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 ...


8

This blessing was instituted in the days of Raban Gamliel when the Jewish heretics (saducees, etc.) of the time posed a direct threat to the nation, the blessing was instituted as an anti-missionary move. http://www.ou.org/torah/taryag/shemoneh_esrei_12


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

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

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 ...


4

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, ...


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

I found two possible answers that are at odds with one another: 1. We know Ishmael repented in the lifetime of Abraham, since he allowed Isaac to precede him for Abraham's burial, (Gen 25:9, see also B. Bath. 16b). Pirkei D'Rebbi Eliezer, ch. 30 relates the following, which could suggest that his repentance happened in the desert: "In the merit of Abraham, ...


3

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 ...


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

I read once from a reliable source (forgot where) "he was righteous" means in a relative sense, i.e. regarding this particular judgment that he was being judged in of whether he should die or not - but not that he was righteous in a general sense.


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, ...


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

NO. King Saul appears to have wanted to die rather than fall into the hands of the Philistines, because of what they would have done to him -- and how that would have destroyed the morale of the Jewish people. (And that's not halachically so clear either.) But that's not your question. Achitofel hanged himself so his family would inherit his estate, ...


1

There are different types of execution to highlight the various severities of the sin for which the sinner is being executed for. As the Rambam writes (הלכות סנהדרין פרק יד): סקילה חמורה מן השריפה, ושריפה חמורה מן הסיף, והסיף חמור מן החנק. "Stoning is more severe than burning, burning is more severe than beheading, beheading is more sever than ...


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