Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

September 27, 2017 | 讝壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Sanhedrin 73

Is the law that one is allowed to kill someone who breaks into his house the same as the law of a rodef – a pursuer?聽 THe laws of a rodef are discussed – in which cases is one allowed to attack a pursuer?聽 Some cases are a subject of debate.聽 Is one allowed to kill the pursuer or just neutralize him/her?聽 Is the reason one is allowed to do it to prevent the pursuer from committing a serious crime or is it to save the victim?聽 Where are these laws derived from?聽 From where do we learn that one needs to save another from drowning, being attacked by an animal/armed robbers?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖谉 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 讜讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讜讗讞专 讛谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘诇 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讘讛诪讛 讜讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖谉

MISHNA: And these are the ones who are saved from transgressing even at the cost of their lives; that is to say, these people may be killed so that they do not perform a transgression: One who pursues another to kill him, or pursues a male to sodomize him, or pursues a betrothed young woman to rape her. But with regard to one who pursues an animal to sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. Rather, they are forewarned not to transgress, and if they proceed to transgress after having been forewarned, they are brought to trial, and if they are found guilty, they are executed.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转注诪讚 注诇 讚诐 专注讱壮 讜讛讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讜讗讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讛讜讗 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 讞讬讛 讙讜专专转讜 讗讜 诇住讟讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛爪讬诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转注诪讚 注诇 讚诐 专注讱壮 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to one who pursues another in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another鈥 (Leviticus 19:16); rather, you must save him from death. The Gemara asks: But does this verse really come to teach us this? This verse is required for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who sees another drowning in a river, or being dragged away by a wild animal, or being attacked by bandits [listin], is obligated to save him? The Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another.鈥 The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that this verse relates to the obligation to save one whose life is in danger.

讜讗诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诪讛 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖诇讗 讘讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讜讙诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讛 讘谞驻砖讜 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

The Gemara asks again: But from where do we derive that one may be saved at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life? The Gemara answers: It is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the halakha governing a betrothed young woman who was assaulted by a rapist: If in the case of a betrothed young woman, whom the rapist comes only to degrade, i.e., the result of the rape will be that her status is lowered, the Torah said that she may be saved even at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life, then in the case of one who pursues another person to kill him, all the more so should one say that he may be saved even at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life.

讜讻讬 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讚讘讬 专讘讬 转谞讗 讛拽讬砖讗 讛讜讗 壮讻讬 讻讗砖专 讬拽讜诐 讗讬砖 注诇 专注讛讜 讜专爪讞讜 谞驻砖壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪专讜爪讞

The Gemara asks: But does the court administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers: A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: This halakha is also derived from an analogy based on a juxtaposition. How so? With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: 鈥淏ut you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so too with this matter鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? But what do we learn here from a murderer?

诪注转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 专讜爪讞 诇谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诪讛 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讛 讘谞驻砖讜 讗祝 专讜爪讞 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜

Now, the mention of murder came in order to teach a halakha about the betrothed young woman, and it turns out that, in addition, it derives a halakha from that case. The Torah juxtaposes the case of a murderer to the case of a betrothed young woman to indicate that just as in the case of a betrothed young woman one may save her at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life, so too, in the case of a murderer, one may save the potential victim at the cost of the murderer鈥檚 life.

讜谞注专讛 诪讗讜专住讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 壮讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬注 诇讛壮 讛讗 讬砖 诪讜砖讬注 诇讛 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜砖讬注

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the betrothed young woman herself, from where do we derive that she may be saved at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: 鈥淔or he found her in the field, and the betrothed young woman cried out, and there was none to save her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:27). But if there was someone to save her, he must do so by any means that can save her, even by killing the potential rapist.

讙讜驻讗 诪谞讬谉 诇专讜讗讛 讗转 讞讘专讜 砖讛讜讗 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 讞讬讛 讙讜专专转讜 讗讜 诇住讟讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛爪讬诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转注诪讚 注诇 讚诐 专注讱壮 讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讗讘讚转 讙讜驻讜 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讛砖讘转讜 诇讜壮

Concerning the matter itself, it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who sees another drowning in a river, or being dragged away by a wild animal, or being attacked by bandits, is obligated to save him? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another鈥 (Leviticus 19:16). The Gemara asks about this derivation: But is this really derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from a different verse, as it is taught: The Torah teaches that one must return lost property to its rightful owner. But from where is it derived that one must help his neighbor who may suffer the loss of his body or his health? The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall restore it [vahashevato] to him [lo]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2), which can also be read as: And you shall restore him [vehashevato] to him, i.e., saving his body. Consequently, there should be no need for the additional verse: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another.鈥

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘谞驻砖讬讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讟专讞 讜诪讬讙专 讗讙讜专讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say that this matter applies only to saving the person in danger by himself, i.e., that he himself must come to his neighbor鈥檚 rescue if he can, as is the halakha with regard to returning a lost item. But to trouble himself and hire workers for this purpose, one might say that he is not obligated, just as he is not obligated to hire workers to recover another鈥檚 lost item. Therefore, the verse 鈥淒o not stand by the blood of another鈥 teaches us that he must even hire workers, and he transgresses a prohibition if he does not do so.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 讜讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讜讗讞专 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讜讗讞专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗讞专 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖讜

The Sages taught yet another baraita on the topic of a pursuer: One who pursues another to kill him; or pursues a male to sodomize him; or pursues a betrothed young woman to rape her; or pursues a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition, the violation of which renders him liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty; or pursues a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition, the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet, all these people are to be saved at the cost of the life of the transgressor. But with regard to a widow who is being pursued by a High Priest, or a divorc茅e, or a woman who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza] who is being pursued by an ordinary priest, they are not saved at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life, because these unions are subject only to a mere prohibition.

谞注讘讚讛 讘讛 注讘讬专讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘谞驻砖讜 讬砖 诇讛 诪讜砖讬注 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘谞驻砖讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗讜诪专转 壮讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜壮 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛

Furthermore, if a sin had already been committed with the betrothed young woman, she is not saved at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life. In addition, if there is one to save her, i.e., if there is another way to save the betrothed young woman that does not involve killing the rapist, she is not saved at the cost of his life. Rabbi Yehuda says: Also, if the betrothed young woman says to those who come to rescue her: Let the rapist be, she is saying this so that he should not kill her, and therefore the rapist is not killed.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇谞注专讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讚讘专 讗讬谉 诇谞注专讛 讞讟讗 诪讜转 谞注专 讝讛 讝讻讜专 谞注专讛 讝讜 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讞讟讗 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诪讜转 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淏ut you shall do nothing to the young woman [na鈥檃ra]; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:26). The word is read as young woman, 鈥na鈥檃ra,鈥 but it is written as young man, na鈥檃r. Na鈥檃r, as it is written, this is an allusion to sodomy. 鈥Na鈥檃ra,鈥 as it is read, this is a betrothed young woman. 鈥淪in鈥; these are women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet. 鈥淒eath鈥; these are women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty.

讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 谞注专讛 讚讗讜专讞讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these different cases? Why does it not suffice to offer one example from which all the others can be derived? The Gemara answers: These cases are all necessary, as had the Merciful One written only na鈥檃r to teach the halakha with regard to sodomy, one might say that this victim alone is saved at the cost of his attacker鈥檚 life, because it is not his way to engage in intercourse with a man, and so he would suffer excessive embarrassment and pain were he not saved. But a young woman, whose natural way is to engage in intercourse with a man, one might say that her attacker may not be killed.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗讘诇 谞注专 讚诇讗 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And had the Merciful One wrote only na鈥檃ra to teach the halakha concerning a betrothed young woman, one might say that she alone is saved at the cost of her attacker鈥檚 life, because he degrades her by taking her virginity, and she will be cheapened in the eyes of her betrothed. But a young man, who is not similarly degraded, one might say that his attacker may not be killed.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讬

