skip to main |
skip to sidebar
All those who are stoned are subsequently hung – these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Sages say, “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hung after stoning.”
A man is hung facing the people, and a woman is hung facing the gallows – these are the words of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Sages say, “Only a man is hung; a woman is not hung at all.”
How do they hang a man? They sink a post vertically into the ground, and a beam protrudes from it. The hangman brings together two hands of the corpse one upon the other and hangs him by his hands from the beam. Rabbi Yose says, “The post is leaned on an angle against the wall and he hangs him in the way that butchers do.”
After he is hung, they untie him immediately, remove him from the gallows, and bury him.
Art: Pierre Luc Charles Ciceri - The Gallows
When the condemned person was 4 amot (about 6 feet) from the stoning grounds, they would remove his clothing, except for a piece of material to cover his genitals, so as not to prolong his agony by the cushioning effect of the clothes. A woman remains also covered from the back – so says Rabbi Yehudah, but the Sages maintain that a woman is not stoned naked, rather, she is dressed in a single plain garment.
The elevation of the stoning grounds was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushes the condemned man by his hips, so that he falls on the side. If he dies from this fall, the court has fulfilled its obligation. If not, the second witness picks up a stone and casts it upon his chest. If he dies from this, it is sufficient; if not, all present throw rocks at him.
Art: John Singer Sargent - Purtud, Alpine Scene and Boulders
When Joshua inquired why Israel was defeated at the hands of Ai, God replied, “Israel has sinned” - they have taken the items from the ban. Joshua then said, “Master of the Universe, who is the individual who has sinned?” God replied, “Am I your talebearer? Go cast lots!”
The lot fell on Achan. Achan, however, told Joshua, “A lot is no proof! It had to fall on somebody.” “Please”, begged Joshua, “acknowledge your guilt and you will be spared. In the future, Israel is to be divided by casting lots. Please don't cast aspersions on it now.” Achan confessed and was executed.
Joshua then hurled the booty in front of God and told him, “Because of this transgression the great person, Yair ben Menasheh, who is comparable to the greater part of the Sanhedrin, had to die?” God told Joshua, “Your transgression is even worse. At night, when not fighting, you should not have neglected the Torah study.” The next night Joshua corrected this.
Art: Abraham van der Hecke - A Philosopher in his Study
The execution must be “outside the camp,” but how far outside? Should we compare it to the law of bulls brought for communal error, about which it is also stated “outside the camp,” and there it means outside the farthest of the three camps, or to forbidden sacrifice “outside the camp,” where “outside” means only outside one camp, the Temple proper?
There are four points of commonality between execution and the law of bulls: removal, outside the camp, preparation (both prepare for something), and atonement (both atone). There are also four points of commonality with the forbidden sacrifices: they apply to a person, a sinner, a life is being taken, and sacrificial disqualification does not apply.
However, we should rather compare those laws that prepare for something, thus execution is compared to the law of bulls, and the place of execution is removed three camps from the courthouse.
Art: Eugene Fromentin - Arab Encampment in the Atlas Mountains
Once a verdict has been reached and the defendant is pronounced guilty, they take him out to stone him. The stoning place was located outside the courthouse. A court that sentences even one person in seven years is called “destroyer,” and it would have been aggravated if the execution happened nearby.
While the condemned is being escorted to the execution grounds, one man stands at the courthouse door with a flag in his hand, and another sits astride a horse at a distance. If someone says, “I have grounds to argue for his acquittal,” the flagman waves the flags and the horse with its rider races to the execution party and halts it. Even if the condemned himself says, “I have grounds for my own acquittal,” they return him to the courthouse to hear his arguments, even four or five times, as long as there is substance to his words.
Art: Edouard Manet - Rue Mosnier with Flags
The judges asked the witnesses specific questions about the murder: “Did you recognize the victim?”, “Did you warn the murderer?” - The witnesses are asked if the accused acknowledged in their presence that he is forbidden to do the action he was performing.
“Did he accept the warning upon himself?” - The offender must be apprised of the particular form of execution he will suffer if he commits the prohibited act. Furthermore, he is not executed unless he declares that he plans to do the action, even though he knows that doing so will result in his execution.
“Did he kill within as much time as needed to say a greeting of peace to one's teacher?” - If he commits the offense after this period has elapsed, he avoids punishment, since perhaps in the interim he has forgotten the warning.
Art: Edouard Manet - The Execution of the Emperor Maximilian
They would examine the witnesses with seven questions related to time and place of the incident: which seven year-period did you see the crime, which year, which month, which day of the month, which day of the week, which hour, and in which place. The primary purpose of these questions is to pinpoint the time and place, and allow the possibility of making them disqualified (false) witnesses. In fact, if there is no possibility for the witnesses to be disqualified, their testimony is not accepted.
Then they they would ask specific questions: “Did you recognize the victim?” and “Did you warn the accused?” In cases of idol worship, they asked “What idol did he worship and how did he worship it?” Whoever increases the number of supplementary questions is praiseworthy. It once happened that Ben Zakkai examined the witnesses concerning the stems of the figs on the fig tree under which the murder allegedly occurred.
Art: Lorenzo Lotto - St. Lucy Before the Judge
Caesar said to Rabbi Tanchum, “Come, let us become one nation.” Rabbi Tanchum replied, “Fine! However, we, who are circumcised, cannot become like you. You therefore circumcise yourself and become like us.” Caesar said, “You argued well. But whoever bests the king must be thrown into the pen of wild beasts.” They threw Rabbi Tanchum into the pen, but the beasts did not eat him. A certain Sadducee said to Caesar, “The reason the beasts did not eat him is that they are not hungry.” They threw the Sadducee to the beasts, and they ate him.
A certain heretic said to Rabbi Avina, “Who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land...?” But what is unique about them, “All the nations are like nothing before Him...” - and you are included! Rabbi Avina answered, “Your prophet, Bilaam, has testified about us, ...And among nations you are not counted.”
Art: Peter Paul Rubens - Daniel in the Lion's Den
Said Rabbi Eliezer: “Be diligent in the study of Torah and know what to answer a heretic,” so that you can answer the challenges that are based on Scripture. Said Rabbi Yochanan, “That is only with regard to a pagan heretic, but as for a Jewish heretic, do not debate him, for he will become even more heretical.”
Continued Rabbi Yochanan, “Wherever the heretics have used a verse in Scripture as support for their arguments, the rebuttal can be found in a nearby verse.” For example, it is written “Let us (plural) make man in our (plural) image...” But the next verse says, “God created man in His image...” Then why is the plural form used at all? To show that The Holy One, Blessed is He, never does anything unless He first consults with the Heavenly Court.
Art: William Blake - Elohim Creating Adam
Therefore the first man was created alone, and also so that everyone should say, “For my sake the world was created” - and he should be careful not to bring about his downfall by committing a transgression. Now, perhaps you will say, “What need have we for all this trouble?” - If you were a witness and saw the event, you must testify. And perhaps you will say, “What need have we to incur responsibility for this man's blood?” - be secure, for “...when the wicked perish there is joy.”
Art: Edvard Munch - The Murderer in the Lane
Three rows of disciples of the sages would sit before them, so that if the presiding judges would be deadlocked, more judges could be added from these disciples. The disciples sit in the order of eminence. If the judges needed to ordain someone, they would ordain one of the disciples from the first row. One disciple from the second row would move to the first, one disciple from the third row would move to the second, and one more person from the scholarly community would be put in the third row.
Art: Archibald Henning - The Judge And Jury Society In The Cider Cellar
Monetary cases may be concluded on the same day as they have started, however capital cases may be concluded on the same day for acquittal, but only on the following day for conviction. The judges go home at night and consider the matter further, trying to find more reasons for acquittal.
Because of that, capital cases may not be tried on Friday. If the verdict is for conviction, the man has to be executed on Saturday, and that is not possible. Waiting with the execution is not allowed, so as not to prolong the agony. Concluding the judgment on Sunday is also not possible, because the judges may forget the arguments. And even though scribes write down their arguments, they don't write down their thoughts.
Art: Eduard Frankfort- A Theological Debate
In monetary cases anyone can advance arguments in favor of either liability or non-liability. In capital cases, however, anyone may advance arguments for acquittal – even the students who are sitting in court to learn the law – but only the judges may advance arguments for conviction.
In capital cases, one who advanced an argument for conviction may argue for acquittal, but one who advanced an argument for acquittal may not argue for conviction. He needs to keep thinking through his acquittal arguments till the end. In the final vote, however, he may decide for conviction.
Multiple laws may by derived from one verse, but multiple verses may not be used by the same Sage to derive the same law. Therefore, if two Sages in court bring the same argument citing different verses, it counts as only one vote.
Art: Frans Hals - Paulus Berestey, judge at Haarlem
In monetary cases, if the judge realizes that the verdict was in error, it may be reversed. This is true whether the verdict declared the defendant either liable or not liable. However, in capital cases, a verdict handed down in favor of the accused may not be reversed.
What kind of error in judgment is reversible? A clear mistake in any Mishnah, or a mistake in any ruling in the Talmud is considered a mistake on the part of the judge, and his ruling based on this can be reversed. What kind of error is not reversible? A matter disagreed upon in the Mishnah, then still disagreed in the Talmud, and currently having a clear consensus of the majority of the judges. If our judge ruled against this consensus, his ruling stands and is not reversible, even though it is considered a “mistake in the weighing of opinions.”
Art: Gabriel-Germain Joncherie - Cashier Counter with coins
Both monetary and capital cases are subject to the requirement of inquiry and questioning. Inquiry refers to time and place, questioning to the particulars of the testimony. That the court proceedings should be uniform is required by “There shall be one law for you...”
However, in the cases of loans the Sages waved this requirement, in order to make it easier for the borrowers to obtain funds. How could the Sages abrogate a Torah law? They utilized the power that the Torah gives to the court, allowing it to confiscate property and then award it to the winner, without complete interrogation. If the court sees a possibility of fraud, the questioning is required.
In general, one should try to take his case to the court of more prominent Sages, because in doing so he will learn additional Torah laws.
Art: Fritz Sonderland - Ver Den Richter (The Judge)
In general, there is no statute of limitations on the submission of evidence. Even after the verdict has been issued, whenever a litigant brings evidence to support his claim, he can nullify the verdict.
If the judges found it necessary to impose a time limit and told the litigant, after issuing a verdict against him, “All evidence that you may have to support your claim, you must produce within the next thirty days,” then the rule is: if he finds evidence within thirty days, he can nullify the verdict, but if he finds it after thirty days, he cannot nullify the verdict.
Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “What should this person do? Rather, he may present the evidence even after thirty days.” The law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.
If a litigant saw that he was about to be found liable and then produced witnesses, he is not believed, because it is a desperate attempt to win the case.
Art: Jan Cornelisz Vermeyen - Portrait of Judge John More
The testimonies of the two witnesses are not combined unless they witness the event together. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says that even if they witness two separate events that occur one after another, their testimonies may be combined. The first teacher maintains that the maneh (100 shekels) of one testimony is not the maneh of the other. But Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says that they testify about a maneh in general.
Art: Louis Grosclaude- The Three Gossips
If he says, “He told me, 'I owe him',” or if he says, “So-and-so told me that he owes him,” - it is as if he said nothing. Only direct observations are admissible, such as a loan taking place, whereas his statements constitute hearsay. However, if he says that the defendant appointed them as witnesses, then admitted his debt to the plaintiff, it is acceptable. Then they bring in the second witness. The testimonies should correspond.
The ruling of the majority of judges is accepted, but if one says “I don't know,” they add judges, two at a time. After the verdict is announced, the judges are not allowed to reveal individual opinions, because of “Do not be a gossipmonger...”
Art: Nikolaj Alekseevich Kasatkin - "In the Corridor of the District Court"
The disqualification of relatives is absolute: they may not testify whether their testimony is favorable or detrimental. The relatives include: one's brother, uncle, sister's husband, aunt's husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law, and also their sons and sons-in-law.
Rabbi Yehudah says: “One's close friend and one's enemy are also disqualified.” But the Sages say that the Jewish people are not suspected of bearing false witness about someone because of love or animosity.
How does one understand “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their sons nor shall sons be put to death because of their fathers...”? We already know that “...each man shall be put to death only because of his own sin.” Therefore, we have to understand that “Fathers shall not be put to death because of the testimony of their sons.”
Art: Isaac Oliver - The Browne Brothers
Witnesses can be refuted and become false witnesses in the following way: a second set of witnesses comes and testifies that the first witnesses could not have possibly seen the incident to which they testified, since they were with them (the second set) in a different place at that very time. Refuted false witnesses get the same punishment as what they wanted to inflict on the one about whom they testified.
If witnesses testified in January, but later were exposed as false witnesses in July, then what happens to their unrelated testimony given in March? Abaye says that they are disqualified retroactively, since they are evildoers. Rava says that the law of false witnesses is such a novelty that it cannot be analyzed logically; they are false only from now on, and their March testimony is unaffected.
This is the "A" in the six cases abbreviated Y A L K G M where the law follows Abaye against Rava.
If a witness eats non-kosher meat because it is cheaper, then he cannot testify, because he can be bribed. What if he eats it to make a point? Abaye says that he is an evildover, thus disqualified. Rava says that for disqualification he needs to be an evildoer in matters of money, not ritual.
And this is the "M" in the six cases abbreviated Y A L K G M where the law follows Abaye against Rava.
Art: Thomas Sully - Gossip
One is allowed to gather produce of the seventh year (Shmita), but not trade in it. Initially both Shmita gatherers and traders were disqualified from serving as witnesses. However, when the ruling power began to collect tax in the seventh year, Rabbi Yannai allowed to plant on Shmita, since Shmita today is only a decree of the Sages. After this only merchants remained disqualified.
Once during Shmita Resh Lakish joined Rabbi Chiya and Rabbi Shimon, to observe the procedure of calculating a leap year. He saw a man plowing and said “This man is a Kohen and he is plowing.” (Kohanim were especially suspect). They answered, “He might say that he is just a worker.” He then saw a man pruning and said “Kohen is pruning.” They answered, “He may say that he needs the branches.”
They said, “This fellow is argumentative.” When they reached the meeting place, they ascended and pulled the ladder up, to prevent him from joining.
Art: Carl Larsson - Plowing
The following are ineligible to be judges or witnesses: one who rolls dice (a gambler), one who lends on interest, one who bets on pigeon races, and one who does business with the produce of the seventh year. Rabbi Yehudah says, “When are the dice-players ineligible to adjudicate or testify? When they have no trade but this, but if they also have another trade, they are eligible.”
Those who put personal gain above the law are suspect of accepting bribes, but what is the problem with gamblers? Rabbi Yehudah supposes that if all he does is gambling, then he is not knowledgeable neither in the law nor in the ways of commerce. Therefore, if he has another trade, he is eligible. The first Sage, however, considers gambling a form of theft: his customers don't really expect to loose, so when the gambler collect his wins, he is a robber.
Art: Michelangelo Caravaggio - The Gamblers
Relatives and those guilty of certain misdeeds are ineligible to serve as judges. However, if both litigants agree to accept their verdict, then even they can preside at a trial.
If a litigant declared to his opponent, “My father is acceptable to me to act as a judge,” or “Your father is acceptable to me to act as a judge,” or “Three cattle herders are acceptable to me to act as judges,” but afterwards changes his mind and wants to retract, then Rabbi Meir says that indeed he may retract, but the Sages say that he may not.
If he wants to retract before the verdict is reached, all agree that he may. The argument is only after the verdict is reached, and the law in this case follows the Sages – that he may not retract.
Art: Pietro Ligari - Portrait of the Artists Father
Monetary cases are judged by a court of three judges. This includes cases of disputed loans, theft, bodily injury, and monetary damage.
If the defendant is unwilling to come to trial, any court of three can impose its authority. Moreover, if the defendant resides in a city that has an established official court, he cannot choose a new court for judgment. However, if he is willing to be judged but does not agree to the suggested court because it is either too far or is not qualified, they can use the following procedure:
One litigant selects a judge, the other litigant selects a judge, and both litigants together select one more judge – these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges selected by the litigants select a third one.” The judge selected by each litigant will make sure that his position is clearly represented.
Art: Gerrit van Honthorst - Old woman examining a coin
Every Jew has to write (or hire a scribe to write) a Torah scroll for himself, following “And now, write for yourself this song...” – but a king writes a second, small one, to carry around.
No one may ride on the king's horse, no one may sit on his throne, and no one may use his scepter. No one may observe the king when he is getting a haircut (every day), when is undressed, or when he is in the bathhouse, following “You shall surely place upon yourself a king...” - the awe of the king must be upon you.
Nobody but another king can marry a king's wife. Thus Avishag, whom David never married, was permitted only to Solomon. Why did David not marry Avishag? Because for that he would have to divorce one of his eighteen wife, and divorce is harsh. Whenever anyone divorces his first wife, even the Altar sheds tears on his account.
Art: Konrad Witz - King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba
The triumph of self-control of Joseph was modest compared to that of Boaz, for “In the middle of the night Boaz was startled, he turned (וילפת), and there was Ruth lying at this feet.” The word “turned (וילפת)” tells that his flesh became as hard as the head of a turnip (לפת). Palti ben Layish was even greater, for he never touched Michal whom Shaul had given him. Why then did he cry when returning her to David? Because of the loss of the opportunity to exercise willpower.
When his close relative dies, the king does not join the funeral procession. When they feed him the mourner's meal, all the people recline on the floor, and the king sits on a chair of distinction. He may lead his army to fight a discretionary war, with the consent of the Sanhedrin. He may break the fences to make path for himself.
Art: Felix Edouard Vallotton- Sleeping Woman
A king may neither judge nor be judged. This refers to later kings, but kings of Davidic line may judge and therefore be judged, as Resh Lakish explained “First correct yourself, and then correct others” - only a person who is subject to correction may correct others.
But why may the other kings not judge or be judged? Because of an incident that once occurred. A slave of King Yannai killed a person, and Shimon ben Shetach called King Yannai to court - because of “...and its owner had been warned by witnesses...” – the king, the owner of the slave, has to be in court. Yannai came and sat down. Shimon ben Shetach told him to stand up, but the king said, “I will do as your colleagues will say.” All the members of the Sanhedrin were looking into the ground. Shimon ben Shetach said “You are men of thought! May the Master of thoughts exact retribution from you!” - and they died. The Sages then decreed that a king may neither judge nor be judged.
Art: El Greco - St Louis, King of France
The town fit for a Sanhedrin must have at least 120 residents: 23 replacements, in case the acting members should all die and need to be replaced, three rows of 23 scholars, ten unoccupied men in the synagogue, two court stenographers, two court officers, two litigants, two witnesses, two people who can discredit the witnesses, and two who can discredit those who discredited the witnesses. Add to this charity collectors, doctor, butcher, and a teacher of children.
The High Priest may judge and be judged. But that is obvious!? You might think that if the High Priest kills inadvertently, he does not go into exile, since accidental killers return from their exile upon the death of the High Priest, and he himself cannot thus benefit. Therefore, the rule says that he is judged nevertheless.
Art: Grigori Grigorevich Chernetsov - Parade on the Field of Mars
The Great Sanhedrin was composed on seventy one judges, since Moses is counted as part of it. Rabbi Yehudah, however, says that the Sanhedrin had only seventy judges, since Moses is not counted among them.
Moses selected six judges from each of the twelve tribes. Then he used lottery tickets which either said “Sage” or were empty. However, Eldad and Meidad remained in the camp, since they thought themselves not worthy (alternatively, they were afraid not to be selected). Instead, they were granted prophesy.
The members of the Sanhedrin must be men of height, of wisdom, of moderate old age, acquainted with witchcraft, and who know seventy languages, so that they hear the testimony directly and not through an interpreter. They should be able to prove from the Torah that an obviously non-kosher thing is in fact kosher.
Art: Lucas The Elder Cranach- Self-portrait
A tribe is judged by the Great Sanhedrin of seventy. An entire tribe could be judged when all of its members served idols and stand to be stoned, when it has a territorial dispute with another tribe, or we could be are talking about a prince who has committed a capital offense.
The High Priest is judged by the Great Sanhedrin, according to “...and every great matter you will bring to me...” What about an ox of the High Priest, is it judged in the Great or Minor Sanhedrin? - remains unresolved.
The boundaries of the city of Jerusalem or the Courtyard in the Temple can only be extended with the help of the Great Sanhedrin, and a subverted town – one, most of whose inhabitants served idols – can be so designated only by the Great Sanhedrin.
Art: Henry Courtney Selous- Jerusalem in her Grandeur
Produce grown in the Land of Israel must have tithes separated from it, with the second tithe taken to Jerusalem and consumed there. If one wants to redeem it for money, and if its value is not known, three people are required to estimate it. Three merchant appraisers are required for this, and they can even be partners.
Items consecrated to the Temple need three appraisers to be redeemed, and consecrated lands need nine appraisers and a Kohen.
All cases of capital crimes require the Small Sanhedrin of twenty three judges. If an animal is involved, like in the cases of sodomy, or when an animal kills a human, the animal is judged by the court of twenty-three, similar to human cases.
Art: Vincenzo Guarana- Portrait of three lawyers
If the body of a murder victim is discovered outside a town in the Land of Israel and it is not known who killed him, the town nearest to where the body was found has to take a calf that was never worked and bring it to a valley of unworked ground, where it is decapitated.
Measuring which town is nearest has to be carried out by three judges, members of the Great Sanhedrin. The decapitation of the calf is then performed by the court of the town which is nearest.
Normally, however, the members of the Sanhedrin do not leave the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple, since “Your navel is like a moon-shaped basin; let not the strength of the blend diminish...” is talking allegorically about the members of the Sanhedrin, who sat in a semicircle.
Art: Honoré Daumier - The Stomach of the Legislature the Ministerial Benches of 1834
