</tr>

<tr>

<td valign="top" width="50%">Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his G-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 ~~heathens~~non-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 ~~heathens~~non-Jews] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The L-rd, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.<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 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 G-d's name,<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 G-d shall bear his sin.<ref>Lev. XXIV, 15</ref> Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the L-rd, he shall surely be put to death?<ref>Ibid. 16.</ref> Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the 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 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 L-rd, shall be put to death].<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?<ref>That a ~~heathen~~ 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?<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~~ 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.<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>

<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 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 G-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>

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