929 (Tanakh) · Expert – Beit Midrash Analysis · Standard
Judges 12
Sugya Map
The tragic narrative of Judges 12:1-15 presents a profound crisis of internal politics, military ethics, and linguistics. This sugya centers on the bloody confrontation between Jephthah (Yiftach) and the tribe of Ephraim, culminating in the infamous phonetic screening at the Jordan crossings.
[The Gilead-Ephraim Rift]
|
+----------------+----------------+
| |
[Geopolitical Hegemony] [Phonetic Identity]
- Ephraim's claim to Bechorah - Shibboleth vs. Sibboleth
- Gilead's peripheral autonomy - Halakhic status of regional accents
| |
+----------------+----------------+
|
[Nafka Minot]
1. Gedrei Rodef in Civil War
2. Pronunciation in Tefillah
3. Apportionment of Tribal Authority
Core Issues
- The Jurisdictional Right to Mobilize: Does a single tribe (Ephraim) possess constitutional veto power over the military and political initiatives of other tribes (Gilead/Manasseh)?
- The Halakhic Boundaries of Civil Combat: At what point does an aggressive domestic political faction acquire the status of a Rodef (pursuer), permitting lethal preemptive force?
- The Shibboleth Paradigm: How do regional phonetic variations impact the definitions of identity and legal classification (בירור זהות)?
Nafka Mina (Practical Ramifications)
- Gedrei Rodef (Laws of the Pursuer): Whether the standard limitations of Rodef—requiring warning (hatra'ah) and the duty to neutralize with minimal force—apply to an armed tribal rebellion.
- Pshat vs. Drash in Geopolitical Apportionment: Whether the blessing of Jacob prioritizing Ephraim over Manasseh Genesis 48:20 grants Ephraim legal hegemony (malchut or serarah) over the Transjordanian half-tribe of Manasseh.
- Phonetic Integrity in Halakhah: The impact of regional dialects on the validity of Kriyat Shema, Tefillah, and Birkat Kohanim.
Primary Sources
- Tanakh: Judges 12:1-15, Judges 8:1-3 (Gideon’s appeasement), Genesis 48:14-20.
- Talmud: Megillah 24b (disqualification of regional pronunciations), Sanhedrin 72a (laws of Rodef).
- Commentators: Rashi, Metzudat David, Metzudat Zion, Ralbag, and Malbim on Judges 12.
Full Experience in the App
Listen. Chat. Go deeper.
Audio playback, interactive chevruta, Hebrew tools, and every daily learning track — only in Derekh Learning.
Text Snapshot
וַיִּצָּעֵק אִישׁ אֶפְרַיִם וַיַּעֲבֹר צָפוֹנָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְיִפְתָּח מַדּוּעַ עָבַרְתָּ לְהִלָּחֵם בִּבְנֵי־עַמּוֹן וְלָנוּ לֹא קָרָאתָ לָלֶכֶת עִמָּךְ בֵּיתְךָ נִשְׂרֹף עָלֶיךָ בָּאֵשׁ׃
— Judges 12:1
Lexical and Grammatical Analysis
"וַיִּצָּעֵק" (Vayitzatek)
The Niphal form here denotes collective mobilization. As Metzudat Zion notes:
ויצעק. ענין אסיפה
"And they gathered: This denotes an assembly [for war]."[^1]
This is not a mere passive cry of distress (which would typically appear in the Qal as Vayitz'ak), but a proactive, aggressive military mobilization. The prefix Vayitzatek implies they summoned one another to form an army.
"אִישׁ אֶפְרַיִם" (Ish Ephraim)
Though phrased in the singular ("the man of Ephraim"), it functions as a collective noun. Metzudat David observes:
איש אפרים. קרא כל השבט בלשון יחיד:
"The man of Ephraim: He refers to the entire tribe in the singular."[^2]
This grammatical singular emphasizes the unified, monolithic aggression of the tribe. They acted as a single, coordinated corporate entity (guf echad).
"צָפוֹנָה" (Tzafonah)
This term is subject to geographical debate. Rashi interprets it directionally:
צפונה. עברו את הירדן והלכו לצד צפון אשר בעבר הירדן אל גלעד:
"Northward: They crossed the Jordan and went toward the north side of the Transjordan, to Gilead."[^3]
Conversely, Metzudat David reads it as a proper noun referring to a specific location:
צפונה. אל מקום יפתח:
"To Zaphon: To the place of Jephthah."[^4]
This aligns with Joshua 13:27, which identifies Zaphon as a city in the territory of Gad, situated in the Jordan Valley.
"בֵּיתְךָ נִשְׂרֹף עָלֶיךָ בָּאֵשׁ" (Beitecha nisrof alecha ba-esh)
This hyper-aggressive threat is dissected by Metzudat David:
נשרף עליך. רצה לומר, בשעה שאתה בו, ואז תשרף גם אתה:
"We will burn [it] upon you: Meaning, while you are inside it, so that you too will be burned."[^5]
This is not a threat of property damage; it is a declaration of intent to commit murder via arson. This extreme phrasing is critical for establishing the legal status of Ephraim as a Rodef.
Readings
The clash between Jephthah and Ephraim exposes a deep rift in Jewish leadership, tribal rights, and halakhic phonetics. To understand this, we must analyze the commentators who address the underlying political, moral, and legal dynamics of this tragedy.
[Analytical Perspectives]
|
+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| |
[The Constitutional View] [The Moral-Tactical View]
- Malbim: Ephraim's claim to Bechorah - Ralbag: Jephthah's diplomatic failure
- Gilead's defense of peripheral autonomy - Contrast with Gideon's soft response
1. The Constitutional Crisis: Malbim on the Double House of Joseph
The Malbim Judges 12:1 frames the conflict not as a petty dispute over military glory, but as a constitutional crisis regarding tribal hegemony.
He asks:
השאלות: מדוע נתקבצו בני אפרים ומה חטא להם, ותשובת יפתח יש בה עמעום וכפל דברים:
"The Questions: Why did the children of Ephraim gather, and how had Jephthah sinned against them? Furthermore, Jephthah's response contains ambiguity and repetitive phrasing."[^6]
To resolve this, Malbim introduces a structural tension inherent in the House of Joseph:
ויצעק איש אפרים. לאפרים חרה לו על שגלעד בחרו ראש וקצין לראש בית יוסף, יען שנצחו המלחמה, והם טענו למה לא קרא אותם להלחם, ורצו לשרוף ביתו כי לא הסכימו על נשיאותו כמו שיבאר בפסוק ד', והיה להם הטענה שהיו גדולים ממנשה בבית יוסף, כמו שאמר וישם את אפרים לפני מנשה ועי"כ העלילו עליו.
"The man of Ephraim gathered. Ephraim was angry because Gilead had chosen [Jephthah] as a head and leader over the House of Joseph... They argued, 'Why did you not call us to fight?' and wanted to burn his house because they did not consent to his presidency... Their claim was based on their superiority over Manasseh within the House of Joseph, as it says, 'And he placed Ephraim before Manasseh' Genesis 48:20, and through this, they brought false charges against him."[^7]
Analysis of Malbim's Chiddush
Malbim’s core insight is that Ephraim viewed themselves as the rightful rulers of the entire House of Joseph, including the Transjordanian half-tribe of Manasseh (from which Gilead descended). When the elders of Gilead unilaterally appointed Jephthah as Rosh ve-Katzin (head and chief) Judges 11:11, they bypassed Ephraim’s self-proclaimed veto power.
For Ephraim, this was an illegal secession. Their complaint ("Why did you march... without calling us?") was a pretext; their real grievance was the establishment of an independent political and military authority in Gilead without their consent.
2. The Moral-Tactical Failure: Ralbag on Leadership
The Ralbag Judges 12:1 shifts the focus from constitutional law to the ethics of leadership and diplomacy. He contrasts Jephthah's rigid, confrontational response with the diplomatic appeasement employed by Gideon under identical circumstances Judges 8:1-3:
וספר אחר זה שכבר הגיע מרוע בני אפרים שאמרו לשרוף בית יפתח עליו באש על אשר לא קראם בזאת המלחמה תחת מה שראוי להם לגמלו חסד על הטובה אשר עשה להם ששם נפשו בכפו ונלחם עם אויביהם והנה לא נשתדל יפתח לפייסם באופן שפייסם ירובעל או אולי לא היה יכול על זה והיה זה סבה על שנפלו מאפרים מ"ב אלף:
"And it relates after this the extent of the evil of the children of Ephraim, who threatened to burn Jephthah's house over him with fire... instead of showing him gratitude for risking his life to fight their enemies. However, Jephthah did not attempt to appease them in the manner that Jerubbaal (Gideon) had appeased them, or perhaps he was incapable of doing so, and this was the cause of forty-two thousand from Ephraim falling."[^8]
Analysis of Ralbag's Chiddush
Ralbag identifies a dual failure:
- The Moral Degeneracy of Ephraim: Their ingratitude was a profound ethical failure. Jephthah had just saved the nation from Ammonite subjugation. Ephraim should have celebrated him; instead, they threatened his life.
- The Diplomatic Incompetence of Jephthah: Unlike Gideon, who used soft, self-deprecating speech to disarm Ephraim's anger ("Is not the gleaning of the grapes of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?" Judges 8:2), Jephthah responded with defensive, legalistic arguments ("I and my people were involved in a bitter conflict..."). Ralbag notes that Jephthah "was incapable of doing so."
This incapacity stems from Jephthah’s psychological makeup as an outcast (ben isha acheret) who fought for every shred of recognition. He lacked the secure stature of Gideon and could not swallow his pride for the sake of national unity, leading directly to civil war.
3. The Phonetic-Halakhic Dimension: The Shibboleth Paradigm
The use of the word Shibboleth (שבלת) as a phonetic test to identify fleeing Ephraimites who pronounced it Sibboleth (סבלת) Judges 12:6 introduces a major halakhic discussion regarding regional pronunciation and its impact on performance of mitzvot.
[Phonetic Accuracy in Halakhah]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[The Objective View (Chisaron in Cheftza)] [The Subjective View (Ratzon HaGavra)]
- Sound must match the signifier. - Dialect represents the speaker's intent.
- Disqualifies those with speech barriers. - Valid ex post facto (B'di'avad).
The Gemara in Megillah 24b addresses a parallel issue:
אין מורידין לפני התיבה לא אנשי בית שאן ולא אנשי בית ריש ולא אנשי חיפה מפני שקורין לאלפין עיינין ולעיינין אלפין
"One may not appoint as a Shaliach Tzibbur (reader before the ark) the people of Beit She'an, nor the people of Beit Rish, nor the people of Haifa, because they pronounce aleph as ayin and ayin as aleph."[^9]
The Gemara disqualifies these individuals from leading the congregation because their inability to distinguish between critical letters distorts the meaning of the prayers. For example, pronouncing ya'er (יאר - may He shine) as ya'her or ya'er with an ayin (יער - may He make into a forest) changes the blessing into a curse.
Conceptual Chakirah: Chisaron in the Gavra vs. Chisaron in the Cheftza
Is the phonetic distortion of a letter a flaw in the person (chisaron ba-gavra) or a flaw in the physical output of the mitzvah (chisaron ba-cheftza)?
- Chisaron ba-Cheftza (Flawed Output): The physical sound wave produced must objectively match the halakhic definition of the letter. If an Ephraimite pronounces shin as samekh, the word Shibboleth (ear of grain / torrent) becomes Sibboleth (burden). The cheftza of the word has been destroyed. Therefore, they cannot fulfill the obligation for others, as the listener hears an entirely different word.
- Chisaron ba-Gavra (Flawed Speaker): The speaker's physical vocal tract is limited, but their mental intent (kavanah) is correct. If the halakhah views this as a subjective limitation of the speaker, then b'di'avad (ex post facto), their pronunciation is valid because they are performing the mitzvah to the best of their physical ability.
The Shulchan Aruch rules on this issue:
אם היה קורא אלפי"ן עייני"ן ועייני"ן אלפי"ן... לא יקרא בתורה ולא יעבור לפני התיבה... והני מילי באותו שאין לשונו עילג אלא שמנהג אנשי עירו בכך אבל אם הוא עילג שאינו יכול להוציא האותיות כתיקונם... אין ממנים אותו לכתחילה:
"If one pronounces aleph as ayin and ayin as aleph... he should not read from the Torah nor pass before the Ark... This applies when his tongue is not defective, but it is merely the custom of his city; however, if he has a speech impediment and cannot articulate the letters properly... we do not appoint him in the first instance."[^10]
The Mishnah Berurah clarifies that if the entire congregation shares the same dialect (such as an entire community of Ephraimites who say Sibboleth), a member of that community may serve as the Shaliach Tzibbur, as the pronunciation is standard for that group.[^11]
Thus, the "Sibboleth" pronunciation was not an individual speech impediment but a regional dialect. Under peaceful circumstances, an Ephraimite could lead an Ephraimite congregation in prayer, but they could not lead a Gileadite congregation, as their pronunciation would fail the objective standard required for Gileadite listeners.
