Before a Megadef can become Chayav Sekilah, our Mishnah requires him - to pronounce the Name (of Hash-m) that he is cursing (and not merely to hear it from somebody else).

According to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah - it is customary for the witnesses to say 'Yakeh Yossi es Yossi' (instead of using the actual Name of Hash-m that was cursed).

They specifically picked that name - because not only does it have four letters (like the Name of Hash-m), but it also has the same numerical value as 'Elokim'.

Beis-Din would not sentence the defendant to death however, on the basis of a Kinuy, which means here (not a nickname, like it usually does [since Yossi is not a nickname for Hash-m], but), that they switched the curse of Hash-m on to someone else (as if it was Yossi whom the defendant had cursed, and not Hash-m).

The procedure vis-a-vis the witnesses, is therefore that before Beis-Din pronounce sentence on the Megadef - one of them is obligated to repeat exactly what he heard from the mouth of the defendant; the second one simply states that he heard the same, and so does the third.

They send everyone else out of the room - because repeating what the witnesses heard is a disgrace to the Name of Hash-m.

Upon hearing the Name of Hash-m being cursed, the Dayanim - rise and rent their garments.

When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Ad she'Yevarech Shem be'Shem', he means that - the defendant must have cursed the Name of Hash-m with the name of Hash-m (much like Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah's opinion in our Mishnah).

Shmuel cites the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Nokev Sheim Hash-m ... be'Nokvo Sheim Yumas" (which repeats Hash-m's Name) - as the source of the Tana's previous statement.

We suggest that we learn from the Pasuk ...

... in Balak "Mah Ekov Lo Kaboh Keil" - that "Nokev" (in the Pasuk quoted by Shmuel) means someone who curses.

... in Mishpatim "Elokim Lo Sekalel" - the warning for the La'av of cursing the Name of Hash-m.

We suggest that we learn from...

... the word "va'Yikov" (in the Pasuk in Melachim "va'Yikov Chor be'Dalto") that - "Nokev" means to bore a hole in the Name of Hash-m that is written on a piece of parchment.

... the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Ibadtem es Sh'mam, Lo Sa'asun kein la'Hashem ... " - the Azharah (warning) for doing so.

We reject these suggestions on the grounds that they do not conform to the required 'Shem be'Shem'. Neither can the Pasuk be speaking where one ...

... places one Shem Hash-m on top of another and pierces them both - because that would constitute Nokev one Shem after the other, rather than Nokev 'Shem be'Shem'.

... carves the Name of Hash-m on the blade of a knife and pierces the Name of Hash-m with it - because then it would be the blade of the sword that is boring the hole, and not the Name of Hash-m.

Based on the Pasuk in Bamidbar "va'Yikach Moshe ... asher Nikvu be'Sheimos", we suggest that perhaps, "ve'Nokev Sheim Hash-m" is talking about specifying the Name of Hash-m.

We reject this suggestion per se, since there is no way of doing so 'Sheim be'Sheim'. And we also reject the suggestion that the Azharah for that is ...

... the Pasuk in Eikev, "es Hash-m Elokecha Tiyra" - which is an Asei, and is not therefore considered a warning for Misah (see M'lo ha'Ro'im).

... the Pasuk in Emor (in connection with the Mekalel) "va'Yikov ve'Yekalel", - because it indicates us that "va'Yikov" is a Lashon of cursing (and not of specifying).

And we learn from the Pasuk there "Hotzei es ha'Mekalel" that - one is Chayav for cursing alone, even without specifying the Name (though this appears to clash with our Mishnah, which requires both [see Toras Chayim there]).

The Beraisa learns from the Lashon "Ish" ("Ish Ish ki Yekalel Elokav ... " [Ibid]) that - a Nochri too is Chayav for Birchas Hash-m.

In spite of the fact that a Yisrael Megadef is put to death by stoning, a Nochri Megadef is put to death - by the sword (like all his sentences [apart from two exceptions that we will learn later]).

The problem with the first Limud is that - we already know that Nochrim are included in the Din of Megadef from the word "Hash-m" in the Pasuk in Bereishis "Vayetzav Hash-m Elokim ... " (which will be discussed on Amud 'Beis').

Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha cites a Beraisa where Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim discuss "Ish Ish", where Rebbi Meir learns from ...

