Quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 111:24

תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי

It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression <i>any man</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'A man, a man', Heb. ish ish, [H]. ');">²²</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²³</span> Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., <i>The Lord</i>, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²⁴</span> — R. Isaac the smith<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">²⁵</span> replied; This phrase ['<i>any man</i>'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if only a substitute was employed in blasphemy, the death penalty is incurred. ');">²⁶</span> and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: <i>Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 15 ');">²⁷</span> Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, <i>And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16. ');">²⁸</span> Because it is stated, <i>And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death</i>, 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, <i>Any man that curseth his God</i> — 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]. 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, <i>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]</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');">²⁹</span> 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, <i>'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land'</i>, on the view of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a heathen too must use the ineffable Name for incurring punishment. ');">³⁰</span> — 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 <i>any man</i>?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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? ');">³¹</span> — The Torah employed normal human speech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., no particular significance attaches to the repetition, it being the usual idiom. ');">³²</span> Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to establish courts of justice, or, perhaps, to observe social justice (Nahmanides on Gen. XXXIV, 13): Hast. Dict. (s.v. Noachian precepts) translates 'obedience to authority'. ');">³³</span> to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These commandments may be regarded as the foundations of all human and moral progress. Judaism has both a national and a universal outlook in life. In the former sense it is particularistic, setting up a people distinct and separate from others by its peculiar religious law. But in the latter, it recognises that moral progress and its concomitant Divine love and approval are the privilege and obligation of all mankind. And hence the Talmud lays down the seven Noachian precepts, by the observance of which all mankind may attain spiritual perfection, and without which moral death must inevitably ensue. That perhaps is the idea underlying the assertion (passim) that a heathen is liable to death for the neglect of any of these. The last mentioned is particularly instructive as showing the great importance attached to the humane treatment of animals; so much so, that it is declared to be fundamental to human righteousness. ');">³⁴</span>

Explore quoting%20commentary for Sanhedrin 111:24. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.