Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



5833
Septuagint, 4 Maccabees, 5.8-5.11


nanIt seems to me that you will do something even more senseless if, by holding a vain opinion concerning the truth, you continue to despise me to your own hurt.


nanWill you not awaken from your foolish philosophy, dispel your futile reasonings, adopt a mind appropriate to your years, philosophize according to the truth of what is beneficial


nanWhy, when nature has granted it to us, should you abhor eating the very excellent meat of this animal?


nanIt is senseless not to enjoy delicious things that are not shameful, and wrong to spurn the gifts of nature.


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

4 results
1. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 6.21-6.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

6.21. Those who were in charge of that unlawful sacrifice took the man aside, because of their long acquaintance with him, and privately urged him to bring meat of his own providing, proper for him to use, and pretend that he was eating the flesh of the sacrificial meal which had been commanded by the king,' 6.22. o that by doing this he might be saved from death, and be treated kindly on account of his old friendship with them.'
2. Septuagint, 4 Maccabees, 1.16, 1.18, 1.33-1.35, 5.7-5.9, 5.11-5.13, 5.18-5.26, 6.14-6.15, 7.9, 7.18-7.23, 8.5, 17.14 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

1.16. Wisdom, next, is the knowledge of divine and human matters and the causes of these. 1.18. Now the kinds of wisdom are rational judgment, justice, courage, and self-control. 1.33. Otherwise how is it that when we are attracted to forbidden foods we abstain from the pleasure to be had from them? Is it not because reason is able to rule over appetites? I for one think so. 1.34. Therefore when we crave seafood and fowl and animals and all sorts of foods that are forbidden to us by the law, we abstain because of domination by reason. 1.35. For the emotions of the appetites are restrained, checked by the temperate mind, and all the impulses of the body are bridled by reason. 5.7. for I respect your age and your gray hairs. Although you have had them for so long a time, it does not seem to me that you are a philosopher when you observe the religion of the Jews. 5.8. Why, when nature has granted it to us, should you abhor eating the very excellent meat of this animal? 5.9. It is senseless not to enjoy delicious things that are not shameful, and wrong to spurn the gifts of nature. 5.11. Will you not awaken from your foolish philosophy, dispel your futile reasonings, adopt a mind appropriate to your years, philosophize according to the truth of what is beneficial 5.12. and have compassion on your old age by honoring my humane advice? 5.13. For consider this, that if there is some power watching over this religion of yours, it will excuse you from any transgression that arises out of compulsion. 5.18. Even if, as you suppose, our law were not truly divine and we had wrongly held it to be divine, not even so would it be right for us to invalidate our reputation for piety. 5.19. Therefore do not suppose that it would be a petty sin if we were to eat defiling food; 5.20. to transgress the law in matters either small or great is of equal seriousness 5.21. for in either case the law is equally despised. 5.22. You scoff at our philosophy as though living by it were irrational 5.23. but it teaches us self-control, so that we master all pleasures and desires, and it also trains us in courage, so that we endure any suffering willingly; 5.24. it instructs us in justice, so that in all our dealings we act impartially, and it teaches us piety, so that with proper reverence we worship the only real God. 5.25. Therefore we do not eat defiling food; for since we believe that the law was established by God, we know that in the nature of things the Creator of the world in giving us the law has shown sympathy toward us. 5.26. He has permitted us to eat what will be most suitable for our lives, but he has forbidden us to eat meats that would be contrary to this. 6.14. Eleazar, why are you so irrationally destroying yourself through these evil things? 6.15. We will set before you some cooked meat; save yourself by pretending to eat pork. 7.9. You, father, strengthened our loyalty to the law through your glorious endurance, and you did not abandon the holiness which you praised, but by your deeds you made your words of divine philosophy credible. 7.18. But as many as attend to religion with a whole heart, these alone are able to control the passions of the flesh 7.19. ince they believe that they, like our patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, do not die to God, but live in God. 7.20. No contradiction therefore arises when some persons appear to be dominated by their emotions because of the weakness of their reason. 7.21. What person who lives as a philosopher by the whole rule of philosophy, and trusts in God 7.22. and knows that it is blessed to endure any suffering for the sake of virtue, would not be able to overcome the emotions through godliness? 7.23. For only the wise and courageous man is lord of his emotions. 8.5. Young men, I admire each and every one of you in a kindly manner, and greatly respect the beauty and the number of such brothers. Not only do I advise you not to display the same madness as that of the old man who has just been tortured, but I also exhort you to yield to me and enjoy my friendship. 17.14. The tyrant was the antagonist, and the world and the human race were the spectators.
3. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

18b. ומי יימר דהכי איכא [א"ל השתא חזית] הוו הנהו כלבי דהוו קא אכלי אינשי שקל קלא שדא בהו הוו קאתו למיכליה אמר אלהא דמאיר ענני שבקוה ויהבה ליה,לסוף אשתמע מילתא בי מלכא אתיוה אסקוה לזקיפה אמר אלהא דמאיר ענני אחתוה אמרו ליה מאי האי אמר להו הכי הוה מעשה,אתו חקקו לדמותיה דר' מאיר אפיתחא דרומי אמרי כל דחזי לפרצופא הדין לייתיה יומא חדא חזיוהי רהט אבתריה רהט מקמייהו על לבי זונות איכא דאמרי בשולי עובדי כוכבים חזא טמש בהא ומתק בהא איכא דאמרי אתא אליהו אדמי להו כזונה כרכתיה אמרי חס ושלום אי ר' מאיר הוה לא הוה עביד הכי,קם ערק אתא לבבל איכא דאמרי מהאי מעשה ואיכא דאמרי ממעשה דברוריא:,תנו רבנן ההולך לאיצטדינין ולכרקום וראה שם את הנחשים ואת החברין בוקיון ומוקיון ומוליון ולוליון בלורין סלגורין הרי זה מושב לצים ועליהם הכתוב אומר (תהלים א, א) אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך וגו' כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו הא למדת. שדברים הללו מביאין את האדם לידי ביטול תורה,ורמינהי [הולכין] לאיצטדינין מותר מפני שצווח ומציל ולכרקום מותר מפני ישוב מדינה ובלבד שלא יתחשב עמהם ואם נתחשב עמהם אסור קשיא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא כרקום אכרקום,בשלמא כרקום אכרקום ל"ק כאן במתחשב עמהן כאן בשאין מתחשב עמהן אלא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא,תנאי היא דתניא אין הולכין לאיצטדינין מפני מושב לצים ור' נתן מתיר מפני שני דברים אחד מפני שצווח ומציל ואחד מפני שמעיד עדות אשה להשיאה,תנו רבנן אין הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות מפני שמזבלין שם זיבול לעבודת כוכבים דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים מקום שמזבלין אסור מפני חשד עבודת כוכבים ומקום שאין מזבלין שם אסור מפני מושב לצים,מאי בינייהו אמר ר' חנינא מסורא נשא ונתן איכא בינייהו,דרש ר' שמעון בן פזי מאי דכתיב אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים ובדרך חטאים לא עמד ובמושב לצים לא ישב וכי מאחר שלא הלך היכן עמד ומאחר שלא עמד היכן ישב ומאחר שלא ישב היכן לץ,אלא לומר לך שאם הלך סופו לעמוד ואם עמד סופו לישב ואם ישב סופו ללוץ ואם לץ עליו הכתוב אומר (משלי ט, יב) אם חכמת חכמת לך ואם לצת לבדך תשא,א"ר אליעזר כל המתלוצץ יסורין באין עליו שנאמר (ישעיהו כח, כב) ועתה אל תתלוצצו פן יחזקו מוסריכם אמר להו רבא לרבנן במטותא בעינא מינייכו דלא תתלוצצו דלא ליתו עלייכו יסורין,אמר רב קטינא כל המתלוצץ מזונותיו מתמעטין שנאמר (הושע ז, ה) משך ידו את לוצצים אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש כל המתלוצץ נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (משלי כא, כד) זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון ואין עברה אלא גיהנם שנאמר (צפניה א, טו) יום עברה היום ההוא,אמר ר' אושעיא כל המתייהר נופל בגיהנם שנאמר זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון ואין עברה אלא גיהנם שנאמר יום עברה היום ההוא אמר רבי חנילאי בר חנילאי כל המתלוצץ גורם כלייה לעולם שנאמר ועתה אל תתלוצצו פן יחזקו מוסריכם כי כלה ונחרצה שמעתי,אמר רבי אליעזר קשה היא שתחילת' יסורין וסופו כלייה דרש ר' שמעון בן פזי אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות של עובדי כוכבים ובדרך חטאים לא עמד זה שלא עמד בקנגיון ובמושב לצים לא ישב שלא ישב בתחבולות,שמא יאמר אדם הואיל ולא הלכתי לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות ולא עמדתי בקנגיון אלך ואתגרה בשינה ת"ל ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה,אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים זה 18b. bAnd who can say that this isthe case, that I will be saved by this utterance? Rabbi Meir bsaid to him: You will now see. There were thesecarnivorous bdogs that would devour people;Rabbi Meir btook a clodof earth, bthrewit bat them,and when bthey came to devour him, he said: God of Meir answer me!The dogs then bleft himalone, bandafter seeing this the guard bgavethe daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon btoRabbi Meir., bUltimately the matter was heardin bthe king’s court,and the guard, who bwas brought and taken to be hanged, said: God of Meir answer me!They then blowered him down,as they were unable to hang him. bThey said to him: What is this? He said to them: This was the incidentthat occurred, and he proceeded to relate the entire story to them., bTheythen bwentand bengraved the image of Rabbi Meir at the entrance of Romewhere it would be seen by everyone, and they bsaid: Anyone who seesa man with bthis face should bring himhere. bOne day,Romans bsawRabbi Meir and bran after him,and bhe ran away from themand bentered a brothelto hide. bSome sayhe then escaped capture because bhe sawfood bcooked by gentilesand bdipped [ itemash /i] thisfinger binthe food band tastedit bwith thatother finger, and thereby fooled them into thinking that he was eating their food, which they knew Rabbi Meir would not do. And bsome saythat he escaped detection because bElijah came, appeared to them as a prostituteand bembracedRabbi Meir. The Romans who were chasing him bsaid: Heaven forbid, if this were Rabbi Meir, he would not actin bthatmanner.,Rabbi Meir barose, fled,and barrived in Babylonia.The Gemara notes: bThere arethose bwho saythat he fled because bof this incident, and there arethose bwho saythat he fled due to embarrassment bfrom the incident involvinghis wife bBerurya. /b,§ bThe Sages taught:With regard to bone who goes to stadiums [ ile’itztadinin /i]where people are killed in contests with gladiators or beasts, bor to a camp of besiegers [ iulkharkom /i]where different forms of entertainment are provided for the besieging army, bandhe bsees therethe acts of bthe diviners and those who cast spells,or the acts of the clowns known as ibukiyon /i, or imukiyon /i, or imuliyon /i, or iluliyon /i,or ibelurin /i,or isalgurin /i, this iscategorized as b“the seat of the scornful”; and with regard tosuch places bthe verse states: “Happy is the man that has not walkedin the council of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful. bBut his delight is in the Torah of the Lord”(Psalms 1:1–2). bYou learnfrom here bthat these matters bring a person to derelictionof the study bof Torah,since had he not sat in “the seat of the scornful,” he would delight in the study of Torah., bAndthe Gemara braises a contradictionfrom another ibaraita /i: bOne is permittedto bgo to stadiums, because he can scream and savethe life of a Jew who would otherwise be killed there; band it is permittedto go bto a camp of besiegers, becauseat times one can provide for the public bwelfareby petitioning the besiegers and saving the residents of the btown, provided that he is not countedas one bof them; but if he is countedas one bof them, it is prohibited.This is bdifficult,as there is a contradiction between the statement about attending bstadiumsin the first ibaraitaand the statement baboutattending bstadiumsin the second ibaraita /i, and is similarly bdifficultas there is a contradiction between the statement about ba camp of besiegersin the first ibaraitaand the statement babout a camp of besiegersin the second ibaraita /i.,The Gemara continues: bGranted,the apparent contradiction between one statement about ba camp of besiegersand the other statement babout a camp of besiegersis bnot difficult,as bhere,the first ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere he is countedas one bof them,and bthere,the second ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere he is not countedas one bof them. Butwith regard to the contradiction between the ruling about attending bstadiumsin the first ibaraitaand the ruling baboutattending bstadiumsin the second ibaraita /i, it is bdifficult. /b,The Gemara answers: This issue bisa dispute between itanna’im /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne may not go to stadiums, becausethey are considered b“the seat of the scornful.” And Rabbi Natan permitsattending stadiums bdue to tworeasons; boneis bbecause he can scream and savethe life of someone who would otherwise be killed, bandthe other boneis bbecauseeven if he cannot save the man’s life, bhe can provide testimonythat ba woman’shusband died, which will enable her bto marryagain., bThe Sages taught: One may not go to theaters [ iletarteiot /i] or circuses [ iulkirkaseiot /i] because they sacrifice offerings there toobjects of bidol worship;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibitedto go to ba place where they sacrificeofferings, bdue to a suspicion of idol worship, and it isalso bprohibitedto go to ba place where they do not sacrificeofferings, bdue toit being considered b“the seat of the scornful.” /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthe opinion of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Meir? After all, according to both opinions it is prohibited to attend theaters or circuses. bRabbi Ḥanina of Sura said:The difference bbetween themarises in the case of one who bengaged in businessthere. According to Rabbi Meir, the profits are forbidden as the proceeds of idol worship, as Rabbi Meir maintains that the gentiles certainly worship idols at theaters or circuses. Conversely, according to the Rabbis, the profits are forbidden only if it is established that they worshipped idols there.,§ Apropos the earlier discussion of the evils of scornfulness, the Gemara cites several statements that criticize such behavior. bRabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught: Whatis the meaning of that bwhich is written: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful”(Psalms 1:1)? bSince he did not walkin the counsel of the wicked, bhowcould bhe standwith them? bAnd since he did not stand, howcould bhe sitwith them? bAnd since he did not sitwith them, bhowcould bhehave bscorned?Since he never joined the company of the wicked, he would have no reason to be involved with them in any manner., bRather,the verse serves bto say to you that if he walkedwith the wicked, bhe will ultimately standwith them. bAnd if he stoodwith them, bhe will ultimately sitin their company, band if he sat, he will ultimately scornalong with them. bAnd if he scorned, the verse says about him: “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; and if you scorn, you alone shall bear it”(Proverbs 9:12)., bRabbi Eliezer says:Concerning banyone who scoffs, suffering will befall him, as it is stated: “Now therefore do not be scoffers, lest your suffering be made strong”(Isaiah 28:22). Similarly, bRava said to the Sageswho were sitting before him: bPlease, I ask of you that you not scoff, so that suffering will not befall you. /b, bRav Ketina says:Concerning banyone who scoffs, his sustece is lessened, as it is stated: “He stretches out his hand with scorners”(Hosea 7:5), meaning that God withdraws His providence from scoffers and does not provide for them. bRabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Anyone who scoffs falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “A proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he acts in arrogant wrath”(Proverbs 21:24). bAnd wrathmeans bnothing other than Gehenna, as it is statedwith regard to the Day of Judgment: b“That day is a day of wrath”(Zephaniah 1:15)., bRabbi Oshaya says,based on the same verse: bAnyone who is haughty falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “A proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he acts in arrogant wrath”(Proverbs 21:24). bAnd wrath means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath”(Zephaniah 1:15). bRabbi Ḥanilai bar Ḥanilai says: Anyone who scoffs causes exterminationto be wrought bupon the world, as it is stated: “Now therefore do not be scoffers, lest your suffering be made strong; for an extermination wholly determined have I heardfrom the Lord, the God of hosts, upon the whole land” (Isaiah 28:22)., bRabbi Eliezer says:Scoffing bis a severesin, bas at firstone is punished with bsuffering, and ultimatelyone is punished with bextermination. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught: “Happy is the man that has not walkedin the counsel of the wicked,” this is referring btothe btheaters and circuses of gentiles; “nor stood in the way of sinners,” thisis referring to bone who has not stoodas an observer bat bestial contests [ ibekinigiyyon /i]; “nor sat in the seat of the scornful,”this is referring to bone who has not sat in the bad companyof people who engage in scoffing and jeering., bLest a person say: Since I did not go to theaters and circuses, and did not stand in bestial contests, I will go and indulge in sleep, the verse states: “And he meditates in His law day and night”(Psalms 1:2). This demonstrates that it is not sufficient simply to avoid transgressions; rather, it is necessary to engage actively in Torah study.,§ The Gemara relates an alternative homiletic interpretation of the verse discussed above. bRav Shmuel bar Naḥmani saysthat bRabbi Yonatan says: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked”(Psalms 1:1); bthis /b
4. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

74a. רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל,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,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,אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו,אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש,דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה,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,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,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:,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,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,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,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,יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי,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,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך,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,מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילו בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו,ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור,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,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי' שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב 74a. bRav Pappa says:The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was bseduced, andin the case of seduction ball agreethat the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual., bAbaye says:The ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was raped in a case bwhereone was bable to saveher by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs,so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, band it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says:If ba pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, andone was bable to savethe pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him bin one of his limbs, but he did not save himin this manner and rather chose to kill him, bhe is executed on his accountas a murderer.,The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men striveand strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman’s husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). bAndconcerning this bRabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill,where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is bthat it is written: “But if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life”(Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? bAnd even so, the Merciful One states: “And yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,”teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman’s husband., bGranted, if you saythat in a case where one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he may not savethe pursued party batthe cost of the pursuer’s blife,and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, bthat is how you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished.This would be in a case bwhere it was possible to savethe man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, bin one of his limbs.In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine., bBut if you saythat even if one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he can also save him atthe cost of the pursuer’s blife, how can you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished?When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the ihalakhais that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.,The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: bPerhaps it is different here becausehis two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to bdeath is on account of thisperson, the man with whom he fought, bwhilehis liability to give bpayment is on account of thatperson, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.,The Gemara rejects this distinction: There bis no difference. As Rava says:If ba pursuer was pursuing anotherto kill him, bandduring the course of the chase the pursuer bbroke vesselsbelonging beither to the person being pursued or to anyone else,he is bexemptfrom paying for the broken vessels. bWhat is the reasonfor this? The reason is that bhe is liable to be killed,since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim’s life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.,Rava continues: bAndif bthe pursuedparty bbroke vesselswhile fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,the pursued party is bexempt.But if they bbelonged to anyoneelse, he is bliableto pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,he is bexempt.The reason for this is bso that thepursuer’s bproperty should not be more precious tothe pursuer bthan hisown bbody.Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged bto anyoneelse, he is bliable, as he saved himself atthe expense of banother’s property,and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.,Rava continues: bButif one bpursuer was pursuinganother bpursuerin order bto save him,i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, bandwhile doing so bhe broke vesselsbelonging beither to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyoneelse, he is bexemptfrom paying for them. The Gemara comments: This bis not bystrict blaw,as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordice instituted by the Sages. This is bbecause if you do not saythat he is exempt, it will bbe found that no person will save another from a pursuer,as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.,§ The mishna teaches: bButwith regard to bone who pursues an animalto sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One whoseeks to bworship idols may be savedfrom transgressing batthe cost of bhis life.This is derived bthrough an ia fortiori /iinference: bIfto avoid bthe degradation of an ordinaryperson, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, bhe can be savedeven batthe cost of bhis life, all the more sois it bnotclear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid bthe degrading ofthe honor of bGodthrough the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: bBut doesthe court badminister punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference?The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai bmaintainsthat the court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference. /b, bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One whoseeks to bdesecrate Shabbat may be savedfrom transgressing even batthe cost of bhis life.The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bhis father,Rabbi Shimon, bwho says:The court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference, andthe ihalakhawith regard to one who desecrates bShabbat is derived fromthe ihalakhawith regard to bidol worshipby way of a verbal analogy between the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of idol worship.,§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:The Sages who discussed this issue bcountedthe votes of those assembled band concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza inthe city of bLod:With regard to ballother btransgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgressthis prohibition band you will not be killed, he may transgressthat prohibition band not be killed,because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the ihalakhaconcerning all prohibitions bexcept forthose of bidol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.,The Gemara asks: bAndshould one bnottransgress the prohibition of bidol worshipto save his life? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yishmael said: From whereis it derived bthat if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from whereis it derived bthat he should worshipthe idol band not be killed? The verse states:“You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, band he shall live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, bbutthey were bnotgiven so bthatone will bdie due to theirobservance.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance beven in public,i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowedamong the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.,The Gemara answers: bThosein the upper story of the house of Nitza bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says:It is stated: b“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5). bIf it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is italso bstated: “With all your might,”which indicates with all your material possessions? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is italso bstated: “With all your soul”?One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.,Rather, this serves to teach that bif you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: “With all your soul.”That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: “With all your might.”That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.,From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of bforbidden sexual relations andthe prohibition of bbloodshed?This is bin accordance withthe opinion bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; bfor as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him,so too with this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? bBut what do we learnhere bfrom a murderer? /b, bNow,the mention of murder bcamein order bto teacha ihalakhaabout the betrothed young woman, band it turns outthat, in addition, bit derivesa ihalakhafrom that case. The Torah bjuxtaposesthe case of ba murderer tothe case of ba betrothed young womanto indicate that bjust asin the case of a betrothed young woman bone may save her atthe cost of the rapist’s blife, so too,in the case of ba murderer, one may savethe potential victim batthe cost of the murderer’s blife. /b, bAndconversely, the Torah bjuxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murdererto indicate that bjust aswith regard to a potential bmurderer,the ihalakhais that if one was ordered to murder another, bhe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of bloodshed, bso too,with regard to ba betrothed young woman,if she is faced with rape, bshe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakhawith regard to ba murderer himself,that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: bIt isbased on blogical reasoningthat one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this ihalakha /i. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: bAswhen ba certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place,a local official, bsaid to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you,what shall I do? Rabba bsaid to him:It is preferable that bhe should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redderthan his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? bPerhaps that man’s blood is redder.This logical reasoning is the basis for the ihalakhathat one may not save his own life by killing another.,§ bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe saidthat bRabbi Yoḥasaid: The Sages btaughtthat one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger bonly when it is not a time ofreligious bpersecution. But in a time ofreligious bpersecution,when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, bevenif they issued a decree about ba minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress. /b, bWhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that bRabbi Yoḥa said: Even whenit is bnot a time ofreligious bpersecution,the Sages bsaidthat one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger bonlywhen he was ordered to do so bin private. Butif he was ordered to commit a transgression bin public, evenif they threaten him with death if he does not transgress ba minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is a minor mitzvafor this purpose? bRava bar Yitzḥak saysthat bRav says: /b


