Introduction
This article will provide background information on some prohibitions punishable by stoning. This article serves as a continuation of the article on this web site, “Capital Punishment – Details – Stoning. For convenience of the reader this article is presented separately due to the size of the companion article.
This article discusses the following topics:
| Appendix Number | Topic |
| 1 | Moloch |
| 2 | Efficacy of Occult |
| 3 | Sorcerer – Death by Stoning |
| 4 | Salem Witch Trial |
| 5 | Rationale for Execution of the Rebellious Son |
| 6 | Scriptural Exegesis – Incest |
Appendix 1 – Cult of Moloch
This appendix addresses the following points:
- Moloch – Idolatry or Cult?
- Form of Icon
Idolatry or Cult
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 64b) records a debate about the nature of Moloch worship, is it idolatry or a form of sorcery (cult)? In addition to a philosophical debate this issue has implications in Halacha. If Moloch is a form of idolatry then one would be liable for capital punishment for serving it by any of the 4 modalities (viz. slaughtering an animal, burning an offering or incense, pouring a libation, and bowing to it). If Moloch is not idolatry then one is only liable for capital punishment when passing his offspring through fire.
Maimonides (Laws of Idolatry 6:3) is not clear on this point leading to different interpretations about his view. Rashi on Sanhedrin 64b clearly states that, according to the view that worship of Moloch is not idolatry, one is not liable for capital punishment by serving Moloch in any of the 4 modalities. Both Rashi (ibid.) and Maimonides (ibid.) agree that one who offers some of his offspring to other idols is not liable to capital punishment.
The word Moloch in Hebrew (מלך) has the same spelling as the word king (מלך), meaning that the worshipper accepts Moloch as his spiritual king. It is interesting to note that whenever the Torah explicitly refers to Moloch it uses the expression to Moloch (למלך) indicating devotion to this icon. The Torah (Leviticus 18:21 and 20:3) emphasizes that service to Moloch is a desecration of the name of Hashem because only Hashem is the spiritual king of the world.
Rabbi Menachem Meiri, a medieval Talmudist and Maimonidean, explains Moloch service as an initiation rite to this mistaken belief. He adds that the after passing the offspring through fire, the priests of Moloch would dress the child with ceremonial robes to complete the initiation. This would explain why the Torah places Moloch worship amongst the forbidden relations of Leviticus chapter 18. Just as the offspring of these forbidden relations is tainted as a mamzer (bastard) and consequently cannot marry within the Israelites (Deuteronomy 23:3) so too a child offered to Moloch is spiritually tainted to idolatry and will likely leave the fold of Torah and mitzvoth. However unlike a mamzer which is a permanent defect a child offered to Moloch may return to Hashem.
In addition the Rabbi Meiri explains that some followers of Moloch considered the icon of Moloch as an idol thereby reconciling the difference of opinion in the Talmud (i.e. idol vs. cult). Therefore one who worships Moloch as an idol would be liable to capital punishment for serving it in the 4 modalities.
Form of Icon
Neither the Torah nor the Talmud mentions the form of Moloch which implies that offering offspring to any recognized form of Moloch would make one liable to capital punishment. The Yalkut Shimoni, a Midrash on scripture complied between the 11th and 14th centuries, provides a detailed description of Moloch service. This Midrash is divided into the 1st section for the Pentateuch and the 2nd section for the Prophets and writings. In chapter 277 of the 2nd section this Midrash provides an elaborate description of Moloch service commenting on Jeremiah 7:31, “They (Israelites) have built the high places of Topheth, in the valley of Ben-Hinnom, to burn their sons and daughters with fire, which I (Hashem) did not ordain.”
This Midrash explains that the icon of Moloch had the face of a calf with outstretched hands like a human and 7 compartments for different offerings. The priests of Moloch would light a fire in the hollow (i.e. stomach area) of this icon thereby heating its metal arms. The father or priests would place the child on these burning arms which would likely kill the child. The priests would beat on drums (תוף) to mask the screams of the unfortunate child. Hence this place was called Topeth (התפת). The priests would console the father by saying that his other offspring would be blessed by performing this service.
Rashi, on this verse, comments that this burning was in fact for the service of Moloch. In addition he explains that the icon was of copper which allows for effective heat transfer which led to the burning of the child.
Appendix 2 – Efficacy of Occult
The reader may ask, “What is the view of the Torah about these practices? Are they ineffective and the Torah prohibits them to distance the Israelites from superstition and idolatry? Or are they sometimes effective and the Torah prohibits them because a person should realize that Hashem rules the world and a person can change his destiny by observing the Torah. In addition a person should seek guidance from Torah sages and not from the occult.”
The commentators on the Talmud disagree as explained below:
- Maimonides – ineffective (Laws of Idolatry 11:16).
- Nachmanides (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) – sometimes effective but the Torah requires the Israelites to connect to Hashem and not the occult.
Maimonides writes (ibid.), “All the above matters of the occult are falsehood which the original idolaters deceived the gentile nations. It is not fitting for the Israelites who are wise to be drawn into such emptiness, nor to consider that they have any value. Similarly the Torah (Deuteronomy 18:14) states: These nations, which you are driving out, listen to astrologers and diviners. This is not what Hashem expects from you.”
Maimonides continues, “Whoever believes in the occult and thinks that they are true but are forbidden by the Torah, is foolish and feebleminded. For these reasons, the Torah warned against all these empty matters and advised (ibid. 18:13), “Have complete faith in Hashem, your G-d.”
The Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzva #258) adds that adopting these practices will cause a person to turn away from the Torah and worship idols hence the punishment of stoning for Moloch.
Nachmanides in his commentary on the Torah (ibid.) explains that Hashem has granted some power to sorcery and therefore the predictions of Ov and Yidoni may come true. However these forces cannot operate without the consent of Hashem. Therefore one should have complete faith in Hashem (ibid. 18:13) and realize that good or challenging (i.e. apparently bad) events are not governed by the occult; rather by a person’s own actions. The Torah states (ibid. 30:15), “Behold, I have set before you today life and good, and death and evil.” By serving Hashem one receives the reward of a good life (ibid. 30:16) and by rebelling against Hashem one incurs punishment (ibid. 30:18).
In our time the effectiveness of sorcery is negligible as Rabbi Israel Lipschitz of the 18th-19th centuries explains in his commentary on the Mishna (Tiferet Yisrael Sanhedrin 7:7 – Boaz Note 3). He writes quoting an earlier source, “It is a mitzvah to inform the public that the effectiveness of sorcery is negligible because the awareness (literally the light) of Hashem has spread across the world thereby banishing these forces of darkness.”
If one is curious about the future, the Torah advises to consult prophets (ibid. 18:15). In our time when prophecy has ceased, the Talmud (Bava Batra 12a) recommends consulting a Torah scholar because, “A Torah scholar is greater than a prophet.” This statement refers to those who received the gift of prophecy sparingly in contrast to the Major Prophets mentioned in scripture who were both sages and prophets. In addition a prophet when not receiving a message from Hashem cannot predict the future. Although a Torah sage cannot predict the future he can advise based upon his erudition and experience.
Saul and the Ov
Chapter 28 of 1 Samuel provides the most striking and detailed example of the practice and efficacy of Ov. King Saul was facing a major battle against the Philistines (ibid. 28:5). At first Saul inquired of Hashem and was neither answered by dreams, nor by the Urim (divine oracle -Numbers 27:21), nor by prophets (ibid. 28:6). In desperation Saul asked his servants to find a sorceress of Ov (ibid. 7). He approached her and asked her to conjure Samuel the prophet (ibid. 8 and 11). Initially she was afraid to practice Ov because she felt that this was a trap that would lead to her death (ibid. 9). Saul promised her by the name of Hashem that she would not be harmed (10).
The Midrash (Leviticus Rabbah 26:7) points out the irony in Saul’s desperation. Previously he rid Israel of these sorcerers (ibid. 28:3) and now he consults one (ibid. 7). In addition he took an oath not to harm the sorceress in the name of Hashem (ibid. 10) yet he used her services in violation of Torah law (ibid. 11).
The sorceress asked Saul, “Whom shall I conjure up for you?” Saul responded, “Conjure up Samuel for me (ibid. 11).” The woman saw Samuel and realized that the man was King Saul (ibid. 12). The verse indicates that she was frightened by the appearance of the spirit. The Midrash (ibid.) explains that a spirit summoned by Ov arises feet first indicating the upside down world of sorcery. In this case the sprit arose head first indicating that Hashem was the cause of this apparition.
Saul asked her, “What have you seen?” The woman responded, “I have seen holy men (Moses and Samuel) ascending from the earth (ibid. 13).” Then he said to her, “What is his form?” She replied, “An old man is coming up wrapped in a cloak.” Then Saul knew that he was Samuel because Samuel wore this type of cloak (1 Samuel 2:19). Saul bowed down with his face to the ground (in respect) (ibid. 28:14). The spirit of Samuel informed Saul of his impending death and the defeat of the Israelites by the Philistines (ibid. 19). In addition Samuel explained that Hashem did not respond to Saul’s request for knowledge of the future due to his sins (ibid. 18). The communication with Samuel ends on this note.
Based upon this narrative the Midrash (ibid.) makes the following observations about Ov:
| Person | See Spirit | Hear Spirit |
| Sorcerer (Practitioner of Ov) | √ | X |
| Consulting Ov | X | √ |
| Others | X | X |
The sorcerer can see the spirit but not hear the voice. The person who consults the spirit can hear the spirit but not see it. All others neither see the spirit nor hear it. It is interesting to note that all 3 points may be derived from verses. The sorceress saw the spirit (ibid. 28:12) but it only spoke to Saul (ibid. 28:15). In turn Saul did not see the spirit because he asked the sorceress (ibid. 28:14), “What is his (Samuel’s) form?” The narrative does not mention the reaction of the 2 others that were with Saul, implying that they neither saw nor heard the spirit of Samuel.
The Midrash (Tanchuma Emor 2) remarks that the Torah alludes to this event through the principle of juxtaposition, where the Torah places two seemingly unrelated verses near each other. The Torah concludes the portion of Kedoshim with the prohibition of Ov and Yidoini (Leviticus 20:27). Then the Torah begins the portion of Emor (Leviticus 21:1) with the prohibition of a kohen (priest) coming in contact with the dead. The Midrash links the themes of Ov, priests, and the dead. Saul became involved with Ov because Hashem did not answer his request for guidance as a result of his order to kill priests at Nov (Rashi on 1 Samuel 28:6).
Efficacy of Ov
The reader may ask, “What are we to make of this episode with Ov?” Rabbi David Kimchi (Radak), medieval rabbi (12th-13th centuries), biblical commentator, and philosopher takes the following approaches about this episode with Saul and the sorceress (Radak on 2 Samuel 28:24):
- Fraud
- Incidental
- Effective
Fraud
Radak quotes Rabbi Samuel Hophni who maintains that the whole episode was a fraud and therefore there is no validity in Ov. The woman realized at the beginning that the person who approached her was Saul because he wanted to communicate with the spirit of Samuel. The voice that Saul heard was from a man that the sorceress concealed. His words of doom reflect the mood of Saul and the strength of the Philistine army.
Incidental
Radak then quotes the opinions of Rav Hai Gaon and Rav Saadia Gaon who also hold that there is no validity in Ov. In contrast to the 1st opinion this incident was not a fraud. Rather Hashem caused the spirit of Samuel to speak to Saul to inform the latter of his impending defeat and death due to his sins. Hence according to this view the use of Ov was incidental to the summoning of Samuel because Hashem was the primary cause.
Effective
According to this view, the practice of Ov is effective in communicating with the dead, when Hashem permits. As mentioned in connection with sorcery, nothing can happen without Hashem’s permission (Deuteronomy 4:35). Radak quotes the Midrash (ibid.), which provides details of the efficacy and results of Ov, as proof that this narrative in the book of Samuel is to be understood literally. In addition a great man like Saul would not attempt to find a sorceress or be easily fooled by a fraud, if Ov would not be effective.
Similarly the Gaon of Vilna (Yoreh Deah 179:13) accepts this narrative as literal and the power of sorcery is real, when permitted by Hashem. He adds that episodes of the occult in the Talmud when performed by the sages are literal and may contain hidden meanings as well. Therefore he sharply criticizes Maimonides who considers sorcery as a complete fraud.
Appendix 3 – Sorcerer Death by Stoning
Reasons
Although the Torah does not explicitly mention stoning for the execution of a sorcerer, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 67a-b) provides the following reasons for stoning:
- Similarity of verses – This view compares the stoning punishment at Mount Sinai to sorcery by similarity of verses as explained below.
- Juxtaposition of verses – The Torah prohibits sorcery in Exodus 22:17 and bestiality in the next verse. Just as the punishment for the latter is stoning (Sanhedrin 54b) so is the punishment for the former.
- Similarity of offence – The Talmud states that the practice of Ov and Yidoni is a form of sorcery which the Torah prohibits with the penalty of stoning (Leviticus 20:27). Therefore any form of sorcery is punishable by stoning.
The Talmud (ibid.) then analyzes each of these reasons and provides counter arguments for each of them.
Similarity of Verses
The Torah specifies death by stoning for those who approach Mount Sinai at the giving of the Torah (Exodus 19:13) with the clause, “The person shall not live (לא יחיה)”. The Torah (Exodus 22:17) states the death penalty for a sorceress as, “You shall not permit a sorceress to live (לא תחיה). Although the words are not identical the Talmud accepts the similarity of verses to equate the punishment of stoning.
Another view asserts that the punishment for sorcery is death by the sword (i.e. beheading). This view compares the verse of the sorcerer (Exodus 22:17), “You shall not permit a sorceress to live (לא תחיה)” to that of the command of the Torah (Deuteronomy 20:16) to destroy the 7 nations of Canaan (if they do not make peace with Israelites or leave the country), “However, of the … cities, which Hashem … gives you as an inheritance (i.e. in Israel), you shall not allow any soul to live (לא תחיה).” Rashi (ibid.) explains that the Israelites killed King Sihon of the Amorites by the sword as the verse relates (Numbers 21:24), “Israel smote him (Sihon) with the sword, and took possession of his land.”
However the contexts of Sinai and sorcery which involve Israelites are more similar than that of Sihon who was an Amorite.
Juxtaposition of Verses
The juxtaposition of verses in scripture indicates an underlying connection between different concepts in terms of Torah thought (דרוש) but not necessarily in terms of Halacha. Hence this approach is not compelling to determine that the punishment for sorcery is stoning.
Similarity of Offence
One view holds that since sorcery is related to the practices of Ov and Yidoni which are punishable by stoning then similarly sorcery is punishable by stoning. The opposing view holds that since the Torah mentions both Ov and Yidoni as punishable by stoning then only these two forms of sorcery are punishable by stoning, indicating that a sorcerer is punished by a different method of execution. This form of exegesis is based upon the 3rd rule of the 13 principles of Torah interpretation of Rabbi Yishmael, namely a general principle derived from 1 or 2 verses (i.e. where the second verse is necessary, otherwise only 1 verse is required). Hence if it were a general rule that all forms of sorcery are punishable by stoning then the Torah could have singled out either Ov or Yidoni as liable to stoning but not both. Hence it is not conclusive by this approach that sorcery is punishable by stoning.
In summary this analysis shows the multiple approaches and complexity in interpreting verses in the Torah. Halacha follows the first argument based upon similarity of verses. In any event these approaches, in a homiletic sense, indicate that sorcery is an abomination comparable to bestiality and against the covenant of Sinai.
Appendix 4 – Salem Witch Trial
Introduction
The Salem witch trials were a series of hearings and prosecutions of people accused of witchcraft in colonial Massachusetts USA between February 1692 and May 1693. More than 200 people were accused of which 30 were found guilty and 19 were hung. The author would like to explain the failures in this travesty of justice which would have been avoided by following Torah laws of capital punishment as interpreted by the Talmud as follows:
- Degree of culpability.
- Warning.
- Witnesses.
- Judges.
- Age of accused.
Degree of Culpability
The degree of culpability for a Noahide is a matter of dispute. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 56b) records the views of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yose that gentiles are prohibited from performing sorcery. The latter explains that that since the inhabitants of Canaan were driven from their land by Hashem (Deuteronomy 18:12) for performing sorcery (ibid. 18:10) this prohibition applies to them. The former (Sanhedrin 60a) connects the sin of sorcery to bestiality because the verses follow in sequence (Exodus 22:17 and 18 respectively). Bestiality is included in the 7 Noahide laws.
However Maimonides when codifying the seven Noahide laws does not mention sorcery. Rabbi Menachem Meiri of the 13th-14th century explains, in his commentary on the Talmud, that although gentiles are not prohibited from performing sorcery the inhabitants of Canaan were driven from the land because sorcery lead to idolatry which is included in the 7 Noahide laws. In addition sorcery could lead to bestiality.
Hence the Salem witch trials were unjustified because gentiles may not be bound by the Torah law of sorcery. If there is a moral infraction in sorcery then Hashem will mete out punishment as happened to the inhabitants of Canaan. Even if the judges of Salem wished to follow the laws of the Torah as prescribed for Israelites then they would have to consider the laws of capital punishment as follows.
Warning
According to Torah law, a transgressor of a Torah prohibition leading to capital punishment must be warned by 2 witnesses immediately before committing the offence. If the transgressor desists after the warning, the court cannot proceed with the case even though they saw the person transgressing at a later time. Hence capital punishment applies when the person knows that the act is prohibited by the Torah and liable to capital punishment, implying a flagrant violation of Torah law.
Witnesses
In addition to the warning, 2 witnesses must actually see the person performing an act of sorcery. The use of 2 witnesses prevents a case proceeding on hallucinations or spectral evidence (e.g. seeing spirits) as occurred at Salem. The testimony of each of the 2 witnesses must be similar to eliminate subjective bias or fear.
Judges
As opposed to the Salem trial with 7 judges, a minimum of 23 judges from the Sanhedrin are required for a case of capital punishment. In addition these judges must be expert in the practice of sorcery to distinguish between sorcery and coincidences or psychological aberrations suffered by the accused or the accusers.
Age of accused
According to Torah law the accused must be an adult. By contrast even minors were executed at Salem.
Appendix 5 – Rationale for the Execution of the Rebellious Son
In addition to the many peculiarities of the laws of the wayward son the Talmud (Sanhedrin) and associated commentaries ask the following fundamental questions:
- Why does the law only apply to a wayward son and not a wayward daughter?
- Why is the son liable to capital punishment?
- Why did the Torah choose stoning for the wayward son and not a lesser form of capital punishment?
- Did this case ever happen?
Answer 1 – Son and not Daughter
The Talmud (ibid. 69b-70a) notes that by logic the law should apply to both son and daughter since she could become promiscuous to buy meat and drink wine. However the Torah (Deuteronomy 21:18 and 20) specifically mentions son and not daughter. Although the Talmud accepts this distinction as a divine decree, Maimonides (Laws of Rebellion 7:11) explains that a woman does not have the tendency to become habituated to eating and drinking as a man.
The Iyun Yaakov (Sanhedrin 69b-70a) explains that a daughter is not liable to capital punishment for these offences because she is not likely to become violent and attack people. By contrast a son is likely to become violent which could lead to murder as explained in the next paragraph.
Answer 2 – Capital Punishment
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 72a) asks, “Should the Torah proscribe capital punishment for a son who is a glutton and drunkard?” The Talmud answers that the Torah penetrated the ultimate mind-set of the rebellious son and the inevitable results of his actions. Following his addictions he will squander his father’s property and go out to the crossroads and rob people which will lead to murder. The Talmud (ibid.) concludes, “It is better that he should die innocent and not when guilty of murder.”
Answer 3 – Stoning
The commentators on the Talmud ask the following question, “If the Torah is concerned that this son will become a murderer then he should receive the punishment for murder which is death by beheading. Why did the Torah specify death by stoning which is set for idolatry and similar offences against Hashem?”
Some explain that this son may rob on the Sabbath which could lead to work on the Sabbath which is punishable by stoning. A more likely explanation is that this son may play the victim and blame his misfortune on Hashem who commanded this law or his parents who brought him to trial. Cursing either Hashem or his parents is punishable by stoning.
Answer 4 – Ever Happen?
The reader may ask, “Was there ever a case when a rebellious son was put to death on account of his theft, gluttony, and drinking?” The Talmud (Sanhedrin 71a) addresses this question and provides conflicting opinions. One view holds that this law is theoretical and never happened because of the many conditions before the law is applied (e.g. within first 3 months after he turns 13, eats meat as a glutton and drunks wine as a drunkard, and his parents bring him to trial). If this law is theoretical, why did the Torah discuss it? The Talmud (ibid.) answers that many moral lessons about juvenile delinquency, gangs, and addiction may be derived from this extreme case. Hence parents and the courts should pay attention to a wayward and rebellious son when reaching the age of 13 to prevent an ever increasing cycle of addiction and crime. The Talmud (ibid.) brings an opposing view that such a case actually happened and one of the sages of the Talmud visited his gravesite.
Appendix 6 – Scriptural Exegesis – Incest
This appendix explains the sources for:
- Capital punishment for incest with a mother.
- Prohibition and capital punishment for incest with a father’s wife after she is divorced or widowed from the father.
- Prohibition and capital punishment for incest with a daughter in law after she is divorced or widowed from the son.
Incest with Mother
The Torah does not provide a specific verse for capital punishment involving incest with a mother. Rather the Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a) derives this punishment through scriptural exegesis based upon the specific wording of the verse as follows.
Leviticus 18:7 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father or … mother; she is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness.”
Leviticus 20:11 – “A man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death.”
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 54a) interprets the apparent redundant clause of Leviticus 18:7, “She is your mother” and explains that incest both with a mother who is the father’s wife or not (i.e. a biological mother) is punishable by stoning. Just as incest with a father’s wife is punishable by stoning (Leviticus 20:11), so is incest with a biological mother.
Incest with Father’s Wife
The Talmud (ibid.) also concludes that incest with a father’s wife applies even if the woman is divorced or widowed.
Leviticus 18:8 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness.”
Leviticus 20:11 – “A man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness. Both of them shall surely be put to death.”
The Talmud (ibid.) interprets the apparent redundant clause of Leviticus 18:8, “It is your father’s nakedness” to refer to the prohibition of incest after the death of the father. In addition the apparent redundant clause of Leviticus 20:11, “Has uncovered his father’s nakedness” refers to the death penalty for incest with a father’s wife after the death of the father. The same applies if the woman is divorced from the father (Rashi ibid.).
Incest with Daughter in Law
The Talmud (ibid.) also concludes that incest with a daughter in law applies even if the woman is divorced or widowed.
Leviticus 18:15 – “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law; she is your son’s wife.”
Leviticus 20:12 – “A man who lies with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death.”
The Talmud (ibid.) notes that the former verse mentions both a daughter in law and son’s wife which are in effect the same. The apparent redundancy implies that incest with a son’s wife applies even if the wife is widowed or divorced from the son. Although the Talmud does not provide a verse for capital punishment after she is widowed or divorced, presumably the latter verse applies whether or not she is married to the son, as in the case of a father’s wife.