SANCTIONS
E. Ben-Zimra, "Considerations of Punishment in Jewish Criminal
Law as Reflected in the Responsa Literature" (Heb.), Shenaton
8 (1981), 7-42. - In addition to the general aims of punishment found in
every legal system, Jewish law also attaches religious significance to the
penalties imposed by the Criminal law. This point emerges from the author's
study of the responsa literature on this topic, as do the following
criteria applied by the Rabbinic authorities in their administration of
the various punishments available to them - severity of the offence, special
circumstances of the time, place, and the individual concerned; character
and weight of the evidence, and the frequency and results of the offence
in question. Ben-Zimra emphasises the significance of moderation and impartiality
in applying punishment and the sensitivity of the rabbis to the general
circumstances surrounding the offence. He also describes the effects of
the policy of the secular governments of limiting the rights of punishment
of Jewish courts, and the means employed by the latter to deal with this
policy. (Y.S.K.)
L. Eslinger, "The Case of An Immodest Lady Wrestler in Deuteronomy
XXV 11-12", VT 31 (1981), 269-281. - The writer argues that
this is the only explicit example of a mutilative punishment in Israelite
law and that Deut. 25:12 is a perfect example of talionic punishment.
The key to understanding the meaning of Deut. 25:11-12 lies in understanding
the Deuteronomist's legislative methods. He sees Gen. 32:25-33 as
the basis of this law. Kap is used in Gen. 32:26,33 and Cant.
5:5 to refer to male or female genitalia which allows Deut. 25:11-12
to be seen as talionic. This passage is also a Deuteronomic comment upon
Jacob's underhand action in the Jabbok wrestling match. (K.W.W.)
David Halperin, "Crucifixion, The Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinic
Penalty of Strangulation", JJS 32.1 (1981), 32-46. - Halperin
examines some peculiarities of early rabbinic jurisprudence in the light
of a philological observation from 4Q pNah I:4-8. He observes that
the reference in the pesher to hanging derives from the biblical lemma using
the verb hanneq. He observes that crucifixion may have been regarded
as a prolonged form of strangulation; and goes on to suggest that the long
debated penalty of heneq in M. Sanh. VIII:1, which is not
biblical, is a modification of an earlier penalty of crucifixion, derived
from the Romans. Various legal traditions are adduced to show traces of
older vestiges of this penalty among the old Rabbis; among these is the
notable Targum to Ruth 1:17, which mentions crucifixion in the place
normally occupied by strangulation. Halperin goes on to argue that the rejection
of crucifixion in the Temple Scroll is not simply a polemic against other
Jewish groups (Yadin), but that it reflects a development in the rabbinic
materials as well. He notes that the changed attitude toward crucifixion
is a major distinction between the pre-70 and post-70 Pharisaic group. (M.F.)
N. Lifshitz, "Does a Man Not Receive Both the Death Penalty and
Pay Damages? (On the origin of the Rule 'Kam leh Miderabah Minah')"
(Heb.), Shenaton 8 (1981), 153-246. - According to this author, the
general rule against multiplicity of punishments, .i.e. that a person is
not to receive both the death penalty and payment of damages, nor is he
subject to the death penalty and stripes (makkot), nor to stripes
and payment of damages, was not fully developed until the period of the
Tannaim, and definitely not before the generation of R. Akiva and his disciples.
Accordingly, there were conflicting views as to this rule amongst the Tannaim.
Only later, when the lenient school of thought was generally accepted, did
the broad principle of "Kam leh Miderabah Minah" emerge,
and conflicting sources were interpreted in such a way as to support this
lenient viewpoint. This process of interpretation resulted in certain restrictions
of the originally very wide principle, and also provided the impetus for
further development of related fields in Jewish law. The article also deals
with the questions of the death penalty and corporal punishment ("makkot"),
and corporal punishment and payment of damages. (Y.S.K.)
About
| Officers | Constitution
| Membership | Conferences
Publications | Abstracts
| Resources | Courses
| Links
View the framed
or non-framed version of this site
|