## Sanhedrin Daf 60a

###### Sanhedrin 60a:1
[Sanhedrin 60a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:1)

״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״, וּכְתִיב: ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה מוֹת יוּמָת״. כֹּל שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ בִּכְלַל ״כׇּל שֹׁכֵב עִם בְּהֵמָה״ – יֶשְׁנוֹ בִּכְלַל ״מְכַשֵּׁפָה לֹא תְחַיֶּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“You shall not allow a witch to live”** (Exodus 22:17), **and it is written** in the following verse: **“Whoever lies with an animal shall be put to death”** (Exodus 22:18). It is derived from here that **anyone who is included in** the prohibition of: **“Whoever lies with an animal,”** including gentiles, **is included in** the command: **“You shall not allow a witch to live.”**


###### Sanhedrin 60a:2
[Sanhedrin 60a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:2)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל הַכִּלְאַיִם. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אֵת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ״ – חוּקִּים שֶׁחָקַקְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר: ״בְּהֶמְתְּךָ לֹא תַרְבִּיעַ כִּלְאַיִם שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרַע כִּלְאָיִם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “My statutes you shall keep.** You shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed” (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, **“you shall not breed your animal with a diverse kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed.”**


###### Sanhedrin 60a:3
[Sanhedrin 60a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:3)

מָה בְּהֶמְתְּךָ בְּהַרְבָּעָה, אַף שָׂדְךָ בְּהַרְכָּבָה. מָה בְּהֶמְתְּךָ בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, אַף שָׂדְךָ בֵּין בָּאָרֶץ בֵּין בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:4
[Sanhedrin 60a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:4)

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת מִשְׁפָּטַי״ – חֻקִּים שֶׁחָקַקְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the term “My statutes” is understood as referring to mitzvot that were already given to the descendants of Noah, then the verse: **“You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances”** (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.**


###### Sanhedrin 60a:5
[Sanhedrin 60a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:5)

הָתָם – ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת חֻקֹּתַי״ דְּהַשְׁתָּא. הָכָא – ״אֶת חֻקֹּתַי תִּשְׁמֹרוּ״, חֻקִּים דְּמֵעִיקָּרָא תִּשְׁמֹרוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There** the verse states: **“You shall therefore keep My statutes,”** indicating only those statutes **that** I am giving you **now,** whereas **here,** in the verse concerning diverse kinds, the wording is **“My statutes you shall keep,”** meaning **statutes that** obligate you **from the outset you shall keep** in the future.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:6
[Sanhedrin 60a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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 Korḥa said** that during a blasphemer’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 God’s name. Specifically, they would use the sentence: Let Yosei smite Yosei, as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, like the Tetragrammaton.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:7
[Sanhedrin 60a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:7)

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּבָרֵךְ שֵׁם בֶּן אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת, לְאַפּוֹקֵי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי אוֹתִיּוֹת דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Ya’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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:8
[Sanhedrin 60a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:8)

פְּשִׁיטָא! ״יַכֶּה יוֹסִי אֶת יוֹסִי״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּנָקֵט, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov **teaches us** that one is liable only for cursing the Tetragrammaton.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:9
[Sanhedrin 60a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:9)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: שֵׁם בֶּן אַרְבַּע אוֹתִיּוֹת נָמֵי שֵׁם הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**There are** those **who say** that **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:10
[Sanhedrin 60a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:10)

פְּשִׁיטָא! ״יַכֶּה יוֹסִי אֶת יוֹסִי״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: עַד דְּאִיכָּא שֵׁם רַבָּה, וּמִילְּתָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא דְּנָקֵט – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’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 Aḥa bar Ya’akov **teaches us** that one is liable even for cursing the Tetragrammaton, and the name Yosei is mentioned specifically.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:11
[Sanhedrin 60a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:11)

נִגְמַר הַדִּין כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:12
[Sanhedrin 60a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:12)

עוֹמְדִין – מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אַמֵּי: דְּאָמַר קְרָא, ״וְאֵהוּד בָּא אֵלָיו וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בַּעֲלִיַּת הַמְּקֵרָה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ לְבַדּוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵהוּד דְּבַר אֱלֹהִים לִי אֵלֶיךָ וַיָּקׇם מֵעַל הַכִּסֵּא״. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחוֹמֶר? וּמָה עֶגְלוֹן מֶלֶךְ מוֹאָב שֶׁהוּא גּוֹי וְלֹא יָדַע אֶלָּא בְּכִינּוּי – עָמַד, יִשְׂרָאֵל וְשֵׁם הַמְפוֹרָשׁ – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that the judges must **stand? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ami says:** It is derived from that **which the verse states** about Eglon: **“And 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 seat”** (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.**