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
4 maccabees, on the rationality and truth of torah Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110, 111
4 maccabees Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110, 111
archytas, aristeas, letter of Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110
aristotle, pain as an emotion Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
diaspora judaism, greco-roman writers on jews Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 59
diaspora judaism, relationship with the ambient culture Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 59
emotion, in the classical world Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
emotion, in the hebrew bible Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
emotional contagion Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
emotional counter-discourse, as source of power Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 59
empathy, association with fear Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56
empathy, association with pain Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
experiencing anothers emotion, neuroscience of Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 59
experiencing anothers emotion Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
fear, empathy and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56
martens, john w. Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 111
martyr/martyrdom Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 41
martyrdom, emotional effect on audience Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
martyrdom, emotions and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
martyrs as gladiators, power-over and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56
martyrs as gladiators, power-to and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
memory, effect of emotion on Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 59
mockery, in 4 maccabees Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110, 111
pain, emotion and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
pain, empathy for Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
performative power, emotional contagion and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
philo, on the torah as the natural law Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 111
pork Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 41
rationality of torah, in 4 maccabees Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110, 111
realism, platonic Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110
reason Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 41
resistance, emotional Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
resistance, in martyrdom Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
resistance, power-to and Mermelstein, Power and Emotion in Ancient Judaism: Community and Identity in Formation (2021) 56, 59
revelation Rosenblum, The Jewish Dietary Laws in the Ancient World (2016) 41
truth, and relationship to torah Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110, 111
wisdom, in 4 maccabees' Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 111
wisdom, in 4 maccabees Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 110