I have a tricky question about the Sanhedrin thing ... for our Jewish friends?

Question

I just don't get it out of my head.

Everytime when there's a question about death penalty in bible times or in the future with a new temple, the Jewish answers are that almost never such a thing would have been carried out because there must have been two eye witnesses and they must have witnessed the act two times. Poeple would hesitate to accuse someone when they witnessed a major sin because if he wasn't found guilty (which was most likely the case) then they would be judged for the crime of the accused person, with the same penalty, i.e. death. Correct me if I'm wrong please, that's how I understood it. Also, the Jewish "judges" would not be allowed to hand the sinner over to the civil police of the country if according to this two witnesses system he was not found guilty. Thus, he would never be judged at all.

Now ... I know you wrote that in order to show that the bible is not cruel and that the Jewish judicial system is not cruel but what I don't get out of my head is this ...

it reminds me a bit of something I often read about concerning another religion, the Jehovah's Witnesses. Because they have a system where there must be two witnesses in order that someone would be judged guilty by their religion, also he must be found guilty to hand them over to the police. This is often a big problem with rapes, for example, and child abuse. http://www.silentlambs.org/education/jwaccused.cfm

Also, this system doesn't seem just to me. Isn't it important that crimes like murder and rape are punished? It seems easy to get away with committing crimes, not being punished, with such a system.

What do you think? Did I get something wrong or know only "half the truth"?

Answer 1

I hope I am understanding your question correctly - the REAL question seems to be, did the very strict requirement for adequate proof mean that some people, such as rapists, went unpunished for lack of witnesses?  

I think it likely that this is the case (indeed, it was the case in most countries until VERY recently regarding rape), although I'm not a scholar and hope someone else will pick this up. What I would observe, though, is that rape was not seen in the way we see it now - I don't mean that the women and children didn't suffer just as much, but that it was a much more patriarchal society and it would appear, from some of the stories in the Tanakh, that although it was understood that women suffered, it was not see to be something that the legal system got involved with.  

Murder is definitely a different case and my sense would be that the law would follow this as hard as it could.

Answer 2

I think it might help if you read some really decent books on Jewish history. Try 'Rome & Jerusalem' by Martin Goodman; he's a world renowned expert on BOTH Judaism and Christianity.

And a really good site for Jewish history is http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/

One thing about your post I don't understand: the burden of proof needed by the Sanhedrin in order to condemn a man to death ensured that NOBODY was unfairly executed. This is no different to courts today - do you have the same issues with today's justice systems in the UK, for example, where there is NO death penalty?

Would you be happier if the Sanhedrin had frequently condemned people to death??? No, then I'm sure you would be expressing concern over that as well!! :)

Judaism has always had a complex and comprehensive legal structure that tries to ensure justice for all. In the Talmud, there are endless debates and discussions on minute issues of religious law and philisophy, all geared towards ensuring that G-d's will and rules are upheld by Jews here on earth.

So for me it's not surprising that the Sanhedrin were lenient - and remember, the Romans were busy killing thousands of Jews by crucifixion! The streets were lined with the corpses of Jews. I'm sure the Sanhedrin felt they were losing enough innocent people as it was.

edit

I'm adding this edit for MAMA_PAJAMA if she's reading this: this question is another Catch 22, do you think?!

I've starred this post :)

Answer 3

Yes, there must be two witnesses.

But also if they went to the temple and stood in front of the priest, the breastplate could tell who was telling the truth.

In modern times, the community takes care of its own in other ways.

Even if there's only 1 witness in the case of rape or whatever, which is a very very very low statistic for someone in the community to do that to another unless it was child abuse...

The community gets word and BAM... the man better not be walking alone at night, his business would cease to be supported by the community, people won't speak to him, invite him over... it can get pretty severe, especially when a man won't give a divorce. The community forces it because we all know what the person is doing is wrong... and he can't hide. When someone does something wrong they can't even go to Israel and hide because the ties are such that everyone knows of it as soon as word gets out, anyone you know in other countries is on your case.

Like I said, this has more to do with a man who refuses to give the divorce because he's being an ***.

Answer 4

The answers to this question have been all over the place.  While there are quite a number of correct points raised, the amount of misinformation and simple errors needs to be addressed.

I'll start with the question of testimony.

Two or more witnesses are needed in Jewish court in order to prove that something happened, whether it is a violent act that someone should be punished for or that someone borrowed money and has to pay it back.  There are a few limited areas where the say-so of one witness is sufficient- for example to claim whether a particular food is kosher or not.  But for all financial matters and matters of punishment, both capital and corporal, two or more witnesses are needed.

In order for someone to be liable for one of these punishments, not only do we need witnesses to testify that the person did the act they accuse him of, there must be two people who warned the person ahead of time that his or her actions are illegal and that the punishment for such an action is death (or lashes or a financial penalty, depending on the act that was done).

I think this is the first erroneous piece of information that the asker had.  There is no need for a person to commit a crime twice before he or she can be punished.  There is no free pass the first time around.  There is a need for two sets of witnesses, one to the warning and the other to the crime itself, not witnesses to the crime being done twice.  And Jewish law stipulates that it need not, in fact, be two sets of witnesses; the ones giving the warning may be the ones testifying to the act.

The perpetrator also has to respond to the warning witnesses that he is aware of the ramifications of his actions and is doing them anyway.

All this has to happen before anything wrong actually transpires and before any witnesses even come to court.  The fact that a case could actually be brought in front of a court for trial meant an incredible sequence of events:  2 people saw someone about to do something wrong, told him that it was wrong and he would be severely punished for it and he has to say "I don't care, I'm doing it anyway."

Oh, and if the witnesses told the guy the wrong punishment, he can't be punished.

The idea that comes across from these laws is that Judaism is not interested in putting people to death unless they really deserve it.  The cross examination of the witnesses once they came was brutal.  There is one opinion that the Biblical injunction that women may not testify in court was out of concern that the judges would not be as harsh on them in cross examination and might therefore accidentally put an innocent person to death.

Another interesting rule of the court, which is diametrically opposed to the Western system of justice, is that a unanimous decision of guilt by the 23 judges of the court was discarded.  If no one out of the 23 judges could find the slightest reason to get the person off the hook, the feeling was that the court did not do its job thoroughly enough and the perpetrator did not get a fair trial.

The fear, of course, is that a person knowing the system will know how to get around getting punished.  And for this there were responses as well.  Just because the courts could not actively punish a person does not mean there were not other means at their disposal.  The Talmud relates that a person who was known to have killed someone, but could not be found guilty because of a technicality could be put into prison by the court.  There the perpetrator would be starved for a few days and then fed food in such quantities that he would literally eat himself to death.  Not a pleasant image, but the legal system had a way of getting rid of criminals without having to actually kill them directly.

The other area for abuse, and another piece of misinformation that the asker had, regards false witnesses.  If two people come to testify and the perpetrator is not found guilty, nothing is done to the witnesses.  After all, they came in good faith, trying to do the right thing.

The concern the Torah had was with two people who had it in for someone and hatched a plan to accuse that person with a crime.  Since any two witnesses are believed what is there to stop them from fabricating a crime to cause someone to be punished, either physically or financially?

There are two situations in which witnesses can be contradicted.  One situation is where one set of witnesses claim a certain event happened and the other set says it could not have happened because one of the people involved in the event was elsewhere with the second set.  As an example, A & B say that Joe killed Jack on Monday in New York.  C & D say that's impossible because Joe was with us all day Monday in Seattle.  There is a direct contradiction to the testimony.  We have no way of knowing who is in fact telling the truth and who is lying.  Therefore the two sets cancel each other out and we can do nothing.

However, if C & D, instead of claiming that Joe was elsewhere, said that A & B could not possibly testify to the event because all four of them were playing cards all day long in New Jersey, then the contradiction is not against the testimony of A & B.  C & D do not know if Joe in fact killed Jack or not.  What they know is that A & B couldn't have seen it; that A & B made up their testimony.  In such a case, the Torah says that we believe C & D against A & B and A & B get punished with the punishment they sought to inflict; in this case, the death penalty.

Now to discuss rape.

In the Torah, rape is not a capital offense.  The punishment is not death.  The punishment is that the man must marry the woman he raped (if she wants him) and may never divorce her.  If the woman was a young girl around 12 years old, then there is a financial penalty that must be paid to the girl's father as well.  As others have written, while rape is seen as inexcusable violence against a woman, it was not viewed the same way we do today.

The Torah writes that the intent of severe punishments such as death is not only to punish the perpetrator but also to act as a deterrent so that others will not do the same thing.  If there is no deterrent power (such as in the USA where the penalty can be separated from the crime by more than 20 years) then there is no purpose to such a drastic punishment.

EDIT:

The situation brought up where the rapist is put to death is not because of the rape per se; it is because he raped a married woman and it is considered adultery.  Betrothal in Torah parlance is the first stage of marriage and the woman is considered a married woman.  She is not liable for punishment because it was a rape, done against her will.  The Torah writes that the situation was that she was molested outside city limits and probably yelled for help but was not heard.

If, however, the act occurred within city limits and no one heard her cries for help, then she is assumed to be a willing accomplice in the act and it is seen as a seduction for she she to is put to death.

Another poster wrote about having appeals in Jewish law.  That is simply not the case.  Once the court decided the punishment it was carried out immediately.  The reason given in the Talmud is to not have the sentence loom over the criminal, which was considered cruelty.  Better to put the person to death right away and relieve the uncertainty of not knowing when the penalty would come.  That, obviously, negates any sort of appeal process, of which there was none as I wrote already.

Furthermore, character witnesses have nothing to do with Jewish law.  It's a matter of eye witness testimony to an act.  Circumstantial evidence would not work, which is why DNA evidence would be inadmissible.  Even if the witnesses saw a man with a knife chase another man into a room that has no exits and heard the victim crying out to stop, if the witnesses only come in and see the victim with the knife in him and the perpetrator covered in blood, they can not testify that they saw the murder.  It must be explicit eye witness testimony.  The character of the people involved carries no weight at all.

Answer 5

I think ny rabbi covered it all except one detail that in the case of a crime that could have a death sentence carried out, character witnesses for the defense had to speak first, and if a death sentence was meted out,  up to five appeals could be made to the court before sentence was carried out.  Death sentences were never carried out on the day or day after the trial.

Since someone brought up the New Testament depiction of Jesus' trial.  Jews who know even a little about the Sanhedrin and it's proceedings have recognized since the very first appearance of that story in the New Testament that it simply could not have transpired in that manner.  

The story of Barabbas was fabricated to demonize Jews. The circular reasoning of this story and some of the elements in it are hard to palate if one is at all familiar with Hebrew or Jewish history or Roman history for that matter. I assert it was fabricated since there has NEVER been any other mention of the non-existent "custom" of pardoning a prisoner for Passover anywhere else outside this story..designed to claim that the Jews could have 'saved' the "savior" ..and instead chose the criminal who had a literal name of the "son of the father"

1) No such custom associated with Passover existed..no reason for it to exist..it did not fit with any known Jewish law.

2) No Roman record of there ever being any pardons for Passover in the entire time of their occupation of Judea exist...and there ARE archaeologic records of much of their goings on in Judea when it came to edicts and proceedings.

3) The Romans were crucifying and persecuting Jews. If there HAD been such a bizarre custom...WHY would the persecutors honor that custom when they honored no other customs, and in fact sought to violate them to offend Jews to assert dominance.

Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman, scored winning points bringing up the falsehood of such a custom in his famous debate with an apostate Jew, Pablo Christiani,before King James I of Spain in 1263

The catch 22 of this story placed onto the Jew.

Was it murder or willing self sacrifice?

The writer also does not appear to know that a preliminary hearing of any kind, such as they allege to have taken place at the residence of Annas, or Caiphas( for even on that point there is no congruence in the Gospel accounts) could not possibly have been held. It violated  all procedure and law they were swon to uphold. The whole court simply threw out their vows? Absurd.

They do not know that a session of the Sanhedrin could not convene until the morning service at the Temple was completed. They also were apparently unaware that the Sanhedrin never met on a Friday, nor on the eve of a Pesach (Passover) Those were unalterable traditions. In addition, the charge of a crime that was capable of being sentenced to capital punishment had to have a mandatory appeals process and there could be up to five such appeals before sentence was carried out. Moreover, no sentence was to be passed on the same day as the trail was held.

To claim the entire court behaved in such a manner as the New Testament depicted is more absurd than to claim the United States Supreme Court(for which there exist none of the strictly enforced prerequisites of character) would hold a capital murder trial in secret and have witnesses act out in the manner of a kangaroo court with people screaming and acting out with no decorum whatsoever.

It does not read true at all.  I realize that is offensive to Christians to read.  However, this may be the first time some  Christians are asked to recognize that the story I just related from the New Testament has offended Jews since it's first appearance.

For the purposes of this question.  I doubt anyone will top ny rabbi's answer.

Shalom :)

Answer 6

The only difference I see between our own judicial system (in the US) and that of the Sanhedrin is that we don't have personal responsibility for the witnesses.  We also have to have witnesses - you can count DNA evidence as a witness nowadays, back then they didn't have that obviously.

If the police showed up at your door because you claimed to be raped and two people who were with you said it didn't happen and the rape kit showed no evidence then no, no one would go to jail, even if you were able to name the perpetrator.  

What's the difference?

Answer 7

As you know, I am always a big fan of your posts and in fact, look forward to them!

This one, though, I too am a tad confused by. Why all the concern for an ancient system of justice that was far, far more enlightened than, for example, the Roman system back then?

I don't get it :)

Judaism has always been concerned with justice. Probably more than any other faith, it has evolved texts and systems dedicated to ensuring justice. That's why one of the priorities has always been for courts to be established where all may be judged fairly, whenever Jews moved to new lands.

There are countries *today* which could benefit from using some of the compassion and caution shown by the Sanhedrin. Yet I don't see you voicing concern about them?

EDIT TO ASKER

You mention you would have had a problem with the criteria used by the Sanhedrin. Well, I can easily answer and resolve this for you then :) As you're not Jewish, you would never have been subject TO the rulings of the Sanhedrin, so it would not have presented any problems for you.

Re the Crucifixion: this was done by the Romans. Judaism forbids that method of execution and always HAS.

Answer 8

The fine point your missing is:  They were only sentenced to death penality with a lot of criteria.  They were still sentenced & found guilty -- not let off scot free.  That's the difference.

The Jewish Sanhedrin legal system was very similar to what we used today, & very different to the others of it's day.  Our point is more than to contradict the false belief that Judaism was some kind of viscious religion.  In the 1800's when there was a possiblity of Jews of Europe being allowed to reopen the Sanhedrid, Jews were very, very proud of their advanced legal system of that day & looked forward to it.  (It turned out it was a trick used to force Jewish allegence to the countries they lived in & denounce their Jewish connection as though there was a conflict...but that's another story.)

It was quite something.  Everyone was equal no matter their life status.  Everyone had a right to a person to stand up for them.  The judges had to have honor & knowledge in their lives (there were specific standards.)  People could be found guilty only with evidence, not by someone pointing a figure at someone they didn't like.  And you couldn't be put to death for merely saying the wrong thing (particularly to a high ranking person).  Precident were set in the law so it could be refined (hence the very long Talmud.)

We use the example as you've worded it from us, specifically to counter a specific attack on Jews.  However, that is not the only situation.  For instance, this system was a first in the region to give women rights to be NOT raped.  (Instead of honor killed for it.)  There are lengthy tracks in Talmud that talk about how you are obligated if you see a women being raped to help, even if it puts your own life at risk.  So, I'm sure the critiera (which I don't know specfically) were quite good.  Rape according to the passages I studied with a Rabbi, was rated equally to murder in most regards, with other crimes being lessor.  It was the only other crime that could warrent a death penalty.

My guess is child rape & abuse was not a socially known concept at the time (I don't know for sure).  However, Jewish parents even then were known for mixing up the commandment of "honor your mother & father" with honor your kids.  And the kids were taught to read & write (legal decree by Queen Someone).  

It's early for me -- I hope that makes sense & helps.

EDIT:

This isn't one of the catch 22s I think in the way Alfred is asking.  However, i can see where it could turn into one by those anxious to see it that way.  

I've added some new sentences mixed in.

Bluefoot - the breatplate thing sounds like hocus pokus I've never heard of, & doesn't fit with anything Jewish.  Are you making a joke?  Two witness are needed to impose death penality is not the same as finding guilty with other punishment.  Obviously, community reaction to divorce refusal isn't the question here, which has it's own very unique stickler issues that don't apply to rape (because of the Get).

Thomas

Jews didn't cruxify Jesus.  The Church & many other Christian Churches have formally apologized for that lie & stated it was the Romans.  Time to get over it, you think?  That's like the supreme court suddenly going bezerk over someone & something they made zero recording about.

========

Addition:

From Aish, http://www.aish.com/literacy/concepts/Ma...

"We are taught that rape is equivalent to murder. Therefore, if one is attacking a woman with the intent of raping her, he may be killed to save her as long as he has not completed the act. Regarding a woman being sexually attacked, the Torah states, "Only the rapist shall be put to death... Since he attacked the betrothed girl in the field, even if she had cried out, there would have been no one to come to her aid" (Deut. 22:25, 27), which implies that if a rescuer is present, he may use any means to save her, even if it means killing the attacker. One may similarly save a man from homosexual attack."