Sanhedrin 090

2:
As with the two previous methods discussed, here too it is necessary to point out that the internal evidence of the mishnah itself makes it clear that the sages were not discussing an actual and observed phenomenon. Otherwise, how are we to explain such a glaring difference as is obvious from the Maĥloket [difference of view] between Rabbi Yehudah ben-Ilai and Tanna Kamma – the anonymous view that precedes his and that by editorial usage represents the majority view and accepted Halakhah? If the sages were discussing execution as actually practiced historically or handed down by carefully preserved tradition there would be no room for doubt as to whether condemned prisoners were decapitated by the sword or by the cleaver: the procedure would not be a matter of discussion, but a matter of fact.

3:
At first glance it would seem to us that the sages are discussing which implement would be used. We could imagine that at some time in the future, when all judicial execution will be a curiosity of remote history, our descendants might be forgiven for not appreciating that there was a great practical difference in the manner of execution of, say, Queen Katherine, the fifth of the six wives of England's King Henry VIII and the way in which the French revolutionaries dispatched King Louis XVI. The former was decapitated by a headsman using a cleaver; the latter was decapitated by a machine invented by a certain Dr. Guillotin. No one who had actually witnessed the former would think that it was a procedure identical to the latter.

4:
The understanding of decapitation according to Rabbi Yehudah ben-Ilai is similar to that used to execute the hapless Queen Katherine Howard, referred to above: the condemned would kneel down, lay his head on a block, and the headsman would then bring down his axe onto the exposed neck thus severing it from the body. The sages, on the other hand, are describing the method by which the second wife of "bluff King Hal", Queen Anne Boleyn (the mother of the future queen Elizabeth I) was dispatched: the condemned prisoner stood upright and the headsman would lop of his head with a swift cut of a very sharply honed sword. (As gruesome as these details are, they show that our forebears were just as ingenious in developing various and curious means of permanently removing wrongdoers from this world as we are with our strangulation, electrocution, gassing, poisoning and so forth.)

5:
Queen Anne Boleyn had requested this form of execution since it was considered more "noble". Tanna Kamma in our mishnah obviously concurs! Indeed, the terminology used by our mishnah suggests that the method espoused by Rabbi Yehudah is nothing more than butchery pure and simple: butchers handle meat in the same way, as the sages point out to Rabbi Yehudah. The Gemara [Sanhedrin 52b] reports that Rabbi Yehudah was well aware that the method he endorsed was butchery. He claims, however, that there is no choice in the matter. The Torah [Leviticus 18:3] orders us "not to go according to the custom of the gentiles". This is understood as prohibiting the Jewish people from imitating non-Jewish customs. Since Tanna Kamma admits that decapitation by the sword is the method utilized by the Roman government of occupation, we have no choice, according to Rabbi Yehudah, but to utilize the other method of decapitation by cleaver! The sages in the Gemara make short shrift of this argument. Are we to deviate from the precise demands of the Torah simply because other nations do the same!? That would mean that we would not observe Shabbat because the Christians have a Sabbath day; we would not fast on Yom Kippur because the Moslems have the fast of Ramadan… the list of possibilities is almost endless. The sages view is quite simple: if something is demanded by the Torah that is sufficient reason for doing it – even if other peoples have identical or similar customs.

6:
All that the sages have to do now is to indicate how the Torah actually makes the specific demand of decapitation by the sword. As we shall learn in chapter nine of our tractate, only two crimes incurred death by decapitation: intentional homicide and all those involved in a "suborned city". The latter refers to a township whose inhabitants were collectively induced to adopt idolatry, as is described in Deuteronomy 13:13-19. Verse 16 specifically requires that

7:
The fourth and last method of execution is that of strangulation, and the methodology used has already been described and discussed as part of the process of "burning". (See our last shiur.)

I was interested to hear mention of Rabbi Ovadya d'Bertinoro in today's Shiur. I had never heard of him before, but the dates intrigued me, and I'd like to find out more about him, his environment, his Teshuvot (if any) and so forth. Reason: I do "armchair geneology" for my family. It appears that instead of coming out of the caves in Slovakia, the Spronz family – originally Speranza – hails from Italy, probably the southern area near Naples… Can you suggest any materials I might read, in any language, including the works of Ovadya d'Bertinoro (and where I might find them), that might shed light on that era?

I respond:

As we approach the very end of the 20th secular century it might be useful to realize that at the very end of – say – the 19th century no Jewish child who had studied Mishnah (and what child who had a good Jewish education did not study Mishnah?) would have been able to do so without becoming intimately familiar with the commentary of Rabbi Ovadyah di Bertinoro. Studying Mishnah without the "Bartenura" (as the name was corrupted) was as unthinkable as studying Ĥumash without Rashi! Therefore, Steven should have no problem in finding ample material about Rabbi Ovadyah in any decent Jewish encyclopedia. Here are just a few details from the article in the Encyclopedia Judaica.