sign in sign up
<<
Home , Decapitation

, the Nahum Pesher, and the Rabbinic Penalty of Strangulation*

DAVID J. HALPERIN DEPARTMENT OF RELIGION UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL

O ne of the more fervently debated questions in Jewish 0 historiography is that of the Jewish attitude toward crucifixion during the last two centuries of the Second Temple period. Some scholars have held that Jewish courts practised crucifixion or at least did not disapprove of it in theory;' while other scholars assert that Jews regarded crucifixion as an alien and loathsome method of execution imposed by the Roman oppressor.2 In this article, I will examine some peculiarities of rabbinic jurisprudence in the light of a philological observation drawn from the Qumran Nahum Pesher; and I hope thereby to shed new light on this old problem.

I

Nahum 2:11-13 compares the "bloody city" of Nineveh to a "lion's den," where "the lion tore enough for his whelps and strangled prey for his lionesses; he filled his caves with prey and his dens with torn flesh" (v. 12, RSV). 3

* This paper developed from a lecture which I gave in a course taught jointly with Professor John H. Schiutz, Department of Religion, University of North Carolina. I read an earlier version of it at a meeting of the American Oriental Society, Toronto, April, 1978. 1 am grateful to Professor Schutz and our students, to my colleague Professor John Van Seters, to my teacher Professor Mordechai Friedman, and to my friends Marc Bregman and Professor Sid Z. Leiman, for their comments and suggestions. I E. Stauffer, Jerusalem und Rom im Zeita/terJesu Christi (1957), pp. 123-27; E. Bammel, "Crucifixion as a Punishment in Palestine," in Bammel, The Trial ofJesus (1970), pp. 162-65; Y. Yadin, "Pesher Nahum (4Q pNahum) Reconsidered," IEJ 21 (1971), pp. 1-12 (but cf. Yadin's qualification in Megillat hamMiqdas [1977], 1, p. 289n 11; J. M. Ford, " 'Crucify him, crucify him' and the Temple Scroll," Expository Times 87(1976), pp. 275-78; M. Hengel, Crucifixion (1977), pp. 84-85; J. A. Fitzmyer, "Crucifixion in Ancient Palestine, Qumran Literature, and the New Testament," CBQ 40 (1978), pp. 493-513. 2 P. Winter, On the Trial of Jesus (1961), pp. 62-66; H. Cohn, The Trial and of Jesus (1971), pp. 208-39; J. M. Baumgarten, "Does tIh in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?" JBL 91 (1972), pp. 472-81. 3 MT (v. 13): 'aryeh (oref bede gorotaw ume/anneq lelib'otaw wayyemalle' (eref h3oraw ume'onotaw (erefah. The text quoted in 4QpNah differs from MT on a number of points; the only one that we need note is its reading melhanneq lelibyotaw (eref for umehanneq lelib'otaw. CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION

An imperfectly preserved fragment of a commentary (peser) on Nahum, found in the Fourth Cave at Qumran, expounds this verse as follows:4 33 The lion tears by the agency of his cubs, I and strangles prey for his lionesses. [.. . This refers to] the Young Lion of Anger, who smites by means of his great ones and the men of his council. [. . Hefilled with prey] his cave, and his den with torn flesh. This refers to the Young Lion of Anger [ ven]geance [?] on those who seek smooth things, in that he hangs men alive (yitleh 'anasim hayyim) 1 ] in Israel previously. The Pesher continues: ki letaluy #ay 'al ha'es, then a broken word which is usually reconstructed as some form of qr', and then the beginning of the next Scripture-lemma (behold, I am againstyou, etc.). The interpretation of these words, and their link to the following lemma, is a very vexed problem into which we need not enter.6 Most scholars' believe that the Pesher alludes to an uprising against the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus (104-78 B.C.), who celebrated his ultimate victory by crucifying eight hundred rebels "while he feasted with his concubines in a conspicuous place."8 What in the text of Nahum led the Qumran commentator to think of crucifixion? The only apparent basis for this exegesis is the words mehanneq lelibyotaw teref, "strangles prey for his lionesses."9 The 4 4QpNah, i, 4-8; published by J. M. Allegro, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan, V (1968), p. 38. 5 The commentator evidently understood bede as bldt,, and expounded accordingly. The bet in his bigedolaw we'anse 'asato must therefore be translated "by means of" (G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English [2nd ed., 1975], p. 232), not "against" (T. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures in English Translation [19561, pp. 243, 263-64). Note the very close exegetical link between the Scriptural text and the commentator's assertion - a link to be sought throughout the Pesher. 6 A. Dupont-Sommer, "Le Commentaire de Nahum decouvert pres de la Mer Morte (4QpNah)," Semitica 13 (1963), pp. 67-68; idem, "Observations nouvelles sur l'expression 'Suspendu Vivant sur le Bois' ...," Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1972), pp. 712-15. 7 E.g., J. M. Allegro, "Further Light on the History of the Qumran Sect," JBL 75 (1956), pp. 89-95; F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran (2nd ed., 1961), pp. 122-26; the articles of Dupont-Sommer cited in the preceding note; E. Schurer, The History ofthe Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (revised ed. by G. Vermes and F. Millar, 1973), 1, pp. 224n22; J. D. Amusin, "The Reflection of Historical Events of the First Century B.C. in Qumran Commentaries (4Q161; 4Q169; 4Q166)," HUCA 48 (1977), pp. 123-52. Against this interpretation: H. H. Rowley, "4QpNahum and the Teacher of Righteousness," JBL 75 (1956), pp. 188-93; 1. Rabinowitz, "The Meaning of the Key ('Demetrius')-Passage of the Qumran Nahum-Pesher," JAOS 98 (1978), pp. 394-99. 8 Josephus, Antiquities, XIII, 380 (tr. R. Marcus, in the Loeb Classical Library Josephus, VII [1943], p. 417); also War, 1, 97. , So Schurer-Vermes-Millar, loc. cit. It is not a decisive objection that the Scripture-lemma containing these words is not that to which the comment about " men alive" is attached. Dupont-Sommer, Semitica 13 (1963), pp. 69, 73, gives examples of Biblical words or phrases that are expounded in the peser but not quoted in the appropriate lemmata. Vermes, indeed, suggests that the words me/,anneq lelibyotaw feref were repeated in the lacuna at the beginning of line 6, before "he filled with prey . (The Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 232). 34 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES commentator evidently understood the "" - a seemingly inappropriate term for a lion's depredations'°- as a prophetic reference to crucifixion. Like some of the modern scholars who have discussed the difficult problem of the physiological cause of death in crucifixion, he perceived crucifixion as a prolonged process of asphyxiation." If we assume that the "Young Lion of Anger" was indeed Jannaeus, the Pesher's exegesis becomes particularly apt. The commentator saw an allusion to Jannaeus' concubines in the "lionesses" of Nahum's prophecy. He interpreted the "lion", who "strangles prey for the delectation of his lionesses" - so he understood the preposition of lelibyotaw'2- as the king who crucifies men for the of his concubines. We learn that the author of the Nahum Pesher regarded crucifixion as a form of strangulation, and assumed that it could be designated by the root hnq.

II mSanh. 7:1 enumerates four methods of judicial execution: (seqilah), burning (serefah), (hereg), and strangulation (heneq). The first two methods are clearly attested in the Bible. 1" The third, although evidently modelled on the standard Roman death penalty for the upper classes, 4 is documented in rabbinic sources by midrash of Scriptural

'° Hence Vulgate paraphrases et necavit leaenis suis, Peshitta wafsaq 'af letenyanohi (but perhaps Peshitta read mehalleq for mehanneq). Cf. J. M. Powis Smith and others, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on . . . Nahum . . (1911), p. 333; A. Halder, Studies in the Book ofNahum (1947), p. 61. According to K. J. Cathcart (Nahum in the Light ofNorthwest Semitic [1973], pp. 107-08), lions indeed strangle their prey, and are thus depicted in ancient Near Eastern art. But it is very plausible that the Qumran commentator, like Jerome, was surprised by the use of lnq for a lion and inferred that it must be applied, not to the lion of the prophetic image, but to the king concealed behind the image. " See J. Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu (4th ed., 1969), pp. 381-384. We need not insist on the medical accuracy of this perception. If, as other scholars hold (ibid.), the cause of death on the cross was some sort of circulatory failure, we might expect difficulty breathing or gasping for air to be one of the more obvious symptoms. See The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (I 5th ed., 1974), articles "Cardiovascular System Diseases and Disorders" (Macropaedia, III, pp. 886-95, especially p. 894); "Shock, Physiological" (Macropaedia, XVI, pp. 699-702). 2 As in Judg. 16:25, wigal6eq lanu. Cf. BDB, s.v. I-, no. 5h (p. 515). 3 Stoning: e.g., Lev. 20:2, 24:16, Numb. 15:35, Deut. 17:5, IKi. 21:10, 13. Burning: Lev. 20:14, 21:9. Cf. A. BiOchler, "Die Todesstrafen der Bibel und der jOdisch-nachbiblischen Zeit," MGWJS50(1906), pp. 542-62, 664-91; J. Blinzler, "The Jewish Punishment of Stoning in the New Testament Period," in Bammel, The Trial of Jesus, pp. 147-61. " T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (1899, reprinted 1955), pp. 917-18; P. Garnsey, "Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire," Past and Present 41(1968), pp. 13, 20. Tannaim of the mid-second century were aware of the Roman character of this method of execution. mSanh. 7:3 "They would decapitate him with a , as does the [Roman] state." R. Judah proposes a different.form of beheading; his colleagues protest that this is "the most repellent of " (ibid.). "R. Judah said to the scholars, I know that it is a repellent form of death, but what can I do? For the Torah says (Lev. 18:3), You shall not walk in their [the Gentiles'] statutes" (baraita in bSanh. 52b, cf. tSanh. 9:11). CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 35 texts referring to the "sword" (hereb).`5 The fourth, "strangulation," lacks all Biblical basis; and the compilers of the Palestinian and Babylonian Gemaras, like modern scholars, seem to have been puzzled about its origin. 16 The only Tannaitic source that discusses the rationale for the imposition of strangulation is a baraita expounding the formula mot yumat ("he shall surely be put to death"), invoked in the discussion of three of the Biblical texts in which these words occur: 7 He shall surely be put to death - by strangulation. By strangulation? or perhaps by one of the other death penalties prescribed in the Torah? Reply: Any death penalty (mitah) prescribed by the Torah without specification (setam) may not be applied in the direction of severity, but in the direction of leniency." So the opinion of R. Josiah. R. Jonathan says: Not because [strangulation] is lenient; but any death penalty prescribed by the Torah without specification is necessarily strangu- lation (kol mitah ha'amurah battorah setam 'enah 'ella &eneq). 1' Rabbi [Judah the Patriarch] says: The death penalty is sometimes said [in Scripture] to come through Divine agency, and sometimes through agency. As the death penalty attributed to Divine agency is a death that leaves no mark, so the death penalty [without specification] attributed to a human agency is to be a death that leaves no mark. Neither R. Josiah nor R. Jonathan (disciples of R. Ishmael, mid-second century A.D.) attempts to justify the existence of the penalty of strangulation, which is taken for granted, but only to demonstrate its " Mekhilta, MiJpalim ch. 4 (ed. Horowitz-Rabin, pp. 261-62), ch. 7 (p. 273); ySanh. 24b (to 7:1 and 7:3); bSanh. 52b. Biblical sources invoked are Deut. 13:16 (lefi lereb); Exod. 21:20 (naqom yinnaqem) compared with Lev. 26:25 (hereb noqemet neqam berit); Deut. 21:4, 9 (execution of murderer analogous to beheading of calf). We are clearly dealing with a post factum justification of an imported practice. 16 ySanh. 24b (to 7:1 and 7:4): heneq let maskah leh. "/eneq cannot be found [in Scripture]." bSanh. 53a top: "In accordance with the view of R. Josiah, how would one know that heneq is a penalty at all (mimmay de'ikka heneq ba'olam)?" On the views of modern scholars, see below. 17 To Exod. 21:15 (striking one's parents): Mekhilta, MiApatim ch. 4 (pp. 265-66). To Exod. 21:16 (kidnapping): ibid. (p. 267). To Lev. 20:10 (adultery): Sifra, Qedosim pereq 9:11 (ed. Weiss, p. 92a); bSanh. 52b. I translate the baraita from bSanh. 52b. A truncated and somewhat corrupt version of the baraita occurs in ySanh. 24b-c (to 7:4), and, in yet more abbreviated form, in ySanh. 24b (to 7: 1). Truncated: the baraita's opening (before 'amarta) is omitted, as is the utterance attributed to Rabbi (but see n. 20, below). Corrupt: the formula zo middah battorah, found in Mekhilta, is corrupted to hare zo mitah battorah; R. Jonathan's utterance is interrupted by the dittography (from above) 'i 'attah raiay lehahamir 'aleha 'ella lehaqel 'aleha. The latter corruption is evidently early, for it also appears in the Gemara to 7:1, and is attested in a Genizah fragment (L. Ginzberg, Seride hay Yerusalmi [1909, reprinted 1974], p. 258). " The view that strangulation was the most lenient form of execution seems to have been held by the majority of Ushan scholars in the mid-second century. See mSanh. 7:1 and both Gemaras ad loc. (ySanh. 24b, bSanh. 49b-51b), mSanh. 9:3, tSanh. 12:5; cf. t'Arakh. 2:10. Cf. also J. N. Epstein, Mabo' leNusah hamMisnah (2nd ed., 1964), pp. 324-26. It is not clear how much farther back this evaluation can be traced. The formulation of this principle varies slightly among the sources. It is repeated in bSanh. 84b, 89a. 36 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES applicability to a given . The effort at justification attributed to R. Judah the Patriarch (early third century) - evidently a comment on R. Jonathan's utterance20 - gives the impression of being a post factum rationalization of a principle whose original grounds were no longer under- stood. It is hardly surprising that the fourth-century Babylonian Amora Rava had to fall back on "tradition" as source for the complement of four death penalties."2 Modern scholars have wrestled with the problem of why an unheard of form of execution was not only enrolled in the list of death penalties, but elevated to death penalty par excellence. The most attractive hypothesis remains the widespread view, championed by Adolf Buichler, that strangu- lation was introduced as a form of execution which would preserve the victim's body intact for the resurrection. 22 This explanation is supported by R. Judah the Patriarch's commendation of strangulation as "a death that leaves no mark"; and it can be argued that the procedures of stoning and burning were, for the same reason, amended so as to cause the minimum of bodily disfigurement. 23 But it is precisely the last point that raises a difficulty; for if, as Buchler points out,24 "burning" was modified to the point that it was barely distinguishable from strangulation, what was the need for so drastic an innovation as the invention of a new death penalty? Further, the modification of the penalties of stoning and burning can be explained as efforts less to preserve the body intact than to minimize the victim's pain;25 it thus seems to have occurred to no one to change decapitation into some less disfiguring form of death by the sword (e.g., cutting the victim's throat).26 Was, then, the urge to keep the body whole for the resurrection as strong as this hypothesis must postulate? Paul Winter vigorously repudiates the "resurrection" hypothesis, and proposes that the rabbis introduced strangulation after 70 A.D. as a device for carrying out secret executions, since the Romans no longer granted

