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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 28, 2017 | 讞壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Sanhedrin 74

From where does Rabbi Yonantan ben Shaul learn that if one can neutralize the pursuer, one is not allowed to kill him?聽 In what situations does one have to give oneself over to be killed when forced to do a transgression – for which transgressions?聽 In what situations would this also apply regardless of what mitzvot?聽 Are Bnei Noach also commanded to give themselves over to be killed?


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

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘诪驻讜转讛 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rav Pappa says: The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated with regard to a young woman who was seduced, and in the case of seduction all agree that the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer鈥檚 life, as the intercourse was consensual.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜诇讗 讛爪讬诇 谞讛专讙 注诇讬讜

Abaye says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a young woman who was raped in a case where one was able to save her by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and one was able to save the pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him in one of his limbs, but he did not save him in this manner and rather chose to kill him, he is executed on his account as a murderer.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬谞爪讜 讗谞砖讬诐 (讬讞讚讜) 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪爪讜转 砖讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讗住讜谉 讬讛讬讛 讜谞转转讛 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: 鈥淚f men strive and strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman鈥檚 husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine鈥 (Exodus 21:22). And concerning this Rabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill, where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is that it is written: 鈥淏ut if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life鈥 (Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? And even so, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,鈥 teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman鈥檚 husband.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬注谞砖 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜

Granted, if you say that in a case where one is able to save the pursued party by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, he may not save the pursued party at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life, and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, that is how you find the possibility that the one who ultimately struck the woman would be punished. This would be in a case where it was possible to save the man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, in one of his limbs. In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 谞诪讬 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬注谞砖

But if you say that even if one is able to save the pursued party by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, he can also save him at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life, how can you find the possibility that the one who ultimately struck the woman would be punished? When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the halakha is that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.

讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪讬转讛 诇讝讛 讜转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇讝讛

The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: Perhaps it is different here because his two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to death is on account of this person, the man with whom he fought, while his liability to give payment is on account of that person, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.

诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讜讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this distinction: There is no difference. As Rava says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and during the course of the chase the pursuer broke vessels belonging either to the person being pursued or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for the broken vessels. What is the reason for this? The reason is that he is liable to be killed, since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim鈥檚 life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.

讜谞专讚祝 砖砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜讚祝 驻讟讜专 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 砖诇 专讜讚祝 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 砖诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜

Rava continues: And if the pursued party broke vessels while fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels belonged to the pursuer, the pursued party is exempt. But if they belonged to anyone else, he is liable to pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels belonged to the pursuer, he is exempt. The reason for this is so that the pursuer鈥檚 property should not be more precious to the pursuer than his own body. Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer鈥檚 vessels. And if the vessels belonged to anyone else, he is liable, as he saved himself at the expense of another鈥檚 property, and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.

讜专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 专讜讚祝 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 专讜讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖诪爪讬诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪讬讚 讛专讜讚祝

Rava continues: But if one pursuer was pursuing another pursuer in order to save him, i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, and while doing so he broke vessels belonging either to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for them. The Gemara comments: This is not by strict law, as if one who saves himself at another鈥檚 expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordinance instituted by the Sages. This is because if you do not say that he is exempt, it will be found that no person will save another from a pursuer, as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.

讗讘诇 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讘讛诪讛 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 驻讙诐 讛讚讬讜讟 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 驻讙诐 讙讘讜讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜讻讬 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 拽讗 住讘专 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: One who seeks to worship idols may be saved from transgressing at the cost of his life. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If to avoid the degradation of an ordinary person, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, he can be saved even at the cost of his life, all the more so is it not clear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid the degrading of the honor of God through the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: But does the court administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i maintains that the court administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讜讗转讬讗 砖讘转 讘讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who seeks to desecrate Shabbat may be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who says: The court administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference, and the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat is derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in the context of idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 谞讬诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 讘注诇讬转 讘讬转 谞转讝讛 讘诇讜讚 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗诐 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讗讚诐 注讘讜专 讜讗诇 转讛专讙 讬注讘讜专 讜讗诇 讬讛专讙 讞讜抓 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

搂 The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod: With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah鈥檚 prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.

讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 壮注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇 转讛专讙壮 诪谞讬谉 砖讬注讘讜讚 讜讗诇 讬讛专讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讞讬 讘讛诐壮 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐

The Gemara asks: And should one not transgress the prohibition of idol worship to save his life? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael said: From where is it derived that if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from where is it derived that he should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, and he shall live by them鈥 (Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, but they were not given so that one will die due to their observance.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻专讛住讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讗转 砖诐 拽讚砖讬 讜谞拽讚砖转讬壮

The baraita continues: One might have thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance even in public, i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣either shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you鈥 (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.

讗讬谞讛讜 讚讗诪讜专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 壮讜讗讛讘转 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讱 讜讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱 讜讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮 讗诐 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱壮 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱壮

The Gemara answers: Those in the upper story of the house of Nitza stated their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:5). If it is stated: 鈥淲ith all your soul,鈥 why is it also stated: 鈥淲ith all your might,鈥 which indicates with all your material possessions? And if it is stated: 鈥淲ith all your might,鈥 why is it also stated: 鈥淲ith all your soul鈥? One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.

讗诐 讬砖 诇讱 讗讚诐 砖讙讜驻讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪诪诪讜谞讜 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱壮 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讱 讗讚诐 砖诪诪讜谞讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮

Rather, this serves to teach that if you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: 鈥淲ith all your soul.鈥 That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God鈥檚 name. And if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: 鈥淲ith all your might.鈥 That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.

讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 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 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪专讜爪讞

From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations and the prohibition of bloodshed? This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: 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 诇讛爪讬诇讜 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.

讜诪拽讬砖 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诇专讜爪讞 诪讛 专讜爪讞 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专 讗祝 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 转讛专讙 讜讗诇 转注讘讜专

And conversely, the Torah juxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murderer to indicate that just as with regard to a potential murderer, the halakha is that if one was ordered to murder another, he must be killed and not transgress the prohibition of bloodshed, so too, with regard to a betrothed young woman, if she is faced with rape, she must be killed and not transgress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.

专讜爪讞 讙讜驻讬讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专讬 讚讜专讗讬 壮讝讬诇 拽讟诇讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞讗 诇讱壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽讟诇讜讱 讜诇讗 转讬拽讟讜诇 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讚诪讗 讚讬讚讱 住讜诪拽 讟驻讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讚诪讗 讚讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 住讜诪拽 讟驻讬

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha with regard to a murderer himself, that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning that one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: As when a certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place, a local official, said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you, what shall I do? Rabba said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? Perhaps that man鈥檚 blood is redder. This logical reasoning is the basis for the halakha that one may not save his own life by killing another.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Sages taught that one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger only when it is not a time of religious persecution. But in a time of religious persecution, when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, even if they issued a decree about a minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬谞注讗 讗讘诇 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even when it is not a time of religious persecution, the Sages said that one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger only when he was ordered to do so in private. But if he was ordered to commit a transgression in public, even if they threaten him with death if he does not transgress a minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress.

诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara asks: What is a minor mitzva for this purpose? Rava bar Yitz岣k says that Rav says:

讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讜讬讬 注专拽转讗 讚诪住讗谞讗

Even to change the strap of a sandal. There was a Jewish custom with regard to sandal straps. If the gentile authorities were to decree that Jews must change their practice and wear sandal straps like those worn by the gentiles, one would be obligated to give up his life rather than veer from the accepted custom.

讜讻诪讛 驻专讛住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 驻专讛住讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞讻专讬 讗讞讚 诪讛讜