And had the Merciful One wrote both of these,

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗讘诇 砖讗专 注专讬讜转 讚讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 谞驻讬砖 驻讬讙诪讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗

one might say that these two alone are saved at the cost of their respective attackers鈥 lives, because for this one it is not his natural way, and that one he degrades. But one who rapes one of the other women with whom relations are forbidden, whose natural way is to engage in intercourse with a man, and their degradation is not great, one might say that their attackers may not be killed. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote 鈥渟in鈥 to include in this halakha the other women with whom relations are forbidden.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜转

And had the Merciful One wrote only 鈥渟in,鈥 I would say that this applies even to women who are forbidden only by a mere prohibition, that they too are to be saved even at the cost of their attackers鈥 lives. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote 鈥渄eath,鈥 to teach us that this halakha applies only to transgressions that are punishable by the death penalty.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗

And had the Merciful One wrote only 鈥渄eath,鈥 I would say that those women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to a court-imposed death penalty are indeed to be saved even at the cost of their attackers鈥 lives, as these are very serious sins, for which they are punished by the court. But those women who are forbidden to him by the type of prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet, a punishment from God, are not to be saved at the cost of their attackers鈥 lives. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote 鈥渟in,鈥 to teach that this halakha applies even to prohibitions that are punishable by karet.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗 诪讜转 讜诇讗 讘注讬 谞注专 讜谞注专讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 谞注专 谞注专讛 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讜砖讘转

The Gemara challenges: But let the Merciful One write only 鈥渟in worthy of death鈥 and it would no longer be necessary to specify na鈥檃r and na鈥檃ra.鈥 The Gemara explains: Yes, this is indeed so; the words 鈥渟in worthy of death鈥 suffice to include all those who are included in this halakha. But na鈥檃r and na鈥檃ra are mentioned here not to include a case, but rather to exclude a case. One serves to exclude someone who seeks to worship idols, and one serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal or desecrate Shabbat, teaching that these transgressors are not killed in order to prevent them from transgressing.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讘转

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that an idol worshipper must be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life, why do I need the two terms na鈥檃r and 鈥na鈥檃ra鈥? The Gemara answers: One serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal, and one serves to exclude someone who seeks to desecrate Shabbat.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 砖讘转 诪讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara explains why both are needed: It might enter your mind to say that the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat can be derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with Shabbat and the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with idol worship. Consequently, you might think that one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat must also be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life. Therefore, a special derivation was necessary to teach that a potential Shabbat desecrator is not to be saved at the cost of his life.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 讚讗转讬讗 砖讘转 诪讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讚 诪讬注讜讟 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专 讻转讘 谞诪讬 谞注专讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who comes to desecrate Shabbat must be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life, because the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat can be derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with Shabbat and the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with idol worship, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: One exclusion serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal; and as for the other, since the Merciful One wrote na鈥檃r, He also wrote 鈥na鈥檃ra.鈥 That is to say, the form in which the word is written in this verse and the form in which it is read do not teach two separate halakhot.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗讜诪专转 壮讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜壮 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The baraita cited previously teaches: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis and says: Also, if the betrothed young woman says to those who come to rescue her: Let the rapist be, she is saying this so that he should not kill her, and therefore the rapist is not killed. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪拽驻讚转 注诇 驻讬讙诪讛 讜诪谞讬讞转讜 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗驻讬讙诪讛 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛专讬 诪拽驻讚转 注诇 驻讬讙诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 拽讟诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住专讛 谞驻砖讛 诇拽讟诇讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪住专讛 谞驻砖讛 诇拽讟诇讗

Rava says: They disagree about the case where the young woman is particular about the degradation that she is to suffer as a result of the rape, but nevertheless she allows him to rape her so that he should not kill her. The Rabbis maintain that the Torah is particular about her degradation, which is why the rapist may be killed, and she too is particular about her degradation. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the Merciful One says that a rapist must be killed because his victim is prepared to sacrifice her life rather than yield to rape. The woman in this case, however, who asks that the rapist not be harmed, is not prepared to sacrifice her life, and therefore her rapist may not be killed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞诪讬 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬讙诪讛 专讘讛 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讗驻讬讙诪讛 讝讜讟讗 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If the reason that the rapist may be killed is the woman鈥檚 degradation, as claimed by the Rabbis, a High Priest also degrades a widow when he engages in intercourse with her, as he makes her a 岣lala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest. Why then is she not saved even at the cost of her attacker鈥檚 life? Abaye said to Rav Pappa: For a great level of degradation, involving karet and potentially a child that is a mamzer, the Merciful One is particular; but for a small level of degradation, as in the case of a 岣lala, the Merciful One is not particular.

讞讟讗 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜

搂 The baraita taught that the word 鈥渟in鈥 is referring to women who are forbidden to a man by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet. From here it is derived that a man who attempts to rape a woman who is forbidden to him under penalty of karet may be killed. The Gemara raises a contradiction between this and what is taught in a mishna (Ketubot 29a): These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them, and the list includes: One who engages in intercourse with his sister. One who engages in intercourse with his sister is punished with karet, and accordingly, a woman being raped by her brother may be saved even at the cost of her brother鈥檚 life. Whenever one is liable to be killed at the hands of people, even if the transgressor is not killed, the transgressor is exempt from paying any fine or payment. Therefore, since one attempting to rape his sister may be killed, he should be exempt from the fine ordinarily imposed upon a rapist.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪砖注转 讛注专讗讛 讚驻讙诪讛 讗讬驻讟专 诇讛 诪拽讟诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 注讚 讙诪专 讘讬讗讛

The Sages stated this solution before Rav 岣sda: From the time of the initial stage of intercourse, when he has already degraded her, as she is considered to have engaged in intercourse from that time, he is already exempt from being killed, as it was taught in a baraita that once the sin has been committed, and the woman has been degraded, the rapist may no longer be killed. But he does not become obligated to pay any money until the conclusion of the act of intercourse, when the signs of her virginity are completely taken away. Since the two types of liability are not incurred simultaneously, there is no exemption from paying the fine.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 谞砖讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 讛讻谞住转 注讟专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav 岣sda said to those Sages: This works out well according to the one who says that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is a kiss, i.e., external contact of the sexual organs, as it is inevitable that there will be some slight penetration. But according to the one who said that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona, what is there to say? This stage takes away the woman鈥檚 virginity. From the time of the initial stage of intercourse she is no longer a virgin, and he becomes liable to pay the fine at the very moment that he may be killed in order to save him from his transgression.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讻讚专讻讛

Rather, Rav 岣sda says: The mishna should be understood as referring to a case where the brother first engaged in intercourse with his sister in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse. With this intercourse he degraded her, but she is still considered a virgin. Afterward, he again engaged in intercourse with her in a typical manner. Only at that point did he become liable to pay the fine paid by one who engaged in intercourse with a virgin and took away her virginity. But he could not then be killed, as she had already been degraded, so there is no exemption from the fine.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪谞讬讞转讜 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

Rava says: The mishna is referring to a case where the sister allows her brother to rape her and asks that he not be harmed so that he should not kill her, and it is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that in such a case she is not to be saved at the cost of her brother鈥檚 life.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Sanhedrin 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 73

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖谉 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 讜讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讜讗讞专 讛谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘诇 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讘讛诪讛 讜讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖谉

MISHNA: And these are the ones who are saved from transgressing even at the cost of their lives; that is to say, these people may be killed so that they do not perform a transgression: One who pursues another to kill him, or pursues a male to sodomize him, or pursues a betrothed young woman to rape her. But with regard to one who pursues an animal to sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. Rather, they are forewarned not to transgress, and if they proceed to transgress after having been forewarned, they are brought to trial, and if they are found guilty, they are executed.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 砖谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转注诪讚 注诇 讚诐 专注讱壮 讜讛讗 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬讬谉 诇专讜讗讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讛讜讗 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 讞讬讛 讙讜专专转讜 讗讜 诇住讟讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛爪讬诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转注诪讚 注诇 讚诐 专注讱壮 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to one who pursues another in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another鈥 (Leviticus 19:16); rather, you must save him from death. The Gemara asks: But does this verse really come to teach us this? This verse is required for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who sees another drowning in a river, or being dragged away by a wild animal, or being attacked by bandits [listin], is obligated to save him? The Torah states: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another.鈥 The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so that this verse relates to the obligation to save one whose life is in danger.

