If a man and a woman married to a different man have sexual intercourse, they are both liable to the death penalty by strangulation (Leviticus 20:10; Mishna Sanhedrin 11:1).
The death penalty has not been administered since the Sanhedrin left their court room on the Temple mount in the years preceding the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem (nor ...
R' Samson Raphael Hirsch, when describing your case about a thief's slavery, writes that the Torah's system of punishment is much better than the prevailing system of imprisonment, which basically destroys the perpetrator. This implies that jail is never found as a punishment in Judaism.
That being said, there are times where someone is guilty of a severe ...
This would seem to be rooted in a machlokes Tannaim, between R’ Elazar son of R’ Shimon and R’ Yehoshua ben Karchah.
As recorded in Bava Metzi’a 83b, R’ Elazar was appointed as a police officer for the Romans (read: if anyone was a thief, he would arrest them and lead them to jail, where they would shortly be killed). R’ Yehoshua ben Karchah ...
Artscroll answers your questions in their notes to this Mishna
In general, once someone has been sentenced to death, the court must
execute him on the same day to spare him the emotional agony of
waiting for his death. R Akiva rules, however, that since the Torah
requires everyone to know about the execution of the rebellious sage,
his execution ...
I. When Eldad and Medad prophesied that Moshe would die and Yehoshua would take over, Yehoshua complains to Moshe:
וַיַּעַן יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן מְשָׁרֵת מֹשֶׁה מִבְּחֻרָיו וַיֹּאמַר
אֲדֹנִי מֹשֶׁה כְּלָאֵם
Here's what Rashi writes:
הטל עליהם צרכי צבור והם כלים מאליהם (ספרי) ד"א תנם אל בית הכלא לפי
שהיו מתנבאים משה מת ויהושוע ...
The Talmudic tractate called Bava Kamma, in many places, discusses the meaning of the various "damagers" mentioned in the Torah for various liabilities. The first page of Bava Kamma, explains that the "ox" as a damager, by Torah Law, is something that must be described as containing "Ru-ach Chaim" (a living soul).
An animal which has a living soul of its ...
The Maharsha (Bava Basra 119a) discusses the case of the m'kosheish eitzim (the man who gathered wood on the Sabbath, see B'midbar 15:32-36). The Maharsha mentions that, according to Targum Yonasan (B'midbar 15:32), the man was not gathering wood for actual use. Instead, he was gathering wood in order to precipitate a divine revelation of the appropriate ...
Yes! The Rambam mentions at least twice, cases when people are imprisoned as they are a danger to society.
Since they cannot be killed by Bet Din they are imprisoned on a starvation diet and then overfed, in the hope that they will die of overeating.
The Rambam describes this in משנה תורה - ספר נזקים - הלכות רוצח ושמירת נפש פרק ד
מכניסין אותו לכיפה, והוא ...
Rambam Hilchot Rotzeach ch.2 halacha 5
regarding a murderer who cannot be executed due to a technicality (such as hiring a hitman or indirectly causing his death). His beating and imprisonment is NOT to kill him.
If the king did not execute them, nor did the court deem the time as
such to require strengthening the strictures against murder, it should
The torah itself never discusses imprisonment. Penalties for transgressions include restitution, financial penalties, lashes, becoming a slave, and capital punishment, but imprisonment as a final outcome isn't discussed. (I don't know how to prove a negative, sorry.)
See Ypnypn's answer for something that looks like imprisonment but isn't. And ...
Source of incarceration in the Torah through Beis Din (Moshe Rabeinu)
'ויניחהו במשמר לפרש להם על פי ה
And they put the person who cursed in prison inorder to learn from Hashem what should be done
Also Bamidbar 15,34:
וַיַּנִּיחוּ אֹתוֹ בַּמִּשְׁמָר כִּי לֹא פֹרַשׁ מַה יֵּעָשֶׂה לוֹ.
The Sifra says that the Mekoshesh Bamidbar who ...
The only way to be sure Lehalacha that a man is withholding testimony is if 2 Eidim (witnesses) were to witness that this person (or these 2 people) saw the occurrence, and they can only be sure he saw the occurrence by seeing the occurrence themselves at the same time. So there would be no point compelling the "withholder" to testify, as those witnesses ...
The Limmud for "before the punishment" is from Kaasher Zamam, not Kaasher Asu (what they planned to do, not what they succeeded in doing).
With a Challal, when the Eidim are made Zomminim, the whole Challal is undone and it is as if it never happened. So in the end they were only planning, they didn't succeed, so they are still under to the din of Kaasher ...
The idea of letting off all death penalty defendants was broached in the Mishnah (Makkot 7a):
רבי טרפון ורבי עקיבא אומרים אילו היינו בסנהדרין לא נהרג אדם מעולם רשב״ג אומר אף הן מרבין שופכי דמים בישראל
R. TARFON AND R. AKIBA SAY: WERE WE MEMBERS OF A SANHEDRIN, NO PERSON WOULD EVER BE PUT TO DEATH. [THEREUPON] RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL REMARKED, [YEA] ...
The answer is: Because in the case of non-monetary issues it's a compulsory Mitzvah (and not voluntary) to give testimony.
As the Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzva 122) describes it:
מצות עדות - להגיד העדות בפני הדַיָנים. בכל מה שנדעהו, בין שיתחיב בעדות מיתה או ממון המועד עליו או שיהיה הצלתו בממונו או בנפשו, שנאמר (ויקרא ה א) והוא עֵד או ראה או ידע אם לא יגיד ונשא ...
I may be misunderstanding your definition of double jeopardy: it seems to mean the inability to try a person a second time of the same charges, not to use witnesses more than once.
If so, HaRav Hershel Schachter, in his Sanhedrin shiurim (#103, for example), points to a Minchat Chinuch (82:4) and a Mishnah in Sanhedrin 32a (4:1) - מחזירים בין לזכות בין ...
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 לא ...
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 טו, לג)
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]
There are different Proofs in the ת"נח for the fact that בית דיו isn't limited to the "חייב OR פוטר" in The חמישי חומשי תורה . )
Society can't function like that, (unless the best Majority of people don't sin) .....Because if that were true if you see someone kill and the witnesses were well known Zadikim, but they're brothers, we must let the Murder go free....
A prison is explicitly mentioned in Ber 39:
"וַיִּקַּח אֲדֹנֵי יוֹסֵף אֹתוֹ וַיִּתְּנֵהוּ אֶל־בֵּית הַסֹּהַר מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־אֲסִירֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲסוּרִים וַיְהִי־שָׁם בְּבֵית הַסֹּהַר׃
So Joseph’s master had him put in prison, where the king’s prisoners were confined. But even while he was there in prison."
If you ask about the Jewish Law, the ...
THe whole topic is discussed in length here: Incarceration as a Modality of Punishment
Let me recap in my [philosophical] words:
There are two "legal systems" in the Jewish Law: one that is sanctioned by the Torah's laws and the second by the Sages/Rabanan.
You are right, that imprisonment does not exist in the Torah Law but it is very common with Rabanan,...
Karet does not require witnesses or a warning. These are required for a punishment given by a human court, so that the human court knows that the sin was intentional. So for a penalty of lashes or the death penalty. However, if there is a presence of witnesses and warning then the court can give lashes for an offence that is chayev karet. (Source: Makot, ...
Lashon hara is not a problem when it is intended to serve as a benefit to society rather than just as gossip.
As far as the principle of diyun l'chaf zechus (judging favorably), according to the Rambam in his Pirush Mishnayos on the relevant passage in Avos, the obligation of diyun l'chaf zechus applies where an action that was open to interpretation ...
While not an actual trial, the Mishnayoth in Sanhedrin starting at Chapter 3 describe precisely how various trials are run.
Starting with how to choose the judges for a small 3-man Bet Din to how the 72-man Sanhedrin functions.
Then we have details about the cross-examination, how to document who-said-what and how and when the final vote is taken.
What is the problem with the simple understanding of the Minshna?
The Minshna is saying that we must try to get people to do Teshuva.
Having the ability to say a statement which has the meaning that "I am not guilty I am just a victim"
Which will make people understand this behavior that really this person is not guilty (since this person had the ability to ...