Sanhedrin 73b — the Talmud in English

Because this one

is a boy—

it is not his manner, whereas

a girl—

he disgraces her —

But with regard to the other forbidden sexual relations, whose manner

is to be entered into,

and whose disgrace is not great

their disgrace is not as great as the disgrace of “a betrothed girl.”

The other forbidden sexual relations, although it is clear that there is disgrace in them, do not involve disgrace so great, for if they are unmarried [not betrothed] virgins, or even married women who have already had intercourse, their disgrace is not comparable to the disgrace of a betrothed girl, who is beloved and graceful in the eyes of her betrothed [“groom”], and now that she has been disgraced, she becomes repugnant to him.

We would say

we would say—

no,

they were not given over to be saved by taking the pursuer’s life—

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “sin”

to include also the other forbidden sexual relations, from which one may save the pursued person by taking the pursuer’s life.

And

so,

if the Merciful One had written “sin”—

it would have entered our minds

we would have said: every “sin,” even

those liable for prohibitions

among the forbidden sexual relations, for which there is no death by a court, such as a widow to a High Priest, and a divorcee or a ḥalutza to an ordinary priest—

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote: “death”

to inform us of the exclusion of those liable for prohibitions, and that they were not given over to be saved by taking the pursuer’s life.

And

so,

if the Merciful One had written “death”—

it would have entered our minds

we would have said: only those who are

liable for deaths imposed by a court—

yes,

indeed one may save them by taking the pursuer’s life, whereas

those liable for excision,

who have no “death”—which is death imposed by a court—were not given over to be saved by taking the pursuer’s life. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “sin”

to include also those liable for excision, from whom one may save the pursued person by taking the pursuer’s life.

Thus we have expounded the entire superfluous verse and learned all the laws of our Mishna, that one may save the pursued person by taking the pursuer’s life.

And we raise an objection: there are still superfluous words in this verse. For—

let the Merciful One write

it would have been sufficient if the Torah had written only

“sin death” [“

there is no sin deserving death”],

and there would be no need

and there would be no need to write

“boy, girl.”

For both of them are liable to stoning, and they were included by what the Torah wrote,

“sin death”?

And we answer:

that is indeed so,

indeed, there is no need to expound them—

But then,

why did the Torah write

“boy, girl”—

One

one of the two teachings comes

to exclude one who worships idolatry,

although it is a more severe transgression than forbidden sexual relations, nevertheless he was not given over to be saved by taking his life.

And one

and the second teaching comes

to exclude

one pursuing

an animal,

although his transgression resembles forbidden sexual relations,

and

one pursuing in order to desecrate

Shabbat .

It is explained below that Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai disagrees with our Mishna and holds that one pursuing the worship of idolatry may be saved by taking his life. And with regard to one pursuing the desecration of Shabbat, he agrees that he may not be saved by taking his life.

Whereas Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon holds that even one pursuing the desecration of Shabbat may be saved by taking his life.

Therefore we ask:

and

according to the words of

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, who says: One who worships idolatry may be saved by taking his life,

and it was not excluded, and no teaching was needed to exclude it, this is difficult—

why do I need

why did the Torah write “boy, girl”?

And we answer: according to Rabbi Shimon,

one,

one teaching comes

to exclude an animal,

as above, although its transgression resembles forbidden sexual relations—

and one

and the second teaching comes

to exclude Shabbat—

And why was it necessary to exclude it—

It might enter your mind

it might enter your mind,

I would say

to say:

let us derive

let us learn the desecration of

Shabbat from

a gzera shava,

“desecration, desecration,” from idolatry,

[as Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon indeed expounds this at the end of the sugya, and it will be explained there; and since according to Rabbi Shimon one pursuing the worship of idolatry may be saved by taking his life, we would learn that the same applies to one pursuing the desecration of Shabbat]—

Therefore the second teaching comes to exclude desecration of Shabbat, and one may not be saved by taking his life.

And we ask:

and

according to the words of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who says:

even

one who desecrates Shabbat may be saved by taking his life—

Because

it is derived

it is learned,

Shabbat from

a gzera shava,

“desecration, desecration,” from idolatry—

what is there to say

what can be answered? Why are two teachings needed?

And we answer: according to Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

one exclusion

one teaching comes

to exclude an animal,

as above—

and the other

and the second was not written for the purpose of an “exposition” and to “exclude”—

Rather,

since

since

the Merciful One wrote “boy”

to inform us that even one pursuing a male, although it is not applicable to say that he is disgraced, may be saved by taking the pursuer’s life , therefore

He also wrote “girl.” That is, what we read as “girl” is not for the purpose of an exposition; rather, “boy” was written to include the male, and we read “girl” in its plain sense, because the passage speaks of a betrothed “girl.”

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Judah says: Even she who says, “Let him be, so that he will not kill her”

[one may not save her by taking the pursuer’s life].

It follows that the first tanna holds that one may save her by taking the pursuer’s life.

And the Gemara clarifies:

In what do they disagree

on what reasoning do they disagree?

Now, if the woman does not care at all about her disgrace, the Sages would certainly not disagree with Rabbi Judah, and would agree that one may not save her by taking the pursuer’s life, since there is no disgrace here, but only an act of transgression. And it has already been explained that the Torah was concerned about her disgrace, and not about the act of transgression, for even idolatry and desecration of Shabbat, which are more severe transgressions, are not ones from which one may save them by taking their lives.

And certainly the case is a woman who does care about her disgrace, but from fear that he might kill her, she says, “Let him be.”

Rava said:

they disagree

when she cares about her disgrace but lets him proceed,

that is, she says to let him be so that

he will not kill her—

The Rabbis hold: The Merciful One was concerned about disgrace,

about her disgrace,

as is explained,

as explained,

and she does care about her disgrace,

therefore they hold that one may save her honor by killing the pursuer—

whereas Rabbi Judah

disagrees and holds that the reason the Torah said to kill one pursuing a forbidden sexual relation is not that the Torah was concerned about her disgrace, but rather—

This is why the Merciful One said: “Kill him”

kill the pursuer,

because she has given herself over to being killed

there are modest women who give themselves over to being killed, so that he should kill her rather than have intercourse with her. Therefore the Torah said: kill the one having intercourse and save the woman from being “killed.” —

Whereas

this

woman, who says, “Let him be” to carry out the transgression—

has not given herself over to being killed, and out of

her coercion she is prepared to submit to him and is not in danger of death; therefore the Torah did not say to save her by killing him .

Rav Pappa said to Abaye:

according to the Sages, who hold that the reason the Torah said to kill the pursuer is the woman’s disgrace, this is difficult—

A widow to a High Priest—

does he not also disgrace her?

And why did the Torah exclude them, so that one may not save them by taking the pursuer’s life? After all, she is disgraced by forbidden intercourse.

He said to him

Abaye said to Rav Pappa:

with regard to great disgrace,

with regard to considerable disgrace, such as the severe forbidden sexual relations for which one is liable for excision and death by a court, and the woman’s shame is considerable, and she becomes a harlot if she has intercourse, and if she bears a child from this intercourse, the child is illegitimate,

the Merciful One was concerned—

But

with regard to slight disgrace,

a lesser disgrace than this, such as a widow to a High Priest, who does not become a harlot, but only a woman disqualified from priestly marriage, and the child is not illegitimate, concerning this

the Merciful One was not concerned .

We learned in the beraita above:

“Sin”—these are those liable for excision,

from whom one may save the pursued person by taking the pursuer’s life.

And we cast it against another source:

this beraita is contradicted by the words of the Mishna in tractate Ketubot, concerning “one who violates a virgin.”

The Torah said (Deuteronomy 22): “When a man finds a virgin girl who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her,

the man who lies with her shall give the girl’s father fifty silver coins, and she shall be his wife, because he violated her; he may not send her away all his days.”

That is, if she is a virgin—“unmarried,” and not a married woman, and he is not liable for death by a court because of her—he has two punishments: he must pay a “fine,” and he must marry her without divorcing her.

And the Sages expounded that the fine [fifty silver coins to her father] does not depend on the obligation to marry her; even where it is forbidden for him to marry her, such as one who violates his sister, nevertheless he pays a fine.

And so we learned:

And these are the girls who have a fine: one who has intercourse with his sister.

And that Mishna holds that we say “he is left with the greater liability” only where there is liability for death—meaning that where there is liability for death, he is exempt from payments—in a case where there is “actual” death at the hands of man, death by a court. But one who has intercourse with his sister, for which there is no death by a court, but excision at the hands of Heaven, is liable for payments.

And now this is difficult: if those liable for excision are among those from whom one may save the pursued person by taking the pursuer’s life, then one who has intercourse with his sister has given himself over to death at the hands of every person. If so, why does he pay a fine, and why is he not exempt on account of “he is left with the greater liability”?

[And although he was not killed and is now before us, nevertheless, since he was “liable” for death, he is likewise exempt from payments, as explained above (73a) concerning one who comes through a tunnel.]

The Gemara answers several answers.

The Rabbis said

the following answer

before

before

Rav Hisda:

In the case of one who has intercourse with his sister, the death—which he is “liable” for in the eyes of anyone who sees him—and the payments do not come together, at one time. For the liability for death applies only at the beginning of intercourse—“the moment of initial penetration,” when she is somewhat disgraced; from that point onward, one may not save her by taking the pursuer’s life from carrying out the completion of intercourse. Whereas the liability for the fine applies at the completion of intercourse, at the time when her virginity is removed, for which the Torah imposed the fine . [See Rashi’s definition of completion of intercourse].

And since the two liabilities do not come at the same time, and the liability for the fine is for his acts performed after he is no longer liable for death in the eyes of every person, he pays a fine.

From the moment of initial penetration, when she is disgraced—

he is exempt from being killed,

whereas

he does not pay money until the completion of intercourse.

And we ask:

This works

this explanation works

for

the opinion of

the one who says: Initial penetration

which is called “intercourse” by the Torah in all the forbidden sexual relations [except a betrothed maidservant]—

this is a kiss,

and it is the intercourse that the Torah prohibited, which entails liability for excision, and it is the intercourse that disgraces her. And since it is the beginning of intercourse, when there is still no removal of virginity, the explanation is properly resolved—

But for

the opinion of

the one who says: Initial penetration

which the Torah calls “intercourse”—

this is the insertion of the corona, what

can be said, it is not properly resolved, for if so, both the “intercourse” that disgraces her and obligates every person to kill him, and the removal of the virginity, occur together .

The answer is not sound, because if so, both the “intercourse” that disgraces her and makes everyone liable to kill him, and the taking of her virginity, occur at the same time .

And the question returns: why is he liable for a fine? After all, at the time of the act he is liable for death in the eyes of every person?

The Gemara gives four ukimtot to establish the Mishna, “one who has intercourse with his sister has a fine,” so that the question of “he is left with the greater liability” will not arise.

And in all four ukimtot, the Mishna speaks of a case in which he is not liable for death in the eyes of every person, and one may not save her by taking his life.

And it is resolved that only in these circumstances did the Mishna say that he is liable for a “fine,” since there is no death in them.

a.

Rather, Rav Hisda said:

the Mishna speaks, for example,

when

already

he had intercourse with her

he, the brother, or another man,

not in the usual manner

[not in that place], and she had already been disgraced,

and he again had intercourse with her

the brother

in the usual manner. And for this intercourse—the second one—he pays a fine, since he is not liable for death because of it, as she has already been disgraced .

For this second act of intercourse he pays a fine, since he is not liable to death for it, as she had already been disgraced .

That is, if he performed two acts of intercourse and both were in the usual manner, he does not pay a “fine” for the second, since she was no longer a virgin from the time of the first intercourse. But since the first was not in the usual manner and she was still a virgin, he pays a fine for the second, which was in the usual manner.

b.

Rava said:

the Mishna speaks

when she lets him proceed,

saying, “Let him be,” out of fear

that he will not kill her, and

the Mishna of

Rabbi Judah is,

who holds that when she says this, one may not save her by taking the pursuer’s life; and since he is not liable for death in the eyes of every person, he pays a fine.