The Gemara asks: And the presence of how many people is required so that it should be deemed a public act? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: An action is not considered a public act if it is performed in the presence of fewer than ten people. The Gemara clarifies this point: It is obvious that we require that these ten people be Jews, as it is written in the verse from which we derive the requirement of ten for the sanctification of God鈥檚 name: 鈥淎nd I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:32). Rabbi Yirmeya asks: What is the halakha if there were nine Jews and one gentile present?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗转讬讗 壮转讜讱壮 壮转讜讱壮 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 壮讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇壮 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 壮讛讘讚诇讜 诪转讜讱 讛注讚讛 讛讝讗转壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注砖专讛 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 注砖专讛 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer from what Rav Yannai, the brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, teaches in a baraita: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渁mong鈥 written with regard to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, and the word 鈥渁mong鈥 written with regard to Korah and his assembly. Here, with regard to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, it is written: 鈥淎nd I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,鈥 and there, with regard to Korah, it is written: 鈥淪eparate yourselves from among this congregation鈥 (Numbers 16:21). The meaning of the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 written with regard to Korah is derived by means of a verbal analogy to the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 written with regard to the spies sent out by Moses to scout the land: 鈥淗ow long shall I bear with this evil congregation鈥 (Numbers 14:27). Just as there, the congregation of spies numbered ten, and all were Jews, so too here, concerning the sanctification of God, there must be ten, all of them being Jews.

讜讛讗 讗住转专 驻专讛住讬讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗住转专 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讛讬转讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 the incident involving Esther, i.e., her cohabitation with Ahasuerus, a public sin? Why then did Esther not surrender her life rather than engage in intercourse? The Gemara answers: Abaye says: Esther was merely like natural ground, i.e., she was a passive participant. The obligation to surrender one鈥檚 life rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse applies only to a man who transgresses the prohibition in an active manner. A woman who is passive and merely submits is not required to give up her life so that she not sin.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛谞讗转 注爪诪谉 砖讗谞讬

Rava says that there is another justification for Esther鈥檚 behavior: When gentiles order the transgression of a prohibition not in order to persecute the Jews or to make them abandon their religion, but for their own personal pleasure, it is different. In such a situation there is no obligation to sacrifice one鈥檚 life, even when the sin is committed in public.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛谞讬 拽讜讜讗拽讬 讜讚讬诪讜谞讬拽讬 讛讬讻讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讛谞讗转 注爪诪谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讗转 注爪诪谉 砖讗谞讬

Rava explains: As if you do not say so, then how do we give them coal shovels [kevakei vedimonikei]? The Persian priests would take coal shovels from every house, fill them with coals, and use them to heat their temples on their festival days. Although this involved assisting idol worship in public, Jews would not sacrifice their lives in order not to do so. Rather, the reason they cooperated is certainly that a measure enacted for the gentiles鈥 personal pleasure is different. Here too, concerning Esther, Ahasuerus engaged in intercourse with her for his personal pleasure, and a measure enacted for a gentile鈥檚 personal pleasure is different, and there is no obligation to sacrifice one鈥檚 life to avoid it.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讻专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 拽讟讜诇 讗住驻住转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讞讬讜转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讱 诇讬拽讟讬诇 讜诇讗 诇拽讟诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诇谞讛专讗 诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬拽讟讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇注讘讜专讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 讘注讬

The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his own line of reasoning, as Rava says: If a gentile said to a certain Jew: Cut grass [aspasta] on Shabbat and throw it before the cattle, and if you do not do this I will kill you, he should cut the grass and not be killed. But if the gentile said to him: Cut the grass and throw it into the river, he should be killed and not cut the grass. What is the reason for the latter ruling? Because it is clear that the gentile is not seeking his own personal pleasure, but rather he wants to force the Jew to violate his religion.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘谉 谞讞 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: Is a descendant of Noah, who is commanded to refrain from idol worship, also commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, or is he not commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讘谞讬 谞讞 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讻诇 讗讘讝专讬讬讛讜

Abaye says: Come and hear an answer to this question from a baraita in which it was taught: Descendants of Noah were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: To establish courts of law, to refrain from cursing God, idol worship, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and from eating the limb of a living animal. And if it is so that they are commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, then there would be eight mitzvot in which they are commanded. Rava said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the baraita speaks of seven mitzvot it means the seven mitzvot themselves with all their associated [avzaraihu] obligations. The mitzva to sanctify God鈥檚 name can be understood as a detail of the prohibition of idolatry.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讻转讬讘 诇讚讘专 讛讝讛 讬住诇讞 讛壮 诇注讘讚讱 讘讘讜讗 讗讚谞讬 讘讬转 专诪讜谉 诇讛砖转讞讜转 砖诪讛 讜讛讜讗 谞砖注谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讜讛砖转讞讜讬转讬 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 诇讱 诇砖诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Adda bar Ahava says that they say in the school of Rav: It is written that Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, said to the prophet Elisha: 鈥淔or this matter may the Lord pardon your servant, that when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to bow down there and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself down in the house of Rimmon鈥 (II聽Kings 5:18). That is, he was forced to bow down before an idol out of fear of his master, the king of Aram. And it is written in the following verse: 鈥淎nd he said to him: Go in peace,鈥 indicating that Elisha did not criticize him for acting in this manner.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 74

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘诪驻讜转讛 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇

Rav Pappa says: The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated with regard to a young woman who was seduced, and in the case of seduction all agree that the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer鈥檚 life, as the intercourse was consensual.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讘讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讜讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 讜诇讗 讛爪讬诇 谞讛专讙 注诇讬讜

Abaye says: The ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a young woman who was raped in a case where one was able to save her by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and one was able to save the pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him in one of his limbs, but he did not save him in this manner and rather chose to kill him, he is executed on his account as a murderer.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讘谉 砖讗讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 讬谞爪讜 讗谞砖讬诐 (讬讞讚讜) 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘诪爪讜转 砖讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讗住讜谉 讬讛讬讛 讜谞转转讛 谞驻砖 转讞转 谞驻砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讗住讜谉 注谞讜砖 讬注谞砖

The Gemara explains: What is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: 鈥淚f men strive and strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman鈥檚 husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine鈥 (Exodus 21:22). And concerning this Rabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill, where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is that it is written: 鈥淏ut if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life鈥 (Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? And even so, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,鈥 teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman鈥檚 husband.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 诇讗 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬注谞砖 讻讙讜谉 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜

Granted, if you say that in a case where one is able to save the pursued party by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, he may not save the pursued party at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life, and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, that is how you find the possibility that the one who ultimately struck the woman would be punished. This would be in a case where it was possible to save the man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, in one of his limbs. In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讘讗讞讚 诪讗讘专讬讜 谞诪讬 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讬注谞砖

But if you say that even if one is able to save the pursued party by injuring the pursuer in one of his limbs, he can also save him at the cost of the pursuer鈥檚 life, how can you find the possibility that the one who ultimately struck the woman would be punished? When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the halakha is that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.

讚讬诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚诪讬转讛 诇讝讛 讜转砖诇讜诪讬谉 诇讝讛

The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: Perhaps it is different here because his two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to death is on account of this person, the man with whom he fought, while his liability to give payment is on account of that person, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.

诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讜讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪转讞讬讬讘 讘谞驻砖讜 讛讜讗

The Gemara rejects this distinction: There is no difference. As Rava says: If a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and during the course of the chase the pursuer broke vessels belonging either to the person being pursued or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for the broken vessels. What is the reason for this? The reason is that he is liable to be killed, since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim鈥檚 life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.

讜谞专讚祝 砖砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 砖诇 专讜讚祝 驻讟讜专 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 砖诇 专讜讚祝 驻讟讜专 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 诪诪讜谞讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘 砖诪爪讬诇 注爪诪讜 讘诪诪讜谉 讞讘讬专讜

Rava continues: And if the pursued party broke vessels while fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels belonged to the pursuer, the pursued party is exempt. But if they belonged to anyone else, he is liable to pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels belonged to the pursuer, he is exempt. The reason for this is so that the pursuer鈥檚 property should not be more precious to the pursuer than his own body. Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer鈥檚 vessels. And if the vessels belonged to anyone else, he is liable, as he saved himself at the expense of another鈥檚 property, and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.

讜专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 专讜讚祝 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讻诇讬诐 讘讬谉 砖诇 专讜讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 谞专讚祝 讘讬谉 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻谉 谞诪爪讗 讗讬谉 诇讱 讻诇 讗讚诐 砖诪爪讬诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诪讬讚 讛专讜讚祝

Rava continues: But if one pursuer was pursuing another pursuer in order to save him, i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, and while doing so he broke vessels belonging either to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyone else, he is exempt from paying for them. The Gemara comments: This is not by strict law, as if one who saves himself at another鈥檚 expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordinance instituted by the Sages. This is because if you do not say that he is exempt, it will be found that no person will save another from a pursuer, as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.

讗讘诇 讛专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讘讛诪讛 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讛注讜讘讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 驻讙诐 讛讚讬讜讟 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 驻讙诐 讙讘讜讛 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜讻讬 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 拽讗 住讘专 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: One who seeks to worship idols may be saved from transgressing at the cost of his life. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If to avoid the degradation of an ordinary person, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, he can be saved even at the cost of his life, all the more so is it not clear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid the degrading of the honor of God through the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: But does the court administer punishment based on an a fortiori inference? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i maintains that the court administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛诪讞诇诇 讗转 讛砖讘转 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 注讜谞砖讬谉 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 讜讗转讬讗 砖讘转 讘讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who seeks to desecrate Shabbat may be saved from transgressing even at the cost of his life. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, Rabbi Shimon, who says: The court administers punishment based on an a fortiori inference, and the halakha with regard to one who desecrates Shabbat is derived from the halakha with regard to idol worship by way of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word 鈥渄esecration鈥 mentioned in the context of idol worship.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 谞讬诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 讘注诇讬转 讘讬转 谞转讝讛 讘诇讜讚 讻诇 注讘讬专讜转 砖讘转讜专讛 讗诐 讗讜诪专讬谉 诇讗讚诐 注讘讜专 讜讗诇 转讛专讙 讬注讘讜专 讜讗诇 讬讛专讙 讞讜抓 诪注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐

搂 The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: The Sages who discussed this issue counted the votes of those assembled and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in the city of Lod: With regard to all other transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress this prohibition and you will not be killed, he may transgress that prohibition and not be killed, because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah鈥檚 prohibitions. This is the halakha concerning all prohibitions except for those of idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.

讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 壮注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗诇 转讛专讙壮 诪谞讬谉 砖讬注讘讜讚 讜讗诇 讬讛专讙 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜讞讬 讘讛诐壮 讜诇讗 砖讬诪讜转 讘讛诐

The Gemara asks: And should one not transgress the prohibition of idol worship to save his life? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael said: From where is it derived that if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from where is it derived that he should worship the idol and not be killed? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, and he shall live by them鈥 (Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, but they were not given so that one will die due to their observance.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻专讛住讬讗 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讜诇讗 转讞诇诇讜 讗转 砖诐 拽讚砖讬 讜谞拽讚砖转讬壮

The baraita continues: One might have thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance even in public, i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣either shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you鈥 (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.

讗讬谞讛讜 讚讗诪讜专 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 壮讜讗讛讘转 讗转 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讘讻诇 诇讘讘讱 讜讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱 讜讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮 讗诐 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱壮 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱壮

The Gemara answers: Those in the upper story of the house of Nitza stated their opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:5). If it is stated: 鈥淲ith all your soul,鈥 why is it also stated: 鈥淲ith all your might,鈥 which indicates with all your material possessions? And if it is stated: 鈥淲ith all your might,鈥 why is it also stated: 鈥淲ith all your soul鈥? One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.

讗诐 讬砖 诇讱 讗讚诐 砖讙讜驻讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪诪诪讜谞讜 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 谞驻砖讱壮 讜讗诐 讬砖 诇讱 讗讚诐 砖诪诪讜谞讜 讞讘讬讘 注诇讬讜 诪讙讜驻讜 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专 壮讘讻诇 诪讗讚讱壮

Rather, this serves to teach that if you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: 鈥淲ith all your soul.鈥 That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God鈥檚 name. And if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: 鈥淲ith all your might.鈥 That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.

讙讬诇讜讬 注专讬讜转 讜砖驻讬讻讜转 讚诪讬诐 讻讚专讘讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 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 讻谉 讛讚讘专 讛讝讛壮 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪专讜爪讞

From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations and the prohibition of bloodshed? This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: 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 诇讛爪讬诇讜 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.

讜诪拽讬砖 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诇专讜爪讞 诪讛 专讜爪讞 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专 讗祝 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 转讛专讙 讜讗诇 转注讘讜专

And conversely, the Torah juxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murderer to indicate that just as with regard to a potential murderer, the halakha is that if one was ordered to murder another, he must be killed and not transgress the prohibition of bloodshed, so too, with regard to a betrothed young woman, if she is faced with rape, she must be killed and not transgress the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.

