Yerushalmi Shevi‘it

The ability of the rabbis to modify the law, to innovate, and at times even to annul Torah law did not lead to a relativistic nihilism, as evidenced in y. Shevi‘it 4:2, 35a, a discussion of the circumstances in which one must be prepared to give one’s life rather than violate the law.

[A vote was taken and it was stated:] Regarding the entire Torah, whence do we know that if a non-Jew orders a Jew to transgress any of the commandments written in the Torah except for idolatry, sexual sin, and murder, [the Jew] should transgress rather than be killed? From what is written [in scripture]: [You shall therefore keep my statutes and my ordinances, which if a man does,] he shall live by them (Leviticus 18:5).

This rule applies only if one is alone, but in public, one must not transgress [and must die] even in the case of the lightest law, as Lulianus and his brother Pappas did, who were given to drink water in a colored glass [which caused the wine to look like libation wine prohibited to Jews because of its connection to idol worship] and refused. [ . . . ]

R. Abba b. Zemina stitched some clothes for a non-Jew in Rome. The non-Jew offered him nevelah [forbidden meat] and said, “Eat.” He said, “I will not eat.” The non-Jew said, “Eat, or I will kill you.” He replied, “If you wish to kill me, kill me, but I will not eat nevelah.” The non-Jew said, “Know that if you had eaten, I would have killed you, for one must be either completely a Jew or completely a non-Jew.”

R. Mana said: If R. Abba b. Zemina had listened to the rabbis, he would have eaten.

Translated by Christine Hayes.
Engage with this Source

The ability of the rabbis to modify the law, to innovate, and at times even to annul Torah law did not lead to a relativistic nihilism, as evidenced in y. Shevi‘it 4:2, 35a, a discussion of the circumstances in which one must be prepared to give one’s life rather than violate the law.

Read more

You may also like