讜讗诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 诪谞诇谉 讗转讬讗 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诪讛 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖诇讗 讘讗 讗诇讗 诇驻讜讙诪讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讛 讘谞驻砖讜 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 注诇 讗讞转 讻诪讛 讜讻诪讛

The Gemara asks again: But from where do we derive that one may be saved at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life? The Gemara answers: It is derived by means of an a fortiori inference from the halakha governing a betrothed young woman who was assaulted by a rapist: If in the case of a betrothed young woman, whom the rapist comes only to degrade, i.e., the result of the rape will be that her status is lowered, the Torah said that she may be saved even at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life, then in the case of one who pursues another person to kill him, all the more so should one say that he may be saved even at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life.

讜讻讬 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讚讘讬 专讘讬 转谞讗 讛拽讬砖讗 讛讜讗 壮讻讬 讻讗砖专 讬拽讜诐 讗讬砖 注诇 专注讛讜 讜专爪讞讜 谞驻砖壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪专讜爪讞

The Gemara asks: But does the court administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers: A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught: This halakha is also derived from an analogy based on a juxtaposition. How so? With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: 鈥淏ut you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so too with this matter鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? But what do we learn here from a murderer?

诪注转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 专讜爪讞 诇谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诪讛 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讛 讘谞驻砖讜 讗祝 专讜爪讞 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜

Now, the mention of murder came in order to teach a halakha about the betrothed young woman, and it turns out that, in addition, it derives a halakha from that case. The Torah juxtaposes the case of a murderer to the case of a betrothed young woman to indicate that just as in the case of a betrothed young woman one may save her at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life, so too, in the case of a murderer, one may save the potential victim at the cost of the murderer鈥檚 life.

讜谞注专讛 诪讗讜专住讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讻讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 壮讜讗讬谉 诪讜砖讬注 诇讛壮 讛讗 讬砖 诪讜砖讬注 诇讛 讘讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜砖讬注

The Gemara asks: And with regard to the betrothed young woman herself, from where do we derive that she may be saved at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life? The Gemara explains: As it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse states: 鈥淔or he found her in the field, and the betrothed young woman cried out, and there was none to save her鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:27). But if there was someone to save her, he must do so by any means that can save her, even by killing the potential rapist.

讙讜驻讗 诪谞讬谉 诇专讜讗讛 讗转 讞讘专讜 砖讛讜讗 讟讜讘注 讘谞讛专 讗讜 讞讬讛 讙讜专专转讜 讗讜 诇住讟讬谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 诇讛爪讬诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诇讗 转注诪讚 注诇 讚诐 专注讱壮 讜讛讗 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 讗讘讚转 讙讜驻讜 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讛砖讘转讜 诇讜壮

Concerning the matter itself, it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who sees another drowning in a river, or being dragged away by a wild animal, or being attacked by bandits, is obligated to save him? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another鈥 (Leviticus 19:16). The Gemara asks about this derivation: But is this really derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from a different verse, as it is taught: The Torah teaches that one must return lost property to its rightful owner. But from where is it derived that one must help his neighbor who may suffer the loss of his body or his health? The verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall restore it [vahashevato] to him [lo]鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2), which can also be read as: And you shall restore him [vehashevato] to him, i.e., saving his body. Consequently, there should be no need for the additional verse: 鈥淵ou shall not stand idly by the blood of another.鈥

