Sanhedrin

GEMARA. It has been taught: [The blasphemer is not punished] unless he 'blesses' the Name, by the Name.  Whence do we know this? — Samuel said: The Writ sayeth, And he that blasphemeth [nokeb] the name of the Lord … when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.  How do you know that the word nokeb  [used in the Hebrew] means a 'blessing'? — From the verse, How shall I curse [Ekkob]  whom God hath not cursed;  whilst the formal prohibition is contained in the verse, thou shalt not revile God.  But perhaps it means 'to pierce,'  as it is written, [So Jehoiada the priest took a chest,] and bored [wa-yikkob]  a hole in the lid of it,  the formal injunction against this being the verses, Ye shall destroy the names of them [idols] out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?  — The Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here. But perhaps the text refers to the putting of two slips of parchment, each bearing the Divine Name, together, and piercing them both? — In that case one Name is pierced after the other.  But perhaps it prohibits the engraving of the Divine Name on the Point of a knife and piercing therewith [the Divine Name written on a slip of parchment]? — In that case, the point of the knife pierces, not the Divine Name. But perhaps it refers to the pronunciation of the ineffable Name, as it is written, And Moses and Aaron took these men which are expressed [nikkebu]  by their names;  the formal prohibition being contained in the verse, Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God?  — Firstly, the Name must be 'blessed' by the Name, which is absent here; and secondly, it is a prohibition in the form of a positive command, which is not deemed to be a prohibition at all.  An alternative answer is this: The Writ saith, [And the Israelitish woman's son] blasphemed wa-yikkob  [and cursed],  proving that blasphemy [nokeb] denotes cursing. But perhaps it teaches that both offences must be perpetrated?  You cannot think so, because it is written, Bring forth him that hath cursed,  and not 'him that hath blasphemed and cursed', proving that one offence only is alluded to. Our Rabbis taught: [Any man that curseth his God, shall bear his sin.  It would have been sufficient to say], 'A man, etc:' What is taught by the expression any man?  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. Now, is [the prohibition of blasphemy to heathens] deduced from this verse? But it is deduced from another, viz., The Lord, referring to the 'blessing' of the Divine Name.  — R. Isaac the smith  replied; This phrase ['any man'] is necessary only as teaching the inclusion of substitutes of God's name,  and the Baraitha is taught in accordance with R. Meir's views For it has been taught: Any man that curseth his God shall bear his sin.  Why is this written? Has it not already been stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death?  Because it is stated, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death, 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, Any man that curseth his God — 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, 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].  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, 'as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land', on the view of the Rabbis?  — 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 any man?  — The Torah employed normal human speech. Our Rabbis taught: seven precepts were the sons of Noah commanded: social laws;  to refrain from blasphemy, idolatry; adultery; bloodshed; robbery; and eating flesh cut from a living animal.