Korban Pesach If It Is Placed Far Away from the Actual Korban

Home , Alcimus, Bacchides (general), Makkot, Sanhedrin (tractate)

Daf Ditty Pesachim 75: Ἄλκιμος

לא י ק ו ם Alcimus (from Greek: Ἄλκιμος Alkimos, "valiant" or Hebrew Elyaqum, "God will rise"), also called Jacimus, or Joachim (Ἰάκειμος),

High Priest of Israel for three years, 162–159 BCE, who espoused the Syrian cause.

It was taught in the mishna that one may not roast the Paschal lamb on a grill. Subsequently, the mishna quotes an incident in which Rabban Gamliel instructed his servant to roast the Paschal lamb for him on a grill. The Gemara expresses surprise: Was an incident cited to contradict what was previously stated? The Gemara responds: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: And if it is a perforated grill, so that the fire reaches each part of the meat and the animal will not be roasted from the heat of the grill itself, it is permitted. And with regard to this Rabbi Tzadok said that there was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the perforated grill.

The Gemara cites a discussion related to the subject of roasting the Paschal lamb. Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi raised a dilemma before Rav Adda bar Ahava: In the case of an oven that one fired with peels of fruit that are orla, i.e., fruit that grows on a tree the first three years after it was planted, from which one may not receive any benefit, if, after the oven became very hot, he swept it and removed the fuel and the ashes, and he baked bread in it, according to the opinion that prohibits bread baked directly with heat from orla fuel, what is the halakha with regard to this bread? It was baked with the heat trapped in the oven only after the fuel was removed. He said to him: The bread is permitted.

Rav Ḥinnana said to him: But didn’t Rav Ḥinnana the Elder say that Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: If there is an oven that one fired and swept so that the heat remains but there is no longer any fire in the oven, and one then roasted the Paschal lamb in it, this is not a fulfillment of the Torah’s command that the Paschal lamb must be roasted in fire, as it is stated in the Torah: “And they shall eat the meat on that night, roasted in fire, and matzot; with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire; its head with its legs and with its inner parts” (Exodus 12:8–9), and since it says the phrase: Roasted in fire, two times, the verse emphasizes that the Paschal lamb must literally be roasted on the fire?

5 Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rav Ḥinnana bar Idi: The Merciful One reveals it there, with regard to the Paschal lamb, and we learn from it that even in other areas of halakha, only something that is roasted directly by a fire is considered roasted in fire.

And if you wish, say a different answer instead: There, in the case of the Paschal lamb, the reason one may not roast the lamb if one has already swept out the oven is that the Merciful One writes “roasted in fire” twice.

But if the Merciful One had not written “roasted in fire” twice, I would have said that the Merciful One is particular about fire, meaning that the source of the heat in the oven should be fire, and even if one swept it, it is still considered roasted in fire.

It was therefore necessary to repeat the phrase “roasted in fire.” But here, in the case of orla, the Merciful One is particular about the prohibited fuel, and it is not here in the oven.

Therefore, there is no reason to prohibit the bread.

The Sages taught: If one cuts the Paschal lamb superficially in several places and places it on coals, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this is considered roasted in fire, as coals have the status of real fire. Rav Aḥadvoi bar Ami raised a contradiction to Rav Ḥisda: Did Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi actually say that coals are considered like fire?

He said to him: With regard to a red-hot wood coal, it is not necessary for the verse to include it. As long as it is burning, it is certainly considered a fire. Where a verse is necessary is with regard to a red-hot piece of metal that was heated by a fire. Without the verse, it would have been possible to think a person burned by hot metal it is not considered burned by fire.

The Gemara responds: It is different there, as the verse states not simply fire, but “in fire she shall be burned.”

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by 9 ט בוּ תַ שׁיִ א הֹ כּ ,ןֵ יִ כּ חֵ ת לֵ זִ ל תוֹנְ -- תֶא - playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt ָא ָהיִב איִה ֶלֶלַּחְמ ,ת ָ בּ שֵׁ א שִּׂ תּ רָ .ףֵ }ס{ with fire. {S} Lev 21:9

The expression “she shall be burned” comes to include all burnings that come from fire.

The Gemara suggests: If so, all the more so fire itself fulfills the requirement of burning. Let us surround her with bundles of branches and burn her with them. The Gemara responds: It comes from a verbal analogy between the word “burning” stated here and the word “burning” stated and in the context of the death of the sons of Aaron: Just as below, with regard to the sons of Aaron, the verse states that they were burned with fire (see Leviticus 10:2), and it was a burning of the soul and the body remained, as even their clothes were not burned, so too, here, with regard to the daughter of a priest, it means the burning of the soul and the body remains.

The Gemara challenges: Let us execute her with boiling water heated by fire. The Gemara answers: It is due to the statement of Rav Naḥman, as Rav Naḥman said that the verse states:

8 “And you shall love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). When executing someone, select for him a kind death. Even when someone must be executed, his dignity should be protected. He should be executed in the most comfortable way possible.

The Gemara asks: Once there is the reason of Rav Naḥman, why do I need the verbal analogy derived from the sons of Aaron? Even without it, Rav Naḥman’s ruling requires the court to carry out the execution with molten lead, which provides an easier death. Say in answer to this question: If not for the verbal analogy, I would have said that burning the soul while the body remains is not considered burning. And if it were only due to the statement of Rav Naḥman that one must select a kind death, we should add many bundles of branches so that she would die quickly. Therefore, the verbal analogy teaches us that executing with molten lead is considered burning.

But if it so that the verse says, “she shall be burned” to include all methods of burning, for what do I need the expression “in fire”? The Gemara answers: To exclude lead from its source.

Summary

Rav Avrohom Adler writes:1

One could use metal rods to help roast the korban pesach if it is placed far away from the actual korban.

We explained earlier that the korban pesach has to be roasted by fire, not other things heated by fire. This is why a metal spit cannot be used, as the metal itself will heat the korban pesach. However, the Gemora says that if metal rods are used to hold up the wooden spit (of pomegranate), and the metal is far away from the body of the korban pesach, this is permitted.

1 http://dafnotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Pesachim_75.pdf

9 The Gemora explains the source of the law that a fire has to roast the korban pesach, and not merely heat that came from a fire.

The Gemora says that if someone would make a fire in an oven, and then put it out and stick his korban pesach in the oven, it is not considered “tzli aish” -- “roasted by fire” despite the fact that the oven is extremely hot. Being that the Torah twice said the words “tzli aish,” the emphasis implies that the fire must be present and directly roasting the korban, as opposed to a fire that was put out and the heat remains (or a metal bar that was heated by fire).

When the Torah says that someone must be burned, it does not mean that his body should be enveloped in fire.

The Gemora says that we derive this from the sons of Aharon HaKohen. Just as the Torah states that they were burned, when it is clear from the verses that their insides were burned but their body remained intact, also when the Torah mandates that a person be killed by burning, it means that they should be burned in a way that leaves their body outside intact. [They are made to swallow a burning hot piece of metal.]

When deducing from the Torah methods of capital punishment, we always try to understand that it is an easier form of death rather than a more difficult form of death.

Rav Nachman derives this from the verse “And you should love your friend as yourself.” This indicates, he maintains, that when we have to put someone to death, we should still try to choose the one that causes the least suffering.

Accordingly, if the Torah would indicate that many ways are acceptable, we should choose the most painless method possible that first the Torah’s guidelines.

Rava pointed out the following contradiction:

Did Rebbe in fact say that coals are designated as “fire”? But the following braisa contradicts it: [And he (the Kohen Gadol) shall take a shovelful of fiery coals from atop the Altar.] Now, if the Torah would have merely stated ‘coals,’ you might then think that smoldering coals are meant; therefore ‘fiery’ is stated. If ‘fire’ was stated, you might have thought that a flame must be brought; therefore ‘coals’ were stated.

How then is it to be understood? He must bring of the flickering coals. Now this is self- contradictory: You said: If the Torah would have merely stated ‘coals,’ you might then think that smoldering coals are meant, which proves that flickering coals are regarded as ‘fire.’

Then consider the second clause: If ‘fire’ was stated, you might have thought that a flame must be brought; therefore ‘coals’ were stated. This proves that even flickering coals are not regarded as ‘fire.’ Whereupon Rav Sheishes answered: This is what he teaches: If the Torah would have merely stated ‘coals,’ you might then think that smoldering or flickering coals may be taken; therefore ‘fiery’ is stated.

And ‘fire’ was stated, you might have thought that a flame must be brought; therefore ‘coals’ were stated. How then is it to be understood? He must bring of the flickering coals. Yet, at any rate, Rava concludes, coals (even if they are flickering) are not regarded as ‘fire,’ which is a difficulty according to Rebbe!?

Abaye said: Explain it as follows: If the Torah would have merely stated ‘coals,’ you might then think that smoldering coals must be taken but not flickering ones; therefore ‘fiery’ is stated.

And if ‘fire’ was stated, you might have thought that if he wants, he may bring a flame, or, if he wants, he may bring coals; therefore ‘coals’ were stated. How then is it to be understood? He must bring of the flickering coals. [Accordingly, the braisa is in agreement with Rebbe that flickering coals are regarded as ‘fire.’]

Rava said: You said: You might have thought that if he wants, he may bring a flame, or, if he wants, he may bring coals. But how is it possible for a flame to exist without a coal? It must be where one smears a vessel with oil and lights a fire in it! Then why do I need a verse to exclude that?

Seeing that you do not do like this before a king of flesh and blood, is it not all the more forbidden before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He!?

Rather, Rava said: Explain the braisa as follows: If the Torah would have merely stated ‘coals,’ you might then think that smoldering coals must be taken but not flickering ones; therefore ‘fiery’ is stated.

And if ‘fire’ was stated, you might have thought that he may bring half coal and half flame, so that by the time he enters the Holy of Holies, it will be completely coal; therefore, it is stated: And he shall take a shovelful of coals of fire from atop the Altar. At the very time of the taking, they must be coals.

The Gemora quotes both Rav Nachman’s teaching to choose the best possible death for someone who the Torah says must be put to death, and the gezeirah shavah from the sons of Aharon that teaches that the body of someone who is put to death by burning is not consumed by fire.

The Gemora explains that we need both teachings to conclude that we make such a person swallow a burning hot piece of metal. Rashi seemingly understands that the Gemora means that while the gezeirah shavah teaches that despite the fact that one’s body is not burned it can still qualify as burning, Rav Nachman was needed to teach that this is the method of death that should be used. Otherwise, other methods would be acceptable.

The Maharshal asks on Rashi that this explanation seems difficult. The Gemora earlier asked that burning the entire person should be acceptable and answered with the gezeirah shavah above. According to Rashi, how is this an answer?

11 The gezeirah shavah just means that this is also an acceptable method of burning, not that burning the entire person should be excluded!

The Maharsha answers that when the Gemora gave its answer, it thought the one asking the question already knew Rav Nachman’s derivation about picking the best mode of death. It thought that the question was merely how we can say that making someone swallow a burning piece of metal fits the definition of burning.

This is why the Gemora merely answered with the gezeirah shavah, which is the source that it is called burning.

ROASTING THE "KORBAN PESACH" ON A GRILL

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:2

The Gemara asks that the Mishnah (74a) seems to contradict itself. It first says that the Korban Pesach may not be roasted, and then it quotes Rebbi Tzadok who relates that Raban Gamliel instructed that his Korban Pesach be roasted. The Gemara answers that when the Mishnah says that the Korban Pesach may not be roasted, it refers to roasting the Korban Pesach on a normal grill. When Raban Gamliel instructed that his Korban Pesach be roasted, he meant that it be roasted on a grill with holes ("Menukeves").

