Sanhedrin 102

19:
In order for this terrible punishment to be applicable the cursing – imprecation, not just cussing – has to involve the use of God's Name. It is not clear whether the term "God's Name" refers to the Tetragrammaton only [the word spelled in Hebrew Yod-Heh-Vav-Heh, and nowadays read as a surrogate, Adonai] or whether it includes all the Divine appellations which are considered too holy to be erased [Adonai, Elohim, El etc – seven in all]. Rambam [Moses Maimonides, North Africa, 12th century CE] in his Mishneh Torah [Hilkhot Memerim 5:2] states the law as the latter. In his commentary on Mishneh Torah, Kesef Mishneh, Rabbi Yosef Karo demonstrates that Rambam must have decided that this was the intention of our mishnah, by comparing its provisions with those made in a similar case [Tractate Shavu'ot 4:13], where the plural (Names) is expressly used.

20:
Where the imprecation does not involve one of these seven Divine Names, Rabbi Me'ir would hold that the death penalty is still applicable, but the rest of the sages do not accept this. The Halahah follows the sages that an imprecation calling down a curse on one's parents that does not involve the Divine Names is not punishable by death.

I have a question about this. Was there any halachic requirement which would cause these witnesses to pre-warn the transgressor? In the case of warning a murderer, it seems to me that it would be a halachic requirement to pre-warn him (in addition to all other actions which might save the victim's life) since this might deter him and therefore save the victim's life. Personally I can't see myself pre-warning a Shabbat desecrator, although nowadays it's more or less academic since the death penalty cannot be enacted anyway.

I respond:

Ron has raised a very interesting question here, and I am not at all certain that there is a clear-cut answer. Let's leave aside for the moment a case of intended murder since the goals that Ron mentions – saving the victim's life – are covered by the law of the Rodef: any bystander who sees one person threatening another person's life must intervene in order to prevent the crime (even to the extent of taking the assailant's life). In the days when the courts were qualified to judge Dinei Nefashot, was there any law that required the casual bystander to intervene to prevent Sabbath desecration or to stop a heated argument of words between a son or daughter and a parent?

Obviously no one can be forced to offer evidence, though in his Shuĥhan Arukh [Ĥoshen Mishpat 28:1] Rabbi Yosef Karo [Eretz-Israel, 16th century CE] suggests that there is a moral duty to do so:

I wrote: …just as God created everything in six days and ceased on the seventh, so Israel is to engage in mundane activities for six days but to make a complete cessation of all mundane activity on the seventh…

Reuven Boxman writes:

I wish to protest about the word "mundane", in the above paragraph. Mundane has the connotation of ordinary and unimportant. As you go on to point out the subsequent paragraphs, the commandment requires the cessation of "creative" activity. I would argue that creative activity is hardly mundane!

I respond:

I agree that "mundane" denotes the ordinary (my dictionary defines it as "of this world"). Perhaps what I should have written would indicate that all activities, both mundane and creative, are permitted for six days of the week, but on the Seventh Day all activities defined as Melakhah or a derivative thereof are prohibited.

I wrote: I would be very surprised if Penzias and Wilson were aware that they were making theological history, but the claim of the Torah had now been given scientific corroboration: this universe was not eternal but created.

David Bockman writes:

I have read this claim many times in many different books, and I still don't understand why non-eternity implies creation. To me, it seems that it directly implies that the Universe had a start, but 'creation'? Creation implies (I believe) a creator and, to a lesser extent, a plan. The 3 degree Kelvin background noise just does not add up to a 'creator', nor can it say anything about a 'plan' or 'design'. It merely disproves the up-until-then widely accepted notion of the eternity of the Universe, a steady-state unchanging view. Indeed, in cosmological discussions of the dark matter, the shape of the envelope and fate of the universe, etc, it is possible that the Universe may shrink to a singularity eventually, then have another Big Bang and do it all over again. And it is also possible that this has happened many times over. There is not a Biblical 'creation' in sight. I am a rabbi and that I understand there to be a God, but I don't think that the background radiation 'proves' creation. To me, you need to look at Quantum Physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle to prove God. If you're interested, I could explain it to you.

I respond:

I agree with David that the "Big Bang" theory proves that there was a start, a beginning. The Torah also claims that there was a start, a beginning. Thus the claim of the Torah is corroborated – not proven – by the evidence provided by the 3 degree K background noise. It is the Torah that claims that the beginning requires an explanation: what caused the beginning to begin? The answer of the Torah to that question is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". The answer of science to that question is "I don't (yet) know". Yes, it is possible that "the Universe may shrink to a singularity eventually, then have another Big Bang and do it all over again. And it is also possible that this has happened many times over." The Torah only discusses the universe we know and live in. David is obviously aware that the sages were of the opinion that "many universes were created before this one". As far as the "Big Crunch" is concerned, science says "Maybe" and it is the Torah which says "I don't know". David also writes: "To me, you need to look at Quantum Physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle to prove God. If you're interested, I could explain it to you."

Yelammedenu Rabbenu!