Sanhedrin 119

(שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה וכתיב (שמות כב, יח) כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת כל שישנו בכלל כל שוכב עם בהמה ישנו בכלל מכשפה לא תחיה:

Thou shalt not suffer a witch tolive;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 17. ');">¹</span>

ר"א אומר אף הכלאים: מנה"מ אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יט) את חקתי תשמרו חוקים שחקקתי לך כבר (ויקרא יט, יט) בהמתך לא תרביע כלאים ושדך לא תזרע כלאים

and this is followed by, Whosoeverlieth with a beast shall surely be put todeath:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 18. ');">²</span>

מה בהמתך בהרבעה אף שדך בהרכבה מה בהמתך בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ אף שדך בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ

thus, all who are includedin the second prohibition are included in thefirst.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, since the Noachides were forbidden bestiality, they were also forbidden sorcery. ');">³</span>

אלא מעתה (ויקרא יח, ה) ושמרתם את חקתי ואת משפטי חקים שחקקתי לך כבר

'R. Eleazar said; They were also enjoined against the forbidden mixtures.'Whence do we derive this? — Samuel replied: Because Scripture saith, Mystatutes ye shall keep,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 19. ');">⁴</span>

התם ושמרתם את חקותי דהשתא הכא את חקותי תשמרו חקים דמעיקרא תשמרו:

implying thestatutes which I have alreadydecreed:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since other precepts are not introduced by this formula, we interpret it thus. ');">⁵</span>

א"ר יהושע בן קרחה כו':

viz., Thou shalt not letthy cattle gender with a diverse kind: Thou shalt not sow thy field withmingled seed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence these were pre-Sinaitic, i.e., given to the sons of Noah. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אינו חייב עד שיברך שם בן ארבע אותיות לאפוקי בן שתי אותיות דלא

This teaches: just asin the case of animal life, the prohibition is against hybridization, soin plant life, the injunction is againstgrafting;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the first is a law against crossing two actual animals to produce a hybrid. So the second must refer to the grafting of one tree upon another of a different kind, but not to the sowing of different seeds together, which are trees in posse but not in esse. ');">⁷</span>

פשיטא יכה יוסי את יוסי תנן מהו דתימא מילתא בעלמא הוא דנקט קמ"ל

and just as the former holdsgood both within the land [sc. Palestine] andwithout,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that any obligation imposed upon man and not dependent upon the soil is binding outside Palestine too. ');">⁸</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר רב אחא בר יעקב ש"מ שם בן ארבע אותיות נמי שם הוא

so the latter holds goodboth within and without Palestine. But if so, does the verse, Ye shall thereforekeep my statutes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XVIII, 26. ');">⁹</span>

פשיטא יכה יוסי את יוסי תנן מהו דתימא עד דאיכא שם רבה ומילתא בעלמא הוא דנקט קמ"ל:

also imply the statuteswhich I imposed long ago?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That verse refers to God's statutes in general, and if Samuel's interpretation is correct, it follows that all the statutes of the Torah were given to the Noachides. ');">¹⁰</span>

נגמר הדין כו':

— Therethe verse reads, Ye shall therefore keep my statutes which I [now] commandyou: but here it reads, My statutes ye shall keep, implying the statutesdecreed from of old shall yekeep.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The answer is based on the fact that in Lev. XIX, 19 'statutes' comes first in the verse, implying that they were already in existence, whilst in XVIII, 26 'Ye shall keep' is first, teaching that the statutes which follow were only then imposed. ');">¹¹</span>

עומדין מנלן א"ר יצחק בר אמי דאמר קרא (שופטים ג, כ) 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

R. JOSHUA B. KARHA SAID etc. R. Aha b. Jacob said: He is not guilty unlesshe cursed the Tetragrammaton, excluding a biliteralName,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' EL or YH. ');">¹²</span>

קורעין מנלן דכתיב (מלכים ב יח, לז) ויבא אליקים בן חלקיהו [וגו'] ושבנא הסופר ויואח בן אסף המזכיר אל חזקיהו קרועי בגדים ויגידו לו את דברי רבשקה:

the blaspheming of which isnot punishable. Is this not obvious, the Mishnah stating, May Jose smiteJose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus, as a substitute a four lettered name is used, shewing that the Tetragrammaton must have been employed. ');">¹³</span>

