Sanhedrin 146

משום דהאי לאו אורחיה הוא והא קא פגים לה אבל שאר עריות דאורחייהו ולא נפיש פיגמייהו אימא לא כתב רחמנא חטא

I would think that it is because the one is unnatural, and the other is deprived of her virginity; but other consanguineous relations, cohabitation with whom is both natural and does not inflict a great loss,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if they are unbetrothed, there is no arus (a betrothed husband) in whom the loss of virginity will rankle deeply; whilst if they are married, her virginity has already gone. ');">¹</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא חטא הוה אמינא אפילו חייבי לאוין כתב רחמנא מות

might not be thus saved: therefore the Divine Law writes 'sin'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that it applies to those who are forbidden on pain of execution. ');">²</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא מות הוה אמינא חייבי מיתות בית דין אין חייבי כריתות לא כתב רחמנא חטא

Now, had the Divine Law written 'sin' [only], I would have thought it applies even to those who are forbidden merely by a negative precept: therefore the Divine Law wrote 'death'. And had the the Divine Law written 'death' [only], I would have thought the law applies only to those forbidden on pain of death by <i>Beth din</i>, but not on pain of extinction: therefore the Divine Law writes 'sin'. Then why did the Divine Law not write merely there is no sin worthy of death, <i>na'ar</i> [youth] and <i>na'arah</i> [a damsel] being superfluous?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the violation of a betrothed maiden and the abuse of a male are punishable by death, they are included in the exegesis of 'death'. ');">³</span>

ולכתוב רחמנא חטא מות ולא בעי נער ונערה אין ה"נ ואלא נער נערה חד למעוטי עובד עבודת כוכבים וחד למעוטי בהמה ושבת

— That is so. But as for <i>na'ar</i> and <i>na'arah</i>, one teaches the exclusion of an idolater, and the other, the exclusion of bestiality and the [desecration of the] Sabbath.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one must not he prevented from sinning in respect of these by killing him. ');">⁴</span>

ולר"ש בן יוחי דאמר עובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו למה לי חד למעוטי בהמה וחד למעוטי שבת

But on the view of R. Simeon b. Yohai that an idolater must be saved [from sin] at the cost of his life, why are these verses necessary? — One excludes bestiality, and the other excludes the [desecration of the] Sabbath; for I would [otherwise] think, that the Sabbath is included through an analogy with idolatry, since 'profanation' is written in both.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. Infra 74b. ');">⁵</span>

סד"א תיתי שבת מחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים

But on the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, that he who desecrates the Sabbath must be saved [from sin] by death, because an analogy is drawn with idolatry, on account of profanation being written in both, what can you say? — One excludes bestiality; and as for the other, since the Divine Law wrote <i>na'ar</i>, it also wrote <i>na'arah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In fact, it is not a double redundancy, for though na'ar is written, the context demands that na'arah be read, since the entire passage refers to a maiden. ');">⁶</span>

ולרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דאמר מחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו דאתיא שבת מחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים מאי איכא למימר חד מיעוט למעוטי בהמה ואידך איידי דכתב רחמנא נער כתב נמי נערה:

'R. Judah said: The same applies if she said [to her rescuer] "Let him be", lest he slay her.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the Baraitha quoted above, ');">⁷</span>

רבי יהודה אומר אף האומרת הניחו לו שלא יהרגנה: במאי קמיפלגי

In which case do they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Judah and the Rabbis. ');">⁸</span>

אמר רבא במקפדת על פיגמה ומניחתו שלא יהרגנה רבנן סברי אפיגמה קפיד רחמנא והרי מקפדת על פיגמה ורבי יהודה האי דקאמר רחמנא קטליה משום דמסרה נפשה לקטלא הא לא מסרה נפשה לקטלא

differ? — Raba said: when she objects to dishonour, yet permits him, so that he should not slay her. The Rabbis maintain, The Divine Law was insistent for her honour, and since she too is particular about it. [her pursuer may be slain]. But R. Judah maintains that the reason that the Divine Law decreed that he should be slain is because she is prepared to give her own life [rather than be violated]; but this one is not prepared to do so.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי אלמנה לכהן גדול נמי קא פגים לה אמר ליה אפיגמה רבה קפיד רחמנא אפיגמה זוטא לא קפיד רחמנא:

R. Papa said to Abaye: But does not a High Priest dishonour a widow?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By violating her he disqualifies her from marrying a priest; why then should she not be saved at the cost of his life? ');">⁹</span>

חטא אלו חייבי כריתות: ורמינהו ואלו נערות שיש להן קנס הבא על אחותו

— He replied, The Divine Law sought to protect her from great dishonour, but not from little dishonour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Torah authorised the extreme measure of slaying the ravisher only when he would inflict great dishonour, e.g.. in the case of incest forbidden on pain of extinction, as a result of which she becomes a harlot (zonah) and the child a bastard. But here (a widow, violated by a High Priest), she is merely profaned (halalah). ');">¹⁰</span>

אמרוה רבנן קמיה דרב חסדא משעת העראה דפגמה איפטר לה מקטלא ממונא לא משלם עד גמר ביאה

'Sin — refers to women forbidden on pain of extinction.

הניחא למאן דאמר העראה זו נשיקה אלא למ"ד העראה זו הכנסת עטרה מאי איכא למימר

The Scholars objected: [We learnt,] Fine is imposed for the violation of the following maidens:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to Deut. XXII, 28f. The fifty shekels are regarded as a fine. ');">¹¹</span>

אלא אמר רב חסדא כגון שבא עליה שלא כדרכה וחזר ובא עליה כדרכה

he who outrages his sister.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Keth. 29a. I.e., even his sister, though and she shall be his wife is inapplicable. But if she might be saved by his life, he should not be fined, in accordance with the principle stated on p, 490, n. 1. In the case of the death penalty, this principle holds good even if the offender is not actually executed, or, as in this case, slain by the rescuers, ');">¹²</span>

רבא אמר במניחתו שלא יהרגנה ור' יהודה היא

— The Rabbis explained this before R. Hisda: Once he has committed the first stage, thereby dishonouring her, he may no longer be slain;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By her rescuers in order to save her, for the extreme measure is permitted only if she is as yet untarnished, ');">¹³</span> whereas monetary liability is not contracted until the completion of cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently, the two penalties are not incurred simultaneously, and the principle is inoperative. By 'completion' the destruction of her virginity is meant, ');">¹⁴</span> Now, this agrees with the view that the first stage [which dishonours her] is contact with her sexual organ; but on the view that the first stage is the insertion of the membrum, what can you say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since then dishonour and destruction of virginity are simultaneous. ');">¹⁵</span> But R. Hisda answered thus: This refers to unnatural followed by natural cohabitation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since she has been unnaturally violated before, whether by her brother or another, she may not be saved now by his life. Therefore he is fined for destroying her virginity. ');">¹⁶</span> Raba said: This applies where she allows him [to have his will] so that he shall not slay her, and is based on the ruling of R. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 73a. ');">¹⁷</span>