</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 <ref>V. infra 56b. And the Lord God 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 Lord 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 God'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 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 Lord, 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 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 <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 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 <ref>That a heathen 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 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 heathen is deduced from And the Lord (God 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>

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