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘谞驻砖讬讛 讗讘诇 诪讬讟专讞 讜诪讬讙专 讗讙讜专讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say that this matter applies only to saving the person in danger by himself, i.e., that he himself must come to his neighbor鈥檚 rescue if he can, as is the halakha with regard to returning a lost item. But to trouble himself and hire workers for this purpose, one might say that he is not obligated, just as he is not obligated to hire workers to recover another鈥檚 lost item. Therefore, the verse 鈥淒o not stand by the blood of another鈥 teaches us that he must even hire workers, and he transgresses a prohibition if he does not do so.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讞讚 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛专讙讜 讜讗讞专 讛讝讻专 讜讗讞专 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讜讗讞专 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗讞专 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讙专讜砖讛 讜讞诇讜爪讛 诇讻讛谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘谞驻砖讜

The Sages taught yet another baraita on the topic of a pursuer: One who pursues another to kill him; or pursues a male to sodomize him; or pursues a betrothed young woman to rape her; or pursues a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition, the violation of which renders him liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty; or pursues a woman who is forbidden to him by a prohibition, the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet, all these people are to be saved at the cost of the life of the transgressor. But with regard to a widow who is being pursued by a High Priest, or a divorc茅e, or a woman who has performed 岣litza [岣lutza] who is being pursued by an ordinary priest, they are not saved at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life, because these unions are subject only to a mere prohibition.

谞注讘讚讛 讘讛 注讘讬专讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘谞驻砖讜 讬砖 诇讛 诪讜砖讬注 讗讬谉 诪爪讬诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 讘谞驻砖讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗讜诪专转 壮讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜壮 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛

Furthermore, if a sin had already been committed with the betrothed young woman, she is not saved at the cost of the rapist鈥檚 life. In addition, if there is one to save her, i.e., if there is another way to save the betrothed young woman that does not involve killing the rapist, she is not saved at the cost of his life. Rabbi Yehuda says: Also, if the betrothed young woman says to those who come to rescue her: Let the rapist be, she is saying this so that he should not kill her, and therefore the rapist is not killed.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇谞注专讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 讚讘专 讗讬谉 诇谞注专讛 讞讟讗 诪讜转 谞注专 讝讛 讝讻讜专 谞注专讛 讝讜 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讞讟讗 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诪讜转 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淏ut you shall do nothing to the young woman [na鈥檃ra]; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:26). The word is read as young woman, 鈥na鈥檃ra,鈥 but it is written as young man, na鈥檃r. Na鈥檃r, as it is written, this is an allusion to sodomy. 鈥Na鈥檃ra,鈥 as it is read, this is a betrothed young woman. 鈥淪in鈥; these are women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet. 鈥淒eath鈥; these are women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive a court-imposed death penalty.

讻诇 讛谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讗讘诇 谞注专讛 讚讗讜专讞讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: Why do I need all these different cases? Why does it not suffice to offer one example from which all the others can be derived? The Gemara answers: These cases are all necessary, as had the Merciful One written only na鈥檃r to teach the halakha with regard to sodomy, one might say that this victim alone is saved at the cost of his attacker鈥檚 life, because it is not his way to engage in intercourse with a man, and so he would suffer excessive embarrassment and pain were he not saved. But a young woman, whose natural way is to engage in intercourse with a man, one might say that her attacker may not be killed.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗讘诇 谞注专 讚诇讗 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

And had the Merciful One wrote only na鈥檃ra to teach the halakha concerning a betrothed young woman, one might say that she alone is saved at the cost of her attacker鈥檚 life, because he degrades her by taking her virginity, and she will be cheapened in the eyes of her betrothed. But a young man, who is not similarly degraded, one might say that his attacker may not be killed.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讛谞讬

And had the Merciful One wrote both of these,

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讗讬 诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讛讗 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗讘诇 砖讗专 注专讬讜转 讚讗讜专讞讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 谞驻讬砖 驻讬讙诪讬讬讛讜 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗

one might say that these two alone are saved at the cost of their respective attackers鈥 lives, because for this one it is not his natural way, and that one he degrades. But one who rapes one of the other women with whom relations are forbidden, whose natural way is to engage in intercourse with a man, and their degradation is not great, one might say that their attackers may not be killed. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote 鈥渟in鈥 to include in this halakha the other women with whom relations are forbidden.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 诇讗讜讬谉 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜转

