<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">R. JOSHUA B. KARHA SAID etc. R. Aha b. Jacob said: He is not guilty unless he cursed the Tetragrammaton, excluding a biliteral Name,<ref>EL or YH.</ref> the blaspheming of which is not punishable. Is this not obvious, the Mishnah stating, May Jose smite Jose?<ref>Thus, as a substitute a four lettered name is used, shewing that the Tetragrammaton must have been employed.</ref> — I might think that the name is used as a mere illustration;<ref>Of how the witnesses gave their testimony. But the choice of a four lettered name — Jose — might be quite fortuitous.</ref> he therefore teaches otherwise.</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>א"ר יהושע בן קרחה כו': אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אינו חייב עד שיברך שם בן ארבע אותיות לאפוקי בן שתי אותיות דלא פשיטא יכה יוסי את יוסי תנן מהו דתימא מילתא בעלמא הוא דנקט קמ"ל איכא דאמרי</big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Others give this version: — R. Aha b. Jacob said: This proves that the Tetragrammaton is also a Divine Name.<ref>In addition to the Tetragrammaton, there were twelve-lettered, forty-two-lettered, and seventy-two-lettered Names. (Kid. 71a; Lev. Rab. XXIII; Gen. Rab. XLIV) R. Aha b. Jacob states that since 'Jose' is used as a substitute, it proves that even if the longer Names are not employed, but merely the Tetragrammaton, the guilt of blasphemy is incurred.</ref> But is it not obvious, since the Mishnah states: JOSE SMITE JOSE [using a four-lettered name]? — I might think that the great<ref>I.e., of forty-two letters.</ref> Name must be employed, whilst Jose is merely an illustration [of the mode of testifying]; therefore he teaches otherwise.</td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ש"מ שם בן ארבע אותיות נמי שם הוא פשיטא יכה יוסי את יוסי תנן מהו דתימא עד דאיכא שם רבה ומילתא בעלמא הוא דנקט קמ"ל:</big></div></td>

</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 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 and knew but an attribute of God's name, nevertheless arose, how much more so must an Israelite arise when he hears the Shem Hameforash.<ref>~~18.~~ 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 God. 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>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">WHICH RENT WAS NOT TO BE RESEWN. Whence do we derive this? — R. Abbahu said: A gezerah shawah is deduced from the word 'rent'.<ref>Ibid. II, 11.</ref> This verse states, with their clothes rent; whilst elsewhere is written, And Elisha saw it [sc. Elijah's ascension] and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel and the horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more; and he took hold of his own clothes and rent them in two rents.<ref>Ibid. 12.</ref> Now, do we not understand from, 'and he rent them in two' that the cognate object is 'rents'; why then does the Writ expressly state 'rents'? — To teach that they were always to remain thus.<ref>I.e., never to be resewn; and by analogy, the same interpretation is placed upon II Kings XVIII, 37.</ref></td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>לא מאחין: מנלן א"ר אבהו אתיא קריעה קריעה כתיב הכא קרועי בגדים וכתיב התם (מלכים ב ב) ואלישע רואה והוא מצעק אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו ולא ראהו עוד ויחזק בבגדיו ויקרעם לשנים קרעים ממשמע שנאמר ויקרעם לשנים איני יודע שהן קרעים ומה</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 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 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>

<td valign="top" width="50%">THE SECOND WITNESS STATED, I TOO HAVE HEARD THUS. Resh Lakish said: This proves that 'I too have heard thus' is valid evidence in civil and capital cases,<ref>I.e., in these cases, when the first witness has testified, it is sufficient, by Biblical law, for the second to say, 'I too heard (or saw) thus', without explicitly stating what he had heard or seen.</ref> but that the Rabbis imposed a greater degree of stringency [insisting that each witness should explicitly testify]. Here, however, since this is impossible [on account of the desire to avoid unnecessary blasphemy], they reverted to Biblical law. For should you maintain that such testimony is [Biblically] invalid, can we execute a person when it is impossible for the evidence to be validly given?<ref>If the testimony must be given in particular form, but cannot, it is obvious that the malefactor should not be executed.</ref></td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>השני אומר אף אני כמוהו: אמר ר"ל שמע מינה אף אני כמוהו כשר בדיני ממונות ובדיני נפשות ומעלה הוא דעביד רבנן והכא כיון דלא אפשר אוקמוה רבנן אדאורייתא דאי ס"ד פסול הכא משום דלא אפשר קטלינן לגברא: </big></div></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">AND THE THIRD DID LIKEWISE. This anonymous statement agrees with R. Akiba, who likens three witnesses to two.<ref>This is in reference to Deut. XIX, 15: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established. The difficulty arises, if two witnesses are sufficient, surely three are: then why state it? R. Akiba answers, To teach that just as in the case of two, if one is proved invalid, the whole testimony loses its validity (since only one witness is left), so also, even if there are three or more, and one was proved invalid, the testimony of all is valueless, though there are still two or more valid witnesses left. Now, when the Mishnah states that the third also must testify 'I too heard thus', it is in conformity with R. Akiba's ruling, so that should he be contradicted as having been absent, the entire testimony is null. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary for the third witness to be examined at all.</ref></td>

<td align="right" valign="top"><div dir="rtl" lang="HE"><big>והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו: סתמא כר"ע דמקיש ג' לשנים:</big></div></td>

</tr>

</table>

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