Sanhedrin 74a — the Talmud in English

3.

Rav Pappa said:

The Mishna speaks

of one who was seduced

when the brother seduced his sister, and he did not rape her, [and one who seduces also pays a fine]—

and

there is no need to establish the Mishna as the view of an individual, Rabbi Judah, but rather

it is the view of everyone,

for even the Sages agree that if the young woman is not concerned at all about disgrace, she cannot be saved at the pursuer’s expense.

4.

Abaye said:

Actually, it is speaking of one who was raped, and it is speaking

of

a situation in which the rescuer

can save

the woman

by

cutting off

one of the limbs

of the rapist who is pursuing her, and through the amputation he will be prevented from carrying out his plot, such as cutting off his leg so that he cannot run after her—

And if he can indeed do this, he is obligated to do it, and it is forbidden to kill him.

And therefore he pays a fine, since he is not liable to the death penalty.

And

the Mishna is the teaching of

Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul,

who holds this view.

As it was taught

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says: A pursuer who was pursuing his fellow to kill him

or a forbidden sexual relation,

and

the rescuer, whether the pursued or another person,

can save him

by cutting off

one of his limbs, but did not save him

by amputation, but rather killed him—

He is killed on account of him

as the law of a murderer, since he was not authorized to kill him .

The Gemara clarifies the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul from an exposition of the verses.

What is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul?

As it is written (

Exodus 21):

“And when men fight [

one with another, and intended to strike his fellow]

and they strike a pregnant woman [

one of them struck a woman]

and her children emerge, and there is no disaster [

to the woman]—

he shall surely be punished [

to pay the value of the fetuses to the husband]...

But if there is a disaster [

to the woman]

“then you shall give a life for a life.”

And what is the meaning of “then you shall give a life for a life”?

Rabbi Elazar said: The verse is speaking of a case involving an offense punishable by death

where he intended to kill his fellow “deliberately,” and killed the woman,

as it is written: “But if there is a disaster, then you shall give a life [

of the murderer]

in place of a life [

of the woman].”

And

although he pursued his fellow in order to kill him, and rendered himself liable to death by the law of a pursuer—

even so, the Merciful One said: “And there shall be no disaster—

he shall surely be punished.”

And he pays the value of the fetuses.

And why? After all, he is liable to death and payment at the same time!—

Granted, if you say,

that if he

can save him by [cutting off] one of his limbs—

he cannot be saved at the expense of his life—

this is how you find

therefore it is possible

that he will be fined

money, for it is speaking

of a case such as: the rescuer can

save

the pursued

and he is the second man,

by

cutting off

one of his limbs

of the pursuer—

And since he is not liable to death, he pays the value of the fetuses.

But if you say,

that even if he

can save him by [cutting off] one of his limbs—

he can also be saved at the expense of his life,

and he may be killed, this is difficult—

How do you find

how is it possible

that he will be fined

the value of the fetuses? Is he not liable to death?

And from here Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul learned that when he can save him by [cutting off] one of his limbs, he cannot be saved at the expense of his life.

The Gemara rejects the proof.

Perhaps

he pays because

here is different,

his law is different, since

the death is for this one

the pursued

and the payment is for that one

the woman’s husband—

That is to say, even if we hold that when he can save him by [cutting off] one of his limbs he can save him at the expense of his life, there is still no law of “he is placed under the greater liability,” since they are not one liability, because the death and the payment do not come to him through one person; therefore he cannot be exempt from payment to the woman’s husband on account of his being liable to death to an entirely different person.

The Gemara rejects the rejection.

It is no different

there is no distinction between liability to death and payment to one person and liability to death and payment to two people; in every case he is exempt from payment, as will be explained .

And Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul’s proof returns; therefore he pays the value of the fetuses because he is not liable to death, since the rescuer could have saved him by [cutting off] one of his limbs.

The Gemara supports what it said, “It is no different,” and that in every case he is exempt from payment.

For Rava said [

Rabba]:

A pursuer who was pursuing his fellow

to kill him,

and

during his pursuit

broke vessels

that were in his path,

whether

the vessels were

those of the pursued, or those of another person—

He is exempt

even though the death is for the pursued and the payment is to the owner of the vessels—

What is the reason?

Because

he is liable with his life,

his life has been given over to be killed, and he is exempt from payment.

Rava states a second law [and it does not belong to the above discussion]:

And a pursued person who broke vessels

while fleeing from the pursuer [and escaped and was not killed]—

If the vessels are

those of the pursuer—

he is exempt

from paying for the vessels.

And if they are

those of any person—

he is liable.

Rava’s reason is: When the vessels are

those of a pursuer—

he is exempt,

because

his property should not be dearer to him than his body ,

that is to say, it is not reasonable that it is permitted to kill him and his body is permitted to be killed, while it is forbidden to damage his property.

And if the vessels are

those of any person

and the “pursued” broke them— \-

He is liable, for one who saves himself with another’s property,

that is to say, even if he broke them “in order to escape,” it would have been forbidden for him, and in any event he would have been obligated to pay for them [as explained in tractate Bava Kamma], and all the more so if he broke them while fleeing.

Rava states a third law, namely—

If the rescuer—and Rava calls him

“a pursuer who was pursuing the pursuer” in order to save him—

and broke the vessels, whether

they were

those of the pursuer, those of the pursued, or those of any person—

he is exempt.

And not by law—

he is exempt .

Rather, because of the enactment of the Sages, because

if you do not say so—

and obligate him to pay,

you have no person who will save his fellow from the hand of the pursuer,

for he will say: What have I to do with this trouble, to become obligated to pay for the damages I cause while saving the pursued?

We learned in our Mishna:

But one who pursues an animal, one who desecrates Shabbat, or one who engages in idolatry—

one may not save them at the expense of their lives.

This is the view of the tanna of our Mishna, whereas in the beraita, tannaim disagree concerning one who pursues idolatry and one who pursues the desecration of Shabbat.

It was taught: Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: One who engages in idolatry—

can be saved at the expense of his life—

And this is learned by means of a

kal va-chomer.

And just as

one who pursues a forbidden sexual relation, which is

the disgrace of an ordinary person,

and this is its leniency, is nevertheless judged so severely

that he can be saved at the expense of his life—

idolatry, which is severe, since it is

the disgrace of the Most High,

for he denies God, is it

not all the more so

that we should treat him severely and save him at the expense of his life?

And we raise an objection:

But do we impose punishments by means of a logical inference?! [

By means of a kal va-chomer it is possible to expound laws, prohibitions, and obligations, but not punishments.]

And we answer: Indeed,

he holds

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai:

punishments are imposed by means of a logical inference!

And further

it was taught: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who desecrates Shabbat can be saved at the expense of his life.

And the reason is:

He holds like his father,

like his father Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who engages in idolatry can be saved at the expense of his life—

And it is derived

and learned

about Shabbat by

a gzera shava

“desecration, desecration” from idolatry.

It is stated with regard to Shabbat (Exodus 31): “Those who desecrate it shall surely be put to death,” and it is stated with regard to idolatry (Leviticus 18): “And you shall not give any of your offspring to pass through to Molekh, and you shall not desecrate.” Just as one who engages in idolatry can be saved at the expense of his life, so too one who desecrates Shabbat can be saved at the expense of his life.

The following discussion concerns the law of “sanctification of the Name.”

One who is coerced to transgress one of God’s mitzvot, such as when gentiles coerce him, and if he does not transgress they will kill him—

whether he is obligated to surrender his life to be killed and not transgress, or to transgress and preserve his life.

And in this law there are circumstances in which he is obligated to be killed and circumstances in which he may transgress, and there is also a distinction according to which of the mitzvot they coerced him to transgress.

Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:

There were differences of opinion concerning this matter,

and they counted,

they took a vote,

and concluded

the law

in the upper chamber of Beit Nitzah [

the man’s name]

in the

city of

Lod,

where they deliberated about this, and it was decided:

For

all the transgressions that are

written

in the Torah, if they say to a person: “Transgress! And

then

do not be killed”—

he should indeed do so:

he should transgress and not be killed,

because the Torah said (Leviticus 18): “And you shall observe My statutes and My laws, which a person shall perform and live by them; I am the Lord.” That is, the statutes and laws of the Torah were given for “and live by them”—and not that he should die by them.

Except for

these three transgressions:

idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed,

as explained below .

The Gemara explains and discusses what they said, that with regard to idolatry he must be killed and not transgress.

And we challenge:

And with regard to idolatry, not

transgress?!

But it was taught

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Ishmael said: From where

do we learn

that if they say to a person: “Engage in idolatry and do not be killed!” From where do we learn that he should engage in it and not be killed?

The verse states: “And live by them”—

“and not die by them.”

If so,

I might

say:

even in

a situation in which this coercion was

in public,

before many people, he should also engage in idolatry?

The verse states (

there, 22):

“And you shall not profane the Name of My holiness, and I shall be sanctified

among the children of Israel.” And in public there is a profanation of God’s Name, since everyone learns from him to profane the holiness of God, and the Torah said, “And I shall be sanctified”—surrender your life for the love of your Creator!

It follows that with regard to idolatry in private, he should transgress and not be killed?

And we answer: Rabbi Ishmael indeed holds this way, whereas the halakha was decided in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who disagrees with him and holds that what the Torah distinguished between in public and in private applies to the other mitzvot, but with regard to idolatry—even in private, he must be killed and not transgress.

They

these Sages who counted and concluded in the upper chamber of Beit Nitzah in Lod,

who said

their ruling

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer.

As it was taught

we learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The Torah said (Deuteronomy 6):

“And you shall love the Lord your G-

d with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.”

“And you shall love” that is, you shall not exchange Him for idols.

And it must be explained:

If it says “with all your soul”—

why does it say “with all your might”—

and if it says “with all your might”—

why does it say “with all your soul?”