专讜爪讞 讙讜驻讬讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 住讘专讗 讛讜讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬 诪专讬 讚讜专讗讬 壮讝讬诇 拽讟诇讬讛 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞讗 诇讱壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇拽讟诇讜讱 讜诇讗 转讬拽讟讜诇 诪讬 讬讬诪专 讚讚诪讗 讚讬讚讱 住讜诪拽 讟驻讬 讚讬诇诪讗 讚诪讗 讚讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 住讜诪拽 讟驻讬

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha with regard to a murderer himself, that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: It is based on logical reasoning that one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: As when a certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place, a local official, said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you, what shall I do? Rabba said to him: It is preferable that he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? Perhaps that man鈥檚 blood is redder. This logical reasoning is the basis for the halakha that one may not save his own life by killing another.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 讗讘诇 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The Sages taught that one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger only when it is not a time of religious persecution. But in a time of religious persecution, when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, even if they issued a decree about a minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讛砖诪讚 诇讗 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讘爪讬谞注讗 讗讘诇 讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讬讛专讙 讜讗诇 讬注讘讜专

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Even when it is not a time of religious persecution, the Sages said that one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger only when he was ordered to do so in private. But if he was ordered to commit a transgression in public, even if they threaten him with death if he does not transgress a minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress.

诪讗讬 诪爪讜讛 拽诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘

The Gemara asks: What is a minor mitzva for this purpose? Rava bar Yitz岣k says that Rav says:

讗驻讬诇讜 诇砖谞讜讬讬 注专拽转讗 讚诪住讗谞讗

Even to change the strap of a sandal. There was a Jewish custom with regard to sandal straps. If the gentile authorities were to decree that Jews must change their practice and wear sandal straps like those worn by the gentiles, one would be obligated to give up his life rather than veer from the accepted custom.

讜讻诪讛 驻专讛住讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 驻专讛住讬讗 驻讞讜转讛 诪注砖专讛 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 驻砖讬讟讗 讬砖专讗诇讬诐 讘注讬谞谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 转砖注讛 讬砖专讗诇 讜谞讻专讬 讗讞讚 诪讛讜

The Gemara asks: And the presence of how many people is required so that it should be deemed a public act? Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: An action is not considered a public act if it is performed in the presence of fewer than ten people. The Gemara clarifies this point: It is obvious that we require that these ten people be Jews, as it is written in the verse from which we derive the requirement of ten for the sanctification of God鈥檚 name: 鈥淎nd I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel鈥 (Leviticus 22:32). Rabbi Yirmeya asks: What is the halakha if there were nine Jews and one gentile present?

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 专讘 讬谞讗讬 讗讞讜讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗转讬讗 壮转讜讱壮 壮转讜讱壮 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 壮讜谞拽讚砖转讬 讘转讜讱 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇壮 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 壮讛讘讚诇讜 诪转讜讱 讛注讚讛 讛讝讗转壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 注砖专讛 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 注砖专讛 讜讻讜诇讛讜 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: Come and hear an answer from what Rav Yannai, the brother of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, teaches in a baraita: This is derived by means of a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渁mong鈥 written with regard to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, and the word 鈥渁mong鈥 written with regard to Korah and his assembly. Here, with regard to the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, it is written: 鈥淎nd I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,鈥 and there, with regard to Korah, it is written: 鈥淪eparate yourselves from among this congregation鈥 (Numbers 16:21). The meaning of the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 written with regard to Korah is derived by means of a verbal analogy to the word 鈥渃ongregation鈥 written with regard to the spies sent out by Moses to scout the land: 鈥淗ow long shall I bear with this evil congregation鈥 (Numbers 14:27). Just as there, the congregation of spies numbered ten, and all were Jews, so too here, concerning the sanctification of God, there must be ten, all of them being Jews.

讜讛讗 讗住转专 驻专讛住讬讗 讛讜讗讬 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗住转专 拽专拽注 注讜诇诐 讛讬转讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But wasn鈥檛 the incident involving Esther, i.e., her cohabitation with Ahasuerus, a public sin? Why then did Esther not surrender her life rather than engage in intercourse? The Gemara answers: Abaye says: Esther was merely like natural ground, i.e., she was a passive participant. The obligation to surrender one鈥檚 life rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse applies only to a man who transgresses the prohibition in an active manner. A woman who is passive and merely submits is not required to give up her life so that she not sin.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讛谞讗转 注爪诪谉 砖讗谞讬

Rava says that there is another justification for Esther鈥檚 behavior: When gentiles order the transgression of a prohibition not in order to persecute the Jews or to make them abandon their religion, but for their own personal pleasure, it is different. In such a situation there is no obligation to sacrifice one鈥檚 life, even when the sin is committed in public.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 讛谞讬 拽讜讜讗拽讬 讜讚讬诪讜谞讬拽讬 讛讬讻讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讗诇讗 讛谞讗转 注爪诪谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛谞讗转 注爪诪谉 砖讗谞讬

Rava explains: As if you do not say so, then how do we give them coal shovels [kevakei vedimonikei]? The Persian priests would take coal shovels from every house, fill them with coals, and use them to heat their temples on their festival days. Although this involved assisting idol worship in public, Jews would not sacrifice their lives in order not to do so. Rather, the reason they cooperated is certainly that a measure enacted for the gentiles鈥 personal pleasure is different. Here too, concerning Esther, Ahasuerus engaged in intercourse with her for his personal pleasure, and a measure enacted for a gentile鈥檚 personal pleasure is different, and there is no obligation to sacrifice one鈥檚 life to avoid it.

讜讗讝讚讗 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 谞讻专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 拽讟讜诇 讗住驻住转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜砖讚讬 诇讞讬讜转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讱 诇讬拽讟讬诇 讜诇讗 诇拽讟诇讬讛 砖讚讬 诇谞讛专讗 诇讬拽讟诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬拽讟讜诇 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇注讘讜专讬 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 讘注讬

The Gemara comments: And Rava follows his own line of reasoning, as Rava says: If a gentile said to a certain Jew: Cut grass [aspasta] on Shabbat and throw it before the cattle, and if you do not do this I will kill you, he should cut the grass and not be killed. But if the gentile said to him: Cut the grass and throw it into the river, he should be killed and not cut the grass. What is the reason for the latter ruling? Because it is clear that the gentile is not seeking his own personal pleasure, but rather he wants to force the Jew to violate his religion.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘谉 谞讞 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪爪讜讜讛 注诇 拽讚讜砖转 讛砖诐

搂 The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: Is a descendant of Noah, who is commanded to refrain from idol worship, also commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, or is he not commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 砖讘注 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讘谞讬 谞讞 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 转诪谞讬 讛讜讬讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讻诇 讗讘讝专讬讬讛讜

Abaye says: Come and hear an answer to this question from a baraita in which it was taught: Descendants of Noah were commanded to observe seven mitzvot: To establish courts of law, to refrain from cursing God, idol worship, adultery, bloodshed, robbery, and from eating the limb of a living animal. And if it is so that they are commanded about the sanctification of God鈥檚 name, then there would be eight mitzvot in which they are commanded. Rava said to him: There is no proof from here, as when the baraita speaks of seven mitzvot it means the seven mitzvot themselves with all their associated [avzaraihu] obligations. The mitzva to sanctify God鈥檚 name can be understood as a detail of the prohibition of idolatry.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 讻转讬讘 诇讚讘专 讛讝讛 讬住诇讞 讛壮 诇注讘讚讱 讘讘讜讗 讗讚谞讬 讘讬转 专诪讜谉 诇讛砖转讞讜转 砖诪讛 讜讛讜讗 谞砖注谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讜讛砖转讞讜讬转讬 讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 诇讱 诇砖诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Rav Adda bar Ahava says that they say in the school of Rav: It is written that Naaman, commander of the army of the king of Aram, said to the prophet Elisha: 鈥淔or this matter may the Lord pardon your servant, that when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to bow down there and he leans on my hand, and I bow myself down in the house of Rimmon鈥 (II聽Kings 5:18). That is, he was forced to bow down before an idol out of fear of his master, the king of Aram. And it is written in the following verse: 鈥淎nd he said to him: Go in peace,鈥 indicating that Elisha did not criticize him for acting in this manner.

Scroll To Top