Why may one roast the Korban Pesach on a grill with holes, but not on a grill without holes? In both cases, part of the meat rests on the grill on a place where there are no holes, and thus that part of the meat is cooked by the heat of the grill and not directly by the flame.

RASHI explains that "Menukeves" means that the grill not only has holes, but that it has parallel metal rods without cross-rods. The Pesach is roasted on a skewer that is held in the empty space between two of the parallel rods. The meat does not touch the rods at all.

However, if this is the case, what new Halachah is the Mishnah teaching? Why would we have thought that such a method of roasting is not acceptable, such that the Mishnah must permit it? It seems that we might have thought that the Rabanan prohibited roasting it in this manner lest the animal touch the walls of the grill. The Mishnah teaches that this is not a concern.

RAMBAM (Hilchos Korban Pesach 8:9) writes that "one is not allowed to roast the Korban Pesach atop a stone or metal utensil, but if it has holes and the fire can reach through the holes to roast the animal, then it is permitted."

Why is this permitted? Even if the fire reaches the animal through the holes, there are still parts of the animal that rest on the base of the grill where there are no holes (RA'AVAD).

2 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/pesachim/insites/ps-dt-075.htm

12 Because of this question, the KESEF MISHNEH is in doubt about the intention of the Rambam. He suggests that perhaps since the rods of the grill are so narrow, the fire is able to reach even the part of the meat that rests on the rods.3 (c) The Kesef Mishneh suggests a second explanation for the words of the Rambam. The Rambam is discussing a case in which the Korban Pesach hangs above the grill and does not touch it at all (exactly as the Ra'avad himself suggests). Thus, the fire reaches every part of the meat through the holes in the grill.

According to this approach, what is the Mishnah teaching? Why would we have thought that the Korban Pesach is prohibited in such a case, had the grill not been perforated?

The Mishnah is teaching that when there are no holes in the grill, one may not roast the Korban there. It is not considered "Tzli Esh," because the heat of the fire reaches it only indirectly. This also seems to be the approach of RABEINU CHANANEL here.

Roast on an Open Grill

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:4

As we learned yesterday, one of the most fundamental rules about eating the korban Pesah is that it must be roasted whole (see Ex12:9). The first Mishna in the perek (74a) offers a basic lesson on how the roasting was done. According to the Mishna, a wooden spit was made from a pomegranate tree and was placed through the body so that the animal could be roasted whole. Other methods were not acceptable, including a metal spit or a grill. The Gemara explains that, were a metal spit to be used, the meat would be cooked by the heat of the metal rather than by the fire, and the command of the Torah is that the meat be roasted by fire.

The Gemara responds: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: And if it is a perforated grill, so that the fire reaches each part of the meat and the animal will not be roasted from the heat of the grill itself, it is permitted. And with regard to this Rabbi Tzadok said that there was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the perforated grill.

3This case is not comparable to the case in the Mishnah which says that if the gravy of the meat of the Korban Pesach drips onto the earthen wall of the oven, the gravy becomes forbidden, because the oven, and not the fire, causes it to cook. In that case, the gravy becomes forbidden either because it covers a large surface area of the oven wall, or because the oven wall is at the edge, and not at the center, of the oven. 4 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim75/

13 In explanation of Rabban Gamliel’s preference to roast the sacrifice in this fashion, the Hatam Sofer suggests that it may have been his concern for the ecology of the Land of Israel. Just imagine what would have happened if every Jewish family needed to cut down a pomegranate tree for their korban Pesah. By allowing the use of a grill, many pomegranate trees could be saved.

The Korban Pesach must be roasted over a fire. Rebbe ruled that if it is roasted over coals, this is in compliance with the requirement to be roasted over a fire.5

The Gemara then showed that a metal bar which can cause a burn on a person is only considered to be “fire” due to a specific extension of the verse in terms of tzara’as spots which occur on healing burns. Without this specific verse, we see that a metal bar is not “fire.”

The Gemara answered that a coal from wood is defined as “fire,” but a metal bar is not defined as “fire.”

a metal ‘coal’”, which— תכתמ לש ג תלח “ Sfas Emes offers two explanations to distinguish between is not considered to be “fire”, and a “coal of wood”, which itself is considered to be “fire”.

A metal bar is capable of having enough heat to cause a burn even without the metal itself glowing and becoming enveloped with flame.

This is why its heated condition is not defined as fiery. However, wood will generally not be able to cause a burn unless it has become hot enough for a flame to envelop it.

A coal of wood is therefore directly associated with fire because of the flame which grabs it, whereas a metal bar is not surrounded by a flame.

Another approach to highlight this distinction is that even when metal become glowing hot, the bar does not flicker with a flame. However, when wood is heated up and begins to burn, the fire actually grabs hold of the wood itself

5 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20075.pdf

The elderly R. Chisda said in the name of R. Asi who said in the name of R. Yochanan: A Korban Pesach is not considered roasted on a fire if it was prepared in an oven which was heated but then had the coals swept out. (Rather, it is considered roasted (1) in an oven).

The Yerushalmi (2) notes that even in a situation where the coals are still inside an oven the korban is also being roasted by the oven. If so, it should be considered an invalid korban for it is being roasted by an agent other than fire (i.e., the oven).

The Yerushalmi answers that as long as the coals are in the oven, we do not consider it as if the oven assists the coals at all. The only thing the oven does is prevent the heat of the coals from dissipating. This speeds up the roasting process but is still considered roasted from the fire of the coals (3).

HaRav S. Vozner (4) infers from this Yerushalmi that one can salt his meat and liver on a grill (which has electric grates burning on top and the meat is resting below on grates). We see from the above Yerushalmi there is no need that the heat of the fire comes from underneath, but even when the heat is on top of the meat it is sufficient.

What is the significance of the exclusion of any cooking method for the Korban Pesach other than dry roasting that we see on our daf?

According to the Chid”a, zt”l, the korban represents our inborn character traits, and the Maharal, zt”l, tells us that fire symbolizes the blazing light and energy of the intellect that is completely distinct from the material nature of the body.

Not only is the mind distinct from the body, but it is also its very opposite—like fire, it consumes the material that it touches. Roasting the Korban Pesach directly over the flames signifies that when the fire of the mind is applied to each of our middos, we can discern precisely how, when, and to what extent it is to be utilized.

This process goes against the natural human tendency to coast along and be passively manipulated by our middos. When we choose, instead, to pay attention and apply the mind’s fire to alter our course, we become worthy of cleaving to the ultimate intellect, Hashem, who is called “…a consuming fire.” (Deut 4:24).

BURNING THE BAS KOHEN

The Torah teaches that a Bas Kohen who was betrothed and sinned with another man is punished with Sereifah:

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by 9 ט בוּ תַ שׁיִ א הֹ כּ ,ןֵ יִ כּ חֵ ת לֵ זִ ל תוֹנְ -- תֶא - playing the harlot, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt ָא ָהיִב איִה ,תֶלֶלַּחְמ שֵׁאָבּ .ףֵרָשִּׂתּ }ס{ with fire. {S}

Lev 21:9

The Gemara says that molten lead is poured into her mouth. The Gemara asks why we do not interpret the verse in its most literal sense and burn her in an actual fire with firewood?

The Gemara answers that a Gezeirah Shavah teaches that her punishment must be similar to the death of the sons of Aharon, who died by having their Neshamos burned while their bodies remained intact.

In the end of the Sugya, the Gemara cites the teaching of Rav Nachman, who derives from the verse, "v'Ahavta l'Re'acha Kamocha" (Lev 18:19), that when the Torah requires that a person be executed, the least painful, quickest form of death must be used. Therefore, when Beis Din executes a person with Sereifah, molten lead must be used, because that is the least painful and quickest punishment.

The Gemara says that even though Rav Nachman derives from the verse ("v'Ahavta l'Re'acha") that the Bas Kohen is killed with molten lead, the Gezeirah Shavah that compares her punishment to the death of the sons of Aharon is still necessary.

Without the Gezeirah Shavah, we might have thought that this form of death (molten lead) is not considered Sereifah, and that only when the body is actually burned is it considered Sereifah. The Gezeirah Shavah teaches that even when the Neshamah alone is burned and not the body ("Sereifas ha'Neshamah"), it is considered Sereifah.

RASHI (DH Ka Mashma Lan) explains that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that Sereifas ha'Neshamah is "also" considered Sereifah. Rashi's words imply that molten lead is not the only form of Sereifah that may be used, but that it may also be used.

What does Rashi mean? At the beginning of the Sugya, the Gemara says that the reason why we do not kill the Bas Kohen with a fire and firewood is because we must kill her with Sereifas ha'Neshamah (with molten lead). This implies that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that the only acceptable form of Sereifah is Sereifas ha'Neshamah.

16 Why, then, does Rashi write that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that Sereifas ha'Neshamah is also an acceptable form of Sereifah, but is not the only acceptable form?

The Acharonim explain that Rashi's explanation is based on the Gemara in Sanhedrin (52a). It is clear from the Gemara there that the Gezeirah Shavah does not limit the punishment of Sereifah exclusively to Sereifas ha'Neshamah, but rather it includes Sereifas ha'Neshamah as a permissible form of Sereifah.

Indeed, there are other instances of "Sereifah" in the Torah which are done with a normal fire (such as the way the members of Korach's rebellion were punished, and the way that disqualified Korbanos must be discarded).

Rashi apparently understands that the Gemara originally assumes that the Gezeirah Shavah teaches that only Sereifas ha'Neshamah may be administered, because it does not know of any other reason why she should not be burned with firewood. However, once the Gemara mentions the teaching of Rav Nachman, that the least painful form of death must be administered, it understands that this is the source to exclude burning her with firewood.

Accordingly, the Gezeirah Shavah merely adds Sereifas ha'Neshamah as an acceptable form of Sereifah. The requirement to choose the least painful death then teaches that Sereifas ha'Neshamah should be used.

(The RASHASH demonstrates that Sereifas ha'Neshamah is not the only acceptable form of Sereifah by pointing out that the Midrash (Bereishis Rabah, end of chapter 65:22)

records an incident involving a Jew who transgressed every sin in the Torah. In the end of his life, he repented and accepted upon himself to die with all four types of death penalties. In order to fulfill the death penalty of Sereifah, he jumped into a fire. This implies that Sereifah also includes burning by fire.)

Gen Rabba 65:22 “And he smelled his garments and he blessed him,” like Yosef Meshisa and Yakum Ish Tzroros.

[Who was] Yosef Meshisa? When the enemies (the Romans) wanted to enter the Temple Mount, they said, “Let one of them (i.e., a Jew) enter themselves first.” They told Yosef Meshisa, “Go in, and whatever you take out with you is yours.”

He went in and took out the golden Menorah. They told him, “A regular man cannot use such an item! Rather go back in and take something else, and it is yours.” He refused.

Rabbi Pinchas said: They offered him three years’ worth of tax money, and still he refused. He told them, “It is enough that I angered my G-d once. Should I anger Him again?” What did they do? They placed him on a chopping block and started to bang nails into him. He was screaming and saying, "Woe is to me, woe is to me for I have angered my Creator!"

Yakum Ish Tzroros was the nephew of Rabbi Yosi the son of Yoezer Ish Tzreida [the leader of the Sanhedrin.]

He was riding a horse on Shabbos and leading his uncle, Rabbi Yosi to be executed [by the Greeks]. He said to his uncle, “Look at the horse my master (i.e., the Greeks) provide me, and look at the horse that your master (i.e., G-d) provides you!”

R. Yosi replied, “If such is the [fortunate] lot of those that anger Him, how much more so those that obey His will.” Yakum asked, “But is there anyone that obeyed His will more than you?”

R. Yosi replied, “And if this is what happens to those that fulfill His will, how much more will befall those that anger Him.”

This entered his heart like the poison of a snake, and he committed suicide in all four methods of death imposed by a Court: stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangulation. What did he do? He took a beam and wedged it in the ground and tied a rope to it.

He then took wood, built on it a wall of rocks and made a bonfire in front of it, and put a sword in the middle.

He hanged himself on the beam and was strangled, then the fire burned the rope, so he fell into the fire and onto the sword, and the wall of rocks fell on top of him, and he was burned.

R. Yosi b. Yoezer dozed off and saw his coffin flying in the air. He said: “By a few moments he preceded me into Paradise!”

BURNING

Hermann Cohen writes:6

Burning remained confined to the adultery of a priest's daughter and to certain forms of incest (Sanh. 9:1; Maim. Yad, Sanhedrin 15:11). Here again the question arose of how to execute by burning without destroying the body: an old tradition has it that when Aaron's sons were consumed by divine fire (Lev. 10:2) only their souls were burnt, their bodies remaining intact (Sanh. 52a); in accordance with this, a mode of burning which would leave the body intact had to be devised.

The man to be burnt was to be immersed in mud up to his knees (so that he should not fall); two kerchiefs were then to be bound round his neck, each to be held in the hands of one witness and drawn in opposite directions until he opened his mouth, and then a burning wick was to be thrown into his mouth "which would go down into his bowels" (Sanh. 7:2). As will be seen, this mode of execution is almost identical with that of strangling, it being reasonable to suppose that the wick will no longer burn when it arrives in the bowels, but suffocation will already have supervened. Maimonides substitutes hot lead or zinc for the comparatively harmless mishnaic wick (Sanh. 15:3), taking the wick to be a metallic substance, but insisting that as little pain as possible should be inflicted (Comment. to Sanh. 7:2).

There is no record that this method of burning was ever actually practiced. There is a report that a priest's daughter was burnt for adultery by being bound with bundles of grapevine which were then ignited (Sanh. ibid.).

The explanation there given was that this may have been the method employed by a Sadducean court, leading some scholars to conclude that that had been the original biblical mode of burning, the Sadducees rejecting later oral law modifications.

The same older method of burning is reported to have been adopted by a later Babylonian scholar, Ḥama b. Tobiah, who was rebuked for it (Sanh. 52b). That burnings may also have taken place at the stake appears from midrashic sources (cf Gen. R. 65:22; Mid. Ps. 11:7).

Josephus reports that Herod ordered men who had incited others to desecrate the Temple to be burnt alive and their accomplices to be killed by the sword (Wars, 1:655).

In Practice in the Talmud

6 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/capital-punishment

20 Louis Isaac Rabinowitz writes:

It is of extreme difficulty to determine whether the modes of capital punishment given above, and based on the detailed discussion, mainly in the tractate Sanhedrin, reflect actual practice, or whether they were academic discussions, as, for instance, are the detailed discussions on the sacrifices. Thus the law of the "stubborn and rebellious son" covers five mishnayot (Sanh. 8:1–5) and four folios of the Babylonian Talmud (68b–72a), and it is laid down that he is put to death by stoning and then hanged (ibid., 46a). Yet it is stated that "It never happened and it never will happen" and that the law was given merely "that you may study it and receive reward" (for the pure study; Tosef., Sanh. 11:6; Sanh. 71a), though on the other hand in the talmudic passage R. Jonathan protests "I saw him and sat on his grave." The same statement is made in the case of the death penalty for communal apostasy (Tosef., Sanh. 14:1) and the same reason given for its study.

Much more pertinent, however, is a passage of the Talmud which explicitly compares the study of, and the discussion on the various death penalties with that on the sacrifices. The halakhah was established in the case of the death penalty for an adulterous woman. R. Joseph asked, "Is there need to establish a halakhah for the messianic age (the Sanhedrin no longer having jurisdiction in capital offenses)?" Abaye answered, "If so, we should not study the laws of sacrifices, as they also apply to the messianic age. But we say, 'Study and receive reward'" (Sanh. 51b).

Similarly, the passage in Mishnah Makkot 1:10: "A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one. R. Eleazar ben Azariah says 'Or even once in 70 years.' R. Tarfon and R. Akiva said, 'If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed'; Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: 'If so, they would have multiplied murderers in Israel.'" Instructive though this is, it is merely an academic discussion, the right of imposing capital punishment having been taken from the Sanhedrin by the Romans a century before, "40 years before the Destruction of the Temple" (Sanh. 41a; TJ, Sanh. 1:18a). The rabbis agreed that with the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was precluded from inflicting capital punishment (see above).

The Talmud actually asks whether the statement of Eleazar b. Azariah was one of censure or reflected the fact of the rarity of death sentences, and leaves the question undecided, as it does for the question as to how R. Tarfon and R. Akiva would have prevented the death verdict being passed (but see Makk. 7a).

That the discussions are largely academic is reflected in the language of the Mishnah. Of capital punishment by the sword it is stated that "they used to decapitate him, as the [Roman] government does [at the present time]" (cf. Tosef., Sanh. 9:10) and R. Judah proposes another method. It goes on to state how "they used to" fulfill the method of death by strangulation (ibid., 7:3). No less significant is the fact that R. Akiva himself, who would have abolished capital punishment, enters into the halakhic discussion on it as fully as his colleagues (cf. ibid., 11:7, 12:2).

All that one can do is to assemble the available evidence. That the Sanhedrin had the power of inflicting the death sentence and that they exercised it is historically attested. Herod was arraigned before it on a capital charge, although he was enabled to escape and avoid the penalty (Jos., Ant.,

21 14:168–70). Judah b. Tabbai admitted that he had wrongly sentenced a perjured witness to death (TJ, Sanh. 6:4, 23a–Tosef., Sanh. 6:6). The son of his colleague, Simeon b. Shetaḥ, was also wrongly condemned to death through false witness, and when the witnesses confessed their perjury the condemned man refused to take advantage of it lest his father, the head of the Sanhedrin, be accused of favoritism, and he went to his death, though innocent (TJ, loc. cit.).

It is also clear from an incident vividly described by Simeon b. Shetaḥ that the laws of evidence were strictly adhered to (Tosef., Sanh. 8:3). One anonymous case is cited in the same context. "It happened that a man was being led to his execution. They said to him, 'Say, "May my death be an atonement for all my sins.'" He replied 'May my death be an atonement for all my sins, except for this one (for which I have been sentenced to death). If I am guilty of it, may my death not be an atonement, and the Bet Din and all Israel shall be guiltless'" (the version in the Babylonian Talmud adds "but may the witnesses never be forgiven""). When the matter was reported to the sages, their eyes filled with tears, but they said, "It is impossible to reverse the decision, since the matter is endless; [he must be executed] but his blood is on the necks of the witnesses" (TJ Sanh. 6:5, 23a).

Nevertheless, in none of those cases is the manner of execution given and the remarkable fact emerges that in the two cases cited where the mode of execution is explicitly stated the verdicts were extra-judicial. One was the action of Simeon b. Shetaḥ in sentencing 80 women in Ashkelon to hanging for witchcraft (Sanh. 6:4, cf. Sanh. 46a. Derembourg suggests that Simeon b. Shetaḥ is a mistake for the Hasmonean), while of the other it is stated: "It once happened that during the Greek period a man was sentenced to death by stoning for riding a horse on the Sabbath. Not that he was liable to death, but because the special circumstances of the time demanded it" (Sanh. 46a).

What is perhaps the most cogent evidence that the talmudic discussions on the death sentence did not reflect the actual practice is provided by a third instance. In Sanhedrin 7:2 R. Eleazar b. Zadok gave evidence of an actual case of death by burning which differed diametrically from that given by the Mishnah. The answer was given that "the Sanhedrin at that time was not competent."

In the Tosefta (9:11) and the Jerusalem Talmud (7:2, 24b) Eleazar b. Zadok vividly describes the circumstances under which he witnessed it. "I was a child and was being carried on my father's shoulders and I saw it," to which his colleagues replied "You were then a child, and the evidence of a child is inadmissible."

That the incident happened is therefore definite; the rabbis in the two replies were concerned with establishing their theoretical view of the law even when it conflicted with the actual practice of the past. There are no recorded cases of execution by strangulation or the sword. It would seem therefore that discussions on the various modes of execution and the details of their implementation were made to "study and receive the reward therefore," i.e., academic. As is evident from the above quoted mishnah in Makkot, the whole tendency of the rabbis was toward the complete abolition of the death penalty.

Alcimus and the Maccabees

Alexander Büchler writes:7

Leader of the antinational Hellenists in Jerusalem, under Demetrius I. Soter of Syria (Josephus, "Ant." xi. 9, § 7); born about 200 B.C.; died at Jerusalem 160. He was of priestly family (I Macc. vii. 14). In consequence of the national movement under the Hasmoneans, and of the martial successes of Judas Maccabeus (164-163), the party lost influence and was partially expelled from Jerusalem. Immediately after Demetrius ascended the throne, Alcimus presented himself as a supporter of the imperiled authority of Syria in Judea and requested the punishment of Judas Maccabeus. Demetrius entrusted Bacchides, the governor of Cœle-syria, with this task, and sent him to install Alcimus in the office of high priest, the object of his ambition. In Judea, because of his priestly rank, Alcimus obtained the confidence of the scribes and the rigidly pious (Assideans), who objected to the conflict on general principles, and, therefore, asked him to bring about peace. Yet, in spite of pledges of safety, he put many of them to death in order to intimidate the rest. Bacchides himself massacred all the followers of Judas Maccabeus who fell into his hands; and committing Judea, with a force sufficient for garrison duty, to the care of Alcimus, he returned to Syria. Alcimus, united now with his Jewish partizans, took up arms against the Maccabees to fight for the supremacy in Judea and for the post of ἀρχιερωσίυη (high priesthood). He could not maintain his position, however, and repaired to the king for assistance (I Macc. vii. 5-25; "Ant." xii. 10, §§ 1, 3; II Macc. xiv. 1-10). In order to restore him to the office of high priest (II Macc. xiv. 13), Demetrius, in the same year (162), despatched his general Nicanor, who was defeated and killed in an encounter with Judas; and the anniversary, Adar 13, was celebrated in Jerusalem as the Nikanor Day (I Macc. vii. 26-50; "Ant." xii. 10, § 4; II Macc. xiv. 12-xv. 36). Soon after, Alcimus appeared before Jerusalem with Bacchides, who attacked Judas at Eleasa in such superior numbers that Judas was defeated and slain. Alcimus and the Hellenists now assumed control in Judea and reveled in the persecution and slaughter of nationalist Jews. Herein Bacchides assisted effectively by continued war on the Hasmoneans Jonathan and Simon, and by the erection of a number of fortifications in Judea (I

7 http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1095-alcimus

23 Macc. ix. 1-53; "Ant." xii. 11, § 1; xiii. 1, § 5). Alcimus does not appear in the account of these struggles; only his death (160) is reported in connection with his attempt to tear down the wall of the court of the inner Temple (I Macc. ix. 54; "Ant." xii. 10, § 6). He held office for three years ("Ant." xii. 10, § 6; xx. 10, § 3), and, as early as 163 under Antiochus V., was appointed successor to Menelaus ("Ant." xii. 9, § 7; xx. 10, § 3; II Macc. xiv. 3). It is possible that what is related in I Maccabees (vii. 5-25) occurred in the time of Antiochus V. (Schlatter, "Jason von Kyrene," p. 40). As High Priest

Without doubt Alcimus held some office, as appears from I Macc. vii. 9; "Ant." xii. 9, § 7; xx.10, § 3. The position which he strove for was expressed by the terms ἱερατύειυ (I Macc. vii. 5) and ἀρχιερωσύυη (I Macc. vii. 21, II Macc. xiv. 13); and as Josephus always refers to him as high priest, Alcimus is recognized as such by all authorities. A fact conflicting with this is that he mentions his ἀρχιερωσύυη to the king as being inherited from his ancestors (II Macc. xiv. 7); yet, without question, the members of another family up to this time had had uninterrupted possession of the high-priesthood. He could have meant only a higher priestly office, hereditary in his family for some generations. From the fact that the scribes and Assideans gave him their confidence only because he was priest of Aaron's family, it follows that his official position is to be sought elsewhere than in the high priesthood. The older view as to Alcimus' high-priesthood is, however, still held by scholars to-day. See, e.g., Reinach, Rev. Ét. Juives, xl. 99; Schürer, Theologische Literatur Zeitung, 1900, No. 12, cols. 364, 635.—R. G. As Civil Governor

There are no facts bearing on the relations of Alcimus as high priest to the Temple at Jerusalem, unless the destruction of the wall of the court of the inner Temple be regarded as evidence thereof. It may be noted that the wall was not destroyed, as is generally accepted, in order to give the pagans entrance to the sanctuary hitherto closed to them; but to deprive the nationalist Jews of their last refuge—the fortress-like Temple. On the other hand, much is said about his rule in Judea that is not at all in accord with the position of high priest. These data seem to point to the fact that Alcimus was not high priest of the Temple at Jerusalem, but the civil ruler of the province of Judea, appointed by the king of Syria, and that ἱερεύς or ἀρχιερεύς was the official Syrian designation for his position. His expulsion from Jerusalem involved, therefore, resistance to the king, and the governor of the entire province of Cœle-syria was sent to reinstate and protect him. The governor, as his superior, led him to Judea twice, and remained there till his death. The circumstance that Alcimus was the immediate successor to Menelaus, who was not of priestly stock, confirms this view. Alcimus' rule differed from that of Menelaus in that no opportunity was afforded him to make inroads upon the Temple treasury (since it was empty), nor to wound the religious susceptibilities of the Jews; for the terms of peace concluded between the Jews and Antiochus V. (162), to whom Alcimus probably owed his first appointment, had assured them religious liberty; and from that time on the struggle turned only on the supremacy of the Nationalists or of the Hellenists. The misleading title ἀρχιερεύς occurred in the sources drawn upon by Josephus; in I Maccabees, which evinces thorough knowledge of what happened in Judea, without any keen political insight; and in II Maccabees, which describes with accuracy occurrences at the Syrian court and camp, but

24 in regard to Judean affairs gives free play to fancy. The ambiguity involved in Alcimus' title gave rise to the error that Alcimus was high priest, and this carried other errors in its train. Mention must be made of the legendary account in the Midrash (Gen. R. lxv. 22, and in Midrash Teh. to xi. 7) of Jakim of Ẓerorot (Ẓeredah), nephew of Jose, son of Joezer of Ẓeredah. He is probably identical with Jakim-Alcimus, and is represented as being present when his uncle, who may have been one of the scribes put to death by Alcimus, was led to execution. When he threatened his nephew with the tortures of hell for his faithlessness, Jakim killed himself.

The execution of the Pharisees by Alexander Jannaeus, by Willem Swidde, 17th century.

Timeline8

164 The temple is purified.

8 https://www.westmont.edu/~fisk/articles/jewhistc.htm

25 • They store the stones from the profaned Altar of Burnt Offering. • On the hope for a future prophet, see 1 Macc.4:44-46; 14:41; Deut.18:15; Mal.4:5. • The altar is rebuilt and sacrifices resume on 25th of Chislev (= November/December). • This event is celebrated as the 8 day Feast of Hannukah (began on Dec.24, 1997). See 1 Macc.4:36-58.

164/163 Antiochus dies during a campaign against the Parthians (1 Macc.6:16).

164-161 Popular support for Judas wanes.

163-162 Antiochus V rules as a child, with Lysias as regent.

• The Jews' religious freedom is restored. Menelaus is executed. Judas' position is recognized. • Jewish proponents of Hellenization are virtually eliminated.

162 Demetrius, son of Seleucus IV, returns from Rome, seizes power, and appoints Alcimus as high priest (1 Macc.7:5-9). Judas opposes Alcimus.

• On the pro-Maccabean bias of 1 Maccabees, see 7:5, 9, 21-23. • Judas concludes a treaty with Rome, against Demetrius and the Syrians (1 Macc.8:17-32). • Judas dies in battle against (1 Macc.9:17-22). • Question: Did the Jews believe that the gift of prophecy had ceased? See 1 Macc.9:27; 4:46; 14:41.

161-142 Jonathan, Judas' brother, rules in Judas' place.

• Many Jews, content with restored religious freedoms, do not support his quest for independence from the Seleucids.

159 Alcimus dies while attempting to remodel the Temple (1 Macc.9:54-56).

• See Josephus Antiquities 13.171-173 (read chapter 5, section 9 of Whiston's translation) who offers comments on three Jewish groups--Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes--at this point in the story.

Al'cimus (῎Αλκιμος, strong, or perh. only a Graecized form of the Hebrew Eliakim), called, also, Jacimus, i e. Joakim (Ι᾿άκειμος, Josephus, Ant. 12, 9, 7), a Jewish priest (1 Maccabees 7:14) who, apostatizing to the Syrians, was appointed high-priest (B.C. 162) by King Demetrius, as successor of Menelaus (1 Maccabees 7:5), by the influence of Lysias, though not of the pontifical family (Josephus, Ant. 12, 9, 7; 20:10; 1 Maccabees 7:14), to the exclusion of Onias, the nephew of Menelaus, having already been nominated by Antiochus Eupator (Josephus, Ant. 12, 9, 7; comp. Selden, De success. in pontyf. p. 150), and instated into office by force of arms by the Syrian general Bacchides (1 Maccabees 7:9 sq.). According to a Jewish tradition (Bereshith R. 65), he

26 was "sister's son of Jose ben-Joeser," chief of the Sanhedrim, whom he afterward put to death (Raphall, Hist. of Jews, 1, 245, 308). At first, he attached many of the patriots to his cause by fair promises (1 Maccabees 7:18 sq.), but soon alienated by his perfidy not only these but his other friends, so that he was at length compelled to flee from the opposition of Judas Maccabeus to the Syrian king (1 Maccabees 7:25; 2 Maccabees 14:3 sq.). Nicanor, who was sent with a large army to assist him, was routed and slain by the Jewish patriots (1 Maccabees 7:43; 2 Maccabees 15:37), B.C. 161. Bacchides immediately advanced a second time against Jerusalem with a large army, routed Judas, who fell in the battle (B.C. 161), and reinstated Alcimus. After his restoration, Alcimus seems to have attempted to modify the ancient worship, and, as he was engaged in pulling down "the walls of the inner court of the sanctuary" (i.e. which separated the court of the Gentiles from it; yet see Grimm, Comment. on 1 Maccabees 9:54), he was "plagued" (by paralysis), and "died at that time," B.C. 160 (Josephus, Ant. 12, 9, 5; 12:10; 1 Maccabees 7, 9; comp. 2 Maccabees 14, 15; see Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Isr. 4, 365 sq.). According to 1 Maccabees he was a descendant of the Biblical Aaron, brother of Moses, but not in the high-priestly line; and being ambitious for the office of high priest, he traveled to Antioch to secure the assistance of the Seleucid king Demetrius I Soter, who had just overthrown Antiochus Eupator. Alcimus was of the Hellenizing party, and therefore bitterly opposed by the Maccabees.

Demetrius sent an army under Bacchides to establish Alcimus in the high priesthood at Jerusalem. The favor with which Alcimus was received by the Jews at Jerusalem on account of his Aaronic descent was soon turned to hate by his cruelties. When Bacchides and his army returned to Antioch, the Hasmonean Judah Maccabee attacked and overcame Alcimus, and drove him also to Syria. There he secured from Demetrius another army, led by Nicanor, who, failing to overcome Judah by treachery, attacked him directly, but was defeated and killed. A third and greater army, under Bacchides again, was dispatched to reinstall Alcimus. Judah was defeated and killed, Alcimus established as high priest and a strong garrison left in Jerusalem to maintain him. But he did not long enjoy his triumph, since he died soon after, while he was pulling down the wall of the temple that divided the court of the Gentiles from that of the Israelites.

His successor as High Priest is unknown, though some scholars suggest that this was the Teacher of Righteousness, later founder of the Essenes.

BACCHIDES° (second century B.C.E.), Syrian general and governor of Seleucid territories west of the Euphrates.9

A friend of Demetrius I, Bacchides was given the task of installing Alcimus as high priest.

To this end he was assigned a large body of troops, for it was evident that opposition would be forthcoming from Judah Maccabee and the other leaders of the Hasmonean uprising. The pious ḥasidim, rejoicing at the sight of a priest from the tribe of Aaron assuming the office of high priest, were inclined to accept the peaceful overtures of Bacchides.

However, he disregarded his oath and immediately slew 60 of the Ḥasidim, thus reuniting the bulk of the Jewish population behind Judah. Leaving an army with Alcimus, Bacchides handed the country over to him and returned to Syria. Meanwhile, Judah decisively defeated another Syrian general, Nicanor (13 Adar, 161 B.C.E.).

Within two months Bacchides returned to Judea, accompanied by a force of 20,000 foot soldiers and 2,000 horsemen. Judah's army, camped near Elasa, dwindled from 3,000 to 800, and in the fierce battle that ensued Judah was killed. Bacchides again entrusted the administration of Judea to the Hellenists, while the rebels, led by Jonathan and Simeon, dispersed and fled south and beyond the Jordan.

Bacchides succeeded in tracking Jonathan down, but waited until the Sabbath to attack the Jewish army, thinking that they would not fight. However, Jonathan fought back and the Syrian general suffered many casualties in an indecisive battle.

9 https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/bacchides-x00b0

28 Bacchides retreated to Jerusalem and fortified the citadel there. He also fortified many places around Jerusalem in order to strengthen the Seleucid hold on the city. Believing that the royalist rule was secure, Bacchides returned to Syria and remained there for two years (until 158).

His last expedition to Judea, at the request of the Hellenists, was virtually a disaster. By that time Bacchides had become dissatisfied with those Jews who repeatedly urged him to attack the Hasmonean brothers. Sensing this, Jonathan proposed peace and a release of prisoners.

Bacchides agreed, considering this the most dignified way of withdrawing, and returned for the last time to Syria.

Toxicology in the Old Testament. Did the High Priest Alcimus die of acute aconitine poisoning?

Ferdinand P Moog and Axel Karenberg write:10

The Bible contains several interesting contributions to the history of neurology, as is the case of the High Priest Alkimos, who died suddenly in 159 BC.

He was regarded as a stereotypical stroke victim for a long time. The reports on his death in the Septauginta and the later 'Jewish Antiquities' of Flavius Josephus present some typical symptoms of stroke (collapse, loss of speech and death within a short time), but they also describe severe pains, which are very unusual among patients with stroke.

Similar symptoms can be found in the case of the Roman emperor Claudius, who was poisoned by his spouse Agrippina. It was thought that she used aconitine, an ingredient of the monkshood plant (Aconitum napellus L.), which imitates an apoplectic insult, but also causes vehement pains.

It was therefore possible that something similar had happened to Alkimos, as aconitine was a common poison in ancient times and the surroundings of his death may confirm the suspicion. Reigning during a time of great upheaval, Alkimos was able to maintain his high office chiefly because of the help of the Seleucides.

He has just begun construction work on the temple of Jerusalem, an order, which was regarded as a sacrilege by his foes. This impression was enhanced by his subsequent illness which could be considered as a divine punishment.

10 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12298423/