Commentary for Sanhedrin 131:27

א"כ לכתוב קרא לא תקל

But if so, Scripture should have written either the judge and the deaf or the <i>nasi</i> and the deaf.<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_26">²⁶</a> Why then is the judge mentioned? — Since this is superfluous for itself, apply it to one's father. Now, this agrees with the view that <i>elohim</i> is profane; but on the view that it is holy, what canst thou say?<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_27">²⁷</a> For it has been taught: <i>Elohim</i> is profane:<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_28">²⁸</a> that is R. Ishmael's opinion. R. Akiba said: It is sacred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it means literally 'God'. ');">²⁹</span> And it has been taught thereon: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Whence do we derive a formal prohibition against cursing God's name? From the verse, <i>Thou shalt not revile god</i>?<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_30">³⁰</a> — On the view that <i>elohim</i> is profane, the sacred is derived from the profane,<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_31">³¹</a> hence, contrariwise, on the view that <i>elohim</i> is sacred, thou mayest derive the profane from the sacred.<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_32">³²</a> Now, it is quite correct to say that on the view that <i>elohim</i> is profane, the sacred is derived from it. But on the view that <i>elohim</i> is holy, how canst thou derive the profane from it: perhaps the prohibition is only in respect of the sacred [i.e.. God], but not of the profane at all? — If so, Scripture should have written, <i>elohim lo takel</i> [Thou shalt not revile God],

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 131:27. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.