Quotation from the Talmud
Dene Bebbington
There is a saying from the Talmud that is commonly cited as being: "He
who saves a single life, saves the entire world", however I've read
somewhere that the actual quote is apparently: "Whosoever preserves a
single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved
a complete world".
Can anyone tell me which is correct, and if so what the origin of the
less accurate one is?
--
Dene Bebbington
"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
Joe Slater
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
>There is a saying from the Talmud that is commonly cited as being: "He
>who saves a single life, saves the entire world", however I've read
>somewhere that the actual quote is apparently: "Whosoever preserves a
>single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved
>a complete world".
>Can anyone tell me which is correct, and if so what the origin of the
>less accurate one is?
This is a really good and interesting question. Both are correct; the
former is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:9), and the latter
in the Talmud Bavli (Bava Batra 11a and elsewhere). These texts are
collections of discussions which took place in the great Jewish academies
between around 200-600CE. The Talmud Yerushalmi is earlier, but we tend to
consider the Talmud Bavli to be more authoritative.
The two versions don't contradict eachother; one is merely a more
exclusive restatement of the other. I think it is likely that the general
form was the original one, because it is more in keeping with the basis
for the principle: Adam was created alone, to teach us that if you save
one person it is as if you had saved a world-full.
Apart from this logic, I have two other reasons for thinking this. The
first is that there would be a tendency for "one soul" to change into "one
soul from Israel", since that is the usual formula used in regards to laws
which particularly apply to Jews. It would be more likely for someone to
automatically add "B'Yisrael" to the end of "Nefesh Akhat" than it would
be for someone to drop it. My second reason is that Christian censors
would likely seize on this text as "proof" that Jews were out to convert
them. Amending it to read "a single soul from Israel" would allay these
contrived fears. Such amendments would be more likely in the Bavli than
the Yerushalmi, since the latter was less studied in Christian countries.
jds
--
j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | 'Look up, speak nicely, and don't
Fax: +61-3-95259206 | twiddle your fingers all the time.'
Mobile: +61-419-370-244 |
POB 65 Caulfield East, Australia. | (The Red Queen)
Robert D. Kaiser
In article <ULN6XtAX...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>, Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> says:
>There is a saying from the Talmud that is commonly cited as being: "He
>who saves a single life, saves the entire world", however I've read
>somewhere that the actual quote is apparently: "Whosoever preserves a
>single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved
>a complete world".
>Can anyone tell me which is correct, and if so what the origin of the
>less accurate one is?
There is absolutely no questions that the original statement was
"He who saves a single life". The addition of qualifier came many
centuries later in a period of severe anti-Jewish persecution by gentiles.
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Amitai Halevi
On Fri, 1 Nov 1996, Dene Bebbington wrote:
> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 16:17:27 +0000
> From: Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
> Subject: Quotation from the Talmud
>
> There is a saying from the Talmud that is commonly cited as being: "He
> who saves a single life, saves the entire world", however I've read
> somewhere that the actual quote is apparently: "Whosoever preserves a
> single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved
> a complete world".
>
> Can anyone tell me which is correct, and if so what the origin of the
> less accurate one is?
>
This question came up some time ago on scj. I cannot
find my original post on the subject in my files, so I will
reproduce it in brief.
The source for this saying is in the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5.
It appears in several versions:
1. In the standard edition of the Mishnayot, the wording is:
"Whoever destroys the life of a single human being [nefesh
a`hat mi-bnei adam] ... it is as if he had destroyed an
entire world; and whoever preserves the life of a single
human being ... it is as if he had preserved an entire
world".
2. In the Talmud Bavli, where this mishnah appears on
Sanhedrin 37a, the wording is the same, except for the
substitution of "life of a single Jew" [nefesh a`hat
\mi-yisrael] for "life of a single human being".
3. In the Talmud Jerushalmi, Mishnah 5 is divided into
subsections (Halakhot). In my edition the saying appears
in Halakhot 12-13. Others divide Mishnah 5 differently:
e.g. MTR locates it in Halakhah 9. It reads "destroys
a single life" [ma'abed nefesh a`hat] and "preserves a
single life" [meqayem nefesh a`hat]. There is no specific
mention of either "human being" or "Jew", though the former
is clearly implied.
