Sanhedrin 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

Rava bar Rav Yitzḥak said that Rav said:

Even

if the gentile is coercing him

to make a variation, to make a variation in

the

shoelace

in the manner of the shoelace, even though this involves no mitzva whatsoever, but merely a custom, nevertheless, since it is being done publicly, in the presence of Jews, he must surrender his life and sanctify the Name of God, and he may not adopt the practice of gentiles.

And this is referring, for example, to a practice that has an aspect of Jewish identity, and to the fact that Jews customarily conduct themselves modestly .

The Gemara inquires:

And how many

people are called

a public setting?

Rav Ya’akov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not

called

a public setting—

fewer than ten people.

The Gemara inquires: This is

obvious:

that these ten

must be Jews, for

it is

written: “And I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel.”

Since the mitzva of sanctifying the Name of God is derived from this verse, it is obvious that they must be Jews.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

If there were

nine

Jewish

men, and

one additional

gentile, what is the ruling?

Is this considered a public setting?

Come and hear: As Rav Yannai, the brother

of

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, taught: It is derived

through a gezerah shavah

from “within” and “within.” Here it is written

in the passage concerning the sanctification of God’s Name:

“And I shall be sanctified among the children of Israel,” and there it is written

in the passage concerning Korah (Numbers 16):

“Separate yourselves from within this congregation.” [

And a congregation consists of ten, for

it is derived through a gezerah shavah

from

“congregation” and “congregation”

from the spies,

as it is written

(ibid. 14):

“How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” ]

Just as there

were, in the case of the spies,

ten

among the twelve spies who constituted “the evil congregation,” since Joshua and Caleb were not included among “the evil,”

and all of them

were

Israelites, so too here,

with regard to the sanctification of God’s Name—

ten, and all of them Israelites.

The Gemara challenges what they said, that in a public setting one must surrender his life: Why did Esther not surrender herself to be killed when she was taken to Ahasuerus the gentile?

But Esther’s case was a public setting, was it not?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Esther

did not do anything; rather, Ahasuerus acted upon her, and she

was like inert ground.

This is an analogy: Just as one walks upon the ground, and the ground does nothing, so too Esther .

Rava said:

Ahasuerus did not intend to make her violate her religion; rather, he did so for

his own pleasure,

and in such a case

the law is different,

for there is no desecration of God’s Name here, and therefore one is not required to be killed for it .

And Rava proves this from an incident that was customary in his time: The Persians, the rulers of Babylonia in his time, sent their servants—idol-worshipping servants—to bring fire from every house and every house and place it in an idolatrous house so that the people could warm themselves beside it; they took fire even from Jewish homes—

for if you do not say so,

if you do not distinguish between a case in which the gentile intends to make one violate one’s religion and a case in which he intends to act for his own pleasure, it is difficult:

These kavakei and dimonikei,

types of copper vessels into which burning coals are placed, and which are set before kings’ tables so that they may warm themselves beside them—

how may we give them to them,

how can we customarily give them these vessels, since the Persians require them for the practice of idolatry? Why do we not sanctify God’s Name and surrender our lives?

Rather,

it must necessarily be said that since they do not intend to make us violate our religion, and do not command us to worship idolatry with them, but do this

for their own pleasure,

because they need that vessel for their worship, this manner

is different,

and one is not obligated to surrender one’s life—

Here too

the same applies to Esther: Since he intended

for his own pleasure

[his own]—

the law is different,

and she was not obligated to surrender her life.

And

this distinction

follows

and

Rava is consistent with his own position,

as he stated the same principle elsewhere.

For Rava said: A gentile

who

says to this

Jew: “Cut fodder on Shabbat

harvest animal fodder on Shabbat [which is the labor of harvesting]

and throw it to the animals,

and give it to my animals [that is, he intends to act for his own pleasure], and if you do not do so”—

I will kill you

“I will kill you”!

Rava rules for him:

let him cut it

—he should cut the fodder—

and not let himself be killed

; he should not allow himself to be killed.

However, if the gentile says to him, “Cut fodder

and throw it into the river

—and if not, I will kill you,” then

let him be killed

; he should submit himself to death,

and not cut it

; he should not cut it.

What is the reason?

The gentile does not intend to derive benefit for himself; rather,

he seeks to make him violate the matter

—he wants to make him transgress his religion. And if the situation were one in which it is obligatory to submit oneself to death for other transgressions, such as in public or in a time of religious persecution, he would be obligated to submit himself to death.

A ben Noach—a gentile—is commanded regarding the prohibition against idolatry, and it is one of the seven Noahide mitzvot.

The Gemara clarifies whether he is obligated to submit himself to death when they force him to worship idols.

They asked

His students asked

Rabbi Ami:

A ben Noach—

is he commanded regarding the sanctification of God’s Name, or

is he not

commanded regarding the sanctification of God’s Name?

We resolve the question:

Abaye said: Come and hear

We learned in a beraita:

The descendants of Noah were commanded seven mitzvot.

And if it is so

If a ben Noach is indeed commanded regarding the sanctification of God’s Name, then

there would be eight

mitzvot, because the mitzva of sanctifying God’s Name would have been added to them.

It follows that he is not commanded regarding the sanctification of God’s Name.

And we reject this proof:

Rava said to him

There is no proof from that beraita, for it is possible to say that when the descendants of Noah were commanded regarding the seven mitzvot,

they themselves

and

all their ancillary details

were included—that is, they were commanded regarding every detail of each mitzva. Just as they were commanded regarding idolatry, so too they were commanded regarding the sanctification of God’s Name, which is one of the components of that mitzva.

Likewise, with regard to the forbidden sexual relationships and bloodshed concerning which the descendants of Noah were commanded, and in which the sanctification of God’s Name is relevant, they were commanded regarding all their details and are obligated to fulfill them; it is forbidden for them to annul them even if they will be killed for doing so.

Thus, there is no proof from the beraita.

And the Gemara clarifies:

What conclusion was reached,

what proof can be brought to resolve the question?

We resolve the question:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: They said in the academy of

the academy of

Rav:

It is written

(II Kings 5): When Elisha healed Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram, of his leprosy, and Naaman accepted upon himself not to worship idols, he said to Elisha:

“For this matter may the Lord forgive your servant, when my master

[the king of Aram]

enters the House of Rimmon to bow there, and he is leaning on my arm and I bow”

[and I am compelled to bow together with him].

That is, Naaman apologized for being “compelled” to do so.

And it is written

and it is written there: “

And he said to him

[Elisha]:

Go in peace.”

That is, he agreed with him.

Although Naaman was not obligated to oppose him and admonish him, since the mitzva of admonition applies only to Jews, as it is stated (Leviticus 19): “You shall surely admonish your fellow”—but not a gentile—

nevertheless, why did he agree with him?