לא מאחין: מנלן

— I might think that thename is used as a mereillustration;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of how the witnesses gave their testimony. But the choice of a four lettered name — Jose — might be quite fortuitous. ');">¹⁴</span>

א"ר אבהו אתיא קריעה קריעה כתיב הכא קרועי בגדים וכתיב התם (מלכים ב ב, יב) ואלישע רואה והוא מצעק אבי אבי רכב ישראל ופרשיו ולא ראהו עוד ויחזק בבגדיו ויקרעם לשנים קרעים ממשמע שנאמר ויקרעם לשנים איני יודע שהן קרעים ומה ת"ל קרעים מלמד שהן קרועים לעולם

he therefore teachesotherwise.

ת"ר אחד השומע ואחד שומע מפי שומע חייב לקרוע והעדים אין חייבין לקרוע שכבר קרעו בשעה ששמעו

Others give this version: — R. Aha b. Jacob said: This proves that theTetragrammaton is also a DivineName.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In addition to the Tetragrammaton, there were twelve-lettered, forty-two-lettered, and seventy-two-lettered Names. (Kid. 71a; Lev. Rab. XXIII; Gen. Rab. XLIV) R. Aha b. Jacob states that since 'Jose' is used as a substitute, it proves that even if the longer Names are not employed, but merely the Tetragrammaton, the guilt of blasphemy is incurred. ');">¹⁵</span>

וכי קרעו בשעה ששמעו מאי הוי הא קא שמעי השתא לא ס"ד דכתיב (מלכים ב יט, א) ויהי כשמוע המלך חזקיהו (את דברי רבשקה) ויקרע את בגדיו המלך חזקיהו קרע והם לא קרעו

But is it not obvious, sincethe Mishnah states: JOSE SMITE JOSE [using a four-lettered name]? — I mightthink that the great<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., of forty-two letters. ');">¹⁶</span>

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל השומע אזכרה מפי העובד כוכבים אינו חייב לקרוע וא"ת רבשקה ישראל מומר היה

Name must beemployed, whilst Jose is merely an illustration [of the mode of testifying];therefore he teaches otherwise.

ואמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין קורעין אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד לאפוקי כינוי דלא

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: andhe was sitting in a summer parlour, which he had for himself alone. And Ehudsaid, I have a message from God unto thee. And he arose out of hisseat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. III, 20. ');">¹⁷</span>

ופליגי דרבי חייא בתרוייהו דאמר רבי חייא השומע אזכרה בזמן הזה אינו חייב לקרוע שאם אי אתה אומר כן נתמלא כל הבגד קרעים

Now, does this not affordan ad majus conclusion: If Eglon king of Moab, who was only a heathen andknew but an attribute of God's name, nevertheless arose, how much more somust an Israelite arise when he hears the ShemHameforash.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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 ');">¹⁸</span>

ממאן אילימא מישראל מי פקירי כולי האי אלא פשיטא מעובד כוכבים ואי שם המיוחד מי גמירי אלא לאו בכינוי

Whence do we know that they rent their garments? — From the verse, Thencame Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebnathe scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder, to Hezekiah with theirclothes rent, and told him the words ofRab-Shakeh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Kings XVIII, 37. Their clothes were rent on account of Rab-Shakeh's blaspheming of God. Cf. Ibid. XIX, 4. ');">¹⁹</span>

ושמע מינה בזמן הזה הוא דלא הא מעיקרא חייב שמע מינה:

WHICH RENT WAS NOT TO BE RESEWN. Whence do we derive this? — R. Abbahu said:A <i>gezerah shawah</i> is deduced from the word'rent'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II, 11. ');">²⁰</span>

השני אומר אף אני כמוהו: אמר ר"ל שמע מינה אף אני כמוהו כשר בדיני ממונות ובדיני נפשות ומעלה הוא דעביד רבנן והכא כיון דלא אפשר אוקמוה רבנן אדאורייתא

