Sanhedrin

Imarta the daughter of Tali, a priest, committed adultery. Thereupon R. Hama b. Tobiah had her surrounded by faggots and burnt. R. Joseph  said: He [R. Hama] was ignorant of two laws. He was ignorant of R. Mathna's dictum  and of the following Baraitha: And thou shalt come unto the priests, the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days:  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. R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID, IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER COMMITTED ADULTERY, etc. R. Joseph said: It was a SadduceeBeth din 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'?  — There were two such incidents.  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 Beth din at that time was not learned in the law.' MISHNAH. EXECUTION BY THE SWORD WAS PERFORMED THUS: THE CONDEMNED MAN WAS DECAPITATED BY THE SWORD, AS IS DONE BY THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES.  R. JUDAH SAID: THIS IS A HIDEOUS DISFIGUREMENT; BUT HIS HEAD WAS LAID ON A BLOCK AND SEVERED WITH AN AXE.  THEY REPLIED, NO DEATH IS MORE DISFIGURING THAN THIS. GEMARA. 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?  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,  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],  it is not from them [the heathens] that we derive the practice. So here too, since the Torah decreed the sword,  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.'  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.  But whence do we know it of a murderer? — It has been taught: [And if a man smite his servant … and he die under his hand,'] he shall surely be avenged.  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,  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'  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: MISHNAH. STRANGULATION WAS THUS PERFORMED: — THE CONDEMNED MAN WAS LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS, THEN A HARD CLOTH WAS PLACED WITHIN A SOFT ONE, WOUND ROUND HIS NECK, AND THE TWO ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS UNTIL HE WAS DEAD. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [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].'The man' excludes a minor; 'that committeth adultery with another man's wife' excludes the wife of a minor; 'even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife' excludes the wife of a heathen; '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:  this is R. Josiah's view. R. Jonathan said: Not because strangulation is the most lenient death, but because by every unspecified death in the Torah strangulation is meant. Rabbi [proceeding to demonstrate this] said: Death by God is mentioned in Scripture;  and death by man is also decreed. Just as the death by God  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?  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.