20 So the Gemara in bSanh. 53a top: bislema lerabbi Yonatan kideqa mefares rabbi ta'ma. Not only is Rabbi's utterance obviously subsequent to the debate of R. Josiah and R. Jonathan - if the attributions are correct, which I see no reason to doubt - but it seems unlikely that it was part of the baraita known to the redactor ofySanh. 24b-c. Admittedly, the baraita quoted in the Palestinian Talmud is abbreviated (above, n. 17). But the compiler's purpose (especially in the Gemara to mSanh. 7:1) was to demonstrate the Scriptural basis for the penalty of strangulation; he would surely have regarded Rabbi's utterance as the most important part of the baraita, and would not have omitted it had he known of its existence. 21 bSanh. 53a: 'arba' mitot gemara gemire leho. 22 Buchler, "Die Todesstrafen," pp. 557-58, 683-86; and the assertions of Blinzler and Daube quoted by Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, p. 189n24. 23 Bichler, pp. 557-58, 686-91. Ibid., pp. 685-86. Ibid., p. 557. 26 Cf. the sources cited above, nn. 14-15. CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 37

Jewish authorities the right to execute capital sentences. 27 This suggestion is supported by no positive evidence and is open to several objections. Most important, it is very hard to see why the rabbinic sources represent strangu- lation as existing side by side with the other methods of execution, not as replacing them. It is also embarrassing that the punishable by strangulation (mSanh. 11:1) include the zaqen mamre' 'al pi bet din, an offence which lost its meaning after the destruction of the Temple;28 and that a baraita asserts that, after the destruction of the Temple, all four death penalties were no longer executed by the Sanhedrin, but carried out by the Deity in the form of different types of accidents.29 Buchler was himself evidently not wholly satisfied with the "resurrection" hypothesis, for he suggests at one point that strangulation may go back to a punishment of "hanging" (by the neck), which he sharply distinguishes from crucifixion. 30 I think that Biichler was on the way to the correct solution, but erred in separating strangulation from crucifixion. Some link between the two may be inferred from the Targum to Ruth 1:17, which enumerates the four modes of , but lists "crucifixion" (selibat qesa) in the place normally occupied by strangulation." Yosef Heinemann pointed out that the Targum's list is not likely to have been formulated after the Mishnah's enumeration of penalties had become "canonical," and therefore antedates it.32 The Mishnah's "strangulation" thus seems to have replaced crucifixion. Joseph M. Baumgarten infers from the correspondence of $elibat qesa and heneq that the former does not refer to crucifixion but to "hanging" in the modern sense of the word.33 But the root ,slb refers specifically to crucifixion, not only in other Aramaic dialects (Syriac, Mandaic, Christian

2 Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, pp. 70-74. Deut. 17:8-13, mSanh. 11:2, and note the exegesis of Deut. 17:9 in a baraita in bSanh. 52b. 2 bKet. 30a, bSot. 8b, bSanh. 37b. ' Buichler, "Die Todesstrafen," p. 703. A similar view seems to be implied in the remarks of E. E. Urbach, "Batte Din gel 'Egrim uSelogah weDine Mitot Bet-Din," Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress of Jewish Studies, 11 (1972), Hebrew section, pp. 45-46. 31 E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of Ruth (1973), p. 23: 'it lana 'arba' mine mota lel,ayyabayya regimat 'abnin wiqedat nura uqefilat seyafa uselibat qesa. 32 Y. Heinemann, "Targum Semot 22:4 wehaHalakhah haqQedumah," Tarbiz 38 (1968-69), pp. 294-96; cf. Levine, Aramaic Version of Ruth, pp. 6-8, 60-62. The parallel passage in Midrash Ruth Rabbah (2:24) replaces felibat qesa by heneq, in conformity with the Mishnah; similarly, ms De Rossi 31 of the Targum alters to 4aniqat sudara (S. Speier, 'Uselibat Qesa,' Targum Rut 1:17," Tarbiz 40 [1970-71], p. 259). 3 Baumgarten, "Does tlh in the Temple Scroll Refer to Crucifixion?" pp. 473-76; cf. Urbach, "Batte Din," pp. 44-45. 38 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

Palestinian Aramaic),34 but in rabbinic Hebrew as well.35 Targumic usage is more complex but points in the same direction. Baumgarten is right that "slb is the normal targumic rendering for biblical tlh," but only when tih refers to the penal suspension of , living or dead, by other humans.36 Where the Bible speaks of the suspension of objects, or the accidental suspension of humans (Absalom), the Targums render talah by

34 Syriac: C. Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum (1895), p. 303. Mandaic: E. S. Drower and R. Macuch, A Mandaic Dictionary (1963), pp. 387, 395. Christian Palestinian Aramaic: F. Schulthess, Lexicon Syropalaestinum (1903), pp. 171-72. With s.elibat qesa, compare the expression qeseh daseliba, used in Christian Palestinian Aramaic for Jesus' cross (F. Schulthess, Christlich-Paltstinische Fragmente aus der Omajjaden-Moschee zu Damaskus [1905], p. 126; M. Black, A Christian Palestinian Syriac Horologion [1954], p. 118). In the absence of concordances to the Palestinian Talmud and the contemporary Palestinian midrashim, it would be hazardous to generalize about the use of flb in Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Genesis Rabbah's account of how Jose b. Joezer "walked before the beam, going lemi,s(alebah" (65:22; ed. Theodor-Albeck, pp. 742-43) can hardly refer to any- thing but crucifixion; cf. Mekhilta, BaH!odes ch. 6 (p. 227). On Simeon b. Shetah's ,eliba of the witches, see below. The Aramaic of the Babylonian Talmud uses zeqaf for crucifixion instead of selab; the former verb is also more common in the Peshitta (G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua [Eng. trans., 1929], p. 187). I have been unable to get a clear picture of the use of sib in Samaritan Aramaic. This root is used uniformly in the Samaritan Targum to translate talah, even in Deut. 28:66, where the verb is applied metaphorically to the 's life (Jewish Targums translate with tly). In the medieval Samaritan Hebrew-Arabic-Aramaic dictionary known as hamMeli, Aramaic selab is rendered by Arabic salaba, "to crucify" (Z. Ben-Hayyim, 'Ibrit wa'Aramit NusaiU Somron, 11 [1957], p. 609; cf. p. 474); seliba is apparently used for the Christian cross (ibid., p. 597), and Samaritan Hebrew (?) miflaleb for Christ (A. F. von Gall, Der hebrdische Pentateuch der Samaritaner [19181, p. 11). Arabic salaba is apparently an Aramaic loan-word; see A. Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an (1938), p. 197. 3S The usage is entirely unambiguous in certain passages: m Yeb. 16:3, t Yeb. 14:4, y Yeb. 15c bottom, bYeb. 120b (a man seen crucified is not necessarily assumed dead, because, as the Palestinian Talmud explains, a matrona might have ransomed him); cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshufah, VI (1967), p. 173. tGitt. 5(7):1, yGitt. 48c, bGitt. 70b (a crucified man can direct that a bill of divorce be given to his wife). mShabb. 6:10, bShabb. 67a (use of the nail of a crucified man as an amulet). mOhal. 3:5, tOhal. 4:11, bNidd. 71b (the dripping of a man crucified on a beam, 'al ha'ej). See also the passages cited by Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, pp. 187-92. 36 Gen. 40:19, 22, 41:13; Deut. 21:22-23; Josh. 8:29, 10:26; II Sam. 4:12, 21:12 (cf. Targ. I Sam. 31:10); Lam. 5:12; Esth. 2:23, 5:14, 6:4, 7:9, 10, 8:7, 9:14, 25; cf. Esth. 9:13. Post- mortem suspension is clearly intended in Genesis, li Samuel, Josh. 10:26, and evidently also Esth. 9:13-14 (see v. 12); the other Esther passages seem to understand "suspension" as the execution itself; Josh. 8:29 and Lam. 5:12 admit either interpretation; and Deut. 21:22-23 is a crux to which we must return. There seem to have been several forms of the text of the Esther Targum, and, until the mss are classified and a critical edition attempted, we cannot intelligently discuss the variations; see M. Goshen-Gottstein, "The 'Third Targum' on Esther and Ms. Neofiti I," Biblica 56 (1975), pp. 301-29. Some published versions of the Targums use zqf or tly, in place of fib, to translate talah in one or another of the passages: "Second Targum," and the Targum ms published by A. Sperber (The Bible in Aramaic, IVA [1968], pp. 171-205), to 2:23; Sperber's Targum to 6:4; "Second Targum" to 7: 10; "First Targum" and Sperber's Targum to 9:13. The use of zqfand tly may reflect Eastern Aramaic influence on the language of the Targum: Peshitta uses the former root in 2:23 and the latter in the rest of the book; cf. above, n. 34. CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 39 tela. " The Palestinian Targums express the mysterious form of execution prescribed in Numbers 25:4 (wehoqa' 'otam) with slb,35 while Sifre ad loc. paraphrases wihyu solebim 'et hahatta'im;39 the Targumic use of selab here therefore corresponds to rabbinic Hebrew salab, and refers to crucifixion. 40 The long haggadic additions to the Targums to Esther plainly intend crucifixion by the seliba that Haman planned for Mordecai and suffered himself."4 One gathers that the primary meaning of Targumic selab - the meaning that surfaces when the writers are composing freely and without the restrictions imposed by the Hebrew text - is crucifixion. Since, in rabbinic Hebrew, talah may occasionally replace salab as a term for

" Deut. 28:66; II Sam. 18:10; Ezek. 15:3, 27:10, Il;Ps. 137:2. Targ. Job 26:7 renders talah by zeqaf. The Targums to Isa. 22:24, Hos. 11:7, Cant. 4:4 interpret rather than translate the Hebrew. 38 Neofiti 1: yi4lebun yateh 'al seliba. Ps.-Jon.: weti,slob yathon . . .'al qesa. Fragment- Targum: wihawyan falebin. The three Palestinian Targums do not use the same language, but share the same exegetical traditions: apart from their rendering of hoqa, all understand qab 'et kol rage ha'am as a command to convene a court, and see neged hassames as an allusion to the law of Deut. 21:23. By contrast, Onkelos contains nothing of the last point, only a faint trace of the second, and translates hoqa' with the colorless qetol. Sifre Numb. §131 (ed. Horovitz, p. 172). 40 It was perhaps embarrassment at the idea of formally constituted Jewish courts ordering that led Onkelos to take refuge in the vague rendering qetol (above, n. 38); for Targum Jonathan translates hoqia' with jib in 11 Sam. 21:6, 9, 13. 4 The passages are as follows: (1) "First Targum" and Sperber's Targum (p. 194) to Esth. 5:14: Haman enlists carpenters to make Mordecai's peliba, smiths to make the nails. (The text printed in the Miqra'ot Gedolot reads sakkin defarzel, "iron ," which makes little sense in the context; Sperber's ms has minin defarzel, "types of iron." We should undoubtedly read sikkin defarzel, "iron nails." Cf. Esther Rabbah 10:5 [to Esth. 6:11]: 'ani hayiti metaqqen lakh habalim umasmerim.) The preceding discussion, a shorter form of which occurs in the "Second Targum," assumes that seliba is a form of execution; and the "Second Targum" asserts that, before Mordecai, no Jew has been exposed to selibat qesa (N.B.!) and survived. Cf. Esther Rabbah 10:5. (On the relation of the "First" and "Second" Targums to 5:14, cf. P. Grelot, "Observations sur les targums I et III d'Esther," Biblica 56 11975], pp. 58-59.) (2) "Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (pp. 198-99) to 7:9: Ahasuerus orders Mordecai to take Haman uselob yateh 'al feliba . . wedun yateh dinin bisin; presumably, crucify and him. (3) Ibid.: bar hammedata ba'e missuq le'akhsandarya debarpandira, "the son of Hammedatha wants to climb the mast of Bar Pandira," i.e., Jesus. (Sperber's Targum reads barpandora. On "Ben Pandira" or "Ben Pantera" as an epithet for Jesus, see R. T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash [1903], pp. 35-40; D. Rokeah, "Ben Slara Ben Pantera Hu'," Tarbiz 39 [1969-70], pp. 9-18. I owe the latter reference to my friend Menachem Mor.) (4) "Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (pp. 203-04) to 9:14: Mordecai addresses Haman hanging on the feliba. (5) "Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (p. 204) to 9:24: The feliba of Haman and his sons is equated with the execution of Saul's offspring (II Sam. 21:1-14); the passage evidently represents a development of the midrash on II Sam. 21:10 found in bYeb. 79a and parallels. The dating of the Targum to Esther in its several forms is, like that of Targumic literature in general, very uncertain, and most scholars have placed it after the Talmudic period; see Y. Komlosch, "Targum Sheni," Encyclopedia Judaica (1971), XV, cols. 811-13. The material relating to seliba, however, presupposes the Roman practice of the second and third centuries A.D.: crucifixion is the standard death penalty for the humbler classes, beheading with the sword for "the great ones of the state" ("Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum to 7:9; see below, n. 54). I do not know of any subsequent period that would suit this allusion so well; crucifixion was discontinued in the Roman Empire during Constantine's reign, and, while it seems to have been used in Islam as a punishment for certain forms of highway robbery (J. 40 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

crucifixion,42 the translators assumed that the Bible's use of talah as a form of punishment referred to crucifixion or something resembling it. The meaning of selab was thus extended to post-mortem suspension, under the constraint of the plain meaning of the Biblical text. " There is no evidence that the verb is ever used for hanging by the neck. In Targ. Ruth 1:17, where a form of execution is obviously designated, the burden of proof rests heavily upon the scholar who would see in selibat qesa anything other than crucifixion. Our observations on the Nahum Pesher permit a better explanation of the relation of selibat qesa to heneq. Jews borrowed the practice of crucifixion from the Romans, and, as we shall see, "naturalized" it into Jewish law by invoking Deuteronomy 21:22-23, which prescribes the "suspension" of criminals.44 Crucifixion was perceived as a prolonged and agonizing form of strangulation, heneq, and was at some point drastically modified into the quick and relatively humane form of strangulation prescribed by the Mishnah. Exactly parallel modification may be traced in the Mishnaic penalties of

Schacht, Introduction to Islamic Law [1964], pp. 180-81) and evidently also for apostasy (C. Brockelmann, History of the Islamic Peoples [Eng. trans., 1960], p. 130), I know of no evidence that it was widespread or associated with a specific social class. Further, the assumption that Haman was crucified, and the mocking comparison of his death with that of Jesus (above), are attested for the Jews of the Eastern Roman Empire at the beginning of the fifth century (evidence in J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l'Empire Romain, 11 [19141, pp. 204, 207-08), and may well be earlier. Whatever the date of the compilation of the Esther Targum, therefore, the material with which we are concerned seems to go back to the Talmudic period, and I think it proper to invoke its use of flb as evidence for the meaning of selibat qesa in Targ. Ruth 1:17. Note, however, that the Esther Targum ("Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum to 7:9) - like the bulk of the rabbinic literature, and unlike the Ruth Targum - assumes that crucifixion is a non-Jewish method of punishment (kema delet bekhon qetule nefas). 4 Compare tSanh. 9:7 (sib) with its parallel in bSanh. 46b (tlh). 4 "Crucifixion" of corpses is known also from Roman practice (Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 43n9; cf. pp. 41n6, 80). 44 Scholars familiar with rabbinic invective against the "wicked kingdom" of Rome some- times forget that, to judge from I Macc. 8:1-16, the initial Jewish response to the Romans and their culture was one of enthusiastic admiration. It is not hard to imagine that some Jews during the Hasmonean period regarded such Roman practices as crucifixion as the acme of "civilization," and thus were prepared not only to adopt them but also to search the Scriptures for proof that they were authentically Jewish. The rabbinic sources that "Judaize" the Roman penalty of decapitation (above, nn. 14-15) provide a useful parallel. Even Amoraic penal conceptions may have been influenced by Roman jurisprudence: the petilah thrown into the mouth of the victim of burning (mSanh. 7:2) is understood in both Talmuds to refer to molten tin or lead (ySanh. 24b, bSanh. 52a), perhaps under the influence of a Roman refinement on the punishment of burning, in which the offending organs - the culprit's mouth and throat - are punished "by ingestion of molten lead." (Codex Theodosianus, 9,24,1; ed. Mommsen, Theodosiani Libri XVI. . ., 1.2 [19051, pp. 476-77: ut eis meatus oris etfaucium, qui nefaria hortamenta protulerit, liquentis plumbi ingestione claudatur. The ruling is attributed to Constantine but may be an older traditional practice here given legal recognition). There is therefore nothing implausible about the suggestion that Jews borrowed Roman practices of execution at an earlier period, before the friendly relations between the two peoples soured. CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 41

"burning" and "stoning." Within the memory of the early Yavnean Tanna Eleazar b. Zadok (ca. 100 A.D.), "burning" was still carried out by surrounding the victim with bundles of branches and setting them on fire."4 But, in Mishnaic law (mSanh. 7:2), "burning" consists of forcing open the victim's mouth and throwing in some sort of burning object (petilah; cf. n. 44), which "descends to his internal organs and burns them up." The victim of "stoning," originally pelted to death with a shower of rocks (cf. John 8:7),46 is, in rabbinic jurisprudence, precipitated from a raised platform; only if he survives his fall is he killed by stones piled on his chest (mSanh. 6:4). In both cases, the immediate cause of death is preserved as a relic of the traditional mode of execution,47 but the process is altered almost beyond recognition, and the individual's suffering thereby considerably shortened. 45 We may also find an analogy in Roman law: "under the influence of Christianity, which saw in the cross its symbol, crucifixion was abolished in the later years of Constantine and replaced by public strangling on the gallows. " 49 The rabbinic assignments of the diverse capital crimes to one or another of the four penalties are plainly based on Scriptural exegesis, and are some-

" mSanh. 7:2: hiqqifuha habile zemorot uS.erafuha. The baraita quoted in ySanh. 24b, bSanh. 52b, which represents this as a childhood observation of R. Eleazar b. Zadok, is presumably a different version of the Mishnah's statement, although the Babylonian Gemara understands Mishnah and baraita as referring to two distinct incidents. In the Mishnah, R. Eleazar's colleagues respond to his observation by claiming that "the court of that time was not competent" (lo' hayah . . .baqi') and therefore deviated from the approved method of burning; the Babylonian Amora Rab Joseph explains that "it was a Sadducee court" (bSanh. 52b). But, if such was the Mishnah's intent, why does it not say explicitly that the court was Sadducee? The Mishnah's language implies that the Tannaim recognized the court as belonging to a group to which they might look for precedents (the Pharisees, presumably); only, in this case, it happened to be incompetent. The rabbis seem therefore to recognise and yet evade the fact that their method of burning differed radically from that of their predecessors. With the burning reported by R. Eleazar, cf. Josephus, Antiquities, IV, 248 (the victim is "burnt alive," kaiestho zosa); bSanh. 52b (the otherwise unknown Rab Hama b. Tobiah has a priest's daughter surrounded by bundles of branches and burnt); and Bitchler's discussion, "Die Todesstrafen," p. 549. On this mode of burning among the Romans, see Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 923. 4 J. Blinzler, "The Jewish Punishment of Stoning in the New Testament Period," in E. Bammel, The Trial of Jesus, pp. 147-61. 41 Cf. tSanh. 9:6: R. Simeon asserts that a heavy stone is placed on the individual's chest - even if he has already died from his fall, apparently - "in order thereby to uphold the commandment of stoning" (kede leqayyem bah miywat seqilah). 4S Urbach ("Batte Din," pp. 45-46) holds that the Mishnaic method of burning was a local custom that existed in Second Temple times side by side with the more conventional mode described by R. Eleazar b. Zadok. But the former is so unlike the image conveyed by the Scriptural ba'es tissaref that it is difficult to imagine it arising except as a deliberate reinter- pretation of the Biblical prescription, and I see no reason to assume that this reinterpretation significantly antedates the Tannaim. " Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 921; cf. M. Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 29. 42 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES times disputed among the rabbis themselves. 5 It would therefore be pointless to compare the Mishnah's list of crimes punishable by strangulation (mSanh. 11:1) - which include such distinctively Biblical misdeeds as false prophecy, prophecy in the name of idol-worship, and "the elder who disregards the opinion of the court" (Deuteronomy 17:12) - with those punished by crucifixion under Roman law.5' But it may be significant that the rabbinic sources, while normally assuming that the one halakhic death penalty for Gentiles is decapitation, record a divergent opinion that it is strangulation. 52 In Roman judicial practice under the early Empire, decapitation was the normal form of execution for the upper classes (honestiores), while the lower classes (humiliores) were subject to "aggravated forms of the death penalty," usually crucifixion.53 The Jews

5 I give three examples: (1) The "prophet who leads astray" is variously said to be stoned (mSanh. 7:4), strangled (R. Simeon, in tSanh. 11:5), or beheaded (Targ. Ps.-Jon. to Deut. 13:6). Cf. Sifre Deut. §86 (ed. Finkelstein, p. 151); bSanh. 50b, 67a, 84a, and especially 89b, where the Gemara attempts to reconstruct the exegetical reasoning of R. Simeon and "the rabbis." (2) A non-priest who serves in the Temple is to be strangled (R. Akiba, in mSanh. 9:6; R. Johanan b. Nuri, in Sifre Numb. §116 (p. 1341 and a baraita quoted in bSanh. 84a), stoned (R. Ishmael, in Sifre Numb. §116; R. Akiba, in bSanh, 84a), or left to execution by Divine agency ("the scholars," in mSanh. 9:6; R. Ishmael, in bSanh. 84a). All scholars cited in Sifre and bSanh. 84a support their views with Scriptural gezerot sawot; cf. ySanh. 27a. (3) A sorcerer is to be stoned (mSanh. 7:4, 11; R. Judah [b. Bathyra?] and other Tannaim, their names variously reported; in Mekhilta, Mispatim ch. 17 [pp. 309-10], ySanh. 25d, and a baraita quoted in bSanh. 67a-b), decapitated (R. Ishmael, in Mekhilta, loc. cit.; R. Akiba and "the rabbis," in ySanh. 25d; R. Jose the Galilean, in bSanh. 67a-b), or crucified (the story of Simeon b. Shetah and the witches; see below). The scholars who argue for stoning are represented as disputing which of several exegetical methods can be used to establish this position (Mekhilta, ySanh. 25d, bSanh. 67a-b). These instances suggest considerable uncertainty over what the "normative" view was, and even over which opinion was held by which authority. Cf. Bitchler, "Die Todesstrafen," pp. 676-78; Urbach, "Batte Din", p. 44 and n. 29. " Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 1045; Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 34. 52 Decapitation: Baraita quoted in bSanh. 56a (kol mitah ha'amurah bibene noa#, 'enah 'ella besayif); Sifra, 'Emor pereq 19:4 (ed. Weiss, p. 104d). This principle is assumed by the sugyot of bSanh. 57b (Rashi, s.v. ba' 'al ne'arah me'orasah), 67a-b (Rashi to 67b, s.v. mitah'ahat, 71 b; cf. Rashi to b Yoma 66b, s. v. zibbeah weqit er). The anonymous Gemara in yQidd. 58c (top) asserts that the process of execution for Gentiles is be'ed 'ehad ubedayyan 'eIUad wesello' behatrayah ubesayif, the parallel in Genesis Rabbah 34:14 (ed. Theodor- Albeck, pp. 325-26), however, omits besayif. yNaz. 55d: yese' zeh [goyl semmitato besayif. I know of no attempt to provide exegetical support for the view that Gentile offenders are to be decapitated, although it could perhaps be inferred from damo yisafekh in Gen. 9:6; cf. Mekhilta, Mispatim ch. 4 (pp. 261-62). Strangulation: The Babylonian Gemara attributes to "the school of Manasseh" the view that strangulation is the form of execution used for Gentiles (kol mitah ha'amurah libene noat 'eno [!] 'ella heneq; bSanh. 57b [twice], 71b). In connection with-the first of these passages, the Gemara asserts that the position of "the school of Manasseh" is based on Gen. 9:6, ba'adam damo yisafekh: bloodshed in which the blood remains inside the individual's body. This exegesis is surely very forced. A similar view is attributed to R. Judah b. Simon b. Pazzi in yQidd. 58c, Genesis Rabbah 34:14, commenting on Gen. 9:6; but the text of both passages is evidentlycorrupt.Qorban ha'Edahemendsthe Talmud's117z3DnZ 1plnn tol2Y1 "19)731 5a and Theodor (p. 326) proposes a similar emendation of the midrash sVl231 D72 ilflfn . 53 Garnsey, "Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire," p. 13, cf. pp. 20, 23n82; Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 34-35, cf. pp. 51-63. CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 43 seem to have been familiar with the social implications of these two forms of execution; for, in a Targumic addition to Esther 7:9, Haman begs Mordecai not to have him crucified, like ordinary people (gabrin hedyo(in), but "beheaded with the king's sword, by which all the great ones of the state (rabrebane medinta) are executed."54 If we assume some equation of crucifixion and strangulation, the uncertainty concerning the normative form of Gentile execution may ultimately rest on the question of which Gentile social class is to be used as the standard. We may suppose that the Jewish groups that borrowed crucifixion from the Romans employed as Scriptural warrant Deuteronomy 21:22-23: "If a man commit a sin deserving of death, and he be executed, and you suspend him on a tree, his corpse shall not remain on the tree overnight, but you shall surely bury him on that same day . . ." So we may infer from a midrash on these verses found in the newly published Qumran Temple Scroll:55 evidently understanding the waw of (wehumat) wetalita (v. 22) as explicative rather than consecutive,56 the Temple Scroll paraphrases: "and you shall suspend him on a tree, that he die." If certain Jews did indeed see in the Deuteronomic passage a prescription of crucifixion, the general language of its opening - "a sin deserving of death" - could easily imply that crucifixion was to be the method of execution wherever such was not explicitly specified by the Torah. The Roman use of crucifixion for a multitude of offences would have encouraged such an interpretation. We have here, I propose, the origin of the principle - repeated as a tradition long after its grounds had been forgotten - that "any death penalty prescribed by the Torah without specification is necessarily strangulation."5

5"'Second Targum" and Sperber's Targum (p. 199) to 7:9. 55 Yadin, "Pesher Nahum . . . Reconsidered," pp. 5-9; idem, Megillat hamMiqdas, 1, pp. 285-90, 11, pp. 202-04. 56 Levine, Aramaic Version ofRuth, p. 60n7. The rabbinic exegesis of this verse (below), of course, demands that the waw be taken as consecutive. It is not necessary to assume that the author of the Temple Scroll followed a Biblical text that reversed the sequence of the verbs, although this possibility cannot be ruled out. The Temple Scroll's exegesis - or textual reading - is shared by Peshitta ad loc. (wenezdeqaf 'al qaysa wenettaqlal; see M. Wilcox, " 'Upon the Tree' - Deut. 21:22-23 in the New Testament," JBL 96 [1977], p. 90) and certain LXX mss (L. Rosso, "Deuteronomio 21,22 Contributo del Rotolo del Tempio Alla Valutazione di una Variante Medievale dei Settanta", RdQ9 [1977], pp. 231-36; I thank Marc Bregman for this reference, and my friend and student Alice Tropman for her help with the Italian). A LXX tradition along these lines may be attested by Philo, Special Laws, III, 150-52, which evidently understands Deut. 21:22-23 to prescribe the crucifixion (anaskolopizesthai) of murderers; see Colson's note ad loc. in the Loeb Philo, VII (1937), p. 571. 5 Cf. Urbach, "Batte Din," p. 45: in certain localities, it was the practice to hang trans- gressors "whose mode of execution was not spelled out by the Torah"; the practice found support in Deut. 21:22; and "this hanging was called strangulation." 44 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES

III The rabbinic exegesis of Deuteronomy 21:22-23 is entirely dissociated from strangulation. The rabbis, probably correctly, understand the text to prescribe the suspension of a corpse; the word sequence wehumat wetalita, we are told, excludes the view that "they hang him and afterwards kill him, as does the [Roman] government."58 Suspension is to follow execution by stoning, according to R. Eliezer; while the majority view restricts it to the stoning of a blasphemer or idolater (mSanh. 6:4). Yet certain features of "suspension," as prescribed in rabbinic sources, strongly suggest that it is not based solely on the Biblical command, but derives, like strangulation, from a discarded practice of crucifixion. Deuteronomy's word 'es, normally translated "tree," can be used for any wooden object.59 Remarkably, the rabbis insist that it does not mean "tree," but a post (qorah) fixed in the ground, from which a wooden piece ('es) protrudes. The dissenting opinion attributed to R. Jose holds that the post is to lean against a wall; but no one questions that Scripture intends a post and not a real tree (mSanh. 6:4). A baraita defends this specification with a midrash of qabor tiqberennu, "you shall surely bury him" (Deuteronomy 21:23): 'E~. I might understand, Whether it is uprooted or whether it is rooted (ben betalus ben bimehubbar). Therefore Scripture says, ki qabor [tiqberennu]: that which requires only burial, excluding that which requires both felling and burial. 60 The repetition of the root qbr is held to imply that the 'es is also to be buried, and that its burial is to be parallel to that of the man. This exegesis is so forced that it can hardly be other than a post factum justification of an established practice. The body suspended from a post, with or without a crossbar (the projecting piece of wood may correspond to the crossbar), suggests crucifixion.6' The suggestion becomes stronger when we observe 56 Baraita in bSanh. 46b; a shorter and less explicit form of the baraita occurs in Sifre Deut. §221 (p. 254). 5 Lexica of BDB and Jastrow, s.v. 60 bSanh. 46b. Sifre Deut. §221: "Scripture says, ki qabor tiqberennu: an 'e, that is buried with him; i.e., one that is uprooted, and not one that is rooted." The continuation of the Talmud's baraita, which provides the exegetical basis of R. Jose's view, is missing from Sifre Deut., and may be an addition of the Babylonian redactors (as are surely the concluding words werabbanan telisah law kelum hi'). 61 On the "cross" as a simple upright post, without a crossbar, see: H. F. Hitzig, art. "Crux," Pauly-Wissowa Real-Encyclopddie der Classischen Altertumswissenschaft, IV (1901), col. 1730; Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, pp. 375-76. The precise form that crucifixion took could vary considerably (Hengel, Crucifixion, p. 25), and it is probably futile to seek a single "standard" method with which the rabbis would have been familiar. The remains of the crucified man found at Giv'at ha-Mivtar, Jerusalem, presumably attest only one of the options. See N. Haas, "Anthropological Observations on the Skeletal Remains from Giv'at ha-Mivtar," IEJ20(1970), pp. 38-59; Y. Yadin, "Epigraphy and Crucifixion," IEJ23 (1973), pp. 18-22. CRUCIFIXION, THE NAHUM PESHER, AND STRANGULATION 45 that the rabbis prescribe that the corpse is to be suspended naked - as is the victim of crucifixion.62 The rabbinic tradition preserves a few memories of a time when the "post" was itself an instrument of death. Several baraitot list, among instruments of execution, "the post ('es) on which [the criminal] is suspended."63 A midrash quoted in the Palestinian Talmud states that Gentile blasphemers are executed by decapitation, Jewish blasphemers by suspension (mitatan biteliyyah).64 An Aramaic story, preserved in two slightly differing versions in the Palestinian Talmud, describes the cru- cifixion (seliba) of eighty witches by Simeon b. Shetah, a shadowy figure from the legendary past of the rabbinic movement.65 mSanh. 6:4 shows that the second-century Tannaim regarded Simeon's action as post-mortem suspension, but this is surely a reinterpretation of the tradition found in the Aramaic story, whose apparent ignorance of the Mishnaic norms points to its antiquity.66 In analogous fashion, a baraita in the Babylonian Talmud (bSanh. 43a) represents the crucifixion of Jesus as suspension following execution by stoning. 67 mSanh. 6:4 rules that the suspended corpse "is to be let down immediately." A baraita adds: "One man ties while another releases, in

62 bSanh. 46a, Si reDeut. §221: 'oto (Deut. 21:22) is understood to exclude clothing. Since, according to mSanh. 6:3, the victim is to be naked during the preceding execution by stoning, the emphasis on his being naked during the suspension may suggest that particular significance was attached to this detail (cf. Tosafot to bSanh. 46a, s.v. 'oto). On the Roman practice, see Hitzig, loc. cit. (above, n. 61); Blinzler, Der Prozess Jesu, p. 360. 63 tSanh. 9:8: "The sword (sayif) with which he is executed, the cloth (sudar) with which he is strangled, the stone ('eben) with which he is stoned, and the post ('ep) on which he is suspended, require immersion and are not buried with him." bSanh. 45b: a distinct (and contradictory) baraita emDlovs the stereotvDic list of implements, in the order 'eben . . 'es . sayif . . sudar; so a third baraita (evidently) quoted by Rab Huna in bSanh. 43a. A midrash quoted in yNaz. 55d (to 7: 1) initially lists only sayif . . 'es . . sudar, but, at its conclusion, 'eso . . . 'abno. 6 yNaz. 55d: 'elu seinmitatan biteliyyah yese' zeh semmitato besayif (Gentiles are thus excluded from the obligation of met miswah). The midrash does not fit very smoothly in its present context, and is presumably an older source here invoked. 65 ySanh. 23c: the witches, deprived of their supernatural powers, are one by one carried off to crucifixion (seliba). yHag. 78a summarizes: "They lifted them up and went and crucified them" (u(e'anunon wa'azalun uselabunon). These and the other rabbinic traditions concerning Simeon b. Shetah are collected by J. Neusner, The Rabbinic Traditions About the Pharisees Before 70 (1971), 1, pp. 86-141. Sorcery was punished by crucifixion in Roman law (sources cited above, n. 51); on the crucifixion of women, see Hengel, Crucifixion, pp. 60, 74, 81 (but cf. also Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht, p. 928). On the punishment of the sorcerer in rabbinic law, cf. above, n. 50. 66 Against Winter, On the Trial of Jesus, pp. 63-64; Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, 1, pp. 90, 103, 132-33. Winter entirely ignores the tradition in the Palestinian Talmud; Neusner considers it a later development of the Mishnaic account (found also in Sifre Deut. §221), originating in the third or fourth century. Cf. Urbach, "Batte Din", p. 44; Schurer-Vermes- Millar, History of the Jewish People, 1. p. 231. 67 See J. Z. Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays (1951), pp. 494-96. 46 JOURNAL OF JEWISH STUDIES order to uphold the commandment of suspension (mi4wat teliyyah)."6' The commandment is thus to be fulfilled only symbolically, and only for an instant; it must be performed at sunset, so that it cannot be prolonged without violating Deuteronomy 21:23.69 We get the impression of a practice too deeply imbedded in rabbinic tradition to be discarded, and yet inspiring such aversion that only a symbolic performance of it is permitted. 7

IV Yigael Yadin proposed, on the basis of the Temple Scroll, that the Talmud's repudiation of crucifixion be seen as a polemic against the approval of crucifixion by other Jewish groups.7' I would go further, and hold that it is directed against acceptance of crucifixion at an earlier stage in the development of the rabbinic movement itself. Like the Qumran sect, the predecessors of the rabbis - conventionally identified as the Pharisees - incorporated crucifixion into juridical theory if not practice. It survives in rabbinic jurisprudence in the attenuated form of "strangulation," and in the "suspension" of the corpse that was to accompany some or all cases of stoning. We can only guess at the rabbis' motives for rejecting crucifixion and reinterpreting Deuteronomy 21:22-23. Humanitarian considerations may have been at work; or, possibly, a growing hatred of everything Roman. Nor can we be confident of the date of the change. If we may judge from mSanh. 7:2, the penalty of burning was modified during the lifetime of R. Eleazar b. Zadok; that is, in the second half of the first century A.D. (see above). The analogous modification of crucifixion into strangulation may have taken place at about the same time. If so, it is reasonable to connect both reforms with the reorganization of the rabbinic movement at Yavneh in the wake of the debacle of 70 A.D. The changed attitude toward crucifixion would then mark a major distinction between Pharisaism before 70 and rabbinic Judaism after 70.

68 tSanh. 9:6, bSanh. 46b: 'ehad qoser we'ehad mattir kede leqayyem (bo) miswat teliyyah. Cf. above, n. 47. 60 bSanh. 46b: mashin 'oto 'ad samukh liseqi'at hahammah wegomerin 'et dino umemitin 'oto wehahar kakh tolin 'oto. 7 Contrast the rabbinic demand for brevity with Josephus' assertion that the suspended corpse is to remain on view the entire day (Antiquities, IV, 202, 264), and with Philo's view that the victim must be "set on high and exhibited to the sun and heaven and air and water and earth" (Special Laws, III, 152; tr. F. H. Colson, Loeb Philo, VII, pp. 571-73). 71Yadin, "Pesher Nahum Reconsidered," p. 9.