, 14.</ref> and not 'him that hath blasphemed and cursed', proving that one offence only is alluded to.</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>תנא עד שיברך שם בשם מנהני מילי אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד) ונוקב שם וגו' בנקבו שם יומת ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי הוא דכתיב (במדבר כג) מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא (שמות כב) אלהים לא תקלל ואימא מיברז הוא דכתיב (מלכים ב יב) ויקב חור בדלתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב) ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם בעינא שם בשם וליכא ואימא דמנח שני שמות אהדדי ובזע להו ההוא נוקב וחוזר ונוקב הוא ואימא דחייק שם אפומא דסכינא ובזע בה ההוא חורפא דסכינא הוא דקא בזע אימא פרושי שמיה הוא דכתיב (במדבר א) ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים ו) את ה' אלהיך תירא חדא דבעינא שם בשם וליכא ועוד הויא ליה אזהרת עשה ואזהרת עשה לא שמה אזהרה</big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.<ref>Ibid. XXIV, 15.</ref> It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression any man?<ref>Lit., 'A man, a man', Heb. ish ish, [H].</ref> The inclusion of heathens, to whom blasphemy is prohibited just as to Israelites, and they are executed by decapitation; for every death penalty decreed for the sons of Noah is only by decapitation.<ref>The only place where death is explicitly decreed for non-Israelites is in Gen. IX, 6: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. It is a general law, applicable to all, having been given in the pre-Abrahamic era; his blood shall be shed must refer to the sword, the only death whereby blood is shed.</ref></td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא (ויקרא כד) ויקב ויקלל למימרא דנוקב קללה הוא ודילמא עד דעבד תרוייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (ויקרא כד) הוצא את המקלל ולא כתיב הוצא את הנוקב והמקלל שמע מינה חדא היא תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות את <העובדי כוכבים> {הגוים} שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף</big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.24 — R. Isaac the smith25 replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,26 and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.27 Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?28 Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, I might think that death is meted out only when the ineffable Name is employed. Whence do I know that all substitutes [of the ineffable Name] are included [in this law]? From the verse, Any man that curseth his God — shewing culpability for any manner of blasphemy [even without uttering the Name, since the Name is not mentioned in this sentence]: this is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: [Blasphemy] with use of the ineffable Name, is punishable by death: with the employment of substitutes, it is the object of an injunction. [but not punishable by death].</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה' זו ברכת השם אמר ר' יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר דתניא (ויקרא כד) איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כד) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים על שם המיוחד במיתה ועל הכינויין באזהרה</big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a heathen [son of Noah] blasphemed, employing substitutes of the ineffable Name, he is in the opinion of the Sages punishable by death. Why so? — Because it is written, as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land [when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death].29 This teaches that only the stranger [i.e.. a proselyte], and the native [i.e., a natural born Israelite] must utter the ineffable Name; but the heathen is punishable even for a substitute only. But how does R. Meir interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land'? — It teaches that the stranger and citizen are stoned, but a heathen is decapitated. For I would think, since they are included [in the prohibition], they are included [in the manner of execution too]: hence we are taught otherwise. Now how does R. Isaac the smith interpret the verse, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land', on the view of the Rabbis?30 — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?31 — The Torah employed normal human speech.32</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד) כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל <עובד כוכבים> {בן נח} אפילו בכינוי ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל <עובד כוכבים> {בן נח} בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי (ויקרא כד) כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל <עובד כוכבים> {בן נח} לא בעינן שם בשם איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי</big></div></td>

</tr>

</table>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Our Rabbis taught: He who hears [the Name blasphemed], and he who hears it from the person who first heard it [i.e., from the witness who testifies], are both bound to rend their garments. But the witnesses are not obliged to rend their clothes [when they hear themselves repeating the blasphemy in the course of their testimony], because they had already done so on first hearing it. But what does this matter: do they not hear it now too?<ref>Hence they should be obliged to rend their clothes again.</ref> — You cannot think so, because it is written, And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it [sc. the report of Rab-Shakeh's blasphemy] that he rent his clothes. Thus, Hezekiah rent his clothes, but they did not.</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>ת"ל קרעים מלמד שהן קרועים לעולם ת"ר אחד השומע ואחד שומע מפי שומע חייב לקרוע והעדים אין חייבין לקרוע שכבר קרעו בשעה ששמעו וכי קרעו בשעה ששמעו מאי הוי הא קא שמעי השתא לא ס"ד דכתיב (מלכים ב יט) ויהי כשמוע המלך חזקיהו <את דברי רבשקה> ויקרע את בגדיו המלך חזקיהו קרע והם לא קרעו</big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He who hears the Divine Name blasphemed by a gentile need not rend his clothes. But if you will object, what of Rab-Shakeh?<ref>Who was a gentile, and yet his hearers rent their clothes: in fact, that incident is the basis of the law.</ref> — He was an apostate Israelite.</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>~~ת"ל קרעים מלמד שהן קרועים לעולם ת"ר אחד~~ אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל השומע ~~ואחד שומע~~ אזכרה מפי ~~שומע~~ <העובד כוכבים> {הגוי} אינו חייב לקרוע ~~והעדים אין חייבין לקרוע שכבר קרעו בשעה ששמעו וכי קרעו בשעה ששמעו מאי הוי הא קא שמעי השתא לא ס~~וא"~~ד דכתיב (מלכים ב יט) ויהי כשמוע המלך חזקיהו <את דברי~~ ת רבשקה~~> ויקרע את בגדיו המלך חזקיהו קרע והם לא קרעו~~ישראל מומר היה </big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Rab Judah also said in Samuel's name: One must rend his clothes only on hearing the Shem hameyuhad<ref>V. p. 408, n. 1.</ref> blasphemed, but not for an attribute of the Divine Name. Now both of these statements conflict with R. Hiyya's views. For R. Hiyya said: He who hears the Divine Name blasphemed nowadays need not rend his garments, for otherwise one's garments would be reduced to tatters.<ref>Blasphemy being of such frequent occurrence.</ref> From whom does he hear it? If from an Israelite — are they so unbridled [as to sin thus so frequently]? But it is obvious that he refers to a gentile. Now, if the Shem hameyuhad is meant, are the gentiles so well acquainted with it [as to make such frequency possible]? Hence it must refer to an attribute, and concerning that he says that only nowadays is one exempt, but formerly one had to rend his clothes. This proof is conclusive.</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>~~אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל השומע אזכרה מפי <העובד כוכבים> {הגוי} אינו חייב לקרוע וא"ת רבשקה ישראל מומר היה~~ ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין קורעין אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד לאפוקי כינוי דלא ופליגי דרבי חייא בתרוייהו דאמר רבי חייא השומע אזכרה בזמן הזה אינו חייב לקרוע שאם אי אתה אומר כן נתמלא כל הבגד קרעים ממאן אילימא מישראל מי פקירי כולי האי אלא פשיטא <מעובד כוכבים> {מגוי} ואי שם המיוחד מי גמירי אלא לאו בכינוי ושמע מינה בזמן הזה הוא דלא הא מעיקרא חייב שמע מינה: </big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/extensions/MobileFrontend/includes/diff/InlineDiffFormatter.php:59) 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:59) 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:59) 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:59) in /home/bpilant613/public_html/w/includes/WebResponse.php on line 42
Changes - Wikinoah English