Sanhedrin 147

רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל

R. Papa said: This refers to seduction [not outrage], and therefore agrees with all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if she is seduced of her own consent, she may not be saved at the cost of her seducer's life, nevertheless, the fine is imposed. ');">¹</span>

אביי אמר ביכול להציל באחד מאבריו ורבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו

Abaye said: This applies where she could have been saved at the cost of one of the limbs [of the violator].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without killing him. ');">²</span>

מאי טעמא דרבי יונתן בן שאול דכתיב (שמות כא, כב) וכי ינצו אנשים (יחדו) וגו' וא"ר אלעזר במצות שבמיתה הכתוב מדבר דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש

and agrees with R. Jonathan b. Saul. For it has been taught: If one was pursuing his fellow to slay him, and he could have been saved<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here Rashi explains, either by the pursued, or by another person. On 57a he states, 'by the pursued'. ');">³</span>

אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו

by maiming a limb [of the pursuer] but did not thus save himself [killing him instead], he is executed on his account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, in such circumstances the violator is not liable to death, and consequently liable to the fine. ');">⁴</span>

אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש

What is R. Jonathan b. Saul's reason? — Because it is written, if men strive [and hurt a woman&nbsp;…] he shall be surely punished&nbsp;… and pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI. 22ff. ');">⁵</span>

דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה

Whereon R. Eleazar said: The verse refers to attempted murder,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he who injured the woman was striving to kill his opponent. ');">⁶</span>

לא שנא דאמר רבא רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו ושיבר את הכלים בין של נרדף ובין של כל אדם פטור מאי טעמא מתחייב בנפשו הוא

for it is written, And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. The extreme penalty, though the murder of the woman is unintentional, is explicable only on the above assumption. ');">⁷</span>

ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו

and yet the Divine Law states, If no mischief follows, he shall surely be punished. Now this is correct if you say that where the pursued can be saved at the cost of one limb [of the pursuer] the latter may not be slain: hence it is conceivable that he shall be punished [by paying monetary compensation]. But if you maintain that he may be slain, how is it possible for him to be punished!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 490, n, 1. ');">⁸</span>

ורודף שהיה רודף אחר רודף להצילו ושיבר את הכלים בין של רודף בין של נרדף בין של כל אדם פטור ולא מן הדין שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אין לך כל אדם שמציל את חבירו מיד הרודף:

Perhaps it is different here, because his liability to death is incurred on account of one person, but his monetary obligation on account of another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he is liable to be slain because he seeks to slay his combatant; but the monetary liability arises through his injury to the woman. Where, however, these liabilities are incurred on account of two different persons it may be that the one does not cancel the other. ');">⁹</span>

אבל הרודף אחר בהמה: תניא רשב"י אומר העובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו מק"ו ומה פגם הדיוט ניתן להצילו בנפשו פגם גבוה לא כל שכן וכי עונשין מן הדין קא סבר עונשין מן הדין

— That makes no difference. For Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In B.K. 117b the text is Rabbah. ');">¹⁰</span>

תניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר המחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו סבר לה כאבוה דאמר עונשין מן הדין ואתיא שבת בחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים

said: If a man was pursuing after his fellow [to slay him]. and broke some utensils, whether of the pursued or of some other person. he is free from liability. Why so? Because he is liable to be killed. If the pursued broke some articles: if they belonged to the pursuer, he is not liable for them; if to someone else, he is. 'If they belonged to the pursuer he is not liable', — because his property is not more precious than his own person.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And just as he would not have been punished had he killed him, so he is not liable for destroying his property. ');">¹¹</span>

א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים

But 'if to someone else, he is', — because he saved himself at his neighbour's expense. But if one pursuer was pursuing another pursuer to save him [the latter's victim] and broke some utensils, whether of the pursuer. or the pursued. or of any other person, he is not liable for them. This should not be so in equity<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he who saves himself at another's expense is liable for the damage, how much more so when one saves another at a third party's expense. ');">¹²</span>

ועבודת כוכבים לא והא תניא א"ר ישמעאל מנין שאם אמרו לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג מנין שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם

but if thou wilt not rule thus, no man will save his neighbour from a pursuer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lest in doing so he causes damage for which he will have to pay. Hence reverting to the subject under discussion, in the case of one man striving to kill another and injuring a woman, it must be assumed that he was not liable to be slain, and this is only possible if his opponent could be saved by a limb of the murderer, which proves R. Jonathan b. Saul's assertion. ');">¹³</span>

יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי

BUT HE WHO PURSUES AN ANIMAL [TO ABUSE IT].