... the first "Ish" - that a Yisrael is Chayav for the Kinuyim (such as Elokim, Shakai and Tzevakos).

... the second "Ish" - that a Nochri is Chayav on the Kinuyin too.

We need a separate Pasuk to include Nochrim in the Kinuyim - because we would otherwise have thought that, since we learn Birchas Elokim of a Nochri from the word "Hash-m" (as we just explained), he will not be Chayav for any other name.

The Chachamim in the Beraisa, who argue with Rebbi Meir, explain ...

... the conclusion of the Pasuk "ve'Nasa Chet'o" - (not as a Chiyuv Misah for Kinuyim - but as a Chiyuv Kareis for cursing, using the Name of Hash-m.

... the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Elokim Lo Sekalel" - as a La'av for cursing Hash-m, incorporating both the Name of Hash-m and the Kinuyim.

Rebbi Meyashe disagrees with Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha. He learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Mekalel) "ka'Ger ka'Ezrach" that - only a Yisrael is precluded from Misah for cursing using the Kinuyim, but a Nochri is Chayav.

Rebbi Meir learns from "ka'Ger ka'Ezrach" that a Nochri receives Sayaf and not Sekilah. We might otherwise have thought that - seeing as we include a Nochri from "Ish" (with regard to Kinuyin), we also include him with regard to Sekilah.

According to Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha, the Rabbanan (who hold that a Nochri who is Mekalel with a Kinuy is Patur) maintain that a Nochri Megadef is Chayav even without Shem be'Shem - from "ka'Ger ka'Ezrach" (which they would otherwise consider superfluous).

According to both opinions in the Rabbanan, the Torah writes "Ish Ish" - (not to teach us anything, but) based on the principle "Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon b'nei Adam".

The Tana Kama of the Beraisa lists seven Mitzvos that the b'nei No'ach are commanded; Dinim (a system of civil-laws), Birchas Hash-m (cursing Hash-m), Avodah-Zarah (idolatry), Giluy-Arayos (adultery and incest) - Shefichus-Damim (murder), Gezel (theft) and Eiver min ha'Chai (eating a limb from a live animal [all negative prohibitions except for Dinim]).

Hash-m's words to Avimelech "ve'Hi Be'ulas Ba'al" - come to preclude a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, which does not apply to Nochrim.

Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel adds not to drink blood of a live animal, Rebbi Chidka, not to castrate animals and Rebbi Shimon - the prohibition against Kishuf (black magic).

Rebbi Yossi incorporates nine cases of magic in 'Kishuf" (all of which are listed in Parshas Shoftim, and which will be explained later in the Perek); Ma'avir B'no u'Vito ba'Eish (Molech), Kosem Kesamim, Me'onen, Menachesh, Mechashef, Chover Chaver - Ov, Yid'oni and Doresh el ha'Meisim.

Rebbi Yossi's source to say that all these are forbidden to b'nei No'ach is - the Pasuk there "u'vi'Gelal ha'To'evos ha'Eileh Hash-m Elokecha Morish osam mi'Panecha". This clearly indicates that the Cana'anim were about to be punished for transgressing them, something which they would not have been had there not been a prior prohibition forbidding them.

Rebbi Elazar includes Kil'ayim in the list - K'lai Beheimah and grafting a tree (but not Sha'atnez or K'lai Zera'im).

Rebbi Yochanan learns the seven Mitzvos of the Tana Kama from a Pasuk in Bereishis, where ...

... "va'Yetzav" refers to Dinim, "Hash-m" to Birchas Hash-m, whilst from "Elokim" - we learn Avodas-Kochavim.

... "ha'Adam" refers to Shefichus-Damim, and "Leimor" to - Giluy Arayos.

... "mi'Kol Eitz ha'Gan" teaches us 'but not from Gezel' - and "Achol Tochel"- 'but not Eiver min ha'Chai'.

Rebbi Yiztchak switches the sources for two of the seven in the list. According to him, "va'Yetzav" refers to Avodah-Zarah and "Elokim" - to Dinim.