###### Sanhedrin 60a:13
[Sanhedrin 60a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:13)

קוֹרְעִין – מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּבֹא אֶלְיָקִים בֶּן חִלְקִיָּהוּ [וְגוֹ׳] וְשֶׁבְנָא הַסֹּפֵר וְיוֹאָח בֶּן אָסָף הַמַּזְכִּיר אֶל חִזְקִיָּהוּ קְרוּעֵי בְגָדִים וַיַּגִּידוּ לוֹ אֵת דִּבְרֵי רַבְשָׁקֵה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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: “Then 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 Rabshakeh’s statement”** (II Kings 18:37). Apparently, since they heard the blasphemous statement of Rabshakeh they were obligated to make a tear in their garments.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:14
[Sanhedrin 60a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:14)

וְלֹא מְאַחִין – מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Sanhedrin 60a:15
[Sanhedrin 60a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:15)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אָתְיָא קְרִיעָה קְרִיעָה, כְּתִיב הָכָא ״קְרוּעֵי בְגָדִים״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם ״וֶאֱלִישָׁע רֹאֶה וְהוּא מְצַעֵק אָבִי אָבִי רֶכֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפָרָשָׁיו וְלֹא רָאָהוּ עוֹד וַיַּחֲזֵק בִּבְגָדָיו וַיִּקְרָעֵם לִשְׁנַיִם קְרָעִים״. מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיִּקְרָעֵם לִשְׁנַיִם״, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהֵן קְרָעִים? וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״קְרָעִים״? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן קְרוּעִים לְעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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 Elijah’s ascendance to heaven. **It is written here,** with regard to those who heard Rabshakeh’s blasphemy: **“With torn garments,” and it is written there: “And 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 pieces”** (II Kings 2:12). **From the meaning of that** which **is stated: “And tore them into two,” do I not know that they are pieces? And why** must **the verse state: “Pieces”?** This **teaches that they** remain **torn forever;** they may never be fully stitched back together, but only partially sewn.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:16
[Sanhedrin 60a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:16)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ, וְאֶחָד שׁוֹמֵעַ מִפִּי שׁוֹמֵעַ – חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ. וְהָעֵדִים אֵין חַיָּיבִין לִקְרוֹעַ, שֶׁכְּבָר קָרְעוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:17
[Sanhedrin 60a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:17)

וְכִי קָרְעוּ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ, מַאי הָוֵי? הָא קָא שָׁמְעִי הַשְׁתָּא! לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כִּשְׁמֹעַ הַמֶּלֶךְ חִזְקִיָּהוּ אֶת דִּבְרֵי רַבְשָׁקֵה וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו״. הַמֶּלֶךְ חִזְקִיָּהוּ קָרַע, וְהֵם לֹא קָרְעוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And if they made a tear when they heard** the curse, **what of it? Aren’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: “And it came to pass, when King Hezekiah heard the statement of Rabshakeh, that he tore his clothes”** (II 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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:18
[Sanhedrin 60a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:18)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אַזְכָּרָה מִפִּי הַגּוֹי אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ. וְאִם תֹּאמַר: רַבְשָׁקֵה – יִשְׂרָאֵל מוּמָר הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: One who hears a mention** of God’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.**


###### Sanhedrin 60a:19
[Sanhedrin 60a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:19)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֵין קוֹרְעִין אֶלָּא עַל שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד בִּלְבַד, לְאַפּוֹקֵי כִּינּוּי דְּלָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:20
[Sanhedrin 60a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:20)

וּפְלִיגִי דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא: הַשּׁוֹמֵעַ אַזְכָּרָה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב לִקְרוֹעַ, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן – נִתְמַלֵּא כׇּל הַבֶּגֶד קְרָעִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** Shmuel **disagrees with Rav Ḥiyya with regard to two** matters. **As Rabbi Ḥiyya says: One who hears a mention** of God’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.**


###### Sanhedrin 60a:21
[Sanhedrin 60a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:21)

מִמַּאן? אִילֵימָא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מִי פְּקִירִי כּוּלֵּי הַאי? אֶלָּא פְּשִׁיטָא, מִגּוֹי. וְאִי שֵׁם הַמְיוּחָד, מִי גְּמִירִי? אֶלָּא לָאו, בְּכִינּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **From whom** does one hear these mentions of God’s name about which Rabbi Ḥiyya says that one’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 Ḥiyya 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 God’s name?


###### Sanhedrin 60a:22
[Sanhedrin 60a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:22)

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה הוּא דְּלָא, הָא מֵעִיקָּרָא – חַיָּיב. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And conclude from it** that **it is** specifically **nowadays that,** according to Rav Ḥiyya, 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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:23
[Sanhedrin 60a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:23)

הַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר: ״אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ״. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, ״אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ״ כָּשֵׁר בְּדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וּבְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, וּמַעֲלָה הוּא דַּעֲבוּד רַבָּנַן. וְהָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן אַדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:24
[Sanhedrin 60a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:24)

דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ פָּסוּל, הָכָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר, קָטְלִינַן לְגַבְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Sanhedrin 60a:25
[Sanhedrin 60a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/60a:25)

וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר: ״אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ״. סְתָמָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּמַקֵּישׁ שְׁלֹשָׁה לִשְׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.