Sanhedrin 123

1:
There is some confusion as to the order of the last two chapters of Tractate Sanhedrin. The chapter whose first mishnah we have presented above is Chapter Eleven in all the manuscript codices of the Mishnah that have reached us and also in the Talmud of Eretz-Israel. In the Babylonian Talmud, however, it is Chapter Ten. Cogent arguments can be brought for both arrangements. I have chosen to follow the arrangement of the Babylonian Talmud. I have two main reasons for this choice, one didactic and one structural. The didactic reason: a very large portion of the material in what we shall call Chapter Eleven is quite different from the rest of the material – more in the implications of its content than in its external format – and I think that it would be more convenient for us to leave it until the end. The other reason: when we look at the structure of this tractate as we have studied it so far, it seems natural to use the arrangement of the Babylonian Talmud. Chapters One to Three were concerned with Dinei Mamonot (mainly torts). Chapters Four and Five were bridging chapters between Dinei Mamonot and Dinei Nefashot (capital offences): Chapter Five was concerned with the examination of witnesses while Chapter Six was concerned with the technicalities of a capital trial. Chapters Seven to Nine severally detailed the offences which incur three of the four modes of execution – stoning, burning and decapitation. It is reasonable now to complete this survey with the details of the fourth mode of execution – strangulation.

2:
Just as was the case with the previous chapter, there is a difference between the division of the mishnayot in the manuscript codices and the Talmuds. In the Babylonian Talmud the first mishnah of the chapter, as given in the manuscript codices, is divided into smaller units. I have followed this arrangement (again for didactic reasons) and have marked the section of Mishnah One "first part".

3:
The fourth mishnah of Chapter Seven listed eighteen offences which incur death by stoning. The first mishnah of Chapter Nine listed two offences which incur the penalty of death by burning and then two offences which incur death by decapitation (although only one was detailed; the other will be detailed incidentally as part of Chapter Eleven – which is why, of course, it would also be logical for it to follow Chapter Nine). Our present mishnah now lists eight offences which incur the penalty of death by strangulation.

4:
We recall the gruesome details of this mode of execution as outlined in the third mishnah of Chapter Seven:

5:
Most of these eight offences will be detailed in the course of the chapter. At this stage we permit ourselves a few notes designed to facilitate an initial understanding of our mishnah.

1. Striking a parent means causing physical damage to either one's father or one's mother.
2. Kidnapping involves more than just the abduction of a person against their will, as will be detailed later in the chapter.
3. The insubordinate sage refers to a member of the Sanhedrin who refuses to accept the halakhic view of the majority.
4. The false prophet is a person who claims to have been vouchsafed a prophetic vision from God when this is proven not to be the case.
5. The idolatrous prophet is a Jew who claims to have been vouchsafed a prophetic vision from a "deity" other than God.
6. Adultery in Jewish law can only involve a married or affianced woman [Eshet Ish]. Other acts of fornication are not included in this category. That the punishment for adulterers (of both sexes) is death (by strangulation) is made explicit by the Torah:

   If a man fornicates with a married woman – fornicates with the wife of his fellow Jew – both fornicators shall be executed [Leviticus 20:10].

7. We learned in the first mishnah of Chapter Nine that the married daughter of a priest who commits adultery is to be executed by burning. Our present mishnah seeks to clarify that this punishment (specifically required by the Torah) only holds for the woman herself: any men involved are to be executed by strangulation and not by burning. The men involved could be of two kinds. Firstly there would be the woman's paramour: he is to be executed by strangulation just as is the case of any other man guilty of adultery with a married woman. The second kind is more recondite. If men perjured themselves in order to incriminate an innocent priest's daughter their death is by strangulation and not by burning.

In Sanhedrin 059 we learned:

It thus follows that it is necessary for our present mishnah to make this point, since the general rule is that discovered perjurers are subjected to whatever punishment their victim stood to receive if their deceit had been successful and undiscovered: in this one case the perjurers are to be treated in the same way as the woman's alleged paramour would have been treated.

I have treated items f) and g) in greater detail since there is no further elaboration on them in the rest of the chapter.

6:
The Gemara [Sanhedrin 84b] explains the origin of this mode of execution:

The other three modes (stoning, burning and decapitation) are either stipulated in the Torah or deemed to have been so stipulated by virtue of hermeneutic extrapolation. What the Gemara here means is that wherever the Torah states something like "that person shall die" without specifying the mode of execution, the "default" mode is strangulation. The Talmud of Eretz-Israel [Sanhedrin 30a] explains the reasoning. We have already learned [Sanhedrin 120] that the four modes of execution are hierarchical from the presumed severest downwards. The Gemara says that if the Torah leaves the mode of execution unstipulated,

– and according to the hierarchy outlined, strangulation is deemed to be the least severe mode of execution.