The question is: Which is the original version? Was the
limitation to Jewish lives there to begin with, and then
taken out as a result of Church censorship? This is
suggested in the book of corrigenda, Hesronot Ha-shas.
Alternatively, was the universal formulation the original
one, and the limitation to Jewish lives introduced into
it at some later date, perhaps in a period when particularly
severe persecution of Jews generated a justified feeling
of xenophobia?
The answer would seem to be obvious from the context,
which is the same in all three versions. The citation
is preceded by the words: "This is why Adam was created
alone. It is to teach us that ...". A bit father down
it reads: "When a man mints a number of coins from a
single die, they are all identical; but the King of the
kings of kings, the Holy One blessed be He, minted every
human being from the die of the primal Adam, and not one
of them is like any other".
Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation
of Jewish lives alone, the reference would have been to
Abraham at the earliest. The repeated reference to Adam,
progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that the original
must have referred to the preservation of human life in
general.
This is aparently how the Rishonim (medieval commentators)
understood it as well. Rambam adopts the Yerushalmi version,
(3.) slightly altered, in Hilkhot Sanhedrin 12:3, but also
cites the Bavli version (2. above) briefly in Hilkhot
Rotzea`h 1:6. Hameiri too bases his commentary on the
Yerushalmi version, illustrating "the destruction of a whole
world" by pointing out that Cain's murder of Abel eliminated
all of his victm's descendents at one fell swoop. Abel, like
Adam was not Jewish; he was not even the ancestor of Jews.
The humanistic version was not universally accepted by the
A`haronim (later commentators). MaHaRSh"A, for example, in
Hidushei Agadot on Sanh.37a, stays with Version 2, and explains
at some length why it is only important to save Jewish lives,
even though the Mishnah bases the dictum on Adam's being the
father of all mankind. I would be interested in learning what
present-day Orthodox Judaism regards as the authentic reading.
(Posted and mailed)
Amitai
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| E. Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> |
| Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology |
| http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi |
| |
| "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
Binyamin Dissen
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:39:11 GMT Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il>
wrote:
[Posted and mailed]
[ Discussion on whether Nefesh Echad refers to Jews or all snipped ]
:>Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation
:>of Jewish lives alone, the reference would have been to
:>Abraham at the earliest. The repeated reference to Adam,
:>progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that the original
:>must have referred to the preservation of human life in
:>general.
And what about converts? They may not be descendants of Avraham.
--
Binyami...@theoffice.net
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Robert Goldberg
The Talmud states that converts are considered the descendents of Abraham and
Sarah and thus can recite in blessings "G-d of our forefathers etc."
Amitai Halevi
On Tue, 05 Nov 1996, Binyamin Dissen <Binyami...@theoffice.net>
writes:
>On Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:39:11 GMT Amitai Halevi
<chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> wrote:
>[Posted and mailed]
>
>[ Discussion on whether Nefesh Echad refers to Jews or all snipped ]
>
>:>Evidently, if the original had referred to the preservation
>:>of Jewish lives alone, the reference would have been to
>:>Abraham at the earliest. The repeated reference to Adam,
>:>progenitor of all mankind, makes it clear that the original
>:>must have referred to the preservation of human life in
>:>general.
>:>
>And what about converts? They may not be descendants of Avraham.
>
Of course they are, by adoption. All of their previous
history is nullified, so they no longer have any non-Jewish
ancestors.
The statement "ger she-nitgayer ke-qatan she-nolad damei"
(At his conversion, a convert [becomes] like a new-born
babe) appears in the Talmud numerous times (e.g Yebamot 22a).
It is amplified by Rambam (Hilkhot Edut 13:2):
"Converts are not in the [legal] category of relatives.
Even a pair of twins that have converted can bear witness
on each other's behalf, because a convert is regarded as a
new born babe".
Amitai
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
| E. Amitai Halevi <chr...@aluf.technion.ac.il> |
| Department of Chemistry, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology |
| http://www.technion.ac.il/technion/chemistry/staff/halevi |
| |
| "`Od yenuvun be-seva, deshenim ve-ra`ananim yihyu", Psalms 92,15 |
*--------------------------------------------------------------------*
--
>Binyami...@theoffice.net
>Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Gideon Ehrlich
Introduction:
many times I heared presidents of the US talking about 'our obligation
to every single AMERICAN person !
