US Jewish Law groups push Noahide Law and decapitation at Supreme Court

SEE TABLE OF CONTENTS

Join Facebook Group | Like Facebook Page
Subscribe To Youtube | Support Me On Patreon

SIGN THE PETITION 

http://chng.it/yXcvjMZk


VIDEO TO THIS ARTICLE 

Ever since the Jewish Talmudic Noahide Laws were introduced into the American legal system via Public Law 102-14, some members of the Jewish legal community have been using deceptive practices and outright lies to introduce Jewish Talmudic Laws into the Supreme Court, particularly in the area of capital punishment and execution law. Execution is a legal issue of importance to those seeking to implement Noahide Law in the United States since Noahide Law calls for the decapitation of anyone who practices “idolatry” (which includes Christianity) or blasphemes the Jewish god. Here we will briefly discuss which organizations are infiltrating the Supreme Court, preparing it for the acceptance of Talmudic Law and how they are deceiving the public into accepting Talmudic execution laws (particularly decapitation) in the United States.

-BRYAN V. MOORE

Nathan and Alyza Lewin,
Noahide Law advocates who
submitted the BRYAN V. MOORE brief

In 1999, the US Supreme Court accepted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefing from two Jewish legal advocacy groups; the National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs (COLPA) and The International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ); the briefing was reviewed by Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Rabbi Justice Elon (since retired). The brief was prepared by Nathan and Alyza Lewin, the same legal team who attended the kosher dinner at the US Supreme court to launch the Chabad-Lubavitch Rabbi Gurary’s International Institute for Judaic Law (see here). The briefing was in favor of suspending a death sentence by electrocution in the state of Florida (Bryan v. Moore).  In the guise of upholding the 8th amendment which protects citizens from “cruel and unusual punishment”, the briefing used deception to suggest the court could look to Jewish Talmudic Law as a guide to more humanitarian execution methods as well as leniency in inflicting the death penalty upon defendants (see briefing here). Nathan and Alyza Lewin, the Jewish lawyers who helped prepare the BRYAN V. MOORE brief have promoted Noahide Law in other briefs provided to the Supreme Court:

“A fundamental principle of the Jewish religious tradition is that any society – including a gentile community – must establish a judicial system to hear and decide civil controversies.  Establishment of courts is deemed one of the basic seven commands that binds all Noahides – i.e., non-Jews” – COLPA brief submitted to the Supreme Court, prepared by Nathan Lewin, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comission, Et Al. 

-

THE BRIEF WAS DECEPTIVE  

According to one of the highest legal and religious authorities of the Jewish religion, The Babylonian Talmud (aka, “The Talmud”), Jews can deceive non-Jews (“heathens”) to gain the upper hand in legal matters. The only time there is a prohibition against lying is if there is danger the non-Jew will discover the lie (“sanctification of the name”).

“Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: ‘This is our law;’ so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens, justify him and say to the other party: ‘This is your law;’ but if this cannot be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.”… “but were there no infringement of the sanctification of the Name, we could circumvent him!”  – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Baba Kamma 113b

The brief presented to the Supreme Court by COPLA and IAJLJ blatantly misrepresented Talmudic execution laws as being quick, painless, causing little disfigurement, and preserving dignity while also suggesting that under Talmudic Law it is difficult to obtain an order for execution due to the Talmud’s stringent rules regarding admissibility and sufficiency of evidence.  These assertions are outright lies. First, the brief suggests that according to the Talmud, convicted persons are given a quick, painless and dignified death which avoids disfigurement, at least by the best methods available at the time.

COLPA and IAJLJ are submitting this amicus curiae brief to advise the Court how questions concerning the mode of execution were resolved in the oldest and most venerable legal system known to man. The Jewish legal system – based on Biblical text, oral tradition, and rabbinic interpretation – considered and discussed the implementation of the death penalty. At first blush, the means prescribed by Jewish Law for the execution of an individual who is condemned to death by a duly authorized court seem cruel and insensitive to the pain and disfigurement that accompanies the death of the accused. But a close examination of the rabbinic interpretation of the Biblical text discloses that approximately 2000 years ago the rabbis of the Talmud agreed that execution must be carried out quickly and as painlessly as possible. They also agreed that an execution should not mutilate or disfigure the body of the condemned person. The relevant passages from the Talmud demonstrate that the rabbis sought — with the scientific knowledge and means available to them in their time — to formulate the quickest, least painful, and least disfiguring methods of execution that the technology of the day would allow within the framework of Biblical texts.  – COPLA/IAJLJ, Brian v. Moore Brief 

TALMUDIC EXECUTION METHODS ARE NOT HUMANE

According to the Talmud, convicted criminals were executed by extremely cruel and humiliating methods which cannot be described as being the most “humane” method of execution for their times. While Socrates was quickly and painlessly killed in 399 B.C. by the city of Athens with a cup of hemlock (poison hemlock grows wild in Israel, and has since the Bible times), the Talmud suggests that criminals be strangled in pits of animal dung or have “hot wicks”  [hot melted lead bars] thrown down their throats, among other barbaric, disfiguring, humiliating and painful techniques. In complete opposition to the brief’s assertions, the Talmud also explicitly states that decapitation, the mode of execution prescribed under Noahide Law, is purposely meant to disfigure.

— Decapitation is the most “disfiguring” form of execution

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. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 52b

— Strangled in a Pit of Dung

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. — 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 52b Soncino

— Lower bowels burned with molten lead (“Hot Wick”)

MISHNAH. THE MANNER IN WHICH BURNING IS EXECUTED IS AS FOLLOWS: HE WHO HAD BEEN THUS CONDEMNED WAS LOWERED INTO DUNG UP TO HIS ARMPITS, THEN A HARD CLOTH WAS PLACED WITHIN A SOFT ONE,[7]  WOUND ROUND HIS NECK, AND THE TWO LOOSE ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, FORCING HIM TO OPEN HIS MOUTH. A WICK WAS THEN LIT, AND THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND BURNT HIS BOWELS. R. JUDAH SAID: SHOULD HE HOWEVER HAVE DIED AT THEIR HANDS [BEING STRANGLED BY THE BANDAGE BEFORE THE WICK WAS THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, OR BEFORE IT COULD ACT], HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXECUTED BY FIRE AS PRESCRIBED. HENCE IT WAS DONE THUS: HIS MOUTH WAS FORCED OPEN WITH PINCERS AGAINST HIS WISH, THE WICK LIT AND THROWN INTO HIS MOUTH, SO THAT IT DESCENDED INTO HIS BODY AND BURNT HIS BOWELS. R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID: IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST’S DAUGHTER COMMITTED ADULTERY, WHEREUPON BUNDLES OF FAGGOTS WERE PLACED ROUND ABOUT HER AND SHE WAS BURNT. THE SAGES REPLIED, THAT WAS BECAUSE THE BETH DIN AT THAT TIME WAS NOT WELL LEARNED IN LAW.

GEMARA. What is meant by a WICK? — R. Mathna said: A lead bar [8]

- (1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 52a)

FOOTNOTES:

[7] The soft one alone could not exert sufficient pressure to open his mouth; whilst a hard one alone would bruise the skin and unnecessarily disfigure him (Rashi).

[8] ‘Lit’ in the Mishnah will therefore mean ‘melted’.

— Smashing Skull With Clubs

MISHNAH. … IF A PRIEST PERFORMED THE TEMPLE SERVICE WHILST UNCLEAN, HIS BROTHER PRIESTS DO NOT CHARGE HIM THEREWITH AT BETH DIN, BUT THE YOUNG PRIESTS TAKE HIM OUT OF THE TEMPLE COURT AND SPLIT HIS SKULL WITH CLUBS. — (1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 81b)

-

TALMUDIC LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE DIGNITY 

According to the COPLA/IAJLJ brief, Talmudic law tries to provide dignity to convicted persons throughout their trial and execution.

“Jewish Law was particularly insistent on the preservation of even a criminal’s rights and dignity during the course of punishment.”  – COLPA & IAJLJ Briefing

However, under Talmud law, a woman whose husband only suspects her of infidelity but has no proof is subjected to a trial by ordeal. Before the trial she is stripped to the waist and put on public display. The woman is presumed to be guilty, even though she denies it. Her husband has no direct evidence against her, but still, she is held up naked before the public as an example “that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.” Convicted persons are also humiliated by burying them in pits of animal dung, hardly a dignified sentence.

— Women stripped naked and put on display

MISHNAH. … If she says, ‘I am pure’, they bring her up to the East Gate … A priest seizes her garments … until he uncovers her bosom … If she wore golden ornaments and necklaces, ear-rings and finger-rings, they remove them from her in order to make her repulsive. After that [the priest] takes a common rope and binds it over her breasts. Whoever wishes to look upon her comes to look … All women are permitted to look upon her, as it is said, That all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness. – 1961 Soncino Bablylonian Talmud, Sotah 7a-b

— Buried In Manure

MISHNAH. THE MANNER IN WHICH BURNING IS EXECUTED IS AS FOLLOWS: HE WHO HAD BEEN THUS CONDEMNED 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 LOOSE ENDS PULLED IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS, FORCING HIM TO OPEN HIS MOUTH.  — 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 52a

 -

GENTILES ARE EASIER TO CONVICT THAN JEWS OR EVEN ANIMALS

Second, the brief tries to deceive the reader into believing that not only is it difficult to execute persons under Talmudic law due to “stringent rules regarding the admissibility of evidence” but that at least 23 judges and two eye witnesses are necessary to convict a person for execution. However, what the brief does not tell us is that 23 judges and two witnesses are needed only to convict Jews.  Non-Jews may be convicted and executed by one judge on the testimony of one witness.  In this case, non-Jews have less rights than even animals who must be convicted by 23 judges (just as Jews are).

The infrequency of the death penalty was attributable to the meticulous application of stringent rules regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence. A court of at least 23 judges would have to be satisfied, to a legal certainty, that the capital offense had been committed before the court could impose a death sentence. Since the testimony of two eye-witnesses was required, and the witnesses were subjected to searching and detailed interrogation by the court, there was rarely an instance when the evidence met the prescribed legal standard. – COPLA/IAJLJ Brief, Bryan v. Moore

— “Heathens” [non-Jews] my be executed by one judge on the testimony of one witness

GEMARA. … R. Jacob b. Aha found it written in the scholars’ Book of Aggada: A heathen is executed on the ruling of one judge, on the testimony of one witness, without a formal warning, on the evidence of a man, but not of a woman, even if he [the witness] be a relation. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 57b

— Animals have more rights than non-Jews

MISHNAH. … CAPITAL CASES ARE ADJUDICATED BY TWENTY-THREE. THE PERSON OR BEAST CHARGED WITH UNNATURAL INTERCOURSE, BY TWENTY-THREE, AS IT IS WRITTEN, THOU SHALT KILL THE WOMAN AND THE BEAST, AND ALSO, AND YE SHALL SLAY THE BEAST. THE OX TO BE STONED IS TRIED BY TWENTY-THREE, AS IT IS WRITTEN, THE OX SHALL BE STONED AND ITS OWNER SHALL BE PUT TO DEATH — AS THE DEATH OF THE OWNER, SO THAT OF THE OX, CAN BE DECIDED ONLY BY TWENTY-THREE. THE DEATH SENTENCE ON THE WOLF OR THE LION OR THE BEAR OR THE LEOPARD OR THE HYENA OR THE SERPENT IS TO BE PASSED BY TWENTY-THREE. R. ELIEZER SAYS: WHOEVER IS FIRST TO KILL THEM [WITHOUT TRIAL], ACQUIRES MERIT, R. AKIBA, HOWEVER, HOLDS THAT THEIR DEATH IS TO BE DECIDED BY TWENTY-THREE. – 1961 Soncino Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 2a

- 

THE SANHEDRIN IN ISRAEL GIVEN JURISDICTION OUTSIDE OF PALESTINE 

The blatant misrepresentation of Talmudic law by COLPA and IAJLJ in the matter of execution is extremely worrying since it is Talmudic execution laws which are necessary to implement Noahide Law in full.  Yet an even more sinister agenda can be detected in the choice of Talmudic misquotations COLPA and IAJLJ used to deceive the Supreme Court  and the public. The briefing attempts to portray the Jewish Courts as lacking desire to execute criminals by quoting only part of the MISHNA (law) from Talmud, Makkoth 7a.  The assertion that the Sanhedrin did not favor execution is demonstrated as false below, but more important are the other stipulations of this particular MISHNA (law) found in Makkoth 7a in regards to Noahide Law in America.  When the MISHNA (law) and following GAMERA (debate of stipulations) from  Makkoth 7a are read in full we learn that the Sanhedrin (Jewish Highest Court) has jurisdiction not only in “Palestine” but also outside of Palestine:

MISHNAH. IF ONE FLED AFTER HAVING BEEN CONVICTED AT A COURT AND AGAIN COMES UP BEFORE THE SAME COURT, THE [FIRST] JUDGMENT IS NOT SET ASIDE. WHEREVER TWO WITNESSES STAND UP AND DECLARE, ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N. N. WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED AT THE COURT OF X AND THAT Y AND Z WERE THE WITNESSES IN THE CASE,’ THE ACCUSED IS EXECUTED. A SANHEDRIN HAS JURISDICTION WITHIN THE LAND [OF PALESTINE] AND OUTSIDE IT. A SANHEDRIN THAT EFFECTS AN EXECUTION ONCE IN SEVEN YEARS, IS BRANDED A DESTRUCTIVE TRIBUNAL; R. ELIEZER B. AZARIAH SAYS: ONCE IN SEVENTY YEARS. R. TARFON AND R. AKIBA SAY: WERE WE MEMBERS OF A SANHEDRIN, NO PERSON WOULD EVER BE PUT TO DEATH. [THEREUPON] RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL REMARKED, [YEA] AND THEY WOULD ALSO MULTIPLY SHEDDERS OF BLOOD IN ISRAEL! – Babylonian Talmud, Makkoth 7a

The Sanhedrin is the highest court of the Jewish Talmudic religion… and by providing this particular MISHNA to the US Supreme Court, COLPA, IAJLJ and the Supreme Court of Israel (the briefing was reviewed by Deputy President of the Supreme Court of Israel, Rabbi Justice Elon) have made inroads into the US legal system to recognize the Sanhedrin’s authority from Israel.  There are current attempts to revive the Sanhedrin in Israel (see here).

COPLA/IAJLJ LIES TO DECEIVE THE US SUPREME COURT AND PUBLIC INTO BELIEVING MANY RABBIS WERE AGAINST EXECUTION 

Below is the text where COLPA and IAJLJ attempt to deceive the Supreme Court readers into believing that many Rabbis were unwilling to proceed with executions, while others did so only because they believed it would act as a deterrent to criminals.  When the text is put in context, we see that in this instance the Rabbis are speaking about a very special case whereby a criminal has been convicted, flees the land, and is then returned to the Sanhedrin (Jewish Court) for trial once again, but the original witnesses to the crime are no longer available.  In this case, two witnesses to the trial  must state that the criminal was tried and they must say who the original witnesses were.  One Rabbi states that such a judicial procedure done every seven or even every seventy years would make the Sanhedrin “murderous”… yet the text shows the Rabbis are confused by this statement and don’t know whether or not this is meant to be a condemnation or a simple statement of fact.  The Rabbis then discuss a way to test whether the two witnesses to the trial (not the original witnesses to the crime) are sound; they simply pose questions about the trial to the two witnesses, if they are unable to answer simple questions to prove they witnessed the trial, it is recommended the person is not put to death.

The Mishna2 in the tractate Makkoth (7a) declared:

The Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years is called “murderous.” Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that this extends to one execution in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, “If we had been among the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been executed.” Rabbi Simon ben Gamliel responds, “Such an attitude would increase bloodshed in Israel.”

This exchange among rabbis living in the first and second centuries reflects differences over the deterrent value of capital punishment that continue among legal scholars to this day. Some rabbis of the Mishnaic period (such as Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva) were unwilling to participate in a process that would take human life, while other rabbis (like Rabbi Simon ben Gamliel) believed that capital punishment had a deterrent effect that permitted it to be employed .-  (COLPA & IAJLJ Briefing)

- Read Entire Mishnah & Gamera With Footnotes
(Babylonian Talmud, Makkoth 7a)

MISHNAH. IF ONE FLED AFTER HAVING BEEN CONVICTED AT A COURT AND AGAIN COMES UP BEFORE THE SAME COURT, THE [FIRST] JUDGMENT IS NOT SET ASIDE. WHEREVER TWO WITNESSES STAND UP AND DECLARE, ‘WE TESTIFY THAT N. N. WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED AT THE COURT OF X AND THAT Y AND Z WERE THE WITNESSES IN THE CASE,’ THE ACCUSED IS EXECUTED. A SANHEDRIN HAS JURISDICTION WITHIN THE LAND [OF PALESTINE] AND OUTSIDE IT. A SANHEDRIN THAT EFFECTS AN EXECUTION ONCE IN SEVEN YEARS, IS BRANDED A DESTRUCTIVE TRIBUNAL; R. ELIEZER B. AZARIAH SAYS: ONCE IN SEVENTY YEARS. R. TARFON AND R. AKIBA SAY: WERE WE MEMBERS OF A SANHEDRIN, NO PERSON WOULD EVER BE PUT TO DEATH. [THEREUPON] RABBAN SIMEON B. GAMALIEL REMARKED, [YEA] AND THEY WOULD ALSO MULTIPLY SHEDDERS OF BLOOD IN ISRAEL! - (Babylonian Talmud, Makkoth 7a)

GEMARA. … A SANHEDRIN THAT EFFECTS AN EXECUTION ONCE IN SEVEN YEARS IS BRANDED A DESTRUCTIVE TRIBUNAL; R. ELIEZER B. AZARIAH SAYS, ONCE IN SEVENTY YEARS. The question was raised whether the comment [of R. Eleizer b. Azariah was a censure, namely] that even one death-sentence in seventy years branded the Sanhedrin as a destructive tribunal, or [a mere observation] that it ordinarily happened but once in seventy years? — it stands [undecided]. (Babylonian Talmud, Makkoth 7a)

GEMARA. [IF ONE FLED . . . AND AGAIN COMES UP BEFORE THE SAME COURT . . .] This wording implies [that the first judgment] is not to be set aside in the same Court, but may be setaside In another Court, whereas in the next clause we read: WHEREVER TWO WITNESSES STAND UP AND DECLARE, ‘WE TESTIFY THAT THIS MAN WAS TRIED ANDCONVICTED AT THE COURT OF X AND THAT Y AND Z WERE THE WITNESSES IN THECASE’ THE ACCUSED IS EXECUTED [which conveys a contrary impression]! — Said Abaye:That presents no difficulty; [there are two domains in regard to Court decisions], one has reference to a Palestinian Court, the other to an extra-Palestinian Court, as it is taught: R. Judah b. Dosithai says [in the name of R. Simeon b. Shetah] that if a fugitive from Palestine went abroad, his sentence is not set aside; from abroad to Palestine, his sentence is set aside, on account of Palestine’s prerogative.6

A SANHEDRIN HAS JURISDICTION WITHIN THE LAND . . . AND OUTSIDE IT.

What [Scriptural] authority is there for this? — Our Rabbis taught: [From the text,] And these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings,7 we learn that a Sanhedrin has jurisdiction both in and outside Palestine. If that be so, what is the import of [the limitation in] the text, Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates which the Lord thy God giveth thee tribe by tribe?8 — [It means that] in your [own] gates you set up tribunals in every district as well as in every city, whereas outside the Land [of Palestine], you set up tribunals only in every district but not in every city.9

A SANHEDRIN THAT EFFECTS AN EXECUTION ONCE IN SEVEN YEARS IS BRANDED A DESTRUCTIVE TRIBUNAL; R. ELIEZER B. AZARIAH SAYS, ONCE IN SEVENTY YEARS. The question was raised whether the comment [of R. Eliezer b. Azariah was a censure, namely] that even one death-sentence in seventy years branded the Sanhedrin as a destructive tribunal, or [a mere observation] that it ordinarily happened but once in seventy years? — It stands [undecided].

TARFON AND R. AKIBA SAY, WERE WE MEMBERS OF A SANHEDRIN, NO PERSON WOULD EVER BE PUT TO DEATH. How could they [being judges] give effect to that [policy]? Both R. Johanan and R. Eleazar suggested that the witnesses might be plied with [intimate] questions such as, ‘Did you take note whether the victim was [perchance] suffering from some fatal affection or was he perfectly healthy?’ R. Ashi [enlarging on this] said: And should the reply be, ‘Perfectly healthy’, they might further be embarrassed by asking, ‘Maybe the sword only severed an internal lesion?’10

And what would be asked, say, in a charge of incest? — Both Abaye and Raba suggested asking the witnesses whether they had seen the offenders as intimate as ‘kohl-flask and probe’?11

Now [with regard to] the Rabbis,12 what kind of evidence [in such a charge] would they deem sufficient to convict? — According to Samuel’s maxim; for Samuel said that being caught in the attitude of the unchaste is sufficient evidence.

FOOTNOTES:

(6) Cf. Tosef. Sanh III, 11, ‘R. Dosithai b. Judah (J. Mak. I has ‘R.D.b. Jannai) says that fugitives who had been convicted to death, having fled from Palestine abroad, are put to death forthwith; and those who fled to Palestine from abroad are not put to death (forthwith), but are sent to trial as in the first instance.’ ‘Dos, b. Judah’ seems the better reading; also the bracketed part is missing in many good MSS.

(7) Num. XXXV, 29 (in reference to manslaying). The wording makes the provision operative everywhere and always.

(8) Deut. XVI, 18, i.e. in Palestine only, after the distribution and occupation of the land by all the tribes.

(9) No city was entitled to a Sanhedrin of twenty-three judges unless it had at least 120 residents (another view 230), cf. Sanh. 17b.

(10) The juridical point involved in asking such intimate questions is this: that if the witnesses could not be absolutely certain on any material point in the evidence, they could not be expected to take a lead in the actual execution of the offender, as required by law. (Deut. XVII, 6-7.) Thus capital punishment fails.

(11) A euphemism for carnal intimacy.

(12) I.e., those others who do not share the views of R. Tarfon and R. Akiba in regard to capital punishment.

(13) I.e., accidentally, without premeditation.

(14) Eastern roofs are flat; they are plastered to make them water-tight and give them the necessary slope. The levelling is done by a log (or smooth flat stone) to which a long handle attached, by which it is pushed backwards and forwards. Cf. M. K. 11a and Vergil, Georgics, I, 178, area cum primis ingenti aequanda cylindro.

IAJLJ/COPLA PROMOTES DECAPITATION AS A HUMANE EXECUTION METHOD FOR THE USA

Finally, we need to end this review by showing that while IAJLJ/COPLA admonishes the electric chair as an inhuman form of execution (which it may very well be) they attempt to promote Talmudic decapitation as a possible alternative, even though the Talmud states that decapitation is the most disfiguring form of execution. Again, this is important to note since it is decapitation which is the method of execution prescribed under Noahide Law.

Decapitation and Strangulation Were Intended To Be Quick and Relatively Painless Forms of Execution.

The Mishna (Sanhedrin 52b) describes execution by decapitation – which was invoked primarily for murderers – as the same form of capital punishment that was used at the time by civil rulers under the Roman legal system. The condemned person’s trachea and esophagus were severed with a sharp sword so that he would die instantly. When one rabbi of the Mishna suggested that it was too demeaning to the accused to be executed in a standing position because his body would slump to the floor and that, instead, his head should be positioned on a wooden chopping-block and removed with an ax, the majority of the rabbis responded that this was impermissible because it could result in even greater mutilation.

This discussion on the subject of decapitation reveals again how conscious the rabbis were of the obligations (1) to impose rapid death, (2) to minimize pain, and (3) to avoid mutilation. In actual administration of this form of execution, they sought to achieve these objectives. The discussion of this form of execution was again concluded with the previously cited observation, attributed to one Rabbi Nachman, quoting Rabba the son of Avuha: “Scripture states, ‘You shall love your fellow as yourself’ so that you must choose for him a humane death.” This admonition is repeated in the Talmudic tractates Pesachim(75a) and Ketubot (37a).

The same principle governed the rules of strangulation. Death is caused by quick and certain choking when a cord around the condemned person’s neck is pulled in opposite directions simultaneously by the eye-witnesses to the offense (who are required to participate in the execution). Pain and mutilation are minimized because the cord that is used for the execution is placed within a soft cloth. The Talmud explains that this form of death “leaves no mark on the body.” – IAJLJ/COPLA, Brian v. Moore

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, IAJLJ/COPLA purposely deceived both the supreme court and the public into believing that Talmudic execution law is humane, non-disfiguring and provides the convicted with dignity, all of which has been proven to be false. They also misled the court to believe that under Jewish law, there are stringent rules of evidence which must be followed before a person can be sentenced to execution, however they failed to mention that these stringent rules of evidence only apply to Jews, while non-Jews are much easier to convict and execute under Talmudic Law. While the submitted brief may have been correct in asserting that death by electric chair is cruel and inhumane, it failed to point out that Talmudic methods of execution are also cruel and inhumane and that the procedures for trial and execution are biased in favor of Jews.  The brief also promoted the idea that Talmudic decapitation could be a proper alternative to death by electric chair.  This is significant because decapitation is the necessary mode of execution for violation of Noahide Law. Finally, carefully chosen exerts from the Talmud, if accepted by the court, would lend approval to the Talmudic injunction that the Jewish high court , the Sanhedrin in Israel (reviving), has jurisdiction both inside and outside of the land of Palestine.