Tuesday, November 3, 2026

Don't get confused, Noahide Laws outside Israel before the Messianic Age are not the same as the laws for Ger Toshav Noahides inside Israel when there is a Sanhedrin


SIGN THE PETITION 


We have discussed how Noahide Laws are to be implemented outside the land of Israel prior to the time of the Messiah, not just within Israel when there is a Sanhedrin (here). Many Noahide apologists try to calm our fears by telling us that the Noahide Laws are not active until Israel is a theocracy, and then it only applies under Jewish jurisdiction.  This is a misconception, and it comes from the fact that there is a distinction between a non-Jew living inside Israel during the time of a Sanhedrin, and a non-Jew living outside Israel before a Sanhedrin.  Non-Jews who live inside the land of Israel when there is a Sanhedrin have a special classification (because the rules are more strict for them) called a "Ger Toshav".  According to most Jews (except Rabbi Schneerson), a Ger Toshav cannot be accepted without a Sanhedrin that can announce a Jubilee year. I cannot find a Jewish source for it, but Grok AI states that within Israel, during the time when there is a Sanhedrin and Ger Toshav can be accepted, Jews set up courts for non-Jews, though the judges may be non-Jews if decided.  Outside the land of Israel, prior to a Sanhedrin, Jews are simply here to influence non-Jews to set up their own courts and enforce the Noahide Laws on themselves. The idea that Noahide punishments only take place under Jewish jurisdiction when there is a Sanhedrin in Israel is not true; outside the land of Israel prior to the Messiah non-Jews are always influenced to set up Noahide courts with punishments. It is only within the land of Israel that Noahide courts are not set up until there is a proper Jewish court (Sanhedrin) because within Israel the Jews are to set up the courts for the Gentiles. However, Jewish authorities like the Chief Rabbinate in Israel have legally accepted Ger Toshavs even now, when there is no Sanhedrin to facilitate land deals in Israel; the Rabbis are not always strict with their own rules.  Another thing Noahide apologists often say is that, according to the Talmud, a Sanhedrin that executes someone every 70 years is a "murderous" Sanhedrin and that Jewish courts are very light on capital punishment.  First, outside the land of Israel prior to the Messiah, non-Jews are not tried by a Sanhedrin but by Gentile Noahide courts (set up at the suggestion of Rabbis), and it is much easier to try and convict Gentiles than Jews. However, a few things: the Talmud does record executions; the Sanhedrin hardly ever executed anyone because, for most of its history, it was under foreign domination and did not have the right to hand out capital punishment; and lastly, the Talmud in Makkoth 7a is talking about a very specific kind of case that should not lead to execution even in every 70 years, and that is when the original witnesses to the crime are no longer available for a retrial. 


Definition of a Ger Toshav

Definition of Ger Toshav (Wikipedia)
Ger toshav (Hebrew: גר תושב‎ ger "foreigner" or "alien" + toshav "resident", lit. "resident alien") is a term in Judaism for a gentile (non-Jew) living in the Land of Israel who accepts upon him/herself (and observes) the Noahide Laws (the minimum set of imperatives which in Jewish tradition are said to be applicable to non-Jews, consisting of seven out of the 613 commandments in Judaism) and certain other religious and cultural traditions under Jewish law. A ger toshav is therefore commonly deemed a righteous gentile (Hebrew: חסיד אומות העולם‎ chassid umot ha-olam "Pious People of the World"). -

Definition of Ger Toshav (1906 Jewish Encyclopedia)

The “Ger.”- Term employed generally, though not exclusively, in the Septuagint as a rendering for the Hebrew word “ger,” designating a convert from one religion to another. The original meaning of the Hebrew is involved in some doubt. Modern interpreters hold it to have connoted, at first, a stranger (or a “client,” in the technical sense of the word) residing in Palestine, who had put himself under the protection of the people (or of one of them) among whom he had taken up his abode. In later, post-exilic usage it denotes a convert to the Jewish religion. In the Septuagint and the New Testament the Greek equivalent has almost invariably the latter signification (but see Geiger, “Urschrift,” pp. 353 et seq.), though in the Septuagint the word implies also residence in Palestine on the part of one who had previously resided elsewhere, an implication entirely lost both in the Talmudical “ger” and in the New Testament προσέλύτος… 
…In order to find a precedent the Rabbis went so far as to assume that proselytes of this order were recognized in Biblical law, applying to them the term “toshab” (“sojourner,” “aborigine,” referring to the Canaanites; see Maimonides’ explanation in “Yad,” Issure Biah, xiv. 7; see Grätz, l.c. p. 15), in connection with “ger” (see Ex. xxv. 47, where the better reading would be “we-toshab”). Another name for one of this class was “proselyte of the gate” (“ger ha-sha’ar,” that is, one under Jewish civil jurisdiction; comp. Deut. v. 14, xiv. 21, referring to the stranger who had legal claims upon the generosity and protection of his Jewish neighbors). In order to be recognized as one of these the neophyte had publicly to assume, before three “ḥaberim,” or men of authority, the solemn obligation not to worship idols, an obligation which involved the recognition of the seven Noachian injunctions as binding (‘Ab. Zarah 64b; “Yad,” Issure Biah, xiv. 7)…
…In contradistinction to the ger toshab, the full proselyte was designated as “ger ha-ẓedeḳ,” “ger ha-berit” (a sincere and righteous proselyte, one who has submitted to circumcision; see Mek., Mishpaṭim, 18; Gerim iii.). 

A Jubilee Can Only Take Place Under A Sanhedrin; No Ger Toshavs Accepted Without A Sanhedrin. Schneerson Disagrees.
Common Opinon: Jubilees can only take place under a Sanhedrin, without a true Sanhedrin, no Jubilee and thus no Ger Toshav
The procedure has been discontinued since the cessation of the Year of Jubilee, and hence, there are no formal geirim toshvim (plural) extant today. However, it can be argued that a great deal are "informal" ones,[1] especially since it is possible to be a chasid umot ha'olam even when the Jubilee Year is not observed. - Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin, ed. (1979). "Ger Toshav, Section 1". Encyclopedia Talmudit (in Hebrew) (Fourth Printing ed.). Jerusalem, Israel: Yad Harav Herzog (Emet).
Although the laws of shemittah are observed in Israel to this very day, the Jubilee year is not designated or observed. There are many reasons for this. Some of them: a) The Jubilee only affected the shemittah cycle when the shemittah was established and declared by the Sanhedrin, as opposed to today when it is automatically programmed into the perpetual Jewish calendar. b) The observance of shemittah today is only a rabbinic decree, and therefore the Jubilee year does not affect its cycle. c) No commemoration is in order when there is no Sanhedrin, whose participation in the declaration of the Jubilee year was integral. In fact, it was the Sanhedrin’s blast of the shofar (ram's horn) on Yom Kippur which signaled the entry of the Jubilee year. 
SOURCE:- http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/513212/jewish/When-is-the-next-Jubilee-year.htm

 

GER TOSHAV ARE NOT ACCEPTED AT THIS TIME 
The recognition of these quasi-proselytes rendered it obligatory upon the Jews to treat them as brothers (see ‘Ab. Zarah 65a; Pes. 21a). But by the third century the steady growth of Christianity had caused these qualified conversions to Judaism to be regarded with increasing disfavor. According to Simeon b. Eleazar, this form of adoption into Judaism was valid only when the institution of the jubilee also was observed, that is, according to the common understanding of his dictum, during the national existence of Israel (‘Ar. 29a). A similar observation of Maimonides (“Yad,” Issure Biah, xiv. 7-8; ib. ‘Akkum, x. 6) is construed in the same sense. It seems more probable that Maimonides and Simeon ben Eleazar wished to convey the idea that, for their day, the institution of the ger toshab was without practical warrant in the Torah. R. Johanan declares that if after a probation of twelve months the ger toshab did not submit to the rite of circumcision, he was to be regarded as a heathen (‘Ab. Zarah 65a; the same period of probation is fixed by Ḥanina bar Ḥama in Yer. Yeb. 8d).  

– Proselyte, 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, Retrieved From http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12391-proselyte 


Schneerson disagrees, Ger Toshav can be accepted at any time, not just during a Jubilee  
עוד מבאר בלקוטי שיחות ע"פ הצפנת פענח שחסיד אומות העולם אינו דוקא גר תושב, ואפשר לב"נ להיות חסיד אומות העולם, אע"פ שאינו גר תושב. ולכן לא הזכיר הרמב"ם כאן ש'אין מקבלין גר תושב אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג' כדרכו בכל מקום (הארה: ראה הל' ע"ז פ"י, הל' מילה פ"א, הל' שבת פ"כ, הל' איסורי ביאה פי"ד.) שהזכיר דין ג"ת, כי אין כוונת הרמב"ם שכופין ב"נ להיות ג"ת, אלא לבאר האפשרויות העמודות לב"נ על פי התורה. א) גרות גמורה מרצונו, ב) קיום שבע מצוות - ועל זה צוה ה' את משה לכופם, ג) גר תושב, ד) למול עצמו.‎ 

"It is further explained in Likkutei Sichot according to the Tzafnat Pane'ach that a chasid umot ha'olam [lit. Pious People of the World] is not necessarily a ger toshav, and it is possible for a Gentile [lit. Descendant of Noah] to be a chasid umot ha'olam despite him not being a ger toshav. And therefore the Rambam did not mention here that "We only accept a ger toshav while the Jubilee Year is observed" as usual in all the places (footnote: See Hilchot Avodah Zarah ch. 10, Hilchot Milah ch. 1, Hilchot Shabbat ch. 20, Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah ch. 14) that he mentions the law of the ger toshav, because the Rambam's intention was not that we force Gentiles [lit. Descendants of Noah] to be geirim toshvim, but rather to explain the options that stand for the Gentile [lit. Descendant of Noah] according to the Torah: 1) Complete conversion by his own free will, 2) upholding the seven mitzvot - and regarding this, G‑d commanded Moses to compel them, 3) ger toshav, 4) to circumcise himself." 


According to AI, courts for non-Jews inside the land of Israel, when there is a Sanhedrin, are set up by Jewish authorities, but gentile judges may be appointed

By courts (with judges) appointed by the Jewish courts/Sanhedrin—often preferably gentile judges from among the resident non-Jews themselves, or Jewish judges if the Beit Din deems that better. They are not tried in fully independent, unsupervised “gentile courts” outside Jewish authority in the Land of Israel under a functioning Sanhedrin and Jewish sovereignty.

This follows Maimonides (Rambam) in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim uMilchamot (Laws of Kings and Wars) 10:11, which addresses gerim toshavim (resident aliens/Noahides who have formally accepted the seven Noahide laws before a Jewish court and are permitted to reside in the Land of Israel, especially in periods when the Jubilee is observed):

The Jewish court is obligated to appoint judges for these resident aliens to judge them according to these statutes so that the world will not become decadent. If the court sees fit to appoint the judges from the resident aliens themselves, they may. If it sees fit to appoint them from among the Jews, they may.

  • The obligation is on the Jewish Beit Din (the Sanhedrin system) to establish this judicial system for the resident non-Jews so that justice is upheld regarding the Noahide laws (and the world does not become corrupted).
  • Preference is generally given to appointing judges from among the gerim toshavim themselves when feasible and appropriate. Jewish judges are appointed only if the Jewish court determines that is better for the non-Jews involved.
  • These are courts operating under Jewish authority and appointment in the Land of Israel. They judge according to the Noahide statutes (with the distinctive procedural rules that apply to Noahides, such as liability based on one witness and one judge, without the need for prior warning in many cases, and capital punishment by the sword for the relevant offenses).

Related rules (same chapter, 10:12) clarify that two non-Jews who voluntarily come before a Jewish court and both want to be judged according to Torah/Jewish law may be so judged. If only one wants that, they are not compelled and are judged according to their own (Noahide) law. In mixed Jew–non-Jew cases, special rules apply depending on whether the non-Jew has accepted the Noahide laws (a ger toshav is generally judged according to the relevant laws in a manner protective of the relationship).

In short: Within the Land of Israel under a Sanhedrin and Jewish rule, non-Jews (resident Noahides) are tried for Noahide Law violations in a judicial system set up and overseen by the Jewish courts. The judges themselves may be non-Jews or Jews, as the Beit Din decides is most suitable. Outside Jewish sovereignty, Noahide communities/nations are responsible for establishing their own courts to fulfill the commandment of dinim (establishing courts of justice).

This framework applies specifically in the context of a functioning Jewish polity in the Land with the appropriate institutions (Sanhedrin, etc.). Modern or non-sovereign situations are different.

- By Grok


Ger Toshav announced in Israel


Article 1:
After 2500 years: the rabbinate granted the status of "resident ger"

Mndi Grozmn  | 21/9/2014 11:31 
A rabbinical court headed by Chief Rabbi David Lau granted the status to a Polish-born Jew, who was born in Ukraine, had land been sold in the framework of the Heter Mechirah. Streichman enjoyed special status because he was a foreigner who believed in the God of Israel 
Two hundred and five hundred years after the Israeli court granted the man the status of a "resident ger," the tradition was renewed: a court headed by Chief Rabbi David Lau, Rabbi Zion Boaron, and Rabbi Zion Algrabali this week granted the unique status to a native of Ukraine, A Jew who immigrated to Israel as part of the Law of Return and now lives in Ramat Gan. Behind the process is the approaching sabbatical year. 
Unlike the sale of chametz on Passover, the practice of selling land prior to the sabbatical year creates a clash with the prohibition of takhanim, which prevents the sale of land to a person who is not a member of the Jewish people. Accordingly, over the years, the purchaser was careful not to be an idolater, but this year the rabbinate decided to locate Ben Noah, a foreigner who fulfills the seven commandments and believes in the Gd of Israel. 
The ceremony took place on Wednesday at the Jerusalem Rabbinate, and was attended by Chief Rabbi David Lau, Deputy Minister for Religious Services Eli Ben Dahan, Rabbi Yaakov Ariel, Rabbi Avraham Yosef and Israel Lands Administration Director Bentzi Lieberman. The sale included both the fields of the farmers who chose the "sale permit" and the state land. Over the past few weeks, the parties have signed forms according to which they transfer their rights to the Chief Rabbis, who for their part transferred the rights to the ILA, and Lieberman sold them together with state lands to Streichman.  
After a tense period in relations between the Chief Rabbinate and the Ministry of Religious Services, it seems that for the Sabbatical year, joint efforts were made to pass the year peacefully. In the previous Sabbatical year, the state comptroller criticized the authorities for unnecessary procrastination in the procedures  
 By Deputy Minister Ben Dahan to please all those involved. Chief Rabbi David Lau also introduced amendments to the wording of the sale and improved its halakhic level. The sale itself lasted an indefinite period of time: each form was brought to the attention of the rabbis and then to Ben Dahan's review - and only after he obtained the approval of the Chief Rabbinate and the Ministry of Religious Services was it signed.    
Rabbi Uri Sharki, head of Brit Olam, the world center for Bnei Noach, also served as Shtreichman's spiritual mentor. After years of dealing with the issue of the sons of Noah, for him it was a dream come true. "What happened in the court this week is the beginning of a change for the better and the renewal of the treatment of humanity by the people of Israel," he said in a conversation with Makor Rishon.  
"I aspire to anchor the status of the 'sons of Noah' in the law, and in the present situation, a couple who are both defined as Noahites can not marry in Israel. I work to ensure that they are recognized by the state authorities and by the Chief Rabbinate and that they will be able to marry in a wedding ceremony that is suited to them. "Sharki views the Noahide issue as a basic point in Judaism:" This is a basic method of Judaism that seeks to correct the world in the kingdom of Gd, "We did not invent it.  
"In response to the claim that the efforts should be focused on the Jews and not on the sons of other peoples, Sharki says," On the contrary, I claim that the distancing of the Jews from their tradition stems also from the absence of a universal message in Judaism, in truth there is in it. " Makor Rishon operation acquaintance. Register for an attractive offer



THE SANHEDRIN DID EXECUTE PERSONS

It is of extreme difficulty to determine whether the modes of capital punishment given above, and based on the detailed discussion, mainly in the tractate Sanhedrin, reflect actual practice, or whether they were academic discussions, as, for instance, are the detailed discussions on the sacrifices. Thus the law of the “stubborn and rebellious son” covers five mishnayot (Sanh. 8:1–5) and four folios of the Babylonian Talmud (68b–72a), and it is laid down that he is put to death by stoning and then hanged (ibid., 46a). Yet it is stated that “It never happened and it never will happen” and that the law was given merely “that you may study it and receive reward” (for the pure study; Tosef., Sanh. 11:6; Sanh. 71a), though on the other hand in the talmudic passage R. Jonathan protests “I saw him and sat on his grave.” The same statement is made in the case of the death penalty for communal apostasy (Tosef., Sanh. 14:1) and the same reason given for its study… 
…All that one can do is to assemble the available evidence. That the Sanhedrin had the power of inflicting the death sentence and that they exercised it is historically attested. Herod was arraigned before it on a capital charge, although he was enabled to escape and avoid the penalty (Jos., Ant., 14:168–70). Judah b. Tabbai admitted that he had wrongly sentenced a perjured witness to death (TJ, Sanh. 6:4, 23a–Tosef., Sanh. 6:6). The son of his colleague, Simeon b. Shetaḥ, was also wrongly condemned to death through false witness, and when the witnesses confessed their perjury the condemned man refused to take advantage of it lest his father, the head of the Sanhedrin, be accused of favoritism, and he went to his death, though innocent (TJ, loc. cit.). It is also clear from an incident vividly described by Simeon b. Shetaḥ that the laws of evidence were strictly adhered to (Tosef., Sanh. 8:3). One anonymous case is cited in the same context. “It happened that a man was being led to his execution. They said to him, ‘Say, “May my death be an atonement for all my sins.'” He replied ‘May my death be an atonement for all my sins, except for this one (for which I have been sentenced to death). If I am guilty of it, may my death not be an atonement, and the Bet Din and all Israel shall be guiltless'” (the version in the Babylonian Talmud adds “but may the witnesses never be forgiven””). When the matter was reported to the sages, their eyes filled with tears, but they said, “It is impossible to reverse the decision, since the matter is endless; [he must be executed] but his blood is on the necks of the witnesses” (TJ Sanh. 6:5, 23a). Nevertheless, in none of those cases is the manner of execution given and the remarkable fact emerges that in the two cases cited where the mode of execution is explicitly stated the verdicts were extra-judicial. One was the action of Simeon b. Shetaḥ in sentencing 80 women in Ashkelon to hanging for witchcraft (Sanh. 6:4, cf. Sanh. 46a. Derembourg suggests that Simeon b. Shetaḥ is a mistake for the Hasmonean), while of the other it is stated: “It once happened that during the Greek period a man was sentenced to death by stoning for riding a horse on the Sabbath. Not that he was liable to death, but because the special circumstances of the time demanded it” (Sanh. 46a). 
– Capital Punishment, Jewish Virtual Library, Retrieved From https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

THE OLD SANHEDRIN EXISTED ALMOST ENTIRELY UNDER FOREIGN RULE AND WAS NOT INDEPENDENT (COULD NOT ADMINISTER CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


"The earliest record of a Sanhedrin is by Josephus who wrote of a political Sanhedrin convened by the Romans in 57 B.C.E. Hellenistic sources generally depict the Sanhedrin as a political and judicial council headed by the country’s ruler….In about 30 C.E., the Great Sanhedrin lost its authority to inflict capital punishment."
– Sanhedrin, Jewish Virtual Library, Retrieved From https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-sanhedrin

 

"the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, “40 years before the Destruction of the Temple” (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a)."
– Capital Punishment, Jewish Virtual Library, Retrieved From https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

WHEN PUT IN CONTEXT, THE TALMUD DOES NOT CONDEMN A SANHEDRIN DEATH PENALTY EVEN ONCE IN SEVENTY YEARS; IT SIMPLY SAYS YOU MUST HAVE THE ORIGINAL WITNESSES TO THE CRIME TO EXECUTE


Read Entire Mishnah & Gamera With Footnotes

(Babylonian Talmud, Makkoth 7a)
https://web.archive.org/web/20150330020249/http://www.halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Makkoth.pdf


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! 

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]. 

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. 
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)