What are the connotations of "Elokim Lo Sekalel"? To whom is it referring?
Rashi (citing Sanhedrin, 66a): It is a dual warning against cursing Hashem and the Dayanim. 1
Ramban #1 (citing Targum Onkelos), Rashbam, Seforno and Targum Yonasan: It is a warning against cursing a Dayan. 2
Ramban #2 (citing Sanhedrin, 66b): It is a warning against cursing Hashem.
The Tana'im actully argue in Sanhedrin (Ibid.) as to whether "Elokim" is Chol or Kodesh. See Torah Temimah, note 210 & 211.
See Ba'al ha'Turim. Ramban and Rashbam: Even if one thinks that he issued a false ruling against oneself, since a person tends to never admit guilt (Seforno). Indeed, the Pasuk mentions Dayanim because it is common practice to curse them, precisely for that reason. See Koheles, 10:20. See also Rashbam.
What are the connotations of "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or"? To whom is it referring?
Ramban, Rashbam and Seforno: It is a warning against cursing the king, 1 and it incorporates cursing the head of Sanhedrin. 2
Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It is a warning against cursing an elected leader of the people.
Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "be'Amcha"?
Rashi (in Kedoshim Vayikra, 19:14): We learn from the Pasuk there that one may not curse even a Cheresh, and from "be'Amcha 1 Lo Sa'or" the prohibition of cursing anybody else.
Mechilta: Having just learnt the prohibition against cursing a Dayan and a Nasi, "Be'Amcha" comes to include cursing anybody else in the prohibition.
Yevamos, 22b: To teach us that one is only Chayav if the Nasi is "Oseh Ma'ascha Amcha" - to preclude a Nasi who is a Rasha. 2
Sanhedrin, 85a: To preclude one who is nor fit to continue reigning because Beis-Din have sentenced him to death - even if he has done Teshuvah and is no longer a Rasha. 3
Why does the Torah not write simply "Elokim ve'Nasi Lo Sekalel"?
Mechilta: To teach us that one is Chayav for cursing each one independently. 1
Consequently, someone who curses a Dayan who is also a Nasi, is subject to two sets of Malkos (Torah Temimah).
Why does the Torah write "Lo Sekalel" in connection with the Dayan and "Lo Sa'or" in connection with the Nasi?
Moshav Zekenim: Because Kelalah incorporates a disgrace, which is therefore also subject to Malkos. 1 From Nasi we extrapolate that one receives Malkos for cursing a Dayan even if he is not a Nasi.
Torah Temimah: To warn against the more severe sin of cursing a Dayan. And the fact that the Torah inserts a 'Vav' in the word "ve'Nasi" teaches us that even the lighter sin of Kelalah is prohibited, 2
K'li Yakar (Bereishis 12:3) - ("Sa'or" is from Arur;) Arur is more severe than K'lalah. Torah Temimah, note 213: Grammarians say that K'lalah (from the root Kal) is an expression of disgrace, whereas Arur refers to damaging.
See Torah Temmah, citing the Mechilta, and note 212,
Why is this written after the Mitzvah of returning a security?
Ibn Ezra: Because if the lender does not return the security, the borrower is prone to curse the judge who gave it to him.
The Mechilta learns from the 'Vav' in ve'Nasi that also to a Nasi, even Kelalah is forbidden. But the Gemara states in Shevu'os 36a that Kelalah is included in Arur. If so, why did the Torah need to write 'Arur'?
Moshav Zekenim: Nasi was in the Klal, and left, to teach that anyone who disgraces a Gadol in Yisrael, receies Malkos. If he curses a judge, he is lashed for "Lo Sekalel" and "Lo Sa'or."
