R' Yehudah says not to kill the Rodef if she tells the "Moshiah" not to kill him. The Rabanan say you can. Rava says the Machlokes must be in a case where she is "makpedes al pigmah" and Rashi says this is b/c even the Rabanan wouldn't say that you can kill in a case where she is not makpedes b/c they hold that you can't kill to stop someone from worshipping avodah zara or from being mechalel shabbos, and this case is no worse than those. So it must be the p'gam that we are concerned about, that allows him to kill the rodef. And therefore if she isn't makpedes on the p'gam we should not be able to kill. I was just wondering if when Rashi says that this case of Na'arah Me'orasah is not more than avodah zara or shabbos, is he just mentioning shabbos as "urcha d'milsah" meaning since it is classified with avodah zara in the mishnah, Rashi puts them together here, or is Na'arah Me'orasah really not more chamur than shabbos? Isn't it giluy arayos, which is more chamur than shabbo!
s?
Elie Himmelfarb, Silver Spring, MD
RASHI 73b DH BE'MAKPEDES does in fact mean that Giluy Arayos of the Na'arah Me'orasah is a less severe transgression than breaking Shabbos and therefore one only saves her by killing the pursuer if she wants to prevent him because of the disgrace to her. The reason for this is given by RAMBAM in his Commentary to Mishnayos here. Rambam writes that the reason MISHNAH 73a found it necessary to mention that one does not kill someone before he breaks Shabbos or worships idols, even though it did not mention that one does not kill someone before he eats forbidden fats or blood or practices witchcraft, is because of the magnitude of the transgression of Shabbos or Avodah Zarah, because these Mitzvos are the foundation of the entire Torah and someone who breaks Shabbos is equivalent in all respects to someone who worships idols and is no longer considered part of Yisrael.
Even though the Gemara below, 74a, states that one must sacrifice one's life instead of transgressing Giluy Arayos, whilst in contrast one must break Shabbos in order to save someone's life, this does not contradict the above principle because Gemara YOMA 85a-b derives from verses that one breaks Shabbos to save a life. Vayikra 18:5 states that one should live by the Mitzvos and not die through them. Giluy Arayos is an exception because of the verses below, 74a, but this does not mean that it is a more severe prohibition than Shabbos. Someone who transgressed Giluy Arayos presumably did so because his physical desires overcame him, but he still believes in Hash-m, and remains a part of Klal Yisroel, whilst in contrast someone who desecrates Shabbos shows that he does not believe that Hash-m created the world
KOL TUV
D. Bloom
I would like to suggest an additional way of understanding what RASHI SANHEDRIN 73b DH BE-MAKPEDES writes, that Na'arah Me'orasah is not more severe than Shabbos. Rashi is referring to the severity of the penalty for transgressing these respective prohibitions. They are both punished by "Sekilah" (stoning). Devarim 22:24 states that Na'arah Me'orasah receives Sekilah whilst Bamidbar 15:35 states that someone who desecrates Shabbos receives Sekilah. See MISHNAH SANHEDRIN 49b and Gemara there and RAMBAM HILCHOS SANHEDRIN 14:4 that Sekilah is the most severe punishment of all. Therefore the intention of the above Rashi is that since one does not kill the person about to desecrate Shabbos, similarly one does not kill the person about to have Bi'ah with the Na'arah Me'orasah, if she does not object to this, because the latter transgression does not possess a more severe punishment than Shabbos.
In connection with the relative severity of these different transgressions, see also RASHI CHULIN 5a DH ELA that Shabbos is as severe as idol worship (because the latter receives Sekilah - see Devarim 17:5). See also RAMBAM HILCHOS ROTZE'ACH 4:9 that there are prohibitions which are more severe than murder. This is because the latter's punishment is the sword (see MISHNAH SANHEDRIN 76b) which is less severe than Sekilah. One sees, therefore, that even though one has to give up one's life rather than kill, whilst one should not give up one's life to avoid breaking Shabbos, this does not mean that Shabbos is a lighter transgression than murder.
KOL TUV
D. Bloom