## Sanhedrin Daf 74a

###### Sanhedrin 74a:1
[Sanhedrin 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:1)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: בִּמְפוּתָּה, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says:** The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated **with regard to** a young woman who was **seduced, and** in the case of seduction **all agree** that the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:2
[Sanhedrin 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:2)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: בְּיָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו, וְרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, רוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ לְהוֹרְגוֹ, וְיָכוֹל לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו וְלֹא הִצִּיל – נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** The ruling of the mishna is stated **with regard to** a young woman who was raped in a case **where** one was **able to save** her by injuring the pursuer **in one of his limbs,** so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, **and it is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says:** If **a pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, and** one was **able to save** the pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him **in one of his limbs, but he did not save him** in this manner and rather chose to kill him, **he is executed on his account** as a murderer.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:3
[Sanhedrin 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:3)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן שָׁאוּל? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכִי יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים (יַחְדָּו) וְגוֹ׳״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בְּמַצּוּת שֶׁבְּמִיתָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבַּר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם אָסוֹן יִהְיֶה וְנָתַתָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ״. וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men strive** and 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). **And** concerning this **Rabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill,** where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is **that 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? **And 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.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:4
[Sanhedrin 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:4)

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא: יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו, לֹא נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ – הַיְינוּ דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּיֵעָנֵשׁ, כְּגוֹן שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַצִּיל בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, if you say** that in a case where one is **able to save** the pursued party by injuring the pursuer **in one of his limbs, he may not save** the pursued party **at** the cost of the pursuer’s **life,** and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, **that is how you find** the possibility **that** the one who ultimately struck the woman **would be punished.** This would be in a case **where it was possible to save** the 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, **in 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.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:5
[Sanhedrin 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:5)

אֶלָּא, אִי אָמְרַתְּ: יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל בְּאֶחָד מֵאֵבָרָיו נָמֵי נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּיֵעָנֵשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But if you say** that even if one is **able to save** the pursued party by injuring the pursuer **in one of his limbs, he can also save him at** the cost of the pursuer’s **life, how can you find** the possibility **that** the one who ultimately struck the woman **would 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 *halakha* is that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:6
[Sanhedrin 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:6)

דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּמִיתָה לָזֶה וְתַשְׁלוּמִין לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: **Perhaps it is different here because** his two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to **death is on account of this** person, the man with whom he fought, **while** his liability to give **payment is on account of that** person, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:7
[Sanhedrin 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:7)

לָא שְׁנָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: רוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר חֲבֵירוֹ, וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים – בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף וּבֵין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? מִתְחַיֵּיב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this distinction: There **is no difference. As Rava says:** If **a pursuer was pursuing another** to kill him, **and** during the course of the chase the pursuer **broke vessels** belonging **either to the person being pursued or to anyone else,** he is **exempt** from paying for the broken vessels. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is that **he 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.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:8
[Sanhedrin 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:8)

וְנִרְדׇּף שֶׁשִּׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים שֶׁל רוֹדֵף – פָּטוּר, שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – חַיָּיב. שֶׁל רוֹדֵף פָּטוּר, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא מָמוֹנוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ. שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם חַיָּיב, שֶׁמַּצִּיל עַצְמוֹ בְּמָמוֹן חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **And** if **the pursued** party **broke vessels** while fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels **belonged to the pursuer,** the pursued party is **exempt.** But if they **belonged to anyone** else, he is **liable** to pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels **belonged to the pursuer,** he is **exempt.** The reason for this is **so that the** pursuer’s **property should not be more precious to** the pursuer **than his** own **body.** 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 **to anyone** else, he is **liable, as he saved himself at** the expense of **another’s property,** and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:9
[Sanhedrin 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:9)

