Talmud su Levitico 24:78

MISHNAH: If sentence was passed¹If in a capital case the accused was condemned to death. In the list of biblical death penalties (Mishnah 7:1) stoning is mentioned first; therefore, the details of the stoning procedure are explained first., one brings him out to be stoned. The place for stoning was outside the court as it is said: Bring the blasphemer outside the camp²Lev. 24:14. A walled city is the equivalent of the desert “camp”; the execution took place outside the city walls (Ketubot 4:6, Note 132). However, the unfaithful preliminarily married virgin was stoned in front of her parents’ house (Deut. 22:21, Tosephta 10:10, Babli 45b) and the idolator at his place of worship (Deut. 17:5; Sifry Deut. 148; Babli Ketubot 45b).. One person was standing outside the court building with towels in his hand³Latin sudarium, -i,n.; in the Talmudim used for any rectangular piece of cloth too small to cover the body. Here it is used for signal flags.; a horse⁴Meaning: a man on a horse. was standing ready at a distance but so he could see him⁵The horse was stationed on the road to the place of execution as far away as possible so that the rider still could see the person holding the signal flags.. If one said⁶One of the judges or of the law students remaining in the court building., I have an argument in his favor, that one waves his towels, the horse gallops and stops him⁷The procession to the place of execution cannot start until the judges reassemble and decide whether the new argument is weighty enough to restart the deliberations towards a new vote.. Even if he himself says, I have an exculpatory argument for myself, one returns him⁸To the court building to present his case to the judges. even four or five times, on condition that his argument be substantial.

It is written: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth¹⁰Lev. 24:20, speaking of payment for either animal or man..” At another place, He says: “Do not be softhearted.¹¹Deut. 19:21, 25:12.” One refers to inadvertent acts, the other to intentional ones¹²Cf. Sifry Deut. 293. The quote Deut. 19:21 refers to the punishment of the perjured witnesses. Since in injury cases the false accuser wanted to extort money and therefore would have to pay money, it is concluded that Deut. 25:12 which prescribes punishment for intentional injury also must mean payment of money. Therefore Lev. 24:20 refers to payment for unintentional injury.. He could mention the inadvertent but not mention the intentional. But if the inadvertent had been mentioned but not the intentional, I would have said that for the inadvertent act he shall pay money, for the intentional [have his hand cut off. Therefore it was necessary to mention the intentional. Or if the intentional had been mentioned but not the inadvertent, I would have said that for the intentional act he shall pay money, for the inadvertent]¹³Text missing in the Leiden ms., supplied from E and supported by the Genizah text. he should not pay at all. Therefore it was necessary to mention both inadvertent and intentional. And if he blinded a blind man or cut off the arm of an amputee, how could one fulfill: “Do to him as he intended to do to his brother”¹⁴Deut. 19:19, referring to the punishment of perjured witnesses. The quote is confirmed by all three ms. sources but probably the reference should be to Lev. 23:19: “As a person injures another, so should be done to him”. The Babli, 84a, in quoting a similar baraita refers to Lev. 24:22: “A uniform law shall it be for you”; cf. also Sifra Emor Pereq 20(7).? This indicates that he only pays money.

Everybody agrees that there is no money payment in capital cases, as it is written (Lev. 24:21): “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money. Where do they differ? About money in a flogging case. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no money in a capital case but there is money in a flogging case, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, just as there is no money in a capital case so there is no money in a flogging case.

Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death³³According to R. Jehudah, he could not be put to death if the specific way of execution was not known even though the fact that violating the Sabbath was known to be a capital crime.? By stoning. Let us hear from the following³⁴Sifra Emor Parashah 14(5).: “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: Take the blasphemer outside the camp³⁵Lev. 24:14. This proves that from the pentateuchal stories nothing can be inferred for the rules of procedure required at later times. While it was known that a Sabbath infraction was punishable by death (Note 28), nothing was known about the penalty for blasphemy. Therefore, the first time these crimes occurred after the epiphany on Sinai, the law was only being formed; it was not yet consolidated (Babli 78b).. How was he put to death? By stoning.