The ramifications of the Machlokes between Rav Chisda and Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, whether we derive the Lashon "va'Yetzav" from the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "Saru Maher min ha'Derech asher Tzivisim, Asu lahem Eigel Maseichah", or from the Pasuk in Hoshe'a " ... Ki Ho'il Halach acharei Tzav" - are whether a Nochri is Chayav merely for making an image (even though he does not worship it [as is implied by the former Pasuk]) or not (if we learn it from the latter Pasuk).

The Beraisa presents the Sheva Mitzvos b'nei No'ach as being specifically Mitzvos which are Chayav Misah by a Yisrael.

Rava therefore queries the ruling that we just learned, rendering Chayav a Nochri who makes an image - (seeing as a Yisrael is not Chayav Misah for making an image), which seemingly comes to preclude someone who makes an idol but does not worship it.

Rav Papa answers that the Beraisa comes to preclude specifically a Nochri who embraces and kisses the idol, (but not one who makes it). Rav Papa will concede however, that one is even Chayav Misah for embracing and kissing it - if that is the way that the idol is worshipped (whereas he is speaking in most cases where it is not).

The Beraisa lists ten Mitzvos which Yisrael were commanded before the Torah was given at Marah. Besides the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach, we learn from the Pasuk "Sham Sam lo Chok u'Mishpat" - the Mitzvah of Dinim.

And from the Pasuk " ... ka'asher Tzivcha Hash-m Elokecha" (written twice in the second Aseres ha'Dibros), Rav Yehudah learns - Shabbos and Kibud Av va'Eim (the two places where this phrase appears).

Rava queries the earlier Beraisa which includes Dinim in the seven Mitzvos from this Beraisa which seems to preclude it. Rava knows that Moshe was not saying this at Arvos Mo'av (where the entire Seifer Devarim was learned), with reference to Har Sinai - because Moshe did not say anything of his own, even in Mishneh Torah, only what he had heard from Hash-m at Sinai. Consequently, whatever was written in connection with the second Luchos, was said at Har Sinai and appeared in the first Luchos, too.

When Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah answers 'Lo Nitzr'chah Ela le'Eidah, ve'Eidim ve'Hasra'ah he means that - at Marah, Yisrael were commanded to institute courts of twenty-three, and the Din of two witnesses and warning, precluding Nochri courts, which require only one judge, one witness, and which can sentence to death even if the accused transgressed without having been warned.

We reject ...

... Rav Nachman's answer however - because the term 'They added (at Marah)' implies that they added the institution of Dinim, and not just some of its details.

... the suggestion that the Dinim that were added at Marah were the 'K'nasos' (the Dinim of fines) - in the same way (that the Tana ought then to have said (not that they added Dinim, but) that 'they added to the Dinim'.

And we also reject Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's suggestion that Yisrael were commanded to place Batei-Dinim in every town and province, but not Nochrim - on the basis of a Beraisa, which places the Nochrim on a par with Yisrael in this regard.

Rava finally establishes the Beraisa of Marah like Tana de'bei Menasheh, who takes out 'Da.ch' - (the acronym of Dinim and Birchas Hash-m), and replaces it with 'Sa.ch' (the acronym of Sirus and Kil'ayim).

According to Rebbi Yehudah in the Beraisa of Tana de'bei Menasheh, Adam ha'Rishon was only commanded one Mitzvah (which he learns from the same Pasuk as the Tana earlier "va'Yetzav Hash-m ... ") - the prohibition of Avodah-Zarah.

Based on the next word "Elokim", Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira adds - Birchas Hash-m.

And the source of 'Yesh Omrim', who add 'Dinim' is - the same word "Elokim" (because justice belongs to 'Elokim', which denotes justice, in which case Dinim is a branch of fearing G-d).

When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, explaining the words "va'Yetzav Hash-m Elokim", says 'Elokim Ani Lo Sekaleluni (Birchas Hash-m); Elokim Ani, Lo Semiruni (Avodah-Zarah); Elokim Ani, Y'hei Mora'i aleichem' (Dinim), he follows the opinion of - Yesh Omrim.

Bearing in mind the source in Bereishis of the earlier Tana, the problem with Tana de'bei Menasheh, who replaces 'Da.ch' with 'Sa.ch' is - what is now his source, seeing as 'Da.ch' is hinted in the Pasuk in Bereishis and not 'Sa.ch'?

And we resolve this - by finding independent sources for each of the Mitzvos, as we shall now see.