Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 14, 2017 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืขืดื–

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 60

There are those who have 8 Noachide laws. ย From where did they derive the 8th one? ย The process in the court mentioned in the mishna of how the witnessesย actually tell how the person cursed God and the reaction of the judgesย is discussedย and derivations from the Tanach for the laws are brought. ย For what acts of idol worship is one killed? ย How are these learned out from the Torah verses? ย For what idol worship is one considered to have violated a negative commandment (lashes)?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืžื›ืฉืคื” ืœื ืชื—ื™ื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ืœื ืชื—ื™ื”

โ€œYou shall not allow a witch to liveโ€ (Exodus 22:17), and it is written in the following verse: โ€œWhoever lies with an animal shall be put to deathโ€ (Exodus 22:18). It is derived from here that anyone who is included in the prohibition of: โ€œWhoever lies with an animal,โ€ including gentiles, is included in the command: โ€œYou shall not allow a witch to live.โ€

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืื™ื ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจื• ื—ื•ืงื™ื ืฉื—ืงืงืชื™ ืœืš ื›ื‘ืจ ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ืœื ืชืจื‘ื™ืข ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืชื–ืจืข ื›ืœืื™ื

The baraita teaches that Rabbi Elazar says that descendants of Noah were also commanded about the prohibition of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Shmuel says: They are derived from that which the verse states: โ€œMy statutes you shall keep. You shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). God is saying: Keep the statutes that I have already instituted for you, i.e., mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, namely, โ€œyou shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed.โ€

ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื‘ื”ืจื‘ืขื” ืืฃ ืฉื“ืš ื‘ื”ืจื›ื‘ื” ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืืฃ ืฉื“ืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ

The Gemara derives the details of this prohibition from the verse: Just as the Noahide prohibition concerning your animal applies with regard to breeding animals of different species, and not with regard to plowing with animals of two different species working together, which is prohibited only for Jews, so too, the Noahide prohibition in your field applies with regard to grafting one species onto another, which is equivalent to breeding, but it is not prohibited for gentiles to sow different seeds together. Furthermore, just as the Noahide prohibition against breeding your animal applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, so too, the Noahide prohibition against grafting diverse kinds in your field applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ืฉืžืจืชื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ื•ืืช ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ ื—ืงื™ื ืฉื—ืงืงืชื™ ืœืš ื›ื‘ืจ

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the term โ€œMy statutesโ€ is understood as referring to mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, then the verse: โ€œYou shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinancesโ€ (Leviticus 18:5), referring to the entire Torah, should also obligate the descendants of Noah, as it would be referring to: Statutes that I have already instituted for you.

ื”ืชื ื•ืฉืžืจืชื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ื“ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื›ื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจื• ื—ืงื™ื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชืฉืžืจื•

The Gemara answers: There the verse states: โ€œYou shall therefore keep My statutes,โ€ indicating only those statutes that I am giving you now, whereas here, in the verse concerning diverse kinds, the wording is โ€œMy statutes you shall keep,โ€ meaning statutes that obligate you from the outset you shall keep in the future.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื›ื•ืณ

ยง After clarifying the halakhot of the descendants of Noah, the Gemara returns to the halakhot stated in the mishna with regard to one who blasphemes. It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa said that during a blasphemerโ€™s trial, the judges ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God so that they do not utter a curse of Godโ€™s name. Specifically, they would use the sentence: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, like the Tetragrammaton.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ืจืš ืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ื“ืœื

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov says: The blasphemer is not liable unless he blesses, i.e., curses, the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God, which is to the exclusion of one who curses the two-letter name of God, spelled yod heh, who is not liable.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื™ื›ื” ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืช ื™ื•ืกื™ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืงื˜ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? We learned in the mishna that the expression used in court is let Yosei smite Yosei, which indicates a four-letter name. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the tanna mentions this statement as a mere example but does not intend that the witnesses use the four-letter name in particular, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov teaches us that one is liable only for cursing the Tetragrammaton.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืฉื ื”ื•ื

There are those who say that Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov says as follows: Conclude from the mishna that the Tetragrammaton is also a name for which one is liable, and he is liable not only for cursing the forty-two-letter name of God.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื™ื›ื” ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืช ื™ื•ืกื™ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื ืจื‘ื” ื•ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืงื˜ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? We learned in the mishna that the expression used in court is let Yosei smite Yosei. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one is not liable unless there is a grand name that he curses, i.e., the forty-two-letter name, and the tanna mentions this statement as a mere example, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov teaches us that one is liable even for cursing the Tetragrammaton, and the name Yosei is mentioned specifically.

ื ื’ืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: When the judgment is over, and judges need to hear the exact wording of the curse so they can sentence the defendant, the eldest of the witnesses repeats the curse, and the judges rise and make a tear in their clothing.

ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื”ื•ื“ ื‘ื ืืœื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉื‘ ื‘ืขืœื™ืช ื”ืžืงืจื” ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืœื‘ื“ื• ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื”ื•ื“ ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ืœื™ ืืœื™ืš ื•ื™ืงื ืžืขืœ ื”ื›ืกื ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืขื’ืœื•ืŸ ืžืœืš ืžื•ืื‘ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืข ืืœื ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ ืขืžื“ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืฉื ื”ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื”

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the judges must stand? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Ami says: It is derived from that which the verse states about Eglon: โ€œAnd Ehud came to him, and he was sitting by himself alone in his cool upper chamber. And Ehud said: I have a message from God [Elohim] to you. And he arose out of his seatโ€ (Judges 3:20). And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if Eglon, king of Moab, who was a gentile and knew the name of God only by an appellation, stood in honor, all the more so must a Jew stand if he hears the ineffable name.

ืงื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ืงื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœืงื™ื”ื• [ื•ื’ื•ืณ] ื•ืฉื‘ื ื ื”ืกืคืจ ื•ื™ื•ืื— ื‘ืŸ ืืกืฃ ื”ืžื–ื›ื™ืจ ืืœ ื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• ืงืจื•ืขื™ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ื™ื’ื™ื“ื• ืœื• ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ืฉืงื”

The mishna teaches that upon hearing the curse the judges each make a tear in their garments. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that it is derived from that which is written: โ€œThen came Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with torn garments, and they told him Rabshakehโ€™s statementโ€ (IIย Kings 18:37). Apparently, since they heard the blasphemous statement of Rabshakeh they were obligated to make a tear in their garments.

ืœื ืžืื—ื™ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ

It is furthermore stated that the judges do not ever fully stitch the tear together again. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืชื™ื ืงืจื™ืขื” ืงืจื™ืขื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืงืจื•ืขื™ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื•ืืœื™ืฉืข ืจืื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืฆืขืง ืื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ ืจื›ื‘ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืคืจืฉื™ื• ื•ืœื ืจืื”ื• ืขื•ื“ ื•ื™ื—ื–ืง ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื• ื•ื™ืงืจืขื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืงืจืขื™ื ืžืžืฉืžืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืงืจืขื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ืŸ ืงืจืขื™ื ื•ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจืขื™ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืŸ ืงืจื•ืขื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื

Rabbi Abbahu says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the tearing stated in this regard and the tearing stated with regard to Elijahโ€™s ascendance to heaven. It is written here, with regard to those who heard Rabshakehโ€™s blasphemy: โ€œWith torn garments,โ€ and it is written there: โ€œAnd Elisha saw it, and he cried: My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen. And he saw him no more, and he grabbed hold of his clothes and tore them into two piecesโ€ (IIย Kings 2:12). From the meaning of that which is stated: โ€œAnd tore them into two,โ€ do I not know that they are pieces? And why must the verse state: โ€œPiecesโ€? This teaches that they remain torn forever; they may never be fully stitched back together, but only partially sewn.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ืฉื•ืžืข ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ืžืข ืžืคื™ ืฉื•ืžืข ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืงืจื•ืข ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงืจื•ืข ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืงืจืขื• ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืฉืžืขื•

The Sages taught: Both one who hears the curse himself and one who hears it from the one who heard it are obligated to make a tear in their garments. But the witnesses are not obligated to make a tear when they testify, as they already made a tear when they heard it from the blasphemer himself.

ื•ื›ื™ ืงืจืขื• ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื ืงื ืฉืžืขื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ืฉืžืข ื”ืžืœืš ื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ืฉืงื” ื•ื™ืงืจืข ืืช ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื• ื”ืžืœืš ื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• ืงืจืข ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืจืขื•

The Gemara asks: And if they made a tear when they heard the curse, what of it? Arenโ€™t they also hearing the curse now? The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind that they are obligated to make a tear a second time, as it is written: โ€œAnd it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard the statement of Rabshakeh, that he tore his clothesโ€ (IIย Kings 19:1). It can be inferred that King Hezekiah tore his clothes, but those who reported the blasphemy did not tear their clothes a second time.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืฉื•ืžืข ืื–ื›ืจื” ืžืคื™ ื”ื ื›ืจื™ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืงืจื•ืข ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืจื‘ืฉืงื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ืžืจ ื”ื™ื”

ยง Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who hears a mention of Godโ€™s name in a blasphemous manner from a gentile is not obligated to make a tear in his garments. And if you object and say that those who heard the blasphemy of Rabshakeh made a tear even though he was a gentile, that is not correct, as Rabshakeh was an apostate Jew.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืœื

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One makes a tear only for hearing a curse of the ineffable name of God, to the exclusion of hearing a curse of an appellation for the name of God, for which one does not make a tear.

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื”ืฉื•ืžืข ืื–ื›ืจื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืงืจื•ืข ืฉืื ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืŸ ื ืชืžืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื’ื“ ืงืจืขื™ื

The Gemara notes: And Shmuel disagrees with Rav แธคiyya with regard to two matters. As Rabbi แธคiyya says: One who hears a mention of Godโ€™s name in a blasphemous context nowadays is not obligated to make a tear, as if you do not say so, the entire garment will be full of tears.

ืžืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ ืคืงื™ืจื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืื™ ืฉื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืžื™ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™

The Gemara clarifies: From whom does one hear these mentions of Godโ€™s name about which Rabbi แธคiyya says that oneโ€™s entire garment would be full of tears? If we say that he hears from it a Jew, are Jews irreverent to such an extent that they demean the name of God? Rather, it is obvious that Rabbi แธคiyya is referring to hearing it from a gentile. And if you say that the reference is to cursing the ineffable name, have the gentiles learned it? They have no knowledge of his name. Rather, is it not referring to cursing by an appellation of Godโ€™s name?

ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื”ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

And conclude from it that it is specifically nowadays that, according to Rav แธคiyya, one is not obligated to make a tear in his garment when hearing the curse of a gentile and when hearing a curse of God that referred to God with an appellation, but initially, when the fundamental halakha was practiced, one was obligated to make a tear in these cases, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

ื”ืฉื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืณืืฃ ืื ื™ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืฃ ืื ื™ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ืžืขืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืื•ืงืžื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื

ยง The mishna teaches that after the eldest witness states the exact wording of the curse, the second witness does not repeat it, but he says: I too heard as he did. Reish Lakish says: Conclude from it that saying: I too heard as he did, is valid testimony by Torah law, both in cases of monetary law and in cases of capital law. And the requirement that every witness must relate his testimony separately is a higher standard that the Sages instituted, and here, since it is not possible to fulfill this requirement, as it is not appropriate for a blasphemous statement to be repeated several times, the Sages established the matter according to Torah law and did not require that every witness repeat the curse.

ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืคืกื•ืœ ื”ื›ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœื’ื‘ืจื

As if it enters your mind that saying: I too heard as he did, is not valid testimony by Torah law, here, in the case of blasphemy, would we execute the man without full testimony because it is not possible to allow the repetition of blasphemy? Clearly, such testimony is valid by Torah law.

ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืณืืฃ ืื ื™ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•ืณ ืกืชืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืงื™ืฉ ืฉืœืฉื” ืœืฉื ื™ื

The mishna teaches: And the third witness says: I too heard as he did. The Gemara comments: The unattributed tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who compares three witnesses to two. Rabbi Akiva maintains that just as in a case where there are two witnesses, the disqualification of one disqualifies all of the testimony, so too, even if there are three witnesses, and one of the three is disqualified, all of the testimony is disqualified. Similarly, here too he holds that if there are three witnesses, each of them must testify concerning the curse.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืื—ื“ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื˜ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื ืกืš ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœื• ืขืœื™ื• ืœืืœื•ื” ื•ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืืœื™ ืืชื”

MISHNA: One who worships idols is executed by stoning. This includes one who worships an idol, and one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense as an idolatrous offering, and one who pours a libation in idol worship, and one who bows to an idol, and one who declares that he accepts an idol upon himself as a god, and one who says to an idol: You are my god.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ืžื’ืคืฃ ื•ื”ืžื ืฉืง ื•ื”ืžื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื”ืžืจื‘ืฅ ื•ื”ืžืจื—ืฅ ื•ื”ืกืš ื•ื”ืžืœื‘ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื ืขื™ืœ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืฉืžื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ืชืขืฉื”

But with regard to one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who cleans it, or one who sprays water before it, or one who washes it, or one who rubs it with oil, or one who dresses it, or one who puts its shoes on it, he transgresses a prohibition but is not liable to receive capital punishment. With regard to one who vows in an idolโ€™s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, he transgresses a prohibition.

ื”ืคื•ืขืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื”

One who defecates before the idol known as Baโ€™al-Peor is liable to receive capital punishment, even though defecating is a degrading act, as that is its form of worship. Likewise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable to receive capital punishment, as that is its form of worship.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืื—ื“ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“

GEMARA: What is added in the mishna by stating the phrase: One who worships? Since worship is the general description of all the actions detailed in the mishna, why is this phrase necessary?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื˜ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื ืกืš ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื”

Rabbi Yirmeya says that this is what the mishna is saying: One who worships an idol in its typical manner of worship is liable to be executed; and furthermore, one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense, and one who pours a libation, and the one who bows to an idol are all liable to be executed, and this applies even if this manner of worship is not the idolโ€™s typical manner of worship. Even if the idol in question is not typically worshipped in these ways, these specific acts are still considered idol worship because these are the ways in which God is worshipped in the Temple.

ื•ืœื™ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ื ืžื™ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื–ื•ืจืง ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืžื ืกืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืœ ืืกื™ืš ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ืžื“ื

The Gemara suggests: And let the mishna also count sprinkling the blood of an offering, which is also one of the sacrificial rites in the Temple. Abaye says: Sprinkling the blood of an offering is the same as pouring a libation, since they are essentially one sacrificial rite, as it is written: โ€œI will not pour their libations of bloodโ€ (Psalms 16:4), indicating that sprinkling the blood of an offering is also referred to as offering a libation.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™

ยง The Gemara asks with regard to the halakha that one is liable for worshipping an idol in these manners even if they are not the way the idol is typically worshipped: From where are these matters derived?

ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืœื• ื ืืžืจ ืณื–ื‘ื— ื™ื—ืจืืณ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœืืœื”ื™ืืณ ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œOne who sacrifices to the gods shall be utterly destroyed, except to the Lord aloneโ€ (Exodus 22:19): If it were stated: One who sacrifices shall be utterly destroyed, I would have said that the verse speaks of one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard, referring to a severe transgression that is stated elsewhere in the Torah. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œTo the gods,โ€ indicating that the verse speaks of one who slaughters an offering to an idol.

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืžืงื˜ืจ ื•ืžื ืกืš ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืœืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ืœื‘ื“ื•ืณ ืจื™ืงืŸ ื”ืขื‘ื•ื“ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืฉื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“

The baraita asks: From here I know only the halakha of one who slaughters an offering to an idol. From where is it derived that one who burns incense or pours a libation is also liable to receive the death penalty? The baraita answers that the verse states: โ€œExcept to the Lord aloneโ€; the verse emptied out, i.e., designated, all the sacrificial rites to the ineffable name of God, indicating that one who performs any of these rites in idol worship is liable.

ืœืคื™ ืฉื™ืฆืื” ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื•ืช ืคื ื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื”

The baraita asks: Since slaughter is singled out from all of the forms of worship to be mentioned in this verse in order to derive from it that with regard to all the sacrificial rites performed inside the Temple, one who performs them in idol worship is liable to receive capital punishment, from where is it derived that this halakha includes bowing down to an idol, which is not a sacrificial rite?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื•ื™ืœืš ื•ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืืœื”ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืชื—ื• ืœื”ืืณ ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืณื•ื”ื•ืฆืืช ืืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ื”ื•ืืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The baraita answers that the verse states: โ€œAnd has gone and served other gods and bowed to themโ€ (Deuteronomy 17:3), and a verse near it states: โ€œThen you shall bring forth that man or that woman who has done this evil thing to your gates, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them with stones and they shall dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 17:5). It is derived from the juxtaposition of these two verses that one who bows down to an idol is liable to be executed.

ืขื•ื ืฉ ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื–ื”ืจื” ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื›ื™ ืœื ืชืฉืชื—ื•ื” ืœืืœ ืื—ืจืณ

The baraita asks: We have heard the punishment for bowing down to an idol, but from where is the prohibition against doing so derived? The baraita answers that the verse states: โ€œFor you shall bow to no other godโ€ (Exodus 34:14).

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉืื ื™ ืžืจื‘ื” ื”ืžื’ืคืฃ ื•ื”ืžื ืฉืง ื•ื”ืžื ืขื™ืœ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื–ื‘ื—ืณ

One might have thought that I should include among those liable to receive capital punishment one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who puts its shoes on it as well. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOne who sacrifices shall be utterly destroyed,โ€ referring to the act of slaughtering an offering in idol worship.

ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืื” ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืืœื™ื” ื•ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช ืฉื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืคื ื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ืชื” ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืคื ื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ืชื”

The baraita explains: The slaughter of an offering was included in the general category of the prohibited forms of idol worship, and why was it singled out to be mentioned in this verse? It was singled out to compare a matter to it and say to you: Just as slaughter is notable in that it is a sacrificial rite performed inside the Temple, and those who perform this rite for the purpose of idol worship are liable to receive the death penalty for it, so too, any form of worship that is a sacrificial rite performed inside the Temple is prohibited when performed for idol worship, and transgressors are liable to receive the death penalty for it.

ื™ืฆืื” ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืฆืžื” ื™ืฆืื” ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ื•ืœื•

Therefore, the act of bowing to an idol is singled out to be mentioned in a separate verse to derive the death penalty for that action itself, despite the fact that it is not a sacrificial rite performed in the Temple, whereas the slaughter of an offering is singled out to be mentioned in order to derive from it the principle with regard to the entire category, namely, that generally one is not liable to receive capital punishment for a form of worship that is not performed in the Temple.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื›ืจืช ื”ื•ื

The Gemara proceeds to clarify the baraita. The Master said in the baraita: I would have said that the verse speaks of one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: The punishment for one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard is karet, not capital punishment, as it is stated: โ€œEach and every manโ€ฆwho offers a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from his peopleโ€ (Leviticus 17:8โ€“9). Therefore, how can the baraita suggest that a verse that mentions capital punishment could be referring to this transgression?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืงื˜ืœื ื›ื™ ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืจืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that in a case when the witnesses warned the transgressor not to slaughter the offering outside the Temple he is liable to receive the death penalty, but in a case when they did not warn him he is liable to receive karet. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple is not liable to receive the death penalty even if he was warned.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ืžื ื™ืฆืื” ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืœืœืžื“ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ื•ืœื•

The baraita states that the principle concerning the forms of idol worship that are punishable by execution is derived from the verse that mentions slaughtering an animal as an idolatrous offering, whereas bowing to an idol is mentioned in the verse as an exception. Rava bar Rav แธคanan said to Abaye: Say that bowing is singled out to be mentioned to teach, with regard to the entire category, that any honorable form of worship, when performed for the sake of idol worship, carries the death penalty, not only sacrificial rites performed the Temple.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื”

And if you would say that if so, why do I need slaughter to be mentioned in the verse specifically, one can say that mentioning slaughter is necessary for the matter of slaughter itself, i.e., to teach that one can have intention from one sacrificial rite to another sacrificial rite. In other words, slaughtering an animal with idolatrous intent is punishable by death even if the intention of the transgressor pertains not to the slaughter itself but to another part of the sacrificial process.

ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืœื”ืงื˜ื™ืจ ื—ืœื‘ื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ

As it was stated that with regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood in idol worship or to burn its fat in idol worship, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 60

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 60

ืžื›ืฉืคื” ืœื ืชื—ื™ื” ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžื•ืช ื™ื•ืžืช ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื›ื‘ ืขื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื™ืฉื ื• ื‘ื›ืœืœ ืžื›ืฉืคื” ืœื ืชื—ื™ื”

โ€œYou shall not allow a witch to liveโ€ (Exodus 22:17), and it is written in the following verse: โ€œWhoever lies with an animal shall be put to deathโ€ (Exodus 22:18). It is derived from here that anyone who is included in the prohibition of: โ€œWhoever lies with an animal,โ€ including gentiles, is included in the command: โ€œYou shall not allow a witch to live.โ€

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืื™ื ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจื• ื—ื•ืงื™ื ืฉื—ืงืงืชื™ ืœืš ื›ื‘ืจ ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ืœื ืชืจื‘ื™ืข ื›ืœืื™ื ืฉื“ืš ืœื ืชื–ืจืข ื›ืœืื™ื

The baraita teaches that Rabbi Elazar says that descendants of Noah were also commanded about the prohibition of diverse kinds. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Shmuel says: They are derived from that which the verse states: โ€œMy statutes you shall keep. You shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seedโ€ (Leviticus 19:19). God is saying: Keep the statutes that I have already instituted for you, i.e., mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, namely, โ€œyou shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed.โ€

ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื‘ื”ืจื‘ืขื” ืืฃ ืฉื“ืš ื‘ื”ืจื›ื‘ื” ืžื” ื‘ื”ืžืชืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ ืืฃ ืฉื“ืš ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืืจืฅ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœืืจืฅ

The Gemara derives the details of this prohibition from the verse: Just as the Noahide prohibition concerning your animal applies with regard to breeding animals of different species, and not with regard to plowing with animals of two different species working together, which is prohibited only for Jews, so too, the Noahide prohibition in your field applies with regard to grafting one species onto another, which is equivalent to breeding, but it is not prohibited for gentiles to sow different seeds together. Furthermore, just as the Noahide prohibition against breeding your animal applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael, so too, the Noahide prohibition against grafting diverse kinds in your field applies both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

ืืœื ืžืขืชื” ื•ืฉืžืจืชื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ื•ืืช ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ ื—ืงื™ื ืฉื—ืงืงืชื™ ืœืš ื›ื‘ืจ

The Gemara asks: If that is so, that the term โ€œMy statutesโ€ is understood as referring to mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, then the verse: โ€œYou shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinancesโ€ (Leviticus 18:5), referring to the entire Torah, should also obligate the descendants of Noah, as it would be referring to: Statutes that I have already instituted for you.

ื”ืชื ื•ืฉืžืจืชื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ื“ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื›ื ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ืชืฉืžืจื• ื—ืงื™ื ื“ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชืฉืžืจื•

The Gemara answers: There the verse states: โ€œYou shall therefore keep My statutes,โ€ indicating only those statutes that I am giving you now, whereas here, in the verse concerning diverse kinds, the wording is โ€œMy statutes you shall keep,โ€ meaning statutes that obligate you from the outset you shall keep in the future.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ื›ื•ืณ

ยง After clarifying the halakhot of the descendants of Noah, the Gemara returns to the halakhot stated in the mishna with regard to one who blasphemes. It is stated in the mishna that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa said that during a blasphemerโ€™s trial, the judges ask the witnesses to use an appellation for the name of God so that they do not utter a curse of Godโ€™s name. Specifically, they would use the sentence: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, like the Tetragrammaton.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ืจืš ืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ื“ืœื

Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov says: The blasphemer is not liable unless he blesses, i.e., curses, the Tetragrammaton, the four-letter name of God, which is to the exclusion of one who curses the two-letter name of God, spelled yod heh, who is not liable.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื™ื›ื” ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืช ื™ื•ืกื™ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืงื˜ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? We learned in the mishna that the expression used in court is let Yosei smite Yosei, which indicates a four-letter name. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the tanna mentions this statement as a mere example but does not intend that the witnesses use the four-letter name in particular, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov teaches us that one is liable only for cursing the Tetragrammaton.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืฉื ื‘ืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืื•ืชื™ื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืฉื ื”ื•ื

There are those who say that Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov says as follows: Conclude from the mishna that the Tetragrammaton is also a name for which one is liable, and he is liable not only for cursing the forty-two-letter name of God.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ื™ื›ื” ื™ื•ืกื™ ืืช ื™ื•ืกื™ ืชื ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื ืจื‘ื” ื•ืžื™ืœืชื ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ื“ื ืงื˜ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: Isnโ€™t that obvious? We learned in the mishna that the expression used in court is let Yosei smite Yosei. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one is not liable unless there is a grand name that he curses, i.e., the forty-two-letter name, and the tanna mentions this statement as a mere example, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov teaches us that one is liable even for cursing the Tetragrammaton, and the name Yosei is mentioned specifically.

ื ื’ืžืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna teaches: When the judgment is over, and judges need to hear the exact wording of the curse so they can sentence the defendant, the eldest of the witnesses repeats the curse, and the judges rise and make a tear in their clothing.

ืขื•ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื”ื•ื“ ื‘ื ืืœื™ื• ื•ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉื‘ ื‘ืขืœื™ืช ื”ืžืงืจื” ืืฉืจ ืœื• ืœื‘ื“ื• ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื”ื•ื“ ื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื”ื™ื ืœื™ ืืœื™ืš ื•ื™ืงื ืžืขืœ ื”ื›ืกื ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืขื’ืœื•ืŸ ืžืœืš ืžื•ืื‘ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืข ืืœื ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ ืขืžื“ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืฉื ื”ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื”

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the judges must stand? Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Ami says: It is derived from that which the verse states about Eglon: โ€œAnd Ehud came to him, and he was sitting by himself alone in his cool upper chamber. And Ehud said: I have a message from God [Elohim] to you. And he arose out of his seatโ€ (Judges 3:20). And are these matters not inferred a fortiori? And if Eglon, king of Moab, who was a gentile and knew the name of God only by an appellation, stood in honor, all the more so must a Jew stand if he hears the ineffable name.

ืงื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœื™ืงื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœืงื™ื”ื• [ื•ื’ื•ืณ] ื•ืฉื‘ื ื ื”ืกืคืจ ื•ื™ื•ืื— ื‘ืŸ ืืกืฃ ื”ืžื–ื›ื™ืจ ืืœ ื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• ืงืจื•ืขื™ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ื™ื’ื™ื“ื• ืœื• ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ืฉืงื”

The mishna teaches that upon hearing the curse the judges each make a tear in their garments. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? The Gemara answers that it is derived from that which is written: โ€œThen came Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, who was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah, son of Asaph, the recorder, to Hezekiah with torn garments, and they told him Rabshakehโ€™s statementโ€ (IIย Kings 18:37). Apparently, since they heard the blasphemous statement of Rabshakeh they were obligated to make a tear in their garments.