וְרוֹדֵף שֶׁהָיָה רוֹדֵף אַחַר רוֹדֵף לְהַצִּילוֹ, וְשִׁיבֵּר אֶת הַכֵּלִים – בֵּין שֶׁל רוֹדֵף, בֵּין שֶׁל נִרְדׇּף, בֵּין שֶׁל כׇּל אָדָם – פָּטוּר. וְלֹא מִן הַדִּין, שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן, נִמְצָא אֵין לָךְ כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁמַּצִּיל אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מִיַּד הָרוֹדֵף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **But** if one **pursuer was pursuing** another **pursuer** in order **to save him,** i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, **and** while doing so **he broke vessels** belonging **either to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyone** else, he is **exempt** from paying for them. The Gemara comments: This **is not by** strict **law,** 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 ordinance instituted by the Sages. This is **because if you do not say** that he is exempt, it will **be 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.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:10
[Sanhedrin 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:10)

אֲבָל הָרוֹדֵף אַחַר בְּהֵמָה. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר. וּמָה פְּגַם הֶדְיוֹט נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, פְּגַם גָּבוֹהַּ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? וְכִי עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין?! קָא סָבַר: עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **But** with regard to **one who pursues an animal** to 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. **It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One who** seeks to **worship idols may be saved** from transgressing **at** the cost of **his life.** This is derived **through an *a fortiori*** inference: **If** to avoid **the degradation of an ordinary** person, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, **he can be saved** even **at** the cost of **his life, all the more so** is it **not** clear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid **the degrading of** the honor of **God** through the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: **But does** the court **administer punishment** based **on** an *a fortiori* **inference?** The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai **maintains** that the court **administers punishment** based **on** an *a fortiori* **inference.**


###### Sanhedrin 74a:11
[Sanhedrin 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:11)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ. סָבַר לַהּ כַּאֲבוּהּ, דְּאָמַר: עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין. וְאָתְיָא שַׁבָּת בְּ״חִילּוּל״ ״חִילּוּל״ מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One who** seeks to **desecrate Shabbat may be saved** from transgressing even **at** the cost of **his life.** The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **his father,** Rabbi Shimon, **who says:** The court **administers punishment** based **on** an *a fortiori* **inference, and** the *halakha* with regard to one who desecrates **Shabbat is derived from** the *halakha* with regard to **idol worship** by way of a verbal analogy between the word **“desecration”** mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word **“desecration”** mentioned in the context of idol worship.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:12
[Sanhedrin 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:12)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: נִימְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ בַּעֲלִיַּת בֵּית נַתְּזָה בְּלוֹד, כׇּל עֲבֵירוֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה אִם אוֹמְרִין לָאָדָם ״עֲבוֹר וְאַל תֵּהָרֵג״ – יַעֲבוֹר וְאַל יֵהָרֵג, חוּץ מֵעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְגִילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:** The Sages who discussed this issue **counted** the votes of those assembled **and concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza in** the city of **Lod:** With regard to **all** other **transgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgress** this prohibition **and you will not be killed, he may transgress** that prohibition **and not be killed,** because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the *halakha* concerning all prohibitions **except for** those of **idol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.** Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:13
[Sanhedrin 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:13)

וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָאָדָם ״עֲבוֹד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְאַל תֵּהָרֵג״, מִנַּיִן שֶׁיַּעֲבוֹד וְאַל יֵהָרֵג? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וָחַי בָּהֶם״ – וְלֹא שֶׁיָּמוּת בָּהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** should one **not** transgress the prohibition of **idol worship** to save his life? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yishmael said: From where** is it derived **that if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from where** is it derived **that he should worship** the idol **and not be killed? The verse states:** “You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, **and he shall live by them”** (Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, **but** they were **not** given so **that** one will **die due to their** observance.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:14
[Sanhedrin 74a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:14)

יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת שֵׁם קׇדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance **even in public,** i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, **the verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed** among 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.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:15
[Sanhedrin 74a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:15)

אִינְהוּ דַּאֲמוּר כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכׇל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכׇל מְאֹדֶךָ״. אִם נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל מְאֹדֶךָ״? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל מְאֹדֶךָ״, לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Those** in the upper story of the house of Nitza **stated** their opinion **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says:** It is stated: **“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”** (Deuteronomy 6:5). **If it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is it** also **stated: “With all your might,”** which indicates with all your material possessions? **And if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is it** also **stated: “With all your soul”?** One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:16
[Sanhedrin 74a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:16)

אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ אָדָם שֶׁגּוּפוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִמָּמוֹנוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל נַפְשְׁךָ״. וְאִם יֵשׁ לָךְ אָדָם שֶׁמָּמוֹנוֹ חָבִיב עָלָיו מִגּוּפוֹ, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר ״בְּכׇל מְאֹדֶךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rather, this serves to teach that **if 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. **And 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.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:17
[Sanhedrin 74a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:17)

גִּילּוּי עֲרָיוֹת וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, כִּדְרַבִּי. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי כַּאֲשֶׁר יָקוּם אִישׁ עַל רֵעֵהוּ וּרְצָחוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כֵּן הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה״. וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מֵרוֹצֵחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of **forbidden sexual relations and** the prohibition of **bloodshed?** This is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** 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; **for 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? **But what do we learn** here **from a murderer?**


###### Sanhedrin 74a:18
[Sanhedrin 74a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:18)

מֵעַתָּה, הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד. מַקִּישׁ רוֹצֵחַ לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה: מָה נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה – נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ, אַף רוֹצֵחַ – נִיתָּן לְהַצִּילוֹ בְּנַפְשׁוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Now,** the mention of murder **came** in order **to teach** a *halakha* about the betrothed young woman, **and it turns out** that, in addition, **it derives** a *halakha* from that case. The Torah **juxtaposes** the case of **a murderer to** the case of **a betrothed young woman** to indicate that **just as** in the case of a betrothed young woman **one may save her at** the cost of the rapist’s **life, so too,** in the case of **a murderer, one may save** the potential victim **at** the cost of the murderer’s **life.**


###### Sanhedrin 74a:19
[Sanhedrin 74a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:19)

וּמַקִּישׁ נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה לְרוֹצֵחַ: מָה רוֹצֵחַ יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר, אַף נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה תֵּהָרֵג וְאַל תַּעֲבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, the Torah **juxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murderer** to indicate that **just as** with regard to a potential **murderer,** the *halakha* is that if one was ordered to murder another, **he must be killed and not transgress** the prohibition of bloodshed, **so too,** with regard to **a betrothed young woman,** if she is faced with rape, **she must be killed and not transgress** the prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:20
[Sanhedrin 74a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:20)

רוֹצֵחַ גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא לַן? סְבָרָא הוּא, דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲמַר לִי מָרֵי דּוּרַאי ״זִיל קַטְלֵיהּ לִפְלָנְיָא, וְאִי לָא קָטֵילְנָא לָךְ״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לִקְטְלוּךָ וְלָא תִּיקְטוֹל. מִי יֵימַר דִּדְמָא דִּידָךְ סוּמָּק טְפֵי? דִּילְמָא דְּמָא דְּהוּא גַּבְרָא סוּמָּק טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive this *halakha* with regard to **a murderer himself,** that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: **It is** based on **logical reasoning** that one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this *halakha*. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: **As** when **a certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place,** a local official, **said to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you,** what shall I do? Rabba **said to him:** It is preferable that **he should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redder** than his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? **Perhaps that man’s blood is redder.** This logical reasoning is the basis for the *halakha* that one may not save his own life by killing another.


###### Sanhedrin 74a:21
[Sanhedrin 74a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:21)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד, אֲבָל בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד, אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוָה קַלָּה – יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **When Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan** said: The Sages **taught** that one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger **only when it is not a time of** religious **persecution. But in a time of** religious **persecution,** when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, **even** if they issued a decree about **a minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress.**


###### Sanhedrin 74a:22
[Sanhedrin 74a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:22)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת הַשְּׁמָד, לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא בְּצִינְעָא, אֲבָל בְּפַרְהֶסְיָא אֲפִילּוּ מִצְוָה קַלָּה – יֵהָרֵג וְאַל יַעֲבוֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even when** it is **not a time of** religious **persecution,** the Sages **said** that one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger **only** when he was ordered to do so **in private. But** if he was ordered to commit a transgression **in public, even** if they threaten him with death if he does not transgress **a minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress.**


###### Sanhedrin 74a:23
[Sanhedrin 74a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Sanhedrin/r/74a:23)

מַאי מִצְוָה קַלָּה? אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב יִצְחָק אָמַר רַב:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is a minor mitzva** for this purpose? **Rava bar Yitzḥak says** that **Rav says:**