## Sanhedrin Daf 66a

###### Sanhedrin 66a:1
[Sanhedrin 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:1)

״אַל תַּתְחִיל בִּי״, ״שַׁחֲרִית הוּא״, ״רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ הוּא״, ״מוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת הוּא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The term is also referring to one who says to a collector of charity: **Do not** collect from **me first,** as that is a bad sign for me; or: Do not collect from me now because **it is morning,** and it is a bad sign to begin the day with a loss; or: Do not collect from me now because **it is the New Moon,** and it is a bad sign to begin the month with a loss; or: **It is the conclusion of Shabbat** and I do not want to begin the week with a loss.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:2
[Sanhedrin 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״לֹא תְנַחֲשׁוּ וְלֹא תְעוֹנֵנוּ״ – כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ הַמְנַחֲשִׁים בְּחוּלְדָּה, בְּעוֹפוֹת, וּבְדָגִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** that the verse: **“Nor shall you practice divination nor soothsaying”** (Leviticus 19:26), is referring, **for example,** to **those who divine** and receive guidance according to what happens **to a weasel, to birds, or to fish.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:3
[Sanhedrin 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת בְּדָבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Also liable to be executed by stoning is **one who desecrates Shabbat by** performing **a matter that for its intentional** performance one is liable to receive ***karet* and for its unwitting** performance one is obligated to bring **a sin-offering.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:4
[Sanhedrin 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:4)

**גְּמָ׳** מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּחִילּוּל שַׁבָּת הָוֵי, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין לֹא עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת וְלֹא עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **By inference, there is** another **matter that is a desecration of Shabbat,** and it is prohibited by the Torah, **but for its unwitting** performance **one is not obligated** to bring **a sin-offering, nor** does one receive ***karet* for its intentional** performance. Otherwise, the statement in the mishna that one is liable for desecrating Shabbat for performing an act for which one receives *karet* or is obligated to bring a sin-offering would have been superfluous.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:5
[Sanhedrin 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:5)

מַאי הִיא? תְּחוּמִין, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. הַבְעָרָה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the labor activity that desecrates Shabbat but whose punishment is not so severe? The Gemara answers: It is the prohibition against going outside the Shabbat **boundaries,** which are two thousand cubits beyond a person’s location at the beginning of Shabbat, **and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva,** who holds that although it is a Torah prohibition one is neither obligated to bring a sin-offering for violating it unwittingly nor liable to be executed for violating it intentionally. Alternatively, it may be referring to the prohibition against **kindling** a fire on Shabbat **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei,** who holds that contrary to other labors prohibited on Shabbat, this act is not punishable by stoning but by lashes.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:6
[Sanhedrin 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּקַלְּלֵם בַּשֵּׁם. קִלְּלָם בְּכִנּוּי, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who curses his father or his mother is not liable** to be executed by stoning **unless he curses them with the name** of God. If **he cursed them with an appellation** of the name of God, **Rabbi Meir deems** him **liable, and the Rabbis deem** him **exempt.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:7
[Sanhedrin 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:7)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאן חֲכָמִים? רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, ״בְּנׇקְבוֹ שֵׁם יוּמָת״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״שֵׁם״? לִימֵּד עַל מְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיְּקַלְּלֵם בַּשֵּׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Who are the Rabbis** mentioned here? **It is Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Menaḥem, son of Rabbi Yosei, says:** The verse states: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, **when he blasphemes the name he shall be put to death”** (Leviticus 24:16). **Why** must **the verse state “the name”** a second time, which appears to be a superfluous repetition? This term **taught concerning** one who transgresses other prohibitions of cursing, e.g., **one who curses his father or his mother, that he is not liable** to be executed by stoning **unless he curses them with the name** of God. If he merely uses an appellation, he is exempt.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:8
[Sanhedrin 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:8)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִישׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישׁ אִישׁ״? לְרַבּוֹת בַּת, טוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught:** The verse (Leviticus 20:9) could have stated merely: For **a man [*ish*]** that curses his father and his mother shall be put to death; he has cursed his father and his mother; his blood shall be upon him. **Why** must **the verse state:** “For **any man [*ish ish*],”** repeating the term *ish*? It is **to include** not only a son, but also **a daughter, one whose sexual organs are indeterminate [*tumtum*], and a hermaphrodite [*ve’androginos*].**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:9
[Sanhedrin 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:9)

״אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת אָבִיו וְאֶת אִמּוֹ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. אָבִיו שֶׁלֹּא אִמּוֹ, אִמּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא אָבִיו – מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל דָּמָיו בּוֹ״ – אָבִיו קִילֵּל, אִמּוֹ קִילֵּל. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
When the verse states: **“That curses his father and his mother,” I have** derived **only** his liability for cursing both **his father and his mother. From where** do I derive that if one curses **his father but not his mother,** or **his mother but not his father,** that he is liable? The continuation of **the verse states: “His father and his mother he has cursed; his blood is upon him.”** In the first part of the verse, the word “curses” is in proximity to “his father,” and in the last part of the verse, it is in proximity to “his mother.” This teaches that the verse is referring both to a case where **he cursed** only **his father** and to a case where **he cursed** only **his mother;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:10
[Sanhedrin 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:10)

רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: מַשְׁמָע שְׁנֵיהֶן כְּאֶחָד, וּמַשְׁמָע אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, עַד שֶׁיִּפְרוֹט לְךָ הַכָּתוּב ״יַחְדָּו״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yonatan says:** There is no need for this derivation, because the phrase “his father and his mother” **teaches** that one is liable if he curses **both of them together, and it** also **teaches** that he is liable if he curses either **one** of them **on their own, unless the verse specifies** that one is liable only when he curses both **together,** which it does not do in this case.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:11
[Sanhedrin 66a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:11)

״מוֹת יוּמָת״ – בִּסְקִילָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּסְקִילָה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּאַחַת מִכׇּל מִיתוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״דָּמָיו בּוֹ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם״. מָה לְהַלָּן בִּסְקִילָה, אַף כָּאן בִּסְקִילָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From the phrase **“shall be put to death”** it is derived that his punishment is execution **by stoning.** The *baraita* asks: Do **you say** that that they are executed **by stoning, or is it rather by one of all the** other types of **death** penalty **stated in the Torah?** The *baraita* answers: **It is stated here: “His blood shall be upon him,” and it is stated below,** with regard to a necromancer and a sorcerer: “They shall be put to death; they shall stone them with stones; **their blood shall be upon them”** (Leviticus 20:27). **Just as there** the verse states that a necromancer and a sorcerer are executed **by stoning, so too here,** with regard to one who curses his father or mother, he is executed **by stoning.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:12
[Sanhedrin 66a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:12)

עוֹנֶשׁ שָׁמַעְנוּ, אַזְהָרָה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל וְגוֹ׳״. אִם הָיָה אָבִיו דַּיָּין – הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל ״אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל״, וְאִם הָיָה אָבִיו נָשִׂיא – הֲרֵי הוּא בִּכְלַל ״וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* asks: **We have learned** the **punishment** of one who curses his parent; **from where** is the **prohibition** against doing so derived? **The verse states: “You shall not blaspheme judges [*elohim*],** nor curse a king of your people” (Exodus 22:27). **If his father was a judge,** cursing him **is included in** the prohibition of: **“You shall not blaspheme judges,”** as it is prohibited for all people to curse a judge. **And if his father was a king,** cursing him **is included in** the prohibition of: **“Nor curse a king of your people.”**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:13
[Sanhedrin 66a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:13)

אֵינוֹ לֹא דַּיָּין וְלֹא נָשִׂיא, מִנַּיִין? אָמְרַתְּ: הֲרֵי אַתָּה דָּן בִּנְיַן אָב מִשְּׁנֵיהֶן. לֹא רְאִי נְשִׂיא כִּרְאִי דַּיָּין, וְלֹא רְאִי דַּיָּין כִּרְאִי נָשִׂיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If **he is neither a judge nor a king, from where** is it derived that it is prohibited to curse him? One can **say: You derive** it through **a paradigm** arrived at **from both of them** as follows: **The** defining **characteristic of a king is not like the** defining **characteristic of a judge, and the** defining **characteristic of a judge is not like the** defining **characteristic of a king.** The two cases are dissimilar.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:14
[Sanhedrin 66a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:14)

