1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
18.5. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ | 18.5. Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordices, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD." |
|
2. Anon., Didascalia Apostolorum, 21 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
|
3. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
54a. אמר חזקיה מאי קרא (ישעיהו כז, ט) בשומו כל אבני מזבח כאבני גיר מנופצות לא יקומו אשרים וחמנים אי איכא כאבני גיר מנופצות לא יקומון אשרים וחמנים אי לאו יקומו,תנא נעבד שלו אסור ושל חבירו מותר ורמינהי איזהו נעבד כל שעובדים אותו בין בשוגג ובין במזיד בין באונס ובין ברצון האי אונס היכי דמי לאו כגון דאנס בהמת חבירו והשתחוה לה,אמר רמי בר חמא לא כגון שאנסוהו עובדי כוכבים והשתחוה לבהמתו דידיה מתקיף לה רבי זירא אונס רחמנא פטריה דכתיב (דברים כב, כו) ולנערה לא תעשה דבר,אלא אמר רבא הכל היו בכלל לא תעבדם וכשפרט לך הכתוב (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם יצא אונס,והדר כתב רחמנא ולא תחללו את שם קדשי דאפילו באונס הא כיצד הא בצנעא והא בפרהסיא,אמרו ליה רבנן לרבא תניא דמסייעא לך בימוסיאות של עובדי כוכבים בשעת הגזרה אף על פי שהגזרה בטלה אותן בימוסיאות לא בטלו,אמר להו אי משום הא לא תסייען אימר ישראל מומר הוה ופלח לה ברצון רב אשי אמר לא תימא אימר אלא ודאי ישראל מומר הוה ופלח לה ברצון,חזקיה אמר כגון שניסך לעבודת כוכבים יין על קרניה מתקיף לה רב אדא בר אהבה האי נעבד הוא האי בימוס בעלמא הוא ושרייה,אלא אמר רב אדא בר אהבה כגון שניסך לה יין בין קרניה דעבד בה מעשה וכי הא דאתא עולא אמר רבי יוחנן אף על פי שאמרו המשתחוה לבהמת חבירו לא אסרה עשה בה מעשה אסרה,אמר להו רב נחמן פוקו ואמרו ליה לעולא כבר תרגמה רב הונא לשמעתיך בבבל דאמר רב הונא היתה בהמת חבירו רבוצה בפני עבודת כוכבים כיון ששחט בה סימן אחד אסרה,מנא לן דאסרה אילימא מכהנים ודלמא שאני כהנים דבני דעה נינהו,ואלא מאבני מזבח ודלמא כדר"פ | 54a. bḤizkiyya said: What is the versefrom which this ihalakhais derived? It is derived from the verse: “By this shall the iniquity of Jacob be expiated… bwhen he makes all the stones of the altar as limestones [ ike’avnei gir /i] that are beaten into pieces, so that the iasherimand the sun images shall rise no more”(Isaiah 27:9). This indicates that bifthe description b“as limestones that are beaten into pieces” isfulfilled, then the statement b“The sun images shall rise no more”also applies, and their status is revoked. bIfit is bnotfulfilled, then bthey shall rise,meaning that their status is not revoked.,§ The Sages btaughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to an item, e.g., an animal, that bwas worshippedby a certain person, if it is bhisitem it is bprohibited, butif it is banother’s,it is bpermitted.The Gemara braises a contradictionfrom another ibaraita /i: bWhat isconsidered an animal bthat was worshippedand is disqualified from being sacrificed in the Temple? It is banyanimal bthat is worshipped, whether unwittingly or intentionally, whether under duress or willingly. What are the circumstancesof bthiscase of an animal worshipped under bduress? Isn’tit referring to a case bwhereone bforciblytook banother’s animal and bowed to it,indicating that one who worships the animal of another renders it forbidden?, bRami bar Ḥama says: No,the ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere gentiles coercedsomeone band he bowed to his own animal. Rabbi Zeira objects to this: The Merciful One exemptsa victim of bcircumstances beyond his controlfrom punishment, bas it is writtenwith regard to a betrothed young woman who is raped: b“But to the maiden you shall do nothing,the maiden has no sin worthy of death, for as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him, so is this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26)., bRather, Rava says: Allcases of idol worship bwere included inthe prohibition: “You shall not bow down to them, bnor shall you serve them”(Exodus 20:5), including the case of worship under duress. bWhen the verse specified to you:“You shall keep My statutes…which a man shall do band live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), band not that he should die by them,the verse bexcludedthe case of bduress.One would conclude from the verse that one who acts under duress is not considered an idol worshipper, and he is not required to sacrifice his life to refrain from worshipping idols., bThe Merciful One then wrote: “And you shall not profane My holy name”(Leviticus 22:32), indicating bthatthe prohibition against idol worship applies beven ina case of bduress,as this constitutes a desecration of God’s name. bHowcan bthesetexts be reconciled? bThisverse is referring to worshipping under duress bin private, and thatverse is referring to worshipping under duress bin public.In private one is not required to sacrifice his life in order to refrain from idol worship. In public one is required to sacrifice his life rather than engage in idol worship. Therefore, if one engaged in idol worship in public, even under duress, the object of idol worship is forbidden., bThe Rabbis said to Rava: Thatwhich bis taughtin a ibaraita bsupports youropinion. It is taught in a ibaraita /i: The following ihalakhaapplies with regard to bplatforms of gentilesthat were used for idol worship bin a time ofreligious bpersecution,when gentiles decreed that Jews must engage in idol worship. During a time of religious persecution, one is required to sacrifice his life rather than transgress the prohibition against engaging in idolatrous worship even in private. Therefore, beven though thereligious bpersecutionwas bcanceled,the status of bthose platforms is not revokedand they remain forbidden, despite the fact that the idol worship was performed under duress.,Rava bsaid tothe Rabbis: bIfone wishes to support my opinion bdue to that ibaraita /i, byou cannot support myopinion, as one can bsaythat perhaps bthere was an apostate Jewthere band he worshippedthe idol bwillingly,and therefore the platforms are forbidden. bRav Ashi says: Do not saythat one can bsayit is a possibility; brather,it is bcertainthat bthere was an apostate Jewthere band he worshipped it willingly. /b, bḤizkiyya says:The contradiction between the ibaraitotwith regard to an animal that was worshipped can be reconciled differently. The ibaraitathat indicates that one who worships the animal of another renders it forbidden is referring to a case bwhere in idolatrous worshipone bpoureda libation of bwine on the horns ofan animal belonging to another. Since a sacrificial rite was performed upon the animal itself, it is forbidden. bRav Adda bar Ahava objects to this: Is thisa case of an animal bthat was worshipped? Thisanimal bis a mere platform,i.e., it serves merely as an altar, bandit is bpermitted. /b, bRather, Rav Adda bar Ahava says:That ibaraitais referring to a case bwherehe bpoureda libation of bwine inworship of the animal bbetween its horns.In this case one renders another’s animal forbidden, bas he performeda sacrificial brite uponthe animal itself. bAndthis is bsimilar to thatwhich Ulla stated, bas Ulla camefrom Eretz Yisrael and said that bRabbi Yoḥa says: Even thoughthe Sages bsaidthat bone who bows to the animal of anotherperson bdoes not render it prohibited,if he bperformeda sacrificial brite upon it he rendered it prohibited. /b, bRav Naḥman said tothe Rabbis: bGo out and say to Ulla:This is not a novel concept, as bRav Huna already interpreted the ihalakhathat youstated bin Babylonia.This is bas Rav Huna says:In a case where bthe animal of anotherperson bwas lying down beforean object of bidol worship, onceone bcut one of the organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter,i.e., either the windpipe or the gullet b[ isiman /i], he rendered it prohibited,as he performed a sacrificial rite upon the animal.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive bthat he rendered it prohibited? If we saythat it is derived bfromthe ihalakhathat bpriestswho engaged in idol worship are disqualified from serving in the Temple, even if they did so under duress, bperhapsthe case of bpriests is different, as they possess awarenessand are responsible for their actions., bBut rather,perhaps it is derived bfromthe bstones ofthe baltarthat were rendered forbidden by the Greeks, even though the stones were not theirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: bBut perhapsthe reason the stones of the altar were prohibited is different, basexplained by the statement bof Rav Pappa(52b), that when the Greeks entered the Temple it was defiled and became theirs. One therefore cannot derive from that case that one can render the property of another person forbidden. |
