Sanhedrin 74b — the Talmud in English

Rava bar Rav Yitzhak said in the name of Rav: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

even

if the gentile compels him

to change,

to make a change in the

shoelace

in the form of the shoe’s lace, even though there is no mitzva in this at all, but merely a practice; nevertheless, since it is in public, before Jews, he must surrender his life and sanctify the Name, and he must not conduct himself according to the practice of gentiles.

And this is speaking, for example, where there is an aspect of Jewishness in the practice, and it is the way of Jews to be modest .

And the Gemara clarifies:

and how many

people are called

“in public”?

Rav Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: it is not

called

“in public”—

fewer than ten people.

And the Gemara clarifies: Is this

obvious:

that these ten

must be Jews, for

it is

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

And since from this verse we derive the mitzva of “the sanctification of the Name,” it is obvious that they must be Jews.

Rabbi Jeremiah raised a problem:

if there were

nine

sons of

Israel, and

one more

gentile, what is the law?

Is it called “in public”?

Come and hear: for Rav Yannai, the brother

of

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, taught: it comes

—they learn a gezerah shavah—

“within” “within”; here it is written

in the passage concerning the sanctification of the 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 is ten, for

it comes—we learn a gezerah shavah—

“congregation”

“congregation”

from the spies,

as it is written

there (14):

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

Just as there

—and just as among the spies the “evil congregation” consisted of

ten

out of the twelve spies, for Joshua and Caleb were not counted among “the evil,”

and all of them

were sons of

Israel, so here too,

with the sanctification of the Name—

ten, and all of them Israelites.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against what they said, that in public one is obligated to surrender one’s life: why did Esther not surrender herself to death when she was taken to the gentile Ahasuerus?

But was Esther not in public?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Esther

did not do anything; rather, Ahasuerus performed the act upon her, and she

was like bare ground.

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

Rava said:

Ahasuerus did not wish to make her transgress the religion, but did this for

his own pleasure,

and in such a manner—

the law is different—

the law differs, for there is no desecration of the Name here, and therefore they are not obligated to be killed over it .

And Rava proves this from an incident that was customary in his days: the Persians, the rulers of Babylonia in his days, sent their servants—servants of idolatry—to bring fire from each and every house, to place it in an idolatrous house so that the people could warm themselves before it; and they took [fire] even from the homes of Jews—

for if you do not say so,

if you do not distinguish between when the gentile intends to make one transgress the religion and when he intends it for his own pleasure, it is difficult—

these kavaki and dimoniki

copper vessels into which burning coals are placed high up, and which stand before the tables of kings so that they may warm themselves opposite them—

how do we give them to them,

how do we customarily give them to them? After all, the Persians need them for the practice of idolatry, and why do we not sanctify the Name and surrender our lives?

Rather,

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

for their own pleasure,

for they need that vessel for the needs of their worship, and this manner

is different,

is different, and they are not obligated to surrender their lives—

here too,

the same is true with Esther: since he intended

for his own pleasure

himself—

it is different,

and she was not obligated to surrender her life.

And

this distinction—

goes

and

Rava according to his own reasoning,

according to his position, as he said the same concerning another matter.

For Rava said: A gentile

a gentile

who says to this

Jew: “Cut grass on Shabbat

cut fodder grass on Shabbat [which is the labor of reaping]

and throw it to the animals

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

I will kill you”—

“I will kill you”!

Rava rules for him:

he should cut

the alfalfa,

and not be killed: he should not be killed. And he does not surrender his life.

; he should not allow himself to be killed.

But if the gentile says to him: “Cut alfalfa

and throw it into the river

and throw it into the river! And if not, I will kill you,” then

he should be killed;

he should surrender himself to death,

and not cut

and should not cut it.

What is the reason?

The gentile does not intend his own benefit, but

he seeks to make him transgress the matter

he wants to make him violate the religion. And if it were in a situation in which one is required to surrender his life for the other transgressions, such as in public, or at a time of religious persecution, he is required to surrender his life.

A Noahide—a gentile—is commanded concerning the prohibition of idolatry, and it is one of the seven Noahide mitzvot.

The Gemara clarifies whether he is required to surrender himself to be killed if they force him to worship idolatry.

They asked him

his students asked

Rabbi Ami:

A Noahide—

is he commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name, or

is he not

commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name?

And we resolve it:

Abaye said: Come and hear

we learned in a beraita:

The Noahides were commanded concerning seven mitzvot.

And if it is so

if indeed a Noahide is commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name

there would be eight

there are eight mitzvot, because the mitzva of sanctifying the Name would be added to them.

It follows that he is not commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name.

And we reject this:

Rava said to him

there is no proof from that beraita, and it is possible to say that what the Noahides are commanded concerning the seven mitzvot,

they themselves

are

and all their ancillary details

their particulars; that is, they were commanded concerning all the particulars of the mitzva. And just as they were commanded concerning idolatry, so they were commanded concerning the sanctification of the Name, which is one of the components of the mitzva.

And likewise with forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed, concerning which the Noahides were commanded, and in which the sanctification of the Name is applicable: they were commanded concerning all their particulars, and they are obligated to fulfill them, and it is forbidden for them to nullify them even if they will be killed on account of them.

And there is no proof from the beraita.

And the Gemara clarifies:

What has become of it,

what proof can be brought to resolve the question?

And we resolve it:

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

the academy of

Rav:

It is written (

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

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

king of Aram ]

enters the house of Rimmon to bow there, and he leans upon my hand and I bow” [

and I am compelled to bow 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.

And although he was not obligated to oppose him and rebuke him, for the mitzva of rebuke applies only to Jews, as it is stated (Leviticus 19): “You shall surely rebuke your fellow”—but not the gentile—

nevertheless, why did he agree with him?