Friction
The slaughter of 42,000 Ephraimites at the Jordan crossings Judges 12:6 presents a severe moral and halakhic challenge.
[The Halakhic Dilemma]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[The Pursuit Defense (Rodef)] [The War Paradigm]
- Lethal force used in self-defense. - Standard rules of war apply.
- Warning (Hatra'ah) required. - No individual Rodef status needed.
- Neutralize with minimal force? - Complete neutralization of threat.
The Kushya: The Halakhic Illegality of the Slaughter
How could Jephthah and the Gileadites systematically execute 42,000 retreating Ephraimites?
Even if we accept that Ephraim acted as an aggressor by marching to Gilead and threatening to burn Jephthah's house, once the battle was won and the Ephraimites were fleeing back across the Jordan, they were no longer active combatants.
According to halakhah, a pursuer (Rodef) may only be killed while in the act of pursuit Mishnah Sanhedrin 8:7. Once the pursuit has ceased, or if the pursuer can be neutralized by non-lethal means, it is strictly forbidden to kill them:
היה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו... כל רודף שאתה יכול להצילו באחד מאיבריו אל תהרוג אותו ואם הרגתו והיית יכול להצילו באחד מאיבריו הרי זה שופך דמים וחייב מיתה:
"If one pursues his fellow to kill him... any pursuer whom you can save [the victim] from by maiming one of [the pursuer's] limbs, do not kill him. If you killed him when you could have saved [the victim] by maiming one of [the pursuer's] limbs, you are a shedder of blood and liable for death."[^12]
The fleeing Ephraimites at the Jordan crossings were unarmed, trying to slip home. They posed no immediate threat to any Gileadite's life. The use of a linguistic test (Shibboleth) to identify and execute them on the spot appears to be a clear violation of the prohibition against murder.
Furthermore, where was the Sanhedrin? Where was the requirement for warning (Hatra'ah) and judicial process?
Terutz A: The National Security and Civil War Paradigm
This difficulty can be resolved by distinguishing between individual criminal law (Dinei Nefashot) and the laws of national defense and rebellion (Dinei Milchama u-Mered).
The laws of Rodef cited above apply to individuals in a civil context. However, when an entire tribe mobilizes for war ("ויצעק איש אפרים"), the situation enters the category of civil war and rebellion against the established leader of Israel.
Jephthah was the legally recognized Judge (Shofet) and leader of Israel:
וַיִּשְׁפֹּט יִפְתָּח אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים...
"And Jephthah judged Israel for six years..." — Judges 12:7
Rebellion against a King or a Judge who functions as the head of state carries the status of Mored be-Malchut (rebel against the kingdom), for which the penalty is death by executive decree, without the standard requirements of judicial warning and formal trial:
כל המורד במלך ישראל יש למלך רשות להורגו...
"Anyone who rebels against a king of Israel—the king has the authority to execute him..."[^13]
The fleeing Ephraimites were not mere individuals; they were part of a defeated army that had attempted to overthrow the legitimate government of Gilead. Had they been allowed to cross back into Ephraim, they would have regrouped, remobilized, and returned to wage a prolonged civil war.
The blockade at the Jordan crossings was not acts of private vengeance; it was a military action designed to neutralize a hostile force before they could regroup. Under the laws of war, retreating soldiers who have not formally surrendered remain active combatants.
Terutz B: The "Rodef L'Asid" (Future Pursuer) of a Community
Alternatively, we can analyze this through a modified definition of Rodef applied to a collective group.
The Minchat Chinuch analyzes whether the rule of "saving the victim by maiming the pursuer" applies when dealing with a collective threat where selective maiming is tactically impossible.[^14] When an entire group poses a threat, they are treated as a collective Rodef.
The Ephraimites had declared their genocidal intent: "Your house we will burn over you with fire." This was not a localized threat to Jephthah alone, but a threat to destroy the entire leadership of Gilead.
The Gileadites knew that Ephraim’s culture of tribal superiority (as analyzed by Malbim) was deeply ingrained. If these soldiers returned home, they would maintain their ideological commitment to subjugating Gilead.
Therefore, the Ephraimites at the Jordan crossings were classified as a Rodef L'Asid—a collective pursuer whose retreat was merely tactical. The phonetic test of Shibboleth was not a tool of vengeance, but a necessary military screening process to identify members of the hostile army.
Because the Ephraimites refused to accept Jephthah's leadership and insisted on their right to destroy his house, their refusal to say Shibboleth was a refusal to submit to the sovereign authority of Gilead. The execution of the 42,000, while a tragedy, was halakhically justified as the decisive suppression of an active rebellion.
Intertext
To fully understand the tragedy of Jephthah and the Ephraimites, we must contrast it with other biblical and rabbinic models of tribal conflict, diplomacy, and linguistic halakhah.
[Intertextual Comparisons]
|
+--------------------------+--------------------------+
| |
[Gideon vs. Jephthah] [Phonetic Integrity]
- Gideon: Soft speech, de-escalation - Megillah 24b: Regional accents in prayer
- Jephthah: Rigid logic, military force - Shulchan Aruch: Limits of dialect integration
1. Gideon vs. Jephthah: Two Models of Conflict Resolution
| Feature | Gideon Judges 8:1-3 | Jephthah Judges 12:1-6 |
|---|---|---|
| The Provocation | Ephraim complains: "Why did you not call us?" | Ephraim threatens: "We will burn your house over you!" |
| The Response | Appeasement: "Is not the gleaning of Ephraim better than the vintage of Abiezer?" | Confrontation: "I called you, and you did not save me!" |
| The Result | "Then their anger subsided." | Civil war; 42,000 Ephraimites slaughtered. |
| Underlying Character | Secure in his leadership; willing to yield his honor. | Insecure outcast; insists on absolute rights. |
This comparison highlights a vital halakhic and ethical principle: the duty of a leader to waive their personal honor (mechilah al kevodo) to prevent bloodshed.
The Gemara states:
מלך שמחל על כבודו אין כבודו מחול... אבל נשיא שמחל על כבודו כבודו מחול
"A king who waives his honor—his honor is not waived... but a Nasi (president/leader) who waives his honor—his honor is waived."[^15]
Gideon, acting as a Nasi, understood that preserving Jewish lives superseded his personal prestige. He chose to praise Ephraim’s minimal contribution to the war effort to disarm their jealousy.
Jephthah, however, functioned with the rigid literalism that characterized his tragic vow in Chapter 11. Just as he refused to seek a halakhic annulment for his vow regarding his daughter, he refused to use diplomatic language to de-escalate the tension with Ephraim. He demanded absolute justice and legal correctness, resulting in a national catastrophe.
2. The Halakhic Parameters of Pronunciation: Megillah 24b and Shulchan Aruch
The phonetic shift from Shin (ש) to Samekh (ס) in the Ephraimite dialect serves as the foundational case study for how halakhah treats regional variations.
The Mishna in Megillah 24b states:
חלשוש שביניהן לא ישא את כפיו...
"One who has a speech impediment among them [the Kohanim] may not lift his hands [to bless the congregation]..."[^16]
The Gemara explains that if a Kohen cannot pronounce the letters of the Priestly Blessing properly, his blessing is invalid because the congregation cannot understand him, or because his dialect appears ridiculous to the listeners, disrupting their concentration (tirda d'da'ata).
The Pri Megadim raises a critical question: If an entire town pronounces the letters with a regional dialect, can a Kohen from that town bless the congregation?
He rules that if the entire town speaks with that same accent, it is permitted because the local listeners are accustomed to it, and it does not cause a distraction.^17
However, if a Kohen with a regional accent visits a town with a standard accent, he is disqualified from blessing them.
This mirrors the Shibboleth incident: the Ephraimite dialect was perfectly functional within the territory of Ephraim, but the moment they crossed the Jordan into Gilead, their distinctive pronunciation became an identifier of their foreign origin, exposing them to detection and death.
Psak/Practice
The narrative of Jephthah, Ephraim, and the Shibboleth test yields practical applications in contemporary halakhah, particularly regarding regional accents in prayer and the ethics of communal leadership.
[Halakhic Applications]
|
+------------------------+------------------------+
| |
[Phonetic Accents in Tefillah] [Communal Leadership (Hanhagah)]
- Ashkenazic vs. Sephardic vs. Modern Hebrew - The prohibition of causing strife
- Torah reading validity (B'di'avad) - Leader's duty to waive personal honor
1. Regional Accents in Tefillah and Kriyat HaTorah
In modern times, the Jewish world is divided into various phonetic traditions (Ashkenazic, Sephardic, Yemenite, and Modern Israeli Hebrew).
The key questions are:
- Can a reader with an Ashkenazic pronunciation read the Torah for a Sephardic congregation (or vice versa)?
- Does the phonetic distortion of certain letters (e.g., the Ashkenazic pronunciation of Tav without a dagesh as "S", similar to the Ephraimite Shin becoming Samekh) invalidate the reading?
The Chatam Sofer addresses this directly in his Responsa:
שנוי המבטאים אינו פוסל את הקריאה בדיעבד, שכל עדה ועדה יוצאת ידי חובה במבטא שלה, שכן מצינו בבני אפרים שלא היו יכולים לומר שִׁבֹּלֶת ואמרו סִבֹּלֶת, ואף על פי כן היו בכלל ישראל.
"A change in pronunciation does not invalidate the reading ex post facto, for each and every community fulfills its obligation with its own pronunciation. For so we found with the children of Ephraim, who could not say Shibboleth and said Sibboleth, and nevertheless, they remained part of the community of Israel."[^18]
Halakhic Guidelines
- L'Chatchilah (Ideally): A Shaliach Tzibbur should adopt the pronunciation of the congregation they are leading to prevent distractions and ensure clear communication.
- B'di'avad (Post Facto): If a reader uses their native regional accent (whether Ashkenazic, Sephardic, or Yemenite), the congregation has fully fulfilled its obligation, provided the reader did not intentionally alter the meaning of the words. The Shibboleth precedent proves that regional phonetic variations are a natural aspect of Jewish diversity, not a halakhic disqualification.
2. The Meta-Psak of Communal Leadership (Hanhagah)
The tragic civil war in Judges 12 serves as a primary source for the halakhic prohibition against instigating communal strife (machloket).
The Rambam rules on the character traits required of a communal leader:
כשהוא מצוה את הציבור... לא ינהג בהם קלות ראש... ולא יתאכזר עליהם... אלא ינהג עמהם בענוה ויראה... וסובל משאם וטורחם ורוגזם כרועה נאמן:
"When he commands the community... he should not behave lightheadedly with them... nor should he act cruelly toward them... Rather, he should conduct himself with humility and fear... and bear their burden, their trouble, and their anger, like a faithful shepherd."[^19]
Jephthah’s failure to emulate Gideon teaches that a leader who prioritizes legalistic correctness and personal honor over peace violates the core duties of their office.
A modern posek must apply this heuristic when resolving communal disputes: peace is not merely a social value; it is an overarching halakhic mandate that overrides personal and political rights.
Takeaway
The tragedy of the Shibboleth lies in the triumph of rigid literalism over diplomacy. Jephthah, who sacrificed his daughter to a literal reading of his vow, sacrificed 42,000 of his brethren to a literal reading of his rights.
True leadership requires the humility of Gideon—the capacity to soften one's speech and waive one's honor to preserve the unity of the Jewish people.
Footnotes
[^1]: Metzudat Zion on Judges 12:1. [^2]: Metzudat David on Judges 12:1, s.v. "איש אפרים". [^3]: Rashi on Judges 12:1, s.v. "צפונה". [^4]: Metzudat David on Judges 12:1, s.v. "צפונה". [^5]: Metzudat David on Judges 12:1, s.v. "נשרף עליך". [^6]: Malbim on Judges 12:1, s.v. "השאלות". [^7]: Malbim on Judges 12:1, s.v. "ויצעק איש אפרים". [^8]: Ralbag on Judges 12:1, s.v. "וספר אחר זה". [^9]: Talmud Bavli, Megillah 24b. [^10]: Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 53:12. [^11]: Mishnah Berurah on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 53:12, s.k. 37. [^12]: Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Rotzeach u-Shmirat Nefesh 1:6-7. [^13]: Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melachim u-Milchamoteihem 3:8. [^14]: Minchat Chinuch, Mitzvah 600 (Laws of Rodef). [^15]: Talmud Bavli, Sotah 41b / Kiddushin 32b. [^16]: Mishnah, Megillah 4:7 (in some editions, Megillah 24b). [^17]: Pri Megadim, Eshel Avraham on Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 128:33. [^18]: Shut Chatam Sofer, Orach Chayim, Responsum 86. [^19]: Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Sanhedrin ve-ha-Onshin ha-Mesurin la-hem 25:2.
derekhlearning.com