TALAH in PRE-MISHNAIC HALAKHAH* Giovanni Lenzi An

TALAH IN PRE-MISHNAIC HALAKHAH*

Giovanni Lenzi Piccola Famiglia dell’Annunziata

An intense debate has been going on during the last decades among linguists and historians over the meaning of the Hebrew root talah and over the origins of the Mishnaic procedure of tliyyah (hanging).1 To some authors talah means to hang; to others, to crucify. Likewise, tliyyah has been considered either a form of death penalty or only the exhibition of a corpse.2 These issues are very important to con- sider in order to establish whether during the last centuries of the Second Temple period the Jewish courts practiced or at least admit- ted cruciﬁxion3 or whether they regarded it as an alien method of execution imposed by the Roman oppressor.4 A new analysis seems desirable for a correct understanding of sev- eral key biblical passages and the history of the halakhah. Accordingly, in this paper I ﬁrst review the evidence presented in the Mishnah and its biblical basis. Thereafter, I compare this evidence with the

* I am indebted to Professor Jacob Neusner who read the original Italian ver- sion of this study and encouraged me to publish it in English. I am grateful, too, to Giuseppe and Kathy Pietra who corrected the English style of this paper. 1 See for example: Yigael Yadin, “Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered,” in Israel Exploration Journal 21 (1971), pp. 1–12; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Does TLH in the Temple Scroll refer to Crucifixion?,” in Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (1972), pp. 472–481; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament,” in Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978), pp. 493–513; Joseph M. Baumgarten, “Hanging and Treason in Qumran and Roman,” in Eretz-Israel 16 (1982), pp. 7*–16*; Gregory L. Doudna, ed., 4Q Pesher Nahum. A Critical Edition (London, 2001), pp. 389–433; Shani L. Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran (Leiden, 2004), pp. 165–192. 2 For the different opinions about these two issues, see below. 3 See Ernst Bammel, The Trial of Jesus (Naperville, 1970), pp. 162–165; Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (London, 1977), pp. 84–85; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “Crucifixion,” p. 509; David J. Halperin, “Crucifixion, the Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinic Penalty of Strangulation,” in Journal of Jewish Studies, 32 (1981), p. 46; Michael Owen Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Chicago, 1990), pp. 121–125. 4 See Paul Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (Berlin, 1961), pp. 62–66; Hayyim Cohn, The Trial and Death of Jesus (New York, 1971), pp. 208–238; Baumgarten, “Hanging and Treason,” p. 14*.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2008 Review of Rabbinic Judaism 11.1 Also available online – www.brill.nl 34 giovanni lenzi opinions of scholars concerning the use of the root talah in the sec- tarian texts. I discuss the use of this root in the Book of Esther. Next, I oﬀer two linguistic analyses: comparing the Hebrew root talah with the Aramaic slav and examining the semantic ﬁeld of talah and hanaq (to strangulate). Then, I discuss anew the two most important texts on these issues (Pesher Nahum and B. San. 46b). I conclude by citing a neglected witness of the ancient procedure of tliyyah.

Talah in the Halakhah

It is well known that the halakhah, as established at M. San. 7:1, did not provide for tliyyah as a form of death penalty. Only four types of death penalty were provided: sqilah (stoning; Deut. 17:5; M. San. 6:4), srefah (burning; Lev. 20:14; according to M. San. 7:2, it caused an internal burn), hereg (decapitation, literally killing; Deut. 20:13; M. San. 7:3), and heneq (strangulation; at first sight it seems that this last punishment has no biblical basis; B. San. 52b). In the Mishnah tliyyah was not considered an execution but solely the exhibition of a corpse. The halakhah, in fact, ordered death first by stoning and then hanging of the body (M. San. 6:4; B. San. 45b- 46b).5 The Mishnah recalls only one case of hanging as an execution, that of the eighty witches in Ashkelon who were ordered to be hung by Simeon b. Shetah (first century B.C.E.). This case is judged very differently by the two Talmuds (examining whether Simeon’ verdict is normative or not) and also by modern scholars (examining whether the execution occurred at all). In any case, this kind of death penalty was permitted in emergency situations, when there was not the possibility of a ordinary trial.6

5 Translations of Mishnaic and Talmudic passages are taken from Jacob Neusner, ed., The Babylonian Talmud: A Translation and Commentary (Peabody, 2005). See also Jacob Neusner, The Halakhah (Leiden, Boston and Köln, 2000), vol. 3, pp. 190–209. 6 Compare Hayyim Cohn, Trial, pp. 214–217; Idem, “ha-thliyyah—af hi bhmitot bet din?,” (in Hebrew) in Proceedings of the Eighth Congress of Jewish Studies (1982), p. 24 (the author admits the possibility that it could be a hanging not a cruciﬁxion). Emil Schürer, et al., eds., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (Edinburgh, 1973–1987), vol. 1, p. 231; vol. 3, p. 416, n. 33; p. 431, n. 1, give a varying eval- uation of the historicity of this event. Martin Hengel, Rabbinische Legende und früh- pharisäische Geschichte. Schimeon b. Schetach und die achtzig Hexen von Askalon (Heidelberg, 1984), after a detailed analysis, puts forward a fascinating—but completely hypo- thetical—reconstruction of the facts. At any rate, the Rabbinic texts, which would