Sanhedrin 145

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> ואלו הן שמצילין אותן בנפשן הרודף אחר חבירו להרגו ואחר הזכר ואחר הנערה המאורסה אבל הרודף אחר בהמה והמחלל את השבת ועובד עבודת כוכבים אין מצילין אותן בנפשן:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SAVED [FROM SINNING] EVEN AT THE COST OF THEIR LIVES: HE WHO PURSUES AFTER HIS NEIGHBOUR TO SLAY HIM, [OR] AFTER A MALE [FOR PEDERASTY]. [OR] AFTER A BETROTHED MAIDEN [TO DISHONOUR HER].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These must be slain, rather than be allowed to carry out their intention. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר מניין לרודף אחר חבירו להרגו שניתן להצילו בנפשו ת"ל (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תעמוד על דם רעך והא להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא מניין לרואה את חבירו שהוא טובע בנהר או חיה גוררתו או לסטין באין עליו שהוא חייב להצילו ת"ל לא תעמוד על דם רעך אין ה"נ

BUT HE WHO PURSUES AFTER AN ANIMAL [TO ABUSE IT]. OR WOULD DESECRATE THE SABBATH, OR COMMIT IDOLATRY, MUST NOT BE SAVED [FROM SINNING] AT THE COST OF HIS LIFE.

ואלא ניתן להצילו בנפשו מנלן אתיא בקל וחומר מנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה שלא בא אלא לפוגמה אמרה תורה ניתן להצילה בנפשו רודף אחר חבירו להרגו על אחת כמה וכמה

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: whence do we know that he who pursues after his neighbour to slay him must be saved [from sin] at the cost of his own life? From the verse, Thou shalt not stand by the blood of thy neighbour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 16. Stand not idly by, but save him from committing such a great sin. ');">²</span>

וכי עונשין מן הדין דבי רבי תנא הקישא הוא (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש וכי מה למדנו מרוצח

But does it come to teach this? Is it not employed for the following [Baraitha] that has been taught: Whence do we know that if a man sees his fellow drowning, mauled by beasts, or attacked by robbers, he is bound to save him? From the verse, Thou shalt not stand by the blood of thy neighbor! — That in truth is so. Then whence do we know that [the pursuer] must be saved at the cost of his own life? — It is inferred by an ad majus reasoning from a betrothed maiden. If a betrothed maiden, whom he wishes merely to dishonour, yet the Torah decreed that she may be saved by the life of her ravisher, how much more so does this hold good for one who pursues his neighbour to slay him. But can punishment be inflicted as a result of an ad majus conclusion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. supra 54a. ');">³</span>

מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילה בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו

— The School of Rabbi taught, It is derived by analogy:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A hekkesh, v. Glos., ');">⁴</span>

ונערה מאורסה גופה מנלן כדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (דברים כב, כז) ואין מושיע לה הא יש מושיע לה בכל דבר שיכול להושיע

For as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so in this matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 26. This refers to the ravishing of a betrothed maiden. ');">⁵</span>

גופא מניין לרואה את חברו שהוא טובע בנהר או חיה גוררתו או לסטין באין עליו שהוא חייב להצילו ת"ל לא תעמוד על דם רעך והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא אבדת גופו מניין ת"ל והשבותו לו

But what do we learn from this analogy of a murderer?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the simile itself is superfluous, since the Torah explicitly states that the maiden is not punished. Hence it implies that a certain feature of the law of a murderer holds good here too, and vice versa. ');">⁶</span>

אי מהתם הוה אמינא ה"מ בנפשיה אבל מיטרח ומיגר אגורי אימא לא קמ"ל

Thus, this comes to throw light, and is itself illumined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the verse shows that the case of a murderer throws light upon that of a betrothed maiden (v. infra 74a), but is it itself also illumined thereby. ');">⁷</span>

תנו רבנן אחד הרודף אחר חבירו להרגו ואחר הזכר ואחר נערה המאורסה ואחר חייבי מיתות ב"ד ואחר חייבי כריתות מצילין אותן בנפשו אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט אין מצילין אותן בנפשו

The murderer is compared to a betrothed maiden; just as a betrothed maiden must be saved [from dishonour] at the cost of his [her violater's] life, so in the case of a murderer, he [the victim] must be saved at the cost of his [the attacker's] life. And whence do we know this of betrothed maiden? — As was taught by the School of R. Ishmael. For the School of R. Ishmael taught; [The betrothed damsel cried]; and there was none to save her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 27. ');">⁸</span>

נעבדה בה עבירה אין מצילין אותה בנפשו יש לה מושיע אין מצילין אותה בנפשו רבי יהודה אומר אף האומרת הניחו לו שלא יהרגנה

but, if there was a rescuer, he must save her by all possible means [including the death of her ravisher].

מנה"מ אמר קרא (דברים כב, כו) ולנערה לא תעשה דבר אין לנערה חטא מות נער זה זכור נערה זו נערה המאורסה חטא אלו חייבי כריתות מות אלו חייבי מיתות ב"ד

[To revert to] the above text: 'Whence do we know that if a man sees his neighbour drowning, mauled by beasts, or attacked by robbers, he is bound to save him? From the verse, Thou shalt not stand by the blood of thy neighbour.' But is it derived from this verse? Is it not rather from elsewhere? Viz., Whence do we know [that one must save his neighbour from] the loss of himself? From the verse, And thou shalt restore him to himself!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 2. The passage refers to restoring a neighbour's lost property. This interpretation extends it to his own person. e.g if he has lost himself, he must be helped to find his way again. Hence it also applies to the rescuing of one from danger. ');">⁹</span>

כל הני למה לי צריכי דאי כתב רחמנא נער משום דלאו אורחיה אבל נערה דאורחה אימא לא

— From that verse I might think that it is only a personal obligation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because, 'thou shalt restore' … implies thou in person. ');">¹⁰</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא נערה משום דקא פגים לה אבל נער דלא קא פגים ליה אימא לא

but that he is not bound to take the trouble of hiring men [if he cannot deliver him himself]: therefore, this verse teaches that he must.

ואי כתב רחמנא הני

Our Rabbis taught: He who pursues after his neighbour to slay him, he who pursues a male [for sexual abuse], or a betrothed maiden, a woman forbidden to him on pain of death at the hands of <i>Beth din</i>, or one forbidden on pain of extinction<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To commit incest or adultery. ');">¹¹</span> — these are saved [from sin] at the cost of their own lives. But a High Priest in pursuit of a widow, and an ordinary priest in pursuit of a divorcee or a <i>haluzah</i>, may not be saved at the cost of their lives. If [the betrothed maiden] has been ravished previously, she may not be saved by her pursuer's death, likewise, if she can be otherwise rescued. R. Judah said: This applies also if she said [to her rescuers]. 'Let him be,' lest he slay her.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before they reach her. ');">¹²</span> Whence do we know all this? — <i>But unto the damsel</i> na'ar[ah] <i>thou shalt do nothing: there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26. ');">¹³</span> <i>Na'ar</i> refers to a male, <i>na'arah</i> to a betrothed maiden;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second half of the verse is superfluous, since the first half states, 'but unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing'. Hence each part thereof is separately interpreted. Though the verse as read (Kre) is na'arah, ([H] damsel). the written text (Kethib) is na'ar, ([H] a youth). Hence both the written and the read word are interpreted. ');">¹⁴</span> sin — to women forbidden on pain of extinction; death — to those forbidden on pain of death at the hands of <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And those deduced from the verse must be saved at the cost of their pursuer's life. ');">¹⁵</span> Why are all these needed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Could not the Torah have taught it of one, from which the others might be deduced? ');">¹⁶</span> — They are necessary. For had the Divine Law written <i>na'ar</i> [a youth], I would have thought that he must thus be saved because it is unnatural lust; but since connection with a maiden is natural, I would think that she may not be saved thus. Whilst if <i>na'arah</i> [damsel] were written, I would think that the law applies only to her, because he destroys her virginity; but not to a youth, who is not thus injured. And had these [only] been stated,