|
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 |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
85b. אבל להחיות אפילו מעל מזבחי ומה זה שספק יש ממש בדבריו ספק אין ממש בדבריו ועבודה דוחה שבת קל וחומר לפקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת נענה רבי אלעזר ואמר ומה מילה שהיא אחד ממאתים וארבעים ושמונה איברים שבאדם דוחה את השבת קל וחומר לכל גופו שדוחה את השבת,רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר (שמות לא, יג) את שבתותי תשמורו יכול לכל ת"ל אך חלק רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר (שמות לא, יד) כי קודש היא לכם היא מסורה בידכם ולא אתם מסורים בידה,ר' שמעון בן מנסיא אומר (שמות לא, טז) ושמרו בני ישראל את השבת אמרה תורה חלל עליו שבת אחת כדי שישמור שבתות הרבה א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל אי הואי התם הוה אמינא דידי עדיפא מדידהו (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,אמר רבא לכולהו אית להו פירכא בר מדשמואל דלית ליה פירכא דר' ישמעאל דילמא כדרבא דאמר רבא מאי טעמא דמחתרת חזקה אין אדם מעמיד עצמו על ממונו והאי מידע ידע דקאי לאפיה ואמר אי קאי לאפאי קטילנא ליה והתורה אמרה בא להרגך השכם להרגו ואשכחן ודאי ספק מנלן,דר' עקיבא נמי דילמא כדאביי דאמר אביי מסרינן ליה זוגא דרבנן לידע אם ממש בדבריו ואשכחן ודאי ספק מנא לן,וכולהו אשכחן ודאי ספק מנא לן ודשמואל ודאי לית ליה פירכא אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק טבא חדא פלפלתא חריפא ממלא צנא דקרי, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חטאת ואשם ודאי מכפרין מיתה ויוה"כ מכפרין עם התשובה תשובה מכפרת על עבירות קלות על עשה ועל לא תעשה ועל החמורות הוא תולה עד שיבא יוה"כ ויכפר האומר אחטא ואשוב אחטא ואשוב אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה אחטא ויוה"כ מכפר אין יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם למקום יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יוה"כ מכפר עד שירצה את חבירו,דרש ר' אלעזר בן עזריה (ויקרא טז, ל) מכל חטאתיכם לפני ה' תטהרו עבירות שבין אדם למקום יוה"כ מכפר עבירות שבין אדם לחבירו אין יוה"כ מכפר עד שירצה את חבירו אמר רבי עקיבא אשריכם ישראל לפני מי אתם מטהרין מי מטהר אתכם אביכם שבשמים שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, כה) וזרקתי עליכם מים טהורים וטהרתם ואומר (ירמיהו יז, יג) מקוה ישראל (ה') מה מקוה מטהר את הטמאים אף הקב"ה מטהר את ישראל, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אשם ודאי אין אשם תלוי לא והא כפרה כתיבא ביה הנך מכפרי כפרה גמורה אשם תלוי אינו מכפר כפרה גמורה,אי נמי הנך אין אחר מכפר כפרתן אשם תלוי אחר מכפר כפרתן דתנן חייבי חטאות ואשמות ודאין שעבר עליהן יוה"כ חייבין אשמות תלוין פטורין,מיתה ויוה"כ מכפרין עם התשובה: עם התשובה אין בפני עצמן לא נימא דלא כרבי דתניא רבי אומר על כל עבירות שבתורה בין עשה תשובה בין לא עשה תשובה יום הכפורים מכפר חוץ (מפורק עול) ומגלה פנים בתורה ומיפר ברית בשר שאם עשה תשובה יוה"כ מכפר ואם לא עשה תשובה אין יוה"כ מכפר,אפילו תימא רבי תשובה בעיא יוה"כ יוה"כ לא בעיא תשובה,תשובה מכפרת על עבירות קלות על עשה ועל לא תעשה השתא על לא תעשה מכפרת על עשה מיבעיא אמר רב יהודה הכי קאמר על עשה ועל לא תעשה שניתק לעשה,ועל לא תעשה גמור לא ורמינהו אלו הן קלות עשה ולא תעשה | 85b. bbut to preserve a life,e.g., if the priest can testify to the innocence of one who is sentenced to death, one removes him beven from on top of My altar,even while he is sacrificing an offering. bJust as thispriest, about whom bthere is uncertainty whether there is substance to his wordsof testimony bor whether there is no substance to his words,is taken from the Temple service in order to save a life, bandTemple bservice overrides Shabbat,so too, ia fortiori /i, saving a life overrides Shabbat. Rabbi Elazarben Azarya banswered and said: Just asthe mitzva bof circumcision, whichrectifies only bone of the 248 limbs of the body, overrides Shabbat,so too, ia fortiori /i,saving bone’s whole body,which is entirely involved in mitzvot, boverrides Shabbat. /b,Other itanna’imdebated this same issue. bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, saysthat bitis stated: “But bkeep my iShabbatot /i”(Exodus 31:13). One bmighthave thought that this applies bto everyonein all circumstances; therefore, bthe verse states “but,”a term that restricts and bqualifies.It implies that there are circumstances where one must keep Shabbat and circumstances where one must desecrate it, i.e., to save a life. bRabbi Yonatan ben Yosef saysthat bitis stated: b“For it is sacred to you”(Exodus 31:14). This implies that Shabbat bis given into your hands, and you are not given to itto die on account of Shabbat., bRabbi Shimon ben Menasya said:It is stated: b“And the children of Israel shall keep Shabbat,to observe Shabbat” (Exodus 31:16).The Torah said: Desecrate one Shabbat on his behalf so he will observe many iShabbatot /i. Rav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: If I wouldhave been bthereamong those Sages who debated this question, bI would have saidthat bmy proof is preferable to theirs,as it states: “You shall keep My statutes and My ordices, which a person shall do band live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), band not that heshould bdie by them.In all circumstances, one must take care not to die as a result of fulfilling the mitzvot., bRavacommented on this: bAll of thesearguments bhave refutations except forthat bof Shmuel, which has no refutation.The Gemara explains Rava’s claim: The proof brought bby Rabbi Yishmaelfrom the thief who breaks in could bperhapsbe refuted based on the principle bof Rava,as bRava said: What is the reasonfor the ihalakha baboutthe thief who bbreaks in?There is ba presumptionthat while ba personis being robbed he bdoes not restrain himself with respect to his money. And thisthief bknows thatthe homeowner bwill rise to oppose himand bsaidto himself from the start: bIf he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah states:If a person bcomes to kill you, rise to kill him first. We founda source for saving a life that is in bcertaindanger, but bfrom where do wederive that even in a case where there is buncertaintyas to whether a life is in danger one may desecrate Shabbat? Consequently, Rabbi Yishmael’s argument is refuted.,The proof bof Rabbi Akivacan balsobe refuted. He brought the case of removing a priest from altar service in order to have him testify on another’s behalf, since his testimony might acquit the accused and save him from execution. But bperhapsthat ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion bof Abaye, as Abaye said:If the accused says he has a witness in his favor, bwe send a pair of rabbison bhisbehalf bto determine if his wordsof testimony have bsubstance.These rabbis would first check that the testimony of the priest is substantive before removing him from the altar. If so, bwehave bfoundthat one interrupts the Temple service to save a life from bcertaindanger, but bfrom where do wederive that one interrupts the Temple service when the likelihood of saving life is buncertain? /b, bAnd for allthe other arguments as well, bwehave bfoundproofs for saving a life from bcertaindanger. But for cases of uncertainty, bfrom where do wederive this? For this reason, all the arguments are refuted. However, the proof bthat Shmuelbrought from the verse: “And live by them,” which teaches that one should not even put a life in possible danger to observe mitzvot, bthere is certainly no refutation. Ravina said, and some say it was Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said with regard to this superior proof of Shmuel: bOne spicy pepper is better than a whole basket of squash,since its flavor is more powerful than all the others., strongMISHNA: /strong bA sin-offering,which atones for unwitting performance of transgressions punishable by ikaret /i, and ba definite guilt-offering,which is brought for robbery and misuse of consecrated items, batonefor those sins. bDeath and Yom Kippur atonefor sins when accompanied bby repentance. Repentanceitself batones for minor transgressions, forboth bpositivemitzvot band negativemitzvot. bAndrepentance places punishment bfor severetransgressions bin abeyance until Yom Kippur comes andcompletely batonesfor the transgression. With regard to bone who says: I will sin andthen bI will repent, I will sin and I will repent,Heaven bdoes not provide him the opportunity to repent,and he will remain a sinner all his days. With regard to one who says: bI will sin and Yom Kippurwill batonefor my sins, bYom Kippur does not atonefor his sins. Furthermore, for btransgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones;however, for btransgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeasesthe botherperson.,Similarly, bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya taughtthat point from the verse: b“From all your sins you shall be cleansed before the Lord”(Leviticus 16:30). For btransgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones;however, for btransgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeasesthe botherperson. In conclusion, bRabbi Akiva said: How fortunate are you, Israel; before Whom are you purified, and Who purifies you?It is byour Father in Heaven, as it is stated: “And I will sprinkle purifying water upon you, and you shall be purified”(Ezekiel 36:25). bAnd it says: “The ritual bath of Israel is God”(Jeremiah 17:13). bJust as a ritual bath purifies the impure, so too, the Holy One, Blessed be He, purifies Israel. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna says that a definite guilt-offering atones for sins. The Gemara analyzes this: With regard to ba definite guilt-offering, yes,it does atone for sins. This implies that ban uncertain guilt-offeringdoes bnot.The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t atonement written with regard to it?Why, then, doesn’t it atone? The Gemara answers: bThose,the sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, bfacilitate complete atonement,but ban uncertain guilt-offering does not facilitate complete atonement.Instead, this offering provides temporary atonement for an individual, to protect him from punishment until he becomes aware of his sin and brings the appropriate offering., bAlternatively,there is this distinction: bNothing else facilitates the atonement of thosesin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings, whereas something belse does facilitate the atonement of the uncertain guilt-offering, as we learnedin a mishna: If bYom Kippur passed, those who are obligated to bring sin-offerings and definite guilt-offerings arestill bobligatedto bring their offerings; however, those obligated to bring buncertain guilt-offerings are exemptbecause Yom Kippur atoned for them.,§ It was taught in the mishna that bdeath and Yom Kippur atonefor sins when accompanied bby repentance.The Gemara analyzes this: bWith repentance, yes,they do atone for sins; bbut by themselves,without repentance, bthey do not. Let us saythat the mishna is bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bas it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaysthat bfor all transgressions in the Torah, whether one repented or did not repent, Yom Kippur atones,with the bexceptionof brejecting the yokeof Torah and mitzvot; and denying the Holy One, Blessed be He; band interpreting the Torah falsely; and violating the covet of the flesh,i.e., circumcision. In these cases, bif one repents Yom Kippur atonesfor his sin, band if one does not repent Yom Kippur does not atonefor his sin.,The Gemara rejects this: This is no proof; bevenif byou saythat the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, the mishna can be understood as follows: bRepentancestill brequires Yom Kippurin order to complete the atonement, whereas bYom Kippur does not require repentancebut atones even without it.,§ It was taught in the mishna: bRepentanceitself batones for minor transgressions, forboth ba positivemitzva band for a negativemitzva. The Gemara is surprised at this: bNowthat it was stated that repentance batones for a negativemitzva, which is severe and warrants lashes, is it bnecessaryto also teach that it atones bfor a positivemitzva, which is more lenient? bRav Yehuda said: This iswhat bit said,i.e., the mishna should be understood as follows: Repentance atones bfor a positivemitzva band for a negativemitzva whose violation bcan be rectified by a positivemitzva. One is not punished by a court for violating a prohibition for which the Torah prescribes a positive act as a corrective measure and which thereby has the same ihalakhaas a positive mitzva.,The Gemara asks: bButdoes repentance bnotatone bfor a full-fledged negativemitzva? The Gemara braises a contradictionfrom a separate source: It was taught that bthese are minortransgressions: bA positivemitzva band a negativemitzva |
|