diff options
| author | www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org> | 2026-01-14 14:23:04 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | www-data <www-data@mail.pglaf.org> | 2026-01-14 14:23:04 -0800 |
| commit | e913d920942c97d1aa1667e5cf7dd4fb086fd493 (patch) | |
| tree | 8365629f9eb72ac6f2e34aeeaeec1474791a3d7c /77702-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '77702-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 77702-h/77702-h.htm | 2280 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77702-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 0 -> 200829 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | 77702-h/images/title_page.jpg | bin | 0 -> 7905 bytes |
3 files changed, 2280 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/77702-h/77702-h.htm b/77702-h/77702-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c8cdfd6 --- /dev/null +++ b/77702-h/77702-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,2280 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html> +<html lang="en"> +<head> + <meta charset="UTF-8"> + <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1"> + <title> + Capital punishment among the jews | Project Gutenberg + </title> + <link rel="icon" href="images/cover.jpg" type="image/x-cover"> + <style> + +body { + margin-left: 10%; + margin-right: 10%; +} + +h1,h2,h3 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; +} + +p { + margin-top: .51em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .49em; +} + +hr { + width: 33%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: 33.5%; + margin-right: 33.5%; + clear: both; +} + +hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} +@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } +hr.full {width: 95%; margin-left: 2.5%; margin-right: 2.5%;} + +hr.r5 {width: 5%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 47.5%; margin-right: 47.5%;} +hr.r65 {width: 65%; margin-top: 3em; margin-bottom: 3em; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} + +div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} +h2.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} +h3.nobreak {page-break-before: avoid;} + +table { + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; +} +table.autotable { border-collapse: collapse; } +table.autotable td, +table.autotable th { padding: 0.25em; } + +.tdl {text-align: left;} +.tdr {text-align: right;} + +.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ + /* visibility: hidden; */ + position: absolute; + left: 92%; + font-size: small; + text-align: right; + font-style: normal; + font-weight: normal; + font-variant: normal; + text-indent: 0; +} /* page numbers */ + +.center {text-align: center;} + +.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + +/* Images */ + +img { + max-width: 100%; + height: auto; +} +img.w100 {width: 100%;} + + +.figcenter { + margin: auto; + text-align: center; + page-break-inside: avoid; + max-width: 100%; +} + +/* Footnotes */ +.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} + +.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + +.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + +.fnanchor { + vertical-align: super; + font-size: .8em; + text-decoration: + none; +} + +/* Transcriber's notes */ +.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; + color: black; + font-size:small; + padding:0.5em; + margin-bottom:5em; + font-family:sans-serif, serif; +} + +/* Illustration classes */ +.illowp20 {width: 20%;} +.x-ebookmaker .illowp20 {width: 100%;} + </style> +</head> +<body> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77702 ***</div> + + +<h1> + CAPITAL PUNISHMENT<br> + AMONG THE JEWS +</h1> + +<hr class="r65"> + +<p class="center" style="line-height : 2;font-weight : bold;"> + A PAPER READ BEFORE THE<br> + NEW YORK BOARD OF JEWISH MINISTERS +</p> + +<p class="center" style="font-size: small;margin-top : 2em;font-weight : bold;"> + BY +</p> + +<p class="center" style="text-transform: uppercase;font-size: large;margin-bottom : 2em;font-weight : bold;"> + Rev. D. DE SOLA POOL, Ph. D. +</p> + +<figure class="figcenter illowp20" style="max-width: 14.25em;"> + <img class="w100" src="images/title_page.jpg" alt=""> +</figure> + +<hr class="r65"> + +<p class="center" style="font-size: small;font-weight: bold;"> + NEW YORK +</p> + +<p class="center" style="font-weight: bold;"> +BLOCH PUBLISHING COMPANY +</p> + +<p class="center" style="font-size: small;font-weight: bold;"> + 1916 +</p> + +<hr class="full"> + +<p class="center" style="font-weight: bold;"> + Copyright, 1916, by<br> + BLOCH PUBLISHING COMPANY +</p> + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2 class="nobreak"> + CONTENTS +</h2> +</div> + +<table class="autotable"> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAP_1"><span class="smcap">The Four Methods of Capital Punishment</span></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl" style="text-indent : 2em;"><a href="#SECT_1">(a) <i>Stoning</i></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_2">2</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl" style="text-indent : 2em;"><a href="#SECT_2">(b) <i>Burning</i></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_6">6</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl" style="text-indent : 2em;"><a href="#SECT_3">(c) <i>Beheading</i></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl" style="text-indent : 2em;"><a href="#SECT_4">(d) <i>Strangulation</i></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_12">12</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAP_2"><span class="smcap">Jewish Attitude towards Capital Punishment</span></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_15">15</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAP_3"><span class="smcap">Rabbinical Modifications</span></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_21">21</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAP_4"><span class="smcap">Legal Restrictions</span></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_25">25</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAP_5"><span class="smcap">Practise and Theory</span></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_35">35</a></td> +</tr> +<tr> +<td class="tdl"><a href="#CHAP_6"><span class="smcap">Post-Talmudic Development</span></a></td> +<td class="tdr"><a href="#Page_46">46</a></td> +</tr> +</table> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</span></p> + +<p class="center" style="font-size: large;font-weight : bold;"> + CAPITAL PUNISHMENT +</p> +</div> + +<hr class="r5"> + +<p>In the following essay, an attempt is made at +tracing the history of capital punishment among the +Jews. From the Biblical period onwards, there took +place a long and complex development of the principles, +the methods and the application of capital +punishment.</p> + +<p>The story of this development is contained chiefly +in the Old and the New Testaments, Josephus, the +Rabbinic writings and the Responsa of the Middle +Ages. The following study, which is based on these +sources, attempts to make clear what was the nature +of this development.</p> + + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAP_1"> + The Four Methods of Capital Punishment +</h2> + +<p>According to a saying of the Rabbis, nine hundred +and three different methods of death have been created +for man.⁠<a id="FNanchor_1_1" href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> But Rabbinic jurisprudence recognised +only four legal methods of inflicting death as the +penalty for a capital crime, namely: stoning, burning, +decapitation and strangulation.⁠<a id="FNanchor_2_2" href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> One man, Yakim (or +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</span>Yakom), a nephew of Jose ben Joezer (2nd cent. +B. C. E.), is said to have killed himself by all four +methods at once. He first set up a beam from which +he hung a noose. Then he arranged faggots at the +foot of the gibbet, surrounded them with stones and +set a sword with its blade pointing upwards in the +stones. He then kindled the faggots and hanged himself +in the noose, the flames burned away the rope so +that his body fell into the fire, and at the same time on +to the stones and on the sword-blade.⁠<a id="FNanchor_3_3" href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a></p> + + +<h3 class="nobreak" id="SECT_1"> + (a) <i>Stoning</i> +</h3> + +<p>In appraising the Jewish attitude towards capital +punishment in general, it is necessary first to examine +the history of these four methods of capital punishment +among the Jews.⁠<a id="FNanchor_4_4" href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> The first to engage our +attention is <span class="smcap">Stoning</span> (<i>Sekilah</i>).</p> + +<p>In Biblical and Rabbinic legislation, stoning is the +punishment decreed for a number of transgressions, +such as idolatry, Moloch worship, magic, necromancy, +false prophesying, Sabbath desecration, blasphemy of +God’s Name, cursing of parent, and other crimes, +seventeen in all, listed in the Mishna.⁠<a id="FNanchor_5_5" href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> + +<p>Stoning was apparently the usual method of inflicting +the death penalty in Biblical times whenever +burning was not specifically called for.⁠<a id="FNanchor_6_6" href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a> It was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</span>carried out outside the camp or town or at the gate,⁠<a id="FNanchor_7_7" href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> +by the people or mob, without any other ceremony⁠<a id="FNanchor_8_8" href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a> +than the casting of the first stone by the witnesses.⁠<a id="FNanchor_9_9" href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> + +<p>In post-Biblical times, we find that according to +John x, 31, “the Jews took up stones again to stone” +Jesus. According to Acts vii, 57f, Stephen, the protomartyr +of the Church, was stoned, but whether by the +uprising of the mob or by judgment of the court, is not +clear.⁠<a id="FNanchor_10_10" href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> According to Luke xx, 6, the chief priests +and the scribes and elders feared to suggest that John +the Baptist was not a prophet, because if they did so +“all the people will stone us.” In a passage which is +admittedly a Christian interpolation in Josephus, we +are told that the Sadducean high priest Anan (62 C. E.) +removed James, the brother of Jesus, and some others +by stoning, after a semblance of a legal trial.⁠<a id="FNanchor_11_11" href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> + +<p>In the Rabbinic literature also, there are incidental +references to actual cases of stoning, which may seem +to imply that in the earliest Rabbinic period lapidation +was carried out in the simple manner described in the +Bible. In the Mishna,⁠<a id="FNanchor_12_12" href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> it is stated that a priest who +ministered in the Temple in a state of ritual impurity +was beaten on the skull by the young priests, with +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</span>blocks of wood.⁠<a id="FNanchor_13_13" href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> In early Rabbinic times, the death +penalty by stoning was undoubtedly carried out. Rabbi +Eleazar ben Jacob (1st cent. C. E.) states that as an +exemplary measure, the Jewish court (<i>Beth Din</i>) in +Grecian days, imposed the sentence of stoning on one +who rode on horseback on the Sabbath.⁠<a id="FNanchor_14_14" href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> Tosefta +Sanhedrin ix, 5, mentions a definite case of a man +going out to be stoned. Tradition states further that +Ben Satda, later wrongly identified with Jesus⁠<a id="FNanchor_15_15" href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a>, was +stoned.⁠<a id="FNanchor_16_16" href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> The Beth Din in Jerusalem is also said to +have inflicted the death penalty by stoning for a case +of apparent incest and for another gross crime.⁠<a id="FNanchor_17_17" href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> +But whether any of these cases of stoning was carried +out in the Pharisaic method of precipitation described +in the Mishna Sanhedrin vi, 4, is not clear from the +sources.⁠<a id="FNanchor_18_18" href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a></p> + +<p>It may be asked what basis there was for the +Pharisaic modification of lapidation to precipitation. +In a war with Edom, captive Edomites were killed by +being precipitated from a rock.⁠<a id="FNanchor_19_19" href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> Two Jewish mothers +who had circumcised their children during the persecutions +of Antiochus Epiphanes are said to have been +killed by being hurled from the wall of the city.⁠<a id="FNanchor_20_20" href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> The +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</span>false witnesses who accused Susanna were similarly +dealt with.⁠<a id="FNanchor_21_21" href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> The gospel according to Luke relates +that the people of Nazareth wished to cast Jesus +headlong from the brow of the hill whereon their city +was built.⁠<a id="FNanchor_22_22" href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> Precipitation was therefore a well recognised +modification of lapidation, and not a sheer +invention of the Rabbis.</p> + +<p>A similar modification was very early introduced in +the treatment accorded to the scapegoat. Instead of +the scapegoat being sent forth into the wilderness, as +the Bible describes,⁠<a id="FNanchor_23_23" href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> it was in practise precipitated +from a rock. Similarly, the Pharisaic tradition early +substituted precipitation for stoning in the case of +human punishment. According to a convincing +emendation of a Talmudic text suggested by L. +Ginzberg,⁠<a id="FNanchor_24_24" href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> precipitation had taken the place of lapidation +at least as early as the time of R. Jochanan ben +Zaccai, (fl. 75 C. E.).</p> + +<p>The Rabbis held lapidation to be the most severe of +the four death penalties, and precipitation was regarded +as a humane modification of it. The Mishna states +that the victim was thrown from twice a man’s height, +i. e., about 11 feet. But if you wish to ensure a certain +and easy death, asks the Talmud, why not cast him +from a greater height? The answer is given because +that would lacerate the body.⁠<a id="FNanchor_25_25" href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> The words “his blood +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</span>shall be on him”⁠<a id="FNanchor_26_26" href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> were taken as implying that he shall +be so killed that the blood shall remain <i>in</i> him. The +change in method advocated by the Pharisees therefore +seems to have had for its purpose the desire to make +the death more humane, certain and speedy, and to +preserve the body so far as possible from being +mangled. The custom of giving to the one condemned +a wine compounded with myrrh to dull the senses,⁠<a id="FNanchor_27_27" href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> +would be another expression of this desire to rob the +punishment of its horror and pain.</p> + + +<h3 class="nobreak" id="SECT_2"> +(b) <i>Burning</i> +</h3> + +<p>The second death penalty, that of <span class="smcap">Burning</span> +(<i>Serefah</i>), is prescribed by the Biblical law for a +priest’s daughter who commits adultery, and for the +crime of incest with mother and daughter.⁠<a id="FNanchor_28_28" href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a> The house +of the guilty may also have been burnt.⁠<a id="FNanchor_29_29" href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a> There is no +reason to doubt that this punishment in Biblical times +involved the actual burning of the living victim.⁠<a id="FNanchor_30_30" href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p> + +<p>In post-Biblical times, we find that on March 13, +4 B. C. E., Herod burnt alive Matthias and his companions +who had pulled down the golden eagle set up +over the gate of the Temple.⁠<a id="FNanchor_31_31" href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a> But this was the act of +a despotic monarch and not of a court of law. Josephus +reports about himself that the Galilean mob regarded +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</span>him as a traitor, and some cried out to stone the traitor +and others to burn him.⁠<a id="FNanchor_32_32" href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> This also would have been +the act of a passionate populace in wartime, and not a +legally imposed punishment. But there is one well +attested instance in early Rabbinic times of an actual +burning by decree of a court of law. This was reported +by Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok (fl. c. 100 C. E.), +who said that as a young child he had seen the +adulterous daughter of a priest bound around with +vine branches and burnt.⁠<a id="FNanchor_33_33" href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> His fellow Rabbis, representing +the Pharisaic tradition, declared that such a +course of action involving a literal burning, could have +been carried out only by an unlearned court (Mishna), +or, according to R. Joseph, by a Sadducean court.⁠<a id="FNanchor_34_34" href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a> +The Book of Jubilees, which is also Sadducean in its +Halacha, prescribes burning for the marriage of a +Jewess with a non-Jew, for adultery and incest.⁠<a id="FNanchor_35_35" href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p> + +<p>But the Pharisaic tradition, as is well known, +mitigated the severity of the punishment by changing +it into strangulation followed by a slight, almost +symbolic burning of the throat and inward parts.⁠<a id="FNanchor_36_36" href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> +The reasons for the change of method are apparently +the same as in the case of stoning, first, the desire to +rob the death of its pain⁠<a id="FNanchor_37_37" href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a>, and secondly, to avoid +marring the body.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</span></p> + +<p>This latter reason is emphasized in the statement of +Rab Mathna in the Talmud⁠<a id="FNanchor_38_38" href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a>, that the modification in +the method was approved so that the breath of life +should be burnt out and the body preserved, as was +supposed to have been the case with the sons of +Korah.⁠<a id="FNanchor_39_39" href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> Rabbi Eleazar adduces the same reason, +referring to the case of the sons of Aaron.⁠<a id="FNanchor_40_40" href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> The +Tannaitic tradition held that Nadab and Abihu met +their death through two narrow tongues of flame +coming forth from the holy of holies, each dividing +into two and entering into the nostrils of the two men, +thus burning out the breath of life and leaving their +clothes and their bodies uninjured.⁠<a id="FNanchor_41_41" href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> Similarly, the +Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch says that Sennacherib’s +army was burnt by God only within their bodies.⁠<a id="FNanchor_42_42" href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> +This statement reflects the Midrashic tradition that +because Shem covered his father’s nakedness, the +clothing of his Jewish descendants Nadab and Abihu, +and of his non-Jewish descendants composing Sennacherib’s +army, was not burnt when the fire of the Lord +burnt out their lives.⁠<a id="FNanchor_43_43" href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p> + +<p>In all this is emphasized the Pharisaic desire to +preserve the body of the victim uninjured. According +to R. Joseph, who declared that a court which sentenced +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</span>to an actual burning must have been a Sadducean +court,⁠<a id="FNanchor_44_44" href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> this consideration was not of weight with the +Sadducees. It has been suggested therefore, that this +desire of the Pharisees may have been connected with +their belief in the resurrection of the body, a belief +rejected by the Sadducees.⁠<a id="FNanchor_45_45" href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p> + +<p>The method of burning advocated by the Pharisees +does not seem to go back beyond the Christian era. +The incident of the actual burning of the priest’s +daughter, witnessed by Rabbi Eleazar ben Zadok +shortly before the fall of the Temple, might be interpreted +as implying that the change in method was then +taking place.⁠<a id="FNanchor_46_46" href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> There is no mention in the sources of a +case of burning being carried out in the Pharisaic +manner, although the full details preserved in the +Mishna, describing the application of the method, +would imply that the method had been in use. But +the number of cases of the possible application of the +penalty was limited, and a burning must have been a +rare occurrence.</p> + + +<h3 class="nobreak" id="SECT_3"> +(c) <i>Beheading</i> +</h3> + +<p>The third legal capital punishment recognised by +the Rabbis is <span class="smcap">Beheading</span> (<i>Hereg</i>). Death by the +sword, although recognized in a blood feud and often +used by kings,⁠<a id="FNanchor_47_47" href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a> is nowhere mentioned in the Bible as +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</span>a penalty ordered by law, except for the apostasy of a +whole community.⁠<a id="FNanchor_48_48" href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a> According to the Mishna,⁠<a id="FNanchor_49_49" href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> +murder also is punished by beheading. The Boethusians,⁠<a id="FNanchor_50_50" href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> +the Samaritans,⁠<a id="FNanchor_51_51" href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a> Philo,⁠<a id="FNanchor_52_52" href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> + Jesus,⁠<a id="FNanchor_53_53" href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> Josephus,⁠<a id="FNanchor_54_54" href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> +the Book of Jubilees,⁠<a id="FNanchor_55_55" href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, +(1st cent. C. E.),⁠<a id="FNanchor_56_56" href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> like the later Karaites,⁠<a id="FNanchor_57_57" href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> + all agree +in recognizing the Biblical talio as the punishment for +murder. This does not necessarily imply that the +<i>method</i> of inflicting the death penalty had to be the +same as the method used by the murderer. It implies +only that murder was punishable by death.</p> + +<p>The Pharisaic ruling that the death penalty for +murder was inflicted by decapitation is not disputed +by any of the Rabbis.⁠<a id="FNanchor_58_58" href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> But the method of the +execution is debated. The Mishna states that the +victim’s head was cut off at the throat with a sword, +as the (Roman) government carried out an execution.⁠<a id="FNanchor_59_59" href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> +R. Jehudah (135-220 C. E.) objected that this <i>jus gladii</i> +would disfigure the victim.⁠<a id="FNanchor_60_60" href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> He therefore advocated, +that instead of the old method recognized by the +Rabbinical tradition, the murderer’s head should be +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</span>placed on a block and chopped off at the neck with an +ax. The Rabbis protested that this method of beheading +advocated by R. Jehudah would be far more +shameful to the victim than that common to the Jews +and the Romans. R. Jehudah admitted the force of +their objection, but defended the method advocated by +him because it was not the same as Roman custom. +The Talmud then proceeds to eliminate other possible +methods of killing by the sword, such as piercing or +cleaving the body, by quoting the principle of the +golden rule “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_61_61" href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> +Therefore we must choose for him the easiest death. +The comparison is then brought with the heifer that +was killed to atone for bloodshed.⁠<a id="FNanchor_62_62" href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> As the heifer, +the substitute for the unknown murderer, was killed +by having its throat cut, so the known human murderer +had his throat cut and not his head chopped off at the +neck, the golden rule again being quoted as authority.⁠<a id="FNanchor_63_63" href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p> + +<p>In this case also the sources do not mention an +actual case of decapitation being carried out by a +Jewish court. According to the New Testament, +Herod Antipas had John the Baptist killed by beheading,⁠<a id="FNanchor_64_64" href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> +and Agrippa I. caused James the apostle, +the brother of John, to be killed by the sword.⁠<a id="FNanchor_65_65" href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> But +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</span>neither of these executions was ordered by a Jewish +court of law.</p> + + +<h3 class="nobreak" id="SECT_4"> +(d) <i>Strangulation</i> +</h3> + +<p>The fourth method of capital punishment recognised +in Pharisaic tradition is <span class="smcap">Strangulation</span> (<i>Henek</i>).</p> + +<p>Strangulation does not appear in the Bible as a +recognised legal method of punishment. The only +Biblical instance of death by strangulation is the +suicide of Ahitophel.⁠<a id="FNanchor_66_66" href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> + +<p>The Mishna⁠<a id="FNanchor_67_67" href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> specifies strangulation as the punishment +for the son who purposely wounds his parent, +for the false prophet, for the one who prophesies in +the name of idolatry, for stealing a Jew, for adultery +with a married woman, seducing a priest’s betrothed +or married daughter, etc. It was the method of capital +punishment preferred by the Rabbis; for R. Yoshia +said that wherever the Bible does not specify the +method of carrying out the capital sentence, strangulation +should be adopted because it is the least severe +measure. Rabbi Jonathan also said that strangulation +should be adopted, even though in his judgment +strangling is not an easier method of death than other +methods.⁠<a id="FNanchor_68_68" href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> The reason for this preference seems to +be because of the four legally recognized methods of +capital punishment, strangulation as it was carried +out was the only one which left the body practically +uninjured. The condemned man was to be sunk up to +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</span>his knees in mud and then strangled by having a hard +cloth which was wrapped in a soft one twisted around +his neck and pulled in opposite directions until the +suffocated victim died.⁠<a id="FNanchor_69_69" href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> Strangulation therefore +satisfied the Rabbinic desire to avoid marring the body +far better than did stoning, burning or decapitation. +R. Jehudah explains that the death penalty as inflicted +by man should be like that inflicted by God in not +injuring the human body.⁠<a id="FNanchor_70_70" href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a> This consideration it was, +also, as we have seen, that played a large part in inducing +the Rabbis to mitigate the method of burning, +by reducing it to strangulation followed by an almost +symbolical burning.</p> + +<p>Again, in this case, the sources do not mention any +definite case in which the punishment of strangulation +was actually carried out as a result of a court judgment. +But it is clear that strangulation induced in +the older manner of hanging was not infrequently +consummated in the earlier Rabbinic period. Raguel’s +daughter Sarah “thought to have hanged herself.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_71_71" href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> A +proverbial remark in the mouth of Rabbi Akiba (d. c. +132 C. E.), ‘if you wish to strangle yourself, hang +yourself on a high tree’,⁠<a id="FNanchor_72_72" href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> would indicate that hanging +was a well recognised method of death. According to +one source, Judas Iscariot hanged himself.⁠<a id="FNanchor_73_73" href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> It is +reported by Rabbi Eleazar,⁠<a id="FNanchor_74_74" href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> that Simon ben Shetach +(fl. 80 B. C. E.) hanged women in Ascalon. But in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</span>this case the question arises whether they were hanged +alive or hanged as a reproach after they had been +otherwise killed.</p> + +<p>Hanging, according to Biblical custom, was meted +out to the <i>dead</i> body of one who had been otherwise +killed. The order of the words in Deut. xxi, 22, 23 +implies, that first the malefactor has been put to death, +and then as an added indignity his corpse is suspended. +The same treatment of hanging the corpse was meted +out to the murderers of Ishbosheth.⁠<a id="FNanchor_75_75" href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> Similarly, Joseph +tells the chief baker that in three days Pharaoh will +take off his head and then hang his dead body.⁠<a id="FNanchor_76_76" href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a> The +dead bodies of Saul and Jonathan were hung up by the +Philistines.⁠<a id="FNanchor_77_77" href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> The five kings were first killed by +Joshua and then hanged.⁠<a id="FNanchor_78_78" href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> A momentary hanging of +the corpse was recognised by the Rabbis in the case of +the male idolator or blasphemer.⁠<a id="FNanchor_79_79" href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> From these +examples of Jewish custom and from the context in +the Mishna and Talmuds, it becomes clear, that the +witchcraft victims of Simon ben Shetach’s zeal, were +hanged in ignominy <i>after</i> the death penalty had been +otherwise inflicted. In any case, the discussion in the +Mishna and the Talmud⁠<a id="FNanchor_80_80" href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> shows that the action of +Simon ben Shetach was an exceptional action, from +which no conclusion as to the regular course of law +could be drawn. There is consequently no evidence of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</span>hanging alive ever having been carried out by a judicial +sentence of the Rabbis. It need scarcely be added that +the Roman punishment of crucifixion was a penalty +unknown to Jewish law and abhorrent to Jewish +feeling. The inhuman savageness shown by Alexander +Jannaeus in crucifying his prisoners of war was no +more a legally recognised form of capital punishment +than was his cutting the throats of the wives and +children before the eyes of the crucified victims.⁠<a id="FNanchor_81_81" href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a></p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAP_2"> + Jewish Attitude Towards Capital Punishment +</h2> +</div> + +<p>Having summarized the history of the four methods +of legal capital punishment recognised by the Jews, +we are now in a position to review more broadly the +question of the Jewish attitude towards capital +punishment.</p> + +<p>The Hebrew Bible undoubtedly stands for the principle +of capital punishment, as has clearly emerged +from the detailed consideration of the particular +methods of inflicting the death penalty set forth above. +In Biblical times, when the organization of Jewish +society was comparatively simple, retributive justice +brooked few of the law’s delays. In the simplest and +most rapid manner, the avenger of blood exacted the +penalty of life for life. Society protected itself by a +swiftly effective punishment.</p> + +<p>But the Bible recognises in capital punishment also +a deterrent character and an expiatory character, in +addition to its retributive character. It holds capital +punishment to be a necessity as a deterrent. The phrases +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</span>“and thou shalt remove the evil from thy midst,” “and +Israel shall hear and understand and no more do this +evil,” which occur many times, coupled with the +admonition to impose capital punishment, show that +this preventive purpose was closely associated with the +imposition of the death penalty. Malicious false +witnesses had to be treated as they would have treated +the one against whom they had testified, so that the +public should take warning.⁠<a id="FNanchor_82_82" href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a></p> + +<p>The Bible also teaches explicitly that capital punishment +is the just punishment for murder, in order to +atone for the pollution of the land.⁠<a id="FNanchor_83_83" href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a> No pity was to +be shown to the wilful murderer.⁠<a id="FNanchor_84_84" href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> The right of +sanctuary granted to the one guilty of manslaughter, +was not granted to the murderer,⁠<a id="FNanchor_85_85" href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> and the crime of +shedding innocent blood had to be atoned for in order +to cleanse the sacred community of Israel.⁠<a id="FNanchor_86_86" href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a></p> + +<p>Yet the old Testament teaching of justice is tempered +by mercy. “But if the wicked turn from all his +sins ... he shall surely live, he shall not die.... Have I +any pleasure in the death of the wicked? saith the Lord +God; and not rather that he should turn from his way +and live.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_87_87" href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> It was a duty to try to save those going to +death.⁠<a id="FNanchor_88_88" href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a></p> + +<p>The New Testament also admits the right of society +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</span>to exact capital punishment.⁠<a id="FNanchor_89_89" href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> We have seen that +Philo, Josephus⁠<a id="FNanchor_90_90" href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> and the apocryphal and apocalyptic +books also do not doubt the reasonableness and necessity +of capital punishment. In the last pre-Christian +century, the Jewish people, particularly the Sadducees +who were in the ascendant, still followed the Bible in +their maintenance of the theory and the practise of +capital punishment. The letter and the spirit of the +Biblical laws governed Jewish practise. But in the first +post-Christian centuries, these teachings of the Bible +were modified in many directions.</p> + +<p>It may be safely affirmed that the Rabbis did not +question the right of society to inflict capital punishment, +even though they pictured God as grieving over +the death of the wicked.⁠<a id="FNanchor_91_91" href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> In the Mishna, they +enumerated thirty-seven crimes (nineteen of morals, +twelve of religious law, three against parents and three +assaults), which they held to be punishable by death. +In commenting on the Biblical warning “thine eye +shall not spare the wilful murderer,” they say ‘thou +shalt not say wherefore should I punish murder by +murder. The one whom thou knowest indubitably to +be guilty of a premeditated murder thou shalt not pity +nor spare.’⁠<a id="FNanchor_92_92" href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> The sternness of the capital sentence was +recognised by the Rabbis as being in the best interests +both of the criminal and of society.⁠<a id="FNanchor_93_93" href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a> “When the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</span>wicked perish there is joyful shouting,” was quoted in +justifying the death penalty, to convince those who +hesitated to help bring a capital offender to justice.⁠<a id="FNanchor_94_94" href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> +R. Akiba declared that so long as sinners such as +Achan remain alive, the Divine anger rests upon the +community. But when they are put to death, the +Divine favor is restored.⁠<a id="FNanchor_95_95" href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> The noxious thorns in the +garden of humanity must be destroyed.⁠<a id="FNanchor_96_96" href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a> When Akiba +(d. c. 132 C. E.), claimed that had he been a member +of the Sanhedrin, a death sentence for murder or +immorality would never have been imposed, Rabbi +Simon ben Gamliel retorted “had you been a member +of the Sanhedrin, you would have been responsible for +the increase of murders.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_97_97" href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a></p> + +<p>The Rabbis also approved of the preventive character +of the Biblical death penalty. For instance, the +death penalty for the rebellious, gluttonous son, is +regarded by them not as a punishment commensurate +with the wrong that the son may have committed, but +as a preventive measure, necessary for society and +necessary for the criminal. In explaining why the son +must pay the penalty of death even though he has not +spilled blood nor committed any major offence, they +say that the Torah looks ahead. Let him die before he +has incurred graver guilt; otherwise, he will sink lower +and lower until finally he commits a capital offence. +Therefore he should be put out of the way as a preventive +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</span>measure.⁠<a id="FNanchor_98_98" href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> Although we immediately see the +danger lurking in such a principle of preventive punishment, +the recognition of this principle by the Rabbis +is further evidence that in theory they approved of the +death penalty.</p> + +<p>Furthermore, the Rabbis approved of a fitting +retribution. Biblical justice demands that the punishment +correspond with the crime. He who digs a pit +should fall into it.⁠<a id="FNanchor_99_99" href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> The Psalmist prays that God may +repay the wicked according to the works of their +hands.⁠<a id="FNanchor_100_100" href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> The Rabbis recognise this principle of +retribution in kind in every phase of life.⁠<a id="FNanchor_101_101" href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> The +principle underlying the talio is that which they call +“measure for measure.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_102_102" href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> Bloodshed, according to +this principle, could be expiated only by bloodshed.⁠<a id="FNanchor_103_103" href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></p> + +<p>The Rabbis also saw in the death penalty an expiation +of the sin that had been committed. This supreme +expiation was religious in character, and was brought +into connection with the Temple and its sacrificial +worship. Thus it is stated that only so long as the +altar stood,⁠<a id="FNanchor_104_104" href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> + or the priest officiated,⁠<a id="FNanchor_105_105" href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> could the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</span>death penalty be carried out.⁠<a id="FNanchor_106_106" href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> According to the +opinion of R. Akiba,⁠<a id="FNanchor_107_107" href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a> a capital sentence on “a defiant +elder” could not be consummated outside of Jerusalem, +nor even in Jabneh by the great Sanhedrin, while the +Temple still stood; but he should be brought to +Jerusalem and put to death on one of the middle days +of the next festival when the city and the Temple +were thronged with worshippers. Those condemned +to death were given the opportunity to confess their +sins when within ten cubits of the place of execution, +the confession opening for them the gates of the +future world.⁠<a id="FNanchor_108_108" href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> It is related of one condemned man +that when bidden confess he prayed “May my death be +an atonement for all my sins”....⁠<a id="FNanchor_109_109" href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> If the condemned +man was unable to confess fully, he was bidden say +“May my death be an atonement for all my sins.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_110_110" href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a></p> + +<p>These four considerations, (a) the plain command +of the written word of the Torah, (b) the recognition +of the deterrent and preventive value of capital +punishment, (c) the claims of just retribution and (d) +the recognition of the expiatory character of the death +penalty, leave it beyond doubt that the Rabbis approved +of the theory of capital punishment. They accepted +without question the teachings of the Torah, implying +the justifiability of imposing the death penalty. At the +same time, numberless passages testify to the sacredness +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</span>in which they held human life,⁠<a id="FNanchor_111_111" href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> and many +passages prove that they had a vivid sense of the +irrevocability of a consummated death sentence. To +put a man to death wrongfully is as though one +destroyed the whole world.⁠<a id="FNanchor_112_112" href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAP_3"> + Rabbinical Modifications +</h2> +</div> + +<p>But it is no less clear that the Rabbis did not favor +capital punishment in practise. It is true, as will be +shown later, that after the fall of the Temple in +70 C. E., they no longer had the right of imposing the +death penalty. But we possess their theory of what +their practise would have been had they had the +opportunity of exercising it, and this theory tends +altogether in the direction of modifying capital punishment +to its virtual abolition.</p> + +<p>The problem with which the Rabbis grappled was +how could the death penalty which was demanded by +the Law be mitigated in the face of the explicit words +of the Torah. Commutation of the death sentence by +a fine or by wergild could not be considered where the +Bible did not specify the option of a ransom (<i>Kofer</i>). +The Torah expressly prohibits modifying into a fine +the death penalty which was the due of the murderer.⁠<a id="FNanchor_113_113" href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> +The Bible furnishes no precedent for commuting the +death penalty to one of deportation. Exile involved +the banishment of the Jew from the full exercise of +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</span>Judaism. Herod was condemned for selling law-breakers +out of the kingdom. “For slavery to foreigners +and such as did not live after the manner of the Jews, +and necessity to do whatever such men should command, +was an offence against our religion rather than +a punishment to such as were found to have offended, +such a punishment being avoided in our original +laws,”—the Bible.⁠<a id="FNanchor_114_114" href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> The cities of refuge no longer +had asylum power. Exile was considered a more +grievous punishment than death by the sword or by +starvation and was regarded as harder even than death, +itself the hardest of the ten hardest things created in +the world.⁠<a id="FNanchor_115_115" href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> Enslavement to Jews was specified by +the Bible as a legitimate punishment only in certain +cases.⁠<a id="FNanchor_116_116" href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> Similarly, both the application and the +severity of scourging were limited.⁠<a id="FNanchor_117_117" href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a></p> + +<p>Prisons in Jewish antiquity were used usually as a +ward house in which the accused was detained until +sentence could be pronounced.⁠<a id="FNanchor_118_118" href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> But sometimes the +prison seems to have been used also as a punitive +institution.⁠<a id="FNanchor_119_119" href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> In one instance, the principle of commuting +a death penalty to a sentence of life imprisonment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</span>is recognised. The Mishna prescribes⁠<a id="FNanchor_120_120" href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> that +when a man has twice committed a crime for which +excision is the penalty and he has received the lash +twice, on his committing this crime a third time, he is +imprisoned and fed on barley until he bursts. Or +when one has committed a murder and there are no +witnesses to condemn him, he is imprisoned and fed +on frugal fare of bread and water.⁠<a id="FNanchor_121_121" href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> In other words, +when a murder has been committed and it is certain +that the accused man was the murderer, but owing to +legal technicalities,⁠<a id="FNanchor_122_122" href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> it is impossible legally to prove +his guilt; or if the circumstantial evidence is +thoroughly convincing,⁠<a id="FNanchor_123_123" href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> the Rabbis felt that it would +be dangerous to society and against all principles of +justice to allow such a known murderer to go free. In +any of these cases, he should be imprisoned in a den +of the height or length of a man and fed in such a +manner as to bring about his early death. This seems +to be the only passage in Rabbinical literature in which +imprisonment is spoken of as a possible mitigation of +the immediate death penalty.</p> + +<p>From one passage⁠<a id="FNanchor_124_124" href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> it would seem that in later +Rabbinic times, (c. 350 C. E.), when the penalty of +death for murder could no longer be imposed by the +Jewish court, it was recommended that the death +sentence be commuted into one of blinding the murderer. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</span>When it was reported that Bar Chama had +committed a murder, the Exilarch bade Rab Abba (or +Acha) bar Jacob investigate the case. If it proved that +Bar Chama was guilty, his eyes should be put out.⁠<a id="FNanchor_125_125" href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a> +But this passage stands alone, and does not allow us +to draw any conclusion as to a general practise. Moreover +the expression “to put out his eyes” may possibly +be figurative, meaning imposing a fine or taking away +authority.⁠<a id="FNanchor_126_126" href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a></p> + +<p>We see, therefore, that the necessity of adhering to +the express commands of the Torah prohibited the +Rabbis from commuting a death sentence into scourging, +imprisonment, blinding or any other kind of +mutilation, exile, enslavement, a fine or any other +punishment. The exact words of the Torah had to be +upheld.</p> + +<p>Therefore, while rigidly maintaining the Biblical +principle of capital punishment, the Rabbis availed +themselves of their right to modify the <i>method</i> of +executing the death sentence. If they upheld the death +penalty, there was nothing to prevent their mitigating +the severity of its application in every way possible. +We have already seen how stoning was modified in +practise to precipitation, and burning modified to +strangulation followed by a nominal burning. Our +consideration showed that these changes in method +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</span>apparently came about in order to secure the easiest +and most humane methods of death, (since according +to the golden rule even the condemned criminal is +one’s brother), and in order to spare the body, so far +as possible, all mutilation or disfigurement. The +general principle governing the lightening of the +methods of death was that wherever the Torah does +not specify which method of death is to be employed, +the easiest and most humane method is to be used.⁠<a id="FNanchor_127_127" href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a></p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAP_4"> + Legal Restrictions +</h2> +</div> + +<p>But the most thoroughgoing modification of the +system of capital punishment was not brought about +through change in the methods of imposing the death +penalty, but through surrounding the accused with so +many legal safeguards that it became virtually impossible +ever to impose a death sentence.</p> + +<p>The law limited the right of trying capital cases to the +high tribunal of twenty-three, not even the king having +the right to put to death other than through the Sanhedrin.⁠<a id="FNanchor_128_128" href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> +According to Rabbinical tradition, one very +large class of capital cases was taken out of the jurisdiction +of any human court, namely those in which the +Bible stipulates <i>Kareth</i> or Excision as the punishment. +This ruling at one stroke absolved the Rabbinical +courts from the obligation of imposing the death +sentence in a large number of cases.</p> + +<p>In many passages in the Pentateuch it is stated that +the one committing certain transgressions “will be cut +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</span>off from his kinsfolk.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_129_129" href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a> Modern Biblical scholars +understand the phrase as referring to the imposition of +the death penalty by the court. The Karaites also +understood <i>Kareth</i> in this sense, through a comparison +of Exod. xxxi, 14b with the parallel passages xxxi, +14a, 15 and Num. xv, 35. The one passage prescribes +<i>Kareth</i>, the others prescribe death as the punishment +for Sabbath profanation. Similarly <i>Kareth</i> in Lev. +xx, 3 is the equivalent of stoning, the punishment +designated in the preceding verse for Moloch worship; +and <i>Kareth</i> for blasphemy in Num. xv, 30 is the +equivalent of stoning mentioned as the punishment for +the same crime in Lev. xxiv, 14. The fate of Achan,⁠<a id="FNanchor_130_130" href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a> +of Naboth,⁠<a id="FNanchor_131_131" href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> and of the adulteress,⁠<a id="FNanchor_132_132" href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> + would seem to +show that the whole family of the convicted person +could judicially be put to death. In some cases,⁠<a id="FNanchor_133_133" href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a> the +death penalty is specified as well as the penalty of +<i>Kareth</i>.</p> + +<p>None the less, the Rabbis consistently understand +<i>Kareth</i> to be not a death penalty inflicted by man but +a punishment left in the hands of Heaven. Thus the +Rabbis interpret <i>Kareth</i> specifically as dying childless,⁠<a id="FNanchor_134_134" href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> +or as dying at 50 years, or, according to Raba, +between 50 and 60 years, before completing the otherwise +destined span,⁠<a id="FNanchor_135_135" href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> or as the cutting off of the soul +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</span>in the future life.⁠<a id="FNanchor_136_136" href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> For this interpretation of <i>Kareth</i> +as a punishment by Heaven would speak the personal +pronoun in the phrase, “<i>I</i> will cut off,” the active form +sometimes used.⁠<a id="FNanchor_137_137" href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> For this would also speak the +passages wherein the death penalty is threatened as well +as <i>Kareth</i>, usually adduced as favoring the other interpretation +of <i>Kareth</i>, if we understand them, as we +well may, as threatening an alternative, <i>either</i> the +death penalty by the court <i>or Kareth</i> by God. That +this may be the meaning is clear from a careful reading +of Lev. x, 1-5, wherein the Moloch worshipper is +threatened with death by stoning at the hands of the +people, or if the people do not so punish him, then God +will cut him off. Such phrases as “they shall bear +their sin,”⁠<a id="FNanchor_138_138" href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> or “they shall bear their sin and shall die +childless,”⁠<a id="FNanchor_139_139" href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a> + or “they shall die childless,”⁠<a id="FNanchor_140_140" href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> would +also be most naturally understood as taking the right +of punishment away from the human court and +leaving it to Heaven. It has been suggested that the +Niqtal form, usually translated as passive “and shall +be cut off,” should be understood in a reflexive sense, +“(that soul) cuts itself off.” But this explanation +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</span>seems unlikely in face of the occurrence of the active +forms “I will cut off” or “and I will destroy that soul +from the midst of its people.”⁠<a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a> Whatever be the +preferable explanation of <i>Kareth</i> in each passage in +which the term occurs, the interpretation consistently +given to it by the Rabbis is highly significant. Their +tendency away from capital punishment is clearly seen +in their leaving to the heavenly tribunal the punishment +in all cases where <i>Kareth</i> is prescribed in the +Bible.⁠<a id="FNanchor_141_141" href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a></p> + +<p>The other restrictions in court procedure are too +well known to need setting forth here in detail. It is +enough to mention some of the rules of evidence, +particularly the minute safeguards with which the +giving of testimony was surrounded. Torturing of +witnesses to extract from them convicting evidence +was entirely unknown. The aim of the court was to +lead the witnesses into giving evidence favorable to +the accused, not to coerce them into helping condemn +him. According to R. Jose b. Jehudah, a witness could +testify only in favor of the accused.⁠<a id="FNanchor_142_142" href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> The two witnesses +had to be free adult men,⁠<a id="FNanchor_143_143" href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> sound in mind and +body, of unquestioned integrity,⁠<a id="FNanchor_144_144" href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> and free of all +suspicion of personal relationship to the defendant⁠<a id="FNanchor_145_145" href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> +or interest in the case.⁠<a id="FNanchor_146_146" href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> They were first solemnly +warned and adjured as to the blood responsibility +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</span>resting on them and their heirs after them.⁠<a id="FNanchor_147_147" href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> They +were then cross-examined separately,⁠<a id="FNanchor_148_148" href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> + very searchingly,⁠<a id="FNanchor_149_149" href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> +with the <i>haqira</i> affecting place,⁠<a id="FNanchor_150_150" href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> time, the +warning, etc., and with the <i>bediqa</i> going into the +smaller details.⁠<a id="FNanchor_151_151" href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> A slight contradiction or discrepancy +in their evidence invalidated their testimony.⁠<a id="FNanchor_152_152" href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> +They had to prove the act, and, what was far +more difficult, prove also the intention. In order to be +able to prove deliberate and understanding premeditation, +the witnesses must both have warned the accused +before he committed the crime,⁠<a id="FNanchor_153_153" href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> with a clear warning +(<i>Hathraa</i>), including a definite reference to the kind +of punishment and the measure of punishment which +his act would involve.⁠<a id="FNanchor_154_154" href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> The warning given by them +had to have been so clearly understood, that the +accused had replied that he would commit the crime +none the less, thereby showing that he had fully +understood the warning.⁠<a id="FNanchor_155_155" href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> The act must have followed +closely on their warning, or the warning by the witnesses +was not considered adequate, on the ground +that in the intervening time it may have escaped the +culprit’s memory.⁠<a id="FNanchor_156_156" href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> If there was a technical flaw in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</span>the giving of this warning by the witnesses, the +accused was given the benefit of the doubt that there +had not been <i>dolus</i> but only <i>culpa</i>,⁠<a id="FNanchor_157_157" href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> and where the +crime was not premeditated, no death penalty could +be imposed.⁠<a id="FNanchor_158_158" href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a></p> + +<p>Further, circumstantial or presumptive evidence was +disallowed. The witnesses had to have seen each other +when the act was committed,⁠<a id="FNanchor_159_159" href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> and had to have seen +the act itself, and not only what went before it or what +followed it. For instance, even in early Rabbinic days, +Simon ben Shetach (fl. 80 B. C. E.), who undoubtedly +believed in and imposed the death sentence during his +lifetime,⁠<a id="FNanchor_160_160" href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> did not consider the strongest circumstantial +evidence as evidence. It is related⁠<a id="FNanchor_161_161" href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> that he once +saw one man pursuing another. He followed them +and found the pursued man murdered and the pursuer +holding a sword dripping with blood. Simon said to +the murderer: ‘Either you or I killed this man. But +what can I do? Your blood guilt is not delivered into +my hands; for the Torah says⁠<a id="FNanchor_162_162" href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> that you can be condemned +only by the actual testimony of two or more +witnesses. May God who knows the inward thoughts +requite the one who committed this murder.’⁠<a id="FNanchor_163_163" href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a></p> + +<p>In these and in similar ways, tradition developed the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</span>rules contained in the Torah, that two witnesses were +needed and that the witnesses themselves had to carry +out the death sentence. As the number of necessary +conditions increased, it became virtually impossible in +a capital case to obtain unassailable testimony adequate +for a condemnation.</p> + +<p>Many other legal refinements made it still more +certain that no one would ever be legally condemned to +death. For example, murder was not punishable by +death, as we have seen, if it could be proved to have +been not fully premeditated or intentional. Thus, if +the murderer had meant to kill one man and had killed +another; or had he meant to wound him on the thigh +and instead had struck him on the heart and killed him, +capital punishment could not be meted out, since the +criminal intent to kill was not present.⁠<a id="FNanchor_164_164" href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> Again, if the +murderer were weak-minded, or intoxicated, or a deaf-mute, +or a minor, or acting under compulsion or acting +in self defence,⁠<a id="FNanchor_165_165" href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> etc., he could not be condemned to +death. Or again, if the man murdered had been +fatally ill or for any other reason would not have lived +had he not been murdered, the guilty man was not +considered liable to the death penalty. And even if the +murderer was suffering from an illness that in the +ordinary course would shortly kill him, the court would +not anticipate God’s decree by carrying out the death +penalty.</p> + +<p>But over and above these thick protecting hedges +which made it virtually impossible to obtain a death +sentence, there were many other considerations which +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</span>further removed the possibility of executing a capital +sentence. Thus there was a thoroughgoing rule that +no punishment affecting the personality of a man⁠<a id="FNanchor_166_166" href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> +might be imposed on a deduction a fortiori.⁠<a id="FNanchor_167_167" href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> Unless +there was explicit Biblical warrant for the death +penalty, it was prohibited to deduce this penalty by +rules of interpretation, a principle in itself that worked +consistently towards moderating the severity of the +written law.</p> + +<p>Moreover, just as the power of the witnesses was +minimized and the rights and privileges of the defendant +were magnified, so also the rights and +privileges of the judges were hemmed in and restrained +in every way. Only a high court of twenty-three +could try capital cases.⁠<a id="FNanchor_168_168" href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> The judges all had to be +picked men of high standing, character and attainments.⁠<a id="FNanchor_169_169" href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> +They were impressed with the words of their +own warning to the witnesses, that he who causes a +soul to be put to death unjustly is as though he had +destroyed the whole world.⁠<a id="FNanchor_170_170" href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> When engaged on a +capital trial, they were put under severe discipline.⁠<a id="FNanchor_171_171" href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> +They took the place both of the counsel for the defendant +and of the jury.⁠<a id="FNanchor_172_172" href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> Two death penalties could +not be pronounced on one day.⁠<a id="FNanchor_173_173" href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> For final condemnation, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</span>a second ballot had to be taken on the following +day.⁠<a id="FNanchor_174_174" href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> If twelve of the twenty-three judges were in +favor of acquittal against the other eleven, the defendant +was freed by the majority of one. But if +twelve held him guilty and eleven held him innocent, +the defendant could not be condemned by the majority +of one. A majority of at least two was necessary for +a condemnation.⁠<a id="FNanchor_175_175" href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> A judge was not permitted to +change his mind and declare his decision for a condemnation +when once he had voted for an acquittal.⁠<a id="FNanchor_176_176" href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> +Unless each judge could give an individual reason for +his opinion his vote was not counted.⁠<a id="FNanchor_177_177" href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> According to +the striking opinion of Rab Kahana, if the judges were +unanimously in favor of <i>conviction</i>, the accused should +be freed.⁠<a id="FNanchor_178_178" href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> In general, it was held to be better that +the guilty should escape punishment than that one +innocent man be put to death. The judges had the +less hesitancy in inclining to mercy, because of the +belief that God would not allow the guilty to remain +unrequited.⁠<a id="FNanchor_179_179" href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> In the story of circumstantial evidence +quoted above, Simon ben Shetach left the punishment +of the murderer to God. When the Jewish courts no +longer had jurisdiction, it was felt that God would +fittingly punish those who had rendered themselves +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</span>legally liable to the death penalty.⁠<a id="FNanchor_180_180" href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> The Mechilta, +elaborating the Biblical words “For I, God, will not let +the guilty go free,”⁠<a id="FNanchor_181_181" href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> says, that if one who is guilty has +been discharged by the court as not guilty, he is not to +be taken back for a retrial. God has instruments and +means enough to bring upon him the punishment that +he has incurred.</p> + +<p>After an acquittal there could be no appeal; but +after a conviction an appeal could be lodged at any +time.⁠<a id="FNanchor_182_182" href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> If one ultimately was condemned, he was +given every facility to escape his fate through the +publicity of a herald’s proclamation,⁠<a id="FNanchor_183_183" href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> through the +assiduous attempt to elicit new favorable evidence +even during the procession to the place of execution,⁠<a id="FNanchor_184_184" href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> +etc.</p> + +<p>Examples of legal safeguards could readily be multiplied. +But it is sufficient for our present purpose to +sum up these details by saying that the publicity of +the trial, the confrontation of the defendant and the +plaintiff, the absence of torture, the careful elimination +of improper witnesses, the solemn warning to the +witnesses, the searching examination of the witnesses, +the remarkable requirements for a valid warning, the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</span>extraordinarily high standard as to what constituted +evidence, the equally extraordinary number of loopholes +allowed to the defendant, the limitations on the +court, forbidding it to deduce a capital punishment if +the Bible did not explicitly call for one, the immediate +acquittal by any majority of the judges, the postponement +of the final decision if a majority were in favor +of death, the obligation on those who had voted against +the death penalty of keeping their vote unchanged at +the second ballot, together with the permission to +change their opinion granted those who had voted in +favor of the death penalty, the right of the judges after +a condemnation to change their opinion any time before +the execution, the constant public appeal for further +evidence until the final execution, the prohibition of +more than one capital sentence being pronounced in +one day, and other innumerable elements of legal interpretation +and procedure, all worked to make legal +capital punishment impossible of practical application.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAP_5"> + Practise and Theory +</h2> +</div> + +<p>In view of the fact that in pre-Christian and the +earliest Rabbinic times legal capital punishment was +carried out, as has been shown above, it becomes necessary +to inquire when and why the practise of capital +punishment ceased among the Jewish people. In Biblical +times, and in post-Biblical times when the Sadducees +controlled Jewish life, the old death penalties were +carried out without essential modification. But under +Roman rule, a change took place. Schürer claims⁠<a id="FNanchor_185_185" href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</span>that from the very beginning of the Roman dominion +the Jewish courts lost their competence to judge capital +cases. According to the gospel according to John, +Pilate is made to say to the Jews, “Take Jesus yourselves +and judge him according to your law. The Jews +said unto him, ‘It is not lawful for us to put any man +to death.’”⁠<a id="FNanchor_186_186" href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> Talmudic sources state that forty +years prior to the destruction of the Temple, i. e., +30 C. E., the right of deciding capital cases was taken +from the Jewish courts.⁠<a id="FNanchor_187_187" href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a> But Rab Joseph, R. Hiyya +and the school of Hezekiah taught, that this right was +taken away from the Jews by the Roman government, +from the time that the Temple was destroyed, i. e., +70 C. E.; adding, that the Sanhedrin abolished the +practise though not the theory of the four death +penalties.⁠<a id="FNanchor_188_188" href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> Of these two dates given by the Rabbis, +the second is apparently correct. The earlier date, +30 B. C. E., probably arose from a misunderstanding. +The original statement made by R. Ishmael b. Jose, +(end of the second century), was that forty years +before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin +moved from the Temple and held its sessions in a shop. +There is no reason to doubt this statement, Schürer +notwithstanding. But R. Isaac bar Abdimi added to +it: “This implies that they no longer judged capital +cases.” This second statement is seemingly not an +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</span>historical tradition, but only an inference drawn on +the theory that capital sentence could be pronounced +only in the special hall of the Sanhedrin in the Temple. +This inference is disproved by a number of historical +facts, which show that the Rabbinical courts had competence +in capital cases in Roman times until the destruction +of the Temple and of the Jewish State in +70 C. E. Josephus mentions the reluctance of the +Pharisees to impose the death penalty, contrasting +them in this regard with the Sadducees.⁠<a id="FNanchor_189_189" href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> He states +further that when a Sadducee became a judge, he +would adopt Pharisaic norms of judgment, because +the public would not otherwise tolerate him.⁠<a id="FNanchor_190_190" href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> + Elsewhere⁠<a id="FNanchor_191_191" href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> +he mentions that the Essenes punish blasphemy +by death. These three notices, although not +necessarily referring to post-Christian times, are +significant when taken in connection with the following +facts. Up to the time of the destruction of the Temple, +the Romans granted to the Jews the right to put to +death any foreigner, even a Roman citizen, who passed +beyond the Temple limits,⁠<a id="FNanchor_192_192" href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a> and there is no warrant +for Schürer’s supposition that this right could be +exercised only after obtaining the sanction of the +procurator.⁠<a id="FNanchor_193_193" href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> Certainly under King Agrippa, 41-44 +C. E., this Jewish law of capital punishment was in +force.⁠<a id="FNanchor_194_194" href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> + The story of the trial of Stephen⁠<a id="FNanchor_195_195" href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> and the +different accounts of the trials of Paul before the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</span>Sanhedrin,⁠<a id="FNanchor_196_196" href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> although they are often untrustworthy, +presuppose the competence of the Sanhedrin to judge +capital cases at a period later than the year 30 C. E. +Anan, the Sadducean high priest for three months in +62 C. E., is said by Josephus to have imposed and +carried out the death penalty.⁠<a id="FNanchor_197_197" href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> Rabbi Eleazar ben +Zadok cannot have seen the burning of the high +priest’s daughter⁠<a id="FNanchor_198_198" href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> prior to 40 C. E., since in the year +70 C. E. he was still a young man.</p> + +<p>There seems therefore to be no valid reason for +doubting the statement of R. Joseph, R. Hiyya and the +school of Hezekiah, that the Roman government +allowed the Jewish courts a measure of jurisdiction +in capital cases up to the time of the destruction of the +Temple in 70 C. E.,⁠<a id="FNanchor_199_199" href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> but that after that date the +Jewish courts were no longer allowed this jurisdiction. +Origen (d. 254 C. E.) says that the Jewish law can no +longer punish the murderer or stone the adulteress +because the Roman government has assumed these +rights.⁠<a id="FNanchor_200_200" href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a> The Didascalia⁠<a id="FNanchor_201_201" href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> + also remarks, that the +Jewish law of capital punishment is no longer in force. +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</span>The Talmud testifies uniformly that the Jewish courts +had no power over life and death after the year 70 C. E.</p> + +<p>But there are some minor exceptions to this that +must be noted.</p> + +<p>(i) A certain R. Hama b. Tobiyah caused Imarta, +daughter of the priest Tali, to be burnt. But his +action was condemned, both because the sentence had +been carried out in the barbarous non-Pharisaic method +that R. Eleazar ben Zadok had seen in his youth,⁠<a id="FNanchor_202_202" href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> and +because a capital sentence had been imposed after the +destruction of the Temple.⁠<a id="FNanchor_203_203" href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> (ii) On one occasion a +certain Tamar was condemned (although not to capital +punishment) by Rab Ammi, Rab Assi and Rab Hiyya +b. Abba in Tiberias (c. 300 C. E.). She complained to +the Roman proconsul in Caesarea of this usurpation +of the Roman right of judgment, and the influential +intervention of Abbahu was required to protect the +Rabbinical judges.⁠<a id="FNanchor_204_204" href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> (iii) On another occasion, Rab +Shila, perhaps the Tana of that name, caused a man +who had committed an offence to be whipped. The +man complained to the Roman government that Rab +Shila was exercising judicial functions without the +authority of the government. The government sent +an officer to investigate the case, and the complainant +was adjudged by the officer to have rendered himself +liable to the death penalty through the offence for +which R. Shila had punished him. The offender was +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</span>thereupon handed over by the officer to Rab Shila. +But Rab Shila refused to consummate the sentence, on +the ground that since the exile from Palestine, the right +of capital punishment had not been vested in the Jews. +Subsequently, when the man was about to make a +second complaint about Rab Shila, Rab Shila who had +been given the staff of judicial authority, killed the +man with his staff.⁠<a id="FNanchor_205_205" href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> (iv) Another case in point is the +following: A man once declared before Rab (d. 247 +C. E.), that he would persist in a certain course +despite Rab’s warning. Rab Kahana who was present +rose up and killed the contumacious man. Rab declared +the killing to be legally justified, but advised R. +Kahana to flee to Palestine, since the new Persian +rulers were stricter in punishing bloodshed than the +Romans had been.⁠<a id="FNanchor_206_206" href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> (v) Lynch law is recognized by +the Mishna, when it allows certain offenders to be +struck down <i>flagrante delicto</i>.⁠<a id="FNanchor_207_207" href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> (vi) In connection +with the remark that the one born under the planet +Mars will be a shedder of blood, Raba (4th century) +said, ‘I was born under Mars’; to which his pupil +Abaye remarked, ‘Master, you also (as exilarch) +punish and put to death.’⁠<a id="FNanchor_208_208" href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> (vii) Origen in his letter +to Africanus (240 C. E.) declares that the Jewish +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</span>Patriarch in Palestine exercised the power of imposing +and carrying out capital sentences.⁠<a id="FNanchor_209_209" href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a></p> + +<p>But the utmost that these cases prove is, that subsequent +to 70 C. E., a capital sentence carried out by a +Jew, whether by lynch law or after judicial trial, was +an exception occasionally tolerated through the +generosity, the weakness or the corruption of the +Roman or the Persian authorities. The fact remains +that subsequent to 70 C. E., the Jewish law governing +capital punishment fell into disuse. The Amoraim, +although they were the bearers of tradition, were not +familiar in practise with the actual judgment of +capital cases and the imposition of capital punishment. +It is clear, therefore, that many of the dicta of the +later Rabbis concerning details of the law of capital +punishment are legal inferences rather than historical +facts, and many of their discussions are discussions of +theory as to how the death penalty would be carried +out if the Rabbinic courts should again have +jurisdiction.</p> + +<p>Similarly, much of the elaboration of criminal legal +procedure at which we have glanced is a theoretic +development, dating from the first centuries of the +common era, which was never put to a practical test. +Many elements in it, such as the regulations governing +witnesses and their testimony, are elaborated theoretical +developments of early practise. In their fully +developed form, these regulations would have broken +down as unworkable at the first touch of practise. +Much else is on the face of it dialectic, legal discussion +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</span>conducted on the principle of the meritorious nature of +constant exposition and interpretation of the law. +This principle indeed is quoted in connection with the +decisions governing capital punishment.⁠<a id="FNanchor_210_210" href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> As an +instance of this type of expository discussion may be +mentioned the decision⁠<a id="FNanchor_211_211" href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> that strangling should be the +punishment for one who through craft or force gets +another into his power, forces him to serve, and then +sells him into slavery. Such a ruling is hardly a +precedent based on practical experience. The discussion +in the Talmud⁠<a id="FNanchor_212_212" href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> proves it to be only a theoretic +case. Similarly, the restrictions governing the +treatment of the apostate city are admittedly only +theoretic, since the conditions required were so many +and so specialized that they could never occur together. +It is frankly confessed, that these conditions are only +the result of study-house discussion conducted for the +merit of detailed and far-reaching interpretation.⁠<a id="FNanchor_213_213" href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> +In exactly the same way, it is openly stated, that a case +of the “rebellious, gluttonous son”⁠<a id="FNanchor_214_214" href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> never had +occurred and never would occur, the conditions required +by the Rabbinic jurists being practically impossible +of occurrence together. The formulation of +these conditions was admittedly only the result of +dialectic development.⁠<a id="FNanchor_215_215" href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a></p> + +<p>A passage was quoted above,⁠<a id="FNanchor_216_216" href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> prescribing imprisonment +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</span>in a <i>kipah</i> in certain cases. Where the Talmud +asks what is meant by <i>kipah</i>, and R. Jehudah explains +that by <i>kipah</i> is meant a den of about five and a half +feet in size,⁠<a id="FNanchor_217_217" href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> it is clear that we are dealing with +traditions about legal matters which had not had +practical application within the memory of the +Amoraim. When, further, we remember the discussions +among the Rabbis themselves, such as which death +penalty should go with which crime, or which would +be the correct method of execution, or whether the +dead body has to be hanged only in certain cases or +in others also, and similar debates, it is clear that we +often have to do with matters of theoretic discussion +about which there was no certain tradition. In fact, +in one passage, a legal decision concerning capital punishment +is called a decision that will be of practical +application only when the Messiah comes and the +Jewish system of capital punishment will be once more +in use.⁠<a id="FNanchor_218_218" href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a></p> + +<p>The result, therefore, to which our investigation +leads along various converging lines is, that originally +the death penalty was carried out through the decisions +of the court approximately according to the demands +of the Bible. But at least as early as the beginning of +the Christian era, modifications had arisen, particularly +among the Pharisees, affecting the methods of +inflicting the death penalty.⁠<a id="FNanchor_219_219" href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> These modifications +apparently grew out of two chief causes, (a) the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</span>desire to preserve the body from mutilation or disfigurement +(possibly in part owing to the Pharisaic +belief in the resurrection which had not been of +weight with the Sadducees), and (b) the tendency to +extend the golden rule, so as to make the death penalty +as humane as possible. But the Rabbinic courts lost +their jurisdiction in capital cases at the fall of the +Jewish state in 70 C. E. With this went the transference +of the problem of capital punishment from the +realm of fact to that of legal theory, and Rabbinic, +juristic imagination became free to develop the field +of historical tradition, untrammeled by the restraints +of practise. The compensating spiritual inbreeding, +which occurred when external manifestations of +Jewish national life were proscribed, resulted, in this +special legal field as in all other fields of Jewish +thought, in the over luxuriant development of the +theory of Jewish practise. In Amoraic times, the +Rabbis no longer recognised with certainty in many +cases, whether a practise was old and traditional, or +whether it was a comparatively new development +based only on theoretic deduction. Even in early +Tannaitic times, there was often uncertainty as to +what was known through tradition and what was +known through interpretation. This is brought out +very clearly in the account of the discussion between +Hillel and the Bene Bethera on the question of the +sacrifice of the paschal lamb on Sabbath.⁠<a id="FNanchor_220_220" href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> The +Rabbis therefore often projected legal conceptions +into the past as actual facts.⁠<a id="FNanchor_221_221" href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</span></p> + +<p>It is impossible for us to pick out from the vast +accumulation of statements, rules and principles +governing capital punishment according to Amoraic +ideas, exactly how much is historical tradition founded +on actual practise and how much only theoretic deduction. +But from the beginning of the Rabbinic +period, we can clearly trace a growing feeling of +repugnance to capital punishment, which, along various +lines, succeeded in making capital punishment obsolete +through legal theory. Had the later Rabbis ever been +granted the right of trying capital cases, the theory +which had been developed would have made legal +capital punishment impossible of application. Thus +the Mishna already could say,⁠<a id="FNanchor_222_222" href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> that a Sanhedrin +condemning to death once in seven years was called a +destroying or bloody Sanhedrin. Rabbi Eleazar ben +Azariah (first cent.) said that it was so called for +imposing the death penalty even once in seventy +years.⁠<a id="FNanchor_223_223" href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a></p> + +<p>It should be plainly recognised that capital punishment +was never formally abolished by the Rabbis. +The penalty of death was demanded by the laws +contained in the sacred statute book, the Bible, and as +such it was accepted as needing no justification or +defence. But it was legislated out of all practical +application in the development of the law. The Rabbis +of the Talmudic era abolished capital punishment in +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</span>the only way open to them,—in theory, as they would +undoubtedly have abolished it also in legal practise +while retaining it as a dead letter on the fundamental +statute book, the Bible, had Jewish national independence +been regained in their day.</p> + + +<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop"> +<div class="chapter"> + +<h2 class="nobreak" id="CHAP_6"> + Post-Talmudic Development +</h2> +</div> + +<p>A few words should be added relative to the development +of the idea of capital punishment among the +medieval Jews.</p> + +<p>In post-Talmudic times, the problem of capital +punishment according to Jewish law scarcely arose. +Although the theory of it had been fully worked out, +there were no occasions for the application of the +theory, both because the Temple no longer stood and +the Jewish courts had no jurisdiction,⁠<a id="FNanchor_224_224" href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> and because +after the interruption of <i>Semicha</i> (ordination), no +judges were regarded as competent.⁠<a id="FNanchor_225_225" href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> This statement +is true, however, only with certain limitations. +Although as a general rule the Jewish courts in the +diaspora had no jurisdiction in capital cases, there +were times and places in which the power of imposing +the death penalty was vested in the Jewish courts. +Thus Asheri (c. 1300) wrote: “In no country of which +I have heard have Jews their own courts for the trial +of criminal cases except here in Spain. It was a +source of great astonishment to me when I came to +Spain, that the Spanish Jews should try criminal cases +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</span>without the full and authorized Sanhedrin; but I was +informed that this was done in accordance with an +order of the government.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_226_226" href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> Similarly, we find the +Jews of Tudela asking the viceroy of Navarre, “That +he would be pleased to order and that we practise the +Jewish law as our ancestors have hitherto; that is, +when a Jew or Jewess commits a sin, on our magistrates +applying to the bailiff and notifying to him the +sin committed, and the punishment it deserved +according to Jewish law, the bailiff shall execute it, +and enforce the sentence of our said magistrates, +whether of condemnation or acquittal; or of any +demand from one Jew to another, as we have been +accustomed, not affecting the rights of our lord the +king.” This right was granted them.⁠<a id="FNanchor_227_227" href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a></p> + +<p>Asheri himself unhesitatingly imposed the sentence +of death on an informer.⁠<a id="FNanchor_228_228" href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> The <i>Moser</i> (informer, +<i>delator</i>), constituted so poignant a danger to Jewry in +exile, that the death penalty was not infrequently +consummated in his case. Jewish law gives the right +to kill the informer, on the principle of life for life. +Since he is seeking your life, you are justified in saving +your own by taking his.⁠<a id="FNanchor_229_229" href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> The death sentence on +the <i>Moser</i> was pronounced by the Jewish community +and carried out by the non-Jewish authorities to whom +the convicted <i>delator</i> was handed over. Maimonides +(12th cent.) declares that it regularly happens in the +cities of the West that they kill informers, or hand +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</span>them over to the non-Jews to be killed or dealt with +according to their guilt.⁠<a id="FNanchor_230_230" href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a></p> + +<p>Similarly, Asheri’s son, Jacob, in conjunction with +a tribunal of Rabbis in Toledo, condemned to death the +informer Joseph ben Samuel and handed him over to +the royal executioner.⁠<a id="FNanchor_231_231" href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> Joseph ibn Migas of +Lucena (d. 1141) caused an informer to be stoned on +the eve of the day of Atonement.⁠<a id="FNanchor_232_232" href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> Others, who +approved of the extermination of informers, or who +actually passed the sentence of death on them and +handed them over to the State authorities for execution, +were such leaders of Spanish and North African +Jewry as Jonah Gerondi and Solomon ben Adereth +(c. 1280),⁠<a id="FNanchor_233_233" href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> Isaac ben Shesheth (14th cent.), Abraham +Benveniste (1432), Simon ben Zemach Duran (1400), +and his son Solomon. In the particular case in which +Jonah Gerondi and Solomon ben Adereth acted as the +judges (c. 1280), the family of the informer tried in +vain to stir up the non-Jewish authorities by declaring +that a judicial murder had been committed. They +claimed that according to Jewish law, the Jews had +long foregone the right of imposing a capital sentence, +that the sentence had not been pronounced by a Sanhedrin +of twenty-three, etc. The authorities refused +them a hearing. But Solomon ben Adereth found it +necessary to justify the action that had been taken. +He therefore submitted the case in all its details to the +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</span>Rabbis of North France. Only one answer has been +preserved,—that of Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg, who +clearly and decidedly ranks himself on the side of +Ben Adereth.⁠<a id="FNanchor_234_234" href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> But it will be seen that in all these +cases, the utmost power that was allowed to the +Jewish tribunal was that of pronouncing the sentence +of death. The consummation of the sentence was left +to the State authorities. On Aug. 21, 1379, at the +request of a delegation of Jews, the royal farmer of +taxes, Joseph Pichon, was beheaded as an informer by +the royal executioner. One result of this affair was, +that the Cortes issued the following decree, depriving +the Rabbis and the Jewish courts of the country of the +right of deciding criminal cases: “We ordain and +command, that henceforward it shall not be permitted +for any Jews of our kingdoms, whether rabbis, elders, +chiefs or any other persons that now are or shall be +hereafter, to interfere to judge in any criminal cause +to which death, loss of limb or banishment is attached; +but they may decide all civil causes that appertain to +them according to their religion. Criminal cases shall +be tried by one of the Alcaldes, chosen by the Jews in +the towns and places of their respective jurisdictions.... +This is to be understood for those criminal cases that +have hitherto been tried by the said Jews”....⁠<a id="FNanchor_235_235" href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> Subsequently, +owing to the influence of Abraham Benveniste, +this right of judging criminal cases was restored to the +Jewish courts in Spain.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</span></p> + +<p>But this power could hardly be exercised outside of +Spain and North Africa, and in those lands it could be +exercised only in favorable periods. In Angevin +England, “Criminal cases between Jews, except for the +greater felonies, as homicide, mayhem, etc., could be +decided in the Jewish courts according to Jewish +law.”⁠<a id="FNanchor_236_236" href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> In other lands also, the Jewish courts were +sometimes empowered to try lesser criminal cases; but +rarely, if ever, could they independently impose and +carry out the death sentence. At a later period, the +Kahals in Eastern Europe were granted autonomous +jurisdiction in civil cases. But their greatest power +hardly exceeded the right given them in Lithuania by +charter of King Michael Wishnevetzki (1669-73), “to +summon the criminals before the Jewish courts for +punishment and exclusion from the community when +necessary.” Rabbi Meir Sack emphatically protested +against buying the freedom of Jewish criminals from +the authorities. “We should endeavor to deprive +criminals of opportunities to escape justice.” Similarly, +Meir Lublin declares that the death penalty for a +murderer, decreed by the law of the land, should be +allowed to be consummated, if the murderer were a +Jew.⁠<a id="FNanchor_237_237" href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a></p> + +<p>It may be stated broadly, that after the Roman +period, the right of pronouncing the death sentence +was only rarely granted to the Jews, while the right of +inflicting capital punishment was practically never +vested in the Jewish community. Theoretically, +<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</span>Jewish legal opinion gave to the leading authorities of +the generation or of the district, the right to act as a +competent Sanhedrin of twenty-three in judging +criminal and capital cases, on urgent occasions of +popular wrongdoing.⁠<a id="FNanchor_238_238" href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a> But this right could so rarely +be exercised that it became virtually obsolete.</p> + +<hr class="full"> + +<div class="footnotes"> +<h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_1_1" href="#FNanchor_1_1" class="label">[1]</a> Ber. 8a, with reference to Ps. lxviii, 61.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_2_2" href="#FNanchor_2_2" class="label">[2]</a> Mishna Sanh. vii, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_3_3" href="#FNanchor_3_3" class="label">[3]</a> Gen. Rab. lxv, 22.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_4_4" href="#FNanchor_4_4" class="label">[4]</a> This subject has been dealt with at length by A. Buechler, +<i>Monatsschrift f. Geschichte u. Wissenschaft des Judentums</i>, +1906, Vol. L.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_5_5" href="#FNanchor_5_5" class="label">[5]</a> Sanh. vii, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_6_6" href="#FNanchor_6_6" class="label">[6]</a> Compare Lev. xx, 10 with Deut. xxii, 24; and Num. xv, 35 +with Exod. xxxi, 14f, and xxxv, 2; Matt. xxv, 37; Luke +xiii, 34.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_7_7" href="#FNanchor_7_7" class="label">[7]</a> Lev. xxiv, 14, 23; Num. xv, 35f; Deut. xvii, 5; xxi, 19ff; +xxii, 24; Acts vii, 58.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_8_8" href="#FNanchor_8_8" class="label">[8]</a> Lev. xxiv, 16; Num. xiv, 10; Deut. xxi, 21; xxii, 21; I Sam. +xxx, 6; I Kings xii, 18; xxi, 10, 13; II Chron. x, 18; xxiv, 21; +Exod. xvii, 4; viii, 22; Josephus, <i>War</i> I. xxvii, 6; <i>Antiq.</i> XVI, +xi, 17; XVI. x, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_9_9" href="#FNanchor_9_9" class="label">[9]</a> Deut. xvii, 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_10_10" href="#FNanchor_10_10" class="label">[10]</a> Overbeck, <i>Apostelgeschichte</i>, 114; J. Juster, <i>Les Juifs dans +l’Empire Romain</i>, II, 138, note 2; Schuerer, II, 262.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_11_11" href="#FNanchor_11_11" class="label">[11]</a> <i>Antiq.</i>, XX, ix, 1; Schuerer (4th edit.), I, 581.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_12_12" href="#FNanchor_12_12" class="label">[12]</a> Sanh. ix, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_13_13" href="#FNanchor_13_13" class="label">[13]</a> Compare Tosefta Kelim i, 6; Josephus, <i>War</i>, I, xxvii, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_14_14" href="#FNanchor_14_14" class="label">[14]</a> J. Chag. II, 14, 78a; Sanh. 46a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_15_15" href="#FNanchor_15_15" class="label">[15]</a> Tos. Sabb. 104b; Chajes in <i>Hagoren</i>, IV, 33-37; Zuckermandel, +<i>Gesam. Aufsaetze</i>, II, 193.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_16_16" href="#FNanchor_16_16" class="label">[16]</a> Sanh. 67a; Tos. Sanh. x, 11; J. Sanh. VII. 2, 25d top.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_17_17" href="#FNanchor_17_17" class="label">[17]</a> Kid. 80a; Git. 57a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_18_18" href="#FNanchor_18_18" class="label">[18]</a> Buechler <i>loc. cit.</i>, p. 691, doubts whether the method of +precipitation was ever legally used.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_19_19" href="#FNanchor_19_19" class="label">[19]</a> II Chr. xxv, 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_20_20" href="#FNanchor_20_20" class="label">[20]</a> II Macc. vi, 10; but Josephus, <i>Antiq.</i>, XII. v, 4 says that +they were crucified and then strangled by having their children +hung round their neck.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_21_21" href="#FNanchor_21_21" class="label">[21]</a> Susanna 62, LXX text.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_22_22" href="#FNanchor_22_22" class="label">[22]</a> Luke iv, 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_23_23" href="#FNanchor_23_23" class="label">[23]</a> Lev. xvi, 22.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_24_24" href="#FNanchor_24_24" class="label">[24]</a> Students’ Annual, 1914, pp. 146, 147. I gladly take this +opportunity of acknowledging my indebtedness to Prof. +Ginzberg who read this essay in manuscript and gave me +valuable suggestions on many points.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_25_25" href="#FNanchor_25_25" class="label">[25]</a> Sanh. 45a bottom.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_26_26" href="#FNanchor_26_26" class="label">[26]</a> Lev. xx, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 27.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_27_27" href="#FNanchor_27_27" class="label">[27]</a> Sanh. 43a; Mark xv, 23; Matt. xxvii, 34; Prov. xxxi, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_28_28" href="#FNanchor_28_28" class="label">[28]</a> Lev. xxi, 9; xx, 14; Cf. Gen. xxxviii, 24 (Tamar) and +Josh. vii, 15, 25 (Achan).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_29_29" href="#FNanchor_29_29" class="label">[29]</a> Jud. xii, 14, 15; Josh. vii, 15, 24; Josephus, <i>War</i>, II. xxi, +3, 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_30_30" href="#FNanchor_30_30" class="label">[30]</a> Josephus, <i>Antiq.</i>, IV, viii, 23, to Levit. xxi, 9. Compare +Dan. iii, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_31_31" href="#FNanchor_31_31" class="label">[31]</a> Josephus, <i>Antiq.</i>, XVII, vi, 4; <i>War</i>, I, xxxiii, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_32_32" href="#FNanchor_32_32" class="label">[32]</a> <i>War</i>, II, xxi, 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_33_33" href="#FNanchor_33_33" class="label">[33]</a> Mishna Sanh. vii, 2; Tos. Sanh. ix, 11; J. Sanh. VII, 24b; +B. Sanh. 52b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_34_34" href="#FNanchor_34_34" class="label">[34]</a> Sanh. 52b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_35_35" href="#FNanchor_35_35" class="label">[35]</a> Jubilees xxx, 7; xx, 4; xli, 25, 26. For the Pharisaic view +of the application of this penalty, see Mishna Sanh. ix, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_36_36" href="#FNanchor_36_36" class="label">[36]</a> Mishna Sanh. vii, 2. R. Jehudah while upholding this +method suggests a modification of the procedure.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_37_37" href="#FNanchor_37_37" class="label">[37]</a> Tos. Sanh. ix, 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_38_38" href="#FNanchor_38_38" class="label">[38]</a> Sanh. 52a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_39_39" href="#FNanchor_39_39" class="label">[39]</a> Num. xvi, 35.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_40_40" href="#FNanchor_40_40" class="label">[40]</a> Lev. x, 2, 6. Sifra ed. Weiss ibid., 45c, 34; 46a, 41; +Tosafoth Sanh. 52a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_41_41" href="#FNanchor_41_41" class="label">[41]</a> Sanh. 52a; Sifra 45c, 34. But contrast Josephus <i>Antiq.</i>, +III, viii, 7, who says that their faces and breasts were burnt.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_42_42" href="#FNanchor_42_42" class="label">[42]</a> Baruch lxiii, 8; Susanna 62, LXX text, says that fire from +heaven burnt the false witnesses after they had been +precipitated.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_43_43" href="#FNanchor_43_43" class="label">[43]</a> Lekach Tob to Noach IX, 23; Tanhuma Noach 21, p. 25b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_44_44" href="#FNanchor_44_44" class="label">[44]</a> Sanh. 52b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_45_45" href="#FNanchor_45_45" class="label">[45]</a> N. Bruell, <i>Beth Talmud</i>, 7ff, quoted by Buechler <i>l. c.</i> 558, +note 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_46_46" href="#FNanchor_46_46" class="label">[46]</a> Notice also the contradiction between Josephus’ account +of the burning of Nadab and Abihu and the Pharisaic tradition +referred to above, note 41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_47_47" href="#FNanchor_47_47" class="label">[47]</a> E. g. II Kings x, 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_48_48" href="#FNanchor_48_48" class="label">[48]</a> Deut. xiii, 13-16.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_49_49" href="#FNanchor_49_49" class="label">[49]</a> Sanh. ix, 1; Mechilta to Exod. xxi, 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_50_50" href="#FNanchor_50_50" class="label">[50]</a> Scholion to Megillath Taanith 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_51_51" href="#FNanchor_51_51" class="label">[51]</a> Revel, <i>Jew. Quart. Rev.</i>, New Series, III, 364, note 86.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_52_52" href="#FNanchor_52_52" class="label">[52]</a> Ritter, <i>Philo und die Halacha</i>, 18ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_53_53" href="#FNanchor_53_53" class="label">[53]</a> Matt. v, 38; see also xxvi, 52.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_54_54" href="#FNanchor_54_54" class="label">[54]</a> <i>Antiq.</i>, IV, viii, 35.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_55_55" href="#FNanchor_55_55" class="label">[55]</a> Jubilees iv, 32.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_56_56" href="#FNanchor_56_56" class="label">[56]</a> Baba Kamma 84a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_57_57" href="#FNanchor_57_57" class="label">[57]</a> Revel, <i>Jew. Quart. Rev.</i>, New Series, III, 364-366.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_58_58" href="#FNanchor_58_58" class="label">[58]</a> Mechilta 83b to Ex. xxi, 20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_59_59" href="#FNanchor_59_59" class="label">[59]</a> Sanh. vii, 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_60_60" href="#FNanchor_60_60" class="label">[60]</a> Similarly Baba Bathra 8b, Death by the sword is worse +than a natural death because it disfigures.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_61_61" href="#FNanchor_61_61" class="label">[61]</a> Lev. xix, 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_62_62" href="#FNanchor_62_62" class="label">[62]</a> Deut. xxi.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_63_63" href="#FNanchor_63_63" class="label">[63]</a> Sanh. 52b; Mechilta 83b to Exod. xxi, 20; J. Sanh. VII, +24b. Also Genesis Rabba 44 beginning, and the legend of the +<i>neck</i> of Moses becoming hard as marble before the sword of +Pharaoh. J. Berachoth, ix, 1 (where the exact phrase used by +the Mishna occurs); Exod. Rab. 1 to Exod. ii, 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_64_64" href="#FNanchor_64_64" class="label">[64]</a> Matt. xiv, 10; Mark vi, 27; Luke ix, 9. Cf. the interpolation +in Josephus, <i>Antiq.</i>, XVIII, v, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_65_65" href="#FNanchor_65_65" class="label">[65]</a> Acts xii, 2. Cf. Rev. xx, 4 of the Christian martyrs.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_66_66" href="#FNanchor_66_66" class="label">[66]</a> II Sam. xvii, 23; Cf. I Kings xx, 31 “ropes upon our +heads.” Tobit ii, 3 (Strangulation).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_67_67" href="#FNanchor_67_67" class="label">[67]</a> Sanh. xi, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_68_68" href="#FNanchor_68_68" class="label">[68]</a> Sanh. 52b bottom; Sifra 92a, 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_69_69" href="#FNanchor_69_69" class="label">[69]</a> Mishna Sanh. vii, 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_70_70" href="#FNanchor_70_70" class="label">[70]</a> Sanh. 52b; Sifra 92a, 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_71_71" href="#FNanchor_71_71" class="label">[71]</a> Tobit iii, 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_72_72" href="#FNanchor_72_72" class="label">[72]</a> Pes. 112a bottom; Cf. Semachoth II, 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_73_73" href="#FNanchor_73_73" class="label">[73]</a> Matt. xxvii, 5. But see the different story in Acts i, 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_74_74" href="#FNanchor_74_74" class="label">[74]</a> Mishna Sanh. vi, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_75_75" href="#FNanchor_75_75" class="label">[75]</a> II Sam. iv, 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_76_76" href="#FNanchor_76_76" class="label">[76]</a> Gen. xl, 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_77_77" href="#FNanchor_77_77" class="label">[77]</a> II Sam. xxi, 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_78_78" href="#FNanchor_78_78" class="label">[78]</a> Josh. x, 26. But in Persia, the victim may have been +hanged alive, as the book of Esther seems to imply.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_79_79" href="#FNanchor_79_79" class="label">[79]</a> Mishna Sanh. vi, 4; Sanh. 46b; J. Chag. II, 78a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_80_80" href="#FNanchor_80_80" class="label">[80]</a> Sanh. 46b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_81_81" href="#FNanchor_81_81" class="label">[81]</a> Josephus, <i>War</i>, I, iv, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_82_82" href="#FNanchor_82_82" class="label">[82]</a> Deut. xix, 16-21. Cf. also Deut. xiii, 12, xvii, 13, xxi, 21 of +the rebellious son, where the deterrent nature of the punishment +is again specifically mentioned.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_83_83" href="#FNanchor_83_83" class="label">[83]</a> Num. xxxv, 33; Deut. xix, 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_84_84" href="#FNanchor_84_84" class="label">[84]</a> Deut. xix, 11-13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_85_85" href="#FNanchor_85_85" class="label">[85]</a> Exod. xxi, 14; Num. xxxv, 11, 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_86_86" href="#FNanchor_86_86" class="label">[86]</a> Exod. xxi, 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_87_87" href="#FNanchor_87_87" class="label">[87]</a> Ezek. xviii, 21-23; xxxiii, 14-16, 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_88_88" href="#FNanchor_88_88" class="label">[88]</a> Prov. xxiv, 11-13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_89_89" href="#FNanchor_89_89" class="label">[89]</a> Matt. xv, 4; xxvi, 52; John xix, 10, 11; Acts xxv, 11; +Romans xiii, 1-14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_90_90" href="#FNanchor_90_90" class="label">[90]</a> <i>Cont. Apion.</i>, II, 31, “the punishment for most sinners is +death.” <i>Antiq.</i>, IV, viii, 35.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_91_91" href="#FNanchor_91_91" class="label">[91]</a> Mishna Sanh. vi, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_92_92" href="#FNanchor_92_92" class="label">[92]</a> Sifre to Deut. xix, 13. Cf. Deut. xiii, 9 of the seducer to +idolatry.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_93_93" href="#FNanchor_93_93" class="label">[93]</a> Mishna Sanh. viii, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_94_94" href="#FNanchor_94_94" class="label">[94]</a> Prov. xi, 10; Mishna Sanh. iv, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_95_95" href="#FNanchor_95_95" class="label">[95]</a> Mishna Sanh. x, 6 end, with reference to Josh. vii, 1 and +vii, 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_96_96" href="#FNanchor_96_96" class="label">[96]</a> Genesis Rabba 44 to Gen. xv, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_97_97" href="#FNanchor_97_97" class="label">[97]</a> Mishna Macc. i, 10; Macc. 7a, Tosafoth.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_98_98" href="#FNanchor_98_98" class="label">[98]</a> Mishna Sanh. viii, 5; Sanh. 72a; Sifre to Deut. xxi, 18-21. +It must be remembered that this case is purely theoretic. See +text to notes 214 and 215.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_99_99" href="#FNanchor_99_99" class="label">[99]</a> Ps. vii, 16f; Eccl. x, 8f; Prov. xxvi, 27; Ben Sira xxvii, 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_100_100" href="#FNanchor_100_100" class="label">[100]</a> Ps. xxviii, 4; Isa. iii, 10, 11; Job xxxiv, 11; Obad. 15; +Lev. xxiv, 19; Prov. xxiv, 29; Jer. 1, 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_101_101" href="#FNanchor_101_101" class="label">[101]</a> Aboth ii, 7; Sota i, 8; Num. Rab. xviii, 18; Sota 8a, 11a; +Pes. 28a; Baba Kamma 92a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_102_102" href="#FNanchor_102_102" class="label">[102]</a> Sanh. 100a, bottom; Mishna Sota i, 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_103_103" href="#FNanchor_103_103" class="label">[103]</a> Gen. ix, 6, which is not necessarily meant originally as a +legal principle, but which is used by the Rabbis as such, +Sanh. 57b. Cf. Matt. xxvi, 52; Sanh. 72b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_104_104" href="#FNanchor_104_104" class="label">[104]</a> Mechilta de R. Simon, p. 126, with reference to Exod. +xxi, 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_105_105" href="#FNanchor_105_105" class="label">[105]</a> Sanh. 52a with reference to Deut. xvii, 9; Maimonides +Hilch. Sanh. xiv, 11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_106_106" href="#FNanchor_106_106" class="label">[106]</a> The Jewish courts outside of Palestine were considered +as having jurisdiction in capital cases only so long as the +great Sanhedrin continued to hold its sessions in the special +hall of the Temple. Mishna Macc. i, 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_107_107" href="#FNanchor_107_107" class="label">[107]</a> Mishna Sanh. xi, 4 in connection with Deut. xvii, 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_108_108" href="#FNanchor_108_108" class="label">[108]</a> Mishna Sanh. vi, 2; Sifre Zutta to Num. v, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_109_109" href="#FNanchor_109_109" class="label">[109]</a> Tos. Sanh. ix, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_110_110" href="#FNanchor_110_110" class="label">[110]</a> Mishna Sanh. vi, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_111_111" href="#FNanchor_111_111" class="label">[111]</a> Their use of the phrase “worthy of death” applied to such +mild offenders as the scholar with stained clothing (Sabb. +104a), is naturally to be understood as an emphatic hyperbole.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_112_112" href="#FNanchor_112_112" class="label">[112]</a> E. g. Mishna Sanh. iv, 5; Tos. Sanh. ix, 5; Macc. 5b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_113_113" href="#FNanchor_113_113" class="label">[113]</a> Num. xxxv, 31, 32; Exod. xxi, 30, 32.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_114_114" href="#FNanchor_114_114" class="label">[114]</a> Josephus <i>Antiq.</i>, XVI, i, 1. Compare I Sam. xxvi, 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_115_115" href="#FNanchor_115_115" class="label">[115]</a> Baba Bathra 8b, 10a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_116_116" href="#FNanchor_116_116" class="label">[116]</a> Exod. xxii, 2; II Kings iv, 1; Josephus <i>Antiq.</i>, XVI, i, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_117_117" href="#FNanchor_117_117" class="label">[117]</a> Lev. xix, 20; Deut. xxii, 18; xxv, 3; II Cor. xi, 24; Luke +xxiii, 15, 16, 22; Josephus <i>Antiq.</i>, IV, viii, 21; XIII, x, 6; +Macc. iii, 1 seqq., 15. But see Maimonides Sanh. 19, where +among the two hundred and seven cases for which flagellation +is the legal punishment, eighteen cases are enumerated in +which flagellation is imposed on the one deserving death +“from the hands of Heaven.”</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_118_118" href="#FNanchor_118_118" class="label">[118]</a> Lev. xxiv, 12; Num. xv, 34; Acts iv, 3; xii, 4; xxii, 19; +Mechilta Mishpatim VI, p. 83a; Schechter, <i>Sectaries</i>, p. 12, +ll. 2-6; Sulzberger, <i>Jew. Quart. Rev.</i>, 1914-15, V, 598-604.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_119_119" href="#FNanchor_119_119" class="label">[119]</a> Ezra vii, 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_120_120" href="#FNanchor_120_120" class="label">[120]</a> Sanh. ix, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_121_121" href="#FNanchor_121_121" class="label">[121]</a> Cf. I Kings xxii, 27.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_122_122" href="#FNanchor_122_122" class="label">[122]</a> Either the witnesses were separated and not together, +(Rab), or the witnesses had not warned the murderer, +(Samuel), or they had tripped up in giving evidence, (Abimi).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_123_123" href="#FNanchor_123_123" class="label">[123]</a> J. Sanh. ix, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_124_124" href="#FNanchor_124_124" class="label">[124]</a> Sanh. 27a bottom.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_125_125" href="#FNanchor_125_125" class="label">[125]</a> The blind is one of the four classes (poor, leper, blind, +childless), who are considered as dead. Nedarim 62b. +Practically, the one blinded is rendered harmless for the +future.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_126_126" href="#FNanchor_126_126" class="label">[126]</a> Rashi ad loc. Kohut’s <i>Aruch</i> בּה. See also Peah viii, 9 +of the unjust judge, “until his eyes grow dim,” with reference +to Exod. xxiii, 8, Deut. xvi, 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_127_127" href="#FNanchor_127_127" class="label">[127]</a> Sifra 92a, 11; J. Sanh. VII, 24b; Sanh. 52b, bottom.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_128_128" href="#FNanchor_128_128" class="label">[128]</a> Josephus, <i>Antiq.</i>, XIV, ix, 3; Mishna Sanh. ii, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_129_129" href="#FNanchor_129_129" class="label">[129]</a> Usually translated “cut off from his people.” But the +Hebrew term <i>amav</i> is plural and seems to mean ‘kinsfolk’ +rather than ‘people.’ Gen. xvii, 14; Exod. xii, 15, 19; +xxx, 33, 38; Lev. vii, 20f, 25, 27; xvii, 4, 9, 10, 14; xx, 6; +xxii, 3; Num. xix, 13, 20, etc., etc.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_130_130" href="#FNanchor_130_130" class="label">[130]</a> Josh. vii, 24f.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_131_131" href="#FNanchor_131_131" class="label">[131]</a> I Kings xxi, 3; II Kings ix, 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_132_132" href="#FNanchor_132_132" class="label">[132]</a> Ezek. xxiii, 47; Cf. also II Kings xxv, 7; Num. xvi, 32.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_133_133" href="#FNanchor_133_133" class="label">[133]</a> E. g. Exod. xxxi, 14; Lev. xviii, 7, 8, 15, 20, 23, 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_134_134" href="#FNanchor_134_134" class="label">[134]</a> Yeb. 55a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_135_135" href="#FNanchor_135_135" class="label">[135]</a> Moed Katan 28a; J. Bikk. II, 1, 64c.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_136_136" href="#FNanchor_136_136" class="label">[136]</a> Sanh. 64b, 90b to Num. xv, 31; Maimonides, Hilchoth +Teshuba 8. According to Maimonides, “death by the hands +of Heaven” differs from <i>Kareth</i>, in that the former refers +only to this life, the death serving as an expiation, whereas +<i>Kareth</i> refers also to the future life. But see Jebam. 2a, +Tosafoth אשח on the meaning of <i>Kareth</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_137_137" href="#FNanchor_137_137" class="label">[137]</a> Lev. xvii, 10; xx, 3, 5, 6. Cf. “and <i>I</i> will destroy,” +parallel to “and shall be cut off” Lev. xxiii, 29, 30.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_138_138" href="#FNanchor_138_138" class="label">[138]</a> Lev. xx, 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_139_139" href="#FNanchor_139_139" class="label">[139]</a> Lev. xx, 20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_140_140" href="#FNanchor_140_140" class="label">[140]</a> Lev. xx, 21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_141_141" href="#FNanchor_141_141" class="label">[141]</a> <i>Kareth</i>, according to Rabbinical law, could be commuted +to scourging under certain conditions. Mishna Macc. iii, 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_142_142" href="#FNanchor_142_142" class="label">[142]</a> Sanh. 33b. bottom.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_143_143" href="#FNanchor_143_143" class="label">[143]</a> Baba Kamma 88a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_144_144" href="#FNanchor_144_144" class="label">[144]</a> Mishna Sanh. iii, 3; Sanh. 24a, 24b, 25b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_145_145" href="#FNanchor_145_145" class="label">[145]</a> Mishna Macc. i, 8; Macc. 6b, 7a; Mishna Sanh. iii, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_146_146" href="#FNanchor_146_146" class="label">[146]</a> Baba Bathra 43a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_147_147" href="#FNanchor_147_147" class="label">[147]</a> Mishna Sanh. iv, 5; Sanh. 37a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_148_148" href="#FNanchor_148_148" class="label">[148]</a> Sanh. 29a; Susanna 52 seqq.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_149_149" href="#FNanchor_149_149" class="label">[149]</a> Sanh. 32b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_150_150" href="#FNanchor_150_150" class="label">[150]</a> Mishna Sanh. v, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_151_151" href="#FNanchor_151_151" class="label">[151]</a> Mishna Sanh. iii, 6; v, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_152_152" href="#FNanchor_152_152" class="label">[152]</a> Mishna Sanh. v, 2; Sanh. 40a; Susanna ibid.; Mark xiv, +56, 59.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_153_153" href="#FNanchor_153_153" class="label">[153]</a> Mishna Sanh. <i>passim</i>; Sanh. 40a-41a; 80a; Mishna Macc. +1, 9; Macc. 6b; Mechilta to Exod. xxi, 12; Sifra to Num. xv, +33 and to Deut. xxii, 24.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_154_154" href="#FNanchor_154_154" class="label">[154]</a> Sanh. 8b; Macc. 16a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_155_155" href="#FNanchor_155_155" class="label">[155]</a> Sanh. 8b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_156_156" href="#FNanchor_156_156" class="label">[156]</a> Sanh. 40b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_157_157" href="#FNanchor_157_157" class="label">[157]</a> Sanh. 41a; 8b; Macc. 6b; 9b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_158_158" href="#FNanchor_158_158" class="label">[158]</a> E. g. a money penalty was allowed in compensation for +unintentional murder or constructive homicide, Exod. xxi, +29, 30.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_159_159" href="#FNanchor_159_159" class="label">[159]</a> Macc. 6b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_160_160" href="#FNanchor_160_160" class="label">[160]</a> E. g. Mishna Sanh. vi, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_161_161" href="#FNanchor_161_161" class="label">[161]</a> Sanh. 37b; Mechilta to Exod. xxiii, 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_162_162" href="#FNanchor_162_162" class="label">[162]</a> Deut. xvii, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_163_163" href="#FNanchor_163_163" class="label">[163]</a> Sanh. 37b and Tosafoth; Maimonides, Hilchoth Sanh. +xx, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_164_164" href="#FNanchor_164_164" class="label">[164]</a> Mishna Sanh. ix, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_165_165" href="#FNanchor_165_165" class="label">[165]</a> Sanh. 72a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_166_166" href="#FNanchor_166_166" class="label">[166]</a> Except in pecuniary penalties, Baba Kamma 4b, +Tosafoth.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_167_167" href="#FNanchor_167_167" class="label">[167]</a> Macc. 5b; Kerit. 3a top; Sanh. 54a bottom; 76a; Sifra to +Lev. xx, 17.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_168_168" href="#FNanchor_168_168" class="label">[168]</a> Mishna Sanh. i, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_169_169" href="#FNanchor_169_169" class="label">[169]</a> Mishna Sanh. iv, 2; Sanh. 36b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_170_170" href="#FNanchor_170_170" class="label">[170]</a> Mishna Sanh. iv, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_171_171" href="#FNanchor_171_171" class="label">[171]</a> Tos. Sanh. ix, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_172_172" href="#FNanchor_172_172" class="label">[172]</a> Tos. Sanh. vii, 2. The duty of trying to find means of +freeing the accused is deduced from Num. xxxv, 25.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_173_173" href="#FNanchor_173_173" class="label">[173]</a> Except for an adulterer and an adulteress receiving the +same punishment for the same sin, J. Sanh. IV, 5. Tos. Sanh. +vii, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_174_174" href="#FNanchor_174_174" class="label">[174]</a> Mishna Sanh. iv, 1; v, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_175_175" href="#FNanchor_175_175" class="label">[175]</a> Mishna Sanh. i, 6; iv, 1; v, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_176_176" href="#FNanchor_176_176" class="label">[176]</a> Mishna Sanh. iv, 1; v, 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_177_177" href="#FNanchor_177_177" class="label">[177]</a> Tos. Sanh. vii, 2, ix, 1; Sanh. 32a, 34a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_178_178" href="#FNanchor_178_178" class="label">[178]</a> Sanh. 17a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_179_179" href="#FNanchor_179_179" class="label">[179]</a> Deut. xxxii, 35.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_180_180" href="#FNanchor_180_180" class="label">[180]</a> Instead of the required stoning, the culprit would fall +from a roof or be trampled by an animal. Instead of being +burned by the sentence of a court, he would fall into a fire or +be bitten by a snake. Instead of being executed by the court, +he would fall into the power of the government or of robbers. +Instead of suffering the legal punishment of strangulation, he +would die from drowning or suffocation. Sanh. 37b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_181_181" href="#FNanchor_181_181" class="label">[181]</a> Exod. xxiii, 7. Rashi.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_182_182" href="#FNanchor_182_182" class="label">[182]</a> Mishna Sanh. iv, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_183_183" href="#FNanchor_183_183" class="label">[183]</a> Sanh. 42b, 43a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_184_184" href="#FNanchor_184_184" class="label">[184]</a> Macc. 7a; Mishna Sanh. vi, 1 seqq.; Susanna 45; Moed +Katan 14b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_185_185" href="#FNanchor_185_185" class="label">[185]</a> Schuerer, (4th edit.), II, 261, note 79; and pp. 264, 265.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_186_186" href="#FNanchor_186_186" class="label">[186]</a> John xviii, 31. The trial of Paul described in Acts xviii, +12-16, reflecting conditions in Corinth, depicts the Jew as +exercising jurisdiction only in religious matters.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_187_187" href="#FNanchor_187_187" class="label">[187]</a> Sanh. 41a bottom; Sabb. 15a; Aboda Zara 8b; Rosh +Hashana 31a bottom; Mechilta de R. Simon p. 126; J. Sanh. +I, 1, 18a; VII, 2, 24b; Nachmanides to Numbers xxxv, 29.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_188_188" href="#FNanchor_188_188" class="label">[188]</a> Sota 8b; Keth. 30a bottom; Sanh. 37b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_189_189" href="#FNanchor_189_189" class="label">[189]</a> <i>Antiq.</i>, XIII, x, 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_190_190" href="#FNanchor_190_190" class="label">[190]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, XVIII, i, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_191_191" href="#FNanchor_191_191" class="label">[191]</a> <i>War</i>, II, viii, 9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_192_192" href="#FNanchor_192_192" class="label">[192]</a> <i>War</i>, VI, ii, 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_193_193" href="#FNanchor_193_193" class="label">[193]</a> Schuerer, II, 262. See J. Juster, <i>Les Juifs dans l’Empire +Romain</i>, II, 142, note 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_194_194" href="#FNanchor_194_194" class="label">[194]</a> Agrippa’s Letter to Caligula; Philo <i>Leg.</i>, 39, quoted in +Juster <i>loc. cit.</i>, p. 139, note 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_195_195" href="#FNanchor_195_195" class="label">[195]</a> Acts vi, 7 et seqq.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_196_196" href="#FNanchor_196_196" class="label">[196]</a> Acts xxi, 28f; (xxiv, 6; xxi, 29); xxvi, 21; (xxiii, 6, 29; +xxiv, 5, 12ff; xxv, 7f. 27; xxii, 24, 30); xxiv, 6 (8); xxiii, 3, 9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_197_197" href="#FNanchor_197_197" class="label">[197]</a> <i>Antiq.</i>, XX, ix, 1. Jos. Lehmann, <i>Révue d. Etudes juives</i>, +XXXVII, 1898, pp. 13, 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_198_198" href="#FNanchor_198_198" class="label">[198]</a> See note 33.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_199_199" href="#FNanchor_199_199" class="label">[199]</a> Juster, <i>l. c.</i> 122-149, from a thorough examination of the +sources comes to the conclusion that the Sanhedrin preserved +the right of both pronouncing and of carrying out a capital +sentence until the year 70 C. E.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_200_200" href="#FNanchor_200_200" class="label">[200]</a> In Rom. 1, 6, c. 7, quoted by Juster, <i>ibid.</i>, p. 150.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_201_201" href="#FNanchor_201_201" class="label">[201]</a> Didascalia Ch. xxvi, 6; xix, 2. Juster, <i>ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_202_202" href="#FNanchor_202_202" class="label">[202]</a> See note 33.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_203_203" href="#FNanchor_203_203" class="label">[203]</a> Sanh. 52b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_204_204" href="#FNanchor_204_204" class="label">[204]</a> J. Meg. III, 2. 74a. Graetz (3rd edit.), IV, 284f. Bacher, +<i>Agad. d. pal. Amoraer</i>, II, 94f. For a different interpretation, +see Perles, <i>Monatsschrift</i>, XXXVII, 359-361.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_205_205" href="#FNanchor_205_205" class="label">[205]</a> Ber. 58a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_206_206" href="#FNanchor_206_206" class="label">[206]</a> Baba Kamma 117a, 117b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_207_207" href="#FNanchor_207_207" class="label">[207]</a> Sanh. viii, 7. According to tradition, the offender may be +killed <i>flagrante delicto</i> in the three cases there mentioned, only +if he has received legal warning (see to notes 153-158), and if +a lesser physical injury would be insufficient to prevent the +crime. Mishna Sanh. ix, 6 mentions three other cases, in at +least one of which the zeal of the one who would strike down +the offender is restrained by a number of conditions.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_208_208" href="#FNanchor_208_208" class="label">[208]</a> Sabb. 156a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_209_209" href="#FNanchor_209_209" class="label">[209]</a> Ep. ad. African. Par. 14. Juster <i>l. c.</i>, p. 151, note 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_210_210" href="#FNanchor_210_210" class="label">[210]</a> Sanh. 51b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_211_211" href="#FNanchor_211_211" class="label">[211]</a> Mishna Sanh. xi, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_212_212" href="#FNanchor_212_212" class="label">[212]</a> Sanh. 86a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_213_213" href="#FNanchor_213_213" class="label">[213]</a> Tos. Sanh. xiv, 1; Sanh. 71a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_214_214" href="#FNanchor_214_214" class="label">[214]</a> See note 98.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_215_215" href="#FNanchor_215_215" class="label">[215]</a> Deut. xxi, 18-21; Mishna Sanh. viii, 1-5; Tos. Sanh. xi, 6; +Sanh. 71a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_216_216" href="#FNanchor_216_216" class="label">[216]</a> Note 120.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_217_217" href="#FNanchor_217_217" class="label">[217]</a> Sanh. 81b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_218_218" href="#FNanchor_218_218" class="label">[218]</a> Sanh. 51b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_219_219" href="#FNanchor_219_219" class="label">[219]</a> E. g. Judah ben Tabbai and Simon ben Shetach, Mishna +Macc. i, 6; Macc. 5b; Sanh. 37b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_220_220" href="#FNanchor_220_220" class="label">[220]</a> J. Pes. VI, 1 beginning, 33a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_221_221" href="#FNanchor_221_221" class="label">[221]</a> Sanh. 53a, top, makes the claim that the decisions concerning +the four methods of capital punishment are traditional.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_222_222" href="#FNanchor_222_222" class="label">[222]</a> Mishna Macc. i, 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_223_223" href="#FNanchor_223_223" class="label">[223]</a> It is not unlikely that both statements represent historical +theory rather than historical fact, a suggestion that seems to +find support from the words that follow, in which Rabbi +Akiba and Rabbi Tarfon claim that had they been members of +a Sanhedrin, the death sentence would never have been +imposed.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_224_224" href="#FNanchor_224_224" class="label">[224]</a> See notes 104 and 105.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_225_225" href="#FNanchor_225_225" class="label">[225]</a> Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, I. 3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_226_226" href="#FNanchor_226_226" class="label">[226]</a> Responsa XVII, 8. Cf. Teshuboth Ha-Rashba, II, 290.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_227_227" href="#FNanchor_227_227" class="label">[227]</a> Lindo, <i>The Jews of Spain</i>, p. 150f.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_228_228" href="#FNanchor_228_228" class="label">[228]</a> Responsa XVI, 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_229_229" href="#FNanchor_229_229" class="label">[229]</a> Ber. 62b, 72a.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_230_230" href="#FNanchor_230_230" class="label">[230]</a> Yad, Hilchoth Hobel u-Mazzik, viii, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_231_231" href="#FNanchor_231_231" class="label">[231]</a> Judah ben Asher, Responsa Zichron Jehuda f. 55b, +No. 75, quoted by David Kaufman, <i>Jew. Quart. Rev.</i> 1896, +VIII, pp. 219f.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_232_232" href="#FNanchor_232_232" class="label">[232]</a> Ibid.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_233_233" href="#FNanchor_233_233" class="label">[233]</a> Responsa of Rashba V, 290.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_234_234" href="#FNanchor_234_234" class="label">[234]</a> Kaufmann, <i>Ibid</i>, pp. 221-238 gives all the details of this +interesting leading case.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_235_235" href="#FNanchor_235_235" class="label">[235]</a> Lindo, <i>Jews of Spain</i>, 160-162. Graetz, <i>Geschichte</i>, +VIII, 44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_236_236" href="#FNanchor_236_236" class="label">[236]</a> Jacobs, <i>Jews of Angevin England</i>, pp. 331, 43, 49.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_237_237" href="#FNanchor_237_237" class="label">[237]</a> Responsa, 138, <i>Jew. Encycl.</i>, Art. Lithuania.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a id="Footnote_238_238" href="#FNanchor_238_238" class="label">[238]</a> Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Hoshen Mishpat ii. Cf. the +exemplary punishments referred to above, notes 14 and 80.</p></div> +</div> + + +<div class="transnote"> + Transcriber note:<br> + Inconsistent spelling has been standardised.<br> + Punctuation errors have been corrected. +</div> +<div style='text-align:center'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77702 ***</div> +</body> +</html> diff --git a/77702-h/images/cover.jpg b/77702-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7ac25f3 --- /dev/null +++ b/77702-h/images/cover.jpg diff --git a/77702-h/images/title_page.jpg b/77702-h/images/title_page.jpg Binary files differnew file mode 100644 index 0000000..7af5c3a --- /dev/null +++ b/77702-h/images/title_page.jpg |
