The main discussion on Noahide Law in tractate Sanhedrin is embedded inside 56-60 starts and ends with a discussion concerning of the interrogation [[Prohibition of witnesses during a trial Blasphemy]]. Embedded within this discussion is the '''Talmud's main exposition of blasphemyNoahide Law'''. To facilitate reading of the material, the material on Noahide Law in general (sections Sanhedrin 56a-60a ) has been taken out of the middle of this discussion on Blasphemy and [[Sanhedrin 56a-b|placed at the beginning]]. Blasphemy: Evil or profane speaking of G-d. The essence of the crime consists in the impious purpose in using the words, and does not necessarily include the performance of any desecrating act. ==General Background== The Jewish law is based on the case of the blasphemer, one of the mixed multitude that went out of Egypt with the children of Israel.<ref>Lev. xxiv. 10-23</ref> He blasphemed the name of the L-rd and cursed; was sentenced to be taken without the camp; and it was decreed that all who heard him should lay their hands upon his head, and that all the congregation should stone him. The judgment in his case was formulated in a general law in verses 15 and 16. Beyond the reference to cursing in the text of Leviticus, there is nothing in the Biblical laws to indicate what constitutes the crime, and nothing to show that, to prove blasphemy, it was required to prove that the blasphemer had uttered the name of G-d. The Mishnah, however, laying stress on the term "nokeb," declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the name of G-d.<ref>Mishnah Sanh. vii. 5</ref> The Gemara goes further and extends the crime to an impious use of any words which indicate the sacred attributes of G-d, such as "The Holy One" or "The Merciful One." As long as the Jewish courts exercised criminal jurisdiction, the death penalty was inflicted only upon the blasphemer who used the Ineffable Name; but the blasphemer of G-d's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment.<ref>[[Sanhedrin 56a-b|Sanhedrin 56a]]</ref> According to Talmudic tradition, the Sacred Name was in early times known to all; but later its own sectionuse was restricted. <ref>Kid. 71a</ref> 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>[[Sanhedrin 56a-b|Sanhedrin 56a]]</ref>, i.e., according to [[natural law]] [Noahide law].<ref>Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1912, volume three, page 237.</ref>
The following Noahide principles are contained below:
* Both Jews and non-Jews Noahides may be tried for blasphemy* Jews are tried for blasphemy in hebrew onlyA Noahide who blasphemes G-d, nonwhether by the particular name of G-Jews d, or another name, in any language– is liable, whereas this differs from Jewish law* Noahide Law allows punishments up to and including capital punishment for violation of any of the seven laws.* Jews have four forms of capital punishment, non-Jews Noahide have only one.
== Sanhedrin 56a Laws of Blasphemy ==
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%">
<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 G-d was to be understood. The witnesses were accordingly asked whether the accused in his blasphemy had set Jesus above GodG-d. (R. Joshua b. Karha, the author of this saying, lived at a time when Judeo-Christians ascribed more power to Jesus than to GodG-d.)</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 L-rd … when he blasphemeth the name of the LordL-rd, 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 G-d hath not cursed;<ref>Num. XXIII, 8.</ref> whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile GodG-d.<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 L-rd your GodG-d?<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 L-rd thy GodG-d?<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 L-rd thy GodG-d, 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 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</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his GodG-d, 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 heathensnon-Jews, 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> 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 heathensnon-Jews] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The LordL-rd, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.24 <ref>V. infra 56b. And the L-rd G-d commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden, thou mayest freely eat. Gen. II, 16. Every word or phrase in this verse is separately interpreted, the L-rd teaching the prohibition of blasphemy to a Noachide.</ref> — R. Isaac the smith25 smith<ref>In the Talmudic period the Rabbi was an honorary official; consequently, he had to have a private occupation e.g., R. Joshua, who came into conflict with R. Gamaliel, was a blacksmith, (Ber. 28a.) others translate, charcoal-burner.</ref> replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of GodG-d's name,26 <ref>I.e., even if only a substitute was employed in blasphemy, the death penalty is incurred.</ref> and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God G-d shall bear his sin.27 <ref>Lev. XXIV, 15</ref> Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the LordL-rd, he shall surely be put to death?28 <ref>Ibid. 16.</ref> Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord L-rd 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 G-d — 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] Noahide 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 LordL-rd, shall be put to death].29 <ref>Ibid</ref> 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 non-Jew 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 non-Jew 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 <ref>That a non-Jew too must use the ineffable Name for incurring punishment.</ref> — It teaches that only a stranger and a native must revile the Name by the Name, but for a heathen non-Jew this is unnecessary. Why does the Torah state any man?31 <ref>This is a difficulty For R. Isaac and R. Miyasha, as they explain the opinions of the Sages. They both maintain that the culpability of a non-Jew is deduced from And the L-rd (G-d commanded etc.) When employing substitutes, his culpability, in the view of R. Miyasha is deduced from as well the stranger etc.; Whilst R. Isaac denies that it is punishable at all. Hence the difficulty, why the repetition ish ish, a man, a man?</ref> — The Torah employed normal human speech.32<ref>I.e., no particular significance attaches to the repetition, it being the usual idiom.</ref></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>
== See Also Talmud's main exposition of Noahide Law ==
* [[Sanhedrin 56a-b]]
* [[Sanhedrin 57a]]
* [[Sanhedrin 60a]]
== Sanhedrin 60a Laws of Blasphemy, cont. ==
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%">
<tr>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">WHEN THE TRIAL WAS FINISHED, etc. Whence do we know that they arose? — R. Isaac b. Ami said, because the Writ saith — And Ehud came unto him: and he was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehud said, I have a message from God G-d unto thee. And he arose out of his seat.<ref>Judg. III, 20.</ref> Now, does this not afford an ad majus conclusion: If Eglon king of Moab, who was only a heathen non-Jew and knew but an attribute of GodG-d's name, nevertheless arose, how much more so must an Israelite arise when he hears the Shem Hameforash.<ref>Lit., 'the distinguished Name', synonymous with the Shem hameyuhad, the unique Name. Both words designate something which is distinguished from other objects of its kind. (V. J. E., XI, 262) The term also means 'preeminent'. From Rashi here and in 'Er. 18b it appears that he does not regard the Shem hameforash as the Tetragrammaton. But Maimonides (Yad, Yesode Hatorah, VI, 2; Tefilah, XIV, 10) declares that they are identical. In general it was regarded as sinful to utter this Name (Sanh. 90a; 'A.Z. 17b; Kid. 71a), nor was it widely known, being an object of esoteric knowledge (Kid. Ibid; Yer. Yoma 40), though there were exceptions</ref></td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>נגמר הדין כו': עומדין מנלן א"ר יצחק בר אמי דאמר קרא (שופטים ג) ואהוד בא אליו והוא יושב בעליית המקרה אשר לו לבדו ויאמר אהוד דבר אלהים לי אליך ויקם מעל הכסא והלא דברים קל וחומר ומה עגלון מלך מואב שהוא נכרי ולא ידע אלא בכינוי עמד ישראל ושם המפורש על אחת כמה וכמה</big></div></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" width="50%">Whence do we know that they rent their garments? — From the verse, Then came Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with their clothes rent, and told him the words of Rab-Shakeh.<ref>19. II Kings XVIII, 37. Their clothes were rent on account of Rab-Shakeh's blaspheming of GodG-d. Cf. Ibid. XIX, 4.</ref></td>
<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>קורעין מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב יח) ויבא אליקים בן חלקיהו [וגו'] ושבנא הסופר ויואח בן אסף המזכיר אל חזקיהו קרועי בגדים ויגידו לו את דברי רבשקה:</big></div></td>
</tr>

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

Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Sanhedrin 56a-60a

No change in size, 08:19, 5 April 2007
m
added link
3,464
edits

Navigation menu


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