אינהו דאמור כר"א דתניא ר"א אומר (דברים ו, ה) ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך

It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Yohai said: An idolater may be saved [from sin] at the cost of his own life. This is deduced by reasoning from the minor to the major: If the dishonouring of a human<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that of a betrothed maiden. ');">¹⁴</span>

אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך

being must be averted even at the cost of [the violator's] life, how much more so the dishonouring of the All-Highest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Idolatry, by recognizing a divine power in addition to God's, dishonours Him, conceding to another that which is His alone. ');">¹⁵</span>

גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה למדנו מרוצח

But can we punish<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, indemnify his slayer. ');">¹⁶</span>

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

as a result of an ad majus conclusion? — He maintains that we can.

ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור

It has been taught: R. Eliezer, son of R. Simeon, said: He who desecrates the Sabbath may be saved [from sin] by his own life. He agrees with his father, that punishment is imposed as a result of an ad majus conclusion, and then he deduces the Sabbath from idolatry by [a <i>gezerah shawah</i> based on the use of] 'profanation' in connection with the Sabbath and idolatry.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sabbath: Everyone that profaneth it shall surely be put to death (Ex. XXXI, 14) idolatry: And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch, neither shalt thou profane the name of the Lord thy God, (Lev. XVII, 21). ');">¹⁷</span>

רוצח גופיה מנא לן סברא הוא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה ואמר ליה אמר לי מרי דוראי זיל קטליה לפלניא ואי לא קטלינא לך אמר ליה לקטלוך ולא תיקטול מי יימר דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דהוא גברא סומק טפי

R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: By a majority vote, it was resolved in the upper chambers of the house of Nithza in Lydda<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in South Palestine (Roman name Diospolis). ');">¹⁸</span>

כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור

that in every [other] law of the Torah, if a man is commanded: 'Transgress and suffer not death' he may transgress and not suffer death, excepting idolatry, incest, [which includes adultery] and murder.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Graetz, Geschichte, IV, p.p. 155 and 428ff this took place during the Hadrianic persecutions consequent upon the failure of the revolt of Bar Cochba 132-135 C.E. [According to Halevy Doroth i.e., p. 371. before the fall of Bether]. ');">¹⁹</span>

כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי' שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור

Now may not idolatry be practised [in these circumstances]? Has it not been taught: R. Ishmael said: whence do we know that if a man was bidden, 'Engage in idolatry and save your life', that he should do so, and not be slain? From the verse, [Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgements,' which if a man do] he shall live in them:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 5. ');">²⁰</span>

מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב

but not die by them. I might think that it may even be openly practised. but Scripture teaches, Neither shall ye profane my holy name; but I will be hallowed?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 32. ');">²¹</span> — They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sages that met at the house of Nithza. ');">²²</span> ruled as R. Eliezer. For it has been taught, R. Eliezer said: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut, VI. 5. ');">²³</span> Since 'with all thy soul' is stated, why is 'with all thy might' stated? Or if 'with all thy might' be written, why also write 'with all thy soul'? For the man to whom life is more precious than wealth, 'with all thy soul' is written;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even to give thy soul (life) in His service. ');">²⁴</span> whilst he to whom wealth is more precious than life is bidden, 'with all thy might' [i.e., substance].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This proves that one must incur a martyr's death rather than practice idolatry, for 'and thou shalt love the Lord thy God' means that we must not worship any other in His place. ');">²⁵</span> Incest and murder [may not be practised to save one's life], — even as Rabbi's dictum. For it has been taught: Rabbi said, For as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 26. ');">²⁶</span> But what do we learn from this analogy of a murderer? Thus, this comes to throw light and is itself illumined. The murderer is compared to a betrothed maiden: just as a betrothed maiden must be saved [from dishonour] at the cost of his [the ravisher's] life, so in the case of a murderer, he [the victim] must be saved at the cost of his [the attacker's] life. Conversely, a betrothed maiden is compared to a murderer: just as one must rather be slain than commit murder, so also must the betrothed maiden rather be slain than allow her violation. And how do we know this of murder itself? — It is common sense. Even as one who came before Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec., Rabbah. ');">²⁷</span> and said to him, 'The governor of my town has ordered me, "Go and kill so and so; if not, I will slay thee"'. He answered him, 'Let him rather slay you than that you should commit murder; who knows that your blood is redder? Perhaps his blood is redder.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you have no right to murder him to save yourself: his life is no less valuable than your own. ');">²⁸</span> When R. Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 390 n. 1. ');">²⁹</span> he said: This was taught only if there is no royal decree,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Forbidding the practice of Judaism, the action being by an individual. ');">³⁰</span> but if there is a royal decree, one must incur martyrdom rather than transgress even a minor precept. When Rabin came, he said in R. Johanan's name: Even without a royal decree, it was only permitted in private; but in public one must be martyred even for a minor precept rather than violate it. What is meant by a 'minor precept'? — Raba son of R. Isaac said in Rab's name: