Sanhedrin 104

למה תלמיד חכם דומה לפני עם הארץ בתחלה דומה לקיתון של זהב סיפר הימנו דומה לקיתון של כסף נהנה ממנו דומה לקיתון של חרש כיון שנשבר שוב אין לו תקנה

Imarta the daughter of Tali, a priest, committed adultery. Thereupon R. Hama b. Tobiah had her surrounded by faggots and burnt. R. Joseph<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (First of the Saboraim, v. Funk, Die Juden in Babylonien. II, 123.] ');">²</span>

אימרתא בת טלי בת כהן שזינתה הואי אקפה רב חמא בר טוביה חבילי זמורות ושרפה

said: He [R. Hama] was ignorant of two laws. He was ignorant of R. Mathna's dictum<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That burning was carried out by pouring molten lead down the condemned man's throat. ');">³</span>

אמר רב יוסף טעה בתרתי טעה בדרב מתנה וטעה בדתניא (דברים יז, ט) ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט אשר יהיה בימים ההם בזמן שיש כהן יש משפט בזמן שאין כהן אין משפט:

and of the following Baraitha: And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 9. ');">⁴</span>

אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק מעשה בבת כהן שזינתה וכו': אמר רב יוסף בית דין של צדוקים הוה

This teaches that when the priesthood is functioning [in the Temple], the judge functions [in respect of capital punishment]; but when the priesthood is not functioning, the judge may not function.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus R. Hama, an Amora living long after the destruction of the Temple, had no jurisdiction for capital punishment. [According to Funk, loc. cit., R. Hama's rigorous sentence was prompted by his desire to combat the Mazdakian doctrine of the community of wives that had found many adherents in his day.] ');">⁵</span>

הכי אמר להו והכי אהדרו ליה והתניא אמר רבי אלעזר ברבי צדוק זכורני כשהייתי תינוק ומורכב על כתיפו של אבא והביאו בת כהן שזינתה והקיפוה חבילי זמורות ושרפוה אמרו לו קטן היית ואין מביאין ראיה מן הקטן שני מעשים הוו

R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID, IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER COMMITTED ADULTERY, etc.

הי אמר להו ברישא אילימא הא קמייתא אמר להו ברישא א"ל כשהוא גדול ולא אשגחו ביה אמר להו כשהוא קטן ואשגחו ביה

R. Joseph said: It was a Sadducee<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The party opposed to the Pharisees, and drawing their support mainly from the aristocratic classes. As they represented the nobility and wealth of the country, their interests were centred chiefly in the political, not the religious life, of the people. Their origin is wrapped in obscurity (Weiss, Dor, 1, 100); but Halevy, Doroth Voi. III: 'The Sadducees and Boethusians', regards them as the children of the Hellenizing Jews in the days of the Maccabeans; he denies that they were a religious party at all. The passage from Josephus (Ant. XIII, 10, 6) upon which this assertion is commonly based is explained by him as referring to the rejection of distinctive Rabbinic ordinances as apart from laws derived through interpretation of Scripture. In regard to criminal jurisdiction, they were very rigorous and, as seen in this passage, carried out the penalty of death by fire in a literal manner. Halevy (op. cit. Vol. III, p. 412f) observes that the reply of the Sages to R. Eleazar b. Zadok, — Because the Beth din at that time (amplified by R. Joseph as meaning a Beth din of the Sadducees) were not well learned in the law', shews that their ruling was in the first instance not based on the principle of literal interpretation, but the result of ignorance, it was only subsequently that such ruling crystallized into definite principles. J. Derenbourg (Essai, p. 251, n. 2) suggests that the burning of the priest's adulterous daughter, as described by R. Eleazar b. Zadok, took place during the short interval between the death of Festus, the Roman Procurator, (in 62 C.E.) and the coming of Albinus (63 C.E.). during the High-Priesthood of Hanan b. Hanan (a Boethusian mentioned in Tosef. Yoma i). Cp. also ibid p. 262. ');">⁶</span>

אלא הא אמר להו ברישא ואמרו ליה קטן היית ואמר להו כשהוא גדול ואמרו ליה מפני שלא היה בית דין של אותה שעה בקי:

<i>Beth din</i> that did this. Now, is this what R. Eleazar b. Zadok said, and did the sages answer him so? Has it not been taught: R. Eleazar b. Zadok said, 'I remember when I was a child riding on my father's shoulder that a priest's adulterous daughter was brought [to the place of execution], surrounded by faggots, and burnt.' The Sages answered him: 'You were then a minor, whose testimony is inadmissible'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refutation differs from that of the Mishnah. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצות הנהרגין היו מתיזין את ראשו בסייף כדרך שהמלכות עושה רבי יהודה אומר ניוול הוא לו אלא מניחין את ראשו על הסדן וקוצץ בקופיץ אמרו לו אין מיתה מנוולת מזו:

— There were two such incidents.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One taking place during R. Eleazar's minority, the other during his majority. The answer in the Mishnah was in respect of the other. ');">⁸</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תניא אמר להן רבי יהודה לחכמים אף אני יודע שמיתה מנוולת היא אבל מה אעשה שהרי אמרה תורה (ויקרא יח, ג) ובחקותיהם לא תלכו

Now which incident did he first relate to them? Shall we say that he first told them of the incident first mentioned here [which happened in his majority]: but if he told them what happened in his majority, and they paid no attention to him, surely he would not proceed to tell them what occurred in his minority? — But he must have related this one [of the Baraitha] first, to which they replied: 'You were a minor.' Then he told them of the case that occurred in his majority, and they replied, 'That was done because the <i>Beth din</i> at that time was not learned in the law.'

ורבנן כיון דכתיב סייף באורייתא לא מינייהו קא גמרינן

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. EXECUTION BY THE SWORD WAS PERFORMED THUS: THE CONDEMNED MAN WAS DECAPITATED BY THE SWORD, AS IS DONE BY THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Under the Empire the Romans practised various forms of execution. Execution by the axe after flogging, previously confined to slaves, was revised in the early Empire and applied to citizens too. (Tac. An. II, 32; Suet. Nero, 49). Beheading by the sword ('decollatio') was also common, Sandys: A Companion to Latin Studies, p. 339. With the introduction of the later, the former was prohibited (Hast. Dict. IV, 299), and therefore R. Judah stigmatises beheading by the sword as a Roman practice, and prefers the axe instead, though that too was formerly employed by the Romans. ');">⁹</span>

דאי לא תימא הכי הא דתניא שורפין על המלכים ולא מדרכי האמורי היכי שרפינן והכתיב ובחקותיהם לא תלכו אלא כיון דכתיב שריפה באורייתא דכתיב (ירמיהו לד, ה) ובמשרפות אבותיך וגו' לאו מינייהו קא גמרינן והכא נמי כיון דכתיב סייף באורייתא לאו מינייהו קא גמרינן

R. JUDAH SAID: THIS IS A HIDEOUS DISFIGUREMENT; BUT HIS HEAD WAS LAID ON A BLOCK AND SEVERED WITH AN AXE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [G] ');">¹⁰</span>

והא דתנן באידך פירקין אלו הן הנהרגין הרוצח ואנשי עיר הנדחת בשלמא עיר הנדחת כתיב בהו (דברים יג, טז) לפי חרב אלא רוצח מנלן

THEY REPLIED, NO DEATH IS MORE DISFIGURING THAN THIS.

דתניא (שמות כא, כ) נקם ינקם נקימה זו איני יודע מה הוא כשהוא אומר (ויקרא כו, כה) והבאתי עליכם חרב נוקמת נקם ברית הוי אומר נקימה זו סייף

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It had been taught: R. Judah said to the Sages: I too know that this is a death of repulsive disfigurement, but what can I do, seeing that the Torah hath said, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVIII, 3. Hence the method of the civil authorities — i.e., the Romans — must not be used. ');">¹¹</span>

ואימא דבריז ליה מיברז לפי חרב כתיב

But the Rabbis maintain: Since Scripture decreed the sword, we do not imitate them [when using their method]. For if you will not agree to this, then how about that which was taught: Pyres may be lit in honour of deceased kings,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cp. 'And with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before, so shall they make a burning for thee (Jer. XXXIV, 5). This does not refer to the cremation of the body, but to the funeral pyre lit in honour of kings. The pyre consisted of the royal bed and his general utensils. The same honour was paid to Patriarchs, and the greater the value of the things burnt, the greater the honour. A.Z. 11a. (The A. V. of Jer. XXXIV, 5, 'so shall they burn odours for thee', is not warranted by the text.) ');">¹²</span>

ואימא דעביד ליה גיסטרא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא (ויקרא יט, יח) ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה

and this is not forbidden as being of the 'ways of the Amorites': but why so? Is it not written, neither shall ye walk in their ordinances? But because this burning is referred to in the Bible, as it is written, [But thou shalt die in peace:] and with the burnings of thy fathers … [so shall they burn for thee],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jer. XXXIV, 5. ');">¹³</span>

אשכחן דקטל עבדא בר חורין מנא לן

it is not from them [the heathens] that we derive the practice. So here too, since the Torah decreed the sword,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Infra. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולאו קל וחומר הוא קטל עבדא בסייף בר חורין בחנק

it is not from them [the Romans] that we derive the practice. Now we have learnt in another chapter, 'The following are decapitated: A murderer, and the inhabitants of a seduced city.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 76b. ');">¹⁵</span>

הניחא למאן דאמר חנק קל אלא למ"ד חנק חמור מאי איכא למימר

We know this to be true of the inhabitants of a seduced city, because it is written, ['Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city] with the edge of the sword.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIII, 18. ');">¹⁶</span>

נפקא ליה מדתניא (דברים כא, ט) ואתה תבער הדם הנקי מקרבך הוקשו כל שופכי דמים לעגלה ערופה מה להלן בסייף ומן הצואר אף כאן בסייף ומן הצואר

But whence do we know it of a murderer? — It has been taught: [And if a man smite his servant&nbsp;… and he die under his hand,'] he shall surely be avenged.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 20. ');">¹⁷</span>

אי מה להלן בקופיץ וממול עורף אף כאן בקופיץ וממול עורף אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר קרא ואהבת לרעך כמוך ברור לו מיתה יפה:

Now I do not know what form this vengeance is to take; but when the Writ saith, And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute the vengeance of the covenant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVI, 25. ');">¹⁸</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מצות הנחנקין היו משקעין אותו בזבל עד ארכובותיו ונותן סודר קשה לתוך הרכה וכורך על צוארו זה מושך אצלו וזה מושך אצלו עד שנפשו יוצאת:

I learn that vengeance is by the sword. But perhaps it means that he must be pierced through? — The Writ saith, with the edge of the sword. Then perhaps it means that he must be cut in two [lengthwise]? — R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Scripture teaches, But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 18. ');">¹⁹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן (ויקרא כ, י) איש פרט לקטן (ויקרא כ, י) אשר ינאף את אשת איש פרט לאשת קטן (ויקרא כ, י) אשת רעהו פרט לאשת אחרים

choose an easy death for him. Now we find this law [of execution by the sword] when one murdered a slave; whence do we know that this law holds good if he murdered a free man? — Surely this can be deduced by reasoning from the minor to the major: if the murderer of a slave is decapitated, shall he who slays a free man be only strangled! Now, this answer agrees with the view that strangulation is an easier death; but what of the view that strangulation is more severe? It is then deduced from the following: It has been taught: &nbsp; &nbsp; [The verse], <i>So shalt thou put away the guilt of the innocent blood from among you</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXI, 9. ');">²⁰</span>

(ויקרא כ, ב) מות יומת בחנק אתה אומר בחנק או אינו אלא באחת מכל מיתות האמורות בתורה אמרת כל מקום שנאמר מיתה בתורה סתם אין אתה רשאי למושכה להחמיר עליה אלא להקל עליה דברי רבי יאשיה

serves to denote that all that shed blood are likened [in treatment] to the atoning heifer:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the heifer, the neck of which is broken.' ');">²¹</span>

רבי יונתן אומר לא מפני שהיא קלה אלא כל מיתה האמורה בתורה סתם אינה אלא חנק

just as there, it is done with a sword and at the neck, so here too, execution is with the sword and at the neck [i.e., the throat]. If so, just as there it was done with an axe, and on the nape of the neck, so here too? — R. Nahman answered in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha: Scripture saith: <i>But thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself</i>:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIX, 18. ');">²²</span>

רבי אומר נאמר מיתה בידי שמים ונאמר מיתה בידי אדם מה מיתה האמורה בידי שמים מיתה שאין בה רושם אף מיתה האמורה בידי אדם מיתה שאין בה רושם

choose an easy death for him.

ואימא שריפה מדאמר רחמנא בת כהן בשריפה מכלל דהא לאו בת שריפה היא

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. <font>STRANGULATION WAS THUS PERFORMED</font>: — THE CONDEMNED MAN WAS <font>LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS</font>, THEN A HARD CLOTH WAS PLACED WITHIN A SOFT ONE, WOUND ROUND HIS NECK, AND THE <font>TWO ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS UNTIL HE WAS DEAD.</font> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: [<i>And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death</i>].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XX, 10. ');">²³</span> '<i>The man</i>' excludes a minor; '<i>that committeth adultery with another</i> man's <i>wife</i>' <font>excludes the wife of a minor</font>; '<i>even he that <font>committeth adultery with his</font></i><font> neighbour's <i>wife</i>' excludes the wife of a heathen</font>; 'shall surely be put to death', by strangulation. You say, by strangulation; but perhaps one of the other deaths decreed by the Torah is meant here? — I will answer you: Whenever the Torah decrees an unspecified death penalty, you may not interpret it stringently but leniently:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'attract it to stringency etc'. Hence strangulation, the easiest of deaths, must be meant. ');">²⁴</span> this is R. Josiah's view. R. Jonathan said: Not because strangulation is the most lenient death, but because by <font>every unspecified death in the Torah strangulation is meant.</font> Rabbi [proceeding to demonstrate this] said: Death by God is mentioned in Scripture;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., God's slaying of Onan, Gen. XXXVIII, 10. ');">²⁵</span> and death by man is also decreed. Just as the death by God<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a normal death, which leaves the body intact. ');">²⁶</span> leaves no mark [of violence on the body], so also death by man must leave no mark [of violence], a condition which only strangling fulfils. But may it not apply to burning?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, as explained above, an inner fire was applied, leaving the body intact. ');">²⁷</span> Since the Divine Law explicitly decreed burning for a priest's adulterous daughter, it follows that the adulterous married [Israelite] woman is not put to death by burning.