Capital Punishment

(22) When men fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact from him, the payment to be based on reckoning. (23) But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

(17) If any party kills any human being, that person shall be put to death. (18) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it: life for life. (19) If any party maims another [person]: what was done shall be done in return— (20) fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The injury inflicted on a human being shall be inflicted in return. (21) One who kills a beast shall make restitution for it; but one who kills a human being shall be put to death.

(15) A single witness may not validate against a person any guilt or blame for any offense that may be committed; a case can be valid only on the testimony of two witnesses or more. (16) If a man appears against another to testify maliciously and gives false testimony against him, (17) the two parties to the dispute shall appear before Adonai, before the priests or magistrates in authority at the time, (18) and the magistrates shall make a thorough investigation. If the man who testified is a false witness, if he has testified falsely against his fellow, (19) you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst; (20) others will hear and be afraid, and such evil things will not again be done in your midst. (21) Nor must you show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

(7) Let the hands of the witnesses be the first to put [the condemned] to death, followed by the hands of the rest of the people. Thus you will sweep out evil from your midst.

(10) A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is considered bloodthirsty. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: once in seventy years.

Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been in the Sanhedrin, no person would have ever been executed.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Then they would increase murderers among the Jewish people.

(5) How does the court intimidate the witnesses in giving testimony for cases of capital law? They would bring the witnesses in and intimidate them by saying to them: Perhaps what you say in your testimony is based on conjecture, or perhaps it is based on a rumor, perhaps it is testimony based on hearsay, e.g., you heard a witness testify to this in a different court, or perhaps it is based on the statement of a trusted person. Perhaps you do not know that ultimately we examine you with inquiry and interrogation, and if you are lying, your lie will be discovered. The court tells them: You should know that cases of capital law are not like cases of monetary law. In cases of monetary law, a person who testifies falsely, causing money to be given to the wrong party, can give the money to the proper owner and his sin is atoned for. In cases of capital law, if one testifies falsely, the blood of the accused and the blood of his offspring that he did not merit to produce are ascribed to the witness’s testimony until eternity. The proof for this is as we found with Cain, who killed his brother, as it is stated concerning him: “The voice of your brother’s blood [demei] cries out to Me from the ground” (Genesis 4:10). The verse does not state: Your brother’s blood [dam], in the singular, but rather: “Your brother’s blood [demei],” in the plural. This serves to teach that the loss of both his brother’s blood and the blood of his brother’s offspring are ascribed to Cain. [...] The court tells the witnesses: Therefore, Adam the first man was created alone, to teach you that with regard to anyone who destroys one soul from the Jewish people, i.e., kills one Jew, the verse ascribes him blame as if he destroyed an entire world, as Adam was one person, from whom the population of an entire world came forth. And conversely, anyone who sustains one soul from the Jewish people, the verse ascribes him credit as if he sustained an entire world. [...] The court says to the witnesses: And perhaps you will say: Why would we want this trouble? Perhaps it would be better not to testify at all. But be aware, as is it not already stated: “And he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1)? It is a transgression not to testify when one can do so. And perhaps you will say: Why would we want to be responsible for the blood of this person? But be aware, as is it not already stated: “When the wicked perish, there is song” (Proverbs 11:10)?

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Shataḥ said as an oath: I will not see the consolation of Israel if I did not once see one person pursue another into a ruin, and I pursued him and saw a sword in his hand, dripping with blood, and the one who was ultimately killed was convulsing. And I said to him: Wicked person, who has killed this man? Either you or I. But what can I do, since your blood is not given over to me, as the Torah states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death” (Deuteronomy 17:6), and I did not witness you killing him. The One Who knows one’s thoughts shall punish this man who killed another. The Sages said: They did not move from there before a snake came and bit the murderer, and he died.

(1) They used to examine witnesses with seven inquiries: In what week of years? In what year? In what month? On what date in the month? On what day? In what hour? In what place? Rabbi Yose says: [They only asked:] On what day? In what hour? In what place? [Moreover they asked:] Do you recognize him? Did you warn him? If one had committed idolatry [they asked the witnesses:] What did he worship and how did he worship it?

(2) The more a judge examines the evidence the more he is deserving of praise. Ben Zakkai once checked with regards to the stalks of figs. What is the difference between inquiries and examinations? With regards to inquiries, if one [of the two witnesses] says “I do not know”, their evidence becomes invalid. But if to one of the examinations one answered, “I do not know”, or even if they both answered, “We do not know”, their evidence remains valid. Yet if they contradict each other, whether during the inquiries or examinations, their evidence becomes invalid.

. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: I heard that the court may administer lashes and capital punishment, even when not required by Torah law. And they may not administer these punishments with the intention of violating the statement of the Torah, i.e., to disregard the punishment stated in the Torah and administer another punishment; rather, they may administer these punishments to erect a fence around the Torah, so that people will fear sinning. And an incident occurred involving one who rode a horse on Shabbat during the days of the Greeks, and they brought him to court and stoned him, not because he deserved that punishment, as riding a horse on Shabbat is forbidden only by rabbinic decree, but because the hour required it, as people had become lax in their observance of Shabbat and therefore it became necessary to impose the severe punishment for a relatively minor offense. Another incident occurred involving a man who engaged in intercourse with his wife in public under a fig tree, and they brought him to court and flogged him, not because that punishment was fitting for him, as such conduct is not forbidden by the Torah, but because the hour required it. People had become remiss in matters of modesty; therefore, stringent measures had to be taken to rectify the situation.

(1) That He prohibited the judge to declare punishments by way of strong conjectures, and even when it is almost certain. For example, that one man is running after his enemy to kill him; and in order to escape from him, he enters a house; but then the pursuer runs behind him. And others enter after him and find the pursued in death throes, while his enemy that was pursuing him is standing over him, the knife dripping blood in the hand - the [court] may not kill him, from the angle of executing the punishment, since witnesses are not testifying that they saw the killing. And the prohibition about killing this one comes in the Torah; and that is His saying, "do not kill an innocent righteous man" (Exodus 23:7). And in the Mekhilta (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 23:7:2), they said, "If they saw him pursuing another to kill him, and they warned him and said to him, 'He is an Israelite, he is a Son of the Covenant; and if you kill him, you shall be killed.' But they averted their eyes, and found [the one pursued] in the death throes, the knife dripping blood in the hand of the murderer - I might understand that he is liable [for the death penalty. Hence] we learn to say, 'do not kill an innocent righteous man.'" And do not dismiss this and wonder about this law. For among possible things, there are things that are very likely, things very unlikely and things in between; so that there is a wide spectrum of what is possible. And if the Torah had permitted declaring capital punishments in very probable cases - when it is very close to actuality, like the case of our example - we would declare the punishment in that which is a little removed from this, and [eventually] also in that which is far removed. Until they would declare the punishments and kill people with a weak conjecture, according to the imagination of the judge and his thought. Therefore He, may He be exalted, closed this opening and said that he not declare the punishment until witnesses testify that they know with certainty that this one did the act - without a doubt and without any guesswork at all. And when we do not declare punishments based on strong appearances, the end result is surely that we will acquit the sinner. But if we declare punishments based on appearances and conjecture, we would surely sometimes kill someone innocent. [And it is preferable and more proper that even a thousand guilty people be set free than to someday execute even one innocent person.]