They feel no need for appologizing for caring about their people more
than about other people.
It is shame that there are so many of us who feel a need to appologize so
much.
This is not to say that Joe Slater is one of those ugly Jews; it is only
an introduction in which I appologize for not appologizing.
Joe Slater (j...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au) wrote:
: Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >There is a saying from the Talmud that is commonly cited as being: "He
: >who saves a single life, saves the entire world", however I've read
: >somewhere that the actual quote is apparently: "Whosoever preserves a
: >single soul of Israel, Scripture ascribes to him as if he had preserved
: >a complete world".
: >Can anyone tell me which is correct, and if so what the origin of the
: >less accurate one is?
: This is a really good and interesting question. Both are correct; the
: former is found in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Sanhedrin 4:9), and the latter
: in the Talmud Bavli (Bava Batra 11a and elsewhere). These texts are
: collections of discussions which took place in the great Jewish academies
: between around 200-600CE. The Talmud Yerushalmi is earlier, but we tend to
: consider the Talmud Bavli to be more authoritative.
There is no difference as to that between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi.
The one who wrote the Leyden Yerushalmi used a Mishna that has that
version.
: The two versions don't contradict eachother; one is merely a more
: exclusive restatement of the other. I think it is likely that the
: general form was the original one, because it is more in keeping with
: the basis for the principle: Adam was created alone, to teach us that
: if you save one person it is as if you had saved a world-full.
It make no difference in the meaning whether the words ' from Israel'
appear in the verse or not. In both cases the simple meaning is that
saving one Jew is like saving a whole world.
Adam is considered as the father of all Jews. (AVICHA HARISHON CHATA-
reffer to Adam).This is not to say that others are valueless.
: Apart from this logic, I have two other reasons for thinking this. The
: first is that there would be a tendency for "one soul" to change into "one
: soul from Israel", since that is the usual formula used in regards to laws
: which particularly apply to Jews. It would be more likely for someone to
: automatically add "B'Yisrael" to the end of "Nefesh Akhat" than it would
: be for someone to drop it.
Seemed correct as to the text, but irrelevant as to the meaning.
Just thing about the saying " halosh berakhot khayav ADAM lomat bechol
yom shelo Asani GOY !
By the way in some sources the saying is derived from verses that are
impyed to Jews only.
: My second reason is that Christian censors
: would likely seize on this text as "proof" that Jews were out to convert
: them. Amending it to read "a single soul from Israel" would allay these
: contrived fears. Such amendments would be more likely in the Bavli than
: the Yerushalmi, since the latter was less studied in Christian countries.
Censors never put in words that will change the text to be an
anti-christian one. Some of the cenzors , like Togenhalt, tried to
make the minimal change so not to upsel christians.
Note : the Talmud definitely oppose christianity.
: jds
Shalom Gideon
Polar
On 10 Nov 1996 15:15:49 GMT, ehr...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il (Gideon
Ehrlich) wrote:
[...]
>Censors never put in words that will change the text to be an
> anti-christian one. Some of the cenzors , like Togenhalt, tried to
>make the minimal change so not to upsel christians.
Wasn't "Kol Nidre" changed from annulling all *future* vows to all
*past* vows to deflect Christian charges that Jewish vows are invalid
because they have annulled them *a priori?*
Polar
Gideon Ehrlich
Polar (s.m...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: On 10 Nov 1996 15:15:49 GMT, ehr...@sunlight.cs.biu.ac.il (Gideon
: Ehrlich) wrote:
: [...]
: Polar
Sorry if I was miss-understood.
I wrote about censorizing the Talmud only.
Note: I think that Togenhalt was a Jew who worked for the government.
Shalom Gideon
Jacob Love
In article <328f2cb3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Polar <s.m...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Wasn't "Kol Nidre" changed from annulling all *future* vows to all
>*past* vows to deflect Christian charges that Jewish vows are invalid
>because they have annulled them *a priori?*
This part of a long-standing antisemitic calumny. Kol Nidre was never
intended as a statement of nullification for any vows between human
beings. The entire statement is, was and will always be with regard to
vows a person may have made to God. It arose during one of the many
highly disruptive periods in Jewish history when people found
themselves, through no fault of their own, unable to fulfill promises
of a religious nature.
--
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree