Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Halakhah 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"><sup>26</sup></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"><sup>27</sup></a> For it has been taught: <i>Elohim</i> is profane:<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_28"><sup>28</sup></a> that is R. Ishmael's opinion. R. Akiba said: It is sacred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it means literally 'God'. ');"><sup>29</sup></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"><sup>30</sup></a> — On the view that <i>elohim</i> is profane, the sacred is derived from the profane,<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_31"><sup>31</sup></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"><sup>32</sup></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],

Sefer HaChinukh

From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Shevuot 35a) that it is forbidden to curse in any way. But nonetheless, he is not lashed unless he cursed with a name of one of the names [of God], such as Y-ah, Sha-dai, E-loah and similar to them, or with any appellation of one of the appellations [of God], such as Compassionate, Jealous and similar to them. And he is liable in any language that he curses with a name or appellation, as the names that the gentiles call the Holy One, blessed be He, are among the appellations (even though they are in their languages). And [also] that which they said (Shevuot 36a) that even one who curses himself is lashed, as it is stated (Deuteronomy 4:9), "But you shall guard yourself and guard your soul much." And also that [which they said] in Mekhilta (see Sanhedrin 66a), "'You shall not curse the deaf' - [it is speaking] about the wretched among men." And they also said there (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yismael 22:27) that when the verse (Exodus 22:27) states, "a chieftain (nassi) among your people, you shall not maledict, etc.," it implies both a chieftain and a judge. What [then] do we learn by saying, "[Judges] shall you not curse"? To impose liability for this one in itself and for that one in itself. From here they said, "One may speak one thing and be liable for four things. (How so?) If the son of a chieftain curses his father, he is liable on account of chieftain, on account of father, on account of judge, and on account of 'among your people you shall not maledict'" (see Tur, Choshen Mishpat 26).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse