More Transgressions for the Same Amazing Price: b.Sanhedrin 62

Today’s page continues on the theme of idol worship, still reflecting a continuing curiosity about the motives. The previous page considered the idea of cult suasion. Today’s page opens with a dispute between Abaye and Rava:

אִיתְּמַר: הָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה מֵאַהֲבָה וּמִיִּרְאָה, אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר. אַבָּיֵי אֲמַר: חַיָּיב, דְּהָא פַּלְחַהּ. רָבָא אָמַר: פָּטוּר, אִי קַבְּלַיהּ עֲלֵיהּ בֶּאֱלוֹהַּ – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

The issue is whether a person who worships an idol not out of true reverence for the idol, but rather to please someone they love or fear is liable (as Abaye says) or not (as Rava says).

In modern criminal law, as any first-year law professor will tell her students, motive usually does not matter. some offenses require a specific type of intent (for example, to commit a theft one has to have an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the stolen thing), but *why* the theft happens doesn’t make a difference. Is it greed? jealousy? need, as in Jean Valjean‘s case? Doesn’t matter. If you took and carried the item without permission, intending to permanently deprive, you’ve stolen it in the eyes of the law. Nevertheless, there are some scenarios in which the motive might matter. Proving a strong motive in court could strengthen the jury’s certainty that the defendant committed the offense. Arguing for a virtuous motive to commit a crime can play a role in sentencing, and sometimes might even dissuade prosecutors from pressing charges.

In this case, says Abaye, the motive does not matter, and his proof is threefold:

  1. The original mishna repeats the words “one who worships” twice – one of those is meant to imply our worshipper-with-an-unusual-motive. Rava’s counterargument is that the repetition is about the form of worship, not about the motive.
  2. The original mishna forbids not only bowing to idols, but rather any form of worship; bowing to another person out of love or fear is permitted, as a sign of respect and subservience, but here we have actual worship. Rava’s counterargument: It is possible to bow out of respect or to bow as a form of worship of the person (e.g., the aforementioned cult leader).
  3. There’s a baraita that teaches that, if an anointed high priest unintentionally worships an idol, he must offer sacrifice as his penance. But if the scenario reflects a truly honest mistake (bowing to the statue of a king to honor the king rather than to worship), then the guilt offering is unnecessary; this situation differs from others, where there is a motive to worship. The other sages seem to at least agree that, for the high priest to do such a thing must be a very serious lapse of judgment that does require a guilt offering.

Which brings us to another interesting criminal law principle. Fear not, all will be explained soon enough:

תָּנֵי רַבִּי זַכַּאי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זִיבַּח, וְקִיטֵּר, וְנִיסֵּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָה בְּהֶעְלֵם אֶחָד – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פּוֹק תְּנִי לְבָרָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זַכַּאי מַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי נָתָן, דְּתַנְיָא: הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְרַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָמֵי לְלָאו יָצָאת. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הַבְעָרָה לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת, הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה נָמֵי לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: דִּילְמָא עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הָתָם הַבְעָרָה לְלָאו יָצָאת, דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת מֵ״אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״? דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, ״וְעָשָׂה מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״ – פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת. וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי? דִּכְתִיב ״וְעָשָׂה מֵאַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״. אַחַת, מֵאַחַת. הֵנָּה, מֵהֵנָּה. ״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״, וְ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״. אַחַת – ״שִׁמְעוֹן״, מֵאַחַת – ״שֵׁם״ מִ״שִּׁמְעוֹן״. ״הֵנָּה״ – אָבוֹת, ״מֵהֵנָּה״ – תּוֹלָדוֹת. ״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״: זְדוֹן שַׁבָּת וְשִׁגְגַת מְלָאכוֹת. ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״: שִׁגְגַת שַׁבָּת וּזְדוֹן מְלָאכוֹת. אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּלָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת מִדּוּכְתָּא אַחֲרִיתִי, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה לְחַלֵּק יָצָאת. חִילּוּק מְלָאכוֹת דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מֵ״אַחַת מֵהֵנָּה״? ״אַחַת״ – זְבִיחָה, ״מֵאַחַת״ – סִימָן אֶחָד. ״הֵנָּה״ – אָבוֹת: זִיבּוּחַ, קִיטּוּר, נִיסּוּךְ, וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוָאָה. ״מֵהֵנָּה״ – תּוֹלָדוֹת: שָׁבַר מַקֵּל לְפָנֶיהָ. ״אַחַת״ שֶׁהִיא ״הֵנָּה״: זְדוֹן עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וְשִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדוֹת. ״הֵנָּה״ שֶׁהִיא ״אַחַת״: שִׁגְגַת עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וּזְדוֹן עֲבוֹדוֹת.

The issue here is what I call, when I teach double jeopardy, unit of prosecution. Idol worship could include an entire sequence of actions: killing the animal, smoking it, dripping its blood, bowing to the idol. Is each of these a separate offense, or are they all part of a single idol-worship transgression? The different sages try to count the offenses in different ways, finding anchoring for their logic in various biblical verses. They relate it to a similar issue: violating the Shabbat and lighting a fire on Shabbat–with the latter treated so severely that it is counted as a separate offense. Setting aside the biblical juggling, I can see good arguments for a variety of reasonable approaches to this problem–and indeed, Rabbi Yose says that these scenarios should be figured out on a case-by-case basis (פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב אַחַת עַל כּוּלָּן, פְּעָמִים שֶׁחַיָּיב עַל כׇּל אַחַת וְאַחַת). Here, for example, is U.S. federal law trying to sort out the very same problem. On one hand, overcharging is petty and creates what could be an unfair lever toward plea bargaining. On the other, undercharging could incentivize people to commit more crimes, knowing that the charges will not become more serious.

This brings the sages back to the questions of motive and intent, and they opine that the misguided idol worshipper, regardless of what he did, is liable only for one guilt offering – and they proceed to dismiss the idea of separating the offense into difference charges, with the rare closing וְתוּ לָא מִידֵּי (“there’s nothing more to discuss.”) Really? Have they decided to dismiss the whole unit of prosecution issue?

NOPE!

They’re back to it. Rav Shmuel arrives in Babylonia from Eretz Israel and discusses a baraita according to which each Shabbat violation is counted separately. And as it happens, I have a case in point in which common law concluded the opposite! I’m not making this up! In Crepps v. Durden (1777), “the plaintiff was convicted of selling small hot loaves of bread, the same not being any work of charity, on the same day (being Sunday) by four separate convictions.” The court concluded, as Lewis Hoccheimer explains in this law review article from 1900 (ah, the days in which these things were merely six pages long!) that the sales of the loaves (albeit to different customers) all constitute one offense. The contradiction is illusionary: as the sages explain, if one lights a fire AND mows one’s field, those are two transgressions; but two instances of mowing (like two instances of selling bread) count as only one transgression.

Now, the sages try to reconcile the two issues, which appear to involve different logical principles: repeated violations on the Sabbath and unintentional idol worship. They combine both into one: an unintentional idolator who engages in a series of worship actions owes only one guilt offering.

Other People’s Families: b.Sanhedrin 58

Today’s page continues the peculiar conversation about the legal obligations that the Torah places on people who presumably have nothing to do with the Torah: gentiles, who according to the previous page must obey the Noahide Obligations. The sages are still hard at work delineating the limitations of these obligations, and elucidating the connections between the moral standards that apply to Jews and non-Jews–and in today’s page, this requires them to step their toes into a hefty question that provokes heated debate today, too: who is a Jew?

The porous connections between Jews and Gentiles are present in various literary precursors to the Talmud: apocryphal books, Qumran scrolls, especially the sectarian writings, and the book of Acts in the New Testament. As Moshe Lavie explains in a 2013 article, the initial elucidation of obligations for non-Jews wasn’t perceived in apocryphal texts as separate from the covenant with Jews, but rather as part of the continuing negotiation and commitment between God and humans in general, part of the historical progression of rights and duties toward the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants. In Qumran sectarian texts, there is a separation between the sect members’ obligations and those who apply to everyone else–Jews and other Noahides alike. It is only in the talmud that the distinction ossifies into a Jews-vs.-Gentiles framework of obligations.

But even in Talmudic times, the separation was far from settled. In a 1979 article, Jewish law scholar Ze’ev Falk writes about the extent to which the mishna, tosefta, and talmud are concerned not only with mixed families, but also with the application of Jewish family law to foreign families. He starts off with the important reminder that, contrary to what might appear from the text, intermarriages were extremely common (which is why the decree to end them, and divorce non-Jewish women and children, during the Ezra and Nehemia times was perceived as such a dramatic and traumatic rift.) Later, in exile, Falk explains that assimilation led some Jews to adopt various foreign customs, including, in one case involving Alexandrian assimilationists, kidnapping women in the market as an informal way of ending their previous marriage and starting a new one. This method of family formation was prohibited to Jews, but was a not-uncommon Roman custom. To ensure that these folks were not getting caught in halakhic violations, Hillel would write them quick divorce decrees and “kosherize” what they had done via custom.

Intermarried people were not the only liminal characters in the Jews-vs.-Gentiles analysis. In a 2017 article, Yedidah Koren explains the Tannaitic creation of an in-between category, “Israel uncircumcised” (ישראל ערל), who is on some sort of probationary period.

Perhaps the existence of these liminal categories–intermarried people, assimilationists, “Israel uncircumcised,” etc., somewhat ameliorate the absurdity of a stricken people in exile creating this megalomanic set of rules that apply to the people around them who probably couldn’t care less. And perhaps this is precisely why they did it–to form a counternarrative of power, absurd as it may seem, to lift up the spirits of those around them, serving the same function that the wacky Sefer Toledot Yeshu will serve in Medieval times. Indeed, in her terrific dissertation on Jewish/Gentile relations in the Talmud, Sigalit Ur examines 220 rabbinic stories, all of which share the fantastical, farfetched narrative feature of Jews dramatically triumphing over gentiles and having their comeuppance.

Anyway, let’s get to it. Most of today’s conversation is concerned with the question raised by Rabbi Meir: Should gentiles be liable for incestuous behavior that is forbidden to Jews? The liminal case they are concerned with has to do with a convert who was conceived when his parents were gentiles, but born after his mother had already converted. Here’s how the initial opinions shake out:

שֶׁהָיְתָה הוֹרָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה, וְלֵידָתוֹ בִּקְדוּשָּׁה – יֵשׁ לוֹ שְׁאֵר הָאֵם, וְאֵין לוֹ שְׁאֵר הָאָב. הָא כֵּיצַד? נָשָׂא אֲחוֹתוֹ מִן הָאֵם – יוֹצִיא, מִן הָאָב – יְקַיֵּים. אֲחוֹת הָאָב מִן הָאֵם – יוֹצִיא, מִן הָאָב – יְקַיֵּים. אֲחוֹת הָאֵם מִן הָאֵם – יוֹצִיא. אֲחוֹת הָאֵם מִן הָאָב, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יוֹצִיא, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יְקַיֵּים. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עֶרְוָה שֶׁהִיא מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵר אֵם – יוֹצִיא, מִשּׁוּם שְׁאֵר הָאָב – יְקַיֵּים.

The “birthright” jurisdiction of the convert follows the matrilineal line: marrying your stepsister on your dad’s side is valid, but marrying your stepsister on your mom’s side (the “Jewish side”, if you will) is wrong. Rabbi Meir extends this rule to any female relatives on the patrilineal and matrilineal sides, respectively. Note that the complicated Jewish rituals for marrying one’s brother-in-law after losing one’s husband (יבמה) or getting out of it through a ceremony (חליצה) do not apply to non-Jews: וּמוּתָּר בְּאֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וּבְאֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל עֲרָיוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת לוֹ.

Now we start dealing with the sort of scenario that the cat dragged out of the soap opera channel. What of a non-Jew who married a mother *and* her daughter? כּוֹנֵס אַחַת וּמוֹצִיא אַחַת (he chooses one and divorces the other). But if one of them dies, is he allowed to remain married to the other? Opinions vary, and the sages build their argument relying on the Genesis 2:24: עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזׇב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃ (the verse talking of a man leaving his home to be of “one flesh” with his wife). The sages try to parse the terms אָבִ֖יו (his father) and אִמּ֑וֹ (his mother) to figure out who needs to be left. Rabbi Eliezer wants to read these simply: they do mean “father and mother”. Rabbi Akiva reads into the word “father” the term “also father’s wife” to imply a prohibition on paternal relatives as well.

But as it turns out, the Torah stories are rife with stories involving people marrying their relatives, which now have to be explained away in creative ways. For example, in Exodus 6:20, Amram, Moses’ father, marries his aunt Yokheved; the sages reason that she was his paternal aunt. When Abraham and Sarah pull their “she’s my sister” stunt on Abimelekh (wild story, Genesis 20:12), Abraham stresses that Sarah is his paternal sister (אֲחֹתִי בַת אָבִי הִיא אַךְ לֹא בַת אִמִּי) and therefore the marriage is fine. The gemara concludes that nieces are akin to sisters, and the same rules apply.

Along the way, the text reminds us of some moral prohibitions encompasses in the words וְדָבַק (and he clung) and אִשְׁתּוֹ (his wife). These, as I never tire to explain, are men of their time and place, and they have rather limiting opinions on who can count as a spouse and on what forms of clinging are and are not within the approved norm.

Toward the end of the page we let go of the incest conversation, for now, and discuss some garden variety violence.

אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: גּוֹי שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל חַיָּיב מִיתָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּפֶן כֹּה וָכֹה וַיַּרְא כִּי אֵין אִישׁ [וַיַּךְ אֶת הַמִּצְרִי] וְגוֹ׳״. וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַסּוֹטֵר לוֹעוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּאִילּוּ סוֹטֵר לוֹעוֹ שֶׁל שְׁכִינָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״מוֹקֵשׁ אָדָם יָלַע קֹדֶשׁ״. מַגְבִּיהַּ, עַבְדּוֹ, שָׁבַת – סִימָן. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: הַמַּגְבִּיהַּ יָדוֹ עַל חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכָּהוּ, נִקְרָא רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיֹּאמֶר לָרָשָׁע לָמָּה תַכֶּה רֵעֶךָ״. ״לָמָּה הִכִּיתָ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״לָמָּה תַכֶּה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הִכָּהוּ נִקְרָא רָשָׁע. אָמַר זְעֵירִי אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם לֹא לָקַחְתִּי בְחׇזְקָה״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַתְּהִי חַטַּאת הַנְּעָרִים גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד״.

Even though this conversation is set specifically in the context of a gentile striking a Jew, it does bring up more universal ideas on what counts as an offense. Resh Lakish, who according to agaddah knew something about organized crime from personal experience, says that anyone who even lifts his arm to strike, before completing the offense, is already labeled רָשָׁע, evil. Z’eri cites Rabbi Hanina as relaxing the penalty some and merely labeling him as חוֹטֵא, a sinner. Lovers of substantive criminal law can parse this stuff in several different ways. One is the proposed distinction between an attempt and a completed offense, where the different labels represent different degrees of sentence severity. The other might mirror the common law definitions of assault and battery; assault does not involve an actual offensive touch, but is nevertheless a completed offense consisting of putting the victim in a state of realistic apprehension regarding the potential for violence. A third take could be that the terms רָשָׁע and חוֹטֵא refer merely to sentencing. And indeed, the next move involves the appropriate punishment. Rav Huna goes for a poetic punishment – he who lifts his arm will have his arm chopped off – and he gets there in a very creative way: Job 22:8 says, וְאִ֣ישׁ זְ֭רוֹעַ ל֣וֹ הָאָ֑רֶץ וּנְשׂ֥וּא פָ֝נִ֗ים יֵ֣שֶׁב בָּֽהּ׃ (“the land belongs to the strong.”) But Rav Huna reads it in a different way: the strong-armed person belongs in the earth. Rabbi El’azar seems to think that Rav Huna’s creativity is overrated, and that the verse should be understood literally as referring to the conquering of land, not to actually being buried in it.

We continue with the ambitious project of enforcing theoretical law on nonplussed foreigners in tomorrow’s page.

Noah’s Well-Behaved Sons: b.Sanhedrin 57

In the previous page, the sages started discussing whether death sentences for various transgressions apply to non-Jews as well, leading them to reexamine and carefully delineate the scope of the Seven Noahide Obligations (שבע מצוות בני נח) from Genesis 9 1-7:

וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־נֹ֖חַ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לָהֶ֛ם פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֖וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
וּמוֹרַאֲכֶ֤ם וְחִתְּכֶם֙ יִֽהְיֶ֔ה עַ֚ל כׇּל־חַיַּ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ וְעַ֖ל כׇּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם בְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּרְמֹ֧שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה וּֽבְכׇל־דְּגֵ֥י הַיָּ֖ם בְּיֶדְכֶ֥ם נִתָּֽנוּ׃
כׇּל־רֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה לְאׇכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל׃
אַךְ־בָּשָׂ֕ר בְּנַפְשׁ֥וֹ דָמ֖וֹ לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ׃
וְאַ֨ךְ אֶת־דִּמְכֶ֤ם לְנַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶם֙ אֶדְרֹ֔שׁ מִיַּ֥ד כׇּל־חַיָּ֖ה אֶדְרְשֶׁ֑נּוּ וּמִיַּ֣ד הָֽאָדָ֗ם מִיַּד֙ אִ֣ישׁ אָחִ֔יו אֶדְרֹ֖שׁ אֶת־נֶ֥פֶשׁ הָֽאָדָֽם׃
שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם׃
וְאַתֶּ֖ם פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֑וּ שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ וּרְבוּ־בָֽהּ׃ {ס}     

Some language in our page goes as far as Adam, saying that when God spoke to him and Eve in the garden of Eden and “ordered” him things, it was these Noahide obligations that were being issued. I hope the audacity of this exegetical adventure is clear. If we are following the biblical narrative, these commandments, or requirements, are issued to the first human inhabitants of the planet, at a point at which there are no distinctions between Israelites and non-Israelites, Jews and non-Jews. Thousands of years (presumably) later, after Israelite and Judahite kingdoms rose and fell, we have sages in exile not only proclaiming that the prohibited behaviors still apply to their neighbors (in Babylonia!), but also that the biblical punishment for their violation is execution. This is a truly wild expansion of biblical jurisdiction, and it’s especially cheeky considering that the list was expanded from its biblical version (don’t eat blood from a live animal and don’t kill people) to a list of seven. The list changes depending on which school of sages you prefer, but it includes seven (or more) of the following: The seven, then, are: establishing courts, refraining from blasphemy, refraining from worshipping idols, refraining from incest, refraining from killing, refraining from stealing, and refraining from eating the limbs of a live animal. The extensions proposed by certain sages are the prohibition against drinking blood from a live animal (no vampires, d’ya hear?), castrations, witchcraft, and mixing textile and seeds.

The sages ascribe the origin of these obligations to one verse in Genesis 2–the first divine instructions issued to the first humans in the Garden of Eden (and thus applicable to all humans). The original verse is וַיְצַו֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֔ים עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לֵאמֹ֑ר מִכֹּ֥ל עֵֽץ־הַגָּ֖ן אָכֹ֥ל תֹּאכֵֽל׃. From וַיְצַו֙ (“ordered”) they deduce the court establishment obligation; from יְהֹוָ֣ה (God’s explicit name), the prohibition on blasphemy; from אֱלֹהִים (God), the prohibition on idolatry; from עַל־הָֽאָדָ֖ם (“on Man”) the prohibition on murder; from לֵאמֹר (“as follows”) the prohibition on incest; and from אָכֹל תֹּאכֵל, the invitation to eat fruit, the prohibition of eating limbs and blood from living animals.

This raises some interesting questions about the extent to which Jews are held to higher standards than non-Jews. For example, does a gentile who makes an idol, but does not actually worship it, deserve death? Apparently, Jews in this situation do not, so, a fortiori, gentiles do not either. Another verse suggests that, in addition to the basic Noahide cable package, the Jews receive the platinum package, which includes the obligations of judgment, keeping Shabbat, and honoring one’s parents.

Amidst the support for various Noahide obligations, the sages quote Genesis 9:3, where God offers Man the following buffet: כְּיֶרֶק עֵשֶׂב נָתַתִּי לָכֶם אֶת כֹּל, “like the green herbs I have given you all.” This one I find especially interesting because of the writings for and against vegetarianism and veganism in Jewish law. The sages, who obviously want to eat meat and have no problem with gentiles eating it, too, say that the verse uses the term “like” to compare things available for eating to natural weeds. The fact that cultivated vegetables aren’t mentioned implies that eating meat is fine. Only tearing limbs from animals is not allowed, and even this has an exception: crawling animals (שְׁרָצִים).

Here things turn, as Gen Zers might say, “extra”: the sages start conversing over which Noahide obligations merit an execution. Then, there are relaxed criminal proceedings tilted toward the prosecution in cases of Noahides: only one judge is required, and only one witness must be heard. Let’s set aside the question which Jewish court would presumably enforce these obligations, because at this point Jewish courts were non-existent and didn’t enforce anything against Jews either. Thing is, it turns out that several modern rabbis believe that these things still apply and should be preached to non-Jews, and that there are some non-Jewish groups that identify as Noahide and follow these obligations.

Another interesting twist to all this is the idea that incest operates differently for Jews and for non-Jews–it’s a choice-of-laws problem, if you will. A couple of pages ago, the sages were arguing, with gusto, over which family relationships were forbidden; now we are told that the rules for gentiles are according to their own terms (and who would enforce this?).

The talmudic discussion of these issues is an interesting precursor to an extended enforcement of basic universal norms to the ultimate Noahide Obligations violator: the jurisdictional challenge that Adolf Eichmann, architect of the Nazis’ “final solution” to the “Jewish problem”, raised at the beginning of his 1961 trial in Jerusalem. Back when he had committed the alleged crimes, he argued, he could not have even imagine that, one day, the State of Israel would exist and exercise jurisdiction over him. Moreover, jurisdiction was exercised extraterritorially: Eichmann was kidnapped from Buenos Aires and brought to Israel to face trial. As Leora Bilsky explains in an interesting article, the jurisdictional claim in the Eichmann trial lay in the liminal boundary between domestic and international criminal law. Eichmann was tried domestically, under an Israeli law that applied only to Nazis and their collaborators, but the jurisdictional determination considered the whole world as the political community interested in justice being done.

What Fresh Heaven Is This?

We’re already on Page 56 and I realized that I haven’t provided a sufficient introduction to what I’m doing with this project, so here’s a belated introduction.

One of the most studied texts in the Jewish canon, and arguably the bread-and-butter of religious education in Jewish yeshivot, is the Babylonian Talmud (Talmud Bavli), a compendium of legal arguments, intertextual tapestries, storytelling, and much more, produced and redacted by Jewish scholars who lived throughout the Babylonian Empire, likely between the Third and Sixth Centuries, while the territory that we would today identify as Iraq was under Roman and then Sassanian governance. After the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 CE, this became the prominent center of Jewish culture, which now had to pivot from Temple-centered worship to text and Torah interpretation.

The Hebrew Bible, as we know it today, is not one book, but many books, whose compilation, editing, and reduction took centuries. It consists of works of many genres and, save for a few notable examples, the dates of composition do not correspond to the dates depicted in the narrative. During the Second Temple days and beyond, Jewish sages known as the Tana’im interpreted the legal framework of some biblical books, producing rules and regulations (halakha) and also some stories (aggaddah). The resulting collection, the mishna, and some accompanying texts from the same era, the baraita and the tosefta, are widely believed to have coalesced around 200 AD (this is traditionally regarded as the life project of Rabbi Yehuda Ha-Nasi). Later sages, notably Rav Ashi and Ravina but probably many others as well, compiled a work that includes the mishnaic content and the gemara, which consists of plenty of commentary, legal argument, further storytelling, and further intertextual creativity. The gemara reflects the work of several generation of sages: the Amoraim (4th, 5th century) and the Savoraim (6th century). The latter group are thought to have completed the final redaction of the text.

If you open a Talmud page today, you will typically find the original content in the middle: the mishna quote, in rabbinic Hebrew, followed by an account of logical, legal, and theological arguments, jokes, tragedies, and pretty much everything else, in rabbinic Aramaic. In the wide margins of the page you’ll find commentary from various Medieval, Renaissance, and sometimes modern exegetes and commentators, with the most prominent and famous commentary coming from Rashi and written in special script.

In the early 1920s, a new custom emerged: beyond the traditional study of this central text in religious yeshivot, there would be a worldwide schedule for studying the Talmud, assigning everyone interested, all around the world, a daf yomi (a page a day). Many religious institutions offer a lesson (shi’ur) on the daf of the day, and there is a proliferation of resources, including a plethora of podcasts and videos, dedicated to daf studies. Many of these promise to get you through the daf in 15 minutes a day and go over each and every logical twist, including some of the exegesis in the margins. If you follow through, you can expect to get through the full SHAS (an acronym for Shisha Sdarim, the six books of the Bavli) in approximately seven years.

My approach to this enterprise is a little bit different. I was raised in a secular Israeli home, with classical liberal values, and while there is a lot of perennial wisdom in the Talmud, there are plenty of things there that I don’t see much point in dragging, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Also, some pages are full of interesting content worth getting into in depth, while others are, from my perspective, duds. I also don’t believe in reading the daf just for the sake of getting through it, unless we get something out of it.

Here are some of the things that I look for: I think the Talmud is a phenomenal tool for developing logical, critical thinking. By following the different strands of argument and taking a steel-man approach to each, one can learn how to apply various forms of logic to any area of policymaking or opinion formation. One also learns how to fortify one’s argument through intertextual references, and different approaches for how texts can or should be read. I also think that the Talmud shows us that many of the questions we face today troubled our ancestors as well, and we can learn something from the constructs they used to approach these problems. It’s also a great education in how to support macro-level logic—rules with universal application—with anecdote, story, or metaphor. And, it’s a phenomenal education in viewpoint diversity, as very often the question is never settled and you’re left with respect for the various opinions expressed.

Anyway, those are the goals I have when I engage in daily Talmud study. Some days are longer and some are shorter; some are funny and some are sad or irate; sometimes I go to traditional sources and sometimes to literature, current events, musical works, or popular culture. Because what we find in the text mirrors what we look for, those of you who are regular readers can probably guess what tends to grab my interest: I’m a law professor who is also a second-career rabbinical student, and I’m especially interested in courtrooms, prisons, punishment theory, social movements, public debates, the value of art and artistry, and bits that are comical or quirky.

To make this more widely available and useful, I’m cross-posting these daf posts to a new Substack – I hope I’ll have the fortitude to get on with it, because after all, this is a very niche undertaking. For now, and probably forever, the subscriptions to that newsletter will be free, so you can follow along here or there.

I hope you find this useful and educational. So, buckle up, friends, it’s going to be a long and interesting ride.

Plotting the Tube of Blood: b.Sanhedrin 52

There’s a 60-year-old apocryphal story about Haim Hanani, then-President of the Technion (one of Israel’s most prominent STEM educational institutions and home to Nobel prize winners), according to which he once asked candidates for the entering engineering class, how to plan a 200-mile-long tube to transport blood. The students all asked questions about the technical specs, and not a single student asked, “why would you want to transport blood, and where would the blood come from?” According to the story, Hanani used this experiment to advocate for the introduction of humanities’ studies at the Technion. 

This story is a good introduction to several upcoming talmud pages, in which the sages discuss the nitty-gritty details of executions they never ordered or performed–for the sake of the intellectual exercise. To see what such information looks like when it’s actually drafted to be put to use, I looked up current execution protocols in all U.S. states. One interesting detail about this table is the prevalence of secrecy provisions. Nebraska law, for example, states: “(2) The iden­ti­ty of all mem­bers of the exe­cu­tion team, and any infor­ma­tion rea­son­ably cal­cu­lat­ed to lead to the iden­ti­ty of such mem­bers, shall be con­fi­den­tial and exempt from dis­clo­sure pur­suant to sec­tions 84 – 712 to 84 – 712.09 and shall not be sub­ject to dis­cov­ery or intro­duc­tion as evi­dence in any civ­il pro­ceed­ing unless extra­or­di­nary good cause is shown and a pro­tec­tive order is issued by a dis­trict court lim­it­ing dis­sem­i­na­tion of such information.” Ohio law states: “(B) If, at any time pri­or to the day that is twen­ty-four months after the effec­tive date of this sec­tion, a per­son man­u­fac­tures, com­pounds, imports, trans­ports, dis­trib­utes, sup­plies, pre­scribes, pre­pares, admin­is­ters, uses, or tests any of the com­pound­ing equip­ment or com­po­nents, the active phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal ingre­di­ents, the drugs or com­bi­na­tion of drugs, the med­ical sup­plies, or the med­ical equip­ment used in the appli­ca­tion of a lethal injec­tion of a drug or com­bi­na­tion of drugs in the admin­is­tra­tion of a death sen­tence by lethal injec­tion as pro­vid­ed for in divi­sion (A) of sec­tion 2949.22 of the Revised Code, notwith­stand­ing any pro­vi­sion of law to the con­trary, all of the fol­low­ing apply regard­ing any infor­ma­tion or record in the pos­ses­sion of any pub­lic office that iden­ti­fies or rea­son­ably leads to the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the per­son and the per­son­’s par­tic­i­pa­tion in any activ­i­ty described in this divi­sion: (1) The infor­ma­tion or record shall be clas­si­fied as con­fi­den­tial, is priv­i­leged under law, and is not sub­ject to dis­clo­sure by any per­son, state agency, gov­ern­men­tal enti­ty, board, or com­mis­sion or any polit­i­cal sub­di­vi­sion as a pub­lic record under sec­tion 149.43 of the Revised Code or otherwise.” Which raises the question: if what is happening here is not cruel or unusual–maybe even kind and usual–then why the secrecy?

I think the talmudic lack of shame about this, and many other crass subjects, stems from the fact that they are not in the business of prescribing or proscribing rules, but rather elucidating and interpreting biblical verses according to logical structures. Still, it’s jarring to see them dig for verses to support the minutiae of different forms of execution. Today we’re looking at three execution protocols: burning, decapitation, and strangulation.

Burning

The mishna provides a truly absurd mix of pain and pain alleviation. The condemned must be sunk in dung to his knees and his neck must be wrapped in a hard scarf wrapped in a soft scarf (after all, we want to burn you to death, not scratch your neck). Two people grab the ends of the scarf and pull until the condemned opens his mouth; then, they light up the wick and throw it into his mouth, where it descends into his intestines and burns them. An episode in which a priest’s daughter was placed amidst piles of sticks to which the executioners set fire is explained away as inexperience (one sage even says, “I remember being little on my father’s shoulder and seeing that,” and others replying, “you were little and you’re probably misremembering,” קָטָן הָיִיתָ, וְאֵין מְבִיאִין רְאָיָה מִן הַקָּטָן).

That’s a pretty specific description of a sentence the sages had never seen, so to support the description they rely on two biblical stories: the burning of Korah and his clan and the death of the sons of Aaron. From the language in the biblical description, the sages deduce that those were internal, rather than external burnings (“burning the soul but the body exists”, שְׂרֵיפַת נְשָׁמָה וְגוּף קַיָּים). The wildest of proofs comes from Aba Yosi ben Dostai, who describes the sons’ deaths as if two strings of fire coming out of the temple, splitting into four, with each string entering the nostril of one of the brothers (שְׁנֵי חוּטִין שֶׁל אֵשׁ יָצְאוּ מִבֵּית קוֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים וְנֶחְלְקוּ לְאַרְבַּע, וְנִכְנְסוּ שְׁנַיִם בְּחוֹטְמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם בְּחוֹטְמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וּשְׂרָפוּם). The amazing thing is that there’s an effort to sanitize the execution through the idea that loving the other as yourself means choosing “a beautiful death” for them – אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ״, בְּרוֹר לוֹ מִיתָה יָפָה – which is so much like the constant efforts to sanitize, medicalize, and silo killing, from executions to euthanasia.

Decapitation

I’m sure you’re all eager to find out about decapitation now. What’s notable is that the talmudic description struggles with the fact that foreign nations use the same sentence. The mishna says that the Israelite sentence was performed with a sword “as the king does” (כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה). Rabbi Yehuda points out the degradation involved and says that the condemned head must be placed on a block and chopped with a cleaver. In the gemara, there’s an expansion of this debate. Rabbi Yehuda says, “I know it’s a rough death, but what can I do (אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה)? We’ve been ordered not to follow the gentiles, so we have do do it a different way.” The other rabbis reply that execution by sword is actually prescribed in the Torah, which uses the term “by the sword” (לְפִי חָרֶב) and the saying, “I shall bring the sword of revenge of the covenant upon you” (הֵבֵאתִי עֲלֵיכֶם חֶרֶב נֹקֶמֶת נְקַם בְּרִית). The precise nature of the use of the sword is also deduced from the terminology: the rabbis deduce that the term לְפִי חָרֶב implies the edge of the sword, rather than the point, and thus we have decapitation rather than stabbing. And as to the issue that someone actually brings up–what if the executioner just decides to cut the person by half–the rabbis say, remember to love the other as your own and pick a beautiful death for him.

Strangulation

The mishnaic description of strangulation is very much like the beginning of burning: the condemned is sunk in dung to his knees, wrapped in a hard scarf padded by a soft scarf (for comfort) and two people pull the edges away to cut air support. The gemara sees this sentence as the most humane, least painful, of the lot (see here) and use the rule of lenity to argue that any unspecified death must be the most lenient one (כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִיתָה בְּתוֹרָה סְתָם, אֵין אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְמוֹשְׁכָהּ לְהַחְמִיר עָלֶיהָ, אֶלָּא לְהָקֵל עָלֶיהָ). This discussion, however, is still marred by the original debate over which execution method truly is the least severe (with some still arguing that decapitation should be the most lenient default option).

Tune in tomorrow for the fourth execution method: stoning.

The Order of Things: b.Sanhedrin 49

My grad school journey was saturated with Foucault, who found his way to my dissertation as well. Criminologists tend to read Discipline and Punish, a book that identifies prison with modernity and with a shift in punishment from body to soul and from a central display of regal power to diffuse loci of power, and ultimately to having people exercise power upon themselves (which is why it is an important part of the setup for my book manuscript Behind Ancient Bars). Other books I got to pick up from the shelf quite often were Madness and Civilization, and History of Sexuality. Thing is, if I could help it, I tried to avoid The Order of Things as much as I could. Which is lamentable, because in many ways The Order of Things uncovers the mechanism that makes many of Foucault’s other works tick. He examines how different sciences and disciplines view things; in other words, the book is preoccupied with the creation of knowledge, which is a central factor in Foucault’s knowledge/power spiral.

The reason I bring up The Order of Things is that Sanhedrin 49b is very preoccupied with the production of lists and mnemonics. It is, in other words, a list of lists; a talmudic order of things, if you will. The excuse for this meta conversation is the issue of execution methods. The mishna lists four methods, but Rabbi Shim’on disputes the order:

מַתְנִי׳ אַרְבַּע מִיתוֹת נִמְסְרוּ לְבֵית דִּין: סְקִילָה, שְׂרֵיפָה, הֶרֶג, וָחֶנֶק. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׂרֵיפָה, סְקִילָה, חֶנֶק, וָהֶרֶג. זוֹ מִצְוַת הַנִּסְקָלִין.

MISHNA:Four types of the death penalty were given over to the court, with which those who committed certain transgressions are executed. They are, in descending order of severity: Stoning, burning, killing by decapitation, and strangulation. Rabbi Shimon says: They are, in descending order of severity: Burning, stoning, strangulation, and killing. This execution, described in the previous chapter, is referring to the mitzva of those who are stoned, i.e., to the process of execution by stoning.

Which raises an interpretive question: When the halakha provides a list, does the order of the things on the list matter? Rava quotes Rav S’hora, who quotes Rav Huna as saying that, usually, the order is not important, but there are a few exceptions, where the order is crucial:

  1. The investigatory list of substances to be applied to a stain found on a woman’s clothing, to investigate whether it is menstrual blood (and thus impure) is a sequence (think: chemistry test);
  2. The aforementioned list of execution methods (deduced from the fact that there was a dispute, meaning that the parties to the dispute thought the order mattered);
  3. The items on the order of service for Yom Kippur;
  4. The order of the daily offering at the temple;
  5. The sequence of events necessary for releasing a woman from the obligation to marry her late husband’s brother;
  6. The order in which the temple priests put on their ritual garments.

Here, the sages return to the question of the order of executions, which will be discussed in the next page. But for now, let’s focus on the issue of putting things in order. One possibility with lists is that sometimes the order matters; one must put on their undergarments before their clothes and their outerwear. Another, as in the case of the tested stain, is that there is scientific logic in moving from step to step. And another is ritualistic: a ritual has flow, and there are usually good reasons for why certain prayers, songs, and actions were strung together into a religious service. But the statements that, other than these exceptional matters, things do not usually follow an order, make sense when one considers how often they are strung together into a mnemonic–not because the order matters, but because it is an easier way to memorize.

This reminded me of Foucault’s oft-quoted opening to The Order of Things, in which he quotes Borges, who seeks to show the arbitrariness of listmaking and categorization:

This book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought — our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography — breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a “certain Chinese encyclopedia” in which it is written that “animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off” look like flies”. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.

As we’ll find out tomorrow, the sages are in a rush to show that there is much more method than that to their madness; we’ll embark on a series of classifications that could evoke in us modern readers “the stark impossibility of thinking that“, and yet they are hell-bent on coming up with a rationale for the classification of execution methods.

Mourning and Deservedness: b.Sanhedrin 47

We are still on the topic of burial for people who were executed, which hits close to home in these months of grief and mourning–for people who have a grave to weep on, and for those who are waiting to see if their loved ones return home alive or dead. On Saturday, we saw Yarden Bibas return home from almost 500 days in Hamas captivity; his wife Shiri and two kids Ariel (5) and Kfir (1) are still in captivity and there are grave fears for their lives. While in captivity, Yarden was told by his captors that his family members were dead, but there has been so much deceit about these matters that we do not know for sure. But we fear and tremble. Throughout the last couple of weeks, parents and siblings and spouses of people who are feared to be dead, or confirmed dead, have talked about how meaningful it would be to have a grave. And I can say that, as our mourning for my dad continues, his grave, in the beautiful secular cemetery Menuha Nekhona in Kiriat Tivon is a focal point for many family members.

The casualties of the massacre and war, and the hostages, are deeply mourned; so was my father, whose funeral was attended by hundreds of people. But yesterday’s daf, which made me think of the opera Dead Man Walking, raised a lot of questions about the propriety and spiritual meaning of public mourning for people who perhaps didn’t earn love and grief because of horrific crimes they committed. The way this is formulated by the sages in Sanhedrin 47 is this: What, and who, do we observer burial rituals and eulogies for? Is it to prevent a desecration of the dead (which has meaning for family members and friends), or to absolve their wrongdoing (which is an individual morality issue)?

The sages proceed to examine this question through a series of biblical quotes, most of which support the idea that funerary rites are for the living, rather than for the dead. One notable example is this one:

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֱלִינוֹ לִכְבוֹדוֹ, לְשַׁמֵּעַ עָלָיו עֲיָירוֹת, לְהָבִיא לוֹ מְקוֹנְנוֹת, לְהָבִיא לוֹ אָרוֹן וְתַכְרִיכִין – אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עָלָיו, שֶׁכׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל מֵת. הָכִי קָאָמַר: כׇּל הָעוֹשֶׂה לִכְבוֹדוֹ שֶׁל חַי, אֵין בּוֹ בִּזָּיוֹן לַמֵּת.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: If one left his deceased relative unburied overnight for the sake of his honor, for example, in order to assemble the people from the neighboring towns for the funeral, or to bring him professional lamenters, or to bring him a coffin or shrouds, he does not transgress the prohibition of “his body shall not remain all night,” as anyone who acts in such a manner does so only for the sake of honoring the dead. This indicates that the eulogy and other funeral rites are performed to honor the deceased. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is what the baraitais saying: Anyone who acts in such a manner for the sake of honoring the living does not transgress the prohibition, as there is no degradation of the dead.

This scenario involves a relative of a dead man who leaves him unburied overnight in order to organize a respectable funeral that requires out-of-town guests, lamenters, or supplies. To the extent that the funeral organizer is doing so in order to provide the proper funerary experience for the people left behind, the delay in burial is permissible.

The Talmud then goes into a somewhat creepy ghost story. The issue is: should people be buried according to their righteousness?

לֹא הָיוּ קוֹבְרִין כּוּ׳. וְכׇל כָּךְ לָמָּה? לְפִי שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי הֵם קֹבְרִים אִישׁ וְהִנֵּה רָאוּ אֶת הַגְּדוּד וַיַּשְׁלִיכוּ אֶת הָאִישׁ בְּקֶבֶר אֱלִישָׁע וַיִּגַּע הָאִישׁ בְּעַצְמוֹת אֱלִישָׁע וַיְחִי וַיָּקׇם עַל רַגְלָיו״.

§ The mishna teaches that they would not bury the executed transgressor in his ancestral burial plot, but rather in one of two special graveyards set aside for those executed by the court. The Gemara explains: And why is all this necessary? It is necessary because a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man. As Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina says: From where is it derived that a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man? As it is stated: “And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that behold, they spied a raiding party; and they cast the man into the tomb of Elisha; and as the man came there, he touched the bones of Elisha, and he revived and stood up on his feet” (II Kings 13:21). The man, who was not righteous, was miraculously resurrected so that he would not remain buried alongside Elisha.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא: וְדִילְמָא לְאִיקְּיוֹמֵי ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם בְּרוּחֲךָ אֵלָי״? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ דְּתַנְיָא: עַל רַגְלָיו עָמַד, וּלְבֵיתוֹ לֹא הָלַךְ.

Rav Pappa said to Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina: What proof is there from here? Perhaps the man was resurrected in order to fulfill Elisha’s request of Elijah: “I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me” (II Kings 2:9), as now Elisha resurrected two people, the son of the Shunammite woman and this man, as opposed to Elijah, who had resurrected only one person? Rav Aḥa bar Ḥanina said to Rav Pappa: If so, there is a difficulty, as is this a reasonable explanation in light of what is taught in a baraita: The words “and stood up on his feet” indicate that he arose, but he did not go to his home. The man did not in fact live again but for a moment, indicating that he was resurrected not in order to fulfill Elisha’s request for a double portion of Elijah’s spirit, but in order to prevent the disgrace of having a wicked man buried next to Elisha.

אֶלָּא ״וִיהִי נָא פִּי שְׁנַיִם״, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ דְּאַחֲיֵיא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שֶׁרִיפֵּא צָרַעַת נַעֲמָן, שֶׁהִיא שְׁקוּלָה כְּמֵת, דִּכְתִיב ״אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת״.

The Gemara asks: But if so, with regard to the verse: “I pray you, let a double portion of your spirit be upon me,” where do you find that Elisha resurrected a second person? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: That request was fulfilled when he cured Naaman’s leprosy (see II Kings, chapter 5), an affliction that is considered to be equivalent to death, as it is written with regard to Miriam’s leprosy: “Let her not be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12).

וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע אֵצֶל צַדִּיק, כָּךְ אֵין קוֹבְרִין רָשָׁע חָמוּר אֵצֶל רָשָׁע קַל. וְלִיתְקוֹן אַרְבַּע קְבָרוֹת! שְׁנֵי קְבָרוֹת גְּמָרָא גְּמִירִי לַהּ.

The mishna teaches that two graveyards were established for the burial of those executed by the court, one for those who were killed by decapitation or strangulation, and one for those who were stoned or burned. The Gemara explains: Just as a wicked man is not buried next to a righteous man, so too an extremely wicked man, i.e., one who committed a grave offense is not buried next to a less wicked man, i.e., one who committed a less severe offense. The Gemara challenges: If so, let them establish four different graveyards, one for each of the different modes of judicial execution. The Gemara answers. It is learned as a tradition that there are two graveyards for those executed by the court, and no more.

This is pretty wild: it is suggested here that burying wicked people alongside righteous people may result in the unintended consequence of those wicked people being resurrected. Moreover, wicked people should not be mixed up with less wicked people in death (as in life). And all this raises another question: does a person who was killed for wrongdoing receive atonement in death? Abaye says no: the dead person did not repent.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מִי סָבְרַתְּ מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה? מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה, דְּתָנֵי רַב שְׁמַעְיָה: יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ אֲבוֹתָיו מִדַּרְכֵי צִיבּוּר יִטַּמֵּא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּעַמָּיו״ – בְּעוֹשֶׂה מַעֲשֵׂה עַמָּיו.

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you maintain that one who dies in his state of wickedness without repenting achieves atonement? This is not the case, as one who dies in his state of wickedness without repenting does not achieve atonement, as Rav Shemaya taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the priests: “There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people, but for his kin that is near to him, for his mother, and for his father” (Leviticus 21:1–2). One might have thought that even if his father had become an apostate and separated himself from the ways of the community, his son the priest shall become ritually impure in order to bury him. Therefore, the verse states: “Among his people,” which teaches that a priest may become ritually impure only for one who performs the actions of his people, that is, one who conducts himself as a Jew. This indicates that one who dies in his wickedness without repenting does not achieve atonement.

Rava, by contrast, thinks that those who were executed, and thus did not die a natural death, did not have an opportunity to repent independently of the sentence, and thus do receive atonement.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: מִי קָא מְדַמֵּית נֶהֱרָג מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ לְמֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ? מֵת מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי אוֹרְחֵיהּ קָמָיֵית – לָא הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה. נֶהֱרָג מִתּוֹךְ רִשְׁעוֹ, כֵּיוָן דְּלָאו כִּי אוֹרְחֵיהּ מָיֵית – הָוְיָא לֵיהּ כַּפָּרָה.

Rava said to Abaye: Are you comparing one who was killed in his state of wickedness to one who died in his state of wickedness? An unrepentant sinner who died in his state of wickedness does not achieve atonement, since he died a natural death and there was nothing to bring about his atonement. But a transgressor who was killed in his state of wickedness achieves atonement, even without repentance, since he did not die a natural death, but rather he was executed.

And if so, let’s return to the insights from the previous page: we allowed for the possibility that relatives might experience private grief after an execution, regardless of public rituals; but if, indeed, the wicked who are executed receive atonement after death, that paves the way to public mourning as well.

The conversation then turns to the question of honoring the dead and buried: when, and under which circumstances, can a dug grave be reused after the body in it is moved for some reason. These are the sorts of questions that we have to address today when dealing with antiquities. The Israel Antiquities Authority gets called in every time a relic is found close to a highway, as they must guarantee respect for possible human remains. The taboo around disrespecting burial sites is at the heart of Stephen King’s terrifying Pet Sematary, reinforcing the perennial disturbing nature of the situations in which the boundary between the dead and the living becomes too thin for comfort.

Recanting Witnesses: b. Sanhedrin 44

Most of today’s daf addresses the stoning of Achan during the conquer of the city of Ai, with the sages debating the gravity of his sins, the collective punishment, and the method of execution. This digression is apropos the previous page’s focus on execution procedures. At the end of the page, though, the sages return to matters of postconviction review. What happens if a person declares, on the verge of being executed, that he is innocent?

As habeas corpus connoisseurs know, a claim of actual innocence, even when accompanied by proof, is not immediate grounds for reversal. In Herrera v. Collins, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote a blood-curdling majority opinion according to which executing a man who makes a claim of innocence based on new evidence does not violate the Eighth Amendment unless some constitutional violation is stated. The only thing actual innocence can do for you is excuse your procedural default, your failure to raise proper arguments in previous hearings (in other words, actual innocence overcomes the Cause and Prejudice threshold test for even entering the habeas process.) In Schlup v. Delo, a man pursued habeas relief for his conviction of the death of a fellow inmate on the word of two corrections officers who had witnessed the murder. But on habeas, Schlup wanted to introduce a videotape from a surveillance camera showing him at a different location in the prison at the time of the murder. Because the videotape evidence had not been presented at trial, ordinarily Schlup would have been barred from presenting it on habeas; but because of his persuasive claim of actual innocence, this initial barrier was removed.

How would someone arguing actual innocence fare before the Sanhedrin? Not that great, as it turns out:

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁיָּצָא לֵיהָרֵג. אָמַר: אִם יֵשׁ בִּי עָוֹן זֶה, לֹא תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה לְכׇל עֲוֹנוֹתַי. וְאִם אֵין בִּי עָוֹן זֶה, תְּהֵא מִיתָתִי כַּפָּרָה לְכׇל עֲוֹנוֹתַי, וּבֵית דִּין וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל מְנוּקִּין, וְהָעֵדִים לֹא תְּהֵא לָהֶם מְחִילָה לְעוֹלָם. וּכְשֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חֲכָמִים בַּדָּבָר, אָמְרוּ: לְהַחְזִירוֹ אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר נִגְזְרָה גְּזֵירָה. אֶלָּא יֵהָרֵג, וִיהֵא קוֹלָר תָּלוּי בְּצַוַּאר עֵדִים.

The Sages taught: An incident occurred involving a person who was being taken out to be executed after having been convicted by the court. He said: If I committed this sin for which I am being executed, let my death not be an atonement for all my sins; but if I did not commit this sin for which I am being put to death, let my death be an atonement for all my sins. And the court that convicted me and all the people of Israel are clear of responsibility, but the witnesses who testified falsely against me will never be forgiven. And when the Sages heard this, they said: It is impossible to bring him back to court and reconsider the verdict, as the decree has already been decreed. Rather, he shall be executed, and the chain of responsibility for his wrongful execution hangs around the necks of the witnesses.

This chilling story involves a man who claims, albeit without evidence, that he is innocent. He’s given up hope of justice emerging for him at the last minute, and expresses his willingness to face death for other sins he might have committed, but launches a last-words accusation against the witnesses who perjuted themselves to incriminate him. The man from the story is echoed, almost word for word, by Herrera, who before his 1993 execution said: “I am innocent, innocent, innocent. And something very wrong is happening tonight.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist would have found some likeminded friends among the Bavli sages. The gemara continues to ask whether it isn’t obvious that a claim of innocence without proof could not lead to a reversal of judgment. But the sages continue to state that, even in the face of witnesses recanting testimony, the execution decree stands:

פְּשִׁיטָא, כֹּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ? לָא צְרִיכָא דְּקָא הָדְרִי בְּהוּ סָהֲדִי.

The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he should be executed? Is it in his power to have his sentence overturned just because he says he is innocent? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony.

The reason for this is a classic appeal to finality:

וְכִי הָדְרִי בְּהוּ, מַאי הָוֵי? כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיד, שׁוּב אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמַגִּיד! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּקָא יָהֲבִי טַעְמָא לְמִילְּתַיְיהוּ, כִּי הָהוּא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּבַעְיָא מֹכְסָא.

The Gemara asks: Even if the witnesses retracted their testimony, what of it? It is still clear that the condemned man is to be executed, as the halakha is that once a witness has stated his testimony, he may not then state a revision of that testimony. In other words, a witness’s retraction of his testimony has no validity. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state that the condemned man is executed even when the witnesses retracted their testimony and gave an explanation for having lied in their initial statement. This is like that incident involving Ba’aya the tax collector, where it was discovered that witnesses had falsely accused the son of Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ in revenge for the son’s having sentenced to death for sorcery the witnesses’ relatives.

Why would the Talmud not make room for recanting witnesses to disavow their perjured testimony in time? One can glean two reasons. First, there is the matter of incentivizing witnesses to tell the truth; providing incriminating testimony has consequences in the real world, which people don’t like to face. In the second season of the podcast Proof, Jacinda Davis and Susan Simpson interview the people who testified against Jake Silva at his trial for the murder of Renée Ramos. It’s clear from the interviews that these witnesses, teenagers themselves at the time, were pressured by the police, and didn’t quite know what they were talking about. Yet when prodded to consider the consequences of their testimony–two likely wrongful convictions, Ty murdered behind bars, Jake incarcerated for decades and savagely attacked by another prisoner–they are embarrassed and evasive, as if they don’t want to confront the consequences. Having the consequences play out is harsh, to say the least, and it is a lesson for everyone else to do the right thing.

The second reason has to do with undermining the credibility of the witnesses. The gemara takes the trouble to state that the sentence still stands even after the witnesses provide an explanation for their perjury. This is a tough pill to swallow, and it is a grim reminder of the injustice of the Troy Davis case, in which seven of the nine prosecution witnesses recanted, citing police coercion. But when one now says that they lied before, without cross examination or a court proceeding to examine their veracity, what can we say about their credibility now in light of their lack of credibility then? Where one stands on these matters might correlate quite a bit with one’s position on the spectrum between Packer’s Due Process and Crime Control models. Due Process fans will urge to halt the execution, reopen the proceeding, hear the recanting witnesses, and see what’s what. Crime Control fans will urge an end, at some point, to the proceedings, so that closure can begin. Most of us are somewhere along that spectrum.

Postconviction Finality and Innocence Claims: b.Sanhedrin 43

Today’s daf continues the conversation about capital punishment via stoning. There are several things of interest, including a blood-curdling description of arguments between Jesus’ disciples and the Sanhedrin regarding their execution (I can see this stuff being used to corroborate the blood libel stuff from Matthew). But there’s also an interesting dispute about finality of postconviction review.

When Herbert Packer wrote The Limits of the Criminal Sanction, the Warren Court was hard at work reforming and federalizing constitutional protections for suspects and defendants by incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states. Witnessing this revolution, Packer contrasted two theoretical models: the Crime Control model, which prioritized efficiency and case management, and the Due Process model, which prioritized quality control and the prevention of mistakes. The latter represented the historical processes that Packer saw unfold during the incorporation process.

One important aspect of the contrast was the changing approach to finality. The Crime Control model operates under the assumption that the police and prosecution probably got it right (Packer calls this “the presumption of guilt”) and thus no corrective postconviction processes will be necessary. The Due Process model, by contrast, aims at providing opportunities to reverse wrongful convictions, opening up appellate and habeas corpus proceedings. Indeed, during the 1960s, the federal habeas corpus writ was widely expanded to accommodate reviews of state criminal convictions. But the post-Warren courts, informed by a Crime Control logic, proceeded to narrow the reach of habeas, by limiting the sort of cases that could be subject to review, the kinds of arguments one could make, and the retroactive application of new rules (here’s a good history of the whole thing.)

The balance between finality and truth is a tough one to strike. On one hand, the collective nightmare of the criminal process is a wrongful conviction, and the worst of the worst is the execution of an innocent person. On the other hand, endlessly dragging the criminal process is torturous to everyone, including the victims, when the delays are just an exploitation of the system. So how do we know when to set the limit?

The first issue that comes up is the question of argument. What happens if one of the Sanhedrin students wants to make an exculpatory argument but cannot?

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת״, וְנִשְׁתַּתֵּק, מַהוּ? מְנַפַּח רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בִּידֵיהּ. נִשְׁתַּתֵּק? אֲפִילּוּ אֶחָד בְּסוֹף הָעוֹלָם נָמֵי! הָתָם לָא קָאָמַר, הָכָא קָאָמַר. מַאי?

§ Rav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, and he became mute and cannot explain himself, what is the halakha in such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? Rav Sheshet waved his hands in scorn and said: If the student became mute, the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned even that perhaps there is someone at the end of the world who can propose an argument in the condemned man’s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. There, no one said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. Here, the student already said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. What is the halakha in such a case?

In other words, if we were to pay attention to every claim: “The condemned man is innocent!” without any reasoning, we would never be able to execute anyone, as we would have to account for the possibility that others–maybe even at the end of the world–want to cry out about innocence without explaining. The sages try to draw an analogy to a situation in which the student wanted to make exculpatory arguments and then died:

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא: אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים שֶׁזִּיכָּה וָמֵת, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ חַי וְעוֹמֵד בִּמְקוֹמוֹ. זִיכָּה – אִין, לֹא זִיכָּה – לָא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer: As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: In a case where there was one of the students who argued to acquit the defendant and then died, the court views him as if he were alive and standing in his place and voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if he argued to acquit the defendant and explained his reasoning, yes, the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if he did not actually argue to acquit the defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is not counted as though he were still alive.

Here, too, the logic is that a mere exclamation without reasoning does not count as a vote to acquit; but if the exculpatory arguments were made prior to the student’s death, we have an indication as to their merit and take them into account. One might think about the many delayed habeas cases in which people who were sitting on exculpatory evidence retired or died–including, for example, someone else confessing to the crime. The sages are conflicted about what to do in this scenario.

זִיכָּה – פְּשִׁיטָא לִי; אָמַר – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.

The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student argued to acquit the defendant, it is obvious to me that he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only says that he wishes to propose such an argument, let the dilemma be raised whether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.

Another possible analogy has to do with situations in which the condemned man himself wishes to present exculpatory evidence, and here we see the sages erring on the Due Process side, by allowing the defendant several rounds of appeal, even if the arguments he makes on his own behalf are not very strong:

אֲפִילּוּ הוּא כּוּ׳. וַאֲפִילּוּ פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה? וְהָתַנְיָא: פַּעַם רִאשׁוֹנָה וּשְׁנִיָּה, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו בֵּין שֶׁאֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ. מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ, אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֵין מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – אֵין מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ.

The mishna teaches: And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: And is the halakha that there must be substance to his words even the first and second time that the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The first and second times that he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, they return him to the courthouse and consider whether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From this point forward, if there is substance to his statement they return him to the courthouse, but if there is no substance to his statement, they do not return him. This appears to contradict the mishna.

It looks like the first appeal/review is granted to the condemned person regardless of the strength of his arguments. But from the second appeal onward, the gemara details a process for investigating the merit of the person’s claims:

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: תַּרְגּוּמַהּ מִפַּעַם שְׁנִיָּה וְאֵילָךְ.

Rav Pappa said: Explain that the mishna’s ruling applies only from after the second time forward, that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.

מְנָא יָדְעִי? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: דְּמָסְרִינַן לֵיהּ זוּגָא דְּרַבָּנַן. אִי אִיכָּא מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו – אִין, אִי לָא – לָא.

The Gemara asks: How do we know whether or not there is substance to his words? Abaye said: If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, we send a pair of rabbis with him to evaluate his claim. If they find that there is substance to his statement, yes, he is returned once again to the courthouse; if not, he is not returned.

But if that’s the case, why not conduct an investigation on the merits to begin with? The gemara demonstrates some psychological finesse here: the first appeal, at least, could be a desperate act, rather than a reasoned argument for innocence, and there are good grounds to encourage empathy and propriety and signal to the public that the court is open to reconsider even if it turns out that the argument is meritless. But afterwards, merits have to be assessed so as not to waste the court’s time:

וְלִימְסַר לֵיהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא? אַגַּב דִּבְעִית, לָא מָצֵי אָמַר כֹּל מַאי דְּאִית לֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: But why not send a pair of rabbis with him from the outset, even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: Since a man facing execution is frightened by the thought of his impending death, he is not able to say all that he has to say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time.

The issue of the optics of justice also comes up in discussing the mishna regarding an announcement of executions. The mishna requires not only announcing the time and place of the stoning, but also the details of the offense, including the place and time, so that any people with information that can impeach the prosecution’s witnesses can come forward with exculpatory evidence:

מַתְנִי׳ מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת – פְּטָרוּהוּ, וְאִם לָאו – יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל. וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו: ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁעָבַר עֲבֵירָה פְּלוֹנִית, וּפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֵדָיו. כׇּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו״.

MISHNA: If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְצָרִיךְ לְמֵימַר בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי, וּבְשָׁעָה פְּלוֹנִית, וּבְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי. דִּילְמָא אִיכָּא דְּיָדַעי וְאָתֵי וּמַזֵּים לְהוּ.

GEMARA:Abaye says: And the crier must also publicly proclaim that the transgression was committed on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, as perhaps there are those who know that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, and they will come forward and render the witnesses conspiring witnesses.

This is where we get into the fraught and painful matter of Jesus’ death sentence. Much of the antisemitic animus against Jews comes from the Gospel of St. Matthew, where Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor who ordered Jesus’ execution, essentially relies on the Sanhedrin’s judgment. The Talmud does not disabuse its readers of this version of the events. Jesus is presented as an inciter, but contrary to the New Testament view of a revolutionary, here he is presented as someone with strong connections with the Roman government, someone whom the Sanhedrin is somewhat wary of:

וְכָרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו. לְפָנָיו – אִין, מֵעִיקָּרָא – לָא. וְהָתַנְיָא: בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח תְּלָאוּהוּ לְיֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי, וְהַכָּרוֹז יוֹצֵא לְפָנָיו אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם: ״יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי יוֹצֵא לִיסָּקֵל עַל שֶׁכִּישֵּׁף וְהֵסִית וְהִדִּיחַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. כׇּל מִי שֶׁיּוֹדֵעַ לוֹ זְכוּת יָבוֹא וִילַמֵּד עָלָיו״. וְלֹא מָצְאוּ לוֹ זְכוּת, וּתְלָאוּהוּ בְּעֶרֶב הַפֶּסַח.

The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.

אָמַר עוּלָּא: וְתִסְבְּרָא? יֵשׁוּ הַנּוֹצְרִי בַּר הַפּוֹכֵי זְכוּת הוּא? מֵסִית הוּא, וְרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו!״ אֶלָּא שָׁאנֵי יֵשׁוּ, דְּקָרוֹב לְמַלְכוּת הֲוָה.

Ulla said: And how can you understand this proof? Was Jesus the Nazarene worthy of conducting a search for a reason to acquit him? He was an inciter to idol worship, and the Merciful One states with regard to an inciter to idol worship: “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” (Deuteronomy 13:9). Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government, and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.

In other words, even though his crimes were severe, the Gemara states, every opportunity was awarded to try and acquit him so that no claims of wrongful conviction could be made later. Of course, we all know that these claims were not only made, but also bolstered by centuries of religious polemics, so the supposed effort at due process was ultimately unsuccessful. But disturbingly, these paragraphs suggest that the perception of Jesus’ supposed crimes was not only political, but also religious.

Even more disturbingly, the words מֵסִית הוּא (“he is an inciter”) can be interpreted in several different ways. The most benign one is that the evidence for his guilt was great. The less benign one was that his threat to the legitimacy of the Sanhedrin was so great that it could be thought appropriate to make an exception to the due process/postconviction rules. There is a whole mine of religious controversy that can emerge from all this, and the page goes on to describe the arguments between his students and the Sanhedrin in court. Tomorrow’s discussion continues on with all this, raising the question of confessions before executions.

Postconviction Review: The Scarf-and-Horseback Edition (b.Sanhedrin 42b)

Welcome to a new blog feature, in which I chat about a cool, unusual, or edifying bit from the daf yomi. Originating in the 1920, “daf yomi” is a Jewish learning regimen for the Babylonian Talmud, in which every day Jews from all over the world learn the same page. The Daf Yomi webpage, Hebrew text resource Sefaria, and many other resources can point you to the day’s page. I don’t always love this method–it can lead to speeding through some interesting stuff while spending more time on things that are less exciting–but I do find it appealing to be on a general calendar of learning with the rest of the Jewish world, across diverse denominations, beliefs, orientations, values, and methods.

One of the things that I find most appealing about Talmudic study is a logical approach to perennial problems of justice and ethics, and today’s page is no different. The last few days’ worth of pages find us in Tractate Sanhedrin, which addresses various law, adjudication, procedure, and evidence problems, which are of course of special interest to me. Pages 41-42 are concerned with issues involving evidentiary contradictions, the value and weight of testimonies, and issues involving last-minute halting of executions.

Readers who find this material crass might be comforted with the reminder that the Bavli is not an accurate historical record of criminal proceedings. Writings from the Second Temple era confirm the existence of the Sanhedrin, a high court within the Hasmonean empire and beyond (seated as a “big” Sanhedrin of 71 or a “little” Sanhedrin of 23–election proceedings dissected in the early pages of the tractate), but the extent to which it regularly issued judgments of life and death are dubious. The Talmud itself refers to the rareness of executions (saying that a Sanhedrin that ordered executions once every seventy years would be regarded as hovlanit, trigger-happy). By the time the Babylonian Talmud coalesces, it has been centuries since an actual Sanhedrin was convened, so a lot of this stuff is best understood as using scriptural anchors to elaborate on legal logic, rather than as a description of proceedings before real tribunals.

Anyway, Sanhedrin 42b turns to issues of executions, describing matters as follows:

אֶחָד עוֹמֵד עַל פֶּתַח בֵּית דִּין, וְהַסּוּדָרִין בְּיָדוֹ, וְסוּס רָחוֹק מִמֶּנּוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא רוֹאֵהוּ. אוֹמֵר אֶחָד: ״יֵשׁ לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת״, הַלָּה מֵנִיף בְּסוּדָרִין, וְהַסּוּס רָץ וּמַעֲמִידָן. וַאֲפִילּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״יֵשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת״, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ, אֲפִילּוּ אַרְבַּע וְחָמֵשׁ פְּעָמִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו.

One man stands at the entrance to the court, with cloths [vehasudarin] in his hand, and another man sits on a horse at a distance from him but where he can still see him. If one of the judges says: I can teach a reason to acquit him, the other, i.e., the man with the cloths, waves the cloths as a signal to the man on the horse, and the horse races off after the court agents who are leading the condemned man to his execution, and he stops them, and they wait until the court determines whether or not the argument has substance. And even if he, the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse, even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words.

This passage offers a few curiosities. Beyond the obvious drama of the whole thing, note that it is assumed that the folks inside the court will continue debating the matter of the convict’s guilt even as the convict has already been taken to the place of execution. Is this an academic issue for them, which merits continued discussion? Does it have to do with the previous issue of disagreeing about the contradictions between the prosecution’s witnesses? And how long does the horseback rider have to stand there waiting for the courtroom reporter, if you will, to come out waving the scarf? What happens if the court changes its mind, and the reporter desperately waves the scarf, but it’s too late? What happens if it’s not too late, but the horseback rider doesn’t see the scarf?

Another interesting thing about this passage is the implication that the execution takes place far away from the court. Much of the daf tries to find biblical anchoring for the distance from Moses-time justice, but there is also some commentary that suggests practical logic:

אִין, כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ. וְהָא דְּקָתָנֵי הָכִי, נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ דְּאִי נָפֵיק בֵּי דִינָא וְיָתֵיב חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת, עָבְדִינַן בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא מִיתְחֲזֵי בֵּית דִּין רוֹצְחִין. אִי נָמֵי, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּתִיהְוֵי לֵיהּ הַצָּלָה.

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is as you said, that the place of stoning was outside the three camps. And the practical difference from the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha in this manner is that if it happened that the court went out and convened outside the three camps, even then the place of stoning is set up at a certain distance from the court, and not immediately adjacent to it, so that the court should not appear to be a court of killers. Alternatively, the reason the place of stoning must be distanced from the court is so that the condemned man might have a chance to be saved, i.e., so that during the time it takes for him to be taken from the court to the place of stoning someone will devise a claim in his favor.

In other words, there are several reasons for setting the place of execution at a distance. One of them has to do with the optics of the court as a place of compassion. It’s not a nod at any modern notion of separation of powers; rather, it is the idea that associating adjudication with execution is unsavory and can lead to antipathy and, possibly, undermining of the court’s authority/legitimacy. The other one is precisely to facilitate the scarf-to-horseback method of postconviction review, which implies that people might still be working in the condemned’s interest even after the sentence is pronounced.

Having taught postconviction review and exonerations in law school, this stuff makes me think of the last-minute horrors that happen every time an execution approaches. Last-minute appeals, desperate litigation, petitions to the Governor, etc. Three years ago we marked a decade from the execution of Troy Davis, a man who many believe (and believed back then, as well) to be innocent of the crime. I remember collecting signatures to send to the Governor of Georgia to spare Troy’s life and holding a sit-in at my office about the case. In the years after Davis’ conviction, seven of the nine witnesses against him recanted, stating that they were subjected to police coercion, and persuasive evidence emerged that another man–the initial suspect–had committed the crime and, in fact, confessed to it. Not a shred of physical or forensic evidence connected Davis to the crime. We were unsuccessful and Davis was executed.

Even those saved by the “wave of the scarf” at the last minute have to endure disbelief, humiliation, and–when their compensation lawsuits fail–penury. One examples is John Thompson, who was convicted of a robbery and an unrelated capital murder in Louisiana; the crucial piece of evidence collected at the crime scene was a blood sample, which was never tested, and whose existence remained hidden from the defense for eighteen years, until a month before Thompson’s execution, when a PI working for the defense uncovered it. The blood did not match Thompson’s and he was exonerated. He was later unsuccessful in receiving compensation from the state, with the majority opinion claiming that no Brady violation had happened because the untested blood sample was not exculpatory evidence. Thompson wrote a searing op-ed to the New York Times about his experiences:

In 2005, I sued the prosecutors and the district attorney’s office for what they did to me. The jurors heard testimony from the special prosecutor who had been assigned by Mr. Connick’s office to the canceled investigation, who told them, “We should have indicted these guys, but they didn’t and it was wrong.” The jury awarded me $14 million in damages — $1 million for every year on death row — which would have been paid by the district attorney’s office. That jury verdict is what the Supreme Court has just overturned.

I don’t care about the money. I just want to know why the prosecutors who hid evidence, sent me to prison for something I didn’t do and nearly had me killed are not in jail themselves. There were no ethics charges against them, no criminal charges, no one was fired and now, according to the Supreme Court, no one can be sued.

Worst of all, I wasn’t the only person they played dirty with. Of the six men one of my prosecutors got sentenced to death, five eventually had their convictions reversed because of prosecutorial misconduct. Because we were sentenced to death, the courts had to appoint us lawyers to fight our appeals. I was lucky, and got lawyers who went to extraordinary lengths. But there are more than 4,000 people serving life without parole in Louisiana, almost none of whom have lawyers after their convictions are final. Someone needs to look at those cases to see how many others might be innocent.

If a private investigator hired by a generous law firm hadn’t found the blood evidence, I’d be dead today. No doubt about it.

A crime was definitely committed in this case, but not by me.

One only wishes that, rather than basking in the self-appeasement of having done no wrong, these officials, and those who worked with them, vigorously and unceasingly, desperately and demonstrably, waved the scarf so that any distant horseman, on any hill, would see them on time.