(a)(Beraisa - R. Shimon): A Nochri is also commanded about Kishuf.

(b)Question: What is his reason?

(c)Answer: It says "Mechashefah Lo Sechayeh", and it says "Kol Shochev Im Behemah Mos Yumas";

1.Whoever is commanded about bestiality is commanded about Kishuf.

(d)(Beraisa - R. Eliezer): A Nochri is commanded also about Kilayim.

(e)Question: What is the source of this?

(f)Answer (Shmuel): "Es Chukosai Tishmoru" - statutes that I previously commanded (i.e. to Bnei Noach), "Behemtecha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim Sadcha Lo Sizra Kil'ayim";

1.Just like the Isur regarding animals is crossbreeding, the Isur in the field (for Bnei Noach) is grafting diverse trees;

2.Just like crossbreeding animals is forbidden in and outside of Eretz Yisrael (since it does not pertain to the land), also grafting.

(g)Question: If so, we should likewise expound "u'Shmartem Es Chukosai" (which refers to the entire Torah), statutes that I previously commanded!

(h)Answer: There it says "u'Shmartem Es Chukosai", that I now command;

1.Here it says "Es Chukosai Tishmoru", which connotes pre-existing statutes (Chukosai precedes Tishmoru).


(a)(Mishnah - R. Yehoshua ben Korchah): (During the trial...)

(b)Version #1 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): He is not liable unless he curses Hash-m's four-letter name, i.e. he is exempt for cursing His two-letter name (Yud-Kei).

(c)Objection: This is obvious. The Mishnah says 'Yosi should strike Yosi' (it picked a four-letter substitute in place of Hash-m's four-letter name)!

(d)Answer: One might have thought that the Tana just picked a name, without intent to teach about the name cursed. Rav Acha teaches that this is not so.

(e)Version #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): He is liable even for cursing Hash-m's four-letter name.

(f)Objection: This is obvious. The Mishnah says 'Yosi should strike Yosi'!

(g)Answer: One might have thought that he must curse the Great Name (of 42 letters), and the Tana just picked a short name, even though it does not resemble the name cursed.


(a)(Mishnah): When they reach a final verdict...

(b)Question: What is the source that they must stand?

(c)Answer (R. Yitzchak bar Aba): We learn from a Kal va'Chomer - "Devar Elokim Li Elecha... va'Yakam me'Al ha'Kisei";

1.Eglon, the king of Mo'av was a Nochri. He only recognized (and heard) a Kinuy for Hash-m's name, and he stood up. If a Yisrael hears Hash-m's essential name, and all the more so he must stand!

(d)Question: What is the source that they must tear their garments?

(e)Answer: "Elyakim (and the others who heard the blasphemy of Sancheriv's Shali'ach Ravshake) Keru'ei Vegadim."

(f)(Mishnah): They do not sew it back.

(g)Question: What is the source of this?

(h)Answer: We learn from a Gezerah Shavah "Kri'ah-Kri'ah":

1.It says here "Keru'ei Vegadim", like it says about Elisha (who tore when Eliyahu went up to Shamayim) "va'Yachazek bi'Vgadav va'Yikra'em li'Shnayim Kera'im";

i.Question: Since it says that he tore them in two, the word "Kera'im" is unnecessary!

ii.Answer: This teaches that they will be permanently torn.

(i)(Beraisa): One who hears blasphemy, and one who hears a second-hand report of blasphemy must tear his garments;

1.The witnesses do not tear, for they already tore when they witnessed the blasphemy.

(j)Question: Even so, since they hear now, they should tear again!

(k)Answer: "Ki'Shmo'a Chizkiyahu va'Yikra Es Begadav" - Chizkiyah tore, but not the ones who told him (for they already tore).

(l)(Rav Yehudah): One who hears a Nochri blaspheme need not tear his garment.

(m)Question: They tore when Ravshake blasphemed!

(n)Answer: He was a Yisrael Mumar.

(o)(Rav Yehudah): We tear only upon hearing blasphemy of Hash-m's essential name, but not for a Kinuy.

1.R. Chiya argues with both of these laws.

2.(R. Chiya): One who hears blasphemy today need not tear his garment. If not, one's garment would be in shreds!

3.Question: From whom is the blasphemy heard?

i.If cannot be from Yisraelim. They do not blaspheme so often!

4.Answer: He refers to blasphemy of Nochrim.

5.They do not know Hash-m's essential name. Rather, they curse a Kinuy.

6.Conclusion: R. Chiya exempts only nowadays (for the reason given), but letter of the law, one should tear!

(p)(Mishnah): The second witness says 'I heard like he said.'

(q)(Reish Lakish): This teaches that mid'Oraisa, 'I (saw or heard) like him' is valid testimony in monetary and capital cases;

1.Chachamim (normally) are stringent to require him to explicitly say the testimony. Regarding blasphemy, it is forbidden for him to repeat it, so we follow the mid'Oraisa law.

2.If it were invalid, we would not kill someone without hearing proper testimony, just because the witness may not say it!

(r)(Mishnah): (If there is) a third witness, he says 'I heard like he said.'

(s)Our Stam Mishnah is like R. Akiva, who equates a third witness to the first two. (He must testify, for perhaps he will contradict the others, and disqualify all the testimony.)



(a)(Mishnah): One is Chayav Misah for idolatry:

1.Whether he serves it (this will be explained), or whether he is Zove'ach, Maktir, Menasech or Mishtachaveh (slaughters, burns, pours libations or bows);

2.If he accepts it as a god, and says 'you are my god';

(b)The following are forbidden by a Lav:

1.Hugging and kissing (an idol), sweeping or spraying (water to prevent dust from rising) around it, washing, anointing, dressing, or putting shoes on it;

2.Vowing or swearing in the name of idolatry.

(c)Ba'al Pe'or is served by excreting in front of it. Markulis is served by throwing rocks at it (one who does so is Chayav Misah).

(d)(Gemara): Question: What does it mean 'whether he serves it...'? (The Mishnah proceeds to list ways of serving it!)

(e)Answer (R. Yirmeyah): It means, whether he serves it through its normal Avodah, or whether he is Zove'ach, Maktir, Menasech or Mishtachaveh, even if this is not its normal Avodah.

(f)Question: Why does the Mishnah omit Zerikah (throwing)?

(g)Answer (Abaye): Menasech is Zerikah - "Bal Asich Niskehem mi'Dam" (this refers to Zerikah to idolatry).

(h)Question: What is the source (that one is liable for serving through its normal Avodah, and also other ways)?

(i)Answer (Beraisa): Had it said 'Zove'ach Yocharam", one might have thought that it discusses Shechutei Chutz (slaughtering Kodshim outside the Mikdash);

1.Therefore, it says "Zove'ach la'Elohim Yocharam" - one who slaughters to idolatry.

(j)Question: This teaches only about slaughtering. What is the source to include Haktarah and Nisuch?

(k)Answer: "Bilti la'Shem Levado" - all the Avodos may only be done for Hash-m.

(l)Question: ("Va'Yelech va'Ya'avod Elokim Acherim va'Yishtachu Lahem" included all the Avodos.) Zevichah was taught by itself ("Zove'ach la'Elokim Yocharam"), to teach that one is liable for slaughtering even if this is not the normal Avodah of the idolatry). This teaches about all Avodas Panim (i.e. Avodah in the Mikdash that is forbidden (even to Hash-m) outside the Mikdash);

1.What is the source for Hishtachava'ah?

(m)Answer: It says "va'Yelech... va'Yishtachu", and nearby it says "v'Hotzeisa Es ha'Ish... u'Skaltam."

(n)Question: This teaches the punishment. Which verse warns not to do it?

(o)Answer: "Ki Lo Sishtachaveh l'Kel Acher."

(p)Question: Perhaps we should include hugging, kissing and putting shoes on it!

(q)Answer: Zevichah was included in Avodah. It was taught by itself to equate the other Avodos to itself:

1.Just like Zevichah is Avodas Panim, and one is Chayav Misah for Zevichah (to idolatry), one is Chayav Misah for all Avodas Panim;

2.Hishtachava'ah was taught by itself, to teach about itself;

3.Zevichah was taught by itself, to teach the general rule.

(r)Question: The Beraisa said 'Had it said "Zove'ach Yocharam", one might have thought that it discusses Shechutei Chutz';

1.Shechutei Chutz is only Chayavei Kerisus. One is not Chayav Misah for it!

(s)Answer: One might have thought that if he was warned, he is killed, and if he was not warned, he is Chayav Kares.


(a)Suggestion (Rava bar Rav Chanan): We should say that Hishtachava'ah teaches the general rule (that one is liable for showing honor to idolatry, even if it is not Avodas Penim)?

1.Question: If so, what would we learn from "Zove'ach...."?

2.Answer: It would teach that intent is projected from one Avodah to another. (If one did an Avodah in order to (later) pour the blood or burn the Chelev to idolatry, he is liable is as if he did this first Avodah for idolatry).

i.(R. Yochanan): If one slaughtered an animal in order to pour the blood or burn the Chelev to idolatry, the animal is forbidden;

ii.(Reish Lakish): It is permitted.