לֹא רְאִי דַּיָּין כִּרְאִי נָשִׂיא, שֶׁהֲרֵי דַּיָּין – אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הוֹרָאָתוֹ, כִּרְאִי נָשִׂיא – שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הוֹרָאָתוֹ. וְלֹא רְאִי נָשִׂיא כִּרְאִי דַּיָּין, שֶׁהַנָּשִׂיא – אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַמְרָאָתוֹ, כִּרְאִי דַּיָּין – שֶׁאִי אַתָּה מְצֻוֶּוה עַל הַמְרָאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* elaborates: **The** defining **characteristic of a judge is not like the** defining **characteristic of a king, as** with regard to **a judge, you are commanded with regard to** obeying **his** halakhic **ruling.** This is not **like the** defining **characteristic of a king, with regard to whose** halakhic **ruling you are not commanded** to obey. **And the** defining **characteristic of a king is not like the** defining **characteristic of a judge, as** with regard to **the king, you are commanded with regard to rebelling** against **him,** i.e., refusing to obey his order. This is not **like the** defining **characteristic of a judge, as you are not commanded with regard to rebelling** against **him.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:15
[Sanhedrin 66a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:15)

הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶם שֶׁהֵן בְּעַמְּךָ, וְאַתָּה מוּזְהָר עַל קִלְלָתָן. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָבִיךָ, שֶׁבְּעַמְּךָ, וְאַתָּה מוּזְהָר עַל קִלְלָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Their common denominator is that they are “of your people,”** i.e., they are members of the Jewish people, **and you are prohibited from cursing them. I too will include** the case of **your father, as** he is **“of your people,” and** therefore **you are prohibited from cursing him.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:16
[Sanhedrin 66a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:16)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן גְּדוּלָּתָן גָּרְמָה לָהֶן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This derivation is insufficient, as **what** is notable **about their common denominator,** i.e., another element that they share in common? It is notable **in that their prominence has caused them** to be entitled to an exceptional degree of respect; they are not merely “of your people.” Therefore, perhaps the prohibition against cursing applies only to such prominent figures.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:17
[Sanhedrin 66a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:17)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ״ – בְּאוּמְלָלִים שֶׁבְּעַמְּךָ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Consequently, a third case is necessary to arrive at the required paradigm. **The verse states: “You shall not curse the deaf,** nor put a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14). **The verse speaks of the wretched of your people.** From the fact that it is prohibited to curse even those people, it can be derived that it is prohibited to curse anyone.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:18
[Sanhedrin 66a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:18)

מָה לְחֵרֵשׁ, שֶׁכֵּן חֲרִישָׁתוֹ גָּרְמָה לוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Deriving this *halakha* from the case of a deaf person is also insufficient, as **what** is notable **about** the case of **a deaf** person? It is notable **in that his deafness has caused** cursing **him** to be prohibited. Perhaps the only reason it is prohibited to curse him is that he is deaf, just as it is prohibited to mislead the blind.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:19
[Sanhedrin 66a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:19)

נָשִׂיא וְדַיָּין יוֹכִיחוּ. מָה לְנָשִׂיא וְדַיָּין שֶׁכֵּן גְּדוּלָּתָן גָּרְמָה לָהֶן? חֵרֵשׁ יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can respond: The prohibition against cursing **a king and a judge can prove** that it is prohibited to curse anyone, as it is prohibited to curse them even though they are not wretched. And if the proof from these cases is rejected, as one can claim that **what** is notable **about a king and a judge is that their prominence has caused them** to be entitled to this respect, then the prohibition against cursing the **deaf can prove** that prominence is not a determining factor.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:20
[Sanhedrin 66a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:20)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין. לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁהֵן בְּעַמְּךָ, וְאַתָּה מוּזְהָר עַל קִלְלָתָן. אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָבִיךָ, שֶׁבְּעַמְּךָ וְאַתָּה מוּזְהָר עַל קִלְלָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. At this point the *halakha* is derived from a combination of the three cases: **The** defining **characteristic of this** case, i.e., that of a ruler and a judge, **is not like the** defining **characteristic of that** case, i.e., that of a deaf person, **and the** defining **characteristic of that** case **is not like the** defining **characteristic of this** case; **their common denominator is that they are “of your people,” and you are prohibited from cursing them. I too will include** the case of **your father, who** is **“of your people,” and** therefore **you are prohibited from cursing him.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:21
[Sanhedrin 66a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:21)

מָה לְצַד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן מְשׁוּנִּין?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* refutes this derivation: **What** is notable **about their common dominator?** It is notable **in that they are unusual,** i.e., they are not common people, but they are in some way different from others. Perhaps there is no prohibition against cursing an ordinary person.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:22
[Sanhedrin 66a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:22)

אֶלָּא, אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: אוֹ ״אֱלֹהִים וְחֵרֵשׁ״, אוֹ ״נָשִׂיא וְחֵרֵשׁ״. ״אֱלֹהִים״ לְמָה לִי? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְגוּפוֹ, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאָבִיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** this proof is insufficient, and the *baraita* states a different explanation: **If** it is **so** that it is prohibited to curse only unusual people, **let the verse write either** that it is prohibited to curse **judges and** the **deaf, or** that it is prohibited to curse **a king and** the **deaf,** and it would have been derived from these two cases that the prohibition applies to all unusual people. **Why do I** need the verse to state a special prohibition with regard to **judges?** It is superfluous, as judges are also extraordinary people. Rather, **if** the verse **is not** needed for **its own matter,** i.e., the prohibition against cursing judges, **apply it to the matter of** cursing one’s **father.**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:23
[Sanhedrin 66a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:23)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֱלֹהִים״ חוֹל, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹדֶשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that in the verse: “You shall not blaspheme *elohim*” (Exodus 22:27), the word **“*elohim*” is non-sacred,** as it is referring to judges. **But according to the one who says** that the word is **sacred,** as it is referring to God, **what can be said?** If the verse is not superfluous, as it is needed to state a special prohibition with regard to God, how is the prohibition against cursing one’s parents derived from it?


###### Sanhedrin 66a:24
[Sanhedrin 66a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:24)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״אֱלֹהִים״ – חוֹל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״אֱלֹהִים״ – קוֹדֶשׁ. וְתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אַזְהָרָה לִמְבָרֵךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The word **“*elohim*”** in this verse is **non-sacred;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says:** The word **“*Elohim*” is sacred. And it is taught** in a different *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: From where is the prohibition against one who blesses,** i.e., curses, **the name** of God, derived? **The verse states: “You shall not blaspheme God [*Elohim*].”**


###### Sanhedrin 66a:25
[Sanhedrin 66a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:25)

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֱלֹהִים״ חוֹל – גָּמַר קוֹדֶשׁ מֵחוֹל, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֱלֹהִים״ קוֹדֶשׁ – גָּמְרִינַן חוֹל מִקּוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **According to the one who says** that **“*elohim*” is non-sacred, he derives** the prohibition according to the **sacred** meaning of the word **from** the **non-sacred** meaning, i.e., he derives the prohibition against cursing God from the prohibition against cursing judges. **According to the one who says** that **“*Elohim*” is sacred, we derive** the prohibition according to the **non-sacred** meaning of the word **from** the **sacred** meaning, i.e., he derives the prohibition against cursing judges from the prohibition against cursing God.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:26
[Sanhedrin 66a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:26)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֱלֹהִים״ חוֹל, גָּמַר קוֹדֶשׁ מֵחוֹל. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״אֱלֹהִים״ קוֹדֶשׁ, גָּמַר חוֹל מִקּוֹדֶשׁ? דִּילְמָא אַקּוֹדֶשׁ אַזְהַר, אַחוֹל לָא אַזְהַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted, according to the one who says** that **“*elohim*” is non-sacred, he can derive** the prohibition according to the **sacred** meaning of the word **from** the **non-sacred** meaning through an *a fortiori* inference. **But according to the one who says** that **“*Elohim*” is sacred,** can he **derive** the prohibition according to the **non-sacred** meaning **from** the **sacred** meaning? **Perhaps** the Torah **renders** it **prohibited** to curse God, in accordance with the **sacred** meaning of the word, but **it does not render** it **prohibited** to curse *elohim*, judges, in accordance with the **non-sacred** meaning.


###### Sanhedrin 66a:27
[Sanhedrin 66a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/66a:27)

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״לֹא תָקֵל״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if it is prohibited to curse God but not judges, **let the verse write: You shall not treat lightly [*takel*],** instead of: “You shall not blaspheme [*tekallel*]”; it would have been derived from this wording that is prohibited to demean or curse God.