If the Torah comes to say that one should love God as something exceedingly dear, let it state the dearer of the two ?

And Rabbi Eliezer answers: The Torah spoke to every type of person:

If you have one whose body is dearer to him than his property,

he must love God with his body—that is, surrender his life to be killed for the love of God,

and therefore it says, “with all your soul”—

And if you have a person whose property is dearer to him than his body ,

he must love God with all his property—that is, surrender his property in order to refrain from idolatry ,

and therefore it says: “with all your might”

which is the thing exceedingly dear to him.

And according to Rabbi Eliezer, one is obligated to surrender his life in order to refrain from idolatry; and accordingly, these Sages held like him.

We have thus learned the law of idolatry: one must be killed rather than transgress—

And from where do we learn the law of

forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed

that one must be killed rather than transgress?

As

the

Rabbi

taught.

We learned in a

beraita:

Rabbi says: The Torah said in the section concerning the rape of the betrothed maiden (Deuteronomy 22): “But to the maiden you shall do nothing; there is no sin of death for the maiden,

for just as a man rises against his fellow and murders him—

so is this matter.”

And one may object:

But what have we learned from a murderer now

, that the Torah compared it by a “parable” to a murderer? For it is self-evident that the maiden is exempt, since she was coerced? [This was explained above (73a)].

And the explanation is:

Behold, the

law of a murderer

comes to teach

about the betrothed maiden,

and it is found to be learned

from her.

The Torah compares

and equates

a murderer with the betrothed maiden

, in order to teach us:

Just as the betrothed maiden may be saved by taking the life of

the one pursuing her, so may a murderer be saved by taking his life. [This teaching was brought here incidentally and was explained above.]

And

further,

it compares the betrothed maiden to a murderer

, in order to teach us:

Just as a murderer

, if a gentile says to him: “Murder! Kill this person! And if not, I will kill you!”—his law is that he

must be killed rather than transgress—

so too the betrothed maiden

, and likewise all forbidden sexual relations, if a gentile says to her: “Submit to intercourse with one to whom you are forbidden by a prohibition of forbidden sexual relations, and if not, they will kill you”—her law is that she

must be killed rather than transgress .

And for this law the Torah compared the betrothed maiden to a murderer.

And the Gemara clarifies:

The murderer himself

, from whom we learned the law of the betrothed maiden,

from where do we know

that his law is that he must be killed and not transgress?

It is a logical inference

, that he may not cast aside his fellow’s life on account of his own life. For if he kills his fellow, there are two wrongs here: the loss of his fellow’s life and the violation of the prohibition against murder, which the murderer transgresses; whereas if the gentile kills him, although there is the loss of a life here, there is no violation here by an Israelite of the prohibition against murder.

For even if the Torah said, “and he shall live through them,” and not that he should die through them, this applies only in a case where, if he indeed transgresses, no Israelite life will be lost; but if in either case an Israelite life will be lost, why should he transgress the prohibition against murder—

And who knows whose life is more precious in the eyes of his Creator, blessed be His Name? And who says to him that his life is more precious? Therefore the Torah’s command, “You shall not murder,” may not be set aside, and he must be killed rather than transgress!

And the Gemara recounts an incident in which this logical inference was stated.

There was

an incident: a certain man,

who came

and arrived

before him

before

Rava, and said to him

to Rava:

The master of my town said to me

, the gentile who is the master of the city in which I reside: “

Go

and

kill so-and-so

kill so-and-so

! And if not

, if you do not do so,

I will kill you

”—and he asked Rava what he should do.

He said to him

, Rava:

Let them kill you

; allow him to kill you,

but do not kill

and you must not kill! For—

What did you see

, why does it appear so to you,

that your blood is redder

, that your blood is redder,

perhaps

it is possible that

the blood of that man

, the blood of that man whom the master of the city commanded you to kill,

is redder

, is redder?

That is to say, Rava answered him in the manner of a rhetorical expression: Is there a greater wrong in killing you than in killing him? Do you know that your blood is dearer and more pleasing before the Holy One, blessed be He, your Creator, than the blood of your fellows?!

And this is the logical inference that for bloodshed one is obligated to surrender his life, and from it we learn the law of the betrothed maiden.

The Gemara continues to explain the conditions on the basis of which they said, “transgress and do not be killed.”

When

he arrived,

Rabbi Dimi

from the Land of Israel,

he said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: They taught

that concerning other transgressions one should transgress and not be killed,

only not during

a decree of persecution

by the government, but

if the gentile coerces him

during a decree of persecution by the government

to transgress

even

a

minor mitzva [And below it will be explained what a minor mitzva is]—

he must be killed rather than transgress!

so that the gentiles will not become accustomed to weakening the hearts of the Israelites .

When Ravin arrived, he said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Even not during a decree of government, they did not say

that concerning other transgressions one should transgress and not be killed,

except

when the gentile coerces him to transgress

in private, but

if it is

in public ,

even

if he coerces him to transgress a

minor mitzva—

he must be killed rather than transgress!

And we clarify:

What is a minor mitzva?