ืœื ืžืื—ื™ืŸ ืžื ืœืŸ

It is furthermore stated that the judges do not ever fully stitch the tear together again. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื”ื• ืืชื™ื ืงืจื™ืขื” ืงืจื™ืขื” ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื›ื ืงืจื•ืขื™ ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ืชื ื•ืืœื™ืฉืข ืจืื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืฆืขืง ืื‘ื™ ืื‘ื™ ืจื›ื‘ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื•ืคืจืฉื™ื• ื•ืœื ืจืื”ื• ืขื•ื“ ื•ื™ื—ื–ืง ื‘ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื• ื•ื™ืงืจืขื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืงืจืขื™ื ืžืžืฉืžืข ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืงืจืขื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ืŸ ืงืจืขื™ื ื•ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืงืจืขื™ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ืŸ ืงืจื•ืขื™ื ืœืขื•ืœื

Rabbi Abbahu says: It is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the tearing stated in this regard and the tearing stated with regard to Elijahโ€™s ascendance to heaven. It is written here, with regard to those who heard Rabshakehโ€™s blasphemy: โ€œWith torn garments,โ€ and it is written there: โ€œAnd Elisha saw it, and he cried: My father, my father, the chariots of Israel and its horsemen. And he saw him no more, and he grabbed hold of his clothes and tore them into two piecesโ€ (IIย Kings 2:12). From the meaning of that which is stated: โ€œAnd tore them into two,โ€ do I not know that they are pieces? And why must the verse state: โ€œPiecesโ€? This teaches that they remain torn forever; they may never be fully stitched back together, but only partially sewn.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ืฉื•ืžืข ื•ืื—ื“ ืฉื•ืžืข ืžืคื™ ืฉื•ืžืข ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืงืจื•ืข ื•ื”ืขื“ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืงืจื•ืข ืฉื›ื‘ืจ ืงืจืขื• ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืฉืžืขื•

The Sages taught: Both one who hears the curse himself and one who hears it from the one who heard it are obligated to make a tear in their garments. But the witnesses are not obligated to make a tear when they testify, as they already made a tear when they heard it from the blasphemer himself.

ื•ื›ื™ ืงืจืขื• ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืฉืžืขื• ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ื”ื ืงื ืฉืžืขื™ ื”ืฉืชื ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ืฉืžืข ื”ืžืœืš ื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ืฉืงื” ื•ื™ืงืจืข ืืช ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื• ื”ืžืœืš ื—ื–ืงื™ื”ื• ืงืจืข ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงืจืขื•

The Gemara asks: And if they made a tear when they heard the curse, what of it? Arenโ€™t they also hearing the curse now? The Gemara answers: It should not enter your mind that they are obligated to make a tear a second time, as it is written: โ€œAnd it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard the statement of Rabshakeh, that he tore his clothesโ€ (IIย Kings 19:1). It can be inferred that King Hezekiah tore his clothes, but those who reported the blasphemy did not tear their clothes a second time.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืฉื•ืžืข ืื–ื›ืจื” ืžืคื™ ื”ื ื›ืจื™ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืงืจื•ืข ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืจื‘ืฉืงื” ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื•ืžืจ ื”ื™ื”

ยง Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who hears a mention of Godโ€™s name in a blasphemous manner from a gentile is not obligated to make a tear in his garments. And if you object and say that those who heard the blasphemy of Rabshakeh made a tear even though he was a gentile, that is not correct, as Rabshakeh was an apostate Jew.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ืืœื ืขืœ ืฉื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ื›ื™ื ื•ื™ ื“ืœื

And Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One makes a tear only for hearing a curse of the ineffable name of God, to the exclusion of hearing a curse of an appellation for the name of God, for which one does not make a tear.

ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื”ืฉื•ืžืข ืื–ื›ืจื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœืงืจื•ืข ืฉืื ืื™ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืŸ ื ืชืžืœื ื›ืœ ื”ื‘ื’ื“ ืงืจืขื™ื

The Gemara notes: And Shmuel disagrees with Rav แธคiyya with regard to two matters. As Rabbi แธคiyya says: One who hears a mention of Godโ€™s name in a blasphemous context nowadays is not obligated to make a tear, as if you do not say so, the entire garment will be full of tears.

ืžืžืืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ ืคืงื™ืจื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ ื”ืื™ ืืœื ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื ื›ืจื™ ื•ืื™ ืฉื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืžื™ ื’ืžื™ืจื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ื‘ื›ื™ื ื•ื™

The Gemara clarifies: From whom does one hear these mentions of Godโ€™s name about which Rabbi แธคiyya says that oneโ€™s entire garment would be full of tears? If we say that he hears from it a Jew, are Jews irreverent to such an extent that they demean the name of God? Rather, it is obvious that Rabbi แธคiyya is referring to hearing it from a gentile. And if you say that the reference is to cursing the ineffable name, have the gentiles learned it? They have no knowledge of his name. Rather, is it not referring to cursing by an appellation of Godโ€™s name?

ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื”ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

And conclude from it that it is specifically nowadays that, according to Rav แธคiyya, one is not obligated to make a tear in his garment when hearing the curse of a gentile and when hearing a curse of God that referred to God with an appellation, but initially, when the fundamental halakha was practiced, one was obligated to make a tear in these cases, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

ื”ืฉื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืณืืฃ ืื ื™ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืืฃ ืื ื™ ื›ืžื•ื”ื• ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ืžืžื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื‘ื“ื™ื ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื•ืžืขืœื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื›ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืื•ืงืžื•ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื

ยง The mishna teaches that after the eldest witness states the exact wording of the curse, the second witness does not repeat it, but he says: I too heard as he did. Reish Lakish says: Conclude from it that saying: I too heard as he did, is valid testimony by Torah law, both in cases of monetary law and in cases of capital law. And the requirement that every witness must relate his testimony separately is a higher standard that the Sages instituted, and here, since it is not possible to fulfill this requirement, as it is not appropriate for a blasphemous statement to be repeated several times, the Sages established the matter according to Torah law and did not require that every witness repeat the curse.

ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืคืกื•ืœ ื”ื›ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืืคืฉืจ ืงื˜ืœื™ื ืŸ ืœื’ื‘ืจื

As if it enters your mind that saying: I too heard as he did, is not valid testimony by Torah law, here, in the case of blasphemy, would we execute the man without full testimony because it is not possible to allow the repetition of blasphemy? Clearly, such testimony is valid by Torah law.

ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืณืืฃ ืื ื™ ื›ืžื•ื”ื•ืณ ืกืชืžื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ืžืงื™ืฉ ืฉืœืฉื” ืœืฉื ื™ื

The mishna teaches: And the third witness says: I too heard as he did. The Gemara comments: The unattributed tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who compares three witnesses to two. Rabbi Akiva maintains that just as in a case where there are two witnesses, the disqualification of one disqualifies all of the testimony, so too, even if there are three witnesses, and one of the three is disqualified, all of the testimony is disqualified. Similarly, here too he holds that if there are three witnesses, each of them must testify concerning the curse.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืื—ื“ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื˜ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื ืกืš ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœื• ืขืœื™ื• ืœืืœื•ื” ื•ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื• ืืœื™ ืืชื”

MISHNA: One who worships idols is executed by stoning. This includes one who worships an idol, and one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense as an idolatrous offering, and one who pours a libation in idol worship, and one who bows to an idol, and one who declares that he accepts an idol upon himself as a god, and one who says to an idol: You are my god.

ืื‘ืœ ื”ืžื’ืคืฃ ื•ื”ืžื ืฉืง ื•ื”ืžื›ื‘ื“ ื•ื”ืžืจื‘ืฅ ื•ื”ืžืจื—ืฅ ื•ื”ืกืš ื•ื”ืžืœื‘ื™ืฉ ื•ื”ืžื ืขื™ืœ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ื‘ืฉืžื• ื•ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืฉืžื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืœื ืชืขืฉื”

But with regard to one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who cleans it, or one who sprays water before it, or one who washes it, or one who rubs it with oil, or one who dresses it, or one who puts its shoes on it, he transgresses a prohibition but is not liable to receive capital punishment. With regard to one who vows in an idolโ€™s name and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, he transgresses a prohibition.

ื”ืคื•ืขืจ ืขืฆืžื• ืœื‘ืขืœ ืคืขื•ืจ ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื” ื”ื–ื•ืจืง ืื‘ืŸ ืœืžืจืงื•ืœื™ืก ื–ื• ื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืชื”

One who defecates before the idol known as Baโ€™al-Peor is liable to receive capital punishment, even though defecating is a degrading act, as that is its form of worship. Likewise, one who throws a stone at Mercury is liable to receive capital punishment, as that is its form of worship.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ืื—ื“ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“

GEMARA: What is added in the mishna by stating the phrase: One who worships? Since worship is the general description of all the actions detailed in the mishna, why is this phrase necessary?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื”ืขื•ื‘ื“ ื›ื“ืจื›ื” ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืงื˜ืจ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžื ืกืš ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืžืฉืชื—ื•ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ื›ื“ืจื›ื”

Rabbi Yirmeya says that this is what the mishna is saying: One who worships an idol in its typical manner of worship is liable to be executed; and furthermore, one who slaughters an animal as an idolatrous offering, and one who burns incense, and one who pours a libation, and the one who bows to an idol are all liable to be executed, and this applies even if this manner of worship is not the idolโ€™s typical manner of worship. Even if the idol in question is not typically worshipped in these ways, these specific acts are still considered idol worship because these are the ways in which God is worshipped in the Temple.

ื•ืœื™ื—ืฉื•ื‘ ื ืžื™ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื–ื•ืจืง ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืžื ืกืš ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืœ ืืกื™ืš ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ืžื“ื

The Gemara suggests: And let the mishna also count sprinkling the blood of an offering, which is also one of the sacrificial rites in the Temple. Abaye says: Sprinkling the blood of an offering is the same as pouring a libation, since they are essentially one sacrificial rite, as it is written: โ€œI will not pour their libations of bloodโ€ (Psalms 16:4), indicating that sprinkling the blood of an offering is also referred to as offering a libation.

ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™

ยง The Gemara asks with regard to the halakha that one is liable for worshipping an idol in these manners even if they are not the way the idol is typically worshipped: From where are these matters derived?

ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืœื• ื ืืžืจ ืณื–ื‘ื— ื™ื—ืจืืณ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณืœืืœื”ื™ืืณ ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: โ€œOne who sacrifices to the gods shall be utterly destroyed, except to the Lord aloneโ€ (Exodus 22:19): If it were stated: One who sacrifices shall be utterly destroyed, I would have said that the verse speaks of one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard, referring to a severe transgression that is stated elsewhere in the Torah. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œTo the gods,โ€ indicating that the verse speaks of one who slaughters an offering to an idol.

ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืžืงื˜ืจ ื•ืžื ืกืš ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื‘ืœืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ืœื‘ื“ื•ืณ ืจื™ืงืŸ ื”ืขื‘ื•ื“ื•ืช ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืœืฉื ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“

The baraita asks: From here I know only the halakha of one who slaughters an offering to an idol. From where is it derived that one who burns incense or pours a libation is also liable to receive the death penalty? The baraita answers that the verse states: โ€œExcept to the Lord aloneโ€; the verse emptied out, i.e., designated, all the sacrificial rites to the ineffable name of God, indicating that one who performs any of these rites in idol worship is liable.

ืœืคื™ ืฉื™ืฆืื” ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืขื‘ื•ื“ื•ืช ืคื ื™ื ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื”

The baraita asks: Since slaughter is singled out from all of the forms of worship to be mentioned in this verse in order to derive from it that with regard to all the sacrificial rites performed inside the Temple, one who performs them in idol worship is liable to receive capital punishment, from where is it derived that this halakha includes bowing down to an idol, which is not a sacrificial rite?

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื•ื™ืœืš ื•ื™ืขื‘ื“ ืืœื”ื™ื ืื—ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืฉืชื—ื• ืœื”ืืณ ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืณื•ื”ื•ืฆืืช ืืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื”ื”ื•ืืณ ื•ื’ื•ืณ

The baraita answers that the verse states: โ€œAnd has gone and served other gods and bowed to themโ€ (Deuteronomy 17:3), and a verse near it states: โ€œThen you shall bring forth that man or that woman who has done this evil thing to your gates, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them with stones and they shall dieโ€ (Deuteronomy 17:5). It is derived from the juxtaposition of these two verses that one who bows down to an idol is liable to be executed.

ืขื•ื ืฉ ืฉืžืขื ื• ืื–ื”ืจื” ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื›ื™ ืœื ืชืฉืชื—ื•ื” ืœืืœ ืื—ืจืณ

The baraita asks: We have heard the punishment for bowing down to an idol, but from where is the prohibition against doing so derived? The baraita answers that the verse states: โ€œFor you shall bow to no other godโ€ (Exodus 34:14).

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืฉืื ื™ ืžืจื‘ื” ื”ืžื’ืคืฃ ื•ื”ืžื ืฉืง ื•ื”ืžื ืขื™ืœ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืณื–ื‘ื—ืณ

One might have thought that I should include among those liable to receive capital punishment one who hugs an idol, or one who kisses it, or one who puts its shoes on it as well. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œOne who sacrifices shall be utterly destroyed,โ€ referring to the act of slaughtering an offering in idol worship.

ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ื™ืชื” ื•ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืื” ืœื”ืงื™ืฉ ืืœื™ื” ื•ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืžื” ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ืช ืฉื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืคื ื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ืชื” ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื™ื ืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืคื ื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื™ืชื”

The baraita explains: The slaughter of an offering was included in the general category of the prohibited forms of idol worship, and why was it singled out to be mentioned in this verse? It was singled out to compare a matter to it and say to you: Just as slaughter is notable in that it is a sacrificial rite performed inside the Temple, and those who perform this rite for the purpose of idol worship are liable to receive the death penalty for it, so too, any form of worship that is a sacrificial rite performed inside the Temple is prohibited when performed for idol worship, and transgressors are liable to receive the death penalty for it.

ื™ืฆืื” ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืฆืžื” ื™ืฆืื” ื–ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืœื™ื“ื•ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ื•ืœื•

Therefore, the act of bowing to an idol is singled out to be mentioned in a separate verse to derive the death penalty for that action itself, despite the fact that it is not a sacrificial rite performed in the Temple, whereas the slaughter of an offering is singled out to be mentioned in order to derive from it the principle with regard to the entire category, namely, that generally one is not liable to receive capital punishment for a form of worship that is not performed in the Temple.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื›ืจืช ื”ื•ื

The Gemara proceeds to clarify the baraita. The Master said in the baraita: I would have said that the verse speaks of one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: The punishment for one who slaughters a sacrificial animal outside the Temple courtyard is karet, not capital punishment, as it is stated: โ€œEach and every manโ€ฆwho offers a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to sacrifice it to the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from his peopleโ€ (Leviticus 17:8โ€“9). Therefore, how can the baraita suggest that a verse that mentions capital punishment could be referring to this transgression?

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื›ื™ ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ืงื˜ืœื ื›ื™ ืœื ืืชืจื• ื‘ื™ื” ื›ืจืช ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that in a case when the witnesses warned the transgressor not to slaughter the offering outside the Temple he is liable to receive the death penalty, but in a case when they did not warn him he is liable to receive karet. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple is not liable to receive the death penalty even if he was warned.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืื™ืžื ื™ืฆืื” ื”ืฉืชื—ื•ืื” ืœืœืžื“ ืขืœ ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ื•ืœื•

The baraita states that the principle concerning the forms of idol worship that are punishable by execution is derived from the verse that mentions slaughtering an animal as an idolatrous offering, whereas bowing to an idol is mentioned in the verse as an exception. Rava bar Rav แธคanan said to Abaye: Say that bowing is singled out to be mentioned to teach, with regard to the entire category, that any honorable form of worship, when performed for the sake of idol worship, carries the death penalty, not only sacrificial rites performed the Temple.

ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ื“ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื”

And if you would say that if so, why do I need slaughter to be mentioned in the verse specifically, one can say that mentioning slaughter is necessary for the matter of slaughter itself, i.e., to teach that one can have intention from one sacrificial rite to another sacrificial rite. In other words, slaughtering an animal with idolatrous intent is punishable by death even if the intention of the transgressor pertains not to the slaughter itself but to another part of the sacrificial process.

ื“ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื‘ื”ืžื” ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื•ืœื”ืงื˜ื™ืจ ื—ืœื‘ื” ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ

As it was stated that with regard to one who slaughters an animal in order to sprinkle its blood in idol worship or to burn its fat in idol worship, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says:

Scroll To Top