Commentary for Sanhedrin 113:19

פועל בכרם אימת אי בשעת גמר מלאכה התירא הוא אי לאו בשעת גמר מלאכה גזל מעליא הוא

— How else could that clause have been taught? Could he state, 'forbidden'&nbsp;… 'permitted'? Surely it &nbsp; &nbsp; has been taught; A Cuthean and a [Jewish] shepherd of small cattle [sheep, goats, etc.]<a rel="footnote" href="#56a_37">³⁷</a> need neither be rescued [from a pit] nor may they be thrown [therein]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One need neither exert oneself to save them from death, nor may one encompass it. This, of course, is theoretical only, v. p. 388, n. 6. Not a few of these harsh utterances (where they do not reflect the old Semitic tribal law, v. p. 388. n. 7) were the natural result of Jewish persecution by the Romans, and must be understood in that light. In actual practice, these dicta were certainly never acted upon, and it is significant that a commission of Roman officers, after investigating Jewish law in its relation to Gentiles, took exception only to two laws, one relating to the damage done by a goring ox, and the other permitting a Jew the use of property stolen from a Gentile. R. Gamaliel repealed this latter law. (B.K. 38a: Sifre Deut. 344.) Hence, reverting to the discussion, the Tanna could not have stated that the murder of a Cuthean by a Jew is permissible, therefore he is forced to speak of punishment. ');">³⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Sanhedrin 113:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.