And had the Merciful One wrote only 鈥渟in,鈥 I would say that this applies even to women who are forbidden only by a mere prohibition, that they too are to be saved even at the cost of their attackers鈥 lives. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote 鈥渄eath,鈥 to teach us that this halakha applies only to transgressions that are punishable by the death penalty.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讬讬讘讬 诪讬转讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗

And had the Merciful One wrote only 鈥渄eath,鈥 I would say that those women who are forbidden to him by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to a court-imposed death penalty are indeed to be saved even at the cost of their attackers鈥 lives, as these are very serious sins, for which they are punished by the court. But those women who are forbidden to him by the type of prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet, a punishment from God, are not to be saved at the cost of their attackers鈥 lives. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote 鈥渟in,鈥 to teach that this halakha applies even to prohibitions that are punishable by karet.

讜诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞讟讗 诪讜转 讜诇讗 讘注讬 谞注专 讜谞注专讛 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 谞注专 谞注专讛 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讜砖讘转

The Gemara challenges: But let the Merciful One write only 鈥渟in worthy of death鈥 and it would no longer be necessary to specify na鈥檃r and na鈥檃ra.鈥 The Gemara explains: Yes, this is indeed so; the words 鈥渟in worthy of death鈥 suffice to include all those who are included in this halakha. But na鈥檃r and na鈥檃ra are mentioned here not to include a case, but rather to exclude a case. One serves to exclude someone who seeks to worship idols, and one serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal or desecrate Shabbat, teaching that these transgressors are not killed in order to prevent them from transgressing.

讜诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讚讗诪专 注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讘转

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i, who says that an idol worshipper must be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life, why do I need the two terms na鈥檃r and 鈥na鈥檃ra鈥? The Gemara answers: One serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal, and one serves to exclude someone who seeks to desecrate Shabbat.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 砖讘转 诪讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara explains why both are needed: It might enter your mind to say that the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat can be derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with Shabbat and the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with idol worship. Consequently, you might think that one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat must also be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life. Therefore, a special derivation was necessary to teach that a potential Shabbat desecrator is not to be saved at the cost of his life.

讜诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 讚讗转讬讗 砖讘转 诪讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讞讚 诪讬注讜讟 诇诪注讜讟讬 讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 谞注专 讻转讘 谞诪讬 谞注专讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who comes to desecrate Shabbat must be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life, because the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat can be derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with Shabbat and the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in connection with idol worship, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: One exclusion serves to exclude someone who seeks to sodomize an animal; and as for the other, since the Merciful One wrote na鈥檃r, He also wrote 鈥na鈥檃ra.鈥 That is to say, the form in which the word is written in this verse and the form in which it is read do not teach two separate halakhot.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗讜诪专转 壮讛谞讬讞讜 诇讜壮 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

搂 The baraita cited previously teaches: Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with the Rabbis and says: Also, if the betrothed young woman says to those who come to rescue her: Let the rapist be, she is saying this so that he should not kill her, and therefore the rapist is not killed. The Gemara asks: With regard to what do they disagree?

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘诪拽驻讚转 注诇 驻讬讙诪讛 讜诪谞讬讞转讜 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗驻讬讙诪讛 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛专讬 诪拽驻讚转 注诇 驻讬讙诪讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 拽讟诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪住专讛 谞驻砖讛 诇拽讟诇讗 讛讗 诇讗 诪住专讛 谞驻砖讛 诇拽讟诇讗