This verse states, withtheir clothes rent; whilst elsewhere is written, And Elisha saw it [sc. Elijah'sascension] and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel andthe horsemen thereof. And he saw him no more; and he took hold of his ownclothes and rent them in tworents.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12. ');">²¹</span>

דאי ס"ד פסול הכא משום דלא אפשר קטלינן לגברא:

Now, do we not understandfrom, 'and he rent them in two' that the cognate object is 'rents'; why thendoes the Writ expressly state 'rents'? — To teach that they were alwaysto remain thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., never to be resewn; and by analogy, the same interpretation is placed upon II Kings XVIII, 37. ');">²²</span>

והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו: סתמא כר"ע דמקיש ג' לשנים:

Our Rabbis taught: He who hears [the Name blasphemed], and he who hears itfrom the person who first heard it [i.e., from the witness who testifies],are both bound to rend their garments. But the witnesses are not obligedto rend their clothes [when they hear themselves repeating the blasphemyin the course of their testimony], because they had already done so on firsthearing it. But what does this matter: do they not hear it nowtoo?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they should be obliged to rend their clothes again. ');">²³</span> — You cannot think so, becauseit is written, And it came to pass, when king Hezekiah heard it [sc. thereport of Rab-Shakeh's blasphemy] that he rent his clothes. Thus, Hezekiahrent his clothes, but they did not. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He whohears the Divine Name blasphemed by a gentile need not rend his clothes.But if you will object, what ofRab-Shakeh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who was a gentile, and yet his hearers rent their clothes: in fact, that incident is the basis of the law. ');">²⁴</span> — He was an apostateIsraelite. Rab Judah also said in Samuel's name: One must rend his clothes only on hearingthe Shem hameyuhad<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 408, n. 1. ');">²⁵</span> blasphemed, butnot for an attribute of the Divine Name. Now both of these statements conflictwith R. Hiyya's views. For R. Hiyya said: He who hears the Divine Name blasphemednowadays need not rend his garments, for otherwise one's garments would bereduced to tatters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blasphemy being of such frequent occurrence. ');">²⁶</span> From whom doeshe hear it? If from an Israelite — are they so unbridled [as to sin thusso frequently]? But it is obvious that he refers to a gentile. Now, if theShem hameyuhad is meant, are the gentiles so well acquainted with it [asto make such frequency possible]? Hence it must refer to an attribute, andconcerning that he says that only nowadays is one exempt, but formerly onehad to rend his clothes. This proof is conclusive. THE SECOND WITNESS STATED, I TOO HAVE HEARD THUS. Resh Lakish said: Thisproves that 'I too have heard thus' is valid evidence in civil and capitalcases,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in these cases, when the first witness has testified, it is sufficient, by Biblical law, for the second to say, 'I too heard (or saw) thus', without explicitly stating what he had heard or seen. ');">²⁷</span> but that the Rabbis imposeda greater degree of stringency [insisting that each witness should explicitlytestify]. Here, however, since this is impossible [on account of the desireto avoid unnecessary blasphemy], they reverted to Biblical law. For shouldyou maintain that such testimony is [Biblically] invalid, can we executea person when it is impossible for the evidence to be validlygiven?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the testimony must be given in particular form, but cannot, it is obvious that the malefactor should not be executed. ');">²⁸</span> AND THE THIRD DID LIKEWISE. This anonymous statement agrees with R. Akiba,who likens three witnesses totwo.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is in reference to Deut. XIX, 15: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses shall the matter be established. The difficulty arises, if two witnesses are sufficient, surely three are: then why state it? R. Akiba answers, To teach that just as in the case of two, if one is proved invalid, the whole testimony loses its validity (since only one witness is left), so also, even if there are three or more, and one was proved invalid, the testimony of all is valueless, though there are still two or more valid witnesses left. Now, when the Mishnah states that the third also must testify 'I too heard thus', it is in conformity with R. Akiba's ruling, so that should he be contradicted as having been absent, the entire testimony is null. Otherwise, it would be unnecessary for the third witness to be examined at all. ');">²⁹</span>