Sanhedrin 122

1:
We have now come to the last mishnah of Chapter Nine. There is a logical connection between this mishnah and the previous one. You will recall that in the previous mishnah we learned that certain capital offences are punished not by execution but by incarceration for life deadly conditions, thus leaving the death of the culprit in the hands of Heaven. Our present mishnah reviews offences which are initially not punishable by a Bet Din at all; rather the punishment is encompassed in a non-judicial manner.

2:
The first category is that where punishment is in the hands of zealots. That is to say that certain people, horrified at the sight of certain offences being flagrantly committed, quite literally take the law into their own hands with impunity: if they do not do so, the culprits will not be brought before a Bet Din and will not be punished at all. Our mishnah lists three such offences:

1. the theft of flagons from the court of the Bet Mikdash;
2. the imprecation [of the Deity] by use of charms etc;
3. copulation between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman.

This right of zealots to take the law into their own hands is limited to their acting on the spur of the moment when actually witnessing the perpetration of the event.

3:
The Bet Mikdash consisted of several court, all but the innermost being surrounded by another. The outermost courtyard was the largest and it was accessible to any human being, Jew or non-Jew. This was, in fact, a large area that contained shops and a market and so forth. This courtyard gave access into an inner courtyard into which only Jews were permitted to enter. (Archeologists have unearthed one of the notices that were posted at intervals along its perimeter warning non-Jews of the dire consequences of their proceeding any further.) This large inner courtyard was called the Court of Women – not because it was restricted to women, but because women could usually proceed no further. In fact, however, the vast majority of men would proceed no further either. (Perhaps it is not out of place to note here that the masses attending worship in the Bet Mikdash did so in the Court of Women [Ezrat Nashim] and there was no segregation of the sexes in that court (except on one occasion during the year, which was not essentially religious in nature.) A large and imposing flight of fifteen semi-circular steps gave entrance from the Court of Women to the innermost court, the Court of Priests, which is usually referred to simply as the Azarah [the Court]. It was here that the sacrificial cult took place, unseen by the lay people massed in the Court of Women. A small strip just within the entrance was marked by a painted line. Within this line the representatives of the Jewish people stood to witness the ritual, each settlement taking a weekly turn to provide the 24 representatives [Ma'amad]. Beyond this strip usually only the priests could go. It was here that the main altar was, upon which the sacrifices were incinerated and it was here that the rest of the equipment and furniture associated with a slaughter-house were kept and used. The Azarah gave entrance to the actual building of the Bet Mikdash, which was divided into two rooms: the larger one housed the small golden altar of incense, the golden table of the Shewbread and the famous candelabrum whose similitude is engraved on the Arch of Titus in Rome and which serves as the emblem of the State of Israel. The smaller one, the Holy of Holies, was completely empty.

4:
According to the Torah [Numbers 4:7] the table of Shewbread had certain utensils attached to it. (The Shewbread consisted of twelve wafers that were placed on the golden table and changed weekly.) These utensils were "dishes, saucers, chalices, and flagons for pouring libations" [Numbers 4:7]. It is these "flagons" that are mentioned in our mishnah. According to the Gemara [Sukkah 48b], quoting a baraita, there were two such flagons; one was used when it was necessary to offer a libation of wine and the other was used for the libation of water that was one of the most important (and controversial) elements of the ritual of the Bet Mikdash during the festival of Sukkot. There are two views as to why our mishnah mentions these flagons. According to one view (that of Rabbi Menaĥem ben-Shelomo Me'iri [Provence, early 14th century CE]) these flagons are but examples, and the law applies to the theft of any equipment from the Bet Mikdash. Alternatively, the flagons are specifically mentioned because on one occasion the flagon used for the water libation was stolen by a Sadducean priest, anxious to prevent the ceremony so dear to the Pharisees from taking place. (The water libation ceremony during Sukkot was the cause of a serious controversy between these two groups throughout that last two centuries of the existence of the Bet Mikdash.) Be the reason what it may, our mishnah states that if people are incensed at seeing the theft actually taking place they may prevent it by taking the law into their own hands with impunity.

5:
The second item in this category refers to one imprecating (cursing) God by using the name of some other deity. The same rule applies.

6:
The last item in this category refers to the copulation of a Jewish man with a non-Jewish woman. The sages must have been quite alarmed at the implications of this law (zealots taking the law into their own hands) since they severely limited its application. Zealots could only avail themselves of it when they actually witness the offence taking place; if they seek the advice or permission of the Bet Din they will be told not to act.

7:
The locus classicus in this matter is, of course, the famous action of Pinĥas, related in the Torah [Numbers 25], where one Zimri copulates publicly and defiantly with a Midianite princess named Kozbi. Pinĥas, the heir to the high priesthood, is so incensed by this flagrant provocation that he impales both of them with his spear while they are still copulating. For this Pinĥas is praised in the Torah; but the Gemara [Sanhedrin 82a] notes that if Zimri, threatened by Pinĥas, had disengaged himself only to be slain by Pinĥas nevertheless, the latter would be guilty of murder, since he (Pinĥas) would now be classified not as a zealot but as a Rodef. (See Sanhedrin 113.)

8:
In our study of the previous mishnah we noted that those offenders who incur the penalty of death at the hands of Heaven, are at least flogged by a Bet Din. Priests officiating in the Bet Mikdash had to be in a state of ritual purity. If a Kohen defied this rule it was judged that his death would be encompassed by Heaven. Our mishnah teaches that instead of bringing the culprit before a Bet Din for a flogging he was physically removed from the Azarah by young priests who then clubbed him with broken off branches.

9:
The right to officiate in the Bet Mikdash was strictly limited to descendants of the first High Priest, Aaron. In our study of Tractate Kiddushin we noted that the priests kept a very strict register of the pedigree of all priests, so it was almost impossible for a non-priest to officiate. The Torah on several occasions notes that "a non-priest who officiates shall die" [e.g. Numbers 18:7]. If it should happen that it be later discovered that a someone officiated who was not entitled to do so because of his pedigree then he had contravened the strict law of the Torah. The Torah states that such a person shall die, without stipulating the manner of his death. A rule of exegetical thumb states that wherever the Torah does not stipulate the specific mode of execution to be used strangulation applies. Thus, in our mishnah, Rabbi Akiva holds that in the case under discussion this rule holds good. The rest of the sages hold otherwise, basing themselves on the application to the text of a hermeneutic method called Gezerah Shavvah: just as in Numbers 17:28 the non-priest is to be punished by death at the hands of Heaven, so in Numbers 18:7 the same logic must apply. Halakhah, of course, follows the rest of the Sages.

10:
It is very difficult for us today to follow all these prescriptions with equanimity. I can only suggest that their efficacy was more as a deterrent than as a punishment. Indeed, there is no evidence that any of the cases detailed by our mishnah were ever given practical application. When we study the details of the rabbinic hedging we can understand that the likelihood of it being possible to implement them was so rare as to be all but impossible. Who was likely to be seen publicly with an idolatrous woman in flagrante dilectu? How would anyone but the priest himself know that he was ritually impure?

This concludes our study of the Ninth Chapter of Tractate Sanhedrin.