New Paragraph. “If damage was caused the person responsible is obligated to pay for the damages,” etc. Rebbi Ḥanina said, “he who injures an animal has to pay for it⁶⁴Lev. 24:18, incorrect quote. In the Babli, 10b, R. Ammi (Immi) explains יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה “pay for it” by יַשְׁלִימֶנָּה “shall supplement it,” i. e., pay the difference between the value of the living animal and the carcass. This argument has to be read into the quote here.,” he has to pay the diminution in value. Bar Pedaiah said, “if it was torn, he shall bring it up to the place of the carcass, for which he does not have to pay.⁶⁵Ex. 22:12. The sentence has become unintelligible because it mixes quote and two distinct interpretations. Verses 9–12 refer to the person who undertook to watch over another’s property and is paid for his services. If there was a loss because of theft, the watchman has to pay because he failed to prevent the theft (v. 11). If livestock was lost to predatory animals, the watchman “has to bring it עד”. The masoretic vocalization עֵד means (Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15 in the name of R. Joshia; Babli 11a) that witnesses who testify that the loss was caused by a lion or similar large animal against which the watchman was powerless, will free the watchman from his obligation to pay. He will have to pay for losses caused by smaller animals which attack by stealth. The other interpretations read עַד, either עַד I “until”, or עַד III “torn, robbed by the enemy”. In the Babli, 11a, and Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai22:12, Abba Shaul reads “he shall bring the torn,” meaning that he does not have to pay for the residual value of the carcass. In Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Mišpaṭim 15, R. Jonathan reads “he has to bring the owners to the place [of the attack]” to support his claim that the attack was by a large animal against whom he was powerless. The insertion of “up to the place” into Bar Pedaiah’s quote follows R. Jonathan, but his interpretation is that of Abba Shaul.” Rebbi Nasa said, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed. If only the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina was given but not that of Bar Pedaiah, I would have said that if he made the damage possible he should not have to pay anything but for bodily damage he has to pay the diminution in value⁶⁶Since the verse in Lev. only requires payment by a person who attacks an animal, not if the damage was caused by negligence.. Therefore, Bar Pedaiah’s quote is necessary. But if only the quote of Bar Pedaiah was given but not that of Rebbi Ḥanina, I would have said that if he made the damage possible⁶⁷By his negligence. he has to pay the diminution in value, but for bodily damage he has to pay the whole⁶⁸As one would understand from Lev. 24:18 without R. Immi’s interpretation.. Therefore, the quote of Rebbi Ḥanina is needed and the quote of Bar Pedaiah is needed.

“Since the High Priest is first in line to sacrifice and to take his part first.” How is this? “¹⁶⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b. This skin is mine; one loaf of the Two Breads¹⁶⁶The two leavened breads as public offering on Pentecost., five loaves of the shew-bread.¹⁶⁷Of the 12 shew breads becoming available every Sabbath.” In one case he takes everything, in the other case he takes half? Rebbi Zeˋira said, in the first case, a private sacrifice, in the other case, a public sacrifice. It was stated:¹⁶⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 17b. “Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes only one half.” There are Tannaim who state, “Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes one half.” How is that? If there was one skin. The rabbis say, he takes it whole. Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes only one half. If there were four, five skins. The rabbis say, he takes one¹⁶⁸Since the Mishnah states that he takes “a part”.. Rebbi said, I am saying that he takes half. What is Rebbi’s reason? The remainder of the offering is for Aaron and his sons¹⁶⁹Lev. 2:3. Sifra Wayyiqra I Pereq11(1).. Do we not know that Aaron is together with his sons? Why does the verse say¹⁷⁰Lev. 24:9 (on the shew-bread); Sifra Emor Pereq 18(10)., for Aaron and his sons? But it means, Aaron shall take half of it and his sons shall take half.

Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: We understand that, since it said⁴⁴Ex. 21:22. The next verse reads: “But if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life.” This excludes the imposition of a fine in a murder trial. “if there is no case of murder, a fine shall be imposed”, that if it is a case of murder, you shall take life for life? Why does the verse say, it is a case of murder? To add the case of premeditation and warning⁴⁸Which is a case where a person actually could face execution.. Rebbi Yose said, is that not a Mishnah, “for anybody committing a capital crime does not pay cash”, that it deals not only with cases of error. ⁴⁹Cf. fol. 27b, line 30; Terumot 7:1, Notes 16,18; Babli 35a.Ḥizqiah said, one states a baraita⁵⁰Lev. 24:21.: “The slayer of an animal must pay for it but the slayer of a human shall be put to death.” Just as you did not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of an animal to force him to pay money, so you should not make a difference between unintentional and intentional action of a slayer of a human to free him from paying money.

MISHNAH: Five kinds⁶²The only impurity permitted in the Temple is the impurity of the dead, which can be removed only by a lengthy procedure and depends on the availability of the ashes of a red cow. All other impurities prevent a person from entering the sacred precinct. If most or all of the people are impure, the public service is conducted by the Cohanim without interruption. Most of the public sacrifices are elevation sacrifices which are totally burned on the altar; for them the question of consumption does not arise. The only time impure non-Cohanim are admitted to the sacred precinct is the 14th of Nisan, for the Pesaḥ. are brought in impurity but are not eaten in impurity: The ˋOmer⁶³The offering of barley flour from the new harvest, Lev. 23:9–14, of which a fistful is burned on the altar and the remainder eaten be the Cohanim. If offered in impurity everything has to be burned., and the Two Breads⁶⁴The two leavened breads of new wheat harvest presented on Pentecost, Lev. 23:17, intended to be eaten entirely by the Cohanim., and the shew-bread⁶⁵Lev. 24:9., and public well-being offerings⁶⁶The two sheep accompanying the two breads, to be eaten by the Cohanim with the breads; Lev. 23:19–20., and the goats of New Moons⁶⁷The obligatory purification offerings, not only for New Moons but also all holidays, of which only a small part is burned on the altar and most of it eaten by the Cohanim in the Temple precinct; Num.28:15,22,30; 29:5.11,16, 19,22,25,28,31,34, 38.. Pesaḥ which is brought in impurity is eaten since from the start this is what it is for⁶⁸Since it is written (Ex. 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..

[In the verses] And it came to pass when they⁶³Foreign princes or rulers. E.V. God. caused me to wander, God, etc.,⁶⁴Gen. 20, 13. Cf. Rule 6 above. and Which god⁶⁵E.V. who is a God. is like unto Thee⁶⁶Micah 7, 18. the first⁶⁷The pronoun ‘they’ in Gen. 20, 13 and god in Micah 7, 18. are sacred and the second⁶⁸God in Gen. and Thee in Micah. are secular. [The divine name in] Samaria shall bear her guilt, for she hath rebelled against her God⁶⁹Hos. 14, 1. is sacred. R. Nathan says: [In the phrase] in the house of his God⁷⁰ibid. IX, 8. it is sacred. In therefore turn thou to thy God⁷¹ibid. XII, 7. it is sacred. In God standeth in the congregation of God; in the midst of the judges⁷²The Heb. has the divine name. He judgeth⁷³Ps. 82, 1. it is used as sacred⁷⁴In God standeth. and secular.⁷⁵In the sense of ‘judges’. In God delivereth me to⁷⁶Heb. אל (to) which has the same consonants as the word for ‘God’. the ungodly⁷⁷Job 16, 11. the first is sacred and the second⁷⁸’el in the sense of ‘to’. is secular. In For hath any said unto God: I have borne⁷⁹ibid. XXXIV, 31. the first [’el] is secular and the second sacred.
R. Eleazar the son of R. Jose the Galilean said:⁸⁰So M. V and H read ‘and R. Eleazar … said’. [In the verses] And let my cry have no⁸¹Heb. ’al, the same consonants as for the name of God. resting-place;⁸²Job 16, 18. It is in the power⁸³Gen. 31, 29. The Heb. for power (’el) equals the divine name. of my hand; And there shall be nought in the power of thy hand;⁸⁴Deut. 28, 32. When it is in the power of thy hand;⁸⁵Prov. 3, 27. Unto death,⁸⁶ibid. II, 18; unto is ’el in Heb. all [the words whose consonants are the same as those for God] are secular. In God hath given command to speed me⁸⁷2 Chron. 35, 21. it is sacred. In Forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me⁸⁸ibid. it is sacred according to R. Jose b. Judah. In O God, the proud are risen up against me⁸⁹Ps. 86, 14. it is sacred but the reader must pause in reading [after God]:⁹⁰In the absence of the pause, the adjective proud might erroneously be taken as qualifying God. God, the proud are risen up against me.
[The terms] merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abounding in lovingkindness, king, kings, exalted, great, Most High, righteous and upright, pious, perfect, mighty, may be erased.⁹¹Although attributed to God, they do not possess the sanctity of the divine name. He who curses himself or his neighbour by [any of] these⁹²Using any of these attributes instead of the divine name. incurs guilt. [If he curses] heathens or the dead no guilt⁹³So M and N.Y. V and H read ‘guilty of one [offence]’. is incurred. [If he curses] a judge or a prince he incurs twofold guilt;⁹⁴Since a judge or prince must not be cursed as any other person, and as men holding offices of responsibility. according to others he incurs threefold guilt for cursing a prince.⁹⁵The two mentioned in the preceding note, and a third because the Heb. word for ‘judge’ in the text is identical with the divine name. If a person curses his father or mother with the Tetragrammaton⁹⁶lit. ‘the distinguished name’. he is liable to the penalty of stoning,⁹⁷Cf. Lev. 24, 14. Stoning is one of the major penalties imposed by a court. but if only with the attributes he is liable to a warning.⁹⁸i.e. he is guilty of transgressing a negative commandment, the penalty of which is scourging with thirty-nine stripes.

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

MISHNAH: The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife⁵³Even if she is not his mother, Lev. 20:11. One infers from Lev. 20:27 that their blood be on them means that the punishment is stoning (Halakhah 9)., or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself⁵⁴Lev. 20:12,13,15,16.. Also the blasphemer⁵⁵Lev. 24:23. It is a capital crime only if the Divine Name (which today is unknown) was used in the blasphemy., the worshipper of idols⁵⁶Deut. 17:5., he who gives one of his descendants to the Moloch⁵⁷Lev. 20:2., and the necromancer, and the medium⁵⁸Lev. 20:27. The necromancer is the person who raises the spirits of the dead; cf. 1S. 28. The medium is one who incorporates a spirit which predicts the future, speaking from the medium’s body, not his mouth.. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath⁵⁹Num. 15:36., or who curses father or mother⁶⁰Lev. 20:9., or who has sexual relations with a preliminarily married maiden⁸Adultery by a preliminarily married virgin is punishable by stoning (Deut. 22:24), by a definitively married woman by “death” (Lev. 20:10), which by the preceding argument means the least painful of the four kinds of execution. Lev. 21:9 prescribes death by burning for the whoring daughter of a Cohen. The status (unmarried, preliminarily or definitively married) of the Cohen’s daughter is not spelled out. Since sexual activity of an unmarried woman is nowhere in the Bible classified as a capital crime [Sifra Emor Pereq 1(15)], it is assumed that the Cohen’s daughter mentioned in the verse cannot be unmarried (virgin or widowed). The problem remains whether Lev. 21:9 refers to a preliminarily or definitively married woman.
For R. Simeon, who holds that burning is more painful than stoning, Lev. 21:9 refers to any adulterous daughter of a Cohen, irrespective of the status of her marriage (Babli 50a). For the rabbis who hold that stoning is more painful than burning, Lev. 21:9 cannot refer to a preliminarily married maiden since then it would treat a Cohen’s daughter more leniently than an Israel’s, which contradicts the entire tenor of Lev. 21:1–9.
The formulation of the rabbis’ position is not quite correct since Deut. 22:24 applies only to a preliminarily married maiden (between the ages of 12 and 12 years 6 months; cf. Yebamot 1:3, Notes 159–160). In the text following, “preliminarily married” means “preliminarily married maiden”; “definitively married” means “definitively married or adult preliminarily married”., or who leads astray⁶¹The missionary for another faith who addresses individuals in private; Deut. 13:11, cf. Mishnah 16., or who seduces⁶²He acts in public; Halakhah 16., or the sorcerer⁶³Halakhah 19., or the deviant and rebellious son⁶⁴Deut. 21:21..