Rava says: They disagree about the case where the young woman is particular about the degradation that she is to suffer as a result of the rape, but nevertheless she allows him to rape her so that he should not kill her. The Rabbis maintain that the Torah is particular about her degradation, which is why the rapist may be killed, and she too is particular about her degradation. And Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the Merciful One says that a rapist must be killed because his victim is prepared to sacrifice her life rather than yield to rape. The woman in this case, however, who asks that the rapist not be harmed, is not prepared to sacrifice her life, and therefore her rapist may not be killed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗诇诪谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 谞诪讬 拽讗 驻讙讬诐 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬讙诪讛 专讘讛 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗 讗驻讬讙诪讛 讝讜讟讗 诇讗 拽驻讬讚 专讞诪谞讗

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If the reason that the rapist may be killed is the woman鈥檚 degradation, as claimed by the Rabbis, a High Priest also degrades a widow when he engages in intercourse with her, as he makes her a 岣lala, a woman who is disqualified from marrying a priest. Why then is she not saved even at the cost of her attacker鈥檚 life? Abaye said to Rav Pappa: For a great level of degradation, involving karet and potentially a child that is a mamzer, the Merciful One is particular; but for a small level of degradation, as in the case of a 岣lala, the Merciful One is not particular.

讞讟讗 讗诇讜 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜讗诇讜 谞注专讜转 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 拽谞住 讛讘讗 注诇 讗讞讜转讜

搂 The baraita taught that the word 鈥渟in鈥 is referring to women who are forbidden to a man by a prohibition the violation of which renders him liable to receive karet. From here it is derived that a man who attempts to rape a woman who is forbidden to him under penalty of karet may be killed. The Gemara raises a contradiction between this and what is taught in a mishna (Ketubot 29a): These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them, and the list includes: One who engages in intercourse with his sister. One who engages in intercourse with his sister is punished with karet, and accordingly, a woman being raped by her brother may be saved even at the cost of her brother鈥檚 life. Whenever one is liable to be killed at the hands of people, even if the transgressor is not killed, the transgressor is exempt from paying any fine or payment. Therefore, since one attempting to rape his sister may be killed, he should be exempt from the fine ordinarily imposed upon a rapist.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诪砖注转 讛注专讗讛 讚驻讙诪讛 讗讬驻讟专 诇讛 诪拽讟诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诇讗 诪砖诇诐 注讚 讙诪专 讘讬讗讛

The Sages stated this solution before Rav 岣sda: From the time of the initial stage of intercourse, when he has already degraded her, as she is considered to have engaged in intercourse from that time, he is already exempt from being killed, as it was taught in a baraita that once the sin has been committed, and the woman has been degraded, the rapist may no longer be killed. But he does not become obligated to pay any money until the conclusion of the act of intercourse, when the signs of her virginity are completely taken away. Since the two types of liability are not incurred simultaneously, there is no exemption from paying the fine.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 谞砖讬拽讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛注专讗讛 讝讜 讛讻谞住转 注讟专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Rav 岣sda said to those Sages: This works out well according to the one who says that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is a kiss, i.e., external contact of the sexual organs, as it is inevitable that there will be some slight penetration. But according to the one who said that the definition of the initial stage of intercourse is the insertion of the corona, what is there to say? This stage takes away the woman鈥檚 virginity. From the time of the initial stage of intercourse she is no longer a virgin, and he becomes liable to pay the fine at the very moment that he may be killed in order to save him from his transgression.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讗 注诇讬讛 砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 讜讞讝专 讜讘讗 注诇讬讛 讻讚专讻讛

Rather, Rav 岣sda says: The mishna should be understood as referring to a case where the brother first engaged in intercourse with his sister in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse. With this intercourse he degraded her, but she is still considered a virgin. Afterward, he again engaged in intercourse with her in a typical manner. Only at that point did he become liable to pay the fine paid by one who engaged in intercourse with a virgin and took away her virginity. But he could not then be killed, as she had already been degraded, so there is no exemption from the fine.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讘诪谞讬讞转讜 砖诇讗 讬讛专讙谞讛 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗

Rava says: The mishna is referring to a case where the sister allows her brother to rape her and asks that he not be harmed so that he should not kill her, and it is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that in such a case she is not to be saved at the cost of her brother鈥檚 life.

Scroll To Top