Sanhedrin 085

11:
Two views are presented in our mishnah: that of Tanna Kamma and that of Rabbi Yosé who holds a different view. (The technical term Tanna Kamma indicates the anonymous sage with whose view Rabbi Yosé differs. The view of Tanna Kamma almost invariably reflects the established Halakhah.

12:
According to Tanna Kamma a post was driven into the ground. This post had a strut projecting from it – presumably it looked similar to the form of a gallows that is known to this day; the body of the executed criminal was hung up from the projecting strut in a manner to be described later on (and about which, it would see, there is no Maĥloket [difference of view] between Rabbi Yosé and Tanna Kamma. According to Rabbi Yosé the post was inclined diagonally against a wall, and the body was hung from it, in a manner similar to the way an animal's carcass is hung up after Sheĥitah to this day in an abbattoir. The difference of opinion reflected in our mishnah is purely the result of differing expositions of the text of the Torah. Once again, we see that the very fact that the views of the sages differ as to how the procedure was carried out indicates as clearly as possible that their views were not rooted in any historical reality. (he details of the expositions are reviewed by the Gemara [Sanhedrin 46b].)

13:
However, there does not seem to be any Maĥloket as regards the manner in which the corpse was suspended from the gallows. The deceased was suspended momentarily from the gallows by his hands, which were folded over each other. It is not clear to me whether the hands were held thus by one of the witnesses or that they were tied together.

14:
This exhibition of the body had to be done before sunset, since the Torah specifically prohibits the display of the body on the gallows overnight. This requirement gives the sages another excellent opportunity to interpret the text of the Torah beyond all recognition! The (idealized) procedure of the sages becomes apparent: the trial was completed late in the day. The condemned was killed in the late afternoon. A couple of minutes before sunset his body was strung up on a makeshift gallows and immediately removed: as soon as one of the witnesses had strung up the body it was taken down by the other witness, so that the body was actually displayed for no more than a few seconds. The body was then immediately buried, together with the wood of the gallows. This whole mode of exposition admirably illustrates the way in which, on innumerable occasions and on innumerable subjects, the sages used the technique of the hermeneutic 'elucidation' of the text in order, actually, to "smooth away the rough edges" of the Torah and to liberalize its provisions almost beyond recognition.

I have noted several times recently your use of the word "grizzly", and fear you are being ill-served by your spell-checking program, which appears to be substituting this particular spelling for you. It would seem that rather than "grizzly", i.e. a large ferocious North American bear, you intend to use "grisly", i.e. terrifying, horrible, ghastly.

My response:

I bow to Meyer's greater expertise! (Out of curiosity I checked this up in my English English dictionary, and found both "grisly" and "grizly"; however, "grizzly" (with two z's) is referred to the bear. I hope and pray that such will be the greatest of my errors!

Jeff Silver writes (carefully using "gruesome" rather than "grisly!):

I have been intrigued, during this rather gruesome portion of our studies, by the notion that the murderer is to be drugged before the sentence of death was executed. This seems to me to be humane. On the other hand, as I understand the laws of kashruth, to numb the senses of the animal before the death blow is struck renders the animal's meat treif. Thus, the Jewish communities of Europe have been required, in recent years, to lobby for religious exemptions from animal slaughter regulations adopted at the behest of "animal rights" organisations. The question is thus why do we forbid for animals humane treatment required for human murderers. I can think of obvious differences between humans, who have a nefesh, and animals, who do not, as well as the fact that one slaughter is intended for food, the other not. But I can't make the logical connection between those differences and the differences in treatment.

I respond:

I think that Jeff has already answered his own question, so I will not expand upon it, except to point out that the difference between man and animal in halakhic thinking is clear from the outset: in the very first chapter of Genesis man is given control over the whole of the animal kingdom. This thought is emphasized again in Psalm 8:

Art Kamlet writes:

If the two witnesses are to be the ones to execute the condemned, what if one of the witnesses dies or becomes disabled between the time of testimony and the time to carry out the sentence? (I understand you are saying the scenarios described were invented anyway, but still curious.)

I respond:

Surprising as it may seem, Art's question seriously debated by the Gemara [Sanhedrin 45b]! However, the Gemara is even more exact in its questioning than Art is. To sum up the discussion: in the (rather unlikely) event that one of the witnesses becomes unable to fulfill his halakhic function in the period between the passing of sentence and the execution of the sentence ("his hand was cut off"!) then the prisoner goes free, since, as we have seen previously, the Torah requires the sentence to be carried out by the witnesses. However, if the witness was incapacitated before or during the trial then the sentence is to be carried out by others.