It is said (Lev. 19:3): “Everybody must fear his mother and his father,” and it is said (Deut. 6:13): “You must fear the Eternal, your God, and serve Him.” This brackets the fear of father and mother with the fear of the Omnipresent. [It is said (Ex. 20:12): “Honor your father and your mother,” and it is said (Prov. 3:9): “Honor the Eternal with your property.” This brackets the honor of father and mother with the honor of the Omnipresent.] Is is said (Ex. 21:17): “He who curses his father or his mother shall be put to death,” and it is said (Lev. 24:19): “Everybody who curses his God must bear his sin.” This brackets cursing father and mother with cursing the Omnipresent. It is impossible to speak about hitting relative to the Deity. All this is logical since all three of them are partners in him.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. ²¹²The parallel in the Babli is 56a. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God²¹³Ex. 22:27. Since El means “power”, Elohim as a plural of majesty means “superior power”; in this case “supreme power” in contrast to elohim aḥerim which are not other gods” but “other powers”, such as the rain worshipped by Semites as Baal and by the Greeks as Zeus.. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁴Lev. 24:15. In Num. 9:13, referring to the Second Passover, it is spelled out that “carrying one’s sin” is equivalent to “being subject to extirpation” [Sifra Emor Pereq19(6), in the name of R. Jehudah.]. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death²¹⁵Lev. 24:16.. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges²¹⁶He reads Ex. 22:27 as referring to judges, who are called elohim in Ex. 22:7, Ps. 82:1. Babli 66a, Mekhilta dR. IsmaelMišpatim 19 (p. 317). The previous argument is R. Aqiba’s.? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names²¹⁷Any reference to the Deity other than the Tetragrammaton, the Unique name. Babli 56a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 213. The argument seems to contradict the principle that “one may not punish on the basis of a logical argument” (cf. Halakhah 7:1 Note 9). But since the argument refers only to warning and Heavenly retribution, not to penalties imposed by the court, there is no contradiction.. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation²¹⁸Sifra Emor Pereq 19(5), opinion of the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meïr who equates the Unique Name and its substitute names.. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁹The same group of verses can lead to two different conclusions without possibility of deciding between them., etc.

HALAKHAH: “The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. ²¹²The parallel in the Babli is 56a. From where a warning for the blasphemer? You shall not curse God²¹³Ex. 22:27. Since El means “power”, Elohim as a plural of majesty means “superior power”; in this case “supreme power” in contrast to elohim aḥerim which are not other gods” but “other powers”, such as the rain worshipped by Semites as Baal and by the Greeks as Zeus.. Extirpation from where? Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁴Lev. 24:15. In Num. 9:13, referring to the Second Passover, it is spelled out that “carrying one’s sin” is equivalent to “being subject to extirpation” [Sifra Emor Pereq19(6), in the name of R. Jehudah.]. Punishment from where? He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death²¹⁵Lev. 24:16.. But according to Rebbi Ismael, since Rebbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges²¹⁶He reads Ex. 22:27 as referring to judges, who are called elohim in Ex. 22:7, Ps. 82:1. Babli 66a, Mekhilta dR. IsmaelMišpatim 19 (p. 317). The previous argument is R. Aqiba’s.? If he is warned about judges, then so much more about [divine] substitute names²¹⁷Any reference to the Deity other than the Tetragrammaton, the Unique name. Babli 56a, Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Iohai p. 213. The argument seems to contradict the principle that “one may not punish on the basis of a logical argument” (cf. Halakhah 7:1 Note 9). But since the argument refers only to warning and Heavenly retribution, not to penalties imposed by the court, there is no contradiction.. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, so much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation²¹⁸Sifra Emor Pereq 19(5), opinion of the rabbis opposing Rebbi Meïr who equates the Unique Name and its substitute names.. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, you shall not curse God and anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death. He who says, for substitute names warning, you shall not curse God, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin²¹⁹The same group of verses can lead to two different conclusions without possibility of deciding between them., etc.