Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

13

Good question. Or HaChaim (Bamidbar 25:8) asks the same question, and answers that she had the דין of the animal involved in bestiality -- "ואת הבהמה תהרוגו," "and you shall kill the animal" (Vayikra 20:15). וידקר את שניהם וגו'. קשה בשלמא דקירת איש ישראל כמשפט ההלכה, שקנאים פוגעים בו, אבל האשה אינה חייבת מיתה ואינה מצווה, ואם על חששת היותה אשת איש לא ...


7

According to this article, 40 years before the destruction of the Temple: Instructive though this is, it is merely an academic discussion, the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, "40 years before the Destruction of the Temple" (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a). The rabbis agreed that with ...


5

I'd like to answer along two dimensions, one about capital punishment and one more broad. First, it is possible for the conditions to be met under which capital punishment can apply. Tractate Sanhedrin in the talmud discusses in great detail the relevant laws. We know that sentences of capital punishment were carried out in the past. They were rare, with ...


5

According to Rashi they were not killed. In his commentary to Joshua 7:24, Rashi writes that they were taken to see in order that they not copy his actions. Verse 25 says "וירגמו אותו" - they stoned him, in singular. "וישרפו אותם", they burned them, in plural, Rashi says refers to the tent and other property. "ויסלקו אותם" - they stoned them in plural, ...


5

The Rambam writes: 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, capital punishment was nullified among the Jewish people. Although the Temple was still standing, since the Sanhedrin went into exile and were not in their place in the Temple, these laws could not be enforced. The destruction of the temple was around 70 CE (I believe the Rambam puts it ...


4

From myjewishlearning.com According to the Mishnah (Sanhedrin 1:4) the death penalty could only be inflicted, after trial, by a court composed of twenty-three judges and there were four types of death penalties (Sanhedrin 7:1): stoning, burning, slaying (by the sword), and strangling. A bare reading of these and the other accounts in the tractate would ...


4

Based on @Fred's reference to Sanhedrin 45a, the answer would be not only are women not forbidden from attending a stoning, but they are involved in the stoning process itself!


4

Gersonides (Ralbag) is puzzled by this. He offers two answers. The first is that the children were minors, and that they consequently came under the category of Achen's property, with regard to the punishment. We must then say that the verse in Deuteronomy takes apllies only once the child becomes an adult by Jewish Law. This would appear consistent with the ...


3

It would seem from the order of the Rambam in הלכות סנהדרין והעונשין המסורים להם, that only the 4 capital punishments are included. The Rambam includes the force-feeding-execution in Ch. 18 along with the laws of lashes. ד מִי שֶׁלָּקָה בְּבֵית דִּין עַל אִסּוּר כָּרֵת וְלָקָה פַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה עַל אוֹתוֹ כָּרֵת עַצְמוֹ כְּגוֹן שֶׁאָכַל חֵלֶב וְלָקָה ...


3

For the main question see Sanhedrin 40b-41a: אמר עולא מניין להתראה מן התורה שנאמר (ויקרא כ, יז) ואיש אשר יקח את אחותו בת אביו או בת אמו וראה את ערותה אטו בראייה תליא מילתא אלא עד שיראוהו טעמו של דבר אם אינו ענין לכרת תנהו ענין למלקות דבי חזקיה תנא (שמות כא, יד) וכי יזיד איש על רעהו להרגו בערמה שהתרו בו ועדיין הוא מזיד דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא (במדבר ...


3

As far as the second question, Sanhedrin 8b: ר' יוסי בר יהודה אומר חבר א"צ התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד A scholar does not need to be warned, as warning is only given to differentiate between accidental and intentional sin [and the scholar is presumed to be aware that it is forbidden without being told]


3

As is always the case for practical questions, consult your Local Orthodox Rabbi. Much of this question is not clear in halacha. Status of female penetration is not clear in halacha. Gender of a woman in situations described in the question is not clear in halacha. Rabbinic ruling in this area is also not clear in halacha. It is very important to ask an ...


2

Yevamot 34b explains it thus: מיתיבי כל עשרים וארבעה חדש דש מבפנים וזורה מבחוץ דברי ר' אליעזר א"ל הללו אינו אלא כמעשה ער ואונן כמעשה ער ואונן ולא כמעשה ער ואונן כמעשה ער ואונן דכתיב והיה אם בא אל אשת אחיו ושחת ארצה ולא כמעשה ער ואונן דאילו התם שלא כדרכה והכא כדרכה בשלמא אונן דכתיב ביה ושחת ארצה Soncino translation, my notes in braces: An objection ...


2

The Maharsha (Bava Basra 119a) addresses this question and answers that even though the person is theoretically exempt according to R' Shimon, he is still liable to be killed in a court if the witnesses were not made aware of his intentions at the time that they warned him: ומיהו הוא ודאי דהיה חייב מיתה בדיני אדם שלא ידעו העדים שהתרו בו שהוא עשה על דעת ...


2

Sanhedrin 40b: תנו רבנן מכירים אתם אותו נכרי הרג ישראל הרג התריתם בו קיבל עליו התראה התיר עצמו למיתה המית בתוך כדי דיבור (paraphrased) They ask the witnesses, "did he accept the warning and accept that he would be killed?" Rashi on התיר עצמו למיתה: התיר עצמו למיתה - שכשהתריתם בו אל תעבור שאתה מתחייב מיתה פלונית הוא אומר על מנת כן אני עושה דאם ...


2

Based on this responsa, under the heading טענה ראשונה - הריגת גוי המפר אחת משבע מצוות בני נח it seems that most early Poskim hold that a Jew is not allowed to kill a non-Jew who transgressed one of the Noachide Laws. Specifically: The Bet Yosef (יורה דעה, סי' קנח) apparently allows it. The following Rishonim seem to forbid it: Rashi (עבודה זרה יג ע"ב, ...


2

Targum Pseudo Jonathan 34:31 says that Simeon and Levi were using the city of Shechem as an example and a warning to any and all who would think of treating the daughters of Jacob in such a way. (This is echoed by the Yerushalmi Targum as well): And Shimeon and Levi answered, It would not have been fit to be said in the congregations of Israel that the ...


2

See the lengthy Ramba"n discussion on Bresihit 34:13 He struggles with various aspects of this question, and why eventually Ya'akov cursed Shim'on and Levi's anger. There are three aspects to what Ramba"n states: He delves into a discussion of the responsibilities of B'nai Noach to establish a court and try people who violated certain crimes. Ramba"n lists ...


2

Rabbi Gil Student addresses the Rambam and Ramban's positions. The Ramban has been cited in other answers. An excerpt of the Rambam's position is below (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Melakhim 9:14) ...People in general are obligated by the Noachide code to establish courts to maintain justice. Since Shechem was unpunished for his crime, the city residents ...


1

Here is what stuck with me in this Parasha: ( using Stone edition Chumash) Ch 34 v: 30 ' ... making me odious among the inhabitants of the land.' So, Yaakov was fearing the other residents of the land as well as their opinions..as they traversed, but then the men slew the city, note in Chapter 35 V5 " They set out and there fell a GODLY terror on the ...


1

Below are excerpts from Rav Shimshon Rafael Hirsch and his explanation as to why they reacted as they did. Note that Yaakov objected to this and did not accept their justification of "hora'as shah". See the full explanation in the 5 volume Hirsch Chumash. Rav Hirsch says on 34:25 Now the blameworthy part begins, which we need in no wise excuse. Had ...


1

I am sorry that I don't remember who I heard this from, but I recall learning that the idea behind the death penalties was to show how serious the matter under discussion is. Violating Shabbos, for example, has a death penalty, even though it is almost never carried out, in order to teach that observance of Shabbos is more valuable than one's life. The ...


1

I believe the text implies that it was against Roman law for them to perform an execution. It says that they were testing him: "They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him..." (John 8:6a). If he said it was wrong to stone her, then he was violating the law passed down from Moses and could be labeled as a false ...


1

Likely not. The responsibility to punish seems to be communal - to put the person to death "so that others may hear about it & be afraid" - or an obligation of the court or king. It doesn't seem to be a personal obligation. As 1040 said though, there seems to be aspects of atonement; for example, the condemned is expected to repent before we exact the ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible