Sanhedrin 56a-60a - Revision history

WikSysop: added link

2007-04-05T08:19:48Z

added link

WikSysop at 14:41, 28 March 2007

2007-03-28T14:41:54Z

WikSysop at 14:41, 28 March 2007

2007-03-28T14:41:21Z

WikSysop at 10:59, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:59:25Z

WikSysop at 10:55, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:55:19Z

WikSysop at 10:50, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:50:54Z

Show changes

WikSysop at 10:48, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:48:53Z

WikSysop at 10:44, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:44:37Z

WikSysop at 10:44, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:44:13Z

WikSysop at 10:40, 27 February 2007

2007-02-27T10:40:28Z

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 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 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:

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 * [[Sanhedrin 60a]]
-== Law of Blasphemy, cont. ==
+== Laws of Blasphemy, cont. ==
 <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%">
 <tr>

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 * Jews have four forms of capital punishment, Noahide have only one.
-== Sanhedrin 56a ==
+== Laws of Blasphemy ==
 <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%">
 <tr>
@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 </table>
-== See Also ==
+== Talmud's main exposition of Noahide Law ==
 * [[Sanhedrin 56a-b]]
 * [[Sanhedrin 57a]]
@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 * [[Sanhedrin 60a]]
-== Sanhedrin 60a ==
+== Law of Blasphemy, cont. ==
 <table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="2" width="100%">
 <tr>

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 * Both Jews and Noahides may be tried for blasphemy
 * A Noahide who blasphemes G-d, whether by the particular name of G-d, or another name, in any language – is liable, whereas this differs from Jewish law
-* A Noahide who breaks any one of the seven laws, Noahide law allows punishments up to capital punishment.
+* 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 have only one.
+* Jews have four forms of capital punishment, Noahide have only one.
 == Sanhedrin 56a ==

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 </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, 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 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 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] 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 valign="top" width="50%">Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to 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] 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 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?<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?<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 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 valign="top" width="50%">This view [of R. Isaac the smith] conflicts with that of R. Miyasha; for R. Miyasha said: If a 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 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 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 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 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 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>
@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 </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 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 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 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>

@@ Line 34: / Line 34: @@
 </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 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.<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 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,<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.<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?<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  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 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].<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?<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?<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.<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>

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:44, 27 February 2007
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Sanhedrin 56-60 starts and ends with a discussion of the [[Prohibition of Blasphemy]]. Embedded within this discussion is the Talmud's main exposition of Noahide 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]].	+	Sanhedrin 56-60 starts and ends with a discussion of the [[Prohibition of Blasphemy]]. Embedded within this discussion is the '''Talmud's main exposition of Noahide 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 God. 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.		Blasphemy: Evil or profane speaking of God. 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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-Sanhedrin 56-60 starts and ends with a discussion of the [[Prohibition of Blasphemy]]. Embedded within this discussion, is are several pages of information on Noahide Law in general.  To facilitate reading of the material, the general material (sections Sanhedrin 56a-60a) has been taken out of the middle of this discussion and [[Sanhedrin 56a-b|placed at the beginning]].
+Sanhedrin 56-60 starts and ends with a discussion of the [[Prohibition of Blasphemy]]. Embedded within this discussion is the Talmud's main exposition of Noahide 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 God. 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.
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==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 (Lev. xxiv. 10-23). He blasphemed the name of the Lord 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.
+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 Lord 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 God. The Mishnah, however, laying stress on the term "nokeb," declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the name of God (Mishnah Sanh. vii. 5). The Gemara goes further and extends the crime to an impious use of any words which indicate the sacred attributes of God, 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 God's attributes was subjected to corporal punishment (Sanh. 56a). According to Talmudic tradition, the Sacred Name was in early times known to all; but later its use was restricted (Kid. 71a).
+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 God. The Mishnah, however, laying stress on the term "nokeb," declares that the blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the name of God.<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 God, 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 God'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 use 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" (Mishnah Sanh. ib.). 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" (Mishnah Sanh. ib.)
+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 (Sanh. 56a), i.e., according to natural law [Noahide law].<ref>Jewish Encyclopedia. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1912, volume three, page 237.</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: