Sanhedrin 76 – Who is Beheaded

The following transgressors face the penalty of beheading: a murderer, and people of a subverted city, who were led astray and worshipped a false god.

If a murderer struck his fellow with a stone or with a piece of iron, or if he held him in water or fire and the victim could not escape and died, the murderer is liable to execution. But if the murderer pushed him into water or into fire and he was able to escape, but he died anyway, the murderer is not liable to execution. If he incited a dog or a snake to bite a man, and a dog or a snake bit him and he died, the murderer is not liable to execution. Since he did not murder the victim directly, he cannot be executed by a human court.

If someone took the snake in his hand and held its fangs to the victim's flesh, Rabbi Yehudah rules that he is liable to the death penalty, but the Sages exempt him.

Art: Arthur William Devis - The Snake Charmer

Sanhedrin 75 – Who is Burned

The following transgressions carry the penalty of burning. “Burning” does not mean that the convict is set on fire, but rather that molten lead is poured down his throat.

One who cohabits with a woman and her daughter, and the married daughter of a Kohen who commits adultery – however, the man who committed adultery with her is strangled, like all other adulterers. Similar to the category of a woman and her daughter, one is burned for cohabiting with his daughter, his daughter's daughter and his son's daughter, his wife's daughter, her daughter's daughter and her son's daughter; his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law's mother and his father-in-law's mother.

Art: Mrs. Louisa Starr Canziani - Kathleen and Mary Ann

Sanhedrin 74 – Use of Lesser Force

Rabbi Yonathan ben Shaul said, “If a someone was pursuing a victim with the intent of killing him, and it was possible to save the intended victim by disabling one of the pursuer's limbs, and the rescuer did not save the victim through those means, but instead killed the pursuer, the rescuer is put to the death on the account of killing the pursuer.” Whether the rescuer is actually executed by the courts for killing the pursuer, or whether he is subject to death by the hands of Heaven – is a subject of disagreement between later authorities.

If someone being pursued broke items of the pursuer, he is exempt from paying, but if he broke items belonging to any other person, he is liable. However, if the rescuer was chasing the pursuer to prevent him from committing murder and broke vessels of any party, he is always exempt, because otherwise nobody would be saving his fellow from the pursuer.

Art: Emile Friant - The Fight

Sanhedrin 73 – Preventing a Criminal at the Cost of his Life

The following may be prevented from sinning at the cost of their lives, that is, they may be killed in order to prevent them from committing the transgression: one who pursues a fellow to kill him, and one who runs after a male to sodomize him, or after a betrothed maiden to violate her.

However, the following may not be killed: one who pursues a beast for the purpose of sodomy, one who is about to desecrate the Sabbath, or one who is about to engage in idol worship.

Art: Paul Cézanne - Murder

Sanhedrin 72- Judgment on the Account of the Ultimate End

A wayward and rebellious son is judged on account of his ultimate end: having accustomed himself to stealing and indulgence, he will eventually rob and kill people. Therefore, let him die while he is still innocent, and not guilty of a capital crime. For the wicked, death is beneficial to them and to the world, but for the righteous, death is detrimental to them and to the world.

A burglar who enters a house by tunneling through its wall is judged on account of his ultimate end. He is aware that the occupant of the house will defend his belongings, and it is therefore assumed that the burglar decides to kill an occupant if that becomes necessary. Therefore, the occupant is permitted to kill the burglar.

Art: Joseph Mallord William Turner- A Canal Tunnel Near Leeds

Sanhedrin 71 – Exclusions from the Law of Wayward and Rebellious Son

To become a “wayward and rebellious son,” the boy must steal money, spend it on meat and wine, and then consume the requisite amounts of these things. If he stole from his father and ate in his father's domain, or if he stole from others and ate in the domain of others – he does not qualify as a wayward and rebellious son, unless he steals from his father and eats in the domain of others. Rabbi Yose says, not until he steals from both his father and from his mother.

The boy is not declared a wayward and rebellious son until both his father and mother are willing. If one of the parents is missing a hand or is lame, mute, blind, or deaf – the son does not become a wayward and rebellious son, because the parents need to be able to “seize him...take him...and say...”

Art: Arnold Boonen - A Young Man Seated at a Table

Sanhedrin 70 – What Must a Boy Do to Earn the Designation of Wayward and Rebellious Son

A wayward and rebellious son is executed because he engages in the type of gluttony that will lead him to murder. He incurs liability if he eats a large measure of meat, called tarteimar (about 1.5 pounds), and drinks half a log (volume of three eggs) of Italian wine, which is habit-forming. Rabbi Yossi doubles these measures.

He must buy that meat with the money stolen from his father, and it should be a repeat offender, with prior warning and flogging.

If he ate it at a gathering that involves a mitzvah, or at a meal convened to publicize the intercalation of a day into a month, or as second tithe in Jerusalem, if he ate an animal that died of itself, or one that was not properly slaughtered, if he ate non-kosher birds or non-kosher seafood, if he ate something from which tithes have not been separated – for all these he does not earn the designation, as it says, “...A glutton and a guzzler.”

Art: Vincent Van Gogh - Still Life With Apples Meat And A Roll

Sanhedrin 69 – The Age of Wayward and Rebellious Son

The age at which a boy can become a wayward and rebellious son starts when he produces two pubic hairs after reaching the age of thirteen, and continues until the time that his beard grows around. This refers to the lower beard (pubic hair), and not the upper (facial) beard, but the Sages prefer to use clean language. Additionally, he cannot be older than thirteen and three months, so in most cases this age starts at thirteen and ends at thirteen and three months.

A man can be declared a wayward and rebellious son, but not a daughter, because men are more given to base desires.

Art: Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot - Italian Youth Sitting in Corot's Room

Sanhedrin 68 – Wayward and Rebellious Son

Rabbi Eliezer once taught Rabbi Akiba the act of magic with cucumbers: by saying a few words, he had planted a field full of cucumbers, and by saying a few other words he made them collect into one place. How was he allowed to practice witchcraft, if it says, “You shall not learn to do it”? – Because you can learn in order to understand and teach.

However, that was the only piece of knowledge that Rabbi Akiba learned from him after Rabbi Eliezer was excommunicated for not following the law accepted by the majority. When Rabbi Eliezer was dying, he predicted that the Sages who did not realize their full learning potential because of not learning from him would die a martyr's death, and it came true.

A wayward and rebellious son is a boy who commits certain sins associated with theft and gluttony. If his parents admonish him and he ignores their warnings, he is flogged in court. If he still persists in his behavior, he is put to death through stoning.

Art: Antonio Mancini - The Poor Schoolboy

Sanhedrin 67 – Instigator to Idolatry

An instigator might say, “There is a deity is such-and-such far-away place, thus it eats, thus it drinks, thus it benefits, thus it harms.”

If he says his words to two persons, they are his witnesses, even without a warning, and they bring him to court and stone him. If he says his remarks to one person, that person can entrap him, saying “I have more friends who are interested.” If the instigator is clever and refuses, they arrange witnesses behind a partition and he asks the instigator to repeat his words in private. He then says, “How can we forget our God in Heaven and worship wood and stones?” If the instigator retracts, this is good, but if not, the witnesses behind the partition take him to court.

A person named Yannai asked for a drink at a certain inn. He saw that the waitress's lips were moving and understood that she was engaged in sorcery. He poured off some liquid, and it turned into scorpions. He gave the waitress to drink and she became a donkey. He rode upon her and went out to the marketplace. Her friend came and dissolved the magic spell, and Yannai was thus seen riding upon a woman in the marketplace.

Art: Niko Pirosmanashvili - Healer on a Donkey

Sanhedrin 66 – Cursing One's Parents, Having Relations with a Betrothed Maiden

One who curses his father or his mother is not liable unless he curses them with the Name of God. If he cursed them with a subordinate Name of God – Rabbi Meir holds him liable, but the Sages exempt him.

One who cohabits with a young maiden is not liable to be stoned  unless she is young (naarah), virgin, betrothed, and still in her father's house. A naarah is a girl of twelve years old who has sprouted two pubic hairs; she remains a naarah until she is twelve and a half. Virgin – but if she had intimate relations, their punishment is standard - strangulation. Betrothed – the first stage of marriage (kiddushin) has been performed, but there was no hupah, so she is yet not allowed to live with her husband. If two men cohabited with her (anally), the first one is liable to stoning, and the second one – to strangulation.

Art: Lord Frederick Leighton - A Girl

Sanhedrin 65 – Molech, Ov, Yidoni

One who gives of his offspring to Molech is not liable to stoning unless he hands the child over to Molech and passes him through the fire. The child would remain alive, being either passed between two walls of fire, or the parent would jump with him over a fiery pit. There were other forms of worship, though, where the child was actually burned.

A practitioner of Ov is a necromancer - one who communicates with the dead – by raising the spirit of the deceased from the ground and causing it to take up residence under his armpits, from where its voice emanates. A practitioner of Yidoni takes a bone of the animal known as Yadua and places it in his mouth, from where a voice then emanates. These are both liable to stoning, and one who inquires of them violates a negative commandment.

Art: Aleksei Ivanovich Korzukhin - The Wake at the Cemetery

Sanhedrin 64 – Love for Idol Worship

Said Rav Yehudah in the name of Rav, “The Jews knew that there is no substance to idolatry, and they engaged in it only to permit for themselves overt immorality.” However, after they became attached to it, they longed for it like one longs for his son.

Elijah the Righteous would seek out those bloated from hunger in Jerusalem, during the time of the first destruction. He found a child, bloated, in a heap trash. The child was the last from a large family. Elijah asked, “If I teach you something by which you will merit to live, will you learn it?” The child replied, “Yes.” Elijah said to him, “Say, every day, Hear, O Israel, God our Lord, God is One.” The child said, “Be silent, do not mention the name of God which my father and mother had not taught.” He then brought out the statue of his deity from his bosom, and embraced it and kissed it until his abdomen burst. He fell on his deity to fulfill, “I will cast your carcasses upon the carcasses of your idols.”

In the time of the Second Temple the Sages prayed and fasted for three days to eliminate the power of the Evil Urge for idol worship. It appeared as a fiery lion cub out of the Holy of Holies. They threw it into a lead cauldron and covered it with lead. They then tied the Evil Urge for immorality for three days, but could not even find a fresh egg when they needed it. Since they could not eliminate the urge for only the prohibited, they at least removed the desire for relatives, like one's mother and sister.

Art: Charles Willson Peale - Mother Caressing Her Convalescant Daughter

Sanhedrin 63 – Joining God with Other Powers

When the Jews worshiped the Golden Calf, they said, “...These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up from the Land of Egypt.”  The word “brought” is in plural, as indicated by an extra letter vav. This means that the Jews continued to recognize the divinity of God, but paired Him with another entity. Had they said “brought” in singular, those who do evil to Israel (euphemism for the Jews themselves) would have been subject to extermination – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

However, Rabbi Shimon says that whoever pairs the name of the One in Heaven with something else in worship is torn from the world, for it is stated “...only to God alone” Rather, those who worshiped the Golden Calf accepted upon themselves many deities in addition to the Calf. They recognized God's omnipotence, but they contended that He had relegated jurisdiction over the world to many hosts.

Art: Jacopo Tintoretto - Adoration of the Golden Calf

Sanhedrin 62- Multiple Acts of Service in One Period of Unawareness

Rabbi Zakkai taught the following in the academy of Rabbi Yochanan: "If one slaughtered an offering, burnt an offering, poured a libation and bowed down to an idol, and he did all of these acts unintentionally in one period of unawareness, without realizing between the acts that he had committed a transgression, he is liable to bring only one sin offering." Said Rabbi Yochanan to him, “Leave my study hall and teach this ruling outside; it is incorrect.”

What was their disagreement? Rabbi Zakkai compared the rules of idol worship to the rules of Sabbath. About Sabbath it says, “Do not ignite any fire, no matter where you live.” Since all manner of work is already prohibited, this extra commandment teaches how to treat multiple violations – according to some, as separate transgressions, and according to others as one single transgression. Rabbi Zakkai followed the “single transgression” rule. However, Rabbi Yochanan held that the laws of idol worship are not comparable to the laws of Sabbath in this respect.

Art: Winslow Homer - Camp fire

Sanhedrin 61 – Intention to Worship Idols

Rav Hamnuna lost several oxen and went to search for them. Rabbah met him and asked a question: we have learned that one who serves an idol is subject to stoning. This implies that one has to actually serve the idol to be liable. But in regard to a subverted city, we have learned that if one says, “I will serve,” or “I will go and serve,” or “Let us go and serve” a certain idol, he is already liable. So is action required or is professed intention sufficient?

Rav Hamnuna replied, “In the first case he does not accept the idol as deity until he serves it. In the second case, however, his statement implies that he accepts the idol as his deity as of now – and he will shortly serve it. Thus, he is liable for something else - for accepting the idol as a deity” - precisely as we have learned.

The Talmud does not say what happened to the oxen.

Art: Paul Gauguin - Rave Te Htit Aamy Aka The Idol

Sanhedrin 60 – Idol Worship Liability

One is liable for idol worship if he serves an idol in its usual way, that is, does any action that is the normal manner of worship for a particular idol, including embracing and kissing, etc., and even a disgraceful act. Additionally, one is liable is he performs one of the four services used in the Temple: slaughters an offering, burns an offering, pours a libation, or bows down to an idol, even if that is not its usual manner of service. One is also liable if he accepts the idol upon himself as a deity, or says to it, “You are my god.”

However, if one embraces, kisses, sweeps, sprinkles water, or washes, anoints, clothes, or shoes an idol, he merely transgresses a negative commandment. If one vows in the name of an idol or swears in its name, one transgresses a negative commandment. Defecating to Baal Pe'or and throwing a stone at Markulis is a normal manner of service for these idols.

Art: Maria Hadfield Cosway - Persian Lady Worshipping the Rising Sun

Sanhedrin 59 – Eating Meat

Resh Lakish said that an idolater who ceased work for an entire day is liable to death, as it says, “Day and night they shall not cease...” This is true for any day, even Monday.

Rabbi Yochanan said that an idolater who engrosses himself in Torah study is liable to death, as it says "Moses commanded us the Torah; it is an inheritance..." But did not Rabbi Meir say that he is rather like a High Priest, because it says about that laws of the Torah "...That a man should keep them and live by them." - any man, even an idolater? - This refers to the seven Noahide laws.

Adam, the first man, was commanded to subsist on vegetation, "...it shall be yours for food..." If so, why was he given dominion over animals? Only for work. For fish? Only for work. But can fish do work? - Yes, since it is prohibited to use a combination of fish and goat for pulling a wagon. Why was he then specifically prohibited a limb torn from a living animal? - Adam was allowed to eat an animal that died of itself.

Art: Jean Simeon Chardin - Girl Peeling Vegetables

Sanhedrin 58 – Noahide Marital Laws

The Noahide marital laws are derived from “...therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cling to his wife...,” - but not to the wife of his fellow, not to an animal, etc.

A Noahite is permitted to marry his daughter. If you ask, why did Adam not marry his daughter? - so that Cain could marry his sister, based on “The world will be built through kindness” in Psalms. A Noahite is also permitted to marry his sister. Didn't we just say that “The world will be built through kindness” allowed Cain to marry his sister, but otherwise it would be prohibited?! True, but once it was permitted to Cain, it remained permitted.

Art: Edward John Gregory- Mabel, Daughter of Charles Galloway

Sanhedrin 57 – The 7 Noahide Laws

After Noah went out of the Ark, he was given seven laws for the following generations: civil law to enforce the other six prohibitions, prohibitions of blasphemy, idolatry, sexual transgressions, murder, theft, and eating a limb torn from a live animal. For the violation of three transgressions a Noahide may be executed: for sexual transgressions, murder, and “blessing” the Divine Name. Some add idolatry to this list, and some say that for violation of any of the seven Noahide laws, a Noahite is executed.

A Noahite is executed by one judge, on the basis of the testimony of one witness, and even though he violated the prohibition without having received prior warning, and a man who judges or testifies can even be a relative of the accused.

Art: Manfredi de Battilor Bartolo Di Fredi Fredi - Noah Building the Ark

Sanhedrin 56 – The Blasphemer

The blasphemer is one who “blesses”, (that is, curses) the Divine Name of God. The act of blasphemy is always referred to in the Talmud by the euphemism, “blessing.” The blasphemer is not liable unless he pronounces the Divine Name, yud, keh, vav, keh. In referring to the Tetragrammaton name of God, it is accepted practice to modify the spelling and to pronounce the letter “heh” as “keh”.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah describes the trial procedure. Whenever the judges examine the witnesses, they use a pseudonym, asking the witnesses, for example, whether the accused said, “May Yose strike Yose.” When the case is completed, however, they may not execute the offender based on a pseudonym. Rather, they send everyone out of the courtroom and then ask the most eminent of the witnesses, “State explicitly what you heard the blasphemer say,” and he says it. Upon hearing the blasphemy, the judges stand up and rend their garments, and never repair them. The second witness then says, “I too have heard as he did.” There is not need for him to repeat the exact words.

Art: Jules Bastien-Lepage - The Beggar

Sanhedrin 55 – Self-Copulation

Rav Achadboi bar Ami inquired of Rav Sheshet, “If who copulates with himself, what is the law?” In other words, if one bends his organ underneath himself until it touches his orifice, is he liable for sodomy? Rav Sheshet answered him, "You upset us with impossible questions!"

In discussing this, Rav Ashi said to Ravina, “What point is in question to you?” You should be able to resolve the inquiry on your own, as follows. In a state of erection, you cannot find such case. Therefore, you can only find such case when the organ is limp. According to the view which says that one is not liable when he copulates with a woman forbidden to him using a limp organ - here too, he is not liable. On the view that one IS liable for such copulation in the case of a forbidden woman, here too, he is obviously liable to two sin offerings: one for committing the copulative act, and one for submitting to copulative act.

Art: John Singer Sargent - Young Man in Reverie

Sanhedrin 54 – Why is the Animal Also Stoned?

The law is that the animal with whom bestiality was committed is also stoned. What is the reason for this strange law? If the person sinned, in what way did the animal sin? - Since the downfall came upon a man through it, it is also stoned, so that others should not come to sin through it as well. Another explanations: so that it should not occur that an animal passes in the street and people say, “This is the one that caused So-and-so to be stoned.”

But how do we know that the punishment is indeed stoning? This is derived from the use of the same words, “You shall surely kill him”, concerning this man and concerning one who instigates others to idolatry, about whom it says “You shall pelt him with stones.”

Art: Jacopo BASSANO - Sheep and Lamb

Sanhedrin 53 – Who is Stoned

Following is the procedure for those who are strangled: they would submerge him in manure up to his knees, to prevent jumping and to shorten the agony. They would place a hard scarf inside a soft one and wind it around his neck. One witness pulls toward himself and the other witness pulls to himself, until his souls departs.

The following are executed by stoning: one who cohabits with his mother, or with his father's wife, or with his daughter-in-law, or with a male, or with an animal, or a woman who brings an animal upon herself, a blasphemer, one who serves idols, one who desecrates the Sabbath, one who curses his mother or father using the Name of God, one who cohabits with a betrothed young girl, a subverter of an entire city, a sorcerer, and a wayward and rebellious son.

Art: James McNeill Whistler- The Artist's Mother

Sanhedrin 52 – Burning, Beheading

The following is the procedure for those who are burned. They would place a hard scarf inside a soft one and wind it around his neck. One witness pulls toward himself, the other one pulls toward himself, until the executed opens his mouth, and then they pore molten lead inside. The lead descends into his stomach and burns his intestines.

This procedure is for those who are beheaded: they would decapitate him with the sword, cutting off his head from the front. Said Rabbi Yehudah, “It is a disgrace for him, since the Roman government does the same. Rather, they chop it off with an ax.” Answered the Sages, “That would be even more disgraceful.”

But how do we know to cut off the head, and not, say, stab him? - Because it says, “...by the edge of the sword...” Then let's cut him in half!? - Said Rab Nachman, “...And you shall love your fellow as yourself...” means to choose a favorable death for him.

Art: Edouard Manet- Boy with a Sword

Sanhedrin 51 – Irrelevant Laws

"If a daughter of a Kohen starts being promiscuous, her father she profanes..." Said Rabbi Eliezer in explanation of this, "With her father by burning; with her father-in-law by stoning."

Suppose a daughter of a Kohen who is either betrothed or fully married commits adultery. In that case, her punishment is correspondingly more significant than that of her lover, who is punished by strangulation. But what is the meaning of Rabbi Eliezer's cryptic statement? If he meant that she commits adultery with either her father or her father-in-law, then his ruling is correct even for a daughter of Yisrael, and he did not have to state it. Instead, "with her father" means "in the domain of her father," that is, betrothed, and "with her father-in-law" means "in the domain of her father-in-law," that is, fully married.

There were other explanations, but Rav Nachman said, "The law is like the first explanation." Said Rav Yosef, "The law?!? There are no capital punishments today!" Said Abaye, "Should we not learn the laws of sacrifices because they are not relevant today? We do learn them and receive a reward for learning!" And Rav Yosef meant that when the Messiah comes and resurrects the dead, we will ask Rabbi Eliezer himself.

Art: Thomas De Keyser - A Musician and His Daughter

Sanhedrin 50 – Comparisons of Executions' Severity

Stoning is a more severe form of execution than burning, for it is administered to a blasphemer and an idol worshiper. And what is the particular strictness of their transgression? - They attack the fundamentals.

Stoning is more severe than beheading, as can be derived from the law of the subverted city. If most of the residents of a town in the Land of Israel followed the instigation of evil men and worshiped idols, then the residents guilty of idolatry are beheaded, but the subverters themselves are stoned. Since the subverters' transgression is greater, stoning is more severe than beheading.

Perhaps strangulation is just as severe as stoning, since it is administered to one who strikes his father or mother, and the honor of parents is compared to the honor of God? - No, stoning is more severe, since it is applied to an adulterous betrothed girl, whereas for an adultery with a fully married adulterous woman one only receives strangulation.

Art: August Renoir - The Swing

Sanhedrin 49 – Four Methods of Execution

Four different methods of execution were used by the court, depending on the various capital offenses that the person has committed. In descending order of severity these are: stoning, burning, beheading, and strangulation.

What difference does the severity of the execution make? In a situation where one has committed several capital offenses, each of which renders him liable to a different type of execution – since one cannot be executed more than once - he receives the more severe type of execution for which he is liable. Rabbi Shimon lists them in a different order: burning, stoning, strangulation, and beheading.

Art: Paul Delaroche - The Execution Of Lady Jane Grey

Sanhedrin 48 – Deriving Benefit from a Corpse

It is certainly forbidden to use a corpse for anything, or to derive benefit from its accessory items. When does this prohibition go into effect? Abaye says that the prohibition applies from the moment the item is designated to serve the needs of the corpse, but Rava maintains that it starts from the time that item is actually used in its new capacity.

Abaye derives his view by comparison with the decapitated heifer: just as the heifer becomes forbidden when it is led into a rocky uncultivated valley, so too, all designated items are already viewed as if serving their purpose. However, Rava compares this with accessories to idolatry, which do not become forbidden through mere designation. What is Rava's reason? - We should derive accessory (for the corpse) from accessory (for idol worship), and not compare to heifer, which is the item in question itself.

Art: Howard Pyle- Dead men tell no tales

Sanhedrin 47 – The Honor of the Dead

Is burial practiced because it avoids disgrace to the deceased and his family, or is it practiced because it gains atonement for the deceased? When would it make a difference? When one declares that after he dies he does not wish his corpse be buried. If burial is because of the disgrace to his family, he cannot refuse burial and thus disgrace his family. If it is because of his own atonement – he has clearly stated that he does not want atonement, and there would be no reason to bury him.

The Talmud does not resolve this question, but the prevailing practice is that if one does not wish to be buried, his wishes are disregarded.

Is eulogy delivered for the honor of the living, that is, the relatives who survive the deceased, or is it for the honor of the dead? Since the deceased receives atonement though various disgraces if they befall his corpse, it follows that a eulogy is for the honor of the dead person himself.

Art: Caravaggio - Burial of St. Lucy