Sanhedrin 131

אל תתחיל בי שחרית הוא ראש חודש הוא מוצאי שבת הוא

<a rel="footnote" href="sanhedrin_65.html">Previous Daf</a>

תנו רבנן (ויקרא יט, כו) לא תנחשו ולא תעוננו כגון אלו המנחשים בחולדה בעופות ובדגים:

&nbsp; &nbsp; Our Rabbis taught: <i>Ye shall not use enchantments nor observe times</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 26. ');">³</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המחלל את השבת בדבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת:

<font>This refers to those who practise enchantment by means of weasels, birds, and fish</font>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: 'and stars'. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מכלל דאיכא מידי דחילול שבת הוי ואין חייבין לא על שגגתו חטאת ולא על זדונו כרת מאי

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. HE WHO DESECRATES THE SABBATH [IS STONED], PROVIDING THAT IT IS AN OFFENCE PUNISHED BY EXTINCTION IF DELIBERATE, AND BY A SIN-OFFERING IF UNWITTING.

היא תחומין ואליבא דרבי עקיבא הבערה ואליבא דר' יוסי:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. This proves that there is a manner of desecrating the Sabbath for the deliberate committal of which there is no extinction, nor is a sin offering to be brought for its unwitting transgression. What is it? — The law of boundaries, according to R. Akiba,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Biblical law, as deduced by the Rabbis, one was not to go more than 12 mil (a mil = 1,000 cubits) beyond the town boundaries on the Sabbath (the Rabbis reduced this to 2,000 cubits). R. Akiba maintained that if this law was violated the offender was liable neither to extinction nor to a sin offering. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקלל אביו ואמו אינו חייב עד שיקללם בשם קללם בכנוי ר' מאיר מחייב וחכמים פוטרין:

and kindling a fire, according to R. Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 62a. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאן חכמים ר' מנחם בר' יוסי הוא דתניא ר' מנחם בר' יוסי אומר (ויקרא כד, טז) בנקבו שם יומת מה ת"ל שם לימד על מקלל אביו ואמו שאינו חייב עד שיקללם בשם

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO CURSES HIS FATHER OR HIS MOTHER IS NOT PUNISHED UNLESS HE CURSES THEM BY THE DIVINE NAME. <font>IF HE CURSED THEM BY AN ATTRIBUTE</font>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., The Merciful, the Gracious, the Almighty. ');">⁷</span>

תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל (ויקרא כ, ב) איש איש לרבות בת טומטום ואנדרוגינוס

R. MEIR HELD HIM LIABLE, BUT <font>THE SAGES RULED THAT HE IS EXEMPT</font>.

אשר יקלל את אביו ואת אמו אין לי אלא אביו ואמו אביו שלא אמו אמו שלא אביו מניין ת"ל אביו ואמו קילל דמיו בו אביו קילל אמו קילל דברי רבי יאשיה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Who is meant here by the Sages?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This anonymous term did not necessarily represent the view of many Sages; it frequently connoted a single scholar. ');">⁸</span>

רבי יונתן אומר משמע שניהן כאחד ומשמע אחד בפני עצמו עד שיפרוט לך הכתוב יחדיו

— R. Menahem, son of R. Jose. For it has been taught: R. Menahem, son of R. Jose said, <i>When he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall be put to death</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIV, 16. ');">⁹</span>

מות יומת בסקילה אתה אומר בסקילה או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה נאמר כאן דמיו בו ונאמר להלן (ויקרא כ, יא) דמיהם בם מה להלן בסקילה אף כאן בסקילה

Why is '<i>the name</i>' mentioned?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the beginning of the same verse explicitly states that the reference is to the Name: And he that blasphemeth the Name of the Lord shall surely be put to death. ');">¹⁰</span>

עונש שמענו אזהרה מניין ת"ל (שמות כב, כז) אלהים לא תקלל וגו' אם היה אביו דיין הרי הוא בכלל אלהים לא תקלל ואם היה אביו נשיא הרי הוא בכלל (שמות כב, כז) ונשיא בעמך לא תאור

To teach that he who curses his father or his mother does not incur a penalty unless he employs the Divine Name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For 'the name' being unnecessary here, is applied to a different law. V. supra p. 365, n. 7. ');">¹¹</span>

אינו לא דיין ולא נשיא מניין אמרת הרי אתה דן בנין אב משניהן לא ראי נשיא כראי דיין ולא ראי דיין כראי נשיא

Our Rabbis taught: [<i>For any man<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'a man, a man', [H] ');">¹²</span></i>

לא ראי דיין כראי נשיא שהרי דיין אתה מצווה על הוראתו כראי נשיא שאי אתה מצווה על הוראתו ולא ראי נשיא כראי דיין שהנשיא אתה מצווה על המראתו כראי דיין שאי אתה מצווה על המראתו

that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: his father and his mother he hath cursed; his blood shall be upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 9. ');">¹³</span>

הצד השוה שבהם שהן בעמך ואתה מוזהר על קללתן אף אני אביא אביך שבעמך ואתה מוזהר על קללתו

Now, the Scripture could have said,] A <i>man</i> [ish]; what is taught by <i>any man</i> [ish ish]? — The inclusion of a daughter, a <i>tumtum</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A person whose genitals are hidden or undeveloped, and hence of unknown sex. ');">¹⁴</span>

מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן גדולתן גרמה להן

and a hermaphrodite [as being subject to this law]. '<i>That curseth his father and his mother:</i>' From this I know only [that he is punished for cursing] <i>his father and his mother</i>; whence do I know [the same] if he cursed his father without his mother or his mother without his father? — From the passage <i>his father and his mother he hath cursed: his blood shall be upon him</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At the beginning of the sentence that curseth is in immediate proximity to his father; at the end, cursing is mentioned nearest to his mother, shewing that each is separate. ');">¹⁵</span>

ת"ל (ויקרא יט, יד) לא תקלל חרש באומללים שבעמך הכתוב מדבר

implying, a man that cursed his father; a man that cursed his mother. This is R. Joshiah's opinion. R. Jonathan said: The [beginning of the] verse alone implies either the two together or each separately unless the verse had explicitly stated 'together'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the conjunctive waw implies both conjunction and separation. Hence, the first half of the sentence is sufficient to shew that the law applies to each separately. The second half is employed for a different purpose. V. infra 85b. ');">¹⁶</span>

מה לחרש שכן חרישתו גרמה לו

<i>He shall surely be put to death</i> — by stoning. You say: By stoning. But perhaps it means by one of the other deaths decreed in the Torah? — Here it is written, <i>his blood shall be upon him;</i> and elsewhere it is written, [<i>A man also or a woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones:</i>] <i>their blood shall be upon them:</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XX, 27. ');">¹⁷</span>

נשיא ודיין יוכיחו מה לנשיא ודיין שכן גדולתן גרמה להן חרש יוכיח

just as there stoning is meant, so here too. From this we learn punishment: whence do we derive the prohibition? — From the verse, <i>Thou shalt not revile the judges, nor curse the ruler of thy people</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 27. ');">¹⁸</span>

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן בעמך ואתה מוזהר על קללתן אף אני אביא אביך שבעמך ואתה מוזהר על קללתו

Now, if his father is a judge, he is included in the <i>Thou shalt not revile the judges</i>; if a <i>nasi</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Patriarch or chief of the great sanhedrin in Jerusalem and of its successors in Palestinian places. In earlier times, the princes of the tribes; v. Num. VII, 12-89. ');">¹⁹</span>

מה לצד השוה שבהן שכן משונין

in <i>nor curse the ruler of they people</i>. If neither a judge nor a ruler, whence do we know it? — You may construct a syllogism with these two as premises; the case of a <i>nasi</i> is not analogous to that of a judge, nor of a judge to that of a <i>nasi</i>. Now, the case of a judge is not analogous to that of a <i>nasi</i>, for you art commanded to obey the ruling of a judge, but not of a <i>nasi</i>; whilst the case of a <i>nasi</i> is not analogous to that of judge, for you are enjoined not to rebel against the decree of a <i>nasi</i>, but not of a judge.<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_20">²⁰</a>

אלא א"כ נכתוב קרא או אלהים וחרש או נשיא וחרש אלהים למה לי אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לאביו

Now, what is common to both, is that they are of '<i>thy people</i>'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is taken to mean that they conform to the laws of Judaism (Yeb. 22b; B.B. 4a). ');">²¹</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר אלהים חול אלא למאן דאמר קודש מאי איכא למימר

and you are forbidden to curse them: so I extend the law to thy father, who is of '<i>thy people</i>', that thou art forbidden to curse him. No; their common characteristic is their greatness, which is the decisive factor. Hence Scripture writes, <i>Thou shalt not curse the deaf</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 14. ');">²²</span>

דתניא אלהים חול דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר אלהים קודש ותניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אזהרה למברך את השם מניין תלמוד לומר אלהים לא תקלל

thus applying the injunction even to the humblest of thy people. No; in the case of the deaf, his very deafness may be the cause [of the prohibition].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one may not take advantage of his infirmity. ');">²³</span>

למ"ד אלהים חול גמר קודש מחול למ"ד אלהים קודש גמרינן חול מקודש

Then let the <i>nasi</i> and the judge prove otherwise. But in their case their greatness may be the cause: then let the deaf prove the reverse. And thus the argument proceeds in a circle: the particular characteristic of one is lacking in the other, and <i>vice versa</i>.<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_24">²⁴</a>

בשלמא למ"ד אלהים חול גמר קודש מחול אלא למ"ד אלהים קודש גמר חול מקודש דילמא אקודש אזהר אחול לא אזהר

What is common to all is that they are of '<i>thy people</i>', and you are forbidden to curse them: so I include thy father who is of thy people, and you are forbidden to curse him. No! What they have in common is that they are distinguished [from the average person].<a rel="footnote" href="#66a_25">²⁵</a>

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],